Crisis on the Right as Heritage Foundation President Roberts Seems to Go Groyper

As Jewish Insider reports:

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts doubled down on the influential conservative group's support for Tucker Carlson, who has been leaning into increasingly explicit antisemitism and opposition to Israel on his podcast, and expressed unwillingness to "cancel" neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes….

He said the group would "always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains — and as I have said before — always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation."

Roberts rejected those criticizing Carlson as a "venomous coalition" and said that "their attempt to cancel him will fail."

This and related rhetoric is bad enough, but I was especially struck by this:

When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington…

I'm not one who thinks that "globalist" is always, or even often, a code word for Jews. I once did an informal study of the use of globalist in a major Trumpy publication, and I found that the vast majority of people it deemed "globalist" were not Jews.

However… in this particular case, the sort of folks the populist right typically accuses of being "globalist" with regard to foreign policy, the mainstream US foreign policy establishment, is hardly known for arguing that the US should "reflexively" support Israel. Indeed, they will natter on and on about how the US has to pressure, get tough with, crack down on, etc. Israel, and counteract its "intransigence."

So who are these "globalists" who supposedly want the US to reflexively support Israel? It's pretty hard not to read the line as "no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class [Jews] or from their mouthpieces in Washington [AIPAC]."

I'd be more inclined to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't also tweeted this today: "Thank you, Jon Haidt, for reminding everyone @Heritage yesterday that tech tycoons like Leonid Radvinsky and Solomon Friedman are profiting to the tune of millions by preying on America's young men and women. We are proud to be in this fight with you. It is time to arrest, prosecute, and convict the sick perverts behind OnlyFans and PornHub." 

Radvinsky owns Only Fans. Friedman shares ownership and control of PornHub with Rocco Meliambro and Fady Mansour through Ethical Capital Partners. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Roberts only cited the two owners with Jewish-sounding names, and he's not appealing to the common antisemitic trope that the pornography industry is dominated by Jews. Maybe.

I hope the Heritage Foundation Board of Trustees is planning an emergency meeting about this.

If you have access to X, you can watch Roberts' video statement at this link.

Comments

[SRG2]

Well, you can't criticise Kevin Roberts for not hewing to "traditional values"...

[AmosArch]

Heritage is making common cause with Dems?

[bernard11]

Bernstein astonished by antisemitism on the right.

[David Bernstein]

"Unlike Shapiro, I’ve never doubted the persistence of right-wing anti-Semitism." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/19/ben-shapiro-discovers-right-wing-anti-semitism/

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, blindly supporting any foreign state is stupid.

[David Bernstein]

It's a bizarre strawman, since no one actually advocates that.

[Social Justice is neither]

Right, there is just no individual situation where you would classify not supporting Israel as anything but anti semitic.

[Darwinnie]

I’m just glad to see this blog shining light on the antisemitism endemic in parts of the right. Those parts are increasingly part of what is now the mainstream right. I absolutely do not want that.

[AmosArch]

Cautioning against blind reflexive support for a foreign government isn't quite the 'you and i are the same' moment let alone the 'we're better than your ilk' moment you seem to think it is when you are physically attacking jews out in the street.

[ducksalad]

The use of the second person here is unclear.

Kevin Roberts was the one "cautioning against blind reflexive support", Bernard is claiming Bernstein is astonished, Bernstein denies being astonished, and none of the three claims he is "the same" as the others.

So could you clarify which of them is the "you" that is "physically attacking jews out in the street"? I'd be surprised and disappointed if any of the three was doing that but you've put it out there.

[AmosArch]

The left sees no problems with its constituents attacking and harassing jews they don't even bother to check are zionist but are johnny on the spot to hold some guy to account not going far enough for their tastes to condemn a guy who does not go far enough for their tastes to condemn another guy who has opinion which is probably less antisemitic than some of the palestinian students out there.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's clarifying, to you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody doubts there is antisemitism on the right. We just laugh at the left's implication that they're any different in that regard, if not worse. The USSR wasn't exactly a haven of religious tolerance...

