In this episode of Hebrew Voices #236 - Jewish Professor Says Nick Fuentes Is Right: Part 1, Nehemia brings on Political Science Professor Michael S. Kochin to discuss what Nick Fuentes gets right, what he gets wrong, and the resulting ideological battle for the heart & soul of America.
I look forward to reading your comments!
Download Audio
Transcript
Hebrew Voices #236 – Jewish Professor Says Nick Fuentes is Right: Part 1
You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.
Michael: What Fuentes wants to do, what these people who are dropping the Judeo from the Christian, what the people preaching against Christian Zionism, what Tucker Carlson wants to do, is bring in notions of Christianity, of white identity, of Europeanism, of Western culture, which are foreign to American civilization. They think that America has failed, that America has failed them, and they want to do something else.
Nehemia: Shalom and welcome to Hebrew Voices. I’m here today with Prof. Michael Kochin, who is a professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University in Israel, although this year, he’s on sabbatical at the Catholic University of America and Hillsdale College, both in Washington D.C. Welcome to the program, Prof. Michael Kochin. We’ve had you on before…
Nehemia: …and we’ve had some amazing conversations about Jewish freedom in America. Today I asked you to come on to talk about this new anti-Semitism, which the most, I would say the most famous, or maybe the most eloquent proponent of, is Nick Fuentes. And I want to summarize at least my perspective on what Nick Fuentes is saying. And this is, people… you might’ve heard of the Groypers, but you’ll hear somewhat similar things, I think, from others as well. And I sent you a clip. I was going to play it, but then he kind of drones on for… he goes on. I mean, look, he’s a very good speaker. He’s very eloquent.
So, I identified three themes in what he says. And you tell me if you agree with these, because I sent you like a 15-minute clip. You know, and here’s the thing about Nick Fuentes; he can go on for two hours and sound very reasonable. And then the mask slips, and he’s like, “Well, the Jews control society!” And so, he says, “Jews are not Europeans. They are not white. They are foreign enemies of European civilization and hate European Christians.” That’s point number one. Point number two… maybe that’s several points, but I’m calling that number one.
There’s “Organized world Jewry wants to eradicate white European civilization because they hate white European Christians.” These are Nick Fuentes’ points.
And number three, “There’s a deliberate and centrally orchestrated Jewish strategy to carry out,” what he calls, “white genocide, and the strategy is to flood white countries with non-white people through unrestricted immigration.” And he says, “This will lead to whites being a minority in their own countries and, hence, losing power. It will also lead to whites mixing with non-whites, resulting in an end of the white race.”
And one of the things that actually propelled him, I would say, to infamy, is that he was speaking to these Republican people he thought were his allies, and they were secretly recording him. And one of these young girls, this is when he was like 18 or 19 or something, said, “Well, what if I had relations with an African American man?” He said, “That would be degenerate, like having sex with a dog.” And ever since, I think his strategy has been, “Well, I can’t pretend I’m not a racist, so I’m just going to embrace it and say I’m a racist.”
So, all right, so, that’s who Nick Fuentes is and what he argues. And although he denies being an anti-Semite, if you say, I don’t know… Is that a fair appraisal of his positions, at least as you’ve encountered them? Maybe it’s not; you’re the professor of political science.
Michael: You know, I’m not so interested in giving a fair appraisal of Fuentes’ positions. I think it’s more important to think about what he’s saying. What is he right about? What is he wrong about? Why does he have such popularity? I think those are more helpful questions than, you know… Because some of the stuff, like the miscegenation comment… you know, I haven’t seen that source, but I assume you have a good source for that.
Nehemia: Oh, it’s a recording of him.
Michael: Right, so, I don’t think it…
Nehemia: And look, he was 19, and it was like two in the morning, and he was chatting with people he thought were his friends.
Michael: And anyway, you know, people say a lot of stupid things all the time. And it’s true that we can play this game of gotcha and discredit people, and sometimes that’s a good idea. But I think right now these ideas are so powerful that, better than trying to pick off their spokesman one by one, which anyway doesn’t seem to be working very well, I think it would be better to assess them as ideas.
Nehemia: I appreciate that. Let me give you… just for the audience, and I’ve shared this before. So, a friend of mine who’s an evangelical Christian in the Dallas area, he was asking his friends, who are roughly like, you know, they’re parents, right, of teenage kids. And so, he was asking his other Christian friends, “So, you know, how is this guy Fuentes going over with your children?” And they’re like, “We don’t know.” And they went and they asked their teenage kids, and all the teenage kids came back and said, “We love this guy. He speaks for us. This is amazing. We’re big fans.” And I’m like okay; we’re in trouble here. And this is… bear in mind, these are like, Zionist Christians, and their teenage kids are like, “Okay, finally someone who speaks for us.”
So, the real question for me is, why is his message being so well received? And that’s where I was hoping you could give me some insights.
Nehemia: So, that’s a fair statement, like, why… Meaning, you could pick off Fuentes; the phenomenon’s not going to go away. Here’s the other thing; the guy who comes after Fuentes might be ten times worse.
Michael: Yeah, I don’t know. I mean, I’m not too worried about that. If I thought the best way to deal with it was to go after Fuentes personally for the terrible things he said as a person, the uninteresting but nasty and terrible things, then I’m like, okay, like, we’ll deal with these guys one at a time. But there are two problems. One is, I don’t think that meets the challenge of the ideas, and second… and I’m an academic, so I’m mainly interested in ideas.
Nehemia: Fair enough, yeah.
Michael: And second, in fact, the efforts to pick off Fuentes haven’t worked. So, we have to take that seriously. You know, it might be a good idea to get him, but we’re not doing that. So maybe we should try something else.
Michael: Just practically.
Nehemia: So. All right. So, you’re a political scientist, so you have a better… You know, I could tell the audience all day long about ancient texts and how to interpret them. I’m not a political scientist. Give us the insight of a political scientist into Nick Fuentes’ ideas.
Michael: So, the most important thing to understand, and this is a tip of a much bigger iceberg, but the most important thing is: what stops people from saying they agree with somebody like Nick Fuentes, some of whose ideas are really terrible when we assess them fairly? The answer is that, in this era of social media, they would think, “Oh, if I express agreement with this, it might be recorded. I might write it somewhere, even at two in the morning when I’m 17 years old, and this could come back and haunt me one way or the other and ruin me professionally.” Okay? But then you have to flip it around, right? You have to ask: if you’re a white guy, or if you’re a young woman whose great dream in life is actually to have a white male provider husband, right, which is a perfectly reasonable dream for a young American woman, how realistic do you think this dream is nowadays in 2025, at the end of 2025? What do you think is standing in your way? What are your prospects of getting this? Of say, if you’re a male, getting the career, getting the family, getting the home in the suburbs that your father probably was able to build. If you’re a girl, getting the kind of husband that hopefully your father was and living the kind of life that your mother lived.
And a lot of people have come to believe that if you’re white in America, this dream is simply out of reach. And it’s not chance, and it’s not external circumstances, it’s the result of decades of political defeat and deliberate policy. That’s what people think, a lot of young people, and so, the incentive that kept people from flirting with extremist ideas that might have existed, you know, 25 years ago or 50 years ago, only exists for people who think they have a path to success in society in ordinary terms. And a lot of young people have been persuaded that that path is not available to them, or is unlikely to be available to them, and therefore, they don’t really have anything to lose.
Michael: And this isn’t my insight; this is the insight…
Nehemia: Okay. So, Fuentes… I’ve watched about 20 hours of his stuff just to get an idea of what we’re dealing with here, and he interacts a lot with his audience. And there was one commenter who sent a message: “I changed my LinkedIn profile to say I support you.” And he said, “Don’t do that. Change it back immediately. We need supporters,” he calls them Groypers. “We need Groypers in positions of power, and you’ll never get in a position of power if you openly and publicly say you support me.”
So, part of his strategy is, “I’m going to say these things. You guys are going to implement it.” And he’s a very intelligent guy. I mean, he says things like, “Most people in power aren’t elected. You need to be the bureaucrats who get into…” But he doesn’t say it in these words, but basically, “You get into, like, deep state, and then you’ll implement these things over the next 20 years.” So, I mean, he’s a very, very intelligent political strategist.
So, a lot of people don’t say they support him publicly, but they’ll show up at an event, and they’ll innocently be asking questions like “why are we sending 3 billion dollars to Israel?” Or something like that. Okay, so, go ahead…
Michael: But if you do that on the record, you’re on the record.
Michael: And everybody knows what that card means nowadays.
Nehemia: But he tells his supporters, “Don’t publicly show support for me. The place to show support is by not going to the ballot box when I tell you, by going to the ballot box when I tell you.” Right? One of his strategies is, “if a bunch of Republicans lose elections, the next round of Republicans will have our ideas baked in or they won’t make it in the primaries.”
Michael: Right. So, you know, people have tried these kind of strategies before, and the problem is, I think he’s… you know, if I try to look ahead, I say, well, where are these people going to be in 10 and 15 years? You know, they might rise in affluence and influence, but if they have, they’re going to have something to lose, and the kind of very radical ideas that he’s pushing…
You know, a lot of people, not so much in our parents’ generation, but in our grandparents’ generation, had very radical ideas. And back then it was called selling out, and almost all of them sold out. So, one’s expectation would be that if people could get ahead in life, they’re not going to get ahead in life and secretly all of a sudden start doing the neo-Nazi things that Fuentes calls for. They’re just going to live bourgeois lives. At least that’s what I expect. I don’t know of any cases in history where people have, you know, kept their ideas to themselves for 20 years, and suddenly, when they’re 40 and they have some power, then they start acting on these ideas that they thought all along. No, people behave when they’re 40 the way that they’ve been behaving for 20 years, and if they’ve been suppressing something for 20 years or not acting on something for 20 years, they don’t suddenly start changing and start doing things differently unless there’s some kind of social breakdown.
