Nick Fuentes, from troll king to... leader of a true 'America First' movement?
- Thread starter mugacoffee
- Start date
Phill4
The Living Force
My guess was bipolar and some entity instigating him.
If you observe the guy one thing i noticed washow he was able to shift from total psycho to normal in a span of half a day about one same topic, that's why i thought bipolar.
I kinda have the tea on all of that situation, Here is a breakdown somewhat summarized, because i happened to see the whole thing beginning to end
What happened to Candace and Nick in a nutshell is,
Candace she leaves the Daily Wire because of her stances, then she starts inviting all the blaclisted people she wasn't able to interview.
Nick Fuentes was one of the earlier ones she wanted to have on, then because she had a legal situation going on she told him she couldn't and needed to postpone, then he decided she was setting him up and it was a personal attack and she never intended to have him on (obviously now debunked).
Then he started bashing her
Then his followers and him started attacking her every episode, particularily the one about Frankism in Khazaria modern day Ukraine. AKA home of the Ashkenazi non-original jews, AKA where the portal is... anyway
And then he made it a sport to "see the worst in her" every chance he could, episode after episode, IMO to grift off of her and clinging to anything for relevance which HE WOULD HAVE HAD DOUBLED if he had some basic manners. Entitled
And claiming he was first on the jew stuff as far as modern influencers (sore of true) and that pretty much everything she knew about the jews was because she stole it from him and she was getting ideas from his show to make money off of him. (He backtracks that point in the recent interview)
He claims she knew of him for years and she was grifting off of him and she says that's false and all her research was organic.
She says that she first heard of him somewhere around Oct 7 and when everything went down with her and the Daily Wire
Then he says he has "dirt" on her and rally up his followers
Then she responds, telling him she wasn't hiding anything and to go ahead an "expose her" turned out to be a nothing buger.
Things cooled down somewhat
and fastforward and she decides to give him a second chance with the intention of continuing to have him on.
The interview happens, which was intended to clear the air and set up future interviews, and he goes absolute psycho.
Eventhough he was still invited again to the show to give his ideas a platform
He decided to do the most ridiculous dot connecting with memes which she is continuosly responding to on his own X account.
In addition to that, she sets up an interview between Nick and Charlie Kirk, a conservative and zionist influencer. He declines the interview
Charlie Kirk like most such influencers are dishonest and spill half truths, they have some positive impact as far as holding leftist ideologies at bay and deserves credit for that, but he is a zionist apologist and a sellout to his donors,
and that is the crux of the debate Candace was trying to set up which frankly speaking Charlie would have 100% lost.
So Candace has been acting in good faith IMO all things considered and his reactions are not JUST edgy, i thought he was possesed or bipolar.
that's more or less it,
Everyone was looking forward to that type of partnership, to sort of integrate groypers into a more sensical mode of thinking and truly expand the conversation and even potentialy force youtube to unban him, and instead he went absolutely insane.
His take on the shooter was mental illness (and anything else is conspiracy)
Candace's take was MKUltra
The matrix is much more focused on Candace.
If you observe the guy one thing i noticed washow he was able to shift from total psycho to normal in a span of half a day about one same topic, that's why i thought bipolar.
I kinda have the tea on all of that situation, Here is a breakdown somewhat summarized, because i happened to see the whole thing beginning to end
What happened to Candace and Nick in a nutshell is,
Candace she leaves the Daily Wire because of her stances, then she starts inviting all the blaclisted people she wasn't able to interview.
Nick Fuentes was one of the earlier ones she wanted to have on, then because she had a legal situation going on she told him she couldn't and needed to postpone, then he decided she was setting him up and it was a personal attack and she never intended to have him on (obviously now debunked).
Then he started bashing her
Then his followers and him started attacking her every episode, particularily the one about Frankism in Khazaria modern day Ukraine. AKA home of the Ashkenazi non-original jews, AKA where the portal is... anyway
And then he made it a sport to "see the worst in her" every chance he could, episode after episode, IMO to grift off of her and clinging to anything for relevance which HE WOULD HAVE HAD DOUBLED if he had some basic manners. Entitled
And claiming he was first on the jew stuff as far as modern influencers (sore of true) and that pretty much everything she knew about the jews was because she stole it from him and she was getting ideas from his show to make money off of him. (He backtracks that point in the recent interview)
He claims she knew of him for years and she was grifting off of him and she says that's false and all her research was organic.
