I went undercover in the Denver chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. I joined their Zoom meetings and gained access to their Slack group chat. What I observed was not reformed liberalism or standard progressive activism. It was a coherent, radical ideology that rejects the legitimacy of the United States and Western civilization. The members I encountered are dedicated, organized, and convinced that the entire American system must be dismantled and replaced.

I attended three specific meetings that made the depth of this radicalism unmistakable.

SocFem/Trans Rights/Childwatch Joint Meeting
This joint session combined socialist feminism, transgender rights advocacy, and what they called “Childwatch”, monitoring and intervening around issues of youth gender and family. The discussion treated biological sex as an oppressive construct and framed any resistance to medical transitions for minors as violence. The underlying assumption was that traditional family structures, Western norms around sex, and any residual Christian influence are systems of domination that must be destroyed. Trans issues were not a side concern; they were a main part in the broader war against the existing social order.

Migrant Justice Working Group
This meeting focused on immigration, borders, and “migrant justice.” Borders themselves were described as racist and illegitimate. The group discussed strategies for resisting ICE enforcement, expanding sanctuary policies, and framing any attempt to control entry as white supremacy. The white participants showed self-directed guilt, a clear willingness to weaken their own society’s population and culture in the name of virtue. Open-ended migration was not debated; it was treated as an absolute. The American nation-state was cast as an illegitimate enforcer of exclusion.

Internationalism Committee
This was the most explicitly revolutionary of the three. The focus was global anti-imperialism, with heavy emphasis on Israel, the United States, and “settler colonialism.” Israel was not criticized as a flawed ally or a country whose interests sometimes diverge from America’s. It was routinely described as a white settler-colonial project that exists to oppress Palestinians. American power was framed in the same terms, an empire that needs to be weakened and ultimately overcome. The tone was not isolationist. It was actively hostile to the continued existence of both countries in their current form.

These themes were not limited to formal meetings. In the Slack group chat the language was more revealing. Two messages stood out as representative of the norm rather than the exception: One member wrote: “America and Israel are both settler-colonial projects that need to be destroyed if we’re serious about decolonization. There’s no reforming either of them.” Another responded to speculation about political violence with open mockery: “Oh no, it would be terrible if Trump died. Just absolutely devastating for the cause of justice.” The sarcasm was unmistakable. The idea of the president’s death was treated as a punchline rather than a line that should never be crossed.

This normalization of political violence extended further. Luigi Mangione, the man charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, was celebrated in the chat as a hero, someone who had finally struck back against the “ruling class.” Charlie Kirk was mocked with contempt, his name invoked as a symbol of everything the group despised about American conservatism and Christian cultural influence. The rhetoric did not treat political violence as a tragic last resort. It treated certain targets as legitimate and certain deaths as potentially useful.

What ties all of this together is a single underlying premise: the American system and the broader Western inheritance are not imperfect achievements to be improved. They are structures of oppression that must be fundamentally transformed or abolished. Capitalism is illegitimate. Borders are illegitimate. Traditional sex and family norms are illegitimate. Israel’s existence is illegitimate. The United States as currently constituted is illegitimate. And a dedicated minority is prepared to organize, phone-bank, canvass, and elect candidates in service of that belief.

The members I observed are not playing. They show up consistently. They train each other. They run ground games. Figures like Zohran Mamdani demonstrate what this disciplined approach can achieve when paired with conviction. History shows that radical change has often been driven by a committed minority rather than a majority. One percent of the U.S. population is roughly 3.4 million people. A coherent, organized group of that scale, concentrated in cities, campuses, and political institutions, can shift the direction of a country, especially when the majority remains disengaged.

The suicidal empathy I witnessed among many white members is not compassion. It is a form of self-rejection: the willingness to weaken the society they belong to and their own freedom and prosperity in the name of an abstract unity. When that mindset is paired with the normalization of political violence, the celebration of assassins, and the open desire to see core Western institutions dismantled, it becomes a genuine threat.

I went into those Zooms and that Slack channel to see what the Denver DSA says when it believes outsiders are not listening. They mean what they say. They are building the capacity to act on it. And they are not waiting for the rest of the country to agree.

Subscribe now

JD Vance has a problem. Not with his current polling as vice president, but with a pattern of rapid reinvention that leaves voters wondering what he actually stands for. His shifting positions and varied alliances have created a credibility gap that could become a liability in 2028. Marco Rubio offers something clearer: consistent principles, proven results, and the ability to build a durable coalition.

The contrast begins in 2016. Vance was an outspoken critic of Donald Trump. He published pieces questioning Trump’s fitness and privately expressed concerns that Trump could become “America’s Hitler.” At times he praised aspects of the Obama era. Rubio, meanwhile, ran against Trump in the primaries. He lost but did not turn the primary fight into a permanent war.

Fast-forward to 2024. Vance had become one of Trump’s strongest defenders and was chosen as his running mate. During the Republican National Convention, he told Fox News that “if you’re going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.” Around the same period, he argued that “we need to put a pro-Israel spin on America First.” These comments aligned with a more traditional pro-Israel posture popular in Republican circles at the time.

Two years later, as sitting vice president, Vance appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and took a sharply different approach. He promoted Israel-critical talking points, including claims that Israel holds overwhelming influence in American politics. He also discussed Epstein-related conspiracy theories, including the assertion that Epstein was tied to “Israeli intelligence.” At the same time, his biggest backer remains Peter Thiel, who has been linked to thousands of messages with Jeffrey Epstein and received substantial investments from him in Thiel-linked ventures.

These positions left both strong supporters of Israel and critics of the Israel lobby dissatisfied. Vance appeared to adjust his emphasis depending on the audience and the prevailing sentiment of the moment, offering a pro-Israel framing when it was politically advantageous in 2024, then leaning into Israel-critical and conspiracy narratives in 2026 when those views gained more traction on parts of the right. This pattern of adapting to shifting political winds raises a basic question: What does JD Vance actually believe?

