Whatever happened to Tucker Carlson?: Part III
I originally was going to write a two-parter about Tucker Carlson, which seemed like plenty – more than enough. So to all of you who think I’ve gone on way too long about him, I understand. I almost agree with you.
That “almost” is because it’s hard to get the flavor of what’s going on with Carlson – or with Candace Owens for that matter, who comes up quite a bit in relation to him – and I think it actually is rather important. Perhaps I’m being alarmist. But for many years I’ve been spending an awful lot of time looking around online at political sites, and I’ve seen this movement grow and grow and take over a lot of places. It’s creepy in every sense of the word: offensive, and spreading like a weed.
Maybe it’s bots. Maybe it’s paid shills. Some of it undoubtedly is. But it seems organic to me, and although small, very vocal and quite poisonous. I believe their goal is to split the right and ultimately take over from more rational heads. Whether they will accomplish that or not, I don’t know. But it’s a real danger, and I’m trying to raise awareness.
So a conversation in the comments here made me think one more post on the dismal subject would be in order.
Commenter “Gregory Harper” wrote:
I think Tucker’s views about spirits and demons have everything to do with his foreign policy views. He thinks we’re in a battle against demonic forces which he believes were behind the world wars and are currently pushing us into a war with Iran. He hasn’t gone as far as Candace in explicitly saying that the Jews are being controlled by demonic forces but that’s clearly what he actually believes.
Tucker has long been an isolationist but his descent into conspiratorial madness is something new.
And commenter “Brian E.” replied:
“He thinks we’re in a battle against demonic forces which he believes were behind the world wars and are currently pushing us into a war with Iran.”
That’s not controversial according to the Bible (except the part that demons are pushing us into a war with Iran). Obviously a failed prophecy – since that didn’t happen.
“He hasn’t gone as far as Candace in explicitly saying that the Jews are being controlled by demonic forces but that’s clearly what he actually believes.”
I’m not sure why you would make that connection. Have you read/heard anything by Carlson that indicates he believes the “Jews are being controlled by demonic forces”?
I know very little about Candace Owens. I’d be interested in a link were she said Jews are controlled by demonic forces in so many words.
I think there’s plenty of things Carlson has said about the government of Israel that are problematic/wrong without going there, unless he’s actually said that.
Actually, Carlson’s modus operandi isn’t saying controversial things outright, at least not usually. It’s showcasing people who say such things, nodding along with a thoughtful mien, and failing to challenge them. So no, I very much doubt he’s called Jews demons. Nor do I know whether he’s showcased anyone who literally calls all Jews demonic, although he’s showcased many people who lie and lie and lie about Israel.
As for Owens, I wrote a previous post on her that featured a few of her many tweets that certainly imply it – as well as Israelis as Nazis – for example:
Gaza is a concentration camp where an open genocide is taking place. It has taken Goebbels levels of propaganda to try to convince the world it isn’t happening but it is. Just like Adolf Hitler, Bibi Netanyahu is an ethnocentric imperialist monster and we will make sure the world remembers what all of you supported when God has his vengeance.
With enough time, I’m sure Hitler would have been very open to similarly running a sophisticated global blackmail ring with Jeffrey Epstein and perhaps would have even orchestrated the assasination [sic] of a sitting U.S. President or conducted a false flag or 2 to demand our allegiance.
Let me know how horrified you are by this comparison, and I’ll let you know how little we care. I will never stand with genocidal maniacs, who are committing an open holocaust and trying to usher in WW3, all while purporting to be eternal victims.
Israel rapes and murders innocents, (including their own countrymen) steals land, and then uses sexual blackmail to force leaders of other counties to accept deals with the land they’ve stolen.
Synagogue of Satan.
Christ will win.
Is “Synagogue of Satan” close enough to “demonic”?
If not, perhaps this will suffice (from 11/7/2025):
Candace Owens’ history of spreading vicious and dangerous lies about Jews was on full display during a 25-minute interview this morning on @CNN. She repeated her false claims that the U.S. government is occupied by Zionists, called Zionists “demonic” and “literally possessed by demons,” and that Israel’s war with Hamas was a “Holocaust.”
So, Zionists are literally possessed by demons. And I assume she would include the “Christian Zionists” who incense Tucker Carlson “more than anyone.” It strikes me, and not for the first time, that the existence of Israel has given Jew-haters the perfect cover. They can say just about anything they want about Israel and Israelis, however foul and however mendacious (often involving Nazi comparisons), and they can deny that what they’re saying is about Jews themselves. Then they use strawman arguments like “criticizing Israel isn’t anti-Semitic,” which of course is true; but people aren’t calling them Jew-haters because they criticize Israel. They call them Jew-haters because they focus on Israel obsessively to the exclusion of far worse situations in the world, they apply completely different and far harsher standards to Israel then to any other country, and they very often lie about Israel.
