As a 52 year old black man and married to a white woman for 27 years let me make a quick point. Nick Fuentes is SO FAR off of my radar he might as well not even exist. I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. None of these things is Nick Fuentes. MOVE ON.
For sure, Mr Carlson is a much more interesting subject to discuss than Mr Fuentes. Most of his guests from last year are retarded, degenerates, or both. Why did Mr Roberts pledge eternal allegiance to him? The Bee said of the Democrats, that they can't alienate the all-important Death to America vote. Is the same thing happening on the right? (Carlson has nothing but praise for Mamdani, Qatar, Maduro and other not quite pro-America players)
I agree that Fuentes is a political opportunist/celebrity, not a philosopher, but I also respectfully disagree with the approach that we should just ignore him, i.e. "move on," and deny him any more oxygen. I understand the logic, but the issues are two:
1) As others have mentioned, he does represent a certain constituency that we shouldn't ignore. Fuentes has found, perhaps more accurately exposed, a segment of too-malleable young men, particularly white, whose identity and worldview is being misshapen by the Left's toxic take on masculinity and race, that folks like Fuentes then capitalize on and confirm. In that sense he's as dangerous as the Left is to those young male minds, if not moreso. For the health of our national culture more than any political advantage, the rational Right needs to find a way to talk to and appeal to those young men, so that it can carefully—because that's the only way it can happen—cleave them from avatars like Fuentes.
2) The political cost of ignoring him is real, though, and not just because of the potential (healthier) votes of those who currently follow the likes of Fuentes. The marginal voters who determine elections now, from the federal to the local, do see and pay attention to things like this. The leftist media ensures they do. So if, and how, the Right responds matters to them. If it's only "if," we lose them. If it's incoherent or weak, we lose them. We've seen all of the above. Yes, the Left doesn't matter. But the election-defining center does.
So yes, the Left doesn't matter, and Fuentes himself doesn't matter. But who's watching and who he's drawing, do. There is more low-hanging fruit right now in terms of voters, more opportunity to attract them to classically liberal side, than I've seen since Reagan in 1980, and I think potentially even more. It's of course always been the case, but damn: if enough of the Right could get its magnets together and aligned in terms of messaging and action in the present flux, it could reshape the electoral landscape going forward as much as Depression-era Democrats did.
All healthy cultures and peoples in the world seek to preserve and perpetuate themselves. Miscegenation is promoted by those who wish for us to be wiped out.
Papal visit to a Islamic mosque that replaced a former Church of significance known as hagia Sophia which was proclaimed as a historic relic by the UN with protective status yet the Islamic dictator from Turkey knew that those who turn the other cheek would turn the other cheek and it's now a mosque in the only Islamic nation in NATO indicating a blindness and supplication to Islam further reflected by the new announced status of protectorate for Qatar with an air base in Idaho 👀
Praying in the direction of Mecca 👍🏻
Anointed erdogan 🧐
Mama Merkel spread Germany's legs
Seems that turning the other cheek has interpretive consequences for those who perceive it as weak and meek resulting in 20 fewer of that religion and 20 additional Islamic countries🤦🤦🏼♂️🤔😤😳🙄😖🤦🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🧐
Your take is true, but MOVE ON is not the correct response, because the Left is not moving on, they're taking the opening Fuentes is giving them and doing real damage to the conservative cause and therefore to our society.
Rufo nailed it. Fuentes is not a Nazi; he's something worse. A chaos agent deliberately wrecking our society at a critical moment in time, simply for his own selfish purposes. We need to expose the game he's playing and neutralize the harm he's enabling the Left to do via his posing.
I can't control what the Left does. They are finucking NUTS and we all know it. I only have so many years to live. I'm not going to waste energy on pieces of s*** that will have no effect on my day to day life.
Dan is right. Move on. All we can do is go to church, worship God, create strong families, learn by example and disown wolves in sheep's clothing. Fuentes' motivations are irrelevant to me. He is being used by the devil -- as is Candace Owens who brings immediate shame on the Catholic church no sooner than converting. Zero humility or respect. Yes fame and celebrity are the drivers...clicks....narcissism...money. But this was always the way. Screwtape gives chapter and verse.
Mark, I can’t imagine Mr. Fuentes has many supporters. He offers identity politics and moral decadence. SOS. Platforms with wide reach should host him so he doesn’t fall into some elusive, rebel category and his appearance alone ensures this.
He’s a dweeb and not what young men (or women) are seeking.
Yes, I intend to agree. But the Left is dishonestly presenting him as representative of conservative thought, even trying to brand him as Charlie Kirk's successor. Rufo's point is that we should not even debate whether his views are correct or not, whether people follow him or don't follow him. Rather, we need to expose him as someone who is not serious, who is spouting off and pushing buttons just to get attention and try to build a following. In other words, his following is not a threat, just the dishonest assertion that he's speaking for the Right.
I get it. Mocking in scenario’s such as this usually works best. Characters like Fuentes thrive on the seriousness of the reactions they receive while being completely unserious themselves. Whether it’s fear or praise they use it to boost their egos (all collectivists tend to do this) and presenting him as an unserious child, which he is, or some similar status is how we should deal with him.
A favorite game of progressive leftism is to confuse the roles of children and adults, intelligence and ignorance, dangerous and harmless. It’s why they silence the mere existence of men like Rush Limbaugh and elevate in almost infamy boys like Fuentes.
Tossing Fuentes where he belongs may be an opportunity for the right to demonstrate that they'd like a constructive conversation with the left. Even an inkling of credit given to Fuentes, which Rufo gives him when he claims that Fuentes is just a celebrity seeker, will nix the ability to start a meaningful dialog.
He has 1.6+ million followers across all platforms, and the number is growing. I think that is more than enough to make dealing with his ideas a reality.
The last one minute snippet I watched of him was in celebration of his people taking over certain areas of our government 👈 I’m paraphrasing. But if what he said were true he should be investigated for conspiring to take over and/or overthrow our republic.
I am disturbed by any "conservative" whos willing to create chaos with such childish, anti-views, and really just looks like they're needing ALOT of attention... he is wrecking what little respect we have, and causing such a public media circus, we aren't going to be taken seriously by people on the fence politically. I HATE that Tucker appears to have drank the wrong koolaid. All these new celebs are so easily manipulated, very few can be trusted to maintain the values that made them popular to begin with. We end up seeing their true colors, or who bought their new opinion. Kids like Nick Fuentes are just mentally unstable, and shouldn't be given airtime...
I'm also 52, Dan. We're just the wrong generation. Fuentes is popular with young men. He doesn't resonate with us. He doesn't WANT to resonate with us. But he does for them.
That said, I think Chris' suggestion of how those of us in our generation should deal with him is correct. Don't engage with his "ideas" (of which he has few as he tends to throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks this week) but focus on him as an intellectual fraud.
Young men are attracted to him (and other manosphere types) because they crave meaning and authenticity. But they're not stupid.
…so that is exactly what makes people like NF dangerous…
…we want young men listening to people like Peterson or Kirk telling them to build their skills, their knowledge of the world, careers, houses, families. That was the best of Charlie K’s message. He wanted young men off the couch into the real world… to know that they could not just “be part of it” but even help shape it.
NF is saying none of that… at least not in the handful of interviews / videos I’ve watched… (and from what I saw in the first several I won’t ever watch another.) Outside of capital crimes, people deserve 2nd and 3rd chances at life… NF has used all of his up in my book.
I see no charisma in Nick Fuentes only bombast. He is not a reasoned servant to truth he is a load mouth provocateur with a historical and politically immature market easily propagandized looking for quick blame.
I doubt he has any real influence. As in changing anyone’s life. Not with young men. Jordan Peterson changed many young men. Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom did. Fuentes? Nah. Flash in the pan provocateur. First, he wears a suit. Who does that? Conservative young men? None that I know. He is a media creation.
I agree with Christophers diagnosis of NF. I disagree with his (and Dans) prescription.
I am a 55 year old white male. US citizen from birth. I agree NF uses bombastic and controversial rhetoric to gain attention. Especially among young men. The thing is, it’s working. His popularity is exploding. If he wasn’t expressing ideas that people agree with under all the rhetoric, he wouldn’t be gaining popularity. I also had no clue who NF was 2 weeks ago. I have since listened to about a dozen of his shows on Rumble to try and see what he’s all about (Something I would imagine very few people have done other than his followers). What he espouses underneath all the attention seeking hype, aren’t novel ideas. He didn’t think them up. He licked his finger, stuck it in the breeze, and ran with it in a style that has garnered attention. His views are no longer fringe ones, they are more and more main stream especially among young people. You’re foolish if you think you can “move on” from his views. Young people think he’s right. Maybe he’s not ALL wrong.
You can ignore him but these ideas are not going away. Agree or disagree with him, he will have to be reckoned with.
My father once said to me when I was 25 years old (He was 53ish) “It’s your world now kid”.
I firmly and deeply believe that the media is vastly inflating NF’s stature and importance… with plenty of help with people smart enough to know better. (Looking at you Tucker.)
The media desperately WANTS NF’s profile elevated because they know he could be almost as effective at destroying the conservative youth movement as Charlie Kirk was at building it.
This guy has zero place in a big tent revival future of the party of Lincoln or Reagan. NF needs to be persona non-grata at any high profile event. Restraining order in advance (because gate crashing gets him tons of clicks.)
Best hopes the energy and leadership at Turning Point can continue to move the movement forward and make help return the country to some of the ideals it was founded on.
Chris, you've got one guy defending himself against a mob of uncritical and mostly thoughtless commenters, and censorship over a seemingly profane acronym is your answer? I don't know this person and I don't particularly like his style, but I love this person as Christ would encourage me to do. I've got a novel idea: How about a commenter engage him a little better argument than the one he's making and you stop acting like your follower's mother? Gee, all of a sudden I feel like Einstein.
I was referring to the comments made toward this objectionable person who had a different perspective. I don't speak much French, but if you can point me to a thoughtful comment made to him in that string of comments that refutes my claim, please do so because I may have missed it.
By this standard. giving him an uncritical platform, as Tucker did, is absolutely the wrong approach since it validates him as a real thinker, which he is not.
I appreciated the Tucker interview so that I could evaluate Fuentes on his ideas rather than listen to overly emotional reactions that has piqued everyone’s curiosity. He had a couple of correct historical takes that were surrounded by immature idiotic beliefs. I can now give a non-emotional straight forward opinion about Fuentes & have zero desire to listen to him as I wouldn’t learn anything from him - I know all I need to know. Sure he’s smart & forceful in his speech but he’s also emotionally stunted & has a chip on his shoulder for anyone who has ever wronged him. Shapiro/daily wire are the ones that made Fuentes as big as he is by popularizing him via the Streisand effect (you learn that from the interview). If you don’t want to make him a big name then stop saying his name.
No, Tucker gave him the opportunity to blather about himself. Tucker is curious and gave us the opportunity to realize the kid is a grandstander looking for attention.
Not at all - did you listen to the interview? He was on a long interview w/PBD as well. You cant hide in the long interviews & it exposes who he really is - an immature guy w/a big mouth spewing the same ideas over & over. He’s a mouthpiece & nothing more.
Are you saying Fuentes has no core values or beliefs? Others here seem to be making that argument? And if he has core values what are they . These are also queries for Christopher
If you think the Nick Fuentes in that interview is ANYTHING like Nick Fuentes on the daily, you would be wrong. He is typically far, far more extreme on his show. He knows when and how to moderate, and while you think his appearance was revealing in a negative way, many young men think otherwise.
Yup. And it's even worse than that: https://www.chrisbrunet.com/p/top-50-nick-fuentes-pedophile-scandals Rufo's piece is good on the hyper-reality thing, but overall behind the curve on realizing that once Tucker platformed him, it became a new situation, demanding clear statements from conservative leaders.