She says that she first heard of him somewhere around Oct 7 and when everything went down with her and the Daily Wire
Then he says he has "dirt" on her and rally up his followers
Then she responds, telling him she wasn't hiding anything and to go ahead an "expose her" turned out to be a nothing buger.
Things cooled down somewhat
and fastforward and she decides to give him a second chance with the intention of continuing to have him on.
The interview happens, which was intended to clear the air and set up future interviews, and he goes absolute psycho.
Eventhough he was still invited again to the show to give his ideas a platform
He decided to do the most ridiculous dot connecting with memes which she is continuosly responding to on his own X account.
In addition to that, she sets up an interview between Nick and Charlie Kirk, a conservative and zionist influencer. He declines the interview
Charlie Kirk like most such influencers are dishonest and spill half truths, they have some positive impact as far as holding leftist ideologies at bay and deserves credit for that, but he is a zionist apologist and a sellout to his donors,
and that is the crux of the debate Candace was trying to set up which frankly speaking Charlie would have 100% lost.
So Candace has been acting in good faith IMO all things considered and his reactions are not JUST edgy, i thought he was possesed or bipolar.
that's more or less it,
Everyone was looking forward to that type of partnership, to sort of integrate groypers into a more sensical mode of thinking and truly expand the conversation and even potentialy force youtube to unban him, and instead he went absolutely insane.
His take on the shooter was mental illness (and anything else is conspiracy)
Candace's take was MKUltra
The matrix is much more focused on Candace.
I have been aware of Fuentes for a few years, following his involved with Kanye West. However, I only really started paying attention to his content over the last 12 months or so. In that timeframe, my impression yo-yo'd back and forth between "This guy is a pathological spellbinder" and "This guy is a semi-genius".
His verbal IQ is seemingly off-the-charts, and he is clearly a gifted orator. I personally find him captivating, in a strange way. I have explained to many people in the past: "I love to hate him, and I also hate to love him"
In recent months, I spent a great deal of time listening to his actual content. By this, I am not simply referring to the 2-minute soundbite clips on social media. Rather, the multi-hour, in-depth analyses he provides on his Rumble channel.
Following the drama between him and Candace/Tucker (both of whom I am very fond of), I made a sincere effort to listen to Nick's side of the story. He presented his case in three videos, totalling approx. 5-6 hours. After digesting both sides, I found myself agreeing with Nick's position. We discussed it at the Farm a few times, and my overall conclusion at that time was similar to what the C's recently said. He's good intentioned, but slightly paranoid and lashing out against those who he percieves he is being wrongfully attacked by.
Nick is young, and I suspect his rapid rise to fame within the political sphere at relatively young age (18 years) may have stunted his emotional growth / social awareness. He strikes me as a highly precocious, extremely intelligent and perhaps slightly autistic individual, who is surrounded by "yes-men", who rarely challenge his thinking. On the flipside, he has truly been burned by the system for exposing Jewish influence, and he has become jaded because of that. Many of these factor converge to increase his (perhaps consitutionally) paranoid tendencies, leading him to make connections and ascribe conscious intention/manipulation in places where it doesn't actually exist (Tucker/Candace).
That said, he presents a compelling case against Tucker's positions, particularly his persistent anti-China rhetoric, which I was interested to learn trace back to Jewish leftists who later founded the Neoconservative movement (which was fundamentally designed to steer American conservatism toward serving Israel's interests). Nick acknowledges uncertainty about Tucker's alleged CIA ties but felt compelled to address the claims/accusation against him. In his two-part series, he meticulously deconstructs Tucker's geopolitical view, tracing the intellectual origins and demonstrating that, unbeknownst to Tucker, many of his positions were shaped by and continue to align with Israel's interests. Like I said, I am personally very fond of Tucker, although I simply cannot argue with Nick’s analysis. He makes evidence-based, rational arguments.
Granted, his language/demeanor are abrasive and he "lashes out" at people he feels wronged by. Furthermore, he knows his audience (young, disaffected men), and perhaps leverages those more primitive elements of his personality to appeal to his audience. Yet, I find his analyses fairly consistent with the forum (atleast on the geopolitical & social front) - more so than anyone else on the "political right" that I know of. In fact, he is far beyond Tucker and Candace in that regard, from what I can see. One of his more controversial positions is related to race, which can obviously be interpreted as offensive by many-- although as time goes by, I find myself agreeing with most of it more and more.
