Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

You guys every explain how a Mexican kid can be "WHITE supremacist?"

---

His family is more Italian than Mexican

---

So Obama is white?

---

who cares? Some 1/4 Mexican guy whos Italian and wants America to keep a majoritry white people is somehow like Obama who wants to turn America into Somalia/Mumbai? I dont see what point youre making. I dont agree with all Nicks takes but one thing I do agree with is that we need to remain a majority white country. I reject this melting pot stuff bc America was founded by White Christians and we become some muslim/hindu/buddhist hodgepodge it aint what this country is supposed to be. If Indians who come here are Catholic then ok but we dont need endless non Christians coming here and we need to remain a majority White country.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

You guys every explain how a Mexican kid can be "WHITE supremacist?"

---

His family is more Italian than Mexican

---

So Obama is white?

---

You're dense

“Today Nick Fuentes crossed a line”

I can excuse racism against everyone else, but I draw the line at racism against me https://t.co/dIpiXh9JfX

— Jason Harrison (@nominalthoughts) December 25, 2025

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Nick Fuentes says he's going to campaign against Vivek Ramaswamy in 2026

"This anchor baby cannot become governor of Ohio—do not give this anchor baby your vote." pic.twitter.com/k4fqMBYTsv

— 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐮𝐬 (@ImperiumFirst) December 24, 2025

This guy is a pos grifter. He could not hold Vivek's jockstrap.

---

Maybe. So is Vivek, people forget he's a pharma grifter

---

Vivek was a successful businessman. He's also smart as ***** He would humiliate Nick in any sort of debate format.

---

Ya, he successfully did a pharma pump n dump scam. He's never created anything of value. He desrves to lose the gov race and any other repub going against him should win instead.

---

Uh huh. Let's compare Vivek's bio to yours. He accomplished more by his mid 20s than you likely ever will. It would be a waste of my time to list off a bunch of things you don't even recognize much less understand.

Anyone whining about "the jews" and/or "the boomers" and saying Vivek "just did a pump n dump scam" has their head so far up their ass that the jaws of life won't remove it.

---

https://www.newsweek.com/vivek-ramaswamy-fraud-always-has-been-opinion-1823853

Maybe you need familarize yourself with Vivek a little more bc he absolutely did a pump and dump and it harmed a lot of investors but he made a lot of money. I dont know why youre attacking me and you dont know the first thing about me and my career.

---

Ok. Now go do Trump. Take a highly successful, incredibly active and generative person, and cherry pick something out of their past to spin into a story about how terrible they are. It's easy to do, but typically people who are out kicking ass on their own aren't the ones who engage in that sort of thing.

---

Since you are on here acting holier than thou and casting stones you must be extremely successful Robert. How many Fortune500 companies have you sold? How many billions have you made? How many buildings on Baylor's campus are named after you?

P.S. Any ill gotten money made by working with Israel to scam the American tax payer doesn't count

---

Seriously dude. Your hyper focus on all things jew is just sick.

You do realize that Christ was a Jew, right? Damn, some of you people. Remind me not to stand next to any of you guys.

---

Americans can't criticize the corrupt foreign country of Israel... got it.

And we've gone over this. I'm an atheist so the Christ being a jew line isnt going to manipulate nor paralyze me from calling out evil.

---

Respectfully an atheist lacks the moral compass to be the judge of what is evil

I have no problem with reasonable criticism. What you guys do with the Jews is beyond the pale. There is no Jewish bogeyman

So if I dont believe exactly what the Grand Mufti Mothra believes I cant have morals... you might as well claim I cant even be considered human.... I havent said anything on this board towards Israel/Jewish Zionists that is any worse than what you have said against America First conservatives who do not support Israel.

Hey barBEARian.

You miss the point, yet again. Moral choices depend on a moral compass, which implies an outside and superior force which sets the course. The problem with the Atheist position is that there is no such outside and superior force, so the person defaults to solipsism or worse, the ego.

If you wanted to debunk this claim, you needed to explain what you use for your moral compass. Instead, you once again went petty and bitter, effectively conceding the point to Mothra.

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

Johnson is completely wrong on both counts.

There are NO biblical reasons to support the modern state of Israel.

