Nick Fuentes and the Judeo-Christian Lie

A decade out from his attempted suffocation and burial, an online twerp equal parts odious and meek has seemingly returned with scorn to shatter the modern conservative movement in two.

I. Nick Fuentes

A unique moment occurs on the main stage of the 2016 Republican Party debate (shout out the Benni and Basil show). Megyn Kelly, then still a host on Fox News, points a question at business-man Donald Trump about the “downsides” of his lack of political correctness and provides him an opportunity to reconcile his previous statements calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” As the question is asked, Trump stands noticeably smug; simultaneously impressed by the sound of his own words spoken back to him and excited at how undoubtedly sick the retort he just formulated would sound. In the beat between Kelly’s sentences, he re-adjusts his mic, raises his lil finger, and utters three words that turns the audience’s ambient anticipatory chuckles into an all out raucous laughter; “only Rosie O’Donnell”.

The audience’s response is as long as it is bellowing, clearly longer than Kelly had anticipated. More than ten seconds into the audience’s continuous whistling laughter, she tries to interject and finish the question and yet… she can’t. It seems as if the audience, instead of relenting and giving her the floor, is trying to shut her down -an act which Trump suddenly and kindly responds “thank you” to. The look that comes across Kelly’s face is one of distinct surprise, taken aback by the magnitude of positivity in the crowds response, especially in the face of what she thought was a slam-dunk on the future president’s blatantly disrespectful and sexually demeaning comments on women. In that instant, Megyn Kelly understood what we would all come to understand in the coming months and years; the winds have changed direction. The Buzzfeed-ification of liberal politics that had started nearly a decade ago under his predecessor Barack Obama was dead- killed on sight live on stage in front of America, leaving behind a carcass fresh for picking by vultures.

The final outcome for these aspiring-whatever’s varies on a case-by-case basis; some have turned tail on their previous allegiances and ideas, some have gone full speed ahead towards more radical ideologies, and some have relented from public and political life altogether. Even Alex Jones has significantly fallen from his zeitgeist peak in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook lawsuit. Yet, against all odds, a singular case that otherwise would’ve been considered a political one-hit-wonder- a flash in the pan for the MAGA movement — has returned, rising from the dead to go on a self-proclaimed “generational run”: ** *****.

As a long-time occidentalist of modern conservative politics (old enough to remember the real world effects of the 2008 crash, but young enough to have been perusing budding online forum pages unsupervised at the time), I once counted Fuentes among an already “old guard”, those who were prominent names during Trump’s first election and who were hoisted as the face of the “alt-right”. Unfortunately for them, those members of the old guard were also the first on the chopping block once the pendulum of power swung in the opposite direction.

During the first Trump administration, there was very little consensus on the definition of “alt-right” beyond “those responsible for getting Trump elected along with Evangelical boomers”. Any semblance of the alt-right being a coherent body went up in flames after the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car through a crowd of counter-protestors and killed Heather Heyer. Along with Fields, more than half a dozen other individuals were indicted on various state and federal charges related to violence at the rally. As well, many of the individuals highlighted in the viral photos of the rally found themselves unable to find employment afterwards, even after renouncing their former views. In one 2023 case, a man identified in a viral photo shot himself in a hay shed on his property in Hartshorn, Missouri while facing four counts relating to the illegal import and sale of fentanyl.

A second crushing blow to the modern conservative movement would occur after the January 6th riots, when the Biden administration pursued more than 1,500 arrests by the fourth anniversary of the event. Hundreds of individuals who did not engage in destruction or violence were charged with misdemeanor offenses for entering the Capitol illegally, while others were charged with felony offenses, including assault for beating police officers. Many leaders of prominent alt-right organizations, such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, were convicted of seditious conspiracy. The swift and severe use of the state apparatus made apparent that, for most of his political career, Trump stood alone. He faced resistance from liberals and neocons alike, especially from within his own administration, contributing to the gridlock that plagued his first term . His power came from a voter base whom are not afforded the same political protections as the president.

But it’s not the first Trump administration anymore. The ten year-old boy who watched Trump descend a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy in 2015 is now entering his early 20’s, and the bureaucratic establishment is increasingly populated with conservative young men raised on radical white-identity politics. The Overton Window hasn’t shifted so much as it has bisected, like a cell in mitosis, and increasingly sped in either direction. More than ever, the conservative movement is considering what a post-Trump America even means and how they can poise themselves to inherit the mantle by getting ahead of their respective Overton Window Pane.

