> If I could summarize the governing style of the first 100 days of the second Trump administration with one word, it would be “slopulism”. What have been some of the new admin’s misadventures so far? Calling for Canada to become the 51st US state, threatening to annex Greenland from Denmark, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, proposing turning Gaza into a beachside resort, a farcically unsuccessful attempt at ending the Russia-Ukraine War, going back and forth on an incoherent tariff plan, and reintroducing single-use plastic straws.
On the other hand, he also got rid of USAID, dismantled the left's censorship-industrial complex, and is going after the woke universities.
"But the slop memes are what got Trump elected." I don't think right-wing intellectuals have that much power over how discourse is handled on Twitter or how Trump policy is determined. It's probably important to point out where right-wing intellectuals are doing a good job on theory and culture and community building. And to gently nudge them to work more on actual policy and advocacy like the Left does. There are real examples on the conservative side with abortion, Federalist society, gun advocacy, libertarians etc.
The right cares about nationalism/ ethnicity and I don't know if the taboo has lessened enough that there can be advocacy groups related to this
The foothold to lobbying does not have to be ethnicity. It can be family formation or religion in the short term if ethnicity is still too taboo
If you don't listen maybe a massive leftwing backlash throughout the entire West will make you listen. Anti-trans versions of neoconservatism are not gonna cut it, chief
I was a founding member of Nathan Cofnas’ Stack—I didn’t renew.
So when I (in all seriousness) suggest that DJT declare martial law (to thwart and reverse an invasion), subsequently suspend the Constitution and a little while later, establish the First American Empire by proclaiming himself Emperor, does that fall under the definition of “slopulism”?
See now my Emperor can simply annex Canada (and Greenland) and the provinces would retain even greater sovereignty, much like Alaska and the lower 48 (Hawaii would be a good faith trade to China, after we take back the Philippines).
And the great thing is that in the day-to-day course of events, most people would neither notice nor be affected by the transition.
What’s lost? A Congress with abysmal approval, a conservative court trying to split babies and a highly contentious election every four years.
If I lived In a swing state, I would be loving that relief.
When both sides are calling one another evil (my current phrase is disease vectors requiring abatement), one camp will be ruthlessly vanquished.
So I need my president to pick up the reins and establish his almighty reign.
Was a founding member of Walt Bismarck, and couldn't afford to renew.
Why not annex Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. (and their territories) as well? They're already technically U.S. territories due to our military bases over there. Why annex the Philippines? (I'd rather they modernize, and I'd rather we destroy China)
Haven't really cared the slightest about Trump lately, and not for several years. Even in '16, I had qualms about him (such as his connections to Russia and draft dodging), but '20 really destroyed it.
I like his tariffs a lot, and his efforts to restore manufacturing to America.
100% bring back our manufacturing (or as close as possible). Absolutely 100% ban everything made in China and India.
But I absolutely agree with you on the bottom points (other than the second to last).
Not sure why you think the left won’t suspend the constitution once they reclaim executive authority and it sounds like that is preferable to DJT ascending his almighty throne, in your honest opinion.
Interesting ideas, but I don't think anyone is defending the worsening rhetoric of twitter. I'm not familiar with any support for Musk monetizing impressions. I also think the point could have been made that Trump's first hundred days might have been improved with more consideration to public reaction, without resorting to defending a woman.
Finally, it does seem apparent that the most vocal critics of the "online right", if such a thing exists, are either bitter or receiving some benefit.
I think there’s a real problem with how quickly people jump to assuming bad faith — bitterness, grifting, betrayal, etc. It makes real conversation almost impossible. I’d say this essay was obviously written in good faith, yet I have people accusing me of taking a break from vandalizing Teslas to write it.
I read it with a pretty open mind and tried to reply with a mildly misogynistic joke in good humour. The vitriolic reactions in either support or against your article was surprising, given the content.
I generally sympathize with some of the points you made, but it’s weird how you quote Cofnas in regard to Social status on the right being “determined mainly by how much attention you can generate”, and then later go on to acknowledge (correctly) that this is the nature of online spaces in general (apart for those with a very high barrier of entry), far from being unique to the right in particular.
