Death to groypers.
“misrepresenting Nick Fuentes”
A paid subscriber has requested that I stop unfairly attacking Nick Fuentes, and finally engage with “his ideas.” By the law of paid subscriptions, I am duty-bound to respond to this charge.
Nick Fuentes is the second most popular streamer on Rumble, right after Alex Jones. Anyone who can garner a loyal audience of this magnitude has something special about him. Given his young age, Nick Fuentes is the most charismatic, intelligent, and strong-willed right-wing “e-celeb” outside of Donald Trump himself.1
He is like the God Pan, leading his lonely incel band around town, to “rape, kill, and die” for him. His level of success and celebrity are indicative of pre-rational virtues. Putting aside ideology, at the level of biological substance, he is admirable. His creativity, humor, wit, and zest are inherently attractive. He is not a boring thumb, like most conservative influencers.
Over the past four years, Nick Fuentes has been increasingly critical of MAGA, the Trump movement, and Qanon. Specifically, he has made the following critiques:
Joe Kent, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Paul Gosar embraced the aesthetics of populism in 2021, but lacked the backbone to avoid disavowing Fuentes. In order to be effective, the far-right vanguard must be willing to stand together and take the heat, rather than betraying one another to save their own skins.
Tucker Carlson makes the right-wing seem ridiculous by associating it with demonic possession and UFOs. His defense of Russia goes far beyond an America First position. His connections with the CIA and Peter Thiel are suspicious. His willingness to attack Israel, but not Judaism or Jews as a race, is a form of gatekeeping. He consistently opposes white identity.
Candace Owens is suspiciously connected to sedevacantists, Scientologists, and British royalty. She pushes conspiracy theories which are easily debunked and destroy the credibility of anyone who associates with her. Candace struggles to pronounce basic words that one might learn in a high school history class, like “Blitzkrieg.” Her claim that Jews are actually secretly Khazarians helps to confuse the issue of Jewish power. She associates anti-Zionism with stupidity and schizophrenia.
Trump betrayed America First by failing to deliver mass deportations, failing on tariffs, starting a war with Iran, and allowing transgender transitions with parental consent. Trump was co-opted by the GOP. The only way to win back the GOP as a vehicle for a populist vanguard is to punish it in the 2026 midterms by voting for Democrats.
E-celebs like Sneako, Lucas Gage, and Jake Shields, engage in “low IQ antisemitism” by promoting third-worldist positions. They become so hyper-focused on attacking Zionism, that they end up claiming things like “Hitler was actually anti-racist,” despite all evidence to the contrary.
I sympathize with these complaints. I would hate to be a part of a political movement that shilled for Russia, promoted UFOs, claimed that Hitler was an anti-racist, or supported Hamas. The divide between Fuentes and his audience has gotten so hot that some Groypers are even considering a “revolt” against him. In that case, I would prefer Fuentes over his audience.
Unfortunately, Fuentes is completely incapable of solving these problems at the root. All he can do is complain about the symptoms, without ever addressing the causes.
The solution is the complete and total death of “groyperism” as a movement. The right-wing must be abandoned in its entirety, and something new must take its place. Otherwise, Fuentes will be going around in circles, purging conspiracy theorists ad infinitum, chasing his own tail.
Groypers claim that Fuentes is pushing back on “low IQ antisemitism,” Qanon conspiracies, and slopulism.2 Nick is correct to say that the far right is headed for extinction. It will either be neutered by a diluted version of the Democratic Party, or it will simply collapse. Fuentes proposes that the far-right get serious about its priorities, eject the crazy and stupid elements of its coalition, and try to get its act together for the 2028 primaries.
But Fuentes, by his very nature, cannot escape the dynamic he claims to oppose.3
A brief BIOGRAPHY.
I became aware of Fuentes in 2017, during Charlottesville. Immediately afterwards, he claimed he was against the torchlight march for having “bad optics.” For the next four years, he dedicated himself to “purging from the movement” anyone who did not support his flag-waving, Trump-su.pporting, Catholicism-First American nationalism.4 He enforced a code of “good optics,” which meant no “retard rallies,” no praise for Hitler, and no paganism.
After January 6th, when the stigma against Charlottesville was overshadowed by an even more disastrous event, he began to wear his attendance as a badge of authenticity and loyalty to the cause.
“Where were you in 2017? I was at Charlottesville! I was there at January 6th! Who are you to question my leadership?”
