The rise of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and the growing faction known as the “woke right” is one of the strangest spectacles in contemporary political life. What began as a reaction against the absurdities of progressive identity politics has corrupted into its own version of the same phenomenon. The language and posture of resistance have become the very essence of the movement. They no longer serve truth, but performance. Hence, we may call it the woke right, a mirror image of the woke left, equally intoxicated by critical theory’s vocabulary of suspicion, power, and perpetual grievance.
Critical theory, as Malloy Owen recently observed in The Hedgehog Review, has migrated across the political spectrum. It now flourishes in unlikely soil, feeding on resentment and the thrill of subversion. Its slogans, such as “Everything you’ve been told is a lie,” “All institutions are corrupt,” “Truth is just a mask for power,” are the catechism of the new right-wing influencer class. The left has long traded in these rhetorical gestures. What is new is their appropriation by figures who claim to defend Western civilization while simultaneously dismantling the moral and cultural foundations that made it possible.
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, a young man who has managed to turn antisemitism into a livestreamed lifestyle, revealed the extent of the rot. Carlson, who has styled himself as a defender of family, order, and reason, chose to entertain a figure who has praised Hitler, denied the Holocaust, and publicly fantasized about authoritarianism. The exchange contained no serious challenge, no moral clarity, and no journalistic backbone. It was a group therapy session for men who imagine themselves as martyrs of the establishment. Carlson performed his habitual shrug, framing the conversation as one more instance of “just asking questions.” The act is familiar. It allows the host to appear brave without ever being accountable.
Fuentes, for his part, is a textbook case of radical narcissism disguised as dissidence. His rants about Jews, women, and modernity have little to do with coherent ideology. They are performances of rage. Beneath the spectacle lies a moral vacuum. His claim to Christian faith is a mockery of the Gospel. Christianity does not license hatred under the banner of tradition. There is no room within the revelation of Christ for one who mocks the image of God in others.
Sixty years ago this month, the fathers at Vatican II stated that “in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.” It is difficult to imagine a clearer repudiation of everything Fuentes represents.
The appeal of such “woke” figures reveals less about politics and more about psychology. Sociologists call it parasocial attachment, the illusion of friendship that arises between media consumers and their preferred commentators. The audience feels seen by the speaker’s indignation. In a culture saturated with corporate hypocrisy and elite moral decay, this recognition can feel intoxicating. Conspiracy-based commentary provides an emotional catharsis for those who feel disempowered.
It flatters the listener with secret knowledge. “They” are lying to you, and “we” see the truth. The mechanism is ancient. It is the same instinct that made the gossip of medieval courts so potent, and the same dynamic that keeps online outrage profitable today.
Such rhetoric thrives because it promises liberation from complexity. Every social ill can be traced to a hidden puppet master. Every moral question can be reduced to suspicion of institutions. This posture is indistinguishable from the logic of the woke left, which views all relationships through the prism of oppression. The woke right simply inverts the roles. Where the left decries white patriarchy, the right blames globalist elites or shadowy cabals. Both sides reject the possibility of an ordered moral universe grounded in reason and nature.
Both operate from an anthropology of suspicion rather than of truth.
Fuentes’s followers, often young men, are drawn by a sense of belonging that the broader culture denies them. They see in him the courage to offend the powerful. Yet courage severed from prudence is mere recklessness. A genuine conservative vision grounded in virtue ethics and the natural law does not trade in nihilistic irony. It cultivates self-command, respect for hierarchy, and reverence for truth. When these are replaced by sarcasm and spectacle, conservatism degenerates into theater.
The influence of figures such as Candace Owens further illustrates the point. Owens’s commentary once served as a needed counterweight to progressive racial narratives. In recent years, however, her flirtation with anti-Zionist conspiracies and her reckless commentary on Jewish influence have placed her within the same moral drift as Fuentes. Her alliance with figures who trivialize genocide in the name of “open debate” betrays a lack of intellectual discipline. The Christian conservative movement cannot excuse such carelessness. To do so is to mistake provocation for principle.
The allure of this so-called “woke right” lies in its imitation of critical theory’s grammar. It borrows from Foucault’s suspicion of power while pretending to defend Christian civilization. Its discourse is therapeutic rather than intellectual. The point is not truth but vibe as the transgressive mood of rebellion. Carlson’s refusal to press Fuentes on his admiration for Stalin or his venom toward Jews was deliberate. To challenge the guest would have disrupted the emotional payoff of mutual victimhood. The result is a show that sells grievance as identity.
This style of communication preys on moral exhaustion. Many conservatives, battered by years of cultural defeat, find relief in outrage. They crave certainty in an age of confusion. Conspiracy theories offer that certainty. They restore the illusion of coherence to a chaotic world. Yet they also erode the capacity for reasoned judgment. Every refutation becomes proof of the conspiracy. Every appeal to evidence is dismissed as establishment propaganda. In this way, conspiratorial thinking mimics the totalizing nature of ideology. It closes the mind and inflames the passions.
Theologically, the phenomenon reveals a spiritual crisis. The Christian mean is always the mean of virtue. Saint Thomas Aquinas defines virtue as the habit of right reason in action. The movements of the woke right, however, are guided by passions ungoverned by intellect. They confuse suspicion with discernment and anger with zeal. The Apostle James warned that “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” When commentators feed that anger under the guise of moral awakening, they become false prophets of the digital age.
Moreover, the conspiratorial impulse has a corrosive effect on Christian community. It fosters pride disguised as enlightenment. Believers begin to measure faithfulness by the number of secrets they claim to know. The Church’s magisterium, tradition, and sacramental life are replaced by online gurus and echo chambers. This fragmentation serves the enemy of souls far more effectively than any external persecution. A Church divided by paranoia is a Church disarmed.
The sociological appeal of these commentators also stems from economic incentives. The gig media economy rewards provocation. Rage generates clicks, and clicks generate revenue. The temptation to stoke division is therefore structural. Carlson and Owens understand this dynamic well. Fuentes, though more crude, plays the same game. Their brand is transgression packaged as authenticity. It is a profitable imitation of courage. Yet moral courage has never been measured by one’s ability to offend. It has always been measured by one’s willingness to speak truth in charity, even when it costs dearly.
The conservative movement’s flirtation with this “woke right” reflects a failure of formation. Too many Christians equate skepticism with intelligence and sarcasm with insight. They forget that the foundation of wisdom is reverence. Without reverence, knowledge becomes weaponized. The political right cannot restore civilization while imitating the nihilism of the left. It cannot claim to defend the West while rejecting the moral order that gave the West its coherence.
Therefore, Christians must practice discernment in what media they consume. If a voice continually stirs anger, breeds suspicion, or cultivates contempt for others, it cannot be from the Spirit of God. The standard is simple: does this narrative lead to virtue, hope, and truth, or does it lead to bitterness and fear? The former builds up the soul; the latter corrodes it. Saint Paul’s admonition remains relevant: “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, think about these things.”
In the end, there is one authority before which every ideology must bow. It is the magisterium of the Church, the living voice of Christ through the ages. All other claims, be they political, cultural, or conspiratorial, are simply straw before it. The Christian cannot outsource discernment to pundits who peddle outrage. The measure of all things remains the Word made flesh and the faith once delivered to the saints in the authority of the Church.
If we forget this, we will find ourselves defending civilization with the same weapons that are destroying it.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
This essay is replete with generalities, sweeping vague condemnations, vitriol, and stereotypes.
If the author proposes to castigate the so-called Woke Right, especially when he associates specific names to what he’s condemning, then he ought to specifically chronicle EXACT positions backed up with vetifiable quotes and citations what each person is alleged to believe that runs counter to our Christian way of life. Now, go ahead and do exactly what you should have done in the first place. Anything less is simply journalistic malpractice and political posturing (and potentially sinful).
So you like Fuentes? Do you think he is a “good a Christian?” Yes, he occasionally makes a valid point, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
William: If you’re directing that comment to me, nothing I wrote was in defense of Fuentes. I happen to think, however, that if someone holds views that are alien to my own, I owe them a hearing at the very least. Sometimes listening to someone you disagree with gives you the opportunity to hone the reasons why you hold differing views from theirs.
