#seth dillon

Source

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

It’s been a rough week in the world of the online intellectual right, which is currently in the midst of two separate yet related blowups — both of which illustrate how the pressures of power are cracking the elite coalition that aligned behind President Donald Trump’s return to power. The first fight is really a struggle over who should determine the philosophical identity of MAGA, pitting a group of anti-woke writers against a wide group of illiberal or post-liberal figures. The lead figure in the anti-woke camp, the prominent pundit James Lindsay, has been attacking his enemies as the “woke right” for months. In his mind, this group’s emphasis on the importance of religion, national identity, and ethnicity is the mirror image of the left’s identity politics — and thus an existential threat both to American freedom and the MAGA movement’s success. In response, his targets on the right — which range from national conservatives to white nationalists — have started firing back aggressively, arguing that Lindsay is not only wrong but maliciously attempting to fracture the MAGA coalition. This might seem like a niche online fight, but given that niche online discourse has been a major influence on the second Trump administration’s thinking, it might end up mattering quite a bit. The same could be said about the second fight, which revolves around Curtis Yarvin — the neo-monarchist blogger who has influenced both Vice President JD Vance and DOGE. A recent post by rationalist author Scott Alexander accused Yarvin of “selling out” — aligning himself with Trump even though he had long denounced the kind of “authoritarian populism” that Trump embodies. Yarvin defended himself with some fairly bitter attacks on Alexander, drawing in defenders and critics from the broader right-wing universe in the process.

Each of these fights is telling in their own right. The “woke right” contretemps shows just how deep the divisions go inside the Trump world — between anti-woke liberals, on the one hand, and various different forms of “postliberals” on the other. The Yarvin argument is a revealing portrait of how easy it is to get someone to compromise their own beliefs in the face of polarization and proximity to power. But put together, they show us just how hard it is to go from an insurgent force to a governing one.

The “woke right” redux

The “woke right” debate first came on my radar back in December, when the anti-woke pundit James Lindsay tricked a Christian nationalist website, American Reformer, into publishing excerpts of The Communist Manifesto edited to sound like a critique of modern American liberalism. It might seem to make little sense to describe a 19th-century text on resistance to capitalism as an example of 21st-century identity politics. But Lindsay, who sees himself as a right-wing liberal, is using an idiosyncratic understanding of “wokeness” that equates it with collectivism — the idea that the politics should be understood through the lens of interests of groups, be it the proletariat or Black Americans, rather than treating all citizens purely as individuals. Thus, for Lindsay, communism is a form of wokeness, even if the term “woke” postdates Marx by nearly 200 years. This broad definition also allows there to be right-wing forms of wokeness. Neo-Nazism, Christian nationalism, Catholic integralism, even certain forms of anti-liberal conservative nationalism — all of these doctrines give significant weight to group identity in their understanding of what matters in the political realm. Thus, for Lindsay, they are threatening to American liberalism in exactly the same way as their left-wing peers.

“Woke Right are ‘right-wing’ people who have mostly adopted an identity-based victimhood orientation for themselves to bind together as a class,” he writes. “Like the Woke Left, then, they happily offer the trade-off usually used to describe Marxists: people who will ask you to trade some of your liberty so that they might hurt your enemies for you.” Personally, I find Lindsay’s definition of “wokeness” so broad that it ceases to operate as a meaningful category (if it ever was one in the first place). But the charge has clearly stung his antagonists on the right, where calling someone “woke” is basically the worst thing you can say about them. Prominent figures on the illiberal right, ranging from Tim Pool to Mike Cernovich to Anna Khachiyan, shot back at Lindsay — calling him a “grifter” out to undermine the MAGA movement. Meanwhile, Lindsay’s allies, including biologist Colin Wright and Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, accused them of being the true traitors to MAGA. The most interesting intervention in this debate is an essay recently posted on X by the Israeli intellectual Yoram Hazony. Hazony’s main project, the National Conservatism conference, has served as a hub connecting various different strands of illiberalism to each other and to power. Vance, Tucker Carlson, and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have all given notable speeches there.

