The reason Carlson and Vance are very happy to give Fuentes a lot of attention and platform him is to Sista Souljah him. They will concede major points to him, then say they disagree about "a lot," even though he gets softball interviews and it takes Vance weeks to say anything negative and to always couch any criticism in "but it's fair to criticize Israel."
At least six career staffers at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were suspended with pay this summer after organizing a polygraph test that the agency’s acting director, Madhu Gottumukkala, failed.
The incident this July and the subsequent fallout — which has not been reported before — have angered career staff, alarmed fellow Trump administration appointees and raised questions about Gottumukkala’s leadership of the nearly $3 billion cyber defense agency.
“Instead of taking ownership and saying, ‘Hey, I screwed up,’ he gets other people blamed and potentially ruins their careers,” said a current official, who described Gottumukkala’s tenure at CISA so far as “a nightmare” for the agency.
The Secretary of War's primary spiritual advisor, whose teachings Hegseth says were "transformative" for him, believes that the Civil War and the resulting end of slavery somehow led to radical feminism, rampant abortion, and the oppression of sodomite marriages. To expand, he said, "...slavery was far more benign in practice than it was made to appear in the literature of the abolitionists. We were not trying to maintain that slavery in itself was a positive good, like food, air, or sunlight. Our central interest was in defending the integrity and applicability of the Scriptures to our current cultural controversies, and we affirmed that Christians who apologize for what the Bible teaches on slavery will soon be apologizing for what it teaches on marriage."
Additionally, he calls himself a paleo-confederate. In explanation, he said, "So I also take it as a given that the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war, and this is my reason for calling myself unreconstructed." The reverend also writes that the United States ended slavery the wrong way, by declaring war on the South. He says: “As mentioned earlier, in our nation the logic of this would have worked its way out over time in a peaceful and Christian form of emancipation, without 620,000 slain.”
Doug Wilson is a leading voice in the Christian nationalist movement and Hegseth has made statements to the effect that he wants the troops prepared spiritually and for the military as an institution to begin adopting these views.
I can't believe that this is what the right wing in America is beginning to turn into.
If neither party can get their primaries under control I wonder if we start hitting the point where presidents start having a hard time even winning two terms.
I would be rather interested to see a modern take on the p90; the new shell shock style cases seem to allow a case capacity increase of about ~10% and increased pressure, which in turn could mean that different types of gunpowder could potentially be experimented with to get more velocity. Obviously, it still wouldn't be as good as 5.56, but for police forces and rear echelon or logistics forces it could prove useful. Yes, that was the original idea of pdws before the m4 supplanted them, but with the movement away from 5.56 to 6.8 (for better or worse), the idea of having a common standard issue cartridge has already broken down
The Klan was extremely anti-Catholic, to the point they helped arm the Socialist and state atheist PRI against the Catholic Cristeros. That's why they aren't back in, with "tradcath" retardation being as widespread as it is. The Nazis were also very anti-Catholic in addendum to being generally anti-Christian, but not nearly as much (in reference to Catholicism specifically). Groypers are also Nazi adjacent, but they aren't the German American bund 2.0. They aren't Orthodox Nazis, for lack of a better term. That's not to imply they have the most specific ideological or theoretical platform, they don't.
This is the full Vance interview being mentioned https://unherd.com/2025/12/jd-vance-nick-fuentes-can-eat-shit/ . The language about Israel is obviously concerning, but to be fair, he also said that Fuentes could "eat shit" and gave a pretty explicit rejection of antisemitism and ethnic hatred. I can live with him being annoying in playing both sides if he's willing to denounce Fuentes.
"99% of Republicans, and I think probably 97% of Democrats, do not hate Jewish people for being Jewish. What is actually happening is that there is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy. I think we already had that conversation and not try to shut it down. Most Americans aren’t anti-Semitic. They’re never going to be anti-Semitic, and I think we should focus on the real debate."
Sohrab Ahmhari is a piece of shit and so is Vance. This is baseline stuff and he still fucked it - that Israel statement is atrocious. But when he's speaking to a person who wanted to hear that, I expect him to say it.
It's "just anti-Zionism" in a suit.
Also, one more thing about the Ahmhari thing:
“I’m at peace with a Chinese-led 21st century,” he announced last year in a (since deleted) tweet. “Late-liberal America is too dumb and decadent to last as a superpower. Chinese civilization, especially if it recovers more of its Confucian roots, will possess a great deal of natural virtue.”
Except, when the complaints that people make are solely levied on Israel and on no other country.
The only one I have a slight tolerance for is the complaint about the amount of aid earmarked for them. But even that is a touchy thing when people spend a disproportionate amount of time bitching about Israel aid and no other government spending (and no, vague allusions to “waste” don’t count).
If you call these young antisemites out, they are likely to say something like “I don’t hate Jews … it is just that powerful Jews are conspiring to harm civilization.” Call this the “I don’t hate Jews” defense, and if it is said in earnest, it reflects a misunderstanding of what antisemitism usually looks like. Nick Fuentes recently used this defense when responding to Tucker Carlson’s claim that Fuentes is an antisemite (pot-kettle, I know), stating, “I’m not a Jew hater. I don’t hate anybody. I just recognize, like everybody does now, that we live in a Jewish oligarchy.”
Fuentes’ comment is representative of modern antisemitism. It does not typically manifest as explicit hatred of Jews, nor is it usually based on a racial theory, as it was in Nazism. A more typical form of antisemitism was that popular among 19th and early 20th-century reactionary Frenchmen (e.g. Louis Veuillot and Charles Maurras). This antisemitism involved the scapegoating of Jews for societal ills or political upheaval and often the use, and credulous acceptance, of conspiracy theories to rationalize and justify that scapegoating.
From the Dispatch. It really did a good job of showing how antisemitism relies on that sort of thing.