I am weary of listening to people who denigrate Jews and Israel. I am weary of media people who preach that History really wasn’t History. I quite agree that “Christians must practice discernment in what media they consume.” Contrary to the deacon etc. however, it’s not a lack of discernment that makes me abhor the words of those who would prefer to see the only civilized country in the middle east wiped off the map–and yet call themselves Christians. It would be salutary for all concerned to back off, try a little charity and best of all civility. Not likely, though. The woke on both ends prefer destroying character and demoralizing those who are naive enough to believe what they say is true.
Actually a non-functioning clock is never right, especially an electronic clock, but neither is any cliche ever exactly right.
William: When Fuentes on rare occasion stumbles on a truism, it is an exception to his usual left wing fascism, the left wing essence of fascism being a matter I’m confident would elude the belief system you’ve previously displayed.
So says the guy who once called CNA ‘woke’ for producing an article highlighting Trump’s waffling on Florida’s 6-week abortion referendum.
Also, Candace Owens spews falsehoods at a steady rate. If you need all the links for this you can try this magical tool called ‘Google’.
Everything I read on Google is true.
Deacon, your first sentence is platinum and it may be a sin, but I’m fully planning on stealing it. I’d add naïve to its list of attributes.
I always have to laugh when a writer, in a rush to comment on a matter clearly outside his lane, cartoonishly misunderstands a situation.
First of all Fuentes said he admired STALIN, and Tucker later said he erred in not challenging that. It’s a reprehensible and ridiculous statement. Nobody should admire a mass-murdering tyrant.
If he said in my presence, I drop-kick him like an irritable chihuahua nipping at my shin. My late grandmother visited relatives behind the iron curtain before it fell, and her command of the native tongue allowed ready acceptance by her cousins.
If there is a “woke right”, it’s the Ted Cruzes, Ben Shapiros, Mark Levins that are the “woke” right. They are the ones insisting on fealty to strange gods and regulating speech.
Levin has always been a superficial thinking. For example, in one of his books, he lumped St. Thomas More into a motley collage of Utopian dreamers (despots), as if Utopia was some superstate blueprint, rather than a cautionary tale wrapped delivered in wry English wit. First hint: Utopia means no place and STM coined the word.
If the belief in widespread corruption is “woke”, well then Levin, for years pushed the notion of a “convention of states” movement to reign in the growth and corruption of the federal government, claiming the existing government is too entrenched to be reformed, except through de novo reformulation, because nothing could backfire with that right?
However, in recent weeks Levin’s become completely unhinged. Shortly after the Charlie Kirk assassination he commented that violence (against ICE) would be the natural outcome of the histrionic left’s constant enNazification. Then on ONE DAY he called people “Nazi” 12 separate times. He refuses to “debate Nazis”-but the truth is he is becoming one. Look up “Punch a Nazi [Chris Ray Gun] Social Justice The Musical #5” on video sites for context.
He’s calling for deplatforming, and for Israel to “throw everything” they have at Gaza saying he won’t cry “crocodile tears” for the death of innocents, any more than he would for the death of World War II German civilians. Either overthrow their government or be considered collateral damage.
As for the charge that everything is corrupt, we should remember that one of the temptations presented to Christ was all the kingdoms of the world.
We have witnessed Bishops involved in scandals of moral turpitude and “musical parishes” and now they play footsie with deviant dissidents while promoting unrestrained invasion to fuel their resettlement enterprises, while overseeing diocesan bankruptcies and mass church closures as the flock wanders and drifts.
When you understand the moral frailty of men who read the Gospel of Mark and presumably fear The Almighty, exactly why should you think people who read Marx and think they are the almighty be counted on to be incorrupt?
In recent years, the internet has exposed many things done in the dark, by “trusted institutions”. Some things were intrinsically corrupt (MK Ultra) and some were inept. One fuse remaining in place prevented a disintegrating B-52 from creating a nuclear holocaust involved in that “broken arrow” incident had yields measured in megatons, not kilotons. Detonation would have made Nagasaki look like a campfire.
What kind of reckless disregard allows the transport of nuclear weapons that are or can become armed when not deployed?
That day, the omnipotent grace of God stayed the genuine idiocy of military hubris and recklessness. Happening days after Kennedy became President, one imagines an incoming President dealing with mortality and morbidity in the millions and a freshly irradiated and incinerated “forbidden zone”.
More recently, anybody who didn’t see the massive corruption of big box stores remaining open while local pizzerias (and Churches) were closed by administrative edict as superspreader events has to be stupid or willfully ignorant.
Nick Fuentes a 30 yr old did a podcast trying to defend his right to marry 16yrs old girls. He used the most vulgar and disrespectful language possible. He was lurid and creepy and ANY Catholic Father worthy of the title, who saw that video and then greeted Mr. Fuentes at his door intending to date his 16yr old daughter would plant him face first on the concrete sidewalk!
Any Father who would not is not man. But that is not the worst of it.
He Blasphemously compared his sick lust for “Fresh” 16yr old girls to the
Holy Spirit choosing Our Lady to be Christ’s Mother at age 13.
I know of Chick Comic reading Baptists who know better than to speak with such foul disrespect! Nick is godless like Tucker Carlson who plateformed. Him.
Stop making excuses for evil sir. If you will. Thank you.
Tucker is not MAGA or a conservative.
Also I know many an Israel/Zionist skeptic who has told me they don’t want Nazis or people who bash Churchhill on their side. Stop trying to make these clowns happen.
This is a gross mischaracterization of what Fuentes said in the clip in question. What he said was that he would rather marry an pure, innocent 16-year-old girl than a mid-twenties woman who has slept around a lot. He compared the innocence and purity of the former to that of the Blessed Virgin Mary who became the Mother of God at such an early age. There is nothing lustful or blasphemous about this. 16 used to be a very common age for young girls to get married.
Hopefully the 16 year old potential rape victim of Fuentes, who also rationalizes mass murder, and the potential rapists he and you inspire to ignore a culture requiring greater maturity levels of value formation than 16 year olds of the past, will be protected through the graces of God.
Vad,
You are in a cult son. No Catholic Father is going to let his 16yr old daughter marry a thirty year old. That is sick and evil. The man used very creepy and sexually suggestive language. Saying woman are like Milk because when they age they spoil and he wants a “fresh” girl. The vile little monster then goings on to mention Our Lady. Saying well when the Holy Spirit chose her “she wasn’t 18 let me tell you that!”.
Comparing his clearly creepy lust for 16 year old girls to the Holy Spirit selecting Mary. That is blasphemy.
UR in a cult son. Denounce Fuentes and confess Christ,His Mother and His Church for salvation.
God forgive you defending blasphemy.
As a liberal left leaning reader, I must say I find much value in this author’s point of view. In our ongoing national debate, reverence, and wisdom are often missing from both sides. Whether the ‘magisterium’ of the church is the only answer still remains to be seen.
Divine endowments are the only answer. And they never “progress” into anything else. Believeing than can is an insult to God.
That should have read “believing they can.”
Amen
Thank you Dr Peter for your insightful and well reasoned analysis of the “woke right”. This is a rising problem infecting the conservative movement with a lack of basis in our Catholic Church. As usual, in times of trouble and turmoil, look to our Lord and Savior and our most holy achiech.
There is no “conservative movement”. Conservatism has conserved nothing. It’s nothing but think tanks who preach to the choir and fools who listen to the uneducated horse’s posterior apostate Hannity, while the long march through the institutions proceeds an an accelerating, break-neck speed.
I have to laugh at this fewigned outrage of Tucker’s interview. Where were these indignities when Barbara Walters fawningly interviewed Fidel Castro??
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout…
Did you put your fingers in your ears and stick out your tongue writing that?
The reason you can’t offer a substantive response is that you know it’s true.
It’s amusing. Hannity, before his apostasy argued with a priest on his radio show, open declared his use of birth control and eventual apostasy, before taking up with twice divorced trollip. Where’s the indignity over his statements? He reaches millions.
