Does Right Wing Populism Exist? / Isn't Right Wing Populism Just Fascism?

[Chou Toshio]

So this is a conversation that was sparked by Current Affairs Writer Nathan Robinson's Article: "Isn't Right Wing Populism Just Fascism?"
Specifically prompted by the existence of The Hill's Youtube Show, "Rising"
Glen Greenwald did a great 1 hour show here where he interviews both Nathan and progressive Rising Host Krystal Ball:

*This is written in an American context, but please feel free to expand the conversation to the populist right strains globally.

Recently it's a topic that's been debated on the Left's media: Should the populist left work with the populist right?
For more "populist"-inclined, or "open debate"-inclined lefties like Krystal the answer is: "Where they agree with us, we should work with them" (Generally issues of trade, worker protections, infrastructure, war-ending)
For Nathan, the response is posed as a question: "Does the populist right even exist???" (in his view: no it doesn't!)

Now this might seem like talking past each other, and it is to a degree-- but it is a salient point.
How can you work with a supposedly pro-worker / anti-interventionist / anti-immigrant right, if the pro-worker/anti-interventionist positions are just smoke and illusion with no real people actually committed to supposedly right-wing worker causes like re-shoring supply chains, re-building national infrastructure, and launching jobs/salary insurance programs?

Does right wing populism exist at all as a political movement?
How is it any different from the corporate conservative mainstream?
Concretely, what are the policies that we would work on?

The assumption being that there is a "Populist Right" that is "left" to some degree on economics/foreign policy, "Right" on immigration and social issues. One proposition was that the Trump campaign itself was representative of what populist right-ism would be, but it's completely muddled by the fact that Trump has governed completely against the economic, trade, and foreign policy popular postures he made to the base during his campaign.

Kyle Kulinski, another popular left Youtuber called the populist right, "The broad majority of voters that agree with us on a living wage, healthcare for all, ending the wars, but might be pro-life and anti-immigration." which probably represents a great number of normal voters in America.

On one hand, it's something that can't be ignored because that does describe a LOT of normal voters in America, and because Tucker Carlson is the #1 rated host on the #1 rated network.

On the other hand, "is it something that exists?" is a legit question because a lot of normal voters sympathetic to that kind of politics does not equate to a moving, good-faith movement that has genuine and well-thought out ideological positions, and readily steps up to work on the issues is supposedly represents. Josh Holly or Mike Lee working with Khanna or Bernie on War or Jobs here or there does not equal a "movement", and a Trump Presidency that ends up totally corporate also is not a "movement."

So getting back to the OP Question:
Does right populism exist?
If it exists is it just fascism?
If it's not, who leads it, what's the best "good-faith" version of it, and what are the actual policy priorities it shares with the left that it's actually willing to fight for?

Do you believe that the messaging of the Trump 2016 campaign was an actual thing, or is reality only the reality of the actual Trump Presidency?
Do you agree with Tucker Carlson on his good moments (platforming Glen Greenwald, Cornel West, etc.), or do you see it for hogwash that is, just there to trick normal people into voting for the corrupt GOP and become more sympathetic to white nationalism?

Regardless of the reality of the populist right, the normal people who voted for Trump and right wing nationalists globally are real-- so the left has to figure out how to engage with the people and deal with this thing overall.

 

[Dece1t]

Since I would consider myself on the right, I'll bite sure.

Does right populism exist?
If it exists is it just fascism?
If it's not, who leads it, what's the best "good-faith" version of it, and what are the actual policy priorities it shares with the left that it's actually willing to fight for?

Right-wing populism does exist, and it was essentially the entirety of Trump's 2016 campaign. He did appeal to ordinary people to form a movement, much like Bernie Sanders ironically. This is especially tangible, in my opinion, with the fact that he is very much a political outcast. There are certainly pros and cons to that fact, but that is reality and that is why many Americans voted for him over Clinton in 2016. Clinton represented the deep state, and many people were not comfortable with that fact. She has been blatantly dishonest and disingenuous during her campaign and even in her role as Secretary of State (and frankly her entire life in politics). I believe people were turned off by the email scandal, her attitude towards the Monica Lewinsky scandal among numerous other examples of blatant corruption throughout her career.

