Your analysis is spot on. But it should be clear that you, and people sharing your worldview, asked for this. Now that you're getting it, and getting it good and hard, whining about it isn't going to help.
I think you are being unfair here. Richard is one of the few authors making a somewhat good-faith effort to deprogram these people. Here are just two posts I found with a quick Google
Sure, now that the logical conclusion of his worldview has come to fruition and he doesn't like the mirror being held up to his face.
It's going to take a lot more than pithy writing for anything a co-author of Project 2025 does to be considered a true "mea culpa."
For starters, he could tell the truth which is that by and large there is not one national Republican politician who can be trusted or who should be voted for, for the foreseeable future.
The end of DEI was Richard’s whole shtick. His contributions to Project 2025, I believe, were limited to policy areas that related to that issue. He does not bear responsibility for the Trump administration’s actions across the board just because he advocated for meritocracy.
He made the wrong call by voting for Trump, though, and deserves criticism for it. Kamala would have been regular bad, at worst. Trump2 is genuinely degrading the resilience of our political institutions while meaningfully hurting long term economic growth.
How specifically is Groyperism a logical consequence of recent Hanania writings? Hanania publishes a lot. Finding evidence in support of this claim should be no trouble, if it is true.
Wouldn't it make sense that someone like Hanania who is familiar with the Groyper worldview, yet disagrees with it, would be one of the people best equipped to deradicalize Groypers?
"For starters, he could tell the truth which is that by and large there is not one national Republican politician who can be trusted or who should be voted for, for the foreseeable future."
Hanania is constantly critiquing Trump and Vance. You want him to issue a blanket condemnation of everyone who has an (R) next to their name, for purity purposes? How many national Republican politicians would you even be able to name off the top of your head, much less provide detailed information which would allow us to assess their trustworthiness?
If Hanania plays your progressive purity game, he will destroy the very credibility he has with the right which makes him effective at deprogramming people.
You sound like someone who just discovered that bad people exist and think that’s profound. Declaring every Republican beyond redemption isn’t analysis; it’s a coping mechanism. Hanania’s describing what’s happening. You’re describing how it makes you feel.
He’s not whining — he’s describing reality. There’s a difference between complaint and analysis, though I get why that’s hard to spot for people who only engage with politics through moral emotion. Saying “you asked for this” is just a way to pretend fatalism is wisdom
I'm a bit suspicious that this really is the long term because so much of Groyperdom is so riven with interpersonal weirdness, and lacks the kind of animal magnetism someone like Trump has which allow people to project onto him whatever they want.
The point you make about scale of listenership is correct, though - it can't just be dismissed as the Very Online, the fact that Heritage is jumping onboard means that, like any institution which ultimately exists on the basis of donations, they see something there.
Ultimately right of centre voters will go with whatever they find the most compelling at the lizard brain level and adjust the ideology to go along with that, but I don't think its guaranteed to be Groypers. Right of Centre voters are oppositional-defiant in the American political context, and the salience of issues is what drives micro changes to ideological beliefs. The bizarre spectacle of, for example, getting really interested in the territorial claims of the Russian Federation, is entirely driven by this - if CBS and ABC say one thing, we must say the opposite, etc
In 5 years, the issues on this front are hard to predict.
One thing I will note - the Groypers really don't seem to have much to say, or at least don't seem to care much, about the spectre of libertinism enabled by drug legalization, sports gambling's explosion, or the proliferation of online porn. The leaders of the movement might say things that social conservatives would agree with on those, but the juice isn't in the squeeze for them on it, as opposed to Jew Baiting. It may be interesting to see if that continues
We have created a whole class of young me who lack any core ideology. It is difficult to say how large this audience is, but I fear that Groyperism (just a right-wing variant of radical nihilism) has taken a semi-permanent hold among this group. Nihilism lacks an internal logic or coherence and thus cannot be treated like other ideas. The power of Nick Fuentes and the pull of his "ideas", insofar as they exist at all, is more about iconoclasm and the joy of tearing things down than about the content of what he has to say. His whole appeal is that he hates every institution and every idea. He is aggrieved and the subject of his grievance matters far less to his audience than the virulence of his discontent.