Trollop?
Mr. Peter’s claim is false. Carlson spent significant time during the interview pushing back against some of what Fuentes has said regarding Jews. Either Mr. Peter didn’t listen or he is counting on his readers not having listened.
As for Fuentes, he is clownish at times and has made many ridiculous and indefensible statements on a wide variety of subjects and people (not just Jews). He also has said many controversial things that are at least in large part true and, more importantly, that respectable commentators assiduously avoid. Because of the cowardice and dishonesty of most of the mainstream, a void is left that people like Fuentes are happy to fill.
He did no such thing. Tucker was mainstreaming him.
The Catholic World Report is now carrying water for the Republicans.
I was looking for Catholic Church information not a political opinion .
This has NOTHING to do with either party.
So examining how the sin of pride can infuse a belief system is “not Catholic?”
Perhaps your implied contempt for Republicans involves how you evaluate individuals and the associations you choose to assign to them.
Susceptibility to the sin of pride exists in every thought, vocalized, and written exercise.
Anti Semitism is an equal opportunity employer. Both on the Right and Left. And sadly, more so amongst Catholics on the Right currently. I’ve had to suspend attendance at a TLM because of what I’ve heard. Both from the pulpit and the congregation.
I’ve always loved learning about medieval times but I’m not interested in returning to them. When I hear a member of the Catholic clergy proclaiming that Jews have infiltrated the Church and they should be kept from holding important jobs in society it’s like time portal to 1200 AD just opened up.
I admire/enjoy your comments and hope that your experience with a TLM group won’t spoil your time at such a parish. Sin seems to be pretty individual(at least, so I’ve noticed) and it seems to me to be possible for any parish to have a few people who haven’t made it into the 20th, let alone 21st century. I’ve heard remarkably ignorant/wrong, no, quite wicked remarks–innocently.And that’s possible in any congregation, TLM or NO. With regard to an antisemitic, sometimes just reminding the individual that our dear Lord was a Jew inspires them to think, if but a moment or two.
I love the TLM. I’ve been going ever since Pope Benedict made that possible & I’ve sung in a Latin Schola. The problem isn’t with the liturgy but with some of the attendees & sadly with some members of the clergy.
I never ran into this sort of stuff until the TLM was suppressed in some dioceses & people felt betrayed & a bit paranoid. Then all the conspiracy narratives emerged. When people feel disrespected & devalued that can happen.
Our former priest said he was so tired of bickering Catholics; seemed they were born with a lemon in their mouths he also said
Thank you knowall.
One of my children attended a Catholic college & was very surprised to hear an orthodox & respected priest in Confession tell her something similar but in earthier tones. She said he talked about people “B**ching & moaning” about stuff.
🙂
I’m tired of it, too.
I’m curious. Are you as worried about anti-Catholicism as you are anti-Semitism?
Your post topic count says no.
“I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards.”
— Huey Long
The question before you is:
“Are you as worried about anti-Catholicism as you are anti-Semitism?”
Try to focus, please.
Funny, you won’t give a published Catholic author a read, but you quote a long dead probably in name only Baptist demagogue politician as an authority.
Here’s another irrelevant quote:
“Do you hear yourself, when you talk?”
-Owen Grady
Never heard that; thanks for sharing.
Luke 18:11-14
“…God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,…”
Dr Peter, you on the AIPAC dole as well?
There you go, Joseph.
There you go Mrs. Cracker.
Have you noticed is socially acceptable to call people “cracker”, but not other racial or ethnic slurs?
Mr Pitchfork, why do you assume cracker is a slur?
per webster’s unabridged; (slang: disparaging and offensive). ..a poor white person living living in some rural parts of the southeastern US…
Thank you knowall. There are other usages, too.
Well, in our victimocracy the proper construction of any word is to assume that any word with multiple meanings is used with malicious or invidious intent.
Of course, one does have to be a member of a fully accredited “oppressed” group.
You’ll never experience the thrill of sitting in front of HR Karen telling you that as a white male with normal attractions to adult women, you aren’t part of a “protected class”.
I had heard it on a movie or somewhere (in a book?) – that’s how I was aware of it.
In our area redneck is more in use, somewhat affectionately.
It’s kinda like the word senile that I learned growing up; now there’s more “acceptable” terms, I guess.
Joseph: is your soul on Satan’s wish list as well?
You have my prayers.
Stop it, Hannity. You have to be seriously deluded to think questioning AIPAC is soul-imperiling.
Why poison the well with an ad hominem, Joseph? Please, provide what points you dispute and offer counter-points. Curious as to what you find problematical about this article.
Dr. Peter well done. Thank you for your commentary I feel I understand th enew right better . thanks and keep up the good work.
Your first mistake is relying on emotion (I feel). Never subordinate the intellect to the viscera.
Actually here’s a better assessment of this article:
“what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
The Principal in Billy Madison.
You’re entitled to your own opinion about the article, as is he. But you don’t get to swap out yours for his and claim it’s his. St. Augustine said there’s basically no use arguing over matters of taste.
Whiskey Tango Hotel?
I think therefore I am?
Brother the tone of your article is the same tone you are admonishing. You have to understand that an article that addresses zero of their claims while simply dismissing them as angry conspiracy theorists grifting for dollars does nothing but pour gasoline on a fire?
When the truth becomes a lie and the lie becomes the truth, we should expect woke.
I think associating the term “woke” with the right is ultimately dishonest. Radical far right views are certainly problematic, particularly those that involve antisemitism and anti-Zionism, but I’m not sure we should be framing those discussions in terms of wokeness. The left is woke.
“Woke” has changed from its original meaning over the years & I suppose if the Left can hijack it for their agenda, others can, too.
How is it dishonest? It’s true that the term “woke” has a complicated and mostly left-wing genealogy. But the essential core of that wokeism is the conviction that the system (politically, socially, culturally) is rigged to control and oppress X (minorities, “LGBTQ+”, etc), that this is driven by a certain group of people, i.e., the oppressors (whites, Christians, etc.), that it involved nefarious plots that only the enlightened can understand (there is a strong vein of neo-gnosticism), and that attacking and destroying these alleged oppressors is not only allowed, it is necessary. In woke rightism, the system is run by neo-cons and “Jewry”, it is aimed at destroying (mostly) young white men, and it must be exposed through a sort of nihilistic and transgressive assualt. In the case of Fuentes, who clearly adulates authoritarian monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, “the Jews” must be exposed and ridded of in some form or fashion. Fuentes is, I think, a perverted misogynist, as is clear from watching nearly any of his videos; he says that women want to be raped, etc. His supporters claim this is just a way to get people’s attention and that he is using satire. I don’t buy it at all.
In an essay on the philosophical roots of wokeism, Bishop Robert Barron highlights several key components (such as the oppressor/victim theme) and the essential place of raw power in the movement. This is also obvious in the calculated rantings of Fuentes. Barron says, “When we listen to the wokeist theorists today, the capacity for self-invention is rampant, and games of oppression are everywhere. It is, finally, all about power.” And that is not just a left-wing notion (and, really, the left-right divisions as we often think of them tend to crumble when it comes to the nihilistic madness of the woke ideology).
As for Owens, her unrelenting drumbeat in recent years has been about how “the Jews” control and run nearly everything here and elsewhere. As Rich Lowry rightly noted in a recent NRO piece:
She is, I think, a clever grifter whose disregard for facts, argumentation, and truth suggests a deeply narcissistic personality. As for Carlson, I’m starting to think the same thing, as he’s moved from asking difficult questions to platforming people and ideas that are increasingly bizarre. Serious Catholics deserve far better.
The Jews killed Michael Jackson? Wow. That’s a new one for me.
The Babylon Bee had a funny video recently about a family gathering & conspiracy stories. It always ends up being about “The Jews.” Never seems to fail.
I think his doctor got in trouble for those sleeping aids?
Terrific. You nailed it Mr. Olson.