To say this exists, however, is not fascism once so ever. There's some major ideological fallacy when drawing parallels to the two. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, while Trump has been a big-government conservative compared to other Republican presidents, he has by no means centralized it to the extremes that fascism did in early-mid 1900s Europe. He has not forcibly suppressed opposition either--if anything, I would argue given the Durham probe currently in progress and the recent major holes found within both the Ukrainian and Russian collusion narratives, there has been a deliberate attempt to suppress Trump instead. The Steele dossier (the document used as the catalyst behind giving the greenlight to spy on his political campaign) has been proven to be deceitful as of late, and even in the Mueller Report itself, it found that Trump did not collude. Populism and Fascism can co-exist within political figures, however it is dishonest to equate them as one within the other. They are not.

I'm gonna be honest and say that I genuinely do not understand what you mean by "who leads it?" If I was to take that literal, I would say Trump has given he was the one that brought populism to the Republican party through his campaign, because by no means were Republicans populist, at least as of the 21st century. I'm equally lost by the next part of the question, "what's the best 'good faith' version of it," not to say that I love populism (the opposite is true to be frank), but ideally I would want the president to watch what the hell he says on twitter and when he isn't on teleprompter lmao. Because his brashness hurts him hard, especially with suburban voters. The last question you pose is a little clearer that I think I can give an answer to. I believe both the right and the left agree on the base line of equality of opportunity. We agree that every American deserves the same opportunities available as anyone else, regardless of skin color, SES, gender (again, whether you'd like to believe that or not, but as someone on the right I have seen Republicans stand strongly for that). For instance: access to a strong education, the ability to (no matter where you come from financially) to make something of yourself by working hard within the economy through a free and competitive market, and a complete acknowledgement of constitutional rights for the government to adhere to (so i.e. standing against slavery, the key issue the Republican party's inception was upon, and widely supporting the civil rights act of 1964 against those who ignored the notion that "all men are created equal"). Where the left and "populist" right generally diverge is when it comes to outcome. From a right prospective, that is impossible to achieve without significant bulldozing of certain liberties and without significant control from a centralized government, which in my opinion is absolutely dangerous. When this has been attempted in other nations throughout history, it has left them in shambles and most citizens in poverty. I would refer to communist Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, among others. That is why I firmly believe in the process of Capitalism, because it has statistically proven to have lifted the most people out of poverty and has given the most equal opportunity for social mobility.

 

[Shrug]

who cares whether it does or doesnt, doesnt change actual politics one jot, just gives idiot grifters like krystal ball reflexive contrarians like glenn greenwald and perpetual college fancy lads like nathan robinson something to debate about interminably in an effort to tread water in the money pool at the country club for america's ideology obscurers

 

[Chou Toshio]

Since I would consider myself on the right, I'll bite sure.


Right-wing populism does exist, and it was essentially the entirety of Trump's 2016 campaign. He did appeal to ordinary people to form a movement, much like Bernie Sanders ironically. This is especially tangible, in my opinion, with the fact that he is very much a political outcast. There are certainly pros and cons to that fact, but that is reality and that is why many Americans voted for him over Clinton in 2016. Clinton represented the deep state, and many people were not comfortable with that fact. She has been blatantly dishonest and disingenuous during her campaign and even in her role as Secretary of State (and frankly her entire life in politics). I believe people were turned off by the email scandal, her attitude towards the Monica Lewinsky scandal among numerous other examples of blatant corruption throughout her career.

To say this exists, however, is not fascism once so ever. There's some major ideological fallacy when drawing parallels to the two. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, while Trump has been a big-government conservative compared to other Republican presidents, he has by no means centralized it to the extremes that fascism did in early-mid 1900s Europe. He has not forcibly suppressed opposition either--if anything, I would argue given the Durham probe currently in progress and the recent major holes found within both the Ukrainian and Russian collusion narratives, there has been a deliberate attempt to suppress Trump instead. The Steele dossier (the document used as the catalyst behind giving the greenlight to spy on his political campaign) has been proven to be deceitful as of late, and even in the Mueller Report itself, it found that Trump did not collude. Populism and Fascism can co-exist within political figures, however it is dishonest to equate them as one within the other. They are not.