But the social breakdown has to be implemented by someone. It’s not going to be implemented by the people who have a stake in society. So, I think, you know, the analysis I gave you before is Tetra’s analysis, not Fuentes’ analysis. That people have been deprived; white people, particularly white males in America, have been deprived of opportunities, and therefore they don’t have an incentive to go along with the system. Therefore, they listen to people like Fuentes. Now, Fuentes may give them this sort of clandestine infiltration strategy. And it sounds cool, but, you know, the only thing we know is what’s happened in the past. And as far as I know, in the past, nothing like that has ever worked. If you look at how these radical ideas take over society, they take them over because systems break down or because people who advocate for these things all along finally get into positions of power where they can do the things that they’ve been supporting and advocating all along, actually acting for, in public.
So, he’s, you know, he’s aware… you have to ask what the game is, to what extent he’s interested in real power and risking things for real power, and to what extent he’s just interested in holding onto his audience. And, you know, if he has an audience that’s five percent or ten percent of young people, that’s a lot of people. That’s a lot of influence. That’s a big dopamine hit. And I’m not sure, you know, where personally he is, and once again, I’m not sure that question’s all that interesting. You know, as soon as somebody’s interested in ideas, I think assessing the ideas is more important.
Nehemia: So, let’s talk about the ideas. So, this is where your expertise as a political scientist comes in. So, to help us assess the ideas, because my gut reaction is, “Well, he’s wrong about everything because he hates Jews.” I don’t know. You know, this is something where I think Jews have a cultural asset, right? Anybody who’s studied the Talmud knows how to take an idea and analyze it from both perspectives, even when you don’t agree with it. And then this is, of course, something academics do extremely well. Maybe that’s why there’s so many Jewish academics, I don’t know.
Michael: Or used to be, right? We’ll get to that.
Michael: So, you know, look, the fact is, I think he’s right about a couple of basic things and he’s wrong about some other things which are maybe more important. He’s right that Jews are different, okay? There was this French Jewish philosopher, Jacques Derrida, who was a postmodern, who was a leftist, who was all these things. Somebody asked me, “Did Derrida ever realize that one day he would be just another dead white European male?” And I said, “Given that, when he was in Algiers in 1943, he was kicked out of high school for being Jewish, this thought probably never crossed his mind, I have to say, that anybody would ever consider him white or European.”
And I met him once in a jazz club in Chicago, and he looked like another short North African Jew, somewhat pudgy and middle-aged at the time I ran into him. And he did not look conspicuously… he was dressed like a Frenchman of that age with some money. But apart from that, he looked like all the French Jews that you see around here of that age.
Nehemia: So, this is Derrida, who anybody who follows the postmodernist ideology, he’s like Foucault and Derrida. These are the names everybody…
Nehemia: He was an Algerian Jew?
Michael: He was an Algerian Jew. Algerian Jew? I think Algerian. And he was kicked out of high school as a non-Aryan. So, like…
Nehemia: He was kicked out of high school in Algeria, under French rule, because he was a non-Aryan.
Michael: Under French Nazi… right. At the time that…
Nehemia: Oh, when the Nazis ruled.
Michael: …before the American invasion. Yeah, when the Nazis dominated the…
Nehemia: Like Vichy France, or whatever.
Michael: …the French government. Vichy France, yeah.
Michael: So, he was kicked out. He was excluded as non-Aryan. And, you know, Jews have been in Europe since the Roman Empire, but they’ve been a foreign element in Europe, right? They were a distinct people under the Romans, and they continued to be a distinct people in Christian Europe, in Muslim Europe, when there was such a thing. There’s not much left of Muslim Europe, but the Jews were always a distinct people. And they have a distinct origin, they have a distinct religion, and this has always set them off. And so, that part of it is really true. And it sets them off in America. They’re a people apart in America. So, that, Fuentes is right about. That’s one thing that he’s correct about.
Another thing that he’s correct about is that the organized Jewish community, Jewish organizations and a few prominent and wealthy Jewish activists, have had a big role in pushing policies that have been bad for your typical American white person. Okay? The US had a massive switch in immigration policy in 1965 to bring in lots of Third World immigration. And most Americans, in my view, correctly, view this to have been a mistake, a policy that was not in the interest of most American citizens, and of native-born Americans, whatever their race or religion. And Jewish organizations were behind this. It’s the Hart-Cellar act of 1965. Jewish organizations were…
Nehemia: When you say they were behind it, do you mean they supported a broader policy…
Michael: They supported it.
Nehemia: …or were they actually behind it? There’s a difference.
Michael: Yes, there’s a difference, and what I should have said is “they supported it”. Okay?
Michael: Now, they were behind it in the political sense, along with other people who had a bigger role.
Nehemia: They backed it, but was it their idea?
Michael: So, that’s an interesting question, which I haven’t looked into closely. The previous immigration reform that had greatly affected and was intended to restrict the entry of Jews and had in fact restricted the entry of Jews in the 20s, had been opposed by the organized Jewish community. And so, an opening up of immigration laws had been on the agenda of the organized Jewish community in America since the 1920s.
Nehemia: Wait, that’s actually really important. So, was it the 1923 Immigration Act that was specifically intended to keep Jews from coming into the United States?
Michael: It was specifically intended to keep Jews from Eastern Europe from coming in. The way it worked was, first of all, it restricted immigration to white people from Europe, and second, it restricted immigration to quotas depending on the proportion of the population that each national group represented in 1880, before the massive Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe.
Michael: So, it didn’t target Jews specifically, but it was the Jews who were leaving Poland, Russian Poland, or Poland, and Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian successor states at the time, and had come in massive numbers from the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire before World War I. And there was a majority in America that wanted that flow pretty much cut off. And the organized Jewish community was very opposed to that. They didn’t want the door to be barred to Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe.
Nehemia: And so, you’re saying, come 40 years later, 1965, they say, “This was against us. Now we’re opposed to immigration limitations.”
Michael: They were part of the coalition that wanted to change the immigration laws. While Ted Kennedy, when he was advocating for this change, said, “We do not have the goal to change the ethnic composition of America,” whatever the quota is. It didn’t have the kind of quotas, depending on the current population, even the 1965 population of America. So, they weren’t looking to maintain an immigration policy that would maintain the ethnic balance of America that exists in 1965. Things would have been very different if that had been the goal.
So, the 1923 Act had looked back to 1880. The 1965 Act didn’t really set relevant limits at all. It had national quotas of various kinds, which have certain effects, but the quotas weren’t well-designed from the point of view of preserving the ethnic balance of America. Even though in 1965 there were not many people willing to stand up and say that they wanted to change the ethnic balance of America, and the advocates of the change said that they did not want to make it change the ethnic balance of America.
Nehemia: Was that their goal, to change the ethnic balance of America?
Michael: No, I think their goal was to hold on… In 1965 the US was still fighting the Cold War, and it held its allies, in part, by allowing their goods and their people into the US. So, it was a way of competing with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not, in 1965, a very attractive immigration destination. And it also was not a big importer of anything that anybody actually wanted to export. And so, the US had these advantages, and they used these advantages to bid for allies against the Soviet Union.
Nehemia: Okay. So, Jewish organizations supported the 1965… are we still under that regime? I have no idea.
Michael: The US is still under that regime. There’s been no substantial immigration reform since 1965. There’s an important caveat to that, as we say in academia, which is that, under the Biden administration, no immigration restrictions were enforced effectively at all. So, the 1965 immigration law does restrict immigration in various ways, and the Biden administration did something which nobody had ever tried before, which is just not to enforce the law. Okay? So, a lot of people came in who had no right of entry, even under the relatively liberal 1965 Immigration Act. And now the Trump administration is trying to deal with the consequences of four years of deliberate non-enforcement.
Nehemia: You know, I was at an academic conference about ten years ago, and there was this lecture about… this was right after Trump was… when he was running. He hadn’t been elected yet. And they were talking about how this is, you know, so horrible, the American nativists… and I don’t even know that I know what a nativist is; maybe you can explain. And I had just spent some time in China, where there is zero immigration, unless you are a native Han Chinese. And you could be fourth generation out of China, but if you’re a descendant of the Han ethnic group in China, which is like 90-something percent of the population, then you have effectively the right to immigrate to China. You’re considered actually a citizen; you just don’t live in China. Right? So, it’s not even considered immigration.
But if you are a non-Han person, and you could marry a Chinese woman and have Chinese children, you’ll never get citizenship. And I raised my hand in the Q&A, and I said, “You’re saying it’s so horrible, American nativism,” whatever that is, “but at the same time you idealize,” because they had talked a little bit about this, “you idealize the Chinese Communist Party and their policies. So, isn’t that a bit hypocritical?” Maybe I’m way off topic, I don’t know.
Michael: Well, the US is playing a different game than China. The US is a settler country. Like other settler countries, it enhances its power by attracting immigrants. But attracting immigrants in what interest? That’s part of the question. In whose interest should immigration policy be made? And the democratic goal would be to have the immigration policy made in the interest of current citizens, because they’re the voters. That’s the demos, that’s the democracy. But that’s not, in fact, what the U.S. has had. Not, at least, since the 1980s.
Nehemia: So, what is the purpose of US immigration? So, you say in the Cold War, it was to lure support from allies.
Michael: It was a diplomatic tool. Like…
Nehemia: What’s the purpose today?