I’ve always tried to maintain at the forefront of my own belief system, not as theologically developed as it should, an understanding of human nature I call “Ed’s law.”
What we choose to believe about the human condition flows as much if not more from what we think we believe about religion than what we choose to believe about the nature of evil, and this is directly related to the strategies we use to downplay personal responsibility for sins and how our sins affect the whole of humanity.
Personal sin denial is a proportional equivalent to how impassioned we become through identifying evil primarily or exclusively with those we choose to believe are of another sort from ourselves and our affinity groups.
Carl, stop reading NR. The time to do that was when Buckley wrote a hit piece on Pat Buchanan.
I read a lot of things, including quite a bit that I don’t agree with. (I have, for example, quite a few anti-Catholic books in my library of 30,000 books. How else to know what people actually think and belief?). And I often disagree with NRO; some authors are far better than others. But Lowry’s piece is, I think, on the money. And there’s no need to tell me what to read or not read. We’re adults here.
Please test this balance beam:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-anti.html
Did you stand up well upon it?
I also believe, like Dylan Mulvaney, Fuentes is a performance artist. However, rather than pretending to be a woman, he cosplays as a conservative Christian.
I tend to agree. He’s a twisted, pathetic figure.
Nick Fuentes has openly blasphemed Mary(see my other post) and seeing so called “Traditional” “Catholics” defend the likes of him makes me ill.
Chick Comics shows more respect to Our Lady than Fuentes. They at least never sexualized her…
I am going to be ill…
“But the essential core of that wokeism is the conviction that the system (politically, socially, culturally) is rigged to control and oppress X”
Sounds like very much Paragraph 11 of PLXIV’s DILEXI TE.
“A concrete commitment to the poor must also be accompanied by a change in mentality that can have an impact at the cultural level. In fact, the illusion of happiness derived from a comfortable life pushes many people towards a vision of life centered on the accumulation of wealth and social success at all costs, even at the expense of others and by taking advantage of unjust social ideals and political-economic systems that favor the strongest. ”
and paragraph 97:
“Unjust structures need to be recognized and eradicated by the force of good, by changing mindsets but also, with the help of science and technology, by developing effective policies for societal change. “
Bishop Barron is not an oracle.
But that looks like a genetic fallacy.
Hello Marcus,
While I agree with much of what you say, a good priest I know and St. Thomas state that to engage in fruitful and logical argumentation, one must begin by defining one’s terms.
For example, what is antisemitism? Dozens of people who others listen to have a different definition.
In order to have any fruitful dialogue, this must be defined. In a recent EWTN program, a definition of antisemitism was posited that would’ve thrown most Bible believing in Christians under that moniker.
Your conclusion of discernment by the fruits of anger, suspicion, and contempt for others is an extremely flimsy supposition. Millions of Catholics are being led to anger, suspicion, and contempt by recent developments in the ordinary magisteria of the present and last pontificates.
This justifiable response has been arrived at through conscientious study and a free will exercise of the conscience that Vatican 2 championed.
The beautiful prayer of the compline, and from psalms is applicable here: “ be ye angry, and sin not…”
Many thanks to Carl for publishing this as the discussion will be beneficial.
Ave Maria!
“Your conclusion of discernment by the fruits of anger, suspicion, and contempt for others is an extremely flimsy supposition.”
I did not state any of this, so I’m not sure what you mean.
Mark, this was an original reply to the article when there were no comments.
Are you the author of the article? Based on a response above, I’m pretty sure you’re not.
If you are Dr. Peter, I will be happy to show in the article why this conclusion was pretty clear.
Ave Maria!
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure if you were responding to the article or to my post.
What a bunch of gobbledygook. It would be helpful if the author could
1. Define “antisemitism”.
2. Specifically state how the accused individuals are guilty of being “antisemetic”.
At my advanced age of 83 I have struggled for many years of questioning my country’s adherence to a policy towards a political movement that my Church has warned against (Pope St. Pius X for example). The murder of so many Catholic Palestinian people is an example of evil that is impossible to oppose without being labeled “antisemitic”.
I am onl familiar with the lovely Candace Owen, a Catholic convert who happens to be black and female. To say that someone who opposes her is “racist”!or “anti woman” without first defining the terms and specifically defining how the opponents have fallen into the trap of being included in one of the terms wou, as in this case, be a”uncharitable.
I am sure that the author does not mean to appear uncharitable but that is how his article appears to me.
Your article is disingenuous to say the least about this article. It is obvious you have never listed or followed any of the people you are pointing out as WOKE RIGHT. I would even go so far as to say you are lying about these podcasters, particularly Tucker Carlson and Candace Owen, a Catholic convert. Both of podcasters question everything but do incredible due diligence in trying to uncover the truth–unlike this article. If you aren’t willing to do your due diligence in getting to the truth, please do not use this medium to spread your lies.
I know the author has listened to Carlson, Fluentes, and Owen. And I know that I have, and his descriptions are measured, fair, and accurate.
Candace does “incredible due diligence in trying to uncover the truth”, Kathleen??? The woman who has been suggesting in recent weeks that TPUSA (possibly even Erika Kirk!) is probably involved the killing of Charlie Kirk is who you think is a paragon of truth-telling? Let me guess, you probably also are drinking the Kool-Aid on Candace’s idiocy about Brigitte Macron is actually a man. Maybe log off for a while and then make a commitment to live within the truth.
Respectfully, Candace Owens has been sued due to her claims that Emmanuel Macron’s wife is actually a man. I don’t follow either Miss Owens or Tucker Carlson but I did watch a video where he said he agreed with that conspiracy story. And I only watched that because another Catholic had earnestly told me Mrs. Macron was a man & there was proof.
None of that encourages me to believe that a great deal of serious due diligence has been done by those folks.
It’s more then troubling, to put it mildly, that Tucker Carlson gave a softball interview to the sociopath and sslf-proclaimed racist Nick Fuentes.
Having watched his entire interview of Ted Cruz, and portions of the Fuentes interview, TC paints himself into a corner by aggressively questioning Ted Cruz, and deliberately failing to do the same vs Fuentes. By his own variance in conduct, Tucker Carlson failed “the Bill Buckley test,” i.e., confronting bigotry face-to-face.
The background problem is that so many of the US and western establishment players and institutions have squandered any claim to moral authority or expectation if trust, and that includes the gigantic default of our Catholic Church establishment, long-confected by the Church establishment powers, especially the morally corrosive Vatican Secretariat of State, and its “McCarrick Cultists,” etc, etc.
But there is always reason for hope. Because, despite what many fraud-hierarch-apostates disbelieve, Jesus rose from the dead, and He is our Head, and our King.
He always gives “softball” interviews. People are more candid when they aren’t defensive.
I’ve listened to what Nick has to say and can’t believe such garbage could come from anyone considered to be intelligent! Like the Tate bros, he needs help especially of the spiritual sort!
Hard to take Catholic World Report seriously after the politically correct barrage of politically correct nonsense from Marcus Peter.
“Hard to take Catholic World Report seriously …”
Yawn. I’ve heard this from trads, liberals, atheists, Protestants, etc., etc. Whatever.
I cannot take seriously people who think Fuentes and Owens are worth listening to. And Carlson, alas, seems intent on joining that group.
I’m with you, Bill.
This is a very disappointing article to appear in CWR. One would expect better from a PhD, theologian and radio host. He makes unsubstantiated claims that betray his unfamiliarity with the positions of the people he criticizes. He is uneducated for such an educated man!
Seriously? Well, as editor of this piece, I have watched a lot of Carlson, and more than enough of Owens and Fuentes, to know that Dr. Peter is accurate here.
Well he’s not a PhD and PhD often stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.
I have an MBA, and trust me a lot of times that stands for More Bovinity and Asininity.
Finally a reputable Catholic source prepared to call out the “woke right”. Finally.
Thank you.
