Someone posted in the Nick thread about how they watched Steve do a reaction video where he reacted to some trad conservative e-girl, and he went on a 20 minute rant about how he wanted to tie her up, and make her watch him kill her dog and set it on fire. Based off of his streams that I have watched, and the way he treated people like Carter, Puma, and Patrick Casey, I honestly believe it. The post is buried somewhere in the thread, if I come across it, I'll post it in here. I highly doubt I will be able to find the video. Between him being banned from just about every platform, nuking his online presence, and changing his persona every couple of years, it's hard to find a whole lot about this psycho.
Franssen has no real personality or identity. Ten years ago he said he did not believe in God because souls did not have weight and therefore must be immaterial, which is the most airheaded take on anything put on the Internet. Seven years ago he was promoting Internal Family Systems because his hero Fred Timm mentioned it. Five years ago he wrote a book in which he mocked Christianity and refused to type out "Stefan Molyneux" without preceding it with the title "philosopher." Two years ago he released another book in which he called Catholicism nonwhite and therefore inauthentic Christianity.
Without a doubt this clip demonstrates some vain attempt to replicate a Nick Fuentes® Go-off Moment™ and it fails horribly to the degree that he looks like a sadistic loon rather than amusingly angered. Franssen remakes his online persona every few years because he remakes himself every few years. He is like the monster from John Carpenter's
The Thing, inasmuch as he shapeshifts based on whatever content he consumes and attempts to blend in with his new paternal figure's audience in an attempt grow bigger, until he inevitably becomes isolated and viewerless, thereby returning to hibernation.
Just a question: is all the cultural production of Nick's catboi legion limited to producing livestreams, shitpoasting in groupchats and the occasional meme, or are there any Groypers who are working on books, serious blogs and whitepapers to (begin to) build something of a philosophical grounding and vision for 'the movement'?
As you have probably identified, most credible political vehicles need rationale to maintain any momentum. The apparatus for identifying and communicating their
cassus belli usually sits with some educated and rhetorically sophisticated individual or group of individuals. America had several including Thomas Paine, the French Revolution had Jacobins like Robespierre, the Bolsheviks had the likes of Lenin and Trotsky, etc.
You have also probably identified that AF is not a credible political vehicle. The first thing to do after securing a victory is retroactive justification and affecting some sort of manifesto, which helps give shape to their stated goals and attract new membership. Instead of that we got the infamous catboy date and two meet-and-greets styled as a "leadership summit" and a "PAC," neither with more than one hundred people. Fuentes to some degree recognized this need and presented three major issues at the forefront of his demands (cutting immigration, reducing influence of special interests and reinstating Christian moral culture), but this is effectively dead, with at best a confused message about tech censorship now leading the conversation. Anti-COVID restrictions also gets more air time than either of the first two core issues, and the Christian message is reduced to window dressing.