I see his name all over but have never been interested enough to read or watch. Thanks for the timeline. You do the work for us. NF is in the news so it helps to be able to place him.
This article just shows what people dislike about Fuentes. The critics never talk about the meat of his argument--that the "Greatest" generation through the Boomers (of which I am one) lacked the courage to defend Western civilization and in the process lost their souls and, in Fuentes' words, "the country is now shit and everybody knows it and feels it in their bones."
This is a generational feud, not a racist feud. It's why Fuentes proudly wears the label as a racist or misogynist or anti-semite. Those words have lost the ability to stop debates so simps can keep their heads buried in the sand. He refuses to play the part of the "self-loathing white" of the typical leftist or the virtue-signalling cancellation perpetrated by the Con Inc. right. Piers Morgan was the perfect piñata for Fuentes--a clueless boomer thinking he was scoring points spouting liberal shibboleths as Fuentes was bashing him senseless with a "white guilt" tire iron.
Fuentes is criticizing the white "elite" for their white guilt and making America a doormat for third world cultures. In prior generations of massive immigration (1880s until 1923 when immigration was virtually halted for 42 years), our grandfathers and great grandfathers insisted that immigrants assimilate. Since 1965, the white "elites" in politics, academia, Hollywood and public schools were too wracked with self-loathing to even try to assimilate the third worlders. Worse, they wrote laws disfavoring their own white children and indoctrinated them in a culture of self-hatred and guilt.
Fuentes is a modern day Raspail unmasking the fecklessness of an elite that has ushered in the collapse of their own civilization. And like Raspail before him, he blames the white elite, not the third worlders. THAT's what they hate about Fuentes. He is correct, and they know it.
I've never listened to enough (any really) Fuentes to confirm or deny anything you've said, though I don't doubt much of it. There are plenty of great writers, thinkers and "poasters" who have a similar working theory of how the Boomers hollowed out society, and are living large — and long — off of housing equity, social security and Medicare that succeeding generations will not get to enjoy. But they do it without the overt racism and antisemitism.
I would agree that the modern west has turned Hitler into The Great Satan, a mystical and more powerful version of the historical person than any biblical evil (while forgetting, and sometimes forgiving, the evils of any other murderous world leaders). A lot of the flirtations with these ideas is meant to upset the squares. Kanye West's "Heil Hitler" was one of the only truly transgressive pieces of art in ages; one of the most successful hip-hop artists in history making a song that was banned from every tech platform was quite a feat.
The Gamergate/incel/4chan panics — coupled with Trump's unlikely ascendance — led to open message boards, and unmoderated troublemakers at large, to be mostly erased from online existence. And that was a mistake. When the Ramones and others flirted with fascist language and iconography, an actually liberal creative community saw it as the subversive provocation that it was, and the bible beaters were the ones who tried to destroy punk, metal, Dungeons & Dragons, zine culture, horror movies and the rest.
In our post-post-everything world, a lot of those provocations do seem to be becoming especially real, though I'd argue that some of the more honest antisemitism (and racism!) is coming from the new pseudo-left. Fuentes may be closer to a Jim Goad figure for Zoomers, but I can understand why people are so upset about it, though a lot of it is their own fault for not even trying to understand transgressive online subcultures, and why they exist.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, John. For the record, I am not a fan of blaming boomers, or any generation, for the ills of today. I blame an ideology shared by members all generations--before, after and including boomers--that I have always been against. The ideology that all men are equal and that all cultures are equal. It is an ideology that is against human nature and nature itself. If everything and everyone is equal, that's a boring and eventually lifeless existence. Trying to force everyone to be equal has led to the death of hundreds millions in the 20th century alone. Man and nature is hierarchical. It's what makes life and relationships interesting and fun and frustrating and sad.
I also don’t fully blame any group for our ills, and there are incredibly complicated situations that led us to this point, but there are plenty of markers that point to Boomers inheriting an economy that was booming like no other time in this country’s history, and refused to pass on their power and wealth to younger generations, and sort of put themselves — and our economy — under glass.
I have to disagree on equality. Clearly, all humans have wildly varying potential, skills and abilities, but starting from a place where all people have an (at least perceived) opportunity to achieve is good. Forcing everyone to end up in the same place would indeed be boring — and a massive, massive failure — but allowing, and helping with education and opportunity, people to hit any possible height is a noble pursuit.
" social security and Medicare that succeeding generations will not get to enjoy. "
They will if they show some political good sense. The only reason SS has fiscal problems is that wealthy people are paying a much lower effective rate, because income over a certain amount is exempt from SS tax, as is "unearned" income. Remove those two exemptions, and both programs would be in good shape. Fortunately, the party system/duopoly is breaking down, collapsing before our eyes, so the next generations will actually get a shot at saving Social Security. Medicare, too, if they don't have the gumption to make it universal.
Housing is another matter. the real problem is that physical resources and space are running short. the country is finally more or less full., (There's lots of space, but in places where people don't want to live.) Solving that problem will probably require major changes in the nature of our housing, as well as stopping the growth of population. The latter is taking care of itself, but the former depends on a maze of codes and regulations that will have to be rethought, over the opposition of the agencies. I wish them luck with that. The political breakdown could help with that, too, but probably won't. I don't see new beginnings happening.
Charles, I understand where you are coming from on SS and Medicare, but the facts don't support your contention that if 100% of the wage earner's income was subject to the payroll tax on SS, SS be in better shape. But, SS is actually in much better shape than Medicare, despite the fact that Medicare does tax 100% of the wages of the wage earner. Medicare/Medicaid is 100% responsible for the $2 trillion debt of the government each year. They cost $5 trillion, and the revenues $3 trillion.
For a solution to this, check out Karl Denninger who wrote a book on it and convincingly makes a strong case that it could be solved if the executive branch simply enforced the Constitution and the laws that Congress passed. If you think Trump has been hampered by lawfare in district courts for faithfully executing the immigration laws, just wait to see what would happen if he tried that with healthcare.
“Fuentes is a modern day Raspail unmasking the fecklessness of an elite that has ushered in the collapse of their own civilization.”
If you’re right, then Fuentes is also the worst example of self-sabotage I’ve ever seen, self-sabotage to the level of psychopathology. For example, praising Hitler — the blithering idiot who brought Germany to destruction by declaring war on three (3) empires at the same time* — only convinces people Fuentes has a diseased mind and should be shunned.
By the way, U.S. immigration policy since the Sixties is easily understood as the Democratic Party once again putting its interests ahead of the country. Up to that point the average immigrant was better educated than the average American; but the Democrats wanted more illiterate and unskilled immigrants, who could be counted on to remain dependent on government, and thus stay reliable Democratic voters. (Leftist parties in Europe did much the same.)
*Even as he sabotaged the economy and science by killing many of Germany’s most talented and productive people.
Fuentes is his own worst enemy, especially as judged through the reaction of boomers and older generations. As a boomer, I try to put myself in his shoes to try to understand where he is coming from.
I happen to agree with him that Western Civilization, built by white men, is an incredible achievement. I also happen to agree with him that white men who are proud of that achievement of their forefathers have been falsely branded as white supremacists, racists and Nazis. I also happen to agree with him that the "white guilt" and the self-loathing of too many white men is a large factor in the America of today which Fuentes accurately describes as having "gone to sh**."
Is he a satirist in the mold of a Jonathan Swift? Is he a modern-day Raspail saying wake up before it is too late to save your heritage? Is he a Richard Pryor, who turned the n-word into a badge of honor for young blacks and now blacks, and only blacks, are allowed to use that magic word? Is he a John Brown encouraging a race war? Is he an Aaron Burr, undermining the recovery of the American system?
One can't answer any of those questions if all one has to go by is this article in Racket News.