However, there appears to be a dark underbelly to this story, which doesn’t bode well for Nick. The “Groyper Movement” appears to contain (or has attracted) a disproportionately high number pedophiles. It’s difficult to say how much of this is simply “edgy” Gen-Z humor, which I don’t claim to understand, but which appears to rely heavily on shock-value. I read the entire piece by Chris Brunet, which I found thoroughly disturbing. But it must be said that the vast majority of this content was merely evidence of pedophillia within the Groyper movement itself, and not specifically Nick. I am open to different possibilities. Indeed, Nick may be a pedophile who attracts others of “similar kind”.
On the flipside, considering how much of future threat Nick could potentially be to the establishment (which the C’s essentially confirmed), I wonder how much of the “dirt” in the groyper movement is actually just infiltration by intelligence agencies. Due to recent leaks, we now know that 4Chan was heavily infiltrated by Mossad/FBI agents, who flooded it with extreme content to derail the platform. They have been aware of Nick since at least 2016, and we know their tactics. Hence, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was at least some kind of smear-operation to discredit his movement. Therefore, I remain relatively open on this topic, for now at least.
In order to form an opinion, I would suggest people listen to his actual content. Not soundbites containing the most inflammatory comments, designed purely to amass followers or views. I came to see that his “deep-dives” on 20th century history are quite remarkable. No one is perfect, and everyone has their own personality defects and biases. I appreciate that he will not appeal to many people, and also acknowledge that perhaps one of the main reasons I am partial to Nick is because I fall into the exact demographic he targets.
In conclusion: Whether you like him or not – I believe he is an unstoppable force at this point. He appeals to disaffected young men in a way that others do not, or are incapable of. He articulates the “jewish problem” accurately and has done for many years, while most others are afraid to go there. Those others who are beginning to do it now, are merely scratching the surface. For this, Nick has gained the respect of the new generation despite being cancelled on essentially every major platform.
Whatever you feel about him, I sincerely believe he is someone everyone should be paying attention to, because for better or for worse, I predict he is the most likely candidate to be leading the political right in the coming years.
His verbal IQ is seemingly off-the-charts, and he is clearly a gifted orator. I personally find him captivating, in a strange way. I have explained to many people in the past: "I love to hate him, and I also hate to love him"
In recent months, I spent a great deal of time listening to his actual content. By this, I am not simply referring to the 2-minute soundbite clips on social media. Rather, the multi-hour, in-depth analyses he provides on his Rumble channel.
Following the drama between him and Candace/Tucker (both of whom I am very fond of), I made a sincere effort to listen to Nick's side of the story. He presented his case in three videos, totalling approx. 5-6 hours. After digesting both sides, I found myself agreeing with Nick's position. We discussed it at the Farm a few times, and my overall conclusion at that time was similar to what the C's recently said. He's good intentioned, but slightly paranoid and lashing out against those who he percieves he is being wrongfully attacked by.
Nick is young, and I suspect his rapid rise to fame within the political sphere at relatively young age (18 years) may have stunted his emotional growth / social awareness. He strikes me as a highly precocious, extremely intelligent and perhaps slightly autistic individual, who is surrounded by "yes-men", who rarely challenge his thinking. On the flipside, he has truly been burned by the system for exposing Jewish influence, and he has become jaded because of that. Many of these factor converge to increase his (perhaps consitutionally) paranoid tendencies, leading him to make connections and ascribe conscious intention/manipulation in places where it doesn't actually exist (Tucker/Candace).
That said, he presents a compelling case against Tucker's positions, particularly his persistent anti-China rhetoric, which I was interested to learn trace back to Jewish leftists who later founded the Neoconservative movement (which was fundamentally designed to steer American conservatism toward serving Israel's interests). Nick acknowledges uncertainty about Tucker's alleged CIA ties but felt compelled to address the claims/accusation against him. In his two-part series, he meticulously deconstructs Tucker's geopolitical view, tracing the intellectual origins and demonstrating that, unbeknownst to Tucker, many of his positions were shaped by and continue to align with Israel's interests. Like I said, I am personally very fond of Tucker, although I simply cannot argue with Nick’s analysis. He makes evidence-based, rational arguments.