Eh, I'm not registering to read the article and him denouncing him is good, but at the same time if he just says "oh his influence is overstated", I think that's still running away from the issue. Obviously it's a good thing that hes saying he's opposed, but I think we must accept that anti-americanism, racism, and antisemitism is no longer solely a small 1% on the fringe, but something that needs to be actively argued and fought against. Even if the average person does not become a Jew hater or starts calling black people slurs, these ideologies have a corrosive effect and will undermine and weaken our society
I'm obviously pretty concerned about that, but lets be fair. In that same interview he said that Fuentes could "eat shit" and gave a pretty explicit rejection of antisemitism and ethnic hatred https://unherd.com/2025/12/jd-vance-nick-fuentes-can-eat-shit . I can live with him being annoying in playing both sides if he's willing to denounce Fuentes.
He won't disavow Tucker Carlson. That is plenty bad enough. It's sort of setting up this bizarre relationship where the postliberal, new right part of the conservative movement (except they aren't really conservative, but I digress) sort of make Nick Fuentes their leader. Because JD Vance and other semi-reasonable people won't turn their back on Tucker Carlson, even when, like with the head of the Heritage Foundation, he will viciously criticize them. In turn Tucker Carlson and others like him won't criticize Nick Fuentes, even though Fuentes will say whatever he wants about them. Basically with new right people the more radical and crazy someone is the more they will have a moat of defenders who will say that crazy person can't be criticized as all criticism is cancellation. But to the lunatic themselves, whether Fuentes or Carlson, that logic isn't applied at all... They can say whatever they want.
If (when) the GOP gets clobbered in the midterms and the rest of Trump's term gets mired in impeachment issues, I have a feeling that Vance will not be a shoe in for the nomination.
I think things would have to get very bad for him to make that decision. Will he have another opportunity?
He will go from VP and Trump's ostensibly chosen successor to a person without political office for four years. That's a major risk. Who knows how much people care about Trump in 2032, or if he's even alive, that endorsement remains Vance's strongest point. I am pretty hopeful that Vance will actually have a weak position in the primary, but I don't think he'll ever have as good a shot at the nomination. Plus we don't know who the Dems will nominate, they could pick an AOC. I suppose Nixon and Biden did it, but neither of their own volition.
Dropping the zionist right willl may a way for Dems to pick up senate seats in the deep south. So good bye to 8 extremely easy and free GOP senate seats if Dems could find actual moderate pro israel candidates there.
If Rubio has million number of voters i am one of them . if Rubio has ten fans i am one of them. if Rubio have only one fan and that is me . if Rubio has no fans, that means i am no more on the earth . if world against the Rubio, i am against the world. i love #Rubio till my last breath.. .. Die Hard fan of Rubio . Hit upvote If you Think Rubio Best SecState & Smart In the world
The groypers told on themselves on October 7th. I remember seeing a woman tossed over the back of some vehicle, her clothes disheveled, blood down her thigh, as if a modern portrayal of some medieval savage carrying off it's prize from raiding, and these people were laughing and ecstatic at seeing this and at the rest of the carnage. I don't know who that woman was, I don't know what happened to her or whether she was raped, or whether she was eventually freed, but when I saw a picture of her in that condition my thought was that she was probably raped and I think most people would have thought that as well. To put it simple, if you are laughing at the image of what appears to be a rape victim, you are not a defender of western civilization, you are not simply concerned with your nation or traditions, you are not simply antizionist, you are a piece of shit and subhuman filth. That woman could have been a supporter of terrorists and to laugh at her being raped would be wrong, how much more so when it's an innocent civilian who did nothing wrong.
I accidentally came across a few graphic videos online after 10-7 showing things that had happened on that day. It traumatized me to the point that I deleted X and never downloaded it back. Hearing leftist activists deny there were mass rapes and downplay the barbarity of those events has completely turned me against the left.
Incidentally this is an interview between two men who randomly changed their political views completely in a short span decades into adulthood. Verrrrrrry good sign of sensible, sober, wise minds.
“They claim Saint Nick was a Bishop in Myra. But Myra is in Turkey, a Muslim country. Do they think anybody believes this? The propaganda is getting sloppy. This is exactly why young conservative men don’t trust the Zionists.”
My friends were discussing times we were dumbasses as kids and it activated a sleeper memory of me blowing up a thing I had with a girl because I told a joke she didn’t find funny and instead of just moving on I got angry at her and insisted it was funny repeatedly and wouldn’t let it go.
The type of stupid high school memory that triggers a thousand yard stare.
I broke up with a girl in grade 9 because I was convinced she was going to break up with me and I wanted to get ahead of that (lmfao). Turned out she wasn't going to and thought things were going well.
I have no idea who my favorite historical person is (not in terms of like most moral… just interesting)
Napoleon is basic but hes a really safe answer tbh
Ataturk is so slept on in the narrative history of the 20th century
Gorbachev is fascinating too (might be my pick tbh)
Nah. Alfred never unified England during his reign.
The topic has always been kinda disputed because it really is about where you want to draw the line, but nowadays most people consider Æthelstan to be properly the first King of England. Alfred was a King of Wessex but he did lay the foundation for what his grandson did later on in many ways.
On New Year's Eve 1775 General Montgomery died for our country in Quebec. Now you might call him a brave patriot in the fight against the Northern menace, but I think the much more important question is why is he fighting the British in 1775 when we only declared independence on July 4th 1776? How did he lead the Battles of El-Alamein if he died in 1775? And why did he fight for the British again then?
What, am I supposed to believe the first fight in our endless war against the Snow Fellas was lead by a time-travelling flip flopping military not-so-genius?
Oh ffs, beyond the fact that women are highly emotional, pretty much any amount of “emotional labor” they are performing is stemming from their inability to recognize that men simply don’t require that “labor” whatsoever. Also, it’s not uncompensated when women are also reliant on men’s incomes to survive in a lot of relationship dynamics.
Past that, just fucking leave that person that is “burdening” them!
I blame this on the current generation of young men being whinier and more feminine and unwilling to solve their own problems, or blame themselves for their mistakes.
