Conservative, Inc Vs. The Dissident Right - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15045971


It's about to be 2016 all over again.

Nick Fuentes fills Milo’s gap

Turning Point USA is under assault — from further right

They’re being called the Groypers — named after Pepe the Frog’s more sinister, overweight toad cousin — and they’re making life hell for Charlie Kirk and his campus conservative organization Turning Point USA.

Following eyebrow-raising comments from Kirk recently that have been interpreted as elevating Israel above the United States, advocating automatic green cards for foreign exchange students, and one incident where a TPUSA leader was terminated after she posed in a group photograph with ‘fringe’ figures, the Groypers, led by 22-year-old shitlord Nick Fuentes, have been infiltrating TPUSA events to launch a barrage of uncomfortable questions at Kirk. In some instances, they’ve managed to dominate the entire Q and A portion of events, as Kirk squirms on stage.


This campaign of terror peaked Tuesday night at Ohio State, where Kirk was joined on stage by TPUSA ambassador Rob Smith, a gay, black, Iraq war veteran who, since leaving the Democrat party just last year has been a fixture on Fox News and the campus speaking circuit. Smith, or rather TPUSA’s open embrace of homosexuality, got the brunt of the attack at Ohio.

‘You’ve advocated on behalf of accepting homosexuality, accepting homosexual acts as normative in the conservative movement, how does anal sex help us win the culture war?’ one rosary-clutching, Fuentes plant asked.

It was a stunning moment and something I, as a gay man with right-wing views, have been desperate for someone to ask. Many lifelong conservatives have watched politely as a new class of people have been anointed their national spokespersons simply because they were ex-Democrats who ticked a certain identity box. I hope I do not fall into this category somewhere. Yet often these people, and I’m not talking about Rob, propped up as the second coming of William F. Buckley, turn out to be incurious morons who couldn’t tell Burke from Beyonce. They don’t truly understand conservatism. All they know is the left is bad and lies a lot, and they’ve built careers on this not exactly groundbreaking concept. The whole thing comes off as defensive posturing: if the left says we are racists and homophobes we must hand the spotlight over to our blacks and gays.

Smith took the mic, rattling and unprepared. He lauded America’s exceptionalism and the contributions gay men and lesbians make to society. But for an event titled ‘Culture War,’ his response seemed to only validate the perception that TPUSA is out-of-touch and not, in fact, comprised of cultural warriors. The correct response to that question, from a homosexual, should have been something like, ‘But, honey, without us your women would have awful hair.’


Fuentes and some of his followers, though certainly not all, could be said to legitimately hold far-right views on ‘white identity’, ethno-nationalism, and Christian morality. While many of the questions asked were tough, challenging, and highly engaging, there was an undeniable strain of authoritarianism weaved underneath. It was enthralling and slightly chilling. But by no means were all of their questions about race. Some were legitimate policy inquiries. Kirk dodged those, too.

This is happening for two reasons. First, the left is no longer an interesting or formidable foe. The culture war issues that sent Trump to the White House in 2016 are old hat to dissident right-wingers who live on the internet. That was a millennial war and now the zoomers are ascending. Those with a knack for sensing the mood of the nation and predicting the direction culture will go — a club, by the way, devoid of anyone on the left or in media — watch the left’s continued narrow-sighted, cannibalistic spiral of madness with increasing boredom, whether it’s Russiagate, impeachment, or boycotting a Chick-fil-A.

Once you’ve figured out the left, and have successfully stood up to them and survived, they become less worthy of your mental energy.

Conservatism, Inc does not understand this. They deliver talking points very well, but that’s about it. Still, they were aloof, or cocky, enough to title their campus tour ‘culture war,’ and didn’t think some people might cringe whenever they took stage firing t-shirts from a cannon while dressed in a J.Crew blazer, loafers, and Ray-Bans. Because, when all’s said and done, they’re corny and unconvincing. Even Turning Point’s own members are abandoning it: Twitter was awash yesterday with resignations, including two chapter presidents, one from Drexel University and the other from Kansas. And even Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin retweeted the resignation statements. So it’s not just the dark underbelly of the internet waiting to see Kirk stumble.


Let’s face it, they’re as dorky as the Never-Trumpers, only younger. And yet, many see them as snatching the baton and appointing themselves the guardians of 2016’s spoils. I sincerely have no beef with Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, or anyone affiliated with that organization. They do decent work and all seem like nice, hard-working people. But as far as in-fighting goes, where liberals stifle and suffocate, conservatives brawl. And the celebratory reaction to Tuesday night’s spectacle from mainline Trump supporters who have zero tendencies toward ethno-nationalism proves what I’ve suspected for a while: there’s a feeling among anti-establishment conservatives that their self-appointed leaders have grown lazy and take their support for granted, if not downright insult their intelligence by robo-tweeting the same blanket statements about liberal corruption or America First, day in and day out, for three years. It never occurred to these cultural war generals to evolve, that people may be thirsty for depth, more philosophy, Christianity, or just quality entertainment.

Following Tuesday night’s melee, Rob Smith (whom I know personally, and like) stirred even more ire when he took to Twitter to claim the event had been infiltrated by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Other conservatives with blue check marks but not affiliated with TPUSA echoed this. While I don’t understand the obsession some on the right have with Israel — pro or con, despite personally falling in the pro-camp — and I glaze over at any mention of ‘white identity,’ if the embarrassment on stage didn’t do it, those tweets may have been the death of Turning Point. The media’s treatment of Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann is still fresh for Trumpers. How could anyone, especially supposed leaders of the culture war, label young men in MAGA hats as Nazis, carelessly deploying the same empty, meaningless insults the left uses to destroy lives? No one has forgotten that Kirk condemned the Covington boys before he praised them.

