Hanania has a good track record on the direction of the GOP since 2016, so I take him seriously here.
But I do think this sounds "too online."
The median GOP primary voter is like 55-60 years old. They don't know what a Groyper is or who Fuentes is and would probably regard him as a snot-nosed punk if they did know. They think of Bannon as Sloppy Steve, a has-been.
If anyone derails Vance, it's far and away most likely to be Trump. Maybe he decides Vance just doesn't have "it" and he seeks out a better successor. Maybe he gets jealous about the limelight shifting and decides to sabotage Vance just to draw attention back to himself. Or maybe Vance finally decides he does need to break with Trump on some issue or another, whether out of conviction or to position himself better for the general election. Or maybe Trump really does have a scheme to run again.
Hanania really dislikes Vance and that bias leads him to take for granted that Vance is a useless, spineless toad, but people can always surprise you.
And to me, the idea that even a heavily favored candidate still shouldn't be favored much above 50% sounds pretty reasonable. The Republican Party is in a highly dynamic and unsettled state. Old rules like "the outgoing two-term President's VP always wins the nomination" are made to be broken in times such as these.
Yeah, seems like Hanania spends too much time on Twitter and thinks it’s representative of most Republican voters. Support for Israel has declined not because Nick Fuentes rants about it but because of the unpopularity of the current war in Gaza. The proof is that support for Israel has heavily declined among Democrats over the last few years, even though Fuentes has no influence on Democrats.
And no Republican in Congress would say that only white people can be American. The future of the GOP is already a multiracial one.
"The proof is that support for Israel has heavily declined among Democrats over the last few years, even though Fuentes has no influence on Democrats." - this is not a proof. The factors influencing Democrats do not necessarily have the same effect on Republicans.
Old people have phones too. I have a relative in his 60s who has transmogrified from a regular republican into a full blown qanon guy in the last 5 years who’s just always on twitter cackling at dumb right wing memes. There are fewer and fewer offline normies every day. It’s just too easy and too tempting to go on twitter when Fox has a commercial break, and before long they’re addicted.
I mean current offline normie republican thought largely recapitulates crazy online right wing thought from 10 years ago (and the normies of 10 years ago would think the normies of today are crazy). By whatever mechanism, it does seem empirically true that the online fringe is the vanguard of the movement and will shape what regular people think a few years down the road.
I agree that this is basically a stochastic process inasmuch as it impossible to predict what happens over the next three years. I think it's reasonable to place probability >.5 on Vance, but, particularly given the unpredictability of Trump so far, I feel like the extent to which people online have already made their minds up that Vance is the nominee in 28, and that Bannon is the challenger, is unreasonable. There's a difference between locking in on the Trump as the nominee bet in 24, since he was then the spearhead of the GOP. What happens in 28 is way less certain, and indexing on Twitter seems silly since 1) the reasons I would've predicted trump winning the nom in 24 have little to do with Twitter, and 2) I don't think it's clear that Twitter is determining the direction of the GOP base going forward as Richard does
Thing is, by the time the Groypers are in charge, subsequent events will have changed things to a degree none of us can imagine now. It's hard to see too far into the future.
Maybe Hanania is too online, but what is the GOP's raison d'etre in 2028 if not some form of Groyperism. The old three-legged stool is cracked. The Freedom Caucasus has no credibility. No one with any political power in the GOP is even pushing "Legal immigration, not illegal immigration" narrative anymore. There is a question of extremes here and whether or not you go that far, but even if you beat the Groypers you are still playing on their court.
I agree the three-legged stool is cracked. Conservatism has been searching for a positive vision since the Cold War ended.
But in practice, these are negative polarized times, and you can win elections by not being the other guys. The raison d'etre of the GOP is to own the libs. Or to beat them in elections. Trump won the election, in spite of net opinion on him averaging like -10 points for most of the last several years, by being not Kamala Harris. Sometimes, that's enough.
I don't think anyone is playing on the Groypers' court. They're playing on Trump's court. Didn't the Groypers go hostile on Trump at some point in the primaries? Did any measurable number of voters care?
I guess there's a proposed mechanism here where the Groypers influence Fox News, and Fox News influences the actual 60-year-olds that decide Republican primaries, but maybe I'm still not getting why Fox News has to listen to them. Zero people in the Groyper demographic are watching Fox News. Zero people watching Fox News want to hear from Fuentes or the Groypers.
Someone like the Groypers can matter in a general election where the popular vote is decided by 0-2 percentage points, because in a contest that close, everything matters, even 18-24 year old white men. But they don't matter nearly so much in the primaries.
I think the point is they can have a huge influence on the young Republicans in the party, the way Tumblr did on the Democrats. But the Republican party's much more top-down.
I like the Tumblr analogy. But doesn't this play out, in practice, among staff?
Tumblr had no discernible effect on the 2020 primaries, in the end. Biden was the least Tumblr candidate imaginable.
But his staff were all Tumblr'd up. Sometimes showing up in very viral and visible moments. E.g. Sam Brinton, or that kid with the long acrylic nails.
My guess is you could find a good bit of Groyper influence among junior staff in various parts of the Trump Admin. E.g. Stephen Miller's junior staff.
Though I also think that, due to both age and being an uninspiring, milquetoast, slightly pathetic figure, Biden had much looser control over his own admin, less awareness of what his own staff were up to and less respect from them, than the average President, so that Tumblr carried disproportionate weight.
I agree with you on all of those. I just think whoever follows Trump is going to have a much bigger effect on the GOP than Biden or even Obama had on the Democrats. The GOP's much more top-down--it even fits ideologically!
I always wonder what effect Stephen Miller is going to have on antisemitism on the right. Dude's been immigration restriction's MVP, kinda like Edward Blum on anti-affirmative action (along with Richard's book of course!)
I suppose I assume that antisemitism remains fringe. But who knows?
The secular cosmopolitan distinctly-Jewish leftist is demographically disappearing. I suspect the imminent disappearance of people like George Soros (age 95) will put a damper on antisemitism as an idea, even if in the year 2100 there is still some fringe calling attention to the fact that a hated contemporary leftist's great grandfather had a surname ending in -stein.
The proposed mechanism is more the GOP itself continuing to shift in a direction favorable to the groypers, and social media following suit, and causing an upset in popularity. The post isn't claiming it's particularly likely that Nick Fuentes himself will be a kingmaker for Bannon.
> Bannon on Polymarket is about 3%, which I think is about right, but I would give RFK an about equal shot.
If the Republican party becomes 100% (not just 80%) America's populist party - then even the left wing populists will end up pulling a Bernie-bro and joining them. This will result in a giant sucking sound as populists in the Democrat party get sucked out into the Republicans and remaining non-populist Republicans get sucked out into the Democrats. Within a few years, both parties will be realigned into populist Republicans and anti-populist Democrats.
