Trump is the only major American politician of the last forty years who was professionally formed in the long-form unstructured format before he ever entered politics. That is the entire answer. Everything else is downstream of that fact.

The standard explanations (charismatic, natural performer, good instincts) are descriptions of the result rather than explanations of the cause.

Well, sort of. He’s actually a natural at it, and then he also has honed his skills over time. It’s not either/or. But yes, he’s got more experience in the long-form interview, both hostile and friendly, than almost anyone on earth. That’s not an accident. He’s sought celebrity, and been comfortable with it, for pretty much his whole life.

I agree with a great deal of the article – for example, this:

Widely misunderstood. Trump does not actually have no filter. He has a very specific filter, calibrated over decades, that allows him to say things that sound spontaneous and unfiltered while actually being controlled performance. He says transgressive things on purpose, knowing they will land. He floats trial balloons, watches the reaction, and either commits to the position or walks it back depending on the response. The persona of being unfiltered is itself a filter.

Also this:

The credentialed class is the class of people who have internalized the institutional consequences of saying the wrong thing, and who have organized their public speech to avoid those consequences. Trump did not come up through any of those institutions. He came up in New York real estate and tabloid culture, both of which are environments where shame is a vulnerability rather than a discipline, and where the operators who succeed are the ones who have learned to act without it. He says things the credentialed class would be unable to say, not because the things are necessarily wrong, but because the credentialed class has been trained to feel an autonomic flinch before the words leave the mouth. Trump does not have the flinch.

The absence of the flinch is read by the audience as authenticity, and is read by the opposing class as proof of monstrousness.

Yes indeed. But the author follows it with this:

Both readings miss the structural fact: the flinch is a learned behavior of a specific institutional formation, and Trump did not undergo that formation.

Here’s where I have the same objection I had at the beginning: it’s not just a learned behavior, it’s in sync with Trump’s personality, although it’s also a behavior that’s been honed and refined through practice.

It occurs to me that Spencer Pratt has had some of this type of practice. Not as much as Trump but more than most, having been on reality TV a great deal. And he also didn’t come up through the normal political paths, so he didn’t learn the pussy-footing obfuscation and the art of talking while saying nothing. Here’s an example of Pratt’s skills:

The threaded NBC clip exemplifies exactly what Pratt said here about being honed for debate by constant battle with hostile media hacks —

Unlike his Democrat opponents:

“Every interview I do it's opposition. When Bass or Raman talk to the media, they can just lie." https://t.co/gcjgGjx08Z pic.twitter.com/WFCEavoJlb

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 29, 2026

Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether people without X can access these tweets and videos. If you can’t see the second one, this might help:

Spencer Pratt schools NBC reporter who wants to know if he’s running for LA Mayor just to promote his “brand."

Reporter: “Man, your brand is hotter than ever!"

Pratt initially talks about getting in the race after losing everything in the fires.

But then he gets to the… pic.twitter.com/SrDMy7zyR0

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 29, 2026

It’s LA, and I doubt Pratt can win. But it would be astounding if he did.

The post Trump as long-form master appeared first on The New Neo.

I’ve seen it for years and years and years online: the idea that the Boomer generation has screwed the younger ones. It’s often advanced by 40-somethings or younger, who feel insufficiently flush with cash and that the world hasn’t rewarded them in the manner they think they deserve. The idea that previous generations struggled and that many still struggle (I have friends my age with little savings, for example) is brushed aside. And the opinions of older people are shrugged off with the dismissive, “Okay, Boomer.”

It’s not unusual to wish that the Boomers would die already. Just shuffle off this mortal coil so that the young can get the spoils. And this is usually said with no sense of shame whatsoever.

I’ve seen most of this in the comments sections of blogs and MSM articles, as well as on social media of many kinds. It’s said not with humorous tolerance but powerful hatred and envy. But envy has now become perfectly okay, a kind of badge of virtue with “microlooters” and the like.

But based on the comments thread to that post, I realized I wanted to expand on something, and I’m highlighting it here. My point is not so much about the economic envy I already discussed in that post; it’s about blame for the cultural changes that began during the 1960s that jettisoned many traditions.

