A civil war rages within the American right-wing camp, sometimes referred to as the “Tuckercaust.” This does not refer to the conflict between the urban, Western European right, which primarily struggles with Islamisation and the lost sense of national solidarity, versus the conservatism of the former Soviet satellite states, where the ‘right’ is much more concerned with the traditional family and national self-government, versus an EU with strong centralist tendencies. Tuckercaust is the battle of the soul of the American right.

By Sid Lukkassen
This ‘MAGA civil war’, with MAGA meaning ‘Make America Great Again’, revolves around the soul of the American right. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are pitted against Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. Both camps enjoy Donald Trump's interest and appreciation. Essentially, it revolves around the issue of Israel and, ultimately, whether Iran should be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon.

If Iran acquires this nuclear weapon, the immediate threat will fall on Israel. Therefore, Israel has a direct interest in keeping Iran under control. However, Israel is too weak on its own, and it has several other enemies in the region. So, when push comes to shove, the US must be willing to do the ‘dirty work’.

America First
Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes emphasise that Donald Trump was elected on a platform of non-intervention and that the US must be highly reluctant to intervene in foreign conflicts. The American electorate is war-weary after the ‘liberation’ of Iraq and the utter failure of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. MAGA stands for “America First,” and thus, the US government should not dance to the tune of Israeli lobbyists.

Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin take a different stance: they emphasise the long-standing bond between the US and the Jewish people. Watching over Israel is an integral part of Christianity and – in their view – a core value ​​of foreign policy. Anyone who raises critical questions about this is quickly labelled an "anti-Semite." Or even a "Nazi."

In his podcasts, Carlson argues that such accusations are baseless: the crux of the discussion is, “What does the average American gain from the US becoming involved in a war in the Middle East that is primarily in Israel’s direct interest?” That discussion should be central, but the Neocons choose not to: they resort to accusations and focus on censoring those who contradict them.

It is essential to consider the background when analysing this situation. The initial impression on the American right was that Carlson and Fuentes would be portrayed as antisemites, that the right-wing establishment would abandon them, and that it would soon be the end of the story.

Double Standards
However, that did not happen: they held their ground. This can be explained by how Israel made itself unpopular with its actions in Gaza, making the wider public more willing to continue listening to Carlson and Fuentes. Another reason is that white people in the West are constantly told to get to the back of the line, because of 'privilege,' 'colonialism,' and all sorts of original sins from the past.

But at the same time, Jews are allowed to be proud of Israel: their nationalism is even openly expressed and celebrated. But when non-Jewish white Americans or Europeans do this, it is suddenly ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia.’ This evokes feelings of identity loss and, consequently, resentment, as well as a sense that “this isn't right.”

What also didn't help was that Mark Levin started calling everyone who disagreed with him a “Nazi.” It was once a powerful weapon, but now that the Left has used it for almost a full century to eliminate political opponents, the Right is somewhat less impressed. Levin became increasingly radical and aggressive toward people who do not think the interests of Israel and the USA are completely aligned. This unreasonable hostility made the public more receptive to his opponents.

Carlson’s All-In
This led to a podcast interview in which Carlson invited Fuentes to explore these issues in more depth. Carlson went “all in” with this move because by choosing Fuentes as an ally, he picked someone who is considered highly polarising and controversial. Fuentes reportedly called Hitler “cool” and “wants to celebrate Stalin’s birthday,” among other things.

Carlson genuinely assumes that the tide will turn, that Shapiro and Levin will fade into the background, because the public is exhausted by all the wars and has no appetite for further foreign intervention. He is betting that the US under Trump will not be drawn into another quagmire of war, whether Israel likes it or not, and if fervent Zionists then call you a “Nazi” out of spite, so be it.

Carlson frames his position by clearly choosing a Christian course. He consistently emphasises reconciliation, the renunciation of hatred, and judging people as individuals. Levin wants to wage war against Israel’s enemies in the same way that Netanyahu does. This would involve clearing all of Gaza – not only warriors, but also women and children could die.