And frankly, while Rufo is not swirling down the toilet on this, as Kelly and Walsh are, he could be more clearly stating his total rejection of Fuentes and his apologists.
Well tuckers audience is not a bunch of disaffected men so his audience got an appropriate dose of Fuentes & can make a reasoned judgement (as Tucker was obviously doing especially toward the end). Quite honestly the more Fuentes speaks in long form interviews the more of a weirdo he appears to be … he kind of seemed pathetic at the end. He referenced something happening on Dec 18th & said he remembered the date specifically because it was Stalin’s bday - whom he admires. People need to get him talking more - & about his opinions on women.
Tucker just claimed during his live tour with Megyn Kelly that Randy Fine's comment about killing all Hamas terrorists was "worse than anything Nick Fuentes has ever said." If you don"t know how routinely heinous and extreme Fuentes is, then you cannot adeqautely evaluate how *insanely, purposefully dishonest* Carlson's claim here is. The only reason Tucker made such an insane claim about Fine is because he's a Jew.
People who are historically literate have no problem pointing out that Carlson is an antisemtic nepo baby manchild who hides behind layers of irony and innuendo like a preteen girl. Carlson is very clearly acting as a deliberate chaos agent by promoting Fuentes.
If this is the path conservatives want to take, playing footsie with coastal elitist bowtied manlets like Carlson and excusing his malfeasance and muppetry, the next general election is going to be so much worse than this midterm.
Precisely. Had half the energy spent demonizing him, and his audience of young men, been spent on answering legitimate questions we could have defused this mess long ago.
Your wife cannot be your best friend. Women are easy to figure out. On another podcast (PBD) he stated that people of different skin colors should not marry. My take from listening to 3+ hours of him talk is that he has zero ideas for improvement; he has difficulty controlling his emotions & is led by them; he is incapable of seeding or causing any of the change he believes needs to happen (I agree w/a lot of his points but once you hear them then what?) he espouses his Catholic religion regularly as if that makes him a good person but he does not display any Christian behavior at all; he is intelligent but his emotional/social side is stunted in comparison. Quite honestly except for his intelligence Fuentes is not much different from a radical leftist.
Right. I don’t object to a debate which exposes his cretinous “ideas”. I object to Tucker’s disingenuous “questions” that simply amplify this troll rather than challenge him.
Fuentes really went after Tucker in one of his podcasts…I think Tucker was trying to protect his base with this interview. Tucker isn’t thinking about anything but his bottom line.
Tucker is creating havoc on the right. He’s doing a great job at fracturing the MAGA coalition and the consequences will be dire. And when I see all of the apologists who won’t stand up to him because of the power of his platform and influence it makes me question if I want to be associated with any of the craven cowards. The people with power in MAGA, including the president and his cabinet need to have a talk with him.
Megyn Kelly’s and Matt Walsh are giving themselves an out by claiming 1. They are loyal friends of Tucker and won’t dump him over this kind of political point and 2. They really don’t care, and never have cared about Israel as an issue. Lame.
Sadly, as a big fan of both Megyn and Matt, I agree. It’s not strictly about the Jews, or Israel, even though they are the ones to suffer the assault. It’s about an all-out attack on western civilization with its roots in Judeo-Christian culture. And none of us who care about it can afford not to care about Israel. 🇮🇱
OMG thank you for pointing out that regardless of your views/feelings about Jews, Israel, etc. that this is in fact western civilization with its roots in Judeo-Christian culture
Should we also restore the Greco Roman Empire? What relationship does the secular, atheistic modern nation of Israel have with the God of Abraham who called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and establish His Law?
No, I’m simply stating a fact - that Western civilization is based on the legacy of Athens and Jerusalem. As to “what relationship…” , if you were to read the five books of Moses I.e., Genesis, Exodus, Lev. & Deut., you would understand the relationship.
When the bigots invade and become the loudest voices in MAGA you can count me out. And millions of other voters who have a moral foundation. Good luck with elections.
If you think the ideas of Nick Fuentes benefits America you are either a fool or a bigot. Your call. Feel free to kick back and watch the MAGA coalition crumble and the democrats take power again.
I would like to see Rubio and Vance dicuss this issue as well as the underlying inflammatory issues. Lets cut to the chase: Do they see eye to eye on all the Jew matters or not
Ok let's do that for all outstanding issues. I'd like Ben Shapiro to ask if he had to choose between nuking Israel and America, which one would he choose. Since he doesn't have dual loyalty it should be easy for him to say nuke Israel.
I don’t really know when that term began. I’d heard it from jr. high thru high school and college…maybe it depends on what part of the country you’re in.
As is customary, Rufo hits the nail on the head. Its the simple law of supply and demand: for years, the left has ginned up demand for nazism, with too little supply to satisfy their cravings. Fuentes came to fill in the supply and reap the economic reward for doing so. He is a conman and agitator, nothing more.
This is the most ridiculous commentary I have read this week. Fuentes has been toiling in the Dissident Right field since 2016. When I first met him, then later followed him he had mild views about the Jewish Question and other matters. As he told Carlson he was a Mark Levin listener and a Libertarian back then as most radical young conservatives were. In 2018, things shifted dramatically because an Alt Right and Alt Light phenomenon bubbled up from the grass roots. Fuentes and millions of other conservatives were red-pilled by the information that became available to them because of the internet. The Alt Right exploded and Fuentes jumped in. Over time Fuentes, because he is an exceptional communicator (a prodigy) and has high intelligence and charisma, developed a strong following. He adeptly formed the Groyper club, which might be seen as a nerdier and more Catholic version of McInnes's Proud Boys. They are a refreshing group of young and proud white men who are fighting for western civilization. They rightly see the Establishment Right as a cowardly and comfortable, Zionist, country club that needs to go away. The new breed is shoving them out the door. The Zionists are using their considerable wealth and influence to keep them inside the house. Thus, this is a shoving match between pro-white, Christian, masculinists/nationalists against the Zionist fueled, phony Christian country club slob Republicans. It was never difficult for me to decide which side I am on.
You entered the scene as an anti-woke crusader, which is like swimming in the intermediate section of the pool. We are glad for your inside the Overton Wisdom leadership, but we also know there are many more pro-white martyrs out there like Fuentes and many hundreds of thousands more to the right of him that are on the front lines taking more risk. Fuentes takes more risk than you. I believe you should quietly support him by saying nothing.
I agree. I find this hysteria unbelievable. An interview of Fuentes by Carlson has caused the “Right” to lose their minds. And the Jews (Levin, Shapiro, etc.) are apoplectic. What is actually going in here? The “Left” can and do say whatever they want about anyone and anything, even to the point of encouraging assassinating members of the “Right”, and their party embraces them. We have a conversation between two Conservatives and the party is ready to cancel, silence, obliterate them. I am disgusted. Our Country is on the brink of being taken over by invading Islamists. We should be fighting for our very lives over this. To say nothing of the mortal attacks of big pharma, chemtrails, big tech, food suppliers, corporations of every kind … I can barely keep track. And this interview is what’s set the “Right” establishment on fire? Something is way off here.
That tells you that Israel controls the Republican Party and most of the so called conservatives in it. They see themselves as beyond criticism - or else. Carlson and Fuentes are defying them, and their paid army in the United States.
The defense of Western Civilization begins and ends with conserving the transcendental values of truth, goodness and beauty. This is what conservatism means. So-called conservatives who indulge in lies, ugliness and bad behavior are in league with the progressive “burn-it-all-down” crowd of nihilistic destroyers.
To quote someone: “What have Conservatives conserved in the past 100 years?” Western Civilization is on its’ last gasp if you haven’t noticed. It has purposely been dismantled and destroyed. I don’t know about the “lying, ugliness and bad behavior” of “Conservatives”, but Fuentes and others who state the truths and beliefs they hold, or use mockery and outrageousness to present their viewpoints are providing a service. They are saying what was once unsayable. Opinions many people have, but have been intimidated and silenced into not speaking. Unheard of to question Jews, their actual Talmudic beliefs, Israel or Israeli leadership. Unheard of to criticize the uncivilized, ghetto culture of large communities of black people. Unheard of to condemn barbaric, murderous, rapist, stone-age, pre-civilized culture of Muslim/Islamism. Ditto the homeless culture, the drug culture, the trans culture.
Well said. I’d always heard such criticism of Fuentes, I almost didn’t listen to the interview with Tucker. So glad I did, though I haven’t finished it and am curious as to why he admires Stalin, who was a ruthless killer. Nonetheless, I’m fascinated with this young man and what he’s endured with his views and I believe most of the comments here are from people who didn’t listen to the interview. He’s a confirmed Catholic, believes in Jesus Christ, is against the Zionistic fluency of our country, believes most of our Republican representatives are bought and paid for by either AIPAC or Big Pharma. He’s America First, first and foremost. Tucker and he had a few disagreements but they both center their belief system on America First…stopping the billions going to Israel and other foreign countries. I’m finishing the interview this evening and will withhold all judgment until I can digest all he says.
If I had to guess I think Fuentes admires Stalin's ruthlessness. Young guys on the Right are tired of being around cuck men. It is the same reason many of them were attracted to Trump. Fuentes is not calling for brutality, but he does want white men to lead without guilt. He sees that as necessary to fight the enemy.
Sure. As I understand it, the Jewish Question is: How can Jews, who have small numbers in western populations have so much influence over finance, culture, media, and governments? Are influential Jews, including especially Zionists, and especially in the United States and Europe, using their influence to diminish white people? From the perspective of white advocates, and unaddressed by Establishmentarians like Rufo, the answer to the second half of the question is undoubtedly Yes. Books have been written about the subject. The answer to the first half of the question is more nuanced and there are different opinions. I believe the power is the result of in-group preference, high intelligence, and work ethic. I see these aspects as strengths of the Jewish community. The Groypers and other white advocates believe white people need to mimic the Jewish success formula by organizing and acting confidently to rebuild their nations. This is the conversation focus Rufo does not want to have because it is too hot to handle. Carlson, to his great credit, is having that honest conversation.
Thank you for your crack at the question. I am sorry I asked it, but it needs to be done. One thing I find so confusing is that according to this interpretation, "Jews, including especially Zionists . . . [are] using their influence to diminish white people [.]" But according to the anti-Zionists Israeli Jews ARE white people putting their boots on the brown people. But then, I guess this all makes sense because Jews have been hated for being poor (shtetls/pograms) and hated for being rich, hated for being communists and hated for being capitalists, hated for being homeless and hated for having a home (Israel).....the list is almost never-ending.
Which part? I've read a few books on the topic, but I'm no expert. I'm not saying anything that isn't already popular knowledge about AIPAC or the American left, but I'm willing to change my mind.
Basically, it is the question of what role Jews have played in our current political situation. They are very small part of the population but have been extremely influential in national politics, especially the left - a pattern that has repeated in recent history in a other nations. The question is why and what they were trying to accomplish.
Why the overrepresentation? Answers range from they just have a superior culture or they have higher IQs to they are trying to destroy Western Civilization. Obviously, the Nazis thought there was a conspiracy, as many others did at the time. Now, with IQ tests, we can see that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ than any other group, which might explain the overrepresentation. For those that deny IQ differences, it's a conundrum.
