Posted by Geoffrey Clarfield
Time to stop donating to and following the Heritage Foundation. They have lost their way.
From World Israel News
The president of the Heritage Foundation, the leading conservative think tank, defended right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson and said the group would not cut ties with him days after Carlson hosted an interview with antisemitic influencer Nick Fuentes
Kevin Roberts also said in a video . . .”We will always defend truth, we will always defend America and we will 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.”
He warned Carlson’s critics: “Their attempt to cancel him will fail.”
Fuentes has mounted an outside bid for influence within the larger right-wing movement, using overt antisemitism as his main flank.
His chummy conversation with Carlson, who agreed with the provocateur on many issues including Israel, was seen as a further mainstreaming of antisemitic views within the right.
Roberts, however, saw it as embodying the conservative ideals of free debate.
“I disagree with, and even abhor, things that Nick Fuentes says,” Roberts said, without elaborating.
“But canceling him is not the answer, either. When we disagree with a person’s thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas in debate. And we have seen success in this approach as we continue to dismantle the vile ideas of the left.”
The whole article is here.
5 Responses
I think cancelling either the Heritage Foundation or Tucker Carlson is a little extreme. Tucker Carlson runs a show whose purpose is to examine what has ignited the contemporary conversation. The Heritage Foundation believes in allowing free debate. The Jews are a very smart and effective people, and so have become influential in American society with a reach that belies their numbers. I can’t see anything anti-Semitic about saying this. And when any group has an influence in a democracy far greater than their numbers would suggest, it makes sense to examine how this influence is being expressed, as they have become an advocacy group like any other.
“And when any group has an influence in a democracy far greater than their numbers would suggest, it makes sense to examine how this influence is being expressed, as they have become an advocacy group like any other.”
You mean like the Muslims in both the US and the UK… for a start?
Yes. Absolutely.
You have what I would describe as a “technocratic” or “legalistic” viewpoint. Which in my opinion is ultimately inconsequential, because the end-point is familiar to all of us, irrespective of how it is described.
I would further describe it as being similar to the legally-based (and therefore beyond reproach) “Rules of Engagement” applied to members of the US armed forces, which although seemingly pure and unbiased, being legally-based, caused death and injury to too many US servicemen.
So which group would you prefer to get rid of, at least for a start? Perhaps the Jews and the Muslims are so similar that it would be easier to get rid of the Jews first, because there are far less of them. Just a numbers game, you understand…
Perhaps it is time for these donors to take their charitable funds somewhere else.
https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-receives-25-million-gift