General

“All Wars Are Based On Lies”; Renowned WWII Historian Faces Official Narrative Assault

/5 Comments/in /by

“All Wars Are Based On Lies”; Renowned WWII Historian Faces Official Narrative Assault

Mainstream historian Jim Holland and Libertarian Institute editor Keith Knight clashed over one of history’s most sacred narratives — the justification for America’s entry into World War II. Moderated by Mario Nawfal, the discussion cut through decades of conventional wisdom to ask uncomfortable questions like whether Roosevelt’s administration provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor or whether Winston Churchill ought to be lionized as a great hero.

Did the war, which killed over 70 million people, actually preserve “the west” and could the death have been avoided by diplomatic means? Take a look at the highlights below, but we encourage listening to the full debate so you can decide whether the “good war” was truly good.

“Provoked Into War”: Knight’s Case Against The Pearl Harbor Narrative

“The attack on Hawaii… was intentionally provoked,” argued Knight, “so Roosevelt could engage in diversionary foreign policy after his New Deal led to the double-dip recession of 1937.”

He cited Navy Captain Arthur McCollum’s October 7, 1940 memo outlining “eight ways the United States can provoke Japan,” ending with the line: “If by this means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”

“Roosevelt supported the policy of provoking the Axis powers,” Knight continued, pointing to a New York Times article from January 2, 1972, “War Entry Plans Laid to Roosevelt,” describing Roosevelt and Churchill’s 1941 meeting. Churchill admitted Roosevelt “would wage war, but not declare it… everything was to be done to force an incident.”

Knight added: “On November 25, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary, ‘The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.’”

“War with Japan was not inevitable,” he said, “but an intentional policy pursued by the Roosevelt administration.”

Citing Robert McNamara’s The Fog of War, Knight quoted: “Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional.” McNamara recalled, “In that single night, we burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo.”

Knight concluded, “The unconditional surrender of Japan destroyed America’s bulwark against Mao’s China and opened power vacuums in Korea and Vietnam—leading to millions of deaths and communist victories in both.”

Pearl Harbor, he said, “was not the price of peace—it was the product of provocation.”

Conscription: Is It Moral?

To the Libertarian Knight, compulsory military service is outright immoral. “Conscription is an indicator that the people you’re claiming to represent don’t actually think something is worth fighting for.”

Holland pushed back, arguing that, during WWII, while popular opposition to war was strong, “there is a balance to strike.” “If you give too much fuel to this bully [Hitler], he’s only going to get stronger,” he said. “There’s a point where the political metric is that you’ve got to come and stand up to this.”

“Conscription comes in for the first time ever in peacetime in March 1939. Chamberlain, who is the prime minister—not Churchill—is really nervous about suggesting conscription, and there is not a public outcry at all.” Instead, Holland said, “There is an acceptance amongst the British public that this is something that needs to happen.”

“The United States goes from very, very strongly isolationist to more and more in favor of massive rearming in the summer of 1940,” Holland noted. “When conscription comes in… there’s barely a flutter of eyelids.”

While acknowledging Knight’s moral ideal, Holland insisted that liberty itself was on the line. “The whole point about the Second World War,” he said, “is that democratic nations are standing up against authoritarianism and the taking away of personal freedoms. That’s the whole point of Nazism… the state runs everything… personal freedoms are taken away.”

Check out the full debate below:

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1MnxnPrpgpXGO

 

Ye Caves

/10 Comments/in /by

Ye meets with Orthodox celebrity rabbi, says he wants to ‘make amends’ after antisemitic outbursts

The meeting came months after Ye declared on X that he was “done with antisemitism.”

A photo of Kanye and Pinto seeted holding hands with a translator between them.
Ye meets with Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto on Nov. 4, 2025 in New York. (Screenshot)

After years of virulent antisemitic comments, the American rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, told an Orthodox rabbi on Tuesday in New York that he was ready to “make amends” for his actions.

“I feel really blessed to be able to sit here with you today and just take accountability,” Ye told Rabbi Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto in a video posted on social media.

Pinto is an Israeli rabbi who serves as the chief rabbi of Morocco. He has previously counseled celebrities including Lebron James and was jailed in Israel in 2016 for bribery.