Tucker interprets this as “blood guilt”. That is the core of his argument. Israel wants to eliminate enemies because they are enemies, with enmity as a kind of existential category. But a Christian – an American – should not view the world this way: people are only accountable for individual actions. He argues that we must not think in terms of tribes fighting one another, and even when conflict arises, we must remain focused on forgiveness and reconciliation.

In Carlson's thinking, Israelis are tribal beings who want to exterminate another tribe. This is narrow-minded thinking, and the US must not adopt it. Americans must maintain their moral superiority. Otherwise, you will descend into hatred and ultimately be no better than that which you are fighting.

In this theatre, as it has just been established, a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis are now emerging within the ‘right-wing civil war.’ Within the battle raging over the soul of the Right, and the direction of the Right as a political, social, and cultural movement.

[1] Thesis: Neoconservative Interventionists
This is the camp of Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin. For them, the historical-theological bond between the people of Israel and that of the US is inextricable. They consider it essential to achieve international justice, even if it costs American lives. There is a kind of eschatological-millenialist component to this – see also the film Megiddo (2001).

[2] Antithesis: Paleoconservative Non-Interventionists
This is the camp of Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson. They see no point for the average American to get involved in a war in the Middle East that Israel might desire. They want to view the US-Israel relationship from a geopolitically pragmatic perspective. Thus, utterly detached from the theological bonds so crucial to the first camp.

Tucker portrays himself here as “more of a Christian” than the other camp. He refuses to condone exterminating other people “just because they belong to a different tribe.” According to him, the Israeli government does want this – he calls it “blood guilt” and narrow-minded tribal thinking.

Fuentes emphasises that the discussion about geopolitical ties between the US and Israel supposedly should not be about “Jews” and “Jewishness” at all, but that Jews drag their specific historical background – and with that, their own “Jewishness” – into it. They are never called to account for this, which means there are double standards – this drives him to speak out against Israel.

The core of the matter is this double standard: white people are not allowed to engage in identity politics, but Jews are, given that the unique historical significance of the Holocaust is so frequently emphasised in public discourse.

By speaking about Hitler ironically – and here Fuentes clearly goes much further than Carlson – he attempts to break the taboo, so that it can also be acknowledged that white people, and white Americans, have interests as a group. And that these interests can be the subject of political discussion, as is permitted under the current cultural hegemony for Jews, but not for Americans with European roots.

[3] Synthesis: Polytheistic Pragmatism
Camp one is clearly eschatological: they see history as a binary clash of a chosen people versus followers of the Antichrist who seek to destroy the chosen people. Camp two, notably Tucker, claims to be pragmatic and to seek reconciliation rather than hereditary enmity.

Critics, however, will call it naive that Carlson continues to emphasise that there is no blood guilt, that tribalization is morally unacceptable, and that everyone must be judged as an individual. By conceptualising this enmity in terms of “blood guilt,” he might trap himself within the Israeli worldview.

Tucker, like the Israelis he criticises, continues to interpret world politics within a theological framework rather than from a realist perspective on power politics.

Enmity can arise from other, very real reasons. In Europe, where people of very “diverse” backgrounds are welcomed in large numbers, we are confronted with this daily. The disappearance of Christmas markets, for example, has nothing to do with blood guilt and everything to do with different groups seeking to organise their lives in completely incompatible ways within the same society.

Hostility can arise from Islam itself, which divides the world into a House of Peace (all that has already been conquered) and a House of War (all that has not yet been conquered). People also reproduce the systems in which they were created: they thus carry within themselves the regimes from which they originate. This is why the right-wing camp often says: “Import the Third World, become the Third World.”

Enmity and Tribalisation
Israel has been waging war against Hamas for decades. And wouldn’t a child who lost their parents in those actions want revenge, no matter what? Isn’t that obvious? Is there really any possibility of “reconciliation” in such a situation? Proponents of the Israeli approach will argue that the highest achievable goal is to consequently remove the potential avenger from the equation before they actually strike.

And how can Israel honestly be held to the same moral standards as the West, in a situation where their opponents fire rocket launchers from children’s bedrooms and hide weapon stashes in hospitals?

Studies in the recent book De migratiemagneet (The Migration Magnet, 2024), by Jan van de Beek, prognosticate a future in which Western European countries will inevitably fragment into enclaves. These enclaves will forge alliances in varying compositions. In the inner cities, progressive cosmopolitan ideology will remain popular.