That’s where this new colorful cast of political and media market aspirants came from, birthed from the placenta of a new normal. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Costin Alamariu, and even J.D Vance all purport allegiance to MAGA first and foremost, and inadvertently benefit from the new boundaries of acceptable discourse set by the “old guard”. Fuentes was hit especially hard after the January 6th riots; on top of existing bans across most social media platforms, financial institutions and e-commerce providers, Fuentes was placed on a federal no-fly list despite not entering the Capitol at all on January 6th. To add insult to injury, he had already been largely banned from most official Republican and young Republican events for years. From there, Fuentes made only a few head-turning appearances, once with the artist formerly known as Kanye West after being invited to a dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and his viral “your body, my choice” clip after Trump’s 2024 win.

It’s not hard to imagine why a character like Nick Fuentes would lose relevance with the conservative public; he’s shrill, hypocritical, kind of sniveling, vaguely troglodytic, grossly offensive, calls himself a white ass nigga going hard as fuck, and simultaneously so demeaning towards women but so obviously lost a physical fight to a woman at some point in his life. People want real answers to the problems that plague them and, while white anxiety can be a feasibly exploitable political motivation for at least a few more years-to-decades, the public just isn’t gigabrained enough to connect how Fuentes screaming slurs translates to concrete political solutions for them (unfortunately for him). What I didn’t factor in, however, is a reality where, despite being basically erased from public life, Fuentes hadn’t actually lost relevance with the public. Rather his show, America First, had maintained a passionate cult fanbase (called Groypers) on the independent streaming platform Rumble who kept his career afloat through direct donations using Bitcoin. What I presumed was another victim of our 24-hour political-media news cycle, Fuentes claims was actually a case of acute political persecution.

It wasn’t until late 2024 that clips of Fuentes began to gain more visibility on social media, seemingly circumventing his internet-wide ban. Groypers had taken to finding the most viral moments from his own livestreamed show — or appearances on other podcasts- and setting them loose on apps like TikTok and Instagram. His “generational run” came to a head in October 2025 when he was invited on The Tucker Carlson Show to, for the first time, plead his case in front of a mainstream conservative audience.

According to Fuentes, the cardinal sin that landed him on the shitlist of the popular conservative movement stemmed from Obama’s lame duck choice to abstain from vetoing a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, enabling the measure to pass. While the language of the resolution was in line with official American policy, it was a stark departure from Obama’s behaviour over the past eight years; years that saw Obama as a strong protector of Israel against “one-sided” UN resolutions. As expected, pro-Israeli American media accused Obama of colluding with Palestinians to “cook-up” antisemitic resolutions behind Israel’s back.

In the wake of the Fuentes-Carlson interview, a civil war has erupted in the conservative movement. Carlson was criticized for “platforming” Fuentes, Kevin Roberts (president of the Heritage Foundation) first defended Carlson’s decision, then backtracked once he encountered backlash and ultimately faced a small exodus of trustees from the foundation. In the weeks and months since, the floodgate on Nick Fuentes think-pieces (including this one!) opened, forcing popular conservative talking heads to stake their tribal association. Even at this year’s AmFest, hosted by the now-Erika-Kirk-owned Turning Point USA, Fuentes’ specter haunted the venue despite him being long banned from entry. What would otherwise be an exhortation of alleged conservative values was more akin to SummerSlam- pyrotechnics and mud slinging inclusive. The weekend was full of notable conservative figures who took to the stage to either insult Fuentes, insult those who inadvertently support him, or insult those who insulted them for inadvertently supporting him.

What has catapulted Nick Fuentes beyond his right wing contemporaries, and in some respects his leftist adversaries like Hasan Piker, is not his disdain for non-whites. It’s not the boomer-era epithets he uses against women to mask his latent homosexuality. It’s his bifurcation of American values from Judeo-Christian to strictly Christian, and a full throated critical examination of what’s been shed. In other words, a rigorous and historical critique of Jewish chauvinism and it’s history of antagonism, marginalization, and philia with the Anglo-world.

