Wednesday, December 10, 2025

The Desecration of Our Heritage

By Mike Burke

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

 

Born in 1973 as the fortress of conservative principle, the Heritage Foundation is in danger of becoming a monument to its abandonment—a citadel where moral clarity has been bartered for the applause and approval of radicals who despise the truths America stands for. Among those truths are the sanctity of the individual, the dignity of freedom, and the covenant that binds both men and nations to the same moral law—the very covenant that joins America to Israel and the Jews to the West. This covenant is sealed in the blood of those who fell at Normandy, at Midway, and on the long road to Berlin. It is the mortal sin of those who, in renouncing virtue, surrender strength.

 

The unmasking began with Tucker Carlson, who began his career as a young conservative journalist at a neoconservative magazine, shifted into mainstream television commentary on CNN and MSNBC, and then finally ended up back on the right on the Fox News Channel—where, after failing repeatedly on other cable channels, he became a sensation following the first election of Donald Trump. Cast out of Fox News in 2023, his video podcast has become a travelling stage show of grievance against America and the West. In a recent interview with the Kremlin-backed network RTVI, he hailed Vladimir Putin as “the most popular leader in the world, by far.” Days later, on October 28, 2025, he invited into his sanctum sanctorum his fellow streaming-media superstar Nick Fuentes, all of 27 years old but yet a decade-long veteran of talking into a microphone from a basement to millions of other young men in basements. Fuentes is a Holocaust denier, white nationalist, lover of Joseph Stalin, loather of Donald Trump, and literally a professional anti-Semite.

 

Fuentes ranted about “Zionist Jews,” accused them of corrupting conservatism, and denounced Israel as a moral plague. Carlson did not argue. He smiled. He nodded. He allowed hatred to sit unopposed beneath the supposed banner of “true” American conservatism. Worse still, he seemed to agree. In the course of their exchange, Carlson explained that “Zionist Jews” and “Christian Zionists” alike had captured American foreign policy, implying that the United States itself had fallen under alien control. It was a lie as old as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of the world’s first active disinformation projects, conjured up by the Russian secret service in 1903. Its central notion, that a secret Jewish cabal governs the West, is not a “critique” of policy; it was the systematic application at the beginning of the media age of the superstition that had justified centuries of expulsion and murder before it. Such delirium belongs not in the mouth of a statesman but in the mouth of an unwashed man screaming on a subway car. And yet here it was, spoken—and unchallenged—on one of the most famous “conservative” broadcasts in America.

 

This is nothing new from Carlson, at least since he had to make his own way following his defenestration by Rupert Murdoch two years ago. His gambit, his way of separating himself from the crowd of people on the right who dominate the political podcast universe, has been to praise and amplify the opinions of pseudo-scholars with scandalous views—for example, that Winston Churchill was the true villain of World War II rather than Hitler and Tojo.

 

That effort is explicitly anti-institutional; it suggests that the scholars who work at think tanks and the politicians and political institutions who echo them have been corrupted by their complicity with liberal narratives. One might expect those institutions to fight back against his slanders. But no: Ever since the ultimate anti-institutionalist, Donald Trump, rose to power, the rhetorical emphasis of those wanting to ride his wave has been on echoing his disdain for the status quo on the right and seeking to channel and use it. And so it has been for the Heritage Foundation under the guidance of its president since 2021, Kevin Roberts. He has looked upon this desecration of his own purpose and has chosen to join in. After Fuentes’s appearance, Roberts dismissed Carlson’s critics as “globalists” and congratulated himself for resisting “cancel culture.” This is not the preservation of heritage, or of Heritage. It is its profanation.

 

In his defense of Carlson, Roberts claimed that “Christians can critique the State of Israel without being anti-Semitic” and that “cancelling” men like Fuentes is not the answer. The implication was plain: that Carlson’s indulgence of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories was merely “criticism” that brave Christians must be free to make. This is sophistry of the cheapest kind. To conflate the world’s oldest hatred with legitimate debate is not courage; it is moral illiteracy. Roberts imagines himself defending Christian conscience, but what he has defended instead is the pursuit of populist market share dressed as piety. He fears not God but the disapproval of the anti-Semitic mob; he is siding with the money changers.

 

Having conflated rabid anti-Semitic fantasy with legitimate criticism of Israel, he then went on to cheapen the very meaning of America itself. “When it serves the interest of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so,” he declared, “but when it doesn’t, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government.” In his telling, even Israel’s survival—and by extension, the fate of any ally bound to America by shared principle—is a question of utility, not duty. He would have the republic bind itself to others only when the balance sheet shows immediate gain, as though freedom were a commodity and not a calling, as though the defense of civilization were merely a matter of convenience. The faith that built America demanded more. It bound belief to duty, conscience to sacrifice, and power to principle. America’s heritage is not isolationist, transactional, or tribal. It is covenantal. Its purpose was never to exist for itself alone, but to stand as a beacon for all free nations—a republic born of a vision of man himself. It was this conviction—that the moral law binds nations no less than men—that guided Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan in their defense of liberty as a universal trust rather than a provincial interest.

 

As Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed in his “Four Freedoms” address, the hope of America was a world “founded upon four essential human freedoms… everywhere in the world.” Two decades later, John F. Kennedy pledged that America would “pay any price, bear any burden…to assure the survival and success of liberty.” That burden was not merely strategic but moral—the price of belief in the universality of human dignity. And a generation after him, Ronald Reagan warned that “freedom is a fragile thing…never more than one generation away from extinction.”

