I would be more sympathetic to Scott's argument here and more willing to dismiss Rufo were it not for the giant elephant in the room. Namely, the infighting which helped to open up the space for the left/woke/floyd/biden counter attack via Covid, rioting, open border and economic ruination. 2020 happened for many reasons, but primary among them was this idea that it was fruitless to corral the right because it was as the wind or the sea. Well, how'd that work out? Rufo's right if you want to avoid that happening again, and as we saw with the Biden brown flood, we can't really afford for that to happen again, whether the online right wants to touch grass and get their sheyat together or not. Rufo's idea of 'controlling the right' has some similarities with my own (I don't think either or us want AV laws and the JQ stuff has generally become unhelpful at this point) although I imagine he would only go so far on race realism. That's a problem, and the lines Rufo's drawn might lay fencing for a gate which is too narrow but given where we've been in the recent past, I'd say he has the right idea. How the right treated each other towards the end of Trump part 1 was at least as important as anything the opposition did. With more significant pro white accomplishments achieved and a more reliable chief executive, I'm not sure now is the time to throw caution to the wind and have 'the talk' about Israel or the Christian nationalist revival which, if implemented, would likely suck and do very little for white people. Whether or not Nixon is the model going forward, given his own limitations and the differences between the two historical epochs (which Greer rightly points out) is, as Dieter from Sprockets might say, 'An ant farm of a different color'. One things for sure, unlike so many keyboard warriors, both Rufo and Nixon understand that power is what matters, not principles, ideology or sky castles. And I think that's an excellent start.
I strongly, strongly disagree. When you support controlling or marshaling rhetoric you find unpalatable you have gone to the dark (ldissipate. Period. These people are tired of feeling controlled and silenced. If their take is out of whack, and I believe it is, then free discussion will demonstrate that and their POV will naturally dissipate.
I do not agree with that either. I am safely esconced in the heart of conservatism. The only Fuentes/Far Right/OMG!!!-they are-destroying-the-GOP hysteria I hear is from people who say they have the well-being of the party in mind (this is not to doubt YOUR bona fides or sincerety in any way). But I think that is giving oxygen to a very small, very smoky, very damp brush fire. Which is the surest way to fan it into the forest fire you fear. Stop giving them mainstream attention and it will run its course. Same with Owens and Carlson and the Israel hysteria. When did we become so afraid of words? It is the Harry Potterification of reason with he/that which cannot be named.
LOL all that I mean to say is that I condemn anti-racism in all its forms, unless it's pro white anti-racism. Anyone who thinks anything is more important than race is probably my enemy.
Here is my take on all the racism kerfuffle. Bias is being in favor of [whatever]; prejudice is being against [whatever]. But the meaning of bias has been corrupted in the popular vernacular to include prejudice. The effect of this is if I say white women on public transport need better security I am perceived as being against non-whites. That is absurd. I can be FOR mine, without being AGAINST yours. I think that fundamental misunderstanding is the basis of the now universal privileged status of the oppressed peoples. And thus the competition to be deemed oppressed. No thanks. But I welcome into the conservative fold every single non-white who sees this charade for what it is.
Well reasoned enough on paper. But no. It's like the (ironically enough black man) in 'Planet of the Apes' when he finds a plant in an environment which up until that point had appeared to him and his fellow shipwrecked and crestfallen space travelers to be devoid of same. "Where there's another there's another...and another". Saying you'll have one black (based, whatever) is like having one potato chip. There's no point in undermining your cause or drawing negative attention to yourself, but given what blacks do (to whites specifically, remember), what they do to the environment (look at Africa) I don't think it is enough to be positively ethnocentric. One must be negatively ethnocentric as well, especially when it comes to sub saharan Africans. Love of one's own is an important survival strategy but so is a healthy fear and disdain if not hatred of the other, and some others more than...well...other others. Whites forget this because we evolved in a cold climate where only small families could be supported by the small carrying capacity of the ecology, your stranger would be your own ethny given the homogeneity of the population overall, and where pro social behavior needs must entailed and openness and care for such strangers because a failure to do so would result in them starving or freezing to death. But that was then and this is now. So, in conclusion, blacks.
The GOP is toast. They are failing to deliver on basic governance in any significant way over Biden and Trump has been busy insulting a large segment of his base to boot.
The US has a wealth and income distribution problem, has had it for a long time and it is the reason why politics continues to destabilize. The ruling class (on both sides of the aisle) is also corrupt beyond repair. What some small corners of the internet want or don't want is immaterial to the fact that the system is broken in a fashion that makes it more broken with every passing year. Will eventually come to a head.