With that move, Democrats will be able to fully embrace abundance, trade, immigration, and constitutional protections.
Sounds like an interesting world to me. There's at least a certain clean elegance to it.
There's almost no way this happens. The constituency on the left for less Wokeness and more socialism is tiny. Socialists are incredibly Woke. Bernie memorably stepped aside at his own event to let some angry black women spontaneously take the podium and yell for a while.
Also center-leftists are still sort of cowed by the far left and have a thing about almost never punching left. They respect the far left for its convictions too much -- perhaps seeing some of their younger selves in that passion -- to ever kick them out of the club. They will happily hand them more concessions than they're worth to the coalition. Which largely explains the Biden Administration.
"Socialists are incredibly Woke. Bernie memorably stepped aside at his own event to let some angry black women spontaneously take the podium and yell for a while."
I don't think this holds up. That incident was after (I think it was shortly after) another interesting incident when someone asked Bernie what he thought about Black Lives Matter, and he said "of course black lives matter; all lives matter", which brought condemnation from the leaders of BLM.
There's no question that there's overlap between socialism and wokeism on the left right now... but I'm not sure how durable that actually is. Wokeism and socialism don't have much to do with each other, and anything close to... "real" socialism is actually at odds with wokeism for very basic reasons.
"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well."
This is getting at something... kinda obvious: Socialism, particularly its true believers (like self-declared Marxists), put class before everything else... way way before everything else. To them, focus on race or gender identity is a distraction from the real issue.
I'll accept that correction about Bernie. I didn't realize he said that. I still have a sense that he, like other leftists, is generally cowed by Woke and not really prepared to push back if it comes for him directly.
My sense of young avowed socialists/Communists more broadly is they're very Tumblr, soy, agoraphobic, vegan, etc. Perhaps epitomized in that DSA meeting that went viral after one participant asked everyone to refrain from clapping or other loud noises, which could cause him sensory overload.
In theory, it makes perfect sense that socialist true believers would focus on class to the exclusion of race, but in practice socialists are flesh and blood beings from a particular time and place with particular psychological tendencies.
And in practice, there isn't much overlap between the sort of mind that is prepared to make statements like "a poor white man from West Virginia is less privileged than Obama's daughters" and the sort of mind that is inclined towards membership in the DSA in 2025.
This is a fantasy. You think Matt Bruenig and Sam Seder will become Republicans? Anti-market forces will be a powerful constituency in the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
If this were to happen, it wouldn't be good at all! Assuming both parties remain equally popular (which would be an improvement over the present situation for the Dems), it means the nationalist-socialist-alliance party wins half the elections. And governance is such that it's far easier to mess something up tremendously than to do something astonishingly great. Throwing a wrench at an engine is just far more likely to destroy it than to fix it.
The failure mode of having one Ideologically Perfect Party is that, in an era of polarization, the other party will be the party of evil and stupidity. And that's not good if they're both equally popular. It might be better if both parties have some correct and some incorrect position. One party being good on immigration, the other on trade, etc. Ideally, you'd have a consensus on the important things, and disagreement on the irrelevant stuff. But that doesn't seem plausible given what we have today.
Your argument: It's easier to break things than to make things - so a 50/50 share of control between a party of good and a party of bad would inevitably lead to a lot more bad.
This is a good point. Something I'll have to consider.
Metaphors borrowed from physics into politics are uninformative. There's so much talk about "momentum", but no reason to think the metaphor actually applies.
Hasn't GOP becoming 100% populist, dragging in all the democrat loons, pretty much already happened for all intents and purposes? Conservatives keep doubling down on Trump because they literally don't have any other ideas. No understanding political theory, no ideology, just whatever King Trump wants.
OTOH, democrats *cannot* become about abundance, trade, immigration, etc, because no one wants this.
I think the root issue is with our political intellectuals, who neither understand the subject of politics, nor support liberal values. They have misinformed the public to such a scale that no one will vote for an individualist, capitalist, abundance type of agenda.
We have a real lack of expertise in the field of politics which is driving all of our issues. This cannot be solved by elections.
Within a few years, both parties will be realigned into populist Republicans and anti-populist Democrats.
With that move, Democrats will be able to fully embrace abundance, trade, immigration, and constitutional protections.
???
Democrats minus whatever economics populists they've got now are literally just identitarians and the neocons who've drunk their own kool-aid about russia and want WWIII.
Why would the Bernie fans join the Republican party? They've steadily gotten policy concessions from Democrats since his last two runs, the Democratic mayor of America's largest city is going to be a socialist, Republicans have very little interest in their Medicare for all idea or foreign policy (the two most obvious differentiators they've used to leverage their influence among Democrats.)
The future of the Democrats is left-populism. This is in large part why Biden governed the way he did on both fiscal stimulus and border enforcement.
> But no one on the right who has a large voice cares that the federal government took a 10% stake in Intel.
Not entirely true. Ben Shapiro closed his podcast yesterday by panning the intel deal.
“Nationalization of American industries is a bad idea. I understand that the Trump administration is trying to do as much as it can from the executive branch of the government. They're doing it on crime.
They're doing it on immigration. On immigration, they have plenary power. On crime, not so much.
Doing it on the economy is not what the executive branch was designed to do. It is not. Congress should step in.
Congress is an independent branch of government. The president of the United States should not unilaterally be making tariff policy. That is not what the system was designed to do.
I don't like it happening, whether it is Democrat or Republican, and the grand centralization of nearly all power in the executive branch as a whole is a massive, massive institutional flaw in our republic right now. It also means that whenever we have a presidential election, it is tooth and nail because I guess if you grab the executive branch, then you basically run everything. And that is a huge systemic problem that the founders never would have tolerated.”
It’s really not true that “you basically run everything” if you hold the Presidency. Trump grabs headlines with his illegal tariff nonsense and ICE raids but the federal government is a vast ship that, even with a trifecta, can only be steered slightly and slowly. You see some evidence for this in the fact that DOGE couldn’t even keep federal spending flat despite stopping everything they possibly could (without regard for the law).
Trump has made that less true, though. Independent agencies are no longer a thing, for one.
Every day, I become more convinced that we should impose an IQ requirement in order to vote. Below 130? Sorry, but you don't get to control the fate of this country.
Take a look at the personal ads for Slate Star Codex readers and get back to me on whether those are the people we want deciding the fate of this country.
I don't think having an IQ requirement means the weirdest SSC readers are going to determine the fate of the country. It just means we'll have more epistemically grounded, better decision-makers in control. Some of them will be weird autists, but they'll be a minority.
They might not all be SSC readers, but the point still stands that a lot of high IQ people are still weird and aren't necessarily well adjusted just because they are intelligent
Poor, high IQ people are particularly poorly adjusted. All that social envy slopping around - compounded by social incompetence. That's why anything not based on actual tax returns will be destructive.
