"We Must Stop Fighting, We Cannot Divide the Right*"
* "Except for Tucker Carlson Who Is Allowed to Continue #Cancelling All Jewish Republicans He Doesn't Like"
David Strom has a good piece: How can the Tucker Apologists claim that we mustn't attack Tucker Carlson for his, erm, evolution, while his entire show consists of relentlessly attacking Republicans himself?
Is it just
some Republicans -- and anti-Republican, anti-MAGA Nazis -- who are afforded this Identitarian Privilege?
Is it, or should it be true that in order to win, we should follow the principle that there are "no enemies to the right?"
On its face, the principle makes sense. After all, elections are won by adding together enough voters and voting blocs to get a plurality of the vote. Unless you have more voters than the other side(s), you lose. So if you see a group of voters who might be persuaded to vote along with you, it makes sense to either appeal to them or, at the very least, not criticize them.
This is the essence of some conservatives' arguments that the critiques of Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts are counterproductive. Some would toss Candace Owens into the mix, but fewer because she now just seems kooky to people.
At least I hope so.
There are a number of problems I see with this seemingly plausible argument, morally, intellectually, and electorally, where the rubber meets the road.
First, let's get this out of the way: Nick Fuentes is not a conservative, nor is he somebody who could (at least reliably) be included in the Republican coalition even if we wanted him to be. He is a racist, authoritarian, antisemitic bottom feeder who says he is on "Team Hitler," admires Josef Stalin, attacks JD Vance for marrying his wife, and who literally campaigned against Donald Trump in the last election.
He's not only a scumbag, but he spends a lot of time trying to kick people OUT OF the Republican coalition because they don't fit his model for what America should look like.
Anybody who says "no enemies on the right has to explain why this is not a declaration of enmity TO the right:
"No enemies on the right?" Nick Fuentes is not on the right, and he has declared himself to be an ENEMY of the right. Anybody who defends him as a potential ally is an idiot or disingenuous.
A lot more clips at the article. I've spent the whole day retweeting clips of Nick Fuentes:
1, telling people to vote for Kamala Harris
2, jubilantly gloating that "MAGA" lost Tuesday's election
3, proclaiming that he will destroy MAGA
And this is the person that Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Matt Walsh tell us we must not "cancel" because he's "on our side" and we have no enemies to the right?
Even though he declares himself to be the right's enemy every chance he gets?

Are you quite sure you're advancing the Republican Party?
Because it sure seems like you are advancing the Nazi Party, at the direct expense of the Republican Party.
But whatever, Tucker Carlson is a "friend" to these people (which I imagine for most of them means that Tucker has DM'd them to plant his chosen stories, like my Best Friend Jake Tapper did with me, and they feel they must pledge their eternal liege-ship to this lord because he's Appeared on Television and anyone who's Appeared on Television is a high-ranking Nobleman).
I wrote about Megyn Kelly, Matt Walsh, and various other numbskulls and shills for Nazis claiming that to exclude Nazis from our party would be a "cancellation" and gee fellas, we don't cancel people, do we?
Why yes.
Yes we do. In politics -- you bet we cancel. In fact, "cancellation" is the primary tactical objective in politics.
Let me explain.
The Reaping Phase
@AceofSpadesHQ
A thread: "Cancellation" versus "Just normal politics"
A few years back, when people started really getting animated about cancelling cancel culture, people began suggesting that pumping out dirt about a political opponent during a campaign might be like "cancellation."
After all, a political campaign consists of digging up past statements and actions of a person to try to get them fired -- or at least not hired -- for a job. In this case, the job of being an elected official.
And so people began to wonder: "Wait, if I just dredge up derogatory information about a politician to try to get him 'fired' -- or turned out of office -- isn't that like a cancellation?"
The answer is, and always was: Yes, that is exactly like a cancellation.
But here's the thing: That's how politics works. It's how it's always worked.
The problem is not in "cancelling" politicians -- it's in waging political campaigns against private citizens.
In other words: Politics is dirty and what makes it dirty and seedy is exactly this nasty practice of digging dirt on someone who is usually a perfect stranger to try to keep them from assuming an office. It feels nasty. Because it is nasty.
But there's no other way to do it.
The problem came after Obama's Ascension when people, mostly on the left but sometimes on the right, began using the nasty tactics of political campaigns against private citizens holding private, not public, jobs.
Suddenly we didn't just have public votes about who would be mayor or governor or an elected judge.
No, suddenly we were having public plebiscites, usually on Twitter, about whether someone could continue in his job as an ARCHITECT at a private firm.
We weren't just combing through political candidates' twitter feeds to find statements that revealed their true intentions and true political beliefs.
Added on edit:
And we do this to judge their
real agenda. Politicians lie, and we cannot compel them to take lie-detector test, so we comb through past statements to check if their current claims track with their prior ones.
Back to original post:
Now we were combing through private citizens' old statements to get them fired from their jobs as a truck driver.
Politics itself always has and always will involve this "cancellation" tactic.
The sin was in turning every single aspect of normal civilian life into a political campaign, where people were forced to issue political statements to appease a mob to remain employed as a doctor.
We must allow the dirty practice of dredging up old statements and ruthlessly interrogating people's characters and beliefs when "hiring" them for -- electing them to -- political office.
We must NOT allow this practice when determining if a plumber can remain a plumber.
Turning to Tucker Carlson: Tucker Carlson and his defenders are now claiming that it's similarly a "cancellation" when some people attempt to reduce someone's political influence or exclude him from a political movement.
