titan said:

---

Okay, have watched the whole video. Very informative and illuminating about the divide. IMO Charlie Kirk came out ahead much of the time, especially when they were going after the gay conservative Rob Smith, (he gave as good as got too though) but not always. Remember too, this is Kirk 2019 pre "grand disillusionment" about government we all endured in 2020 and which 46* admin did nothing to relieve.

Kirk needless set himself back on defensive over Liberty. It is as above. Could have told him in a paragraph that its not defensible from the receiver's (American) pov. Probably few French appreciated Mers-el-Kebir. He lost ground needlessly trying to rebut that.

But on some topics, Kirk clearly came out more reasonable. I didn't like the bit about one of the speakers having been cast out of CPAC, but don't know if he was acting like Leftist do and being disruptive. Definitely didn't care for Fuentes just being not allowed to watch a thing. Not a good look. So for understanding some of where the dissident right is coming from, this sure was useful eye-opening.

No, not endorsing much at all, but hold to a motto: "If you are going to judge it, watch it/or read it. Know what is really said."

---

I appreciate you watching it all the way through! Could not disagree more about Kirk coming out ahead, I didn't see it that way at all. When you say they came off as more "reasonable" I would say they came off "nicer." They absolutely didn't come off intellectually/morally/logically superior.

And the parts with Rob Smith was where TPUSA came off the worst, IMO. It was flat out embarrassing for them. I physically cringed the first time I watched that at the time when I was on their side. They had no logical or moral arguments for defending how an*l sex advances the conservative movement. They actually just called the questioners gay lol, like they know it's bad, when one of the dudes on stage is gay. The groypers were also quite prescient in the trans stuff they brought up in the questions also. What is it you are conserving when you allow homosexuality in to the conservative movement? Further, why draw the line at LGB and not accept the Ts? You just made an arbitrary line that can't be logically defended.

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

---

Women should not have a place in politics. Or sports for that matter. They are male "spaces," to use a phrase/word that makes me hate myself.

---

Oh yeah. This whole groyper thing is about to catch on like wildfire. The fact that you guys can't see that if someone like me, who is probably two standard deviations to the right of the bell curve, thinks you guys are a hilarious joke how do you expect to appeal to enough Americans to win any election more important than local dog catcher.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

---

Women should not have a place in politics. Or sports for that matter. They are male "spaces," to use a phrase/word that makes me hate myself.

---

Oh yeah. This whole groyper thing is about to catch on like wildfire. The fact that you guys can't see that if someone like me, who is probably two standard deviations to the right of the bell curve, thinks you guys are a hilarious joke how do you expect to appeal to enough Americans to win any election more important than local dog catcher.

---

Hopefully convince enough young people to change the future. Adding women to politics has been a disaster for this country and I'm not sure how that can be argued. My wife agrees with me.

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

---

Women should not have a place in politics. Or sports for that matter. They are male "spaces," to use a phrase/word that makes me hate myself.

---

Oh yeah. This whole groyper thing is about to catch on like wildfire. The fact that you guys can't see that if someone like me, who is probably two standard deviations to the right of the bell curve, thinks you guys are a hilarious joke how do you expect to appeal to enough Americans to win any election more important than local dog catcher.

---

Hopefully convince enough young people to change the future. Adding women to politics has been a disaster for this country and I'm not sure how that can be argued. My wife agrees with me.

---

You won't and it's laughable to suggest otherwise. I hope you guys make this whole eliminating women in politics thing your main battle cry. It will provide some comedy gold.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nick Fuentes and his followers are bad for the conservative movement. They want to push things so far
to the right that the vast majority of Americans will lurch back left. See the current backlash against liberalism.

Two weeks ago we had Charlie Kirk and no one reasonable had heard of the groyper cult.

---

In this instance "reasonable" is a substitute for "old and/or intellectually unchallenged."

---

I may be old but I'm an absolute constitutional conservative and I think Fuentesites and his Candace cult are absolutely vile and disgusting people. If you can't convince me good luck getting America in general to support your cause.

---

Further displaying your utter ignorance of what you are talking about. Fuentes and Candace are openly hostile to each other

---

Maybe because Fuentes is a racist. But both groups can at least come together and break bread while discussing the Rothschildz and Jewish space lasers.

The common denominator is still attracting crazy fundamentalists that want to cosplay the Crusades.

---

Nope thats not why

---

It's only half the reason why. The other half is that he doesn't think women have a place outside the kitchen.

---

Women should not have a place in politics. Or sports for that matter. They are male "spaces," to use a phrase/word that makes me hate myself.

---

Oh yeah. This whole groyper thing is about to catch on like wildfire. The fact that you guys can't see that if someone like me, who is probably two standard deviations to the right of the bell curve, thinks you guys are a hilarious joke how do you expect to appeal to enough Americans to win any election more important than local dog catcher.

---

Hopefully convince enough young people to change the future. Adding women to politics has been a disaster for this country and I'm not sure how that can be argued. My wife agrees with me.

---

You won't and it's laughable to suggest otherwise. I hope you guys make this whole eliminating women in politics thing your main battle cry. It will provide some comedy gold.

---

Well nobody is doing that. There are much more intellectual things to discuss. But it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Okay, have watched the whole video. Very informative and illuminating about the divide. IMO Charlie Kirk came out ahead much of the time, especially when they were going after the gay conservative Rob Smith, (he gave as good as got too though) but not always. Remember too, this is Kirk 2019 pre "grand disillusionment" about government we all endured in 2020 and which 46* admin did nothing to relieve.

Kirk needless set himself back on defensive over Liberty. It is as above. Could have told him in a paragraph that its not defensible from the receiver's (American) pov. Probably few French appreciated Mers-el-Kebir. He lost ground needlessly trying to rebut that.

But on some topics, Kirk clearly came out more reasonable. I didn't like the bit about one of the speakers having been cast out of CPAC, but don't know if he was acting like Leftist do and being disruptive. Definitely didn't care for Fuentes just being not allowed to watch a thing. Not a good look. So for understanding some of where the dissident right is coming from, this sure was useful eye-opening.

No, not endorsing much at all, but hold to a motto: "If you are going to judge it, watch it/or read it. Know what is really said."