If the energy behind the Groyper insurgency has you worried about an actual rising tide of ethno-nationalism, Facebook and Twitter are to blame. Silicon Valley censorship created Nick Fuentes. The true culture warriors on the right, save for the president himself, were silenced by Big Tech when it became clear how beloved and effective they were. Love them or hate them, the likes of Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Roger Stone, and Milo Yiannopoulos built large followings of young right-wing men. They could be mean, offensive, shocking, and totally bonkers but they weren’t consciously steering their audience towards ethno-nationalism. They also understood and listened to their audience better than anyone else in living memory in the conservative movement.

Their un-personing left a gigantic void in the national discourse that Conservatism, Inc, ill-equipped, rushed in to fill. These new interlopers lack the talent, insight, intelligence, and grit of the Banned. (Full disclosure, I also personally know Yiannopoulos and McInnes and have worked with them before). It also created the opportunity for extremely self-confident zoomer Fuentes to rise up and give a contrarian, challenging voice against the new, unelected face of Trumpism. Had the aforementioned provocateurs never been banned, Turning Point would be in no one’s crosshairs, but just another, milder delegation sitting under the big tent. No one would have heard of Nick Fuentes.
#15047537
The mainstream right has gotten large/popular/'reasonable' enough that they no longer need to placate an extreme element of theirs (one that is generally steadfast and reliable) so that element is throwing a hissy-fit. Perhaps Conservatism can rise again and replace/suppress the reactionary part of the right wing.
#15047593
Thunderhawk wrote:The mainstream right has gotten large/popular/'reasonable' enough that they no longer need to placate an extreme element of theirs (one that is generally steadfast and reliable) so that element is throwing a hissy-fit.


What do you think that TPUSA, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and Ben Shapiro are trying to do here?

They are using the leftist tactics of refusing to debate or discuss issues with anyone they disagree with while engaging in namecalling.

They are also attempting to keep them out of open public forums and they happen to get it to these events, they are pushed to the side while they address liberals and milquetoast conservatives.

Most of them are doing this all white pretending to be defenders of free speech and championing open dialogue .

Thunderhawk wrote:Perhaps Conservatism can rise again and replace/suppress the reactionary part of the right wing.


How do you think corporate Conservatism should address these young reactionaries? Rep. Crenshaw appears to be issuing thinly veiled threats to his opposition.

Ben Shapiro gave a Hillary Clinton-esque basket of deplorable-styled speech denouncing Nick Fuentes without addressing him by name.

A good point was made by Fuentes that Shapiro has a huge online presence, hundreds of thousands of YouTube and Twitter followers, yet he feels the need to go after relatively small YouTubers like Fuentes who have significantly less followers.

Here's Shapiro's speech without Fuentes - Ben Shapiro Speaking at Stanford University

#15047612
The divide in the Right is interesting: the general melee of non-atheist but secular conservatism (with its own progressive/traditional divisions) vs various ethnic/religious/identity groups. When Ben Shapiro makes non-identity arguments he is worth my time. When he makes personal attacks, or when other make such attack at him, I have no interest, and thus I'm not going to spend an hour watching that video.
#15047613
Conservativism is not longer really part of the right wing. Most actual Conservatives are labeled Liberals, in this political climate, because they aren't right-wing, or reactionary enough. You can see it quite clearly on here, where reactionaries label actual conservatives Libtards, Rinos, and such. eg. Drlee, a Conservative republic, is always labeled a left-winger by all the "Dissident Rights" on this forum.

Note: Trump is not a Conservative, but he is a right-wing reactionary.
#15047768
Thunderhawk wrote:The divide in the Right is interesting: the general melee of non-atheist but secular conservatism (with its own progressive/traditional divisions) vs various ethnic/religious/identity groups.


That's a good way to look at this conflict, except for Charlie Kirk maintains that he is a Christian, and obviously Shapiro is a religious Jew.

Well TPUSA, Don Jr. and his useless annoying girlfriend got blasted at their UCLA event. The youth are rejecting these useless conservatives who do nothing but adopt liberal talking points from 5 years ago while they concede more to the left every year.

It's a real bad look when you are the son of the president who ran on "America First," get booed off the stage for not being America First.



^^^I thought we shouldn't do identity politics.





Charlie Kirk Booed Off Stage — Rejects “America First” Questions

Charlie Kirk of TPUSA was booed off of stage at his own speaking event today by a disappointed crowd of America First patriots who were denied the opportunity to ask questions to Kirk and Don Jr.

Chants of “Q & A” rang out at the Turning Point USA event at UCLA as the speakers shifted in their seats. Unable to face an increasingly agitated crowd of Trump voters denied their opportunity to have their voices heard, the speakers retreated as the speaking event was abruptly ended only 30 minutes after it had began.

Earlier TPUSA speaking events have been host to a barrage of uncomfortable questions posed by normal, working-class Americans who are concerned with the direction of the Conservative establishment and it’s blatant disregard for the worrying trends of increased immigration, foreign spending & wars in the Middle East.

“America First” the growing platform of American Christian Conservatives spearheaded by rising political orator Nicholas J Fuentes, has apparently been blacklisted by the conservative establishment as their questions are no longer allowed to be heard. An open refusal to answer a fair question is an admission to the questions validity…

Campus Conservatives are abandoning the million dollar operation known as TPUSA en-masse and migrating over to the growing energetic, fun and brutally intellectual America First movement. If the Donald Trump administration, his family and their donors have any sense about them at all, they might want to reconsider their relationship with TPUSA and exchange it with the REAL movement of campus Conservatives… AMERICA FIRST!!!