I found a video of a Carlson interview with Owens, which apparently took place about three months ago. During it they talk a lot about what brave truth-tellers they are, and they also mention their traffic numbers and how big they’ve gotten, especially Candace (who is now one of the most listened to podcasters on YouTube). A comment there like the following isn’t unusual; most of the commenters seem very admiring:
While looking at this video I had the sensation of witnessing a conversation between two giants. Thank you, Candace and Tucker.
The interview is about two hours long. A lot of it concerns Owens’ balmy views about Brigitte Macron being a man, something of which Owens is convinced. I didn’t watch every minute of the video but I watched about half, and if you want to get an idea of Carlson’s extreme deference towards Owens and admiration of her, just watch some of it – especially the latter parts. For viewers previously unfamiliar with her – and I hardly can blame anyone for not wanting to immerse him or herself in this fetid stuff – I have prepared a few clips. They’re only partly about Owens, though. They’re here because they’re also very much about Tucker Carlson – about whom he wishes to platform, about what sorts of ideas he fails to challenge, and about what he himself adds.
I’ve cued up several clips from this interview in order to demonstrate the form the insinuations both of these people take. Each segment is quite short.
In this first clip they discuss Nick Fuentes; this was months before Tucker interviewed him, and they both seem to have detested Fuentes at the time this video was made. Here Tucker seems to be advancing a theory that Fuentes is actually a neocon plant paid to attack the anti-neocon right (including Carlson and Owens, whom Fuentes had been criticizing at the time):
This next clip is about their mutual detestation of Seth Dillon, the head of the Babylon Bee, who criticized Candace and Tucker after they deigned to be oh-so-very-nice to him. I include this clip because it also shows Tucker and Owens lauding Darryl Cooper, that “historian” who thinks Churchill is the villain of WWII. I also included it because of Owens’ unchallenged remark that Israel supporters sadistically cheer the murder of Palestinian children. It’s also the case that, after Charlie Kirk was assassinated (the video is from before that event), Seth Dillon was one of the people Candace Owens accused of being part of a vague but sinister conspiracy around Kirk’s death:
This next clip, however, is the one most directly relevant to the blog comment thread I quoted at the beginning of this post. Note Candace’s repeated statements that Israel is demonic, and Carlson’s reaction (or non-reaction) to that. It’s also an excellent example of how conspiracy theories blend together. For example, when this clip begins they had both been talking about the need to release the Epstein files (she has said Israel is involved, natch), then she segues into a statement that Israel assassinated JFK, and then she implies that there’s something terribly nefarious about Israel’s Birthright program (a program which gives – not every American Jew, as she claims here – but young American Jews free trips to Israel in order to help them see for themselves what it’s all about). Have a listen:
[ADDENDUM:
Part I can be found here.
Part II can be found here.]
“But it seems organic to me, and although small, very vocal and quite poisonous. I believe their goal is to split the right and ultimately take over from more rational heads. Whether they will accomplish that or not, I don’t know. But it’s a real danger, and I’m trying to raise awareness.”
I think the above is the key. James Lindsay was very early about this a long time ago and he has been proven 100% correct.
Whether the “Woke Reich” have psychological problems that can be clinically diagnosed or whether they believe something demonic about Israel is unimportant. Tucker also is nut when talking about Chemtrails and UFO’s.
There is a vacuum forming right now in anticipation of Trump’s leaving office. There is a concerted effort it appears to fill it already with sheer craziness from Carlson, Fuentes, Owens and many others. I am sure there is some dark money involved in helping these people get their message out. If I were Soros, Arabella, Iran or the CCP I would funnel money to them as fast as I could.
We have a Democrat Party that is now totally a Red/Green Alliance of Communists + Islam. NYC and Seattle are now places to watch carefully. Only the Republicans and their allies stand in their way.
If we do not want 2026 and 2028 to be a disaster Carlson et al need to confronted and marginalized.
We are fortunate there are websites like this as well as American Thinker, frontpagemag.com and others that are taking this important subject on.
I didn’t want to take any of the Candace and Nick Fuentes extreme Jew hatred seriously. I thought they were just fringe characters that were obviously a little “off”. I’m pretty active in local politics and the people I talk to aren’t talking about this stuff. But I’m 65 and most of the people I talk to are in roughly the same age group.