Michael: So, with the 1965 Immigration Act, a lot of people came in who were cheap labor in a lot of industries. At first, cheap labor in agriculture, in unskilled labor, or in service industries where it was unskilled. But since the 80s, we’ve seen a lot of big imports of cheap labor in skilled industries, especially from India. So, in technology, in medicine, in nursing, from places like Africa. There’s a lot of money to be made by importing people who will work in skilled and unskilled jobs for wages that it’s hard to hire native labor.
So, people made a lot of money from the post-1965 immigration rules and from their non-enforcement, because the actual enforcement of the 1965 immigration rules would have resulted in a much more restrictive immigration to the United States than was actually realized. Instead, you’ve had large illegal immigration, I think starting around 1970, and formal amnesty in the 80s under Reagan, and effective non-enforcement, pretty much continuously, since 1965. So, if the rules had actually been enforced, things would be different. There are rules against, for example, hiring illegal aliens. Hardly ever is any employer actually penalized for hiring illegal aliens, even though current laws allow that. And it would be relatively easy to do, far easier than actually deporting people.
Nehemia: And if people aren’t hired, they’re going to leave eventually. So, Nick Fuentes is sitting there in a suburb of Chicago, and he’s looking at all of these… South Park used to have a joke of these, you know, white, you know, rural folks in Colorado saying, “The foreigners are coming to take your jobs.” But you’re saying maybe that’s actually the purpose, isn’t it?
Michael: It was observed that the foreigners were coming to take Americans’ jobs, and there were people who benefited from this, you know?
Nehemia: Meaning, if you’re saying the purpose is to get cheap labor, well, that’s instead of hiring the inner city, you know, African American 20-year-old. I can hire somebody who… he’ll do anything because back in his home country he was getting two dollars a day and didn’t have indoor plumbing.
Michael: Right. So, how politically correct do we have to be in this, Nehemia? Because I can tell you a story from my personal experience.
Nehemia: You’re a political scientist. I mean, we can edit it out if you decide later. I’ll send you the video, and you can decide afterwards if you want to edit it.
Michael: I have tenure, and I don’t worry about these things very much.
Nehemia: Then just tell us the truth.
Michael: I’ll tell you the story. I was at Claremont McKenna College 2014 to 2015, my previous sabbatical in the US. Claremont McKenna is an hour east of Los Angeles. When I first came, the cleaning crews were these American black people, all of them native-born, not young, and frankly, not very hardworking. Okay? For whatever reason, they weren’t really paying the wages. There wasn’t the supervision to get these people to clean effectively. Okay?
A few weeks into my tenure on sabbatical at Claremont McKenna College, these people all disappeared, okay, the handful of them I ran into, and they were replaced by Hispanic people, I’m not sure from where, who spoke no English, and who actually cleaned the building. And so, you could see that even, you know, to say, “Who benefits from this cheap labor, or higher quality labor for the same price or whatever it was?” The answer is, in a way, all Americans benefit. But they benefit differently, okay? They benefit differently. Everybody benefits from cheaper labor going into the cheaper goods that they buy, okay? And some people lose when the foreigners come and take their jobs. And the balance of gains and losses depends on where you’re sitting in society. So, it’s complicated.
Nehemia: Hmm. All right, let’s get back to the complaints of Nick Fuentes…
Nehemia: …which you say some of which are valid.
Nehemia: So, all right. So, Jews supported the 1965 Immigration Act…
Nehemia: …and he sees that as… you know, look, in 2017 there was the Charlottesville protest, which he was at, although he claims he wasn’t at the Tiki Torch rally where they were holding up the torches and they were saying, “The Jews will not replace us! The Jews will not replace us!”
Nehemia: And literally at the time, I remember asking anybody, and I don’t know if I asked you, but I asked a bunch of people, “I don’t understand what they’re talking about. Why would I want to replace them?” I don’t understand. And I literally didn’t understand. And now, I think I’m having a little bit of a better understanding. And you sent me a really interesting article, which I guess is pretty famous now, about TV writers, that there was a… well, talk about that. Because there’s an example where, if you’re a young white man who’s very talented and skilled, then you’re literally and deliberately being replaced. Not by the Jews per se, but by the system.
Michael: Right, so that’s a funny example, because there it’s the Jews who turn out to be replaced. Because this is an industry that 20 years ago was 70 percent Jewish, right? And 70 percent… almost all of those Jews were in fact male, right? It was an industry about as Jewish as the diamond business in New York City, in fact!
Nehemia: Which actually is dominated by Jews. Meaning, I watch these videos online about the Diamond District, and whenever any two people on 47th Street close a deal, they say mazal. And a lot of the people there who aren’t Jewish have no idea what mazal means.
Nehemia: It means… well, whatever. We don’t need to go into it. It’s obviously a Jewish phrase, or it comes from Yiddish, in any event, from Hebrew originally. So, the TV writers who were Jewish were replaced by other groups, and frankly, I don’t know that this is a direct result, but I can’t remember the last time I watched anything on television that was interesting.
Michael: Right. So, that’s part of the puzzle here, right? I mean, they were people like you and me, writing for people like you and me, and it turned out that a lot of people who aren’t much like you and me also were entertained by their productions. And then they were replaced by other people who were not as much like you and me, and who were probably also writing for themselves. But somehow, they are just not as good at it, the people who have replaced them. But the replacement didn’t go on the basis of talent, it went on the basis of racial and gender quotas. And so…
Nehemia: I used to watch… I’ve shared many times; my favorite television show for 20 years was Law & Order in its various iterations.
Nehemia: And in one episode, I’m like,” I’m never watching this again.” I can’t! I can’t bring myself to do it. When they had an episode… and of course, it’s always about violent crimes, they had an episode about… I’m trying to remember what it was. It was toxic masculinity. And I’m like, “This is a series about violent crimes.” By toxic masculinity, they meant masculinity, but it’s about violent crimes! Of course, it’s toxic! If the woman commits the crime, it’s toxic! If the man commits a crime is toxic! I mean, it’s a self-selecting group, or they wouldn’t be on the program! So, you’re going to literally tell me this has something to do with the masculine character? I mean, look, most violent crimes are committed by men. No duh!
Nehemia: And I realize: so, you think I’m stupid. You’re trying to force feed me your political agenda. I’m done, I’m out. I’m out. I’m done. I just can’t… it’s too insulting to watch anymore, and after 20 years I never watched another episode. That was like over five years, maybe, I don’t remember, about five years ago or more.
Nehemia: And look, that’s part of the process you’re talking about. They’re like, “Well, we’ve been criticized because we don’t have enough non-white male people,” many of whom happen to be Jewish, “and so, we’ve got to hire people who are not white. And we also have to have messages that are,” what’s the word, “virtue signaling. Look how virtuous we are. We’re talking about how evil white males are!”
And it’s interesting; you said at the beginning Jews are different. So, I don’t even know that I’m a white male. We could have that discussion. Certainly, according to Nick Fuentes, he openly says I’m not white. Which, I mean, I could care less. It’s all a social construct to some extent. But all right. So, Fuentes has some legitimate things that he’s raising. Meaning, it wouldn’t go over if he wasn’t saying some things that were true.
Nehemia: What else is he saying that’s valid, or that you can agree with?
Michael: So, if you look at the Civil Rights Movement, that had Jewish support, you look at the attempt to decriminalize crime, led by what their advocates call reform prosecutors, right? The ideology comes in part from Jews, and the funding comes in large part from a single Jewish man named George Soros. And, you know, he led this campaign, and he has defended it even after it’s been critiqued. Now, he’s quite elderly now, but his organizations were pushing these reforms. His organizations were pushing open borders everywhere, in Israel also, all over Europe and in America, and they were pushing policies that their opponents, among whom I’m one, regard as soft on crime and bad for society.
Nehemia: Why were George Soros and other people of his ilk pushing open borders? I genuinely don’t understand.
Michael: Right. I think George Soros hates freedom, and democratic freedom applied to immigration means immigration restriction. And so, he hates freedom. He wants everybody enslaved.
Nehemia: Oh! Wait. So, I’m sorry, explain. I lost you. So, democratic freedom… explain that again.
Michael: Immigration restriction means we, the citizens of our country, decide on who to let in based on what’s good for us. Just like we decide other things based on what’s good for us. And Soros thinks that people do not deserve freedom; they should be ruled unaccountably by bureaucrats trained in institutions he influences.
Nehemia: And he really believes that that’s a good thing?
Nehemia: I mean, it seems that way, effectively.
Michael: You know, I can’t find a source where he explains this clearly, but there was a guy named Gellner who wrote a book on Wittgenstein and the National Question, something like that, where he says the goal is to colonize absolutely everybody absolutely everywhere. In other words, everybody should be ruled in the way that colonial peoples are ruled by colonizing powers. That is the goal. And this man, Gellner, was plucked out and put in, in Budapest as the professor of social science when Soros created his university in Budapest after the fall of communism.
Nehemia: Is Gellner a Jew?
Michael: Gellner is, of course, a Jew of Czech origin who spent his career in England, mostly before he went back to Central Europe.
Nehemia: So, when Fuentes sees this, he says this is the Jewish agenda.
Nehemia: You’re showing in what sense he’s right. In what sense is he wrong?
Michael: Yeah. Well, there are Jews on the other side, right?
Michael: You know, Stephen Miller is the most prominent spokesman on immigration restriction in the Trump White House. He wants to deport all the illegals, and so do I. And plenty of Jews want law and order. Plenty of Jews don’t want policies that are soft on crime. Plenty of Jews don’t want affirmative action, especially now that affirmative action has come to pass to deprive Jews of opportunities. So, you know, there are Jews on the other side.