In spite of generous application of lipstick, the pig remains a pig. And Hitler remains Hitler.
P.S.: If you want to see the achievements of white guys honored, you can just watch Carl Sagan’s classic documentary series, COSMOS. Embracing Hitler has the opposite effect.
Aaron Burr was Martin Van Buren’s liaison with British intelligence as v.p. under Jackson and MVB’s single term as president. Van Buren was driven by money and power, and is recognized as the first party boss in New York.
The British were alarmed at the economic dynamo America had become in one generation by the 1830s. It was built on rewarding innovation and ingenuity, and the Hamiltonian Second National Bank had an excellent record in lending money to entrepreneurial farmers, merchants and manufacturers. The loans created pockets of dynamic economic regions across America. It reached its zenith under John Q. Adams.
Burr, exiled in London, and Van Buren knew how to appeal to Andrew Jackson’s vanity, convinced him to run for president (we love our victorious generals!) and used him to destroy the American System, eventually refusing to renew the charter for the Second National Bank. That ended the American System and the country entered a depression and never really covered. Then, the Great War between the States began.
America has been at the mercy of the British Imperial system ever since. Lincoln, McKinley, FDR (to a limited extent), Kennedy and now Trump have tried to resurrect the American System. Take note of what happened to Lincoln, McKinley and Kennedy. The Brits are not fond of the American System.
That's interesting. I will look into that more. I've probably done more reading about Burr than the average person has and have never heard about that. I guess the biographer I read didn't find that tidbit helpful to the portrait she was painting...
This comment is embarrassing to read, and the fact that the author "liked" it is even worse. I'm no fan of NF, but to rest your opinion of a person on such a short bio seems bizarre.
I apologize for coming across as a "hater commenter." There was a thought I had but failed to include. That forming a quick opinion on something is fine (nearly unavoidable, really) but that it should be given a low value rating *because* it was formed quickly and, often, on a small data set. Like, "I know what I think, yet I'm open to changing my mind." Thank you for remaining civil. Still, the like by the author does lightly color my opinion of him.
you are being rather harsh on her. All she was doing was saying thanks because she learned something about the guy. She didnt say she formed an unbreakable opinion.
We ought to be able to listen to people like Fuentes, even if we find their views obnoxious and odious -- Tucker's interview wasn't "softball," it was simply drawing Fuestes out on many topics so we could *understand* who he is. It's the old adage of "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
At the same time, if somebody calls for violence against others, that speech is not protected by the First Amendment and the government can prosecute people for that.
Less like softball and more like fellatio. The problem isn’t Fuentes so much as it’s Carlson and his apologists. The populist movement won’t be able to withstand the fallout of these people, because with less than 2% margin of victory, it’s likely enough Trump voters will be disgusted and defect next election. I might be one of them. One could also wonder how much foreign states like Qatar are financing this stuff.
Fuentes is lucky to live in a democracy, and is a fool for suggesting we should move away from it. Any more authoritarian form of government would recognize that he provides no value to society and in fact actively worsens it, and would execute him without a second thought.
Your description of the interview ("simply drawing Fuentes out") is essentially THE definition of a softball interview.
And your knowledge of the 1st Amendment is suspect. It is not necessarily illegal to call for violence against someone. If the speech in question is not intended to, or not likely to, provoke imminent unlawful action, then the 1st amendment protects it.
“My belief in free speech is so profound that I am seldom tempted to deny it to the other fellow. Nor do I make any effort to differentiate between the other fellow right and that other fellow wrong, for I am convinced that free speech is worth nothing unless it includes a full franchise to be foolish and even...malicious.”
― H. L. Mencken
WRT Nick Fuentes, I think his popularity stems from the overt discrimination in western culture against straight white males and the natural reaction to said discrimination. The more people like Fuentes are repressed, the more popular their rhetoric becomes.....the point Mencken makes about free speech is that if no speech is banned, the foolish speech tends to self-immolate.
He simply accepts the premise of his enemies and turns it on its head. Your race over mine? Okay, then mine over yours. It's almost like none of these were good ideas.
The complete denial of wrongdoing on the part of critical identitarians is them saying "racism for thee is not the same as racism for me," which is exactly the reason NF is popular.
Mentioning Menken in the same breath as this Fuentes character is like talking about the history of football in the context of a streaker on the field.
There's a new designation — "woke right" — that people, mostly of the libertarian/moderate/centrist variety like to throw around. They mean that people like Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, et al, are aping the illiberalism of the new pseudo-left, often coupled with some of the more uncomfortable opinions and consipiracies about Israel both groups seem to have.
I'd argue that it's actually these "enlightened" centrists who angrily demand that Megyn Kelly denounce Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson on a daily basis, and call for people like Fuentes to be censored (again) that share more of the "woke" traits than the kooky, and popular, outer reaches of the right wing podosphere: they want to control who is and is not allowed to have a platform, and force conformity. I recall Damon Linker on a podcast (Persuasion? Andrew Sullivan?) discussing controversial figures being let back on Twitter after Musk's purchase of the platform. He said that it's mostly fine, except Bronze Age Pervert, who should remained banned because "he's a Nietzschean." People like Linker want to personally choose who gets a platform, and who should be removed from polite society.
I'd love to retire the term "woke," because it took on so many disparate, conflicted meanings, but what we call woke never died. In the fallout of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the real story of cancellations was lefty influencers and social media stars that had the gall to post about being upset about Kirk's death and spent the next week apologizing to their fans. Ezra Klein being dragged for having a human response to a political assassination being the biggest example.
If you don't like what Nick Fuentes, or Alex Jones, or Candace Owens have to say, just ignore them. Trying to get them, or people adjacent to them removed from platforms, only makes them more popular. Or do what everyone does with idiots like Hasan, Destiny or Jennifer Welch: post their stupidest comments for the world to see and make fun of. Destiny finally imploded, and most of these other people probably will over time.
The cohort trying to cancel Megyn Kelly, not for anything she said, but because she won't denounce Tucker Carlson for interviewing ("platforming") Nick Fuentes is the real problem here.
That's the correct response! I've still never seen more of her than a handful of short clips on X/podcasts, same with Fuentes. I just have no interest. If you don't like it, ignore it.
Nick Fuentes popularity is likely being artificially boosted by foreign & domestic accounts. Wonder if they are paid to do so, and if so, who’s funding them?
And if this is occurring for Nick, is it also for Candace?
“… the real issue isn't Fuentes: it's the fact that our media and tech ecosystem can no longer reliably distinguish organic influence from manufactured momentum. And if one fringe figure can break through this easily, others will follow.”
I read that tweet when Wright published it, and it's certainly possible, or even likely, that Fuentes's popularity is not boosted organically, or domestically. The New York Times published a pretty boy picture of him, that looked nothing like him, with a headline claiming that he's taking Charlie Kirk's throne as the new youth MAGA whisperer, which seems to be more wishcasting/mudslinging than reality.
I see plenty of low-energy Dem influencers with a couple of thousand followers inexplicably get 80K likes on especially rotten, provocative posts. I don't believe for a second that those likes are organic. Any rotting corpse who jumps ship from the Washington Post to come to Substack moves into Substack's top 10 leaderboards with 500K subscribers within a week.
What can anyone do about it? Trying to ban/cancel/remove/erase people hasn't worked, and the more mainstream new right types and centrists waxing apoplectic about Fuentes and Owens 24 hours a day seem to just be giving them more energy. Partisan Democrats love it, because they want to give Fuentes and Owens as much juice as they can. Who's paying the price? People like Red Scare's Dasha Nekrasova, who lost a major movie and her Hollywood agent because Red Scare quietly interviewed Fuentes a month or so before Carlson did, but was punished for Carlson's indiscretion, because someone apparently had to be punished (and she'd already been written out of hit streamer Succession for interviewing Alex Jones previously) .