The essay is a thoughtful, theologically grounded, and morally serious warning about the dangers of what could be called outrage-based media ecosystems and the growing tendency for segments of the right to mirror the epistemology of suspicion characteristic of the far left. I had until recently never heard of Fuentes, and from his interview seemed somewhat reasonable in explaining his positions, but when I did more research and saw something on Counsel of Trent youtube channel where he attacked Trent Horn and his wife of all people with vulgarities, I saw that as depravity and totally incompatible with his purported Catholic beliefs. By the fruit you shall know them. Carlson too, though very open minded and welcoming of Catholic visitors on his show including Barron, Roumie etc (which are must watches) he nevertheless tends to reject the concept of original sin and resists becoming Catholic even though being relatively very knowledgeable about the faith. Although an important critique, we also need a positive vision of what a virtuous Christian media ecosystem looks like and how conservatives can rebuild intellectual formation. Woke right or neo-con right or extremist right or whathaveyou fades into relative less priority when those who care about conservative values start to build the ideal rather than worry about what others are doing, who are obviously not the ideal leaders of faithfully Catholic-grounded conservatism. If you wanted to go further down that woke right rabbithole though it should be to clarify what aspects of “wokeness” are being mirrored (antagonistic hermeneutics, victimhood posture, etc.) and what aspects are not, and why the analogy is compelling but not exact (in common usage woke squarely is associated with the left to describe the left and their particular ideology). Using woke in the way it is used in the article seems more rhetorical than a surgically defined concept. I may be wrong though, God bless!
I’m looking forward to Professor Peter’s next article in which he’ll inform us whom we’re allowed to talk with and about which topics so we’re never tainted with the his oh-so-feared epithet of “woke.”
But, before that, the good professor might want to make some additional accusations against Tucker Carlson for having interviewed Vladimir Putin. Maybe Carlson’s a Communist, or a spy for the KGB or an agent of Antifa.
Tucker interviewed Bishop Barron. The son of a CIA officer is a crypto=-Papist!
Yeah I know he said he’s Anglican who was glad Martin Luther got rid of indulgences-but you can tell, he’s use Papist dog whistles.
Thank you Dr. Peter for writing this. Some of the posts above demonstrate why this article matters.
Yes, thank you.
Maybe we can look forward to a future article about other Catholic sources that spread the same kind of conspiracies.
The problem seems to be growing.
My take on Fuentes, Owens and Carlson is that they are con artists trying to make a buck. By being outrageous, they stand out, thus more opportunities to score money.
Careful, William. You keep this up and we’ll end up agreeing on something.
Touchdown!
“My take on Fuentes, Owens and Carlson is that they are con artists trying to make a buck. By being outrageous, they stand out, thus more opportunities to score money.”
And you are outrageous with pecuniary considerations.
This sound familiar?
Why do you think that you can pass judgement on them that? Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. More sanctimonious, self righteous nonsense. This is typical for you.
Hint: It’s almost a word for word extraction from a post you made yesterday.
“Why do you think that you can pass judgement on them that?”
Perhaps because so much of what Fuentes says about Jews, women, rape, sex, morality, etc., is so outrageous and even vile?
And Owens is such a grifter. I once thought she had promise as a popular conservative candidate. But her true colors are outrageous.
That was addressed to William. I thought this would make that clear: “Hint: It’s almost a word for word extraction from a post you made yesterday.”
Last night he berated me with that indignity for objecting to George Weigel’s offering of a divorced and remarried Catholic football player as a paragon of virtue.
William is a hypocrite. Whether somebody is “vile” or a “grifter” is not at all clear-it’s subjective and it involves speculation about motives, disposition and methods. On the other hand, divorce and remarriage is a clear and a matter of public record.
Now I’m waiting for people to tell me how Carlson’s acquisition and release of a chunk of the long and lurid social media history of would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks (you know the fellow that quite oddly for people his age had no such record according to the FBI and other “authorities”) is antisemitic. I’m sure Rich Lowry can tell us.
What do you have against Johnny Unitas? So he was divorced and remarried. Given, the horrors of Gaza, Ukraine, Nigeria, etc., Johnny U’s divorce is fairly minor.
So I am a hypocrite? You have never met me and resort to insult. How articulate. Why are you always on the attack? And your name “pitchfork rebel.” Are you channeling Pitchfork Ben Tillman? He was a seething racist.
The Pitchfork Rebel,’
Fuentes blasphemed Mary comparing his sick lust for a 16yr old bride(He is 20 and made the video at age 27) to the Holy Spirit choosing Our Lady to be Mother of God.
What is your damage sir?
So you think that Fuentes, Owens and Carlson are oracles of wisdom? Do you actually believe them? If so, you have a problem. Why all the insults? Your tone is belligerent to say the least, rather than reasoned.
“Your tone is belligerent to say the least, rather than reasoned.”
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Don’t you think most people with online channels are trying to make a buck? That’s not a bad thing in itself. I don’t know if any of the personalities in this article fully believe in what they platform but it’s dangerous stuff. And the more outrageous the material , the more clicks and views.
mrscracker: I would have to assume that this site is adequately monetized.
I believe so Deacon Edward. I’ve made donations to CWR / Ignatius Press myself. Articles like this one encourage me to continue to donate in the future when I’m financially able to.
I appreciate this piece by CWR and the analysis of Dr. Peter. This phenomenon needs to be understood and fought. I would hope that Candace’s faith would help her reasoning and judgment. I’m happy for any and all to join the Church but the medium and the money may be too much for her to turn away from. I only needed to watch 45 minutes of Candace interviewing Nick Fuentes to find out what he is all about. She appeared reasonable in contrast to Nick. He said he was raised Catholic; I would hope that he pays attention to that at some point. Marcus has a good understanding of these cultural drivers of the “woke-right”.
I thought the article made required points eg., against carte blanche whitewash of Stalin.
Tucker Carlson’s real strength is when he is incisive, may he be reminded.
Israel and/or people like Netanyahu seem to be always beyond criticism, on account of “anti-Semitism”; it is a scandal and I found Peter Marcus glosses the problem.
Then there’s this:
‘ It is the same instinct that made the gossip of medieval courts so potent, and the same dynamic that keeps online outrage profitable today. ‘
It seems to me this is not a right compare and its parts haven’t been identified plainly; actually I see a contortion of historical record.
One of the vagaries coming with the “anti-Semitism” thing, as I understand them, is a push to (try to) exonerate Jews from historical wrongdoing.
Another of the vagaries as appears to me is an attempt to give Jews some kind of destined pride of place. If it is real, who is explaining it?
Which historical wrong doings are those?
Where would you like to start?
I’m not aware of any wrongdoings by Jews as a group. We are each individuals and accountable for our own actions.
mrscracker: Tucker Carlson has said exactly that repeatedly. You cannot condemn entire groups of people as in “Jews are evil.” Carlson has said that to condemn people as in ‘blood guilt’ is morally repugnant. Carlson has said repeatedly that only individuals can be judged as moral agents. That’s exactly why Tucker disagrees with people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin who seem to have had no problem with Israel bombing women and children in Gaza because all Muslims are Hamas. Carlson loathes condemning entire groups wholesale. He finds it antithetical to Christiantity. Carlson puts Fuentes and Shapiro together as doing what he hates: condemning entire groups.
“Krakh” and “krakhn” in Yiddish relate with crashing and nursing, mrscracker. So on the one hand Jews (some Jews but a group nonetheless) bomb the whole of Gaza and all its people because those Jews are entitled to hold everyone in the whole world responsible for Hamas.
On the other hand Jews somehow escape accountablility unless they are individualized even that still to be seen.
She needs to get out of Fox, Hannity, Levin for starters.
Do you listen to those programs Mr. Pitchfork?
“Israel and/or people like Netanyahu seem to be always beyond criticism”
On what planet is criticism of Israel forbidden?? And on what planet, let alone in the American cities on that planet, are there no large scale steet riots promoting venomous hatred for Israel??
Netanyahu is criticized a great deal in Israel. Israelis criticized him less during the war but he’s not been a popular politician.
Now she tells us.