Ye first appeared to distance himself from his antisemitic record, which included a song praising Hitler and several tirades on X that included a 2022 vow to “go death con 3 ON JEWISH PEOPLE,” in May when he declared on social media that he was “done with antisemitism.”

Since then, the incendiary rapper has been relatively quiet on social media. During his meeting with Pinto, he appeared to cast blame for his actions on his struggle with bipolar disorder.

“I was dealing with some various issues, dealing with bipolar also, so it would take the ideas I had and taking them to an extreme where I would forget about the protection of the people around me or and myself,” Ye said as the two men held hands.

Explaining his experience with bipolar disorder to the rabbi, Ye said it was like someone “left your kid at the house and your kid went and messed up the kitchen,” adding that it was his responsibility to “go clean up the kitchen.”

“It’s a big deal for me as a man to come and take accountability for all the things that I’ve said, and I really just appreciate you embracing me with open arms and allowing me to make amends,” Ye said. “And this is the beginning and the first steps, and the first brick by brick to build back the strong walls.”

Following Ye’s appeal, Pinto responded through a translator, who told Ye, “The Jews live on this way of if someone did something wrong, you can regret and fix it,” adding, “From now on, strong things and good things, you are a very good man.”

The two men then stood from their chairs and hugged.

“A person is not defined by his mistakes, but by the way he chooses to correct them. This is the true strength of man: The ability to return, to learn, and to build bridges of love and peace,” wrote Pinto in a post on Instagram of the interaction.

Two hours before Ye reposted the meeting with Pinto on his X account, he posted an advertisement for a planned concert this January in Mexico City. The post was his first since making an identical announcement in September.

ADL launches ‘Mamdani monitor’ as Jewish groups retool for post-election advocacy

/4 Comments/in /by

ADL launches ‘Mamdani monitor’ as Jewish groups retool for post-election advocacy

Some broadcast defiance. Some signaled detente. Others called for healing.

Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani Holds News Conference Day After Being Elected Mayor Of New York City
Mayor-elect of New York City Zohran Mamdani stands alongside members of his transition team at the Unisphere in Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens, Nov. 5, 2025. (Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images)
Advertisement
By Shira Li Bartov 

As New York City woke up to a new mayor-elect on Wednesday, Jewish groups that spurned Zohran Mamdani faced a decision — how to react to a leader whose staunch criticism of Israel flew in the face of their core beliefs.

Their first responses ranged from despondent to optimistic, with aims from seeking unity to staging a battlefield.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League chief who railed against Mamdani throughout the race, convened a briefing on Wednesday to discuss grappling with the new administration. He announced a “Mamdani Monitor,” a public tracker of Mamdani’s policies and personnel appointments that the ADL viewed as threatening Jewish security.

“We’re deeply concerned about what the next four years could augur for Jewish New Yorkers — the antisemitic language that he has promoted, the antisemitic policies that he’s championed, the antisemitic extremists who he’s known to affiliate with,” Greenblatt said.

Greenblatt cited Mamdani’s support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and past rhetoric about the Israeli army as evidence that “this mayor will not have our backs.” Under Greenblatt’s leadership, the ADL has narrowed its civil rights mission to focus on combating antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

Mamdani crested to victory as the city’s first Muslim mayor without a majority of Jewish voters, who have split over his staunch criticism of Israel. Early exit polls from CNN indicate that he won just over 50% of voters but only 33% of Jewish voters, while his pro-Israel opponent Andrew Cuomo won nearly twice as many, at 63%.

Greenblatt said the ADL was closely watching Mamdani with a list of demands. Those included no appointments of people with records of antisemitism, NYPD protection for synagogues and Jewish day schools, and “factual, unbiased education about the Middle East” in schools. He also said it was “very important” to maintain NYPD partnerships with Israeli counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts.

Hindy Poupko, the chief strategy officer at UJA-Federation of New York, also said her organization was preparing to combat potential Mamdani policies that aligned with BDS. She said that UJA hoped to lobby for broadening a state-level anti-BDS order, passed by Cuomo as governor, so that it would apply to New York City.