Vance has also tried to appeal to economic populists across the spectrum by emphasizing grievances against elites, trade deals, and concentrated power. This approach sometimes echoes rhetoric popular with DSA-influenced voices on the left while maintaining conservative branding on the right. The result is a politician who appears to adjust his emphasis depending on the audience rather than operating from a fixed set of principles.

Marco Rubio’s record shows greater consistency. Although he opposed Trump in the 2016 primaries, he became a reliable supporter once Trump took office. As Florida House Speaker and later as a U.S. senator, Rubio helped balance state budgets without raising taxes and focused on K-12 education improvements. When nominated for Secretary of State, he received unanimous 100–0 confirmation from the Senate, rare bipartisan support that reflects his ability to work across lines.

Since taking office, Rubio has focused on the Western Hemisphere with tangible results. He played a significant role in the operation that removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela and has worked on stabilization, humanitarian aid, and transition planning. He has maintained pressure on the Cuban regime through sanctions and public advocacy for political prisoners. He has also pushed back against Chinese influence in the region, including support for Panama’s decision to exit the Belt and Road Initiative and shifts in strategic port ownership toward U.S.-aligned partners.

Rubio has framed this approach as an “Americas First” or “Donroe Doctrine” strategy, prioritizing security and economic partnerships in the United States’ own hemisphere rather than distant conflicts. Many voters exhausted by years of Middle East entanglements see value in this focus.

As Republicans look toward 2028, Rubio brings several practical advantages. His background and record give him stronger potential appeal among Latino voters than Vance has demonstrated. He can speak credibly to both the Trump-aligned base and more traditional conservative networks. His family’s experience fleeing communism gives him natural standing to challenge the growing influence of socialist and DSA-style ideas on the left, arguably the more serious long-term threat to American institutions than foreign policy disagreements.

Rubio is also viewed as a steady, well-spoken figure who can unify factions rather than constantly recalibrate to please different groups. After Trump’s disruptive style, many in the party want competence and clarity in the next President.

Rubio is not without weaknesses. He will likely draw support from some donors and voices with more traditional neoconservative or strongly pro-Israel leanings. Foreign policy debates will also be shaped by whatever the situation with Iran looks like by 2028. These are real considerations.

Still, the core choice remains. One candidate has shown a pattern of rapid position changes and associations that raise questions about core principles. The other has demonstrated consistent loyalty since 2016, delivered measurable results in the hemisphere, and built a record of coalition-building and governance competence.

The JD Vance problem is real. The clearer path forward is Marco Rubio.

Subscribe now

Nick Fuentes is an online political commentator and podcaster who has built a large following, especially among younger men on the right. Through his America First podcast and other platforms, he has become one of the more visible and controversial figures pushing a hardline nationalist perspective that challenges both establishment Republicans and mainstream conservative institutions.

Nick Fuentes presents a version of “America First” that is more direct and less filtered than most voices on the right. He argues that the United States should function as a genuine empire that advances its own interests, rather than an isolationist power that retreats from global influence. At the same time, he believes many of America’s major foreign policy decisions over the past several decades have been costly blunders that served other countries’ interests more than its own.

On foreign policy, Fuentes rejects the idea that America should simply withdraw from the world. He believes the country should maintain its power and project strength, but only when doing so clearly benefits Americans. He has repeatedly called out wars and interventions he sees as unnecessary and damaging, arguing that the United States has been pulled into conflicts that drain resources and lives without delivering strategic gains. In his view, the pattern is not random. He claims that a significant portion of the pressure to stay involved in certain regions comes from a domestic “fifth column”, what he describes as a Jewish nation operating inside America that prioritizes Israel’s interests over those of the United States.

This is where his stance on Israel stands out. Unlike typical Republican support for Israel or the left’s criticism rooted in humanitarian concerns, Fuentes opposes unconditional aid and alignment with Israel on the grounds that it does not serve American interests. He argues that the relationship has become one-sided, with the U.S. providing massive financial and military support while receiving little in return. He frames this not as a moral issue, but as a strategic failure enabled by domestic political influence. In his telling, this influence functions as a fifth column that shapes American foreign policy in ways that benefit a foreign nation at the expense of the United States.

His position on immigration follows a similar logic. Fuentes opposes large-scale immigration from non-white countries in particular, arguing that it introduces populations that are culturally incompatible and often hostile to Western values. He ties this to his broader concern about demographic change, claiming that current immigration patterns are transforming the United States away from its historic European character. While many on the left push for open immigration under the banner of diversity, and many Republicans have supported high levels of legal immigration for economic reasons, Fuentes rejects both approaches. He sees mass immigration, especially from non-white countries, as a direct threat to national cohesion and long-term stability.

This connects to his understanding of national identity. Fuentes argues that nations are not abstract ideas or economic zones, but are defined by a specific people and their shared history. He believes the United States was built by and for a European-descended population, and that policies accelerating demographic replacement undermine the country’s foundation. In his view, the combination of low birth rates among the historic population and high immigration from incompatible regions is not a natural development but a managed decline.

On the question of Jewish influence, Fuentes is explicit. He claims that Jewish organizations and individuals hold disproportionate power in media, finance, and politics, and that this power is often used to advance interests that conflict with those of the historic American majority. He rejects the label of antisemitism while maintaining that it is legitimate, even necessary, to identify and discuss these patterns. He presents his criticism of Israel and Jewish political influence as a consistent extension of putting America first, rather than a separate ideological project.

Fuentes identifies as a traditional Catholic and sees the decline of Christianity as central to the cultural breakdown he describes. He believes Christian moral principles once provided the foundation for American society and that their erosion has left the country vulnerable to the changes he criticizes. He has clarified that he does not support a formal theocracy, but he does argue for a society in which Christian values still shape law and culture.

His skepticism toward modern democracy is also consistent. He argues that the current system has been captured by elite interests and that elections frequently fail to reflect the actual will of the population. He views both parties as serving similar interests despite their public disagreements.

What stands out about Fuentes is how little his core positions have shifted. While other figures on the Israel-critical right have adjusted their stances on immigration or foreign policy over time, his arguments on demographic change, foreign entanglements, and domestic influence have remained largely fixed. He presents these views as a coherent package: America should remain powerful, but it should stop allowing its power to be used against its own interests.