I'm gonna be honest and say that I genuinely do not understand what you mean by "who leads it?" If I was to take that literal, I would say Trump has given he was the one that brought populism to the Republican party through his campaign, because by no means were Republicans populist, at least as of the 21st century. I'm equally lost by the next part of the question, "what's the best 'good faith' version of it," not to say that I love populism (the opposite is true to be frank), but ideally I would want the president to watch what the hell he says on twitter and when he isn't on teleprompter lmao. Because his brashness hurts him hard, especially with suburban voters. The last question you pose is a little clearer that I think I can give an answer to. I believe both the right and the left agree on the base line of equality of opportunity. We agree that every American deserves the same opportunities available as anyone else, regardless of skin color, SES, gender (again, whether you'd like to believe that or not, but as someone on the right I have seen Republicans stand strongly for that). For instance: access to a strong education, the ability to (no matter where you come from financially) to make something of yourself by working hard within the economy through a free and competitive market, and a complete acknowledgement of constitutional rights for the government to adhere to (so i.e. standing against slavery, the key issue the Republican party's inception was upon, and widely supporting the civil rights act of 1964 against those who ignored the notion that "all men are created equal"). Where the left and "populist" right generally diverge is when it comes to outcome. From a right prospective, that is impossible to achieve without significant bulldozing of certain liberties and without significant control from a centralized government, which in my opinion is absolutely dangerous. When this has been attempted in other nations throughout history, it has left them in shambles and most citizens in poverty. I would refer to communist Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, among others. That is why I firmly believe in the process of Capitalism, because it has statistically proven to have lifted the most people out of poverty and has given the most equal opportunity for social mobility.

Knocking this out of the way: I don't think Trump is a Fascist, and I do think a right wing populism could exist that isn't Fascist. I also think he has faced real opposition from the establishment and that Russia Gate was totally cooked up.
I ask about "What's the best version" because I do think a respectable version could exist-- you know, a politics genuinely anchored around "government that prioritizes the specific citizens of this country." My wife just the other day was talking to me about a voting for a candidate for Tokyo Governor who wants universal corona testing, universal guaranteed daycare, and covering the remaining 30% of healthcare not covered at the national level, but also wants to eliminate access to all city-run safety nets for Chinese/Koreans living in Tokyo.

I think the issue is that it's difficult to see the ideological core of Right Wing populism, and figure out how to engage on principles. I also think "leader" is a difficult word-- and it's not really the leaders that matter; but "ideological anchor."

When it comes to dividing "the left" and "Democratic Leadership," it's much easier to do because the left is inherently connected to Socialism. Call it Social Democracy, Socialism, Communism-- there are differences, but point is if you believe in a politics of democratizing power and have a critical vision of capitalism and the Democratic Party, you're a leftist and are drawing from a pretty well-defined ideological base. The right populism is much less clear on where its ideology differs from the GOP mainstream, and what its policy demands are. At least in the areas where it might overlap with the left.

Like Tucker Carlson has once said that he believes the GOP should again be the party of Teddy Roosevelt. If he and Steve Bannon were leading a full throated, branded, and easily visible movement that called for:
-Re-shore Supply Chains by threatening to cut off government contracts and raise taxes on American corporations that didn't comply
-Enforce our Anti-Trust Laws and break up Google, Amazon, Facebook
-End US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
-Fight for new Union protections

It would be easier to say, "Oh yeah, those are things we should work on together." I think the above positions are things that many right wingers might agree on, but the messaging around it is never as clear or easy to see ideological commitment on. It feels like smoke and mirrors the same way a given Tucker monologue feels like a tap dance.

who cares whether it does or doesnt, doesnt change actual politics one jot, just gives idiot grifters like krystal ball reflexive contrarians like glenn greenwald and perpetual college fancy lads like nathan robinson something to debate about interminably in an effort to tread water in the money pool at the country club for america's ideology obscurers

"The whole conversation is meaningless and not the way politics works." There is a LOT of truth in that.

But I want to think and want to pretend that diologue, whether in the left between divides like Nathan-Krystal, or between left and right-- I want to think that willingness to engage in dialogue could make for meaningful change.

Like-- how do we get it to be that instead of having "open country" culture warriors and statue destroyers hating each other, how do you instead get to one angry right and left yellow vest populace that demonstrates in France's streets for an entire year?


I think the over-arching project of Rising, which "Get people MAD at those in power instead of at each other," is a very good one.

