I had never actually seen Nick Fuentes nor heard his voice until Ben Shapiro played a full show of clips yesterday. I had heard his name for years but couldn't have picked him out of a lineup. Am I the only one who, after watching his facial expressions and listening to his cadence and his language patterns finds him to be clearly autistic? Autism or not, the idea of taking your political advice from a 26 year old virgin is pretty comical. And in all of this hullabaloo has anyone ever questioned why this leader of a "white supremacist" movement has a Hispanic surname?
Same. I want to find out who funds him and his Daily Wire. Fuentes tells Tucka in the interview that he was brought into the Daily Wire until he asked questions about Jews. He gone after that.
Did you listen to Ben Shapiros podcast because he included tons of footage of Nick Fuentes saying that he wanted to kill the Jews. It’s a direct quote and he’s more than a little heinous. Nick Fuentes betrays everything conservatives stand for
I cover this in my reply to Diane(The Critical Reader) above. I think establishment conservatives like Shapiro have betrayed people like Fuentes and my son(similar age) for decades and Fuentes is questioning them about it.
Not really, but my 28 yr old son and his friends(all conservative) swear by him which floored me. I asked why they listened to him and mainly they like his ripping style of people that deserve it. I cautioned against his messaging, etc. and my son responded with "We don't take him super seriously, but he makes a point about all of the oligarchs that are ruining everything in this country(debt, housing, etc.) all have Jewish backgrounds... I started looking them up and was astonished(Zuckerberg, Ellison..).
I certainly don't hate Jews or anyone really but it was interesting to learn.
imho - Jennifer Welch is far more dangerous than Fuentes:
If your son is listening to a guy who makes light of rape, you have a serious problem that needs addressing. There are things that aren’t ever fodder for amusement. He’s not a person who leads men to virtue, unlike Charlie.
People are so simple minded. Jews in the diaspora had to go the extra mile to prove they were useful to society so, you know, they might not get killed. They emphasize education and work. That’s why many have ended up successful. Education and work are things anyone can achieve. There are other ethnic groups that have a similar emphasis on education: guess what, they succeed, too. Fuentes is pointing to the result without noting the cause, and telling gullible, ignorant young men to be resentful.
He’s toxic and shouldn’t be entertained as a serious person.
I would agree, if this were 1996, or maybe even 2006 .. however the word "rape" has been so watered down and broadened, that it is no longer a political ending scandal to first inquire whether we are discussing "real rape" before passing judgement. (Eg by today's standards I am assumed to be a product of rape due to the simple fact of me being born when my mother was barely 16 .. until further inquiry reveals I born a full year after she married my Dad and they were both High School seniors due to her having previously skipped two full grades .. oh, and they remained happily married from 1961 until my Dad passed away this April .. actually by today's standards that might still be considered rape).
I think he’s a closeted homosexual. It’s sad that he can’t just accept himself without being a total scumbag to women. Similar vibe with Andrew Tate. Just be gay. It’s 2025. No one cares (except his followers who are fond of dropping the f-slur).
Yeah, but there is always a point with him and it is always with shock.
"Fuentes acknowledges Stalin's brutality, including the suppression of religion, the deaths of millions during agricultural collectivization, and the purges that filled the gulags. However, he also views Stalin as a "great man of history" who successfully transformed the Soviet Union from a backward, agrarian society into a modern, industrialized world power and nuclear superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany. Fuentes credits Stalin's five-year plans with rapidly industrializing Russia, dragging it "out of the 19th century or really the 18th century into the 20th century," which he sees as a testament to the effectiveness of Stalin's ruthless methods, even if they constituted a genocide."
Bush/Cheney and our own establishment put us through 20 year wars to nowhere leading to 9,000 Americans killed, 50,000 injured(or more), $9T in debt and our society in shambles.
I don't think Fuentes would entertain Stalin, but he is using shock to force people to look at things.
Never heard of her until this moment. The reason I think Fuentes could be dangerous is because he appeals to the same dweeb guys who need to have something they can latch onto so they can feel powerful. I also think he goes well beyond calling out rich Jewish people. He hates all kinds of Christians and women, etc.
Look... I am a former Army sergeant and volunteer firefighter so I am very used to language and delivery of it that might make others sick, especially wonderful women like you. Andrew Dice Clay was they same sort of shock jock. Howard Stern in the 90s. Trump had the same effect on people in 2015. People take him literally and not seriously.
I(and my son) find Fuentes funny because he is describing truth's in a shocking way and I really do not appreciate people like Shapiro posting little pieces of him without the full context; Shapiro is doing this because he has never spent a day in real life and has no concept of what Fuentes is talking about: Fuentes is talking about "the occult" of people with Jewish background that should pay a price - not Jews in absolution. He is calling them out which is taboo in our current environment.
I would highly recommend you listen or watch the entire Tucker/Fuentes interview. It really helped me understand perspective better.
Also, as a Jewish person and MAGA and Trump supporter X 3, And as a Charlie Kirk supporter, I am personally against racism and anti-semitism and hating people just because of their skin color/religion/ethnicity, etc. We should judge people on the content of their character.
As far as I can tell, Fuentes doesn't hate on people as you describe - he is purposely displayed that way by Shapiro to turn people off. If you listen to the shit Shapiro puts out on him you can still surmise Fuentes is not a hater, he is just a shock jock.
Jews would not be human if they did not favor their fellow Jews. And they also (if "pure-bred" Ashkenazi) have at least one gene for superior intelligence. But that is a far cry from proving some sinister conspiracy.
I know we are not supposed to get into "genetic superiority". But it does occur. East African Blacks are superior at quick reactions. NE Black Africans are superior at long-distance running. (So are members of some tribe up in the mountains of Mexico.) In SE Asia, there is some small bunch that is superior at vision under water, because ... wait for it ... they make their living by finding things under water. East Asians seem to be better at calculation. Such is life on Planet Earth.
Nick Fuentes has never dated a woman. He is an incel. He is against male-female relationships and he is anti-marriage. Tucker pushed back, saying marriage is good and biblical and advised in Christianity but Nick said women today are all evil. I hope your son and his friends don't take this anti-woman advice.
My son and his friends are smart enough to understand that the 19th Amendment is a problem as my single mother in the 70s acknowledged. Fuentes just says it in a different form.
I am all for women voting, but you have to acknowledge that they vote with their hearts and not minds(unlike my mother).
This is an honest question: what, if anything, would qualify as anti-semitism?
I hear a lot of people saying what is not anti-Semitic. That begs for a definition of what is anti-Semitic. Or is there no such thing as anti-semitism?
I've heard people who were clearly anti-Semitic explain they weren't anti-Semitic because.... they don't hate Arabs. And Arabs are semites.
Of course, if we defined racism the same way, David Duke could protest he's not racist because he's fine with whites. Maybe he's even fine with Asians. And only has a problem with Blacks. Ergo, "Not racist."
This "Anti-Semites must hate both Jews and Arabs to qualify" would mean even Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite. He got along well with Arabs and thought Islam stronger than Christianity.