The result is a worldview that is both nationalist and imperial in outlook, but deeply suspicious of the current foreign policy consensus and the domestic forces he believes sustain it.

No matter what one thinks of Nick Fuentes, he holds immense influence over a growing segment of young men in this country. Dismissing him through name-calling or refusing to examine his arguments does little to address why his message continues to spread. Understanding what he actually believes and preaches has become necessary, especially as the generation shaped by his content moves closer to positions of power and leadership in the years ahead.

Subscribe now

Tucker Carlson has spent more than two decades building a public persona defined by bold positions, but only to reverse many of them when politically or personally convenient. The pattern has become so consistent that it now raises a basic question: what does Tucker Carlson actually believe?

Nowhere is the contradiction more striking than in his relationship with Donald Trump. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Carlson was one of Trump’s most prominent media allies. Yet text messages uncovered during the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit revealed a very different private view. Carlson described Trump as a “demonic force” and a “destroyer.” By early 2026, the public break was complete. Carlson announced he was leaving the Republican Party, declared that the MAGA movement “has no future,” and apologized to his audience for having misled them about Trump’s character. Trump, for his part, dismissed Carlson as a “nut job” and a “low-IQ person.”

Carlson’s foreign policy views have followed a similar trajectory. After years of alignment with Trump’s circle, he began criticizing the President’s approach to the Middle East. He warned that U.S. policy was making America complicit in Israel’s military actions and risked drawing the country into a prolonged conflict with Iran. His stance on Islam underwent an equally sharp reversal. During his time at Fox News, Carlson frequently portrayed Islam and Muslim immigration as existential threats. In later years, he defended Muslim-Americans and argued that concerns about radical Islam had been overstated and amplified by foreign lobbying.

Even Carlson’s broader ideological framework has shifted dramatically. Early in his career, he presented himself as an economic libertarian who supported the Iraq War. He later repositioned as a critic of endless foreign interventions, corporate influence in politics, and neoliberal economic policies.

These contradictions have continued into recent months. In a New York Times interview, Carlson floated the possibility that Trump “could be the antichrist.” When challenged on the remark, he insisted, “I never said that.” He made a similarly provocative claim about Charlie Kirk, suggesting the conservative activist “was murdered for his evolving views on Israel.” Pressed on the statement, Carlson again replied, “I never said that.”

After publicly declaring he was done with the Republican Party, Carlson quickly pivoted to endorsing JD Vance and has repeatedly praised him. In many ways, Vance’s own record mirrors Carlson’s pattern of dramatic reversals and fluid beliefs. Vance evolved from a self-proclaimed “angry atheist” during college and his time in the Marine Corps to a conservative convert to Catholicism. He was once a vocal Never Trumper who wondered in private messages whether Trump was “America’s Hitler” and openly called him an “idiot” who was leading the working class down a dark path. On foreign policy, Vance previously argued that America should serve as the world’s police before adopting a more isolationist “America First” posture.

Despite these shifts, Carlson has thrown his enthusiastic support behind Vance. This alignment sits uneasily alongside Carlson’s frequent criticism of Israel. Vance has called for putting “a pro-Israel spin on America First,” his chief of staff is a strongly pro-Israel Jewish staffer, and his major financial backers include Peter Thiel, a self-described Zionist and co-founder of Palantir, as well as Palantir CEO Alex Karp, a staunch and vocal supporter of Israel. The same donor networks that helped elevate Vance have also maintained close ties to Carlson’s post-Fox media efforts.

The contrast is difficult to ignore. Carlson has built much of his recent brand on questioning Israel’s influence and warning against U.S. entanglement in Middle East conflicts, yet he has aligned himself with a politician whose political ascent and inner circle are deeply connected to powerful pro-Israel donors and advisers. Both men have demonstrated a striking willingness to reverse long-held positions on Trump, foreign policy, and core ideological questions. Their shared pattern of evolving, and sometimes contradictory, beliefs raises the same fundamental issue: how much of what they say at any given moment reflects genuine conviction, and how much is shaped by political expediency or powerful networks?

Taken together, Carlson’s record of public reversals, private criticisms, and convenient denials has significantly damaged his credibility. Each new pivot makes it harder to discern whether his positions reflect deeply held convictions or simply whatever serves his interests at the moment. After years of watching both him and the man he now champions change course on Trump, foreign policy, religion, and America’s role in the world, the most pressing question remains the simplest: What does Tucker Carlson actually believe?

Subscribe now

“A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” Irving Kristol’s famous quote perfectly captured how many neoconservatives came to their views. Neoconservatism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s among liberal intellectuals who grew disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s leftward turn. Blending liberal internationalism and staunch anti-communism with skepticism toward the counterculture and expansive welfare policies, these thinkers, many of them former New York intellectuals, created what would soon be known as neoconservatism. Over the following decades, neoconservatism became a powerful intellectual force that reshaped American conservatism and foreign policy, moving from the pages of Commentary and The Public Interest into the corridors of power during the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, leaving a contested legacy that continues to spark debate.

Many of the leading figures began their political lives on the anti-Stalinist left. During the 1930s and 1940s, New York Jewish intellectuals fiercely debated Soviet communism. Some, including Irving Kristol, had briefly been drawn to Trotskyism before rejecting Stalin’s regime. These intense ideological battles shaped a lasting suspicion of utopian politics and moral relativism.

The decisive break came in the 1960s. The Vietnam War and the Democratic Party’s shift toward George McGovern’s “New Politics” left many liberals feeling alienated. At the same time, the rise of the counterculture struck these intellectuals as dangerously naive about the threats posed by communism. They also grew critical of Great Society programs, arguing that well-intentioned policies often produced unintended negative consequences. These concerns found an institutional home in The Public Interest, founded in 1965 by Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell.

Two events accelerated the shift. The 1967 Six-Day War strengthened neoconservatives’ commitment to Israel while highlighting what they saw as growing anti-Zionism on the left. The following year, the New York City teachers’ strike in Ocean Hill-Brownsville pitted largely Jewish union members against radical demands for community control of schools, further distancing these liberals from the New Left.

