WATCH: Bill O’Reilly And The End Of Boomer Conservatism

Richard Spencer explains in this video how O’Reilly’s legacy was a failure and that there is nothing to lament about the passing of Boomer Conservatism. The Alt-Right is young and truly counter-cultural, whereas Bill’s brand of conservatism only interested geriatrics and nursing home residents. Not only that, but one of /ourguys/ gets to fill Bill’s spot. Unlike O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson actually seems to have some intellectual consistency and an interest in disassembling Leftist ideas, unlike O’Reilly who could only grumble, repeat DR3 like a hindu mantra, and throw out a few off the cuff racist remarks now and again.

PS. The man called for gun control several times. Into the bog with him.

Vincent Law
the authorVincent Law
I have a Hatreon now! If you like my writing and want me to write more, consider supporting me there.


  • Bill O’Reilly has been on fox news for over a decade. It’s destabilizing to society to just take the guy off air like this. He was a guy I loved to hate, I disagreed with a lot of what he said but it was reassuring that he was usually there saying his talking points. He is just someone who has just always been there. This isn’t any sort of victory seeing him go.

    This is just another case of leftists bullying conservatives into not having a voice. This isn’t good. I don’t agree with a lot of what boomer conservatives say and think. But at least boomer conservatives have the veneer of trying to be decent people. The internet troll culture associated with the alt right can be so hollow, empty, and disgusting sometimes.

  • You can talk lots of shit about us boomers, but I think you are very naive to think the youth get the race realism. Many live in their parent’s home eating a steady diet ultra liberal shit from Comedy Central, Syfy channel, while partaking of Cos-play dressing like fairy princesses and superheroes. I haven’t seen many geriatrics’s participating as the fucks anti-fa.

    There are some of us boomers who saw O’Reilly as a cuck and never watched him.

  • O’Reilly was/is popular because of his delivery. Almost every word uttered was meaningful. Compare to some who over intellectualize and use too many words to say the same thing.

  • I only ever agreed with Bill on one thing – that Maxine Waters looks absolutely fantastic in that glorious wig.

  • He’s another Yankee ‘conservative’ with whom I oft disagreed.

    That said, he had an interesting show, and I am sorry to see him go in this manner.

    I remains to be seen if who replaces him is actually substantively different.

  • I am glad to see O’Reilly go. Maybe he was targeted with some false allegations. But probably not. The guy obviously has a hot temper and sense of entitlement. And he apparently has a reputation for playing grab-ass whenever he thinks he can get away with it.

    In any event, f**k that guy. I always hated him. He is a smug, braying ass, who was an apologist for the police-state (he wanted to make ALL gun-related crimes federal offenses), the war-state, and the surveillance state. His show became a personality cult, devoted to pushing his (probably) ghost-written books and his public appearences. His guests were mostly worthless too: Krauthammer, Geraldo, Juan Williams? You could write a forty line program in Basic to generate most of what they said. Dennis Miller? I remember when he was funny. I think it was 1992. And the rest of his guests were just the usual FOX fare: paid neo-con stooges in cocktail dresses. FOX News: The Blonde leading the Blonde.

    It was interesting how, in the end, FOX simply turned O’Reilly into a non-person and disappeared him. I saw the last episode of “The Factor” Friday night. No longer “The O’Reilly Factor”, just “The Factor”. Greg Gutfeld hosted. I don’t think he even mentioned O’Reilly’s name once. It was all rather Orwellian, in a way.

    Carlson is indeed much better. He even interviews people who are not simply other FOX talking heads – scientists, authors, experts in various areas – people who actually have some claim to knowledge in some particular area. And he’s brought up topics that were otherwise generally ignored: “The End of Work” and its societal implications, for example.

    • He had this incredibly false bravado. He came across as someone with a huge inferiority complex that he hid with the false bravado but may not have even been smart enough or self-aware enough to realize it.

      He may have been somewhat autistic or at least high on the Aspergers spectrum.

      The only way I can describe his fans would be those with very low “emotional IQ.” Or as the liberals rightly say about Newt Gingrich, “he is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.” In O’Reilly case, it was what very timid people think a confident person sounds like.

      Tucker Carlson is indeed more interesting but he’s such an abject whore – even worse than Coulter – what’s the point? Carlson will do whatever the Republican party tells him to do. He’s not a thought leader he’s just an actor reading a script. While Coulter was somewhat ahead of the curve Carlson just brings up the rear end.

      • Carlson is generally opposed to immigration and the Hundred Years War. He, like Coulter, got uncucked at some point, and hasn’t gone back. There are of course limits to what he can say if he is to maintain his “viability within the system” as Bill Clinton put it.

        He’s an enormous improvement over O’Reilly. He appeals to younger people, and he might actually move the window some.

        • Yes, it may be that Carlson got “uncucked” at some point but I remember him back during the George W. Bush days and he was perfectly odious. Coulter is a GOP hack but she has always been willing to court controversy, Carlson never did anything brave or even mildly controversial unlike Coulter who has more than once.

