No Enemies To The Right?

[Marduk]

Unfortunately, with the way the US political and social climate operates these days, just ignoring the fringe is not possible, nor is it possible to shrink the Left's choir by just preaching to ours.

Then work on making it possible. If you don't, there is no winning, only slower or quicker surrender.

People shit all over 'centrists' here, but the fact is most of US society exists in the middle, and no amount of purity spiral bullshit on the Right will change that.

Most of the middle is not as politically involved as the staunch factions, they just don't care as much about politics either way.

Deal with the demographic and cultural landscape we have, not the landscape we wish we had to work with.

The left got where it is by changing cultural and demographic landscape by hook or by crook. They did exactly the opposite of what you said here, and look where they are.
We need to stop them, and then do our own changes, if they scream in horror about it, then we are on a good way to win.

The appealing to the center, and convincing the center that the Dems aims are are worse than the GOP aims,

The center will never start caring much about politics, that is the nature of the center. If you don't care much, you don't care much either way.
Milquetoast politics just by their very own nature of being milquetoast cannot raise intense feelings or motivation.

requires the GOP to not allow it's own radicals/fringe to dictate the conversation and terms of engagement with society.

Then stop making these fringe radicals the center of the conversation!
If what they said is the center of attention, then they dictate the conversation, regardless of whether the attention is negative or positive.

Constant complaining about your side's radicals is not something anyone cares about. Leftists won't start liking you, moderate right is just rolling their eyes at both you and the radicals, centrists just don't care about this political drama and it doesn't help any of their problems, and media creatures will just use it as proof that fringe radicals are a major issue on the right, look how much the rightoids talk about them.

The GOP base is not enough on it's own to win anything, no matter how much it wishes it was.

Then make more people join it. Culture war ahoy!

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

More important question; why should we care what Dreher, Miller, or Haywood think?

What actual opposition do you really have with Haywood and Miller? Dreher is a wackjob that can't stop disavowing people to his Right, and a Doxxer. Do you want to engage or throw your hands up and find a reason to call me part of the problem?

Though I will say that many people on the fringe of the Right, not just these 3, actually do a lot of the Left's job for them. Particularly when they act like it's more important to not Punch Right than it is to make damn sure people like Fuentes, Milo, and Richard Spencer have no home or welcome in the Right's political actions or platforms.

The Left's job? And what is that? Calling people Nazis? Making a massive stink about things?

I cannot help but notice you keep bringing these guys up, have you ever considered that's what is wanted? That loudly screeching about these people, amplifying their image is what is wanted? And you can't help but bring them up.

As long as a "centrist" is focused on disavowal, the Left's game, you're putting energy leftward, riling up Leftist base.

 

[Blasterbot]

did Trump disavowing nazi's ever work to make him more palatable? no. punching right is a useless waste of time for the most part. purity spiraling because you think someone is to far right is a waste of time. if they do something you disagree with fine. but the more oxygen you give to them and the more exposure you give the more ammo the left gets. obviously if they get violent or something you can disagree with that. but pretending that fuentes is anything other than a gay grifter is just giving him more credit than he deserves.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Crushing Natsoc sympathising lunatics, or PR disasters (or both), is an entirely valid use of time. Not only will they drive the general public away in droves, they will try to hijack the movement and turn it into something else.

Vigilence is essential.

 

[Circle of Willis]

You don't win the culture war by welcoming changes of political landscape to your disadvantage (that's just surrender and the end result is ending up as GOPe or Tories, with constanly disappointed voter base who thought you are right wing but you're not) either, winning the culture war is about influencing which choir shrinks and which grows.

As for controversial fringe - the only way to win is not to play. If you praise them, you get bunched in with them, if you obsess about them being too fringe, they get someone to call a cuck, a leftist or wet noodle with no spine. If you have a better alternative, do your own thing, instead of talking about them, controversy and attention is what such shit-stirrers thrive on, just roll your eyes at them and move on.