In the countryside, conservative nationalism will gain ground among large groups of Muslims, who will sometimes bend toward the Left and then toward the Right, according to their own interests, which vary depending on the situation. Regarding immigration, Muslims will readily cooperate with the Left, but when it comes to religious education, they tend to side with the Right.

Polytheistic Universe Emerging
This has landed us in a ‘polytheistic’ universe. The demographic statistics in the aforementioned book suggest that there are already so many foreigners in the West –and they are reproducing at such a rapid pace – that tribalism will be inevitable. The election of Muslim mayors in New York and London is a sign of this.

This situation makes it all but inevitable that groups will confront each other as groups. The Christian individualism that Carlson advocates – in which every soul is weighed as an individual before the throne of God – is really only possible within a secular constitutional state on a Western-Christian foundation.

The growth of Muslim enclaves will therefore lead Europeans to a kind of mindset already widely shared in Israel: “I have to keep the other group small, because everything that benefits the other group comes at my expense.”

Critics will also argue that what Tucker claims about “forgiving your enemies” is reserved only for people with a comfortable job or a large following that allows them to make a good living.

Anyone who has lost everything to left-wing activists is probably not seeking “reconciliation and forgiveness” – literally “turning the other cheek.” You don't have that luxury anyway, because they would destroy you without hesitation, especially as resources become scarcer.

In left-wing circles, the October 7th massacres have already been declared an example of “effective decolonisation.” And the murder of Charlie Kirk, for example, is celebrated on the left-wing platform Reddit.

From this situation, we reach the situation of Abyssality: groups stand for values ​​and principles that are impossible to reconcile. Struggle, or even open warfare, is the only logical outcome; this is the essential insight that underpins the synthesis.

Recapitulation
Both the thesis and the antithesis remain overly eager to understand the struggle within a biblical-theological framework. At the same time, it is precisely demographic, socioeconomic, and ideological factors that intensify the conflicts. One can reject the concept of “blood guilt” from a theological perspective.

Still, it is almost inevitable that the individualistic West will face tribalization and enclave formation – whereby group interests become more important than individual rights. This development will extend the conceptual framework beyond the Hebrew-Christian framework, moving MAGA toward a more polytheistic framework.

Finally, it remains to be seen how consistently Carlson can maintain the moral stance he currently adopts. His forgiving stance makes him appear morally superior in contrast to the rabid Shapiro and the reckless Levin.

This wins him the sympathy of the broader right-wing audience, which is still wavering between the thesis and the antithesis. But once he gains power on the right, becoming a leading voice in the MAGA movement, won't he also crush and ostracise those who have thwarted him throughout his career?

Such is a proper conclusion to this analysis. Human nature remains human nature; therefore, it is best not to moralise political conflicts too strongly: it never remains credible for long.

The Thesis is moralising: “The West has a moral obligation to stand with Israel after everything the Jewish people endured in the Holocaust,” and the Antithesis is equally moralising: “Israel kills innocent Palestinians, and we must not passively allow that to happen.”

The Synthesis, however, is much less moralising: “We must acknowledge that other groups – particularly the ‘Left’ and Islam – pursue values ​​and goals that are incompatible with ours.

We must therefore prevent these groups from growing and gaining power. In doing so, we cannot be too moralistic about the means we are and are not willing to employ. Because if they win, their morality becomes the dominant morality, and what we consider morally important will be pushed to the background, or even completely erased.”

A monotheistic universe is eschatological: it posits two camps, one representing absolute good and the other absolute evil. A polytheistic universe reckons with multiple forces, each seeking to gain ground, where alliances are by definition temporary, and no friendship or enmity is irrevocable.

The eschatological-moralistic Thesis and the monotheistic-moralistic Antithesis thus converge into a polytheistic-pragmatic Synthesis.

If you found this article good, insightful, original, or helpful, please note that many blogs, newspapers, and websites in the Netherlands and Belgium attempted to prevent Sid from publishing it. Thus, he initiated this crowdfunding campaign to publish independently.

Check it out! If it is already completed by the time you read this, support him through BackMe.