First of all, we need a definition of “Boomer”: it is the generation born between 1946 and 1964. By that definition, Bill Clinton (1946) and Donald Trump (also 1946) just make it into the beginning of the Boomer generation, and Obama is close to the end (1961) but still a Boomer. Biden, on the other hand, is not even a Boomer; born in 1942, he’s a member of the Silent Generation.

But the cultural changes of the 1960s which tore down many of the older standards, plus the Vietnam War opposition, featured people born in the early portion of the Boomers generation as followers rather than leaders. The Boomers are often blamed, but the movement actually was driven and led by people from the previous generation, the so-called Silent Generation.

Just to take a few examples:

Tom Hayden, antiwar activist, born 1939
Jane Fonda, antiwar activist, born 1937
Jerry Rubin, “Yippie” activist, born 1938
Abbie Hoffman, “Yippie” activist, born 1936
Timothy Leary, drug promoter, born 1920 (he was of the Greatest Generation)
Huey Newton, black activist, born 1942
Malcolm X, black activist, born 1925 (Greatest Generation)
Bernardine Dohrn, Weather Underground, born 1942
Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, born 1944

I could go on and on. The Beatles, all born prior to the Boomer Generation (early 1940s). Rolling Stones, same, except for Ronnie Wood (1947). Eldridge Cleaver (1935), Bob Dylan (1941), Janis Joplin (1943), Ken Kesey (1935), Frank Zappa (1940), Ram Dass (1931).

Then there were the professors – all of older generations – who gave in to the younger generation when it was the professors and college administrators who should have known better.

I could continue with this, but the gist of it is that the Boomers were too young to be the movers and shakers of this particular revolution. You do see quite a few carrying it on, though, in terms of anti-Trump demonstrations and the like.

The post Don’t blame the boomers appeared first on The New Neo.

It seems it’s not a big comeback. But maybe a little bit:

“I’ve definitely seen an uptick in singles describing themselves as ‘sometimes’ smokers — not pack-a-day smokers, but occasional, where it’s tied to nightlife, travel, aesthetic and intimacy,” Ashleigh Rodosta, a Gotham-based matchmaker and relationship coach, told The Post. “The post-sex cigarette is also making a comeback.” …

“What’s ironic is that many of these same people are otherwise intensely wellness-oriented — cold plunges, peptides, clean eating, the whole thing,” she continued. “So cigarettes are showing up less as a real lifestyle and more as an occasional indulgence tied to image, mood and social setting.”

I have to say that, back when smoking was far more popular, it often was indeed “tied to image, mood, and social setting.”

I smoked cigarettes during my first two years of college and then never again. My smoking was very situational: to look cool, or because I was bored. Or both. I smoked while sitting around with friends in the cafeteria after meals, in boring lecture classes, while writing term papers, and at parties. I never inhaled because I actually hated that. But I was a whiz at blowing smoke rings.

[NOTE: I’m taking a day-long break from writing about the Iran war.]

The post Is cigarette smoking making a comeback? appeared first on The New Neo.

I also watched some of the halftime “entertainment,” curious about Bad Bunny. I didn’t expect to like it, and I didn’t – it’s very rare for me to like current popular (?) music. But the degree of tuneless awfulness of this particular selection was nevertheless surprising.

As for the Spanish – I can understand a fair amount of Spanish, but this sounded garbled. Turns out that was a plus, because apparently the lyrics often went like this (a sample) when translated:

Hell, what safaera
You have a f**king amazing a*s
Anything that gets you breaking the highway
Move it, move it, move it, move it

More translations can be found here, if you care to see them. Let’s just say that the one I offered above is the mildest by far. I didn’t check to see if they’re authentic – but if they are, ugh.

Bad Bunny is from Puerto Rico and his other theme is that “America” means not the US but the two continents, north and south. Apparently the NFL is trying to reach out to Latin American audiences, and Bad Bunny is very popular in that neck of the woods, whereas football (American style) is not. Thus, the Bad Bunny halftime.