[...]

What the two fights reveal about the Trump era

Both the “woke right” and Yarvin debates revolve fundamentally around power — specifically, how it should be wielded once you have it. The “woke right” debate is, at heart, about what the ultimate ends of the Trump administration should be. While both sides agree that the “woke left” should be wiped out, they disagree on what an alternative vision should look like. Lindsay and his allies argue for a restoration of some kind of right-wing liberal individualism; Hazony and his camp believe that the task is replacing liberalism with some kind of hazy alternative rooted in religious or ethno-cultural identity. This debate is taking place on purely abstract grounds — there’s almost never any reference to concrete policy disagreements — but it reflects an assumption that there are very real implications of this argument for the next four years of American politics. Lindsay has repeatedly argued, in tweets and interviews, that the rise of the “woke right” threatens to derail the entire MAGA project and return power to the left. The Yarvin debate poses a related, but more introspective, question about power: How corrosive is it for intellectuals to be in proximity to it? Alexander, the most intellectually rigorous person in either debate, suggests the answer is “very.” In Yarvin, he sees someone who he long took seriously as tainted by access — by, for example, Vance citing Yarvin as an influence in a podcast appearance. Yarvin’s own conduct in their debate vindicates his assessment. Put together, these debates point us to two major themes worth watching throughout the remainder of the Trump administration. First, how much the administration’s policy choices intensify the fractures in its elite coalition.

Hazony is right that hostility to the left is what brought disparate groups together under the Trump banner. But now, in a world where the administration has to govern, some of those factions are bound to feel like they’re losing or even betrayed.

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

Greater Than, a recently launched campaign to overturn marriage equality nationwide, misrepresented a quote from former President Barack Obama to falsely imply that he supports their campaign — he does not. The campaign’s website shows Obama’s image alongside those of other anti-LGBTQ+ bigots, like slain MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk, Christian conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey, and right-wing “satirical news” peddler Seth Dillon. Below Obama’s image is a 2010 quote in which he said, “We know that children benefit not just from loving mothers and loving fathers, but from strong and loving marriages as well.”

The insinuation is that Obama agrees with the anti-gay trope that “all children deserve a father and mother” (rather than two parents of the same sex) and that he considers same-sex marriages as weaker or less loving than different-sex marriages. Obama’s quote actually comes from a 2010 event promoting responsible fatherhood, according to Right Wing Watch, not an anti-gay speech. Obama expressed support for same-sex marriage during his 1996 Illinois state Senate campaign, telling The Windy City Times that he supported legalizing same-sex marriage and would fight efforts to ban it.

He infamously backtracked on this position during his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns — stating that he supported civil unions for LGBTQ+ couples but believed “marriage is between one man and one woman” — likely in an effort to court conservative moderate voters and avoid GOP anti-gay attacks. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer even dishonestly claimed that Obama’s 1996 statement had been forged, but Pfeiffer’s claim was later walked back by a White House spokesperson. Barack Obama publicly declared his support for same-sex marriage in a May 9, 2012, interview with ABC News, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. He also appointed two Supreme Court justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — who both voted in favor of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage. Greater Than’s website also features what appears to be an AI-generated image of a Black teenage boy looking sad and troubled, while his oblivious and uncaring white gay dads hold hands in the background. It’s notable that a campaign seemingly entirely run by white Christian conservatives would misrepresent the only Black president’s words and then fabricate a computer-generated photo-realistic image of a Black boy menaced by gay men in order to gain sympathy from Black community members and people who care about children’s well-being; essentially treating Black people as puppets and props.