The JQ was a common exercise for writers, statesmen and philosophers in the 19th century. Dostoevsky, for example, wrote an essay on it -- which if he were alive today, would have him canceled in a Brooklyn Minute. More recently, I discovered an extensive treatment of it in 1890 by the oldest Catholic periodical, "Civilta Cattolica". What they say is even stronger than Dostoevsky's -- they'd basically be shut down and cause a scandal throughout the Church and society if published today (or any time after 1945). Post-1945 Westerners have basically acquired collective amnesia about how normative anti-Semitism was before WW2 -- for centuries. And when confronted with what they have culturally forgotten, they (if well trained by the Zeitgeist) will wave it away with "well, everybody was worse back then, you know, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic -- boy I'm sure glad we've progressed since from our shameful history!" etc.
Not sure I understand your question – a comment referred to “the Jewish Question” (a racist formulation from pre-WWI Europe that ended in the Holocaust), so I mocked it.
As a member of that group of mysterious young men that everyone is desperate to understand, let me tell you something about Fuentes. The more you hang out in that crowd the vile and disgusting it becomes, just this last December the trend in Groyper circles was to make jokes about raping and beheading wives, because getting married was seen as inherently gay and Jewish. This went on for about a month, and when it was all over they simply tried to say it was all a lighthearted joke and anyone that say problem with this was a blowhard and a Zionist agent. This kind of behavior is regular in these circles, and there really is no defense for it.
I think any argument that Fuentes doesn’t represent conservative thought it pure insanity. Every conservative I know when pressed with video clips quotes etc from Fuentes full throatedly agrees with him
I mostly think he’s hilarious and a troll. His bit on PBD was a master class
Wow, I found a groyper loser in the wild! Here's a real Nick Fuentes quote:
“I don’t know if that… people are like, ‘You should run for president!’ Dude if I ran for president, everyone’s gonna hate me. They’re gonna say, ‘Look what he said about black people.’ And you go, ‘That’s a given.’
“‘Look at what he said about Jews. Look at what he said about women.’
“And you might say, ‘Well yeah but the white people will vote for you!’ And then they’re gonna say, ‘Look at what he said about Polish people. Look at what he said about Slavs, he called them monkeys. Look at what he said about Anglos. Look at what he said about Southerners, look at what he said about Mormons.’ [long, wistful look at the ceiling]
“And people are gonna go, ‘Yeah we gotta kill this guy.’ People are gonna say, ‘We all hate him!’
“They’re gonna say, ‘Look at what he said about poor people and service workers and people that work at gas stations and restaurants. Look at what he said about people that go to the gym or wear microfiber shirts.’”
Mr. Rufo, you have classified Fuentes correctly; he is putting on a show. But Fuentes isn't the issue, the issue is Tucker Carlson. Carlson also puts on a show, but he is systematically rehabilitating hatred of Jews and defending Hitler and other dictators (e.g. Putin and the Iranian mullahs and Maduro) while pretending he's "just asking questions." Carlson too deserves cool analysis, but that includes recognizing and saying boldly that he is doing evil.
This article essentially strawmans Fuentes by reducing him to his most sensational quotes, which is precisely the strategy his critics use in their attempt to silence him. While I appreciate the Baudrillardian description, I believe Fuentes is sincere and should be taken at face value, and most of the people trying to reduce him to "Holocaust denial" clips have not actually watched his show at any length, and do not fundamentally understand his appeal, and as a result, they will struggle to constrain his influence. I believe he deserves to be heard and taken seriously, and the people who feel entitled to dictate the terms of discourse on the right are the ones whose place in the movement we should be skeptical of.
That we do not have meaningful sovereignty in our country as long as this issue is a third-rail. The hostage video that Kevin Roberts was forced to release for the crime of daring to defend someone who had an interview with someone on the naughty list is emblematic of the behavior that alienated people like myself from the left. If we are serious about the claim to be the side of open debate, we need to engage with Nick Fuentes' claims about Israeli, and yes, Jewish, influence on American society, in a way that goes beyond attempting to poison the well with a few selectively-chosen clips. His fundamental point, that he makes again and again, is that this isn't about a clip from 11 years ago, and the outrage over it is insincere. If he were nothing more than some jokes in poor taste years ago, no one would have ever heard of him. People acting in bad faith are choosing to fixate on those clips to avoid addressing his broader point: the fact that this lobby has the power to bring down the Heritage Foundation, the fact that anti-Semitism, and not anti-Americanism, has the power to bring down Ivy League academia, the fact that you can be a gay man with children by surrogacy and belong to the conservative movement, but not critical of this lobby, that is the real conversation.
I appreciate you responding, Chris, and I'll be honest, I really admired your work around Ivy League campus reform. When Claudine Gay was removed, I was genuinely optimistic about the prospect of real change, but watching how the only thing that has meaningfully changed has been the reorientation of the Middle East studies departments towards Zionism, and watching how the Trump administration's campus reform efforts have seemingly focused more on anti-Israeli than anti-American sentiment, I'm disheartened, and admittedly, watching that dynamic play out is part of what has pushed me into Fuentes' camp.
In other words, if the only lever that has the power to meaningfully disrupt Ivy League education in America, even under the Trump administration, is the prospect of campus anti-Semitism, Fuentes is fundamentally right about who controls our country.
Fuentes gave a good take on Mark Levin's reaction to his Tucker Carlson interview the other night, either yesterday or Monday. This is why I support him. I'd encourage you to watch this clip. This is who I see him as, rather than the clip of admittedly bad jokes he made years ago that people keep trying to throw around demanding he be held "accountable" for them, like the woke left at the height of the cancel culture era.
If you want to understand why he's popular, I'd encourage you to simply watch his show without assuming he's evil and taking his claims seriously, instead of going based on what the Daily Wire chooses to highlight.
“we need to engage with Nick Fuentes' claims about Israeli, and yes, Jewish, influence on American society.”
No, we do not. His claims on both accounts are unhinged, built on lies, hyperbole, and fantasy. But putting aside Israel for the moment, which one certainly could have productive debate out, there is no room for debate about “Jewish influence on American society.”
That implies there’s some consistent, organized Jewish undermining of culture, and that’s just straight up Jew hatred. Yes, there’ve been influential Jews. There’s also been influential Italians, Irish, English, black people, Latinos. Nobody debates “Italian influence on American Society.”
And what could come of such debate. What are you going to do about the “Jewish influence?”
I know what Nick has said he would do, and I don’t care how old those clips are. And even worse than the clips are what his groypers say continually online.
He is a pernicious influence; he has nothing to offer of value to the debate. He should not be debated.
No one is making you debate or engage with him, but his following continues to grow, and the efforts to ostracize him and his followers from the conservative movement only discredit and undermine the movement. But again, since the people trying to ostracize him are more concerned about their own ethnic interests than those of the United States, they don't care if the conservative movement gets blown up, as long as it protects their interests, proving Fuentes' point yet again.
They ignored him as long as they could, the only reason this conversation is even happening is because he's too big for them to ignore now.
I don't think he would call himself a conservative, he'd call himself a nationalist. Regardless, if the president of the Heritage Foundation has to make a groveling apology that looks like a hostage video for the mere act of defending Tucker Carlson's right to have a conversation with Fuentes without having his questions pre-screened by the ADL, that is a problem in the conservative movement, and that is my only point. Tucker Carlson can interview whoever he wants, including Nick Fuentes, and if the president of the Heritage Foundation is about to lose his job for daring to say that, Nick Fuentes is right about everything.
He tried to be but conservatives wouldn't have him because he asked too many questions. Conservatives used to be, or claim to be, the party if intellectual integrity.
Honestly, I neither blame Israel or Palestine. You guys can have fun with your conflict, or not. I am just tired of paying for it and being called a bigot for saying that we do not need to be funding this shit on either side.
To the point of Chris Rufo's article, Nick's libelous, juvenile, anti-Jewish takes are good for grabbing attention (both good and bad) which is his whole game.
I don't think this is going to work anymore. This is wokeness, BTW; it is using cancelling and ostracism and shame to silence those who raise uncomfortable questions about a protected group. It is only because criticism of the same group has become more widespread on the left (partially for different reasons, although with some overlap). The refusal to discuss the issue and insistence on completely ostracizing and destroying the careers of those who insist on discussing it will only give more credence to the more conspiratorial and exaggerated versions of it.
As with, say, black crime, people aren't just feverishly imagining random yet coincidentally consistent things with no basis in reality. There are even Jews who have made the same observations about Jewish influence; for example, the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried, who was himself one of the many victims of the Buckleyite purges, by the same worthless faction of "conservatives" (who have conserved nothing) who are currently using woke tactics to reassert their faltering control of the movement:
"Since neither blacks nor Hispanics have been a major intellectual force in the US, it might be useful to focus on the last of the three ethnic groups mentioned in Peter’s gloomy question. After all, Jews are not the same as most other groups in terms of prominence. They are represented at a ratio of at least 10 to 1 in proportion to their percentage of the total population in the media and higher education.
"Jews are also a more cohesive group than WASPs—who may be the least unified and most atomized ethnicity on earth. A diatribe against WASPs will not hurt its author and may even bring him or her admiring recognition. By contrast, adverse comments about Jews, or about the“Holocaust Industry” in the case of Norman Finkelstein, who (despite being Jewish himself) lost his job at Depaul University after Alan Dershowitz weighed in against him, can be professionally fatal.
"The late Joe Sobran once observed that denying that Jews are powerless can bring swift retribution. That is precisely because the Jewish community is anything but powerless."
---
"MacDonald may overstate the continuity of the role Jews have occupied as the grave-diggers of non-Jewish cultures, and the negative response to the host country exhibited by earlier Jewish settlers in the New World. But his treatment of the relentless crusade waged by Jewish intellectuals against bourgeois decencies since the early twentieth century is certainly on the mark.
---
"No matter where one looks at this war against the Gentile heritage—whether it is being fought in the name of gay marriage, feminism, militant secularism, or Open Borders—Jews are invariably in the vanguard. And MacDonald is spot-on when he observes that, when the American Right was taken over by Jewish journalists, the effect was to push “conservatism” toward the left.
"The one apparent exception to this tendency: the successful identification of the transformed American Right with Jewish nationalism. Thus the “conservative” media happily treats Connecticut’s socially liberal Senator Joe Lieberman as an honorary man of the Right, apparently because he is working to advance “democracy” in the Middle East—by which is meant that he is good on Israel and on encouraging war against Israel’s presumed enemies.
"Note that I am not saying that all Jews always behave in the way I’m describing. There are Jews who clearly do not. For example, Jewish libertarians Murray Rothbard, Robert Weissberg, Ilana Mercer, Michael Levin, Byron Roth and Alan Kors have equaled any Christian in their support of traditional freedoms."
---
"But, despite these admirable exceptions, Jews in public life pose a special problem in the US and in other Western democracies to the extent that they overwhelmingly follow a certain behavioral and attitudinal pattern. The problem is not only that these Jews work collectively to discredit any traditional gentile way of life. They also work reduce the possibility of debate about what they condemn, because they associate (and get others to associate) open discourse with bigotry and anti-Semitism."
---
"But once the Left took over our universities, the free speech industry on campuses was closed down. Today PC speech codes and ideologically uniform faculties prevail, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts, thanks to the victory of these bogus freedom-fighters.
"It is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of recent history that those responsible for these changes were predominantly Jewish. The New Left in the US was the basically the work of Jews (as Stanley Rothman easily shows in Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left). One would have to work overtime and very creatively to hide this palpable connection."
---
"This brings me to the heart of my Politically Incorrect argument. Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism."
---
"This tendency is not likely to stop on its own. There is no reason to hope that, once some future threshold measure is passed—perhaps punishing discrimination against interspecies marriage partners?—these alienated, embattled Jews will cease their efforts to radicalize society even further. There is only way that this process can be ended, and freedom (in the traditional sense—as opposed to forced celebration of what is weird or alien) restored: the majority population, while it is still the majority, must say “no” to coercive social radicalizers.