Antisemitism is deplorably common across the entire political spectrum, and getting more so. I suppose that the horrors of the Holocaust had beaten it back, but memories of that horror are fading.

Immigration from the wildly antisemitic Middle East hasn't helped, of course, and the Democratic party deciding that Muslims, particularly Palestinians, looked like a good client group, is probably why the descent has been swifter on the left.

I see things getting ugly if we don't fight against the trend, and, yeah, firing Roberts seems necessary to that end.

Would the left do it if the party labels were reversed? Al Sharpton's career suggests not.

[Sarcastr0]

So you response to the OP is to talk about the Dems and their client group the Muslims?

What a joke.

[Darwinnie]

Also, lumping “the left” in with communism is as stupid as lumping “the right” in with fascism. Just more idiotic rhetorical nonsense.

[MaddogEngineer]

No, it was this:

"Nobody doubts there is antisemitism on the right. We just laugh at the left's implication that they're any different in that regard, if not worse."

Because the left, and its apologists, keep pretending that by definition (because of the Austrian corporal) it is only a phenomenon of the right.

As long as people keep pretending that only the other guys are the problem, the problem will keep getting worse. Much like my general contempt for Trump and MAGA, I am so done with this iteration of the Heritage Foundation. More proof that one always need to follow the money to understand motivation.

[Both Sides]

"As long as people keep pretending that only the other guys are the problem, the problem will keep getting worse."

This, this, a thousand times this.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'd be interested if you could show me quotes of people on the left who seriously argue that antisemitism is "only a phenomenon on the right." Sounds like horseshit straw manning to me.

[ducksalad]

I don't believe the number of anti-semitics is increasing.

It's just that they've realized in the current climate there are few downsides to expressing it openly. Things are so polarized that your own side won't call you on it, and the other side is going to call you Hitler anyway, whether you say anything anti-semitic or not.

[MaddogEngineer]

This is pretty much where I am. I believe it's always been there, but these deplorables have decided this is their moment to shine.

What is unnerving is that the history of such movements is that they can grow when these cretins start making noise. That was what was also so disconcerting about the pro-Hamas campus protests.

[bernard11]

Al Sharpton?

I'm no fan, but that's your best shot?

I agree that he's a bad actor and an antisemite, and I wish he was less popular.

But he doesn't head a major "think tank," with great influence on Democratic policy and Presidents.

Yeah. There's plenty of antisemitism on the left, but nobody is palling around with. the likes of Fuentes. Still, I do commend those on the right who are willing to call that out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But he doesn't head a major "think tank," with great influence on Democratic policy and Presidents. "

Dem politicians court him. Harris went to get his blessing just last summer!

He has more influence than an unknown "think tank" director.

[David Nieporent]

You're being typically bad faith and dishonest. Roberts is an incredibly prominent think tank director. Of course, not with the general public, but that's irrelevant to the issue, which is the conservative movement. Meanwhile, Carlson is incredibly prominent with the general public, and you dismiss him too,

[Bob from Ohio]

Carlson used to have a big audience at Fox, no longer. He has a big audience for a podcaster, which is different. Its like being a well attended minor league team.

Sharpton is a Dem kingmaker, and has been for a long time. You dismiss him.

[David Nieporent]

Al Sharpton is not a Democratic kingmaker. Al Sharpton has never been a Democratic kingmaker. And I'm betting his current audience is smaller than Tucker Carlson's.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think you are confusing him with 80s-90s Jesse Jackson.

Pro-tip: not all black reverends are alike.

[Bob from Ohio]

Harris spoke at his convention last summer, they had lunch in 2019 to try to get his endorsement.

He is regularly on MSNBC, which has many more viewers, than a youtube podcast.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Doesn’t make him a kingmaker.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“He has more influence than an unknown "think tank" director.”

You don’t actually believe this. But in case you are dumb enough to, I think it’s worth remembering that Jim DeMint once left the United States Senate to be President of the Heritage Foundation. Kind of tells you a lot about the power and influence it wields.