 

[Celever]

I don't think populism has existed for a while and is more often used to describe demagoguery than its actual definition. I'm firmly of the belief that the entire world is either in a mediacracy or a theocracy, and in both circumstances this means that voters' stances and priorities are commandeered by elite establishments anyway. What exceptions there are of genuine grass roots movements are severed by the vocal minority of elites warping perception of the majority to make the movement unsuccessful. Where grass roots activism succeeds, it's with the assistance of media (namely the internet's breakdown of the information hierarchy) or religion (think liberation theology) which, while certainly great to happen sometimes, demonstrates the iron grip that media and religion have over politics at least for the foreseeable future.

And this grip affects the left and right wings. On the left wing hand you have President Duterte, who has effectively legalised murder in The Philippines, receiving next to no scrutiny or outrage from Europe or America because the media doesn't cover him, so people forget about his atrocities. On the other hand, you have the NRA still somehow refuting all attempts of gun control in America. In Poland you have a far-right leader making homosexuality illegal again in the name of Christianity, or the press gangs in India killing civilians in the name of Hindu nationalism. Populism is mutually exclusive with elitism, and so as long as elite institutions control public opinion, populist movements are untenable.

With that said, right wing populism can certainly exist on a theoretical level. If a population is predominantly right wing, then its government passing right wing legislation is populist. And in the more common use of populism at this point, meaning perceptibly anti-elitist demagoguery changing the views of the general population to support something the politicians wanted in the first place, there's no need to look any further than Brexit to demonstrate that right-wing "populism" can and does succeed. As for whether left-wing populists and right-wing populists should work together? That would just make both factions media pockets and stunt progress, so no.

 

[Machoke]

I don't think populism has existed for a while and is more often used to describe demagoguery than its actual definition. I'm firmly of the belief that the entire world is either in a mediacracy or a theocracy, and in both circumstances this means that voters' stances and priorities are commandeered by elite establishments anyway. What exceptions there are of genuine grass roots movements are severed by the vocal minority of elites warping perception of the majority to make the movement unsuccessful. Where grass roots activism succeeds, it's with the assistance of media (namely the internet's breakdown of the information hierarchy) or religion (think liberation theology) which, while certainly great to happen sometimes, demonstrates the iron grip that media and religion have over politics at least for the foreseeable future.

And this grip affects the left and right wings. On the left wing hand you have President Duterte, who has effectively legalised murder in The Philippines, receiving next to no scrutiny or outrage from Europe or America because the media doesn't cover him, so people forget about his atrocities. On the other hand, you have the NRA still somehow refuting all attempts of gun control in America. In Poland you have a far-right leader making homosexuality illegal again in the name of Christianity, or the press gangs in India killing civilians in the name of Hindu nationalism. Populism is mutually exclusive with elitism, and so as long as elite institutions control public opinion, populist movements are untenable.

With that said, right wing populism can certainly exist on a theoretical level. If a population is predominantly right wing, then its government passing right wing legislation is populist. And in the more common use of populism at this point, meaning perceptibly anti-elitist demagoguery changing the views of the general population to support something the politicians wanted in the first place, there's no need to look any further than Brexit to demonstrate that right-wing "populism" can and does succeed. As for whether left-wing populists and right-wing populists should work together? That would just make both factions media pockets and stunt progress, so no.

On what grounds is Duterte considered to be left wing?

 

[Celever]

On what grounds is Duterte considered to be left wing?

Duterte is certainly right wing, I meant that the left doesn’t scrutinise him as much as other leaders he’s worse than because it’s not injected into the public conscience by the media in the same way.

 

[shesukmedry]

Let me get this straight: Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show in the history of television, with viewers that resemble 2016 Trump supporters (who are not the same as 2020 Trump supporters). Many of these people are from states that voted Obama twice before going Trump, places where corporations have pulled out and left a local economy that consists of collecting disability checks and buying lottery tickets and opiods to see if you can get lucky before your slow pharma industry patented suicide finally plays out. These people are largely white, but not entirely, and the poor whites in Anytown, USA have more in common with poor blacks in Michigan or poor Hispanics in Florida than they do with anyone Nathan Robinson has ever interacted with.
And, having acknowledged that these people exist, that they greatly resemble the median American, that they are the ones who were receptive to what Trump was selling in 2016 and what Carlson is saying today, your take (as someone who lives in an essentially monoparty ethnostate 7,000 miles away but who posts about American politics on a pokemon forum) is that these people are all lying. This is all a ruse, a conspiracy so they can conduct crypto-facism out in the open using a series of dog whistles that you (and the media grifters that called Romney a Literal Nazi) luckily managed to pick up on from the smoke and mirrors.
Did I get that right?

