The Dictatorship
The Nazism taboo in America is broken
In a year defined by President Donald Trump’s attempt to turn our nation into an authoritarian kleptocracy, one of the most disturbing events of the year was not a reactionary policy or a speech, but in fact the results of a focus group which were published Friday.
City Journal, which is published by the influential right-leaning think tank the Manhattan Institute, conducted a focus group of 20 “mostly Trump voters, overwhelmingly Christian, a mix of college and non-college, ranging from late teens to twentysomethings edging into thirty,” based in and around Nashville, Tennessee. The discussion, designed to examine the attitudes of Gen Z conservatives, covered lots of questions, ranging from the economy to feminism to foreign policy. But the most striking answers were related to questions about white supremacist figures — and demonstrated how many young people on the right are marinating in a media atmosphere of the most noxious, racist extremism imaginable, with no obvious pathway back to making such bigotry taboo again.
In today’s right-wing political culture, Trumpism is growing contiguous with Fuentes-ism.
When the moderator asked how many of them knew Nick Fuentes — a white supremacist livestreamer who has, among other things, called Adolf Hitler “really f**king cool,” described Chicago as “n—r hell,” argued in favor of a return to racial segregation, doubted the Nazi Holocaust, opposed interracial marriage and said women shouldn’t have the right to vote — more than half of the respondents raised their hands based on Fuentes’ name recognition alone. Several participants, identified only by their first names, described him in approving or ambivalent terms.
George said, “I agree with a lot of his points. He definitely doesn’t care about how it’s gonna be reacted to, which I respect, but I also think it can be kind of dangerous.” Another, Ally, said, “At its core I believe a lot of what he says, but I think the delivery is kind of poor.” Atticus said, “I dig him… He’s definitely going after more of the shock value with some of his stuff. But as far as general beliefs or values, I sort of agree.”
Andrew, who elsewhere in the focus group said he “really liked” Fuentes, attempted to defend Fuentes as “joking” much of the time, but also expressed earnest support: “I feel like his viewpoints would have been mainstream not that long ago. If he’s saying something like most women want to be raped, well, ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ sells like hotcakes to women, so I feel like that’s just a fact.” Ethan described Fuentes as overly polarizing, but said “He has some interesting opinions, I think specifically about race.” Colin said, “I think he reminds me of the Andrew Tate Republican Party, where he’s really good at addressing a common problem, but the solutions aren’t the solutions to go by.”
There were a few notes of disapproval. Brice said Fuentes “is very dangerous for our side of things,” and Ashley said “I think being too radical pushes people away and makes them look for truth elsewhere.” Notably, neither of these comments contained substantive condemnation, appearing more strategic instead. (Note: City Journal said the transcript it provided was partial, which means other comments might have been excluded.)

The focus group became even more alarming when the moderator asked, “What do you think of Adolf Hitler?”
Ashley said, “I think he was a great leader, to be honest. I think what he was going for was terrible, but I think he showed very strong leadership values.” Andrew said, “I think we should have a stronger executive branch. I don’t think we should be killing people or doing mass genocide, obviously, but I do think we should have a strong executive….. I support national sovereignty, and Hitler was a nationalist. He was like, we have to take Germany back for Germans. And I feel like we should do that in America. We should take America back for our native population.”
Brice, who described himself as Jewish ancestrally and Christian by faith, said, “I’ve actually read ‘Mein Kampf.’ The end conclusions that he came to: absolutely abominable. But I strangely understood where he was coming from as far as wanting to improve the national state of Germany.” Only Lauren offered full-throated condemnation: “He made all of those people suffer, and I want to do ungodly things to people who do things like that.”
The moderator followed up by asking how the group felt about Jewish people.
Atticus said, “They’ve got Hollywood on lock.” George queried, “Don’t they own, like, a ton of the media, and, like, just kind of everything?” Andrew said, “I would say a force for evil.” Only Brice diverged, saying he believed Jewish people were “No different than black people, Asian people, or any other people here today.”
After the moderator asked Andrew to clarify his comments on Jews being “evil,” he doubled down, and then the moderator asked others to respond, prompting a bit of pushback: Ashley said Jews and Christians were similar, biblically speaking; Ally rejected “any classification of a whole people group,” adding, “I just don’t think you can say this entire people group is bad.” But Lauren raised what appeared to be an antisemitic trope about sexually corrupting Jewish cabals: “Israel has a lot of connections to sex and human trafficking, and that doesn’t sit well with me.”
Some of us may have been underestimating how much fascistic energy has bubbled up from more grassroots quarters of American political life.
I was blown away reading this transcript. The venomous Fuentes appears to be just another right-wing pundit who maybe rage-baits a bit too much. Jews are described as sly puppeteers. Hitler is not seen as the apex of genocidal barbarism, but rather a nationalist leader who can be at least partially empathized with.