Property-related franchise is much easier to justify. After all, these are the people who pay most of the income tax. Second, property does correlate with IQ. Furthermore, poor people with high IQ are probably bad decision makers.
If it became a requirement to vote then a lot more people would suddenly get their salaries capped at 199k as the extra money would be a huge promotion to elevate them to an anointed tier of a tiny number of voters with political power. You could also expect a lot of very rich people to suddenly hire people at 200k during election years provided they vote the right way. Many small businesses owners would be incentivised to plow money into their own salaries instead of investing back into the business so they could gain political power.
Knowledge tests are in part IQ tests, and it's harder to fake an IQ test than others (like a personality test) because you need IQ to do it. Actually learning the answers to a civics test would result in voters being more knowledgeable.
Money flow has been faked (assuming it's just a demonstration of having money rather than handing over money to someone who won't give it back), though there laws against it.
I don’t know why Marjorie Taylor Greene is not spoken of more seriously as a plausible candidate. I think Candace Owens is a plausible contender as well. Both would be monstrous, but they seem like people who would play the anti-Vance anti-Israel card pretty effectively.
If they jump in and Bannon jumps in too that will dilute the effect and I think Vance would be even more likely to win. But I don’t think MTG or Owens can credibly attack Vance like Bannon can, there’s a gender thing here.
Richard, you've missed the wild card here -- the one candidate who could step in and bring these MAGA factions together -- the Trump card, if you will. I'm (obviously) talking about Don Jr.
Dad would be very proud -- and I wouldn't count on Junior to be good to the Jews.
Thinking about how Israel could plausibly go from 90% and 60% support among the two parties to 50% and 25% in the course of a decade… If I were a Jew anywhere in the world outside Israel, I would be growing increasingly frustrated with Israeli leadership.
Gaza deserved a good deal of devastation, but thismulti year campaign has worsened the lives of the Jewish diaspora by fomenting antisemitism and has permanently damaged Israel’s standing among the younger half of the US electorate. And there is no reason to believe there is a proportionate benefit to Israel itself. It is not literally going to wipe out Gaza’s population. It will still, after all of this, have a hornets nest on its hands, even if it indefinitely occupies the Strip.
I tend to assume Israel knows what it is doing. Time will tell.
I think Western foreign policy experts are the real culprits of this farce.
With all the intellectual rot among the abstract fields, like politics, I think the worst by far is what is going on in the field that deals with foreign policy (a branch of politics).
The Taliban, Russia, Hamas, Iran, etc, are all such weak and evil enemies, that either NATO, or Israel alone, should end their respective conflicts in a week.
Unfortunately, we no longer understand, nor take warfare seriously. The wackos in this field have basically run off all the actual experts, turning war into a caricature of peacetime police work. They have destroyed the West's moral clarity in foreign policy by mainstreaming disastrous ideas, ranging from "Just War Theory," to "war crimes."
As a result, the West doesn't conduct warfare anymore, even when facing existential military threats.
Genocidal aggressors are considered innocent victims, while the actual victims, acting in retaliation, are considered "genocidal aggressors." This results in NATO, Israel, etc, pulling their punches, when they should be destroying murderous enemies. This means wars never end, and aggressors keep escalating with new atrocities in the years that follow. They know the West will never respond appropriately.
It's Darwin-award-level stuff. I would not assume Israel knows what they are doing, as they are mired in all the same incompetent ideas about foreign policy as the rest of the West. NATO lost to the Taliban, and in twenty years of policing Gaza, instead of militarily crushing Hamas, Israel will lose too.
The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't bode well for Diaspora Jews.
The Likud ideology (now prevalent in Israel) doesn't give a shit about Diaspora Jews; it sees them as living in "Galut" (unholy exile), and thinks they all belong in Israel. In a sense, the larger ideology of political Zionism (and the need for a "Jewish State") rests on an underlying belief that outside of Israel, Jews are dependent on a "host country," and that therefore, Jews aren't safe anywhere else.
That ideology is directly antithetical to liberalism, which holds "self-determination" to be an INDIVIDUAL right (whereby the State offers every individual equal protection, regardless of ethnicity).
The most prominent exponent of Israeli-style ethno-nationalism is Yoram Hazony, and he's equally prominent and popular on the overall 'National Conservative" right -- along with Steve Bannon himself! These folks (volks?) don't consider multicultural liberal democracies to be legitimate nations at all; they consider them "empires." In a weird turn, ethno-nationalism is thereby a perverse outgrowth of anti-colonial discourse.
Ironically, the one thing that might change this situation (within Israel) might be if a flood of liberal American Jews is forced to flee there.
(With equal [and equally perverse] irony, this scenario would also allow Israel to grant full citizenship to Palestinians living in the Territories, by overcoming the so-called "demographic threat.")
Israelis will probably modify the law of return to halachic Jews married to halachic Jews. In such a case, the majority of US "Jews" wouldn't qualify for the right of return. Not Alex Soros after he married Huma Abedin, for example.
I'm no great fan of political Zionism (or ethno-nationalism), but I ain't really all that worried about Alex Soros. While repudiating Judaism, Alex and his dad have been milking their (apostate) "Jewish" identity for all the misplaced sympathy they can squeeze out of it. (They're about as Jewish as the Wicked Son at the Passover Seder.) With friends like these...
This doesn't apply to most Jewish Americans (regardless of who we marry) -- though we're likely to end up paying the price.
Your criticism of Israel is that it genocided Gaza too hard, and because of that people are turning against the Jews, which is bad because they weren’t able to completely genocide Gaza anyways
My point is that Israel does not seem positioned to permanently resolve its issue in Gaza. I was not stating the view that it would be morally righteous or even strategically appropriate to commit genocide.
“The West” does not really support Israel. The US does, but not to the extent that anti-Zionists think.
Israel could easily wipe out Gaza and the West Bank without US assistance. It does not. The worst atrocity of our time? Africans massacre each other all the time, no one cares.
You seem to be low human capital, so I’ll end my replies with this one.
Israel cannot exist without support form the West. If it weren't being defended by America they would've been wiped off the planet decades ago. Look at what happened with Iran.
I don't care about Africans killing each other. We are talking about our country being used as a tool to systematically genocide millions of people, including women and children, in the interest of a foreign nation which we helped create
Israel beat multiple Arab neighbors to win independence without US support (the Soviets did smuggle some weapons via Czechoslovakia). The US really became supportive after Israel won the Six Day War. Arab militaries are incompetent.
That's not exactly true. In 1947-48, the momentum for establishing Israeli state came from the Soviet leadership. The Stalin-Molotov-Gromyko axis. Not the US, not Britain. The Russian idea was to drive a wedge between Western Jews and Western leadership.