Katy Faust, the anti-marriage-equality activist behind the campaign, has also peddled decades-old anti-gay smears insinuating that LGBTQ+ people harm kids. “There is a direct connection between gay marriage and child victimization,” Faust recently told Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, an anti-LGBTQ+ organization that has been certified as a hate group. Faust has also said that her campaign’s central message will be, “Don’t touch the kids,” a phrase insinuating right-wing smears of queer people molesting and “sexualizing” children.

The right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ ”Greater Than” campaign to overturn Obergefell falsely claimed former President Obama supports ending marriage equality by distorting the “We know that children benefit not just from loving mothers and loving fathers, but from strong and loving marriages as well” quote.

Jack Wheatley at MMFA:

Conservative influencers and show hosts are blasting former Fox News host Tucker Carlson for his October 27 interview with white nationalist streamer and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Following the episode’s release, right-wing pundits and podcasters called the collaboration “sick” and “simply despicable,” with some labeling his movement as “anti-Semitic, hateful freaks,” and characterizing the event as disrespectful to the legacy of Charlie Kirk. After Kevin Roberts, the leader of the conservative Heritage Foundation, released a video criticizing the “venomous coalition” who have attacked Carlson for hosting Fuentes, his video also received broad condemnation from members of right-wing media. Alternatively, some right-wing media figures and influencers celebrated the interview, calling it a “must watch.” 

Carlson yet again mainstreamed extremism by interviewing Fuentes for two-plus hours, adding another appearance to Fuentes’ right-leaning podcast tour

On October 27, Carlson interviewed Fuentes on his online show, where they spent two-plus hours discussing Fuentes’ beginnings and finding common ground over their shared disdain on topics including right-wing Jews, Christian Zionists, and liberal women. The two had been feuding ahead of the interview. [Twitter/X, 10/27/25; Media Matters, 10/28/25; Salon, 8/4/25]

Between June and October, Fuentes appeared on at least nine right-leaning podcasts and streaming shows — including some that don’t identify themselves as focused on news and politics — whose episodes earned over 7.2 million views on various social media platforms. On his tour of shows including PBD Podcast, Stay Free with Russell Brand, the Nelk Boys’ Kick stream, and System Update with Glenn Greenwald, Fuentes has made comments such as “race is real” — an echo of his past commentary pushing “the idea that race is a biological reality” — and “Jewish people are an extraordinarily privileged group in America.” [Media Matters, 10/2/25]

Fuentes is a white nationalist livestreamer who has peddled Holocaust denial, racism, misogyny, and election denial. On his show, America First, which he streams on Rumble, Fuentes has crafted his persona around his disdain for Jewish people, telling his audience, “I’m just like Hitler.” He has also argued that “Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part.” [The New York Times, 9/9/25; Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 10/30/25; Media Matters, 3/31/25]

Carlson has a history of helping draw far-right conspiracy theories and white nationalist ideology into mainstream right-wing politics, most notably helping mainstream the white nationalist great replacement theory. After leaving Fox, he pushed even more radical rhetoric, promoting Hitler apologia and explicit antisemitism. [Media Matters, 10/28/25, 10/28/18, 9/4/24, 11/21/23]

Following Charlie Kirk’s killing, Carlson has been receiving criticism from right-wing figures for remarks he made during Turning Point USA-affiliated events, and Fuentes has claimed that before his death Kirk “started to agree with me.” At least one critic said Carlson’s eulogy of Kirk “spread antisemitic blood libels,” and right-wing commentator Megan McCain said of comments Carlson made at another TPUSA event, “Every single thing about this is the polar opposite of how Charlie Kirk debated people who disagreed with him.” On October 29, Fuentes remarked on his show, “I would bet you a lot of money that if Charlie Kirk lived a little bit longer, he would have brought me to Turning Point as well,” claiming, “Two days before Charlie Kirk died, he started to agree with me.” [The Hill, 9/22/25; MSNBC, 9/25/25; Entertainment Weekly, 10/25/25; Rumble, America First, 10/29/25]