II. The Judeo-Christian Lie

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi [river] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-” (Genesis 15:18) .

French historian Laurent Guyenot takes a critical eye to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history, Jewishness and “Jewry” (the Jewish community) in his book From Yahweh to Zion: Three Thousand Years of Exile: Jealous God, Chosen People. While Guyenot recognizes that the majority of Jews define their Jewishness as ethnic rather than religious, he posits that the Bible (referring to the first five books of the Jewish Tanakh [or the Torah], or the Christian Old Testament) is central to understanding the history of the “chosen people of Yahweh”. Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible, is centered on a series of commands for the Israelites regarding how they should conduct themselves when they reach the promised land, Canaan (modern day Palestine).

Guyenot believes that Deuteronomy, to put it simply, is a fraudulent writing. Not only Deuteronomy, but also the following six historical books that comprise the “Deuteronomic history” of Israel from Moses to Josiah (Joshua, Judges, Samuel I and II, Kings I and II). In fact, he falls in line with the critical Biblical-historical position that the unified Kingdom of Israel under the Solomonic dynasty is largely a fable reverse engineered through the voice of a priestly caste who have designated themselves a lineage of “cognitive elite”.

Yahweh, the God of the Torah, originated as a violent ethnic or national god of the Israelite Kingdom, a kingdom that began roughly at the end of the tenth century BCE. To the south of the Kingdom of Israel was the Kingdom of Judah with it’s capital Jerusalem. After the destruction of Israel in eighth century BCE by the neo-Assyrian Empire, a mass of refugees made their way to Jerusalem, including the priests dedicated to preserving their national banner under a new pan-Israelite identity. Thus became the ultimate goal of the cult of Yahweh: to reclaim the North.

Approximately two hundred years later, the 17th King of Judah, Josiah, almost achieved this goal of expansion in the name of Yahweh but was thwarted by the Babylonian Empire which resulted in the kingdom’s destruction (including the destruction of the sacred temple dedicated to Yahweh) and the exile of some if its elites (around 4,600 according to Jeremiah 52:28–30) west to Babylon and east to Egypt. It’s under these conditions that Deuteronomic history was forged by an exiled elite and their descendants, who sought to create a piece of religious propaganda that enshrined their right to rule.

In the Deuteronomic canon, Moses originally receives the law (Deuteronomy) which urges the Hebrew people to “faithfully obey the voice of Yahweh your God, by keeping and observing all his commandments” (Deuteronomy 28:1–20). After the settling of Canaan the “Promised Land” by Joshua (and the subsequent deviation from Yahweh’s commandments), King Josiah receives the law after a high priest, Hilkiah, discovers it during temple renovations. Finally, around the fourth century BCE, the Babylonian Empire is destroyed by the Persian Empire, and a post-exile clan claiming to issue from a lineage of Yahwistic Judean priests, lead by Ezra, return to Jerusalem with this same law that establishes them as the legitimate heirs of this ancient tradition.

When Ezra finds the exiles that have settled prior to him have mixed with the indigenous people, he stresses that the “[Israelite men] have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us” (Ezra 10:2). The only hope for the Israelites is for the men to repudiate their wives and children born of them. The prohibition of intermarriage is formulated in Deuteronomy 7:3; “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons”. In the Biblical sense, intermarriage is tantamount to idolatry.

A Deuteronomic story about the fables of intermarriage occurs in Numbers 25, when a Hebrew had the audacity to bring around his Midianite wife, Phineas, grandson of Aaron, “seized a lance, followed the Israelite into the alcove, and there ran them both through, the Israelite and the woman, through the stomach.” As a reward, Yahweh gifted Phineas “the right to perform the ritual of expiation for the Israelites”. Through this act, the Aaronic priesthood is birthed and would later be reclaimed by Ezra and the high priests he installed into power.

The conquest of Canaan by Joshua violently rewards the endogamy of the Hebrews.

“ The male and female slaves you have will come from the nations around you; from these you may purchase male and female slaves. As slaves, you may also purchase the children of aliens resident among you, and also members of their families living with you who have been born on your soil; and they will become your property, and you may leave them as a legacy to your sons after you as their perpetual possession. These you may have for slaves; but you will not oppress your brother-Israelites” (Leviticus 25:44–46).