The post The not-so-Super-bowl appeared first on The New Neo.

I very quickly smelled an AI rat. First of all, I don’t think women ever compete on the pommel horse. But secondly, although there are some 75-year-olds who do remarkable things, this “Marha Stillman’s” feats just didn’t seem real.

And they’re not. If you go to the video’s channel it becomes even more clear, because not only is Stillman a whiz at the pommel horse, she can do just about everything – the world’s most versatile athlete.

From the comments, it seems that these videos dupe a lot of people even though the channel site admits to being AI. The following message appears there, although you have to click to see the whole thing:

Official AI-generated sports highlights featuring 75-year-old athlete Marta Stillman — competing at world championships, setting records, and delivering unreal moments with realistic broadcast presentation.

Full TV-style coverage, professional commentary, authentic camera angles, and high-energy action — all created with advanced AI.

The creators even have her physique change somewhat in line with the demands of the different events, as well as her hairdos, outfits, and makeup. For example, she’s slim for most, but here she’s somewhat bulked-up and de-glammed for the shotput:

O brave new world, that has such AI people in it.

The post The Supergrandma athlete of YouTube appeared first on The New Neo.

I had a vague memory – very vague – of the Elvis Presley version. When I listened to it after all these years, it just doesn’t move me the same way at all. I’ve never been a Presley fan; maybe that’s it. But it doesn’t reach me with that same tone of sincerity:

I was very surprised, though, to learn that the first recording of the song was by Brenda Lee. As usual, she sings very very well. However, call me sexist, but I don’t see this as a woman’s song. It just doesn’t work as well as when a man sings it. But here you go:

But none of those people wrote the song. It was written by a threesome: Johnny Christopher, Mark James and Wayne Carson. They sing it here; I like their version a lot:

But perhaps the most surprising thing of all is that Carson also wrote “The Letter,” an extremely different song. His rendition is here:

And the fabulous hit version, sung by The Boxtops and their 16-year-old lead singer with the raspy voice, all yukking it up here because they’re lip-syncing:

The post From “Always On My Mind” to “The Letter” appeared first on The New Neo.

Now, this article on the subject has come out, and it seems pretty persuasive. The author, Colin Wright, cites this report from something called the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI).

Wright states:

The report’s most shocking finding is just how wildly Fuentes’s engagement numbers differ from those of other political influencers. NCRI compared the first 30 minutes of engagement on 20 of his recent posts with those from four major online figures—Elon Musk, Hasan Piker, Steven “Destiny” Bonnell, and Ian Carroll. Incredibly, Fuentes outperformed all of them in early retweets, including Musk, whose follower count is over 200 times higher.

None of this makes sense if the engagement is organic. According to NCRI’s report, this is explained by the fact that 61 percent of Fuentes’s early retweets come from accounts that repeatedly retweeted several of his posts within the same 30-minute window. This is not what you’d expect if these were random users scrolling their feeds. Rather, these accounts appear to be waiting for Fuentes to post so they could amplify his content almost instantly.

When NCRI dug into who these accounts actually were, 92 percent were completely anonymous. … Many openly identified as “Groypers,” members of Fuentes’s online fan base, and their feeds consisted almost entirely of retweets or replies to him. Some even labeled themselves as Fuentes “signal boosters.” These accounts appear to be part of a coordinated network built to push his content as widely and quickly as possible.

NCRI uncovered another major red flag. When they examined Fuentes’s most viral posts—three from before the assassination of Charlie Kirk and three after—it found that nearly half of all retweets came from foreign accounts, heavily concentrated in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These regions are known hubs for low-cost engagement farms.

Crucially, Fuentes is not merely a passive beneficiary of this manipulation—he actively coordinates it. NCRI shows that he routinely gives his viewers direct instructions during live broadcasts to retweet his content, often just seconds after posting a link. This is meant to trigger the early spike in engagement that algorithms reward, a tactic that may violate X’s own rules against coordinated inauthentic activity.

