Nice video. I knew that silent film actresses often had blue hair because it looked better on the B&W film. I didn’t know any of the details. I had heard of panchromatic film, but never understood what the predecessors were like.
I ran across this podcast from a couple months ago which I think is very revealing about Nick Fuentes. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss him. If you watched his debate with Dinesh D’Sousa from 4 months ago, you’ll realize he’s smart, articulate and charismatic.
This podcaster, Warren Smith plays an anime that shows the power struggle between Carlson, Owns and Fuentes is significant for a following of young white, disaffected males– and this is Fuentes core following.
Why is that significant? Conservatives are loosing the debate among young to middle age females. Without these young male voters, our chances of winning future elections is in question. We need these votes and we need them voting.
All of this predates the Carlson interview, so all we’re seeing is the conclusion of this struggle for the fringe right. Something that had been going on for some time. Charlie Kirk was adamant that he would not give Nick Fuentes a platform at TPUSA. Will TPUSA continue that policy?
Nick Fuentes reminds me of Howard Stern. They both became famous saying outrageous things. Then Stern, while still provocative, moved somewhat more mainstream. Fuentes is in the process of doing the same. Some of this is calculated, and some is from just a maturing process.
So how does this impact our relationship with Israel? JD Vance was been recently criticized for his remarks following the Hamas-Israel cease fire. He said we support Israel when our interests align. That Trump forced Israel to accept the deal. Some have expressed that Vance’s future as a presidential candidate hinges on a more full throated support for all things Israel.
But I think most people can see political landmines being laid by the anti-zionist alt-right like Carlson, which already has a large following.
I think Vance is taking a politically reasonable position about the US support of Israel. Folks may be uncomfortable with that, but are going to have to trust Vance that he will come to the conclusion that given the alternative, it will always be necessary for the US to support the defense of Israel. After all, what IS the alternative? The annihilation of the state of Israel.
You may consider Fuentes to be dangerous, and you may be right. But I don’t think it’s good strategy to try and sweep Fuentes under the rug and pretend he doesn’t exist. I agree that given that, Fuentes would have no problem encouraging his supporters to burn down the house.
In this podcast, Fuentes himself says his views have changed over the years as he has matured. At this point, I don’t see an alternative to taking him at his word.
I’ll trust Ben Shapiro’s and Mark Levin’s assessment of Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson, thank you all the same.
J.D. Vance has to choose wisely, or the Republicans may loose the Jew-hating, Stalin-loving, nutter voting block(heads).
Following or no following, I am not prepared to accept someone like Fuentes in the conservative tent, nor outlets that present him without pushback (Carlson).
In this podcast, Fuentes himself says his views have changed over the years as he has matured. At this point, I don’t see an alternative to taking him at his word.
Why would you take such an obviously amoral grifter “at his word”? He certainly doesn’t seem very repentant given the garbage he’s spewed over the years.
“J.D. Vance has to choose wisely, or the Republicans may loose the Jew-hating, Stalin-loving, nutter voting block(heads).” -om
What does that mean? The criticism I’ve seen about Vance is that his statements haven’t shown sufficient pro-Israel allegiance. Is that what you mean?
It is my impression that, in many cases, jury awards of large amounts of money are totally useless, since the money is never paid to the victim, because the person found negligent/guilty has no real assets, they cannot find a good job after the verdict, or they sometimes even take steps to make sure that they never have a job in which they make substantial amounts of money, guaranteeing that they are incapable of making any real payments towards that award.
Recently an elementary school teacher who was shot by a 6 year old in her class was awarded $10 million dollars in a civil suit against an assistant school principal who–despite being given multiple warnings that day about a child who had a gun by several different people–did nothing.
The school has an insurance policy which might conceivably pay some or all of that amount but, the assistant principal also has an upcoming criminal trial about this incident, and if she is found guilty of a crime, and is now a felon, that may give the insurance company grounds to refuse to pay.
Bottom line–I doubt that this young assistant principal has any real assets, so, odds are, the victim will never see even a penny of that $10 million dollar award.*
What does it mean that apologists for Fuentes and Carlson are out and about?