#15047861
maz wrote:That's a good way to look at this conflict, except for Charlie Kirk maintains that he is a Christian, and obviously Shapiro is a religious Jew.

Shapiro points out he is a Jew when he is insulted/attacked as a Fundamentalist/Nazi/Fascist /-apologist. When he is decried as not religious enough, he points out he is Orthodox and that he acts out his faith in his private life. Otherwise his arguments are Conservative and secular. The arguments are -generally- good for his faith, I think that is why he makes them, but those arguments are also good for most groups who wish to co-exist. I didn't know of Charlie Kirk, but from the text you've put up and some quick googling it sounds like he is pro-Christian and everything else is to be second class, removed or destroyed.
There is no "except" here. It is a fundamental distinction within the right - non-atheist but Secular nation vs specific-Religion nation.
#15048977
Godstud wrote:Conservativism is not longer really part of the right wing. Most actual Conservatives are labeled Liberals, in this political climate, because they aren't right-wing, or reactionary enough. You can see it quite clearly on here, where reactionaries label actual conservatives Libtards, Rinos, and such. eg. Drlee, a Conservative republic, is always labeled a left-winger by all the "Dissident Rights" on this forum.


Many of of the positions of today's conservatives are simply the positions of liberals from 10 years ago. How many conservatives today would be against same sex marriage like Obama and Clinton were 10 years ago?



Anti-Israel activist Ryan Dawson explains "white nationalism" from a leftist point of view.

#15050065
Thunderhawk wrote:I didn't know of Charlie Kirk, but from the text you've put up and some quick googling it sounds like he is pro-Christian and everything else is to be second class, removed or destroyed.


Charlie Kirk is your standard astroturf grifter. His job is to tell rich old conservatives that the youth are *totally* down with their pro-rich Boomer economic views. All he needs is their money so that the silent conservative majorities which exist on every campus can finally have a group to rally around in TPUSA.

It turns out only the dumbest college students are into that (such as the Kent State Diaper Girl), and that TPUSA's target demo is the old, rich, white men who fund them. Here's some interesting ad analytics from the Spectator (more examples in the article):

Image

Image

TPUSA is a business designed to siphon money from rich old Boomers who are conned into thinking that college students are yearning for awesome memes that will help them embrace economic policies which benefit rich old white men. Charlie Kirk is a standard astroturf grifter, Nick Fuentes is a nazi working the same hate grift we've seen before.

The author of Maz's article also appears to be a moron. He blames the appearance of Nick Fuentes on ~the left~ because apparently social media platforms deplatforming people who blatantly break their rules is cultural marxism or some dumb shit. Apparently, if Milo, McInnes, Jones, etc. were still around we would have sensible, moderate, and respectable hate grifters instead of out and out nazi trolls like Fuentes. This ignores the fact that a young Fuentes would have been part of the Milo, Jones, & McInnes target demo, and his out and out naziism is the logical conclusion of their views.

The right wing hate grift requires constant pushing toward further extremes. Liberals, blacks, transpeople, female gaming journalists, etc. are a constant threat to the very existence of Western culture in a neverending struggle to own da libz (who are simultaneously weak, but also tearing society apart because they control everything). Fuentes is just picking up the torch and following their grift to its logical end: ethnic and moral purity enacted by an authoritarian government.

In short, the author of Maz's Spectator article is an idiot. Charlie Kirk is a conman trying to defend his grift, since donors will be less willing to give money to an explicitly racist organization. Fuentes is a nazi troll attacking Kirk to boost his own profile. TPUSA can't be repurposed into a powerful nazi political organization, because its only purpose is to grift money from rich old Boomers. TPUSA isn't an actual meaningful force on any campus, and it's not meant to be.

The difference between Kirk and Fuentes is that Kirk has found a way to monetize his grift. Fuentes can't do the same with his gaggle of 4chan trolls awkwardly stuttering questions into microphones. They both punch far above their weight in terms of visibility, but have no actual power to influence politics in any meaningful way. Of the two, Fuentes is far more likely to inspire some lone wolf shootings because that's the logical conclusion to his beliefs.

It should be obvious to anyone who has posted here which side Maz supports, and I encourage Maz to seek therapy if he finds his thoughts turning violent. Sure, maybe a life devoted to consuming racist 4chan memes isn't a good or meaningful life, but it's better than dying in a hail of police gunfire.
#15050106
It is actually pretty funny to see all of these neo-con conservatives and neo-liberals making such a fuss over a tiny little man gaming and livestreaming from his mommy's basement.

At first they didn't want to report on him but they he got too big until they were forced to cover him. Now they won't shut up about him :lol:

Fuentes might not have any power to affect politics but you'd never know it based on the reactions of pro-immigration fake conservatives and pro-Israelfirst groups on Twitter. They have been exposed to be so weak, cowardly and without convictions, that they can't even handle a few 4chan trolls awkwardly stuttering questions into microphones without screaming for it all to be shut down.

Basically, the premise of this article is that we can't have an serious conversations about immigration policy, changing demographics or foreign policy ever, because some guy livestreaming and gaming in his mommy's basement once made a joke about six million and gas chambers.

Just What Does a Guy Have to Say to Be Considered Beyond the Pale?