Gen Z men have been trained to be more feminine and this is the consequence. Women don't actually like this, despite their protestations to the contrary.
I dont see it quite as much anymore but does anyone else remember like 5 years ago when a lot of leftists would have a link in their twitter bio or w.e to send them money? People would link to send them money for their "emotional labour" or w.e
Weird example of far left ideas warping around and becoming vaguely right-libertarian
I think its a bit unfair to call it Randian. Rand was closer to the first camp than the second.
She rejected personal duty if you include in that conceprs like altruism and sacrifice, but she also rejected hedonism and didn't believe people should pursue whatever feels good. She did believe in a semse of duty in that she emphasised rational self interest, not just self interest. She wanted people to do what would cause them to flourish as a rational being, not just become dopamine addicted hedonists who hate other people.
Rand was good to coin the term "anti-concept" to describe a term that is so convoluted and nondescript and reductive of meaning that it only serves to obfuscate. But her own work is terrible about this. This insufferable bitch did not earn the goodwill or the effort of others to parse her extremely convoluted waffle. She was exactly the kind of obscurantist she accused everyone else of being.
“I advocate for selfishness. But I don't mean selfishness in the sense of pursuit of one's own outcomes at the expense of others, but rather rational self-interest without infringing on that of others with coercion. And within that coercion is included dishonesty, because that represents a forceful modification of objective reality to fit the world as one wants it, not as it is, to conscript another in your own goal. And by goal, I mean not one's momentary whim or hedonistic pleasure, but a rational, purposeful, and constructive end. And that end can include someone else's end if they matter to you. But if that end subtracts from your own, it becomes altruistic self-sacrifice. But it's not altruistic if...”
Nathaniel Branden called her on it. He told her that the concepts that she called “altruism” and "selfishness" are so conditioned and so far removed from what any other English speaker would conventionally mean by them that one would have to use some other word so as not to confuse and mystify people. She said that she liked it for how much it disturbed them. She cared more about being shocking and controversial than she cared about clarity.
I stopped being interested in Ayn Rand in my late teens and there's a reason that so many people use her as a stepping stone to better things and so few of her fans remain "Objectivists" for life.
It isn't as interesting or original as they think and it isn't as radical or shocking either.
Rand was a pretty mild form of libertarian (idc that she objected to being described as one, she is within that group of thinkers) and only seems as radical and shocking as she does because of misunderstandings that she seemed pretty willing to lean into.
All the good things about Objectivism can be found better in other places and the bad parts are so unnecessary.
I think it's a morally bankrupt ideology and it's difficult to have a thriving society without a willingness to sacrifice and without altruism. Ultimately randians have the freedom they do because of those sacrificial rubes they scorn.
I do remember that. Bizarre, deeply unwell behavior to hope people direct their donations to you for agreeing with them on Twitter instead of directing them to an actual charity.
I had an interesting thought today. I was wondering like how much better would the world be in one year if Venezuela got regime changed as well as Cuba and Iran and if Ukrainians were given like $400 billion and a shit load of weapons? oh, maybe regime changing Qatar.
We should have listened to Luttwak in the 70s. It would have saved everyone so much time. Although I suppose it's possible we might have accidentally saved the Soviet Union that way.
It's weird how wholesome the Jib Jab videos from the 2000s are compared to today's political satire. There is so much seething and preaching in the satire that comes out today it really isn't even funny.
Odds that AI kills a lot of social media in the long run by making everything seem fake and uninteresting?
Like, short form video content will be less interesting when people fully realize anything could be faked and also the flood of "funny animal vids" and outrageous scenarios that are just computer generated slop will make it boring.
And worst of all for the apps, I could see the generation raised in this environment viewing social media as uncool. Because it will seem inauthentic.
Fake videos, fake stories, fake comments and AI bots etc. Driving younger people off the Web as they are seeking something more authentic and real.
It’s going to change the type of content people consume, that’s for sure.
I already find myself scrolling past a lot of things that would be temporarily humorous because the humor is lost if the situation was invented by a robot.
I think this is a good take, I agree somewhat, but I think it'll get worse before it gets better. Probably we are a generation of two away from it. Maybe Gen Alpha will be somewhat reactionary against social media, but I think whatever generation comes after (beta?) who will have never not known AI significantly more capable than what we have now, will be far more skeptical of social media.
We're also seeing a developing consensus about the risks posed to minors through rampant social media use, and accompanying bans. So I do think the tide is turning.
It's possible that with a nudge that when zoomers become parents the tide could turn on social media for children, as you already are seeing some skepticism of iPad kids
I think, like I said, there needs to be a nudge. That's not altogether unprecedented, I believe parenting was impacted before by different books and so on published in the 50s and 60s (I can't remember exactly who, but I know there was some doctor who was particularly influential). The thing is, even though these people have let's say fertile soil for making these changes, in that they are personally aware of the effects of the Internet and can see how it's progressing with iPad kids, if they are left on their own they will most likely just follow the dominant trend. You need to personally call these prospective parents to break away and to do the right thing by parenting
Early Gen Z is going to stem the tide I’m pretty sure. They didn’t get brain fried by lockdowns like late Gen Z but also grew up with the impacts of it in middle and high school unlike most millennials.
Regarding an earlier comment about progressive Christians, I also think a lot of them have no clue that the secular left is mostly motivated by envy and self-interest, and instead envision a fantasy where leftists sit around thinking about “the common good” and “restorative justice” the way prog-Christians themselves do.
In reality, vast swaths of the mainstream left is mostly motivated by the very hyper-individualism and advancement of their (perceived) “class interests” that the prog-Christian caricature of a libertarian/conservative is.
Progressive Christians imagine politics as being between sleazy reaganite donors who use irrational hatred to distract the masses from the fact that they’re dumping oil into the rivers and 60s-aesthetic lib activists doing a “climate justice circle” and being nice to kids in the inner city.
I’ve talked to them. They assume all leftists support leftist policy for the same reasons they do.
