- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Multiracial White Nationalism?
Thoughts on the American Populist Union

[1]2,973 words

As a matter of obligatory oppo research, I occasionally peruse Antifa Twitter. I think all White Nationalists should take some time watching what Antifa are up to if for no other reason than because they spend a lot of time watching us. You can also pick up some helpful tips on how to improve your opsec because when they dox people, they will usually go through and give a step-by-step explanation on how they put the pieces together. “Oh, I should probably close that little loophole . . .”

Recently, I was looking through Antifa Twitter and found a tweet thread by Antifa Jew Ben Lorber [2]. Lorber works for the anti-racist think tank Political Research Associates and has quoted me [3] in a one of his articles . In addition to being anti-white, he’s also a pro-Palestine Israel critic. So he has loyalty to no one. He just wants to see the whole world burn.


His tweet thread [5] involved Nick Fuentes’ recent attempt to crash CPAC [6], and Lorder is going through and identifying all the people in Fuentes’ entourage. There was former Tik Tok star Lancevideos [7], One Young Patriot [8], and Culture War Criminal [9]. There were also a few non-whites in Fuentes’ entourage that day. One was LatinoZoomer [10], and then there was this guy Jordan B who is half black.

In response to the non-whites in Fuentes’ crew, Lorder drops this tweet:


Of course, people had a lot of fun with that tweet.



Now, the term “multiracial White Nationalism” is an oxymoron. And yet Lorder is referring to a real phenomenon. I’m not going to get too deep into whether or not Nick Fuentesism constitutes “ White Nationalism.” Maybe not technically but functionally, yeah, you could make an argument that it is. Issue for issue, there is not a lot of disagreement, but the messaging and justifications may vary. In my opinion, it’s good enough for jazz.

If it’s not White Nationalism, it’s something there isn’t a word for. It’s not civic nationalism, because civic nationalism is colorblind, and Fuentesism is race realist and j-woke, plus it rejects the notion of a country being about ideas which is central to civic nationalism.

Maybe “multiracial White Nationalism” is not the mot juste, but it’s not as off the mark as the scoffers would like to insist. There are non-whites out there supporting something pretty close to White Nationalism. At minimum, there are non-whites supporting something that is called White Nationalism by a great many people.

A few days after reading that humdinger of a tweet, I see the article on Salon with the headline “Right-wing student group Turning Point USA struggles to bar White Nationalists from gathering [14].” The article is talking about how TPUSA is worried that their event will be infiltrated and disrupted by Groypers.

Our pal Ben Lorder is quoted a couple times in the article. Feel free to read this quote in your best Morrakiu impersonation. “The White Nationalist groyper movement has long viewed TPUSA as a strategic site for recruiting and spreading their ideology among conservative youth. Since 2019, the groypers have pursued a dual strategy of publicly pressuring TPUSA to move further rightward while quietly infiltrating its chapters to effect change from within. In the 2021 school year, White Nationalist movements like the groypers continue their efforts to target right-wing college students in order to further radicalize the next generation of conservative leaders.”

The article then starts talking about the group American Populist Union which is planning on having their own event opposite TPUSA’s in the same city. The article describes American Populist Union as being “a loosely affiliated group of extremists and White Nationalists.”

Lorber is quoted again. Speaking in a voice that sounds exactly like Morrakiu , Lorber says “Leaders and followers of the American Populist Union, most of whom are college-age or younger, slander feminists and LGBTQ people as ‘degenerate,’ argue for a moratorium on all immigration, view themselves as victimized by ‘anti-white hatred’ in universities and popular culture, and oppose a conservative establishment they view as weak and ineffectual. Multiple movement leaders have signaled alignment with and organized alongside Nick Fuentes and the groyper movement. In their private chat rooms and servers, open support for the groypers, and their White Nationalist agenda isn’t hard to find.”

So now I’m curious about who this American Populist Union is. What is this Fuentesist answer to TPUSA? I’ve heard the name before. I go to their website [15] and it turns out the founder and chief spokesman of the group is a guy named Vince Dao who is quite clearly non-white. In case you don’t know, Dao (“Daaa-aaaa-aaaa-o, daylight come and me wanna go home,” sorry couldn’t help myself) is a Vietnamese name.