But when I talked to my kids (31 and 29) they knew plenty of people who were listening to Fuentes or Candace. My daughter is very active politically and my son is the exact opposite. My daughter knows Fuentes supporters in local political clubs and my son hears anti-Jewish conspiracy theories among gamers and from old college friends. There is a huge generational divide on opinions on support for Israel and on Jews.
Rod Dreher has written with great concern about the influence that “groypers” (followers of Fuentes) have on young Republican congressional staffers. This fear may be exaggerated but there is something very disturbing going on that a lot of people aren’t paying enough attention to.
Neo, I do think it’s important to highlight the level of lies and propaganda Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are making up/repeating.
A small segment of Candace Owens from one of the videos:
Wow! Candace called Israel “demonic” four times in this short clip. Also includes the ‘fact’ that the Jews killed JFK (it was the mob, dontcha know), which I hadn’t been aware of. All of these charges of starvation, the IDF killing kids as target practice, genocide come from repeating reports from Hamas or it’s supporters themselves.
Has the Israel government done enough to counter these obvious lies/propaganda? It would seem that a government powerful enough to get away with killing JFK and running our government and controlling our President could counter a few podcasters working from their basements!
These are absurd allegations, but Israel and Jews are never going to be given the benefit of the doubt in the prejudiced eyes of too many Americans.
Owens makes the claim that “allowing your identity… to shape your morality is problematic…”, which Carlson picks up on:
First of all, what does that even mean? I’m a Christian and I adhere to the morality set out in the Bible. That seems proper and right.
As an American, I adhere to the morality set forth in our laws, in addition to those given by God.
Second of all, yes, the world would be a better place, if everyone, including our enemies, would adhere to those blessed “universal standards”. I would suggest Carlson send a stern letter to Hamas reminding them about those standards. Maybe he could date it Oct. 6.
The 2028 election may be decided by the followers of these people, who have created a set double standards, one for us and one for our enemies.
”I’ve been spending an awful lot of time looking around online at political sites, and I’ve seen this movement grow and grow and take over a lot of places.”
I haven’t been actively investigating the growth of this movement, but I’ve noticed its spread nonetheless. Just as one example, the comment threads at Althouse and Instapundit are beginning to resemble those at Zerohedge. It’s disturbing to see rather reasonable sites go down the dark path like that.
There seems to be a concerted effort to turn the Republicans against Israel like they turned the Republicans against the Ukraine in 2022. I first noticed it on 10/7 when quite a few Ukraine-hating Trumpers immediately jumped on the Israel-bashing bandwagon. It was intense for a few days, but as the evil of the attack became more broadly known, the effort fizzled out.
Then Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The movement reappeared on the more traditionally conservative sites stronger than ever, this time with staying power.
I don’t know why it is so hard to see that Israel, Ukraine, and America are all being attacked by forces dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. We all have the same enemies, and they wish to destroy us all, but apparently it is.
As the fracture lines of our society proliferate the anger grows and grows. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty when the match is lit.
Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying are also focused on Fuentes and talk about the Rod Dreher article What I Saw and Heard in Washington
Nick Fuentes, Groypers, and D.C. Zoomers | DarkHorse 300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edmAE9oXkK4
What I Saw And Heard In Washington
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/what-i-saw-and-heard-in-washington
About 10 days ago Dana Loesch was wondering why TC had taken the path he’s on. This was always preceded by telling the listener that he was her friend and he had helped in this way and that way etc. Now she just doesn’t even mention him as though he’s in the lost cause category.
Last week TC was on one of Megyn Kelly’s tour shows. It was uneventful IMHO. Ben Shapiro was on her tour the next night and lambasted TC. All right in itself, no love lost there. However, IMHO he seemed to demand that Megan Kelly should not only condemn TC but she should do it with the same intensity he did. I don’t think he made too many friends with that attitude. Megyn Kelly will handle this in her own good time, in her own way and for her own reasons.
I’m still puzzled that TC has changed so much (and not for the better) in only a 2-3 year span. He’s hardly recognizable now.
I forced myself to listen to the entire Carlson-Fuentes interview. One bit from TC that I haven’t heard anybody talking about”
Tucker: “One of the reasons that I’m mad about Gaza is because the Israeli position is everyone who lives in Gaza is a terrorist because of how they were born, including the women and the children.”
https://youtu.be/efBB0D4tf1Y?si=uflZzE1VAE9zB02F&t=4269
“Actually, Carlson’s modus operandi isn’t saying controversial things outright, at least not usually. It’s showcasing people who say such things, nodding along with a thoughtful mien, and failing to challenge them.”