This dynamic is further expounded upon in Deuteronomy 23:19–20 as the practice of usury is prohibited, but only between other Israelites: “You may demand interest on a loan to a foreigner, but you must not demand interest from your brother” and “you may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you.” (15:3). This tradition all but guarantees an advantage for the Israelites as usury has historically been condemned outright across theological perspectives.

Guyenot summarizes the psychological matrix inscribed into the people of Israel from the time of Ezra:

“ When reflecting on biblical literature, it is important to understand that it is not a product of the “Jewish people.” …It is today admitted that the heart of the biblical corpus, with its code of laws and its “history of Israel,” is the work of a small group of skillful priestly scribes. They produced much of the Bible in Babylon, while jealously preserving their pedigree records, intermarrying (often between cousins or uncle and niece)… After having probably helped the conquest of Babylon by the Persians, the Judean exiles obtained new high offices at the Persian court, as well as military and financial support for their theocratic project in Palestine. The Torah is the instrument crafted by these master propagandists to subjugate and control the Palestinian population. “

The development from the cult of Yahweh to modern day Reform Judaism spans thousands of years but at it’s center is a biological emphasis on the separation of the chosen people from the rest of mankind. This narrative has been used and abused by an ever changing strata of elite to inflame, and in some ways protect the majority of Jews from, antagonisms with surrounding nations. It was indeed the caste of priests and scribes who, according to the Gospels, enraged Christ when he saw them using Temple grounds for money-lending purposes; he famously overturns their stalls and accuses them of turning the Temple into a “bandit’s den”. “The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.” (Mark 11:18).

When Roman Emperor Constantine I officially adopted Christianity, ceasing its persecution and beginning to integrate Christianity into Roman governance, his simultaneous institutionalized Judeophobia caused Talmudic Judaism, also known as Rabbinical Judaism, to emerge from the Pharisaical sect. Under these conditions of persecution, Talmudic Judaism is exemplified by it’s ritualistic, legalistic, and separatist tendencies. Further expanding the divide between Christians and Jews were alleged derogatory references to Jesus made in the Talmud. The Middle Ages saw Jews excluded from Christian society but hold a virtual monopoly on the practice of lending at interest, leading to an elite Jewish financier class that came at the expense of the peasantry but gained the admiration of European royalty. Kings and barons alike had a hand in spreading Judeophobia by using Jews as intermediaries for collecting taxes and using them as creditors, especially during war time. Violent episodes inevitably emerged and Europe’s royal families often expelled Jews to satisfy public outrage.

This self-fulfilling endogamous prison placed a perpetual barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Jews were told (by both Jews and Gentiles alike) assimilation was impossible but this reinforced a solidarity among Jews, New Christians, and marranos. Endogamy also remained particularly strong among the Jewish elite whose family bonds were intertwined with commercial ties. By the time the expulsions of Jews had been reversed by the late 18th century, many Jews became disillusioned with assimilation which reinforced a racial conception of Jewishness; an extricable genetic aspect of themselves rather than a religious orientation. This factors into the awakening of Jewish nationalism in the second half of the nineteenth century. For example, Mortiz Hess, after trying for two decades to assimilate in Germany, changed his name to Moses and published Rome and Jerusalem, where he argued for Jews to return to Palestine. Hess would go on to inspire Theodor Herzl, who’s Jewish State became the Zionist manifesto.

The schism between King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church expanded the influence of marranos in England when Henry founded the Anglican Church and England became a stronghold of anti-popeism. The establishment of a sect of Christianity that circumvented the authority of the Pope provided a common source of tension of British gentile and Jews. Anglicans, Puritans, Calvinists; all forms of Protestantism seemed attractive to Jews looking to convert. Throughout the seventeenth century, Jews experienced such prestige that a peculiar theory emerged, called British Israelism, which posited the British people as “genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants” of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. The relationship between England and Jews deepened when Nathan Mayer Rothschild, a British Jewish banker, financed the English war against Napoleon and gained control of the Bank of England (which was already a cartel of private bankers who had been given the monopoly to issue money on public debt). In the American context, this philia would deeply intertwine the American Jewish and Evangelical communities.