Israeli media has been sharing that information about Netanyahu for a long time. People stick together with their leader during an existential crisis but it doesn’t guarantee a politician’s popularity in times of peace.
the mayor elect of N York is planning on arresting him if he enters that city
An essential difficulty in judging someone’s behavior is similar to definition of what something is, the dynamic of perceiving from what appears without and our habit of transposing interpretations from previous experience, and our own personal prejudices [ways of seeing things].
Attempting to define Tucker Carlson as Woke Right, with all its questionable meaning, is typically an extreme difficulty because of his profession, an interviewer not a protagonist. An interviewer may mistakenly be understood as an advocate for a particular ideology, set of beliefs. Nevertheless Tucker did manage to elicit, question, rather than attack Fuentes’ beliefs with the object of allowing Fuentes space to be confessional.
If Tucker Carlson instead went on the attack the exchange would be better described as a debate, for example, the debates between William F Buckley and Saul Alinsky, whereas an interviewer is expected to elicit the subject’s beliefs, views. Which is why Carlson has access to world leaders and most of us who are debaters do not.
I read this essay and when I came to the end, I asked myself, “What is this essay about?”
I find it rather all-over-the-map. Sociological, theological, anthropological, rhetorical, conspiratorial. My head is spinning.
It might have been better to focus on one or two aspects and develop them more coherently.
Amen! I wish you had as many followers on X as do Carlson, Owens, and Fuentes, because this message needs to be read by everyone. Thank you for this wonderful article.
Carl above (11:11 a.m.)
Thanks for pointing me to Bishop Barron’s article, “An Introduction to the Philosophical Roots of Wokeism”.
He can usually be relied on to be clear and coherent.
Certainly, Fuentes and Carlson are a parody of the Christian West. It’s always better not to refer to Conservatism and Christianity as interchangeable though. It complicates establishing anything in a given discussion because one is always trying to redefine Conservatism. It’s enough to have a look at the works of the most influential contemporary conservative, Roger Scruton (which dismiss the core beliefs of Christianity while valuing it as an institutional social bond) to understand that.
Nick Fuentes is not an uncritical conspiracy theorist. In fact, he has actually pushed back against some of Candace Owens’ wilder theories, for instance, that Brigitte Macron is a man. His criticisms of Israel and organized Jewish lobbying are very specific, focused, and well thought out. He has strongly repudiated the theory, put forward by Owens and others, that Israel was behind the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, so he does not blame Jews for everything. His admiration for Hitler and Stalin must be understood in the context of the “great man theory of history” to which Fuentes subscribes. This is the view that individuals with extraordinary leadership qualities are the primary shapers of history. Hitler and Stalin certainly count as figures of this magnitude regardless of their moral failings. To respect someone’s achievements as a leader does not entail approving of their faults, and Fuentes condemns all acts of violence and persecution committed by these men, even though he thinks they have been exaggerated in some cases. He is a faithful Catholic who submits to the Magisterium and has even defended the late Pope Francis on multiple occasions. He does not approve of racial hatred or persecution. He simply wants America to be governed by Christians and free of foreign influence.
Vad my laddie. UR in a cult my son.
Fuentes went online and led his followers into taking an oath to “Rape,Kill, and die for Nickolas J. Fuentes” aka RKD4NJF. The later acronym is in the twitter profiles of many a self proclaimed Groyper next to “Christ is King” & in many cases a Vatican Flag. What a great witness to Christ? NOT!!!!!!
How is that fidelity to the Church Vag? Even if that was “just a joke” as some Groypers claim that is still an intrinsically evil act.
Young Nick is a sick demented grifter and clearly a racist and an anti-Semite and not at all a worthy spokesmen for Catholics or the Gospel.
Then there is “Wifejack”. One of Fuentes’ followers went on a livestream and apologized to him for missing the last Stream because he wanted to “spend time with the wife and kids”. Fuentes HARSHLY berated him and condemned him for putting his family before him. Nick’s followers sent porn cartoons of frogs violating little girls and saying to him they where going to do that to the man’s daughter.
Another former Fuentes Simp. An anti-Semitic Twitter personality name Morgan Ariel. A single mother turned white nationalist Christian had a falling out with the Groypers because they kept posting porn in group chats she complained and was targeted as well.
They sent her frog rape cartoons and also claimed ownership over her daughter.
Nick told her to get over it when she complained.
Last I checked. The fans of Jimmy Akin and or Trent Horn (whose wife had cancer and Fuentes once called her a bitch) don’t send frog rape cartoon porn to people. Groypers do.
Son stop trying to make the little demon Nazi happen! Following Nick Fuentes is clearly a mortal sin. Save your soul laddie and get out of that cult.
PS I hope this post is not too heavy and I am sorry if it is disturbing but young Catholic men are vulnerable to Fuentes’ toxic false version of Catholicism. It is a cult.
I disagree, often strongly, with every writer I read on one point or another. That doesn’t mean I don’t give them credit when I think they are right. I refuse to play by the rules of a game that stipulates I have to consider people like Vigano and Fuentes as being beyond the pale while treating Cupich and Weigel as perfectly legitimate. The latter, for example, has, among other offenses, advocated for unnecessary wars that have killed millions for thirty-five years. CWR should not try to assume for itself the role of gatekeeper. Its record is good, but hardly spotless. Even if you were near perfect, though, you simply don’t have that authority.
Alright, I’ll throw it out there. Nick Fuentes, most of you should realize, that for someone as insignificant and absurd manages to get residence into all of your heads, does that identify something about us [I won’t end saying you, out of empathetic compassion, sort of like Clinton’s I feel you pain].
You can say the most outrageous truth in the open because most people won’t believe you anyway.
LAUGH BREAK TIME!!!!
WORDS OF WISDOM!!!
“All work and no play makes Jack a Peh Bah Pom Bahoo” – P.G. Wodehouse
Pause for 3 seconds
Break is over
Can’t we all just get along?! A silly-sounding phrase, but there’s truth in it for Christians.
All of us have come through life on different paths, and these paths have influenced how we interpret the world and our nation’s politics, so it’s no wonder we all have different viewpoints and perspectives.
E.g., my parents had a minimal education and both were forced to drop out of high school because of the Great Depression, but in spite of that, they believed in working hard, earning a living, spending the paycheck wisely and investing not only in daily pleasures, but also in retirement funds that would ensure that their needs would be met without the need to accept “charity” when they were no longer able to work.
I first read about the Holocaust when I was in elementary school. My mother loved to read and subscribed to the Saturday Evening Post–and this magazine published an in-depth report about the Holocaust. I remember my mother saying, as she read it, “Oh, the poor Jews! How awful for them!” We lived near a Jewish neighborhood in Northern Illinois, and knew many Jews. I was taught to respect Jews and consider them, “God’s Chosen People who gave us our Savior, Jesus). I was taught to respect all people and treat them with gentleness and courtesy, even if I disagreed with them.
By the time he died, my dad, even with his limited education, was worth a lot of money, most of it invested in various properties that he bought (for cash) in decent neighborhoods, fixed up, and rented out–charging the rent that people could AFFORD based on their income and circumstances. He offered them the opportunity to reduce their rent by “sweat equity”–mowing the lawn (Dad provided the lawn mower and fuel), painting a room, planting flowers. He regularly visited his tenants and brought them a cake or some doughnuts. And this generosity and genuine friendship on his part led to many of his tenants being able to save money and eventually buy their own home!
We didn’t live a “wealthy lifestyle” and spend beyond our needs. I grew up in a modest home, and much of the furniture came from junk shops. Our TV was a portable, not a console. My parents both enjoyed a political discussion, but basically did their own thing no matter who the President and other elected figures were. There were times when the leaders provided support for their life choices, and there were other times when the leaders’ policies resulted in loss of money through higher taxes, etc. But they rolled with it, and didn’t ascribe their occasional setbacks to “political corruption” or nefarious conspiracies. My parents invested much of their free time in raising me and my brother.
They just kept doing what the Bible says in I Thessalonians 4: 11-12–“Aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, so that you may behave properly towards outsiders and be dependent on no one.”