Again, I think he’s in over his head. He doesn’t know how to challenge them. He’s not all that brilliant.
James Lindsay, Bret Weinstein, and Heather Heying are some of the most rational voices you could possibly be listening to right now. I’m sticking with them.
Read this – excellent
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/buchanan-resurrection
1st paragraph of 11 pages:
“The internal conflict over the future of the MAGA movement is described as a generational divide: On one side are the boomers, the Republican Party’s old guard that attached itself to Donald Trump’s winning agenda, and on the other side are the Zoomers, the rising generation of conservatives angry that, in their view, the president has betrayed his own movement. The split is anything but organic. Rather, it’s the intended result of a campaign waged by a revisionist faction determined to seize control of MAGA, and the Republican Party, by erasing Trump.”
Well Candace… why haven’t the “demonic forces” done to you… what they did to JFK?
Gregory Harper wrote:
“But when I talked to my kids (31 and 29) they knew plenty of people who were listening to Fuentes or Candace. My daughter is very active politically and my son is the exact opposite. My daughter knows Fuentes supporters in local political clubs and my son hears anti-Jewish conspiracy theories among gamers and from old college friends. There is a huge generational divide on opinions on support for Israel and on Jews.”
My son is a Trump voter in his 30’s. He and I agree on many things but bring up Israel and he loses it. He also doesn’t appear to know much about the country, its history or its position in the Middle East. He also doesn’t know about much about Islam or the Middle East in general. My daughter in her 40’s in Europe is no different in attitude towards Israel or in knowledge. Maybe they go hand in hand – lack of knowledge and despising Israel.
Worthwhile read.
Rod Dreher:” The claim that I first floated in this space last week, quoting a DC insider who said that in his estimation, “between 30 and 40 percent” of the Zoomers who work in official Republican Washington are fans of Nick Fuentes — that’s true. Was confirmed multiple times by Zoomers who live in that world.”
What I Saw And Heard In Washington
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/what-i-saw-and-heard-in-washington
Shadow:
As I wrote in another thread, I don’t think anyone’s claiming Carlson is some genius. But he’s perfectly capable of challenging people he interviews, even smart ones (Ted Cruz being a recent example).
RockMeAle:
There’s hardly a lie about Israel that Carlson won’t repeat, and that’s one of them. It’s not just a lie but it’s an absurd lie. If Israel wanted to kill every Palestinian they could have done so decades ago; instead, they take pains (and sustain IDF losses) in order to protect as many Gazan civilians as possible.
I notice Tucker uses a lot of phrases like, “it’s just a fact” or “it’s obvious that” or “everyone knows” without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
I thought the clip of Owens and Carlson speculating that Fuentes was a neocon plant was comical. Classic conspiracy stuff. Now that Tucker and Fuentes are besties, I wonder if he (or his fans) reflects back and thinks, “hmm, if I was wrong about that, I wonder what other conspiracies I might have gotten wrong?”
No, I don’t really wonder.
There are enough living Boomers and normie Republicans who would rather vote for a suboptimal candidate like Cruz than take their chances with a candidate [J. D. Vance] who, fair or not, has been tarred with the evil of anti-Semitism and race hatred via Fuentes and Carlson.
I don’t buy that Vance “has been tarred with the evil of anti-Semitism and race hatred via Fuentes and Carlson.”
Anyone want to talk about the Bee Gees?
It’s Dreher. When his doctor adjusts his psychotropic cocktail, it will pass.
Other commenters online I’ve seen have said that Dreher’s guess on how many young Republican aides in Washington are Fuentes fans is somewhat high, but that the phenomenon is real. Not 30%-40%, they say, but maybe 15%-20%.
Art Deco and Brian E – Dreher provided another source a few days after that post that Brian E quoted. The other source claimed that the 30-40% number was very high.
General point – We’re witnessing the result of institutional failure, or maybe elite failure. Institutions, like the press, universities and peer-review, medicine and medical associations, politicians, and the like are no longer believable. This generation of elites was consumed by a leftist, post-truth ideology and squandered the credibility of the institutions that they came to control.