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the Founders declared. Human dignity is not granted by rulers but endowed by the Creator; liberty and equality before the law are not privileges of birth or blood but the birthright of all mankind. In that conviction lay the moral genius of the Republic—that what is true for a man in Washington is true for a man in Warsaw, or in Tokyo, or in Jerusalem. And it was this same faith that enabled them, in time, to transform their enemies into their dearest allies.

 

After 1945, the United States faced the populations of two of history’s most formidable adversaries of moral order: Germany and Japan. Both had waged total war against the free world and had been defeated. Instead of their rising again as vengeful, nuclear-armed powers, America rebuilt them, not as clients but as partners. It offered bread where the Great Powers had demanded tribute after the First World War. It turned vengeance into virtue. That act of magnanimity was not only wise; it was profoundly Christian, the Sermon on the Mount rendered in statecraft. America did not merely win a war; it won the peace by practicing the faith that Roberts now misrepresents.

 

The proof of that triumph lies before us. Today, as Russian imperialism revives and the Chinese Communist Party arms itself for confrontation, those same former enemies have become America’s most steadfast allies—rearming not against America, but in defense of her ideals and the moral order she built. The flags once lowered before the Stars and Stripes now rise beside it. The powers once sworn to her destruction now stand ready to defend the very truths her Founders called self-evident. This is the final vindication of the American creed: that liberty, once given form in law and belief, can redeem even those who once sought to destroy it, and that nations built upon faith in the dignity of man can outlast empires built upon fear.

 

Japan became the keystone of liberty in the Pacific, Germany the anchor of democracy on the European continent. Together they became pillars of an order that kept the peace for nearly 80 years. And America did it again during the Cold War—nurturing fledgling democracies, sustaining allies under siege, and extending the covenant of freedom to nations that had never known it. It is this heritage—the moral order bought with faith, blood, and sacrifice—that Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation seeks to supplant in the name of his friendship with Tucker Carlson. To proclaim loyalty to “Christ first and America always,” as Roberts did, while defending men who sneer at both Judaism and democracy is not a matter of faith but an example of idolatry.

 

***

 

The vision of Roberts, Carlson, and Fuentes is not merely ahistorical or strategically bankrupt. It is blasphemous. It desecrates the very memory it pretends to defend. What earlier generations built through faith, blood, and sacrifice, Carlson and his camp followers are defacing in the name of false virtue. The moral order that bound liberty to restraint and duty to power is being broken apart—not by enemies at the gate, but by vandals within the walls.

 

And in that defacement lies the greater peril. America is not yet failing, but it is being betrayed by those who claim to defend it and by those who destroy it while mouthing its name. Today, a chorus of voices on left and right declares its inheritance broken. Some say that is demonstrated by American support for Israel because the Jewish state does not properly reflect their own understanding of liberal democratic values. Others say liberal democracy itself is the problem: too weak, too sentimental, too slow for a world of rising civilizational conflict.

 

The poison spreads from every direction. Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar once declared: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” This was another recasting of that ancient slander, the claim that Jewish citizens and their allies are less American, that loyalty to Israel corrupts the Republic from within.

 

But what was once confined to the left’s fever swamps has now begun seeping into the right’s sanctuaries. Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes repeat almost word for word what Omar once insinuated: that “Zionist Jews” dictate American policy and hold the nation hostage. Even Kevin Roberts, who pretends to abhor anti-Semitism, defends the men who preach it—and in doing so lends credence to their lies. He insists that Christians have a right to “criticize Israel,” as though anyone holds to a doctrine that says Israel cannot be criticized. But the criticism he shelters is not of Israeli policy but of its supposed secret exercise of power: the ancient fantasy that Jews corrupt democracy and bend nations to their own ends.

 

What Roberts calls “the vile ideas of the left” have become the lingua franca of this new “right.” The conspiracy has changed its costume, but not its creed. The radicals who shout loudest about treason to the nation have themselves become mouthpieces for its enemies. The dialectic of grievance, the politics of victimhood, the scapegoating of Jews and “globalists”—all were spoken long ago on the campuses that the podcast right claims to despise.

 

Founded to preserve the principles that won the Cold War and rebuilt the free world, the Heritage Foundation now labors to unmake them. Roberts speaks the language of patriotism but rejects its substance—advancing ideas and would-be leaders who would make America weaker, lonelier, and more vulnerable to the forces that openly despise her. When America forgets that her strength lies in fidelity to the values that made her great, she does not find safety in retreat. She invites defeat. Its leaders preach “America First,” yet the policies they advance would leave America last—abandoned by allies, emboldening enemies, and unmoored from the moral purpose that once bound liberty to restraint.

 

If America owes allegiance only to herself, then every sacrifice made in Europe and Asia and in the long vigilance of the Cold War was a mistake. Walk the cliffs of Normandy, and you will see the covenant written in marble and grass—the white crosses and Stars of David standing in their thousands, row upon row, facing the sea they crossed to free. The same order stretches across the Ardennes, across Anzio and Manila—fields of faith and duty where the living made a vow to the dead. Those who fell there did not die for profit or power. They died for a moral order carved into stone and sanctified in blood—the order that made the West worth defending. This is the moral inheritance of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It forged liberal democracy not as an abstraction, but as a way of life: a covenant between faith and freedom, duty and mercy. If America forgets this, the West will follow—and if the West forgets, freedom itself will fade from the earth. And when that happens, it will not be because the wolves were strong, but because the shepherds lost their faith.

 

This is not a quarrel within conservatism. It is a quarrel between those who still believe in civilization and those who would sell it for applause. The battle now is the oldest of all: between memory and amnesia. The Heritage Foundation was once built to defend the first against the second. Under Roberts, it is threatening to embody the reversal.

No comments: