They broke young men — then sold them toxic escapes



When Nick Freitas engages with young men, they often have the same complaint: The culture made them the scapegoat for its ills — and now they feel lost and don’t know what to do about it.

While he doesn’t deny young men’s predicament or blame them for it, Freitas does put the responsibility to do something about it on their shoulders.

The truth, he says, is that the institutions that shape the culture deliberately broke young men’s spirits by convincing society that masculinity was “bad, evil, toxic, horrible, and [needs] to be repressed” and then turned around and sold the young men they villainized toxic escapes, like social media, gaming, and pornography.

The path to a fulfilling life is still there, though — but it’s theirs to find and take.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Freitas and fellow BlazeTV hosts Chris Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman talk through why so many young men have checked out — and why reclaiming faith, family, and responsibility is the way back.

It’s both “confusing and horrific” for young men, he adds, to try to make it in a world where they’re “emasculated” in order to be more acceptable to a culture that will reject them regardless.

The message so many young men receive today, says Freitas, is: “By the way, even after you've been emasculated, nobody's going to want to sleep with you … corporations don't want to hire you either.”

“So once you understand that they have legitimate grievances that are truly unique to their experience, well, now we can start to talk about, OK, how do we deal with this?” he continues.

Dealing with it, however, begins with rejecting the “escapes” offered by the same institutions that villainized men in the first place. Doomscrolling social media, pornography, and video gaming, for example, may offer temporary relief, but they ultimately prevent men from finding the fulfilling path they desire.

“One of the big things that I tell men is that look, I get my identity first and foremost through my Christianity. Why? Because it's eternal. … I always have identity, meaning, and purpose. I never lose it, and it cannot be taken away from me,” says Freitas.

When the culture inevitably condemns a Christ-centered identity, it’s men’s job to say “screw the culture” and continue to “pursue” what is godly, he continues.

“Ultimately, if young men choose to do that en masse, the culture will follow,” Freitas says. “The reason why there's been such a push not just to diminish men but to elevate women is because it’s the only way you can’t get self-correction.”

Choosing the righteous path, however, is no easy thing.

“There's pain involved in doing that,” Freitas acknowledges.

“You will be punished in society for doing that, but the more people who do it and the more critical mass you reach, the more things shift.”

Already, the tides have begun to turn.

Freitas cites an NBC News Decision Desk Poll of 18- to 29-year-olds that compared Trump and Harris voters on what they consider a successful life.

“The number-one thing for young men that voted for Trump was having a family; it was number six for women,” says Freitas.

Male Harris voters, however, placed family in 10th place, while female Harris voters put it in second-to-last place.

“That really gives me encouragement,” says Freitas.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘We’re at September 10, 2001’: Retired colonel who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 warns the same threat is inside the country



Today marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States that robbed 2,977 innocent people of their lives.

Col. Rob Maness was inside the Pentagon that horrific day. On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman sit down with the retired Air Force colonel to hear insider details of a day America will never forget.

“Colonel, it’s been 25 years since that day. What is your general reflection looking back after all these years?” Rufo asks.

America today, warns Maness, is in the same vulnerable position it was on September 10, 2001.

Between “importing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of [Islamists] over the last 25 years with a very poor vetting process” and corrupt “intelligence agencies,” Maness says he’s “very concerned” for the country, because "in many ways, we're at September 10, 2001."

“A lot of us were sort of younger when this happened. It's a kind of fuzzy memory. … Just kind of walk us through what it was like to be there on the ground directly, where this event happened, how people were thinking about it at the time, people's response to it, what those first 24, 48 hours were like,” says Keeperman.

In those days, Maness was a major — “the coffee guy,” he laughs.

“I walked by the day-care center every day up into corridor 8, into my office area, which was inside the National Military Command Center. And, you know, at the time I was getting there, the kids were being dropped off … and I always enjoyed watching them and the parents and all that stuff because I had little kids of my own,” he recounts.

“I just walked in and said, ‘Man, this is going to be a fantastic day,”’ he adds.

It wasn’t long before he discovered how wrong that prediction was.