And they are NOT a “strategic ally” but an unbearable weight that has sunk our nation. https://t.co/5nMECsxOpD

— Chris Rossini (@ChrisRossini) December 25, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Johnson is completely wrong on both counts.

There are NO biblical reasons to support the modern state of Israel.

And they are NOT a “strategic ally” but an unbearable weight that has sunk our nation. https://t.co/5nMECsxOpD

— Chris Rossini (@ChrisRossini) December 25, 2025

---

Chris Rossini is a moron.

If nothing else, he does not understand Geography or Middle East History.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hey barBEARian.

You miss the point, yet again. Moral choices depend on a moral compass, which implies an outside and superior force which sets the course. The problem with the Atheist position is that there is no such outside and superior force, so the person defaults to solipsism or worse, the ego.

---

Yup.

For the record, I didn't mean any offense by this. I simply believe without God, we (sinners, in general) lack the foundation to truly understand and judge evil.

boognish_bear said:

---

Johnson is completely wrong on both counts.

There are NO biblical reasons to support the modern state of Israel.

And they are NOT a “strategic ally” but an unbearable weight that has sunk our nation. https://t.co/5nMECsxOpD

— Chris Rossini (@ChrisRossini) December 25, 2025

---

Chris needs to read both Romans (particularly chapter 9 and 11) and Revelation.

As an aside, it is highly unlikely that anyone who believes as Chris is a Christian.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

Fuentes isn't trying to win Republicans more votes

Joe Rogan and Shane Gillis on Nick Fuentes running for president one day.

Rogan: “He could probably win in a few years. Listen, he couldn’t have existed before, right? Ten, twenty years ago, couldn’t have existed. Now, super popular. What’s twenty years from now look like?” pic.twitter.com/mQlhkHxpvd

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) December 26, 2025

Shane Gillis: “Give us a good Catholic president.”

Joe Rogan: “You got anybody in mind?”

Shane Gillis: “Nick Fuentes.”

Joe Rogan: “He could probably win in a few years.”

pic.twitter.com/YORtmYWdhf

— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) December 26, 2025

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

Fuentes isn't trying to win Republicans more votes

---

So he wants to intentionally tank the republicans and get a Democrat elected? What's the point? To try and change the party by getting it to lose so we can have Gavin Newsome the next 4 years?

What's y'all's point? Burn it down?

boognish_bear said:

---

Joe Rogan and Shane Gillis on Nick Fuentes running for president one day.

Rogan: “He could probably win in a few years. Listen, he couldn’t have existed before, right? Ten, twenty years ago, couldn’t have existed. Now, super popular. What’s twenty years from now look like?” pic.twitter.com/mQlhkHxpvd

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) December 26, 2025

Shane Gillis: “Give us a good Catholic president.”

Joe Rogan: “You got anybody in mind?”

Shane Gillis: “Nick Fuentes.”

Joe Rogan: “He could probably win in a few years.”

pic.twitter.com/YORtmYWdhf

— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) December 26, 2025

---

I like Rogan but anyone that thinks someone who holds Nick's beliefs has a chance in hell of ever getting elected isn't thinking clearly - especially as white voters continue to decrease in number.

White supremacy isn't going to play well with other races. Nor is his attack on all beliefs but Catholicism. He's going to have to moderate big time to have any chance of getting elected.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

Fuentes isn't trying to win Republicans more votes

---

So he wants to intentionally tank the republicans and get a Democrat elected? What's the point? To try and change the party by getting it to lose so we can have Gavin Newsome the next 4 years?

What's y'all's point? Burn it down?

---

Yeah, I explained it in detail the other day. Light a fire under the GOPs ass. Either pursue an American First agenda or lose some of your most passionate voter base. We're not scared to let a Democrat win.

The GOP hasn't done anything notable for Gen Z in our lifetime

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

Fuentes isn't trying to win Republicans more votes

---

So he wants to intentionally tank the republicans and get a Democrat elected? What's the point? To try and change the party by getting it to lose so we can have Gavin Newsome the next 4 years?

What's y'all's point? Burn it down?

---

Yeah, I explained it in detail the other day. Light a fire under the GOPs ass. Either pursue an American First agenda or lose some of your most passionate voter base. We're not scared to let a Democrat win.