Granted, his language/demeanor are abrasive and he "lashes out" at people he feels wronged by. Furthermore, he knows his audience (young, disaffected men), and perhaps leverages those more primitive elements of his personality to appeal to his audience. Yet, I find his analyses fairly consistent with the forum (atleast on the geopolitical & social front) - more so than anyone else on the "political right" that I know of. In fact, he is far beyond Tucker and Candace in that regard, from what I can see. One of his more controversial positions is related to race, which can obviously be interpreted as offensive by many-- although as time goes by, I find myself agreeing with most of it more and more.
However, there appears to be a dark underbelly to this story, which doesn’t bode well for Nick. The “Groyper Movement” appears to contain (or has attracted) a disproportionately high number pedophiles. It’s difficult to say how much of this is simply “edgy” Gen-Z humor, which I don’t claim to understand, but which appears to rely heavily on shock-value. I read the entire piece by Chris Brunet, which I found thoroughly disturbing. But it must be said that the vast majority of this content was merely evidence of pedophillia within the Groyper movement itself, and not specifically Nick. I am open to different possibilities. Indeed, Nick may be a pedophile who attracts others of “similar kind”.
On the flipside, considering how much of future threat Nick could potentially be to the establishment (which the C’s essentially confirmed), I wonder how much of the “dirt” in the groyper movement is actually just infiltration by intelligence agencies. Due to recent leaks, we now know that 4Chan was heavily infiltrated by Mossad/FBI agents, who flooded it with extreme content to derail the platform. They have been aware of Nick since at least 2016, and we know their tactics. Hence, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was at least some kind of smear-operation to discredit his movement. Therefore, I remain relatively open on this topic, for now at least.
In order to form an opinion, I would suggest people listen to his actual content. Not soundbites containing the most inflammatory comments, designed purely to amass followers or views. I came to see that his “deep-dives” on 20th century history are quite remarkable. No one is perfect, and everyone has their own personality defects and biases. I appreciate that he will not appeal to many people, and also acknowledge that perhaps one of the main reasons I am partial to Nick is because I fall into the exact demographic he targets.
In conclusion: Whether you like him or not – I believe he is an unstoppable force at this point. He appeals to disaffected young men in a way that others do not, or are incapable of. He articulates the “jewish problem” accurately and has done for many years, while most others are afraid to go there. Those others who are beginning to do it now, are merely scratching the surface. For this, Nick has gained the respect of the new generation despite being cancelled on essentially every major platform.
Whatever you feel about him, I sincerely believe he is someone everyone should be paying attention to, because for better or for worse, I predict he is the most likely candidate to be leading the political right in the coming years.
Charming as Tate:
Nick Fuentes says that once he turns 30, he'll probably find himself a 16-year-old child bride: "Right when the milk is good, I want to start drinking the milk."
Also, "women are more like beasts then like men", "they all should wear burkas", "all women are pedophilles", "we should go back to burning women at stake" and have "forced child marriage"
Might not be direct evidence in his direct involvement with pedophillia, but I personally won't promote or endorse anyone who think it is “based” that “children are hotter than adults” plus all he said in the tweets above.
Nick Fuentes says that once he turns 30, he'll probably find himself a 16-year-old child bride: "Right when the milk is good, I want to start drinking the milk."
Also, "women are more like beasts then like men", "they all should wear burkas", "all women are pedophilles", "we should go back to burning women at stake" and have "forced child marriage"
Might not be direct evidence in his direct involvement with pedophillia, but I personally won't promote or endorse anyone who think it is “based” that “children are hotter than adults” plus all he said in the tweets above.
If he did not encourage the pedophilic nature of the Groyper movement, not to mention his and his followers' crass and incel-like takes on women, imagine the following and audience he'd be able to garner. Talk about creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (censorship on X) through an inability to focus on what matters and trying to shitpost and rile up his young male followers. It's pretty insincere to claim you are censored because of "the joooos" while at the same time doing all the above, even if he's right about why.
Also, I will never forget this. He has never been pro-Trump.
I agree with most of what you said above. His emotional reactivity/immaturity alienates others, ironically hindering his reach and growth. That said, I also try to sympathize with these guys.
A generation of young white men who have been practically obliterated on all fronts. From birth, their generation were told they were inherently evil or flawerd because of the color of their skin, their gender, their "privilege".
DEI policies hinder their career progression, the economy makes it extremely difficult to secure home ownership, the modern dating scene feels hostile and absurd due to widespread feminist ideology. If they can't work a good job, can't secure housing, can't build a family --- realistically, what do these guys have left to live for? From where comes their sense of purpose and meaning?