And the effects of this manufactured engagement didn’t stay online. They spilled into mainstream news coverage. …

The media believed it was responding to a real political shift. It wasn’t. It was responding to a manipulated signal created by anonymous amplification networks and foreign engagement farms. Even TPUSA’s own social-media replies showed growing Groyper infiltration as Fuentes tried to capitalize on the vacuum left by Kirk’s death.

This is very much in line with recent revelations about the foreign origins of many social media accounts from supposed American patriots and America-firsters who are posting from places like Pakistan. That’s not to say that there are no real Fuentes supporters (“groypers”), but they are almost certainly far less numerous than one might originally have thought.

One result of all of this is to demoralize the right and also make it appear every bit as bigoted and moronic as the left says it is. As for Fuentes himself, aside from fame and money, what are his goals and who is backing him?

The are other related internet phenomena on the so-called “woke right” (often rabidly anti-Semitic and heavily conspiracy-theory oriented) such as Candace Owens. Are they the beneficiaries of a similar process as that which has made Fuentes famous? I think so, but probably to a lesser extent because prior to Owens’ going off into her current fringe/cringe content, she did seem to have a more conventional following on more conventional platforms.

The same is true of Tucker Carlson to an even greater extent; during his Fox News years he was a popular and at least somewhat mainstream figure on the right. A fair amount of his current traffic is almost certainly a carryover from that. But how much?

Almost since its beginning, the internet has been a place where deception is easier than in the non-virtual world. We’ve had trolling, bot farms, catfishing, phishing, sock puppets, and more recently the spread of AI, and now fake internet phenoms such as Fuentes. No wonder he’s smirking.

The post Fuentes the fake phenom appeared first on The New Neo.

But apparently it’s a very controversial ad which has received lots of criticism, especially because it’s AI. For example:

One AI-generated Christmas ad could have be brushed off as a novelty experiment. With two in a two in a row, Coca-Cola is making AI slop a new festive tradition.

Despite the backlash last year (or because of it?), the soft drinks giant has again decided to start the season with an AI-generated mess that sabotages its brand. Somehow it still doesn’t see the contradiction of its ‘real magic’ tagline. …

The polar bears of old are now joined by an incongruous mix of gawping AI critters, from rabbits to seals, before the piece end with a jump scare: an AI-animated Santa Claus inspired by Haddon Sundblom’s 1930s illustrations.

Apparently there are flaws in the ad, too. Apparently people don’t like AI – really really don’t like it. You be the judge:

The post What do you think of this Coca-Cola ad? appeared first on The New Neo.

The upshot is that there are many people and groups vying for influence with this cohort, and although some of those people and groups are friendly and benign, some are malevolent exploiters. Among the former are Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk (when he was alive) and Turning Point USA; among the latter are Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Mamdani, Antifa, violent trans activists, and various incel “influencers.” I’m sure I left some out, but you get the picture. The competition exists on both right and left, but the struggle on the right is highlighted at the moment.

Charlie Kirk’s accused killer was definitely part of this group that was searching (I’m going to assume that Trump’s would-be killer was, too). Tyler Robinson is a young disaffected white male who spent an inordinate amount of his time gaming, and seems to have immersed himself in the violent trans activist movement as well as using some Antifa memes.

I’ve been thinking about all of this lately, and a few days ago I began wondering whether Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk had ever gotten together for a chat, and if so did they ever discuss this sort of topic. Sure enough, I discovered that they had, about six months ago. In the following YouTube interview, it’s also mentioned that Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk had met back in 2016 when Kirk was early in his career, and Kirk says he was inspired by Peterson. Not surprising, actually.