I don't know what we do with anger for its own sake. Fuentes doesn't seem to want to do anything productively and I think his audience likes that. We have to find a way to restore the social balance that once held dorm room nihilism at bay or else face an increasingly large portion of the voting public that prefers hating Jews to any productive policy discussion.
If you don't believe that groyperization IS the future of the Republican party, I wonder if you have actually watched Fuentes' show, or considered the fact that even supposedly "moderate" libertarians like Dave Smith (a Jew ironically, someone Fuentes says can ultimately never be trusted) are already kissing the ring.
All that's left at this point is the "naming ceremony."
I have watched his show - I just think saying things like "having sex with women is gay" doesn't fit the normal populist narrative in that it is so misaligned with our base instincts. No evolutionary psychologist would ever tell you that telling men that heterosexual sex is gay would survive long as an ideology. They would worry much more about a populist who tells people that immigrants are stealing their jobs and that criminals are coming for their families. Groyperism - which I again assert is just this generation's version of youthful nihilism - will survive amongst a core group of disaffected men but will eventually run up against the natural limits of its own nonsensical ideas.
In the podcast with Tucker--Fuentes spoke at length about the problems (especially for young men) with drugs and online porn (I forget whether they discussed gambling).
None of this is a surprise. A movement dedicated to ethnonationalism is going to be full of antisemites. That has never not happened. So many of what I call Trump's "more sophisticated supporters" thought it was okay to tolerate all his bad acts and crankery as long as it didn't come for them. It was never going to last. They were too consumed by their hatred of woke to see what was right in front of them.
I have been an online critic of woke cancel politics for several years, but this makes me think that the wokes will be missed if the Groypers take over. Hopefully the dialectic will eventually shift back to a cosmopolitanism that rejects victim politics.
The first party which embraces such cosmopolitanism is likely to be rewarded with a durable majority. You can see with Trump, a lot of the younger nonwhite Gen Z guys voted for him because they thought that's what Trump was about, but now they are reconsidering.
The Republicans and the Democrats are running a race with each other to see who will be first to overcome their party's internal dysfunctions and block the radicals who are trying to take over.
"I’ve spent the last few years warning about the moral and intellectual decline of the right. To see what I’ll be correct about next, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.".
I think you might be exaggerating in this tagline for the newsletter. Maybe the last 9 months? I think this new line for you started around 90 days into Trump's presidency. That's ok. I still read the newsletter and find it insightful, as I did previously. But perhaps a bit less "prophetic" on this point than the tagline suggests.
Richard, this is one of your sharpest pieces yet. You’re right that the Groyperization of the GOP has moved from fringe to gravitational center — but let’s not kid ourselves that Vance will resist it. He’s a complete invention, a man who believes in nothing but power. He won’t even defend his own wife, let alone any principle. The irony, as you put it so well, is that this movement worships “authenticity,” yet its future standard-bearer is one of the most synthetic figures in American politics.
There are a few issues with this thesis. First of all, where is the evidence that all these online influencers are playing a huge role in actual voting patterns? Where are the so-called “based” candidates being elected into office? A lot of these groypers types hate Vivek Ramaswamy, but he’s still sitting comfortably in the top of the polls for the Ohio governor race.
Also, being anti-immigration and anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily make someone an ethnonationalist. Fuentes himself regularly collaborates with people like Sneako and others that are non-white.
And also, populism can win elections, but can’t deliver results. So unless there can be a groyper managerial class that will actually carry out groyper orders, then the ideology is just people talking on podcasts.
According to Wikipedia, Sneako is part Haitian and part Jewish among other things, and converted to Islam. I assume this is an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
I do have doubts on whether liberal institutions would have been able to "contain" wokeness, were it not for the (as you say, inevitable) backlash which led to Trump and MAGA coming to power and in many cases forcing them to. You seem to be suggesting liberal institutions by their very nature would have been (eventually) doing the same thing anyway. I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
Exactly, how quickly he forgets. Had Musk not bought Twitter, had Substack been successfully debanked, the woke hegemon would probably still be calling the shots. In which case the NY Times would definitely not have course corrected at all.