Politics, in the form of turning ideas into legislation and getting them passed into law, requires building coalitions and attracting allies. Inevitably, the process is going to require at least a temporarily alliance with someone you don’t agree with all that much.

We’re all going to have our own internal “red line” of when somebody’s beyond the pale in their views or ideology — too radical, too extreme, too horrible, hateful, a repugnant human being who we don’t wish to be associated with in politics or any other venue. The odds are good we’ve all had some experience where somebody we initially thought we knew and liked turned out to be a bit of a nut or worse. And it’s understandable that different people will have different notions about where that line of acceptable allies is to be drawn.

What I can’t quite understand is why any conservative would give the benefit of the doubt to somebody like Nick Fuentes, who makes jokes comparing the Holocaust to Cookie Monster baking cookies, or scoffs that segregation was no big deal, or fumed that those who work for Jews are “race traitors,” or yearned for young people to march under Mussolini banners. These examples don’t strike me as a close call or an isolated incident or a momentary lapse in judgment. Benny Johnson assembled these examples and more, each with video, here.

If you want to advance a policy — whether it’s secure borders, lower taxes, fewer abortions, or anything else — then you can’t let it get mixed up with lunatic notions like Holocaust denial, pro-segregation, the idea that people owe loyalty to their own race, or the odes to the upside of fascism. The first reason we can’t do that is because these are all terrible and morally abhorrent ideas. But the second reason is because the overwhelming majority of the American people will instantly recoil from anything and anyone remotely associated with those lunatic notions. Welcoming fascist segregationist Holocaust doubters to your side in a debate is embracing defeat with open arms.

The fact that someone like Michelle Malkin — a figure once widely respected, even beloved amongst conservatives — insists upon seeing Nick Fuentes as simply an activist against open borders, and does not see any of Fuentes’ above remarks as sufficient reason to no longer see him as an ally, is deeply troubling.
#15050120
I haven't seen it reported anywhere else besides people who specifically report on right wing media but OK Maz. We get it. You're happy a nazi is in the news again like your hero Richard Spencer.

These kinds of grifts tend to burn themselves out, since they're predicated on constantly pushing the envelope. Alex Jones with his Sandy Hook conspiracy + getting in Jack Dorsey's face. Milo saying pedophilia is cool and good. McInnes starting a street gang.

Fuentes is starting at Holocaust denial with "If you had 11 ovens making cookies nonstop for four years, could you really bake six million cookies?" So while he's in the news now, his grift is already starting close to the end of the natural lifecycle for right wing trolling. He's starting with 4chan trolls and will be relegated to that circle, so his floor is also his ceiling.

Kirk is an absolute moron but was connected enough to get in touch with the right wing donor class and go with the faux-activism/young person repeating old people's views path, which makes his grift more viable.
#15050336
Thunderhawk wrote:The mainstream right has gotten large/popular/'reasonable' enough that they no longer need to placate an extreme element of theirs (one that is generally steadfast and reliable) so that element is throwing a hissy-fit. Perhaps Conservatism can rise again and replace/suppress the reactionary part of the right wing.


As a general rule the right has a no go zone: Racism and the idea of supremacy. Ideally no right winger crosses into that area. When someone does the pay the price.

However, the left has no known limits. There is no boundary that makes a lefty a dangerous person. Do you know of any limits on the left?
#15050337
SpecialOlympian wrote:I haven't seen it reported anywhere else besides people who specifically report on right wing media but OK Maz. We get it.


Here's a bunch of left wing articles saying the exact same thing about Nick Fuentes as conservatives, who we are supposed to believe are their political opposition; not addressing the Groyper's issues but instead telling us that we can't talk about real issues because some kid once told an edgy joke during a livestream.

Conservative group cuts ties with Michelle Malkin - The Hill

The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) has cut ties with right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin after she voiced support for an alt-right activist who caught national attention last week for disrupting conservative events.

The decision to cut ties came after Malkin praised 21-year-old broadcaster Nick Fuentes and his followers, who call themselves “groypers.” Fuentes has a history of making anti-Semitic and racist comments, and the mainstream right has sought to distance themselves from him and his supporters.

In a speech last week, Malkin praised Fuentes as “one of the New Right leaders,” according to The Daily Beast. She was promptly removed from YAF's speakers list.


How Twitter and YouTube are Helping a White Nationalist Build a Community Fueled by Hate]Conservatives seek to stifle new 'alt-right' movement steeped in anti-Semitism - The Hill

A fringe group of far-right activists have been disrupting conservative and pro-Trump events in recent weeks, drawing rebukes from mainstream Republicans who are eager to separate the party from white nationalists and alt-right racists.

A small but vocal group of young men led by 21-year-old broadcaster Nicholas Fuentes received national attention this week after heckling Donald Trump Jr. at an event in California, where he was promoting his new book “Triggered.”

Fuentes and others on the far right have been publishing calendars of events held by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, conservative media stars Ben Shapiro and David Rubin and others, including Trump Jr. and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), in an effort to have their followers infiltrate and disrupt the events.

Members often show up at the events wearing red Make America Great Again hats and Fuentes’s show is called “America First” in a nod to the president’s popular slogan.

Shapiro, who is Jewish, and others have described the disruptions as an insidious effort to smuggle racist and anti-Semitic ideologies into the conservative mainstream.

At a speech at Stanford University this week, Shapiro lashed out at Fuentes, calling him a “garbage human being” whose views are “obviously white supremacist garbage.”


Conservative group cuts ties with Michelle Malkin over support for Holocaust denier - Jewish News Syndicate

(November 18, 2019 / JNS) The conservative Young America’s Foundation has cut ties with right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin over her support for anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.