 

[Machoke]

Duterte is certainly right wing, I meant that the left doesn’t scrutinise him as much as other leaders he’s worse than because it’s not injected into the public conscience by the media in the same way.

Ah ok I misunderstood when I read thanks for the clarification

 

[vonFiedler]

Let me get this straight: Tucker Carlson has the highest rated show in the history of television, with viewers that resemble 2016 Trump supporters (who are not the same as 2020 Trump supporters). Many of these people are from states that voted Obama twice before going Trump, places where corporations have pulled out and left a local economy that consists of collecting disability checks and buying lottery tickets and opiods to see if you can get lucky before your slow pharma industry patented suicide finally plays out. These people are largely white, but not entirely, and the poor whites in Anytown, USA have more in common with poor blacks in Michigan or poor Hispanics in Florida than they do with anyone Nathan Robinson has ever interacted with.
And, having acknowledged that these people exist, that they greatly resemble the median American, that they are the ones who were receptive to what Trump was selling in 2016 and what Carlson is saying today, your take (as someone who lives in an essentially monoparty ethnostate 7,000 miles away but who posts about American politics on a pokemon forum) is that these people are all lying. This is all a ruse, a conspiracy so they can conduct crypto-facism out in the open using a series of dog whistles that you (and the media grifters that called Romney a Literal Nazi) luckily managed to pick up on from the smoke and mirrors.
Did I get that right?

No, those people are either too uneducated to notice Trump's fascist leanings or too apathetic to care. The liars are the "2020 supporters" as you name them who say things like "Tucker Carlson is the highest rated show in the history of television" (cable news show) or "the republican party widely supported the civil rights act of 1964" (when the primary demographic of the republican party Nixon founded was southerners who were against the act).

Doublespeak is well documented in history, literature, and academics. Smogon has now seen exactly what goes on behind closed when bad faith actors aren't playing pretend. The jig is up.

 

[vonFiedler]

Funny you should mention Tucker Carlson

Is he and his writers secretly egregiously racist and sexist?

Turns out at least his top writer was. What a shocker!

Any Tucker Carlson writers posting on smogon?

 

[Stratos]

u really got hung up on that post for six hours

 

[vonFiedler]

u really got hung up on that post for six hours

Just thought about it when I saw the news.

 

[Dece1t]

No, those people are either too uneducated to notice Trump's fascist leanings or too apathetic to care. The liars are the "2020 supporters" as you name them who say things like "Tucker Carlson is the highest rated show in the history of television" (cable news show) or "the republican party widely supported the civil rights act of 1964" (when the primary demographic of the republican party Nixon founded was southerners who were against the act).

Doublespeak is well documented in history, literature, and academics. Smogon has now seen exactly what goes on behind closed when bad faith actors aren't playing pretend. The jig is up.

Two things, old friend.

1. Are Trump supporters morons or are they genuinely smart enough to pick on on these "dog whistles?" (without anyone naming what they are exactly, funny only the leftist have heard them lmfao)

2. The Southern Strategy has been debunked over and over again, you are beating a dead horse. It is also very true that yes, Republicans supported the Civil Rights act on a much larger basis than the Democratic Party during that time (by roughly an 80% to 60% support margin). I have every right to cite that fact because it is true.

 

[vonFiedler]

Two things, old friend.

1. Are Trump supporters morons or are they genuinely smart enough to pick on on these "dog whistles?" (without anyone naming what they are exactly, funny only the leftist have heard them lmfao)

2. The Southern Strategy has been debunked over and over again, you are beating a dead horse. It is also very true that yes, Republicans supported the Civil Rights act on a much larger basis than the Democratic Party during that time (by roughly an 80% to 60% support margin). I have every right to cite that fact because it is true.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nixon-adviser-ehrlichman-anti-left-anti-black-war-on-drugs-2019-7
You have no right to knowingly spread misinformation, especially when the only people it can benefit are white nationalists. You aren't going to back up this claim and if pressed you'll link some white supremacist website, as you have before. Everyone hears the dog whistles, you only acknowledge them behind closed doors (except they haven't been that closed recently). Sit down.