“We need to expand that Cuomo executive order to cover City Hall, because it would be devastating on many fronts — not to mention economically devastating for New Yorkers — if the Mamdani administration engaged in any kind of BDS activity,” said Poupko.

Asked if they would meet with Mamdani, both Greenblatt and Poupko gave qualified answers.

“I will not meet him on my own,” said Greenblatt. “I think we have a responsibility to our fellowship as Jews. I’m not going to do that meeting without UJA. I’m not going to do that meeting without some spiritual leadership as well.”

Poupko said, “The ball’s in his court.” If Mamdani took actions to “put Jewish New Yorkers at ease,” then she said UJA leaders would meet him.

Mamdani was asked about Greenblatt’s proposed “Mamdani Monitor” in a press conference on Wednesday.

“I think that anyone is free to catalog the actions of our administration,” he answered. “I have some doubts in Jonathan’s ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said I had not visited any synagogues, only to have to correct himself.”

Greenblatt incorrectly stated that Mamdani had not visited “a single synagogue” during a CNBC interview in August. He later said he meant that Mamdani had not visited any synagogues since the June primary.

The ADL and UJA were not alone in mourning Mamdani’s victory. The New York Board of Rabbis and other leading Jewish institutions in the city said in a joint statement, “We cannot ignore that the Mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values.” They added that they would continue to work with every level of government.

Rabbi Marc Schneier, who heads The Hampton Synagogue on Long Island and backed Cuomo, said he planned to establish the first Jewish day school in the Hamptons as a haven for “thousands of Jewish families” fleeing “the antisemitic climate of Mamdani’s New York City.”

Meanwhile, the Republican Jewish Coalition called Mamdani’s victory “a deeply distressing result for New Yorkers, particularly Jewish New Yorkers,” and accused his entire party of condoning antisemitism. “There is only ONE party in this country fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel, and it is the Republican Party,” said the coalition.

Other past critics of Mamdani seemed ready to put the election behind them. The pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman, whose prolific and protracted attacks on Mamdani during the campaign often predicted an apocalyptic city under his leadership, appeared to offer an olive branch just hours after predicting Cuomo would prevail.

“Congrats on the win,” Ackman said to Mamdani on X. “Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do.”

Some voices emphasized mending the divisions that roiled Jewish communities throughout the race. The Union for Reform Judaism, which urged its rabbis not to endorse candidates despite intense pressure from congregants, pressed Jews to “help lower the temperature, listen generously, and take steps to promote healing” in the aftermath of the election.

“Reasonable people across the political spectrum — and across the Jewish community — must aspire to respectfully disagree, and we will do our part to bring people together without erasing real differences,” the group said. They added that they welcomed cooperation with Mamdani and would hold him accountable to “his commitments to protect Jewish communities and all New Yorkers.”

Noting that City Hall does not have a foreign policy, the organization said it would “not hesitate to push back if anti-Israel policies or rhetoric make Jewish New Yorkers who are deeply attached to Israel more anxious and less safe.”

Other Jewish leaders are looking toward a future under Mamdani not with dismay or caution, but with jubilation. Activists from left-wing groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which have bolstered Mamdani’s rise to power, celebrated the victory at his watch party on Tuesday night. Several people there told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency they would finally have an ally in City Hall who aligned with their views on issues from income inequality to Palestinian rights.

Rabbi Lauren Grabelle Herrmann, who leads the SAJ synagogue on the Upper West Side, urged congregants with wide-ranging reactions to the election to keep in mind their shared hopes for the well-being of all Jews and New Yorkers.

She quoted the prophet Jeremiah, writing, “Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to God on its behalf; for in its prosperity you shall prosper.”

Michelle Goldberg: Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor.

/8 Comments/in /by

Nick Fuentes Was Charlie Kirk’s Bitter Enemy. Now He’s Becoming His Successor.

A black-and-white photo shows Nick Fuentes looking to the right.
Credit…Mark Peterson/Redux
Listen to this article · 7:33 min Learn more
Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer who was assassinated in September, and Nick Fuentes, the young Hitler-loving white nationalist at the center of a growing schism on the right, were bitter enemies.