That day, he explains, marked the start of America’s “global nuclear war game.” Maness’ real job, he explains, was in the Joint Staff’s nuclear operations division, which trained the aides with access to the “nuclear football book” and oversaw the doomsday plane.

“A lot of my leadership and teammates were out at different nodes around the world for command and control of nuclear forces because we were kicking that exercise off that day,” he tells Rufo and Keeperman, “and that was literally happening at the moment the airplanes hit the towers.”

After the first strikes, Maness’ on-site team “stayed on duty” to “help with the command and control decision-making.” They were “ordered out” of the Pentagon just after the third plane hit.

Once evacuated, Maness immediately turned his attention to helping the wounded.

“I just started helping do what I could for the first aid and those kind of things until we got asked to go back inside the courtyard because the fire trucks couldn't get inside and the building's roof was burning,” he recounts.

“I estimate probably between 100 and 200 people … split up into two teams and went to those inside corners, and we started helping continue to fight the fire [and] see if we could find anybody alive.”

To hear more of Maness’ story, watch the video above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Jeremy Boreing’s Christian Arthurian epic ‘Pendragon’ became the No. 1 fantasy show — without leading with politics



For years, television series have beat audiences over the head with progressive messaging. Many attempts to counter-produce alternatives with traditional and faith-centered themes either died before production or failed to break through.

But that trend hasn’t reached Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boreing’s fantasy series “The Pendragon Cycle: Rise of the Merlin” — an explicitly Christian adaptation of Stephen R. Lawhead’s novels about the origins of Merlin and early Arthurian legends.

The series debuted on DailyWire+ in January and later became the No. 1 fantasy series in the U.K., Ireland, Spain, and Portugal after hitting Prime Video overseas; it arrived on Prime in the U.S. on September 1 and has continued to climb.

Now Boreing joins Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, co-hosts of “Rufo and Lomez,” to discuss why conservatives keep underperforming in entertainment — and how “Pendragon” successfully broke the pattern.

“You've managed to do the impossible,” Keeperman tells Boreing, “which is make something that looks great, it's slick, it's professional, it's well acted, it's well written, it looks like a high production TV show ought to look, and you've done it within the conservative ecosystem.”

“And moreover, it's a show that's not about politics, per se. It's just good storytelling,” he adds.

He inquires about how Boreing was able to “pull this rabbit out the hat.”

“The hard way, of course,” Boreing quips.

“Art is very ambitious, and a show like ‘The Pendragon Cycle’ requires an awful lot of risk to be taken by an awful lot of people,” he continues, highlighting the Daily Wire, executive producer Dallas Sonnier, and “the cast and crew” as the primary risk-takers who saw the lofty project from idea to reality.

As for the actors, Boreing praises them as “the greatest ensemble of relatively unknown actors maybe ever assembled.”

“I'm so proud of this cast,” he adds, “but it's a risk for them to associate with what they feared would be a really political operation. Of course, it didn't turn out to be because that wasn't what we were chasing. We were chasing true entertainment and true art.”

Entertainment, Boreing notes, is an area conservatives tend to underachieve.

“We think that the audience will only accept a polemic, but that isn't true,” he says. “Our audience engages with entertainment and art just as much as any other audience.”

The problem, he says, is that conservative audiences haven’t “had any instruction” on what “good art with [conservative] values” looks like because it’s “so rare.”

“What we're left with is what I call the ‘want to want to’s’ ... movies that nobody actually wants to see, but ... they want to support it,” Boreing explains, noting that these conservatives usually end up “[watching] the exact same television as everyone else” despite progressive themes and values.

This is deeply problematic, he argues, because as “Will and Grace” demonstrated with public attitudes toward homosexuality in the late 1990s and early 2000s, television can “actually [change] how an entire generation” views political issues.

“That's the power of actual entertainment,” says Boreing. “[‘Will and Grace’] did that not leading with its politics; it did it by completely immersing an audience into the lives of a set of characters who had a particular point of view, and it drew you into that point of view, and we tried to do the same with 'Pendragon.'”

To hear more about the series, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Meta to pay $17 billion over social media harms — but who's really responsible?