I read his point differently. Whenever the backlash came (which indeed was accelerated by trump’s win) the liberal institutions have governance mechanisms that have allowed them to course correct. Distributed, independent media outlets don’t really have similar mechanisms.
But that said - I think this point is weak. Any change like this is due either to cultural or economic pressure and incentives.
Conservatives are like Minions, chasing around the next biggest, worst supervillain. I won’t be interrogating this analogy any further because it’s perfect.
I agree, but I feel like you almost don’t take your own argument seriously enough? If Nick Fuentes and the Groypers are the future of the Republican Party, shouldn’t you spend more time criticizing them and their ideas and less time criticizing declining stocks like JD Vance, Yoram Hazony, Steve Bannon, Catturd etc.?
When President Nick Fuentes signs the Preservation of the Purity of our Blood Act in 20 years, maybe you’ll be able to write a really good tweet dunking on Yoram Hazony for encouraging ethno-nationalism as you’re being deported on the remigration shuttle. But wouldn’t it have been more useful to have directly criticized the white nationalist, theocratic, and anti-science philosophy of Nick Fuentes instead?
The antidote to Nick Fuentes isn't the denigration of religion and the delusion that the source of one's values can (and must!) be "Science" (and the hierarchies erected in its name).
Great article and accurate. I hate everything Nick stands for but I love the way he stands. He’s honest about what he thinks and why, consistent in his beliefs and coherent in his speech, and charismatic as hell. I don’t personally understand why he wants a white Christian America, seems to fly in the face of American ideals, just seems ignorant and really narrow and cynical reading of the Constitution. But compared to the watered down manipulative bs at least I know where I stand with this guy and he doesn’t make things up and spread stupid conspiracy theories just to get clicks. If he’s saying it, he likely believes it. I’ve been saying this a while now, that while I’m politically aligned with Destiny, I see Fuentes as the best opponent because like Destiny, he just doesn’t give a f$&@ and he knows who he is. I’ve been encouraging Destiny and others to take him more seriously because others will.
Yeah it looks like he’s a little nuts. At least in this situation. I can’t read thru all of it or audit what’s actually happening. When I said honest I didn’t mean HONEST honest. Just that his brand plays a little more raw and consistent than other people in the genre. Don’t worry I’m not saying the guy is a saint or anything. He has what I consider horrible racist and anti-Semite beliefs, full stop. In my opinion his mind is kind of warped. There’s something refreshing about the candor around his beliefs and values. So unapologetic. We know people think like that and it’s kind of comforting to see him just spit it. Even though I hate it.
I'll admit to not understanding Fuentes appeal at all, but the comparison to Trump seems farfetched. Trump was pretty good looking, dated and married beautiful women, was successful before politics. Some little gay anti-semite just isn't going to go that far on the right, I'm pretty sure.
This seems right. Fuentes isn’t going to gain much more direct power than he currently has. But will his indirect, secondary, influence impact politics on the right? Consider something like Grover Norquist's pledge. Or the influence of woke politics and staffers on Biden - who never was really very work- but nevertheless enabled plenty of things on the work agenda and made some very dumb DEI picks.
I think "conservative" is a complete misnomer for these... let's call them creatures.
Someone that is "conservative" has strict moral codes, tends to defend hierarchy, values virtue and merit, above all self-restraint and discipline. These kind of people will naturally despise creatures like Trump, Fuentes, Kirk, Carlson, Owens, Vance, Miller and the lesser known ilk.
The American right is no longer conservative in some sense that is recognizable from the past. They do not seek caution in implementing changes. They do not prefer incremental reform. They do no seek to conserve or re-establish old institutions that have proven their worth. They do not even show reverence to the American constitution and the ideals behind it. Only so far as they can use it for their racist, hyperbolic self-idolization. They do not love Jesus Christ, but love religion to demonize and terrorize their opponents.
Quite the opposite—they are revolutionaries. They seek to destroy institutions. They reject the actual recorded past in favor of a mythical past that they interpret in terms of their racist and self-idolizing narratives. There are no transcendent principles or values for them. They are nihilists. They want to destroy the world around them and crown themselves king of their world - if possible God of their own World. That lies at the core of libertarianism, which is the Qlippoth for the spirits of darkness these creatures use to gain and maintain power.