---

I appreciate you watching it all the way through! Could not disagree more about Kirk coming out ahead, I didn't see it that way at all. When you say they came off as more "reasonable" I would say they came off "nicer." They absolutely didn't come off intellectually/morally/logically superior.

---

I said came out "ahead much of the time" I think he did. I didn't mean intellectually/morally superior --- kind of wince at such strutting. Credentials don't impress much. Wisdom does. Logically -- that's more ambiguous -- logic depends on what your main value is.

Quote:

---

And the parts with Rob Smith was where TPUSA came off the worst, IMO. It was flat out embarrassing for them. I physically cringed the first time I watched that at the time when I was on their side. They had no logical or moral arguments for defending how an*l sex advances the conservative movement.

---

Don't you see how crass an argument that is though? Sex outside of marriage doesn't benefit it either. Its all anathema by the Christian standard. Even the much glorified `scoring' in school days. Found it very off-putting for the focus to be so crass to that man to his face (Had never heard of him, but he was an Iraq veteran and gave good rebuttals)

Quote:

---

They actually just called the questioners gay lol, like they know it's bad, when one of the dudes on stage is gay. The groypers were also quite prescient in the trans stuff they brought up in the questions also. What is it you are conserving when you allow homosexuality in to the conservative movement?

---

That is how the question should have been phrased and held from the start. That is more nuanced. What would be the answer? It might be this: If "conservative movement" meant as it did there an American ideal centered on right wing values, but not theocratic, not a particular set of shall nots, then any joining it and sharing those values contributes. That Said, the question can get tricky if you are being theologically rigid. That is what also saw, and it brought understanding.

Quote:

---

Further, why draw the line at LGB and not accept the Ts? You just made an arbitrary line that can't be logically defended.

---

Quite willing to do that though. Never been an "anything goes." There are certain fixed defaults that should never have been confused or blurred. This difference is if in a basically secular Empire, you need to have alot of side niches for those that don't fit the default if you are not a theocracy. You need to have recognition of exceptions. What you do not do is cater to them. What is so wrong today is the fringe, and the sharp deviations from the norm, have been elevated.

Once again, the video would look different and Kirk's stronger position in some places more obvious if so much capital had not been expended deflecting on Liberty event. Now places that were a draw or even clear groyper arguments were , Yes, how exactly do we assurme continued survival of the American ideals in a post white majority world when "given that Democratic party policies do not point towards the maintaining of our American ideals" and most non-whites they are importing will vote Dem. Those are good meaningful question. There is an answer but it doesn't involve continued influence of the DNC MSM on future generations.

shack009 said:

---

Just like TPUSA at the groyper wars, when you don't know how to reckon with these ideas other than ad hominem, you appear intellectually inferior.

---

how many hours of watching fuentes crank out 8th grade syllogisms and bad sociology are required before his redditesque gatekeepers allow someone to have an opinion on him?

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

---

Quote:

---

He does say that quote but it is couched with a lot of discussion about serious immigration reform and limiting of visas. I'll give you credit for finding the quote though. He goes on to say that we should be very strict in who we allow in and only do so for people with skills that we need. His point on GC's was more that if we have someone who can meet that strict criteria it doesn't make sense to spend the money and resources to educate them and have them leave. That's very, very different than saying he wants some open immigration system. I also disagree that saying favoring a high standard of merit based legal immigration is "not pro America". From Einstein to Musk and beyond we have benefited from getting the best and brightest to move here. I say that as someone who can trace their lineage to prior to 1700 in the Colonies and had 2 direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution as officers in the Continental Army.

---

It's pretty anti-American to allow foreign nationals in to our universities to take spots away from Americans and then in to the work place to take jobs away from Americans. You can disagree, but your disagreement makes no sense. A policy that does actual harm to Americans in favor of foreign nationals is anti-American. The correct position is to never allow foreign nationals here in the first place and train Americans to do the high-quality jobs.

Quote:

---

It's also a tremendous reach to say that somehow groypers are why he has become more strict about immigration. Lots of reasons for that (count me as one) but it certainly wasn't because of Fuentes. Most people have evolved on immigration on the right for a variety of reasons. Kirk was an auto didact and a voracious reader, he evolved on many things as he studied them.

---

I think it's reasonable to think that being thoroughly embarrassed in front of crowds of students and online for the world to see is a good way to force someone to the right. But getting married and having kids does that as well. Maybe a little bit of both going on here.

Quote:

---

Israel is a separate topic. Charlie was probably more pro Israel than I am but I don't see him in the neocon camp that we need to treat Israel as if it were part of the US instead of an ally. I see Israel the same as other allies and I think that's fairly close to Charlie, though as an Evangelical he had some views that made him more pro Jew/Israel than most Catholics like Fuentes. The grand conspiracy stuff really loses me though. Are there some really evil Jews? Sure, same could be said of most religions though and Jews certainly aren't of a single mindset. Ben Shapiro and George Soros (who isn't even really a Jew he was just born a Jew and uses it when it's advantageous) have absolutely nothing in common. Ironically Soros is much closer to Fuentes on Israel policy than Shapiro.

---

He absolutely was unabashedly pro-Israel to the point of Neocon. Did you watch him answer other questions in the video I linked? Disgusting glaze for Israel. Nobody is saying "grand conspiracy" where every worldly problem is the Jews other than Candace who is an idiot and possibly having a psychotic break.

Shapiro is an interesting case because he's clearly going to put Israel before America in every single instance. He doesn't just have dual loyalty but a ranked loyalty where Israel clearly comes first. I know because I used to listen to his show daily.

Quote:

---

I'm also someone that makes no bones about the Liberty and that Israel works in the interests of Israel not the US. Doesn't mean we can't be allies though anymore than many other countries. Our options in the Middle East are limited in choices of allies and it's an area of the world we do need allies.

---

We should have a peace treaty with them (with everyone) but we should not be allies. Being allies means we have to join them in whatever war they want, including regime change in Iran.

---

If you are making a serious argument that America doesn't need immigration and hasn't benefited from it that's just a naive at best statement. Elon Musk. Albert Einstein. Nikolas Tesla. Andrew Carnegie. Alexander Graham Bell. I could go on and on there. We were the brain drain on Europe and now we are the brain drain on Asia. The problem is we are taking far too many and not the best. We need a strict merit based immigration system targeting the best and brightest with strict limits on how many can go to our Universities and multiple built in advantages for US citizens.

