Opinion Nick Fuentes fills Milo’s gap

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
They’re being called the Groypers — named after Pepe the Frog’s more sinister, overweight toad cousin — and they’re making life hell for Charlie Kirk and his campus conservative organization Turning Point USA.

Following eyebrow-raising comments from Kirk recently that have been interpreted as elevating Israel above the United States, advocating automatic green cards for foreign exchange students, and one incident where a TPUSA leader was terminated after she posed in a group photograph with ‘fringe’ figures, the Groypers, led by 22-year-old shitlord Nick Fuentes, have been infiltrating TPUSA events to launch a barrage of uncomfortable questions at Kirk. In some instances, they’ve managed to dominate the entire Q and A portion of events, as Kirk squirms on stage.

This campaign of terror peaked Tuesday night at Ohio State, where Kirk was joined on stage by TPUSA ambassador Rob Smith, a gay, black, Iraq war veteran who, since leaving the Democrat party just last year has been a fixture on Fox News and the campus speaking circuit. Smith, or rather TPUSA’s open embrace of homosexuality, got the brunt of the attack at Ohio.



‘You’ve advocated on behalf of accepting homosexuality, accepting homosexual acts as normative in the conservative movement, how does anal sex help us win the culture war?’ one rosary-clutching, Fuentes plant asked.

It was a stunning moment and something I, as a gay man with right-wing views, have been desperate for someone to ask. Many lifelong conservatives have watched politely as a new class of people have been anointed their national spokespersons simply because they were ex-Democrats who ticked a certain identity box. I hope I do not fall into this category somewhere. Yet often these people, and I’m not talking about Rob, propped up as the second coming of William F. Buckley, turn out to be incurious morons who couldn’t tell Burke from Beyonce. They don’t truly understand conservatism. All they know is the left is bad and lies a lot, and they’ve built careers on this not exactly groundbreaking concept. The whole thing comes off as defensive posturing: if the left says we are racists and homophobes we must hand the spotlight over to our blacks and gays.

Smith took the mic, rattling and unprepared. He lauded America’s exceptionalism and the contributions gay men and lesbians make to society. But for an event titled ‘Culture War,’ his response seemed to only validate the perception that TPUSA is out-of-touch and not, in fact, comprised of cultural warriors. The correct response to that question, from a homosexual, should have been something like, ‘But, honey, without us your women would have awful hair.’

Fuentes and some of his followers, though certainly not all, could be said to legitimately hold far-right views on ‘white identity’, ethno-nationalism, and Christian morality. While many of the questions asked were tough, challenging, and highly engaging, there was an undeniable strain of authoritarianism weaved underneath. It was enthralling and slightly chilling. But by no means were all of their questions about race. Some were legitimate policy inquiries. Kirk dodged those, too.

This is happening for two reasons. First, the left is no longer an interesting or formidable foe. The culture war issues that sent Trump to the White House in 2016 are old hat to dissident right-wingers who live on the internet. That was a millennial war and now the zoomers are ascending. Those with a knack for sensing the mood of the nation and predicting the direction culture will go — a club, by the way, devoid of anyone on the left or in media — watch the left’s continued narrow-sighted, cannibalistic spiral of madness with increasing boredom, whether it’s Russiagate, impeachment, or boycotting a Chick-fil-A.

Once you’ve figured out the left, and have successfully stood up to them and survived, they become less worthy of your mental energy.

Conservatism, Inc does not understand this. They deliver talking points very well, but that’s about it. Still, they were aloof, or cocky, enough to title their campus tour ‘culture war,’ and didn’t think some people might cringe whenever they took stage firing t-shirts from a cannon while dressed in a J.Crew blazer, loafers, and Ray-Bans. Because, when all’s said and done, they’re corny and unconvincing. Even Turning Point’s own members are abandoning it: Twitter was awash yesterday with resignations, including two chapter presidents, one from Drexel University and the other from Kansas. And even Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin retweeted the resignation statements. So it’s not just the dark underbelly of the internet waiting to see Kirk stumble.