His bio reads “Vince Dao is the co-founder and chief spokesperson of the American Populist Union. Dao hosts a weekly TV show called “The National Conservative” and was featured in Newsweek‘s Top 12 Conservative Up-and-Comers, Dao identifies as a Populist Conservative.”

The chief executive of the American Populist Union is Shashank Yalamanchi. Yalamanci is an Indian name. Apparently, he handles all of the legal stuff for American Populist Union.


The fact that not-technically-but-kinda-sorta-white-nationalist Nick Fuentes had some non-white supporters was like “OK, whatever.” But here we have a Fuentesist group that is being led by non-whites. This requires a bit more thought.

First of all, the fact that American Populist Union’s initials are APU is unfortunate as it brings to mind the Indian convenience store clerk from The Simpsons.

But beyond that, I can’t find anything really objectionable about the group’s propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPNbFuDKhOg [18]

Then I look at their Twitter [19] and search reference references to “immigration”.


OK, not bad. So I search for references to “white.”


Alright, so I can’t say that there is anything particularly wrong with what they are saying.

Their logo is kind of interesting:


How many American Indians and Vietnamese do you think there are working oil rigs or wearing hard hats at their day job (unless they own the company)? So this is clearly a group that is implicitly advocating for the white working class.

I don’t think there is much point in saying whether I approve or disapprove of non-whites getting involved in pro-white politics. It’s kind of a no-win situation. If I say I approve, it will be “First it’s Vietnamese, then it will be Jews, then there will be a bunch of drag queens in Pit Viper sunglasses walking around.” If I say I have a problem with it, I’d be hearing “What, would you rather they go off and support BLM?” Basically, I’m just reporting that this is a thing that is happening.

The obvious danger with this sort of thing is the NAXALT factor. That having “based non-whites” around will cause some people to say “Well, if these non-whites can figure it out, then maybe the rest can too!” For complex reasons, “based non-whites” will always be a minority of non-whites. People need to accept that and start taking demographic change seriously rather than hoping for miracles.

On the other hand, having some non-white advocates for pro-white policies can relieve the concerns of those same people that pro-white policies are not only not harmful to non-whites but are in fact good for everyone.

And sure, “based non-whites” will always be a minority of non-whites but I don’t see how it could do any harm to siphon a few away from the Left (other than the aforementioned NAXALT factor). It is certainly a head-trip for the anti-whites who are forced to come up with silly sounding terms like “multiracial White Nationalism” to explain it.

This is not exactly a new debate. For years, White Nationalists have considering the question “What a Race X guy agrees with all our positions and wants to join?” The concern was always that if non-whites were let into our club that they would then start advocating for their own group “Sure, Jews and blacks are bad, but my group aren’t like them. You should make an exception for my group.”

But if such people just form their own groups which are explicitly multiracial, that resolves that conflict. We can have our own explicitly “by whites, for whites” spaces and they can have their own multiracial groups.

Plus, as far as I can tell APU is dealing in electoral politics which a lot of us are terminally blackpilled on so they don’t seem to be stepping on our toes.


Monday, July 19, APU had their big event, and I was able to catch most of it. It was very Fuentes-esque in both style and substance. If you approve of Nick Fuentes, you would probably approve of the APU’s summit for the same reasons. If you don’t like Nick Fuentes, you probably won’t like APU for the same reasons.

It was very Gen Z flavored with a lot of Groyper memes and lingo. There were sporadic chants of “Christ is King” and speakers referred to each other as “chad king.” The event was being held next door to the ongoing TPUSA event which was itself a callback to the 2019 Groyper Leadership Summit which was held simultaneously and in the same city as TPUSA’s Leadership Summit. Other than some of the APU leadership, the speakers were all white.

There was apparently some difficulty getting the livestream going. It ended up being broadcast on Vince Dao’s personal YouTube channel rather than APU’s YouTube page as was advertised. Here are my notes on it. At the time of writing, I cannot find it on YouTube anymore so I’ll be relying heavily on memory.

I missed the opening speech by Vince Dao (“Daaaa-aaaaa-aaa-o, daylight come and me wanna go home.” Look, I just have to do it. The temptation is irresistible. I don’t care if I’m pronouncing his name wrong.) because the livestream was not up and running yet.