 

[Myzozoa]

republicans supported the civil rights act so much they filibustered it not once but twice

 

[Dece1t]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nixon-adviser-ehrlichman-anti-left-anti-black-war-on-drugs-2019-7
You have no right to knowingly spread misinformation, especially when the only people it can benefit are white nationalists. You aren't going to back up this claim and if pressed you'll link some white supremacist website, as you have before. Everyone hears the dog whistles, you only acknowledge them behind closed doors (except they haven't been that closed recently). Sit down.

I'm the one spreading misinformation? Once again, says the one that literally misdefined "dog whistles" just now. That's the point of them--not everyone hears them, only a selective audience. As for the southern strategy, I stand by that point. A B C Do me a favor and instead of sharing conspiracy videos, sit down and please read. Here's 3 different sources I have used before, one of which delves even deeper into the party switch myth. Please by all means have at it.

republicans supported the civil rights act so much they filibustered it not once but twice

You mean the Dems? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...te-filibuster-record-75-days-1964/3228935001/ 21 Democrats opposed, only 6 Republicans followed suit (one of which was Barry Goldwater, which if you read article C of the above reply, he opposed it for federal government interventionism reasons/impeding on individual states rights, extremely little to do with equality and anti-discrimination). So, source? And even if, Dems fillibustered the bill until the very end of it, and as the fact check states it, for roughly 75 days. You tell me which one is more telling.

 

[vonFiedler]

I'm the one spreading misinformation? Once again, says the one that literally misdefined "dog whistles" just now. That's the point of them--not everyone hears them, only a selective audience. As for the southern strategy, I stand by that point. A B C Do me a favor and instead of sharing conspiracy videos, sit down and please read. Here's 3 different sources I have used before, one of which delves even deeper into the party switch myth. Please by all means have at it.

Lee Atwater, Nixon's political strategist, the words right out of his mouth, is a conspiracy video?
D'Souza is more reliable than him?
You're lying. You're rejecting facts that don't suit you and replacing them with thinkpieces by like-minded liars.

Even the article you linked for Myzo betrays you "The majority of Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were from Southern states; some Democrats in non-Southern states did support the bill." Before 1964 the southern states were Democrats and opposed the civil rights act.

In 1964...

Oh wow gasp, what happened?

What does lying get you? What does it get anyone?

 

[shesukmedry]

Funny you should mention Tucker Carlson

Is he and his writers secretly egregiously racist and sexist?

Turns out at least his top writer was. What a shocker!

Any Tucker Carlson writers posting on smogon?

funny that YOU should mention this, because while I don't watch Tucker or even have cable, I do read autoadmit. I wasn't particularly surprised to hear that Tucker had a racist autoadmit poster writer (though most racists on AA are self-hating Asians, as expected for a forum on college admissions), but I was surprised to hear it was Neff/CharlesXII, who mostly posted about literature and history (real literature and history, not 11th grade English required reading or secondhand history from a Japanese' man's pornographic power fantasy). (By the way, I'm kinda shocked Charles XII isn't portrayed in Fate yet. I think the famously celibate king would make an excellent sluttly loli given the series' devotion to historical accuracy).

I cheked the evidence the CNN reporter had that Neff was racist and wasn't too impressed. In review:

Just this week, the writer, Blake Neff, responded to a thread started by another user in 2018 with the subject line, "Would u let a JET BLACK congo n****er do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off?" Neff wrote, "I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no." (The subject line was not censored on the forum.)

So he replied to a racist post? With a milquetoast joke about asian opthamologists and unreliable eye surgery? This transparently misleading guilt by association is what CNN chose to lead with, the smoking bullet that Tucker Carlson (= 2 degrees of separation from an anonymous forum user who said "JET BLACK congo n****er") harbors secret racist ideals. Is anyone who replies to my post here, which contains (albeit censored) "JET BLACK congo n****er" also a racist? I guess only the esteemed reporters at CNN can tell.