Furthermore, it’s very hard to take seriously this argument about low-IQ behavior on the part of the online right leading to “le great backlash™”, not least of all because that’s just not how politics works, but also because that criticism is so frequently advanced by individuals who would probably celebrate a left wing backlash were it actually to occur, meaning the whole idea is nothing but concern trolling to begin with.
It's true of online spaces in general, but it's clearly more true of the right than the left (because the left actually controls the media).
I'd argue that the Left's unwillingness to police its extremes ultimately backfired on them. Average Americans increasingly saw mainstream left-wing politicians as enablers of chaos. Even Hitler (not exactly a centrist) purged extremist elements from his own movement to present an image of order.
> Furthermore, it’s very hard to take seriously this argument about low-IQ behavior on the part of the online right leading to “le great backlash™”, not least of all because that’s just not how politics works,
Yes it is. The only leverage the low IQ have is voting. The high IQ are the ones who will actually be implementing policy.
You make a lot of critiques of “right wing discourse” that are just universal laws of discourse, what determines popularity etc. This is low IQ leftist EHC-ism and it does not fool everybody.
1) Censorship is an IQ test, a form of quality control.
Censorship = good. Great take.
"The right-wing Twitterati wasn't just disproportionately academic; it was also disproportionately Jewish. This point has been made ad nauseum by Groypers, which naturally leads us to the online right's obsession with Jews."
2) academic = Jewish, lol, ok, got it.
3) The online right's obsession with Jews has nothing to do with too much Jewish "Twitterati". It has to do with the Jewish control of the American government: AIPAC, ADL, uncoditional support for Israel, Media, Banking, etc.
"An obvious retort to everything I have said is that I have chosen to focus on the worst aspects of the online right [like Alex Jones, Candace Owens, and Laura Loomer] while ignoring the best".
4) Please cite one single instance of Alex Jones, Candace Owens, or Laura Loomer making anti-semitc comments.
... I stop here, I can't force myself to keep reading. Too much slop ...
>the online right is increasingly inhabited by low-IQ chuds who blame their personal shortcomings on political scapegoats (read: Jews, women, Klaus Schwab). What was once a creative intellectual space has devolved into an echo chamber of thought-terminating clichés.
These people have always existed. Maybe you weren’t as much in the online right as you thought you were
The truth doesn't need Peter Thiel's help, and whether he turns his nose up at the truth or good people sugarcoat the truth to his liking, influence is lost in both cases.
Also: power and influence do not always go together. Peter Thiel has no power -- he does not command unwavering troops. He has only the influence of money and media, neither of which is serving Clown World well against actual power wielded by Russia.
It's not about politicking or winning over urban faggots by appeasement and sugarcoating. It's about telling the truth, living righteously, and cultivating faith and courage.
It's annoying how fast internet slang catches on and then everyone is using it. I never heard the term slop used to describe content or politics six weeks ago.
I think what you're missing is that 1) every move is intentionally sensationalized and blown out of proportion and 2) the reality of the modern West has become so self-destructive that literally the only way forward is a complete shift in worldview.
That's precisely what "America First" and the Gulf of America are: a public acknowledgment that it's necessary for America to unapologetically act in it's own interests.
It's not about appealing to some urban faggot who is finally starting to have second thoughts about celebrating sodomy and being careful not to scare him away; it's about telling the truth unapologetically.
> If I could summarize the governing style of the first 100 days of the second Trump administration with one word, it would be “slopulism”. What have been some of the new admin’s misadventures so far? Calling for Canada to become the 51st US state, threatening to annex Greenland from Denmark, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, proposing turning Gaza into a beachside resort, a farcically unsuccessful attempt at ending the Russia-Ukraine War, going back and forth on an incoherent tariff plan, and reintroducing single-use plastic straws.
On the other hand, he also got rid of USAID, dismantled the left's censorship-industrial complex, and is going after the woke universities.
And cut illegal border crossings to a small fraction of what they had been.
Yes lots of good things
Not only does he needs to ban immigration 100%, but he needs to also enforce English as our official language, and be harsh with them
that and mass remigration too
(obv exceptions apply with the indians and the amish/mennonites only)
A New York Times article linked to this post: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html
And yes, many of these "Online Right" people are misanthropes that are driven by ressentiment.