“Michelle Malkin in no longer part of YAF’s campus lecture program,” a YAF spokesperson told The Daily Beast.

Since last month, Fuentes and his followers, who call themselves “groypers”—a reference to the cartoon toad that is similar to the alt-right Pepe the Frog—have interrupted conservative events on college campuses, including ones hosted by YAF and pro-Trump group Turning Point USA. The hecklers usually ask speakers about U.S. support for Israel and immigration as a way to push their anti-Semitic agenda into mainstream conservatism.


Conservative Group Fires Michelle Malkin Over Support for Holocaust Denier - Daily Beast

A conservative group cut ties with right-wing columnist Michelle Malkin on Sunday over her support for an anti-Semitic internet personality, ramping up a growing conservative civil war centered on college campuses.

Malkin’s firing from Young America’s Foundation, whose speakers bureau had booked Malkin for speeches across the country for the past 17 years, marks the latest battle between supporters of Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and more establishment conservative figures.

“Michelle Malkin in no longer part of YAF’s campus lecture program,” a YAF spokesman said in an email to The Daily Beast.

Malkin didn’t respond to a request for comment.


Michelle Malkin Fired From Conservative Group and Condemned For Backing Alt-Right Holocaust Denier - Mediaite

Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin was fired by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), according to a new report, after she supported a Holocaust-denying, far-right activist who has been trying to revive the alt-right as an influential part of the conservative movement.


The Hill describes Fuentes’ group, known as “Groypers,” as a loose collection of people who believe people like Kirk are insufficiently right-wing, so the Groypers barge into their events in order to push bigoted sociopolitical positions. While a plethora of mainstream conservatives have condemned them, The Daily Beast reports that Malkin has lauded Fuentes as “one of the New Right leaders,” bashed his critics, and parroted his talking points.


How Twitter and YouTube are Helping a White Nationalist Build a Community Fueled by Hate - Mother Jones

In an incredible twist of irony, Donald Trump Jr. was heckled off stage last week during a talk about his new book “Triggered” after he couldn’t handle the onslaught of right-wing trolling at his event.

Trump’s son being harassed from the right seemed surprising, but the heckling represented a new height for a growing movement that’s been seeded by Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist upstart who’s been taking advantage of major tech platforms to gain prominence. The increasingly prominent racist had been feuding with Charlie Kirk, Don Jr.’s friend and the founder of Turning Point USA, an organization for young conservatives with chapters at colleges nationwide.

After a Turning Point USA event last month in which Kirk defended the US relationship with Israel, Fuentes decided to sic his followers on Kirk and his organization, advising them to show up at his and other conservative events and manipulate the question and answer portions into confrontations designed to spread alt-right ideas—in effect, make them real-life internet red-pilling sessions designed to win converts to the racist, far-right. Fuentes’ followers flooded the mics with questions about Israel, littering their queries with suggestions for the crowd and people watching the event’s livestream to Google far-right conspiracies, including anti-semitic ones.


You're happy a nazi is in the news again like your hero Richard Spencer.


I've never been a fan of Richard Spencer. My only comment ever about Spencer was that he should not be punched in the face because the blue check mark Twitter mob did not like his haircut, that he raised his drink and said "heil Trump," or that he liked to ramble to anyone who would listen about his goofy ideas of an imaginary ethnostate.

These kinds of grifts tend to burn themselves out, since they're predicated on constantly pushing the envelope. Alex Jones with his Sandy Hook conspiracy + getting in Jack Dorsey's face. Milo saying pedophilia is cool and good. McInnes starting a street gang.


Actually, Alex Jones media operation was penalized, just like Julian Assange and Roger Stone, because his audience was instrumental in helping Trump get elected. He was banned off social media so he could be neutralized before the 2020 election season. Milo and McInnes were legitimate libertarian weirdo grifters who were indeed bad faith actors and no one really gave a shit about them anyway.

Fuentes is starting at Holocaust denial with "If you had 11 ovens making cookies nonstop for four years, could you really bake six million cookies?" So while he's in the news now, his grift is already starting close to the end of the natural lifecycle for right wing trolling. He's starting with 4chan trolls and will be relegated to that circle, so his floor is also his ceiling.


These article are being framed around Fuentes instead of being framed around the issues people want to discuss. These gatekeeping outlets are trying to unperson Michelle Malkin, but she's sticking to the issues and not backing down.



What Is Conservatism, Inc. Actually Conserving?

In the wake of the Donald Trump moment, conservatism is up for grabs: white identitarians, “Catholic integralists,” paleocons, and American nationalists all sense an opportunity for greater representation. But the bigger story is that the globalist, anti-nationalist, progressive “conservatism” that came before Trump isn’t yet quite dead, and it’s fighting for survival.

The degree to which this is true has become apparent over the past few weeks as a civil war within campus conservatism has raged on between Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA and paleoconservative activists who follow the nationalist podcaster Nicholas Fuentes.

As Kirk and his allies see it, the Fuentes fans, who call themselves “groypers,” have been trying to “hijack” campus conservatism by injecting “white nationalism” into the debate. But this so-called sabotage has been accomplished with extraordinary simplicity. The groypers have been showing up to Kirk’s events to air their grievances about the failures of mainstream conservatism and its wholesale embrace of the LGBT+ agenda and mass migration.

Rather than talk to these activists in good faith, though, the gatekeepers have decided their ideas are not worth debating. They have instead pursued a campaign of denigration and suppression. Leaving aside personalities, they have dismissed candid, important questions about demographics and the liberalization of the conservative movement as “bigoted” and “racist.”