I watched it out of curiosity & came away disappointed in Tucker. Tucker gave a softball interview, not going near the hateful & disgusting reams of comments Fuentes has said forever. Tucker allowed Fuentes to come off as much more normal & smart than he really is. No doubt the guy is smart & knows how to talk, but he’s an immature, self righteous asshat. . He is NOT MAGA. He not only did not vote for Trump, he actively campaigned against him. Tucker didn’t ask why, but I assume it’s because of Trump’s support of Israel. Unfortunately Fuentes has managed to convince some that Jews are at the root of the entire world’s problems. He admires Hitler ( his words “ Hitler was awesome). Why are people like him Holocaust deniers ( or cover that with “it wasn’t 6 million” ). Do any of these grifters question how many died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Nope. Wish Tucker would have asked why he admires Stalin.
Watch his show for a week and get back to us. You don't know what you're talking about. Smart people know what sarcasm and hyperbole are. His whole platform is America First, Christ is King and free speech.
Question - so when he said “raise your right hand & repeat after me - I will kill rape & die for Nicholas Fuentes” it was just sarcasm & hyperbole? Just one example.
Strawman question- no country is above honest criticism. Way too much focus is on the Middle East. It’s a subject being used to divide us. We have enough of our own problems in this country. Focus should be on the economy, immigration & corruption.
Candace Owens lost it when she was fired from the Daily Wire. All she cares about is clicks and spreading conspiracies. The things she has said after Charlie Kirk's murder are heinous. She hadn't talked to him in over a year. When she provides legit facts, I'll listen. Until then I don't trust her.
Tucker lost it after he was fired from FOX. He also became conspiratorial the minute he was out from the reigning in of corporate lawyers. He's ridiculous.
She pushed the "Brigitte Macron was born a man" nuttery with such zeal that the Macrons, having had enough, sued her.
She will lose the lawsuit, beyond question. I have read some of Owens' supporters saying idiotic things like, "Just wait until the gynecological exam!" Owens herself has gone rather quiet on the Macron threat recently, because though she is delusional, she isn't completely delusional: she knows the gynecological exam won't happen. A simple swab of Brigitte Macron's mouth will tell what we all learned in tenth grade, that because chromosomes appear in either XX or XY form, Brigitte Macron is female.
Owens is a wolf, though, and I expect her to use the loss to amp up the Jew bashing.
"Well, we all know who the medical Establishment is, don't we? We all know who owns the labs, don't we?"
NYT glorifies the Zohrantifada and his buddy Hasan Piker too. The former is about to become the mayor of NYC. That is a far greater threat than squabbles between podcasters. RIP Charlie. Vote today in his honor and avoid falling for false equivalences: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/both-sides-false-equivalencies
Sasha, with all due respect, you really don’t know what you’re talking about as far as criticizing Candace Owens and others for questioning the Charlie Kirk murder.
‘Candace Owens with the latest delusional ramble on his murder, or others who are attacking Turning Point for various reasons…’
There is no doubt that something nefarious happened politically as well as behind the scenes with Turning Point and it’s role in the murder. There are way too many inconsistencies. It appears from your comment that you may not be well versed on what has transpired. I am not for one side or the other, I am just fascinated with the lies and the evil that I’m rooting for the truth to come out on this.
As for Nick Fuentes. I listened to the interview with Tucker. I did not hear anything antisemitic. I heard a lot that would qualify as sexist perhaps, but he’s a young kid, seemingly never been in a committed relationship (based on what he told Tucker). But what I can’t understand is this big brouhaha about “what Nick Fuentes says”!! He’s a young kid talking, he is charismatic and can string together a bunch of sentences and thoughts. He is talking about issues. So what? Why is everyone so up in arms over him? I don’t get it. Tucker gave him a platform to speak, and he did. I don’t recall Tucker condoning anything he said, at least nothing of real meaning. Maybe people need more hobbies.
The reason it matters what Fuentes says is the left is underhandedly engineering him to be THE voice of the right and a proxy for what Charlie Kirk thinks, now that Charlie is no longer here to speak for himself. That's the main thrust of Sasha's piece here, and it matters a lot. I think it's a far greater danger to MAGA than anything the left has been or will be able to come up with.
And as far as the Tucker interview with Fuentes, his ability to keep his nose clean for a single interview that he knows is being set up as his coming out party means nothing. Nothing, as in Zero. There are plenty of other examples of what he thinks, so on what planet does one interview with Tucker become the canonical take on Nick Fuentes?
For Tucker’s critical thinking audience Tucker gave Fuentes just enough rope to hang himself while carefully avoiding giving Fuentes’ audience any cause to cast Fuentes into the victim/martyr role. I thought it was pretty masterfully handled, actually. And I do think that Fuentes may well be intelligence backed.
I also listened to the Fuentes interview with Tucker and wasn't bothered to any degree by any of it except for the Stalin comment. It was obvious that threw Tucker off his game, but he should have quickly recovered and followed up with "Why do you admire him?" If there was something nefarious to expose about Fuentes, it would have happened there and then.
What facts / factors do you have that belie what the FBI has said about Kirk's assassination? Where are you getting those pieces of information? If you tell me Candace Owens, I'll tell you that that hasn't worked out so well for her theory that Macron is a she man.
Well she is being sued by the Macron’s so I guess we will find out how wrong her facts are and if she’s insane. Feel free to list all the facts she gets wrong as I am open-minded to information. Personally, I like to listen to all types of podcasters- I don’t agree with many of them but it keeps me from being caught up in an echo chamber.
Well, let me know when “Brigitte” actually comes to the U.S. and provides blood in a court-controlled setting with witnesses present from both legal teams.
You’re right the guy can talk, but all you have to do is watch what he says on his own ( & others) podcasts to understand that the Tucker show was a performance. Tucker gave him 2 hours of softball questions that left viewers with the same takeaway as yours. And he is not maga. He actively campaigned against Trump. Fuentes can say whatever he wants obviously but for someone like Tucker ( who I don’t believe is an antisemite) to amplify this guy is only adding fuel to the attempt to divide conservatives. Once Trump is termed out, some republicans want nothing more than to end the maga movement & redirect the party away from it.
Mandummy's upcoming elevation to mayor of the biggest cesspool on Earth is a threat to no one but the peons that reside there (you can't call that "living"). He will show the rest of the semi-autists what a dumpster fire his policies are, and the Democrats will be crushed in the midterms. I hope he wins.
I watched the entire interview. You're correct, Sasha. Fuentes comes across as a nerdy racist, not a cool iconoclast. His interview with Carlson was peppered with "White", "Jews", "Jewishness" "Stalin" etc. that went completely unchallenged by Tucker. It was weird. And through it all, there was a self-pitying, victim mentality that Fuentes expresses for all the harsh rejection he has faced in the past for his views. The interview comes across like a "white washing" opportunity that Tucker gave to Fuentes in front of millions of viewers that was just too hard to pass up. Overall, it was not a good look for Fuentes and Carlson who seem to have joined with Owens on the fringes of the Republican party. It was also a vindication of people like Cruz, Vance, Shapiro and the rest who have condemned Fuentes and criticized Tucker. I'll stand with them.
Its fantasy to pretend a white American Nicks age will ignore race and gender. Its been used as a cudgel against guys like him for their entire lives. The frustration will manifest in ugly ways but that does not mean its unwarranted.
Right now, you might feel like you're shovelling sand against the tide on this one. And you might be right. I say that b/c I have family members who think Tucker, Candy-O and co. are on the right track.
It surprised me too.