The GOP hasn't done anything notable for Gen Z in our lifetime

---

What you said the other day was essentially Maga. I mean, I gotta say, there was nothing you said that I disagreed with and quite frankly I think most of the things Trump already supports. So I'm just not sure what you guys want. Is his agenda just not pure enough for you? Do you need ideological purity?

As I tried to explain to you the other day, perfect is the enemy of good and Nick Fuentes is never getting elected so you can put that pipe dream to rest. A guy that hates other races and religions, even denominations within Christendom, doesn't have a chance in hell of ever getting elected in this country.

The truth is you guys really aren't conservative let's just be honest. Your wing nuts that adhere to a narrow ideology, probably less than 5% of the population believes. The problem with extremists is because you bark the loudest, you overestimate how many support you. The same held true of the wokesters on the left.

If you're so glib that you think Gavin Newsom is better than JD Vance because he has an Indian wife, then you racists deserve the ass kicking you're going to get moving forward.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

Fuentes isn't trying to win Republicans more votes

---

So he wants to intentionally tank the republicans and get a Democrat elected? What's the point? To try and change the party by getting it to lose so we can have Gavin Newsome the next 4 years?

What's y'all's point? Burn it down?

---

Yeah, I explained it in detail the other day. Light a fire under the GOPs ass. Either pursue an American First agenda or lose some of your most passionate voter base. We're not scared to let a Democrat win.

The GOP hasn't done anything notable for Gen Z in our lifetime

---

What you said the other day was essentially Maga. I mean, I gotta say, there was nothing you said that I disagreed with and quite frankly I think most of the things Trump already supports. So I'm just not sure what you guys want. Is his agenda just not pure enough for you? Do you need ideological purity?

As I tried to explain to you the other day, perfect is the enemy of good and Nick Fuentes is never getting elected so you can put that pipe dream to rest. A guy that hates other races and religions, even denominations within Christendom, doesn't have a chance in hell of ever getting elected in this country.

The truth is you guys really aren't conservative let's just be honest. Your wing nuts that adhere to a narrow ideology, probably less than 5% of the population believes. The problem with extremists is because you bark the loudest, you overestimate how many support you. The same held true of the wokesters on the left.

If you're so glib that you think Gavin Newsom is better than JD Vance because he has an Indian wife, then you racists deserve the ass kicking you're going to get moving forward.

---

It is MAGA, or more so 2015-16 MAGA. Fuentes loved Trump in the beginning but strayed away from the movement after Trump lost the plot. I strayed from Trump a couple months into the second term.

The thing is, Trump is a grifter, typical GOP politician, bad ass campaigning with lame results. There is nothing MAGA about 600k Chinese students, H1B visas, Big Beautiful Bill, foreign wars in the Middle East, tariffs, or his lame deportation numbers. He calls affordability a democrat scam. You had to twist his arm to release the Epstein files.

I don't need a perfect Republican Party, but give me more GOP that resembles Thomas Massie or Rand Paul and they'll have my vote. I like fellas like James Fishback from Florida.

I won't lose any sleep if a Ted Cruz type loses to a Democrat.

I don't really care that Vance has a brown wife, I care about his deep state background.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The GOP hasn't done anything notable for Gen Z in our lifetime

---

What do you want them to do for you?

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

I don't need a perfect Republican Party, but give me more GOP that resembles Thomas Massie or Rand Paul and they'll have my vote.

---

In general, I'm a fan of Massie and Paul. Massie was the only one who showed any stones or common sense / basic undertanding of economics during the first wave of covid.

But neither of them are going to *do* **** for you. That's kind of their whole thing.

From what I've seen of Fuentes, I don't think there's a chance in hell that some true small government libertarians would meet with his approval. That does not appear to be what he's looking for at all.

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The GOP hasn't done anything notable for Gen Z in our lifetime

---

What do you want them to do for you?

---

I more so want them to *stop* doing certain things

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

I don't need a perfect Republican Party, but give me more GOP that resembles Thomas Massie or Rand Paul and they'll have my vote.

---

In general, I'm a fan of Massie and Paul. Massie was the only one who showed any stones or common sense / basic undertanding of economics during the first wave of covid.

But neither of them are going to *do* **** for you. That's kind of their whole thing.

From what I've seen of Fuentes, I don't think there's a chance in hell that some true small government libertarians would meet with his approval. That does not appear to be what he's looking for at all.