          But anyway who even watches people like Carlson anymore? Does he even matter? How many “younger people” even watch TV news? Isn’t Carlson pretty much competing with Alex Jones at this point?

          • Tucker said he made a huge mistake in supporting the Iraq war. He’s a fellow traveler, a Paleocon who’s on our side. Think of Tucker as a younger Pat Buchanan.

          • “But anyway who even watches people like Carlson anymore?”

            A lot more people than read sites like this one.

            “How many “younger people” even watch TV news?”

            The full show? Not as many as used to be the case. But they watch snippets from it – on Hulu or YouTube.

            Carlson probably draws more viewers than John Oliver or Rachel Maddow, and among a younger demographic than O’Reilly. He may not be big among millenials, but he is big with gen-X’ers and younger boomers (to which group, I belong).

            That isn’t a small thing.

          • I think your Carlson judgement it’s a little severe.
            Of course to work in ANY tv or major media you have to self-moderate some of your statements and tune down some of the points you make.
            BUT..I have followed him here and there in the past and I have to say something I believe important ,on his defense:

            As opposed to Billo ,the huge,total ignorant ,bloviating ass, Tucker ALWAYS gave a fair,interested report of alternative characters on the right,he always gave a fair,respectful shake to people like Pat Buchanan..or Ron Paul or Ross Perot ..or whatever came up,somewhat from the right, which was also at the same time not totally “neo-con status quo”.
            He has my relative respect,for that reason only.

      • Tucker was always more concerned about the dumbing-down effects of D policies, more so than ‘muh marginal tax rates’, etc. That made him more receptive to the Alt Right view, and indeed, he seems to have ‘decucked’ himself – like Ann Coulter – sometime during the great Cuckservative Meme War of 2015-2016.

    • ” sense of entitlement.” That’s putting it mildly. Smart guy, but your ego can only get so much bigger than your brain before you start becoming a liability.

  • I wonder if O’Reilly became so popular with the old conservatives (the “greatest generation” kind as well as the now older boomers) because…….of………his…………slow……………talking…………monologues, with the exagerated hand-gestures and enunciation. Maybe it’s because he spoke to them in a way that they could readily understand. Sort of like Jimmy (“Saul”) in “Better Call Saul”. The old people really love Jimmy.

  • O’Reilly, Hannity, Buchanan are all leftovers from the era of Reagan cuckservatism. As Spencer points out they won’t be missed, and cable doesn’t have the punch it once had. Now you have Canadian Muslims like Ali Velshi hectoring you on cable. A good sign things are gonzo for the cable empires.

        • Yeah, he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory in the 2000 election. That was the remnant of Ross Perot’s aborted movement. He should have known better and just stayed away.

        • Ezola Foster… staunchly anti-illegal immigrant and anti-fag. She was a long-time teacher in California public schools who blamed the poor quality of California schools on the high numbers of Hispanic students.

          There are still some black people who get it, unfortunately they are mostly older folks.

          • Lenora Fulani was a black leftist who endorsed Buchanan because they were both anti-globalist. I remember it well, I even think Tim Russert interviewed Fulani on Meet the Press when she endorsed Buchanan.

          • LOL. That was the not nice colored woman who endorsed Paddy O. What do you call an Irishman who sits outside in the sun all day? Patio Furniture.

        • Buchanan’s job was to destroy the Reform party because it was a threat to the GOP, and being a party loyalist, he did that. He probably would have been thrown out of polite society long before it he hadn’t performed that important service for the establishment.

          • That was not the case. The reform party was a non-factor in 2000. It wasn’t a threat to anyone by then. Most people with conservative leanings were so sick of the Democrats after the Clinton administration that they sucked up whatever misgivings they may have had with G.W. and voted for him. Buchanan only got about 450,000 votes in 2000. The Constitution Party candidate got about half that in 2008. Do you know who that was? Neither do I. And I voted for him. Taken togehter, the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party in 2008 probably outdid the Reform Party in 2000, and they were – both of them, together and separately – not even a footnote in 2008.

          • The GOP clearly saw the Reform party as a threat. It didn’t have to win, all it had to do is draw enough votes away in key states to prevent the GOP from beating the Democrats. After Perot took down Bush Sr. and let Clinton in the GOP wasn’t going to let that happen again.

            The Constitution and Libertarian parties only ever appealed to ideological cranks, the Reform party was in a position to win non-ideological people, not just “conservatives.” The Reform party was unlikely to ever win a Presidency but it could have won a few Congressional districts and even some state races – they did get a Governor (a former pro-wrestler like Trump, in fact.)

            The Constitution and Libertarian parties were just “right wing” parties, just like the Greens are a “left wing” party. The Reform party was never right or left, it was “centrist” which made it very much a threat to moderate Republicans trying to win the center.