No one outside of the groypers thinks that they embarrassed Kirk or others, to everyone else they are somewhere between a nuisance and a joke. Sorry. Get outside the groyper bubble and Fuentes and groypers are toxic as hell.

I said Kirk was probably more pro Israel than I was though he was not a Neocon. He didn't want US troops there. He didn't want us sending endless dollars and weapons there for nothing in return. He didn't see Israel as part of the US. He did see them as an ally and he had a common cause connection with them that many Evangelicals share that is Biblically oriented. He sure as hell wasn't pro war either. Mainly he just would always take Israel's side against Iran and the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Shapiro is definitely more Pro Israel than Kirk. That said he mainly wants to let Israel to be able to do whatever they want to protect themselves far more than wanting US intervention. My point though is that Soros is closer to the groyper viewpoint than Shapiro which you didn't really dispute. If you are saying that groypers don't lump Jews together and promote anti semitism you lost me on that.

As for Israel being an ally. Simply because a country is an ally does not mean we have to go to every conflict they are involved with. Hell Israel has been in quite a few open wars and has been attacked countless times and the US has not sent in troops into battle over that. Hell we basically forced Israel to pull back in '56 when they were about to overrun the Suez. We have pressured them to stop multiple conflicts on all sides of their borders as well. To me I'd place Israel as an ally somewhere in the range between France and the UK. France is a crappy ally (actually ever since Suez) and the UK is more beneficial to us than Israel.

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Just like TPUSA at the groyper wars, when you don't know how to reckon with these ideas other than ad hominem, you appear intellectually inferior.

---

how many hours of watching fuentes crank out 8th grade syllogisms and bad sociology are required before his redditesque gatekeepers allow someone to have an opinion on him?

---

Premise rejected.

You're allowed to have an opinion on him whenever you want. Just make sure you know what you're talking about if you don't want to come across as uninformed.

Many of the Epstein republicans love that guy. He even quotes Hitler like Trump does weekly in Trump calling Dems "vermin, rats, and scum".

shack009 said:

---

Just make sure you know what you're talking about if you don't want to come across as uninformed.

---

sage advice, if only fuentes would heed it. though to be fair, it's never stopped me!

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic. He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here. I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position. More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes. The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer. Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference. He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign. I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments. Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

---

Quote:

---

He does say that quote but it is couched with a lot of discussion about serious immigration reform and limiting of visas. I'll give you credit for finding the quote though. He goes on to say that we should be very strict in who we allow in and only do so for people with skills that we need. His point on GC's was more that if we have someone who can meet that strict criteria it doesn't make sense to spend the money and resources to educate them and have them leave. That's very, very different than saying he wants some open immigration system. I also disagree that saying favoring a high standard of merit based legal immigration is "not pro America". From Einstein to Musk and beyond we have benefited from getting the best and brightest to move here. I say that as someone who can trace their lineage to prior to 1700 in the Colonies and had 2 direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution as officers in the Continental Army.

---

It's pretty anti-American to allow foreign nationals in to our universities to take spots away from Americans and then in to the work place to take jobs away from Americans. You can disagree, but your disagreement makes no sense. A policy that does actual harm to Americans in favor of foreign nationals is anti-American. The correct position is to never allow foreign nationals here in the first place and train Americans to do the high-quality jobs.

Quote:

---

It's also a tremendous reach to say that somehow groypers are why he has become more strict about immigration. Lots of reasons for that (count me as one) but it certainly wasn't because of Fuentes. Most people have evolved on immigration on the right for a variety of reasons. Kirk was an auto didact and a voracious reader, he evolved on many things as he studied them.

---

I think it's reasonable to think that being thoroughly embarrassed in front of crowds of students and online for the world to see is a good way to force someone to the right. But getting married and having kids does that as well. Maybe a little bit of both going on here.

Quote:

---

Israel is a separate topic. Charlie was probably more pro Israel than I am but I don't see him in the neocon camp that we need to treat Israel as if it were part of the US instead of an ally. I see Israel the same as other allies and I think that's fairly close to Charlie, though as an Evangelical he had some views that made him more pro Jew/Israel than most Catholics like Fuentes. The grand conspiracy stuff really loses me though. Are there some really evil Jews? Sure, same could be said of most religions though and Jews certainly aren't of a single mindset. Ben Shapiro and George Soros (who isn't even really a Jew he was just born a Jew and uses it when it's advantageous) have absolutely nothing in common. Ironically Soros is much closer to Fuentes on Israel policy than Shapiro.

---

He absolutely was unabashedly pro-Israel to the point of Neocon. Did you watch him answer other questions in the video I linked? Disgusting glaze for Israel. Nobody is saying "grand conspiracy" where every worldly problem is the Jews other than Candace who is an idiot and possibly having a psychotic break.

Shapiro is an interesting case because he's clearly going to put Israel before America in every single instance. He doesn't just have dual loyalty but a ranked loyalty where Israel clearly comes first. I know because I used to listen to his show daily.

Quote:

---

I'm also someone that makes no bones about the Liberty and that Israel works in the interests of Israel not the US. Doesn't mean we can't be allies though anymore than many other countries. Our options in the Middle East are limited in choices of allies and it's an area of the world we do need allies.

---

We should have a peace treaty with them (with everyone) but we should not be allies. Being allies means we have to join them in whatever war they want, including regime change in Iran.

---

---

Quote:

---

No one outside of the groypers thinks that they embarrassed Kirk or others, to everyone else they are somewhere between a nuisance and a joke. Sorry. Get outside the groyper bubble and Fuentes and groypers are toxic as hell.

---

Don't get me wrong, I understand what people think. I've seen it on this thread, and it hasn't been surprising, though I do appreciate the discourse y'all have had. I just don't think people can sufficiently explain why Kirk and Rob Smith didn't look completely silly at Ohio State. It was brutal.