HOWEVER...
I've also seen my family members change opinions after getting new facts, and I believe that's the hallmark of MAGA. (Look in the mirror for another example.)
The keystone (for me at least) is that MAGA and our cohort on the right are fact and reality based. We seek the 'TRUTH' as best we can as opposed to 'our truth' or 'our lived experience'.
This grounding in reality is our greatest strength, and also the greatest weakness of Tucker et al.
Don't get me wrong: Carlson, above all others on that side is one hell of a manipulator. He's really good at innuendo and implication. Welp, so is Rachel Maddow.
Free Thinking Through The Fourth Turning may not have the reach of a Michelle Goldberg.
Yet.
I think that it might be a good idea on your part to work on exposing Tucker's and Owens' lies and slimy imprecations on a regular basis. In other words, destroy their credibility in the same fashion that Abigail Shrier destroyed the cred of the Trans movement, or how Axios diminished the cred of MSM over the course of the Biden admin.
This sort of internal dispute within a movement is a regular occurrence after a big victory. What I mean is that after the victory of the American Revolution, after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and after the French Revolution, there was major internal strife on the side of the victors.
And the outcomes of these determined the direction afterwards. Sometimes for the better, like the Whisky Rebellion in the USA, and other times for the worse as in the Reign of Terror in France.
The MOST important strategy is to keep at it. Consistency over time, regular critiques targeted at diminishing their credibility is the way to go.
You have a decent sized platform right now, and this might be why (in a mystical/transcendent way) you gotten where you are.
And you're way, wayyy better a writer than Michelle Goldberg. You're more insightful and better spoken, and she's got at least two professional editors who go over her stuff b4 publication Sasha.
Jim, if you want to see Tucker cancelled for comparing the silencing of Kirk to the silencing of Jesus, go wander over to The Free Press. You can call him an antisemite there and get a bunch of cheerleading in the comment section.
He's absolutely free to do whatever he wants. I was afan of TC; in fact, I was an OG subscriber to him when Fox fired him; I signed up the day he announced.
A lot of his work was great, especially in the early days. His docs on Trump's campaign was stellar is just one example of many that come to mind.
I had NO problemo when he interviewed Putin, although I found the guy boring. His takes on the trans activist movement, Biden, etc etc are solid in my book.
However...
This past year I went from baffled to revulsed.
"Demons in my bed..." I watched the whole episode and came away puzzled. WTF is this guy trying to say here? OK, I've met a few religious zealots in my day, and..well.. okay...
That so called 'historian' he put on was downright offensive as well as being intellectually lazy. Victor Hansen's takedown is what I refer you to in that case.
And now for the last few months the episodes are more congruent with Alex Jones and Candy-O. This trinity is the way out there fringe of the right. They are making BANK doing it too. Fine. But they're as poisonous to our cause as Ilhan Omar and her Islamist ilk are to the Democratic party.
Your reply to me is as meaningless as someone screaming 'Islamaphobe!'. You present zero facts to back up your position as I just did. If slagging me gets your rocks off, it says a lot more about you than I.
I’m no fan of cancel culture no matter its shades. That was where I was coming from, because you reeked of it. I’ve noticed anytime a podcaster gains a following and then touches on a taboo subject (Israel in this case) the knives for that person come out. I listen to Tucker now and again when he interviews someone of interest. I wish Israel would stop accepting US aid and stand on its own two feet. They could also announce they are a nuclear tipped country.
Jim, you might ask yourself why Tucker wasn’t personally vilified for his efforts to expose US funding and support for the war in Ukraine. But the moment Tucker shifts that ‘America First’ lens onto Israel, he is labeled an antisemite. To me, it is totally natural for our America First (MAGA) movement to question everything our Uniparty is doing, that doesn’t put normal, working class Americans first. And this includes America’s relationship with Israel.
BTW, I think Tucker was likely cancelled (fired) from Fox because of his critical voice against US involvement in the continuation of the Ukraine conflict.
As for your cancel culture question. To me, cancel culture is when a person or group name calls or shames another for viewpoint or speech the shame-er disagrees with. Sometimes this cancellation also occurs if person is too closely associated with somebody else who has the disagreeable viewpoint.
This childlike behavior rather than person engaging in speech (devoid of adjectives or labels) to debate the point they disagree with.
There is an attempt to cancel Tucker because he ‘gave platform’ to Fuentes. My take is different. Journalists are supposed to interview everyone of importance, regardless of their viewpoints. That’s what I see that Tucker did, because Fuentes appears to have a largish following.
Are you always this weasely? I asked you a specific question: Define cancel culture and you skirted it. Are you always this cowardly when confronted with a pointed response?
I use the term 'cancel culture' to describe a pile on of people with the goal of eliminating someone's career, for example what happened to Senator Al Franken for humorous content he had participated in while a comedian mimeing sexual assault while drunk on a USO tour in the Middle East that resulted in his resigning his seat in the Senate.
Nobody's advocating for Carlson to be deplatformed. We're just calling out his behavior.
You throwing that phrase around to shore up a defense of him is so juvenile.
Sure was! I used to spend hours reading the brilliant comments on Nellie's TGIF. I dropped it just about a year ago....and you know what happened a year ago!
Yes, and use their own words- lots of quotes, NOT taken out of context. People are just hearing very carefully curated bits in the msm. Most people don’t have time to listen or watch everything, and discernment is rare too.
What is the missing context of telling people to rape women in your name? Or that JD is a race mixer married to a “jeet”? Fuentes contributes nothing to the GOP. There is zero evidence they did anything other than bitch and post memes in the last election. Nothing. Meanwhile actual people put in the time to GOTV. There is no evidence they contributed ANYTHING to MAGA or Trump. Fuentes shits on JD. He was against Charlie, and TPUSA did so much to get Gen-Z voters to go for the GOP. Tucker has his panties in a wad because Trump supported bombing Iran, and it was successful. They’re not here to build anything other than their bank accounts.
Sasha’s smarter than that. We’re both from the Left originally. We saw the crazies go unchecked and take over institutions. The ACLU was previously principled in supporting free speech. Now they fight to get male rapists put in women’s prisons if they claim to be women. The fringe people aren’t there to build. They infiltrate successful groups and wear their previous good reputation like a skin suit, while rotting it from within.
We’re not going to fall for that. Nice try, though.
Nope. Not sticking with this. If you guys liked being able to say Trump won the popular vote you need to use better discernment. There is no sticking with blatant racists like Fuentes, and antisemites like Tucker.
I didn't know who Nick Fuentes was, or anything about him until this latest blowup over the Tucker interview with him. I think Tucker is a contrarian and a bomb thrower in many ways. But I also suspect that NY Times, and Dems are jumping on the idea that Fuentes represents MAGA now just to counter the news of Maine Democrat candidate Graham Platner and his SS tattoo. As the Democrats like to say, they "pounced" on it.
Fuentes is an utter twerp and has no business being legitimized, even by an increasingly fringe (or should be Alex Jones fringe at this point) Carlson. Sad to see Tucker going this way, but it seems it is what it is.
As a professed Catholic, Mr. Fuentes (and Ms. Owens being the same) should know that “ what does a man profit to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” There are some things more important than money, but love of money is definitely the root of all evil.