---

You're right. Fuentes doesn't like libertarians, doesn't mean I can't support certain ones

I'm not even a libertarian myself but I'd support some politicians if they align with me on certain issues.

['Tucker And The Right'

I know y'all bound to be wo' slap out with me writing about the crisis on the American Right, but trust me, you'll enjoy this Glenn C. Loury piece from First Things summarizing the clash of visions driving this. Excerpts:

Quote:

---

Something like a civil war is unfolding within the American conservative movement. It is not merely a dispute about policy agendas, foreign alliances, or the boundaries of political discourse. It is a deeper conflicta struggle over the meaning of conservatism itself. The recent controversy surrounding Tucker Carlson's interview of Nick Fuentes revealed a fissure that has been widening for years: a clash between two visions of the right, one grounded in universal moral principle, the other in cultural and civilizational loyalty. What might otherwise have been a marginal media dustup became a moment of revelation about the future of American conservatism.

For figures such as Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and perhaps the single most influential moral philosopher within conservative intellectual circles, conservatism begins with the claims of natural law. Its founding premise is the inherent dignity of every human beingan anthropology that descends from classical philosophy, Christian theology, and the Enlightenment. For George, conservatism is first a moral project: It safeguards life, liberty, marriage, family, and religious freedom because these institutions reflect universal truths about the human person. George has spent his career articulating these principles in philosophy, public policy, and constitutional thought. His is an approach to conservatism that emphasizes the primacy of the permanent things, the universals that transcend time and place.

Opposing this universalist strand is the ascendant nationalist wing of the righta coalition influenced by the populist energies that surged after 2016 and represented by Tucker Carlson, Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, and polemicists such as John Zmirak. This faction sees conservatism less as an expression of moral philosophy than as a defense of Western civilization: a concrete culture, a historical inheritance, with its own people, faith, memories, and vulnerabilities. This conservatism is particularist rather than universalist. It begins not with abstract principles but with cultural loyalties. Whereas George begins with human dignity, Carlson begins with civilizational survival. Whereas George sees imperatives and violations of the moral law, Carlson sees a beleaguered West beset by global elites, porous borders, and cultural disintegration.

---

More:

Quote:

---

By rights, the nationalist wing of the American rightwhich champions cultural sovereignty and civilizational rootednessshould admire Zionism. Israel is the very embodiment of the communitarian values that the New Right claims to defend: tradition, identity, faith, resilience.

And yet, the nationalist right has grown increasingly hostile to Israel. Carlson argues that American foreign policy has been excessively shaped by pro-Israel interests. Some of his followers express a deeper suspicionone that veers into old patterns of anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism. Meanwhile, the universalist right sees criticism of Israel as a sign that the nationalist project is incubating bigotries long dormant but never extinguished.

These ironies reveal a conceptual flaw: The nationalist right's suspicion of Jewish influence and of Israel makes little sense within its own stated values. It is driven less by philosophical coherence than by a populist resentment of perceived eliteselites who, in the nationalist imagination, overlap with Jewish identity. What begins as criticism of foreign policy slides, easily and dangerously, into civilizational suspicion. That suspicion contains a further irony, for what is Western civilization if Judaism is not one of its central pillars? Is it really possible to stand up for the Christian West by treating Jews as aliens?
On the other side, the universalist right, though morally correct in rejecting anti-Semitism, sometimes speaks as if universal principles alone can sustain a society. Their tendency to abstract from culture, tradition, and inherited forms can make them appear insensitive to the anxieties that fuel the nationalist revolt. They underestimate the importance of belonging, memory, and communal cohesion.

---

They don't, which is why it's awfully easy to wonder if what really drives this anti-Israel sentiment is good old anti-Semitism. Loury draws from the black American experience to suggest a possible way out. And then:

Quote:

---

The lesson from both histories [of American Jews and American blacks] is that civic nationalism need not require erasing particular identities. Rather, it requires a political framework that is capacious enough to accommodate them.

When conservatism becomes too narrow, too suspicious of internal diversity, it risks undermining the civic unity it seeks to preserve. When it becomes too abstract, too detached from the lived experience of particular communities, it loses its cultural grounding.