Foreign policy concerns found their strongest voice in Commentary magazine under Norman Podhoretz. In 1973, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term “neoconservative” as a pejorative. Irving Kristol embraced it ironically in his 1979 essay, describing neoconservatism not as a rigid ideology but as a “persuasion.” These intellectuals were not traditional conservatives. They were liberals who had been, in Kristol’s words, “mugged by reality.”

At its heart, neoconservatism combined a strong belief in American power with a commitment to liberal democratic values. Neoconservatives rejected isolationism and moral equivalence between democracies and authoritarian regimes. They argued that the United States had both the interest and the responsibility to promote stability and, where possible, democracy abroad. Domestically, they expressed skepticism toward expansive government programs while defending traditional institutions. As Kristol noted, neoconservatism was less a fixed doctrine than a way of thinking shaped by experience and realism.

Neoconservative ideas gained significant influence during the Reagan administration, providing intellectual support for a more confrontational stance toward the Soviet Union. Their emphasis on moral clarity and military strength contributed to the broader conservative argument that helped bring the Cold War to an end. After the Soviet collapse, neoconservatives pushed for an assertive American role in the world. This outlook reached its peak during the George W. Bush administration. Figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith played prominent roles in shaping the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine, which emphasized preemption and democracy promotion.

Supporters credit neoconservatism with helping win the Cold War and advancing liberal democracy. Critics argue that it encouraged overreach, particularly in Iraq, and contributed to costly interventions that fueled later public fatigue with foreign entanglements. Its influence was substantial, but the results remain deeply debated.

The failures in Iraq triggered a sharp backlash that reduced neoconservatism’s influence inside the Republican Party. Many traditional neoconservatives opposed Donald Trump’s “America First” approach and aligned with Never-Trump efforts. However, when Trump adopted a more hawkish stance toward Iran during his second term, some of these same figures showed renewed support for aspects of his foreign policy. As of 2026, few people actively claim the neoconservative label. While elements of assertive foreign policy remain visible, particularly regarding China, support for Israel, and recent U.S. military actions, the movement itself has become more fragmented. Debates continue over whether a revived neoconservative emphasis on moral purpose and American leadership can still shape policy or whether other currents in American politics have largely taken its place.

Neoconservatism began with liberals who felt “mugged by reality.” What started as a reaction to the upheavals of the 1960s grew into a significant intellectual force that helped transform both American conservatism and U.S. foreign policy. Though its dominance has faded, the movement’s emphasis on moral clarity and an active American role in the world continues to echo in ongoing debates about the United States’ place on the global stage.

Subscribe now

Tucker Carlson presents himself as one of the loudest voices against the political establishment, anti war, anti elite, and firmly rooted in “America First” rhetoric. But the figures he promotes often come from the very networks he claims to challenge. The result is a contradiction that’s hard to ignore: is this a genuine break from the establishment, or a rebranded version of it?

Tucker Carlson operates not just as a commentator but as a gatekeeper who both amplifies and filters what counts as acceptable political discourse. During his time at Fox News and continuing on his independent platform, he has consistently elevated certain figures, most notably JD Vance, whose repeated appearances and early exposure helped him gain political relevance, while also drawing boundaries around others. Carlson has shown a willingness to challenge elements of the traditional foreign policy consensus, including criticism of U.S. policy toward Israel, positioning himself as outside the establishment narrative. At the same time, he distances himself from figures deemed beyond the acceptable limits of mainstream discourse, such as Nick Fuentes. This dual role, promoting anti establishment rhetoric while setting limits on how far that rhetoric can go, places him in a position where he is not just challenging the system but actively shaping what qualifies as acceptable dissent within it.

The tension between rhetoric and policy becomes clearer when comparing the messaging of Tucker Carlson and the positions of JD Vance. Carlson’s brand has been built around skepticism of foreign intervention, a populist tone, and a consistent emphasis on avoiding unnecessary wars, all framed within an “America First” perspective. That messaging signals a break from traditional interventionist policy and resonates with an audience increasingly skeptical of foreign entanglements. Yet Vance, while often operating within that same rhetorical framework, has explicitly argued that “America First” should still include strong support for Israel, defending that position as aligned with U.S. national interest. In his Quincy Institute speech, Vance made clear that opposition to funding Ukraine did not extend to Israel, emphasizing that the two should be treated separately and that support for Israel serves American interests. This creates a noticeable gap between tone and substance, where the language suggests restraint, but key policy positions remain closely aligned with longstanding foreign policy consensus. Despite that, Carlson continues to promote Vance as a leading voice of “America First,” reinforcing his credibility to an audience that sees itself as anti establishment.

At the center of this network is Peter Thiel, whose role goes far beyond simple political donations. He helped fund JD Vance’s Senate run, turning him from a long shot into a viable candidate, and has a long standing relationship with Tucker Carlson going back years. This influence also extends into media. Thiel has backed platforms like The Free Press, founded by Bari Weiss, which present themselves as independent alternatives while still operating inside elite donor and media networks. The same pattern shows up through 1789 Capital, which is framed similarly to The Free Press but is tied to investors in the same circles and connected to Tucker Carlson’s post Fox media expansion. The same network funding candidates is also funding the platforms that shape how those candidates are presented.

The disconnect really starts to show when you look at JD Vance’s background. He comes straight out of venture capital and is closely tied to the Thiel network, including alignment with firms like Andreessen Horowitz. That world is focused on AI growth, deregulation, and building out American industry through tech. It also supports policies like H1B visas to bring in skilled labor. That’s completely different from what Tucker Carlson talks about to his audience, where immigration is framed as a major cultural threat. So while the messaging is anti-immigration and populist, the policy world Vance comes from is focused on labor needs and economic growth through global talent. That gap is not subtle, it’s fundamental.

