Then what actually is this, a popularity contest? I offer dissident voices and you just snub them because they don't have Joe Rogan/Tim Pool numbers?
Politics is always a popularity contest, unless the rulers uses the barrel of a gun or blade of a sword to enact policy.
And citing nobodies from some fringe bit of the Right won't matter to normies, while the options of people like Rogan, Musk, and friends do matter to normies, or are more likely to matter to them.
There is a reason no one in GOP offices quotes KF for sources of wisdom and policy, after all.
Why is this at odds, though? Rowling getting people to see how wild and vicious the They/Them people are is good, yes, but I fail to see how that's incompatible with not punching Right. You haven't really put forward a reason to do the Left's job for them.
In the eye of a Progressive, or a centrist willing to listen to a Progressive, what's the difference between a Classical Liberal and a Reactionary Nazi Turbofascist? Is there a difference? I don't believe so. There is no escaping the power of the Left to put you in the same category as David Duke, Bacle. You're a klukker to them no matter what you do. Same with any centrist, any classical liberal, any one who's progressive on all things except a couple issues like Rowling.
That is my point. There's no sanitizxing the movement to avoid getting pilloried and lumped in with horrible people. No amount of disavowal will draw in people, because those who care about being associated with Fuentes, Spencer, them? They're basically progs already, functionally. You cannot win them over by being sterile.
You do not win by writing off everyone to the Left of Rand Paul, either.
This is culture war, it's all about what music the population likes.
If you play different music, what are you anymore? You're not even the right anymore, just something else. And you can complain about the right struggling with demographic appeal, but that "something else" you imply here is an absolutely small niche in itself.
What changing the music means is moving towards populist policies that resonate outside of the GOP, not just catering to the Right Wing fringe and letting them set the play list.
If it's so easy, why despite so much center-right trying, they always fail? You sound like the media people who screw up their franchises with blandness and trying to appeal to lowest common denominator in their similar arguments for "reaching a wider audience". Which they sometimes do, but that wider audience doesn't care much and will go for competition at a drop of a hat, while they lose loads of people who used to care much.
Because the GOP stopped trying to actually win the culture war till Trump came around, just wanted to lose slowly enough the Boomer-cons and remaining Silent/Greatest would be dead by the time the Dems took perpetual control of DC.
And now that the Right is trying to actually fight the culture war, it's running into the issue that decades of neglecting it gave the Dems a massive advantage, and teh GOP is still just trying to figure out how to catch up.
Well that latter part is most definitely easier and politically to fix than trying to out-left the left in appealing to free favor seeking foreigners.
The GOP doesn't need to import people, but it does need to stop acting like the majority of the country silently supports them, instead of most of the country being on the fence about the GOP at best.
The GOP cannot, and will not, win just catering to it's own fringe.
Literally impossible as long as the left can import half the world to shore up own numbers.
Even islamic fanatics with their fertility rates would struggle to do that.
Which is why the GOP/Right cannot afford to write-off anyone to the Left of Rand Paul, as many of the fringe seem to want to do.
Yet by all observation it is true of any center.
Maybe in Europe, but not in the US; the middle in the US is politically active and engaged, it's just the GOP fringe doesn't like it when the GOP spends time trying to pull more of the center over to their side.
The see anyone from the center coming to the right as 'diluting the purity' of the ideological Right.
And why they did that? Specifically to get the attention...
Why give them what they want?
Because they are names people actual know as representing the worst of the Right and the ideals the OP's article seem to want to embrace, while the nobodies in the article liniked in the OP don't even have that, yet still espouse the same sort of BS of catering to the fringe of the right.
It's not that we shouldn't be calling them out because they are our best buddies. We shouldn't be calling them out because we don't want our movements and organizations to revolve around whatever narrative crazy these folks think up, be it praising it or calling it out.
If they get to decide what's on the agenda, they already got quite a bit of power, even if you make it the agenda just because you make the agenda about calling it out (being outright useless otherwise).
We shouldn't let them set the narrative, yes.
However, when people keep looking at their ideologies/views and going 'This is what the Right needs, if only we could eject those who call them out.' and trying to link article about why, then defend the views of writing off large sections of the populace, well...that it's not a matter of being able to just ignore the influence they have.
Yes, do not invite them. But do not bother virtue signalling, absolutely no call out bullshit, that's just as bad. Just say i don't know/care about what this person thinks or does, don't have anything to do with this person nor want to, that's it.
Except I do know what the idiots think, because people keep acting like they and their ideology are a good fit for the right, as the fact the OP article exists proves.
And guess what, calling them out and saying they are POS's who don't represent the majority of the Right is useful for helping get centerists on board, and centrists are not Leftists by default, as
@Curved_Sw0rd seems to like to imply by calling them 'shitlibs'
Maybe I'll just call his type Neo-Confederates when speaking to centerists or people in general, and say we need centrists on the Right to make sure those sorts of voices are always drowned out and made irrelevant.
Recruiting from the center implies getting the centrist to adopt right wing views, not the right adopting the views formerly known as centrist.
Some centrists do have some Right wing views, but also left wing views, and thus why they are in the center.
You pull them in by pointing out how insane the Dems have become, how many people the GOP and Right have pulled from the center, and letting events 'red pill' them with the Dems own stupidity. It's usually not a fast process, but as seen with Rowling, it does work and can bring rather influential people in the culture war over to the Right.
The trans shit is doing a pretty good job of red pilling people, as is the hypocrisy of the Dems officials/friends.
Worse comes to worse, we can point out there are far more Leftists in Epstein's flight logs than conservatives, and drag all those pedo skeletons out of the closet.
The Left does a great good of red pilling people; but assholes like Fuentes, Milo, and fools like in the article in the OP do a great job of driving people in the center to the Left, so it kinda balances out, and 'status quo' of political sides/alignments is not a good thing for the GOP right now.
Because you look only at the narrative of the week. While Rowling disagrees with some shit that's too woke even for her, she's perfectly fine with lots of older woke shit under the name of feminism particularly. Some even considering her radical feminist under the "smash the patriarchy" banner. People like that can be allies of convenience at most - it's like allying with Leninists to screw over Trotskyites, but if you're a right winger you have to remember that neither of them are your friend.
The narrative of the week is what most of the public looks at, so yes, I pay more attention to the realities on the ground at a given point, than pretending old data/paradigms still hold true when new data says otherwise.
And treating this as just choosing Leninists over Trotskyites is just the wrong way to view this.
It writes off that people don't have to share 100%, or even 90%, of the 'core' conservative beliefs to see that the trans shit and things around it are insane, and want to curb the worst of the progressive BS.
I'll take feminists who understand basic biology over morons who think a man can be a woman any day.