Arguing about messaging is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"The GOP is toast" very likely true in the long term and that, coupled with melanin removal and the emergence of a new alternative party are both necessary developments long term. "They are failing to deliver on basic governance in any significant way over Biden" This is monumentally wrong. Lots of deportations. Ignoring catch and release and pretending Obama was better is ridiculous. Or claiming there's no difference when massive numbers of people were coming in every month under Biden. Even people who claimed to be on our side were saying for years that the border crisis and illegal immigration were insoluble. Wrong. Free speech and holding Trump's feat to the fire is important but it isn't the end all and be all and in my experience, a lot of the people trying to outflank Trump just flat out don't care about demographics (MTG, Fuentes) and they're quite vocal about it. Big red flag.
You think Trump has all these clear cut victories over alternatives on the right, e.g. MTG. The party is going to get destroyed over sucking up to Israel, not doing anything about H1B, (again) not doing anything about the economy. People in Trump's camp are free to convince themselves none of this matters, but the right will lose badly next election cycle. Trump's ONLY moderate win is the border, and even then are they getting mass deportations? No he's just bullshitting about it like everything else.
A lot has happened since H1b, including the voluntary exodus of millions of browns, and a secure border which eluded politicians for decades. I never denied that the republicans will probably lose in the midterms but that's the historical norm and you act as though it symbolizes Trump's failure. It will be very hard for Democrats to use Israel as a winning issue, considering that Bibi's scorched earth campaign began under Biden's watch, the prospective first man (lol) in the last election is a committed Zionist, one of the Democrat's best options going into '24 and in the future in '28 (Shapiro) is also a committed zionist and their own foreign policy record has been, if anything, worse than Trump's. Considering that the situation at the border has gone from thousands a month (and many millions during Biden's term overall) to zero, coupled with some (though perhaps not as many as you'd like to see) deportations, and given what a sticking point that has been for a generation, and Trump turns it around in less than a year, your claim that it's a moderate win is highly disingenuous.
I guess you and I do agree on one point, any gullibles who've convinced themselves that republicans will win in the midterms are indeed delusional and at war with gravity because you could count the times that an incumbent president and his party have won on such occasions with one hand. So, not exactly the colossal setback you claim it is. Your framing leaves much to be desired. First and foremost, an understanding of where we are versus where we've been. Even Jared Taylor, who is convinced America as a concept is finished and that white people's only hope is to separate and carve out ethnic enclaves from what's left among the ruins, says he's never been more optimistic, that Trump has done basically all that a pro white president could in his position, and that half of what's happened he didn't think was possible. Is he some delusional white piller hopium merchant? I think not.
What makes comparisons hard is the current level of information and political coverage today vs. the pre-internet days. This situation is unprecedented. The advantage of having the media back up the Dems has evaporated. Consequently, Leftists have embraced cult-like irrationalism and the Right has become a fragmented mainstream trying to make sense of things. Among this mainstream are a whole host of concerns that are only now getting serious attention: immigration, crime, disappearing middle class, and foreign adventurism.
What Greer regards as the Online Right is much more marginal than he suggests. Mostly groypers and crackpots. Sure, organizing this rabble into a functional coalition is futile, but tapping into majority of conservatives who keep informed through alternative online media (that he, Greer, and I contribute to) is a smart idea. The moment has come to recreate the GOP as a party responsive to middle class concerns, not the gracious losers who serve their donors.
Honestly, we should dismiss the engagement farmers and wackos who appeal to the youth and less informed. These aren’t serious people. If we can educate voters (not disaffected incels and low-IQ losers), this group will have less influence. As it is, their sway is overstated.
I was a youngster when Nixon won that landslide. My parents talked politics and I can tell you they voted Nixon, but they weren't "for" him. They were "against" the craziness the Democrats had unleashed and wanted law and order re-established. They later regretted it. Not that they were under the illusion that the Dems would have been better; but because they hated that they had to support any of the a-holes who just pursued other forms of corruption.
Trump has made the same mistakes but not realizing the mood of the country. People are not "for" very much right now. Trump's support relies on "against", just as it did in Nixon's day.
I wouldn't compare Vance to Nixon because we don't need to help the Left attach boogeymen to any more right-wing figures...Hitler, Enoch Powell, Nixon, Trump.
Vance is Vance. Nixon was a grouchy reactionary weirdo and Vance is a slick and engaging quasi-radical.
Boris easily the most loathsome politician of my lifetime. A traitor is always worse than an enemy.
We can take only scant pleasure in the certainty that his obituary will have the word “Boriswave” in the first paragraph - the only thing for which he will be remembered.
