>>512183719
>Tucker's show blew up mainly because he took the viral stories of the day from pol and rw twitter which were ignored by the media at large and put them in front of a large audience. A lot of it was racially tinged(violence, hoaxes, immigration). There was even some borderline noticing, but his writers knew how to keep a level of plausible deniability.
So the topics were things talked about on /pol/, but his positions on them were kept within the bounds of what jews find acceptable. Why is that so exciting? Why do people get so taken in by just seeing something referenced?
It's almost like you don't actually have a firm position on any of this stuff yourself, and you just enjoy consuming content relating to these subjects regardless of what is actually being said.
If Tucker is good because he is "persuading normies", shouldn't you think a little harder about what he is persuading them to think and do? If all Tucker's talk about immigration leads back into "vote for conservatives, pray for God to save America, etc", is that leading to what you want?
The same goes for Fuentes or anyone else. Even if you go further than Tucker, and tell people the ADL are jewish gangsters, but then go on to say that some jews are great and you gotta pray that they become Catholic, this isn't actually a different position to the old conservative whining about how jews vote democrat and they need to be conservatives.
This shit has all been done before, and in fact it was much less stupid and more understandable that people fell for it in the 60s than it is now.
8/4/2025, 6:06:52 AM
No.512177742
>>512178225
>>512179842
>>512181599
>>512181626
>>512182071
>>512182761
>>512184331
>>512185927
>>512187081
>>512187458
>>512187478
>>512191670
>>512192391
>>512195014
>>512196080
>>512196125
>>512196195
>>512199912