Quote:

---

I said Kirk was probably more pro Israel than I was though he was not a Neocon. He didn't want US troops there. He didn't want us sending endless dollars and weapons there for nothing in return. He didn't see Israel as part of the US. He did see them as an ally and he had a common cause connection with them that many Evangelicals share that is Biblically oriented. He sure as hell wasn't pro war either. Mainly he just would always take Israel's side against Iran and the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

---

He was perfectly happy to defend US sending money to Israel and justifying it by saying they use it to buy American made weapons technology. In the video, he completely ignored his belief that money is fungible, so we do in fact subsidize Israel's healthcare system. The Evangelical connection to Israel is not Biblically oriented. That is a long discussion but to summarize the correct (Catholic) position, Jesus came and there was a new Israel and new covenant created. The new covenant superseded the old. It's not what Israel is now and it's not the Jews. Always taking Israel's side against Iran is a pro-war position because Israel wants regime change in Iran. It also means you have to defend Israel whenever they make another country in the region angry and ratchet up tensions.

Quote:

---

Shapiro is definitely more Pro Israel than Kirk. That said he mainly wants to let Israel to be able to do whatever they want to protect themselves far more than wanting US intervention. My point though is that Soros is closer to the groyper viewpoint than Shapiro which you didn't really dispute. If you are saying that groypers don't lump Jews together and promote anti semitism you lost me on that.

---

I will grant that and Soros appears to be basically the one Jew in the west who doesn't completely cave to Israel's interest over America's, but he has a starting point of being completely anti-American. And again, Kirk and Shapiro was/are perfectly willing to support the war in all other ways outside of boots on the ground. Anti-semitism is an amorphous phrase that takes on the meaning of whatever the person using it wants it to be. This is just a lefty saying "racist."

Quote:

---

As for Israel being an ally. Simply because a country is an ally does not mean we have to go to every conflict they are involved with. Hell Israel has been in quite a few open wars and has been attacked countless times and the US has not sent in troops into battle over that. Hell we basically forced Israel to pull back in '56 when they were about to overrun the Suez. We have pressured them to stop multiple conflicts on all sides of their borders as well. To me I'd place Israel as an ally somewhere in the range between France and the UK. France is a crappy ally (actually ever since Suez) and the UK is more beneficial to us than Israel.

---

We just had to bomb Iran for Israel and risk starting a huge war. Iran would have no idea who we are if not for our alliance with Israel. Being partners with them is extremely risky.

Outside of Musk, all the people you mentioned as immigrants were when the country wasn't completely full. We're good now. Sure, if you want to take a couple hundred of the brightest minds in the world who will create thousands of high-paying jobs for Americans, let's do it. That isn't what's happening though.

Ag1188 said:

---

Many of the Epstein republicans love that guy. He even quotes Hitler like Trump does weekly in Trump calling Dems "vermin, rats, and scum".

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago.%A0 Christian based conservatism.%A0 Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

---

He was always very protectionist of American jobs, I think that's pretty semantic.%A0 He was never a big fan of H-1s and getting everyone to move here.%A0 I do think he got more animated about stopping abuse but I didn't notice a significant shift in his position.%A0 More importantly I don't think that shift had anything to do with someone like Fuentes.%A0 The greater point is Fuentes trying to act as though he is this great thought leader that Kirk followed or felt pushed by when the reality was more of the "I don't think about you at all" being a lot closer.%A0 Kirk was involved in much bigger things than Fuentes would ever dream of being.

---

Wrong. In 2019 he was calling for stapling green cards to diplomas- that means giving work status to foreigners. That was and is terrible for American workers. This was one of the topics that groypers pressed him on back then. Like it or not, Fuentes IS the thought leader in the online right wing space by now.

---

I have never heard Kirk say that we should give automatic Green Cards to foreign students, love to see that reference.%A0 He wasn't an extremist that I heard either the other direction, I mean he was doing events with Vivek during the campaign.%A0 I'm sure you can find some comments one way or another but my perception of his views are certainly not that he had this massive shift from super pro immigration to cut it all off as you imply.

I'm also cracking up at the "Fuentes IS the thought leader" comment to go along with the intellectual comments.%A0 Then of course you have videos on this thread of Fuentes cursing and screaming.%A0

---

Here's a compilation of Kirk answering questions from groypers with the "staple green card to the back of a diploma" quote just after the 10:00 mark.



He states numerous times throughout that he's for lots of legal immigration including up to 500,000 legal immigrants per year. That's obviously not pro-America.

His defenses of Israel are also extremely dumb, including saying the Israel attack on the Liberty is a conspiracy and that we should fund Israel because they don't throw gays off buildings.

I'll add that this was 6 years ago and he was only 25 at this time. He's obviously allowed to change his mind about things and that can especially happen when you get married and have kids (happened to me). Maybe his positions on immigration changed, but I don't think his position on Israel changed.

---

---

Quote:

---

He does say that quote but it is couched with a lot of discussion about serious immigration reform and limiting of visas.%A0 I'll give you credit for finding the quote though.%A0 He goes on to say that we should be very strict in who we allow in and only do so for people with skills that we need.%A0 His point on GC's was more that if we have someone who can meet that strict criteria it doesn't make sense to spend the money and resources to educate them and have them leave.%A0 That's very, very different than saying he wants some open immigration system.%A0 I also disagree that saying favoring a high standard of merit based legal immigration is "not pro America".%A0 From Einstein to Musk and beyond we have benefited from getting the best and brightest to move here.%A0 I say that as someone who can trace their lineage to prior to 1700 in the Colonies and had 2 direct ancestors that fought in the Revolution as officers in the Continental Army.

---

It's pretty anti-American to allow foreign nationals in to our universities to take spots away from Americans and then in to the work place to take jobs away from Americans. You can disagree, but your disagreement makes no sense. A policy that does actual harm to Americans in favor of foreign nationals is anti-American. The correct position is to never allow foreign nationals here in the first place and train Americans to do the high-quality jobs.

Quote:

---

It's also a tremendous reach to say that somehow groypers are why he has become more strict about immigration.%A0 Lots of reasons for that (count me as one) but it certainly wasn't because of Fuentes.%A0 Most people have evolved on immigration on the right for a variety of reasons.%A0 Kirk was an auto didact and a voracious reader, he evolved on many things as he studied them.

---

I think it's reasonable to think that being thoroughly embarrassed in front of crowds of students and online for the world to see is a good way to force someone to the right. But getting married and having kids does that as well. Maybe a little bit of both going on here.

