Conservative Marc Theissen column: Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.

Chesterton said:

I went to McDonald's for breakfast. The guy who tried to take my order couldn't speak English. I had to wait for the hi-tech image machine to keep moving and show what I wanted so I could point at it. Blood sucking leeches who thrive off of the destruction of the United States. No, not the employee, the multinational corporation.

Click to expand...

Unless that experience also caused you to have the conclusion "The Jews are orchestrating this because they have an innate desire to destroy and weaken other nations for their own enrichment so that they can preserve their own strong ethno-state" -- then I don't see what that has to do with Fuentes.

ThatRobGuy said:

Unless that experience also caused you to have the conclusion "The Jews are orchestrating this because they have an innate desire to destroy and weaken other nations for their own enrichment so that they can preserve their own strong ethno-state" -- then I don't see what that has to do with Fuentes.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you don't see what that has to do with Fuentes. Maybe focus a little less on information technology and a little more on information.

ThatRobGuy said:

Censorship is only politically expedient if one's own house "is in order" regards to to the Overton Window.

Click to expand...

But suppose the right's house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window, and therefore they rely on censorship to remedy that problem. Suppose, for example, the the right successfully censors the far right. Wouldn't that make them appear more moderate? And wouldn't this be expedient even on our premise that their house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window?

zippy2006 said:

But suppose the right's house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window, and therefore they rely on censorship to remedy that problem. Suppose, for example, the the right successfully censors the far right. Wouldn't that make them appear more moderate? And wouldn't this be expedient even on our premise that their house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window?

Click to expand...

No, censorship would not be expedient for them because they do have a sizeable portion of their base that objects to the concept of social media censorship as a general principle, so it would be one of those "bad look" type of situations.


It'd be sort of like that situation we recently saw with regards to certain republicans in the administration floating the idea of Transgender gun bans.

Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, the GOP certainly doesn't have a "friendly" relationship with the trans community, the fact that there was level of perceived restrictions of a freedom they hold dear, even if aimed a group they don't particularly get along with, it caused an internal backlash.

ThatRobGuy said:

No, censorship would not be expedient for them because they do have a sizeable portion of their base that objects to the concept of social media censorship as a general principle, so it would be one of those "bad look" type of situations.

Click to expand...

But isn't that basically what is happening with Fuentes? It's not as if the move to try to make the party exclude Fuentes is without rationale, even from the perspective of political expediency. The only counterargument I can see is something like, "Fuentes isn't extreme enough, therefore it would be a 'bad look'." Okay, but someone to the right of Fuentes could be censored with expedient political effects, no?

Chesterton said:

It's obvious you don't see what that has to do with Fuentes. Maybe focus a little less on information technology and a little more on information.

Click to expand...

I've gone down the rabbit holes and watched several full Fuentes interviews and know what he believes.

I've even gone as far as watching full length interviews with people far more extreme than Fuentes, like Gypsy Crusader, who's like Fuentes on Steroids (both figuratively and literally)


Your personal insult notwithstanding... what exactly is this "information" you wanted to discuss?

Posting a 90-minute long video of an opinion-based interview isn't a valid rebuttal in a debate.

You're supposed to be giving me a counterpoint, not an hour and half long subjective homework assignment.

iluvatar5150 said:

No, it’s not merely the greater exposure that the Groypers are getting. It’s also that they’re becoming more numerous on the right, particularly among their younger ranks. Social media isn’t just exposing these folks, it’s creating more of them. The Republican party of old would have censored this stuff themselves.

Click to expand...

The GOP are courting danger in a movement they cannot control and will not be content to give any quarter to any sense of morality or respectability.

ThatRobGuy said:

I've gone down the rabbit holes and watched several full Fuentes interviews and know what he believes.

I've even gone as far as watching full length interviews with people far more extreme than Fuentes, like Gypsy Crusader, who's like Fuentes on Steroids (both figuratively and literally)

Click to expand...

See, this is an example of where you need more complete information. Gypsy has/had mental illness and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Nick. Would Nick ever refer to himself as a "gypsy"?

ThatRobGuy said:

Your personal insult notwithstanding... what exactly is this "information" you wanted to discuss?

Click to expand...

I apologize. I didn't mean any personal insult, but I can see how it sounded that way.

I'd like to discuss how America should behave as every other country outside of the West behaves - in its own interest.

ThatRobGuy said:

Posting a 90-minute long video of an opinion-based interview isn't a valid rebuttal in a debate.

You're supposed to be giving me a counterpoint, not an hour and half long subjective homework assignment.

Click to expand...

Again, sorry. The last couple of weeks you've seemed interested in the "Fuentes phenomenon". You've written a lot about it, I thought you might be interested in spending some time listening to a clear explanation of it.

Is there something specific to which you'd like to hear a counterpoint?