I too have recognized too late the truth about the true nature of these creatures. I hope it's not too late now. I call on every truly "conservative" human to stand up against this vile horde. The left might be ugly in certain ways and never truly our friends, however compared to these barbarian creatures they are the lesser evil. Civilzation can not be taken for granted. As with 1930 Germany, the anti-civilizational horde is not coming from the outside, but from within.
I just wonder what happens if he wins? After he expels or kills the Jews and the blacks, does he actually think America will get better? That mass shootings will disappear? The hatred he foments is not a cure and that's the way for a Republican with guts to go after them.
While I understand the concern expressed here, I also think the conclusion reached by Henania for why we should be concerned for far right authoritarianism is rather weak. Essentially, his argument is “any far right influencer has more views than a far left author has sales for their book, therefore, the far right is more ascendent.” It ignores a lot of nuance and other factors, and only shows how little Henania knows about the right, and how he’s essentially a wolf (left wingers) is sheep’s clothing (right wingers).
Your analysis is spot on. But it should be clear that you, and people sharing your worldview, asked for this. Now that you're getting it, and getting it good and hard, whining about it isn't going to help.
I think you are being unfair here. Richard is one of the few authors making a somewhat good-faith effort to deprogram these people. Here are just two posts I found with a quick Google
"Conservatives Are Lying on Immigrant Crime" https://substack.com/home/post/p-149349244
"High-Skill Immigration as the Ultimate Progress Issue" https://www.richardhanania.com/p/high-skill-immigration-as-the-ultimate
Sure, now that the logical conclusion of his worldview has come to fruition and he doesn't like the mirror being held up to his face.
It's going to take a lot more than pithy writing for anything a co-author of Project 2025 does to be considered a true "mea culpa."
For starters, he could tell the truth which is that by and large there is not one national Republican politician who can be trusted or who should be voted for, for the foreseeable future.
The end of DEI was Richard’s whole shtick. His contributions to Project 2025, I believe, were limited to policy areas that related to that issue. He does not bear responsibility for the Trump administration’s actions across the board just because he advocated for meritocracy.
He made the wrong call by voting for Trump, though, and deserves criticism for it. Kamala would have been regular bad, at worst. Trump2 is genuinely degrading the resilience of our political institutions while meaningfully hurting long term economic growth.
Oh boy, it's the circular firing squad, purity-enforcement people who want the Democrats to keep losing elections.
https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
How specifically is Groyperism a logical consequence of recent Hanania writings? Hanania publishes a lot. Finding evidence in support of this claim should be no trouble, if it is true.
Wouldn't it make sense that someone like Hanania who is familiar with the Groyper worldview, yet disagrees with it, would be one of the people best equipped to deradicalize Groypers?
"For starters, he could tell the truth which is that by and large there is not one national Republican politician who can be trusted or who should be voted for, for the foreseeable future."
Hanania is constantly critiquing Trump and Vance. You want him to issue a blanket condemnation of everyone who has an (R) next to their name, for purity purposes? How many national Republican politicians would you even be able to name off the top of your head, much less provide detailed information which would allow us to assess their trustworthiness?
If Hanania plays your progressive purity game, he will destroy the very credibility he has with the right which makes him effective at deprogramming people.
You sound like someone who just discovered that bad people exist and think that’s profound. Declaring every Republican beyond redemption isn’t analysis; it’s a coping mechanism. Hanania’s describing what’s happening. You’re describing how it makes you feel.
There shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine just people who need no repentance.
Neither is your pointless and meaningless comment, but here we are.
I really, really want Richard & co. to keep whining about it, actually. I think they have a unique and very good shot at fighting back against this.
Unfortunately, we’re all getting it
He’s not whining — he’s describing reality. There’s a difference between complaint and analysis, though I get why that’s hard to spot for people who only engage with politics through moral emotion. Saying “you asked for this” is just a way to pretend fatalism is wisdom
“You people” is always a bad look.
I'm a bit suspicious that this really is the long term because so much of Groyperdom is so riven with interpersonal weirdness, and lacks the kind of animal magnetism someone like Trump has which allow people to project onto him whatever they want.