"It may also be necessary for non-Jews to call attention to the problem of Jewish alienation and to the disruption it continues to cause.
"The current guilt trip that liberal and neoconservative Jews have disproportionately encouraged must be undone in the name of freedom. The social engineering and forced ideological instruction that American Jews in the public sphere have pushed for decades is incompatible with true liberal ideals of intellectual inquiry and freedom of association.
"One cannot have both a free society and one controlled by the current crew of Jewish intellectuals and journalists. There is a contradiction here and one that will only be resolved once the teachings and taboos of this priestly class are emphatically rejected.
"Of course, this article will cause me to be denounced as a “self-hating Jew”. I could respond with Murray Rothbard's quip: "I don't hate myself"."
As you suggested, I listened to this clip. I always want the strongman argument from everyone. If this is the best Fuentes has, he really is the whiny brat I thought he was.
There are plenty of conservatives who are America-first, most notably JD Vance. According to a clip I heard recently, Fuentes really hates Vance because his wife is of Indian heritage. That clip wasn’t a joke made in bad taste years ago. In the Tucker interview itself, Fuentes speaks glowingly about celebrating Stalin’s birthday.
You seem to downplay Fuentes at his worst, even if others selectively clip those bits for distribution.
I don't think anyone, even Fuentes himself, is saying you need to like or agree with Fuentes. That's the strawman. But if you believe there's some obligation to ritually disavow Tucker Carlson for having him on the show, or even Fuentes himself for that matter, or that the president of the Heritage Foundation should lose his job for insufficiently engaging in this condemnation ritual, then that's precisely the kind of behavior I found so repulsive on the left. No one is saying anyone has to agree with Nick Fuentes, but the idea that Tucker Carlson needs to be condemned for daring to "platform" him is contrary to the spirit of the conservative movement. If you disagree with him, engage with him, or don't, but if you choose not to, don't mind if I choose to do so myself, and think less of you for it.
In your original comment, you basically suggested, “Give Fuentes a chance” and linked to a clip. So, I did.
You also initially said the strawman was posting “jokes in poor taste” from years ago. But the clips I have seen are recent and seemingly in earnest.
I don’t have any baggage about wanting to cancel him or whatever. I think the more people actually watch him, the less popular he will be. Claiming “cancel culture” is probably a strawman of your opposition, because I haven’t seen much of this.
The president of the Heritage Foundation literally got a call from his donors and had to issue a groveling apology for daring to defend Tucker Carlson's free speech right to have a conversation with Nick Fuentes. He still might get fired, even after he went through the humiliation ritual and issued the apology. To me, this is yet another episode that validates Fuentes' broader claims about the balance of political power, because in my view, two podcasters - Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson - sitting down for a conversation shouldn't be remotely "controversial", and the fact that it is, and among conservatives no less, tells me certain segments of our movement aren't serious about free speech, open debate, or intellectual honesty, at least on this topic. It's the precise behavior the left engages in around their sacred cows, and I find it no less off-putting.
You're free to think whatever you want of Nick Fuentes. No one is trying to change your opinion. But podcasters have guests I disagree with on their shows every day and no one loses their minds over it. The fact that this is being treated so differently is revealing in and of itself, and to me, validates Fuentes' broader claims. You're free, of course, to interpret the situation however you choose to.
Cancel culture comes in many forms, and it doesn't have to succeed to be a problem -- it can manifest as people of varying degrees of sociopolitical influence *trying* to cancel someone by repeating over and over in the echo chamber of social media that someone is worthless, stupid, evil, anti-semitic, fascist, whatever. For example, you, Rufo, and hundreds of others of varying degrees of influence on X -- all the way up to the Republican Speaker of the House -- are doing just that since the Tucker interview (and before, for that matter, just less frantically).
One of the first examples that began to open my mind to this phenomenon was back in 2018, when Jordan Peterson, the Jewish scientist podcaster Gaad Sad, and Jewish anti-Leftist head of Rebel News Ezra Levant together decided at the last minute to cancel Rebel News reporter Faith Goldy, whom they had invited to their planned symposium about -- Oh the irony! -- how free speech is in danger. Faith Goldy's thought crime? She was heard on an audio broadcast laughing at a mildly anti-Semitic joke her interviewer told at the end of their interview. That's it. Her career was over after that. Try to find her anywhere online.
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
It's extremely easy to turn away from the attention seeking Fuentes and the other monetized loudmouths on the Left and the Right.
I think the conservative movement is making a larger political mistake than they realize if they attempt to cancel him, or reduce him to a few cherry-picked clips, rather than engage with his arguments, however distasteful they may find them. This is simply where the political conversation is, and they don't get to dictate that. They ignored Fuentes as long as they could, the only reason they are talking about him now is because he's too big to ignore. The "conversation" (about why he's being "platformed") is just the people who can't or won't accept that.
It's not just his questions. Many have the same questions but fear keeps them from asking. Hardly a conservative strategy. It might reasonably be said that our rulers don't like questions
Fuentes is what happens when you have several decades of debased education, demonization of men, and an explosion of always online culture. Carlson is however an evil power monger who is far from an actual Conservative. Both need to be rejected by actual Conservatives.
Fuentes is disgusting. His parents have to be fully humiliated. At least I hope they are. Yes, I believe he’s so crude and rude for attention and he’s getting it. That doesn’t make him any less disgusting that he’s playing people. What a horrible piece of humanity.
He speaks no truth. He’s a liar and a grandstander and disgusting. He doesn’t help this country one bit. The fact so many people think of him as you do is way more horrifying. You’re just his pawn.
Your caricatures of Fuentes opposition are to say the least just that. The accusations can easily be turned on Fuentes because in the age of the internet he has found a market of unreasonable resentment and self-pity and cashed in on it. Cowardly in their own way his followers seem mostly young and lazy and too ignorant to even know how to enter into the political give and take. I do not see them in the trenches only making strident adolescent screams blaming everyone but themselves and being vile and punk provocative as they do it. That is Fuentes schtick to use a Jewish term.
I see his rhetoric as showing a deep frustration over watching his country go down the drain. Illegal immigration (mostly non-white) is destroying budgets and resulting in more dangerous cities. Christianity is also fading fast, and is under constant attack. I think he is reacting to the dissolving of our society for something that is worse.
No one cares about Nick. Carlson is the problem. He lacks intellect and goes too often for mere shock Oh, and let us not forget the "Christian Zionism" comment either. As an ex-subscriber of TCN,, I wish I could get my money back.
Christian Zionism is a heresy. Not one major theologian thought that creating and supporting a modern secular state of Israel is something the bible commands.
Fuentes and the young men he represents intentionally and flagrantly performative embrace the boomer taboos in order to loose their hold on the moral imagination of the next generation. They are freeing themselves from the white guilt shackles that have led to the awful society we have built where they are the enemy in the DEI hierarchy of victimization. Republican groveling and kneeling at the feet of the holy Saint George Floyd is not working for them. I am Gen X and I can see both perspectives on Fuentes. I have also been discriminated against and had my dreams blocked because of the DEI society. I have seen the rampant crime. I sympathize with Israel more, but this latest cancellation attempt is making me more sympathetic to the points Fuetes and others are making about the power and influence of the Israel lobby.
As a 52 year old black man and married to a white woman for 27 years let me make a quick point. Nick Fuentes is SO FAR off of my radar he might as well not even exist. I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. None of these things is Nick Fuentes. MOVE ON.
Exactly right, Dan.
For sure, Mr Carlson is a much more interesting subject to discuss than Mr Fuentes. Most of his guests from last year are retarded, degenerates, or both. Why did Mr Roberts pledge eternal allegiance to him? The Bee said of the Democrats, that they can't alienate the all-important Death to America vote. Is the same thing happening on the right? (Carlson has nothing but praise for Mamdani, Qatar, Maduro and other not quite pro-America players)
Carlson is not a Christian, but an angry neo-pagan. He used to be "America First, but also America Bad." Now he's just "Anerica Bad."
There is an element of anti-Trump anger here on the farther reaches of the new-new right. Trump has not fulfilled their fantasies. They're upset.
I agree that Fuentes is a political opportunist/celebrity, not a philosopher, but I also respectfully disagree with the approach that we should just ignore him, i.e. "move on," and deny him any more oxygen. I understand the logic, but the issues are two:
1) As others have mentioned, he does represent a certain constituency that we shouldn't ignore. Fuentes has found, perhaps more accurately exposed, a segment of too-malleable young men, particularly white, whose identity and worldview is being misshapen by the Left's toxic take on masculinity and race, that folks like Fuentes then capitalize on and confirm. In that sense he's as dangerous as the Left is to those young male minds, if not moreso. For the health of our national culture more than any political advantage, the rational Right needs to find a way to talk to and appeal to those young men, so that it can carefully—because that's the only way it can happen—cleave them from avatars like Fuentes.
2) The political cost of ignoring him is real, though, and not just because of the potential (healthier) votes of those who currently follow the likes of Fuentes. The marginal voters who determine elections now, from the federal to the local, do see and pay attention to things like this. The leftist media ensures they do. So if, and how, the Right responds matters to them. If it's only "if," we lose them. If it's incoherent or weak, we lose them. We've seen all of the above. Yes, the Left doesn't matter. But the election-defining center does.
So yes, the Left doesn't matter, and Fuentes himself doesn't matter. But who's watching and who he's drawing, do. There is more low-hanging fruit right now in terms of voters, more opportunity to attract them to classically liberal side, than I've seen since Reagan in 1980, and I think potentially even more. It's of course always been the case, but damn: if enough of the Right could get its magnets together and aligned in terms of messaging and action in the present flux, it could reshape the electoral landscape going forward as much as Depression-era Democrats did.
All healthy cultures and peoples in the world seek to preserve and perpetuate themselves. Miscegenation is promoted by those who wish for us to be wiped out.
Who is "us"?
Whites
You look pretty inbred, so your logic checks out.
As an Ashkenazi, you shouldn’t be accusing anyone of inbreeding.
Like the popes endorsed 🕊️
2006 Constantinople 👀
In a former church 🤦
Papal visit to a Islamic mosque that replaced a former Church of significance known as hagia Sophia which was proclaimed as a historic relic by the UN with protective status yet the Islamic dictator from Turkey knew that those who turn the other cheek would turn the other cheek and it's now a mosque in the only Islamic nation in NATO indicating a blindness and supplication to Islam further reflected by the new announced status of protectorate for Qatar with an air base in Idaho 👀
Praying in the direction of Mecca 👍🏻
Anointed erdogan 🧐
Mama Merkel spread Germany's legs
Seems that turning the other cheek has interpretive consequences for those who perceive it as weak and meek resulting in 20 fewer of that religion and 20 additional Islamic countries🤦🤦🏼♂️🤔😤😳🙄😖🤦🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️🧐
Your take is true, but MOVE ON is not the correct response, because the Left is not moving on, they're taking the opening Fuentes is giving them and doing real damage to the conservative cause and therefore to our society.
Rufo nailed it. Fuentes is not a Nazi; he's something worse. A chaos agent deliberately wrecking our society at a critical moment in time, simply for his own selfish purposes. We need to expose the game he's playing and neutralize the harm he's enabling the Left to do via his posing.
I can't control what the Left does. They are finucking NUTS and we all know it. I only have so many years to live. I'm not going to waste energy on pieces of s*** that will have no effect on my day to day life.
Dan is right. Move on. All we can do is go to church, worship God, create strong families, learn by example and disown wolves in sheep's clothing. Fuentes' motivations are irrelevant to me. He is being used by the devil -- as is Candace Owens who brings immediate shame on the Catholic church no sooner than converting. Zero humility or respect. Yes fame and celebrity are the drivers...clicks....narcissism...money. But this was always the way. Screwtape gives chapter and verse.