I think you ignore that many "progressive Christians" are progressives first. They are just not real progressive atheists and want to find some religion to prove their worldview is correct, and then they find these progressive churches to join.
Progressive Christians imagine politics as being between sleazy reaganite donors who use irrational hatred to distract the masses from the fact that they’re dumping oil into the rivers and 60s-aesthetic lib activists doing a “climate justice circle” and being nice to kids in the inner city
I wouldn’t call a few of my family members a “progressive Christians”, but that perfectly sums up their views on things.
You are completely right though. Most left leaning Christians have a sort of social gospel theological interpretation of scripture. The problem is, most of the left is now secular atheists who are motivated purely by self interest like you say. It’s pretty evident to me that the Democratic Party is now a mostly non-Christian party with black evangelicals being the only bastion of Christianity left.
I’ve had the displeasure of having to work around those types of atheists in grad school and they truly are motivated by hyper-individualism, and in my experience they are also some of the most empathy deficient people you will ever meet.
I think we should think of two traditions of individualism.
America for the longest time had an individualism focused on independence, that is the individual not being dependent and seeking self-reliance, and individual duty, that one has a specific and personal responsibility to do the right thing even if others are not.
The current individualism is a sort of atomized hedonism; almost randian in the sense of eschewing community, personal duty and concern for others, but at the same time rejecting the randian hostility to government and instead pursuing government handouts as a means of self enrichment.
Methodological individualism as a working principle is necessary because sub-individual information is not accessible and the aggregated collective is not an entity per se. Individuals are the basic unit of social operation whose interactions form a society and a polity. It is at this level that rights and duties and justice have to operate.
It should not be taken as a concession to the coherence of the individual as a unitary actor.
Venezuela didn't want to get Grenada'd so under Chavez they sold cheap oil to many neighboring countries to get them to be less noisy about corruption or human rights. For Cuba there was an even more significant strategic mission, upholding that regime always meant that one, they'd have an ally against the US, and that the US would be predisposed to see Cuba as the primary threat, not Venezuela. That made sense pre-fentanyl, pre-Venezualan refugee crisis, and when Cuba was less obviously running on fumes.
If we could bring down both regimes that would be an astounding foreign policy coup.
It's such a shame the admin has braindead Russia positions.
The reason Carlson and Vance are very happy to give Fuentes a lot of attention and platform him is to Sista Souljah him. They will concede major points to him, then say they disagree about "a lot," even though he gets softball interviews and it takes Vance weeks to say anything negative and to always couch any criticism in "but it's fair to criticize Israel."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/21/cisa-acting-director-madhu-gottumukkala-polygraph-investigation-00701996
Why are we letting a man not born in the USA to be the head of CISA?
Why not? Anything otherwise would imply that citizenship != loyalty which is the goal to achieve through other means
It's rather ironic that MAGAs do believe that sort of thing.
Polygraphs are dumb in either case.
I fucking love football.
I get like 1 message every other week from people asking if im turkish
“I am from Greece “ head ass
And are you?
“The Epistle of James we have thrown out from this school (Wittenberg) because it has no value...I hold it is written by some Jew.”
So true, Martin Luther. Can’t have any of the Bible written by those darned pesky Jews.
The Secretary of War's primary spiritual advisor, whose teachings Hegseth says were "transformative" for him, believes that the Civil War and the resulting end of slavery somehow led to radical feminism, rampant abortion, and the oppression of sodomite marriages. To expand, he said, "...slavery was far more benign in practice than it was made to appear in the literature of the abolitionists. We were not trying to maintain that slavery in itself was a positive good, like food, air, or sunlight. Our central interest was in defending the integrity and applicability of the Scriptures to our current cultural controversies, and we affirmed that Christians who apologize for what the Bible teaches on slavery will soon be apologizing for what it teaches on marriage."
Additionally, he calls himself a paleo-confederate. In explanation, he said, "So I also take it as a given that the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war, and this is my reason for calling myself unreconstructed." The reverend also writes that the United States ended slavery the wrong way, by declaring war on the South. He says: “As mentioned earlier, in our nation the logic of this would have worked its way out over time in a peaceful and Christian form of emancipation, without 620,000 slain.”
Doug Wilson is a leading voice in the Christian nationalist movement and Hegseth has made statements to the effect that he wants the troops prepared spiritually and for the military as an institution to begin adopting these views.
I can't believe that this is what the right wing in America is beginning to turn into.
This guy somehow manages to out-dumb the white supremacists who think the American Revolution led to wokery.
The future is bleak.
Reconstruction did not go far enough.
Lincoln and Grant should've hanged every Democrat... Even the Unionist ones!
TDD
If neither party can get their primaries under control I wonder if we start hitting the point where presidents start having a hard time even winning two terms.
This is correct
https://preview.redd.it/s28whoakjo8g1.jpeg?width=1061&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3c46868d78c3689755c1aeced1ba80d750a6ceb
What's this from if you don't mind me asking?
Unfortunately I’m not sure of the original source, I saved it from a tweet or tumblr post or something months ago
I do the same thing all the time. If only Google hadn't fucked up their reverse image search function.
It's just what appears when I close my eyes
Caleb Hammer has done real damage to the credibility of VA Disability and all he did was let people speak for themselves.
If the truth shall kill them, let them die
The best part of the Reagan, Bush and W eras was that most of you fucks didn’t exist
I have always existed. And I have never existed.
https://preview.redd.it/n5vcof92uo8g1.jpeg?width=450&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3a1d87aeb86866880cf9181ba43bc969884832e
Soham Shivoham
I was born in the 20th century.
Do we actually have Obama era/younger people in the DT?
Yes.
Yes
I was alive during all of W and some of Clinton :)
This comment doesn’t reflect the spirit of Christmas, Pac.
Thank you, 17th century English poet, John Milton. Very cool.