Quote:

---

Israel is a separate topic.%A0 Charlie was probably more pro Israel than I am but I don't see him in the neocon camp that we need to treat Israel as if it were part of the US instead of an ally.%A0 I see Israel the same as other allies and I think that's fairly close to Charlie, though as an Evangelical he had some views that made him more pro Jew/Israel than most Catholics like Fuentes.%A0 The grand conspiracy stuff really loses me though.%A0 Are there some really evil Jews? Sure, same could be said of most religions though and Jews certainly aren't of a single mindset.%A0 Ben Shapiro and George Soros (who isn't even really a Jew he was just born a Jew and uses it when it's advantageous) have absolutely nothing in common.%A0 Ironically Soros is much closer to Fuentes on Israel policy than Shapiro.

---

He absolutely was unabashedly pro-Israel to the point of Neocon. Did you watch him answer other questions in the video I linked? Disgusting glaze for Israel. Nobody is saying "grand conspiracy" where every worldly problem is the Jews other than Candace who is an idiot and possibly having a psychotic break.

Shapiro is an interesting case because he's clearly going to put Israel before America in every single instance. He doesn't just have dual loyalty but a ranked loyalty where Israel clearly comes first. I know because I used to listen to his show daily.

Quote:

---

I'm also someone that makes no bones about the Liberty and that Israel works in the interests of Israel not the US.%A0 Doesn't mean we can't be allies though anymore than many other countries.%A0 Our options in the Middle East are limited in choices of allies and it's an area of the world we do need allies.

---

We should have a peace treaty with them (with everyone) but we should not be allies. Being allies means we have to join them in whatever war they want, including regime change in Iran.

---

---

Quote:

---

No one outside of the groypers thinks that they embarrassed Kirk or others, to everyone else they are somewhere between a nuisance and a joke. Sorry.%A0 Get outside the groyper bubble and Fuentes and groypers are toxic as hell.

---

Don't get me wrong, I understand what people think. I've seen it on this thread, and it hasn't been surprising, though I do appreciate the discourse y'all have had. I just don't think people can sufficiently explain why Kirk and Rob Smith didn't look completely silly at Ohio State. It was brutal.

Quote:

---

I said Kirk was probably more pro Israel than I was though he was not a Neocon.%A0 He didn't want US troops there.%A0 He didn't want us sending endless dollars and weapons there for nothing in return.%A0 He didn't see Israel as part of the US.%A0 He did see them as an ally and he had a common cause connection with them that many Evangelicals share that is Biblically oriented.%A0 He sure as hell wasn't pro war either.%A0 Mainly he just would always take Israel's side against Iran and the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

---

He was perfectly happy to defend US sending money to Israel and justifying it by saying they use it to buy American made weapons technology. In the video, he completely ignored his belief that money is fungible, so we do in fact subsidize Israel's healthcare system. The Evangelical connection to Israel is not Biblically oriented. That is a long discussion but to summarize the correct (Catholic) position, Jesus came and there was a new Israel and new covenant created. The new covenant superseded the old. It's not what Israel is now and it's not the Jews. Always taking Israel's side against Iran is a pro-war position because Israel wants regime change in Iran. It also means you have to defend Israel whenever they make another country in the region angry and ratchet up tensions.

Quote:

---

Shapiro is definitely more Pro Israel than Kirk.%A0 That said he mainly wants to let Israel to be able to do whatever they want to protect themselves far more than wanting US intervention.%A0 My point though is that Soros is closer to the groyper viewpoint than Shapiro which you didn't really dispute.%A0 If you are saying that groypers don't lump Jews together and promote anti semitism you lost me on that.

---

I will grant that and Soros appears to be basically the one Jew in the west who doesn't completely cave to Israel's interest over America's, but he has a starting point of being completely anti-American. And again, Kirk and Shapiro was/are perfectly willing to support the war in all other ways outside of boots on the ground. Anti-semitism is an amorphous phrase that takes on the meaning of whatever the person using it wants it to be. This is just a lefty saying "racist."

Quote:

---

As for Israel being an ally.%A0 Simply because a country is an ally does not mean we have to go to every conflict they are involved with.%A0 Hell Israel has been in quite a few open wars and has been attacked countless times and the US has not sent in troops into battle over that.%A0 Hell we basically forced Israel to pull back in '56 when they were about to overrun the Suez.%A0 We have pressured them to stop multiple conflicts on all sides of their borders as well.%A0 To me I'd place Israel as an ally somewhere in the range between France and the UK.%A0 France is a crappy ally (actually ever since Suez) and the UK is more beneficial to us than Israel.

---

We just had to bomb Iran for Israel and risk starting a huge war. Iran would have no idea who we are if not for our alliance with Israel. Being partners with them is extremely risky.

Outside of Musk, all the people you mentioned as immigrants were when the country wasn't completely full. We're good now. Sure, if you want to take a couple hundred of the brightest minds in the world who will create thousands of high-paying jobs for Americans, let's do it. That isn't what's happening though.

---

Whether or not the Evangelical or Catholic view is the "correct" one is a matter of opinion.%A0 Personally I don't really ascribe to either in terms of Israel being relevant other than understanding that it motivates some people.

If you are trying to hinge groypers having credibility based on your thoughts on an interaction years ago with Smith (who is not nearly as good at this as Kirk) and Kirk that's fine I suppose but as you admitted the perception of groypers, mainly based on their actions since, is that they don't have credibility (to put it nicely).%A0 Still you are welcome to believe as you will.

I spelled out multiple examples of Israel going to war or conflicts and the US staying out which you didn't actually dispute yet you said we would have to commit troops.%A0 Ok.%A0 In terms of Iran if you understand Persia and the history of those people and the history of the region you would realize that Israel is more of a side issue. Their conflict will always primarily be for regional dominance.%A0 I would argue they are much more in conflict with Saudi and the Sunni Islamists than Israel and the Jews.%A0 Their main concern is they don't want Saudi and the Sunnis allied with Israel because that shifts the balance of power away from them.%A0 This doesn't even account for the Turks who are quiet for now but have certainly been dominant in the past or the Kurds which are basically permanently caught in the meat grinder between them all.%A0 The Middle East is an insanely complex and divided region and it always will be because of the geography and religious significance to the 3 Majors.