As he was embraced by Kanye West, open admiration for Hitler was now suddenly in vogue. Even pagans became acceptable. In 2024, Fuentes claimed that the country was beyond saving, so he promoted the idea of building “parallel communities” in rural Arkansas. He then turned around and claimed that he preferred living in a multi-racial city.5
The shifting and contradictory positions of Fuentes have not been guided by some deep underlying philosophy. These experimental and contradictory ideas are socially contingent upon personal relationships. Fuentes is constantly running a marketing campaign, A-B testing his ideology, to adapt to the Dionysian emotional needs of his audience. Fuentes is a surfer riding the meme waves.
Nick Fuentes is not a philosopher; he is a rhetorician. He is a social networker, a conference organizer, a podcaster, a talking head. His job is to generate controversy and “e-drama” for the entertainment of his audience. His ideas, on any given day, can rapidly shift from conspiracy mongering to rationalist debunking, and back again. Whether he is “collabing” or “beefing” with other influencers is dependent on whether he feels he can generate more excitement by “uniting the goyim” or exchanging personal insults.
The fact that he is so pugnacious and hostile to adjacent influencers in the “dissident right” sphere is not evidence that he is more “principled” than they are, but that he thinks he can get more eyeballs watching him if he causes constant drama.
He says Tucker is CIA one week, and then goes on his podcast the next week.
He denounces the GOP one week, and then says that Rubio’s operation in Venezuela was “based.”
He attacks “multi-racial working-class populism,” but then praises its originator, Steve Bannon.
He denounces Stew Peters, but allies with Jake Shields.
He attacks Candace Owens for conspiracy theories, and then goes on a four hour podcast with Joel Webbon, who believes the world is 6,000 years old and science is a Satanic hoax.
He denounces Sneako for being a non-white Muslim one week, and then says, “the goyim united will never be defeated.”
Fuentes doesn’t have principled positions; he has personal “beefs.” His views are flexible, depending on who is kissing his ass, and who is calling him a fed.
He Misrepresents HIMSELF.
Nick Fuentes thrives in ambiguity. I’m not misrepresenting him; he misrepresents himself. Here are paraphrases of what he has said over the last two years:
“I’m not left or right; I’m just America First.”
“We are progressives, because Jesus Christ is our future.”
“I am not just right-wing — I am a reactionary.”
“The only issue that matters is immigration.”
“Immigration as an issue is over.”
“Zionism is the only issue that truly matters.”
“The hyper-focus on Zionism is third-worldism.”
Nick Fuentes is Dionysus. He is a parasocial screen upon which thousands of lonely dudes project their friendship fantasies. He is an entertainer and a performer, a political pornographer, an OnlyFans star whose tips are superchats. His goal is not consistency, but virality.
When Trump won in 2024, Nick famously said, “your body, my choice,” implying that Trump was going to restrict abortion. Despite that sentiment having no substance, it was funny. It triggered leftists on TikTok, and he got reposted millions of times. It generated drama and controversy. Fuentes is effective at what he does. He is the best of all time, the king of grifters.6
When I defended Epstein from accusations of infant cannibalism, Groypers told me that Fuentes was “better on this issue than the rest of the right-wing.” But if you actually listened to what Fuentes was saying, his argument was that the cannibalism accusations were an Israeli psy-op to discredit the true Epstein conspiracy, which is that Jews control American elites using sexual blackmail. While I agree that this is a more rational conspiracy than the lurid stories of cannibalism, that does not make what he is saying true, or even directionally true. It actually makes Fuentes a more pernicious influence, because he is more appealing to rational people.
I prefer Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Dan Bilzerian, because it’s easier for me to point out how stupid they are and rally more converts to my cause. Fuentes is a more insidious problem, because in presenting a more nuanced position, he is more seductive. He keeps Groypers on the plantation by feeding them breadcrumbs of rationality.
Is Fuentes Gay and JEWISH?
I attack Groypers because they are goyim. They seek novelty and entertainment through e-drama. Listening to his podcast is like watching a telenovela or reality TV show: who will he attack this week? What’s the newest drama?7
Fuentes likes people who can attract a crowd. He selects his friends on the basis of how salacious they are. Rather than condemning Fuentes for any of this, I actually respect him as a performance artist, in the same way that I respect Trump as a comedian and reality TV host. That doesn’t mean, however, that I am going to withhold my criticism of Trump fans or Fuentes fans. But I will clarify and specify my critique as targeted toward his audience, and not toward his personal indiscretions.