When you zoom out, the pattern is pretty straightforward. Tucker Carlson builds the narrative and tells his audience what the problems are, especially around immigration, foreign policy, and cultural change. He then elevates JD Vance as the solution. Vance gains credibility through that exposure, gets backed by Thiel’s money, and then moves into real political power. The issue is that once that transition happens, the priorities shift. The messaging that got attention, like being tough on immigration or rejecting foreign entanglements, does not fully match the policies that actually get pushed once power is involved. What starts as anti-establishment messaging ends up feeding directly into the same system.

This is where the contradiction is clearest. Tucker spends a huge amount of time attacking neoconservatives, foreign policy elites, and mass immigration, often framing it in ways that strongly resonate with his audience. But the people he backs, especially JD Vance, do not fully break from those systems. On foreign policy, the shift is partial at best. On immigration, it is even more obvious. Tucker’s messaging leans heavily into cultural concerns and demographic change, while the tech aligned world backing Vance is still operating on economic priorities like labor supply and high skill immigration. That is not a small difference, it is a completely different set of incentives.

Put it all together and the structure becomes clear. Tucker Carlson shapes the narrative. Peter Thiel and aligned capital fund both the candidates and the media ecosystem, including ventures like 1789 Capital. JD Vance turns that into actual political power. It looks like a new movement from the outside, but the flow is familiar. Media builds the message, money backs it, and politics turns it into power. The biggest takeaway is the disconnect. The rhetoric is anti-establishment, anti immigration, and anti-war, but the policies and incentives behind the scenes do not fully match that. It is not a clean break from the system, it is the same system wearing a different message.

Subscribe now

Jared Kushner was born on January 10, 1981, in Livingston, New Jersey, into a wealthy real estate family whose influence extended beyond business into politics and international relationships. His family’s fortune came from Kushner Companies, built by his father, Charles Kushner, and had strong pro-Israel ties that shaped his early worldview. From a young age, Kushner was exposed to high-level political figures, most notably Benjamin Netanyahu, who maintained a close relationship with the family and reportedly stayed at their home during visits to the United States, even sleeping in Kushner’s bedroom. These early connections placed Kushner within elite political and international networks long before he entered public life.

On August 18, 2004, Charles Kushner pleaded guilty to multiple federal charges, including tax evasion, illegal campaign donations, and witness tampering. The case became especially notorious for the details behind the witness tampering charge. Prosecutors said he hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, secretly recorded the encounter and sent the tape to his own sister, who was cooperating with investigators. In March 2005, he was sentenced to two years in prison. The scandal damaged the family’s reputation and forced Jared Kushner into a leadership role at 25 years old, accelerating his rise within the family business.

In the mid-2000s, still in his twenties, Jared Kushner took on a leading role at Kushner Companies following his father’s legal troubles. In 2007, the firm made a defining and highly risky move with the $1.8 billion purchase of 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, which was the most expensive office building purchase in U.S. history. The investment quickly turned into a financial strain. By 2010, the property’s value had fallen to around $820 million, leaving the company burdened with significant debt. Over the following years, efforts to stabilize the building and refinance it led to an extended search for outside investors, including foreign capital, which later became a source of controversy.

Around 2005, Jared Kushner met Ivanka Trump through mutual social and business circles, and the two married on October 25, 2009, bringing Kushner into the inner orbit of Donald Trump. That connection became politically significant during the 2015—2016 presidential campaign, when Kushner emerged as a trusted behind-the-scenes advisor. He played a key role in shaping the campaign’s digital strategy, helping Trump’s online influence grow. He also assisted in donor outreach and political messaging that contributed to Trump’s presidential win in 2016.

On January 9, 2017, Jared Kushner was named Senior Advisor to the President, entering the White House despite having no prior government experience. His role quickly expanded into foreign policy, including Middle East peace efforts and trade negotiations. The appointment drew immediate scrutiny, with critics pointing to nepotism due to his relationship with Donald Trump, as well as potential conflicts of interest tied to his family’s business holdings. His security clearance was delayed and closely examined because of his foreign contracts, which fueled concerns about vested interests.

From 2017 through 2020, Jared Kushner played a central role in shaping the Trump administration’s Middle East policy, particularly in ways that aligned with Israel’s priorities. On December 6, 2017, the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which was followed by the official opening of the U.S. embassy there on May 14, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the U.S. formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These moves set the stage for the administration’s Middle East strategy, culminating on January 28, 2020, with the release of the “Peace to Prosperity” plan, which proposed a two-state framework allowing Israel to retain large settlements in the West Bank, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and offering Palestinians limited statehood only if they met strict conditions, including giving up militant groups, allowing strong Israeli security control, and making changes to their government.

Later that year, on September 15, 2020, Kushner helped lead negotiations for the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, with Sudan and Morocco joining in agreement too. While the accords were presented as a major diplomatic win, critics argued they prioritized state-to-state normalization over resolving the Palestinian issue.

Between 2017 and 2018, Jared Kushner developed a close working relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, including reports of direct communication through WhatsApp. The relationship came under intense scrutiny after the October 2018 killing of a U.S. citizen and journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, by Saudi agents. Despite global backlash, Kushner maintained ties with Mohammed bin Salman, raising ongoing questions about accountability in U.S.-Saudi relations.

During his time in the White House, Jared Kushner continued to face financial pressure tied to 666 Fifth Avenue, the heavily indebted Manhattan property owned by his family company. In 2018, a deal with Brookfield Asset Management provided a 99-year lease that effectively stabilized the building’s finances. The arrangement drew scrutiny because Brookfield was linked to capital from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, raising questions about political conflicts of interest given Kushner’s role in U.S. foreign policy.

After leaving the White House in 2021, Jared Kushner launched Affinity Partners, a private equity firm focused on investments tied to the Middle East. In 2022, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund committed $2 billion to the firm, again drawing scrutiny because Kushner had worked closely with Saudi leadership, particularly Mohammed bin Salman during his time in government. The central controversy was the optics of a rapid transition from shaping U.S. foreign policy in the region to receiving major financial backing from the same government officials.

That scrutiny intensified again in March 2024, when Kushner described Gaza as “valuable waterfront property” and suggested that civilians could be relocated as part of redevelopment efforts. The remarks were widely criticized as framing a humanitarian crisis in economic terms, adding to criticism that he was applying a real estate and investment mindset to a humanitarian crisis.