Brian E: Do you know what sarcasm is?
IMO, juries should make binary decisions – guilty v. not guilty, liable v. not liable. Scalar quantities should be determined in adversary proceedings after the trial, by a judge assisted by assessors drawn from professions other than law and with expert testimony heard.
== that may give the insurance company grounds to refuse to pay.
==
Sez who?
Brian E:
Apologies for being spelling police, but it’s *losing* the debate, not “loosing”.
You too, om.
Why is this error so maddeningly common among intelligent, articulate commenters?
“Brian E: Do you know what sarcasm is?” – om
You might want to use the sarc tag.
Brian E:
No, the main criticism of Vance is that he does not correct obvious lies about Israel (including various forms of the blood libel) from his questioners or from his buddy Tucker Carlson.
From AI on the subject:
During a recent event at a university, Vice President JD Vance was criticized for his response to a questioner who made several controversial and false claims about Israel, including that the U.S. owes Israel nothing, that Israel “openly supports its prosecution” of Christianity, and that U.S. aid potentially covers “ethnic cleansing in Gaza”. Critics, including a columnist for The Atlantic, argued that Vance failed to directly challenge or correct these specific “anti-Semitic elements” of the questioner’s statements.
Interesting take on why there is such a large pool of white/underperforming young males that would be attracted to the vile rhetoric of someone like Nick Fuentes. This really isn’t any different than the vile rhetoric of a lot of rap music.
I think Kisin may be on to some of the pathologies that have created this dynamic. It’s been an observation for some time, that this generation are remaining perpetual boys, hooked on video games, hiding in their parents basements.
Since it’s the woke left that put them there (in some sense), it’s understandable they would be attracted to what appears to be the antithesis– not political but cultural.
Neo, fair point. But this has become a rhetorical strategy in many discussions/debates. Ask a question– and throw in many false or misleading dependent statements along the way.
If you take the time to refute each part of the statement/question the entire dynamic changes.
This is a problem and makes conversations nearly impossible. In some cases, you’re focused on the question and don’t even notice the false/misleading points along the way. It’s only later, on reflection you might notice these other points which may or may not even been relevant to the question.
I think Vance is smart enough to overcome this technique.
New post: Their Worlds Turned Upside Down….which is about the social and political implications of downwardly-mobile would-be elites
Vance is a brilliant debater who is very good at arguing in a succinct and effective way. He could have demolished the vile premises of the question very easily and quite quickly and chose not to.
I watched the full video of Vance’s Q&A session with the students.
He had a well-stated pro-Israel response earlier in the session.
The clip that spread around the internet was the last question he took, after repeatedly mentioning that they were closing it up…. and the guy just spews all kinds of craziness.
IMO Vance did the right thing by ignoring all that and making a clear statement about alliances formed in America’s interests. There was no way he could have unpacked all that student’s crazy theories and dog whistles in the time he had.
I have no problem if the White House keeps Vance “clean” and relatively impartial on the Israel issue – to counterbalance the Trump family’s very close, positive relationship to Israel and Judaism. And to honestly reflect Vance’s own background.
The no-go zone that muted antisemitism since WW2 is finally dissolving…. And many “flyover country” conservatives are not necessarily anti-semitic – but the only Jews many of them have ever seen are Lefties and Hollywood types. They are understandably chafing and suspicious after decades of condescension, perceived lack of patriotism, and attacks on their way of life. Vance is one of them, unlike New York Donald, and connects with many conservatives who are indifferent to Israel.
Vance is a magnet for both the working-class and more educated young male segment that is essential to the new Conservative movement. He’s a good-old-boy who did well and is hip enough to openly discuss both his Christian faith and his interfaith marriage… His blase response to attempts to demonize him just solidifies that fly appeal.
It’s a good idea to position him as worldly, yet pragmatic and America-first. If he has no sincere emotional connection to Israel or Jews, I have no problem with him framing support for Israel in pragmatic terms. Certainly the relationship has changed as Israel becomes stronger and more independent.
Well and fairly stated, Ben David.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Nice video. I knew that silent film actresses often had blue hair because it looked better on the B&W film. I didn’t know any of the details. I had heard of panchromatic film, but never understood what the predecessors were like.
