Ep. 461 Baptists and Bootleggers in the Tucker/Shapiro Feud over Fuentes
Bob gives a friendly critique to Clint Russell and other antiwar podcasters for unwittingly conceding the framing of Ben Shapiro and James Lindsay, when it comes to the place of Nick Fuentes in their ranks.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- The YouTube version of this episode.
- Clint Russell’s episode on Fuentes conquering TPUSA. Ben Shapiro on Tucker Carlson as the bad guy.
- Bobby Darin performance that rivals any German dictator.
- Bob’s earlier episode responding to Fuentes’ arguments.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Nick doesn’t deny the holocaust, you’re being dishonest. Way too many awkward strawmans. That “6 million” number is obvious propaganda, how do you not know this by now. The laws that criminalize skepticism about this also confirm there is serious reason to doubt it.
By the way, why do you think they’re over-represented in media, banking, and lobbying in the US?
“We aren’t denying it but we are just denying it!”
Ok bruh.
Nick- have a reputable source that says it’s only 300K instead of 6 million?
ChatGPT exists. Query Thomas Sowell and statistical professional overrepresentation among Jews, Japanese, Indians, etc.
I’m not sure what your point is. One of the few things we can be very confident about is that the “6 million” number is absurd. (Also, that the commies won that war, as Patton said.) Making jokes about that number ought to be perfectly fine – especially given the context of how *violently* it’s STILL forced on people – it’s very weird how Bob treats this as taboo. In non-clown world, so long as those laws exist, we should all feel obligated to parody it, or at the very least support those who do.
Does Thomas Sowell explain why Hollywood (or media or banking) is basically jew-run? If he does, surely jew organized crime was a factor in his explanation? Jew nepotism too, perhaps?
“We are confident that it is absurd” is not a source.
You’re not serious, I see.
Good episode, Bob. I’m largely with you, but still trying to figure Nick out myself.
You stressed towards the end that Nick isn’t joking, but also that he probably doesn’t believe everything he’s saying. What is the critical distinction for you? You drew parallels to Rush Limbaugh earlier, but I think Rush did believe he was saying, so I’m having trouble comparing the two.
Is the distinction that you think that Nick may not believe it but his audience does? If that’s it, what proportion of his audience do you think takes Nick’s rhetoric 100% literally rather than just as hyperbole or unserious edginess? I would think his audience would eat him alive if they took him 100% literally and then saw him go on these other shows and not only moderate, but repudiate a lot his most edgy rhetoric. I always worry a little about this kind of “Overton Window” pushing rhetoric and deadpan irony in messaging, because even though I love dark humor, I know there will always be way more people than you think who are not too bright or incapable of reading between the lines who will take it seriously. To the extent that Nick doesn’t always mean what he says, I wonder how much of his audience is “in on it,” because I sure have a hard time figuring out what he really believes.
Tyler: Good question, I realized afterward people might not get the distinction I was making.
When I said to Adam, “I’ve got $100 for any Groypers watching right now,” that was a joke. I didn’t literally want them to eat excrement. And in fact, I don’t wish them ill will; it was a joke based on the fact that I had been criticizing their guy.
On the other hand, it’s possible that I think Dave Smith is totally wrong on immigration, but I pretend to say “Hmm very thoughtful Dave, you raise a good point” because I know that’s a way to keep his fans happy with me. So if that is in fact what I was doing, then it wouldn’t be a joke, I wasn’t kidding, but I also wouldn’t believe the statement I was making.
(To be sure, I can tell you right now that I wasn’t grifting, but that’s what a grifter would say…)
See the distinction?
Ok. So you mean he says things he doesn’t believe like how a politician does 🙂 – just lying and manipulating. Hmm….that’s not really the vibe I get….Milo definitely gave off that vibe to me and from the way people talked about Nick, I thought he was just Milo 2.0, but I had a totally different impression when I actually listened to his interview with Dave. I guess I’ll have to listen to his show sometime to make up my mind.
No, you’re misunderstanding (still). I’m saying, I don’t necessarily believe that he actually thinks “world Jewry” is conspiring against his tribe, since he talks like a normal person with Glenn Greenwald and Dave. On his show he goes out of his way to say it’s not just particular bad guys who also are Jewish that he’s against, but he opposes Jews as such. And I’m saying, he’s definitely not “making a joke” when he talks like that, but I don’t know that he actually believes it.
Oh….so do you mean that the contradiction is unintentional then? Like someone who says they believe in an imminent climate crisis, and maybe they really do on some intellectual level, but then nothing about how they live their lives suggest that they take it as seriously as they themselves think they do?
Heh, no, that’s not what I’m saying. I was clarifying that you misunderstood my prior (attempted) clarification. You thought I was saying Nick is being a politician when he’s talking to Glenn or Dave and says he doesn’t hate people. And so I clarified, no, I was saying he might be putting on a show *on his show* when he’s talking about “perfidious Jews” etc. But even there, it’s not that he’s kidding.
Ok. Guess I’m not sure what you mean. Maybe it’s because in my mind intentionally saying stuff you don’t believe but which you present as your honest opinion for clicks is the same as lying like a politician.
We keep passing like ships in the night. Right, we agree that that’s lying like a politician. But in your previous comment, I thought you were saying, “He seemed earnest when talking to Dave.” And I’m agreeing with you; I don’t think he was being dishonest there. I’m saying on his show, I think he might be saying things he doesn’t believe.
Frankie Valli “Can’t Take my eyes off of you “
Charles, yes, that’s the more popular version of the song. But did you click the link in the show notes page? I think Bobby Darin’s version is even better.
https://open.spotify.com/track/6ft9PAgNOjmZ2kFVP7LGqb?si=c6MvX48UTg-NHZsyN2esdA