          • Buchanan was basically thrown out of the party in 2000. He was the anti globalist, proto Ron Paul. The GOP wanted him gone after 1996, especially after he wrote The Great Betrayal in 1998. Pat wasn’t a cuck, in fact far from it. He pretty much is the grandfather of the alt right. His positions were virtually the same as those that Trump ran on, but Pat is a million times smarter than Trump. I don’t think Pat would have folded so quickly either, if at all. Pat knew the game well in advance, while Trump was like a deer in headlights. pat would have known who to stack his cabinet with, and didn’t have a bunch of kids trying to all marry into the tribe. SL Cain had it right, Pat is a paleo conservative of the Russell Kirk/Sam Francis era.

          • If you have any evidence for your contention, you should offer it. I don’t believe it is true. Buchanan was out of step with the GOP, and distrusted the Bushes. I don’t think he would take orders from them. I was a regular reader of National Review in 2000 and I paid pretty close attention to the campaign. I don’t remember Republicans expressing any fear of the Reform Party. They were a side-show, an irrelevancy.

          • If you have any evidence for your contention, you should offer it. I don’t believe it is true. Buchanan was a loyal party man to the end, he only broke with Bush on the war while praising him on all sorts of domestic policy issues – Buchanan kept the anti-war right from breaking with Bush. I recall in 2000 Reform party people spitting mad at Buchanan for his weird choice of a black communist feminist as VP – they were the ones suggesting that he was doing it to destroy the Reform party. The Reform party went from centrist and non-ideological to embracing both the “right wing extreme” AND the “left wing extreme” thus destroying the party itself and their centrist, non-ideological coalition. Buchanan and his communist partner helped drive the moderate centrists away from the Reform party and invited in every ideological crank from the far left and the far right.

            If he wasn’t directly taking orders from the GOP establishment, he certainly kept his position as a very mainstream Republican party media figure even after his supposed defections.

          • Okay, so you don’t have any evidence for your opinion.

            Buchanan didn’t keep the anti-war right from breaking with Bush. There wasn’t much of an anti-war right in 2004, and Buchanan had little or no influence by that time, with anti-war rightists or anyone else.

          • Libertarians wasted a whole decade with free the weed and nobody could take them very seriously. I actually voted for the Constitution presidential candidates twice, but the God and Guns type thing didn’t go over very well, especially since GOP voters loved W til the end.

          • Buchanan didn’t sabotage the Reform Party on orders from the GOP. Buchanan bolted the GOP after the Iowa Straw Poll when it became apparent that GW Bush was being coronated for the nomination. Buchanan has always hated the Bush family, and 2000 was his last realistic shot at the Presidency.

            The Reform Party had millions of dollars in public funding up for grabs after Perot got 8 percent of the vote in 1996. Buchanan wanted the public funding, the idea being that he could use the public funding to run ads and hit the threshold to gain entrance into the Presidential debates, because TV was always Buchanan’s strong suit.

            None of that came to pass, as SLCain stated below the 2000 election was close and any Perot voters and disgruntled right wingers got behind Bush. Bush also made overt appeals to Perot/Buchanan voters of America not being the world’s police man and he called for a more humble foreign policy. Much like Trump, Bush quickly reneged on these promises and enacted Jewish foreign policy with glee.

          • Some conspiracy theories contain lots of truths.
            Some are too complicated ,illogical and convoluted to contain any.

          • Fortunately, that’s not a “conspiracy theory” nor is it complicated, or illogical, or convoluted. It’s pretty much the opposite of all of those things: it’s simple, logical, and straightforward.

        • The most conservative-“right wing extremist “(And anti-zionist,by the way) black woman in America was an attempt to kill the constant mediatic association:
          “Buchanan -nazi-racist -kkk man”..

          Sometimes you try a bit of bric a brac in electoral campaigns,and it was probably a very wrong move,but Buchanan,the man,never flip-floped,never moderated his stances,never compromised on his ideals once.

          And in any case..a deeply intelligent ,honorable and mightily knowledgeble man like Pat Buchanan associated with the couple of comically ignorant testicles Hannity and O’reilly?

    • Pat Buchanan in the same crop as those two Alaskan temperatures I.Q. morons?
      Honestly,it hurts my eyes just reading it.

    • It hurts my eyes to see Pat in the same sentence as those two Alaskan temperatures I.Q. testicles.
      I actually “campaigned ” for him,you know?
      The only time I have ever attempted doing such a thing.
      And I remember a particular thing about that whole period,I remember specifically being the only one I have ever met in his campaign ..”with an accent”.
      Good,fun memories.

  • I never really considered O’Reilly a conservative, even during his rise he came off as moderately conservative, which isn’t really conservative. The guy is a pig though. He settled years ago with a former female producer who was savvy enough to get him on audio tape. The guy was bragging about fooling around with a bunch of Asian girls on assignment and other explicit sexual stuff. Who cared he was married at the time and his wife just gave birth.

Leave a Reply