Let’s face it, they’re as dorky as the Never-Trumpers, only younger. And yet, many see them as snatching the baton and appointing themselves the guardians of 2016’s spoils. I sincerely have no beef with Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, or anyone affiliated with that organization. They do decent work and all seem like nice, hard-working people. But as far as in-fighting goes, where liberals stifle and suffocate, conservatives brawl. And the celebratory reaction to Tuesday night’s spectacle from mainline Trump supporters who have zero tendencies toward ethno-nationalism proves what I’ve suspected for a while: there’s a feeling among anti-establishment conservatives that their self-appointed leaders have grown lazy and take their support for granted, if not downright insult their intelligence by robo-tweeting the same blanket statements about liberal corruption or America First, day in and day out, for three years. It never occurred to these cultural war generals to evolve, that people may be thirsty for depth, more philosophy, Christianity, or just quality entertainment.

Following Tuesday night’s melee, Rob Smith (whom I know personally, and like) stirred even more ire when he took to Twitter to claim the event had been infiltrated by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Other conservatives with blue check marks but not affiliated with TPUSA echoed this. While I don’t understand the obsession some on the right have with Israel — pro or con, despite personally falling in the pro-camp — and I glaze over at any mention of ‘white identity,’ if the embarrassment on stage didn’t do it, those tweets may have been the death of Turning Point. The media’s treatment of Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann is still fresh for Trumpers. How could anyone, especially supposed leaders of the culture war, label young men in MAGA hats as Nazis, carelessly deploying the same empty, meaningless insults the left uses to destroy lives? No one has forgotten that Kirk condemned the Covington boys before he praised them.

If the energy behind the Groyper insurgency has you worried about an actual rising tide of ethno-nationalism, Facebook and Twitter are to blame. Silicon Valley censorship created Nick Fuentes. The true culture warriors on the right, save for the president himself, were silenced by Big Tech when it became clear how beloved and effective they were. Love them or hate them, the likes of Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, Roger Stone, and Milo Yiannopoulos built large followings of young right-wing men. They could be mean, offensive, shocking, and totally bonkers but they weren’t consciously steering their audience towards ethno-nationalism. They also understood and listened to their audience better than anyone else in living memory in the conservative movement.

Their un-personing left a gigantic void in the national discourse that Conservatism, Inc, ill-equipped, rushed in to fill. These new interlopers lack the talent, insight, intelligence, and grit of the Banned. (Full disclosure, I also personally know Yiannopoulos and McInnes and have worked with them before). It also created the opportunity for extremely self-confident zoomer Fuentes to rise up and give a contrarian, challenging voice against the new, unelected face of Trumpism. Had the aforementioned provocateurs never been banned, Turning Point would be in no one’s crosshairs, but just another, milder delegation sitting under the big tent. No one would have heard of Nick Fuentes.

 
It seems like people really didn't think through their questions or counterattacks Kirk would use. Pretty boring stuff tbh. People should have asked a lot more about his nevertrump past, why he believed that then, why he changed his views, why he believes what he believes now, and some snide remarks about Trump finally lashing out against never trumpers. People should have particularly brought that up whenever Kirk asked people if they supported Trump... not that I think I could really do any better or would want to go to one of these just to ask a question anyone who can think already knows the answer to.

That'd be too easy for him to counter by just saying his opinion has changed over time.
Patrick Casey Advice.png

You also have the problem that even Patrick Casey skips over here which is that Kirk seems comfortable now calling out Identity Yevropa and asking people to disavow them after he goes through describing them. They also tried to avoid answering Kirk's questions as he kept on repeating (even trying to answer Kirk with something like "I'm unfamiliar with them") which gave Kirk an even stronger position, yet the takeaway Casey has is to try avoiding answering even more.