Bah humbug
I would be rather interested to see a modern take on the p90; the new shell shock style cases seem to allow a case capacity increase of about ~10% and increased pressure, which in turn could mean that different types of gunpowder could potentially be experimented with to get more velocity. Obviously, it still wouldn't be as good as 5.56, but for police forces and rear echelon or logistics forces it could prove useful. Yes, that was the original idea of pdws before the m4 supplanted them, but with the movement away from 5.56 to 6.8 (for better or worse), the idea of having a common standard issue cartridge has already broken down
How do we convince Hegseth that 6.8 is woke?
Don't most guncels hate it? So it already kinda is.
BTW it's actually a bad thing that the Nazis have a better reputation amongst younger people than the KKK.
The Klan was extremely anti-Catholic, to the point they helped arm the Socialist and state atheist PRI against the Catholic Cristeros. That's why they aren't back in, with "tradcath" retardation being as widespread as it is. The Nazis were also very anti-Catholic in addendum to being generally anti-Christian, but not nearly as much (in reference to Catholicism specifically). Groypers are also Nazi adjacent, but they aren't the German American bund 2.0. They aren't Orthodox Nazis, for lack of a better term. That's not to imply they have the most specific ideological or theoretical platform, they don't.
The KKK originated from community self-governance. The Nazis, on the other hand, originated from unemployed vagrants in beer halls.
It isn't ideological, the KKK is just viewed as trashy and low class so nobody will rehab their image
The Nazis wore Hugo Boss
If the UK was a person it would be recommended to pursue MAID.
Is this good ragebait for reddit?
https://preview.redd.it/1hr96md53o8g1.jpeg?width=896&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b863c7686d6f55d492545c1da1c716ef2857977
This is the full Vance interview being mentioned https://unherd.com/2025/12/jd-vance-nick-fuentes-can-eat-shit/ . The language about Israel is obviously concerning, but to be fair, he also said that Fuentes could "eat shit" and gave a pretty explicit rejection of antisemitism and ethnic hatred. I can live with him being annoying in playing both sides if he's willing to denounce Fuentes.
IDK why people pretend here like they are on the same side.
Sohrab Ahmhari is a piece of shit and so is Vance. This is baseline stuff and he still fucked it - that Israel statement is atrocious. But when he's speaking to a person who wanted to hear that, I expect him to say it.
It's "just anti-Zionism" in a suit.
Also, one more thing about the Ahmhari thing:
From https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/sohrab-ahmari (which also includes this...thing.
Except, when the complaints that people make are solely levied on Israel and on no other country.
The only one I have a slight tolerance for is the complaint about the amount of aid earmarked for them. But even that is a touchy thing when people spend a disproportionate amount of time bitching about Israel aid and no other government spending (and no, vague allusions to “waste” don’t count).
The past century has been those decadent American cowboys curbstomping various supposed superior men
From the Dispatch. It really did a good job of showing how antisemitism relies on that sort of thing.
Eh, I'm not registering to read the article and him denouncing him is good, but at the same time if he just says "oh his influence is overstated", I think that's still running away from the issue. Obviously it's a good thing that hes saying he's opposed, but I think we must accept that anti-americanism, racism, and antisemitism is no longer solely a small 1% on the fringe, but something that needs to be actively argued and fought against. Even if the average person does not become a Jew hater or starts calling black people slurs, these ideologies have a corrosive effect and will undermine and weaken our society
That's still good to see.
My worry is that he goes full Tucker, I was never worried he'd go full Fuentes.
I had Grok make this a while ago but haven't had any excuse to post it. So here. This one is without cause.
https://preview.redd.it/hx4cy6eazn8g1.jpeg?width=784&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=232bb61a31ebcdf735f15cc32abf1e6c96e37d25
Unironically terrifyingly well made. Is there any tell minus "Grok" it's AI?
You can see the mesh pattern is distorted near the letters
We never need an excuse to bomb Belgrade
New decor for the gooncave.
https://preview.redd.it/h7c3ivy3zn8g1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d1953a65190095a14dbb5fbf81217f17188d3a5
u/JorgeLuisBorges1205
Shame both Giants and Raiders lost, but they face each other next week! Leeeets go draft pick!
Mad respecc for admitting it
HQQP
Defense does anything
UH OH unnecessary roughness! 15 yard penalty automatic first down
UH OH holding! 5 yard penalty automatic first down
CQPE
https://preview.redd.it/vhvh7wcgvn8g1.png?width=1013&format=png&auto=webp&s=ebbc170eee28de45a1c95e72ef4982e3d6b11659
Why is there a small child on the floor missing a face?
Lee Harvey Oswald practice run
Misinput! It was a misinput!
Vance being a doofus again. https://x.com/ArtaMoeini/status/2002901939076702223
He is correct, Fuentes isn't as popular as his supporters or libs think he is.
I'm obviously pretty concerned about that, but lets be fair. In that same interview he said that Fuentes could "eat shit" and gave a pretty explicit rejection of antisemitism and ethnic hatred https://unherd.com/2025/12/jd-vance-nick-fuentes-can-eat-shit . I can live with him being annoying in playing both sides if he's willing to denounce Fuentes.
He won't disavow Tucker Carlson. That is plenty bad enough. It's sort of setting up this bizarre relationship where the postliberal, new right part of the conservative movement (except they aren't really conservative, but I digress) sort of make Nick Fuentes their leader. Because JD Vance and other semi-reasonable people won't turn their back on Tucker Carlson, even when, like with the head of the Heritage Foundation, he will viciously criticize them. In turn Tucker Carlson and others like him won't criticize Nick Fuentes, even though Fuentes will say whatever he wants about them. Basically with new right people the more radical and crazy someone is the more they will have a moat of defenders who will say that crazy person can't be criticized as all criticism is cancellation. But to the lunatic themselves, whether Fuentes or Carlson, that logic isn't applied at all... They can say whatever they want.
Oh shit.
If (when) the GOP gets clobbered in the midterms and the rest of Trump's term gets mired in impeachment issues, I have a feeling that Vance will not be a shoe in for the nomination.