The conservative movement, in its current turmoil, faces this very choice. It can embrace a cramped vision of Americaone that mistrusts layered identities and treats cultural particularity as disloyalty. Or it can embrace a richer conception of the nationone that honors universal principles while recognizing the importance of inherited traditions and communal attachments.

---

This seems right to me. I'm mostly on the "nationalist" side, the "cultural and civilizational loyalty" side, but I also recognize that too much of that would make a country as diverse and pluralistic as America ungovernable. We have to find a way to hold two divergent ideas in our minds at the same time, and live within the tension. I hope J.D. Vance can pull that off. We shall see.] -Rod Dreher

Fuentes-Tate 2028!!

Andrew Tate says the Nazi Salute should be brought back:

pic.twitter.com/oMqP7uT1C6

— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) December 26, 2025

BREAKING: Tucker Carlson dismissed a Turning Point USA poll showing most young conservatives see Radical Islam as America’s top threat, claiming it isn’t true.

He added that he doesn’t know anyone killed by Radical Islam in the U.S. over the past 24 years. pic.twitter.com/amq8QRaAo1

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) December 26, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

['Tucker And The Right'

I know y'all bound to be wo' slap out with me writing about the crisis on the American Right, but trust me, you'll enjoy this Glenn C. Loury piece from First Things summarizing the clash of visions driving this. Excerpts:

Quote:

---

Something like a civil war is unfolding within the American conservative movement. It is not merely a dispute about policy agendas, foreign alliances, or the boundaries of political discourse. It is a deeper conflicta struggle over the meaning of conservatism itself. The recent controversy surrounding Tucker Carlson's interview of Nick Fuentes revealed a fissure that has been widening for years: a clash between two visions of the right, one grounded in universal moral principle, the other in cultural and civilizational loyalty. What might otherwise have been a marginal media dustup became a moment of revelation about the future of American conservatism.

For figures such as Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and perhaps the single most influential moral philosopher within conservative intellectual circles, conservatism begins with the claims of natural law. Its founding premise is the inherent dignity of every human beingan anthropology that descends from classical philosophy, Christian theology, and the Enlightenment. For George, conservatism is first a moral project: It safeguards life, liberty, marriage, family, and religious freedom because these institutions reflect universal truths about the human person. George has spent his career articulating these principles in philosophy, public policy, and constitutional thought. His is an approach to conservatism that emphasizes the primacy of the permanent things, the universals that transcend time and place.

Opposing this universalist strand is the ascendant nationalist wing of the righta coalition influenced by the populist energies that surged after 2016 and represented by Tucker Carlson, Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, and polemicists such as John Zmirak. This faction sees conservatism less as an expression of moral philosophy than as a defense of Western civilization: a concrete culture, a historical inheritance, with its own people, faith, memories, and vulnerabilities. This conservatism is particularist rather than universalist. It begins not with abstract principles but with cultural loyalties. Whereas George begins with human dignity, Carlson begins with civilizational survival. Whereas George sees imperatives and violations of the moral law, Carlson sees a beleaguered West beset by global elites, porous borders, and cultural disintegration.

---

More:

Quote:

---

By rights, the nationalist wing of the American rightwhich champions cultural sovereignty and civilizational rootednessshould admire Zionism. Israel is the very embodiment of the communitarian values that the New Right claims to defend: tradition, identity, faith, resilience.

And yet, the nationalist right has grown increasingly hostile to Israel. Carlson argues that American foreign policy has been excessively shaped by pro-Israel interests. Some of his followers express a deeper suspicionone that veers into old patterns of anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism. Meanwhile, the universalist right sees criticism of Israel as a sign that the nationalist project is incubating bigotries long dormant but never extinguished.

These ironies reveal a conceptual flaw: The nationalist right's suspicion of Jewish influence and of Israel makes little sense within its own stated values. It is driven less by philosophical coherence than by a populist resentment of perceived eliteselites who, in the nationalist imagination, overlap with Jewish identity. What begins as criticism of foreign policy slides, easily and dangerously, into civilizational suspicion. That suspicion contains a further irony, for what is Western civilization if Judaism is not one of its central pillars? Is it really possible to stand up for the Christian West by treating Jews as aliens?
On the other side, the universalist right, though morally correct in rejecting anti-Semitism, sometimes speaks as if universal principles alone can sustain a society. Their tendency to abstract from culture, tradition, and inherited forms can make them appear insensitive to the anxieties that fuel the nationalist revolt. They underestimate the importance of belonging, memory, and communal cohesion.