Effective questions for some kind of America First vibe would need to be something like "why should we support legal immigration or work visas when it takes the burden off American companies to hire and train Americans?". Ignores the concept of what's best for the bottom line is best for the country and doesn't involve the minefield of a subject that is race.
 
Proving him ____________?

I don't understand your point. I think you're trying to say that he was right. He was disavowed for saying jews haunt him and that having sex with a dog is as degenerate as fucking a black guy. This is common sense that no one wants to be associated with someone like that in the mainstream political realm.

Even if some people want that, it isn't what is being advocated for. People are advocating for a government that takes order and the well being of the people seriously and an end to demographic replacement, none of that requires a "fascist government" or "kicking the (legal) non-whites out"

They were advocating for a fascist government. Why do you keep trying to dress up what people are saying?.

Fascism is gay. Get over it.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed
Fuentes is the quintessential suit and tie sperg, but it is overall useful for stirring the pot. Now you have everyone from Dave Rubin fans to BreadTubers shitting all over Dan Crenshaw for being an Israel-firster with zero understanding of the First Amendment. Even liberal Jews like Sam Seder sided with the Groypers on the anti-BDS hypocrisy.
 
"The whole point of fascism is that they care a whole damn lot about their citizens and their nations. The enemies they were fighting against were, conversely, the ones who despised the citizens and just wanted power -- the judeo-bolshevik movements that have intentionally shattered western society into a thousand disparate splinters over this last century."

"Can whites just get over that fact that their gay democracy system doesn't work for everyone because races are inherently different in thought and comprehension? "

"My point is that I think the form of government matters less than it's policies and goals and that muh constitutional democracy isn't going to save us as much as you or I wish it would. I fail to see how a constitutional republic with a more fascist flavor that actually cares about it's citizens rather than money would be worse."


They really think a government is going to care about them.
That last quote is exactly what I described (prefferable to some degree in some circumstance) rather than what you described it as, (people proposing a fascist dictatorship as a solution to all their problems).

The second is a criticism of current systems rather than extolling facism as a solution to everything.

The first one gets pretty close to what you were saying, but it's focus on history rather than present should put doubt in one's mind whether it's advocating anything. You didn't quote them in a useful way (linked) where it's easy to gauge context. I now get better where you're coming from, but I still think you're exaggerating a little.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your point. I think you're trying to say that he was right. He was disavowed for saying jews haunt him and that having sex with a dog is as degenerate as fucking a black guy. This is common sense that no one wants to be associated with someone like that in the mainstream political realm.



They were advocating for a fascist government. Why do you keep trying to dress up what people are saying?.

Fascism is gay. Get over it.
Your definition of fascism seems awfully broad.

A similarly aged conservative inc. kid complaining about racemixing "niggerjocks" (Kyle Kashuv) or an adult advocating for ethnic cleansing of arabs and calling them a garbage people (Ben Shapiro) is A O.K. with these same people though. You probably ought to relisten because you got some bits factually wrong. Sperg (almost definitely) or not, you seem intent on mislabeling him or those who agree with some of his main public facing stances.

That'd be too easy for him to counter by just saying his opinion has changed over time.
View attachment 1009782

You also have the problem that even Patrick Casey skips over here which is that Kirk seems comfortable now calling out Identity Yevropa and asking people to disavow them after he goes through describing them. They also tried to avoid answering Kirk's questions as he kept on repeating (even trying to answer Kirk with something like "I'm unfamiliar with them") which gave Kirk an even stronger position, yet the takeaway Casey has is to try avoiding answering even more.

Effective questions for some kind of America First vibe would need to be something like "why should we support legal immigration or work visas when it takes the burden off American companies to hire and train Americans?". Ignores the concept of what's best for the bottom line is best for the country and doesn't involve the minefield of a subject that is race.
I don't know anything about Identity Evropa really. It wouldn't be hard to just say that he called you a white supremacist last week for not wanting to expand legal immigration so you will do your own research instead of taking his word for it.