I ran across this podcast from a couple months ago which I think is very revealing about Nick Fuentes. I think it’s a mistake to dismiss him. If you watched his debate with Dinesh D’Sousa from 4 months ago, you’ll realize he’s smart, articulate and charismatic.
This podcaster, Warren Smith plays an anime that shows the power struggle between Carlson, Owns and Fuentes is significant for a following of young white, disaffected males– and this is Fuentes core following.
Why is that significant? Conservatives are loosing the debate among young to middle age females. Without these young male voters, our chances of winning future elections is in question. We need these votes and we need them voting.
All of this predates the Carlson interview, so all we’re seeing is the conclusion of this struggle for the fringe right. Something that had been going on for some time. Charlie Kirk was adamant that he would not give Nick Fuentes a platform at TPUSA. Will TPUSA continue that policy?
Nick Fuentes reminds me of Howard Stern. They both became famous saying outrageous things. Then Stern, while still provocative, moved somewhat more mainstream. Fuentes is in the process of doing the same. Some of this is calculated, and some is from just a maturing process.
So how does this impact our relationship with Israel? JD Vance was been recently criticized for his remarks following the Hamas-Israel cease fire. He said we support Israel when our interests align. That Trump forced Israel to accept the deal. Some have expressed that Vance’s future as a presidential candidate hinges on a more full throated support for all things Israel.
But I think most people can see political landmines being laid by the anti-zionist alt-right like Carlson, which already has a large following.
I think Vance is taking a politically reasonable position about the US support of Israel. Folks may be uncomfortable with that, but are going to have to trust Vance that he will come to the conclusion that given the alternative, it will always be necessary for the US to support the defense of Israel. After all, what IS the alternative? The annihilation of the state of Israel.
You may consider Fuentes to be dangerous, and you may be right. But I don’t think it’s good strategy to try and sweep Fuentes under the rug and pretend he doesn’t exist. I agree that given that, Fuentes would have no problem encouraging his supporters to burn down the house.
In this podcast, Fuentes himself says his views have changed over the years as he has matured. At this point, I don’t see an alternative to taking him at his word.
This is a 9 minute clip from two months ago.
What Nick Fuentes Told Me… Just Before Tucker Carlson Attacked Him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcva0_lSkMk
I’ll trust Ben Shapiro’s and Mark Levin’s assessment of Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson, thank you all the same.
J.D. Vance has to choose wisely, or the Republicans may loose the Jew-hating, Stalin-loving, nutter voting block(heads).
Following or no following, I am not prepared to accept someone like Fuentes in the conservative tent, nor outlets that present him without pushback (Carlson).
Why would you take such an obviously amoral grifter “at his word”? He certainly doesn’t seem very repentant given the garbage he’s spewed over the years.
“J.D. Vance has to choose wisely, or the Republicans may loose the Jew-hating, Stalin-loving, nutter voting block(heads).” -om
What does that mean? The criticism I’ve seen about Vance is that his statements haven’t shown sufficient pro-Israel allegiance. Is that what you mean?
It is my impression that, in many cases, jury awards of large amounts of money are totally useless, since the money is never paid to the victim, because the person found negligent/guilty has no real assets, they cannot find a good job after the verdict, or they sometimes even take steps to make sure that they never have a job in which they make substantial amounts of money, guaranteeing that they are incapable of making any real payments towards that award.
Recently an elementary school teacher who was shot by a 6 year old in her class was awarded $10 million dollars in a civil suit against an assistant school principal who–despite being given multiple warnings that day about a child who had a gun by several different people–did nothing.
The school has an insurance policy which might conceivably pay some or all of that amount but, the assistant principal also has an upcoming criminal trial about this incident, and if she is found guilty of a crime, and is now a felon, that may give the insurance company grounds to refuse to pay.
Bottom line–I doubt that this young assistant principal has any real assets, so, odds are, the victim will never see even a penny of that $10 million dollar award.*
* See https://www.fox5dc.com/news/former-teacher-shot-6-year-old-student-wins-10m-jury-verdict-against-ex-assistant-principal
Those silent film tricks didn’t end with the talkies.