By 2024, Jared Kushner had reemerged as a behind-the-scenes figure in Donald Trump’s political orbit, helping with donor outreach and offering strategic advice, particularly in foreign policy without taking a formal government role. Reports in 2025 indicated he did not plan to return to the White House in an official capacity, but would continue advising informally, maintaining influence without direct accountability.

Taken together, Kushner’s trajectory highlights a pattern: a rise enabled by family connections, a rapid expansion of power without traditional qualifications, and a career defined by overlapping roles in politics, business, and international relationships. From nepotism concerns in the White House to ongoing questions about conflicts of interest tied to foreign governments and diplomacy, his path reflects a bigger issue of blurred lines between public authority and private gain.

Subscribe now

What if one of the most consequential policy shifts in American History was not just debated but deliberately shaped? The legalization of abortion marked a turning point in U.S. law and culture, redefining how the country approached questions of life and government authority. At the center of one explanation is Bernard Nathanson, a former leader of the abortion rights movement who later reversed his position. Nathanson claimed that public opinion did not shift organically, but through a calculated strategy, one he later detailed in an eight-point framework that continues to influence how the debate is understood today.

Bernard Nathanson was a physician born in New York City in Manhattan to a Jewish family, and later became a co-founder of the early abortion rights movement, helping establish what would become NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. Years later, he reversed his position and became a prominent pro-life advocate, claiming he had direct insight into how the movement shaped public opinion. Nathanson outlined these ideas in his 1979 book Aborting America and later in The Silent Scream, where he described a coordinated set of tactics used to influence the national debate. In his later years, Nathanson converted to Christianity and spoke openly about the guilt he carried over his role in the movement, at one point nearly taking his own life and describing it as the greatest regret of his life.

Nathanson’s account centers on what he described as an eight-point strategy designed to shift both public opinion and policy. The first involved falsifying statistics. He claimed that numbers surrounding illegal abortions and maternal deaths were exaggerated in order to create a sense of urgency and crisis, helping justify legal change. The second tactic, which he called using the Catholic card, framed opposition to abortion as strictly Catholic, positioning it as a religious issue rather than a broader moral or political one, and in doing so marginalized it in a diverse society.

The third point focused on media strategy. Nathanson described efforts to build relationships with journalists and encourage favorable pro-abortion narratives. Through repetition and consistent framing, these narratives could shape how the public saw the issue. The fourth was what he called the scientific strategy. This involved a shift in language, describing the fetus as a blob of tissue or protoplasm rather than a human life, with the goal of reducing its moral value. Nathanson later rejected this characterization after exposure to ultrasound technology.

The fifth tactic targeted what he called the hierarchy. Rather than criticizing everyday Catholics, the focus was placed on Church leadership such as bishops and the Pope, weakening institutional authority without alienating individuals. The sixth point emphasized repetition. Nathanson argued that repeating claims, even if disputed, could eventually lead them to be accepted as common knowledge, influencing both public opinion and lawmakers.

The seventh strategy centered on justifying decriminalization. He claimed the argument was made that legalizing abortion would reduce the number of procedures, though he later argued the opposite occurred. Finally, the eighth point, which he referred to as the Catholic straddle, encouraged individuals, particularly Catholic voters and politicians, to adopt a position where they were personally opposed to abortion but still supported legal access. According to Nathanson, this effectively neutralized a significant political bloc.

The abortion debate is not only a moral question but also one shaped by messaging and influence. Nathanson’s account and his role in the movement are not widely known to many Americans, despite his later efforts to explain his perspective. Since the legalization of abortion, tens of millions of procedures have been performed in the United States, often cited at around 70 million, underscoring the scale and lasting impact of the policy shift. If more people were familiar with his claims and the strategy he described, it could lead some to reconsider how they view the origins and evolution of abortion policy in the United States, and maybe even abortion itself.

Subscribe now

Nick Fuentes is widely labeled an antisemite. A separate question, raised by Rabbi Yishai Fleisher, is whether he is also untruthful.

Fleisher does not endorse Fuentes’ worldview. But he expresses respect for Nick Fuentes on a different basis: consistency. Rather than shifting positions based on audience or political convenience, Fleisher suggests that Fuentes follows his arguments to their conclusions, even when they are controversial or widely condemned. He also points to Fuentes’ willingness to openly describe power dynamics as he sees them, even when doing so invites backlash.

That distinction matters when evaluating Fuentes’ broader claims, particularly his criticism of the relationship between the United States and Israel. In the aftermath of October 7, Fuentes framed the war in Gaza not as an isolated conflict, but as the beginning of a broader regional escalation tied to that alliance. He claimed the attacks were being used to justify a wider war, arguing they were “staged to justify Israel’s unfolding war to destroy Iran and its proxies”. From there, he repeatedly warned that U.S. alignment with Israel risked pulling America into a larger confrontation, particularly with Iran.

Leading into the 2024 election cycle, Fuentes extended that critique to domestic politics, increasingly portraying Donald Trump as what he described as the “Iran war candidate.” In his view, Trump’s political donations and past policy decisions reflected a continuation of U.S. commitments abroad rather than a break from them. As tensions escalated, Fuentes framed this as a betrayal of “America First”, arguing that U.S. policy was being shaped in ways that could lead to direct involvement in another Middle East war. Taken together, these statements reflect a consistent theme: opposition to U.S. entanglement in conflicts tied to its relationship with Israel and a belief that current policy risks escalation.

Fleisher, approaching from an Israeli nationalist perspective, frames the relationship very differently. He emphasizes cultural cohesion, national identity, and strategic strength as essential to Israel’s survival and growing position in the Middle East. In that context, he and Fuentes both recognize Israel’s potential to function as a major regional power. The difference lies in their conclusions: Fleisher views that trajectory as justified and necessary for national survival, while Fuentes treats it as a source of concern.

Fleisher also reflects on political dynamics in the United States, including his view that Jewish Americans have played a major role in progressive political movements. In engaging with Fuentes’ views on that topic, he indicates a level of agreement with certain observations.