On October 30, Kevin Roberts, president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, released a video in support of Carlson amid the criticism he’s received for his interview with Fuentes. Roberts called those who have spoken out against Carlson a “venomous coalition” and stated that Carlson remains a “close friend” to Heritage and “always will be.” He added: “I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer either.” Following criticism for his comments, Roberts appeared on The Dana Show the next day and posted again, saying that he and the Heritage Foundation “denounce and stand against his [Fuentes’] vicious antisemitic ideology, his Holocaust denial, and his relentless conspiracy theories that echo the darkest chapters of history,” and emphasizing that “the best way to fight antisemitic ideas was to challenge them head on.” During the appearance, host Dana Loesch asked if Carlson had pushed back enough during the interview and in response, Roberts questioned if Carlson “in hindsight wishes that” he pushed back more but claimed that “there were parts of that interview ... that Tucker pushed back on.” According to Roberts, “Even if you or I would choose to push back on every single one of those things, which is what I would do if I had someone like that on my show, which I would not, that it doesn’t mean therefore that we ought to cancel not just Fuentes, but Tucker Carlson as well. We actually ought to be engaged in that conversation.” [Twitter/X, 10/30/25, 10/31/25; The First, The Dana Show, 10/31/25]

Nathalie Baptiste at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON ― Hundreds of mostly white women gathered at a swanky downtown hotel to hear prominent conservative speakers and strategize with other moms about how to spread their message across the country. Decked out in everything from stylish pantsuits, light-up American-flag jackets and, obviously, Donald Trump swag, the crowd at the Moms for Liberty Joyful Warriors National Summit cheered and hollered as speaker after speaker spewed hate about transgender people ― all under the guise of protecting children.

[...] At the 2024 summit this week, the focus was on fearmongering about trans kids and criticizing school employees who support them. “There’s no such thing as a transgender child,” Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms for Liberty, told HuffPost in an interview. Her position is a common one among conservatives, who have taken to attacking trans rights around the country ― even as less than 1% of the U.S. population identifies as trans. The right wing has attacked gender-affirming care as “child abuse,” though the American Pediatrics Association says such care can be lifesaving by reducing the risk of suicidal ideation.

Seth Dillon, CEO of the conservative satire website Babylon Bee, talked about “gender madness” when he addressed the crowd. Actor Rob Schneider, who had a prime-time speaking slot on Thursday night, claimed that children were getting “mutilated.” Texas state Rep. Shawn Thierry, who lost her primary this spring, announced that she was leaving the Democratic Party in part because of members’ views on transgender youth. Maud Maron, a former New York City community education council member who was removed from her post for sending anti-transgender text messages, claimed men were playing in women’s sports. “I think the federal government pushing child abuse really concerns American parents,” Justice said when asked why there was so much focus on trans issues at the summit. “Cutting off the healthy body parts of children is pretty extreme, right?” she said. “We’re cutting off the healthy body parts of girls.” She was referring to gender-affirming surgeries such as mastectomies, which are very rarely performed on minors.

At a panel on writing laws that protect parental rights, the session was laser-focused on transgender children. The speakers addressed the audience about how, through legislation, they can put a stop to “secret social transitions,” or schools transitioning children without telling their parents.

“We’re getting calls from parents saying this is happening at our school,” claimed Matt Sharp, senior counselor at Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing legal group. (It is not uncommon for transgender children to be out at school but not at home if they don’t feel safe telling their parents.)

[...] January Littlejohn, a Florida mom, had a similar story. She said her daughter wanted to transition after some of her friends did. The school held a meeting with the child, Littlejohn said, but refused to tell her the details of the meeting. Littlejohn had a warning to the parents in the room. “Parents of young children and grandparents, you need to be actively inoculating your children against this,” she said, claiming that “the faucet of gender ideology is free flowing” on social media. She also railed against allyship, claiming that children were being “indoctrinated” into being allies. “If you see buzzwords like ‘inclusivity’ and ‘safe and welcoming,’ that means gender ideology is alive and well in that school,” she warned.