This is it. How many people know that a few days ago, CPAC (which hosted Trump among other speakers) kept Nick Fuentes out when he tried to crash their party? There was no drama, no histrionic denunciations of everything Fuentes stands for (or what CPAC might think he stands for), no scene where he wrestled with 50 security guards and engaged in parkour to try to evade them, they just wouldn't let him in and issued a very brief statement that they don't agree with his views. The result is that the MSM got nothing to play with and Fuentes was left to seethe about the affair to his ever-diminishing audience at his own 'AFPAC' after also getting ghosted by Kanye. Now one can easily call CPAC 'establishment conservatives' and that wouldn't be wrong, but it doesn't change that they dealt with this attempted intrusion by Fuentes and the groypers in the smartest way possible.

Because really, what do people like him, Milo or Spencer have to offer? Even setting politics aside entirely - Fuentes is a gay catboy enthusiast who collects his own followers' dox just in case, changes his political views like underwear when convenient (he went from being a plain wignat to lecturing his audience about slavery and proposing building monuments to black figures around the same time that he attached himself to Kanye like a lamprey to a particularly big & juicy trout) and who also associates with other legendary all-around degenerates like Ethan Ralph. Milo is a known narcissistic attention whore, con-man and proven fed per written court documents tied to one of the Charlottesville cases and who's amassed a 'vault' of personal information on everyone he can get close to in case he ever feels like backstabbing them. Spencer also either glows in the dark himself or is at the very least a useful idiot associated with & in thrall to people who do glow like Christopher Cantwell (a self-admitted FBI informant). The answer to the question at the beginning of this paragraph is 'less than nothing', they actively make any space they're allowed to fester in worse and damage anyone who's still dumb enough to associate with them. Here's an article that ties all three of the above together, though it mostly focuses on Milo being an enthusiastic informant for the feds.

You don't have to make a big deal out of rejecting these clowns, besides needlessly giving the left ammo, they're also all attention whores who would LOVE for you to divert eyes toward them and give them a chance to boost their profile with stupid drama. Just cut them out, ghost them, leave them to seethe in isolation and when needed, bring up how they're grifting tards who are impossible to work with and also probable feds if someone asks 'hey why don't you invite (name) to your next conference?' It's all the attention they deserve, and it will also save you a migraine going forward when they inevitably self-destruct & try to take you down with them.

 

[Bacle]

Then work on making it possible. If you don't, there is no winning, only slower or quicker surrender.

Shrinking the Left's choir, and increasing the Right's, is something that requires a few things to begin to happen that a lot of the Right Wing fringe, and a lot of the Evangelical Right, won't like.

Preaching to any choir is a waste of time, and teh Right would be better off not trying to preach to any choir, instead of broadening the appeal of it's base messages and platforms. It's easier to change the music a group play, than it is to get more diehards into the choir.

Most of the middle is not as politically involved as the staunch factions, they just don't care as much about politics either way.

That used to be true before the internet age; it no longer holds water.

The center is not the center because they are detached from politics or uninvolved, but because they do not have monopolar beliefs that will only fit on one side of the aisle.

You do not win fair elections by subtraction, and it's easier to appeal to the center than it is to increase the number of GOP diehards in the choir.

The left got where it is by changing cultural and demographic landscape by hook or by crook. They did exactly the opposite of what you said here, and look where they are.
We need to stop them, and then do our own changes, if they scream in horror about it, then we are on a good way to win.

The Left is able to import voters via illegal immigration and anchorbabies, and cultivate 20 year long plans to shift demographics in whole regions.

The Right can barely keep a coordinated effort together for a few months, never mind decades.

The only way the Right wins in the long run is literally out-breeding the Left, which runs into the issue of declining overall fertility, public school indoc, and social services who love to target conservative parents for harassment.