When right-wingers attack Fuentes for being gay and Jewish, they expose themselves as jilted ex-fans who scapegoat him for all their personal problems. They blame him for “hurting the movement.” But it’s not Fuentes who is the problem, it’s “the movement” itself — he is just the surfer riding the waves. In the same way, I despise ‘porn addicts’ and people who pay for OnlyFans much more than porn actresses who profit from their miserable ‘addiction.’ On a personal level, I have no special or unique hatred of Fuentes; I simply oppose the right-wing goyim that he represents.
If Fuentes were gay and Jewish, I would admire him for that.8 My critique of Fuentes is the opposite:
He wants to kick out immigrants, reverse globalism, and force all politicians to say “Christ is king.”
He wants to make homosexuality, adultery, and divorce illegal.
He thinks it is natural and normal for girls to get married at 16.
He wants women out of the workplace, and back in the kitchen.
When I attack the right-wing for being sexually hysterical, conspiratorial, and low IQ, I’m not saying “I agree with their policies, but their aesthetics are cringe.” I’m saying their policies are bad, and I’m using their deranged psychology as evidence that these people are hysterical, and you, as an observer, should be suspicious of anything they say. If Fuentes has the same policies as Tucker, Owens, and Bilzerian, but he packages those policies in a high IQ, rational, and measured tone of voice, then that makes him even more dangerous.
If Fuentes were to quit his show and go flip burgers, the right-wing might become marginally more conspiratorial, Jew-hating, or “slopulist” in his absence, but only slightly so. On net, his absence would demoralize his large audience and leave them “politically homeless,” which is good for me.
The RECORD.
If I were a Republican, I would prefer Fuentes because he is marginally less ridiculous and brain-dead when compared with his fellow “dissident right” influencers. He doesn’t feel the need to constantly mention Chabad tunnels under New York, UFOs, interdimensional demonic possession, communication with the dead via dreams, chemtrails, Jewish space lasers, Lemuria, the Georgia Guidestones, Joe Biden’s body doubles, or Brigette Macron’s penis.
But while Fuentes presents a more sane and rational face for the “dissident right,” the epistemic community that he has built and surrounded himself with over the years (“the Groypers”) is rotten to the core.
Fuentes has said a lot of ridiculous things over the years:
The 2020 election was stolen.
The COVID vaccine is dangerous.
BLM will lead to “black supremacy.”
Democrats are “covering up immigrant crime.”
Immigrants are loud and dirty.
Immigrants rape and kill white people.
Once America becomes majority non-white:
Basic sanitation will break down, resulting in “shit on the streets.”
Crime will be out of control.
Once non-whites are in control, they will accelerate “white genocide” with targeted murders, as in South Africa, or land appropriations, as in Rhodesia.
Immigration will make us into a third-world country.
Jews are evil because they are a synagogue of Satan who killed Christ.
Peter Thiel is evil because he is a “transhumanist.”
If Democrats win in 2028, they will “literally kill us.”9
Of these ridiculous things, he sometimes contradicts himself by claiming that the COVID vaccine wasn’t that bad, or multi-racialism can sometimes work. This gives otherwise intelligent people an “out” into supporting him. They can point to all the “reasonable” things he has said in order to downplay and excuse his decade of hysterical, apocalyptic, cataclysmic predictions.
Fuentes can never challenge his audience in a meaningful way because he is wedded to right-wing trad Catholicism. He will never escape the problems of right-wing brain damage that he now (inconsistently) criticizes. He will always be adjacent to Candace Owens, Dan Bilzerian, Charlie Putsch, and James Fishback, because that is who he is. Those are his circles and spheres. They make up about 20% of the Republican Party, and they are not going away.10
Contra Fuentes, I want the Qanon wing of the Republican Party to become even more visible in the 2028 primary, because that will turn off moderates and make Democrats more appealing. The goal of Fuentes, which is to sanitize and “sane-wash” the far right, is exactly opposite to my goal.
Narcissism of SMALL DIFFERENCES.
The “narcissism of small differences” emerges when ideologies serve as tribal markers. When two people vie for power within a single niche, they exaggerate the differences between them, devolving into personal insults.