In a sense, part of the story of the modern world since the emancipation of Jews is that lots and lots of ideas are Jewish ideas, in the sense that Jews are pretty much found… wherever ideas are being developed, wherever culture is being produced, Jews have a disproportionate role. So, all ideas are Jewish ideas.
Nehemia: Why is that? All ideas are Jewish ideas? You heard it from the professor from Tel Aviv University.
Michael: In the West, in a sense, all ideas are Jewish ideas, because pretty much any idea you find, you’ll find a disproportionate place for Jews in its development, critique, marketing.
Nehemia: Why is that? Why are Jews disproportionately represented in generating ideas? There’s not a disproportionate number of Jewish basketball players or bricklayers. Why are Jews disproportionately… And I don’t know the answer. Maybe you don’t either, I don’t know. Is there an answer?
Michael: I think we’re bred to it. There was a book by Van Den Haag, The Jewish Mystique, I think, where he said, “Look, the easiest way to reproductive success, where our ancestors came from, in Lithuania in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, was to be a master Talmudist. You could get married earlier, you could have more kids, you could get a relatively rich wife if you were truly a superlative Talmudist, and you could have a bunch of kids. And that was reproductive success. And a gentile who had the same skill with texts and ideas was likely to join the priesthood and have no kids at all.”
Michael: So, that was his explanation. Now, people have looked at this and asked whether, quantitatively, this really explains the whole thing. But the fact of the matter is, you know, I’ve heard it said that half of all the serious books in the United States are bought by Jews.
Nehemia: Are bought by Jews?
Michael: Are bought by Jews. Half of all the serious fiction, half of all the serious nonfiction. That means 5 million Jews are outbuying… you know, they’re buying as much as their 270 million or whatever, 300 million fellow Americans. Okay? So, you know, that’s a lot of consumption and production of ideas. You know, there are other things that are true about Jews. Jews don’t hunt. Okay? Jews… there are sports like…
Nehemia: Hey, speak for yourself! I’ve shot three deer in my life.
Michael: You’ve shot three deer in your life…
Nehemia: I have one up on my wall right over here.
Michael: Okay, well nonetheless…
Nehemia: Actually, I have two on my wall.
Michael: Yeah. But you know, Nehemia, that you stand out very greatly…
Nehemia: No, and it was a very deliberate… Like, in other words, I had to go out of my way to say, “I want to have the experience in my life of hunting.” I don’t know anybody who hunts! There isn’t a single person in my Jewish… I don’t have a father who hunted, a grandfather, a great-grandfather. I don’t have cousins who hunt. So, I found somebody who owned a property in Texas, and I told him my aspiration was to hunt. He said, “I will take you,” and he literally took me out and virtually held my hand and taught me how to do it. And he was literally right there beside me, and he showed me what to do. And when I messed up, he helped me fix it. And I was able to shoot three deer. But it was, it was a very deliberate and calculated thing where I said, “I want to have that experience in life where I hunt and get to eat food that I killed myself,” which I know Orthodox Jews won’t do but…
Michael: Well, we will do it, but you have to hunt in a very different way from what you…
Nehemia: Right. You have to trap it, basically, and then slaughter it with a certain type of knife.
Michael: Yeah. So, you know…
Nehemia: So, what you’re saying is, Jews have certain things they’re really good at and other things they’re, culturally let’s say, that they’re not good at. Because I was perfectly fine once I was taught how to do it, but I had no role model to look to in the Jewish world to teach me how to hunt, right? So, all right…
Michael: It’s something completely alien to us, and you’ve chosen to do it. And, you know, in theory, I could do it if it would be in a way that I would eat as an Orthodox Jew. But I’m not going to, you know!
Nehemia: I don’t think it would be legal in the United States. And look, it’s not practical to… a deer with horns where with antlers might kill you if you tried to cut its throat, so…
Michael: Well, all these animals might kill you. If you’ve ever been to the slaughterhouse, you know that they all have a serious interest in not having their throat cut, and you have to know what you’re doing or you get, at least kicked in the head, if not worse.
Nehemia: That’s probably right. I’ve never done the slaughtering either, so I don’t know.
Michael: So, yeah, but the thing is, yeah… Since Jewish emancipation, no idea gets anywhere without Jews having a big, large part in marketing and selling it. And this is even true of anti-Semitism. Some of the classic anti-Semitic literature was…
Nehemia: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So, Hitler had some ideas, and he wrote a book…
Nehemia: …which I’ve tried to read and was not capable of getting through it, because it was so badly written. But maybe I’m not his target audience. I saw this podcaster who said that anybody who says he read Mein Kampf is probably lying, because very few people have actually read through the whole thing. In any event…
Michael: Well, I read through the whole thing, though not… I was taking it to the gym at Princeton, where I was on sabbatical, and I realized eventually that I probably shouldn’t be seen reading Mein Kampf in Princeton. So, I read it in my office, but I did read the whole thing…
Nehemia: Okay, but you’re a professor of political science. So, seriously, who were the Jews who were selling the ideas of the National Socialist German Workers Party?
Michael: Anti-Semitism… Right. So, with the Nazi Party itself, they were pretty careful to exclude Jews from their activists. It’s not known how many Jews actually voted for the Nazis in various elections, but there’s some evidence that the proportion was not all that much lower than that of non-Jewish Germans.
Nehemia: They voted for the Nazi party…
Michael: So, you have stories like Gunther Plout, who said that he went to Breslau to the Reform Rabbinical Seminary, and he left because the students were all pro-Hitler. And this is like, you know, ’32 or ’33 or whatever, and he couldn’t hack it. He didn’t like it. So, you know, the young Jews in ’32, ’33, a lot of them were extreme nationalists, about the same proportion as other Germans. And among the nationalist parties, not so few of them, up until Hitler assumed power, seemed to have supported Hitler. But there aren’t good surveys, really, one can rely upon, and of course, the whole subject is extremely touchy, given what happened afterwards.
Nehemia: So, Fuentes, one of the things he says is, “I’m not an anti-Semite. I have a lot of Jews who support me.”
Nehemia: And you’re saying there were Jews who supported Hitler as late as 1932.
Michael: There’s no question that there were lots of Jews who voted for Hitler. There’s lots, and probably not proportionate to their population in the Germans, but still a lot.
Nehemia: Explain that to somebody who’s not Jewish, who doesn’t understand Jewish culture. And particularly, you said, “Fuentes is right that Jews are different. Jews are a different civilization.” I’m going to say this. Jews are a separate civilization within European civilization and non-European civilization. And so, Jews are different. And so, how could a Jew support German nationalism? Because, in other words, Fuentes would say, “Well, if you’re Jewish, you’d say, I’m not a German, I’m not an American.” Well, in America it’s different, okay, let’s leave that aside. Yeah…
Michael: So, we have to think about America separately…
Nehemia: And you said something really profound. I think it was in one of our previous interviews, or maybe you said it before or after one of the interviews, that Jews invented German culture so they could belong to something. Talk about that.
Michael: So, everywhere, cultural nationalism is disproportionately a Jewish project. Everywhere where there were Jews and there was cultural nationalism, Jews had a big role, in some places a decisive role, in the development of that cultural nationalism. So, if you look at Arabic music… Arabic music, the impresarios were all Jewish to a substantial degree, the performers were all Jewish. You look at German literature, right? The study of German literature as an intellectual subject was basically invented by Jews, okay? Klemper, who himself was a Jewish literature professor, said the Jews invented Goethe. In other words, the Jews identified Goethe as a culturally significant person. They invented the idea of cultural significance. They created an entire cult of Goethe as the consummate German writer and Renaissance man, and they taught this and spread this throughout Germany until they convinced a lot of people that this was true.
And in the US, you look at the people who invented the study of America as a civilization, as a culture. To a great degree, these people were Jewish. The last of the major people was, you know… his teachers were other people, but was Sack Van Berkovich, right? He was named after Sacko and Vanzetti by his Jewish socialist parents up in Canada.
Nehemia: His first name was Sacko?
Michael: Sack Van, Sack Van… Sacko and Vanzetti.
Nehemia: Oh, Sack Van Berkovich? I’ve never heard of him.
Michael: He was, when I was at Harvard, he was the guy who taught Puritan literature to Harvard students. He was the main professor of Puritan literature at Harvard University, teaching Puritanism to the descendants of the Puritans. The great book on the Declaration of Independence, right? There’s a great book by Felix Gilbert, for example, a German-Jewish historian who ran away from Hitler. So…
Nehemia: So, to what extent is this deliberate, where a Jew says, “I want to be a German, and so, I have to emphasize German culture as opposed to German race?”
Michael: As opposed to German race or Christianity.
Nehemia: Or Christianity. Interesting, yeah.
Michael: Yeah, so, to a substantial extent, it is deliberate. There’s no question.
Nehemia: Is there a central Jewish organization where people are sitting around with their kind of like hats and bright lights, and they’re counting their shekels, and they’re saying, “How do we get to be German? We have to go read Goethe.” I mean, that’s not happening, right? Or is it? I don’t know. You tell me, you’re the political scientist.
Michael: There are people with ideas who are spreading them, and they’re certainly… You know, I’m not a historian of assimilationism, but assimilationism was a movement. There was a conscious decision. Okay? Somebody like Mendelssohn translates the Bible into German for Jews. He makes a Jewish translation of the Bible into German. Not because Jews needed to know the Bible; they could read the Bible in Hebrew with the Hebrew commentators, or there were Yiddish commentaries, but they need to know German. And he thought this was a way to teach them German and enable them to become German and be a part of German society. Now, the slogan of Mendelssohn was, to be a man in the streets and a Jew at home, right? He didn’t want to end Jewish identity. He was assimilationist only in the sense that you should participate fully in the benefits of modern society.