The center will never start caring much about politics, that is the nature of the center. If you don't care much, you don't care much either way.
Milquetoast politics just by their very own nature of being milquetoast cannot raise intense feelings or motivation.

Again, this is the wrong way to look at the American center, and is big mistake to operate off of politically.

Then stop making these fringe radicals the center of the conversation!
If what they said is the center of attention, then they dictate the conversation, regardless of whether the attention is negative or positive.

Constant complaining about your side's radicals is not something anyone cares about. Leftists won't start liking you, moderate right is just rolling their eyes at both you and the radicals, centrists just don't care about this political drama and it doesn't help any of their problems, and media creatures will just use it as proof that fringe radicals are a major issue on the right, look how much the rightoids talk about them.

I would love for the fringe right represented by Fuentes, Milo, and their ilk to be not worth mentioning or noting. Yet look what they managed to do by tricking Trump into hosting them because they lied to and manipulated Kanye West.

However, somehow parts of the Right keep acting like those types are the hero's we should be looking to, or at least we shouldn't be calling them out, per the 'Don't Punch Right' folks.

Then make more people join it. Culture war ahoy!

You get more people to join the Right, at least people from the center, by actually gatekeeping he fringe loons like Fuentes, Milo, and their ilk from official events, and loudly repudiating them when mentioned.

If all the Right cares about is pulling from and catering to a shrinking fringe of the movement, instead of recruiting from the center, then it has already lost.

 

[Bacle]

What actual opposition do you really have with Haywood and Miller? Dreher is a wackjob that can't stop disavowing people to his Right, and a Doxxer. Do you want to engage or throw your hands up and find a reason to call me part of the problem?

Well, you are part of the problem if you have problems punching right when needed, and post up random nobodies complaining about it from a forum/site no-one's ever heard of, as if they matter.

The Left's job? And what is that? Calling people Nazis? Making a massive stink about things?

I cannot help but notice you keep bringing these guys up, have you ever considered that's what is wanted? That loudly screeching about these people, amplifying their image is what is wanted? And you can't help but bring them up.

As long as a "centrist" is focused on disavowal, the Left's game, you're putting energy leftward, riling up Leftist base.

No, the it's doing left's job of driving centerists/moderates away from the GOP by going 'plz don't insult or call out the Neo-Nazi's, Neo-Confederates, white nationalists, and outright racists who hide in our ranks'.

The center matters more than the fringe, and if you won't disavow the types I just mentioned, the center has every reason to think you are supportive of those rancid views.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Well, you are part of the problem if you have problems punching right when needed, and post up random nobodies complaining about it from a forum/site no-one's ever heard of, as if they matter.

Can you give me an example of someone who does matter? Or are you so incurious that you're not willing to go beyond the Daily Wire sphere? Give me something that isn't a bland dismissal.

No, the it's doing left's job of driving centerists/moderates away from the GOP by going 'plz don't insult or call out the Neo-Nazi's, Neo-Confederates, white nationalists, and outright racists who hide in our ranks'.

The center matters more than the fringe, and if you won't disavow the types I just mentioned, the center has every reason to think you are supportive of those rancid views.

The thing is, the Left does that anyway with anyone. I do mean anyone. Look at JK Rowling. When you cleave her opinon of men dressing as women from her? She's a shitlib, a "Liberal Centrist" at best. They define who's horrible and who's not, as long as you follow their definitions you're wasting time.

Have you ever actually convinced anyone by saying "I think Fuentes/Spencer/Milo are bad people"? That that will mean anything?

 

[Bacle]

Can you give me an example of someone who does matter? Or are you so incurious that you're not willing to go beyond the Daily Wire sphere? Give me something that isn't a bland dismissal.

Joe Rogan, Rand Paul, Elon Musk, Adam Smith, and others who are more centerist parts of the right, or at least are not progressives. Those are voices that can 'red pill' people easier than the fringe can, and who the public actually has heard of.