Fuentes despised Kirk for his support of Israel, and, more broadly, for his efforts to marginalize Fuentes’s gleefully racist and fascist brand of politics. In 2019, seeking to expose Kirk as “anti-white” and a “fake patriot,” Fuentes organized his army of young fans — known as Groypers, after a variant on the alt-right Pepe the Frog meme — to flood events held by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point, and ask hostile questions. At one, they drove Donald Trump Jr. off the stage.

After Kirk was murdered, Fuentes, perhaps fearing he’d be blamed, disavowed violence. But he continued his attacks on Turning Point and accused Kirk’s widow, Erika, of being happy her husband was dead. “I am getting this vibe from her that she’s very fake,” he said.

Even as Fuentes defamed Kirk’s widow, powerful conservatives were engaged in a nationwide campaign to canonize Kirk and destroy progressives who maligned him. Guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast, JD Vance urged listeners to report people celebrating Kirk’s death to their employers. In such an atmosphere, one might think that Fuentes’s stock on the right would have fallen. Instead, it’s risen higher than ever, revealing a seemingly unstoppable ratchet of radicalization on the right.

If you’re not familiar with Fuentes’s ideology, he helpfully distilled it on his streaming show, “America First,” in March. “Jews are running society, women need to shut up,” he said, using an obscenity. “Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part.” His sneering, proudly transgressive attitude has made him a hero to legions of mostly young men who resent all forms of political gatekeeping. The conservative writer Rod Dreher, a close friend of Vance, warned, “I am told by someone in a position to know that something like 30 to 40 percent of D.C. G.O.P. staffers under the age of 30 are Groypers.” The figure is impossible to check, but it captures a widespread sense that Fuentes’s politics are ascendant.

Plenty of conservatives, especially Jewish ones, abhor Fuentes’s growing clout. But by cheering on Donald Trump as he promoted conspiracy theories and systematically destroyed bulwarks against nativism and bigotry in the Republican Party, they helped make Fuentes’s rise possible.

Fuentes reached a career high last week when he was invited onto Tucker Carlson’s podcast, one of the most popular shows in the country. Carlson gently took issue with a few things Fuentes has said, especially the idea that Jews as a whole are responsible for the sins of Israel and neoconservatism. “I feel like going on about ‘the Jews’ helps the neocons,” Carlson said at one point. But their two-hour conversation was overwhelmingly friendly. Carlson seemed to presume that they were on the same side; his disagreements with Fuentes were mostly about means, not ends.

Conservatives who detest antisemitism were shaken by the interview. They were even more alarmed when Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — long a bastion of the conservative establishment — defended Carlson. “The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians,” he said in a video, describing Carlson’s critics as a “venomous coalition” who are “sowing division.”

These comments led to an uproar among some of Heritage’s donors, staff members and supporters, and Roberts attempted to quell it by denouncing Fuentes. But he still seems to think that Carlson was right to give him a hearing. In a message to the Heritage staff obtained by National Review, Roberts rejected “censorship and purity tests,” writing, “Canceling one person today guarantees the purge of many tomorrow.”

For decades, mainstream conservatives spoke proudly of how William F. Buckley Jr., the founding editor of National Review, excommunicated the paranoiac and reactionary John Birch Society from the conservative movement. The story of Buckley’s cordon sanitaire was always a bit of a myth; the border between respectable conservatism and the far-right demimonde remained quite permeable. But it was a helpful myth, since it valorized a willingness to draw lines.

Trump all but annihilated that willingness, and many MAGA intellectuals now see Buckley’s quarantine as a mistake. Laura Field, in her excellent new book “Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right,” quotes the writer and activist Charles Haywood calling Buckley a “Judas” who “led the American Right into a box canyon, swiftly spiking any gun that seemed as if it might be effective in the war waged by the Left on decent America for over a hundred years.”

Not all conservatives embrace the idea of “no enemies to the right” — Dreher has written powerfully against it — but it’s become a significant current in our politics. When Politico reported that several Young Republican leaders took part in a racist group chat that included praise for Hitler, some in the party were appalled, and a few of the participants lost their jobs. But Vance defended them as “kids” whose lives shouldn’t be ruined for telling jokes. (Some were in their 30s.) Within certain MAGA circles, to criticize someone for being too racist or reactionary is a betrayal, signaling an acceptance of the very liberal morality that the movement’s vanguard seeks to destroy.