The years of Lyndon B. Johnson also marked a turning point for American Jewish public opinion. Until then, American Jews had relatively little interest in settling Palestine and were happy in America. It was only after the Six-Day War that the American Zionist lobby increased pressure on American Jews to, if not settle in Palestine, openly support Israel abroad. Many American Jews could recognize themselves in Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel’s comment that until June 1967, “I had not known how Jewish I was.” Professor and scholar Norman Finkelstein explains

“Jews now stood on the front lines defending America-indeed, ‘Western civilization’-against the retrograde Arab hordes. Whereas before 1967 Israel conjured the bogey of dual loyalty, it now connoted super-loyalty. […] After the 1967 war, Israel’s military élan could be celebrated because its guns pointed in the right direction-against America’s enemies. Its martial prowess might even facilitate entry into the inner sanctums of American power. After the June war, mainstream American Jewish organizations worked full time to firm up the American-Israeli alliance.”

The Zionist elite now understood that Israel’s success hinged on an ever-present fear of war among the American people and, in the wake of the dislocation of the Communist bloc, it was in fact Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself that coined the phrase “war on terror” to convince the American public that Arab terrorism was an apocalyptic threat.

I have only scratched the surface of the breadth of topics Guyenot explores, though his geopolitical analysis still remains applicable. Mainstream media outlets have hyper-fixated on the internal turmoil plaguing Iran, manufacturing consent for “regime change”. The consent is manufactured for the public. Ultimately the decision whether or not to engage Iran militarily, and potentially bring the entire region into war, has already been made or will be made by a select fraction of powerful policy makers. We seem to be in the midst of repeating the not-so-distant past when, in 2015, Netanyahu dramatized his fear of Iran in front of the American Congress by referring to the Biblical story of Esther:

“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

Zionism, although professed to be secular, has been a Biblical endeavour from it’s inception- which itself could be argued was the appearance of Ezra and Nehemia with Persian backing in Jerusalem. The preface of the biography of David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, goes as follows: “The life of David Ben-Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a biblical prophecy, an eternal dream. […] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a ‘light unto the nations’ that would help to redeem all mankind.”

When Ben-Gurion is recorded as calling for the destruction of Jordan, Syria and Egypt and calls it “revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during biblical times” or when 66 percent of Jewish Israelis believe Palestinians are a modern day version of Amalek (the quintessential enemy of the Hebrew people, whose complete extermination is a commandment from Yahweh), these are examples of the centuries old levers of power meant to place pressure on global Jewish consciousness. This pressure keeps eternally open a wound that reminds the chosen people of Yahweh that “kings will fall prostrate before you, faces to the ground, and lick the dust at your feet” (Isaiah 49:23) when, and only when, Zion is the center of the world.

Point blank, Fuentes’ case of digital de-personification is a distinct result of his critique of Jewish power in American society. Against his own adamant demands, it seems as if his base line ability to identify an active genocide has won him favour with people who identify across the political spectrum. This base line seems out of reach for his contemporaries because it requires a complete deconstruction of most 20th century historical narratives — a deconstruction Fuentes hasn’t even fully committed to.

Just as there are no real shared “Judeo-Christian” values, there is no great Western history being “usurped” by a Jewish oligarchy. The Western world bears deep responsibility that is equal parts cooperation, antagonism and fetishization in the development of the cult of Yahweh. Judeo-Christian unity only exists as a bulwark against their most recent common enemy; Pan-Arabism and Islam.

One needs to look no further than the case of Berlin-based Turkish-Kurdish journalist and German citizen Hüseyin Dogru. On May 25, 2025, Dogru was included as an actor in a sweeping set of European Union (EU) sanctions that effectively saw him erased from existence. Like Fuentes, Dogru has had all his bank accounts frozen and been put on an EU-wide travel ban. Furthermore, Dogru is forbidden from engaging in any form of paid employment or self-employment, and no one is legally permitted to provide him with any economic resource, putting him on a de facto professional ban. As well, despite not being explicitly named on the sanction list, the bank account of Dogru’s pregnant wife was also frozen.

With the rise of Nick Fuentes, the existence of a Judeo-Christian set of values is being dragged into the spotlight- not unlike the Talmud on trial during Disputation of Paris- and we’ll see if the relationship between America and Israel is the dog wagging the tail or the other way around.

Originally published at https://bbfendies.substack.com.