His criticism becomes sharper when addressing figures like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. Fleisher characterizes their rhetoric as less consistent and less grounded, arguing that their commentary at times leans toward speculation rather than structured argument. This includes criticism of narratives surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk, where both have amplified or entertained claims about Israeli involvement without verified evidence. At a memorial event, Carlson described a scene where people were supposedly conspiring against Kirk, saying he could “picture the scene… in a lamp-lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus… ‘What do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking!’”. The remarks were widely criticized as carrying antisemitic insinuations, reinforcing concerns about how quickly commentary can shift into speculation without evidence.

The broader critique, shared in part by Fuentes, though from a different ideological position, is that this style of commentary prioritizes provocative narratives over verifiable claims. In Owens’ case, critics point to a pattern of controversial rhetoric, including her promotion of historically discredited material such as The Talmudic Jew and repeated claims about Jewish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. In one instance, Owens stated that “Jewish people were in control of the slave trade,” presenting it as suppressed historical truth, a claim widely rejected by historians and described by critics as a revival of long-standing antisemitic narratives rather than a fact-based account of history.

Fleisher’s respect for Fuentes ultimately rests on a narrow but important distinction. It is not an endorsement of his views, but an acknowledgment of consistency: that of a commentator who, in Fleisher’s view, says what he believes and follows it through.

Whether that consistency makes Fuentes correct in his conclusions is a separate question. But it does complicate a simpler one. If he is consistent and clear, and if his predictions about escalation are taken seriously by even those who disagree, then the question remains: is he untruthful, or simply controversial in the conclusions he draws?

Subscribe now

The death of Charlie Kirk did not just prompt mourning. It quickly became the subject of widespread online speculation. As authorities moved forward with an investigation centered on a charged suspect, Candace Owens used her platform to advance a series of claims suggesting broader conspiracies involving foreign actors and people close to Kirk, despite no publicly available evidence supporting those allegations. In moments like this, the expectation is clear: facts should come before conclusions, and restraint should guide public commentary. Instead, speculation reached millions before verified information could catch up. In the hours, days, and months after the tragedy, the line between reporting and speculation has mattered most, and in this case, it has repeatedly been blurred.

The official record provides a far more grounded account of what is known. Prosecutors have charged Tyler Robinson with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and court filings indicate the attack was politically motivated, with investigators pointing to statements and evidence tied directly to the suspect. At this stage, the case presented by the authorities is centered on Robinson’s actions and intent, not any broader conspiracy involving additional actors. There have been no official findings linking Erika Kirk, Turning Point USA, or any foreign government to the crime. The publicly available case is built on a named suspect and documented motive, not the network of actors suggested by online pundits such as Candace Owens.

Owens’ commentary did not remain directed at questioning gaps in the investigation. It evolved into a broader narrative built on increasingly speculative connections. She pointed to alleged “Egyptian planes,” claiming they had followed Erika Kirk for years, presenting it as evidence of long-term surveillance tied to the killing. She later acknowledged getting key timeline details wrong, and the claim was disputed, with no evidence supporting the idea that such tracking had occurred. After that, the plane narrative disappeared from her commentary without clarification.

Continuing on, Owens’ suggested that foreign actors, including Israel, Egypt, and even France, could have been involved, at one point alleging that the French were also targeting her personally. These claims were presented without public evidence connecting any foreign government to Kirk’s death.

Most notably, Owens directed suspicion toward individuals connected to Kirk, including figures associated with Turning Point USA such as Andrew Kolvet, as well as Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk. When pressed, she admitted she had no “concrete evidence,” shifting the discussion from questioning to insinuation.

In response to the growing speculation, Erika Kirk publicly pushed back, directly addressing the claims and telling Candace Owens to “Stop.” Her response was not vague. It was a clear rejection of the narratives circulating about her and those close to Charlie Kirk. No public records or confirmed reporting support Owens’ suggestion that Erika Kirk or Turning Point USA were involved in financial misconduct, and no official filings connected those allegations to the case.

This goes beyond commentary because Candace Owens did not simply question gaps in the investigation, she has built a narrative around unverified claims involving Erika Kirk, foreign governments, and individuals connected to Turning Point USA. Even after meeting directly with Erika Kirk, where those claims were rejected, Owens continued to raise the same insinuations on her platform. Claims about Egyptian planes, suggestions of Israeli or French involvement, and suspicions directed at people close to Kirk have not been presented once and abandoned. They have been repeated, expanded, and connected to a broader theory. That repetition matters. Misinformation does not always appear as a single false statement. It often builds through repeated insinuation, especially when delivered to a large audience.

The structure of modern political media helps explain why this pattern has continued. Content that centers on suspicion, foreign involvement, and conspiracies tends to generate more engagement than confirmed facts. Owens’ coverage of Charlie Kirk’s death became an ongoing narrative rather than a one-time discussion, with new angles and connections introduced over time. Even after direct pushback from Erika Kirk and the absence of supporting evidence, the speculation did not stop. In an environment where audience attention is driven by conspiracy and “hidden truths,” continuing the narrative can keep viewers engaged. Whether intentional or not, modern political media rewards speculation and conspiracy rather than verification grounded in truth.

The death of Charlie Kirk called for evidence and clarity, standards that are especially important when information is still emerging. Instead, Candace Owens used her platform to point suspicion toward foreign governments, individuals connected to Turning Point USA, and even Erika Kirk, without verifiable evidence to support those claims. Repeated insinuations, even when framed as a question, can shape public discourse in ways that dangerously skew the truth. Charlie Kirk’s death deserved clarity. What followed instead was a cycle of speculation.

Subscribe now

In 2016, Donald Trump didn’t just win an election, he reshaped the identity of the Republican Party. Campaigning on immigration restriction, economic nationalism and open hostility toward the elite, Trump brought together a coalition that seemed to show lasting change on the American Right. But nearly a decade later, that unity has begun to fade. Beneath the surface, disagreements over policy and the direction of the MAGA movement are growing more visible. What once appeared to be a unified populist movement is now fracturing into competing visions of what the American Right should be.