So it's become undeniable that we have a problem with Jewish power in America, and your immediate response to that is to evoke the sacred cow of American politics, the holocaust.
Fortunately, people who think like you (boomers) are dying, while younger Americans are becoming increasingly more critical of the Jews and Israel.
Yeah, I'm a boomer, but this goes back long before the Holocaust!
Have you ever been to a Passover seder?
"There arose Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, and he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them'.... And they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field..."
"In each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us," so "in every generation one is obligated to see oneself as if personally leaving Egypt.”
Are you claiming that all Jews must repudiate Judaism (and stop being Jews)? If not, what (finally) IS your "solution"?
Was the Pharaoh right? If I were Moses, I'd invite you to go for a swim!
PS: If the ethno-state of political Zionism is antithetical to liberal democracy, you've come up with something far worse -- a worldview that makes political Zionism seem necessary (as evidently the only way that Jews can secure their own survival).
Perhaps "Nude Africa Forum Moderator" is onto something, after all. You seem to be low human capital, so I’ll end my replies here.
The Likud ideology (now prevalent in Israel) doesn't give a shit about Diaspora Jews; it sees them as living in "Galut" (unholy exile), and thinks they all belong in Israel. In a sense, the larger ideology of political Zionism (and the need for a "Jewish State") rests on an underlying belief that outside of Israel, Jews are dependent on a "host country," and that therefore, Jews aren't safe anywhere else.
The most prominent exponent of Israeli-style ethno-nationalism is Yoram Hazony, and he's equally prominent on the 'National Conservtive" right -- along with Steve Bannon himself!
That ideology is directly antithetical to liberalism, which holds "self-determination" to be an INDIVIDUAL right (whereby the State provides every individual with equal protection, regardless of ethnicity).
The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't bode well for Diaspora Jews. Ironically, the one thing that might change this (within Israel) might be if a flood of liberal American Jews is forced to flee to Israel, bringing to bear a perspective -- equal and open pluralism, experienced as emancipation -- that could shift the Israeli political and ideological balance.
At the very same time, such an influx would nullify the so-called "demographic threat" -- allowing Israel to grant full citizenship to all inhabitants of the Territories, as Jews returning to their ancient homeland discover that true peace will require the wisdom of the world.
> We’ve seen this pattern with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr, etc.
The woke & gender-identitarians did not determine who won the Dem presidential primaries. Biden was perceived as the centrist candidate, having been Biden's VP. The bizarre thing is that after beating Elizabeth Warren overwhelmingly, he then proceeded to hire a lot of the people on her team, and named as his VP someone who performed even worse in the primary (though that was possibly with the intent of immunizing himself from being pressured into not running for re-election).
You're overestimating the influence of the Groypers on immigration. Normie conservatives who think the Groypers are both gay *and* retarded (if they're aware of them at all) have become equally uncompromising against immigration after watching the de facto open border for 4 years of the Biden administration.
No one knows how many illegal/undocumented immigrants that there are in the US. 11 million seemed to be a fixed guesstimate for decades. Bidens open borders regime admitted from 10 to 20 million people. Isit30m?40m?50m?60m? Whatever the true figure employment and welfare schemes means that they're part of " economic activity"and in an economy that has had so many trillions of dollars printed out of thin air in the last few years. Deportations/self deportations will probably fizzle out.
Trump's supreme court appointees effectively ended the whole abortion issue from inside the Republican party. I suspect that he would like to do something similar on the immigration subject too
Goitardian dystopia forevermore awaiting for the anti-civilizational anti-realists 🤥🙄🤔
Islamic deflectionism epitomized🤦🏼
how much Qatari Chinese Iranian cash is flowing to fund this fuckery forever more which only illustrates how greedy the goitards are selling out our country for shekels🤦🏻♂️
It occurred to me that an anti-red green intersectional alliance party would succeed 🤔
America was founded as one nation under God with no crucifixionist twisting of reality infused to toxify our legal system and that's how it must stay.
Peak European culture was The crusades win as many Catholics were killed as Muslims or the 100 and the 30-year wars between churches fuck off with that shit right back to goitardia.
Opus dei is Steve bannon's crucifixionist cult affiliation along with Donald and William Barr and the infamous spy Hansen who went to church every Sunday and confessed and the priest got guilty and told a higher up in the FED who was also opus who kept quiet, the church inevitably stabs everyone in the back as history shows, nearly 20 years it was known and how many supreme Court justices are associated with opus dei affiliations.
Donald wrote a dystopian sci-fi book about a futuristic Christendom and appointed Epstein to his facilitator position at the school and look how Bill fucked with Trump throughout.
Opus dei seeks to overthrow our government and install a dystopian Christendom plentiful interviews with victims of the cult along with authors of recent books are on YouTube and no one talks about them due to the Jew derangement syndrome infesting too much of Goi'tardery
Until the crucifixionists came after me in the comments sections I had no idea how many variations on jezeusian delusional mythology occur with most spouting they're not real Christians when they're not spouting at the Jews you're not real Jews
Goi'splaining & Goi'tardery epitomized 🐖💨💨💨
Hitler wanted to remove Jewish morality and when he did he got Dresden and Europe in ashes rebel and ruins it doesn't get any more illustrative than that yet you people never learn.
Now tranny crucifixionist trantifa islamo fascist shooters are the latest crusaders
Now that Qatar is a protectorate it's even more dire for civilization to unfuck this fuckery
Hanania has a good track record on the direction of the GOP since 2016, so I take him seriously here.
But I do think this sounds "too online."
The median GOP primary voter is like 55-60 years old. They don't know what a Groyper is or who Fuentes is and would probably regard him as a snot-nosed punk if they did know. They think of Bannon as Sloppy Steve, a has-been.
If anyone derails Vance, it's far and away most likely to be Trump. Maybe he decides Vance just doesn't have "it" and he seeks out a better successor. Maybe he gets jealous about the limelight shifting and decides to sabotage Vance just to draw attention back to himself. Or maybe Vance finally decides he does need to break with Trump on some issue or another, whether out of conviction or to position himself better for the general election. Or maybe Trump really does have a scheme to run again.
Hanania really dislikes Vance and that bias leads him to take for granted that Vance is a useless, spineless toad, but people can always surprise you.
And to me, the idea that even a heavily favored candidate still shouldn't be favored much above 50% sounds pretty reasonable. The Republican Party is in a highly dynamic and unsettled state. Old rules like "the outgoing two-term President's VP always wins the nomination" are made to be broken in times such as these.
Yeah, seems like Hanania spends too much time on Twitter and thinks it’s representative of most Republican voters. Support for Israel has declined not because Nick Fuentes rants about it but because of the unpopularity of the current war in Gaza. The proof is that support for Israel has heavily declined among Democrats over the last few years, even though Fuentes has no influence on Democrats.