Kirk, who came of age in the pre-Trump conservative movement, was still sometimes willing to police boundaries. But in the wake of his killing, there’s surprisingly little sense on the right that that part of his legacy should be upheld. Rather, prominent voices insist that Kirk’s murder necessitates the final loosening of all remaining restraints. “I cannot ‘unite’ with the left because they want me dead,” the influential podcaster Matt Walsh posted after Kirk’s death. “But I will unite with anyone on the right.”

Vermeule is a cultivated man who, as Field writes, is part of a movement that “thinks it has a monopoly on things like ‘the true, the good and the beautiful.’” Yet however lofty his rhetoric, its moral logic leads inexorably to Groyperism, and the elevation of Fuentes, Kirk’s foe, into his successor.

G.O.P. Figures Seek Distance From Tucker Carlson, Denouncing Antisemitism

/6 Comments/in /by

NYTimes: G.O.P. Figures Seek Distance From Tucker Carlson, Denouncing Antisemitism

Prominent Republicans rejected the views of Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist, though some refrained from directly criticizing Tucker Carlson for interviewing him.

Listen to this article · 7:41 min Learn more
“I choose to stand with Israel, and I choose to stand with America,” said Senator Ted Cruz, whose grievances with Mr. Carlson [and vice-versa] are not new. Credit…Kent Nishimura for The New York Times

By Annie Karni

Republican lawmakers and influencers continued on Monday to distance themselves from Tucker Carlson after his sympathetic interview with the prominent white supremacist Nick Fuentes, putting on display a widening split on the right about how to address antisemitism within their party.

The fallout included at least one resignation, as a key aide to the head of a prominent right-wing think tank stepped down after backing his boss’s vigorous defense of Mr. Carlson.

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation think tank, had announced late last week that the aide, Ryan Neuhaus, was simply leaving his chief of staff position for another role. But on Monday, a spokesman for the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Neuhaus had resigned. The resignation was reported earlier by The Hill.

Ben Shapiro, the conservative podcast host, also condemned Mr. Carlson on Monday as “the most virulent superspreader of vile ideas in America,” criticizing him for failing to push back on Mr. Fuentes during the interview and for allowing him instead to spread his ideas unchallenged on a huge platform.

“There’s already the Democratic Party that is anti-Israel, and is OK with antisemitism,” Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, said in an interview. “We’ve got to be very clear we don’t support antisemitism and we do support Israel.”

The uproar over Mr. Carlson’s interview has created a dilemma for many Republicans in Congress. Many have routinely derided “cancel culture” among progressives and accused the left of intolerance. They have also rejected the idea that conservatives should cast out figures within their own ranks who make indefensible statements.

When a cache of leaked antisemitic, misogynistic and other bigoted texts that circulated among a group of Republican operatives recently surfaced, Vice President JD Vance ridiculed the outraged reaction as “pearl clutching.”

But others, including Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, have argued that Republicans must rid their movement of such viewpoints. Mr. Cruz has positioned himself as one of the party’s loudest voices denouncing antisemitism and appeared especially eager for a hand-to-hand fight with Mr. Carlson.

Mr. Cruz’s personal and ideological grievances with Mr. Carlson are not new. He was a guest on Mr. Carlson’s show in June, when Mr. Carlson tried to embarrass him by putting him on the spot about his knowledge of Iran. Mr. Carlson said that Mr. Cruz “doesn’t know anything about Iran” while noting that the senator had called for regime change there.

On Monday, Mr. Cruz declined to comment about the resignation of Mr. Neuhaus, the Heritage Foundation aide, or to expound further on his views about Mr. Carlson.

“I am a big fan of the Heritage Foundation,” he said. “I spoke at length on the topic of Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes on Thursday night.”

On Friday, Mr. Roberts thrust the right-wing think tank he leads, which created the “Project 2025” plan that has guided much of President Trump’s agenda, into the middle of the controversy.