Trump’s rise was a clear break from the Republican establishment that had dominated the party for decades. His campaign shifted the focus toward strict immigration enforcement, skepticism of global trade deals, and a confrontational stance toward the elite. By doing this, he brought in new voters, particularly from the working class and independents who had felt ignored by both parties. For a time, it appeared that this coalition could redefine the American Right for years to come. But while Trump changed the direction of the party, his policy choices did not reflect his populist, pro-working-class rhetoric.

Despite the rise of populism, establishment Republicans never fully disappeared. This faction included traditional GOP figures, donors, and institutional power that have long shaped right-wing policy in America. Prominent politicians such as Lindsey Graham and commentators like Ben Shapiro, both of whom were critical of Trump in 2016, represented a wing of the Right that has remained committed to traditional GOP conservatism. Their focus continues to remain on free markets, corporate-friendly policies, and global intervention, specifically in the Middle East. Over time, this faction has regained significant influence within the party. Despite years of populist rhetoric, establishment priorities continue to shape much of the party’s actual policy.

The second faction consists of populist nationalists, made up of Trump-aligned voters and the broader “America First” base. This group emphasizes strict immigration enforcement, a more culturally conservative vision of the country, and a large skepticism of foreign intervention. Influential voices such as Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massie have helped shape this faction, frequently challenging both parties on issues like foreign intervention and federal spending. However, despite its energy and appeal, this faction faces a clear weakness: influence. Its ideas dominate rhetoric, but rarely shape the decisions that govern the party.

The third faction is the Groyper movement, a younger wing of the Right that is increasingly challenging both the Republican establishment and the legacy of Trumpism itself. Led by Nick Fuentes, this group is highly active in online spaces and increasingly vocal in shaping right-wing political discourse. Its beliefs include a hardline stance on immigration, a strong emphasis on American identity, religion, and nationalism, and a strong skepticism of foreign intervention, particularly in the Middle East. Many within this faction are openly critical of long-standing U.S. alliances, particularly the U.S.-Israel relationship, setting them apart from both establishment Republicans and more traditional Trump-aligned figures.

What distinguishes this group most is its willingness to confront the Republican Party itself. Much like Trump’s strategy in 2016, this faction frames politics as a choice between taking control of the party or rejecting it entirely. Unlike older factions, this movement is very young, which suggests its influence may grow larger rather than fade. For many in this group, Trump was not the destination, but the beginning.

These three factions are not easily compatible. They represent fundamentally different visions of the American Right, with clear divides on foreign policy and national identity. While they currently coexist within the same coalition, these differences are becoming harder to ignore. Tensions between these groups are likely to increase as each competes for influence over the party’s direction. The question is not whether the Right will change, but rather which faction will prevail.

Political movements rarely remain divided forever. Eventually one faction will rise above the others. The American Right is at a turning point. Whether it returns to establishment conservatism, evolves into a policy-driven form of populism, or a younger, more ideological generation defines its future. What emerges from this movement will not only determine the direction of the Republican Party, but will define the future of American politics for a generation.

Mass immigration in the United States is often described as something the public broadly supports, but long-running survey data suggests a more mixed picture, especially when people are asked whether immigration levels should increase, decrease, or stay the same.

For decades, Pew surveys have found that large shares of Americans prefer reducing immigration or keeping it at current levels rather than increasing it, with this pattern appearing repeatedly since the 1990s.

Gallup polling shows a similar trend, with Americans more likely to say immigration should be reduced than increased across much of the last thirty years, including during strong economic periods.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election added another data point, as Donald Trump won the national popular vote after running heavily on immigration enforcement, border control, and limits on asylum, suggesting these views resonate beyond a narrow voter base.

Exit polls and post-election surveys showed immigration ranked as one of the top issues for voters, alongside inflation and public safety, reinforcing that immigration skepticism remains politically significant.

Despite this, the foreign-born share of the US population has increased from 15.6% from 2010 to 2022, one of the largest increases in modern history.

This growth has reshaped cities, labor markets, housing demand, and school systems, especially in large metro areas and border states.

Unlike some countries, U.S. immigration policy is not only decided by direct public vote but instead changes through court rulings, agency rules, executive actions, and funding choices.

At the same time, powerful institutions actively promote higher immigration frameworks in the U.S., shaping both policy and how it is discussed.

The Open Society Foundation has funded immigration advocacy, legal challenges to enforcement, and policy research supporting expanded asylum access and reduced detention, according to its own grant databases and annual reports.

Public disclosures show Open Society funding groups involved in border litigation, immigrant legal defense, and national messaging around migration policy.

The World Economic Forum has promoted migration as economically necessary, publishing reports that frame labor mobility and cross-border movement as tools to support global growth and aging workforces.

WEF policy papers and panels emphasize “managed migration” and reducing barriers to labor movement, ideas that often influence government and corporate policy discussions.

Within the United States, NGOs such as the International Rescue Committee and Church World Service receive public funding to provide legal aid, housing coordination, and transportation support for migrants, increasing the system’s capacity to process and settle large numbers of arrivals.

These organizations describe their work as humanitarian, but their scale also affects how immigration policy functions on the ground by reducing bottlenecks after arrival.

In contrast to how the United States has handled immigration over the last couple of decades, countries like Japan have long limited immigration to preserve cultural stability, with foreign residents making up only about 3 percent of the population.

Japan allows foreign workers mainly through narrow visa programs and has moved cautiously even as its population ages.

Poland has also taken a restrictive approach to permanent mass immigration, with public opinion strongly opposed to large-scale non-European migration.

Poland’s acceptance of millions of Ukrainian refugees shows that cultural and social proximity plays a role in public support.

Although people of the United States do not seem to value cultural stability as much as in countries like Japan and Poland, the United States has still experienced very fast demographic change while public opinion remains divided, suggesting a gap between policy outcomes and voter preference.

Taken together, the data suggests that mass immigration in the U.S. has expanded faster than public demand, shaped by institutional advocacy, legal systems, and administrative choices rather than direct public approval.

Understanding that gap is central to any serious discussion about immigration, democracy, and long-term social stability.