And no Republican in Congress would say that only white people can be American. The future of the GOP is already a multiracial one.
Most voters being old is a reason to discount trends among young people (for now).
"The proof is that support for Israel has heavily declined among Democrats over the last few years, even though Fuentes has no influence on Democrats." - this is not a proof. The factors influencing Democrats do not necessarily have the same effect on Republicans.
Old people have phones too. I have a relative in his 60s who has transmogrified from a regular republican into a full blown qanon guy in the last 5 years who’s just always on twitter cackling at dumb right wing memes. There are fewer and fewer offline normies every day. It’s just too easy and too tempting to go on twitter when Fox has a commercial break, and before long they’re addicted.
I mean current offline normie republican thought largely recapitulates crazy online right wing thought from 10 years ago (and the normies of 10 years ago would think the normies of today are crazy). By whatever mechanism, it does seem empirically true that the online fringe is the vanguard of the movement and will shape what regular people think a few years down the road.
I agree that this is basically a stochastic process inasmuch as it impossible to predict what happens over the next three years. I think it's reasonable to place probability >.5 on Vance, but, particularly given the unpredictability of Trump so far, I feel like the extent to which people online have already made their minds up that Vance is the nominee in 28, and that Bannon is the challenger, is unreasonable. There's a difference between locking in on the Trump as the nominee bet in 24, since he was then the spearhead of the GOP. What happens in 28 is way less certain, and indexing on Twitter seems silly since 1) the reasons I would've predicted trump winning the nom in 24 have little to do with Twitter, and 2) I don't think it's clear that Twitter is determining the direction of the GOP base going forward as Richard does
Thing is, by the time the Groypers are in charge, subsequent events will have changed things to a degree none of us can imagine now. It's hard to see too far into the future.
The post didn't say it's awfully likely- it gives a ~6 % chance of either an RFK Jr. or a Bannon nomination.
> Bannon on Polymarket is about 3%, which I think is about right, but I would give RFK an about equal shot.
Maybe Hanania is too online, but what is the GOP's raison d'etre in 2028 if not some form of Groyperism. The old three-legged stool is cracked. The Freedom Caucasus has no credibility. No one with any political power in the GOP is even pushing "Legal immigration, not illegal immigration" narrative anymore. There is a question of extremes here and whether or not you go that far, but even if you beat the Groypers you are still playing on their court.
I agree the three-legged stool is cracked. Conservatism has been searching for a positive vision since the Cold War ended.
But in practice, these are negative polarized times, and you can win elections by not being the other guys. The raison d'etre of the GOP is to own the libs. Or to beat them in elections. Trump won the election, in spite of net opinion on him averaging like -10 points for most of the last several years, by being not Kamala Harris. Sometimes, that's enough.
I don't think anyone is playing on the Groypers' court. They're playing on Trump's court. Didn't the Groypers go hostile on Trump at some point in the primaries? Did any measurable number of voters care?
I guess there's a proposed mechanism here where the Groypers influence Fox News, and Fox News influences the actual 60-year-olds that decide Republican primaries, but maybe I'm still not getting why Fox News has to listen to them. Zero people in the Groyper demographic are watching Fox News. Zero people watching Fox News want to hear from Fuentes or the Groypers.
Someone like the Groypers can matter in a general election where the popular vote is decided by 0-2 percentage points, because in a contest that close, everything matters, even 18-24 year old white men. But they don't matter nearly so much in the primaries.
I think the point is they can have a huge influence on the young Republicans in the party, the way Tumblr did on the Democrats. But the Republican party's much more top-down.
I like the Tumblr analogy. But doesn't this play out, in practice, among staff?
Tumblr had no discernible effect on the 2020 primaries, in the end. Biden was the least Tumblr candidate imaginable.
But his staff were all Tumblr'd up. Sometimes showing up in very viral and visible moments. E.g. Sam Brinton, or that kid with the long acrylic nails.
My guess is you could find a good bit of Groyper influence among junior staff in various parts of the Trump Admin. E.g. Stephen Miller's junior staff.
Though I also think that, due to both age and being an uninspiring, milquetoast, slightly pathetic figure, Biden had much looser control over his own admin, less awareness of what his own staff were up to and less respect from them, than the average President, so that Tumblr carried disproportionate weight.
I agree with you on all of those. I just think whoever follows Trump is going to have a much bigger effect on the GOP than Biden or even Obama had on the Democrats. The GOP's much more top-down--it even fits ideologically!
I always wonder what effect Stephen Miller is going to have on antisemitism on the right. Dude's been immigration restriction's MVP, kinda like Edward Blum on anti-affirmative action (along with Richard's book of course!)
I suppose I assume that antisemitism remains fringe. But who knows?
The secular cosmopolitan distinctly-Jewish leftist is demographically disappearing. I suspect the imminent disappearance of people like George Soros (age 95) will put a damper on antisemitism as an idea, even if in the year 2100 there is still some fringe calling attention to the fact that a hated contemporary leftist's great grandfather had a surname ending in -stein.
The proposed mechanism is more the GOP itself continuing to shift in a direction favorable to the groypers, and social media following suit, and causing an upset in popularity. The post isn't claiming it's particularly likely that Nick Fuentes himself will be a kingmaker for Bannon.
> Bannon on Polymarket is about 3%, which I think is about right, but I would give RFK an about equal shot.
No raison d'etre is needed. The two-party system just persists indefinitely, now mostly based on negative partisanship.
This could very well be a good thing.
If the Republican party becomes 100% (not just 80%) America's populist party - then even the left wing populists will end up pulling a Bernie-bro and joining them. This will result in a giant sucking sound as populists in the Democrat party get sucked out into the Republicans and remaining non-populist Republicans get sucked out into the Democrats. Within a few years, both parties will be realigned into populist Republicans and anti-populist Democrats.
With that move, Democrats will be able to fully embrace abundance, trade, immigration, and constitutional protections.
Sounds like an interesting world to me. There's at least a certain clean elegance to it.
There's almost no way this happens. The constituency on the left for less Wokeness and more socialism is tiny. Socialists are incredibly Woke. Bernie memorably stepped aside at his own event to let some angry black women spontaneously take the podium and yell for a while.
Also center-leftists are still sort of cowed by the far left and have a thing about almost never punching left. They respect the far left for its convictions too much -- perhaps seeing some of their younger selves in that passion -- to ever kick them out of the club. They will happily hand them more concessions than they're worth to the coalition. Which largely explains the Biden Administration.
"Socialists are incredibly Woke. Bernie memorably stepped aside at his own event to let some angry black women spontaneously take the podium and yell for a while."