Thanks for the heads up
"But the slop memes are what got Trump elected." I don't think right-wing intellectuals have that much power over how discourse is handled on Twitter or how Trump policy is determined. It's probably important to point out where right-wing intellectuals are doing a good job on theory and culture and community building. And to gently nudge them to work more on actual policy and advocacy like the Left does. There are real examples on the conservative side with abortion, Federalist society, gun advocacy, libertarians etc.
The right cares about nationalism/ ethnicity and I don't know if the taboo has lessened enough that there can be advocacy groups related to this
The foothold to lobbying does not have to be ethnicity. It can be family formation or religion in the short term if ethnicity is still too taboo
Whiny. Boring. Blocked.
If you don't listen maybe a massive leftwing backlash throughout the entire West will make you listen. Anti-trans versions of neoconservatism are not gonna cut it, chief
Neocons can’t be anti trans dude. They are socially liberal and that just comes with the territory
To be fair if they want to send troons to the front lines of the Israel Iran war I’m not gonna stop them.
I don't think that article mainly criticizes neoconservatives
Whatevah
I can’t tell who is sloping who anymore.
I can, and tbh the right and center do it even more than the left at this point
Because the left can’t meme. Best they can do is David Hogg & AOCs big tits.
Explain the Zigger on top of it all
I was a founding member of Nathan Cofnas’ Stack—I didn’t renew.
So when I (in all seriousness) suggest that DJT declare martial law (to thwart and reverse an invasion), subsequently suspend the Constitution and a little while later, establish the First American Empire by proclaiming himself Emperor, does that fall under the definition of “slopulism”?
See now my Emperor can simply annex Canada (and Greenland) and the provinces would retain even greater sovereignty, much like Alaska and the lower 48 (Hawaii would be a good faith trade to China, after we take back the Philippines).
And the great thing is that in the day-to-day course of events, most people would neither notice nor be affected by the transition.
What’s lost? A Congress with abysmal approval, a conservative court trying to split babies and a highly contentious election every four years.
If I lived In a swing state, I would be loving that relief.
When both sides are calling one another evil (my current phrase is disease vectors requiring abatement), one camp will be ruthlessly vanquished.
So I need my president to pick up the reins and establish his almighty reign.
If he actually does those things it wouldn’t be slopulism
Was a founding member of Walt Bismarck, and couldn't afford to renew.
Why not annex Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. (and their territories) as well? They're already technically U.S. territories due to our military bases over there. Why annex the Philippines? (I'd rather they modernize, and I'd rather we destroy China)
Haven't really cared the slightest about Trump lately, and not for several years. Even in '16, I had qualms about him (such as his connections to Russia and draft dodging), but '20 really destroyed it.
I like his tariffs a lot, and his efforts to restore manufacturing to America.
100% bring back our manufacturing (or as close as possible). Absolutely 100% ban everything made in China and India.
But I absolutely agree with you on the bottom points (other than the second to last).
Not sure why you think the left won’t suspend the constitution once they reclaim executive authority and it sounds like that is preferable to DJT ascending his almighty throne, in your honest opinion.
Interesting ideas, but I don't think anyone is defending the worsening rhetoric of twitter. I'm not familiar with any support for Musk monetizing impressions. I also think the point could have been made that Trump's first hundred days might have been improved with more consideration to public reaction, without resorting to defending a woman.
Finally, it does seem apparent that the most vocal critics of the "online right", if such a thing exists, are either bitter or receiving some benefit.
I think there’s a real problem with how quickly people jump to assuming bad faith — bitterness, grifting, betrayal, etc. It makes real conversation almost impossible. I’d say this essay was obviously written in good faith, yet I have people accusing me of taking a break from vandalizing Teslas to write it.
I read it with a pretty open mind and tried to reply with a mildly misogynistic joke in good humour. The vitriolic reactions in either support or against your article was surprising, given the content.
Yeah I found it somewhat surprising as well
Let me know if you get my check in the mail. I haven't seen one yet.
By virtue of what I said, it would appear you belong to the bitter camp. I assume you also have a Twitter account?
Thank you for proving Russell right. Bless you.
Excellent point. I've cancelled my paid subscription. "Bless you" hope you take some pleasure in sabotaging the people who defend you.