We're in a cold civil war/information war, and informed readers should be skeptical of everything in the media/information sphere. Attempts to control who gets to use the internet to say or write words just means that the internet's going to be controlled by someone. Which is bad.
Yeah, but tell me a similar story to Fuentes interviewed by Tucker and then BOOM! … story after story (after story) and guy becomes so instantly part of national stories, including trying to make he and his supposed followers adjacent to likely GOP frontrunner ‘28, JD Vance. There is something peculiar here it seems.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard of Kylie Kelce before.
That’s not what “woke right” means. It’s not about their opinions. It means they’re championing identity politics—only this side is about white (Christian) male identity. And woe be me because my identity.
I've already seen "woke right," just like "woke classic," defined in a multitude of ways — including how I defined it here written just today — which is why I think it's a meaningless, nearly useless term. My point is still that the censorious impulses, the urge to push what one deems unacceptable discourse out of the public square, the bullying of people who didn't say a thing to denounce the person who did say the thing, and most of the illiberal and unethical behaviors associated with what we generally call "woke" utilized much more — almost exclusively — by the people who love to say "woke right." Much more than the people who they accuse of being "woke right."
I think the term you're looking for is "racist," which yes, there is certainly a fair amount of that floating around, and it does share some ideological traits with "woke classic" (which, depending on how it was defined, is just racism under a different guise). But we've known that since the beginning, and it was expertly laid out by comedians Ryan Long and Danny Polishchuk back in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
I see what you’re saying. It all kind of stemmed from identity politics though. And I agree there’s a fair amount of racism whether it’s woke left or right. But the more applicable term is not racism but racialism or race essentialism. Because whichever side these people are on, there’s a significant number of them who really don’t think of themselves as racists. And it’s probably fair to say they don’t harbor “hate” against other people. Their thing is more that they think certain race(s) are in dire need of being protected, coddled, and/or preserved.
We can thank the left for Nick Fuentes. When you make everyone a racist, transphobe, misogynist and a Nazi, and then the real ones rises up, you've lost all credit to call him out. I don't take Fuentes seriously, and I don't think he does either. He's a little man with a big mouth. He has no power. Nick proves that what you resist, persists. Don't cancel the babbling fools, let them speak and drown themselves in their cesspool of nonsense.
Fuentes popularity stems from his speaking truth. In fact, his deplatforming is evidence much of that truth is directed at power. Calling him racist, misogynistic, or whatever is an indication his detractors are devoid of logical arguments to combat his growing popularity, so of course they name call. The Piers interview is a perfect example. While Piers focuses on getting Nick to admit he is Racist, Nick absolutely skewers the illogical positions Piers holds. The per capita discussion on Crime is particularly telling as Piers simply won’t engage, preferring to name-call. Until someone actually addresses his arguments, Nick’s popularity will continue to grow.
Well, without taking a side in whether or not he speaks truth, you’re right that unless/until someone takes him down in debate, no reason for him to stop.
This is The free press. podcasters or randos on the internet (full of Pakistani troll farm clicks) have more power than congress, mayors, city councils, Governors, the courts.
As someone not familiar with Fuentes (other than the bad-mouthing rumours which are so desperately harsh I had already assumed they are not reliable) may I ask what you thought was unfair in this peice?
I am not concern trolling, I am legitimately curious for my own edification.
I've never closely followed Nick, in large part because I havent bothered to get on rumble, and on youtube I can only get segments uploaded by followers who add their own commentary. Everything I have seen and heard convinces me he is a sincere young man fighting for truth against the most vicious tactics anyone anywhere faces. The race and Jewish stuff dobt bother me at all. Its true and white men have needed to be upfront and saying it for a long long time now. What sonetimes makes me wince are his comments about specific women. I am impressed with his courage and integrity in admitting his virginity and I feel bad the dating scene is so godawful for his generation (I'm 45). But I cant help but conclude, based in part on my own early 20s feelings toward women, that he is immature about relationships and that this hinders him. Overall though, great and necessary voice, TREMENDOUS grit and courage, and it maddens me no end when people like Walter Kirn, who I otherwise love, take cheap shots rooted in total ignorance.
I am not young or male, but I am an American and I recently became aware of Nick Fuentes and promptly dismissed him based on short outtakes I'd seen of his podcasts. Then one of my adult children encouraged me to watch a few episodes of his podcast, plus Dave Smith's and Tucker Carlson's interviews with him. To encourage me to do that, this adult child expressed disbelief that I consider myself to be open-minded but hadn't actually gone to the source. So I did. Although there are still many areas in which I disagree with Fuentes and how he expresses his opinions, I was struck by what he said about the prevalence of pornography. One point he made was that exposure to pornography on demand creates obsessions and unreasonable expectations in young men, as real life male-female relationships require the participation of two people who can accept and respect their partner's desires (or lack thereof, at times). I haven't heard anyone else say that. Sadly, I expect Walter might snicker, but I would hope that Matt, who is raising boys, might see the wisdom in Fuentes's observation.
True, but much is misogyny. The article was about Fuentes and his men are victim rants. The "victims" sit in their basements, playing video games and ranting about the unfairness of life rather than go out and learn a trade. Easier to blame some other group.
I'm not actually familiar with Fuentes other than hearing his name a few times.
I do think there's a lot more misandry than misogyny today in western society, and it does sound like Fuentes is more of a backlash against that. The victimization you describe also doesn't seem to have any relation to gender.
Unfortunately, I think our entire society has been brainwashed into this group mentality. I'm old-fashioned and still try to judge people as individuals.
I'm the mother of adult sons and this warning about the prevalence of pornography has been shouted loudly by many others, over a long period of time. I raised my boys during the 90's and later when social media and high-speed internet was new and I can tell you, there were many of us warning about this.
I would wonder why Nick Fuentes would get a pass for adding his voice to the outcry against porn, when he so clearly admires those who were very likely ruined by it. Beware of lures like that to reel in more admirers.
I don't know why you think I've been reeled in as an admirer of Nick Fuentes. or that I'm somehow giving him a pass on anything. I didn't mean to suggest that in my post. I cop to being much better informed about geopolitics than I am about the prevalence of pornography, and I'm happy to read that many people apparently were aware long before I stumbled upon Nick Fuentes's comments. You've piqued my curiosity: who does he admire that was likely ruined by pornography?
I was referring to the comment on one of the video clips about Hitler being a pedophile. I made a guess that pornography of some sort played a part in that aspect of Hitler's development. There was an interview many years ago of a convicted rapist and murderer before his execution, who's name escapes me right now, (perhaps Ted Bundy?)that confessed that his fetishes grew more violent through the use of violent pornography. From what I have read, the pictures and videos weren't enough for him so his behavior escalated to rape and murder. His interview was conducted by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, an influential Christian profamily advocate who was later attacked as anti gay. His views were mocked in the media for being against porn and being "homophobic." Generalizations from both sides of that issue obscures the fact that human nature can take very dark twists if the conditions allow it and if it continues to be fed. For people trying to climb out of porn addiction, the struggle is very real. They need our support. Like other addictions, it has destroyed families and lives.
Taken to a national leadership level, like Hitler, we have seen the end result.
You are welcome. In rereading my first reply on your comment of the article I realized it did sound like I was attacking your observation on Nick Fuentes' interview. For that, I apologize.
The Carlson/ Fuentes interview alarmed my Jewish friends who are acutely aware of the increase of antisemitism in the US and, especially, in Europe. They have lost family members in the holocaust. I don't know how some people can saw it didn't happen.