I don't think this holds up. That incident was after (I think it was shortly after) another interesting incident when someone asked Bernie what he thought about Black Lives Matter, and he said "of course black lives matter; all lives matter", which brought condemnation from the leaders of BLM.
There's no question that there's overlap between socialism and wokeism on the left right now... but I'm not sure how durable that actually is. Wokeism and socialism don't have much to do with each other, and anything close to... "real" socialism is actually at odds with wokeism for very basic reasons.
For example, Sanders' statement after the 2024 loss (https://vermontbiz.com/news/2024/november/11/bernie-sanders-statement-results-2024-presidential-election):
"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well."
This isn't woke messaging, and you won't find anything that is clearly woke messaging in there. Further, Sanders has gone out of his way to actually critique "identity politics" since the 2024 election: https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/22/bernie-sanders-podcast-identity-politics/
This is getting at something... kinda obvious: Socialism, particularly its true believers (like self-declared Marxists), put class before everything else... way way before everything else. To them, focus on race or gender identity is a distraction from the real issue.
I'll accept that correction about Bernie. I didn't realize he said that. I still have a sense that he, like other leftists, is generally cowed by Woke and not really prepared to push back if it comes for him directly.
My sense of young avowed socialists/Communists more broadly is they're very Tumblr, soy, agoraphobic, vegan, etc. Perhaps epitomized in that DSA meeting that went viral after one participant asked everyone to refrain from clapping or other loud noises, which could cause him sensory overload.
In theory, it makes perfect sense that socialist true believers would focus on class to the exclusion of race, but in practice socialists are flesh and blood beings from a particular time and place with particular psychological tendencies.
And in practice, there isn't much overlap between the sort of mind that is prepared to make statements like "a poor white man from West Virginia is less privileged than Obama's daughters" and the sort of mind that is inclined towards membership in the DSA in 2025.
This is a fantasy. You think Matt Bruenig and Sam Seder will become Republicans? Anti-market forces will be a powerful constituency in the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.
You're probably right, but on the other hand, I never thought all those granola woo-woo alternative medicine hippies like RFK Jr would go MAGA.
COVID-19 more or less solidified the alt. medicine cult as firmly right-wing. They've been moving rightwards since the early 2010s.
If this were to happen, it wouldn't be good at all! Assuming both parties remain equally popular (which would be an improvement over the present situation for the Dems), it means the nationalist-socialist-alliance party wins half the elections. And governance is such that it's far easier to mess something up tremendously than to do something astonishingly great. Throwing a wrench at an engine is just far more likely to destroy it than to fix it.
The failure mode of having one Ideologically Perfect Party is that, in an era of polarization, the other party will be the party of evil and stupidity. And that's not good if they're both equally popular. It might be better if both parties have some correct and some incorrect position. One party being good on immigration, the other on trade, etc. Ideally, you'd have a consensus on the important things, and disagreement on the irrelevant stuff. But that doesn't seem plausible given what we have today.
Your argument: It's easier to break things than to make things - so a 50/50 share of control between a party of good and a party of bad would inevitably lead to a lot more bad.
This is a good point. Something I'll have to consider.
Nah, the energy in the Democratic Party is clearly with the AOC-Mamdani wing, not the Ezra Klein subscribers.
Metaphors borrowed from physics into politics are uninformative. There's so much talk about "momentum", but no reason to think the metaphor actually applies.
Hasn't GOP becoming 100% populist, dragging in all the democrat loons, pretty much already happened for all intents and purposes? Conservatives keep doubling down on Trump because they literally don't have any other ideas. No understanding political theory, no ideology, just whatever King Trump wants.
OTOH, democrats *cannot* become about abundance, trade, immigration, etc, because no one wants this.
I think the root issue is with our political intellectuals, who neither understand the subject of politics, nor support liberal values. They have misinformed the public to such a scale that no one will vote for an individualist, capitalist, abundance type of agenda.
We have a real lack of expertise in the field of politics which is driving all of our issues. This cannot be solved by elections.
Within a few years, both parties will be realigned into populist Republicans and anti-populist Democrats.
With that move, Democrats will be able to fully embrace abundance, trade, immigration, and constitutional protections.
???
Democrats minus whatever economics populists they've got now are literally just identitarians and the neocons who've drunk their own kool-aid about russia and want WWIII.
Why would the Bernie fans join the Republican party? They've steadily gotten policy concessions from Democrats since his last two runs, the Democratic mayor of America's largest city is going to be a socialist, Republicans have very little interest in their Medicare for all idea or foreign policy (the two most obvious differentiators they've used to leverage their influence among Democrats.)
The future of the Democrats is left-populism. This is in large part why Biden governed the way he did on both fiscal stimulus and border enforcement.
> But no one on the right who has a large voice cares that the federal government took a 10% stake in Intel.
Not entirely true. Ben Shapiro closed his podcast yesterday by panning the intel deal.
“Nationalization of American industries is a bad idea. I understand that the Trump administration is trying to do as much as it can from the executive branch of the government. They're doing it on crime.
They're doing it on immigration. On immigration, they have plenary power. On crime, not so much.
Doing it on the economy is not what the executive branch was designed to do. It is not. Congress should step in.
Congress is an independent branch of government. The president of the United States should not unilaterally be making tariff policy. That is not what the system was designed to do.
I don't like it happening, whether it is Democrat or Republican, and the grand centralization of nearly all power in the executive branch as a whole is a massive, massive institutional flaw in our republic right now. It also means that whenever we have a presidential election, it is tooth and nail because I guess if you grab the executive branch, then you basically run everything. And that is a huge systemic problem that the founders never would have tolerated.”
It’s really not true that “you basically run everything” if you hold the Presidency. Trump grabs headlines with his illegal tariff nonsense and ICE raids but the federal government is a vast ship that, even with a trifecta, can only be steered slightly and slowly. You see some evidence for this in the fact that DOGE couldn’t even keep federal spending flat despite stopping everything they possibly could (without regard for the law).
Trump has made that less true, though. Independent agencies are no longer a thing, for one.
Not true yet, but heading in the wrong direction
Every day, I become more convinced that we should impose an IQ requirement in order to vote. Below 130? Sorry, but you don't get to control the fate of this country.
Take a look at the personal ads for Slate Star Codex readers and get back to me on whether those are the people we want deciding the fate of this country.
I don't think having an IQ requirement means the weirdest SSC readers are going to determine the fate of the country. It just means we'll have more epistemically grounded, better decision-makers in control. Some of them will be weird autists, but they'll be a minority.
They might not all be SSC readers, but the point still stands that a lot of high IQ people are still weird and aren't necessarily well adjusted just because they are intelligent
Still better than what we have now, which is no requirement at all.
Poor, high IQ people are particularly poorly adjusted. All that social envy slopping around - compounded by social incompetence. That's why anything not based on actual tax returns will be destructive.