I commented to my husband over the weekend, 'Have you noticed that Fuentes is showing up everywhere all of a sudden?' The left is desperately trying to create a right-wing interest in him. Hence, they have more evidence of their "America-bad" grievances, and because they have lost any semblance of a reasonably human platform. Whatever.
Fuentes says some things that make sense, because even a broken clock is correct a couple of times a day. They amplify those "reasonable" statements to see who will take the bait. They do the same thing with Bill Maher. He speaks some common sense, but that doesn't make him conservative. Same with Fetterman. He has been reasonable and logical lately — he still votes 90% with the left. Occasional agreement does not amount to a realignment.
One thing I always thought the right did fairly well was to say when someone on the right is taking things too far. If Charlie Kirk's death taught us anything, it woke us up to who is for us and who is against us. We are more suspicious, as we should have been all along.
The mainstream media is desperate to legitimize over a decade of false narratives. They won't be found correct this time either.
Why do people always try to conflate the words of others into their own meanings instead of just taking the words at face value? I provided a few examples of people with whom we disagree, who sometimes say things that make sense, but that don't place them on our side of thinking.
People don't listen (or read) with an ear to understand anymore; they listen with an ear to refute or respond.
This feels like deja vu. White guy says some mostly reasonable stuff and gets millions of views, entire media ecosystem spasms with hot takes of people not actually addressing any points (author said they didn't listen, and seems to not "get the joke" about Stalin). Is anyone else getting the vibe that none of our visionaries get the appeal of rational politics?
We were in Georgia (the country) in September and visited Stalin's museum. He was a Georgian before going to the USSR. He was actually in the Orthodox seminary before he decided to hop out and kill millions of people.
These are the worst of the worst. Anyone who idolizes the worst of the worst, will enjoy spending eternity in hell with them.
I dunno, im not a constant follower of nick. The comment was out of the blue to me, but Nick clearly meant it as a troll. From what little I know, my guess is his 'point' is that Stalin actually accomplished something he wanted, even though ut was the most horrible and immoral way possible. Our government, in contrast, immiserates millions while also failing at everything for my entire lifetime. At least Stalin cared about Russia, or something.
Its a joke. He said so much more reasonable stuff in the podcast, and we are treated to this silly historical outrage as serious thoughts.
Isn't a joke supposed to be funny? Per my comment above, go to the country of Georgia, visit his museum and realize that two regions of Georgia are still in Russian control. Easy for you to spew this shite when you live in free Amercia!
I don't really get Fuentes, though to be honest I haven't paid much attention to him. And with the way the MSM lies about everyone it's difficult to get a read on anyone without actually listening to them speak. But from a quick peak at his purported views, he seems like he would fit in with many 1960/70s Democrats like David Duke, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd.
I mean sure Fuentes has said vile things, buy Tucker has the right to interview anyone. It doesn't mean he endorses every word they've ever said. This is basic stuff. And he did push back on Fuentes with regards to criticizing Jews in general, and he pretty much said alright.
Yes. I am frankly more concerned with people trying to now destroy the careers and reputations of Tucker Carlson and Kevin Roberts because they defend free speech. Ben is practicing guilt by association.
Here’s the despicable equation:
A = Fuentes is antisemitic.
B = Carlson interviews Fuentes, therefore:
A = B (Carlson is antisemitic.)
C = Roberts defends Carlson, therefore:
A = C (Roberts is antisemitic.)
I have a really problem with this. Does that mean I = A?
Yep it's really stupid. I have heard Fuentes say vile things. Maybe he truly means them and is that evil, maybe he's tongue in cheek and trolling. Either way Tucker isn't guilty for interviewing him. It's a complete non issue. He could interview the devil or Hitler and it would be fine.
Sasha - don't worry about us, we see though their BS. Same old playbook of trying to choose conservative leaders during primaries to tear them down when they run against liberals. No problem here.
Had never heard of Nick Fuentes until the left lied to say the CK murderer was one of his followers.
I know there are Israel haters on the right and they can continue on with their hatred, but it doesn’t get them anywhere. They’d have much better success on the left with their Israel hatred.
I had never actually seen Nick Fuentes nor heard his voice until Ben Shapiro played a full show of clips yesterday. I had heard his name for years but couldn't have picked him out of a lineup. Am I the only one who, after watching his facial expressions and listening to his cadence and his language patterns finds him to be clearly autistic? Autism or not, the idea of taking your political advice from a 26 year old virgin is pretty comical. And in all of this hullabaloo has anyone ever questioned why this leader of a "white supremacist" movement has a Hispanic surname?
Did you watch his interview with Tucker? I encourage you to do so.
I listened to the entire thing and it was very interesting and I found NO anti-semitic anything in there.
My take was that the political establishment - e.g. Ben Shapiro - picks and chooses the narratives and who can play. Pretty revolting.
Shapiro is a twerp. I've despised him since 2016.
Same. I want to find out who funds him and his Daily Wire. Fuentes tells Tucka in the interview that he was brought into the Daily Wire until he asked questions about Jews. He gone after that.
Did you listen to Ben Shapiros podcast because he included tons of footage of Nick Fuentes saying that he wanted to kill the Jews. It’s a direct quote and he’s more than a little heinous. Nick Fuentes betrays everything conservatives stand for
No one should underestimate the depths of Nick Fuentes's hate towards "the other". He is as evil as anyone from Antifa or BLM
I cover this in my reply to Diane(The Critical Reader) above. I think establishment conservatives like Shapiro have betrayed people like Fuentes and my son(similar age) for decades and Fuentes is questioning them about it.
Respectfully.
What kind of weirdo brings up the Jews in a job interview? No same person acts like that. Of course he wasn’t hired. 😂
I fund him. Annual subscriber here. They have advertisers, too. It’s called capitalism.
Have you listened to his shows (Fuentes)? He is a terribly angry person who was somehow given a platform to spew his anger.
Not really, but my 28 yr old son and his friends(all conservative) swear by him which floored me. I asked why they listened to him and mainly they like his ripping style of people that deserve it. I cautioned against his messaging, etc. and my son responded with "We don't take him super seriously, but he makes a point about all of the oligarchs that are ruining everything in this country(debt, housing, etc.) all have Jewish backgrounds... I started looking them up and was astonished(Zuckerberg, Ellison..).
I certainly don't hate Jews or anyone really but it was interesting to learn.
imho - Jennifer Welch is far more dangerous than Fuentes:
https://revolver.news/2025/11/underground-network-of-feral-wine-moms-are-leading-us-toward-civil-war/
If your son is listening to a guy who makes light of rape, you have a serious problem that needs addressing. There are things that aren’t ever fodder for amusement. He’s not a person who leads men to virtue, unlike Charlie.
People are so simple minded. Jews in the diaspora had to go the extra mile to prove they were useful to society so, you know, they might not get killed. They emphasize education and work. That’s why many have ended up successful. Education and work are things anyone can achieve. There are other ethnic groups that have a similar emphasis on education: guess what, they succeed, too. Fuentes is pointing to the result without noting the cause, and telling gullible, ignorant young men to be resentful.
He’s toxic and shouldn’t be entertained as a serious person.