Meta is set to pay a staggering $17 billion settlement after allegations that its social media platforms contributed to addiction and other harms among young users.

The agreement marks one of the largest corporate payouts tied to the growing backlash against Big Tech — and BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan "Lomez" Keeperman aren’t exactly sure how to feel about it.

“So we had a ruling this week,” Rufo says, “a settlement this week that Meta, which is the kind of dumb rebrand, like, middle-aged man identity crisis rebranding of Facebook, has settled to pay $17 billion.”

“Meta has been found guilty, or admitted to, harming children with its Facebook technology,” he explains.


“Essentially, they’re saying social media is addictive and harmful to kids in the same way that kids might be, you know, lighting up cigarettes,” he adds, before asking Lomez whether it’s good or bad.

“I’m of like two, three, four minds about this, honestly. On the one hand, it does strike me a little bit as a moral panic, I should say, which is like, OK, we’re going down this path of increased social media use. People are addicted to their phones,” Lomez says.

“There’s no ambiguity around that. That’s obvious and demonstrably the case. The question is, what harms are these doing? ... And I think there are real harms,” he adds.

One of these “harms” is the “pervasive mass psychosis” that Lomez explains is “dominating our public life in almost every respect.”

“People getting herded into these sort of algorithmic valleys, you might call them, where they don’t see outside of it. Their information environment is completely one-sided, and this is deranging to people,” he says.

However, is the responsibility on those who have created social media, or those who use it?

“I think it’s a little bit of both,” he says. “And certainly when it comes to kids, I think kids are particularly susceptible to this stuff. And there ought to be a certain kind of responsibility that’s placed on the people creating these tools to be mindful of the ways in which kids in particular are susceptible, are able to be manipulated, where their sort of weaknesses are.”

“So this is all to say, when it comes to Meta here, is it reasonable for them to pay out $17 billion to these states? My answer is actually, yeah, it is,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The left’s next phase is even worse than woke



Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently made headlines when she claimed during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” with Jonathan Karl that “Woke 1 was crazy.” She was specifically referring to the extreme progressive rhetoric and positions of the 2020 COVID lockdown era, particularly calls to defund or abolish the police.

Some have interpreted the DSA member’s words as evidence that the left is entering a more sane, commonsense phase — but BlazeTV’s Christopher Rufo believes the opposite is actually true.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Rufo and co-host Jonathan Keeperman sit down with foreign policy expert Zineb Riboua to dive into what Rufo predicts is the left’s next phase — a movement that will make the pinnacle of wokeism look tame.

“It's long been my thesis that what's next on the left is the ideology of Third-Worldism,” says Rufo.

Riboua breaks down what that term entails. “Third-Worldism is really about seeing everything through a very specific lens, where you show who is the colonizer, who is the colonized, who is the oppressor, the oppressed.”

This “very binary” way of thinking, she explains, pits “the global north” against “the global south,” with the explicit goal of seeing the latter “triumph.”

But this isn’t the massive shift some interpret it to be, she says. Third-Worldism, Riboua explains, is just “a different form” of the left’s longtime goal to take money and power from the West and give it to other groups via redistribution, reparations, and shifting power.

“My kind of pet theory is that there's also just a change in racial focus,” Rufo adds, highlighting 2020’s BLM era, which was hyper-focused around “black America's historical grievances [and] historical oppressions” — an era whose “leadership class” ultimately “collapsed.”

Rufo wonders if Third-Worldism is simply the shifting of the left’s racial focus off of black America and on to the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.

“Is it just a racial shift in the subject — seeking the same policies, yes, but seeking a kind of stronger leadership class?” he asks Riboua.

“While it's true that there is a change in ... which race we're going to give priorities for, I think that what is, I think, more fundamental about Third-Worldism is that it positions things in a way that anyone who feels oppressed can join,” says Riboua.

“In a way, Third-Worldism is much more, I would say, inclusive of all these grievances against anything that is Western and de facto imperial, patriarchal even though things are obviously very much complicated in history,” she adds.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Nick Freitas: Why young men are giving up on modern society



Why are so many young men checking out of modern society? According to Nick Freitas, the answer — unlike what the Gen X and Boomer generations would have you believe — goes far deeper than laziness or a lack of resilience.