Trump and MAGA point out the the bankruptcy of institutions, which is real, but Tucker, Candice Owens, and Nick Fuentes are what comes after. If the institutions are not reliable, we know nothing. By what authority can one say that Owens, Fuentes, Tucker are wrong? That was the role previously played by institutions. Trump surely can’t play that role. Not only is he not well-suited to an institutional rule, but after 10 years campaigning against the lies of institutions, Trump’s supporters just aren’t going to believe him. (See Epstein)
This isn’t to defend institutions in any way. They were (and are) well and truly corrupt to the point of being unbelievable. It is just to point out that, in the absence of credible institutions, there is no good way to keep the crazy, racist, conspiracy theories at bay. Pointing out the bankruptcy of institutions is exhilarating, and arguably necessary, but the fact of that bankruptcy is a tragedy. And the rise of Fuentes, Owens, and Tucker is a symptom of that tragedy.
Brian E quote Dreher:
“9. It also poses the risk of wrecking the new, post-MAGA conservatism, whose natural heir is JD Vance. There will be old-school normie conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz who will do their best to hang Fuentes and Jew-hatred around JD Vance’s neck.”
Buckley Carlson, Tucker’s son, doesn’t work for “old school normie conservative Ted Cruz” – rather, he works for J.D. Vance who as far as I know hasn’t fired him.
Trump has yet to name the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) a terrorist organization. Wonder why? I mean, Trump said he would. Hezbollah and Hamas are there.
https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations
The right needs to highlight what Islam has done to the Middle East.
Little bitty nation of Israel surround by a sea of Islam with the wreckage of early Christian civilizations submerged under that sea and these people focus negativity on Israel.
Someone seems to have confused Ted Cruz with Glitch McConnell. The two of them despise each other, and not for purely personal reasons.
==
We benefit from politicians who realize that (1) issues are not fungible, (2) that pleasing donors should not be the lodestar in making public policy, (3) law enforcement matters, (4) ending mass immigration matters, (5) restoring impersonal hiring and promotion in federal employment matters, (6) ending the federal patronage mill matters, (7) putting federal programs on an actuarially sound basis matters, (8) limiting public sector borrowing to recession years and crises matters, (9) clean elections matter, (10) having regulatory agencies which stay in their lane matters, (11) having courts which stay in their lane and respect fair procedures matters, and (12) ending sectoral tax preferences matters.
==
We’re not there yet in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the vehicle of choice because it is not populated by the gruesome characters which run the Democratic Party. Trump has called attention to and made some headway on certain issues. NB, all occidental countries are suffering from horrible elites.
Other commenters online I’ve seen have said that Dreher’s guess on how many young Republican aides in Washington are Fuentes fans is somewhat high, but that the phenomenon is real. Not 30%-40%, they say, but maybe 15%-20%.
==
We are talking about a couple of dopey attention whores with a podcast.
It’s a pity that Owens is so beautiful and so black, totally devoid of the West African facial features like broad nose and big lips that are so often seen. Kinda like Obama’s East African features, the result of incorporating Asian Indian DNA.
She and Tucker are amazingly deluded. Or is it delusional?
Is it just me or are these two the opposite of what/who they used to be?
Doing what amounts to a 180 so thoroughly suggests some kind of neurological event, but one so severe would leave them as well having trouble with a knife and fork, one might think.
Is it something external? Massive bribe? Some extraordinarily serious threat?
Re Dreher, he had me until he started conflating Ted Cruz as an “old school normie conservative.” Ditto the idea he was the one that might try and hang the Jew Hate albatross around Vance’s neck, when in reality Vance has run the risk of that himself with what I can generously call less than stellar responses. Trump to his discredit played a role in that – albeit secondarily so – with things like his infamous dinner including Fuentes and Kanye.
The big thing I think we need to understand is that Fuentes and the Gropyers proper have a ceiling, and it is not a very high one. Catholics are still a minority of American Christians – let alone Americans as a whole – and White/Hispanic Catholics are even smaller than that. Add in those willing to go along with Fuentes’s particular flavors of totalitarian simping, sexism, racism, Islamophillia, the idea of a White Catholic “Confessional State” and that number drops even further. To be fair they could hit a critical mass I imagine the potential room for growth from “squishes” – the likes of my fellow Episcopalians down the street who take things much less seriously and figure it isn’t too big of a stretch to put a Jesus figure on the cross and get some rosary beads – is more than a straight breakdown of the population would show. But that only goes so far, and goes back to how they’d need to obtain some kind of breakout momentum for that.
So I do not think the Groypers can “win”, they lack not only the numbers but also the basic appeal or potential numbers for that. What they can do is what they love doing, wrecking shit. And that is the real threat I see from
Them. That and the prospect that someone might take up the baton from Fuentes and modify it (perhaps from a more mainline Protestant group that goes woke in a different way, and tries to make KKK 4.0) so that it might have such breakout potential. But for now I think the wider threat is not their ability to create an alternative but their potential to destroy while we are bogged down with the Left and Creeping Islamicization.