Also, if you think Soros is the "only Jew" who doesn't support Israel I'm just staggered at the ignorance of that statement.%A0 How about Bernie Sanders?%A0 How about Noam Chomsky?%A0 The Left is loaded with anti Israel Jews of different levels of intensity and the list is very long.%A0 Anyone that has strong socialist tendencies tends to be anti Zionist.%A0 That doesn't mean they all are and it doesn't make them right or wrong but you have had Jews who hate the idea of Israel going back to before it became a country.%A0 "The Chosen" is actually a good movie that talks about how many Orthodox Jews actually opposed the creation of Israel as well.

There are also many other immigrants that benefit our country today.%A0 Would we be better off if Jensen and Su were still in Taiwan and built up Nvidia and AMD there so that Taiwan would not only dominate manufacturing of GPUs but also design?%A0 How about Sergey Brin with Google?%A0 Rupert Murdoch and Fox?%A0 The list really is endless.%A0 I'm in total agreement on serious reforms (as was Charlie including in your clips) but America has always benefited from immigration.%A0 That said I do also think it is ridiculous that we don't have policies that openly favor US citizens and we don't do more to celebrate American culture.%A0 I'm all for language tests and sending anyone packing that doesn't want to assimilate to a large degree.%A0 I think anyone who isn't a citizen should be able to be deported for just about any reason, they are guests.%A0 I want the best and brightest who want to embrace American culture, though they can definitely bring their recipes.

This been posted yet?

https://twitter.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/1967520363350528196?t=m***7KBPFkok7A6OfFbW5A&s=19

Sanders isn't inherently anti-Israel, he thinks the government is too far right wing. Will give Chomsky credit. He's been consistent that support of Israel is likely going to lead to support of war.

Shocking the Australian guy isn't America First.

It's interesting that Kirk shouted down the guy asking the question when he was trying to respond. Then cited e plurubus unum, as if that doesn't imply we should just allow everybody in to the country. I guess that's why he basically did. Nobody thinks the founding fathers wanted third world non-Christian, anti-white, anti-Americans as immigrants. And to think they'd prioritize them over Americans….

The other clips are obviously jokes and are pretty hilarious.

Some may take them as jokes, but Fuentes is nothing but a closeted resentful dweeb who hates jews and is jealous of high school kids.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Some may take them as jokes, but Fuentes is nothing but a closeted resentful dweeb who hates jews and is jealous of high school kids.

---

Who among us…

You're trying way too hard as a guy whose party is constantly grooming children.

What is a woman? How can you even know?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Are you trying to say you openly cop to being racist?

---

Yes

---

Thanks for proving my point. Your movement is DOA.

---

Take one look at the zoomers posting on this thread and then get back to me. You'll quickly notice all of them align with me.

Given have watched the full video, its now very clear what `Groyper Wars' meant. It was questioning barrage, trying to get certain notions heard.

Two questions if you will. Given the dust up with Kirk and Smith at Ohio segment A) are the younger dissident right abandoning the American secular overall environment (pre-supposing a Western Christian moral backdrop and framework as foundational, but not determining every law) premise? Were they saying they do not want any G or L or B even if thoroughly conservative? That is, (not a criticism but a note) they are taking a true dogma approach much closer to a Christian sharia than it is the secular idea of "all kinds of the same ideal" which was what Kirk clearly was coming from, and what GenX grew up with. If it is that exclusionary, that's kind of surprising. Is this correct?

B) Why can't a distinction be made between the alphabets and the more deranged. Seems that Male and Female are clear defaults designed or intended for one another (use default very deliberately--absolutely believe there a fixed norms) . But a Gay is still a male and Lesbian still a female. They even fully retain the means to reproduce just not their orientation reproduce. But that's not necessary in nature. They just belong to a small fixed percentage (pick your number whether is 6-or 9 percent whatever) that appears to have always been present. But apart from those `stuck' between in development, all the rest are not natural --without science wouldn't exist. And the norm still remains so. Being born without a leg is still a person but it is drift from the default. So why it is necessary to say giving them a niche a in secular society is not possible? Many major states did it -- they just didn't mainstream it like 21st C Left does.

But it depends on (A).

titan said:

---

Given have watched the full video, its now very clear what `Groyper Wars' meant. It was questioning barrage, trying to get certain notions heard.

Two questions if you will. Given the dust up with Kirk and Smith at Ohio segment A) are the younger dissident right abandoning the American secular overall environment (pre-supposing a Western Christian moral backdrop and framework as foundational, but not determining every law) premise? Were they saying they do not want any G or L or B even if thoroughly conservative? That is, (not a criticism but a note) they are taking a true dogma approach much closer to a Christian sharia than it is the secular idea of "all kinds of the same ideal" which was what Kirk clearly was coming from, and what GenX grew up with. If it is that exclusionary, that's kind of surprising. Is this correct?

B) Why can't a distinction be made between the alphabets and the more deranged. Seems that Male and Female are clear defaults designed or intended for one another (use default very deliberately--absolutely believe there a fixed norms) . But a Gay is still a male and Lesbian still a female. They even fully retain the means to reproduce just not their orientation reproduce. But that's not necessary in nature. They just belong to a small fixed percentage (pick your number whether is 6-or 9 percent whatever) that appears to have always been present. But apart from those `stuck' between in development, all the rest are not natural --without science wouldn't exist. And the norm still remains so. Being born without a leg is still a person but it is drift from the default. So why it is necessary to say giving them a niche a in secular society is not possible? Many major states did it -- they just didn't mainstream it like 21st C Left does.

But it depends on (A).

---

Homosexuality has traditional been rejected by "conservatives". This phenomenon of incorporating homosexuality into "conservatism" is relatively new- like maybe less than 20 years.

On social issues, the "conservatives" are currently just where the liberals were 10-15 year ago. Thats always been the criticism. Thats why one guy asked, "How long until we will call child drag queen story hour a conservative value." They are mocking TPUSA brand of "conservatism".

I think I have your questions right so I'll do my best to answer based on my understanding of what you're trying to ask:

A) Yes, younger generations are much more traditional on a personal/religious level. The Latin mass is popular among young people. Young women are wearing veils at mass.