I would be more sympathetic to Scott's argument here and more willing to dismiss Rufo were it not for the giant elephant in the room. Namely, the infighting which helped to open up the space for the left/woke/floyd/biden counter attack via Covid, rioting, open border and economic ruination. 2020 happened for many reasons, but primary among them was this idea that it was fruitless to corral the right because it was as the wind or the sea. Well, how'd that work out? Rufo's right if you want to avoid that happening again, and as we saw with the Biden brown flood, we can't really afford for that to happen again, whether the online right wants to touch grass and get their sheyat together or not. Rufo's idea of 'controlling the right' has some similarities with my own (I don't think either or us want AV laws and the JQ stuff has generally become unhelpful at this point) although I imagine he would only go so far on race realism. That's a problem, and the lines Rufo's drawn might lay fencing for a gate which is too narrow but given where we've been in the recent past, I'd say he has the right idea. How the right treated each other towards the end of Trump part 1 was at least as important as anything the opposition did. With more significant pro white accomplishments achieved and a more reliable chief executive, I'm not sure now is the time to throw caution to the wind and have 'the talk' about Israel or the Christian nationalist revival which, if implemented, would likely suck and do very little for white people. Whether or not Nixon is the model going forward, given his own limitations and the differences between the two historical epochs (which Greer rightly points out) is, as Dieter from Sprockets might say, 'An ant farm of a different color'. One things for sure, unlike so many keyboard warriors, both Rufo and Nixon understand that power is what matters, not principles, ideology or sky castles. And I think that's an excellent start.
I strongly, strongly disagree. When you support controlling or marshaling rhetoric you find unpalatable you have gone to the dark (ldissipate. Period. These people are tired of feeling controlled and silenced. If their take is out of whack, and I believe it is, then free discussion will demonstrate that and their POV will naturally dissipate.
A noble sentiment, but Fuentes and the bruh podcast sphere are taking over, and steering the discussion away from demographics, which is suicidal.
I do not agree with that either. I am safely esconced in the heart of conservatism. The only Fuentes/Far Right/OMG!!!-they are-destroying-the-GOP hysteria I hear is from people who say they have the well-being of the party in mind (this is not to doubt YOUR bona fides or sincerety in any way). But I think that is giving oxygen to a very small, very smoky, very damp brush fire. Which is the surest way to fan it into the forest fire you fear. Stop giving them mainstream attention and it will run its course. Same with Owens and Carlson and the Israel hysteria. When did we become so afraid of words? It is the Harry Potterification of reason with he/that which cannot be named.
LOL all that I mean to say is that I condemn anti-racism in all its forms, unless it's pro white anti-racism. Anyone who thinks anything is more important than race is probably my enemy.
Here is my take on all the racism kerfuffle. Bias is being in favor of [whatever]; prejudice is being against [whatever]. But the meaning of bias has been corrupted in the popular vernacular to include prejudice. The effect of this is if I say white women on public transport need better security I am perceived as being against non-whites. That is absurd. I can be FOR mine, without being AGAINST yours. I think that fundamental misunderstanding is the basis of the now universal privileged status of the oppressed peoples. And thus the competition to be deemed oppressed. No thanks. But I welcome into the conservative fold every single non-white who sees this charade for what it is.
Well reasoned enough on paper. But no. It's like the (ironically enough black man) in 'Planet of the Apes' when he finds a plant in an environment which up until that point had appeared to him and his fellow shipwrecked and crestfallen space travelers to be devoid of same. "Where there's another there's another...and another". Saying you'll have one black (based, whatever) is like having one potato chip. There's no point in undermining your cause or drawing negative attention to yourself, but given what blacks do (to whites specifically, remember), what they do to the environment (look at Africa) I don't think it is enough to be positively ethnocentric. One must be negatively ethnocentric as well, especially when it comes to sub saharan Africans. Love of one's own is an important survival strategy but so is a healthy fear and disdain if not hatred of the other, and some others more than...well...other others. Whites forget this because we evolved in a cold climate where only small families could be supported by the small carrying capacity of the ecology, your stranger would be your own ethny given the homogeneity of the population overall, and where pro social behavior needs must entailed and openness and care for such strangers because a failure to do so would result in them starving or freezing to death. But that was then and this is now. So, in conclusion, blacks.
The GOP is toast. They are failing to deliver on basic governance in any significant way over Biden and Trump has been busy insulting a large segment of his base to boot.
The US has a wealth and income distribution problem, has had it for a long time and it is the reason why politics continues to destabilize. The ruling class (on both sides of the aisle) is also corrupt beyond repair. What some small corners of the internet want or don't want is immaterial to the fact that the system is broken in a fashion that makes it more broken with every passing year. Will eventually come to a head.