On June 5, Neff wrote, "Black doods staying inside playing Call of Duty is probably one of the biggest factors keeping crime down." On June 24, Neff commented, "Honestly given how tired black people always claim to be, maybe the real crisis is their lack of sleep."

these are 'racist' and unfunny, but ultimately pretty harmless and below even the low standards for what gets random people pulled into the spotlight by national media these days. Still, I won't defend these, don't imagine Neff would, and know Tucker disavowed them on his show.

On June 26, Neff wrote that the only people who care about changing the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins are "white libs and their university-'educated' pets."

This is almost unequivocably true. Native Americans don't care about the name and never have. NFL viewship is rapidly dwindling, so this false grievance is becoming even less of a problem.

And over the course of five years, Neff has maintained a lengthy thread in which he has derided a woman and posted information about her dating life that has invited other users to mock her and invade her privacy.

First off, Neff never posted the woman's name or linked her public account where she was posting this information, and scrubbed identifying info from everything he shared even after others figured out who she was. And how is this malicious or even unusual in 2020, when huge amounts of internet culture are nothing more than sharing someone else's stupid social media posts to make fun of? Claims that she was harassed by Neff or other posters are untrue and unsubstantiated, they just mocked her in the thread. And she is absolutely worthy of mockery. Her social media presence was just conspicuous consumption as a backdrop to her Dartmouth class ring, and she frequently posted about juding people by their college credentials and only dating Ivy League men. That's exactly the kind of snobbish elite arrogance that would piss me of if I were a member of a mythical "populist right wing". But please, feel free to inform me if you feel anything in the thread is undue misogynistic harassment to an extent that this isn't.

In total, Tucker Carlson has employed a man who made two unfunny racial jokes and replied to a racist thread, otherwise participating in pretty standard internet behavior. There's enough here to barely condemn Neff's character, but any sippenhaft based connection to Carlson is pretty tenuous.

 

[vonFiedler]

In total, Tucker Carlson has employed a man who made two unfunny racial jokes and replied to a racist thread, otherwise participating in pretty standard internet behavior. There's enough here to barely condemn Neff's character, but any sippenhaft based connection to Carlson is pretty tenuous.

Guess Fox news saw it differently, having "resigned" the guy. Now, according to Neff himself, he was the final draft writer on everything Carlson said. So if the question is whether or not the content of the show was written by a racist, the answer is seemingly yes. Of course, Carlson has also called Arabs uncivilized monkeys, and acted much the way you are now when people tried to take him to task for it. But the populist shows and campaigns just can't be run by racists, because no matter how many times these people express racist views you'll argue "it's not racism" 100 times out of 100.

 

[Myzozoa]

I'm the one spreading misinformation? Once again, says the one that literally misdefined "dog whistles" just now. That's the point of them--not everyone hears them, only a selective audience. As for the southern strategy, I stand by that point. A B C Do me a favor and instead of sharing conspiracy videos, sit down and please read. Here's 3 different sources I have used before, one of which delves even deeper into the party switch myth. Please by all means have at it.


You mean the Dems? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...te-filibuster-record-75-days-1964/3228935001/ 21 Democrats opposed, only 6 Republicans followed suit (one of which was Barry Goldwater, which if you read article C of the above reply, he opposed it for federal government interventionism reasons/impeding on individual states rights, extremely little to do with equality and anti-discrimination). So, source? And even if, Dems fillibustered the bill until the very end of it, and as the fact check states it, for roughly 75 days. You tell me which one is more telling.

do you realize the southern dems changed parties cause of the civil rights act lol, first they were dems cause the liberal republican Lincoln ending slavery and then following civil rights act of 1964 they switched parties. good try at mindnumbing nonsense tho.

 

[gvmgvm40]

1. Are Trump supporters morons or are they genuinely smart enough to pick on on these "dog whistles?" (without anyone naming what they are exactly, funny only the leftist have heard them lmfao)

21 Democrats opposed, only 6 Republicans followed suit (one of which was Barry Goldwater, which if you read article C of the above reply, he opposed it for federal government interventionism reasons/impeding on individual states rights, extremely little to do with equality and anti-discrimination).

Hmm, I wonder what the dogwhistle here might be. I wonder if there were other laws that were also opposed on "states rights" grounds and totally nothing to do with equality and anti-discrimination at all, pinky swear

 

[Dece1t]

do you realize the southern dems changed parties cause of the civil rights act lol, first they were dems cause the liberal republican Lincoln ending slavery and then following civil rights act of 1964 they switched parties. good try at mindnumbing nonsense tho.