Nehemia: Can you explain assimilationism? I’m not sure it means the same in the Jewish cultural context as it means in the American melting pot context. Or maybe it does. I don’t know, you tell me.
Michael: Yeah, you know, that’s part of the issue, right? I mean, we have to talk about this. To go through it, you know, it would take a long time, but maybe we’ll do that tonight. But America’s had a pretty simple test for what it meant to assimilate to being American or integrate into America, which is, you obey the law and you’re loyal to the government. Okay? And the Fuentes types, and these people who were just asking questions, they talk a lot about dual loyalties. Dual loyalties are not a new thing in America, okay? When John Jay shows up in Paris to negotiate the peace with the British, Franklin and Adams, who were his co-negotiators, decide that Jay…. they have a problem with Jay because they think that Jay, who’s of French Huguenot ancestry… in other words, his ancestors were Protestants who fled persecution in France and came to America, is too anti-French. He’s preserved these old-world hatreds of the king of France, who was the primary ally of the United States, right, of a French government which is pretty much removed from this policy of persecution, not actively persecuting anybody in the early 1780s, and he has these resentments and fears about France that they don’t share. And they find this kind of odd, right?
So, this goes all the way back, right, to John Jay, one of the founding founders, author of the Federalist Papers. He was somebody who had, you know, inherited hatreds that he somehow picked up from his ancestors, who were these formerly French Protestant emigrants. So, you know, it’s just part of your country of settlement. That means you’ve taken immigrants, and the immigrants bring with them skills that you need. And they bring with them religious diversity, to which the US government is officially indifferent, as we discussed at great length in another podcast, and they also bring with them an attitude toward the countries they came from. In some cases, favorable, in some cases un-favorable. And that’s part of what you get when somebody comes.
Now, it’s a requirement that everybody who immigrates to the United States is expected eventually to naturalize. And when they naturalize, they have to renounce foreign loyalties, okay? But that doesn’t mean you renounce foreign resentments. You know, human beings don’t work that way, okay? And even foreign sentiments maybe you don’t renounce. And what’s expected is that you obey the law, and when the US comes into conflict with whoever, you always take the American side. That’s what America has expected from people who…
Nehemia: So, do you think that the accusation of dual loyalty has some truth to it in the case of Jews?
Michael: Well, I think since most of us think that a Jew who isn’t supportive of Israel is a bad Jew, I would have to say yes.
Michael: Yes. We’re all expected to be loyal to Israel. We’re all expected…
Nehemia: But a significant percentage aren’t. I heard about a survey recently where something like 10 to 20 percent of Jews under the age of 25 are anti-Israel in America.
Michael: Jews do all kinds of bad things, you know? They steal money, they cheat on their taxes, they support bad political programs, and they’re anti-Israel. Like, you know, like…
Nehemia: And the analogy I heard is, if you have… what is that Armenian lady’s name? I forget what her name is… Kim Kardashian.
Nehemia: Well, Kasparian’s different because she’s a…
Michael: Right. Anti-Semite.
Nehemia: Well, she’s an anti-Semite, and it seems like she’s anti-Armenian, pro-Turkish. But if you have someone like, you know, Kim Kardashian, of course she has an affinity for Armenia, right? That’s where her ancestors came from, and if there’s a dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, I wouldn’t expect her to say, “Well, I could care less because, you know, I’m American.” No! Of course she sides with Armenia!
Nehemia: And in that respect, it would be surprising for Jews not support Israel, but when there’s a conflict between… thankfully there haven’t been conflicts between America and Israel, right? Meaning, there might be conflicting interests, but… And I could say from a Tanakh perspective, and also from a Rabbinical perspective, there’s a principle of dina d’malkhuta dina, that you have to be loyal and obedient to whoever the government that rules you, that you’re a citizen of, well, that you’re a subject of.
Nehemia: And from Jeremiah 29 is a famous passage. He says, “Go to the cities where you’re going to be and pray for their peace because their peace is your peace.”
Nehemia: Right? You have a vested interest in the country where you are a subject, right? Let’s say after Westphalia, that’s not cities, that’s countries, right? But anyway, let’s not get into that. All right. So, Fuentes has some valid points, you’re saying, and so, one of his ideas is that this isn’t just that there’s Jews who support Marxism and there’s Jews who support capitalism, but there’s a Jewish conspiracy to flood America with Third World immigrants deliberately for the purpose of replacing white power and the white man.
Michael: Right. So, that was an idea that was articulated by certain Jews and by certain Jewish groups, okay? And you have the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, what used to be the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, which specialized in bringing in Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. And then, when that basically ceased with the immigration from the former Soviet Union of everybody who wanted to leave, they had to look for somebody new to keep their organization going. And the people that they found to bring in were very heavily Muslims, and they were very heavily Muslim Jew haters. And so, they changed their name from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society to H-I-A-S, which no longer officially stands for anything so as not to alienate the Jew haters that they’re bringing into America. And if you ask, “Why are they bringing in Jew haters to America?” Well, some of it is just bureaucratic empire building, and some of it is this actual ideological view, which Fuentes has correctly identified, that they feel that the position of Jews as a minority is safer in a country that does not have a dominant majority.
Nehemia: So, you’re saying there are Jewish…
Michael: This is something that people are…
Nehemia: Wait, this is really important. You’re saying there are Jewish institutions, let’s say institutions made up of Jews, I feel more comfortable saying that. But Jewish institutions…
Michael: No. I corresponded with an official Jewish coordinating institution about whether HIAS should be counted as Jewish now that they’ve officially de-Judaized, and he said they still count. And I said, “They’re working to harm Jews in every way possible, but okay.”
Nehemia: So, HIAS is the Hebrew… hold on. The Hebrew…
Michael: It used to be the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, but it’s not. It doesn’t stand for anything anymore.
Nehemia: It’s officially called HIAS now?
Michael: It’s officially called HIAS now.
Nehemia: And the H in HIAS is “Hebrew”?
Michael: It used to be Hebrew, now it’s just an H.
Nehemia: Look, and I once asked my grandmother, “Why Chicago, of all places, did you end up?” And she said that there was, and I think it was HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, if I’m not mistaken; she said, “They didn’t want all the Jews to be in New York. They wanted to spread them out a little bit.”
Michael: They wanted to spread them out, yeah.
Nehemia: “And we were used to the cold, so it wasn’t a big deal for us.” You know, we came from Lithuania, it was very cold, we could handle Chicago. And Minnesota, on my father’s side. So, I didn’t know this, that HIAS is bringing in, you’re saying specifically, or a lot of Muslim immigrants, and they… So, Fuentes is right about this? That there’s Jewish institutions that are deliberately bringing in non-white Christians in order to water down the non-white Christian population and make Jews feel safer? That’s what you said?
Michael: This is an actual policy of some Jews. Okay? And they’ve carried it to such an extent…
Michael: …that they’re bringing in Jew haters to dilute the white majority of America. They’re consciously doing it. There are Jews who are really doing this, and there are other Jews like me who are saying, “This is bad, please stop,” and “not in my name!” You know? Who support the Trump administration trying to enforce immigration laws and pass more restrictive ones.
Nehemia: Okay, so, is this a distinctively Jewish project? In other words, I guess what I’m asking is, are there other forces in American culture, American society and American government, who are, and I’m asking, I don’t know the answer to this; are they deliberately bringing in non-white Christians for the purpose of weakening the power of non-white men?
Michael: So, there are Christian organizations that are doing this big time. Catholic relief agencies, Lutheran relief agencies. Their goal is a bit different, okay?
Nehemia: What is their goal?
Nehemia: What is their agenda? I know nothing about it.
Michael: I think their agenda is to… first of all, they do bring in a lot of Christians.
Michael: Second… especially from Latin America. But also, their mission is to evangelize, right? I mean, if you think about it, Rome didn’t do too well from the Barbarian invasions, but the Church won. It Christianized all the barbarians. So, if all you care about is spreading Christianity and preaching Christianity, it’s not clear that democracy matters, that nationalism matters, that national loyalty matters, that effective government matters. What you want is a chance to preach Jesus to people, and immigration gives you that chance. You can’t preach to these people in Pakistan or Afghanistan. You have to bring them to the US.
Nehemia: So, you’re saying that this is perhaps the agenda of the Lutheran evangelical organization, or whatever you call it.
Michael: … Lutheran relief. It’s certainly the agenda of the Catholic Church. The Pope has made clear he’s in opposition to any immigration restriction in the United States, right? Our American Pope from Chicago. White Sox fan. Go, White Sox! But still, you know, he’s good on the White Sox, he’s not good on everything.
Nehemia: Well, I’m from the North Side, so I’m more of a Cubs person, but whatever.
Michael: Oh, you’re a Cubs person? Oh, boy!
Nehemia: Yeah. So, I’m not really into sports anyway, so… Those are old world…
Michael: I made the mistake of taking you to a White Sox game once, and we didn’t watch. We sat and talked…
Nehemia: That’s the only White Sox game I was ever at in my life, just for the record. In any event, so, let me ask this; when Fuentes says, and I think he believes, “This is the Jews doing this.” Is it the Jews? Or are there Jews who do this, and there are Jews doing other things? Meaning, you basically answered that, but I want you to reiterate that point.
Michael: Yeah, so, there are Jews who support…
Nehemia: Look, the title of this episode is going to be Fuentes is Right About the Jews. I mean, that’s what you’re telling me.
Michael: Right, so, there are things he’s right about, and there are things that he exaggerates. The policies that Jews have favored, nowhere, except in Israel, have the Jews managed to do something that the Gentiles didn’t want, right? Israel was created as a country so the Jews could rule themselves regardless of what the Gentiles wanted, right? And that’s what we do most of the time, with due respect for foreign powers and all that and international law. But in America, or in Europe, or anywhere else, Jews are a minority, and insofar as Jewish organizations have been effective, they’ve been effective because they’ve persuaded people and build coalitions and gain support.