I also do not buy the 20-40% number, even factoring in very very generous estimates and consideration of Dreher talking about how Fuentes fans do not agree with everything he says (indeed a huge swath can’t). I also think this ignores the nature of Republican Washington and the nature of the toxins in the Beltway, such as going along to get along and endemic bureaucratic and institutional cultures like the love-hate relationship with Israel (mostly hate). It is a strange world inside the beltway and I think there are a number of facets about Fuentes that would make him disproportionately more likely to be popular among those stuck there, not helped by carryover or cross demographic popularity from say young Leftist zoomers or Dawah guys. Their ability to get traction in a wider way is far more limited, if still worryingly broad.
What worries me on the right is less the likes of Fuentes so much as the likes of Curtis Yarvin and the “Dark Enlightenment” Neo-Absolutist tards. Their appeal is still rather on the low side due to how radical and explicitly elitist their stances are, but they have a disturbing cachet with some big names on our side like Vance, Thiel, and Musk, and unlike Fuentes they are not expressly racist of locked on Jew Hatred and thus they have much wider room for growth, while also echoing a lot of the sort of technocratic, elitist, and anti-constitutional nonsense Fuentes and the Left manifest.
Neo: you always do great work and this topic is no exception; in fact it is among the most important topics you could tackle. My note is (obviously) not a big one —just a question on word usage—but I offer it almost as a place-holder until I come back with more-meaty stuff. Thanks for all you do. “Balmy” should be “Barmy.”
https://britishslangguide.com/what-does-barmy-mean-in-british-slang/
Turtler, I hadn’t heard of Curtis Yarvin before, and watched a NYT podcast interview of him. What exactly do you object to? I don’t think there is anything more theoretical than his philosophy of a American CEO.
My first thought was Plato’s Republic. Who can argue that a philosopher-king wouldn’t be a better governance than what we have now. Isn’t what he is advocating is a strong president interpretation of the constitution?
Unlike the simple minded appeal of Fuentes which relies on demagoguery, there is no way to implement a Dark Enlightenment/monarchical form of government.
Granted this is one interview, but i see the Fuentes influence as dangerous– since the element of hopelessness does lead to the ‘burn it all down’ mentality.
As to Dreher’s estimation of the influence of groypers in Washington– it’s not whether it’s 30% or 10%– it is shocking it would be that high (even if it’s 10%).
I agree that there is a limit to Fuente’s upside– but if you take Lee Smith’s estimation of a 30% anti-semitic potential base in the conservative world (based on the example of Buchanan’s presidential run), his influence would make any conservative unelectable.
Fuentes has stated he would never vote for Vance on one hand, and even comments on this blog have been skeptical of Vance for not being vocal enough in support of Israel. Taken in a more general foreign policy lens– Vance is too isolationist. Which reinforces the notion that the battle for the future of the conservative movement is between isolationism and adventurism. I don’t know whether Vance would have authorized the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which might be a litmus test– since it’s not hard to make the case that was in US interests to neutralize that threat.
Smith makes the case that Israel saw the invasion of Iraq as unsettling the balance of power in the ME, which seems obvious to me. What were we thinking? I hope Vance settles on a philosophy which is being evidenced by President Trump. Tactical use of American power– realizing it’s limits.
Why anyone pays attention to any professional talking head is beyond me. It’s just an endless cycle of winning then losing trust, and monetizing both affection and outrage.
If I can just find two facts to rub together, that’s enough.
It’s analogous to the middleman in an economic exchange. Put yourself in an important conversation, and see what value can be extracted.
Present company excepted, of course. Anyway, I’m just here for the ballet videos.
Turtler, the numbers may be exaggerated and no, the Groypers are not going to have a majority in Congress anytime soon. But the phenomenon is real and my biggest takeaway from the Dreher piece is the root cause – lack of hope and optimism among young Americans. Others have noted how this is mirrored on the left with many Mamdani supporters being downwardly mobile college grads saddled with student loan debt and waiting on tables with their “studies” degrees. If there is a major economic downturn things could get dicey to say the least.
Pat Buchanan won 22% of the ballots in 1996. His historiography and his conception of international relations is rather fanciful. He is not an antagonist of Jews qua Jews.
Art Deco:
On Buchanan, Israel, and Jews. Also please see this.
In 1996 Buchanan did not run but ended up endorsing Republican nominee Bob Dole. In 1992 he was the foremost opponent to President Bush in the Republican primaries and did win around 22% of Republican primary votes. In 2000 he ran on the Reform Party ticket and got 0.43% (yes that is less than 1/2 of 1%) of the vote.