[Bob from Ohio]

used to wield

[LawTalkingGuy]

You also don’t believe this.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Your own side doesn't help:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/7-of-the-most-famous-jews-in-porn/

[Milhouse]

Those are all actors, not businessmen "profiting" from porn, which is the accusation Roberts is making.

[Sarcastr0]

Own side meaning….Jews?

Like there are Jews on one side and you are on the other?

Are you a groyper professor?

[Bored Lawyer]

What "side" is that, exactly?

So seven Jews are involved in porn. How many white guys are? Or Christians? Should we blame all of those groups for porn?

Yes, some Jews do bad things. So do some Christians, white people, black people, etc. It's obnoxious to blame a whole group for the wrongdoing of some members.

[SRG2]

I can imagine my phone call to my mother:

Me: I've met someone!
Mother: Is she a nice Jewish girl?
Me: well, two out of three....

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I was sincerely shocked and disappointed by this article, because it means the Times of Israel is publishing the sort of thing which one might expect to see on an anti-Semitic Web site.

The fact is, Jews in the porn world represent only themselves, not their group, just as Gentiles in the porn world represent themselves only, not their group.

The Times of Israel should be working to *denounce* and *repudiate* anti-Semitic smears, not give aid and comfort to them.

To wash the taste of this article out of my mouth, I looked to find anti-porn activism among Jews. Thank God, I found this:

"Rabbinical Alliance of America Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Texas Age Verification Law for Pornography, Calls for Stronger Protections for All"

"The Rabbinical Alliance of America—Igud HaRabbonim, representing over 950 Orthodox rabbis across North America—expresses its strong support for the United States Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025, decision to uphold the Texas law requiring age verification before granting access to pornographic websites. This ruling is a significant step toward protecting the innocence of children and preserving the moral fabric of our nation. However, while this measure is laudable, it does not go far enough."

https://rabbinicalalliance.org/2025/06/30/rabbinical-alliance-of-america-applauds-supreme-court-ruling-upholding-texas-age-verification-law-for-pornography-calls-for-stronger-protections-for-all/

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that there are *lots* of Jews who prefer the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures to the wickedness and lies of the porn industry.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

To refer to things referenced in the original post, Jonathan Haidt is anti-porn, and he's an atheist of Jewish descent.

https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2024/03/27/jonathan-haidt-on-religion-psychedelics-and-the-anxious-generation

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In other words, when things like this come up, let's do a couple of things:

a) Denounce anti-Semitism and send it to the sewers whence it came.

b) Denounce pornography also, another sewer-derived phenomenon.

Just as it's wicked to link Jews, as a group, to pornography, likewise it would be wicked to link the foes of pornography to anti-Semitism.

If this Roberts fellow is, as Bernstein alleges, using anti-porn as an excuse for anti-Semitism, then Roberts should get fired from his foundation.

If the Times of Israel is trying to normalize pornography with its Jewish readers, it should stop being considered a useful news source.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The ongoing spectacle of prominent conservatives cozying up to fascists/Nazis (again) is really testing my disbelief in historical determinism.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

It’s an overreaction to getting tricked into supporting the GWOT. Netanyahu is definitely associated with neocons and so I agree one should be skeptical of him. And Bari Weiss is definitely a Mossad agent that ran an anti-Qatar operation for several years that Netanyahu believed would shield him from criticism when he attacked Hamas in Doha. Most people have no clue what LNG is but it is what makes Qatar arguably our most important ally and so Netanyahu fucked around and found out what would happen when he did that. So Americans should be upset with Netanyahu for striking in Doha and Trump masterfully used his personal outrage to force Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LTG pretending to be a conservative is really testing my disbelief....

[LawTalkingGuy]

…what?

[Zayphar]

The most confusing of Roberts' blather is stating that 'globalists' are mindlessly supporting Israel and the Jews.

I mean...what?

The globalist clique almost universally despise and work against Israeli and Jewish interests, and they are not even trying to be subtle about it. The WEF types are constantly trying to pressure the US to 'use its influence' to crack down on Israel and force Israel to agree with 'peace' deals with the Palestinian Authority/Hamas/Hezbollah, etc.

