109 words / 2:05:51
Josh Neal and Basil of BasilianThought joined Greg Johnson to talk about social media savoir faire, MAGA grifters, Eric Orwoll’s duels with journalists, and more. It is now available to listen to or download here.
Topics include:
2:07 – The controversies with Eric Orwoll and Return to the Land.
21:40 – What is The Bronze Age Bari Weiss Sphere?
40:34 – The obfuscation of the friend-enemy distinction.
1:03:00 – The lack of metapolitical and intellectual sensibility on the right.
1:23:30 – Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson vs Nick Fuentes.
1:45:32 – How many people would be involved in dissident politics if they weren’t motivated by fame?
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
14 comments
My reaction to the porn allegations was surprise, and a hope that he’s put that kind of degeneracy behind him, but I didn’t move a millimeter towards disowning the guy. The work he’s doing is no less important, and no less worth supporting, than before. No one is perfect or a perfect advocate – certainly I’m not. But he is uncommonly articulate and intelligent and doing good work.
By the way, do you have a link to his response? It’s not easy to find on search engines and I’d like to read it.
At least he didn’t hurt anyone with his self-made porn. Malcolm X was a pimp (and was involved in other criminal activities) which means he exploited and victimized other people. MLK was known to have orgies with prostitutes and abuse them. Black people don’t distance themselves from these leaders. George Floyd did porn and was involved in criminal behavior and he’s a martyr.
I don’t know if there was a written statement, but this is the video response he posted on X: https://x.com/aarvoll_/status/1951391683381436779?s=46.
Thank you.
Didn’t Guillaume Faye make porn? Then again some say the devil has a French accent, hahaha.
I agree, he is very articulate and acknowledges that he is on a learning curve. I wish his Christian organization and the Asatru Folk Assembly well and hope they have lots of healthy White children.
Regarding tuckers demon attack, I think you are right that it’s an attempt to file almost a sort of insanity defense against his transgressions on Jewish issues. You might say this is also true of Candace Owens who says a lot of kookie things too. But I think it has a serious purpose of appealing to the Alex Jones, Stu Peters sort of crowd. There’s a large unwashed multitude of people who really dig this type of crap and they bring viewership and donations and money. It’s just the reality of the situation. Perhaps it serves a double purpose. Face it, 99% of humanity are gonna fall asleep two paragraphs into culture of critique, but are really excited about demons and UFOs. You guys are making the mistake of assuming everyone has the same intelligence or education as we do. We had this discussion before. It’s unappealing to those of integrity, but real politics is about scarecrows, conspiracy theories, straw men.
I agree with much of what you’ve written but I wouldn’t say 99% of people lack the attention span to read “serious” works. Maybe around 70% but there are so many other things being waved in their faces that they’re easily distracted from thinking too heavily on any subject.
One might also say that it would help our cause to find ways to appeal to normies rather than just talk amongst ourselves as is the norm.
Many of us thrive on delving deeper into subjects but so many others aren’t like that – i suspect that’s why memes have been so successful for “our side.”
Kind of a sad reality but we should at least make an effort to build bridges to our cause…
“Many of us thrive on delving deeper into subjects but so many others aren’t like that – i suspect that’s why memes have been so successful for “our side.”
Kind of a sad reality but we should at least make an effort to build bridges to our cause…”
^ that’s why good story tellers are crucial. The only problem being that good story tellers make terrible researchers. The story teller/influencer/propagandist is primarily a communicator, not a serious scholar of anything (except communication and marketing maybe). He just lifts arguments and info-bits from various sources (on the basis of feeling right and fitting his purpose) and turns them into a compact and psychologically compelling narrative.
The claim that Tucker Carlson’s father was a CIA agent is probably incorrect.
Fuentes made the following claim in 2024: “His dad was running Voice of America at the height of the Cold War. He was literally running the US propaganda outlet that is run by the CIA. He was the longest president of the US propaganda outlet in history at the height of the Cold War.”
I think Fuentes – or whomever he lifted that idea from – mixed up Radio Free Europe, which was covertly funded by the CIA until the 1970s, with Voice of America (VOA), which was the official US state propaganda during the Cold War and funded by Congress. VOA was run by the State Department (first directly, from 1953 onwards through the USIA (United States Information Agency)).
After the Cold War, Radio Free Europe was also placed under USIA, which is probably the reason why Fuentes/his source conflated Radio Free Europe with Voice of America.
Conclusion: I think Fuentes was engaging in guilt-by-association and didn’t actually do any research on the subject before calling Tucker Carlson a CIA asset.