@ Brian E > “I agree that there is a limit to Fuente’s upside– but if you take Lee Smith’s estimation of a 30% anti-semitic potential base in the conservative world (based on the example of Buchanan’s presidential run), his influence would make any conservative unelectable.”
I’m not sure I understand your point here.
Accepting Lee Smith’s estimate of anti-Semitism among conservatives (for argument, and because he has a good track-record of accuracy), and therefore there is potentially 30% who are presumably somewhat in tune with Fuentes or would become so; and assuming the remaining 70% of conservatives would reject a Fuentes-influenced candidate in a Republican Primary (we hope), how does that translate to a General Election loss for conservatives (which “making…unelectable” implies to me), when the Democrats are 100% anti-Semitic haters of Jews, Islamist-influenced haters of Israel, and Marxist-influenced haters of conservatives in general.
Well, maybe only 99%.
Are you saying that the 30% of anti-Semitic conservatives will vote FOR a Democrat on that basis, despite the other downsides to conservatives from that choice?
@ Blobfish > “Anyway, I’m just here for the ballet videos.”
Well, there are the dog videos, nature photographs, and the Moiseyev Company.
And Jell-o (haven’t seen any lately, hint hint).
And riffs on the Bee Gees and music in general.
The politics is almost extra!
“Put yourself in an important conversation, and see what value can be extracted.”
Most times, I find far more instances of solid information and interesting viewpoints here than in reading the internet “printed” pundits; I avoid listening to almost any of them.
@ Owen (“no relation to Candace Owens”) > “just a question on word usage”
I did a double-take on “balmy” as well, but decided it might be an American regional variation on “barmy” — your link did mention the confusion between them — because consonant substitutions that change an unfamiliar word to a more familiar one are quite common, especially for people who have mostly heard the correct word, and never or seldom read it (see “Lady Mondegreens”); or have only ever heard the wrong one (increasingly common, even in articles from prominent organizations, whose writers ought to (a) know better; or (b) have competent editors — don’t get me started!).
Or it’s just a typo, assisted by our Wonderful World of Word-processor Spell Checkers, which don’t CARE what a word means so long as they (plural of “it”) can find it in their list.
AI-written posts will also have this problem IMO, as they (pronouns err/or) train on examples of writing with the same underlying problematical word use.
The best way to learn British slang is to read P. G. Wodehouse.
Bertie Wooster is not really as barmy as he acts, though.
PS The linked article was unintentionally amusing because it is poorly written in places and may be by a non-native English speaker for learners, or perplexed immigrants.
PPS I was going to look at a few more entries at that site and test my theory about the writers, but it looks to be one of those “reader-contributor” operations, so that wouldn’t really mean anything.
And I would probably still be there looking up old words vaguely remembered to see if they meant what I thought they did.
AesopFan, that was hours ago, and it seemed profound at the time….
Right now Fuentes has 500,000 followers on Rumble and about 1 million on X. If he can continue to rehabilitate himself to the isolationists, he could continue to gain followers. While Carlson is more subtle in terms of influencing the 2028 candidate, Fuentes is blunt. Fuentes has said there is no way he would vote for Vance.
I think it’s fair to say that of the proportion of isolationists in the conservative movement, not all are closet anti-semites. Israel/Jews are just an easy target. Not all are single issue voters (isolationism).
Trump got that vote in 2024, but he’s been a disappointment to those voters as he’s shown to be what I’d term non-interventionist. If Fuentes can capture a reasonable portion of that vote– he’s very likely to take delight in ‘burning it all down’– especially since it’s unlikely he can be anything but shunned in the conservative movement.
Fuentes has said he has three issues– immigration, race and isolationist foreign policy.
I guess I shouldn’t assume his opposition to Vance is insufficient isolationism– since Fuentes made it a point of slandering Vance’s wife, Usha, and the fact he has worked in Silicone Valley are black marks in Fuentes mind.
I’m fairly confident that Vance’s foreign policy is more aligned with Trump’s pragmatic approach than the isolationism some had hoped for.
I can’t imagine any conservative trying to court Fuente’s followers, so the best Fuentes can do is prevent that fringe from voting– which might be enough to prevent a conservative victory in 2028.
AesopFan, rereading Smith’s article, the 30% figure was more a repudiation of Bush than in favor of Buchanan. Even a 20% figure is high, hopefully.