I respectfully disagree with your take on the matter.
It’s not that the Left is taking the opening Fuentes is giving them.
No and no.
Fuentes is not the one creating opportunities for the Left to exploit.
It’s the cowards and the dunderheads in the Establishment Right who are responsible for it.
The same ones responsible for all those losses last night in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
Mark, I can’t imagine Mr. Fuentes has many supporters. He offers identity politics and moral decadence. SOS. Platforms with wide reach should host him so he doesn’t fall into some elusive, rebel category and his appearance alone ensures this.
He’s a dweeb and not what young men (or women) are seeking.
Yes, I intend to agree. But the Left is dishonestly presenting him as representative of conservative thought, even trying to brand him as Charlie Kirk's successor. Rufo's point is that we should not even debate whether his views are correct or not, whether people follow him or don't follow him. Rather, we need to expose him as someone who is not serious, who is spouting off and pushing buttons just to get attention and try to build a following. In other words, his following is not a threat, just the dishonest assertion that he's speaking for the Right.
I get it. Mocking in scenario’s such as this usually works best. Characters like Fuentes thrive on the seriousness of the reactions they receive while being completely unserious themselves. Whether it’s fear or praise they use it to boost their egos (all collectivists tend to do this) and presenting him as an unserious child, which he is, or some similar status is how we should deal with him.
A favorite game of progressive leftism is to confuse the roles of children and adults, intelligence and ignorance, dangerous and harmless. It’s why they silence the mere existence of men like Rush Limbaugh and elevate in almost infamy boys like Fuentes.
Demoralization. It’s their one true purpose.
Tossing Fuentes where he belongs may be an opportunity for the right to demonstrate that they'd like a constructive conversation with the left. Even an inkling of credit given to Fuentes, which Rufo gives him when he claims that Fuentes is just a celebrity seeker, will nix the ability to start a meaningful dialog.
He has 1.6+ million followers across all platforms, and the number is growing. I think that is more than enough to make dealing with his ideas a reality.
The last one minute snippet I watched of him was in celebration of his people taking over certain areas of our government 👈 I’m paraphrasing. But if what he said were true he should be investigated for conspiring to take over and/or overthrow our republic.
I’m so over these idiots
I am disturbed by any "conservative" whos willing to create chaos with such childish, anti-views, and really just looks like they're needing ALOT of attention... he is wrecking what little respect we have, and causing such a public media circus, we aren't going to be taken seriously by people on the fence politically. I HATE that Tucker appears to have drank the wrong koolaid. All these new celebs are so easily manipulated, very few can be trusted to maintain the values that made them popular to begin with. We end up seeing their true colors, or who bought their new opinion. Kids like Nick Fuentes are just mentally unstable, and shouldn't be given airtime...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I'm also 52, Dan. We're just the wrong generation. Fuentes is popular with young men. He doesn't resonate with us. He doesn't WANT to resonate with us. But he does for them.
That said, I think Chris' suggestion of how those of us in our generation should deal with him is correct. Don't engage with his "ideas" (of which he has few as he tends to throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks this week) but focus on him as an intellectual fraud.
Young men are attracted to him (and other manosphere types) because they crave meaning and authenticity. But they're not stupid.
There are plenty of stupid young men! They are always going to follow some Pied Piper.
…so that is exactly what makes people like NF dangerous…
…we want young men listening to people like Peterson or Kirk telling them to build their skills, their knowledge of the world, careers, houses, families. That was the best of Charlie K’s message. He wanted young men off the couch into the real world… to know that they could not just “be part of it” but even help shape it.
NF is saying none of that… at least not in the handful of interviews / videos I’ve watched… (and from what I saw in the first several I won’t ever watch another.) Outside of capital crimes, people deserve 2nd and 3rd chances at life… NF has used all of his up in my book.
I see no charisma in Nick Fuentes only bombast. He is not a reasoned servant to truth he is a load mouth provocateur with a historical and politically immature market easily propagandized looking for quick blame.
Sounds like the foremost conservative intellectual to me.
"Load mouth" is an incredibly apropos typo, though
I doubt he has any real influence. As in changing anyone’s life. Not with young men. Jordan Peterson changed many young men. Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom did. Fuentes? Nah. Flash in the pan provocateur. First, he wears a suit. Who does that? Conservative young men? None that I know. He is a media creation.
I agree with Christophers diagnosis of NF. I disagree with his (and Dans) prescription.
I am a 55 year old white male. US citizen from birth. I agree NF uses bombastic and controversial rhetoric to gain attention. Especially among young men. The thing is, it’s working. His popularity is exploding. If he wasn’t expressing ideas that people agree with under all the rhetoric, he wouldn’t be gaining popularity. I also had no clue who NF was 2 weeks ago. I have since listened to about a dozen of his shows on Rumble to try and see what he’s all about (Something I would imagine very few people have done other than his followers). What he espouses underneath all the attention seeking hype, aren’t novel ideas. He didn’t think them up. He licked his finger, stuck it in the breeze, and ran with it in a style that has garnered attention. His views are no longer fringe ones, they are more and more main stream especially among young people. You’re foolish if you think you can “move on” from his views. Young people think he’s right. Maybe he’s not ALL wrong.
You can ignore him but these ideas are not going away. Agree or disagree with him, he will have to be reckoned with.
My father once said to me when I was 25 years old (He was 53ish) “It’s your world now kid”.
At the time I thought he was nuts.
Now I realize he was right.
Well said.
Couldn’t have said it better, sir!
Perfect words Dan…
I firmly and deeply believe that the media is vastly inflating NF’s stature and importance… with plenty of help with people smart enough to know better. (Looking at you Tucker.)
The media desperately WANTS NF’s profile elevated because they know he could be almost as effective at destroying the conservative youth movement as Charlie Kirk was at building it.
This guy has zero place in a big tent revival future of the party of Lincoln or Reagan. NF needs to be persona non-grata at any high profile event. Restraining order in advance (because gate crashing gets him tons of clicks.)
Best hopes the energy and leadership at Turning Point can continue to move the movement forward and make help return the country to some of the ideals it was founded on.
God bless you Dan. And yes move on.
actually...it did work...maybe you should move on kerry
@Kerry- clearly Substack allows anyone on its platform. Nice try.
He's mimicking Fuentes' act.
RED ALERT: Kerry Shaw's vocabulary is limited to the f-word. Ignore any posts by him. He might be more effective if he toned it down.
He's a mini-Fuentes. Like a high school sophomore, dropping f-bombs in class to make himself sound serious and rile up the teacher.
@Kerry- Oh! My turn! Ok, Boomer.
He might be more effective if… scratch that. He’ll never be effective.
Fake? Fed? Fool? Which f-word?
Relax. It’s not that important.
Throgmorton - the F word you’re looking for on Christopher’s substack is FINISHED. 🤣
Fake
Unhinged
Crazy
Kook.
Profanity is the sign of a limited vocabulary.
Profanity is the sign of someone who's got nothing to say worth hearing.
You’re expending too much energy on this. Relax.
Read your Bible Kerry. All of it. Pray over it and ask God for help in understanding it.
Agree. He is a liar for money and power. Conservatism he is not. Spiritual he is not. Love of humanity he is not.
Looking to political leaders as stand ins for gods will disappoint and disillusion you
Sorry, you're telling me Donald Trump is not an "essentially fraudulent phenomenon"?
Yes
Hey, let’s stop with the profanity, or you’re gone.
Next time please "gone" someone who spews profanity sooner, please. Like one strike, he's out.
Chris, you've got one guy defending himself against a mob of uncritical and mostly thoughtless commenters, and censorship over a seemingly profane acronym is your answer? I don't know this person and I don't particularly like his style, but I love this person as Christ would encourage me to do. I've got a novel idea: How about a commenter engage him a little better argument than the one he's making and you stop acting like your follower's mother? Gee, all of a sudden I feel like Einstein.
Mike - “Defending himself against a Mob of uncritical and mostly Thoughtless commenters…”???
Au contraire. I think most of us just want reasoned, fairly polite and rational discussion and not a bunch of nonsense. Give people a break here.
I was referring to the comments made toward this objectionable person who had a different perspective. I don't speak much French, but if you can point me to a thoughtful comment made to him in that string of comments that refutes my claim, please do so because I may have missed it.
Noted.
Mom's calling you down to breakfast, Kerry. Be a good boy, put on some bigtboy clothes and go downstairs.
Do you know that Jesus was a Jew from Israel? You'd better remove your cross. Amen.
Your battle is with a Holy God Kerry. You’re treading on the very wrong side. Don’t yell at me. Be honest and repent. Remove the cross!
I'm sure the 1,000,001st time that one's used it will work. I bet you still call Democrats the real racists as well.
I am not sure how the Lord will receive prayers that begin with the word 'Fuck.'
By this standard. giving him an uncritical platform, as Tucker did, is absolutely the wrong approach since it validates him as a real thinker, which he is not.
I appreciated the Tucker interview so that I could evaluate Fuentes on his ideas rather than listen to overly emotional reactions that has piqued everyone’s curiosity. He had a couple of correct historical takes that were surrounded by immature idiotic beliefs. I can now give a non-emotional straight forward opinion about Fuentes & have zero desire to listen to him as I wouldn’t learn anything from him - I know all I need to know. Sure he’s smart & forceful in his speech but he’s also emotionally stunted & has a chip on his shoulder for anyone who has ever wronged him. Shapiro/daily wire are the ones that made Fuentes as big as he is by popularizing him via the Streisand effect (you learn that from the interview). If you don’t want to make him a big name then stop saying his name.
Once we give him the uncritical platform, it is imperative that we respond. Silence is acceptance.
Or maybe Tucker popularized him?
No, Tucker gave him the opportunity to blather about himself. Tucker is curious and gave us the opportunity to realize the kid is a grandstander looking for attention.
Now we know and can have an informed opinion.
"Tucker is curious"
Good lord almighty.
“Grandstander” - perfect description
Not at all - did you listen to the interview? He was on a long interview w/PBD as well. You cant hide in the long interviews & it exposes who he really is - an immature guy w/a big mouth spewing the same ideas over & over. He’s a mouthpiece & nothing more.
ad hominem is a leftist tactic hardly appropriate to the Right. We once claimed to believe that.
Do you know what any of those words mean? Or are you just acting out because someone shamed someone on the 'right.'
Are you saying Fuentes has no core values or beliefs? Others here seem to be making that argument? And if he has core values what are they . These are also queries for Christopher
If you think the Nick Fuentes in that interview is ANYTHING like Nick Fuentes on the daily, you would be wrong. He is typically far, far more extreme on his show. He knows when and how to moderate, and while you think his appearance was revealing in a negative way, many young men think otherwise.
That's the problem with Tucker doing this.
Yup. And it's even worse than that: https://www.chrisbrunet.com/p/top-50-nick-fuentes-pedophile-scandals Rufo's piece is good on the hyper-reality thing, but overall behind the curve on realizing that once Tucker platformed him, it became a new situation, demanding clear statements from conservative leaders.
And frankly, while Rufo is not swirling down the toilet on this, as Kelly and Walsh are, he could be more clearly stating his total rejection of Fuentes and his apologists.
Well tuckers audience is not a bunch of disaffected men so his audience got an appropriate dose of Fuentes & can make a reasoned judgement (as Tucker was obviously doing especially toward the end). Quite honestly the more Fuentes speaks in long form interviews the more of a weirdo he appears to be … he kind of seemed pathetic at the end. He referenced something happening on Dec 18th & said he remembered the date specifically because it was Stalin’s bday - whom he admires. People need to get him talking more - & about his opinions on women.