The point you make about scale of listenership is correct, though - it can't just be dismissed as the Very Online, the fact that Heritage is jumping onboard means that, like any institution which ultimately exists on the basis of donations, they see something there.
Ultimately right of centre voters will go with whatever they find the most compelling at the lizard brain level and adjust the ideology to go along with that, but I don't think its guaranteed to be Groypers. Right of Centre voters are oppositional-defiant in the American political context, and the salience of issues is what drives micro changes to ideological beliefs. The bizarre spectacle of, for example, getting really interested in the territorial claims of the Russian Federation, is entirely driven by this - if CBS and ABC say one thing, we must say the opposite, etc
In 5 years, the issues on this front are hard to predict.
One thing I will note - the Groypers really don't seem to have much to say, or at least don't seem to care much, about the spectre of libertinism enabled by drug legalization, sports gambling's explosion, or the proliferation of online porn. The leaders of the movement might say things that social conservatives would agree with on those, but the juice isn't in the squeeze for them on it, as opposed to Jew Baiting. It may be interesting to see if that continues
We have created a whole class of young me who lack any core ideology. It is difficult to say how large this audience is, but I fear that Groyperism (just a right-wing variant of radical nihilism) has taken a semi-permanent hold among this group. Nihilism lacks an internal logic or coherence and thus cannot be treated like other ideas. The power of Nick Fuentes and the pull of his "ideas", insofar as they exist at all, is more about iconoclasm and the joy of tearing things down than about the content of what he has to say. His whole appeal is that he hates every institution and every idea. He is aggrieved and the subject of his grievance matters far less to his audience than the virulence of his discontent.
I don't know what we do with anger for its own sake. Fuentes doesn't seem to want to do anything productively and I think his audience likes that. We have to find a way to restore the social balance that once held dorm room nihilism at bay or else face an increasingly large portion of the voting public that prefers hating Jews to any productive policy discussion.
If you don't believe that groyperization IS the future of the Republican party, I wonder if you have actually watched Fuentes' show, or considered the fact that even supposedly "moderate" libertarians like Dave Smith (a Jew ironically, someone Fuentes says can ultimately never be trusted) are already kissing the ring.
All that's left at this point is the "naming ceremony."
I have watched his show - I just think saying things like "having sex with women is gay" doesn't fit the normal populist narrative in that it is so misaligned with our base instincts. No evolutionary psychologist would ever tell you that telling men that heterosexual sex is gay would survive long as an ideology. They would worry much more about a populist who tells people that immigrants are stealing their jobs and that criminals are coming for their families. Groyperism - which I again assert is just this generation's version of youthful nihilism - will survive amongst a core group of disaffected men but will eventually run up against the natural limits of its own nonsensical ideas.
In the podcast with Tucker--Fuentes spoke at length about the problems (especially for young men) with drugs and online porn (I forget whether they discussed gambling).
None of this is a surprise. A movement dedicated to ethnonationalism is going to be full of antisemites. That has never not happened. So many of what I call Trump's "more sophisticated supporters" thought it was okay to tolerate all his bad acts and crankery as long as it didn't come for them. It was never going to last. They were too consumed by their hatred of woke to see what was right in front of them.
"A movement dedicated to ethnonationalism is going to be full of antisemites"?
Two words in response: Yoram Hazony (i.e, Zionism as "Jewish [ethno]nationalism").
I have been an online critic of woke cancel politics for several years, but this makes me think that the wokes will be missed if the Groypers take over. Hopefully the dialectic will eventually shift back to a cosmopolitanism that rejects victim politics.
All major political shifts require either a new generation taking leadership roles, or some outside event like a war. We are in for rough decade.
The first party which embraces such cosmopolitanism is likely to be rewarded with a durable majority. You can see with Trump, a lot of the younger nonwhite Gen Z guys voted for him because they thought that's what Trump was about, but now they are reconsidering.
The Republicans and the Democrats are running a race with each other to see who will be first to overcome their party's internal dysfunctions and block the radicals who are trying to take over.