I doubt he runs in '28. Its a losing proposition and he probably knows it.
I think things would have to get very bad for him to make that decision. Will he have another opportunity?
He will go from VP and Trump's ostensibly chosen successor to a person without political office for four years. That's a major risk. Who knows how much people care about Trump in 2032, or if he's even alive, that endorsement remains Vance's strongest point. I am pretty hopeful that Vance will actually have a weak position in the primary, but I don't think he'll ever have as good a shot at the nomination. Plus we don't know who the Dems will nominate, they could pick an AOC. I suppose Nixon and Biden did it, but neither of their own volition.
“It’s not happening, and the only reason you’re saying that it’s happening is because you think it’s a bad thing, which it is not”
In six months: “It’s happening and it’s a good thing that it’s happening.”
JD Vance is dropping the Zionist right if he ever becomes the nominee, isn’t he?
Dropping the zionist right willl may a way for Dems to pick up senate seats in the deep south. So good bye to 8 extremely easy and free GOP senate seats if Dems could find actual moderate pro israel candidates there.
He might drop the "(((neocons)))" before the term is up.
I wonder if he thinks that's good for the mid term primaries?
Don't you worry, we are getting Generalissimo Marco Rubio and will make it all better
If Rubio has million number of voters i am one of them . if Rubio has ten fans i am one of them. if Rubio have only one fan and that is me . if Rubio has no fans, that means i am no more on the earth . if world against the Rubio, i am against the world. i love #Rubio till my last breath.. .. Die Hard fan of Rubio . Hit upvote If you Think Rubio Best SecState & Smart In the world
Classic "I'm not antisemitic, I just have valid issues with the Zionist" ass poasting
Great sign of things to come
The groypers told on themselves on October 7th. I remember seeing a woman tossed over the back of some vehicle, her clothes disheveled, blood down her thigh, as if a modern portrayal of some medieval savage carrying off it's prize from raiding, and these people were laughing and ecstatic at seeing this and at the rest of the carnage. I don't know who that woman was, I don't know what happened to her or whether she was raped, or whether she was eventually freed, but when I saw a picture of her in that condition my thought was that she was probably raped and I think most people would have thought that as well. To put it simple, if you are laughing at the image of what appears to be a rape victim, you are not a defender of western civilization, you are not simply concerned with your nation or traditions, you are not simply antizionist, you are a piece of shit and subhuman filth. That woman could have been a supporter of terrorists and to laugh at her being raped would be wrong, how much more so when it's an innocent civilian who did nothing wrong.
I accidentally came across a few graphic videos online after 10-7 showing things that had happened on that day. It traumatized me to the point that I deleted X and never downloaded it back. Hearing leftist activists deny there were mass rapes and downplay the barbarity of those events has completely turned me against the left.
See, I don't think I actually ever saw any really graphic videos, some things of the aftermath, and I guess I was lucky in that way
Incidentally this is an interview between two men who randomly changed their political views completely in a short span decades into adulthood. Verrrrrrry good sign of sensible, sober, wise minds.
Touchdown before we get three minutes in, it’s gonna be good tonight.
Classic Henry fumble.
TRVST THE PLQN PQTRIQTS
Is Santa real?
He is real. I have documentary evidence that he is a Gujarati from Baroda
Maybe
Santa is a story made up by the Mossad to cover up their trials of drones penetrating foreign airspace
https://preview.redd.it/tmdryiposn8g1.jpeg?width=1804&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebdebb4fd37e80a7dc7bae2ab89d55fba960d0bb
“They claim Saint Nick was a Bishop in Myra. But Myra is in Turkey, a Muslim country. Do they think anybody believes this? The propaganda is getting sloppy. This is exactly why young conservative men don’t trust the Zionists.”
Football starting. Go Ravens!
https://x.com/HaterReport_/status/2002847541533233367
Isn't it a huge indictment of women's basketball that a grossly out of shape morbidly obese woman can drop 40+ points in a D1 game?
You should try not to reveal that you have never seen a woman naked.
She has got to be quickly killing her knees. They’re not built to handle fat people running and jumping
I don't think that's morbidly obese. She wouldn't be that much smaller even if she were at her healthiest possible size.
Is anyone going to a WNBA game to see athleticism?
FIFY
https://preview.redd.it/7q86591wmn8g1.png?width=1186&format=png&auto=webp&s=82000b712754e0e796cdf88e14bb35b3463c1200
Everykarno singlesurya timeawan
God forbid a man has a hobby
Of course it’s Indonesia. It’s either them, Malaysia or Pakistan. Thirdies access to the internet was a mistake.
Allowing the 3rd world on our internet was such a mistake jesus christ.
Shut off their internet now
You can't fool me, that right there is a black man
Indonesians!
My friends were discussing times we were dumbasses as kids and it activated a sleeper memory of me blowing up a thing I had with a girl because I told a joke she didn’t find funny and instead of just moving on I got angry at her and insisted it was funny repeatedly and wouldn’t let it go.
The type of stupid high school memory that triggers a thousand yard stare.
I broke up with a girl in grade 9 because I was convinced she was going to break up with me and I wanted to get ahead of that (lmfao). Turned out she wasn't going to and thought things were going well.
I always knew you were the Canadian George Costanza.
(This is a compliment)
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoconNWO/s/oz2M7PNx1s
Here’s one of mine lmao
ah old memories
https://preview.redd.it/ziwul6fdtn8g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41b14819d1dff682df2b5ce1bac60abc36f71876
You should be searching for a woman familiar with Spangler. Consider that a bullet dodged.
I don’t mean this derogatorily, this is one of the most autistic things I’ve ever read.
https://x.com/EricCrossMLB/status/2002148052438769696
I have no idea who my favorite historical person is (not in terms of like most moral… just interesting)
Napoleon is basic but hes a really safe answer tbh Ataturk is so slept on in the narrative history of the 20th century Gorbachev is fascinating too (might be my pick tbh)
Coolidge
Choosing one favourite historical figure is too much to ask.