Property-related franchise is much easier to justify. After all, these are the people who pay most of the income tax. Second, property does correlate with IQ. Furthermore, poor people with high IQ are probably bad decision makers.
Rather than a binary, I favor weighting votes by score on a civic knowledge test.
Too easy to fake by learning the answers. Civic knowledge test costs you almost nothing. Having to earn upward of 200k is more difficult.
If it became a requirement to vote then a lot more people would suddenly get their salaries capped at 199k as the extra money would be a huge promotion to elevate them to an anointed tier of a tiny number of voters with political power. You could also expect a lot of very rich people to suddenly hire people at 200k during election years provided they vote the right way. Many small businesses owners would be incentivised to plow money into their own salaries instead of investing back into the business so they could gain political power.
Knowledge tests are in part IQ tests, and it's harder to fake an IQ test than others (like a personality test) because you need IQ to do it. Actually learning the answers to a civics test would result in voters being more knowledgeable.
Money flow is impossible to fake. Much more reliable than IQ tests.
Money flow has been faked (assuming it's just a demonstration of having money rather than handing over money to someone who won't give it back), though there laws against it.
Handing over tons of money to goverment in form of taxes is impossible to fake.
I don’t know why Marjorie Taylor Greene is not spoken of more seriously as a plausible candidate. I think Candace Owens is a plausible contender as well. Both would be monstrous, but they seem like people who would play the anti-Vance anti-Israel card pretty effectively.
If they jump in and Bannon jumps in too that will dilute the effect and I think Vance would be even more likely to win. But I don’t think MTG or Owens can credibly attack Vance like Bannon can, there’s a gender thing here.
Richard, you've missed the wild card here -- the one candidate who could step in and bring these MAGA factions together -- the Trump card, if you will. I'm (obviously) talking about Don Jr.
Dad would be very proud -- and I wouldn't count on Junior to be good to the Jews.
Thinking about how Israel could plausibly go from 90% and 60% support among the two parties to 50% and 25% in the course of a decade… If I were a Jew anywhere in the world outside Israel, I would be growing increasingly frustrated with Israeli leadership.
Gaza deserved a good deal of devastation, but thismulti year campaign has worsened the lives of the Jewish diaspora by fomenting antisemitism and has permanently damaged Israel’s standing among the younger half of the US electorate. And there is no reason to believe there is a proportionate benefit to Israel itself. It is not literally going to wipe out Gaza’s population. It will still, after all of this, have a hornets nest on its hands, even if it indefinitely occupies the Strip.
I tend to assume Israel knows what it is doing. Time will tell.
I think Western foreign policy experts are the real culprits of this farce.
With all the intellectual rot among the abstract fields, like politics, I think the worst by far is what is going on in the field that deals with foreign policy (a branch of politics).
The Taliban, Russia, Hamas, Iran, etc, are all such weak and evil enemies, that either NATO, or Israel alone, should end their respective conflicts in a week.
Unfortunately, we no longer understand, nor take warfare seriously. The wackos in this field have basically run off all the actual experts, turning war into a caricature of peacetime police work. They have destroyed the West's moral clarity in foreign policy by mainstreaming disastrous ideas, ranging from "Just War Theory," to "war crimes."
As a result, the West doesn't conduct warfare anymore, even when facing existential military threats.
Genocidal aggressors are considered innocent victims, while the actual victims, acting in retaliation, are considered "genocidal aggressors." This results in NATO, Israel, etc, pulling their punches, when they should be destroying murderous enemies. This means wars never end, and aggressors keep escalating with new atrocities in the years that follow. They know the West will never respond appropriately.
It's Darwin-award-level stuff. I would not assume Israel knows what they are doing, as they are mired in all the same incompetent ideas about foreign policy as the rest of the West. NATO lost to the Taliban, and in twenty years of policing Gaza, instead of militarily crushing Hamas, Israel will lose too.
The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't bode well for Diaspora Jews.
The Likud ideology (now prevalent in Israel) doesn't give a shit about Diaspora Jews; it sees them as living in "Galut" (unholy exile), and thinks they all belong in Israel. In a sense, the larger ideology of political Zionism (and the need for a "Jewish State") rests on an underlying belief that outside of Israel, Jews are dependent on a "host country," and that therefore, Jews aren't safe anywhere else.
That ideology is directly antithetical to liberalism, which holds "self-determination" to be an INDIVIDUAL right (whereby the State offers every individual equal protection, regardless of ethnicity).
The most prominent exponent of Israeli-style ethno-nationalism is Yoram Hazony, and he's equally prominent and popular on the overall 'National Conservative" right -- along with Steve Bannon himself! These folks (volks?) don't consider multicultural liberal democracies to be legitimate nations at all; they consider them "empires." In a weird turn, ethno-nationalism is thereby a perverse outgrowth of anti-colonial discourse.
Ironically, the one thing that might change this situation (within Israel) might be if a flood of liberal American Jews is forced to flee there.
(With equal [and equally perverse] irony, this scenario would also allow Israel to grant full citizenship to Palestinians living in the Territories, by overcoming the so-called "demographic threat.")
Israelis will probably modify the law of return to halachic Jews married to halachic Jews. In such a case, the majority of US "Jews" wouldn't qualify for the right of return. Not Alex Soros after he married Huma Abedin, for example.
I'm no great fan of political Zionism (or ethno-nationalism), but I ain't really all that worried about Alex Soros. While repudiating Judaism, Alex and his dad have been milking their (apostate) "Jewish" identity for all the misplaced sympathy they can squeeze out of it. (They're about as Jewish as the Wicked Son at the Passover Seder.) With friends like these...
This doesn't apply to most Jewish Americans (regardless of who we marry) -- though we're likely to end up paying the price.
Your criticism of Israel is that it genocided Gaza too hard, and because of that people are turning against the Jews, which is bad because they weren’t able to completely genocide Gaza anyways
My point is that Israel does not seem positioned to permanently resolve its issue in Gaza. I was not stating the view that it would be morally righteous or even strategically appropriate to commit genocide.
Israel can only commit this genocide with Western support
The West supports Israel because of Jewish overrepresentation in our most important institutions
In other words, the Jewish diaspora is using their influence in Western nations to facilitate the worst atrocity of our time
Why wouldn’t this foment more anti semitism? This is clearly a Jewish problem
“The West” does not really support Israel. The US does, but not to the extent that anti-Zionists think.
Israel could easily wipe out Gaza and the West Bank without US assistance. It does not. The worst atrocity of our time? Africans massacre each other all the time, no one cares.
You seem to be low human capital, so I’ll end my replies with this one.
Israel cannot exist without support form the West. If it weren't being defended by America they would've been wiped off the planet decades ago. Look at what happened with Iran.