Nehemia: So, in other words, Jews are…
Michael: … there are Jews on both sides.
Nehemia: So, you made this statement to me before the program.
Nehemia: I want you to expand upon this, that it’s not that the Jews are controlling American society through some secret agenda, although maybe to some extent that’s true, but you said the Jews persuaded people by writing books and giving speeches.
Nehemia: So, talk about that.
Michael: So, that’s, you know, that’s what they did. The same way they sold Marxism. How did the Jews sell Marxism to the Chinese, right? It’s not because Chinese Jews wanted Marxism and pulled some… there were essentially no Chinese Jews in 1949, or during the revolutionary years in China. So, you know, Jews wrote books, Jews gave lectures, Jews organized political parties, Jews organized transnational political movements, Jews published journals, and they spread ideas. And they spread all kinds of ideas because that’s what we do. All ideas, since emancipation, in the West and in the globalized West, have been pushed disproportionately by Jews because, you know, that’s our thing, right? We’re in the idea business. Just like we’re in the diamond business. And so…
Michael: … Jews had a disproportionate role but…
Nehemia: Well, if you look in America, on the American Right, you have Prager University, you have Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin…
Nehemia: …who are three of the most influential, let’s say, conservative organizations in America…
Nehemia: …and then you have George Soros, who I guess isn’t American. Or I don’t know if he is…
Nehemia: He is American? Okay, I didn’t know that. And isn’t… Well, let’s not get into Soros. And you have, I don’t know who the leftist Jews are, because I’m not a Jewish leftist… But, well, I mean, yeah, you have people like Ezra Klein, who I only know because he has interacted with some of the conservative Jews that I follow. So, okay, wow. So, that’s what Fuentes got right. What did he get wrong?
Michael: So, there are a couple things.
Nehemia: You’ve got to save us here; you’ve got to bring it back home.
Michael: Right, right. So, there are a couple important things that Fuentes gets wrong. First of all, he doesn’t recognize that on all the questions that he has a position, there are Jews on both sides, okay? And sadly, this also includes anti-Semitism. Second, he’s wrong, and this is kind of a big deal, he’s wrong that the Jewish advocacy of progressive positions necessarily serves Jewish interests. In the clip that you sent me, Fuentes articulates a peculiar kind of relativism where he assumes that every racial group, every ethnic group, knows its own good and seeks its own good. And Jews seek their own good at the expense of white people, and blacks seek their own good, for example, by supporting soft-on-crime policies, which benefit blacks, and white people need to do the same thing; they need to support policies that put whites first and that will benefit whites. And the problem is that neither of his examples are actually true, right? Black crime mostly victimizes black people, and black people are the biggest losers from non-enforcement of criminal law.
Nehemia: Someone’s going to clip this out of context. “Tel Aviv University professor says black people are the biggest losers.” Hopefully they won’t do that, but anyway… because there’s a context there.
Michael: As I said, I have tenure. You know…
Nehemia: They can do what they want.
Michael: As long as I say things I believe and that I can back up, I’m not too worried about the consequences…
Nehemia: Okay, well. I was joking, but maybe not. And we’re going to put a link on nehemiaswall.com to the clip I sent you from Fuentes. And look, like I said, I’ve watched about 20 hours of his stuff, and he can go on for two hours and say nothing that doesn’t sound reasonably, maybe a little bit extreme conservative, then the mask falls and he talks about how, you know, most blacks should be put in prison, and… I mean, look, there’s famous clips that people, and like you said, some of those are gotcha, but I think he’s really sincere in the clip that I sent you.
Michael: And so, he’s sincere, and he’s sincerely wrong. He’s sincerely wrong that black people support soft-on-crime policies because they’re good for black people. Okay? Some black people support those policies, and insofar as they do, they are deceived; they are misled about what is good for black people. What’s good for black people is law and order. People who want to live decent lives, who want to live law-abiding lives, the force of society is put on the side of the law.
Nehemia: So, why was there this… and I don’t know the answer, so I really want your input here… so, Black Lives Matter, BLM, was advocating for “defund the police” and saying that, if you don’t want to defund the police then you’re a white racist, or you’re in favor of black persecution. And you’re saying that’s actually against the interest of African Americans.
Michael: It’s against the interest of black people, right? It wasn’t black people…
Nehemia: So, why did they do it?
Michael: Partly they did it because they got money from the Ford Foundation for doing it. I mean, you know, they were paid! They were paid activists, and who paid them? The white power structure in America paid them! Why did the white power structure in America pay them? That’s an interesting question.
Nehemia: Why did they pay them?
Michael: That’s a deep question. But that…
Nehemia: Because the Ford Foundation isn’t pro-Jewish, right? Meaning, Ford was anti-Semitic.
Michael: Well, yeah, but the Ford Foundation hasn’t done what the Ford family wanted to do in a long time.
Michael: The Ford family lost control of them around 1950.
Nehemia: So, why did the Ford Foundation fund Black Lives Matter then, in order to cause problems for black people, because, like you said, who suffers from black crime? Mostly black people.
Michael: Black people, right. So, the analysis of society that says that it’s the people who are victimized by crime who benefit disproportionately from law and order, is not the one that the officers of the Ford Foundation believe in. They have bad ideas. What can I say?
Nehemia: What are their ideas? What is their justification for saying… I mean, look, you know, another thing I did around the time I started learning about hunting is, I said, “No one in my family, going back, perhaps, to the Bar Kokhba revolt, has owned a weapon. And one of my goals in life… and this was after I saw the Yazidi genocide in northern Iraq, and then I heard a report about how the chief rabbi of Belgium petitioned whoever it was in Europe, whoever their authorities are, asking that the guards in Jewish synagogues be allowed to carry guns. And they were denied. And I said, “Okay, I’ve got to get a gun.” I’ve never owned a gun, my father’s never owned a gun. Nobody who I know outside of the Israeli army… but there you don’t even own the gun, has ever owned a gun in my history, in my lineage. But I need to own a gun, because when they come for me, I’m going to try to defend myself.
Nehemia: I forget why I shared that story. What were we talking about?
Michael: You wanted a gun. You wanted a gun, and the Jews have to defend themselves, and these people, the same people, the same Ford Foundation, the same Bloomberg Foundation that funds Soros, they also fund anti-gun stuff. Now, with Soros, it’s clear that there’s just an anti-freedom agenda. Armed people are free people, and Soros hates freedom. He wants everybody to be enslaved to transnational bureaucracies, which means we can’t be armed against the bureaucrats. But with the Ford Foundation, I think it’s just stupidity. Like, they just don’t agree with me, and the reason they don’t agree with me is not based on good reasons. There are some arguments, right? If you have law enforcement, it’s going to hurt criminals and unfortunately, black people in America are… criminal activity… black people are disproportionately represented.
Nehemia: I remember why I was telling the story. So, in Texas you’re required… well, at the time you were required to get a license. You’re not anymore.
Nehemia: So, I went and I took a class, and there were like, I don’t know, 40, 50 people in the class. I think there were two or three non-African Americans in the class. And the teacher went around, and he was an off-duty law enforcement, you know, a police officer, and he asked everybody, “Why do you want a gun?” And I shared my reason. “The chief rabbi of Belgium begged for guns, and he wasn’t allowed to have them. I have the right to bear arms in America. I’m going to get one. It would be irresponsible not to.” And most of the black people in the class said, “What do you mean? I live in the worst neighborhood. I’d be an idiot…” And most of them are women, frankly.
Michael: Right, right. “God made man, and Sam Colt made them equal,” is a slogan that sold a lot of Colt revolvers back in the day.
Nehemia: So, you’re saying the people who suffer from crime, in their name there was an attempt… or not just an attempt, a successful project, to defund police, and they’re the ones who suffer.
Nehemia: So, this is important, because in the name of Jews, things have been done in America that Jews are suffering from.
Nehemia: Okay. So, it’s not that it’s the Jews… I don’t know. So, I mean, this is complicated, right? Meaning, you’re saying there are Jews on both sides because Jews generate ideas. All right.
Nehemia: So, you mentioned to me before the program about Huntington, who I’d never heard of. I know about Huntington who collected manuscripts at Oxford University, but that was like 400 years, 300 years ago. So, talk about the Huntington analysis of civilization.
Michael: So, Huntington, he was a political science professor, government professor, at Harvard. He’d been teaching there for a while when I showed up in the late 80s. I took one class with him. On what was actually taught to undergraduates back then in the late 80s, he was probably the most influential person. He himself was a conservative Democrat. He’d been on the National Security Council in the Carter administration, and he’d always identified with the Democratic Party. And Huntington wrote two books that I think are of special importance to this discussion. One was called The Clash of Civilizations and the Problem of the World Order, and the later book was called Who Are We? which was about American identity in the face of mass immigration.
Michael: And in these books, he articulated a concept of civilization. He said, “The driving force of international conflict is civilizational difference. There are identifiable civilizations that are distinct from one another. There are cleavages, there are borders between these civilizations. That tends to be where wars are fought out.” So, for example, if you look at the Ukraine-Russian conflict, it’s a lot of things, but one of them is it’s a conflict between a largely Catholic people, the Ukrainians, and the Russian Orthodox people. And Huntington says that there’s a civilizational dividing line between the Orthodox and the Catholics. He thought that America was a distinct civilization. He, most of the time, seems to have articulated that Jews were a separate civilization. Certainly, I remember him saying that in the lecture course in Comparative Politics. His last line of the entire course was, “every Jewish country is democratic.”