Freitas tells Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez” that the first thing to consider is that there is a real problem and it’s “different from what we faced in the past.”

“It’s really easy to point back like, ‘Oh, you think it’s hard now? What about the 19-year-olds that were storming Normandy?’ It’s like, yeah, that was hard. And that’s why we lift up and we celebrate the 19-year-olds that stormed Normandy,” Freitas explains.

“The problem is we have a bunch of 19-year-olds now where first of all, there’s no Normandy to storm, and they’re being told that all of the characteristics or instincts that would have informed the man storming the beach in Normandy are now bad, evil, toxic, horrible, and need to be repressed,” he says, noting that “that’s the part that’s unique.”


“That’s the part that I think Gen X-ers and Boomers have a hard time understanding is that the culture has shifted so much as to deliberately target the very things that young men were designed, I believe, designed by God to be,” he adds.

Freitas notes that it's “confusing and horrific” to attempt to thrive in an environment “where you’re told that all of your instincts are bad and you need to be emasculated.”

In order to deal with this, Freitas explains that “one of the big things” he tells young men is to seek identity through Christ.

“It’s eternal. It doesn’t promise me that everything is going to be going good. But it’s eternal. I believe it’s true. And so in so far as that’s where I get my identity, then all of a sudden I always have identity, meaning, and purpose,” he says.

“I never lose it, and it cannot be taken away from me,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Former CIA analyst EXPOSES the Muslim Brotherhood's infiltration of American politics



The Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in America may be far more deeply embedded than most Americans realize according to former CIA targeter Sarah Adams.

Adams tells Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez” that the organization has spent decades building relationships and political power from the ground up, financially supporting candidates while embedding itself in universities, religious organizations, chambers of commerce, and local civic groups.

“They back a lot of the political candidates financially as we know. They pump a ton of money into our universities, but they also are very much like the Chinese, and nobody’s really honest about that,” Adams explains.


“They start at the local level,” she continues, “They get involved in community organizations and chambers of commerce, you know, religious organizations, volunteer organizations.”

“So they’re more integrated than I think most people realize,” she adds.

Lomez points out that there are even reports that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Admittedly these are just headlines, that you know, he may be funded by Muslim Brotherhood,” he says. “This comes as a surprise to me, but it sounds like you’re saying, ‘No, this is something to be expected.’”

While expected, Adams notes that it is “complicated.”

“When it comes to the U.S., though, it’s so complicated because when we say ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’ you’re not going to drive down the street and have a building and it says ‘The Muslim Brotherhood.’ It’s going to be called something like, I don’t know, the Saudi American Friendship Society, right?” she explains.

“And so that’s where it’s complicated because people at the local level don’t even know that they’re interacting,” she says, noting that even local candidates and activists have no idea.

“That awareness does not exist at all in the United States,” she adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Inside the Charlie Kirk Israel controversy: Andrew Kolvet sets the record straight



The atrocious assassination of Charlie Kirk last September has ignited numerous conspiracy theories, some of which involve the nation of Israel. Even though Charlie was publicly very pro-Israel for years, especially in light of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, rumors that the TPUSA founder was beginning to waver on his support for the Jewish nation have led some to speculate that Israel might have been involved in his murder.

So where did Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA really fall on the issue of Israel?

On a recent episode of “Rufo and Lomez,” co-host Jonathan Keeperman sat down with executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show” and TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet, who addressed this question.

“This issue [of Israel] was probably the most difficult for Charlie to navigate in life,” says Kolvet.

He explains that for Charlie, there was one “bright line” when it came to Israel: “Jew-hate has no place in the conservative movement,” and “the scapegoating of an entire people group” is an “ancient evil” that cannot be tolerated.

However, that doesn’t mean that he was ever part of the hard-line, activist “pro-Israel” crowd who demand unconditional, unquestioning support for every Israeli policy. That’s why Charlie was sometimes “accused of being an anti-Semite,” Kolvet explains.

He notes that the “driving force” of the Trump-era conservative movement — which Charlie heavily shaped — has always been “non-interventionalism.”