His language and his approach may be crude, but it speaks to their reality. No one else does this to extent that Nick does. So whether we like it or not, his influence will continue to grow. Even though I disagree with much of it, it doesn't change the fact that there is a large portion of the younger generation who are responsive to this type of rhetoric for the reasons I listed above. And these are military-aged young men -- rapidly approaching the point where they are ripe for revolution.
Just to correct this, he was a staunch Trump advocate in both 2016 and 2020 elections. It was only in 2024, after reviewing the personnel appointed to the administration, that he "turned against" Trump. He still supports Donald Trump, just not the Trump administration - due to their Israel-First policies.
Furthermore, he is notorious for his "shit posting". Does he really believe things would be better under a Kamala administration? I highly doubt that. He is more likely being abrasive and inflammatory to prove a point: That Israel has the current Trump administration "by the balls" --- and I don't disagree with that sentiment.
That's fair. I scrolled through his X account and there was a lot of really dumb things he's said about Trump so I made the incorrect assumption that his anti-Trump sentiments weren't new. I mean saying Trump is "Matrix-approved" could very well be shitposting. But then how can one take anything he says at face value if it is him just agitating people? Where is the truth to be found amongst all the trolling? Again, he just hurts himself and then without him having the ability to understand that that is why people don't take him seriously, he seems even more lacking in self-awareness. Well, we shouldn't be surprised about that with how common an affliction it is in people.
Agree with your other points too. It's good to remain open and generous to others until they prove that they are pathological.
This frames it as though his persona is a understandable reaction to the treatment from society at the hands of unjust powers. The problem is that he was a shock jock from the beginning, which suggests that the persona is from before he got famous.
For example, there's this video where Nick called in to The Gavin McInnes Show on April 5th, 2016 while he was still in high school to say that he admired Kanye's unapologetic narcissism. There's this article from 2017 about his involvement in Charlottesville that has similar statements from him and includes a tweet from Nick from October 2016 where he says, "If you are a “Man for Hillary,” cut off your balls immediately, you’ve lost your right to them." There's also this article from April 2017 when the broadcaster Nick was working for had to issue an apology for the things he said which included, among other things, "Who runs the media? Globalists. Time to kill the globalists. I don't want to not watch CNN. I don't want CNN to go out of business. I don't want CNN to be more honest. I want people that run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged because this is deliberate." This is yet another article from 2017 with a quote from Fuentes about his reason for being in Charlotesville, "Fuentes believes this protest was a step towards the Republican Party becoming the party of “white identity,” saying “the next 20-50 years will be consumed with tribal identity politics, and white Americans will have to decide which side they are on.”"
There's no mention of Jews in those early statements or clips from him but the beginnings of Nick's issues with censorship were starting to take shape. Not because he was right but because he was unwilling to filter himself.
I'm wondering if there was something that happened when he was younger that involved him lying when he knew it wasn't true, possibly at his parent's request for the sake of appearances or getting along, that upset him so much that he vowed to never not tell the truth again. That or perhaps it's involved with how he manages his paranoid schizophrenia.
It's entertaining to see him say things no one else in the media sphere will dare to even think. Not only that but he says a lot of things that are both accurate and astute.
That said, I think Ryan Dawson, who's been criticizing Jewish/Israeli influence in America since Bush Jr. was in office, is closer to us geopolitically and socially than Nick even though there's a lot of overlap between the two. Like Nick, though, he gets in his own way to the detriment of his ability to share his message so even though he's less of a troll he's still not mainstream like Candace or Tucker.
It's unfortunate but it seems some of the character or personality traits that allow some people to see the unseen and be willing to buck convention also have downsides that often lead to unnecessary interpersonal conflict and drama that derails their message and/or their reach.
He touches on a lot of things that are important but most people have a hard time separating the message from the messenger. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he should take things seriously. Saying whatever comes to his mind without filtering it is only going to continue getting in the way of his success.
It's actually ironic. The thing that's made him so popular is the very thing holding him back from making a real impact.
I don't see him ever making it mainstream much less leading the political right in America. I think he's got staying power and will be around a while, but I don't think he's got what it takes in terms of being able to make compromises, managing and maintaining delicate relationships, and so forth to actually be a leader.
Nick could be more than an internet troll but he doesn't seem to be trying to be anything else.
If there ever is a Groyper army that attempts a coup, I don't think it'll involve Nick.
Last edited:
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