We’ve known for a long time that the right has been growing more extremebut this focus group really made it sink in: in today’s right-wing political culture, Trumpism is growing contiguous with Fuentes-ism, and the long-standing taboo against Nazism in America is broken.
Here’s another way of thinking about it: For a long time American scholars and journalists have been debating whether or not Trump matches the definition of a fascist; but some of us may have been underestimating how much fascistic energy has bubbled up from more grassroots quarters of American political life. And with the overwhelming majority of participants describing themselves as getting their political news from social media, independent podcasts and YouTubers — and hardly any professional institutional media — it’s difficult to see how to guard against it getting worse. Trolls, demagogues and grifters are whispering into the ears of our youth (and not just on the right), and sabotaging our capacity to adhere to democracy.
Let’s be clear that a focus group is not a poll — we cannot quantify how widespread these attitudes and behaviors are. The point of putting them together is to get a snapshot of a specific subset of the population to gauge the more complex elements of their belief systems that surveys cannot capture. But what these young red state conservatives said doesn’t defy what we know about what’s happening on the right, it confirms it.
Data points supporting the idea that the Nazi taboo is broken are everywhere. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — whom multiple focus group participants said was a media figure who best represented their views — recently conducted a softball interview with Fuentes which allowed Fuentes to present himself as a more innocuous pundit than he is. That interview has in turn roiled the American rightrocking right-wing institutions like the Heritage Foundation as they have struggled to figure out how close of a relationship they should hold with Carlson. The Trump administration employs a man who described himself as having a “Nazi streak” in a text message. In October Politico obtained leaked Telegram messages showing young Republican leaders describing Black people as monkeys and sharing messages that include “I love Hiter.”

A number of prominent right-wingers are openly acknowledging that something has gone rotten. Rod Dreher, a conservative writer, recently described a trip to Washington, D.C., in which he said a “D.C. insider” told him that he estimated that between 30% and 40% of Gen Z Republicans in Washington are Fuentes fans and reported that other young Republicans agreed with that estimate. The point isn’t whether that number is accurate — there’s no way to confirm it on the record — but rather that it reflects a perception within the right that Fuentes is ascendant. Vivek Ramswamy, who ran for president in 2024 and is running for governor of Ohio in 2026, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times recently decrying Fuentes’ growing influence on the right.
The presentation of this focus group by The Manhattan Institute — the group that employs the right-wing disinformation agent Christopher Rufo — should also leave us feeling concerned.
In the introductory synopsis to the focus group findings, the author, Jesse Arm, writes “moral stigmas — racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny — no longer reliably do the work they used to.” But he appears to put the blame for those things on the left, saying that, “After a decade of hearing the same accusations leveled at everyone from John McCain to Mitt Romney to Donald Trump, some see allegations of bigotry as table stakes.” Arm also downplays the extent of extremism surfaced in the focus group by saying there was “one true believer who agreed with Fuentes’ worldview and espoused explicit authoritarian and anti-pluralist views” who was “an outlier.”
The Manhattan Institute is not endorsing the participants’ worldview, but it was also clearly not trying to sound the alarms. It did, however, seem confident that the group was an authentic representation of the state of today’s right-wing youth — a group of Americans who increasingly are intrigued by the most vicious and destructive among us.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer for MS NOW. Sign up for his newsletter.
The Dictatorship
US options to take over Greenland
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semiautonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark.
Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White Housewhich is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.
Trump said Friday he is going to do “something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
If it’s not done “the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATOand Greenlanders say they don’t want to become part of the U.S.
This is a look at some of the ways the U.S. could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.
Military action could alter global relations
Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several U.S. presidents towards Washington’s position in the Arctic.
The current fixation is partly down to “the realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don’t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,” he said.
If the U.S. took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisispossibly an existential one.
While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S.
It’s unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen has said.
Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but “it’s not true” said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS.
While there are probably Russian submarines — as there are across the Arctic region — there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.
Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it’s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely “fundamentally alter” U.S. relationships with allies worldwide.
The U.S. already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be “quite happy” to accommodate a beefed up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.
For that reason, “blowing up the NATO alliance” for something Trump has already, doesn’t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS.
Bilateral agreements may assist effort
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn’t for sale.
It’s not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the U.S. would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland.
Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland “through cooperation and diplomacy,” without taking it over, Bayoumi said.
One option could be for the U.S. to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.
Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the U.S.
That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands’ security in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It’s not clear how much that would improve upon Washington’s current security strategy. The U.S. already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.
Influence operations expected to fail
Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don’t want to become part of the U.S.
Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the U.S. would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is “inaccessible.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the top U.S. official in Denmark in August to complain that “foreign actors” were seeking to influence the country’s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.
Even if the U.S. managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That’s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling.
To match that, “Trump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn’t want for his own citizens,” Gad said.
Disagreement unlikely to be resolved
Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes “little sense to criticize Denmark,” because the main reason why the U.S. operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles.