B) Once you cede any ground to the progressive cause, choosing a stopping point is completely arbitrary. That's just a quick, logic-based test. But on a moral level, the conservative movement should be about conserving Christian family values. Homosexuality is not one of those values. Sola Scriptura evangelicals should have a hard line against this as it's explicitly stated in the Bible as wrong. I don't know Kirk's exact position on it, but you absolutely can't be a serious Christian and be for gay adoption. That is a policy position that could suffer if you allow gays to be a part of your movement.

So in effect, it is (A) and from a theological stance, can hold up. But you are saying that you don't want "allies of all stripes that share the same ideal" . Just based on their bed relations but otherwise holding to American ideals like that man with Kirk. Understand that under various names that's what just the general conservative view thinks, not necessarily neocons or country club Republicans. You are proposing a more narrow membership criteria. Not arguing it, just pointing out its there. If enforcing the conduct code so firmly, how far does it go---whats the taken on adultery and extramarital sex?

titan said:

---

So in effect, it is (A) and from a theological stance, can hold up. But you are saying that you don't want "allies of all stripes that share the same ideal" . Just based on their bed relations but otherwise holding to American ideals like that man with Kirk. Understand that under various names that's what just the general conservative view thinks, not necessarily neocons or country club Republicans. You are proposing a more narrow membership criteria. Not arguing it, just pointing out its there. If enforcing the conduct code so firmly, how far does it go---whats the taken on adultery and extramarital sex?

---

The dissident right groypers do not want it accepted and openly promoted. They basically have the same position on this that every conservative man had from 1776-sometime in the early 2000's.

shack009 said:

---

I think I have your questions right so I'll do my best to answer based on my understanding of what you're trying to ask:

A) Yes, younger generations are much more traditional on a personal/religious level. The Latin mass is popular among young people. Young women are wearing veils at mass.

B) Once you cede any ground to the progressive cause, choosing a stopping point is completely arbitrary. That's just a quick, logic-based test. But on a moral level, the conservative movement should be about conserving Christian family values. Homosexuality is not one of those values. Sola Scriptura evangelicals should have a hard line against this as it's explicitly stated in the Bible as wrong. I don't know Kirk's exact position on it, but you absolutely can't be a serious Christian and be for gay adoption. That is a policy position that could suffer if you allow gays to be a part of your movement.

---

Thanks, those are coherent answers to my questions. I may disagree, but it follows from the semi-secular + Christian backstop take on America. And but yours are answers.

A) The women wearing veils says it all --- going back to early Byzantium even there. That does reveal much. Okay. Agree with the Latin mass and never liked the recent slamming of those who wish to hear it or the ancient chants. Okay.

B) But wasn't a way to set that stopping point offered? Something is far less arbitrary if it can be shown to be internally consistent. Is not the argument if you need science for it, it isn't natural pretty true? Now on gay adoption can see the even stronger contradiction there --- that is tricky if you are determined to keep that policy out of a movement. So can spot that. (note -- never agreed with the distortion of marriage--so some of that flows from that. Terminology can be important. But a secular state needed to have options)

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

So in effect, it is (A) and from a theological stance, can hold up. But you are saying that you don't want "allies of all stripes that share the same ideal" . Just based on their bed relations but otherwise holding to American ideals like that man with Kirk. Understand that under various names that's what just the general conservative view thinks, not necessarily neocons or country club Republicans. You are proposing a more narrow membership criteria. Not arguing it, just pointing out its there. If enforcing the conduct code so firmly, how far does it go---whats the taken on adultery and extramarital sex?

---

The dissident right groypers do not want it accepted and openly promoted. They basically have the same position on this that every conservative man had from 1776-sometime in the early 2000's.

---

Will let others say was that really up to the early 2000s. The impression got was giving a `space of own' was natural in a variety of lifes hegemon; but it was not mainstreamed. This again from the recognition a certain percentage seemed to be that way and had some other contribution to make outside procreation.

But this is clear answers and clear opinions -- it is something that will have to be confronted among the various blocks of the right if a segment is abandoning the "secular overlay on Christian foundation pre-supposition" that would describe as having formed our laws and codes in the last century. (Agree the further back you get, the more all or nothing it gets, but less true of the big empires in earlier times -- which in some ways we more resemble)

titan said:

---

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

So in effect, it is (A) and from a theological stance, can hold up. But you are saying that you don't want "allies of all stripes that share the same ideal" . Just based on their bed relations but otherwise holding to American ideals like that man with Kirk. Understand that under various names that's what just the general conservative view thinks, not necessarily neocons or country club Republicans. You are proposing a more narrow membership criteria. Not arguing it, just pointing out its there. If enforcing the conduct code so firmly, how far does it go---whats the taken on adultery and extramarital sex?

---

The dissident right groypers do not want it accepted and openly promoted. They basically have the same position on this that every conservative man had from 1776-sometime in the early 2000's.

---

Will let others say was that really up to the early 2000s. The impression got was giving a `space of own' was natural in a variety of lifes hegemon; but it was not mainstreamed. This again from the recognition a certain percentage seemed to be that way and had some other contribution to make outside procreation.

But this is clear answers and clear opinions -- it is something that will have to be confronted among the various blocks of the right if a segment is abandoning the "secular overlay on Christian foundation pre-supposition" that would describe as having formed our laws and codes in the last century. (Agree the further back you get, the more all or nothing it gets, but less true of the big empires in earlier times -- which in some ways we more resemble)

---

As I said earlier, the mainstream "conservative" position today on social issues is just where the liberals were 10-15 years ago. This needs to stop and be reversed.

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

So in effect, it is (A) and from a theological stance, can hold up. But you are saying that you don't want "allies of all stripes that share the same ideal" . Just based on their bed relations but otherwise holding to American ideals like that man with Kirk. Understand that under various names that's what just the general conservative view thinks, not necessarily neocons or country club Republicans. You are proposing a more narrow membership criteria. Not arguing it, just pointing out its there. If enforcing the conduct code so firmly, how far does it go---whats the taken on adultery and extramarital sex?

---

The dissident right groypers do not want it accepted and openly promoted. They basically have the same position on this that every conservative man had from 1776-sometime in the early 2000's.

---

Will let others say was that really up to the early 2000s. The impression got was giving a `space of own' was natural in a variety of lifes hegemon; but it was not mainstreamed. This again from the recognition a certain percentage seemed to be that way and had some other contribution to make outside procreation.