Tucker just claimed during his live tour with Megyn Kelly that Randy Fine's comment about killing all Hamas terrorists was "worse than anything Nick Fuentes has ever said." If you don"t know how routinely heinous and extreme Fuentes is, then you cannot adeqautely evaluate how *insanely, purposefully dishonest* Carlson's claim here is. The only reason Tucker made such an insane claim about Fine is because he's a Jew.
People who are historically literate have no problem pointing out that Carlson is an antisemtic nepo baby manchild who hides behind layers of irony and innuendo like a preteen girl. Carlson is very clearly acting as a deliberate chaos agent by promoting Fuentes.
If this is the path conservatives want to take, playing footsie with coastal elitist bowtied manlets like Carlson and excusing his malfeasance and muppetry, the next general election is going to be so much worse than this midterm.
Precisely. Had half the energy spent demonizing him, and his audience of young men, been spent on answering legitimate questions we could have defused this mess long ago.
Can you name an immature idiotic belief Nick expressed in that interview?
Your wife cannot be your best friend. Women are easy to figure out. On another podcast (PBD) he stated that people of different skin colors should not marry. My take from listening to 3+ hours of him talk is that he has zero ideas for improvement; he has difficulty controlling his emotions & is led by them; he is incapable of seeding or causing any of the change he believes needs to happen (I agree w/a lot of his points but once you hear them then what?) he espouses his Catholic religion regularly as if that makes him a good person but he does not display any Christian behavior at all; he is intelligent but his emotional/social side is stunted in comparison. Quite honestly except for his intelligence Fuentes is not much different from a radical leftist.
I believe that “He who must not be named” is already taken…
your close, but its my mother in-law who must not be named, (not AKA: Beelzebub)
exactly
Right. I don’t object to a debate which exposes his cretinous “ideas”. I object to Tucker’s disingenuous “questions” that simply amplify this troll rather than challenge him.
Fuentes really went after Tucker in one of his podcasts…I think Tucker was trying to protect his base with this interview. Tucker isn’t thinking about anything but his bottom line.
Bingo!
great piece chris
i am thoroughly disappointed in tucker, a voice i listened to for years.
he can platform whomever he wants. but he was not critical or even intelligent in his unwatchable interview..
i so thoroughly miss charlie kirk at this time.
Tucker is creating havoc on the right. He’s doing a great job at fracturing the MAGA coalition and the consequences will be dire. And when I see all of the apologists who won’t stand up to him because of the power of his platform and influence it makes me question if I want to be associated with any of the craven cowards. The people with power in MAGA, including the president and his cabinet need to have a talk with him.
Megyn Kelly’s and Matt Walsh are giving themselves an out by claiming 1. They are loyal friends of Tucker and won’t dump him over this kind of political point and 2. They really don’t care, and never have cared about Israel as an issue. Lame.
Sadly, as a big fan of both Megyn and Matt, I agree. It’s not strictly about the Jews, or Israel, even though they are the ones to suffer the assault. It’s about an all-out attack on western civilization with its roots in Judeo-Christian culture. And none of us who care about it can afford not to care about Israel. 🇮🇱
OMG thank you for pointing out that regardless of your views/feelings about Jews, Israel, etc. that this is in fact western civilization with its roots in Judeo-Christian culture
When did the term Judeo-Christianity start? I assume the church fathers used it the way you boomers talk about it.
An all out attack (left that out)
The question that won't be answered is "Why should anyone care about Israel?"
Let me. Israel is representative of the legacy of the Judeo Christian western civilization (Greeks as well) that we have now. It’s our beginning.
Israel is a secular ethnostate, and modern day Judaism is just the Pharisees.
And….? Does that change the historical aspect of Western civilization? No it does not.
Should we also restore the Greco Roman Empire? What relationship does the secular, atheistic modern nation of Israel have with the God of Abraham who called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and establish His Law?
No, I’m simply stating a fact - that Western civilization is based on the legacy of Athens and Jerusalem. As to “what relationship…” , if you were to read the five books of Moses I.e., Genesis, Exodus, Lev. & Deut., you would understand the relationship.
“…the president and his cabinet need to have a talk with him.”
Yeah I’m sure THAT would remain quiet…
The Israel first republicans are the ones fracturing MAGA.
When the bigots invade and become the loudest voices in MAGA you can count me out. And millions of other voters who have a moral foundation. Good luck with elections.
My moral foundation is that I’m an American and that I want policies that benefit America. If that makes me a bigot, then I’m a bigot 🤷🏻♂️
If you think the ideas of Nick Fuentes benefits America you are either a fool or a bigot. Your call. Feel free to kick back and watch the MAGA coalition crumble and the democrats take power again.
You’re right, Nick Fuentes is a comic book villain and has zero ideas that would benefit America.
I would like to see Rubio and Vance dicuss this issue as well as the underlying inflammatory issues. Lets cut to the chase: Do they see eye to eye on all the Jew matters or not
So we need Struggle Sessions?
No we need clarity. Simple answers to simple questions. Or say I refuse to answer. Just like the gals who will be running jersey and Virginia
Ok let's do that for all outstanding issues. I'd like Ben Shapiro to ask if he had to choose between nuking Israel and America, which one would he choose. Since he doesn't have dual loyalty it should be easy for him to say nuke Israel.
Thank you. You have made your views very clear.
Chimpanzees? Seriously?
I don’t really know when that term began. I’d heard it from jr. high thru high school and college…maybe it depends on what part of the country you’re in.
As is customary, Rufo hits the nail on the head. Its the simple law of supply and demand: for years, the left has ginned up demand for nazism, with too little supply to satisfy their cravings. Fuentes came to fill in the supply and reap the economic reward for doing so. He is a conman and agitator, nothing more.
This is the most ridiculous commentary I have read this week. Fuentes has been toiling in the Dissident Right field since 2016. When I first met him, then later followed him he had mild views about the Jewish Question and other matters. As he told Carlson he was a Mark Levin listener and a Libertarian back then as most radical young conservatives were. In 2018, things shifted dramatically because an Alt Right and Alt Light phenomenon bubbled up from the grass roots. Fuentes and millions of other conservatives were red-pilled by the information that became available to them because of the internet. The Alt Right exploded and Fuentes jumped in. Over time Fuentes, because he is an exceptional communicator (a prodigy) and has high intelligence and charisma, developed a strong following. He adeptly formed the Groyper club, which might be seen as a nerdier and more Catholic version of McInnes's Proud Boys. They are a refreshing group of young and proud white men who are fighting for western civilization. They rightly see the Establishment Right as a cowardly and comfortable, Zionist, country club that needs to go away. The new breed is shoving them out the door. The Zionists are using their considerable wealth and influence to keep them inside the house. Thus, this is a shoving match between pro-white, Christian, masculinists/nationalists against the Zionist fueled, phony Christian country club slob Republicans. It was never difficult for me to decide which side I am on.
You entered the scene as an anti-woke crusader, which is like swimming in the intermediate section of the pool. We are glad for your inside the Overton Wisdom leadership, but we also know there are many more pro-white martyrs out there like Fuentes and many hundreds of thousands more to the right of him that are on the front lines taking more risk. Fuentes takes more risk than you. I believe you should quietly support him by saying nothing.
I agree. I find this hysteria unbelievable. An interview of Fuentes by Carlson has caused the “Right” to lose their minds. And the Jews (Levin, Shapiro, etc.) are apoplectic. What is actually going in here? The “Left” can and do say whatever they want about anyone and anything, even to the point of encouraging assassinating members of the “Right”, and their party embraces them. We have a conversation between two Conservatives and the party is ready to cancel, silence, obliterate them. I am disgusted. Our Country is on the brink of being taken over by invading Islamists. We should be fighting for our very lives over this. To say nothing of the mortal attacks of big pharma, chemtrails, big tech, food suppliers, corporations of every kind … I can barely keep track. And this interview is what’s set the “Right” establishment on fire? Something is way off here.
That tells you that Israel controls the Republican Party and most of the so called conservatives in it. They see themselves as beyond criticism - or else. Carlson and Fuentes are defying them, and their paid army in the United States.
🐖💨💨💨💨
The defense of Western Civilization begins and ends with conserving the transcendental values of truth, goodness and beauty. This is what conservatism means. So-called conservatives who indulge in lies, ugliness and bad behavior are in league with the progressive “burn-it-all-down” crowd of nihilistic destroyers.
To quote someone: “What have Conservatives conserved in the past 100 years?” Western Civilization is on its’ last gasp if you haven’t noticed. It has purposely been dismantled and destroyed. I don’t know about the “lying, ugliness and bad behavior” of “Conservatives”, but Fuentes and others who state the truths and beliefs they hold, or use mockery and outrageousness to present their viewpoints are providing a service. They are saying what was once unsayable. Opinions many people have, but have been intimidated and silenced into not speaking. Unheard of to question Jews, their actual Talmudic beliefs, Israel or Israeli leadership. Unheard of to criticize the uncivilized, ghetto culture of large communities of black people. Unheard of to condemn barbaric, murderous, rapist, stone-age, pre-civilized culture of Muslim/Islamism. Ditto the homeless culture, the drug culture, the trans culture.
I formed a church to do that. www.livingagoodlifechurch.org. I would add excellence to your list.
Well said. I’d always heard such criticism of Fuentes, I almost didn’t listen to the interview with Tucker. So glad I did, though I haven’t finished it and am curious as to why he admires Stalin, who was a ruthless killer. Nonetheless, I’m fascinated with this young man and what he’s endured with his views and I believe most of the comments here are from people who didn’t listen to the interview. He’s a confirmed Catholic, believes in Jesus Christ, is against the Zionistic fluency of our country, believes most of our Republican representatives are bought and paid for by either AIPAC or Big Pharma. He’s America First, first and foremost. Tucker and he had a few disagreements but they both center their belief system on America First…stopping the billions going to Israel and other foreign countries. I’m finishing the interview this evening and will withhold all judgment until I can digest all he says.
If I had to guess I think Fuentes admires Stalin's ruthlessness. Young guys on the Right are tired of being around cuck men. It is the same reason many of them were attracted to Trump. Fuentes is not calling for brutality, but he does want white men to lead without guilt. He sees that as necessary to fight the enemy.
🐖💨💨💨
May I ask what is "the Jewish Question"? Looking for a specific answer.
Sure. As I understand it, the Jewish Question is: How can Jews, who have small numbers in western populations have so much influence over finance, culture, media, and governments? Are influential Jews, including especially Zionists, and especially in the United States and Europe, using their influence to diminish white people? From the perspective of white advocates, and unaddressed by Establishmentarians like Rufo, the answer to the second half of the question is undoubtedly Yes. Books have been written about the subject. The answer to the first half of the question is more nuanced and there are different opinions. I believe the power is the result of in-group preference, high intelligence, and work ethic. I see these aspects as strengths of the Jewish community. The Groypers and other white advocates believe white people need to mimic the Jewish success formula by organizing and acting confidently to rebuild their nations. This is the conversation focus Rufo does not want to have because it is too hot to handle. Carlson, to his great credit, is having that honest conversation.
Thank you for your crack at the question. I am sorry I asked it, but it needs to be done. One thing I find so confusing is that according to this interpretation, "Jews, including especially Zionists . . . [are] using their influence to diminish white people [.]" But according to the anti-Zionists Israeli Jews ARE white people putting their boots on the brown people. But then, I guess this all makes sense because Jews have been hated for being poor (shtetls/pograms) and hated for being rich, hated for being communists and hated for being capitalists, hated for being homeless and hated for having a home (Israel).....the list is almost never-ending.
"But according to the anti-Zionists Israeli Jews ARE white people putting their boots on the brown people."