Ben Shapiro and DW are...sometimes useful to break through to normies, sometimes grifters trying to sell whatever ad reads they have lined up that segment. I don't depend on DW for news or insights, usually only to see how far behind the curve Shapiro is on a given issue, like with the Wu Flu vax and Jan 6th.

The thing is, the Left does that anyway with anyone. I do mean anyone. Look at JK Rowling. When you cleave her opinon of men dressing as women from her? She's a shitlib, a "Liberal Centrist" at best. They define who's horrible and who's not, as long as you follow their definitions you're wasting time.

Have you ever actually convinced anyone by saying "I think Fuentes/Spencer/Milo are bad people"? That that will mean anything?

Funny you mention Rowling, she's a damn near perfect example. She's a perfect example of how the Left does drive a lot of centrist types to the Right in their own purity spirals.

Rowling will never attend CPAC or fund-raise for the GOP, but her coming out against woke shit is more useful for the culture war and the Right's long term prospects than any amount of 'Don't Punch Right' bullshit.

And calling Rowling a 'shitlib' is another thing the Right needs to stop doing; separate progressivism from classical liberalism, and don't call classical liberals 'shitlibs' if you ever want them to drop the progressives.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Joe Rogan, Rand Paul, Elon Musk, Adam Smith, and others who are more centerist parts of the right. Those are voices that can 'red pill' people easier than the fringe can, and who the public actually has heard of.

Ben Shapiro and DW are...sometimes useful to break through to normies, sometimes grifters trying to sell whatever ad reads they have lined up that segment. I don't depend on DW for news or insights, usually only to see how far behind the curve Shapiro is on a given issue, like with the Wu Flu vax and Jan 6th.

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?

Funny you mention Rowling, she's a damn near perfect example. She's a perfect example of how the Left does drive a lot of centrist types to the Right in their own purity spirals.

Rowling will never attend CPAC or fund-raise for the GOP, but her coming out against woke shit is more useful for the culture war and the Right's long term prospects than any amount of 'Don't Punch Right' bullshit.

And calling Rowling a 'shitlib' is another thing the Right needs to stop doing; separate progressivism from classical liberalism, and don't call classical liberals 'shitlibs' if you ever want them to drop the progressives.

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.

 

[Cherico]

You only need a hard core of 20% to change things.

We are currently at 10% and Conservatives have 2 kids for every 1 liberals have, in the long term their fucked and they know it which is why their freaking out right now.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

the right doesn't need to kick someone out with a big, annoying hoopla. they can just drop the guy, walk away, and never worry about it again.

 

[Rocinante]

You only need a hard core of 20% to change things.

We are currently at 10% and Conservatives have 2 kids for every 1 liberals have, in the long term their fucked and they know it which is why their freaking out right now.

Assuming that kids will have the same politics as their parents is absolutely ridiculous, and anecdotally has tended to be quite the opposite from my experience.

 

[Marduk]

Shrinking the Left's choir, and increasing the Right's, is something that requires a few things to begin to happen that a lot of the Right Wing fringe, and a lot of the Evangelical Right, won't like.

Preaching to any choir is a waste of time, and teh Right would be better off not trying to preach to any choir, instead of broadening the appeal of it's base messages and platforms. It's easier to change the music a group play, than it is to get more diehards into the choir.

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.

That used to be true before the internet age; it no longer holds water.

The center is not the center because they are detached from politics or uninvolved, but because they do not have monopolar beliefs that will only fit on one side of the aisle.

You do not win fair elections by subtraction, and it's easier to appeal to the center than it is to increase the number of GOP diehards in the choir.

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.

The Left is able to import voters via illegal immigration and anchorbabies, and cultivate 20 year long plans to shift demographics in whole regions.

The Right can barely keep a coordinated effort together for a few months, never mind decades.

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 only way the Right wins in the long run is literally out-breeding the Left, which runs into the issue of declining overall fertility, public school indoc, and social services who love to target conservative parents for harassment.