---

They don't, which is why it's awfully easy to wonder if what really drives this anti-Israel sentiment is good old anti-Semitism. Loury draws from the black American experience to suggest a possible way out. And then:

Quote:

---

The lesson from both histories [of American Jews and American blacks] is that civic nationalism need not require erasing particular identities. Rather, it requires a political framework that is capacious enough to accommodate them.

When conservatism becomes too narrow, too suspicious of internal diversity, it risks undermining the civic unity it seeks to preserve. When it becomes too abstract, too detached from the lived experience of particular communities, it loses its cultural grounding.

The conservative movement, in its current turmoil, faces this very choice. It can embrace a cramped vision of Americaone that mistrusts layered identities and treats cultural particularity as disloyalty. Or it can embrace a richer conception of the nationone that honors universal principles while recognizing the importance of inherited traditions and communal attachments.

---

This seems right to me. I'm mostly on the "nationalist" side, the "cultural and civilizational loyalty" side, but I also recognize that too much of that would make a country as diverse and pluralistic as America ungovernable. We have to find a way to hold two divergent ideas in our minds at the same time, and live within the tension. I hope J.D. Vance can pull that off. We shall see.] -Rod Dreher

---

quick take: a good description of the forces, but ultimately it creates a false dilemma, particularly the compare/contrast on George vs Carlson. He nailed the descriptions of the two "sides," but I completely reject that there is significant inherent tension between them. Standing for pursuit of objective moral truths does not require one to be blind to the bloody obvious - Western Civ is indeed flirting with civilizational suicide primarily due to cultural elite intoxication with open borders and cultural disintegration, in an absolute pursuit of the ideals of Popper's Open Society to the point of perfect being the enemy of the good.

As is true in most things, a little bit is good and too much is not. Openness is a good thing; but taken to extremes it champions the individual to the point that it becomes hostile to any culture at all. "anti-culture" as Reno called it.

Hayek & Friedman, et al....were just the economic wing of the Open Society club....open borders, state boundaries as arbitrary inhibitors of global commerce, etc...... Much to agree with them on, but they were Open Society guys at hear and did take things too far.

And so has Carlson. He's elevated intellectual lightweights to the conversation who have little more to contribute to moral argument beyond throwing burning sacks of turds on stage for shock effect.

Bernie Bros

In 2015, Bernie Sanders argued that open borders was a right-wing idea and warned that unchecked immigration could negatively impact American workers.pic.twitter.com/ioPkkVr7iz

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) December 26, 2025

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Getting back on topic, let's consider a hypothetical. It's 2036, and Nick Fuentes is running for president against AOC or whichever woke Democrat is popular at the time. Who gets your vote, or do you sit it out? Is Fuentes where your pragmatism draws the line?

---

Don't know. I am not familiar with Fuentes's positions. If they were anywhere close to Trump's, I suppose I would prefer the white racist to the Hispanic racist.

What I do know is if I was an actual conservative, supporting conservative positions makes far more sense than sitting it out or voting for the antithesis of my positions, which is why your position on Trump is so utterly ridiculous.

---

I assume you mean you're not familiar with Fuentes' policy positions. We know he admires Hitler and thinks Jews have no place in Western civilization. But he seems to tick all the right conservative boxes as far as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. So is it all about policy, or does it matter that you'd be voting for an actual Nazi?

---

I'd describe Fuentes as a white supremacist. Not so sure I'd go so far as describing him as a Nazi, though he apparently definitely likes Hitler. Again, I am not familiar with his policy positions.

But if it came down to Fuentes and AOC, as I said, if he held conservative policy positions, I'd absolutely vote for him over AOC any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any actual conservative would.

---

Heck ya!!! Based!!!

---

Sam has difficulty with such pragmatism.

---

There's just something about voting for a white supremacist that doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

While true, there's just something about voting for a race-baiting, socialist, anti-Christian values, supporter of transitioning and mutilating kids that just doesn't sit right. It would almost be like, I don't know, "normalizing" it.

