954 words
In the latest skirmish over political rhetoric, a number of commentators have taken to attacking J. D. Vance for publicly rebuking journalist Sloan Rachmuth after she insinuated that his deputy press secretary, Buckley Carlson, (Tucker Carlson’s son) had inherited “racism and antisemitism” as a “family trait.” Vance’s use of the word “scumbag” has become the focal point of outrage, as if the coarseness of his language were the primary issue. But the true controversy lies not in Vance’s tone, but in the behavior that provoked it. Rachmuth did not ask a legitimate question about a public official’s aide. She advanced an evidence-free smear based on guilt by lineage, and Vance was fully justified in calling it out with the bluntness it deserved.
The fury directed at J. D. Vance for calling Sloan Rachmuth a “scumbag” says more about the state of political commentary than anything else. Rachmuth took a young staffer with no record of bigotry, declared bigotry a family trait, and then pretended she was merely asking if he too belonged in that category. If Vance replied with force, it is because the attack was not only baseless but also lazy, opportunistic, and crafted to plant a stain that no evidence could possibly justify.
Rachmuth’s post was the purest example of the insinuation game that has replaced real journalism in too many corners of political media. She first announced that racism and antisemitism are part of the Carlson family. Only after planting that claim did she pose her false question about whether Buckley Carlson might also be a vile bigot. That question was not a request for information. It was the delivery device for the accusation. Because it came from someone who calls herself a journalist, the smear gained an air of legitimacy it never earned.
This is why Vance responded. A staffer’s reputation is not a toy for bored commentators to fling around. Family connections do not create inherited guilt. Yet instead of acknowledging the smear, Rachmuth’s defenders insisted that she had raised a reasonable point simply because other members of the Carlson family have been accused of similar views. That argument collapses immediately. Adults in a functioning society are responsible for their own actions, not for whatever someone alleges about a father, a brother, or an uncle. Only the most cynical actors would pretend otherwise.
Then came the next accusation. Vance was described as a hypocrite because he supposedly said nothing when Nick Fuentes insulted his wife. This claim is not only misleading but completely false. The Hill reported in 2024 that Vance called Fuentes a total loser. He also dismissed far right critics targeting his wife by saying they were out of her league. The idea that he remained silent is a convenient fiction. It exists only to cloud the issue and recast Vance’s defense of his aide as selective outrage. The record shows exactly the opposite. He condemned Fuentes directly. What distinguishes the Rachmuth episode is not inconsistency. It is that the target this time was a member of his staff who was being smeared simply because it was politically useful to do so.
Rachmuth’s defenders then attempted a different escape route. They emphasized that she is Jewish, as though this entitles her to defame people without challenge or as though criticism of her behavior is automatically antisemitic. Her religious identity had nothing to do with the situation until her allies dragged it into the conversation. Being Jewish does not validate her accusation and does not shield her from scrutiny. The introduction of her identity is a distraction intended to drown the issue in emotional rhetoric rather than deal with the fact that she made an unsubstantiated claim about a young staffer.
Even Vance’s use of quotation marks around “Judeo-Christian values” became a manufactured outrage, as if punctuation suddenly revealed hidden bigotry. The reality is much simpler. Rachmuth invokes “Judeo-Christian values” as her moral brand, but then turns around and violates the most elementary moral standard: do not lie about people. Vance mocked her use of the term, not the values themselves. And ironically, the concept of “Judeo-Christianity” has been dismantled by scholars like Arthur Cohen and Jacob Neusner—so if anyone wanted to have that debate, Vance’s critics picked the wrong hill to die on.
Furthermore, Rachmuth’s personal history adds context for why many people do not take her seriously. Although the charges were eventually dropped, she was once arrested for cyberstalking after photographing a woman wearing a keffiyeh and posting the picture online in an effort to stir outrage. That incident does not determine the truth of her current claims, but it does show a pattern of intrusive and inflammatory behavior rather than responsible journalism.
Real opposition to antisemitism requires accuracy, seriousness, restraint, and moral clarity. It is not advanced by throwing accusations at political staffers in order to generate clicks or attention. When accusations of antisemitism are used as political weapons, they cease to carry meaning. This approach damages the cause Rachmuth claims to represent and distracts from genuine threats.
Vance’s critics may dislike his blunt language, but in this case his instinct was sound. A journalist with a reputation for provocation attempted to brand a young aide as an antisemite with no evidence. She disguised the attack as a question, but the intention and the effect were obvious. Vance refused to let that accusation settle into public consciousness. His response was not the real offense here. The offense was that the accusation was made in the first place.
In a political environment overflowing with bad faith, performative outrage, and identity based manipulation, there should still be room for truth and fairness. Sloan Rachmuth did not meet that standard. J. D. Vance, in defending his employee, did.