Arguing about messaging is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"The GOP is toast" very likely true in the long term and that, coupled with melanin removal and the emergence of a new alternative party are both necessary developments long term. "They are failing to deliver on basic governance in any significant way over Biden" This is monumentally wrong. Lots of deportations. Ignoring catch and release and pretending Obama was better is ridiculous. Or claiming there's no difference when massive numbers of people were coming in every month under Biden. Even people who claimed to be on our side were saying for years that the border crisis and illegal immigration were insoluble. Wrong. Free speech and holding Trump's feat to the fire is important but it isn't the end all and be all and in my experience, a lot of the people trying to outflank Trump just flat out don't care about demographics (MTG, Fuentes) and they're quite vocal about it. Big red flag.
You think Trump has all these clear cut victories over alternatives on the right, e.g. MTG. The party is going to get destroyed over sucking up to Israel, not doing anything about H1B, (again) not doing anything about the economy. People in Trump's camp are free to convince themselves none of this matters, but the right will lose badly next election cycle. Trump's ONLY moderate win is the border, and even then are they getting mass deportations? No he's just bullshitting about it like everything else.
A lot has happened since H1b, including the voluntary exodus of millions of browns, and a secure border which eluded politicians for decades. I never denied that the republicans will probably lose in the midterms but that's the historical norm and you act as though it symbolizes Trump's failure. It will be very hard for Democrats to use Israel as a winning issue, considering that Bibi's scorched earth campaign began under Biden's watch, the prospective first man (lol) in the last election is a committed Zionist, one of the Democrat's best options going into '24 and in the future in '28 (Shapiro) is also a committed zionist and their own foreign policy record has been, if anything, worse than Trump's. Considering that the situation at the border has gone from thousands a month (and many millions during Biden's term overall) to zero, coupled with some (though perhaps not as many as you'd like to see) deportations, and given what a sticking point that has been for a generation, and Trump turns it around in less than a year, your claim that it's a moderate win is highly disingenuous.
I guess you and I do agree on one point, any gullibles who've convinced themselves that republicans will win in the midterms are indeed delusional and at war with gravity because you could count the times that an incumbent president and his party have won on such occasions with one hand. So, not exactly the colossal setback you claim it is. Your framing leaves much to be desired. First and foremost, an understanding of where we are versus where we've been. Even Jared Taylor, who is convinced America as a concept is finished and that white people's only hope is to separate and carve out ethnic enclaves from what's left among the ruins, says he's never been more optimistic, that Trump has done basically all that a pro white president could in his position, and that half of what's happened he didn't think was possible. Is he some delusional white piller hopium merchant? I think not.
https://www.amren.com/features/2025/11/the-american-experiment-has-failed-2/
What makes comparisons hard is the current level of information and political coverage today vs. the pre-internet days. This situation is unprecedented. The advantage of having the media back up the Dems has evaporated. Consequently, Leftists have embraced cult-like irrationalism and the Right has become a fragmented mainstream trying to make sense of things. Among this mainstream are a whole host of concerns that are only now getting serious attention: immigration, crime, disappearing middle class, and foreign adventurism.
What Greer regards as the Online Right is much more marginal than he suggests. Mostly groypers and crackpots. Sure, organizing this rabble into a functional coalition is futile, but tapping into majority of conservatives who keep informed through alternative online media (that he, Greer, and I contribute to) is a smart idea. The moment has come to recreate the GOP as a party responsive to middle class concerns, not the gracious losers who serve their donors.
Honestly, we should dismiss the engagement farmers and wackos who appeal to the youth and less informed. These aren’t serious people. If we can educate voters (not disaffected incels and low-IQ losers), this group will have less influence. As it is, their sway is overstated.
So Rufo is a gatekeeper masquerading as a vanguard? First time I’m hearing thid
I was a youngster when Nixon won that landslide. My parents talked politics and I can tell you they voted Nixon, but they weren't "for" him. They were "against" the craziness the Democrats had unleashed and wanted law and order re-established. They later regretted it. Not that they were under the illusion that the Dems would have been better; but because they hated that they had to support any of the a-holes who just pursued other forms of corruption.
Trump has made the same mistakes but not realizing the mood of the country. People are not "for" very much right now. Trump's support relies on "against", just as it did in Nixon's day.
Most people ought to know who Rufo works for by now, so this should not surprise them in the slightest. He needs to be purged from the ‘right wing’.
Vance lives or dies by if Trump's second term goes well.
I am gonna be honest I think we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket and we on the dissident right need a plant to move on without Trump.
I wouldn't compare Vance to Nixon because we don't need to help the Left attach boogeymen to any more right-wing figures...Hitler, Enoch Powell, Nixon, Trump.
Vance is Vance. Nixon was a grouchy reactionary weirdo and Vance is a slick and engaging quasi-radical.
Boris easily the most loathsome politician of my lifetime. A traitor is always worse than an enemy.
We can take only scant pleasure in the certainty that his obituary will have the word “Boriswave” in the first paragraph - the only thing for which he will be remembered.