Many Republican lawmakers, who have made backing Israel a litmus test and taken Democrats to task, accusing them of being insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state, quickly took a different tack.

“I’m in the ‘Hitler sucks’ wing of the Republican Party,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said over the weekend at the R.J.C. event. “Here’s what I do know: You can sit in a basement with weird people and say weird things. It’s a free country.”

But, Mr. Graham added: “I want the world to know antisemitism, anti-Israel rhetoric, anti-Israel thought is not the road to being elected as a Republican. You will lose.”

Representative Byron Donalds, Republican of Florida, told Breitbart News that antisemitism was: “a cancer, it will be a cancer to Republicans as it is a cancer to America. We have to exhibit moral clarity.”

The statements reflected the political realities the G.O.P. faces. A Gallup poll from February showed that 83 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of Israel. Even with negative views of Israel rising, a recent report from the Brookings Institution said 63 percent of Republicans still held a positive opinion.

In an interview, Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said it was a mistake for Republicans to debate whether it was appropriate for Mr. Carlson to be “platforming” Mr. Fuentes.

“That’s a term of the left,” he said. “Our issue isn’t so much that Tucker had Nick Fuentes on for an interview. Our issue is that he failed to meet the moment and ask him tough questions about why he admires Adolf Hitler, why he’s a Holocaust denier and hates Jews, why he is pro-Putin and pro-Stalin.”

Mr. Brooks said it was unfortunate that the “Hitler is cool” wing of his party was gaining attention, but he noted that it was far from a new phenomenon.

Antisemitism in the Republican Party can be traced all the way back to the John Birch Society, a semi-secret society that espoused antisemitic views. Mr. Carlson remains a formidable force in the Republican Party, and some of the biggest critics in the days after the Fuentes interview were those who had warned of his dangerous influence for years.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has long blamed Mr. Carlson for the cratering of political support for Ukraine within the Republican Party. Mr. Carlson in the past described Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, as “sweaty and rat-like”; “shifty”; “dead-eyed”; a “persecutor of Christians”; and a “friend of BlackRock,” the investment company.

Over the weekend, Mr. McConnell criticized Mr. Roberts for defending Mr. Carlson.

“Last I checked, ‘conservatives should feel no obligation’ to carry water for antisemites and apologists for America-hating autocrats,” he wrote on social media, making a reference to Mr. Roberts’ defense of Mr. Carlson. “But maybe I just don’t know what time it is.”

Fuentes Flying High

/5 Comments/in /by

Fuentes Flying High

1,641 words 

Tucker Carlson Interviews Nick Fuentes

The biggest news in Nationalism This Week is that Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. Everyone knows that I think that Fuentes is a slimy, unprincipled opportunist who is bad for white identity politics because (1) he isn’t white, and (2) his only (apparent) absolute is Catholicism.

Fuentes is a Mexican Catholic reactionary, not a white advocate. And, as I pointed out more than a decade ago, reactionary Catholicism is not a vehicle for white identity politics. The best it can do is Latin masses for the brown people who are replacing us. This is borne out by Fuentes’ increasingly brown audience.

That said, the Fuentes interview is largely good for white identity politics, despite the fact that Fuentes cucked on every important identitarian issue, as David Zsutty has already pointed out. Seriously, when Tucker said things like “God created only individuals, not groups,” that was an engraved invitation to defend basic race realism, and Fuentes decided to play it safe. Now that Charlie Kirk is dead, he is running toward the mainstream thinking he can pick up Kirk’s audience.

There are at least three reasons why this interview is good for white identity politics.

First, it is a huge Overton window shift. If Tucker can platform Nick Fuentes, what’s to stop him from platforming me or Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald? At this point, nothing.

Second, although Fuentes is bad on race and identity, he’s very good on the Jewish question, which is now being widely discussed because his appearance has triggered a public meltdown by Jewish advocates and apologists.

As an aside, I think that Tucker’s decision to platform Fuentes is a master stroke. Fuentes has been getting a “strange new respect” from the mainstream, including the New York Times. The Times wanted to promote him because he is anti-Trump and anti-Vance. But his new respectability began with his attacks on Tucker Carlson as a “fed.” Tucker is the number one enemy of Right-wing Jews like Laura Loomer and Mark Levin because of his critical attitude toward Israel and Zionist power in American politics. Thus the most plausible explanation for mainstreaming Fuentes is to harm Tucker.