17 comments
Rachmuth is representative of the the true *woke right”
These people don’t understand that they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy on / for the Right. And many are now taking them up on it. So much the better.
“Real opposition to antisemitism…” Yea! More articles on opposing antisemitism.
If I dislike Jews qua Jews, that’s my business. If someone dislikes me because of my ethnicity, that’s his business. There are no -isms about it.
An interesting case to analyze:
a) the “ethnicification” or “tribalization” of the conflict was driven entirely by the anti-Carlson side here – Tucker Carlson’s criticism of Israel and its lobby (plus him talking to Nick Fuentes) marked, in the eyes of said lobby, his whole family as an enemy of a whole ethnic group (which is a non sequitur). Then, when Vance made a remark about the journalist in question, his remark was seen as an attack on a whole people as well (rather than a comment about an individual miscreant who happened to belong to a certain people). A political disagreement was thus turned into a family VS tribe thing. It also takes an extraordinary lack of self-awareness to actively tribalize disagreements at every opportunity and then cry about people on the other side identifying you with your tribe. Cause-and-effect isn’t that hard to grasp, but sometimes, it is …
b) “This approach damages the cause Rachmuth claims to represent and distracts from genuine threats.” – one often gets the impression that people like her don’t actually fear such a threat, but only use the specter thereof to get attention and bully their political opponents. A fearful person threads lightly, this is simply cry-bully behavior. The aggressive assertiveness we can observe in these cases is the opposite of what you would expect from a genuinely concerned or frightened person
Lack of self awareness indeed. After thousands of years of being kicked out of so many nations, do they ever pause to ask if they are doing something wrong? No. In fact, their hubris leads them to think they are a light unto nations. We are the ones who don’t want to be taught lessons (manipulated). A more stiff-necked tribe never existed. They have the will to power, but they always over reach.
The Palestinians will never be allowed to escape their collective guilt. The jews operate on collective guilt, the Freudian slips of “Anti-semitism is in your DNA” from people like Mark Levin and others is how they’ve always seen us, for years.
If it wasn’t such a serious thing with political implications, I’d just laugh at it.
Long time lurker, first time I’ll comment. I think this is a positive development.
They are forcing the lines to be drawn. People are being figuratively and literally martyred for taking the moderate line between our side and theirs, which is very bad in and of itself but let’s not kid ourselves, this is very lucrative politically, ugly a thing as that is to embrace.
The jeet hive is undertaking the same tact as zog is, and we aren’t being perceived as the primary disruptive meanies disturbing the peace anymore
This is excellent.
I agree. Jewish activists tolerate no dissent, not even the mildest. They censor free speech, while promoting porn.
Jews will try to destroy anyone who takes even a “moderate line between our side and theirs.” – for example, Tucker Carlson. Jews and their tools will prosecute anyone advocating for White nationalism. But Jewish or black nationalism will get you rewarded.
Just curious – was Sloan Rachmuth born female? It’s really hard to tell from the picture, very puzzling.
Beau Albrecht: November 25, 2025 Just curious – was Sloan Rachmuth born female? It’s really hard to tell from the picture, very puzzling.
—
It’s not so puzzling, Beau. Though Sloan is blonde in the tiny photo, Lip Man tells us she’s a religious Jew. I say she’s a racial Jew and don’t care about her Internet gossip about race-mixer Vance, reported to us by the racial Negro. Let’s get the discussion back on preservation of the White race, led by White separatists/preservationists.
—
Lip Man: … [Sloan Rachmuth’s] religious identity had nothing to do with the situation until her allies dragged it into the conversation. Being Jewish does not… shield her from scrutiny. The introduction of her identity is a distraction intended to drown the [racial] issue in emotional rhetoric…Blah, blah, blah.
I think this is subconsciously why “White people” are intimidated into silence. Because on some level EVERYONE KNOWS that when you stand up for yourself…..even as an Individual…….your whole family will be targetted by more Ethnocentric groups.
That’s why our Boomer parents REFUSE to stand up for us in our past ….or at least mine.
That’s right. Any White person who refuses to follow the party-line on Israel, will get crucified. Even the most moderate and reasonable criticism of AIPAC and Jewish donors will provoke Jewish hit squads to destroy you. For example, Jewish activists go after even moderates like Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump. Since the assassination of Kirk, the Jews have tried to infiltrate and redirect Turning Point USA away from America First and towards Israel First.
If you have to ‘stand up for yourself’, you’re probably already in the wrong place. By asserting yourself in a situation where you do not know if you have allies, you’re only putting a target on yourself for no reason. Some day, White Nationalists will have to discover the courage to engage in stealth and guile rather than flagrantly self-destructive assertiveness.
Loyalty to allies. The whip hand for enemies. Seduction for the Undecided. Anyone who rejects this path is failing us.
Young Carlson condemned for family ties; sounds like “blood libel” to me.
Good one
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.