“Charlie was certainly a driver of that and certainly a proponent of that. He wanted the government to focus more on domestic issues, but he also wasn't willing to go to that point and blame, you know, a small nation in the Middle East for all the world's ills,” Kolvet tells Keeperman.

This balanced stance became harder to maintain after Hamas’ October 7 attacks. Many on the right who already held non-interventionist views saw the war in Gaza as validation of their skepticism toward Israel.

“This is an instance of where our preconceived bias, confirmation bias was played into by geopolitical events,” Kolvet says.

The intense fighting reinforced the idea that U.S. ties to Israel drag America into foreign conflicts, creating a “perceived reality” that has grown since October 7 and put pressure on Charlie’s middle position. “It’s a tricky issue,” Kolvet acknowledges, “but we have to be able to say a couple things very, very clearly, I think, on our side if we’re going to keep the coalition together.”

“One, we are America first. Our interests are more important than Israel's interests. If you are an American, that has got to be a bright line in the sand,” he adds, acknowledging that there are legitimate questions about Israel spying on the U.S., the recurring “$4 billion” in annual U.S. aid to Israel, and the sharing of intelligence and technology with the Israeli military.

“I think those are all valid questions, because we have to be about our own business first and foremost. We have to be about our own priorities first and foremost,” he adds.

However, if American interests “align with Israel,” Kolvet sees that as a positive.

“I certainly don't think we should be asking that same question when it comes to Hamas, for example, right? ... There's no moral equivalency between the two,” he says. “But we also have to just be really up front that we have domestic issues that we need to get done and we need to accomplish or we're going to lose this country and the West will fall if America does not get this right.”

He laments the reality that the conservative base’s division over Israel has “poured into the story of Charlie.”

Ultimately, TPUSA stands for two basic principles, says Kolvet: “Reject Jew-hate,” but “be about our own business first” and then address “geopolitics and foreign policy.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Inside Spencer Pratt’s insurgent LA run: Creative director exposes the unfiltered truth in explosive interview



Many conservatives across the country were tuned into Republican candidate Spencer Pratt’s audacious, underdog run against incumbent L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D) — but few know about the “creative genius” behind Pratt’s wildly popular social media campaign.

On a recent episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Pratt’s creative director Gabriel Mann joined the program to pull back the curtain on the raw, grassroots operation that terrified the L.A. political establishment: zero consultants, lightning-fast video production, paid ballot harvesting in South L.A., explosive fraud allegations, and the Hollywood machine that blacklists conservatives while protecting its own.

Mann tells the hosts that unlike the scripted, consultant-heavy world of modern politics, Pratt’s operation ran with zero political advisers.

“I know a lot of people try to portray their campaign as grassroots, but I mean this was legitimately grassroots. ... It was an experiment in completely upending the traditional politico paradigm, so we didn't have any political advisers. It was just me and Spencer,” he tells hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman.

This bare-bones team streamlined the video production process, expediting response ads.

“[Pratt’s opponents] were trying to attack him for not physically living in the Airstream even though that's a sniper's wet dream, so like his security would not let him be on the lot, but people were attacking him saying, ‘Oh, he's bougie. He's living in Santa Barbara,”’ Mann recalls.

“We decided to just immediately attack right back, and so we made this 'Fresh Prince of Bel Air' video ... to turn the energy around because we didn't have any political advisers telling us, ‘Oh, we should focus group this,’ ‘Oh, you shouldn't say that.’ ... ‘Your tone should be like this,”’ he adds. “All we had was Spencer with his instincts and a filmmaker, not a political guy.”

One of the most eye-opening revelations, however, was Mann’s description of how the campaign built its own “ground game” in “hostile territory,” paying approximately $100,000 to Bloods and Crips members to perform ballot harvesting in South L.A. neighborhoods.

He explains that because there is “literally no Republican infrastructure in Los Angeles,” they had to get creative in how they reached voters.

“I'm not joking, like totally above board, totally legal, we paid the Bloods and the Crips to go do ballot harvesting for us in their neighborhoods, and that was the one thing that Spencer did that I think shocked a lot of people,” he tells Rufo and Keeperman.