Only one switched due to the Civil Rights Act, that's blatantly false. Strom Thurmond.

Lee Atwater, Nixon's political strategist, the words right out of his mouth, is a conspiracy video?
D'Souza is more reliable than him?
You're lying. You're rejecting facts that don't suit you and replacing them with thinkpieces by like-minded liars.

Even the article you linked for Myzo betrays you "The majority of Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were from Southern states; some Democrats in non-Southern states did support the bill." Before 1964 the southern states were Democrats and opposed the civil rights act.

In 1964...

Oh wow gasp, what happened?

What does lying get you? What does it get anyone?

Funny, I thought the Southern Strategy was Nixon's campaign. Is someone confusing history now too? Also, you are right, it was mostly southern Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act, and its also that same group that were responsible for the inception of Jim Crowe laws in the first place. Quit lying to yourself :I

 

[Dece1t]

Hmm, I wonder what the dogwhistle here might be. I wonder if there were other laws that were also opposed on "states rights" grounds and totally nothing to do with equality and anti-discrimination at all, pinky swear

Goldwater supported a previous version of the bill in 1957 and the 24th Amendment. If we're gonna be this dishonest don't make it obvious.

 

[Stratos]

funny that YOU should mention this, because while I don't watch Tucker or even have cable, I do read autoadmit. I wasn't particularly surprised to hear that Tucker had a racist autoadmit poster writer (though most racists on AA are self-hating Asians, as expected for a forum on college admissions), but I was surprised to hear it was Neff/CharlesXII, who mostly posted about literature and history (real literature and history, not 11th grade English required reading or secondhand history from a Japanese' man's pornographic power fantasy). (By the way, I'm kinda shocked Charles XII isn't portrayed in Fate yet. I think the famously celibate king would make an excellent sluttly loli given the series' devotion to historical accuracy).

I cheked the evidence the CNN reporter had that Neff was racist and wasn't too impressed. In review:


So he replied to a racist post? With a milquetoast joke about asian opthamologists and unreliable eye surgery? This transparently misleading guilt by association is what CNN chose to lead with, the smoking bullet that Tucker Carlson (= 2 degrees of separation from an anonymous forum user who said "JET BLACK congo n****er") harbors secret racist ideals. Is anyone who replies to my post here, which contains (albeit censored) "JET BLACK congo n****er" also a racist? I guess only the esteemed reporters at CNN can tell.


these are 'racist' and unfunny, but ultimately pretty harmless and below even the low standards for what gets random people pulled into the spotlight by national media these days. Still, I won't defend these, don't imagine Neff would, and know Tucker disavowed them on his show.


This is almost unequivocably true. Native Americans don't care about the name and never have. NFL viewship is rapidly dwindling, so this false grievance is becoming even less of a problem.


First off, Neff never posted the woman's name or linked her public account where she was posting this information, and scrubbed identifying info from everything he shared even after others figured out who she was. And how is this malicious or even unusual in 2020, when huge amounts of internet culture are nothing more than sharing someone else's stupid social media posts to make fun of? Claims that she was harassed by Neff or other posters are untrue and unsubstantiated, they just mocked her in the thread. And she is absolutely worthy of mockery. Her social media presence was just conspicuous consumption as a backdrop to her Dartmouth class ring, and she frequently posted about juding people by their college credentials and only dating Ivy League men. That's exactly the kind of snobbish elite arrogance that would piss me of if I were a member of a mythical "populist right wing". But please, feel free to inform me if you feel anything in the thread is undue misogynistic harassment to an extent that this isn't.

In total, Tucker Carlson has employed a man who made two unfunny racial jokes and replied to a racist thread, otherwise participating in pretty standard internet behavior. There's enough here to barely condemn Neff's character, but any sippenhaft based connection to Carlson is pretty tenuous.

Holy shit lol. I also don't have cable and haven't watched Tucker Carlson outside of random clips I've seen on the internet, but if his main writer was the supplier for that autoadmit thread it's no surprise that everything I've seen is a diatribe against the upper classes. Seeing that lady post once a week about rejecting some CEO slash male model because his watch cost less than 10 grand is a far more effective radicalization tool than anything written by Marx or Engels