There is a new book out about Æthelstan called "The First King of England" by David Woodman so maybe Æthelstan rn lol
I am pretty ignorant of medieval history, but I thought Alfred the Great was considered the first King of England?
Nah. Alfred never unified England during his reign.
The topic has always been kinda disputed because it really is about where you want to draw the line, but nowadays most people consider Æthelstan to be properly the first King of England. Alfred was a King of Wessex but he did lay the foundation for what his grandson did later on in many ways.
Richard Nixon.
Watch out or you'll do a ten minute monologue on the history of your country to Tucker
im white American
That shouldn't stop you.
On New Year's Eve 1775 General Montgomery died for our country in Quebec. Now you might call him a brave patriot in the fight against the Northern menace, but I think the much more important question is why is he fighting the British in 1775 when we only declared independence on July 4th 1776? How did he lead the Battles of El-Alamein if he died in 1775? And why did he fight for the British again then?
What, am I supposed to believe the first fight in our endless war against the Snow Fellas was lead by a time-travelling flip flopping military not-so-genius?
China absolutely has the weirdest people of the 20th century, by a country li.
I find Julian the Apostate to be a fascinating figure. Apparently he thought he was the reincarnation of Alexander the Great.
Took a gander at the Deuterocanon finally and was fun to see Alexander pop up.
https://preview.redd.it/tagmwo5tbn8g1.jpeg?width=780&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2350ea0323a283eb919264b6f8c0505749c7001f
You don’t hate individualism (as a moral principle) enough.
“Emotional labor”
Oh ffs, beyond the fact that women are highly emotional, pretty much any amount of “emotional labor” they are performing is stemming from their inability to recognize that men simply don’t require that “labor” whatsoever. Also, it’s not uncompensated when women are also reliant on men’s incomes to survive in a lot of relationship dynamics.
Past that, just fucking leave that person that is “burdening” them!
The labor theory of value and its consequences
I blame this on the current generation of young men being whinier and more feminine and unwilling to solve their own problems, or blame themselves for their mistakes.
Men of every generation are bums.
Gen Z men have been trained to be more feminine and this is the consequence. Women don't actually like this, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Lol women require far more emotional support (or “emotional labor” as these creeps have rebranded it) in my experience.
But I have a nasty habit of ending up with BPD chicks.
I dont see it quite as much anymore but does anyone else remember like 5 years ago when a lot of leftists would have a link in their twitter bio or w.e to send them money? People would link to send them money for their "emotional labour" or w.e
Weird example of far left ideas warping around and becoming vaguely right-libertarian
ahem
I think its a bit unfair to call it Randian. Rand was closer to the first camp than the second.
She rejected personal duty if you include in that conceprs like altruism and sacrifice, but she also rejected hedonism and didn't believe people should pursue whatever feels good. She did believe in a semse of duty in that she emphasised rational self interest, not just self interest. She wanted people to do what would cause them to flourish as a rational being, not just become dopamine addicted hedonists who hate other people.
Rand was good to coin the term "anti-concept" to describe a term that is so convoluted and nondescript and reductive of meaning that it only serves to obfuscate. But her own work is terrible about this. This insufferable bitch did not earn the goodwill or the effort of others to parse her extremely convoluted waffle. She was exactly the kind of obscurantist she accused everyone else of being.
“I advocate for selfishness. But I don't mean selfishness in the sense of pursuit of one's own outcomes at the expense of others, but rather rational self-interest without infringing on that of others with coercion. And within that coercion is included dishonesty, because that represents a forceful modification of objective reality to fit the world as one wants it, not as it is, to conscript another in your own goal. And by goal, I mean not one's momentary whim or hedonistic pleasure, but a rational, purposeful, and constructive end. And that end can include someone else's end if they matter to you. But if that end subtracts from your own, it becomes altruistic self-sacrifice. But it's not altruistic if...”
Nathaniel Branden called her on it. He told her that the concepts that she called “altruism” and "selfishness" are so conditioned and so far removed from what any other English speaker would conventionally mean by them that one would have to use some other word so as not to confuse and mystify people. She said that she liked it for how much it disturbed them. She cared more about being shocking and controversial than she cared about clarity.
Yeah, I think I agree with you on all of this.
I stopped being interested in Ayn Rand in my late teens and there's a reason that so many people use her as a stepping stone to better things and so few of her fans remain "Objectivists" for life.
It isn't as interesting or original as they think and it isn't as radical or shocking either.
Rand was a pretty mild form of libertarian (idc that she objected to being described as one, she is within that group of thinkers) and only seems as radical and shocking as she does because of misunderstandings that she seemed pretty willing to lean into.
All the good things about Objectivism can be found better in other places and the bad parts are so unnecessary.
I did learn from her that libertarianism is not real, and I am grateful for it
I think it's a morally bankrupt ideology and it's difficult to have a thriving society without a willingness to sacrifice and without altruism. Ultimately randians have the freedom they do because of those sacrificial rubes they scorn.
I do remember that. Bizarre, deeply unwell behavior to hope people direct their donations to you for agreeing with them on Twitter instead of directing them to an actual charity.
very much the reversed genders in my experience
Yeah but this is Vice News who posted that, they’re still mad about GamerGate
I had an interesting thought today. I was wondering like how much better would the world be in one year if Venezuela got regime changed as well as Cuba and Iran and if Ukrainians were given like $400 billion and a shit load of weapons? oh, maybe regime changing Qatar.
We should have listened to Luttwak in the 70s. It would have saved everyone so much time. Although I suppose it's possible we might have accidentally saved the Soviet Union that way.
what was his thesis?
What justice is starving Indian peasants to pay for Arab limosines?
That would be absolutely incredible. That is the best timeline.
