My comments on @Indian_Bronson's and @eurog3nic's threads have elicited attacks from many sides. So let me explain my position.
I think the working class is treated disgracefully in America, and that goes for all races. The deaths of despair, bankruptcies through medical bills, and more are all expressions of this—or, more precisely, they're symptoms of deeper problems.
So, unlike people who could properly be termed "racist conservatives"—those who fear the very thought of a non-White somewhere getting another "handout"—I support a European-style administrative state. Period.
While I've long been open about my views—and I think it's worth elaborating on them further—I'm under no illusion that by simply talking about, say, UBI or national healthcare, I'm likely to win over the working class to "white nationalism" or whatever.
I'm in no position to get the working class greater handouts from the government, nor am I in the position of a Bloomberg-style billionaire, where I could offer them sustenance out of my own coffers. But it's worth talking about these issues, regardless.
I'm also under no illusion that if I simply talk about working-class issues, I'll cease being demonized. (Though it is true that talking about "socialism" does force more nuanced people in the media to give you a second thought.)
Some say I'm "LARPing" by discussing spiritual, cultural, or philosophic matters—as opposed to endlessly demanding working-class handouts. But the fact is, those anonymous "Nazbols" are in no position to actually deliver handouts either. They're LARPing harder than I ever have.
If what you demand are immediate concessions for the working class—if that is your top issue—then I don't understand why you'd want to have anything to do identitarianism or White Nationalism. Just go vote for Democrats. (I say this as a Democratic voter.)
Yes, the Democrats are part of the same corporate-financial system as the Republicans—they're part of the problem, too—but at least among Democrats, you can *broach* the issue of socialized medicine, whereas among Republicans, it's verboten.
In 2016, Donald Trump marked a fascinating turn among conservatives. He was "to the left" of Hillary Clinton on foreign policy issues and even many domestic issue—or at least he sounded that way at the time.
But by the spring of 2017—after Trump had made his appointments, bombed Syria, and dismantled Obamacare without offering anything in its place—it was clear that he had been captured by mainstream Republicanism.
I've heard many "national populists" talk about how, since the GOP is now the "White Working Man's Party," it must start adding issues like healthcare and UBI to its agenda. That's all fine and good. But I find that about as plausible as Trump finding a cure for baldness.
The GOP will continue its "fake populism" of photographing its celebrities hunting, attending NASCAR rallies, and hanging out with regular folks in small-town diners—or Tucker declaring that we must "protect the workers!" All of these things are substitutes for actual policy.
The Left-Right dynamic is in place: The Left pursues socialism and identity politics and the Right yells stop at both. Again, Trump seemed like he might change this—but his failure demonstrates the long-term continuity of this polarity. (I'm not happy to report this.)
Our cause—or perhaps I should merely say *my* cause—is not about "the workers," nor is it really about "immigration." It is about the future of mankind. This grandness (or perhaps absurd pomposity) frees me up, as it were, to engage in short term, tactical voting.
The liberals are simply more competent. And with them, there is at least a plausible chance of needed relief for struggling people. Did I mention they're simply more competent?
So the question I have for the "national populists" (who pride themselves as being pragmatic): If you actually care about the White working class—if you actually want to implement these programs, and not just talk about them—then why, exactly, are you not voting for Democrats?
The answer is that most of these "national populists" cling to the GOP for warmth and applaud its victories like a man playing fantasy football.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've noted a right-wing backlash against Fuentes for meeting with Trump. In summary, "You're ruining his reputation!"
I understand this...but it strikes me as deriving largely from jealousy. I don't blame Fuentes for meeting with the rich and powerful. I would certainly do (and have done) the same thing.
The issue is really the promotion on social media of the private turkey dinner. This was done by Milo (and Ye likely at Milo's behest). If you're going to have a tete-a-tete, you've got to keep that stuff secret. Milo turned the event into a media frenzy.
I don't quite know what to make of the China-related material. But might the Iran documents tell us something about the dynamics at play with regard to Trump, Iran, the Saudis and UAE—and, yes, Russia?
Avoiding any "Russiagate" hysteria, it's safe to say Trump was Moscow's preferred candidate in 2016. Trump returned the love, and, to be fair, much of what he said was reasonable and "realist": Why not get along with Russia? Why aren't NATO countries paying their fair share? etc.
Steve Bannon has earned the fanatical, irrational support of MAGA, who have no concept of politics or policy outside owning the libs. Lib-owning martyrdom will certainly appeal to them. Four months is a small price to pay for decades-long grift.
In a way, I'm surprised that Bannon could accomplish this. Back in 2017, he was fired for disrespecting Trump to various journalists and authors, even floating the use of the 25th amendment. (Perhaps he imagined himself taking over MAGA in Trump's place?).
Secondly, the "We Build The Wall" scam was so brazenly criminal, I'm genuinely shocked that anyone would take him seriously afterwards. I should have remembered this certain White infatuation with evangelical preachers, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen.
The notion that Elon is sitting on $44 billion in cash is ridiculous. He’ll sell Tesla stock to purchase Twitter, and that stock is crashing as a result. It’s a vicious cycle, which, in a worst case scenario, eventuates in Musk losing his stake in the Tesla.
Currently, Elon’s 17% of Tesla is worth $128 billion dollars. But again, selling large chunks of this directly lowers the overall value, creating a cascade effect: The price keeps going down, forcing Elon to sell more shares.
Conservative and “New Right” Musk fanboys are hilarious. First, they announced that Elon was saving free speech; then they claimed that Elon was fake-purchasing Twitter to expose it or secretly destroy it. What do they say now?
In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Tim Pool made some rather remarkable predictions.
My point is not to dunk on a person who's clearly dumb, or call Pool a "grifter." What's most important is that Pool paid no real price, in terms of his audience's reaction, to his idiotic claims. In fact, his audience still loves him and treats him like a brave truth-teller.
Pool has an arrangement (or business model) with his audience: he boldly tells them nonsense, or at least misrepresents reports on current event. His audience gets good vibes and pays him for what is effectively entertainment.
#AlexJones dug his own grave. He can’t whine about the 1A when he actively ignored and defaulted in the trial where that was very much at stake.
A plausible, if not necessarily winning, defense could have been attempted based on the *Snyder v. Phelps* decision, in which SCOTUS upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to demean the memory of fallen soldiers at their own funerals (!)—provided it was political speech.
Jones could have plausibly said that he was not engaged in harassment of individuals; he engaged in political speech against “the globalists” or some such; he got the facts wrong but not maliciously so. (I don’t say this as an admirer of Jones; I say it to be fair.)