Fuentes engages in a different form of "pornography". His form of porn includes admiring mass murders. It's a fetish for some. Sex is just one form of pornography. Pornography comes in many flavors. So Fuentes condemning one form of porn doesn't make him immune. And apparently many of his followers share his fetish.
I don’t follow Fuentes or know enough about him and his followers to know whether what you say is true, but I did hear him quite recently say that he opposes violence.
I realize, of course, that Collard, not Taibbi, wrote the piece. However, Matt published it on his platform and he continues to allow Walter Kirn to defame Candace Owens on his platform. so I think it’s fair to expect Matt, if he retains his integrity, to either provide us with facts or at a minimum push back when Walter regurgitates deep state and legacy media talking points.
I think you probably should have included that he’s been de-banked as well, not just removed from social media. He is being de-personed because of his views.
Do we want to live in the world where all the banks and credit card companies collude to freeze out Americans from accessing any financial service NOT BASED ON CRIMINALITY but based on having the wrong views?
What they do to Fuentes they will do to the rest of us as soon as they can arrange a pretext. Then again, you worked for the Free Press, Greg, so perhaps you do want that future.
If you look at Fuentes through the years....it really does seem that he was radicalized by the right mostly not listening to him and or belittling him. He has that interesting psychology of speaking a tiny bit of truth...then wrapping it with extremism & complete BS...a tactic that many podcasters seem to use these days..I find myself wishing for the good old days of no internet and no smart phones!! Just books 📚
Some people are naturally endowed with glib mouths and fast recall. It doesn’t automatically imply anything they say should be taken seriously. Examples: Lenin, Rush Limbaugh, Nick Fuentes.
Excellent inclusion of people from different points on the ideological spectrum. Guaranteed to fuel very few likes, as all can be pissed by your inclusion of at least one. “I’d give it a like if he didn’t include…”
I’m old enough to remember a time before social media and the internet and none of this was an issue. Sure, once in a while the KKK would dress up in robes and have a march in some small town that the press would show up and cover it but the consensus was they were buffoons and from a time the country had healed and forgotten about. We live now in a time where anyone can grab a microphone and speak whatever is on their mind but only the hate gets amplified. It’s all stuff that gets a rise out of people and it’s not even a majority of people it’s enough that it has to become a story then gets picked up by newspapers and station after station. So now it seems like it’s real because it’s been force fed in our faces now for weeks. This is media pshyops 101. A divided people are much easier to govern. It might not seem that way but it’s true. If you keep feeding bullshit to the right people that faction will get angry and cause confusion. It’s been the left versus the right now for well over a decade and who is losing? We are. The rich are getting richer and our congress has done nothing. Trump is America first but not one thing he has done has become permanent. It will all be undone with the stroke of a pen. The country is beyond broke with 38 trillion of debt and we are at each other’s throats over what? Not one issue that changes our lives on a daily basis. If we as a people eve wake up and unite we would realize the enemy is who we have elected to lead us. They get corrupted by money. Money and power are what corrupts man. Until we the people realize this not a damn thing is going to change and the Nick Fuentes’ and Hasan Pikers of the world will just piss you off to no end and make you miserable. Wake up people. DC is the enemy.
I think free speech is incredibly important and I am a Christian. Every time I hear the stuff that comes out of his mouth I think awful things like why couldn’t somebody have taken him out instead of Charlie? Please God forgive me.
You revealed yourself with the unironic “white suprematist rally.” You probably also believe that Trump said Nazis were “fine people.” Your clueless sanctimony is why Nick has so much purchase—you should put this article in your own timeline. I love Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn but the way they sniff at Fuentes does not credit their usually sharp eye.
He plays his audience and interviewers. In the Piers interview he fully admits that the Holocaust is real. Always take what he says with a grain of salt. He's just a fool with a loud mouth.
Unfortunately, you and apparently 90% of the commenters on this article have had their opinions formed without listening to an uncensored complete "show" Fuentes puts on. And that's what's so funny about the pearl clutchers--it's a show. And his message isn't anti- black, -gay, -Jew, -Somalian, etc. It's anti-white boomers and parents of boomers who created this shitshow of a country with their self-loathing white guilt and the laws they wrote to disadvantage their own white children and the indoctrination in schools, academia and Hollywood for their white children to be ashamed of being white. Repeating myself, this is not a racist feud, it is a generational feud. And Fuentes is on the right side of history on this one.
I'm a 71 year old boomer, Alan. I have listened to Fuentes and sometimes find myself nodding in agreement. The white guilt you mention is mostly female boomers but I see it also among millennial females (and some millennial males). Fuentes IS anti- Jew, anti- Somali, etc., but in the sense that he believes Jews have greater impact on society than their numbers justify; and Somali culture does not mix with ours. Both these are true. But you are right -- this seems to be a generational feud. One other point: Fuentes is a supporter of big government. That is where he is as lost as the rest of his generation.
Thanks for the gracious comment, Asa. I’ll be 68 soon. I believe the leftists of our generation have been the purveyors of white guilt and white shame, as personified by the NYT, WaPo and WSJ, academia and the arts. By no means were leftist boomers the originators. It started after WW2 when you and I hadn’t even been born. We’ve been marinated in this anti-white attitude since our elementary school years. I was called a racist for being against illegal immigration by Peter Robinson back in his post-Reagan and 21st century National Review years. The worst purveyors are men, especially the David French-types, crapping on their heritage in a pathetic play for status with the left.
He's a crude, rude and lewd dude in a suit. Not that I disagree with much of what he says but I don't know who his presentation appeals to, but personally, I have better ways to waste my time. I think that the fact this kind of garbage along with gangsta rap and so much more garbage finds an audience speaks volumes about the society. I don't have a problem with him but I do have a problem with the taste of his audience!
I see his name all over but have never been interested enough to read or watch. Thanks for the timeline. You do the work for us. NF is in the news so it helps to be able to place him.
This article just shows what people dislike about Fuentes. The critics never talk about the meat of his argument--that the "Greatest" generation through the Boomers (of which I am one) lacked the courage to defend Western civilization and in the process lost their souls and, in Fuentes' words, "the country is now shit and everybody knows it and feels it in their bones."
This is a generational feud, not a racist feud. It's why Fuentes proudly wears the label as a racist or misogynist or anti-semite. Those words have lost the ability to stop debates so simps can keep their heads buried in the sand. He refuses to play the part of the "self-loathing white" of the typical leftist or the virtue-signalling cancellation perpetrated by the Con Inc. right. Piers Morgan was the perfect piñata for Fuentes--a clueless boomer thinking he was scoring points spouting liberal shibboleths as Fuentes was bashing him senseless with a "white guilt" tire iron.
Fuentes is criticizing the white "elite" for their white guilt and making America a doormat for third world cultures. In prior generations of massive immigration (1880s until 1923 when immigration was virtually halted for 42 years), our grandfathers and great grandfathers insisted that immigrants assimilate. Since 1965, the white "elites" in politics, academia, Hollywood and public schools were too wracked with self-loathing to even try to assimilate the third worlders. Worse, they wrote laws disfavoring their own white children and indoctrinated them in a culture of self-hatred and guilt.
Fuentes is a modern day Raspail unmasking the fecklessness of an elite that has ushered in the collapse of their own civilization. And like Raspail before him, he blames the white elite, not the third worlders. THAT's what they hate about Fuentes. He is correct, and they know it.
I've never listened to enough (any really) Fuentes to confirm or deny anything you've said, though I don't doubt much of it. There are plenty of great writers, thinkers and "poasters" who have a similar working theory of how the Boomers hollowed out society, and are living large — and long — off of housing equity, social security and Medicare that succeeding generations will not get to enjoy. But they do it without the overt racism and antisemitism.