I don't care about Africans killing each other. We are talking about our country being used as a tool to systematically genocide millions of people, including women and children, in the interest of a foreign nation which we helped create
Israel beat multiple Arab neighbors to win independence without US support (the Soviets did smuggle some weapons via Czechoslovakia). The US really became supportive after Israel won the Six Day War. Arab militaries are incompetent.
That's not exactly true. In 1947-48, the momentum for establishing Israeli state came from the Soviet leadership. The Stalin-Molotov-Gromyko axis. Not the US, not Britain. The Russian idea was to drive a wedge between Western Jews and Western leadership.
And what's your "Solution" to the "Jewish Problem"?
So it's become undeniable that we have a problem with Jewish power in America, and your immediate response to that is to evoke the sacred cow of American politics, the holocaust.
Fortunately, people who think like you (boomers) are dying, while younger Americans are becoming increasingly more critical of the Jews and Israel.
It's not undeniable. I deny it. I think we have problems with our elites, but that applies to both Jews & gentiles.
Yeah, I'm a boomer, but this goes back long before the Holocaust!
Have you ever been to a Passover seder?
"There arose Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, and he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them'.... And they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field..."
"In each and every generation they rise up against us to destroy us," so "in every generation one is obligated to see oneself as if personally leaving Egypt.”
Are you claiming that all Jews must repudiate Judaism (and stop being Jews)? If not, what (finally) IS your "solution"?
Was the Pharaoh right? If I were Moses, I'd invite you to go for a swim!
PS: If the ethno-state of political Zionism is antithetical to liberal democracy, you've come up with something far worse -- a worldview that makes political Zionism seem necessary (as evidently the only way that Jews can secure their own survival).
Perhaps "Nude Africa Forum Moderator" is onto something, after all. You seem to be low human capital, so I’ll end my replies here.
Isn’t Newsom the Groyper candidate? xD
Hanania misses the most likely outcome of the schism he envisions -- the coronation of MAGA's unstoppable "compromise" candidate -- Donald Trump, Jr.!
The Likud ideology (now prevalent in Israel) doesn't give a shit about Diaspora Jews; it sees them as living in "Galut" (unholy exile), and thinks they all belong in Israel. In a sense, the larger ideology of political Zionism (and the need for a "Jewish State") rests on an underlying belief that outside of Israel, Jews are dependent on a "host country," and that therefore, Jews aren't safe anywhere else.
The most prominent exponent of Israeli-style ethno-nationalism is Yoram Hazony, and he's equally prominent on the 'National Conservtive" right -- along with Steve Bannon himself!
That ideology is directly antithetical to liberalism, which holds "self-determination" to be an INDIVIDUAL right (whereby the State provides every individual with equal protection, regardless of ethnicity).
The Israelis know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't bode well for Diaspora Jews. Ironically, the one thing that might change this (within Israel) might be if a flood of liberal American Jews is forced to flee to Israel, bringing to bear a perspective -- equal and open pluralism, experienced as emancipation -- that could shift the Israeli political and ideological balance.
At the very same time, such an influx would nullify the so-called "demographic threat" -- allowing Israel to grant full citizenship to all inhabitants of the Territories, as Jews returning to their ancient homeland discover that true peace will require the wisdom of the world.
You forgot Walter Mondale. Easy to do, I know, but he won his party’s nomination. And managed to lose 49 states.
At first, I thought of Mondale, too -- but Carter hadn't been a two-term President. :-)
> We’ve seen this pattern with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr, etc.
The woke & gender-identitarians did not determine who won the Dem presidential primaries. Biden was perceived as the centrist candidate, having been Biden's VP. The bizarre thing is that after beating Elizabeth Warren overwhelmingly, he then proceeded to hire a lot of the people on her team, and named as his VP someone who performed even worse in the primary (though that was possibly with the intent of immunizing himself from being pressured into not running for re-election).
My question would be, what might happen if Trump dies before the end of his term? He's pretty old and doesn't exactly live the healthiest lifestyle.
You're overestimating the influence of the Groypers on immigration. Normie conservatives who think the Groypers are both gay *and* retarded (if they're aware of them at all) have become equally uncompromising against immigration after watching the de facto open border for 4 years of the Biden administration.
No one knows how many illegal/undocumented immigrants that there are in the US. 11 million seemed to be a fixed guesstimate for decades. Bidens open borders regime admitted from 10 to 20 million people. Isit30m?40m?50m?60m? Whatever the true figure employment and welfare schemes means that they're part of " economic activity"and in an economy that has had so many trillions of dollars printed out of thin air in the last few years. Deportations/self deportations will probably fizzle out.
Trump's supreme court appointees effectively ended the whole abortion issue from inside the Republican party. I suspect that he would like to do something similar on the immigration subject too
Stephen Miller for president
They are
Goitards🐖💨💨
Go back to goitardia😵💫
Goitardian dystopia forevermore awaiting for the anti-civilizational anti-realists 🤥🙄🤔
Islamic deflectionism epitomized🤦🏼
how much Qatari Chinese Iranian cash is flowing to fund this fuckery forever more which only illustrates how greedy the goitards are selling out our country for shekels🤦🏻♂️
It occurred to me that an anti-red green intersectional alliance party would succeed 🤔
America was founded as one nation under God with no crucifixionist twisting of reality infused to toxify our legal system and that's how it must stay.
Peak European culture was The crusades win as many Catholics were killed as Muslims or the 100 and the 30-year wars between churches fuck off with that shit right back to goitardia.
Opus dei is Steve bannon's crucifixionist cult affiliation along with Donald and William Barr and the infamous spy Hansen who went to church every Sunday and confessed and the priest got guilty and told a higher up in the FED who was also opus who kept quiet, the church inevitably stabs everyone in the back as history shows, nearly 20 years it was known and how many supreme Court justices are associated with opus dei affiliations.
Donald wrote a dystopian sci-fi book about a futuristic Christendom and appointed Epstein to his facilitator position at the school and look how Bill fucked with Trump throughout.
Opus dei seeks to overthrow our government and install a dystopian Christendom plentiful interviews with victims of the cult along with authors of recent books are on YouTube and no one talks about them due to the Jew derangement syndrome infesting too much of Goi'tardery
Until the crucifixionists came after me in the comments sections I had no idea how many variations on jezeusian delusional mythology occur with most spouting they're not real Christians when they're not spouting at the Jews you're not real Jews
Goi'splaining & Goi'tardery epitomized 🐖💨💨💨
Hitler wanted to remove Jewish morality and when he did he got Dresden and Europe in ashes rebel and ruins it doesn't get any more illustrative than that yet you people never learn.
Now tranny crucifixionist trantifa islamo fascist shooters are the latest crusaders
Now that Qatar is a protectorate it's even more dire for civilization to unfuck this fuckery