“Balmy” is a completely normal word I’ve heard many times. It has definition number 2 here:
Or this:
Buchanan challenged both Bush and Dole and won the same share of Republican primary and caucus voters each time. Those years were his moment, like 2012 was Rick Santorum’s moment. Ron Paul attempted to rally isolationist sentiment and was left with 4% of the ballots.
==
Cf: “…No barm in Gilead…”
(Methinks the
problemissue might be that in an English, or perhaps Boston(?), etc., accent, “barmy” and “balmy” are homophones**.Meanwhile, enjoy the barmy weather down south, in Hawaii or wherever you might happen to be…)
** If yer Japanese, jus’ ferget about it…
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/balmy_adj
There may be some hope. See this clip from Tim Pool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Jp0iLnx1jEk
Around the 15 min mark he points out that a lot of the younger generation are getting burned out on the Israel topic.
Though of course I don’t think it helps to be importing a bunch of people who hate Jews (or are ambivalent at best) and then not make any efforts as assimilation.
AesopFan – If ~30% of the GOP primary electorate is Groyper or sympathetic to Gropyers, then there will likely be a Gropyer candidate or a “Groyper lane” candidate on the stage at the GOP primaries. At a minimum, every candidate will be prompted in every interview to disown the Groyper contingent of the primary electorate. And politicians being politicians, at least some of them will try to soft-pedal the questions to win Groyper-sympathetic votes (30% of the primary electorate and all). And so mainstream media coverage of the GOP primaries will be all Nick Fuentes, all the time.
Then, even after the nomination is decided, more than 50% of the mainstream media coverage (i.e., the only coverage that the median voter sees) will be about Gropyers and Nick Fuentes, including a video montage of Fuentes’ greatest hits. There will be Gropyer questions in the fall debates. The nominee will have to fight that momentum to get his or her actual message out. And if the eventual nominee is one of the candidates who tried to play footsie with Gropyers in the primaries, look out.
Finally, Trump showed in 2016 that a determined minority can win a major party nomination if the majority is fractured. So don’t rule out the possibility of a Gropyer GOP nominee in 2028. Further, as Trump shows, the party tends to conform to the nominee.
In short, it will be a disaster if 30% of the GOP primary electorate is Gropyer or Gropyer-sympathetic, even if a thorough-going Gropyer candidate is not likely to win the nomination.
And if you don’t believe that, take the above and substitute “Tucker Carlson” for “Gropyer.” It doesn’t get much better.
That’s why I think that Vance needs to make a hard, public break with Carlson and the anti-Semite wing of the GOP now. He’s the candidate most likely to win the GOP nomination with a Tucker Carlson-shaped ball-and-chain fastened to his ankle.
Don’t count on Nick Fuentes’ professed hatred of Vance to save him.
Finally, Trump showed in 2016 that a determined minority can win a major party nomination if the majority is fractured.
==
Trump won 45% of the primary and caucus vote, about what John McCain did four years earlier. There were four competitive candidates each time. Aside from Trump, Ted Cruz won 25%. Those were the two candidates the Capitol Hill / K Street nexus abhorred. Small totals went to Dr. Carson, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, &c, none of them Republican inner ringers Jeb Bush took his donors’ money and made a bonfire with it; others the donor crew might have preferred included John Kasich (NeverTrump diehard), Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie. These corralled about 25% of the Republican electorate. You lot had no majority to fracture.
==
What was novel about 2016 was not that ‘a determined minority’ carried the day, but that the perennial winner of Republican contests – The-Guy-Whose-Turn-It-Is – wasn’t running and the donors’ preferred candidate evaporated.
Trump won 45% of the primary vote, including a bunch of garbage time primaries after he clinched the nomination. At the time that Cruz and Kasich dropped out, he was much closer to 40%.
And, in case anyone is unclear, both 40 and 45% is a minority.
And yet to CC™’s eternal angst and anger The Great Orange Whale is the 47th president. Cosmic injustice.
Is CC™ barmy or balmy? Just asking.
And, in case anyone is unclear, both 40 and 45% is a minority.
==
And, in case anyone is unclear, a 45% plurality is unremarkable in a four-candidate race. You want a runoff between the top two contenders, Mr. Cruz would have had to collar 85% of the votes which went initially to other candidates. You want a run off between Trump and John Kasich, Gov. Bad Attitude would have had to collar nearly 90% of the other candidates’ votes. Neither scenario is plausible and the first of them would have left Glitch McConnell even more dissatisfied than he was with DJT.
==
NeverTrump is a Capitol Hill / K Street / Acela corridor phenomenon. It hardly exists at street level.