Where is the evidence for this? All I see are institutional democrats falling behind Mamdani who represents the far left flank of their party
"I’ve spent the last few years warning about the moral and intellectual decline of the right. To see what I’ll be correct about next, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.".
I think you might be exaggerating in this tagline for the newsletter. Maybe the last 9 months? I think this new line for you started around 90 days into Trump's presidency. That's ok. I still read the newsletter and find it insightful, as I did previously. But perhaps a bit less "prophetic" on this point than the tagline suggests.
Yeah I think he's huffing his own farts here in the extreme. The man literally co-authored Project 2025 and "Triple Trumped."
Last few years? When?
I don’t think the quoted sentence is inaccurate. Plenty of posts from 2021 to 2023 meet that description. https://www.richardhanania.com/s/nls?sort=top
Richard, this is one of your sharpest pieces yet. You’re right that the Groyperization of the GOP has moved from fringe to gravitational center — but let’s not kid ourselves that Vance will resist it. He’s a complete invention, a man who believes in nothing but power. He won’t even defend his own wife, let alone any principle. The irony, as you put it so well, is that this movement worships “authenticity,” yet its future standard-bearer is one of the most synthetic figures in American politics.
There are a few issues with this thesis. First of all, where is the evidence that all these online influencers are playing a huge role in actual voting patterns? Where are the so-called “based” candidates being elected into office? A lot of these groypers types hate Vivek Ramaswamy, but he’s still sitting comfortably in the top of the polls for the Ohio governor race.
Also, being anti-immigration and anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily make someone an ethnonationalist. Fuentes himself regularly collaborates with people like Sneako and others that are non-white.
And also, populism can win elections, but can’t deliver results. So unless there can be a groyper managerial class that will actually carry out groyper orders, then the ideology is just people talking on podcasts.
According to Wikipedia, Sneako is part Haitian and part Jewish among other things, and converted to Islam. I assume this is an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.
Did you just say that hating Ramaswamy demonstrates that based candidates is not a thing?
I do have doubts on whether liberal institutions would have been able to "contain" wokeness, were it not for the (as you say, inevitable) backlash which led to Trump and MAGA coming to power and in many cases forcing them to. You seem to be suggesting liberal institutions by their very nature would have been (eventually) doing the same thing anyway. I don't see a lot of evidence for that, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
Exactly, how quickly he forgets. Had Musk not bought Twitter, had Substack been successfully debanked, the woke hegemon would probably still be calling the shots. In which case the NY Times would definitely not have course corrected at all.
I read his point differently. Whenever the backlash came (which indeed was accelerated by trump’s win) the liberal institutions have governance mechanisms that have allowed them to course correct. Distributed, independent media outlets don’t really have similar mechanisms.
But that said - I think this point is weak. Any change like this is due either to cultural or economic pressure and incentives.
Conservatives are like Minions, chasing around the next biggest, worst supervillain. I won’t be interrogating this analogy any further because it’s perfect.
I agree, but I feel like you almost don’t take your own argument seriously enough? If Nick Fuentes and the Groypers are the future of the Republican Party, shouldn’t you spend more time criticizing them and their ideas and less time criticizing declining stocks like JD Vance, Yoram Hazony, Steve Bannon, Catturd etc.?
When President Nick Fuentes signs the Preservation of the Purity of our Blood Act in 20 years, maybe you’ll be able to write a really good tweet dunking on Yoram Hazony for encouraging ethno-nationalism as you’re being deported on the remigration shuttle. But wouldn’t it have been more useful to have directly criticized the white nationalist, theocratic, and anti-science philosophy of Nick Fuentes instead?
The antidote to Nick Fuentes isn't the denigration of religion and the delusion that the source of one's values can (and must!) be "Science" (and the hierarchies erected in its name).
Great article and accurate. I hate everything Nick stands for but I love the way he stands. He’s honest about what he thinks and why, consistent in his beliefs and coherent in his speech, and charismatic as hell. I don’t personally understand why he wants a white Christian America, seems to fly in the face of American ideals, just seems ignorant and really narrow and cynical reading of the Constitution. But compared to the watered down manipulative bs at least I know where I stand with this guy and he doesn’t make things up and spread stupid conspiracy theories just to get clicks. If he’s saying it, he likely believes it. I’ve been saying this a while now, that while I’m politically aligned with Destiny, I see Fuentes as the best opponent because like Destiny, he just doesn’t give a f$&@ and he knows who he is. I’ve been encouraging Destiny and others to take him more seriously because others will.