If Heritage wants to stay relevant, they need to reign in this bozo.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Horseshoe theory. Much of this has to do with people traditionalists/nationalists like Tucker getting tricked into voting for Bush/Cheney and the neocons.

[Sarcastr0]

The hazards of deploying rewarmed antisemetic conspiracy theories is this kind of bewilderment from true believers when they collide with the real thing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

What’s funny is a big part of their anti-Semitism is because they believe the Jesus Lover was manipulated by neocons into invading Iraq. Nobody manipulated Bush to do anything and he invaded Iraq for oil and not to protect Israel. If he wanted to protect Israel then he would have invaded Iran but Iran has huge natural gas reserves and Qatar was going to be our LNG supplier.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, after crying "wolf" for some time, now wants me to believe that there really is a wolf this time.

Sorry -- I don't believe you.

[bloocow2]

I must admit, I don't really know what "cancelling" means in this case, or why it is wrong.

A guy invites a Holocaust denier on his show. People (including Jewish people, understandably) don't feel that this person should be given the time of day to spout these views on a national platform, and criticize the show for that decision.

And... that's it? I think a lot of people agree that "cancelling" people is bad, but surely criticism is allowed? Right? It's OK for people to use their own free speech to criticize something, right?

Right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am a fan of putting schmucks like Holocaust deniers front and center so that everyone can see them for exactly who they are.

The mere fact that people are trying to prevent them from spreading their purported "message" gives said "message" legitimacy. By contrast, truth will defeat them in a free and open encounter.

[MaddogEngineer]

There is much truth to this idea that trying to suppress them only helps grow the movement, because they get to say this is the truth "they" don't want you to know. Because part of their attraction is them being oppressed freedom fighters.

We see it with Holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers.

[gVOR08]

You failed to note any evidence of a “crisis on the right” over Roberts antisemitism, or Carlson’s. Why in my mind’s ear am I hearing Cyndi Lauper singing “true colors shining through”?

[bloocow2]

Seriously? That's the defence you're going with? That you would have chosen a different word?

I don't know what term you'd prefer. But personally I think the leader of one of America's most prominent conservative research institutes giving cover to a holocaust denier, warrants at least a raised eyebrow.

And so what if these are the writer's "true colours"? The details of the story are right there; they aren't hidden. Surely you can decide about what to think about them without going "hmmm, is the writer a leftie or not?" Don't let other people interrupt your independence of thought!

[gVOR08]

A “crisis” on the right would involve outrage against Roberts by some significant faction of the right, threat of a schism on the right, self-doubt on the right. Bernstein presents no evidence the right has reacted with anything but ho hum. It’s the rights true colors emerging.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the most despicable schmuck is presenting evidence that the dam upstream has broken, do you (a) go to high ground or (b) ignore him and drown?

I think that Holocaust deniers are despicable, but I think making them nonpersons is worse.

[David Bernstein]

How do you feel about inviting them on your show and not challenging them on their Holocaust denial and other blatantly antisemitic (and racist, and anti-women) comments?

[Bored Lawyer]

Just to sharpen this a bit, as pointed out in National Review, when Carlson has Ted Cruz on, he challenged many things he said, and got into a shouting match. So when you give a free ride to Fuentes and challenge Cruz, then you can't fall back on the "just asking questions" excuse.

[hobie]

Those, like me, that do not reflexively support Israel are constantly labeled as antisemitic. It's possible that Carlson and Heritage are prosemitic, but since antisemitism warning signs are flashing all across the Republican spectrum (to which you and everyone else are conveniently blind to), the odds are they are not.

[Will Nonya]

Israel has such a power tool at their disposal where any criticism of their nation, the nations actions or support from other countries so much as the US can be conflated with attacks against both their race and religion.

I have no idea what things Carlson has said but I'd be willing to stipulate tht were idiotic. I'm just dubious about where the line is now between criticism of Israel policy and actual anti-Semitism.

[loki13]

...I mean, better really really really really really really really late than never?