I would agree, if this were 1996, or maybe even 2006 .. however the word "rape" has been so watered down and broadened, that it is no longer a political ending scandal to first inquire whether we are discussing "real rape" before passing judgement. (Eg by today's standards I am assumed to be a product of rape due to the simple fact of me being born when my mother was barely 16 .. until further inquiry reveals I born a full year after she married my Dad and they were both High School seniors due to her having previously skipped two full grades .. oh, and they remained happily married from 1961 until my Dad passed away this April .. actually by today's standards that might still be considered rape).
Nick Fuentes needs to bang Jennifer Welch. Then they could both disappear into oblivion and live happily ever after.
I think he’s a closeted homosexual. It’s sad that he can’t just accept himself without being a total scumbag to women. Similar vibe with Andrew Tate. Just be gay. It’s 2025. No one cares (except his followers who are fond of dropping the f-slur).
Good way to put it! LOL.
The problem is the people who DO take him seriously. That is both dangerous and irresponsible. IE--his admiration for Stalin.
And his admiration for Hitler.
Yeah, but there is always a point with him and it is always with shock.
"Fuentes acknowledges Stalin's brutality, including the suppression of religion, the deaths of millions during agricultural collectivization, and the purges that filled the gulags. However, he also views Stalin as a "great man of history" who successfully transformed the Soviet Union from a backward, agrarian society into a modern, industrialized world power and nuclear superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany. Fuentes credits Stalin's five-year plans with rapidly industrializing Russia, dragging it "out of the 19th century or really the 18th century into the 20th century," which he sees as a testament to the effectiveness of Stalin's ruthless methods, even if they constituted a genocide."
Bush/Cheney and our own establishment put us through 20 year wars to nowhere leading to 9,000 Americans killed, 50,000 injured(or more), $9T in debt and our society in shambles.
I don't think Fuentes would entertain Stalin, but he is using shock to force people to look at things.
Never heard of her until this moment. The reason I think Fuentes could be dangerous is because he appeals to the same dweeb guys who need to have something they can latch onto so they can feel powerful. I also think he goes well beyond calling out rich Jewish people. He hates all kinds of Christians and women, etc.
Look... I am a former Army sergeant and volunteer firefighter so I am very used to language and delivery of it that might make others sick, especially wonderful women like you. Andrew Dice Clay was they same sort of shock jock. Howard Stern in the 90s. Trump had the same effect on people in 2015. People take him literally and not seriously.
I(and my son) find Fuentes funny because he is describing truth's in a shocking way and I really do not appreciate people like Shapiro posting little pieces of him without the full context; Shapiro is doing this because he has never spent a day in real life and has no concept of what Fuentes is talking about: Fuentes is talking about "the occult" of people with Jewish background that should pay a price - not Jews in absolution. He is calling them out which is taboo in our current environment.
I would highly recommend you listen or watch the entire Tucker/Fuentes interview. It really helped me understand perspective better.
Also, as a Jewish person and MAGA and Trump supporter X 3, And as a Charlie Kirk supporter, I am personally against racism and anti-semitism and hating people just because of their skin color/religion/ethnicity, etc. We should judge people on the content of their character.
As far as I can tell, Fuentes doesn't hate on people as you describe - he is purposely displayed that way by Shapiro to turn people off. If you listen to the shit Shapiro puts out on him you can still surmise Fuentes is not a hater, he is just a shock jock.
Jews would not be human if they did not favor their fellow Jews. And they also (if "pure-bred" Ashkenazi) have at least one gene for superior intelligence. But that is a far cry from proving some sinister conspiracy.
I know we are not supposed to get into "genetic superiority". But it does occur. East African Blacks are superior at quick reactions. NE Black Africans are superior at long-distance running. (So are members of some tribe up in the mountains of Mexico.) In SE Asia, there is some small bunch that is superior at vision under water, because ... wait for it ... they make their living by finding things under water. East Asians seem to be better at calculation. Such is life on Planet Earth.
Nick Fuentes has never dated a woman. He is an incel. He is against male-female relationships and he is anti-marriage. Tucker pushed back, saying marriage is good and biblical and advised in Christianity but Nick said women today are all evil. I hope your son and his friends don't take this anti-woman advice.
My son and his friends are smart enough to understand that the 19th Amendment is a problem as my single mother in the 70s acknowledged. Fuentes just says it in a different form.
I am all for women voting, but you have to acknowledge that they vote with their hearts and not minds(unlike my mother).
This is an honest question: what, if anything, would qualify as anti-semitism?
I hear a lot of people saying what is not anti-Semitic. That begs for a definition of what is anti-Semitic. Or is there no such thing as anti-semitism?
Ask the ADL...lol. Most everything they don't like is antisemitic. Kind of like asking the NAACP or Southern Poverty Law Center what is racism.
I've heard people who were clearly anti-Semitic explain they weren't anti-Semitic because.... they don't hate Arabs. And Arabs are semites.
Of course, if we defined racism the same way, David Duke could protest he's not racist because he's fine with whites. Maybe he's even fine with Asians. And only has a problem with Blacks. Ergo, "Not racist."
This "Anti-Semites must hate both Jews and Arabs to qualify" would mean even Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite. He got along well with Arabs and thought Islam stronger than Christianity.
Ben Shapiro is the "Bizarro World" mirror image of Fuentes. They're both inconsequential to MAGA.
Well put. Trump IS MAGA, there is no movement called MAGA.
It’s his company. He can run it how he wants. No one is owed a job. You sound like a liberal. 😂
Ben Shapiro is a commentator. “Political establishment.” 🙄
Agreed.
I watched it out of curiosity & came away disappointed in Tucker. Tucker gave a softball interview, not going near the hateful & disgusting reams of comments Fuentes has said forever. Tucker allowed Fuentes to come off as much more normal & smart than he really is. No doubt the guy is smart & knows how to talk, but he’s an immature, self righteous asshat. . He is NOT MAGA. He not only did not vote for Trump, he actively campaigned against him. Tucker didn’t ask why, but I assume it’s because of Trump’s support of Israel. Unfortunately Fuentes has managed to convince some that Jews are at the root of the entire world’s problems. He admires Hitler ( his words “ Hitler was awesome). Why are people like him Holocaust deniers ( or cover that with “it wasn’t 6 million” ). Do any of these grifters question how many died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? Nope. Wish Tucker would have asked why he admires Stalin.
Watch his show for a week and get back to us. You don't know what you're talking about. Smart people know what sarcasm and hyperbole are. His whole platform is America First, Christ is King and free speech.
Question - so when he said “raise your right hand & repeat after me - I will kill rape & die for Nicholas Fuentes” it was just sarcasm & hyperbole? Just one example.
Yes, duh.
Christopher Rufo is spot on with his take on Fuentes. https://open.substack.com/pub/rufo/p/what-everyone-misses-about-nick-fuentes?r=nl3ud&utm_medium=ios
Also, we're not allowed to criticize Israel?
Strawman question- no country is above honest criticism. Way too much focus is on the Middle East. It’s a subject being used to divide us. We have enough of our own problems in this country. Focus should be on the economy, immigration & corruption.
As it is said:
if you want to know how your rulers are: who are you not allowed to criticize?
(Here in the USA one might think that is Israel)
Then start digging
Do we not live in an Occultocracy ? That the rulers hide themselves seems evident.
At present I believe that It’s plausible if not planned that they would scapegoat Israel
Do I have to?
If you want to make an informed decision.