I would agree that the modern west has turned Hitler into The Great Satan, a mystical and more powerful version of the historical person than any biblical evil (while forgetting, and sometimes forgiving, the evils of any other murderous world leaders). A lot of the flirtations with these ideas is meant to upset the squares. Kanye West's "Heil Hitler" was one of the only truly transgressive pieces of art in ages; one of the most successful hip-hop artists in history making a song that was banned from every tech platform was quite a feat.
The Gamergate/incel/4chan panics — coupled with Trump's unlikely ascendance — led to open message boards, and unmoderated troublemakers at large, to be mostly erased from online existence. And that was a mistake. When the Ramones and others flirted with fascist language and iconography, an actually liberal creative community saw it as the subversive provocation that it was, and the bible beaters were the ones who tried to destroy punk, metal, Dungeons & Dragons, zine culture, horror movies and the rest.
In our post-post-everything world, a lot of those provocations do seem to be becoming especially real, though I'd argue that some of the more honest antisemitism (and racism!) is coming from the new pseudo-left. Fuentes may be closer to a Jim Goad figure for Zoomers, but I can understand why people are so upset about it, though a lot of it is their own fault for not even trying to understand transgressive online subcultures, and why they exist.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, John. For the record, I am not a fan of blaming boomers, or any generation, for the ills of today. I blame an ideology shared by members all generations--before, after and including boomers--that I have always been against. The ideology that all men are equal and that all cultures are equal. It is an ideology that is against human nature and nature itself. If everything and everyone is equal, that's a boring and eventually lifeless existence. Trying to force everyone to be equal has led to the death of hundreds millions in the 20th century alone. Man and nature is hierarchical. It's what makes life and relationships interesting and fun and frustrating and sad.
I also don’t fully blame any group for our ills, and there are incredibly complicated situations that led us to this point, but there are plenty of markers that point to Boomers inheriting an economy that was booming like no other time in this country’s history, and refused to pass on their power and wealth to younger generations, and sort of put themselves — and our economy — under glass.
I have to disagree on equality. Clearly, all humans have wildly varying potential, skills and abilities, but starting from a place where all people have an (at least perceived) opportunity to achieve is good. Forcing everyone to end up in the same place would indeed be boring — and a massive, massive failure — but allowing, and helping with education and opportunity, people to hit any possible height is a noble pursuit.
" social security and Medicare that succeeding generations will not get to enjoy. "
They will if they show some political good sense. The only reason SS has fiscal problems is that wealthy people are paying a much lower effective rate, because income over a certain amount is exempt from SS tax, as is "unearned" income. Remove those two exemptions, and both programs would be in good shape. Fortunately, the party system/duopoly is breaking down, collapsing before our eyes, so the next generations will actually get a shot at saving Social Security. Medicare, too, if they don't have the gumption to make it universal.
Housing is another matter. the real problem is that physical resources and space are running short. the country is finally more or less full., (There's lots of space, but in places where people don't want to live.) Solving that problem will probably require major changes in the nature of our housing, as well as stopping the growth of population. The latter is taking care of itself, but the former depends on a maze of codes and regulations that will have to be rethought, over the opposition of the agencies. I wish them luck with that. The political breakdown could help with that, too, but probably won't. I don't see new beginnings happening.
Charles, I understand where you are coming from on SS and Medicare, but the facts don't support your contention that if 100% of the wage earner's income was subject to the payroll tax on SS, SS be in better shape. But, SS is actually in much better shape than Medicare, despite the fact that Medicare does tax 100% of the wages of the wage earner. Medicare/Medicaid is 100% responsible for the $2 trillion debt of the government each year. They cost $5 trillion, and the revenues $3 trillion.
For a solution to this, check out Karl Denninger who wrote a book on it and convincingly makes a strong case that it could be solved if the executive branch simply enforced the Constitution and the laws that Congress passed. If you think Trump has been hampered by lawfare in district courts for faithfully executing the immigration laws, just wait to see what would happen if he tried that with healthcare.
You guys may have set a record for the most consecutive long replies.
Guilty as charged, and you can’t imagine how much I edited out. I’m working on it.
I recall NYDolls with hammer/sickle background, Skynyrd rebel flag, etc, all props and set dressing. People get dimmer year by year...
“Fuentes is a modern day Raspail unmasking the fecklessness of an elite that has ushered in the collapse of their own civilization.”
If you’re right, then Fuentes is also the worst example of self-sabotage I’ve ever seen, self-sabotage to the level of psychopathology. For example, praising Hitler — the blithering idiot who brought Germany to destruction by declaring war on three (3) empires at the same time* — only convinces people Fuentes has a diseased mind and should be shunned.
By the way, U.S. immigration policy since the Sixties is easily understood as the Democratic Party once again putting its interests ahead of the country. Up to that point the average immigrant was better educated than the average American; but the Democrats wanted more illiterate and unskilled immigrants, who could be counted on to remain dependent on government, and thus stay reliable Democratic voters. (Leftist parties in Europe did much the same.)
*Even as he sabotaged the economy and science by killing many of Germany’s most talented and productive people.
Fuentes is his own worst enemy, especially as judged through the reaction of boomers and older generations. As a boomer, I try to put myself in his shoes to try to understand where he is coming from.
I happen to agree with him that Western Civilization, built by white men, is an incredible achievement. I also happen to agree with him that white men who are proud of that achievement of their forefathers have been falsely branded as white supremacists, racists and Nazis. I also happen to agree with him that the "white guilt" and the self-loathing of too many white men is a large factor in the America of today which Fuentes accurately describes as having "gone to sh**."
Is he a satirist in the mold of a Jonathan Swift? Is he a modern-day Raspail saying wake up before it is too late to save your heritage? Is he a Richard Pryor, who turned the n-word into a badge of honor for young blacks and now blacks, and only blacks, are allowed to use that magic word? Is he a John Brown encouraging a race war? Is he an Aaron Burr, undermining the recovery of the American system?
One can't answer any of those questions if all one has to go by is this article in Racket News.
In spite of generous application of lipstick, the pig remains a pig. And Hitler remains Hitler.
P.S.: If you want to see the achievements of white guys honored, you can just watch Carl Sagan’s classic documentary series, COSMOS. Embracing Hitler has the opposite effect.
Total side note, but help me understand how Aaron Burr undermined the recovery of the American system. Or am I misreading you?
Aaron Burr was Martin Van Buren’s liaison with British intelligence as v.p. under Jackson and MVB’s single term as president. Van Buren was driven by money and power, and is recognized as the first party boss in New York.
The British were alarmed at the economic dynamo America had become in one generation by the 1830s. It was built on rewarding innovation and ingenuity, and the Hamiltonian Second National Bank had an excellent record in lending money to entrepreneurial farmers, merchants and manufacturers. The loans created pockets of dynamic economic regions across America. It reached its zenith under John Q. Adams.
Burr, exiled in London, and Van Buren knew how to appeal to Andrew Jackson’s vanity, convinced him to run for president (we love our victorious generals!) and used him to destroy the American System, eventually refusing to renew the charter for the Second National Bank. That ended the American System and the country entered a depression and never really covered. Then, the Great War between the States began.
America has been at the mercy of the British Imperial system ever since. Lincoln, McKinley, FDR (to a limited extent), Kennedy and now Trump have tried to resurrect the American System. Take note of what happened to Lincoln, McKinley and Kennedy. The Brits are not fond of the American System.
That's interesting. I will look into that more. I've probably done more reading about Burr than the average person has and have never heard about that. I guess the biographer I read didn't find that tidbit helpful to the portrait she was painting...
Are you familiar with the English YouTuber Carl Benjamin? His take on Fuentes is very similar and I believe it to be spot on.