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.

Again, this is the wrong way to look at the American center, and is big mistake to operate off of politically.

Yet by all observation it is true of any center.

I would love for the fringe right represented by Fuentes, Milo, and their ilk to be not worth mentioning or noting. Yet look what they managed to do by tricking Trump into hosting them because they lied to and manipulated Kanye West.

And why they did that? Specifically to get the attention...
Why give them what they want?

However, somehow parts of the Right keep acting like those types are the hero's we should be looking to, or at least we shouldn't be calling them out, per the 'Don't Punch Right' folks.

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).

You get more people to join the Right, at least people from the center, by actually gatekeeping he fringe loons like Fuentes, Milo, and their ilk from official events, and loudly repudiating them when mentioned.

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.

If all the Right cares about is pulling from and catering to a shrinking fringe of the movement, instead of recruiting from the center, then it has already lost.

Recruiting from the center implies getting the centrist to adopt right wing views, not the right adopting the views formerly known as centrist.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

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 give a damn what the progressives think. The latter faction will put us up against the fucking wall after they've shot all the lefties, hence why we don't do business with them.

 

[Marduk]

Funny you mention Rowling, she's a damn near perfect example. She's a perfect example of how the Left does drive a lot of centrist types to the Right in their own purity spirals.

Rowling will never attend CPAC or fund-raise for the GOP, but her coming out against woke shit is more useful for the culture war and the Right's long term prospects than any amount of 'Don't Punch Right' bullshit.

And calling Rowling a 'shitlib' is another thing the Right needs to stop doing; separate progressivism from classical liberalism, and don't call classical liberals 'shitlibs' if you ever want them to drop the progressives.

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.

 

[Bacle]

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.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

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.

Ideas do not have to be mainstream to be useful or interesting.

You do not win by writing off everyone to the Left of Rand Paul, either.

Who said anything about writing off people to the Left of Rand Paul?

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.

Neo-Confederate? If you have something say, say it instead of directing it at Marduk.

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.

Did you even bother to read the article or are you just reacting to the thesis? How do you have so much to say about something you didn't even read?

 

[Bacle]

Ideas do not have to be mainstream to be useful or interesting.

There is nothing useful or interesting about 'Don't Punch Right'; it's just a cover to protect racist scumbags who try to hide under the GOP's skirts.

Who said anything about writing off people to the Left of Rand Paul?

Your 'Shitlibs' comment about Rowling does/did, and using the term 'shitlibs' at all is likely to drive away anyone to the Left of Rand Paul.

How hard is that to understand?

Neo-Confederate? If you have something say, say it instead of directing it at Marduk.

Nah, he's not the one who called Rowling a 'shitlib', that was you.

Did you even bother to read the article or are you just reacting to the thesis? How do you have so much to say about something you didn't even read?

I saw the thesis, and didn't need to read anymore, because this bullshit isn't new or insightful, it's just 'Don't Punch Right' under a different guise.

Plus, I have no desire to click the link to that site, or give it traffic directly; same reason I don't go to KF.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Here is the thing. Last time people like normies like myself were not vigilant the Tumblrites moved to Twitter and managed to control the narritive for nearly a decade and it has been an uphill battle ever since. they've lost ground not because of the accomplishments of the edgy internet righties, but because the left wing rainbow birgade as of late has managed to spend the last couple of years or so stepping in dog poop barefoot.

contray to what many on the internet would like to think and however they like to mock us for being "consoomers", most of us want simple things in life. We want to be able to work our jobs and come home to our loving significant other and have "special time" however we see fit unhindered, we want to be able to watch entertainment without wondering if it's going to be some "muh message." Piece

The problem is that for whatever reason there are subsets of the population that is bitter and regardless of who wins those bitter people are going to jump on the next big thing to try and control the narrative. So no I'm going to be EXTRA vigilant to both sides from here on out.