It's almost like a movement that has empowered people to openly celebrate their hate of blacks, Mexicans, trans people, Muslims ... and so many other marginalized people.... might eventually reveal itself* to not be a friend of the Jews. Who could possibly guess that a nativist, populist movement that explicitly borrowed its America First mantra from Charles Lindbergh might be ... anti-Semitic??!!!

*Okay, this isn't news to anyone else, really. But make it so obvious that all those people who thought, "This time they won't turn on the Jews, right, because we are helping!" might start to look around and go ... oh, maybe this time isn't different.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like a lot of people are skipping over the "neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes" bit and think this is about Israel.

It's not about Israel.

[ah....Clem]

The only surprising thing here is that nobody is in the least bit surprised.

[loki13]

The Trumpist Right: How can you write a comment that is against us? On what grounds?
Prof. Bernstein: I'm shocked! Shocked to find that anti-Semitism going on in here.
Fox News: We have another media appearance for you, Professor.
Prof. Bernstein: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
....
Prof. Bernstein: Everybody, stop being anti-Semitic so we can talk about how the leftists are destroying colleges and are the real racists!

ETA- okay, that was mean. But .... c'mon. I honestly have real trouble understanding how someone as smart as Prof. Bernstein (and I do mean that honestly) did not understand the exact nature of the people he was helping to empower. I know we all have our blind spots (and I do as well) but ... it's not like anti-Semitism on the right in America is a secret, or has been, for DECADES.

[Bored Lawyer]

I honestly have real trouble understanding how someone as smart as Prof. Bernstein (and I do mean that honestly) did not understand the exact nature of the people he was helping to empower.

Neither Carlson, nor Roberts, nor Fuentes are in power. Donald Trump is president, and he is no antisemite. Neither are the people he appointed to his cabinet. Neither are many people in the Republican party. Ted Cruz, a Senator, recently strongly condemned antisemitism on the right.

So, no, supporting Trump or the GOP does not empower antisemites.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Carlson, nor Roberts, nor Fuentes"

Carlson = podcaster

Roberts = Who?

Fuentes = rabble rouser with miniscule non-bot following

Meanwhile libs are electing a Jew hating Marxist to head the largest US city

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just to clarify:

It’s okay for Trump himself to have dinner with an open Neo-Nazi, who far from lacking influence, has followers in his admin right now, and is cozying up to one of the most popular right-wing commentators. Both of whom were just excused by the head of the most influential Republican think-tank and lobbying shop that wrote most of the white papers for the administration.

This is okay because Trump has a Jewish daughter.

But Mamdani is a Jew-hating Marxist despite having close relationships with many prominent Jewish politicians and speaks at synagogues?

Do I have that right?

Follow-up: how is it possible for David Bernstein to have a more nuanced understanding of this than you?

[David Nieporent]

Donald Trump is president, and he is no antisemite.

I mean, if that's what MAGA Jews need to tell themselves to be able to look at themselves in the mirror…

Ted Cruz, a Senator, recently strongly condemned antisemitism on the right.

It doesn't count as condemning when you still pal around with them. In the mid-50s, William F. Buckley made a conscious decision to purge antisemites from the conservative movement. He did not proclaim a No Enemies to the Right™ approach in which the real enemy were liberals and those on the right side were automatically "friends" to work with.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump's beloved daughter and several grandchildren are Jewish but sure, he hates Jews.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How come you don’t use this logic with Democrats who you accuse of antisemitism some of whom aren’t just related to Jews…but actually are Jews themselves?

Also: “beloved” is one way to put it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Gutter mind.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump? Yes.

Also notice you don’t respond to the main criticism, presumably because you know I’m right.

[Bob from Ohio]

presumably not!

You make multiple points, you run the risk that the response will not cover every point. Sarcasto and you both do this a lot and shout YOU ADMIT I"M RIGHT when only one thing is addressed, its an annoying tactic

Its not a brief, I don't have to respond to every point.

[John 4]

"How come you don’t use this logic with Democrats who you accuse of antisemitism some of whom aren’t just related to Jews…but actually are Jews themselves?"