Defending us by writing us off as bitter and without a point. Thank you for that.
Never worry, I'm not defending you. I'm just embarrassed to contribute to your temper tantrum
I generally sympathize with some of the points you made, but it’s weird how you quote Cofnas in regard to Social status on the right being “determined mainly by how much attention you can generate”, and then later go on to acknowledge (correctly) that this is the nature of online spaces in general (apart for those with a very high barrier of entry), far from being unique to the right in particular.
Furthermore, it’s very hard to take seriously this argument about low-IQ behavior on the part of the online right leading to “le great backlash™”, not least of all because that’s just not how politics works, but also because that criticism is so frequently advanced by individuals who would probably celebrate a left wing backlash were it actually to occur, meaning the whole idea is nothing but concern trolling to begin with.
It's true of online spaces in general, but it's clearly more true of the right than the left (because the left actually controls the media).
I'd argue that the Left's unwillingness to police its extremes ultimately backfired on them. Average Americans increasingly saw mainstream left-wing politicians as enablers of chaos. Even Hitler (not exactly a centrist) purged extremist elements from his own movement to present an image of order.
> Furthermore, it’s very hard to take seriously this argument about low-IQ behavior on the part of the online right leading to “le great backlash™”, not least of all because that’s just not how politics works,
Yes it is. The only leverage the low IQ have is voting. The high IQ are the ones who will actually be implementing policy.
You make a lot of critiques of “right wing discourse” that are just universal laws of discourse, what determines popularity etc. This is low IQ leftist EHC-ism and it does not fool everybody.
Hopefully it fools somebody! Appreciate your contributions sensitive young fascist.
you are weak. i will crush you.
😳😨
1) Censorship is an IQ test, a form of quality control.
Censorship = good. Great take.
"The right-wing Twitterati wasn't just disproportionately academic; it was also disproportionately Jewish. This point has been made ad nauseum by Groypers, which naturally leads us to the online right's obsession with Jews."
2) academic = Jewish, lol, ok, got it.
3) The online right's obsession with Jews has nothing to do with too much Jewish "Twitterati". It has to do with the Jewish control of the American government: AIPAC, ADL, uncoditional support for Israel, Media, Banking, etc.
"An obvious retort to everything I have said is that I have chosen to focus on the worst aspects of the online right [like Alex Jones, Candace Owens, and Laura Loomer] while ignoring the best".
4) Please cite one single instance of Alex Jones, Candace Owens, or Laura Loomer making anti-semitc comments.
... I stop here, I can't force myself to keep reading. Too much slop ...
>the online right is increasingly inhabited by low-IQ chuds who blame their personal shortcomings on political scapegoats (read: Jews, women, Klaus Schwab). What was once a creative intellectual space has devolved into an echo chamber of thought-terminating clichés.
These people have always existed. Maybe you weren’t as much in the online right as you thought you were
The truth doesn't need Peter Thiel's help, and whether he turns his nose up at the truth or good people sugarcoat the truth to his liking, influence is lost in both cases.
Also: power and influence do not always go together. Peter Thiel has no power -- he does not command unwavering troops. He has only the influence of money and media, neither of which is serving Clown World well against actual power wielded by Russia.
It's not about politicking or winning over urban faggots by appeasement and sugarcoating. It's about telling the truth, living righteously, and cultivating faith and courage.
It's annoying how fast internet slang catches on and then everyone is using it. I never heard the term slop used to describe content or politics six weeks ago.
The author of this article took some time off from vandalizing Tesla's to gripe about the online right. Hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
Sorry about the late reply, I was vandalizing a Tesla
Are the policies of the Trump administration you find disagreeable the result of low IQ twitter posters?
I think what you're missing is that 1) every move is intentionally sensationalized and blown out of proportion and 2) the reality of the modern West has become so self-destructive that literally the only way forward is a complete shift in worldview.
That's precisely what "America First" and the Gulf of America are: a public acknowledgment that it's necessary for America to unapologetically act in it's own interests.
It's not about appealing to some urban faggot who is finally starting to have second thoughts about celebrating sodomy and being careful not to scare him away; it's about telling the truth unapologetically.
Urban faggots, such as Peter Thiel, have a lot of power and influence.