That's Correct that most never knew Fuentes and, actually, don't give ONE CRAP about him. AND....
Candace is NO WAY "delusional". Relatable, she IS though.
Is that piece by Shapiro " "POWERFUL"?
No. It isn't.
We love ya, Sasha!
Candace Owens lost it when she was fired from the Daily Wire. All she cares about is clicks and spreading conspiracies. The things she has said after Charlie Kirk's murder are heinous. She hadn't talked to him in over a year. When she provides legit facts, I'll listen. Until then I don't trust her.
Tucker lost it after he was fired from FOX. He also became conspiratorial the minute he was out from the reigning in of corporate lawyers. He's ridiculous.
She pushed the "Brigitte Macron was born a man" nuttery with such zeal that the Macrons, having had enough, sued her.
She will lose the lawsuit, beyond question. I have read some of Owens' supporters saying idiotic things like, "Just wait until the gynecological exam!" Owens herself has gone rather quiet on the Macron threat recently, because though she is delusional, she isn't completely delusional: she knows the gynecological exam won't happen. A simple swab of Brigitte Macron's mouth will tell what we all learned in tenth grade, that because chromosomes appear in either XX or XY form, Brigitte Macron is female.
Owens is a wolf, though, and I expect her to use the loss to amp up the Jew bashing.
"Well, we all know who the medical Establishment is, don't we? We all know who owns the labs, don't we?"
Ad nauseam.
Gross.
He comes off as demented. And yes- how does this Aryan explain his surname? Hmmm. 🤔
Ben Shapiro is hardly averse to employing fallacies when it serves his purpose: "trope" is a prejudicial term that *does not refute anything*.
He has a worse voice than Gilbert Gottfried.
Gottfried was a comic act. Ben is showing moral backbone here, in a well-stated manner.
Uh, Hispanic surnames come from the Spanish, you know, white Europeans.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rufo/p/what-everyone-misses-about-nick-fuentes?r=nl3ud&utm_medium=ios
NYT glorifies the Zohrantifada and his buddy Hasan Piker too. The former is about to become the mayor of NYC. That is a far greater threat than squabbles between podcasters. RIP Charlie. Vote today in his honor and avoid falling for false equivalences: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/both-sides-false-equivalencies
Sasha, with all due respect, you really don’t know what you’re talking about as far as criticizing Candace Owens and others for questioning the Charlie Kirk murder.
‘Candace Owens with the latest delusional ramble on his murder, or others who are attacking Turning Point for various reasons…’
There is no doubt that something nefarious happened politically as well as behind the scenes with Turning Point and it’s role in the murder. There are way too many inconsistencies. It appears from your comment that you may not be well versed on what has transpired. I am not for one side or the other, I am just fascinated with the lies and the evil that I’m rooting for the truth to come out on this.
As for Nick Fuentes. I listened to the interview with Tucker. I did not hear anything antisemitic. I heard a lot that would qualify as sexist perhaps, but he’s a young kid, seemingly never been in a committed relationship (based on what he told Tucker). But what I can’t understand is this big brouhaha about “what Nick Fuentes says”!! He’s a young kid talking, he is charismatic and can string together a bunch of sentences and thoughts. He is talking about issues. So what? Why is everyone so up in arms over him? I don’t get it. Tucker gave him a platform to speak, and he did. I don’t recall Tucker condoning anything he said, at least nothing of real meaning. Maybe people need more hobbies.
The reason it matters what Fuentes says is the left is underhandedly engineering him to be THE voice of the right and a proxy for what Charlie Kirk thinks, now that Charlie is no longer here to speak for himself. That's the main thrust of Sasha's piece here, and it matters a lot. I think it's a far greater danger to MAGA than anything the left has been or will be able to come up with.
And as far as the Tucker interview with Fuentes, his ability to keep his nose clean for a single interview that he knows is being set up as his coming out party means nothing. Nothing, as in Zero. There are plenty of other examples of what he thinks, so on what planet does one interview with Tucker become the canonical take on Nick Fuentes?
For Tucker’s critical thinking audience Tucker gave Fuentes just enough rope to hang himself while carefully avoiding giving Fuentes’ audience any cause to cast Fuentes into the victim/martyr role. I thought it was pretty masterfully handled, actually. And I do think that Fuentes may well be intelligence backed.
I also listened to the Fuentes interview with Tucker and wasn't bothered to any degree by any of it except for the Stalin comment. It was obvious that threw Tucker off his game, but he should have quickly recovered and followed up with "Why do you admire him?" If there was something nefarious to expose about Fuentes, it would have happened there and then.
What facts / factors do you have that belie what the FBI has said about Kirk's assassination? Where are you getting those pieces of information? If you tell me Candace Owens, I'll tell you that that hasn't worked out so well for her theory that Macron is a she man.
I came here to say that about Candace. Thanks for your comment now I don’t have to. I agree with you completely!
Candace is a terrible journalist and anyone with the power of the internet should realize just HOW MANY facts she gets wrong. She’s seriously insane.
Well she is being sued by the Macron’s so I guess we will find out how wrong her facts are and if she’s insane. Feel free to list all the facts she gets wrong as I am open-minded to information. Personally, I like to listen to all types of podcasters- I don’t agree with many of them but it keeps me from being caught up in an echo chamber.
I agree, she is off the wall. I like Fuentes but not Candace; she's not smart and is a grifter.
Nick Fuentes…what do you like? He seems like an real dirtbag
I doesn't matter why I like him. Find out for yourself.
I agree…
We’ll never see “Brigitte” submit to a DNA exam.
And Candace, Tucker, and Megan Kelly have not lied to us… not even once. I’m not saying they’re always right, I’m just saying that they’re not liars.
She actually was according to recent news reports. Candace is going to be bankrupt. Hope it was worth it!
Well, let me know when “Brigitte” actually comes to the U.S. and provides blood in a court-controlled setting with witnesses present from both legal teams.
I still say it won’t happen, but we’ll see.
The fact that you support a woman cyber bullying a mother is gross beyond words. Brigitte’s daughter has said this is harming her mental health.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/french-first-lady-brigitte-macron-200542669.html
You’re right the guy can talk, but all you have to do is watch what he says on his own ( & others) podcasts to understand that the Tucker show was a performance. Tucker gave him 2 hours of softball questions that left viewers with the same takeaway as yours. And he is not maga. He actively campaigned against Trump. Fuentes can say whatever he wants obviously but for someone like Tucker ( who I don’t believe is an antisemite) to amplify this guy is only adding fuel to the attempt to divide conservatives. Once Trump is termed out, some republicans want nothing more than to end the maga movement & redirect the party away from it.
Mandummy's upcoming elevation to mayor of the biggest cesspool on Earth is a threat to no one but the peons that reside there (you can't call that "living"). He will show the rest of the semi-autists what a dumpster fire his policies are, and the Democrats will be crushed in the midterms. I hope he wins.
I watched the entire interview. You're correct, Sasha. Fuentes comes across as a nerdy racist, not a cool iconoclast. His interview with Carlson was peppered with "White", "Jews", "Jewishness" "Stalin" etc. that went completely unchallenged by Tucker. It was weird. And through it all, there was a self-pitying, victim mentality that Fuentes expresses for all the harsh rejection he has faced in the past for his views. The interview comes across like a "white washing" opportunity that Tucker gave to Fuentes in front of millions of viewers that was just too hard to pass up. Overall, it was not a good look for Fuentes and Carlson who seem to have joined with Owens on the fringes of the Republican party. It was also a vindication of people like Cruz, Vance, Shapiro and the rest who have condemned Fuentes and criticized Tucker. I'll stand with them.