________________________________________
‘The Addams Family’ set as you’ve never seen it before – The living room was actually pink!
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/02/18/the-addams-family-set-as-youve-never-seen-it-before-the-living-room-was-actually-pink/
________________________________________
Dah-dah-dah-dunt
Snap-snap!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEaT0z5kUo4
What does it mean that apologists for Fuentes and Carlson are out and about?
Brian E: Do you know what sarcasm is?
IMO, juries should make binary decisions – guilty v. not guilty, liable v. not liable. Scalar quantities should be determined in adversary proceedings after the trial, by a judge assisted by assessors drawn from professions other than law and with expert testimony heard.
==
that may give the insurance company grounds to refuse to pay.
==
Sez who?
Brian E:
Apologies for being spelling police, but it’s *losing* the debate, not “loosing”.
You too, om.
Why is this error so maddeningly common among intelligent, articulate commenters?
“Brian E: Do you know what sarcasm is?” – om
You might want to use the sarc tag.
Brian E:
No, the main criticism of Vance is that he does not correct obvious lies about Israel (including various forms of the blood libel) from his questioners or from his buddy Tucker Carlson.
From AI on the subject:
Interesting take on why there is such a large pool of white/underperforming young males that would be attracted to the vile rhetoric of someone like Nick Fuentes. This really isn’t any different than the vile rhetoric of a lot of rap music.
I think Kisin may be on to some of the pathologies that have created this dynamic. It’s been an observation for some time, that this generation are remaining perpetual boys, hooked on video games, hiding in their parents basements.
Since it’s the woke left that put them there (in some sense), it’s understandable they would be attracted to what appears to be the antithesis– not political but cultural.
What is Happening on the Right. And Why – Konstantin Kisin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf_Ww2XdllI
Neo, fair point. But this has become a rhetorical strategy in many discussions/debates. Ask a question– and throw in many false or misleading dependent statements along the way.
If you take the time to refute each part of the statement/question the entire dynamic changes.
This is a problem and makes conversations nearly impossible. In some cases, you’re focused on the question and don’t even notice the false/misleading points along the way. It’s only later, on reflection you might notice these other points which may or may not even been relevant to the question.
I think Vance is smart enough to overcome this technique.
New post: Their Worlds Turned Upside Down….which is about the social and political implications of downwardly-mobile would-be elites
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/75366.html
Brian E:
Vance is a brilliant debater who is very good at arguing in a succinct and effective way. He could have demolished the vile premises of the question very easily and quite quickly and chose not to.
I watched the full video of Vance’s Q&A session with the students.
He had a well-stated pro-Israel response earlier in the session.
The clip that spread around the internet was the last question he took, after repeatedly mentioning that they were closing it up…. and the guy just spews all kinds of craziness.
IMO Vance did the right thing by ignoring all that and making a clear statement about alliances formed in America’s interests. There was no way he could have unpacked all that student’s crazy theories and dog whistles in the time he had.
I have no problem if the White House keeps Vance “clean” and relatively impartial on the Israel issue – to counterbalance the Trump family’s very close, positive relationship to Israel and Judaism. And to honestly reflect Vance’s own background.
The no-go zone that muted antisemitism since WW2 is finally dissolving…. And many “flyover country” conservatives are not necessarily anti-semitic – but the only Jews many of them have ever seen are Lefties and Hollywood types. They are understandably chafing and suspicious after decades of condescension, perceived lack of patriotism, and attacks on their way of life. Vance is one of them, unlike New York Donald, and connects with many conservatives who are indifferent to Israel.
Vance is a magnet for both the working-class and more educated young male segment that is essential to the new Conservative movement. He’s a good-old-boy who did well and is hip enough to openly discuss both his Christian faith and his interfaith marriage… His blase response to attempts to demonize him just solidifies that fly appeal.
It’s a good idea to position him as worldly, yet pragmatic and America-first. If he has no sincere emotional connection to Israel or Jews, I have no problem with him framing support for Israel in pragmatic terms. Certainly the relationship has changed as Israel becomes stronger and more independent.
Well and fairly stated, Ben David.