You're talking about left wing anti-Zionists. Right wing anti-Zionists do not consider Jews white.
I am aware of that. That was the point of my post beginning with "But then,"
Do you think that the Jews have ever brought anything on themselves? Like 1%? Opening the gates at Toledo?
I think it comes down to overrepresentation in positions of power/influence. Without that, no one would care at all about Jews.
For example, Israel pretty much exists because of AIPAC. With that support, aid and weapons would not be flowing to them.
On the other side, the modern American left would not have existed without Jewish support - which they commonly brag about.
So, if you are against Israel or the left, then you're going to end up being angry at the Jews.
Not much of a student of history are you?
Which part? I've read a few books on the topic, but I'm no expert. I'm not saying anything that isn't already popular knowledge about AIPAC or the American left, but I'm willing to change my mind.
Israel pretty much exists because of Moses. Period.
What I was trying to say is that modern Israel would have a very difficult time existing without support from the United States.
Amen brother
Basically, it is the question of what role Jews have played in our current political situation. They are very small part of the population but have been extremely influential in national politics, especially the left - a pattern that has repeated in recent history in a other nations. The question is why and what they were trying to accomplish.
Why the overrepresentation? Answers range from they just have a superior culture or they have higher IQs to they are trying to destroy Western Civilization. Obviously, the Nazis thought there was a conspiracy, as many others did at the time. Now, with IQ tests, we can see that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher IQ than any other group, which might explain the overrepresentation. For those that deny IQ differences, it's a conundrum.
The JQ was a common exercise for writers, statesmen and philosophers in the 19th century. Dostoevsky, for example, wrote an essay on it -- which if he were alive today, would have him canceled in a Brooklyn Minute. More recently, I discovered an extensive treatment of it in 1890 by the oldest Catholic periodical, "Civilta Cattolica". What they say is even stronger than Dostoevsky's -- they'd basically be shut down and cause a scandal throughout the Church and society if published today (or any time after 1945). Post-1945 Westerners have basically acquired collective amnesia about how normative anti-Semitism was before WW2 -- for centuries. And when confronted with what they have culturally forgotten, they (if well trained by the Zeitgeist) will wave it away with "well, everybody was worse back then, you know, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic -- boy I'm sure glad we've progressed since from our shameful history!" etc.
More details here:
https://substack.com/@hesperadoblog/note/c-170238719
Yup, echoes of 1941 when the Germans fired up the ovens.
What offends you more, "heil Hitler" or "heil Satan?"
Not sure I understand your question – a comment referred to “the Jewish Question” (a racist formulation from pre-WWI Europe that ended in the Holocaust), so I mocked it.
It's a simple question. What offends you more, "heil Hitler" or "heil Satan?"
And I insist on understanding the context before answering a loaded question. Your move.
As a member of that group of mysterious young men that everyone is desperate to understand, let me tell you something about Fuentes. The more you hang out in that crowd the vile and disgusting it becomes, just this last December the trend in Groyper circles was to make jokes about raping and beheading wives, because getting married was seen as inherently gay and Jewish. This went on for about a month, and when it was all over they simply tried to say it was all a lighthearted joke and anyone that say problem with this was a blowhard and a Zionist agent. This kind of behavior is regular in these circles, and there really is no defense for it.
I think any argument that Fuentes doesn’t represent conservative thought it pure insanity. Every conservative I know when pressed with video clips quotes etc from Fuentes full throatedly agrees with him
I mostly think he’s hilarious and a troll. His bit on PBD was a master class
Wow, I found a groyper loser in the wild! Here's a real Nick Fuentes quote:
“I don’t know if that… people are like, ‘You should run for president!’ Dude if I ran for president, everyone’s gonna hate me. They’re gonna say, ‘Look what he said about black people.’ And you go, ‘That’s a given.’
“‘Look at what he said about Jews. Look at what he said about women.’
“And you might say, ‘Well yeah but the white people will vote for you!’ And then they’re gonna say, ‘Look at what he said about Polish people. Look at what he said about Slavs, he called them monkeys. Look at what he said about Anglos. Look at what he said about Southerners, look at what he said about Mormons.’ [long, wistful look at the ceiling]
“And people are gonna go, ‘Yeah we gotta kill this guy.’ People are gonna say, ‘We all hate him!’
“They’re gonna say, ‘Look at what he said about poor people and service workers and people that work at gas stations and restaurants. Look at what he said about people that go to the gym or wear microfiber shirts.’”
Your "pro-white martyr, sir" lolololol
Edzakerly
🐖💨💨💨💨
Mr. Rufo, you have classified Fuentes correctly; he is putting on a show. But Fuentes isn't the issue, the issue is Tucker Carlson. Carlson also puts on a show, but he is systematically rehabilitating hatred of Jews and defending Hitler and other dictators (e.g. Putin and the Iranian mullahs and Maduro) while pretending he's "just asking questions." Carlson too deserves cool analysis, but that includes recognizing and saying boldly that he is doing evil.
I bet you're still holding out hope that we'll find the WMD's in Iraq someday.
This.
This article essentially strawmans Fuentes by reducing him to his most sensational quotes, which is precisely the strategy his critics use in their attempt to silence him. While I appreciate the Baudrillardian description, I believe Fuentes is sincere and should be taken at face value, and most of the people trying to reduce him to "Holocaust denial" clips have not actually watched his show at any length, and do not fundamentally understand his appeal, and as a result, they will struggle to constrain his influence. I believe he deserves to be heard and taken seriously, and the people who feel entitled to dictate the terms of discourse on the right are the ones whose place in the movement we should be skeptical of.
Curious, what’s the steelman case for Fuentes?
That we do not have meaningful sovereignty in our country as long as this issue is a third-rail. The hostage video that Kevin Roberts was forced to release for the crime of daring to defend someone who had an interview with someone on the naughty list is emblematic of the behavior that alienated people like myself from the left. If we are serious about the claim to be the side of open debate, we need to engage with Nick Fuentes' claims about Israeli, and yes, Jewish, influence on American society, in a way that goes beyond attempting to poison the well with a few selectively-chosen clips. His fundamental point, that he makes again and again, is that this isn't about a clip from 11 years ago, and the outrage over it is insincere. If he were nothing more than some jokes in poor taste years ago, no one would have ever heard of him. People acting in bad faith are choosing to fixate on those clips to avoid addressing his broader point: the fact that this lobby has the power to bring down the Heritage Foundation, the fact that anti-Semitism, and not anti-Americanism, has the power to bring down Ivy League academia, the fact that you can be a gay man with children by surrogacy and belong to the conservative movement, but not critical of this lobby, that is the real conversation.
I appreciate you responding, Chris, and I'll be honest, I really admired your work around Ivy League campus reform. When Claudine Gay was removed, I was genuinely optimistic about the prospect of real change, but watching how the only thing that has meaningfully changed has been the reorientation of the Middle East studies departments towards Zionism, and watching how the Trump administration's campus reform efforts have seemingly focused more on anti-Israeli than anti-American sentiment, I'm disheartened, and admittedly, watching that dynamic play out is part of what has pushed me into Fuentes' camp.
In other words, if the only lever that has the power to meaningfully disrupt Ivy League education in America, even under the Trump administration, is the prospect of campus anti-Semitism, Fuentes is fundamentally right about who controls our country.
Fuentes gave a good take on Mark Levin's reaction to his Tucker Carlson interview the other night, either yesterday or Monday. This is why I support him. I'd encourage you to watch this clip. This is who I see him as, rather than the clip of admittedly bad jokes he made years ago that people keep trying to throw around demanding he be held "accountable" for them, like the woke left at the height of the cancel culture era.
Edit: This is the correct clip https://x.com/FuentesUpdates/status/1985576141428601023
If you want to understand why he's popular, I'd encourage you to simply watch his show without assuming he's evil and taking his claims seriously, instead of going based on what the Daily Wire chooses to highlight.
“we need to engage with Nick Fuentes' claims about Israeli, and yes, Jewish, influence on American society.”
No, we do not. His claims on both accounts are unhinged, built on lies, hyperbole, and fantasy. But putting aside Israel for the moment, which one certainly could have productive debate out, there is no room for debate about “Jewish influence on American society.”
That implies there’s some consistent, organized Jewish undermining of culture, and that’s just straight up Jew hatred. Yes, there’ve been influential Jews. There’s also been influential Italians, Irish, English, black people, Latinos. Nobody debates “Italian influence on American Society.”
And what could come of such debate. What are you going to do about the “Jewish influence?”
I know what Nick has said he would do, and I don’t care how old those clips are. And even worse than the clips are what his groypers say continually online.
He is a pernicious influence; he has nothing to offer of value to the debate. He should not be debated.
No one is making you debate or engage with him, but his following continues to grow, and the efforts to ostracize him and his followers from the conservative movement only discredit and undermine the movement. But again, since the people trying to ostracize him are more concerned about their own ethnic interests than those of the United States, they don't care if the conservative movement gets blown up, as long as it protects their interests, proving Fuentes' point yet again.
They ignored him as long as they could, the only reason this conversation is even happening is because he's too big for them to ignore now.
"Their own ethnic interests."
Nick is not conservative by any reasonable definition of the term.
But you're right. He can't be ignored now.
I don't think he would call himself a conservative, he'd call himself a nationalist. Regardless, if the president of the Heritage Foundation has to make a groveling apology that looks like a hostage video for the mere act of defending Tucker Carlson's right to have a conversation with Fuentes without having his questions pre-screened by the ADL, that is a problem in the conservative movement, and that is my only point. Tucker Carlson can interview whoever he wants, including Nick Fuentes, and if the president of the Heritage Foundation is about to lose his job for daring to say that, Nick Fuentes is right about everything.
He tried to be but conservatives wouldn't have him because he asked too many questions. Conservatives used to be, or claim to be, the party if intellectual integrity.
You can call him antisemetic, but you can’t call him a liar.
🐖💨💨💨
https://substack.com/@ofdan32/note/c-164692456?r=36c3b5
Honestly, I neither blame Israel or Palestine. You guys can have fun with your conflict, or not. I am just tired of paying for it and being called a bigot for saying that we do not need to be funding this shit on either side.
Agreed.
To the point of Chris Rufo's article, Nick's libelous, juvenile, anti-Jewish takes are good for grabbing attention (both good and bad) which is his whole game.
Tucker played right into it.
I just hear an ad hominem and you admitting you can't beat him in argument.
🐖💨💨
I don't think this is going to work anymore. This is wokeness, BTW; it is using cancelling and ostracism and shame to silence those who raise uncomfortable questions about a protected group. It is only because criticism of the same group has become more widespread on the left (partially for different reasons, although with some overlap). The refusal to discuss the issue and insistence on completely ostracizing and destroying the careers of those who insist on discussing it will only give more credence to the more conspiratorial and exaggerated versions of it.
As with, say, black crime, people aren't just feverishly imagining random yet coincidentally consistent things with no basis in reality. There are even Jews who have made the same observations about Jewish influence; for example, the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried, who was himself one of the many victims of the Buckleyite purges, by the same worthless faction of "conservatives" (who have conserved nothing) who are currently using woke tactics to reassert their faltering control of the movement:
"Since neither blacks nor Hispanics have been a major intellectual force in the US, it might be useful to focus on the last of the three ethnic groups mentioned in Peter’s gloomy question. After all, Jews are not the same as most other groups in terms of prominence. They are represented at a ratio of at least 10 to 1 in proportion to their percentage of the total population in the media and higher education.