By platforming Fuentes, however, Tucker has co-opted Fuentes, who has now dropped the “fed” accusation and is pretending to be pro-Trump. More importantly, by interviewing Fuentes, Tucker has thrust the question of Jewish control of American politics center-stage, and now it has more credibility because Jews and their allies spent their own capital mainstreaming Fuentes. That was clever of them but not too smart.

Third, by platforming Fuentes, Tucker now has the whole establishment bent on attacking and discrediting Fuentes. There’s a mountain of dirt for them to work with, ably assembled by such researchers as Chris Brunet. If Tucker wanted to discredit Fuentes on his own, he would not have had a fraction of the help or reach as the army of critics he has now conjured up.

This creates another Overton window shift, making it more likely for Fuentes’ critics on the Right like Chris Brunet and Jaden McNeil to be platformed. Frankly, discrediting an interloper like Fuentes can only be good for white identity politics, and plenty of people on the real Right have all the necessary receipts.

This may be as close to the sun as Nick ever flies.

Well played, Tucker. Well played. I hope you are kicking back, smoking a stogie, and beaming with satisfaction. 

Continues at Counter-Currents.

More Non-White Crime in the U.K.

/3 Comments/in /by

This  article came out before yesterday’s train stabbings by two Black men, injuring 11, two critically. The assailants were both born in the UK; one is a 32-year-old Black British man, the other is a 35-year-old man of Caribbean descent. This isn’t working, folks.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A clip of a TalkTV caller from London has gone viral after she expressed her extreme distress over rising violence in her area, particularly stabbings, in the wake of yet another horrific incident Tuesday.

As we earlier highlighted, an innocent man walking his dog in West London was brutally stabbed to death for no reason whatsoever by an illegal Afghan migrant, with two others being seriously injured by the knife wielding maniac.

It was quickly ascertained that the suspect arrived into the country completely illegally on the back of a lorry, yet was granted leave to remain in 2022.

The caller, a woman named Sarah, was explained that she lives near Hillingdon, the area where the attack yesterday was carried out.

She noted that since moving into her house in 2019, her local shop has experienced three stabbings and one murder.

“My friend was murdered last year up on The High Street. A girl that I know was murdered in South Ball Park. Government are failing us. We’re scared for our children,” the caller urged.

“I have a 22-year old son and I’m begging him to move out of this country,” she continued, adding “What are these politicians doing to us? They’re putting our children in so much danger. They put everyone in danger and they’re doing nothing to help us.”

She then expressed deep frustration that despite being peaceful people, the community feels pushed to take action because their concerns are not being addressed.

“They’re pushing us to do something that we don’t want. We are peaceful people. British people never revolt against their government. They’re going to push us to it because they are not listening to us. Please, our friends, our family are dying,” the woman pleaded.

“I don’t leave the house without a man,” she further revealed, urging “everyone I know is getting stabbed. They’re getting raped in parks. This is where I live, not where the politicians live.”

She then directly addressed British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating “if you’re listening to this, please do something. I’m petrified. I’ve never broken the law in my life. I have been a law abiding citizen, a civil servant. Please do something. It’s us that are dying on the streets.”

At time of writing, Starmer has not said anything about yesterday’s stabbing spree.

“You talk about being racist,” the tearful caller further stated, referring to Starmer’s repeated characterisation of those concerned about rampant illegal immigration as “far right.”

“We’re not racists,” the woman stressed, adding “My sister’s mixed race. I was a white child brought up in a mixed-race family, it’s nothing to do with race.”

Other callers were furious with rage.

GB News is exposing the kind of individuals who are arriving and being housed in hotels and former military bases.

All of this comes after another migrant who was imprisoned for sexually abusing a teenage girl in Epping, sparking mass protests at the hotel housing illegals there, was accidentally released from prison and left to wander around London.

The man has since been arrested and quietly deported to Ethiopia, having reportedly been paid a paltry sum of money to not make a fuss about it.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.