I'm saying with a very pointed never-trump tweet or anti-base quote, not just asking him what he used to think vs now. Regarding him saying he changes his mind - there are a few implications and benefits
1. The followup implication is that maybe he isn't the best leader if he is new to this and can change his mind so easily at the drop of momentum. Comparisons to Romney, et al
2. Why did he change his mind? This is a harder question to answer satisfactorily than it first appears.
3. It publicizes the anti-trump stuff he has said in the past that the TPUSA crowd doesn't know about.

Also, has anyone asked him about lying about his West Point quote yet?
Anyway like I said earlier, I don't think I would be any better on the spot.
 
Last edited:
That'd be too easy for him to counter by just saying his opinion has changed over time.
View attachment 1009782

You also have the problem that even Patrick Casey skips over here which is that Kirk seems comfortable now calling out Identity Yevropa and asking people to disavow them after he goes through describing them. They also tried to avoid answering Kirk's questions as he kept on repeating (even trying to answer Kirk with something like "I'm unfamiliar with them") which gave Kirk an even stronger position, yet the takeaway Casey has is to try avoiding answering even more.

Effective questions for some kind of America First vibe would need to be something like "why should we support legal immigration or work visas when it takes the burden off American companies to hire and train Americans?". Ignores the concept of what's best for the bottom line is best for the country and doesn't involve the minefield of a subject that is race.
They have to take in account that Kirk has an army of strategists on hand to mold his organization and message. They may have been caught off guard at first, but you can tell since then they've cracked their heads together and coached Kirk on how to handle insurgency.

It doesn't help that the people are standing there reading predigested muck off their phones while addressing Kirk. Can they not afford even modest preparation, can they not memorize and actually know what they are talking about? Look at what the USS Liberty guy did: he actually addressed Kirk with confidence, he didn't come off as a tard reading from a script. If you're not a confident speaker, not brimming with charm, and most importantly if you're not knowledgable in the subject at hand, then sit down and shut up.
 
Your definition of fascism seems awfully broad.

A similarly aged conservative inc. kid complaining about racemixing "niggerjocks" (Kyle Kashuv) or an adult advocating for ethnic cleansing of arabs and calling them a garbage people (Ben Shapiro) is A O.K. with these same people though. You probably ought to relisten because you got some bits factually wrong. Sperg (almost definitely) or not, you seem intent on mislabeling him or those who agree with some of his main public facing stances.

I have no clue what you are talking about, re- listen to what? Ben Shapiro and everything he stands for and says is awful. Privatizing everything and removing all social services would make the USA like a third world hell hole controlled even more than it already is by mega corporations. Shapiro literally looks like evil. You're allowed to be racist against arabs if everyone funding you is a zionist. The right wing really doesn't care if you are racist as long as you apologize if needed and hide it for optics. If you constantly screech about jews, blacks, and mexicans of course they are going to kick you out. It's not a good look.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed
I don't understand your point. I think you're trying to say that he was right. He was disavowed for saying jews haunt him and that having sex with a dog is as degenerate as fucking a black guy. This is common sense that no one wants to be associated with someone like that in the mainstream political realm.



They were advocating for a fascist government. Why do you keep trying to dress up what people are saying?.

Fascism is gay. Get over it.

He said 'they're both degenerate.' It wasn't equating one in degeneracy value with the other. Fuentes is a Catholic and fornication is still a sin to Catholicism. Your gotcha moment there doesn't exist.
 
He said 'they're both degenerate.' It wasn't equating one in degeneracy value with the other. Fuentes is a Catholic and fornication is still a sin to Catholicism. Your gotcha moment there doesn't exist.