The following interview occurred six months ago, as I noted. But since then, Peterson has become gravely ill starting in August, although he’s said to be recovering. And of course Charlie Kirk was assassinated early in September. The whole interview is of interest, but I have cued up a 9-minute clip in which they begin by discussing the phenomenon on the left but Peterson immediately says it’s a growing problem on the right too and he was certainly correct. The phenomenon is the growing popularity of “influencers” with what’s called Cluster B traits and the dark triad or tetrad (see this for an explanation). They also talk about what it means to use the Lord’s name in vain:

Because he appears to be an example of this Cluster B dark triad type, please do not ignore the essentially “performative” and mocking nature of Fuentes. He’s like the Joker. It’s impossible to know what he really believes; perhaps nothing. His goals seem to be destructive and narcissistic: attention and power for himself, but perhaps mostly the power to destroy and to make people angry and uncomfortable, as well as to be admired by other Cluster B dark triad types, or just people who are lost and searching and happen upon him.

Christopher Rufo seems to understand this, too:

Rather than engage in the surface-level debate, conservatives should seek the deeper ground of reality and deconstruct the “metapolitics,” or underlying rules, of this conflict. Conservatives should do this by treating Fuentes as an essentially fraudulent phenomenon. He is a manipulator who pretends to believe in every evil in order to drive clicks, cause chaos, and achieve celebrity, even as a villain.

I think that this is the best way to look at someone like Fuentes that I can find so far, and Fuentes is hardly alone although he’s the flavor du jour.

I also came across this video by Dinesh D’Souza speaking of the same phenomenon; he also discusses the “groypers” and their online activities. The section I’ve cued up is about 7 minutes long; if you’re impatient like me, though, I suggest speeding it up by changing the speed setting:

ADDENDUM: I decided it would be instructive to add this short clip. Kirk detested Fuentes and thought he was dangerous, not only didn’t ally with him but discouraged anyone from platforming him by debating him. Fuentes was extremely harsh in his criticism of Kirk. He also was quite open in his rivalry with Kirk for this group of young men they were both trying to reach:

Nick Fuentes to Charlie Kirk just days before he was murdered:

"I took your baby Turning Point USA, and I f**ked it. I just get a sick sense of satisfaction out of it. Mr. 'Family Man.'" pic.twitter.com/PgtbRR6V7L

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 28, 2025

The post The battle for the hearts and minds of disaffected, lost, and angry young men appeared first on The New Neo.

The Beach Boys were a family act that featured harmonies and had a fresh sound when they came on the scene:

Encapsulating the group’s import in “The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll,” critic Jim Miller wrote, “In the ’60s, when they were at the height of their original popularity, the Beach Boys propagated their own variant on the American Dream, painting a dazzling picture of beaches, parties and endless summer, a paradise of escape into private as often as shared pleasures. Yet by the late ’60s, the band was articulating…a disenchantment with the suburban ethos, and a search for transcendence.”

In other words, they went from early 60s music to late 60s music, much as the Beatles did only in their own special way, led mostly by Brian Wilson.

Wilson was a troubled guy and spent a lot of time dealing with that:

The product of a torturous relationship with his father, Wilson from the early ’60s on experienced a series of mental breakdowns (which led to his early withdrawal from live performances with the group), struggles with drug and alcohol abuse, thickets of litigation, and deepening acrimony with his bandmates, who included two brothers and a cousin. In 1982 he was officially fired by his own group.

However, Wilson fought off his demons and opened a bright second chapter in the late ’80s, cutting a string of solo albums and receiving renewed acclaim via live performances of his masterpieces “Pet Sounds” and “Smile.” On the 50th anniversary of the Beach Boys’ founding, he took to the road again with the band after a decades-long absence.

The Beach Boys were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Brian Wilson also gave the 1997 introduction for the induction into the same institution of another family group featuring harmonies and falsetto: the Bee Gees.

In trying to decide which Beach Boys song to feature here, I would think the obvious choice would be “Good Vibrations,” their later magnum opus. Or perhaps “God Only Knows,” a song whose lead vocalist was Brian’s brother Carl. For me, though, it’s the early-60s songs of the Beach Boys, full of optimism and fun, and a time when California was a dreamy place to be. My favorite of all was this one – “I Get Around.” This video has the song followed by two bonuses: a short interview, and then a performance of “When I Grow Up.” Note the outtro lyric to that second song: “won’t last forever.”:

Thanks for the music and the memories, Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

The post RIP Brian Wilson appeared first on The New Neo.