Chesterton said:

See, this is an example of where you need more complete information. Gypsy has/had mental illness and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Nick. Would Nick ever refer to himself as a "gypsy"?

Click to expand...

Gypsy is a guy who got jumped while videoing at an Antifa rally, and when he (along side of a few members of the Proud Boys fought back and messed some of them up pretty bad), he was the one who got arrested and charged with assault.

I can sympathize with his frustration... he ran 6 blocks and hid multiple times trying to avoid a fight, but when he was cornered and couldn't run and hide anymore, he put some of his professional kickboxing experience to use.

He dresses as the Juaquin Phoenix version of the joker for a reason (someone who's been wronged and had their life ruined, and then went crazy), and says "My message to all other white people, you're one bad day away from becoming me"

I'm not unfamiliar with his backstory.

He should be mentioned in the same sentence in Fuentes because they both have similar views about Jews and Black people (for the same reasons), Fuentes is just a little bit better about not using works that start with K and N to refer to them on their videos.

Chesterton said:

I apologize. I didn't mean any personal insult, but I can see how it sounded that way.

I'd like to discuss how America should behave as every other country outside of the West behaves - in its own interest.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with an "America first" message in a pure sense.

But when that gets dovetailed into a "and this why we should be walled off from any peoples who aren't white Christians", that's where it goes off the rails.

Chesterton said:

Again, sorry. The last couple of weeks you've seemed interested in the "Fuentes phenomenon". You've written a lot about it, I thought you might be interested in spending some time listening to a clear explanation of it.

Is there something specific to which you'd like to hear a counterpoint?

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with him...

He views himself as a "racialist" and not a "racist"

The distinction being a perceived difference in "willful malicious intent", but that's not any different in terms of practical outcomes for the policies that get advocated for.

So (by Fuentes' own definitions)

A racist would say: "I hate Blacks, Jews, and Arabs because they're different than me"

A "racialist" would say: "Sure, Blacks are generally lazy, will commit crimes against other people to get by, and Jews will try to control the money and manipulate everyone to preserve their own ethno state, but that's just because it's ingrained in their DNA, they can't help it, it's not a conscience choice...it's no different than a person being 5'2 instead of 6'0 or being born with red hair"
(which is why Fuentes will do interviews with the Hodge Twins and Candace Owens and be friendly to them)

But the friendliness comes from a place of condescension. He'll talk to them the same way a lot of people would talk to someone who's mentally retarded.

And the end result, in terms of policy conclusions, are the same, which is "the races need to be separated, white people need to have their areas, and black people need to have their areas, and we just need to stay separate and do our own thing"

ThatRobGuy said:

Gypsy is a guy who got jumped while videoing at an Antifa rally, and when he (along side of a few members of the Proud Boys fought back and messed some of them up pretty bad), he was the one who got arrested and charged with assault.

I can sympathize with his frustration... he ran 6 blocks and hid multiple times trying to avoid a fight, but when he was cornered and couldn't run and hide anymore, he put some of his professional kickboxing experience to use.

He dresses as the Juaquin Phoenix version of the joker for a reason (someone who's been wronged and had their life ruined, and then went crazy), and says "My message to all other white people, you're one bad day away from becoming me"

I'm not unfamiliar with his backstory.

He should be mentioned in the same sentence in Fuentes because they both have similar views about Jews and Black people (for the same reasons), Fuentes is just a little bit better about not using works that start with K and N to refer to them on their videos.

Click to expand...

The first time I heard of Gypsy was about a year ago in a "Where Are They Now?" type piece. He's just not relevant to Nick, or in American politics.

ThatRobGuy said:

I have no problem with an "America first" message in a pure sense.

But when that gets dovetailed into a "and this why we should be walled off from any peoples who aren't white Christians", that's where it goes off the rails.

Click to expand...

Maybe you know more than I do. I haven't heard Nick say that.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm familiar with him...

He views himself as a "racialist" and not a "racist"

The distinction being a perceived difference in "willful malicious intent", but that's not any different in terms of practical outcomes for the policies that get advocated for.

So (by Fuentes' own definitions)

A racist would say: "I hate Blacks, Jews, and Arabs because they're different than me"

A "racialist" would say: "Sure, Blacks are generally lazy, will commit crimes against other people to get by, and Jews will try to control the money and manipulate everyone to preserve their own ethno state, but that's just because it's ingrained in their DNA, they can't help it, it's not a conscience choice...it's no different than a person being 5'2 instead of 6'0 or being born with red hair"

Click to expand...

Well I wasn't expecting a free will vs. determinism debate. AFAIK "racialist" is just a WWII era term for racist. But he can label himself however he wants. Not important.

ThatRobGuy said:

(which is why Fuentes will do interviews with the Hodge Twins and Candace Owens and be friendly to them)

Click to expand...