And I try to do the same. I graduated from college, got married to my teenaged sweetheart, worked in labs in hospitals in the different places where we lived, and raised our two daughters, both of whom turned out well and are working in good careers that earn them more than enough to live on. I have always attended church and converted to Catholicism along with my late husband in 2004. Our daughters converted a few years later. My husband passed away of COVID in 2020–and I don’t ascribe the COVID epidemic to any “political conspiracy” or any kind of conspiracy. It was a novel virus and at the time it emerged, people didn’t have “natural immunity” and there were no vaccines to protect people. I was sick for 10 days and never had any really serious symptoms, but my husband did–and he became one of the many casualties. R.I.P. Even if there was a conspiracy, knowing that will not bring my husband or any of the others who died back.
That’s the way life goes–we are never free from sin and death on this earth. But God in His mercy, has rescued us from our own choice to sin by providing us with our Savior, Jesus Christ, and the promise of eternal life in heaven after we die.
I don’t really make time to get involved in political controversies that usually don’t affect me directly. I don’t hate any group of people because God commands us NOT to hate! And I try hard to understand why people have different viewpoints than I do and if they are not sinful practices or beliefs, I respect them–I think a lot of this has to do with how they were raised, which often is very different than how I was raised.
I have respect for the humanity and souls of the LGBTQ+ population because God has told us to love people. As a pianist and organist, I know many gay people, and I don’t judge or disrespect them. I ask God to help them submit to Him and live a pure life. It’s up to God, not me or our government.
I am involved with pro-life issues as much as I have time for, but basically these days that means taking care of my one grandson and not charging my daughter and son-in-law any money–I wouldn’t even think of it because I love my grandson and my children! I do try to donate money to pro-life organizations.
And I give to my parish, attend a women’s Bible study, volunteer for various projects in the parish that I am capable of doing–but I don’t get involved with any controversies (and thankfully, my parish seems rather peaceful!).
These activities take up much of my time, and when I am not working, I am taking a walk to try to work off some of my “fat”, reading a good book, or watching HGTV and wondering on how people have enough money to pay for all those fancy renovations–and also wondering on why the need them, but that’s none of my business!
I don’t use any social media other than a few Catholic forums and websites. No Facebook, Twitter, or anything else that would tempt me to sit around all day and ruminate over stuff that I have no control over. I leave it all to those who DO have power and money to influence. I don’t have to account for anyone else’s life when I die–just my own life.
Yes, there are Christians that God calls to get involved with political issues and controversies, and the Bible teaches us to “always be ready with an answer”, but I don’t think that arguing and putting other Christians down is going to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Holy Mother Church. Jesus told us that “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” I know that love sometimes has to correct and discipline, but even this should be done in a loving way that if witnessed by “outsiders,” will be recognized as loving, not vituperative.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth. Probably not much, but I hope it helps someone.
“Just my opinion, for what it’s worth. Probably not much, but I hope it helps someone.”
Not sure if it will be helpful, since I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Not sure what you are thinking with these 5000 word posts. If you can’t say it concisely, it’s better left unsaid. What does anything you said have to do with the specific content of the article?
I’m an elderly widow who doesn’t get out much. I grew up in an era where “essays” were assigned often in my school classes. I miss talking with my very intelligent husband and sharing ideas back and forth (although we usually agreed). I moved to a different state after my husband died to be closer to my two daughters and families, but they’re not particularly interested in deep Catholic discussions like the people on this website, and neither are the people in my parish, who all have established lives and families down here that they visit with often. I have gotten involved with a few music organizations, but again, these folks have lived here for years and have plenty of friends to visit with. I’m sorry that you don’t like reading long posts, but…no one is assigning you to read them. Just skip my posts and be at peace.:) I found your post hurtful, especially when no one is forcing you to read anything I write.
If you are here to interact and participate in discussions, then I would suggest tailoring your writing and posts accordingly. This way, people can interact with the points you make. And it should go without saying that a post, particularly a long and detailed one, should be relevant to the topics discussed in the article. Otherwise, what is the point in posting?
Mrs. Sharon Whitlock: Just keep on posting to your heart’s content. We realize you miss your husband dearly so, if it provides you consolation, type away!
I wish we could all get along, too Mrs. Sharon. We’re the Body of Christ after all.
“Can’t we all just get along?! A silly-sounding phrase, but there’s truth in it for Christians.”
Jesus at Luke 12:51 begs to differ.
we used to have to write 3,000 word essays as punishment at the Catholic school, for things like hitting someone or throwing snowballs; they were quite the feat and resembled filibusters, I guess.
My third-grade teacher gave weekly spelling tests. She required we write each misspelled word 300 times! This led to a decrease in misspelled words. If Mrs. W. would write more, who would be cured?
wow, I’ve never heard of that type punishment – try that these days and they’d say it was cruel
we were talking in my family awhile back about writing cursive and its recent demise in the school systems; my older sister remembered the sisters walking behind them and correcting them, and I think they had those sticks they pointed to the chalkboard with – but she further remarked, “we really learned how to write during those sessions.”
Nowadays, students do not learn cursive, they do not learn spelling, and very few teachers are sisters. Today some do learn to write well. Others never learn. It is what it is.
I have a feeling that, much like in the Democrat party, it is the tail wagging the dog regarding supposed “woke” far rightists. Who exactly are these extreme rightists? And how many of them are there, really? Are they numerically few, like the woke leftist Dems who make an awful lot of noise but are few in number, and bully the saner majority? I follow politics reasonably closely. Would consider myself to the Right for sure, but not woke right. Why? Because I was raised a catholic and judging and condemning is not what we are supposed to do. Because I have had Jewish friends ( and still do) for the majority of my adult life and do not believe a single slander against them. And Because until this recent publicity bomb, I have never even heard of Nick Fuentes, nor the evidently extreme views he holds. Dont give too much credit or publicity to those who are better left under cover of darkness.
I think we can err giving personalities on the extreme fringes either too much attention or too little.
Too much attention increases relevancy. Too little can leave us less informed about dangers in our society.
If these folks are Christians they’re our brothers and sisters. Whether they’re fighting personal demons, sincerely misled by conspiracy narratives, or driven by something else , we should be praying for them. And witnessing to them.
Whereas last yesterday November 16, 2025 at 1:59 pm, above, I positioned you as both a crasher one side and and a nurse bruder or shevester other side, now we see that in the in-between middle you would be a crasher diplomat farmitler. Khrakn meyster bel!
I’m sorry Mr. Galy, but I need a translator for your post.
I already provided the results.
lol I think he’s insinuating you may have multiple personalities or at least opinions too funny but don’t take it personally please gave me a good laugh
it’s a good think Mr. Olson allows such liberal posts on this site; we get some good tidbits along the way
Amen to this! The Jews are still “the apple of God’s eye”, and it is not a good idea to disdain God’s “apple”! Our Savior was Jewish, and so was the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, her husband.
On the contrary, Jesus said who does the will of His Father is brother, sister and mother to Him, the apple of God’s eyes.
Pointing out and disdaining major errancy or wickedness in any group including a group of Jews, is not disdaining anybody’s eyes.
One might need to disdain their fruits though, as well, the evil apple cartloads.
Yes, Mrs Sharon. Thank you.
“Amen to this! The Jews are still “the apple of God’s eye”, and it is not a good idea to disdain God’s “apple”! Our Savior was Jewish, and so was the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, her husband.”
Exactly where in Scripture or any canonical documents is this stated?
In addition to having precious little support outside a bizarre expansion, such a belief raises maddening questions of applicability. Yes, Christ was Jewish, so I can’t criticize Ben or Josh Shapiro or dislike them as I would any other celebrity or politician?
What if I speculate Ruth Bader Ginsberg is burning in hell for her role in the slaughter of the unborn? What if I merely think she was chancre on jurisprudence and an argument in search of a reason pursuing vexatious cases for personal ambition based on childhood resentments against certain aspects of Jewish practice?
Who enjoys this favor? Does it accrue to ethnic or religious Jews? Must you be a descendent of any of the original twelve tribes-and does that descent require a degree of sanguinity?