Yes, and frankly Fuentes was so outlandish that I have to wonder who is paying him.
Iran maybe? possibly billionaire Neville Singham who is also paying Mamdani
Its fantasy to pretend a white American Nicks age will ignore race and gender. Its been used as a cudgel against guys like him for their entire lives. The frustration will manifest in ugly ways but that does not mean its unwarranted.
Tucker wears a rug.
Positively metaphorical.
It’s not true that Tucker didn’t challenge him. Did you miss the numerous times he talked about “blood libel”?
That self-pitying victim mentality is what Conceptual James Lindsay calls a hallmark of the Woke Right. Antisemitism, often subtle, is another.
Right now, you might feel like you're shovelling sand against the tide on this one. And you might be right. I say that b/c I have family members who think Tucker, Candy-O and co. are on the right track.
It surprised me too.
HOWEVER...
I've also seen my family members change opinions after getting new facts, and I believe that's the hallmark of MAGA. (Look in the mirror for another example.)
The keystone (for me at least) is that MAGA and our cohort on the right are fact and reality based. We seek the 'TRUTH' as best we can as opposed to 'our truth' or 'our lived experience'.
This grounding in reality is our greatest strength, and also the greatest weakness of Tucker et al.
Don't get me wrong: Carlson, above all others on that side is one hell of a manipulator. He's really good at innuendo and implication. Welp, so is Rachel Maddow.
Free Thinking Through The Fourth Turning may not have the reach of a Michelle Goldberg.
Yet.
I think that it might be a good idea on your part to work on exposing Tucker's and Owens' lies and slimy imprecations on a regular basis. In other words, destroy their credibility in the same fashion that Abigail Shrier destroyed the cred of the Trans movement, or how Axios diminished the cred of MSM over the course of the Biden admin.
This sort of internal dispute within a movement is a regular occurrence after a big victory. What I mean is that after the victory of the American Revolution, after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and after the French Revolution, there was major internal strife on the side of the victors.
And the outcomes of these determined the direction afterwards. Sometimes for the better, like the Whisky Rebellion in the USA, and other times for the worse as in the Reign of Terror in France.
The MOST important strategy is to keep at it. Consistency over time, regular critiques targeted at diminishing their credibility is the way to go.
You have a decent sized platform right now, and this might be why (in a mystical/transcendent way) you gotten where you are.
And you're way, wayyy better a writer than Michelle Goldberg. You're more insightful and better spoken, and she's got at least two professional editors who go over her stuff b4 publication Sasha.
Jim, if you want to see Tucker cancelled for comparing the silencing of Kirk to the silencing of Jesus, go wander over to The Free Press. You can call him an antisemite there and get a bunch of cheerleading in the comment section.
He's absolutely free to do whatever he wants. I was afan of TC; in fact, I was an OG subscriber to him when Fox fired him; I signed up the day he announced.
A lot of his work was great, especially in the early days. His docs on Trump's campaign was stellar is just one example of many that come to mind.
I had NO problemo when he interviewed Putin, although I found the guy boring. His takes on the trans activist movement, Biden, etc etc are solid in my book.
However...
This past year I went from baffled to revulsed.
"Demons in my bed..." I watched the whole episode and came away puzzled. WTF is this guy trying to say here? OK, I've met a few religious zealots in my day, and..well.. okay...
That so called 'historian' he put on was downright offensive as well as being intellectually lazy. Victor Hansen's takedown is what I refer you to in that case.
And now for the last few months the episodes are more congruent with Alex Jones and Candy-O. This trinity is the way out there fringe of the right. They are making BANK doing it too. Fine. But they're as poisonous to our cause as Ilhan Omar and her Islamist ilk are to the Democratic party.
Your reply to me is as meaningless as someone screaming 'Islamaphobe!'. You present zero facts to back up your position as I just did. If slagging me gets your rocks off, it says a lot more about you than I.
I’m no fan of cancel culture no matter its shades. That was where I was coming from, because you reeked of it. I’ve noticed anytime a podcaster gains a following and then touches on a taboo subject (Israel in this case) the knives for that person come out. I listen to Tucker now and again when he interviews someone of interest. I wish Israel would stop accepting US aid and stand on its own two feet. They could also announce they are a nuclear tipped country.
Keep posting like this; you're simply proving the point I made in the last paragraph above.
OK...how about this:
Define cancel culture. Think you can do at least that? Regardless of what you post, I'll put up mine.
On you, bud.
Jim, you might ask yourself why Tucker wasn’t personally vilified for his efforts to expose US funding and support for the war in Ukraine. But the moment Tucker shifts that ‘America First’ lens onto Israel, he is labeled an antisemite. To me, it is totally natural for our America First (MAGA) movement to question everything our Uniparty is doing, that doesn’t put normal, working class Americans first. And this includes America’s relationship with Israel.
BTW, I think Tucker was likely cancelled (fired) from Fox because of his critical voice against US involvement in the continuation of the Ukraine conflict.
As for your cancel culture question. To me, cancel culture is when a person or group name calls or shames another for viewpoint or speech the shame-er disagrees with. Sometimes this cancellation also occurs if person is too closely associated with somebody else who has the disagreeable viewpoint.
This childlike behavior rather than person engaging in speech (devoid of adjectives or labels) to debate the point they disagree with.
There is an attempt to cancel Tucker because he ‘gave platform’ to Fuentes. My take is different. Journalists are supposed to interview everyone of importance, regardless of their viewpoints. That’s what I see that Tucker did, because Fuentes appears to have a largish following.
Are you always this weasely? I asked you a specific question: Define cancel culture and you skirted it. Are you always this cowardly when confronted with a pointed response?
I use the term 'cancel culture' to describe a pile on of people with the goal of eliminating someone's career, for example what happened to Senator Al Franken for humorous content he had participated in while a comedian mimeing sexual assault while drunk on a USO tour in the Middle East that resulted in his resigning his seat in the Senate.
Nobody's advocating for Carlson to be deplatformed. We're just calling out his behavior.
You throwing that phrase around to shore up a defense of him is so juvenile.
We're done here, sonny. You need to grow up.
Totally agree....the same exact experience here.
The Free Press comment section is a mixed bag. Some conservatives, a few semi-retarded leftists, and a bunch of clueless "liberals"
The Free Press and the comment section is completely pathetic now. Sad, because in the very beginning it was great.
Sure was! I used to spend hours reading the brilliant comments on Nellie's TGIF. I dropped it just about a year ago....and you know what happened a year ago!
Yes, and use their own words- lots of quotes, NOT taken out of context. People are just hearing very carefully curated bits in the msm. Most people don’t have time to listen or watch everything, and discernment is rare too.
What is the missing context of telling people to rape women in your name? Or that JD is a race mixer married to a “jeet”? Fuentes contributes nothing to the GOP. There is zero evidence they did anything other than bitch and post memes in the last election. Nothing. Meanwhile actual people put in the time to GOTV. There is no evidence they contributed ANYTHING to MAGA or Trump. Fuentes shits on JD. He was against Charlie, and TPUSA did so much to get Gen-Z voters to go for the GOP. Tucker has his panties in a wad because Trump supported bombing Iran, and it was successful. They’re not here to build anything other than their bank accounts.