For more thoughts on Fuentes check out my article here. https://open.substack.com/pub/galan/p/destiny-vs-everyone?r=1xoiww&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
He isn't honest about what he says about Kassy Dillon/Akiva. At all. He is a liar. And a very very good one.
I’ll check it out. I don’t consume a whole lot of Fuentes tbh.
Kassy Dillon has a thread where she goes through how Fuentes lied about her and why.
Yeah it looks like he’s a little nuts. At least in this situation. I can’t read thru all of it or audit what’s actually happening. When I said honest I didn’t mean HONEST honest. Just that his brand plays a little more raw and consistent than other people in the genre. Don’t worry I’m not saying the guy is a saint or anything. He has what I consider horrible racist and anti-Semite beliefs, full stop. In my opinion his mind is kind of warped. There’s something refreshing about the candor around his beliefs and values. So unapologetic. We know people think like that and it’s kind of comforting to see him just spit it. Even though I hate it.
I'll admit to not understanding Fuentes appeal at all, but the comparison to Trump seems farfetched. Trump was pretty good looking, dated and married beautiful women, was successful before politics. Some little gay anti-semite just isn't going to go that far on the right, I'm pretty sure.
This seems right. Fuentes isn’t going to gain much more direct power than he currently has. But will his indirect, secondary, influence impact politics on the right? Consider something like Grover Norquist's pledge. Or the influence of woke politics and staffers on Biden - who never was really very work- but nevertheless enabled plenty of things on the work agenda and made some very dumb DEI picks.
I think "conservative" is a complete misnomer for these... let's call them creatures.
Someone that is "conservative" has strict moral codes, tends to defend hierarchy, values virtue and merit, above all self-restraint and discipline. These kind of people will naturally despise creatures like Trump, Fuentes, Kirk, Carlson, Owens, Vance, Miller and the lesser known ilk.
The American right is no longer conservative in some sense that is recognizable from the past. They do not seek caution in implementing changes. They do not prefer incremental reform. They do no seek to conserve or re-establish old institutions that have proven their worth. They do not even show reverence to the American constitution and the ideals behind it. Only so far as they can use it for their racist, hyperbolic self-idolization. They do not love Jesus Christ, but love religion to demonize and terrorize their opponents.
Quite the opposite—they are revolutionaries. They seek to destroy institutions. They reject the actual recorded past in favor of a mythical past that they interpret in terms of their racist and self-idolizing narratives. There are no transcendent principles or values for them. They are nihilists. They want to destroy the world around them and crown themselves king of their world - if possible God of their own World. That lies at the core of libertarianism, which is the Qlippoth for the spirits of darkness these creatures use to gain and maintain power.
I too have recognized too late the truth about the true nature of these creatures. I hope it's not too late now. I call on every truly "conservative" human to stand up against this vile horde. The left might be ugly in certain ways and never truly our friends, however compared to these barbarian creatures they are the lesser evil. Civilzation can not be taken for granted. As with 1930 Germany, the anti-civilizational horde is not coming from the outside, but from within.
I've been saying this for a while. Fuentes is the next Rush Limbaugh
https://open.substack.com/pub/daastorah/p/nick-fuentes-is-the-future-of-the.
I just wonder what happens if he wins? After he expels or kills the Jews and the blacks, does he actually think America will get better? That mass shootings will disappear? The hatred he foments is not a cure and that's the way for a Republican with guts to go after them.
While I understand the concern expressed here, I also think the conclusion reached by Henania for why we should be concerned for far right authoritarianism is rather weak. Essentially, his argument is “any far right influencer has more views than a far left author has sales for their book, therefore, the far right is more ascendent.” It ignores a lot of nuance and other factors, and only shows how little Henania knows about the right, and how he’s essentially a wolf (left wingers) is sheep’s clothing (right wingers).
It is a long-term loser of a move for Republicans