What if you were Christian for generations, but had Jewish ancestor? Does this special favor inhere to you as a birthright or is it lost with the loss of practice?
If it inheres to somebody who descended from Jewish roots (whose ancestry may be lost in history) do they need to know and acknowledge it? Could I incur Divine disfavor if I “disdain” them (whatever that means), if neither I or the person knows about their roots?
Does an individual forfeit this special status if he or she apostatizes or converts? What if another person were to renounce their prior faith convert to Judaism-do they then inherit this special favor-and if conversion to Judaism does attach a person to the special favor why shouldn’t we all quit Christianity to obtain this Divine favor like Trump’s daughter? And I guess praying for their conversion would be “disdain”, so we shouldn’t do that. As poorly formed as she no doubt was, what if I think she’s deny Christ before men with the promised consequence after death?
Can I criticize individual Jews such as Randy Fine or Dave Portnoy because they peddle a gambling in a way that encourages imprudence? What about Netanyahu? Apart from his perpetual war, there’s apparently some misgivings about his official acts from other Israelis. Are his critics disdaining him, do they incur God’s wrath or are they exempt as fellow Jews?
It seems to me that naturally after WWII, people sought to prevent another Hitler, even though the real danger of recurrence or resurgence was Stalin and International, rather than National Socialism, now triumphant in Gotham.
Somehow a certain personality type began to self-sanitize against any negative thought about Jews and Judaism-and Israel after 1948-somewhere that aggressive sanitizing has resulted in something of an inversion, where the individual (such as you or Mrs. Cracker) conflate Jews, Judaism and Israel under the same banner and constantly prostrates in mandatory acts of public Judeophilia.
You both should read “Against Catholic Zionism: by Matthew A. Tsakanikas
It might disabuse you of your obsession to believe Protestant Dispensationalism is a required tenet of Catholicism.
I’ve read some of Matthew A. Tsakanikas’s writings. No thank you.
I’ll stick to the late, great Huey Long.
🙂
Never let anything get in the way of a cherished mythos.
Somebody has never read Romans Chapters 9 threw 11 nor the words “Beloved for the sake of the Fathers.”
“I speak to a people of the Old Covenant. A Covenant that has never been revoked”
-St John Paul II”.
Seriously dude?
Hey Catholic Super Paleo cons!
Guess what? You can choose a better spokesman for your political views and Israel Skepticism than a porn obsessed, foul mouthed, misogynistic heretic whose followers (Aka the Groypers)tweet cartoon pictures of Giant Anthropomorphic Frogs violating little girls to the wives of Nick’s Critics.
This is a man who called Trent Horn’s wife the B-word for calling out his vicious behavior. This is a young man who admired Hitler and Stalin who collectively not only murdered Millions of Jews but many Million MORE Catholics and other Christians and he is a fan. Who says his male followers should not marry if they wish to be Groypers.
Who tells his married Groypers they need to devote themselves to the cause and not let their wives Hijack them.
Who calls finding young Children sexually attractive “Based”.
If you think any Catholic, be he Zionist friendly, Contra Zionist, Trad or John Paul II Catholic or Vatican II Catholic or even SSPX Catholic should support him or those who platform them then you are a sick person and I believe in need of an exocism.
That is NOT NORMAL!
Don’t even get me started on Candace Owens….
As the great Catholic theological pundit “Classical Theist” has often said, “Some people seriously think that God will exempt them from the sin of calumny if the person they are talking about is Nick Fuentes.”
“Classical Theist” I remember him. He hates Jews and is a Fuentes Fanboi..
Nope.
Report: MAGA Now Divided Into 77,302,580 Distinct Factions
Politics
·
Nov 17, 2025 · BabylonBee.com
U.S. — New polling data suggests the MAGA movement has split into approximately 77,302,580 distinct factions.
Factions include, but are not limited to, Traditional Conservatism, Groypers, Anti-Zionist But Jew-Affirming, Carlsonites, Candacites, Kirkites, Trad wife influencers, The South Shall Rise Again, The North Shall Stay Arisen, Catholic, Latin Mass Catholic, Protestant, Protestant Calvinist Theonomist with Beards, Boomer Neocon Warmonger, Libertarian, and Whig.
“I have never seen a more fractured movement,” commented political science major Daniel Siltson. “There is always a broad spectrum of variance within a political movement, but to have it split along such hard lines so as to be almost separate political parties is uncanny.”
According to sources, Republican Party membership has declined as a result of the fractured base, because newcomers to conservatism have no idea what the Right even is anymore. “I don’t know what party to choose,” said one voter. “The Democrats are gay, but I guess some Republicans like Hitler now? What is even going on?”
Mrscracker: youre doing what the nut jobs on the Left want you to do i.e. wring your hands in fear and anxiety.
No, I think she sees the humor in it.
What would Behner say about this list?
It’s the Babylon Bee, Deacon Edward.
Sorry, too cursory a read on my part!
I do that often myself.
🙂
I love all Jews. I love Nick Fuentes.
Now hate me.
As someone who has watched Nick’s show regularly for about four years now, I can confidently say that he loves all Jews (even the ones who hate him), but he also loves Hitler and Stalin. He is not the mass murder apologist that all these commenters say he is. Thank you for standing up for what is right, Deacon!
VAG:I am reminded that Christ looked down from the cross at those taking part in his unjust murder and uttered these words, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Now in this 21st century world we have Catholic of all people telling us that we should not even speak to those whom we deem to hold morally objectionable views. How in God’s Name are we then to evangelize them???
God loves them all, too Deacon Edward. They are His children just as we are.
Mr. Fuentes seems a troubled soul. I hope someone will reach out to him in sincere Christian witness and charity.
True but there’s no one whose soul is not troubled.
Yes, but some more so than others Deacon Edward. I’m sure you’ve encountered that firsthand through your vocation.
mrscracker: I am usually first in the Confession line.
I love Nick Fuentes in so far as I want him to repent. But he leads his followers in online oaths to “Rape, Kill, and Die for Nicolas J. Fuentes”.
That cannot be loved and must be condemned.
Is that is too hard an ask Deacon?
I love Jim the Scott and call for him to repent of his sins.
Who are you to judge him? You call out others for their sins? Let he who is without guilt…
William, judging rightly is a freedom and a responsibility. Even obligation at times. Among the gifts and fruits of Redemption, Christ died for it also.
I accept Deacon.
Now answer my question.
Do you condemn Fuentes calling on his followers to RKD4NJF?
Cause I do. I condemn that act unequivocally.
One of the best articles I have ever read, Dr. Peters. Thank you! I consider it also to be an act of courage, going directly against the zeitgeist, which affects both the left and the right.
Father Blount, I don’t listen to Nick Fuentes. From what I have heard, there are things he has said that I don’t like. I admire Tucker Carlson and his views for the most part, but I part company with on a number of points. Finally, I don’t doubt that you are a good priest, but if you really think that denouncing Fuentes or Carlson is an act of courage, then you really have misread the zeitgieist.
Nick Fuentes is saying what most young, white, Christian, straight men in his generation have been thinking for a very long time. What made him so angry, so hostile, so “wrong-headed”? I have some ideas: inescapable college debt, inability to buy a home, Davos, the Bilderberg Gaggle, the Deep State, Feminism, the caustic residue of the sexual revolution, the drug and hook-up culture, feminism, the rise of AI, the death of dreams, the end of a world wherein skills, talents and hard-work really matter . . . what made him that way? The kinds of things that have given him and his generation of young men the proverbial “middle-finger”. That’s what made him “that way”. Who can actually blame him?
Mark Tabish: And don’t forget the War on Men that began in the 60’s leaving us sissified, weak, effeminate, frightened, and perpetually ‘Peter Pan’ males.
Isn’t that part of what’s going on? Young men Mr. Fuentes age in a previous generation would have been married with children, perhaps have served in the military, and been working full-time since they were 16. That’s what my grandfathers did. My daddy’s father began working at 13.
mrscracker: exactly! Someone like Fuentes is a reaction to the emasculation of men that’s been ‘de rigeur’ for quite some time now.