“Why Nick Fuentes is popular”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnCvGdDFOw
“The failure of the straight white man”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0yybTvpH6g
Thanks for the info. I’m not familiar with Carl Benjamin. Fuentes is hard to pin down.
Ha i posted one minute too early, wondering why I should care about Nick. Now Im kind of interested. Thanks!
This comment is embarrassing to read, and the fact that the author "liked" it is even worse. I'm no fan of NF, but to rest your opinion of a person on such a short bio seems bizarre.
It's an overview of a person in the news that I've never followed closely. I appreciate it. I'm sorry if my comment embarrassed you.
I apologize for coming across as a "hater commenter." There was a thought I had but failed to include. That forming a quick opinion on something is fine (nearly unavoidable, really) but that it should be given a low value rating *because* it was formed quickly and, often, on a small data set. Like, "I know what I think, yet I'm open to changing my mind." Thank you for remaining civil. Still, the like by the author does lightly color my opinion of him.
I always like comments at my substack.
You should take a look. It's free and interesting if you like books or museums or archives. https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/how-did-graham-greene-know-so-much
you are being rather harsh on her. All she was doing was saying thanks because she learned something about the guy. She didnt say she formed an unbreakable opinion.
Thanks, Davey J.
See Glenn Greenwald’s recent comments on Rumble on Fuentes — 15 minutes of pure joy 😂😂
We ought to be able to listen to people like Fuentes, even if we find their views obnoxious and odious -- Tucker's interview wasn't "softball," it was simply drawing Fuestes out on many topics so we could *understand* who he is. It's the old adage of "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."
At the same time, if somebody calls for violence against others, that speech is not protected by the First Amendment and the government can prosecute people for that.
This isn't really a complicated issue.
Less like softball and more like fellatio. The problem isn’t Fuentes so much as it’s Carlson and his apologists. The populist movement won’t be able to withstand the fallout of these people, because with less than 2% margin of victory, it’s likely enough Trump voters will be disgusted and defect next election. I might be one of them. One could also wonder how much foreign states like Qatar are financing this stuff.
Do you get $7k for comments too?
"Less like softball and more like fellatio"
Well Put!
Either Qatar or the Russians. Maybe both!!! Oh, the humanity!!!
Fuentes is lucky to live in a democracy, and is a fool for suggesting we should move away from it. Any more authoritarian form of government would recognize that he provides no value to society and in fact actively worsens it, and would execute him without a second thought.
Your description of the interview ("simply drawing Fuentes out") is essentially THE definition of a softball interview.
And your knowledge of the 1st Amendment is suspect. It is not necessarily illegal to call for violence against someone. If the speech in question is not intended to, or not likely to, provoke imminent unlawful action, then the 1st amendment protects it.
“My belief in free speech is so profound that I am seldom tempted to deny it to the other fellow. Nor do I make any effort to differentiate between the other fellow right and that other fellow wrong, for I am convinced that free speech is worth nothing unless it includes a full franchise to be foolish and even...malicious.”
― H. L. Mencken
WRT Nick Fuentes, I think his popularity stems from the overt discrimination in western culture against straight white males and the natural reaction to said discrimination. The more people like Fuentes are repressed, the more popular their rhetoric becomes.....the point Mencken makes about free speech is that if no speech is banned, the foolish speech tends to self-immolate.
Thanks Giuseppe. We can never be reminded enough of the words of H.L.Menken!
He simply accepts the premise of his enemies and turns it on its head. Your race over mine? Okay, then mine over yours. It's almost like none of these were good ideas.
The complete denial of wrongdoing on the part of critical identitarians is them saying "racism for thee is not the same as racism for me," which is exactly the reason NF is popular.
Mentioning Menken in the same breath as this Fuentes character is like talking about the history of football in the context of a streaker on the field.
There's a new designation — "woke right" — that people, mostly of the libertarian/moderate/centrist variety like to throw around. They mean that people like Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, et al, are aping the illiberalism of the new pseudo-left, often coupled with some of the more uncomfortable opinions and consipiracies about Israel both groups seem to have.
I'd argue that it's actually these "enlightened" centrists who angrily demand that Megyn Kelly denounce Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson on a daily basis, and call for people like Fuentes to be censored (again) that share more of the "woke" traits than the kooky, and popular, outer reaches of the right wing podosphere: they want to control who is and is not allowed to have a platform, and force conformity. I recall Damon Linker on a podcast (Persuasion? Andrew Sullivan?) discussing controversial figures being let back on Twitter after Musk's purchase of the platform. He said that it's mostly fine, except Bronze Age Pervert, who should remained banned because "he's a Nietzschean." People like Linker want to personally choose who gets a platform, and who should be removed from polite society.
I'd love to retire the term "woke," because it took on so many disparate, conflicted meanings, but what we call woke never died. In the fallout of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the real story of cancellations was lefty influencers and social media stars that had the gall to post about being upset about Kirk's death and spent the next week apologizing to their fans. Ezra Klein being dragged for having a human response to a political assassination being the biggest example.
If you don't like what Nick Fuentes, or Alex Jones, or Candace Owens have to say, just ignore them. Trying to get them, or people adjacent to them removed from platforms, only makes them more popular. Or do what everyone does with idiots like Hasan, Destiny or Jennifer Welch: post their stupidest comments for the world to see and make fun of. Destiny finally imploded, and most of these other people probably will over time.
The cohort trying to cancel Megyn Kelly, not for anything she said, but because she won't denounce Tucker Carlson for interviewing ("platforming") Nick Fuentes is the real problem here.
When Candace opens her mouth, I change the channel.
That's the correct response! I've still never seen more of her than a handful of short clips on X/podcasts, same with Fuentes. I just have no interest. If you don't like it, ignore it.
It's not that I don't like it,I just don't want to lose anymore brain cells listening to her garbage.
My response to Owens, Fuentes, Welch, etc.
Nick Fuentes popularity is likely being artificially boosted by foreign & domestic accounts. Wonder if they are paid to do so, and if so, who’s funding them?
And if this is occurring for Nick, is it also for Candace?
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1998050582850834501?s=20
“… the real issue isn't Fuentes: it's the fact that our media and tech ecosystem can no longer reliably distinguish organic influence from manufactured momentum. And if one fringe figure can break through this easily, others will follow.”
I read that tweet when Wright published it, and it's certainly possible, or even likely, that Fuentes's popularity is not boosted organically, or domestically. The New York Times published a pretty boy picture of him, that looked nothing like him, with a headline claiming that he's taking Charlie Kirk's throne as the new youth MAGA whisperer, which seems to be more wishcasting/mudslinging than reality.
I see plenty of low-energy Dem influencers with a couple of thousand followers inexplicably get 80K likes on especially rotten, provocative posts. I don't believe for a second that those likes are organic. Any rotting corpse who jumps ship from the Washington Post to come to Substack moves into Substack's top 10 leaderboards with 500K subscribers within a week.
What can anyone do about it? Trying to ban/cancel/remove/erase people hasn't worked, and the more mainstream new right types and centrists waxing apoplectic about Fuentes and Owens 24 hours a day seem to just be giving them more energy. Partisan Democrats love it, because they want to give Fuentes and Owens as much juice as they can. Who's paying the price? People like Red Scare's Dasha Nekrasova, who lost a major movie and her Hollywood agent because Red Scare quietly interviewed Fuentes a month or so before Carlson did, but was punished for Carlson's indiscretion, because someone apparently had to be punished (and she'd already been written out of hit streamer Succession for interviewing Alex Jones previously) .
We're in a cold civil war/information war, and informed readers should be skeptical of everything in the media/information sphere. Attempts to control who gets to use the internet to say or write words just means that the internet's going to be controlled by someone. Which is bad.