I don't think you know what a gotcha moment even is, because there was none there. All I did was state why he was disavowed. This has nothing to do with fornification, he thinks interracial relationships are degenerate and has said it numerous times. Why is there so many people in here trying to white knight this sperg?
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed
I don't think you know what a gotcha moment even is, because there was none there. All I did was state why he was disavowed. This has nothing to do with fornification, he thinks interracial relationships are degenerate and has said it numerous times. Why is there so many people in here trying to white knight this sperg?

I'm only white knighting him because what he's doing is much needed spring cleaning in the conservative movement. 'Mainstream' conservatism is just Trotskyism in disguise, and it is disgusting to know that they represent right-wing thinking at all. If he's 21 or 22, he's got lots of room to grow into a more evolved position.

What I am not sure about is why Kassy Dillon mentioned dogs at all.
 
I'm only white knighting him because what he's doing is much needed spring cleaning in the conservative movement. 'Mainstream' conservatism is just Trotskyism in disguise, and it is disgusting to know that they represent right-wing thinking at all. If he's 21 or 22, he's got lots of room to grow into a more evolved position.

What I am not sure about is why Kassy Dillon mentioned dogs at all.

I'm not sure why he was dumb enough to answer her questions.

Mainstream conservatives have nothing in common with Trotskyism. Conservatives are corporatist libertarian zionists. The complete opposite of Trotskyism. Ben Shapiro definitely isn't trying to get the proletariat to take over the corporations, he wants the corporations to rule them.
 
I'm not sure why he was dumb enough to answer her questions.

Mainstream conservatives have nothing in common with Trotskyism. Conservatives are corporatist libertarian zionists. The complete opposite of Trotskyism. Ben Shapiro definitely isn't trying to get the proletariat to take over the corporations, he wants the corporations to rule them.


Here, some sources for you.
 

Here, some sources for you.

This is the dumbest shit. Go read about what Trotskyism is. There is nothing in common. Like I said....... Ben Shapiro definitely isn't trying to get the proletariat to take over the corporations, he wants the corporations to rule them. Conservatives are literally the furthest thing from Trotskyites. Complete opposite.
 
This is the dumbest shit. Go read about what Trotskyism is. There is nothing in common. Like I said....... Ben Shapiro definitely isn't trying to get the proletariat to take over the corporations, he wants the corporations to rule them. Conservatives are literally the furthest thing from Trotskyites. Complete opposite.

You fail to account for Trotskyism's push for interventionism to establish the revolution worldwide, which is why it was a much more dangerous strain of socialism than Stalinism. Neocons do the same thing, only, it's 'American (corporate) Freedum' and not 'The Proletariat's Revolution'.
 
You fail to account for Trotskyism's push for interventionism to establish the revolution worldwide, which is why it was a much more dangerous strain of socialism than Stalinism. Neocons do the same thing, only, it's 'American (corporate) Freedum' and not 'The Proletariat's Revolution'.

The core of the ideology is the proletariat ruling, not corporations. You can't one part of an ideology and ignore the rest and call it the same thing. This is re-tarded.
 
The core of the ideology is the proletariat ruling, not corporations. You can't one part of an ideology and ignore the rest and call it the same thing. This is re-tarded.

Nothing ever stays the same over time. It doesn't change that neoconservatism descends from Trotskyism, and with such roots, it's not a surprise that non-neocons are ostracized and banned.

After all, communism has a great track record for suppression of free speech.
 
Nothing ever stays the same over time. It doesn't change that neoconservatism descends from Trotskyism, and with such roots, it's not a surprise that non-neocons are ostracized and banned.

After all, communism has a great track record for suppression of free speech.

One of the worst takes I've ever read. You cant change the definition of words to fit your conspiracy. Neocons are the literal opposite of Trotsky.
 
What must it feel like to be apart of an ideology where any public figure who espouses its ideals too succinctly is seen as a government plant?
You should take some pointers from those feds public figures. Try expressing your thoughts more succinctly, it's not that hard to just say "I hate right-wing people, they are dumb and gay for Hitler and stuff". Brevity is the soul of wit, Harris.
 
Back