When Fuentes calls Candace Owens a “retarded nigger,” that impresses and excites his juvenile audience — although he would never extend this insult to Kanye West, who is best friends with Candace. According to Fuentes-fans, this makes Nick a rational actor with scientific views. But if you zoom out, and view things from the left, then Fuentes is merely a moderate example of the same problem.
For Fuentes, the political is personal. He doesn’t have ideological disagreements; he’s engaged in full-spectrum gossip-war. It’s mean-girls disguised as politics.
Fuentes will attack Owens and Tucker for being too conspiratorial, and then turn around and embrace figures like Sneako, Andrew Tate, Myron Gaines, Joel Webbon and Jake Shields. The difference between these figures is not that one is ideologically worse, or one is more conspiratorial, but that Owens and Tucker have accused Fuentes of being a fed, while Sneako, Tate, Gaines, Webbon, and Shields are friendly.
I will admit: I don’t keep an encyclopedic catalog of all the e-drama, or everything Nick Fuentes has ever said, because that would be a complete waste of my time. Perhaps Sneako, Tate, Gaines, Webbon, and Shields are all fighting with Fuentes this week — I do not know, and I do not care. He goes back and forth with these people all the time. What I am focused on is his record of 10 years of lies, conspiracy-mongering, Trumpism, and traditional Catholicism.
I’m not attacking Nick because I am jealous of him, or because I have some bone to pick with him personally, but because I hate the crowd that he appeals to. I hate the flock, not the shepherd. I hate the Groypers, not Fuentes. Nick himself is charismatic and attractive, but his followers are incredibly annoying and pathetic.
Fuentes is emblematic of a larger problem in the right-wing, where they want to have things both ways. They want to be “based” while pretending they can decouple from the ill-effects of their coalition. They want to have their cake and eat it too. But this is not how politics works.
I understand and accept that the left is full of man-hating lesbians, transgender narcissists, tattooed weed smokers, and all manner of degenerates. I am willing to bear the consequences of that. I don’t pretend that I can neatly and carefully separate out “good leftism” from “bad leftism.” Every medicine has side effects. I am honest about that. Fuentes is not.
CONCLUSION.
Fuentes will spend the rest of his life intertwined with Republican politics. I have taken a different path.
My goal in life is not to kick out immigrants, restore the prestige of the Catholic church, or to put women in their place. I have no shared interests with Nick Fuentes. At best, we are enemies, and at worst, our paths diverge so thoroughly that they become incomprehensible to one another.
How can I even argue with someone whose goals are so orthogonal to mine? It’s like fighting with a dog over a dusty old bone. I’m not competing with Fuentes for the title of “the real right-winger.” I do not want to dethrone him as leader, and put someone else in his place. I want the Groyper movement, with or without Fuentes, to be crushed, leaderless, and dead.
I agree with Trotsky, Hitler, and Martin Luther King Jr at least some of the time. If someone gets on stage and speaks for hundreds of hours every year, for 10 years, they’re going to build up an impressive mountain of quotes to mine. You can compare me with Nick Fuentes and find some points of agreement. If you are parasocially attracted to Nick Fuentes, you’re going to be able to do the mental gymnastics necessary to defend him to me. It’s not hard — but it is dishonest and unhelpful.
From an ideological standpoint, he is no good. He is a Catholic who hates women and minorities, while worshipping Kanye West and watching Euphoria.11 He preaches tradition while eating McDonalds. He is a surfer, reflecting the ever-changing needs of his capricious audience. He is the slop-right that he criticizes.12
“Groypers” are not human beings; they are a hive-mind of slaves. When the Groyper dies, the human begins to live.
Next to Fuentes, I would place Joe Rogan or Theo Von, but that comparison is unfair, since Rogan and Von receive massive amounts of mainstream and institutional support. There is nothing “organic” about a podcast which is frequented by Vance, Tucker, and Massie. Fuentes has more organic appeal than any other right-wing influencer.
They claim: Since Fuentes and I agree on these three issues, I should stop holding him accountable for his 10 years of grifting, and throw him a bone.
Because Fuentes has a large audience, it would be to my personal advantage to align with him. The idea of Fuentes allying with a leftist sounds ridiculous, but this is the same Catholic who streams with Sneako the Muslim, Joel Webbon the Protestant, Richard Spencer the Apollonian, and Basil the Afghani homosexual. In the world of Groypers, stranger things have happened.