The same pseudo-accusation can be made against just about anyone on any platform.
I hear Kylie Kelce may be supported by subscribers paid for by conservative, white Christian women.
Yeah, but tell me a similar story to Fuentes interviewed by Tucker and then BOOM! … story after story (after story) and guy becomes so instantly part of national stories, including trying to make he and his supposed followers adjacent to likely GOP frontrunner ‘28, JD Vance. There is something peculiar here it seems.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard of Kylie Kelce before.
Medium grade cope report from institute (NCRI or whatever it is) uncloaking the diabolical plot.
That’s not what “woke right” means. It’s not about their opinions. It means they’re championing identity politics—only this side is about white (Christian) male identity. And woe be me because my identity.
I've already seen "woke right," just like "woke classic," defined in a multitude of ways — including how I defined it here written just today — which is why I think it's a meaningless, nearly useless term. My point is still that the censorious impulses, the urge to push what one deems unacceptable discourse out of the public square, the bullying of people who didn't say a thing to denounce the person who did say the thing, and most of the illiberal and unethical behaviors associated with what we generally call "woke" utilized much more — almost exclusively — by the people who love to say "woke right." Much more than the people who they accuse of being "woke right."
I think the term you're looking for is "racist," which yes, there is certainly a fair amount of that floating around, and it does share some ideological traits with "woke classic" (which, depending on how it was defined, is just racism under a different guise). But we've known that since the beginning, and it was expertly laid out by comedians Ryan Long and Danny Polishchuk back in 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
I see what you’re saying. It all kind of stemmed from identity politics though. And I agree there’s a fair amount of racism whether it’s woke left or right. But the more applicable term is not racism but racialism or race essentialism. Because whichever side these people are on, there’s a significant number of them who really don’t think of themselves as racists. And it’s probably fair to say they don’t harbor “hate” against other people. Their thing is more that they think certain race(s) are in dire need of being protected, coddled, and/or preserved.
Woke Classic. Nice. Certainly has a chance of outlasting New Woke, which is definitely not an acquired taste.
We can thank the left for Nick Fuentes. When you make everyone a racist, transphobe, misogynist and a Nazi, and then the real ones rises up, you've lost all credit to call him out. I don't take Fuentes seriously, and I don't think he does either. He's a little man with a big mouth. He has no power. Nick proves that what you resist, persists. Don't cancel the babbling fools, let them speak and drown themselves in their cesspool of nonsense.
A real Nazi has popped up somewhere? Brazil, or????
Gaza. And the supporters of Hamas.
lol. ok bud. You've got a few dots to connect there still savi.
Fuentes popularity stems from his speaking truth. In fact, his deplatforming is evidence much of that truth is directed at power. Calling him racist, misogynistic, or whatever is an indication his detractors are devoid of logical arguments to combat his growing popularity, so of course they name call. The Piers interview is a perfect example. While Piers focuses on getting Nick to admit he is Racist, Nick absolutely skewers the illogical positions Piers holds. The per capita discussion on Crime is particularly telling as Piers simply won’t engage, preferring to name-call. Until someone actually addresses his arguments, Nick’s popularity will continue to grow.
Truth? Scary to see someone write this, and have multiple likes, too.
Oh Yeah? Perhaps you can refute his arguments....
Why bother?
Because, like I said, until someone actually addresses his arguments, Nick’s popularity will continue to grow, precisely because he speaks truth.
Well, without taking a side in whether or not he speaks truth, you’re right that unless/until someone takes him down in debate, no reason for him to stop.
If I wanted shitty tongue in cheek hit pieces I would’ve subscribed to the Atlantic.
You're being way too kind
His twitter says he’s “formally of the free press” so I guess it makes sense.
This is The free press. podcasters or randos on the internet (full of Pakistani troll farm clicks) have more power than congress, mayors, city councils, Governors, the courts.
Garbage
Ah, that checks out. Curious though what that "formally" is about. Perhaps insufficient fealty to certain, uh... "entities" was the undoing there.
You can leave at anytime.
Good one
Exactly. Just like someone can change the channel if something appears they don’t like. America. Freedom.
As someone not familiar with Fuentes (other than the bad-mouthing rumours which are so desperately harsh I had already assumed they are not reliable) may I ask what you thought was unfair in this peice?
I am not concern trolling, I am legitimately curious for my own edification.
I've never closely followed Nick, in large part because I havent bothered to get on rumble, and on youtube I can only get segments uploaded by followers who add their own commentary. Everything I have seen and heard convinces me he is a sincere young man fighting for truth against the most vicious tactics anyone anywhere faces. The race and Jewish stuff dobt bother me at all. Its true and white men have needed to be upfront and saying it for a long long time now. What sonetimes makes me wince are his comments about specific women. I am impressed with his courage and integrity in admitting his virginity and I feel bad the dating scene is so godawful for his generation (I'm 45). But I cant help but conclude, based in part on my own early 20s feelings toward women, that he is immature about relationships and that this hinders him. Overall though, great and necessary voice, TREMENDOUS grit and courage, and it maddens me no end when people like Walter Kirn, who I otherwise love, take cheap shots rooted in total ignorance.
I am not young or male, but I am an American and I recently became aware of Nick Fuentes and promptly dismissed him based on short outtakes I'd seen of his podcasts. Then one of my adult children encouraged me to watch a few episodes of his podcast, plus Dave Smith's and Tucker Carlson's interviews with him. To encourage me to do that, this adult child expressed disbelief that I consider myself to be open-minded but hadn't actually gone to the source. So I did. Although there are still many areas in which I disagree with Fuentes and how he expresses his opinions, I was struck by what he said about the prevalence of pornography. One point he made was that exposure to pornography on demand creates obsessions and unreasonable expectations in young men, as real life male-female relationships require the participation of two people who can accept and respect their partner's desires (or lack thereof, at times). I haven't heard anyone else say that. Sadly, I expect Walter might snicker, but I would hope that Matt, who is raising boys, might see the wisdom in Fuentes's observation.
There are plenty of women who've been saying that and more about porn, but they are usually ignored.
Plenty of men, too. Everything is not misogyny.
True, but much is misogyny. The article was about Fuentes and his men are victim rants. The "victims" sit in their basements, playing video games and ranting about the unfairness of life rather than go out and learn a trade. Easier to blame some other group.
I'm not actually familiar with Fuentes other than hearing his name a few times.
I do think there's a lot more misandry than misogyny today in western society, and it does sound like Fuentes is more of a backlash against that. The victimization you describe also doesn't seem to have any relation to gender.
Unfortunately, I think our entire society has been brainwashed into this group mentality. I'm old-fashioned and still try to judge people as individuals.
I'm the mother of adult sons and this warning about the prevalence of pornography has been shouted loudly by many others, over a long period of time. I raised my boys during the 90's and later when social media and high-speed internet was new and I can tell you, there were many of us warning about this.
I would wonder why Nick Fuentes would get a pass for adding his voice to the outcry against porn, when he so clearly admires those who were very likely ruined by it. Beware of lures like that to reel in more admirers.
I don't know why you think I've been reeled in as an admirer of Nick Fuentes. or that I'm somehow giving him a pass on anything. I didn't mean to suggest that in my post. I cop to being much better informed about geopolitics than I am about the prevalence of pornography, and I'm happy to read that many people apparently were aware long before I stumbled upon Nick Fuentes's comments. You've piqued my curiosity: who does he admire that was likely ruined by pornography?