Nehemia: There’s only one!
Michael: That was a joke, but it was also…
Nehemia: Well, was he referring to the United States as a Jewish country in that context, or no?
Michael: No, he was talking about Israel.
Nehemia: Oh, he meant Israel.
Michael: He meant Israel.
Nehemia: Wait, so, if there’s a clash of civilizations and Jews are a separate civilization, is Fuentes right? That there’s a conflict between white Christian Europeans and Jewish civilization?
Michael: No, it’s just that we’re different. It’s just that we’re different. And in my view, any attempt at an alliance across civilization or boundaries is inherently temporary and fragile. You know, there was a time when the Jews and the Iranians were allied against the Arabs, and there was a subsequent time when the Iranians and the Arabs were allied against the Jews. And there was a time when the Byzantine Empire brought in these Latin Crusaders to fight against the Muslims. And there was a time when the Latin Crusaders sacked Constantinople, conquered the Byzantine Empire, whereupon the Greeks, who were trying to reconquer their empire from the Latins, recruited Muslims, and the Latins also recruited Muslims to fight their fellow Christians. But different Christians; Greek Orthodox Christians versus Latin Western Catholic Christians. So, there are cleavages. And across these cleavages, you know, everything is kind of iffy and fragile. It’s kind of up in the air. No ties are really permanent. You know, and…
Nehemia: Something someone pointed out to me is, in December… We’re actually recording this shortly after, but it’ll be broadcast in a few months. So, there was this AmFest, which was, Turning Point USA had this conference, and I’m told it’s perhaps the largest conservative conference in years. At Turning Point USA, people used to talk about Judeo-Christian civilization or Judeo-Christian values, and the word Judeo has been dropped. And now they’re…
Michael: That could be. You know, I…
Nehemia: That’s what I was told, I don’t know.
Michael: Okay. But, you know, right…
Nehemia: Well, that speaks to what you said, that all alliances are temporary.
Michael: All alliances are temporary. Rosenzweig identified distinctive Christian, Muslim, and Jewish positions, and as my recollection, this is either Rosenzweig or somebody’s commentary on Rosenzweig, my friend, Irad Kimchi, that any two of the three can be allied against the third based on different principles. But they’re all different, and if you don’t share the basic things that make up a civilization… and people attacked Huntington because he never gave a definition of civilization. But I think that may be a strength. It’s an empirical reality that human beings are divided in this way.
Nehemia: What does that mean, an empirical reality?
Michael: Not just by nations, not just by religion.
Nehemia: Translate that into the English of someone with a high school diploma.
Michael: It means that Japanese people are really different. They have a different outlook on the world, they want different things, even their attitude towards religion, towards God, is in some ways distinctively Japanese. And the Chinese are different, and the subcontinental Indians are different, and the various Indian tribes are pretty different from each other, some of them, as well as being different from anybody who’s not an American Indian. And Jews are different.
Nehemia: So, you know, I was a young liberal when I went to college, and I took a class in cultural anthropology, and I was horrified. I said, “Everybody’s an individual. How can you say that there is a certain attribute that, you know, a particular group has?” And I studied cultural anthropology, and I don’t know if this is an aspect of liberal ideology, but cultural anthropology, which is probably one of the most liberal disciplines, cured me of liberalism. Because I’m like, “Okay, so, there are certain things that I take for granted as part of my Jewish culture, and I just say that’s because I’m just like kind of this independent thinker. But I’m so deeply immersed in the Jewish culture that I don’t realize that there are certain things that are baked into my outlook on life.” And then sometimes I oppose those things; the things that are baked in is the very thing I’m against because I kind of have a visceral reaction to, like, in my case it’s tradition, right? But I need to acknowledge that that’s part of my cultural background, right?
Nehemia: Meaning like, other cultures may engage with some of those subjects and be like, “Yeah, what’s wrong with, you know, traditions?” In other words, some things that are part of my inherited culture I’m reactionary against, and I think I’m very independent, but actually that’s part of the culture.
Michael: It’s part of the culture.
Nehemia: So, culture is a real thing.
Michael: Yeah, culture is a real thing.
Nehemia: So, what’s wrong with Nick Fuentes saying, “Hey, and we have white culture, white civilization, white Christian civilization,” and you’re basically saying nothing’s wrong with that, right? Am I right?
Michael: Well, so, then that’s where you have to be more precise, or that’s where things get really scary.
Michael: Because if you ask what Fuentes is for and what he’s against…
Michael: Because, as Huntington points out, there’s a distinctive American civilization…
Michael: …that somehow grew up in the course of this experience of settlement that was pretty much fully achieved, actually, by the time of independence, right? There’s a line, from Adams… the true revolution was accomplished in the mind of the people long before the violence actually broke out between the Americans and the British. The Americans regarded themselves as Americans. They regarded themselves as distinct from the British, one people, another people. They were willing to continue to be ruled by the British if the British were willing to give up certain aspirations for what it meant to rule the Americans. But they regarded themselves as different, and they were different in their attitude toward religion. They were all Christians, almost all of them Christians, right? There were very few American Jews, and it’s unclear if there were any American Muslims, and certainly no Americans gave the black slave Muslims among them much thought… white Americans.
But there’s a distinctive American civilization. And what Fuentes wants to do, what these people who are dropping the Judeo from the Christian, what the people preaching against Christian Zionism, what Tucker Carlson wants to do, is bring in notions of Christianity, of white identity, of Europeanism, of Western culture, which are foreign to American civilization. Okay?
Michael: They think that America has failed, that America has failed them, and they want to do something else, okay? And they’re not entirely wrong that America has failed them. Where I hope they are wrong is that I believe that these failures can be mitigated or remedied. I believe that America and American civilization have some life in them, and I hope that this is true. I hope this is true because American civilization has been a blessing for the Jews. But it’s distinct, and in some ways threatening to Jewish identity. That we would be foolish to deny, both its distinction, and…
Nehemia: Let’s talk about that. How is American civilization threatening to Jewish identity?
Michael: Because it offers this alternative. Everybody born in America can give up whatever they’ve picked up from their heritage and do something else. And that’s a threat if you want people to stay Jewish, right? The way it’s a threat that if you want people to stay Navajo or you want them to stay Catholic, right? They can continue the traditions of their families, of their groups, of their nations of origin if they want, or they can do something else, whatever they want.
Nehemia: Okay. Hmm. I’m not sure I agree with that, but all right. Meaning, like, you have the Reform movement in the United States, which is… I don’t know if people realize what a distinctively American expression of Judaism that is. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, you can have your opinion. But Reform Judaism virtually is non-existent in Israel. I don’t know that we should get into it because we’re getting off track here. But, in other words, it’s an attempt to meld, let’s say, I think it’s an attempt to meld the American experience with Judaism, but perhaps there’s not a whole lot of Judaism left.
Michael: There were people who tried that. I don’t think that’s a great characterization of the Reform movement.
Nehemia: Okay. What is a better characterization?
Michael: There were people who tried that. But, you know, in some ways, more interesting from my point of view than the Reform movement, a better example is somebody like Bavaram Das, okay?
Nehemia: I don’t know who that is.
Michael: Bavaram Das, I don’t remember what his original name was, but he was a Jew who became a Hindu guru. That’s what he wanted to be in America. Nobody in America was going to tell him that you can’t do this, that this is not okay. I mean, maybe his mother told him it was not okay, but American law is not set up to give the mothers of these people any power over them. You can’t even disinherit your child for changing their religion or intermarrying in America. If you put that into your will, it will not be enforced. Okay?
Nehemia: Is that true? Meaning, like, if you want to leave everything in your will to the, I don’t know, the dog society, can’t you do that in America?
Michael: You can do that, yes. But if you say, “I’m going to leave my property to my children who marry within the faith and exclude my children who do not marry within the faith,” the judge will not allow that.
Nehemia: Oh, wow! Really? I didn’t know that. That’s very interesting.
Michael: And if you say, “If any of my heirs convert out from Judaism, or Catholicism, or whatever, they will not be eligible to inherit,” the judge will say, “No, we’re not going to enforce that clause. That’s contrary to public policy. That’s contrary to freedom of religion.”
Nehemia: Wow, okay. We’re a bit off topic here. So, Nick Fuentes; what’s he wrong about?
Michael: So, he’s wrong, I think, about what the possibilities are for America. I hope he’s wrong. I hope that the distinctive American civilization, distinctive American attitude toward Jews which this phrase Judeo-Christian captured a lot of, and which speaks to a lot of people of an older generation and some people of a younger generation, I think these are ideas that he rejects. I think he’s wrong to reject them, but more important, I think they still have a lot of power in America. And they were good ideas; they were beneficial, not just for Jews, but for Americans. If they’re unworkable now, that’s a bad thing. It means that things that worked before don’t work now, and their replacements are not going to work as well for anybody. But I hope they can be made to work now, and I oppose politically, I work against, I speak against, the people who do not want to re-empower these ideas.
But he wants to destroy these ideas. He wants to destroy the distinctive American attitude toward the Bible, toward the God of the Bible, toward Jews, the people of the Bible. He wants to destroy the distinctive American attitude towards Israel. He and other people speak against Christian Zionism. They call Christian Zionism a heresy, which from the point of view of certain European notions of Christianity is difficult to argue with. But it’s distinctively American. American Christian Zionism goes back long before Herzl, right? George Bush, namesake and ancestor of George Bush, wrote a Zionist pamphlet in the 19th century, Michael Oren points out in his book on power in the Middle East.