It seems like the opposite would be true. If I thought the Hodges were lazy and criminal by choice, I might be interested in talking to them, to reason them out of that. But if I thought those qualities were ingrained in their DNA, why would I bother?

ThatRobGuy said:

But the friendliness comes from a place of condescension. He'll talk to them the same way a lot of people would talk to someone who's mentally retarded.

Click to expand...

This honestly sounds a bit racist. Do the Hodges' and Owens know they're being condescended to? Surely they're smart enough to know, right? And if so, why would they talk to him?

A problem is, that's he's very popular with all kinds of people he's alleged to hate - blacks, hispanics, women, homosexuals... I could provide source after source after source, but you weren't much interested in the last one I gave.

ThatRobGuy said:

And the end result, in terms of policy conclusions, are the same, which is "the races need to be separated, white people need to have their areas, and black people need to have their areas, and we just need to stay separate and do our own thing"

Click to expand...

This is also something I've never heard him say. I'd be happy to read or listen if you have sources.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm blaming them because it was their fault...

If we agree that increased public exposure of the Nick Fuentes types is what's driving this fracturing of the GOP... It only stands to reason that the sooner that exposure would have happened, the sooner that fracture would have occurred, right?

What stopped all of the conservatives from seeing, and becoming aware of, the Nick Fuentes types and just how radical the views were?

That would be the fact that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter blocked people from seeing it, correct?... Not only that, they had algorithms that would shadow ban content if it even referenced his name or likeness even if it wasn't his video.

Which political entity was it that was demanding that kind of censorship?

This fracturing among the GOP could have happened back in 2019

Click to expand...

You're saying the GOP didn't know what was happening in the GOP?

They didn't have meetings or anything?

RDKirk said:

You're saying the GOP didn't know what was happening in the GOP?

They didn't have meetings or anything?

Click to expand...

We can be sure they were having meetings. But to no avail. You can't stop the internet.

Chesterton said:

We can be sure they were having meetings. But to no avail. You can't stop the internet.

Click to expand...

People outside the GOP knew these things were happening...on the same Internet.

I just don't buy the idea that the GOP was unaware of their own problem, and certainly not that it was somehow the fault of liberals preventing them from communicating with themselves on social media platforms.

RDKirk said:

People outside the GOP knew these things were happening...on the same Internet.

I just don't buy the idea that the GOP was unaware of their own problem, and certainly not that it was somehow the fault of liberals preventing them from communicating with themselves on social media platforms.

Click to expand...

The good news is, I'm just a citizen, not a politician, so I don't really care what they see as a "problem" or "fracturing". I just know that a widening of the Overton Window is good for healthy public discourse.

RDKirk said:

You're saying the GOP didn't know what was happening in the GOP?

They didn't have meetings or anything?

Click to expand...

I'm sure there's some strategists and people who exists in the political sphere who were aware of the Fuentes types, but from the recent reports, it seems as if a lot of the older folks in the GOP (and even some of the folks here on CF in a few of the other threads) had no idea who he was until this recent string of interviews where he's showed up Tucker's show and then Candace's show.

RDKirk said:

People outside the GOP knew these things were happening...on the same Internet.

I just don't buy the idea that the GOP was unaware of their own problem, and certainly not that it was somehow the fault of liberals preventing them from communicating with themselves on social media platforms.

Click to expand...

Trump has managed to cow any Republican leaders who would stand up for traditional Republican principles. I doubt that Trump is personally racist or anti-semitic, nor do I think he's intentionally encouraging that kind of thing. But leaders who support his vision of a unitary presidency seem to have a good deal of overlap with Christian nationalism and racism (which, of course, are not the same thing, but again tend to have overlap). I don't think the problem is the older folks in the party. The older generation of leadership has mostly been chased out by now or silenced.

ThatRobGuy said:

Has the right gone further right, or moved more toward the middle between 2019 and now?

If the right (circa 2025) is fracturing over the "Fuentes Factor", and the circa-2025 is the most extreme version of "the right" we've ever had, then this kind of stuff would've been even more fracturing back in 2019 by that reasoning, correct?

That would be logical conclusion, right?

If the 2025 version of the right is the "most right-wing that the right has ever been, bordering on fascism" as some have said, and half of them are like "whoa, what's the deal with this Fuentes dude saying the holocaust didn't happen!?!?, I don't know if I want to be a part of this"

Wouldn't that reaction be even more pronounced among the 2019 right, who were a little less far-right?



I think my reasoning is rock solid on this.

Social media is a major driver in politics.

The excesses of either faction have the effect of being off-putting to a lot of people.

The left went out of their way to silence and hide the excesses of the right on social media on the basis of "mean words could hurt peoples' feelings", while the excesses of the left were amplified and put at the top of everyone's Twitter feed.