"Jews are also a more cohesive group than WASPs—who may be the least unified and most atomized ethnicity on earth. A diatribe against WASPs will not hurt its author and may even bring him or her admiring recognition. By contrast, adverse comments about Jews, or about the“Holocaust Industry” in the case of Norman Finkelstein, who (despite being Jewish himself) lost his job at Depaul University after Alan Dershowitz weighed in against him, can be professionally fatal.
"The late Joe Sobran once observed that denying that Jews are powerless can bring swift retribution. That is precisely because the Jewish community is anything but powerless."
---
"MacDonald may overstate the continuity of the role Jews have occupied as the grave-diggers of non-Jewish cultures, and the negative response to the host country exhibited by earlier Jewish settlers in the New World. But his treatment of the relentless crusade waged by Jewish intellectuals against bourgeois decencies since the early twentieth century is certainly on the mark.
---
"No matter where one looks at this war against the Gentile heritage—whether it is being fought in the name of gay marriage, feminism, militant secularism, or Open Borders—Jews are invariably in the vanguard. And MacDonald is spot-on when he observes that, when the American Right was taken over by Jewish journalists, the effect was to push “conservatism” toward the left.
"The one apparent exception to this tendency: the successful identification of the transformed American Right with Jewish nationalism. Thus the “conservative” media happily treats Connecticut’s socially liberal Senator Joe Lieberman as an honorary man of the Right, apparently because he is working to advance “democracy” in the Middle East—by which is meant that he is good on Israel and on encouraging war against Israel’s presumed enemies.
"Note that I am not saying that all Jews always behave in the way I’m describing. There are Jews who clearly do not. For example, Jewish libertarians Murray Rothbard, Robert Weissberg, Ilana Mercer, Michael Levin, Byron Roth and Alan Kors have equaled any Christian in their support of traditional freedoms."
---
"But, despite these admirable exceptions, Jews in public life pose a special problem in the US and in other Western democracies to the extent that they overwhelmingly follow a certain behavioral and attitudinal pattern. The problem is not only that these Jews work collectively to discredit any traditional gentile way of life. They also work reduce the possibility of debate about what they condemn, because they associate (and get others to associate) open discourse with bigotry and anti-Semitism."
---
"But once the Left took over our universities, the free speech industry on campuses was closed down. Today PC speech codes and ideologically uniform faculties prevail, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts, thanks to the victory of these bogus freedom-fighters.
"It is obvious to anyone with a knowledge of recent history that those responsible for these changes were predominantly Jewish. The New Left in the US was the basically the work of Jews (as Stanley Rothman easily shows in Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left). One would have to work overtime and very creatively to hide this palpable connection."
---
"This brings me to the heart of my Politically Incorrect argument. Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism."
---
"This tendency is not likely to stop on its own. There is no reason to hope that, once some future threshold measure is passed—perhaps punishing discrimination against interspecies marriage partners?—these alienated, embattled Jews will cease their efforts to radicalize society even further. There is only way that this process can be ended, and freedom (in the traditional sense—as opposed to forced celebration of what is weird or alien) restored: the majority population, while it is still the majority, must say “no” to coercive social radicalizers.
"It may also be necessary for non-Jews to call attention to the problem of Jewish alienation and to the disruption it continues to cause.
"The current guilt trip that liberal and neoconservative Jews have disproportionately encouraged must be undone in the name of freedom. The social engineering and forced ideological instruction that American Jews in the public sphere have pushed for decades is incompatible with true liberal ideals of intellectual inquiry and freedom of association.
"One cannot have both a free society and one controlled by the current crew of Jewish intellectuals and journalists. There is a contradiction here and one that will only be resolved once the teachings and taboos of this priestly class are emphatically rejected.
"Of course, this article will cause me to be denounced as a “self-hating Jew”. I could respond with Murray Rothbard's quip: "I don't hate myself"."
https://www.fisheaters.com/jc-gottfried.html
As you suggested, I listened to this clip. I always want the strongman argument from everyone. If this is the best Fuentes has, he really is the whiny brat I thought he was.
There are plenty of conservatives who are America-first, most notably JD Vance. According to a clip I heard recently, Fuentes really hates Vance because his wife is of Indian heritage. That clip wasn’t a joke made in bad taste years ago. In the Tucker interview itself, Fuentes speaks glowingly about celebrating Stalin’s birthday.
You seem to downplay Fuentes at his worst, even if others selectively clip those bits for distribution.
I don't think anyone, even Fuentes himself, is saying you need to like or agree with Fuentes. That's the strawman. But if you believe there's some obligation to ritually disavow Tucker Carlson for having him on the show, or even Fuentes himself for that matter, or that the president of the Heritage Foundation should lose his job for insufficiently engaging in this condemnation ritual, then that's precisely the kind of behavior I found so repulsive on the left. No one is saying anyone has to agree with Nick Fuentes, but the idea that Tucker Carlson needs to be condemned for daring to "platform" him is contrary to the spirit of the conservative movement. If you disagree with him, engage with him, or don't, but if you choose not to, don't mind if I choose to do so myself, and think less of you for it.
In your original comment, you basically suggested, “Give Fuentes a chance” and linked to a clip. So, I did.
You also initially said the strawman was posting “jokes in poor taste” from years ago. But the clips I have seen are recent and seemingly in earnest.
I don’t have any baggage about wanting to cancel him or whatever. I think the more people actually watch him, the less popular he will be. Claiming “cancel culture” is probably a strawman of your opposition, because I haven’t seen much of this.
The president of the Heritage Foundation literally got a call from his donors and had to issue a groveling apology for daring to defend Tucker Carlson's free speech right to have a conversation with Nick Fuentes. He still might get fired, even after he went through the humiliation ritual and issued the apology. To me, this is yet another episode that validates Fuentes' broader claims about the balance of political power, because in my view, two podcasters - Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson - sitting down for a conversation shouldn't be remotely "controversial", and the fact that it is, and among conservatives no less, tells me certain segments of our movement aren't serious about free speech, open debate, or intellectual honesty, at least on this topic. It's the precise behavior the left engages in around their sacred cows, and I find it no less off-putting.
You're free to think whatever you want of Nick Fuentes. No one is trying to change your opinion. But podcasters have guests I disagree with on their shows every day and no one loses their minds over it. The fact that this is being treated so differently is revealing in and of itself, and to me, validates Fuentes' broader claims. You're free, of course, to interpret the situation however you choose to.
Cancel culture comes in many forms, and it doesn't have to succeed to be a problem -- it can manifest as people of varying degrees of sociopolitical influence *trying* to cancel someone by repeating over and over in the echo chamber of social media that someone is worthless, stupid, evil, anti-semitic, fascist, whatever. For example, you, Rufo, and hundreds of others of varying degrees of influence on X -- all the way up to the Republican Speaker of the House -- are doing just that since the Tucker interview (and before, for that matter, just less frantically).
One of the first examples that began to open my mind to this phenomenon was back in 2018, when Jordan Peterson, the Jewish scientist podcaster Gaad Sad, and Jewish anti-Leftist head of Rebel News Ezra Levant together decided at the last minute to cancel Rebel News reporter Faith Goldy, whom they had invited to their planned symposium about -- Oh the irony! -- how free speech is in danger. Faith Goldy's thought crime? She was heard on an audio broadcast laughing at a mildly anti-Semitic joke her interviewer told at the end of their interview. That's it. Her career was over after that. Try to find her anywhere online.
Levin called Tucker and Nick bastards. How would you react if somebody called you a bastard, “Thank you, sir?”
Second Timothy 3:2–5 continues…
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
It's extremely easy to turn away from the attention seeking Fuentes and the other monetized loudmouths on the Left and the Right.
Stand firm.
He's not an adult, in my opinion. I wonder how much security he travels with.
I think the conservative movement is making a larger political mistake than they realize if they attempt to cancel him, or reduce him to a few cherry-picked clips, rather than engage with his arguments, however distasteful they may find them. This is simply where the political conversation is, and they don't get to dictate that. They ignored Fuentes as long as they could, the only reason they are talking about him now is because he's too big to ignore. The "conversation" (about why he's being "platformed") is just the people who can't or won't accept that.
It's not just his questions. Many have the same questions but fear keeps them from asking. Hardly a conservative strategy. It might reasonably be said that our rulers don't like questions
Sincerely, I cant imagine a concerted effort among conservatives to cancel him outright but he's purposely transgressive and becoming a larger target.
> I cant imagine a concerted effort among conservatives to cancel him outright
Wait til you hear this: https://x.com/FuentesUpdates/status/1985576141428601023
Trump came down on universities because Jewish students on campus were being overtly threatened.
They do the same with Charlie Kirk.
How is life in your hyper reality, dude?
These are precisely the types of unserious responses I've grown accustomed to getting from the people who claim to be the serious, informed ones.
The only "movement" you are capable of little boy, i9s of the bowels. But don't spew it here.
I'd be anonymous too, if I were making comments like this.
I’d continue you clown you but like Titus said, "no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God."
Fantastic piece, Chris. I agree 100%. He's gaming the system and for all we know, could be by design to divide.
He may may receiving a paycheck from someone very interested in dividing the public opinion on republican.He has a price .
Solid point.
Fuentes is what happens when you have several decades of debased education, demonization of men, and an explosion of always online culture. Carlson is however an evil power monger who is far from an actual Conservative. Both need to be rejected by actual Conservatives.
For sure! Let's divide further and be conquered faster. Great plan.
Fuentes is disgusting. His parents have to be fully humiliated. At least I hope they are. Yes, I believe he’s so crude and rude for attention and he’s getting it. That doesn’t make him any less disgusting that he’s playing people. What a horrible piece of humanity.
He speaks no truth. He’s a liar and a grandstander and disgusting. He doesn’t help this country one bit. The fact so many people think of him as you do is way more horrifying. You’re just his pawn.
The only mirror he holds up to me is there but for the grace of God go I. If it weren’t for God’s grace I could be just like him.
I honestly don’t want anyone saying “F*** Israel -Amen ✝️🇺🇸” praying for me.
Your caricatures of Fuentes opposition are to say the least just that. The accusations can easily be turned on Fuentes because in the age of the internet he has found a market of unreasonable resentment and self-pity and cashed in on it. Cowardly in their own way his followers seem mostly young and lazy and too ignorant to even know how to enter into the political give and take. I do not see them in the trenches only making strident adolescent screams blaming everyone but themselves and being vile and punk provocative as they do it. That is Fuentes schtick to use a Jewish term.
Nick Fuentes is Dylan Mulvaney in jackboots: Chud Lite.
I see his rhetoric as showing a deep frustration over watching his country go down the drain. Illegal immigration (mostly non-white) is destroying budgets and resulting in more dangerous cities. Christianity is also fading fast, and is under constant attack. I think he is reacting to the dissolving of our society for something that is worse.
No one cares about Nick. Carlson is the problem. He lacks intellect and goes too often for mere shock Oh, and let us not forget the "Christian Zionism" comment either. As an ex-subscriber of TCN,, I wish I could get my money back.
Christian Zionism is a heresy. Not one major theologian thought that creating and supporting a modern secular state of Israel is something the bible commands.
See my article at https://andrewlsullivan.substack.com/p/explaining-christian-zionism
Fuentes and the young men he represents intentionally and flagrantly performative embrace the boomer taboos in order to loose their hold on the moral imagination of the next generation. They are freeing themselves from the white guilt shackles that have led to the awful society we have built where they are the enemy in the DEI hierarchy of victimization. Republican groveling and kneeling at the feet of the holy Saint George Floyd is not working for them. I am Gen X and I can see both perspectives on Fuentes. I have also been discriminated against and had my dreams blocked because of the DEI society. I have seen the rampant crime. I sympathize with Israel more, but this latest cancellation attempt is making me more sympathetic to the points Fuetes and others are making about the power and influence of the Israel lobby.
🐖💨💨💨