Live at 10pm CT

America First is LIVE! Tonight we are discussing the end of the government shutdown and an epilogue on the Tuckercaust

Rumble.com/nickjfuentes.com

You are starting to see some of the limits of the "secondary" arguments against Israel's campaign in the Middle East.

Rather than directly criticize Israel's imperial project in the Middle East and their influence over the United States, people find it easier to talk about how Palestinians are being genocided, or if their brand it exclusively attacking brown people, how Christians are being targeted.

But when Nigerian or Congolese Christians are under attack, then it sort of forces people to justify why they don't spend a lot of time talking about that. And this applies to all of the arguments about neocons, regime change, war in general, foreign aid, etc.

All of those secondary arguments are helpful but only in the service of direct and explicit opposition to this particular problem we have which is that Israel is a unique country with an ambitious and expansionist foreign policy that is underwritten by the US because of the dual loyalty of powerful American Jews.

I don't like those "easier" arguments because although they are apparently more defensible in the moment, you will always pay for them later when confronted by someone who genuinely knows what they are talking about.

They are very useful for "point scoring" or to open a conversation, but they MUST point towards and be rooted in that fundamental problem. If you are just some doofus shrugging your shoulders saying "I just think that we need to end all foreign aid" you are ngmi

Even the arguments about genocide for that matter, people get very hung up on whether Israel is "technically" committing a genocide. Of course they are indiscriminately killing Palestinians including tens of thousands of women and children, but then you get into the morbid business of debating ratios of civilian casualties.

I prefer to focus on how Israel's stated goal is to ethnically cleanse all of the Occupied Territories and deprive the Palestinians of their sovereignty. That is irrefutable, I don't think they'd even deny that. And again it points toward how this is an expansionist program that we are paying for in every way.

Live at 10pm CT

America First is LIVE! Tonight we are discussing Trump's comments on H-1B workers, Chinese students, and the new US base in Gaza

Rumble.com/nickjfuentes.com

crazy how the groypers were right about everything

as always nigga as always

Going live with Adin Ross, Cheesur, Clavicular, and Cuffem on Kick at 9pm CT

Probably will do a show afterward around 11pm

https://kick.com/adinross

So the emerging narrative which has now taken shape from Tucker, which is why he keeps talking about "blood guilt," is something like a horseshoe theory which places Jewish Zionists and their opponents on opposite sides of the X axis but on the same side of the Y axis.

He seems to imply that both Jews and so-called "antisemites" are preoccupied with "the Jews" as a group and goes further, saying that Jews believe Palestinians have blood guilt and their critics believe that Jews have blood guilt.

But the Jews are a distinct group, they do have a group interest, they frequently act collectively or corporately. I'm not sure why acknowledging this fact makes me "no better than Netanyahu." I do not seek to hold them collectively accountable either.

I have no reason to believe that Tucker's stated view is not his sincere view. But this kind of blank slate individualism is simply not sufficient to explain events or respond to them appropriately. These are ideological statements from the liberal tradition, which has become irrelevant in a multi-racial, diverse society.

We can't pretend that this is about one arbitrary regime change war which is being foisted on us by a generic group of warmongers in order to benefit an arbitrary, unremarkable nation among other allies. This is completely obtuse and what my chief disagreement with Tucker is about.

Since the interview he characterized that disagreement as him "arguing against antisemitism with the biggest purveyor of antisemitism." Apparently it is antisemitic to read what Jews write and adequately describe their own world-sense.

It's like I said in the interview, we can't pretend that "Jewishness" has nothing to do with the Jewish state of Israel or the neoconservative tradition, or the Revisionist Zionist plan for a Greater Israel.

It would be like saying al Qaeda has nothing to do with Islam and is simply a group of individuals. Of course all of this is incomprehensible without understanding Jewish history, tradition, and identity.

Like race realism, this talk of identity makes people uncomfortable but there is nothing inherently wrong with accurately describing groups and their behavior. There is an implicit assumption that acknowledging this necessarily leads to collective punishment, but that is not true.

Not doing a show tonight.

Need to cover bombshell Epstein leaks so let’s do it tomorrow night when it’s earlier.

Clavicular said I mog Cheesur

Do you agree?

Who remembers

Live at 10pm CT

America First is LIVE! Tonight we are discussing the Epstein files and the new 20 year Israeli foreign aid deal

Rumble.com/nickjfuentes.com