If I were to kiss up to him and ingratiate myself to him, we could do a livestream and get 100,000 views, which would double my clout and revenue.
While I find Nick’s rants against Candace Owens to be hilarious, this is not my position:
I love traditional marriage, natalism, Catholic integralism, bans on abortion, anti-transhumanism, closed borders, tariffs, and unions. However, the aesthetics of low IQ slopulism gave me the ick and “bluepilled” me. I want to tear down the system by supporting a “real nationalist” in 2028.
To be left-wing is to oppose Catholic integralists and theocrats; immigration restrictionists; and abortion restrictionists. In these fundamental points, Fuentes is no better than the “Qanon” people he criticizes. In fact, he is worse.
Fuentes directed his daily ire against Sonnenrad edits and Twitter paganism. Support for Hitler was absolutely taboo among Groypers. Fuentes was fighting an uphill battle, because the “dissident right” loves Hitler.
In this struggle, he was joined by Andrew Anglin of the Dailystormer, Mike Enoch of TRS, and Patrick Casey of the “American Identity Movement.” He fought now-forgotten figures like Matt Heimbach and Eli Mosley, who he referred to as “wignats.”
Nick built “American First” by viciously attacking “wignats.” If you want to build a political movement, you need to be willing to attack your opposition. You can’t be friends with everyone. Following that model, I say: death to Groypers.
Some Groypers claim that I should appreciate Nick Fuentes for promoting a “minoritarian” strategy of infiltrating institutions. This is like claiming that cops and robbers should be friends because they both use guns.
To the extent that Fuentes says anything of substance, it is a regurgitation of things that other people say. Sometimes he will pick up an idea from Richard Spencer, Charles Johnson, Richard Hanania, or Michael Tracey. He will then soften, moderate, re-package, or pervert these ideas in a way that makes them more palatable for his emotionally incontinent audience.
His 10 year career is filled with figures like Catboy Kami, Elijah Schaffer, Milo Yiannopolous, Kanye West, Ali Alexander, Baked Alaska, and Clavicular. Catboy Kami cross-dressed and sucked black dildos on stream. Kanye West sings about giving his cousin head and combines gospel music with interracial porn. Baked Alaska reached the height of his fame by streaming himself seducing a mentally ill girl he met at a bar, and allowing the superchatters to verbally abuse her. Clavicular’s virality is boosted by livestreams in which he kisses a mother-daughter pair, and has a drug-induced seizure on camera.
If Fuentes were secretly gay or secretly Jewish, that would be positive. The people calling him Jewish are claiming that his single Mexican grandparent is 100% Jewish. This is impossible, given that his father has visible Amerindian ancestry. Neo-Nazis obsess over, at most, 1/8 Jewish ancestry, or maybe even 1% Jewish ancestry.
When Neo-Nazis attack Fuentes for being attracted to men, despite not acting on it, this is a compliment in disguise. If Fuentes is gay, his ability to restrict himself is admirable. Compare that to the vast majority of gay men, for whom gay sex is their primary occupation and identity — they refuse to shut up about it.
Whoever “us” is, he never quite reveals, but the ambiguity of the statement is purposeful, to achieve a rhetorical effect and energize his audience.
Vivek is best known as the politician who opposed the Great Replacement in 2024. His tweet about “study sessions and sleepovers” did not make it on Fox News. Using Vivek vs Putsch as the ultimate test of the Groyperization of Republicans is not fair. Just because Vivek is brown does not disqualify him from presenting as Groyper adjacent.
Seriously, what kind of person enjoys Euphoria?
The faction of the right-wing that I most deeply sympathize with is the “statistical-right” — people like Emil Kirkegaard, Eric Kaufmann, Nathan Cofnas, Sebastian Jensen, and Lyman Stone. If I fully agreed with these people, I would simply join them, and not attempt to differentiate myself. But I appreciate their epistemic methodology. Even if we have different values or disagree on the big picture, there is a value in listening to people who care about empirical data. If there is an escape from “slopulism,” it is through that faction; not from the Groypers.
I didn't realize how similar Fuentes is to Trump
Deepleft: would you agree that Hispanics and/or Hispanic neighborhoods are louder, dirtier, more crime-ridden, more third world that non-Hispanic neighborhoods? If so, given that Hispanics are the largest immigrant group, are those statements about immigration really so ridiculous?
Who are we to disagree with the lived experience and ways of knowing of this Latinx activist?