The Grift That Ate Conservatism

From Principles to Parody: How Elevating Andrew Tate Exposed Con Inc's Moral Bankruptcy

In a halcyon era long past—indeed, one I’d argue predates even my own time, though my perspective is admittedly subjective—conservative media was not a contradiction in terms as it often appears today. At one time—the days of Buckley, Kirk, Scruton, C.S. Lewis and others—it aspired to elevate the mind, provoke thoughtful discourse, and defend enduring truths rather than indulge in ephemeral spectacles. At its zenith, it was a movement rooted in principles—principles that naturally emerged from the deep wellspring of Western civilization’s ethos.

Today, however, conservative media has devolved into a sideshow, its players more consumed with chasing clicks and shallow “culture war” skirmishes than upholding the ideals they profess to champion. These culture wars, often as much lacking in culture as they are in warfare, betray a bankruptcy of thought. The rise of corrupting figures like Andrew Tate—an opportunist devoid of any genuine conservative credentials—celebrated by hollow imitators, is no coincidence. It's the inevitable consequence of this system that's bartered integrity for influence, leaving behind the intellectual rigor and moral seriousness that once defined it.

The Crisis of Conservatism

In their insatiable hunger for attention, many in “conservative” media have abandoned the intellectual rigor that once defined the movement. Instead of defending the permanent things—the moral framework, the traditions, the sense of duty and responsibility—they peddle outrage. Spectacle has replaced substance, and the entire enterprise has been cheapened into a nihilistic feedback loop.

It’s not just about the clicks or retweets, though these are the currency of the moment. The real goal is a lot more insidious: it's the dismantling of any sense of moral accountability or decency. The modern grifter understands that principles—those pesky, immutable standards—are inconvenient to their grift. They reveal hypocrisy, expose intellectual laziness, and demand consistency. So instead, the grifter cultivates a following immune to shame, conditioned to dismiss any critique with a shrug and a “so what?” When principles are abandoned, all that remains is a hollow brand—slick packaging without content.

Andrew Tate, the self-proclaimed guru of hyper-masculinity, is emblematic of this descent. Tate’s philosophy—if we can even call his shallow weak male virtue signaling that—is a cocktail of materialism, vanity, and bravado. It’s a worldview that conflates supposed wealth with worth, domination with strength, and arrogance with wisdom. He is not a leader; he’s a caricature. And yet, he has been elevated by self-described conservative platforms as though he were a savior of masculinity rather than its demise. Don’t believe me? Listen to him talk. All he does is bitch.

The Nihilistic Appeal of Grift

Why do figures like this resonate to the grifters? Because they exploit a cultural void that gets attention. They prey on the disillusioned, offering easy answers to complex problems. In a society that has forgotten how to think, the loudest voice is mistaken for the wisest. But the rise of figures like Tate also reveals a deeper societal flaw, one that can be explained through a more sophisticated lens.

The modern media landscape, like any fragile system, is obsessed with scale and surface. This is true for all sorts of media. It's why the same culture that once gave us Casablanca and Network now gives us Fast and Furious movies to the same level of fanfare. We reward immediacy over durability, spectacle over depth. Our metrics are not rooted in truth or value but in virality—a fleeting and often destructive force.

A stable society, by contrast, requires robust institutions that grow stronger under pressure. Conservatism, when it adheres to its principles, provides this stability. But when it succumbs to the nihilism of the grift, it becomes fragile, easy prey for those who profit from chaos. The modern grifter understands this dynamic intuitively, even if they lack the vocabulary to articulate it, because lets face it, most of these people are really stupid. They exploit the system’s fragility, knowing that outrage is easier to monetize than reason. They thrive not because they are strong, but because the system is weak.

The Death of Standards