Sasha’s smarter than that. We’re both from the Left originally. We saw the crazies go unchecked and take over institutions. The ACLU was previously principled in supporting free speech. Now they fight to get male rapists put in women’s prisons if they claim to be women. The fringe people aren’t there to build. They infiltrate successful groups and wear their previous good reputation like a skin suit, while rotting it from within.
We’re not going to fall for that. Nice try, though.
I hope Sasha sees this b/c that's what I'm paying for. She's been doing a great job, hanging these idiots by their own petard.
MAGA must stick together. They're only hope is to divide us. I don't give a furry rat's ass about Fuentes.
I don't either and no idea why the media is giving him attention. Well, I kind of do, but you get my point.
He's insignificant.
He's insignificant until he's elevated. That's the problem.
Nope. Not sticking with this. If you guys liked being able to say Trump won the popular vote you need to use better discernment. There is no sticking with blatant racists like Fuentes, and antisemites like Tucker.
We don't need angry haters like you.
Nazis are actually the haters.
I didn't know who Nick Fuentes was, or anything about him until this latest blowup over the Tucker interview with him. I think Tucker is a contrarian and a bomb thrower in many ways. But I also suspect that NY Times, and Dems are jumping on the idea that Fuentes represents MAGA now just to counter the news of Maine Democrat candidate Graham Platner and his SS tattoo. As the Democrats like to say, they "pounced" on it.
Fuentes is an utter twerp and has no business being legitimized, even by an increasingly fringe (or should be Alex Jones fringe at this point) Carlson. Sad to see Tucker going this way, but it seems it is what it is.
It’s all about money
As a professed Catholic, Mr. Fuentes (and Ms. Owens being the same) should know that “ what does a man profit to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” There are some things more important than money, but love of money is definitely the root of all evil.
Exactly. As a devout Catholic myself, all I can say is they both need a really good confession and spiritual advisors. They are very lost sheep.
Or are they wolves in sheep’s clothing?
That too.
Agree, sometimes I think that gene or “something” (Jiminy cricket - Pinocchio’s conscience) is missing in some.
I agree. The Legacy media is trying to pin Fuentes on us.
I commented to my husband over the weekend, 'Have you noticed that Fuentes is showing up everywhere all of a sudden?' The left is desperately trying to create a right-wing interest in him. Hence, they have more evidence of their "America-bad" grievances, and because they have lost any semblance of a reasonably human platform. Whatever.
Fuentes says some things that make sense, because even a broken clock is correct a couple of times a day. They amplify those "reasonable" statements to see who will take the bait. They do the same thing with Bill Maher. He speaks some common sense, but that doesn't make him conservative. Same with Fetterman. He has been reasonable and logical lately — he still votes 90% with the left. Occasional agreement does not amount to a realignment.
One thing I always thought the right did fairly well was to say when someone on the right is taking things too far. If Charlie Kirk's death taught us anything, it woke us up to who is for us and who is against us. We are more suspicious, as we should have been all along.
The mainstream media is desperate to legitimize over a decade of false narratives. They won't be found correct this time either.
You cannot be serious about comparing Fetterman with Fuentes.
Why do people always try to conflate the words of others into their own meanings instead of just taking the words at face value? I provided a few examples of people with whom we disagree, who sometimes say things that make sense, but that don't place them on our side of thinking.
People don't listen (or read) with an ear to understand anymore; they listen with an ear to refute or respond.
Some are here just to score internet points and feel morally superior (is my guess). I thought your post was thoughtful and I agreed with it.
This feels like deja vu. White guy says some mostly reasonable stuff and gets millions of views, entire media ecosystem spasms with hot takes of people not actually addressing any points (author said they didn't listen, and seems to not "get the joke" about Stalin). Is anyone else getting the vibe that none of our visionaries get the appeal of rational politics?
How is Stalin funny again?
Agreed.
We were in Georgia (the country) in September and visited Stalin's museum. He was a Georgian before going to the USSR. He was actually in the Orthodox seminary before he decided to hop out and kill millions of people.
These are the worst of the worst. Anyone who idolizes the worst of the worst, will enjoy spending eternity in hell with them.
I dunno, im not a constant follower of nick. The comment was out of the blue to me, but Nick clearly meant it as a troll. From what little I know, my guess is his 'point' is that Stalin actually accomplished something he wanted, even though ut was the most horrible and immoral way possible. Our government, in contrast, immiserates millions while also failing at everything for my entire lifetime. At least Stalin cared about Russia, or something.
Its a joke. He said so much more reasonable stuff in the podcast, and we are treated to this silly historical outrage as serious thoughts.
Isn't a joke supposed to be funny? Per my comment above, go to the country of Georgia, visit his museum and realize that two regions of Georgia are still in Russian control. Easy for you to spew this shite when you live in free Amercia!
I don't really get Fuentes, though to be honest I haven't paid much attention to him. And with the way the MSM lies about everyone it's difficult to get a read on anyone without actually listening to them speak. But from a quick peak at his purported views, he seems like he would fit in with many 1960/70s Democrats like David Duke, George Wallace, and Robert Byrd.
Also could be some of these 'personalities' will just say whatever to hold their positions as pundits, etc
I mean sure Fuentes has said vile things, buy Tucker has the right to interview anyone. It doesn't mean he endorses every word they've ever said. This is basic stuff. And he did push back on Fuentes with regards to criticizing Jews in general, and he pretty much said alright.
Yes. I am frankly more concerned with people trying to now destroy the careers and reputations of Tucker Carlson and Kevin Roberts because they defend free speech. Ben is practicing guilt by association.
Here’s the despicable equation:
A = Fuentes is antisemitic.
B = Carlson interviews Fuentes, therefore:
A = B (Carlson is antisemitic.)
C = Roberts defends Carlson, therefore:
A = C (Roberts is antisemitic.)
I have a really problem with this. Does that mean I = A?
Yep it's really stupid. I have heard Fuentes say vile things. Maybe he truly means them and is that evil, maybe he's tongue in cheek and trolling. Either way Tucker isn't guilty for interviewing him. It's a complete non issue. He could interview the devil or Hitler and it would be fine.
Brilliant.
Sasha - don't worry about us, we see though their BS. Same old playbook of trying to choose conservative leaders during primaries to tear them down when they run against liberals. No problem here.
Except Heritage is backing it. That’s a problem.
I don't care about Heritage either. Sounds like a bunch of wanna-be never Trumpers. No influence with rank and file.
Heritage is backing 1A.
The First Amendment is about government censorship of speech. It doesn’t mean people are immune from criticism. Learn something, I beg you.
Can anyone explain the appeal of Michele Goldberg to me?
Had never heard of Nick Fuentes until the left lied to say the CK murderer was one of his followers.
I know there are Israel haters on the right and they can continue on with their hatred, but it doesn’t get them anywhere. They’d have much better success on the left with their Israel hatred.
Not to add to any of the noise, but I find myself often wondering wtf is REALLY going on?
That's what happens when you listen to all parties, all sides and not just the controlled propaganda.