The elephant in the room is demographics. Not even progressives any longer pretend that mass migration won’t, at the rate we’re going, transform America into a majority-minority nation within our lifetimes. The implications for the nation and the Republican Party because of this shift are profound, and any conservative movement that is not willing to engage with it seriously cannot be taken seriously.

In his opening essay for this symposium, Kirk acknowledges that the demographic shifts concerning the America Firsters are real and that leftists are celebrating those changes. But Kirk ends up backing the leftist premise that such demographic shifts are inevitable and that the Republican Party’s only hope is to embrace this growing and diverse reality.

Kirk rejects without explanation putting a moratorium on immigration. Rather than restrict immigration to reverse the trend, Kirk endorses the survival “strategy” endorsed recently by Yoni Applebaum at The Atlantic: Republicans must reject “anti-immigrant” stances and instead do more to reach minority demographics. Only then can the GOP remain viable in a majority-minority future.

The premise is based on an obvious double-standard, one which is becoming more and more difficult to simply ignore. As Michelle Malkin and other America Firsters have pointed out, the Left operates on a premise of demographic hypocrisy. If we’re talking about the interests of “natural Republicans” from El Salvador and “MAGA drag queens,” then Kirk and Conservatism, Inc. have no issue with appealing to demographics. But when it comes to talking about the interests of white Christians it’s a different story altogether. That’s “racist.”

Leftists who celebrate demographic shifts simultaneously attack as racists conservatives who dare to notice their joy. As Democrats hail “flipping Virginia blue,” as national newspapers gloat about how demographic shifts will “doom Republicans,” the gatekeepers join the Left in insisting that anyone who confronts this trend candidly is not a “real conservative” and must be a “bigot.”

The leaders of the conservative movement must be able to answer these questions: why are white Christians, and only white Christians, prohibited from acting in their rational self-interest? Why must Republicans, given the prospect of a dim future in which it can only survive by pandering to the Left, respond by pandering to the Left now, just to win over people who hate and want to persecute them anyway?

In the end, this “strategy” is nothing more than a capitulation to the Left, the same surrender that has laid the country, and the party, so low for decades. By all means, the Republican Party must never waver in its support of the traditional family, of life, and of the Constitution. But it’s also not clear how exactly, or why, appealing to minority groups, and only minority groups, is the best way to do that.

Liberalizing the Party to Death

While the TPUSA controversy has focused on demographics, another core grievance of the “groypers” is the conservative movement’s inability to conserve the morals and traditions that made America great, especially traditional marriage. The conscious embrace of leftist identity politics, particularly LGBT rights, by Kirk and other Conservatism, Inc. figures justifies the impression that this is by unconscious design, if not conscious choice.

They pander to every identity group under the sun while at the same time feeling very free to attack white Americans who are troubled by the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country. Such people are denounced as “racists” just for feeling that way. It’s hard to see what’s conservative about this, or how it will help Republicans win elections in a deeply uncertain future.

It is no accident that some liberals have encouraged their Republican adversaries to embrace the “diversify” strategy Kirk advocates, as it advances the Left’s own goals and commitments. The gatekeepers in Conservatism, Inc. embrace the same ideas, the same methods, and even the same rhetoric as the Left to advance a globalist, anti-nationalist agenda. Their smears of outspoken America Firsters are indistinguishable from the Left’s familiar drive-by attacks on even the most unobjectionable conservatives.

The “conservatism” of groups like TPUSA isn’t conserving anything—nothing, that is, but liberalism itself. It does not offer young people anything they cannot already find in the ethos of consumerism and vacuous personal “liberation” so pervasive in our liberal culture and advanced relentlessly by the globalist Left. (cont)


Attack of the Groypers

Over the past month, the far-Right’s troll culture turned against Conservatism, Inc., by haranguing the establishment’s “youth outreach” guy, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA (TPUSA). TPUSA is a large and well-funded youth movement, but it is starting to lose its audience because many are asking what exactly TPUSA aims to conserve?

Although Kirk makes some modest concessions to the nationalist Right in his essay, for the most part, he has been pushing the old and failed conservative strategy of sticking to “free-market principles,” while being “liberal on social issues.” This is why he confuses conservatism, which is really a disposition and set of instincts, with a laundry list of positions that he labels “dogma.”

While decrying identity politics, he and his guests have often pursued a type of conservative identity politics, which aims to reach out to minorities in explicitly racial terms. At the same time, Kirk and TPUSA deny the legitimacy of any form of white American identity.

While TPUSA’s signature event this year is called Culture War, it aims not so much to fight one as to have those on the Right surrender to the dominant leftist culture. Kirk suggests his critics from the nationalist Right are engaging in purity tests, but has little bad to say about the losing conservatism that prevailed before Trump came on the scene—the “conservatism” of the proposed Bush amnesty and National Review’s defenses of transgenderism and same-sex marriage. His article projects weak energy and carries with it a tone of resignation to the forces to his Right, rather than suggesting that he is its vanguard.

Unlike Pat Buchanan, whose invocation of a culture war in 1992 was powerful, genuine, and ahead of its time, Charlie Kirk appears AWOL on the culture war. Young conservatives can be forgiven if they believe that for him, it’s just a marketing gimmick. Fighting a culture war means addressing the culture, and this means rejecting leftist notions of the family, of sexuality, of nationhood, of gender, and all the rest. Doing so no doubt will cross the Chamber of Commerce and may invite fresh smears from the SPLC, but why should they get to set the terms of respectability?