[Bored Lawyer]

I mean, if that's what MAGA Jews need to tell themselves to be able to look at themselves in the mirror…

Your snideness notwithstanding, there is no evidence that Donald Trump is antisemitic. To the contrary, he has a long history of friendly relations with Jews. Calling him that is absurd. He has many other flaws. That is not one of them.

It doesn't count as condemning when you still pal around with them. In the mid-50s, William F. Buckley made a conscious decision to purge antisemites from the conservative movement. He did not proclaim a No Enemies to the Right™ approach in which the real enemy were liberals and those on the right side were automatically "friends" to work with.

Which antisemites has Cruz palled around with? He got into a shouting match with Tucker Carlson.

[Sarcastr0]

One suspects BL and BfO will be explaining how it's all no big deal all the way down.

[Mike Hansberry]

KEVIN ROBERTS: I'll have more to say on this in the coming days, but today I want to be clear about one thing. Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic. Of course, anti-Semitism should be condemned. My loyalty as a Christian is to Christ first and to America always. When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with other allies, we do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, technology. But when it doesn't, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or their mouthpieces in Washington. The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing consciences. Christians, and we won't start doing that now.

We don't take direction from comments on X, though we are grateful for the robust free speech debate. We also don't take direction from members or donors, though we are inherently grateful for their support, and we're adding more every day. This is the robust debate we invite with our colleagues, movement friends, our members, and the American public. We will always defend truth. We will always defend America. And we'll always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation. The venomous coalition attacking him are sowing division. Their attempt to cancel him will fail. Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.

I disagree with, and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says. But canceling him is not the answer either. When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate. In debate, and we have seen success in this approach as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left. As my friend Vice President Vance said last night, what I am not okay with is any country coming before the interest of American citizens. And it is important for all of us, assuming we are American citizens, to put the interests of our own country first. That's where our allegiance lies. And that's where it will stay.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/10/30/heritage_foundation_president_kevin_roberts_christians_can_critique_the_state_of_israel_without_being_anti-semitic.html

[loki13]

AMERICA FIRST!

Hey, love that phrase. Wonder where it came from?

Oh? Nvm.

The thing about all of this is that it is so obvious, and it has been so obvious for so long, that you pretty much to have the IV infusion of the kool-aid not to see it.

[Sarcastr0]

The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing consciences.

Purity testing has been the bread and butter of the MAGA right since it's inception, and Heritage has been right along with them.

I disagree with, and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says. But
Welp.

The right doesn't platform all views, basically by definition. So hiding tolerance of Nazi perspectives behind free dialogue is just bullshit Nazi apologia.

[David Nieporent]

My loyalty as a Christian is to Christ first and to America always.

AsAJew™, I am not really qualified to analyze the religious beliefs of the goyim, but… that statement sounds theologically problematic.
​
​
And this statement sounds ideologically problematic:

Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.

[ducksalad]

Both statements are logically consistent and literally correct if you understand his definition of "America" in the first one and "the American people" in the second one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The last statement is the same reasoning of the conservatives in Weimar.

[Josh R]

Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.

Indeed, that's the problem with Roberts' statement. Let's have a free-speech debate with the left (*) on their abhorrent ideas but look the other way when the right expresses abhorrent ideas. Yuck!

(*) My other thought on the statement is Roberts appears to say that refusing to give a platform to debate someone is canceling them. Does he really believe that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This Roberts guy has engaged in some disturbing behavior.

But I hope you wouldn't suggest that it's theologically problematic for a Christian to prioritize allegiance to God over any allegiance to the government.

"AsAJew™"

It's not just a Christian thing. There are plenty of instances in the Hebrew scriptures where faithful Jews defy the government, like when the prophet Daniel goes to the fiery furnace rather than obey the evil king's demand to worship an idol. And there are cases of evil Jewish kings decreeing idolatry and meeting resistance from faithful prophets, etc.

The Kings of Babylon, etc., had problems with "Jewish dual loyalty," just as the pagan Roman emperors had problems with "Christian dual loyalty."