Mann also pulled back the curtain on Hollywood’s ruthless political machine. While the industry famously protects its own, it blacklists conservatives without mercy. He recounted a crew member being fired on the spot simply for giving Spencer a tour of a "Baywatch" set.

“We’re with Bass. The union is supporting Bass,” was the explanation. Yet behind the scenes, some of the biggest names in entertainment were quietly rooting for Pratt. Mann revealed, “You have no idea how many ... but [they] wouldn’t allow us to trot them out in public.”

Yet perhaps most explosive were the questions surrounding the final vote count itself. On election night, Pratt was neck-and-neck with incumbent Karen Bass and leading democrat socialist Nithya Raman as expected. But in the days that followed, as late mail-in ballots poured in, Raman overcame a roughly 40,000-vote deficit — a stunning net swing of more than 43,000 votes that flipped the race.

“They try to explain it away like, ‘Oh well, Democrats vote late. They vote by mail.’ OK, but just for the one third place candidate? There were two Democrats in the race, so why is it only for the third place candidate, the one person who actually needed the votes?” says Mann, “And the thing is the media will always say that, ‘Oh, there's no evidence of fraud.’ That is evidence.”

“Now evidence is not the same as proof, but a statistical anomaly like that, you ask any forensic auditor they'll tell you yeah that is evidence of fraud, and it needs to be investigated, and so Spencer has been doing this by the books. He's been collecting evidence,” he continues, noting that they’ve built a case with this evidence and have shared it with law enforcement.

For the full, unfiltered conversation and all the behind-the-scenes details, watch the complete episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Christopher Rufo cornered NYT’s Ezra Klein — and got him to admit the quiet part on immigration



For years, the New York Times has taken an openly and aggressively progressive stance on immigration — favoring expanded legal immigration, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and asylum protections, while opposing strict enforcement measures like expanded border walls, mass deportations, or reduced refugee admissions.

Anyone who thought otherwise was labeled racist, xenophobic, or a white nationalist.

But it seems one of the Times’ biggest names has begun to backtrack ever so slightly.

Last week, BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo sat down with opinion columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein for an honest conversation about a number of divisive issues, including immigration.

Klein’s surprising comments may be symptomatic of cracks forming in the progressive consensus that treated any hesitation about mass immigration as inherently bigoted.

Reflecting on the interview, Rufo tells co-host Jonathan Keeperman, “I made the argument that it’s totally legitimate to be concerned about rapid, large-scale immigration change.”

To his surprise, Klein didn’t totally disagree.

“In some versions [of white nationalism], ... if you have too much of a country not sharing a common heritage, you lose solidarity. In some cases, we’re talking about something much darker than that, right?” Klein contrasted. “There are people who just don’t like the way their community is changing, and there’s the KKK.”

“But would you say someone who is, like, for example, hesitant about rapid, large-scale demographic change is just a kind of 1% white nationalist? Because that would be, like, the majority of the country,” Rufo pressed.

“Yes, I don’t think it is a problem or unfair or even wrong to worry about large-scale, rapid demographic change,” Klein conceded.

Rufo believes this response is indicative of a broader shift.

“A couple years ago, you would not hear a prominent New York Times voice saying that it is totally legitimate, reasonable, and understandable to be concerned about large-scale, rapid demographic change,” he says, noting how the left routinely scorned such fears as byproducts of “the Great Replacement theory” and “KKK-style white supremacy.”

“Is this a concession? Is this going to be the ... moderate left’s or the establishment left's new position moving forward?” he asks.

Keeperman doesn’t believe Klein’s rhetorical concession amounts to much.

“It does not surprise me at all to hear him concede rhetorically that these things matter, that it’s OK to be concerned about ... rapid demographic change, to have some concern about national identity,” he tells Rufo. “That is meaningless, however, unless it’s backed up by actual policy preferences that he’s willing to get behind.”

Until the New York Times “[makes] some kind of policy concession that would suggest they are serious about taking this concern to heart,” Keeperman refuses to believe the left is sincerely softening its stance on immigration.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.