---

That's why I'd sit that one out. To play devil's advocate, though, I would point out that primaries are driven by the ideological base. If the Republican base, especially young voters, are trending toward extreme nativism, that's a big potential problem. You've acknowledged it yourself. At some point you're going to need someone like Tucker to get ahead of it and start normalizing it for a broader audience if you're going to have any chance against the evildoers in the future. Maybe Tucker has sensed that moment. If so, he's doing you a favor in a way, wouldn't you agree?

---

I think that is what Tucker has already been doing and it was the main reason he had Nick on. Tucker is working with Vance to get him elected. Nicks audience is who Vance needs as potential voters so Tucker can do like a limited hangout to be kinda like Nick in some ways but not as abrasive.

---

Good observation. Nick has a growing base which he uses to leverage against the current Republican Party. The GOP is becoming more reliant on Millennials/Gen Z so the goal is to get them to adjust their ideology to fit an American First agenda. They can't win without us going forward

I would sit out in 2026 in order to spook the republicans. Trump has had a lame duck presidency and we need more America first candidates, less neo-cons like Ted Cruz

---

This is a good illustration.

These brain dead jackasses slinging their own version of identity politics on the alt right threaten to be to Republicans what the trans movement was to Democrats. If you cater to grifting nitwits like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, you will make your national candidates unelectable, because many of the sane people you might have attracted will realize that you are in bed with a bunch of ******s that you are afraid to anger.

Just have the fight now, and let the groypers become Bernie Bros. They're mostly a bunch of whiny incels anyway, so they probably won't breed.

Anyone who cares more about race or gender or any identity politics bull**** than they care about merit should be marginalized immediately. You can recognize them on both the left and the right by their whiny ass victimhood narratives and often their general loser status in the actual world.

---

I think it's going to take some very one-sided beatdowns in national elections to kill it off, unfortunately. I am hopeful that will do the trick. Dems seem to be moderating big time, after the ass kicking they took in the last election.

Just don't know how making the Republicans the party of white incels is going to help it win national elections.

---

This is what we are dealing with

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

Just let the whiny victims go be democrats.

---

Incredible. Literally will not vote for conservatism because of the color of the skins the individual married.

And this is what Nick Funtes apparently believes. Remarkable that anyone thinks pandering to these people will win Republicans more votes.

---

I will take the family pictured in the photograph on the left, thank you.

Because for me it's not about skin color, it's about love of country. And wanting to do the best you can for Americans. That's what the couple in the photo on the left wants to do. The privileged whitey couple in the picture on the right are in it for themselves.

JDV may not be married to a white woman, but his wife loves this country.

Her family of origin are the type of immigrants who came here for opportunity. And they are grateful for what this country has given them and want to give back.

The newer brand of immigrants don't care about this country or devoting themselves to it, or its culture. They just want to take from this country. And many are bad mouthing it while they do exactly that. And mister white privilege in the picture on the right is pandering and giving to that very type of person.

Boomers and American Jews will fight to the death over Israel and force the rest of America into a parasitic relationship they want no part of.... god only knows how many hidden bodies have been buried to keep this parasitic relationship going for the benefit of American Jews, Israelis, and corrupt politicians in DC.

Simply disagreeing with them that the relationship provides any value whatsoever to the average American tax payer provokes the most rabid response in which they try to tear you apart with victimhood politics portraying you as a "bigot" or "Nazi"... and if that doesnt work bcs you have a little testosterone, they'll keep escalating their attacks until they destroy you... dox you, try to take away your ability to support your family, etc.

Tucker is bringing so much unwanted attention to this parasitic relationship, that he is approaching the final escalation where Mossad mobilizes one of their sleeper cells in America and sabotages the altimeter in his private jet or he is mysteriously found floating face-down in a river in Maine and if anyone suspects foul play, it was clearly the Iranians and Qataris who are responsible.

Tucker Carlson: They hate Russia because it’s going to be the only majority-white Christian country in the world soon. That’s why they hate it. Let’s stop lying about it.
pic.twitter.com/kyNZIM1KWD

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 27, 2025

Robert Wilson said:

---

If these are my choices in 2028 I’ll be voting for the guy with the White American family pic.twitter.com/MqqjhrpnHB

— Greg The Groyper (@GroyperGreg) December 25, 2025

---

That's a suicidally idiotic take by whoever posted that on X.

The family on the right is going to lower the shields and allow the mongol hoard to resume its invasion over the southern border.