From a Democratic strategy perspective, this picture sums it up...
View attachment 373509



If I was running for office, and the Westboro Baptist Church was supporting my opponent, and the Church of Scientology was supporting me, and my supporters pulled levers to get FB, YT, and Twitter to suppress Westboro posts, and amplify Scientology posts, that'd be a pretty stupid move (strategically), right? -- Despite the fact that morally speaking, the Westboro Baptist Church is more immoral than the Scientologists becomes irrelevant at that point, as the general public is only going to be made aware of the "crazies" on my side, and not hear anything about the "crazies" (who are actually worse) supporting the other guy.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the election of Biden could have possibly influenced what your seeing?

OF course it could.

A common enemy? As ruthlessly conniving and doting and inneffectual as he was Biden could be a GREAT target for a united Right. A right united to defeat Biden and a right that was willing to keep the uglies at bay for a while.


If Biden hadn't been elected, do you HONESTLY this particular portion of the timeline would STILL be happenning now.

The election of Biden CAUSED the delay in what we're seeing.




By the way, what is stopping Republicans from solving their problem here?

rambot said:

I wonder if the election of Biden could have possibly influenced what your seeing?

OF course it could.

A common enemy? As ruthlessly conniving and doting and inneffectual as he was Biden could be a GREAT target for a united Right. A right united to defeat Biden and a right that was willing to keep the uglies at bay for a while.


If Biden hadn't been elected, do you HONESTLY this particular portion of the timeline would STILL be happenning now.

The election of Biden CAUSED the delay in what we're seeing.




By the way, what is stopping Republicans from solving their problem here?

Click to expand...

But the Democratic candidate has played the role of "common enemy of the right-half factions" for the last few election cycles. That trend didn't start with Biden.

And we saw a similar sort of dynamic playing out in Trump's first run regarding that time he got an endorsement from David Duke, and then rather than rejecting that support, played the "I'm not familiar with David Duke" card. It didn't cause fracturing of the party after Trump won and the common enemy of Hillary was no longer "a threat".


What's different about this instance, is that Israel is involved, and people within the GOP are, for the first time, heavily divided on that issue.

It looks like it's about a 40/60 split on "We need need to stop supporting them" vs. "They're our greatest ally in the history of allies"

As where, among the GOP back in the lead up to 2016, a vast majority on-board with the latter. (the number of republicans that didn't support Israel back in that election was so miniscule that it wasn't even a blip on the radar)

"I don't want to support Israel, but I don't want my declination of support to cause me to be associated with the likes of that Nazi guy on the internet" wasn't a common occurrence in 2016.


Or to put it more succinctly, "I need to distance myself from that guy" wasn't a common need. Since most supported Israel, their support for Israel was the the thing that would separate them from a Fuentes or David Duke.

But now that it's a situation where 40% of them don't support Israel anymore, they're wondering how they can hold that position without being associated with those kinds of guys.

essentialsaltes said:

Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.​

--

'Political suicide': Pro-Trump commentator warns MAGA's 'overt racists' will destroy GOP​

In a Thursday column, Thiessen laid out how Republicans were able to secure both a popular vote and Electoral College majority in 2024 for the first time in two decades thanks to making inroads with Black and Hispanic voters. He argued, however, that the GOP's activist base includes "morally reprehensible" people like neo-Nazi podcaster Nick Fuentes, whose growing influence could turn into "political suicide for the right."

According to Thiessen, (a MAGA conservative who recently advocated for President Donald Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize) Trump’s 2024 voting coalition was "significantly more racially and ethnically diverse than it had been in 2020 or 2016," and he had increased his vote share "almost every key demographic."

However, Thiessen warned that gains are now in jeopardy due to Fuentes' increasingly prominent role in Republican politics. Fuentes – who is the at the heart of the ideological civil war currently consuming the influential conservative Heritage Foundation think tank — is a known Holocaust denier who regularly demeans racial minorities and has called for the "death penalty" against Jewish people and practitioners of all non-Christian faiths.

Click to expand...

Thiessen is overreacting. Fuentes is hardly popular, and has very little influence on the Republican party. I've never even listened to Fuentes myself, because like most people, I don't need a middle-man between me and the news headlines to explain things to me - especially if that middle man is my kids age.

zippy2006 said:

But isn't that basically what is happening with Fuentes? It's not as if the move to try to make the party exclude Fuentes is without rationale, even from the perspective of political expediency. The only counterargument I can see is something like, "Fuentes isn't extreme enough, therefore it would be a 'bad look'." Okay, but someone to the right of Fuentes could be censored with expedient political effects, no?

Click to expand...

Oh, stop with your censorship nonsense. Nobody needs to be censored, and you know it.