Michael: And so, American Zionism goes back a long ways. American Christian Zionism goes back a long ways. American Jewish Zionism also greatly precedes… There’s a guy named Mordecai Noah, who was a Zionist of sorts. He wanted to found a Jewish state in America called Ararat. That’s a whole complicated story about which I don’t know enough about.
Nehemia: That was like in upstate New York or something, on an island.
Michael: Yeah, yeah. But Americans regarded themselves… Lincoln called them the “almost chosen people”. Americans think they have a special relationship to God, or at least they did think that. And that was obviously true, because God sent them to America, a country where, unlike everywhere else in the world, famines don’t happen, right? Nobody in America starves. Everywhere else in the world, sometimes there just isn’t food. Sometimes you just can’t buy food. And in America, that doesn’t happen. And that is the greatest blessing of American life. It enabled you and I to become the large and imposing people that we are. But, you know, that’s a blessing from God that he brought to the Americans. And in that sense, the Americans clearly have benefited from the blessings of God. And they…
Nehemia: So, you’re saying this is how Americans have viewed it historically.
Nehemia: In other words, Americans saw they had a special relationship with God because there’s no famine and there’s all this prosperity. Is that what you’re saying?
Michael: Right. Yes. And the God who is responsible for this is the God described in the Hebrew Bible. And when the New Testament and talks about God, when Jesus preaches about God, he’s talking about the same God that is in the Hebrew Bible that they all read, most of them in English, a few of them in Hebrew. But never in Latin or Greek.
Michael: Only Catholics in America read the Bible in anything other than English.
Nehemia: Okay. So, Fuentes’ view is… and he says this statement. He says, “What is a country? It’s the people,” right? And I almost hear him saying it’s “the folk”, right, with a V…
Nehemia: Right? In other words… and he says this. He says, “America isn’t the geographical region, America is the people. And if the people are ethnically replaced or disempowered…”
Nehemia: “…and end up being,” let’s say, as he would call it, “race mixing, then there is no American people.”
Nehemia: And what are you saying differently?
Michael: So, the race mixing thing introduces complexity, so let’s put that aside, at least for the moment.
Michael: But America is the people. Nobody in 1965 was willing to say, “our goal is to change the composition of the American people.” Nobody in power. There were a few, you know, Jewish activists who had said things like this going back to even before the immigration reform debate in the 20s. But nobody who held power, nobody elected to office, said, “I am for immigration reform because we want to make America a minority white country. We want to disrupt the consolidated American white majority.” Nobody said that.
Everybody thought that there was an American people. That this American people had certain ethnic and racial correlates. That this was not in itself a bad thing, and that one should be careful… that it’s not something that one should set… because it wasn’t a bad thing it wasn’t something that needed to change. Okay?
And what happened in… over the course of the immigration debate since 1965, is that people have come to a position where they’ve said, “This is something that has to change. It’s bad that America is majority white, and we need to bring about as quickly as possible that America will cease to be majority white. It’s bad that America…”
Nehemia: So, who’s saying that? There are people who are openly saying that?
Michael: Yeah, people are openly saying that, you know.
Nehemia: I don’t know. Tell me. Is it Jews who are saying that?
Michael: A surprisingly large portion of them are Brahmin Indian immigrants to America but… you know, that’s a whole different saga in itself. But…
Nehemia: So, I can understand Fuentes’s position, if you’re saying there are people who are openly saying we have to brown America because we want to disempower white Christian men. And he’s a white Christian man. You could see why he would…
Michael: I don’t know if he’s white, Fuentes.
Michael: I’m kind of dubious about his claim to be white.
Nehemia: Well, he’s a quarter Mexican, but whatever.
Michael: He’s a quarter Mexican, right.
Nehemia: What he says is, “If I go on to the west side of Chicago, you know, to get a taco, they look at me with my green eyes and they consider me white, right?” It just shows how much, to some extent, at least, race is a cultural construct, right?
Michael: Yeah, I think he’s never actually been to Mexico. You know, Mexico has its own racial caste system. And I once managed to infuriate a former Mexican American student by sending her this really brilliant article in The Economist about the racial caste system in Mexico. And she felt like I had ripped a veil from before her because her father was actually a professor of Mexican history and never explained any of this in Texas. Her father was a Mexican American professor of Mexican history and never explained that in Mexico there are white people, there are most people who are mestizo, and there are a few black people and Chinese people, and there are a substantial number of Indians. But there’s a clear racial hierarchy in Mexico, the same way there was a clear racial hierarchy in New Spain, with different legal rights, with different proportions, but everybody is clear in Mexico what people are racially. And somebody like Nick Fuentes is maybe whiter than most Mexicans, but I’m not sure that he would stand out conspicuously as a pure white Mexican as opposed to a mestizo, like the vast majority of Mexicans.
Nehemia: Huh, okay. Well, that’s a whole separate complexity.
Michael: I think Nick Fuentes simply doesn’t know anything about Mexico. He’s never been there, and that would be my guess if he’s going to say something like that. He has no idea how these people who actually experience Mexico see him, because he’s never been there. That would be my guess.
Nehemia: Well, what he says is the west side of Chicago, and Chicago is, let’s say, a very… anyway, it has a bunch of its own problems.
Michael: Most segregated city of America! Your mother likes to quote from… Martin Luther King said Chicago is the most segregated city in America. Your mother said that in front of me a number of times.
Nehemia: Yeah, well and that was definitely true in her era, for sure. Maybe it’s true today. I haven’t lived in Chicago in decades.
Michael: No, I left Chicago in ‘95, and there were a lot fewer Mexicans. You did not run into many Mexican Americans or Mexican immigrants in Chicago, in my experience. And, you know, they were starting to come. I had a girlfriend who was trying to make her living by representing them in immigration court, but they didn’t think that the fact that she spoke Spanish with native fluency was an asset. They wanted a white lawyer, and if he didn’t speak Spanish, that was fine. The Jewish lady, the French Jewish lady who spoke perfect Spanish was not what they were looking for.
Nehemia: Okay. So, in any event, let’s go back to why Fuentes is wrong, because I hope you’re going to say that. I hope he’s not right about everything. So, how does Huntington explain Fuentes being wrong? You were going to explain that.
Michael: So, what you get from Huntington is that there’s a distinctive American civilization. Then you have to ask… And Huntington himself, his version of this is complicated. And I think some parts of it, you know, there are other people who are more helpful here in understanding America, people like, for that matter, Sak Van Berkovich who we mentioned earlier. But American civilization has distinctive Hebraic roots. Huntington talks about Protestant roots, but these Protestant roots are Hebraic; they carry with them a certain attitude toward the God of the Bible and to God’s chosen people. Okay? And if Americans cease to believe in that, that means that there’s a disruption of American civilization. And that’s something that Fuentes is trying to disrupt in order to harm Jews, okay?
So, what he wants is un-American. What he wants is, in my view, bad for America, okay? And hopefully it can be prevented, because I think that, you know, the American attitude toward Jews, towards religious difference, towards cultural difference, that what we expect from you is to obey the law and be loyal to the United States and pay your taxes. And whatever you do apart from that is not of interest to the government, except insofar as it bears on those things, right? It’s probably important. You know, the Eisenhower line; every American should have a religion, and I don’t care what it is.
So, there’s a view, central to American civilization, that everybody should have a religion. There’s a view which a lot of Americans have, right, which is radically in conflict with pretty much every other religious view that’s ever existed, that God really doesn’t care what your religion is as long as you are good to other people, whether they’re of your religion or not, and you are sincere, right? That’s not a very Jewish belief. It’s not a very Christian belief. It’s probably not a good Muslim belief. It’s not a good Hindu belief, but it’s a very common American belief. And it’s the view that American statesman… you know, Fuentes, in the clip you sent me, he mentioned George Washington. That’s Washington’s view of American religion. It’s very threatening to religious views of all kinds, you know, to say that God doesn’t really care what your religion is, as long as you have one. And you’re good to other people.
Nehemia: Well, Fuentes’ attitude is, God wants you to be a Catholic, but he’ll still accept you as a Protestant. I think that’s Fuentes’ view.
Nehemia: But if you’re Jewish, you hate God, or you hate Jesus… I mean, he’s whipping up old European anti-Semitism.
Nehemia: Here’s something you wrote to me, and I want you to talk about this. You said, “White men have two choices; there’s the Fuentes path, a European Aryanist import that rejects fundamental aspects of American civilization, including its Hebraic history, or the Trump path, a practical alliance with disaffected Jews to dismantle the DEI regime and reverse mass Third World immigration.”
Nehemia: So, both positions…
Michael: I stand behind every word. So, let’s explain this.
Nehemia: So, explain to me the… Well, I think, I feel like you explained the Fuentes position. Now explain the alternative.
You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.
We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!
SHARE THIS TEACHING WITH YOUR FRIENDS! Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app!
Apple Podcasts |
Amazon Music
| TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
| Pandora
SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS
(Please click here to donate)
Makor Hebrew Foundationis a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your donation is tax-deductible.
VERSES MENTIONED
Jeremiah 29:7
BOOKS MENTIONED
Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg Dilemma
by Ernest Gellner
The Jewish Mystique
by Ernest van den Haag
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
by Samuel P. Huntington
Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity
by Samuel P. Huntington
Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present
By Michael B. Oren
An Independent Empire: Diplomacy & War in the Making of the United States
By Michael S. Kochin, Michael Taylor
RELATED EPISODES
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Hebrew Voices #48 – Jewish Freedom in America
Hebrew Voices #56 – The Battle for the Six-Day War
OTHER LINKS
The Lost Generation | Compact
On the trail of Hernán Cortés
The post Hebrew Voices #236 – Jewish Professor Says Nick Fuentes is Right: Part 1 appeared first on Nehemia's Wall.