Suppose some government in America banned circumcision or Jewish ritual slaughter - would you obey? Would you denounce those who resisted?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Or perhaps it's the "America always" language which is the problem - which could be seen to call for unconditional allegiance to American governments, which would indeed be problematic.

[Bored Lawyer]

My loyalty as a Christian is to Christ first and to America always.

Curious. Do you ever see a possibility that the two would be in conflict? And if so, which would you choose?

[Mike Hansberry]

You should ask Kevin Roberts. I thought it would be helpful to post Roberts' full statement so that one can determine if David Bernstein's critiques of Roberts' statement are valid or based on comments taken out of context.

Roberts' statements are in line with Robby Suave's post here from yesterday in regard to whether or not Nick Fuentes should be cancelled, but there was not same level of rancor in response to Suave.

I do appreciate Berstein's question in the comment section (How do you feel about inviting them on your show and not challenging them on their Holocaust denial and other blatantly antisemitic (and racist, and anti-women) comments?) and think it awful that Fuentes is not called out at every opportunity for his Holocaust denial.

[M L]

99% chance he meant to say "and then to America"

[bernard11]

conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or their mouthpieces in Washington.

Just who is this "globalist class" of whom he speaks?

The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing consciences.

If Heritage is "the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement," it's no wonder conservatives do poorly in academia.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'll have more to say on this in the coming days,"

I can't wait!

[ScottK]

"[A]nd you do anything to a Jew, oh boy, the whole Israel Air Force swoops down on you and kicketh the crapola out of you." --Norman Lear, for Archie Bunker.

[Estragon]

They retained Paul Ingrassia after his nomination failed. He still works at the White House.

[loki13]

See, you have to remember the rules as they apply today!

If you've just a got a little Nazi, you're fine.
If you've got a Nazi streak, then you can't get a nomination, and you have to just serve in the White House. Like Ingrassia. Or Steven Miller.
If you've got a lotta Nazi, then ... well, that's just Boys being Na... Boys, so try and lay low as a staffer for a while.

But if you're full-blown Nazi? You have to be platformed to share your views as widely as possible in a sympathetic light, but no administration position for you!

These rules are subject to change.

[Sarcastr0]

We’re like 3 stanzas into the ‘first they came for’ poem and still going strong.

[MaddogEngineer]

I didn't have the Heritage Foundation going the route of fringe think tank like the Mises Institute on my bingo card, yet here we are. In the short run, it may ensure its continued funding and seems like a good idea to them for staying relevant. In the long run, it will limit its funding and influence. Hollow shells are still hollow.

[Jaypd]

David Bernstein surprised to learn that heritage is full on Nazi! Next up: David finds out that the Trump administration is ALSO Nazi! hahahaha

[MaddogEngineer]

Everyone who believes differently than me is a Nazi!

[JimM47]

I am leaving this comment to make a minor but emphatic point:

The word "groyper" is not a word that normal people use or know. It is not even a word whose meaning normal people are likely to remember even if it has been explained to them once or twice. Maybe that will change in the future -- I hope not -- but for now the word is an odious neologism that signals the writer's distance down a rather unpleasant rabbit hole.

If one must use the word, one should define it for the reader. Better yet, skip using the word and go straight to describing what it is you would have meant to say when using the word.

[M L]

Totally agree.

[Bubba Jones]

Heritage jumped the shark many years ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

Roberts issued a long twitter statement:

https://x.com/KevinRobertsTX/status/1984335805192532265

From a glance, its what he should have said yesterday. Though it would have been better not to have said anything.

[David Nieporent]

And while some of the replies to that tweet call out Roberts, there are others that include the usual apologia: it's out of context; it's only because Jews are mean to him; it's really just criticism of Israel; etc.

[M L]

Based on comments above, David Bernstein left out the part where he said "I disagree with, and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says."

And then David's headline is that the guy "Seems to Go Groyper" --where "Groyper" apparently specifically means one who agrees with and follows Nick Fuentes?

This seems like an incredibly misleading post by David Bernstein. What am I missing here?

[Mike Hansberry]

Bernstein's post is redolent of the "very fine people" hoax. It is slimy, but it works for some people.