Logically, I don’t see why anyone would need the CIA to broadcast official state propaganda. Tucker Carlson’ father was chosen by the Reagan administration to lead Voice of America because of his long-term experience as a reporter (ABC News) and because of a “banking-connection” to Reagan himself:
“In 1977, Carlson joined the San Diego Federal Savings and Loan, (later, Great American First Savings), a savings and loan headed by former cabinet member and close friend of Ronald Reagan, Gordon Luce, as its Public Affairs Director.[7] Within three years, he became the Vice President of Finance” [wikipedia]
What I conclude from Dick Carlson’s biography is that he was part of the media elite, the banking elite and only through that entered government service.
Beyond wikipedia, if anyone wants to take the scenic route around the picaresque life of Tucker’s swampy dad, I highly recommend this entertaining stream from a couple of years back:
https://rumble.com/v2loc0m-who-was-dick-carlson.html
From the description:
“This week we delve into the life and career of Richard Warner Carlson, a prominent American journalist, diplomat, and lobbyist who played a pivotal role during the last six years of the Cold War. Carlson’s impressive career spanned across various media outlets, and he was a prominent figure in the broadcasting world, particularly in Radio Marti broadcasting to Cuba.The video takes us through Carlson’s journey, from his early beginnings as a journalist, to his appointment as the Director of the Voice of America (VOA) in 1982, a position he held until 1988.”
Thanks. My analysis after watching the first 30 minutes:
Groubert mainly retells what’s on wikipedia but in a more dramatic fashion and combining it with unsourced conspiracy speculation.
Several points are worth commenting on:
a) “while Tucker did go try to get a job at the CIA, as every news man did apparently – you know, Anderson Cooper, Tucker, they all you know wanted to work for the CIA and maybe still do I have no idea” [Groubert]
That’s 2 famous names and neither actually joined that agency as far as we know. So based on 2 questionable data points, he deduces that “every news man” is connected to the CIA. What kind of logic is that?
b) Groubert claims that the CIA was recruiting only two kinds of people – (1) long American lineage going back to the 18th century and (2) people adopted out of orphanages.
It’s pretty dishonest to insinuate that “original” Americans were still in control, when the simplest demographic analysis of American intelligence (starting with OSS leadership) shows that Irish Catholics and Jews were massively overrepresented and old Colonial stock Americans increasingly became a rarity.
Secondly, Groubert insinuates literal grooming but ignores that the CIA was simply recruiting young adult men at Ivy League universities.
c) Groubert notes that Dick Carlson’s first wife, Lisa Lombardi, was a Hippie/Boheme involved in the art world, and counts this as a connection to the CIA because, in his opinion, the CIA had infiltrated the art world.
It’s clear that for someone like Groubert, Leftism is not a parapolitical force (nor is a certain ethnicity). The only parapolitical force that exists is the CIA, therefore, everything must be reduced to the CIA. But the New York and LA Boheme/art scenes predate the creation of the CIA and the OSS! The Rockefellers founded the Museum of Modern Art in the late 1920s, and the Guggenheim’s art foundation and museum date to the late 30s. Greenwich Village (Manhatten neighbourhood) had a certain reputation in the early 20th century already.
Just because a thing [e.g. modern art] had some overlap with CIA activities in a certain context doesn’t mean you can reduce it to being a CIA program or secretly controlled by the CIA!
Regarding Tucker Carlson himself:
My impression after watching a couple of his shows in recent months is that Carlson has developed a deep distrust of any “official narrative” whatsoever, and is thus willing to consider even UFOs and tranny conspiracies. Everything that opposes – or is opposed by – the mainstream is a potential truth for him it seems.
Why doesn’t he get into racialism and WN stuff? Well,
a) the taboo is stronger than that against believing in UFOs, demons or tranny conspiracies
b) he’s slowly getting there – in a recent show about the Oklahoma City Bombing he was emphasizing that the Clinton gov was specifically trying to make white Conservative groups look like a threat when it was really FBI operatives that set up the bomb
You have zero chance of “controlling these institutions”. And you have even less chance of “making them better.
The political door is closed. Forever. Hence, separatism, accelerationism, localism, sectarianism. Is the only productive thing that CAN be done. I mean, you do not even have a defined “we”. And yet you imagine this non defined “we” can take over institutions and make them “better”, whatever better means. Better for whom? And you imagine this imaginary thing against an adversary that is much stronger than in the past while your “we”, that you do not even know what it is and that only an infintissimal percentage of the population subscribe to, can conquoer the institutions? Its ludicrous.
Hence, build your we. Which you can only build through separatism. Much like the project that you began talking about, in a rather intelligent way. And sure, you do good things. But please remember that institutional power is far far far far far beyond you. And thus not worth sacrificing for.
Orwoll says he’s NOT a wn here:https://youtu.be/1gNG4uyJJuQ?si=RSuAVl6Kg9ddXkJl
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.