Nicholas J. Fuentes, Candace Owens, and other Right Wing Grifters

I watched bits and pieces of that conference. What an embarrassment. Ben Shapiro pretending to be America First will never not be funny.

Right wing bigot/grifter Mark Levin… this attitude is typical of the extremist pro-Israel people… accuse others of the very racism that they engage in. Levin the loon attacking one of the biggest supporters of Israel because she doesn’t do exactly what the Netanyahu lobby demands …

Here you go op!!! Here you are op your welcome 🤗

--Alex Jones calling out Candace Owens for pushing baseless conspiracy theories is a pretty good barometer of where the Woke Reich is at right now. Complete clown show.

America needs a Conservative (small govt, low taxes, etc.) voice, as that brand of “conservatism” has valid principles worth debating.

What currently passes as “conservative” is ignorance-induced fear combined with Trump cultism and straight up dumbness. America ain’t need that ****.

by biggerboat m

Just a little infighting

https://apnews.com/article/turning-point-charlie-kirk-americafest-c1ef8d3535191e58ce2aa731d242bebf

AP News

Conservatives clash at Turning Point USA conference over MAGA movement's direction

The market is drying up, so the players squabble for existing turf. And to compete you need to be heard, and to be heard you need to say increasingly controversial stuff.

Not that I think these people are anywhere near becoming irrelevant. This movement has shaped modern western conservatism for the foreseeable future. They are its reigning intellectuals.

This isn't a uniquely American problem either. Classical liberalism (not to be confused by modern American liberalism) is pretty much dead in the water politically all across the western world.

On the right, classical liberal ideas are gobbled up by conservatism which used them as buzzwords, but they couldn't really care less about anyone's rights or freedoms. On the left, classical liberalism has really ever found a slight foothold within social democracy, but social democratic parties are crashing and burning politically across Europe in their unsuccessful attempts to please both moderates and socialists.

If it will ever make a return I do not know. I suspect classical liberalism is one of those political directions which appeal the most when people's rights are gone. When people have those rights and it is more a matter of them slowly eroding, there are political costs to maintaining them which are often unpopular: Privacy vs security, free speech vs hate speech, due process vs international crime etc.

Increasingly authoritarian governments, conservative morality laws, progressive disdain for free speech, distrust for rights and nanny-state laws have made me politically homeless for a long time, and I suspect I am far from alone.

Classical liberalism only works if the majority of people buy into it. It is extremely exploitable when people dont. Due to some combination of demographic replacement of liberal populations with non-liberal populations, wealth concentration to the top 1%, and "nativist" backlash enough people currently dont buy into classic liberalism that it appears DOA. And will invariably be replaced by less exploitable authoritarian systems.

We must have different definitions of the word "exploitable", because I can't think of much in politics as easy to exploit as authoritarianism - it practically goes hand in hand with corruption, theft, nepotism and lack of transparency, rewards servility over integrity, consistently fails to punish stupidity and buries people in red tape and laws that make everyone a criminal so the government can indict and punish you arbitrarily.

Fuentes is a piece of sheet and a t.wink that bottoms to a femboi but he MIGHT be right about women

Moved the Clav thread into general right wing grifter thread

I owe you man

so if Fuentes&Clavicular are right about women, which the second one is trying to prove with camera, what would it lead to?

if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike

how

I was speaking more towards bad faith actors being able to exploit the political leadership to destabilize them.

Authoritarian states operate in a zero sum low trust state, so it is hard to undermine them by being a bad faith actor. They are acting in bad faith and assume you are too, and will act accordingly.

Liberal democracies on the other hand assume high trust, so bad faith actors can exploit it.

Seems the woke right podcast sphere has just decided to go full open Tankie, to the point if you covered the name on any given post you probably could't tell if it was Dugin or Tucker/Owens/etc.

Maybe it is just me, but I am starting to find it tedious that these people dont really talk about anything but Israel/Jews anymore.

Transparent government operating with oversight tends to be noisy and filled with critics, whereas authoritarian governments tend to make criticism difficult, dangerous or even outright illegal.

This creates a very effective illusion of authoritarian government being competent and resilient. However, it is not. History shows again and again that these governments are far weaker to corruption, crime and hostile influence. Criticism can be noisy and frustrating, but the simple point is this: It is still an enormous net benefit.

But sure, when you increase individual rights and build a society based on the idea that most people will be decent, it does come both with strengths and drawbacks. The strength is that you don't need a man with a baton for every two citizens, which is expensive, drains the competence pool and is a hassle to live under. The disadvantage is, as you say, that trust can be exploited. However, history again clearly shows that these societies are actually better at tackling crime.

Now, this analysis is not as simple as saying "liberal constitutional democracies are better at tackling crime". The roots of their success in this extends far further back than democratic constitutions. I would point to sense of nationality, shared culture, respect for legal tradition, functioning bureaucracy and economic independence as important pillars for said liberal democracy to stand on. Which is difficult political terrain to traverse, because we are immediately knee-deep in political muck dominated by very loud voices.

Modern conservatism perhaps recognizes some of those pillars, the problem is that turning it into a culture war does not serve their claimed goal, and has also become a soapbox on which foolish demagogues do little else than try to win elections.

probably bc "Israel/Jews" have been slaughtering like 100 people a day on average for the last 3 years. normal people are put off by mass murder. Tucker and Owens realize that and are cashing in.

It's not just you. Ben Shapiro seems mad too. I'd be too if I was someone like you, the world is finally seeing Israel for the horrible entity it really is and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to defend its horrors and influence on the US.

FOXNews hosts still serving their Zionist overlords. Whenever a FOXNews host get canned, they're then free to express their displeasure with genocide. Funny how that works.

They're all grifters,of course. But I prefer anti-genocide grifters to bloodlusters like Mark Levin.

Pat Buchanan said it best about 30 years ago: The U.S. Congress is Israeli-occupied territory.

He was repeating what a younger Netanyahu said around that time.