WRONG. Just like with "canceling" a politician seeking office, politics ALWAYS consists of elevating political leaders, including thought leaders, you agree with and marginalizing or denigrating those you don't agree with.
Tucker Carlson can hardly dispute this, as he is currently waging nonstop political campaigns to reduce the influence of Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and anyone else he deems insufficiently anti-Israel.
It cannot possibly be the "rule" that Tucker Carlson can wage endless political war -- filled with nasty insinuations and questions about "dual loyalty" -- against his enemies but the rest of us are all required to bow to Tucker or else we "cancel" him.
Indeed, no one in the MAGA movement can possibly object to reducing people's influence or excluding them from positions of influence in a political movement because, of course, well did that together in displacing and ejecting the neocons and NeverTrumpers.
And there is and was NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Politics consist of forming alliances and coalitions and, critically, excluding those from your coalition who do not agree with you or who would harm your coalition.
This is the most basic, fundamental aspect of the right of free association. When I form my political coalition, I have to define what it is, and more importantly, what it is NOT.
No one in MAGA would welcome in a bunch of Zohran Mamdani communists. We would suspect that they intended to subvert our movement and turn it into something antithetical to our beliefs (and we'd be right).
We do not have to "unite with communists."
There is nothing wrong with this. We MUST do it. If we just allow left-wing Democrats and actual communists (and jihadists) to "join MAGA," well, that's the end of MAGA. We would admit a large block of people who want to change MAGA into an Islamist-Communist movement.
So now comes Tucker Carlson demanding we change MAGA -- and remember, the top dog of MAGA is vociferously pro-Israel -- and that we have to admit some extremely unsavory, Nazi-leaning (at least) antisemites into the party.
And when we say "No," he says: You're cancelling us.
Is that cancellation? Is it also "cancellation" if I say that AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and Elizabeth Warren also must not be permitted to be influencers and leaders in MAGA?
What is the difference, apart from some people really really liking Carlson's antisemitic turn?
Tucker's guest and apparent ally Nick Fuentes told us "Grow up, Hitler was cool, just admit it."
Well let me say to the Tucker/Fuentes supporters: "Grow up, stop claiming we're not allowed to do politics in actual politics."
Tucker wants to change MAGA. I like it as it is.
All of these are arguments are self-serving and cynical, just attempting to privilege one political position -- the anti-Israel and usually antisemitic one -- as beyond contestation and argument and political opposition.
If Tucker Carlson can continue endlessly attempting to eject -- to "cancel" -- Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, and Ben Shapiro from his 'Face It, Hitler was Cool" movement, then we are allowed to similarly eject, to "cancel," him.
Period.
Grow up.
End of Twitter thread.
Seriously -- I'm supposed to "unite" with this guy, who constantly attacks the right and threatens to destroy the right in future elections?
And if I tell this malignant faggot of a Hitler-loving Twink to fuck off -- I'm "dividing the right?"
Fuck you!
I am no fan of Lindsey Graham, but how can Tucker's "friends" and sycophants tell me I can't push Tucker out of the party, when Tucker spends every day nominating Republicans for cancellation?
I agree that some of these people
should be cancelled -- but how can Tucker and his Army of Cucks then tell me I shouldn't dare cancel Tucker because that would be like being a soyboy beta cuck SJW?
Their other move is claiming that "Tucker and Nick Fuentes are just criticizing Israel, are you saying we can't criticize Israel?"
When is Israel mentioned in the below clip?
Here, Fuentes calls for the "death penalty" for any
American Jews who hold any position of power in American politics or culture.
Again, no "criticism of Israel" -- just a demand that Jews be
purged from American society, by means of executions.
Batya Ungar-Sargon
@bungarsargon
Just lmao at the logic: Because the Left falsely smeared the Right as Nazis, therefore actual Nazis must be embraced by the Right.
There's this self-serving mass delusion in the content creator Right that cancel culture was bad because Nazis were canceled. Cancel culture was bad because PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T NAZIS were canceled.
Obviously correct, but she's a Crafty Jew so do not be mesmerized by her Jewish word-sorcery.
But this Venomous Jewess makes a good point: No, we shouldn't cancel people that the
left calls Nazis.
But how about... the people who self-identify as Nazis? Who routinely say "Heil Hitler"?
Who instruct us that Hitler was "really really cool"? Who record "Fuhrer Friday" podcasts?
Who demand the execution of Jews who hold positions of influence in America?
Who routinely throw up the Seig Heil salute?
Not the fake one the left sees when anyone on the right lifts his arm up.
No, I mean real, deliberate, full-on Nazi salute, right in your face?
How about that kind of Nazi?
Can we cancel a Nazi
then?
And fuck the brain-damaged fat weak alcoholic tubby rich-bitch child of privilege and Nazi propagandist Tucker Carlson for attempting to mainstream Nazism and doing it so loudly and openly that the rest of us -- who were content, nay eager, to just pretend this bullshit away and sweep it under the rug -- must finally confront it?
Oh, and after attempting to destroy TPUSA and hatefully attacking Charlie Kirk -- claiming he wasn't a "real Christian" -- he's now down to claiming that TPUSA
staffers arranged the Kirk assassination (most likely in partnership with Perfidious Jews) and that maybe Erika Kirk was involved.
Seriously?
Seriously?
These are the people we need to "unite" with to win big in 2028?
Nazism and unhinged hate are real vote-getters now? All the kids are into Hitler and slander against widows?
Yeah I don't think so.
I think some people would
like Nazism to be super-popular, though, and are wish-casting their desires into reality.
Posted by:
Ace at
05:23 PM