The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the U.S. to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a “gold-plated signature,” Gad said.
But he suggested that’s unlikely because Greenland is “handy” to the U.S president.
When Trump wants to change the news agenda — including distracting from domestic political problems — “he can just say the word ‘Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.
The Dictatorship
Vance’s ‘door to door’ rhetoric is reminiscent of Gestapo
Vice President JD Vance seems to want Americans to get used to the prospect of masked government agents at their door as the Trump administration ramps up its racist anti-immigrant crackdown.
After widely decried shootings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week — at least one of them deadly — Vance shared the Trump administration’s plan for increased numbers of ICE agents going door to door in search of immigrants. (Numerous American citizens have been detained and reportedly abused by ICE agents since Trump retook office.)
During a Fox News interview that aired on Wednesday, Vance said he expects to see “deportation numbers ramp up as we get more and more people online, working for ICE, going door to door and making sure that if you’re an illegal alien, you’ve got to get out of this country.”
JD Vance; “I think we’re gonna see those deportation numbers ramp up as we get more and more people online, working for ICE, going door to door” pic.twitter.com/8oIt4rCXhP
—Aaron Rupar (@atrupar)”https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/2009108125266174082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>January 8, 2026
Vance made similar comments a day later at the White House, where he railed against media outlets for their coverage of an ICE agent’s deadly shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. While spewing brazen lies to defend the agent who shot Good, Vance said immigration agents had been “going door to door to try to find criminal illegal aliens and deport them from the United States of America.”
Are ICE agents literally going door to door to random homes, searching without cause for illegal immigrants? The acting director of ICE has said agents are going door to door to businesses, without suggesting the same about residences.
Door-to-door immigration operations at people’s homes would mirror tactics deployed by Nazi storm troopers and members of the Gestapoduring Hitler’s genocidal reign over Germany.
As the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains on its website:
In the months after Hitler took power, the SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi Party were arrested, and some were killed. By the middle of 1933, the Nazi Party was the only political party, and nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
The similarities seem obvious.
And keep in mind that the same DHS is actively gearing up to target liberals and critics of the Trump administration under the guise of fighting domestic terrorism. So it’s not that hard to imagine the Trump administration sending masked government goons to Americans’ doorsteps at any time and for any reason.
And this, we’re told by the MAGA horde, is what freedom looks like.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
The Dictatorship
Trump’s $100 billion Venezuela pitch meets oil industry skepticism
President Donald Trump on Friday urged nearly 20 American oil executives to invest a combined $100 billion in rebuilding Venezuela’s decrepit energy infrastructure, presenting the plan as a way to drive down global oil prices and ease costs for American consumers.
But oil industry leaders have expressed deep skepticism about pouring substantial capital into Venezuela, where profitability and government stability remain deeply uncertain. Several energy giants have lost billions of dollars in previous Venezuelan ventures, and executives in attendance on Friday said they would need to see “significant” changes in the country before they could invest.
“You can imagine to re-enter [Venezuela] a third time would require some pretty significant changes from what we’ve historically seen here and what is currently the state,” Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said at the White House meeting. “Venezuela today, it’s uninvestible, and so significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system.”
Asked what backstops would be implemented to prevent oil companies from losing billions if Venezuela becomes unstable, Trump said that the companies “know the risks.”
Trump’s proposal envisions top executives from Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and other major oil companies dramatically boosting Venezuelan oil production to reduce global prices to around $50 per barrel.
“The plan is for them to spend — meaning our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100 billion of their money, not the government’s money,” Trump said in the East Room on Friday. “They don’t need government money, but they need government protection and need government security.”
Trump attempted to assuage industry concerns by promising them “total safety” and “total security” if they agreed to drill in Venezuela, and said companies would “mostly be using Venezuelan workers” on the ground. But those promises lacked specifics about how such guarantees would be enforced.
Trump’s vision includes routing revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil sales into accounts controlled by the U.S. government. In a New York Times interview on Wednesday, Trump said the United States could quickly generate vast oil revenues in Venezuela and would maintain control over that nation’s government for “much longer” than a year.
Earlier this week, the White House announced an agreement with Caracas that will require Venezuela to export up to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States. Revenue from the oil, Trump said, will be “used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”
The United Nations, along with other international allies, have criticized Trump’s stated goals as interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation. U.S. officials and election experts have long accused ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of election fraud and classified his government as illegitimate.
At the Friday meeting, Trump also spoke openly about acquiring other countries’ territory, warning that if the U.S. doesn’t “take Greenland” — a self-governing territory of Denmark, a NATO member and U.S. ally — then China or Russia would move in. He suggested it could be acquired “the easy way or the hard way.” A takeover of Greenland could threaten the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has undergirded the post-World War II security of the Western world.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW.
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship4 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics11 months agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics11 months agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics11 months agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics9 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’