I was referring to the comment on one of the video clips about Hitler being a pedophile. I made a guess that pornography of some sort played a part in that aspect of Hitler's development. There was an interview many years ago of a convicted rapist and murderer before his execution, who's name escapes me right now, (perhaps Ted Bundy?)that confessed that his fetishes grew more violent through the use of violent pornography. From what I have read, the pictures and videos weren't enough for him so his behavior escalated to rape and murder. His interview was conducted by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, an influential Christian profamily advocate who was later attacked as anti gay. His views were mocked in the media for being against porn and being "homophobic." Generalizations from both sides of that issue obscures the fact that human nature can take very dark twists if the conditions allow it and if it continues to be fed. For people trying to climb out of porn addiction, the struggle is very real. They need our support. Like other addictions, it has destroyed families and lives.
Taken to a national leadership level, like Hitler, we have seen the end result.
Thank you for taking the time to include so much in your reply.
You are welcome. In rereading my first reply on your comment of the article I realized it did sound like I was attacking your observation on Nick Fuentes' interview. For that, I apologize.
The Carlson/ Fuentes interview alarmed my Jewish friends who are acutely aware of the increase of antisemitism in the US and, especially, in Europe. They have lost family members in the holocaust. I don't know how some people can saw it didn't happen.
Fuentes engages in a different form of "pornography". His form of porn includes admiring mass murders. It's a fetish for some. Sex is just one form of pornography. Pornography comes in many flavors. So Fuentes condemning one form of porn doesn't make him immune. And apparently many of his followers share his fetish.
I don’t follow Fuentes or know enough about him and his followers to know whether what you say is true, but I did hear him quite recently say that he opposes violence.
"..... he opposes violence." But admires mass murders.
The piece is from Greg Collard, not Matt.
I realize, of course, that Collard, not Taibbi, wrote the piece. However, Matt published it on his platform and he continues to allow Walter Kirn to defame Candace Owens on his platform. so I think it’s fair to expect Matt, if he retains his integrity, to either provide us with facts or at a minimum push back when Walter regurgitates deep state and legacy media talking points.
Ditto. Well said.
I think you probably should have included that he’s been de-banked as well, not just removed from social media. He is being de-personed because of his views.
Do we want to live in the world where all the banks and credit card companies collude to freeze out Americans from accessing any financial service NOT BASED ON CRIMINALITY but based on having the wrong views?
What they do to Fuentes they will do to the rest of us as soon as they can arrange a pretext. Then again, you worked for the Free Press, Greg, so perhaps you do want that future.
For good measure, he was also no-fly listed.
If you look at Fuentes through the years....it really does seem that he was radicalized by the right mostly not listening to him and or belittling him. He has that interesting psychology of speaking a tiny bit of truth...then wrapping it with extremism & complete BS...a tactic that many podcasters seem to use these days..I find myself wishing for the good old days of no internet and no smart phones!! Just books 📚
Some people are naturally endowed with glib mouths and fast recall. It doesn’t automatically imply anything they say should be taken seriously. Examples: Lenin, Rush Limbaugh, Nick Fuentes.
Excellent inclusion of people from different points on the ideological spectrum. Guaranteed to fuel very few likes, as all can be pissed by your inclusion of at least one. “I’d give it a like if he didn’t include…”
As far as “likes” go, getting a lot of them isn’t necessarily a good thing, though I guess it does release endorphins.
I’m old enough to remember a time before social media and the internet and none of this was an issue. Sure, once in a while the KKK would dress up in robes and have a march in some small town that the press would show up and cover it but the consensus was they were buffoons and from a time the country had healed and forgotten about. We live now in a time where anyone can grab a microphone and speak whatever is on their mind but only the hate gets amplified. It’s all stuff that gets a rise out of people and it’s not even a majority of people it’s enough that it has to become a story then gets picked up by newspapers and station after station. So now it seems like it’s real because it’s been force fed in our faces now for weeks. This is media pshyops 101. A divided people are much easier to govern. It might not seem that way but it’s true. If you keep feeding bullshit to the right people that faction will get angry and cause confusion. It’s been the left versus the right now for well over a decade and who is losing? We are. The rich are getting richer and our congress has done nothing. Trump is America first but not one thing he has done has become permanent. It will all be undone with the stroke of a pen. The country is beyond broke with 38 trillion of debt and we are at each other’s throats over what? Not one issue that changes our lives on a daily basis. If we as a people eve wake up and unite we would realize the enemy is who we have elected to lead us. They get corrupted by money. Money and power are what corrupts man. Until we the people realize this not a damn thing is going to change and the Nick Fuentes’ and Hasan Pikers of the world will just piss you off to no end and make you miserable. Wake up people. DC is the enemy.
I think free speech is incredibly important and I am a Christian. Every time I hear the stuff that comes out of his mouth I think awful things like why couldn’t somebody have taken him out instead of Charlie? Please God forgive me.
Demons only take out the living angels spreading light.
You revealed yourself with the unironic “white suprematist rally.” You probably also believe that Trump said Nazis were “fine people.” Your clueless sanctimony is why Nick has so much purchase—you should put this article in your own timeline. I love Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn but the way they sniff at Fuentes does not credit their usually sharp eye.
Unfortunately, no mention of Fuentes’s Holocaust denial here.
He plays his audience and interviewers. In the Piers interview he fully admits that the Holocaust is real. Always take what he says with a grain of salt. He's just a fool with a loud mouth.
Because it’s not real lol. Go watch him on steve crowder
Unfortunately, you and apparently 90% of the commenters on this article have had their opinions formed without listening to an uncensored complete "show" Fuentes puts on. And that's what's so funny about the pearl clutchers--it's a show. And his message isn't anti- black, -gay, -Jew, -Somalian, etc. It's anti-white boomers and parents of boomers who created this shitshow of a country with their self-loathing white guilt and the laws they wrote to disadvantage their own white children and the indoctrination in schools, academia and Hollywood for their white children to be ashamed of being white. Repeating myself, this is not a racist feud, it is a generational feud. And Fuentes is on the right side of history on this one.
I'm a 71 year old boomer, Alan. I have listened to Fuentes and sometimes find myself nodding in agreement. The white guilt you mention is mostly female boomers but I see it also among millennial females (and some millennial males). Fuentes IS anti- Jew, anti- Somali, etc., but in the sense that he believes Jews have greater impact on society than their numbers justify; and Somali culture does not mix with ours. Both these are true. But you are right -- this seems to be a generational feud. One other point: Fuentes is a supporter of big government. That is where he is as lost as the rest of his generation.
Thanks for the gracious comment, Asa. I’ll be 68 soon. I believe the leftists of our generation have been the purveyors of white guilt and white shame, as personified by the NYT, WaPo and WSJ, academia and the arts. By no means were leftist boomers the originators. It started after WW2 when you and I hadn’t even been born. We’ve been marinated in this anti-white attitude since our elementary school years. I was called a racist for being against illegal immigration by Peter Robinson back in his post-Reagan and 21st century National Review years. The worst purveyors are men, especially the David French-types, crapping on their heritage in a pathetic play for status with the left.
He is looking to light a fire under everyone.
It is about gathering his Narcissistic Supply.
And what of your own Holocaust denial sir? Do you now, at this time, freely and willingly admit that no fewer than 6 million Jews were murdered?
Are you asking me? I’m not a Holocaust denier. What gave you that impression?
He's a crude, rude and lewd dude in a suit. Not that I disagree with much of what he says but I don't know who his presentation appeals to, but personally, I have better ways to waste my time. I think that the fact this kind of garbage along with gangsta rap and so much more garbage finds an audience speaks volumes about the society. I don't have a problem with him but I do have a problem with the taste of his audience!
Glenn Dismantles Nick Fuentes Hysteria on Piers Morgan Uncensored – Dec 13, 2025
https://rumble.com/v72zsf2-glenn-dismantles-nick-fuentes-hysteria-on-piers-morgan-uncensored.html
OUTSTANDING