Instead of rejecting the Left and striking a blow for a right-wing counterculture, Kirk has used much of his time on stage to attack critics to his right using the patois of the Left. He has spent much time and in many venues going after those he considers bigoted, racist, and anti-semitic. He has mocked them as loser basement dwellers, as if such ill fortunes are not due, at least in part, from obstacles like the H1B visa program, affirmative action, or declining social capital in a land of increasing diversity. It is telling that he reaches for words popular on the Left like “xenophobia” and “racism,” seemingly unaware of how they have lost their punch, as they’re invoked so promiscuously to silence anyone to the right of Paul Ryan.

For many years, the Republican Party and the official organs of conservatism have channeled their supporters’ energy into policies that work chiefly to increase the wealth of corporations and the donor class. This was the “established dogma of the Bush-McCain-Romney years,” including low taxes, high immigration, and indifference to off-shoring. Not only are these policies destructive of family life and stable communities, but corporations have not returned the favor, instead becoming eager enforcers of leftism through draconian HR departments and widespread censorship in social media. Fighting a culture war means distinguishing between friends and enemies. In the realm of politics, it means exposing the areas of bipartisan consensus—on trade, on immigration, on social issues, and even sometimes on Israel, for that matter—as often inimical to the interests of the American people.

Things have not been going according to plan. Instead of facing blue-haired Antifa weirdos, Kirk is finding that increasingly he is being harassed by an army of “Groypers.” A variation of Pepe the Frog and the Clown, the Groyper avatars are ubiquitous among young right-wing activists on Twitter. Belying the myth they’re losers stuck in mom’s basement, these mostly well-spoken young men have shown up at TPUSA events “irl,” asking tough questions of Kirk about changing demographics, the nature of America’s relationship with Israel, and whether surrendering to the LGBTQ+ agenda actually advances the Right in the culture war.

Kirk and TPUSA’s frustration is clearly rising. America First activist Nicholas Fuentes has now been banned from Culture War events—ostensibly for being disruptive, but mostly because he is the self-proclaimed leader of the far-right troll army. [Editor’s note: TPUSA disputes this, saying it did not ban Fuentes from its events, but rather he’s been banned by the host venues.]

I doubt this conflation of this movement with one man reflects reality. The dissident Right is dispersed, and their rejection of Conservatism, Inc. is spontaneous. Focusing on one very young man with an outsized internet presence and who is, thereby, bound to make some rhetorical missteps as the symbol or “leader” of right-wing nationalism is just a means of discrediting it, by allowing critics to focus on unfortunate things a single person might have said years ago. The ideas animating the movement, not the individual personalities, are what really matter.

Kirk and his guests have often responded to questioners the way the Left usually does: with sputtering and ad hominem insults. This is just weak. Groypers have not been rioting or even heckling at TPUSA’s events; rather, a slew of pointed questions have exposed TPUSA as purveyors of the same thin gruel cooked up by Conservatism, Inc.

Trump’s election did not dissipate the meme army of 2016, which even now Kirk does not really understand. He, and many others in the Republican establishment, just wanted a good establishment conservative, like Cruz or Rubio. The civil war within the Republican Party was a rejection of that form of “good conservative,” not least because of their penchant for foreign wars and their hand-in-glove relationship with big business and woke capital.

Since Trump’s victory, Kirk and others in Conservatism, Inc. have made formal peace with Trump and his nationalist core supporters, but their words and actions show a long-term goal of redirecting their energy into approved directions, just as the Tea Party was co-opted and defanged.

These young right-wingers are still angry, energetic, irreverent, and alienated. Admittedly, they’re also disorganized, diverse, and a little dangerous in their views. This comes not least from their youth but also because they’re autodidacts, seeking answers to forbidden questions where answers can only be found in old books and various anonymous corners of the internet. They’re as likely to take their cue from Russell Kirk as from Alex Jones.

They would benefit from a genuine liberal education and an introduction to the grand tradition of conservative thought, of course, but so would Kirk himself. Conservatism is not a checklist of particular positions, an “established dogma” or set of “doctrines.” It is a disposition, a love of what already is, and is in danger of being lost.

The Left depends on indoctrination and is threatened by genuine critical thinking. It requires a great deal of propaganda because it goes against our nature, including the love of our own people and the familiar. Conservatism, Inc. masquerades as an intellectual movement to give voice to conservative sentiments. But it has turned out to be just as unthinking, beholden to its donors, and comfortable with censorship and the destruction of traditional life as the Left which, supposedly, it is opposing.

To be clear, I don’t endorse everything Kirk’s critics say, nor do I always approve of how they say it. Nor do I doubt he is a Trump supporter (when it’s safe and useful to be one). But support for Trump the man should be secondary, far secondary, to supporting what Trump represented: a break with the “doctrines” of Conservatism, Inc.

Trump’s earlier supporters recognized that the Left and Conservatism, Inc. functioned together to narrow the range of acceptable discourse, to secure the Left’s victories of yesteryear, and to habituate conservative voters into accepting that their job is to lose.

Nothing impresses the mind like success. The 2016 election was a time of unbridled energy. Instead of “losing with honor,” the Right finally won. The victory came not from embracing watered-down “compassionate conservatism” or better explanations of conservative “doctrine”; instead, Trump won by explicitly embracing right-wing nationalism. He willingly dropped certain false mandates from Conservatism Inc., such as “pure free trade.” And he won in spite of the gatekeepers and the resistance of official conservatism.