Man this clip is so sad to watch lol 2000's/early 2010's politics feels so non-serious in comparison
It's weird how wholesome the Jib Jab videos from the 2000s are compared to today's political satire. There is so much seething and preaching in the satire that comes out today it really isn't even funny.
Its time for campaigning is something I like to listen to on occasion
Odds that AI kills a lot of social media in the long run by making everything seem fake and uninteresting?
Like, short form video content will be less interesting when people fully realize anything could be faked and also the flood of "funny animal vids" and outrageous scenarios that are just computer generated slop will make it boring.
And worst of all for the apps, I could see the generation raised in this environment viewing social media as uncool. Because it will seem inauthentic.
Fake videos, fake stories, fake comments and AI bots etc. Driving younger people off the Web as they are seeking something more authentic and real.
Am I overly optimistic here?
Whose gonna tell him?
Facebook seems bound and determined to do just that.
It’s going to change the type of content people consume, that’s for sure.
I already find myself scrolling past a lot of things that would be temporarily humorous because the humor is lost if the situation was invented by a robot.
I think this is a good take, I agree somewhat, but I think it'll get worse before it gets better. Probably we are a generation of two away from it. Maybe Gen Alpha will be somewhat reactionary against social media, but I think whatever generation comes after (beta?) who will have never not known AI significantly more capable than what we have now, will be far more skeptical of social media.
We're also seeing a developing consensus about the risks posed to minors through rampant social media use, and accompanying bans. So I do think the tide is turning.
It's possible that with a nudge that when zoomers become parents the tide could turn on social media for children, as you already are seeing some skepticism of iPad kids
I sure hope so, certainly that's the direction I and at least some of my friends would like to go in. Presuming we manage to become parents.
I think, like I said, there needs to be a nudge. That's not altogether unprecedented, I believe parenting was impacted before by different books and so on published in the 50s and 60s (I can't remember exactly who, but I know there was some doctor who was particularly influential). The thing is, even though these people have let's say fertile soil for making these changes, in that they are personally aware of the effects of the Internet and can see how it's progressing with iPad kids, if they are left on their own they will most likely just follow the dominant trend. You need to personally call these prospective parents to break away and to do the right thing by parenting
Early Gen Z is going to stem the tide I’m pretty sure. They didn’t get brain fried by lockdowns like late Gen Z but also grew up with the impacts of it in middle and high school unlike most millennials.
It's certainly driven me away from it. Don't know about other people.
Rip Ziggy Sobotka
Regarding an earlier comment about progressive Christians, I also think a lot of them have no clue that the secular left is mostly motivated by envy and self-interest, and instead envision a fantasy where leftists sit around thinking about “the common good” and “restorative justice” the way prog-Christians themselves do.
In reality, vast swaths of the mainstream left is mostly motivated by the very hyper-individualism and advancement of their (perceived) “class interests” that the prog-Christian caricature of a libertarian/conservative is.
Progressive Christians imagine politics as being between sleazy reaganite donors who use irrational hatred to distract the masses from the fact that they’re dumping oil into the rivers and 60s-aesthetic lib activists doing a “climate justice circle” and being nice to kids in the inner city.
I’ve talked to them. They assume all leftists support leftist policy for the same reasons they do.
I think you ignore that many "progressive Christians" are progressives first. They are just not real progressive atheists and want to find some religion to prove their worldview is correct, and then they find these progressive churches to join.
I wouldn’t call a few of my family members a “progressive Christians”, but that perfectly sums up their views on things.
You are completely right though. Most left leaning Christians have a sort of social gospel theological interpretation of scripture. The problem is, most of the left is now secular atheists who are motivated purely by self interest like you say. It’s pretty evident to me that the Democratic Party is now a mostly non-Christian party with black evangelicals being the only bastion of Christianity left.
I’ve had the displeasure of having to work around those types of atheists in grad school and they truly are motivated by hyper-individualism, and in my experience they are also some of the most empathy deficient people you will ever meet.
I think we should think of two traditions of individualism.
America for the longest time had an individualism focused on independence, that is the individual not being dependent and seeking self-reliance, and individual duty, that one has a specific and personal responsibility to do the right thing even if others are not.
The current individualism is a sort of atomized hedonism; almost randian in the sense of eschewing community, personal duty and concern for others, but at the same time rejecting the randian hostility to government and instead pursuing government handouts as a means of self enrichment.
Methodological individualism as a working principle is necessary because sub-individual information is not accessible and the aggregated collective is not an entity per se. Individuals are the basic unit of social operation whose interactions form a society and a polity. It is at this level that rights and duties and justice have to operate.
It should not be taken as a concession to the coherence of the individual as a unitary actor.
Least brutal African coup d‘état
https://preview.redd.it/veol2w3dvm8g1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfeb2187aa9a0232ea9401e2bcc4daeccabe3498
Which book is this?
The State of Africa, greatly recommended.
Aggies are Volleyball National Champions beating three #1 seeds back to back to back!
We need what we can get
Showed more grit and fight than our Football team
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-oil-blockade-of-venezuela-pushes-cuba-toward-collapse-75289b5b
Venezuela didn't want to get Grenada'd so under Chavez they sold cheap oil to many neighboring countries to get them to be less noisy about corruption or human rights. For Cuba there was an even more significant strategic mission, upholding that regime always meant that one, they'd have an ally against the US, and that the US would be predisposed to see Cuba as the primary threat, not Venezuela. That made sense pre-fentanyl, pre-Venezualan refugee crisis, and when Cuba was less obviously running on fumes.
If we could bring down both regimes that would be an astounding foreign policy coup.
It's such a shame the admin has braindead Russia positions.
Here's why it's bad actually
Why can’t we deport these terrorists.
To be honest, if someone posted "secularism and democracy are a cancer" here, half of you would agree with it
Yes, but we have different intents. And we don’t adhere to the principle of moral equivalency.
Zina is fornication and fahisha is just generally grave depravity. Add those in
Uh, I don't know what that means man
Oh nevermind, didn't bother watching the rest of the video after I got the gist at the start