But this is clear answers and clear opinions -- it is something that will have to be confronted among the various blocks of the right if a segment is abandoning the "secular overlay on Christian foundation pre-supposition" that would describe as having formed our laws and codes in the last century. (Agree the further back you get, the more all or nothing it gets, but less true of the big empires in earlier times -- which in some ways we more resemble)

---

As I said earlier, the mainstream "conservative" position today on social issues is just where the liberals were 10-15 years ago. This needs to stop and be reversed.

---

Have seen that argument repeated alot. It certainly applies to the GOP-E. But political party members tend to be more corrupt and weather-vane than not. I am less certain that from center right moving rightward much of the right has as much trouble drawing an Overton window halt, if they didn't have a feckless party that would never fight just dragging it over anyway (the Washington Generals phenomena). Maybe some can say.

Didn't some of the of the `liberalizing' of the conservative you describe just also come from a desire to be less peremptory and blunt about certain matters than before? Less cruel -- is it all just due to Overton drift to you.

But since you bring it up, while have mechanisms to prevent that "drift" you describe, its far from clear that there is such a brake to the process for most. Can't say the march of events hasn't borne out the proposition "where were 10-15 years ago". Not sure can say its not true. We have all seen how the slippery slope ridicule almost always turns false. That's the knot.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

I think I have your questions right so I'll do my best to answer based on my understanding of what you're trying to ask:

A) Yes, younger generations are much more traditional on a personal/religious level. The Latin mass is popular among young people. Young women are wearing veils at mass.

B) Once you cede any ground to the progressive cause, choosing a stopping point is completely arbitrary. That's just a quick, logic-based test. But on a moral level, the conservative movement should be about conserving Christian family values. Homosexuality is not one of those values. Sola Scriptura evangelicals should have a hard line against this as it's explicitly stated in the Bible as wrong. I don't know Kirk's exact position on it, but you absolutely can't be a serious Christian and be for gay adoption. That is a policy position that could suffer if you allow gays to be a part of your movement.

---

---

Quote:

---

But wasn't a way to set that stopping point offered?

---

What is it? Not one that makes any sense.

Quote:

---

Something is far less arbitrary if it can be shown to be internally consistent.

---

I know, but I don't see how it's internally consistent. I mean the explanation Kirk actually used in the video is "consenting adults." When you say that, it's basically anything goes for 18 and up. I don't see a consistent argument for allowing gays and stopping before trans. "I don't agree with the lifestyle, but we agree on tax policy." Can apply to both gays and trans.

Quote:

---

Now on gay adoption can see the even stronger contradiction there --- that is tricky if you are determined to keep that policy out of a movement.

---

Right. It's not tricky at all, though, if you don't allow the progressives to seep in to your movement.

The secular state giving up on marriage broke the dam and forced all the nonsense we have now on us. If you have a traditionalist Christian government then gay marriage is never allowed and you never get transing the kids. It was Charlie Kirk's brand of conservatism with "consenting adults" and "in the privacy of the home" that has brought us here.

Yeah you may say people wanted to be nice or "less blunt" and aggie93 may say people wanted to "build coalitions." Meanwhile we moved leftward. Good thing we were nice and built coalitions.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

I think I have your questions right so I'll do my best to answer based on my understanding of what you're trying to ask:

A) Yes, younger generations are much more traditional on a personal/religious level. The Latin mass is popular among young people. Young women are wearing veils at mass.

B) Once you cede any ground to the progressive cause, choosing a stopping point is completely arbitrary. That's just a quick, logic-based test. But on a moral level, the conservative movement should be about conserving Christian family values. Homosexuality is not one of those values. Sola Scriptura evangelicals should have a hard line against this as it's explicitly stated in the Bible as wrong. I don't know Kirk's exact position on it, but you absolutely can't be a serious Christian and be for gay adoption. That is a policy position that could suffer if you allow gays to be a part of your movement.

---

---

Quote:

---

But wasn't a way to set that stopping point offered?

---

What is it? Not one that makes any sense.

Quote:

---

Something is far less arbitrary if it can be shown to be internally consistent.

---

I know, but I don't see how it's internally consistent. I mean the explanation Kirk actually used in the video is "consenting adults." When you say that, it's basically anything goes for 18 and up. I don't see a consistent argument for allowing gays and stopping before trans. "I don't agree with the lifestyle, but we agree on tax policy." Can apply to both gays and trans.

---

Not the consenting adults argument. Meant this one: Seems that Male and Female are clear defaults designed or intended for one another - let alone Biblically specified (use default very deliberately--absolutely believe there a fixed norms) . But a Gay is still a male and Lesbian still a female. They even fully retain the means to reproduce just not their orientation reproduce. But that's not necessary in nature. They just belong to a small fixed percentage (pick your number whether is 6-or 9 percent whatever) that appears to have always been present. But apart from those `stuck' between in development, all the rest are not natural --without science wouldn't exist. Is not the argument if you need science for it, it isn't natural pretty true?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now on gay adoption can see the even stronger contradiction there --- that is tricky if you are determined to keep that policy out of a movement.

---

Right. It's not tricky at all, though, if you don't allow the progressives to seep in to your movement.

---

Yes, that's why can say, that stance makes sense from your perspective. Its a wall-off or bulkhead.

Quote:

---

The secular state giving up on marriage broke the dam and forced all the nonsense we have now on us. If you have a traditionalist Christian government then gay marriage is never allowed and you never get transing the kids. It was Charlie Kirk's brand of conservatism with "consenting adults" and "in the privacy of the home" that has brought us here.

---

Its correct about the secular state dropping that ball -- and that mistake was recognized as it was happening. Not even sure what argument can or should be made against the fact that definitely happened. Now on the last part, Kirk was just espousing the same notion most of GenX and after grew up with.

shack009 said:

---

Yeah you may say people wanted to be nice or "less blunt" and aggie93 may say people wanted to "build coalitions." Meanwhile we moved leftward. Good thing we were nice and built coalitions.

---

That's the real trick, isn't it. This has been insightful. Have 20s somethings watching what they run into and wanted to know what was up with this. Women even wearing veils (and not because of `Islamcization' from the Left, but harking back to early Church ---that's eye opening)