Back then, Trump got help from Frogtwitter, various underground podcasters, and local activists, who together made mincemeat of Trump’s opponents in the primary and general elections. Among other tactics, they did it with memes and with trolling. This asymmetrical, uncoordinated, and unpaid activism hurt Hillary so badly that she gave an entire speech condemning the right’s online youth culture. Fittingly, someone shouted out “Pepe” during the event.

Young right-wingers’ energy is mostly a positive thing—and, at the very least, it is certainly a powerful thing. It won’t be channeled into healthier directions through invoking the shopworn talking points of Conservatism Inc.—points made no more persuasive when they are adorned with glitzy marketing and guilt trips.

Coastal elites have projected their own preferences onto the young—social liberalism and free-market orthodoxy—but it turned out that young people want something more vital and meaningful. They grew up not particularly concerned about socialism—something that, however dangerous, is a boomer cultural touchstone and holdover from the Cold War.

Instead, what moves and alarms them is the very real and oppressive political correctness they experience directly at work and in school. They have seen tolerance for gays morph into “bake the cake, bigot” and “drag queen story hour.” In school, they experienced the dangers of diversity worship. They face joblessness for stepping out of line. They have had enough.

These young people will not settle for legacy “sit-down-and-shut-up”-style conservatism. They are wary of Kirk’s formulae praising “legal immigration” or “American exceptionalism” or that Israel is always and in all cases “our greatest ally.” To their well-tuned ears, this sounds like propaganda in support of demographic replacement, a nation loosened from any historical identity, and endless wars in the Middle East.

The source of their passion is not only their life experience, but also young people’s natural hostility to authority. Trump’s love of trolling only amplified their identification with him. The young right’s facility with memes is reminiscent of the joking resistance among Soviet dissidents. Then, as now, a brittle and humorless establishment found its rhetoric diverging more and more from reality. Such a system is always vulnerable to a good joke.

The young men of the Right want real change. They want their country back. They want to fight a real culture war, not a facsimile of one. And they’re having a lot of fun trolling the repackaged messages of Conservatism, Inc.
#15050363
maz wrote:I've never been a fan of Richard Spencer. My only comment ever about Spencer was that he should not be punched in the face because the blue check mark Twitter mob did not like his haircut, that he raised his drink and said "heil Trump," or that he liked to ramble to anyone who would listen about his goofy ideas of an imaginary ethnostate.


When did you stop liking Spencer? I thought he was your hero. You guys are basically ideological twins.

Actually, Alex Jones media operation was penalized, just like Julian Assange and Roger Stone, because his audience was instrumental in helping Trump get elected. He was banned off social media so he could be neutralized before the 2020 election season.


Cool story, bro.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your boring word avalanche because it didn't address my point, which was that the stories about right wing people tend to be covered by reporters who specifically report on the right wing. People aren't turning on their local news and hearing about the daring adventures of Fuentes and his NEET brigade. So, like, good job finding a bunch of reporters who do that, I guess.

If you could have dinner with Spencer or Fuentes, who would you choose? And why?
#15050553
Julian658 wrote:As a general rule the right has a no go zone: Racism and the idea of supremacy. Ideally no right winger crosses into that area. When someone does the pay the price.

However, the left has no known limits. There is no boundary that makes a lefty a dangerous person. Do you know of any limits on the left?


The left has no limits. They will never stop until billionaires cease to exist, everyone has a home, and healthcare is free. They are coming for your children, and want to brainwash them into calling transpeople by the name they choose to be addressed by.

But, most importantly, they are ruining video games. You can now play as a female Soviet sniper in the new Call of Duty. A crime against western civilization and, embarrassingly, the thing that finally inspired me to register to vote. I haven't voted yet.
#15050610
SpecialOlympian wrote:The left has no limits. They will never stop until billionaires cease to exist, everyone has a home, and healthcare is free. They are coming for your children, and want to brainwash them into calling transpeople by the name they choose to be addressed by.

But, most importantly, they are ruining video games. You can now play as a female Soviet sniper in the new Call of Duty. A crime against western civilization and, embarrassingly, the thing that finally inspired me to register to vote. I haven't voted yet.

It is refreshing to see a true lefty. You pretend to be tongue in cheek, but deep inside this is your dream.

Yes, there is no limit on the left. The more socialist and woke the better. Meanwhile the right has a no go zone which is white supremacy.
#15050625
How can you resist Cultural Marxism, White replacement and anti White hate, when you buy into Jewish supremacist lies? The Jews were never ever the chosen people of the creator of the universe. The fall of Judea to the Assyrians should have put paid to that nonsense.

And how can you defend western traditional monogamous marriage when you buy into the lie that it came from the Jews? It was Pagan Greece and Rome that gave us monogamous marriage not the Jews.
#15050645
B0ycey wrote:What you talking about? This is the "go zone" for the Far right. They will run over activists to protect white supremist statues.


You misunderstood me. I agree that there are racists in the far right that believe whites are superior. Sadly, the left affirms this by complaining of white supremacy. Why do they complain about it?

In any event, most conservatives condemn European superiority and racism. However the left has no limits. The more woke and lefty the better. The left also fails to police its own racism. They think is is perfectly OK to fight racism with more racism. However, this lefty racism is accepted or even celebrated. And let's not forget the condescending racism of low expectations white lefties have on so-called dark skin people.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
The Irishman...

Very few great actors are conservatives. The vast […]

No he wasn't. Hitler didn't even attend a meeting[…]

I have a suggestion to anyone reading that who is[…]

And that only makes sense if they had a common […]