Kai Klips [24] was the first person whose speech I got to watch. Kai Klips is an America First Tik Tok influencer with a 53K subscriber channel and 2.6 million likes.

Each speaker at the event covered a different topic and Kai Klips did the speech on immigration. It was a pretty good speech. He threw in the factoid that prior to 1900, about 1/3 of all immigrants to the United States (including 50% of Italians) returned home after failing to pull their bootstraps hard enough. He talked about how immigrants in days past assimilated but were no longer expected to and if anything, were encouraged not to. He said that you cannot replace the population of America and expect to have the same country.
There was one point where he flew a little too close to the sun when he said something along the lines of (again, I’m going on memory here) “If someone says America is a country of immigrants, remember which kind of immigrants it is a country of.” That line seemed to shock the audience and did not get the applause break that he was hoping for. It was a little too close to outright White Nationalism for a group that was trying to present itself as technically-not-white-nationalist.

Nathaniel Abbott [25] gave a speech on the importance of masculinity. Abbott has a small YouTube channel [26], and is one of APU’s content creators. He has done a video [27] on this subject for the group.

A lot of digs at Lady MAGA in this speech. Lady MAGA has been a propaganda godsend for the Dissident Right. If Lady MAGA didn’t exist, we would have had to invented him. We would have had to draw straws and the shortest straw would have to take one for the team by going to TPUSA dressed in drag. We should do that with a furry. We draw straws and the shortest straw has to take one for the team by going to CPAC dressed in a furry costume with BDSM gear just so we came make propaganda about it. You know CPAC would let them in and then we can be like “They kick out Nick Fuentes but let that furry freak in? What the hell is wrong with these people?”

Gavin Wax [28] is the president of the New York Young Republicans Club. He has written for NewsMax, TownHall and others. He is also involved in the BullMoose Project [29]. Wax gave a speech by broadcast on economic populism.

Economics is not the sexiest topic, but it was a pretty good speech. Wax talked about how free market absolutism has got to go. Talked about how too much power is in the hands of a tiny elite, and that is not good. Said he we need some protectionist tariffs to bring the jobs back home. Good stuff.

Of course, it would not be Fuentesism if there were not strong appeals to the Christianity. David Carlson [30], who goes by DC Perspective [31] on YouTube, was the guy who gave the speech on how the country is doomed unless we collectively accept Jesus Christ into our hearts. Mentioned that what we call “Western Civilization” used to be called “Christendom.”

Most of you have already made your minds up as to what you think about this stuff. Personally, I’m like “whatever.” Fuentes has found a formula that gets results. Maybe it would work without all the Christian stuff, but I don’t see any point in trying to fix something that’s not broken. If that’s what helps people get in their zone, whatever. I think in some sense, symbolic or ceremonial Christianity has some value in that it is the opposite of what the Left wants.

People say that Christianity is fundamentally liberal, but if that is the case, then why do Jews hate it so much? I mean, Jews really hate Christianity and references Christ. The sign of the cross really does seem to strike fear in the godless hearts of the children of Satan. To me, even beyond the theological merits, the chants of “Christ is King” have an air of defiance.

Like Fuentes’ America First, APU is largely driven by e-celebs. However, at Fuentes’ AFPAC, he makes sure to get some real politicians to speak. At the last AFPAC, he got Paul Gosar and Steve King. APU does not have the clout to get names that big, but they got some lesser known “based politicians.” The first one was Florida House Rep Anthony Sabatini [32] gave a speech by video.

Sabatini has introduced legislation in the Florida to ban hormone treatment for children, ban red light cameras, and has been an opponent of lockdown measures. He’s also been in some scandals including one involving pictures of him in blackface. He gave a good speech that was short and sweet. Talked about how Republicans, in addition to fighting the Left, need to do more to hold their own accountable for their treachery. I like this guy. He has a lot of charisma, and he’s only 32 years old. He is one to watch for the future.

The other normie politician they had was Joe Kent [33]. He is a former green beret and husband of the late Shannon Kent [34] who died in an ISIS suicide bombing [35] in Syria. I’m sure Kent is a decent guy, and he didn’t say anything wrong, but his speech was too wonky and he doesn’t have enough showmanship to be giving speeches as long as the one he gave to a room full of zoomers.

Red Eagle Politics [36] was the penultimate speaker. He has a +100K subscriber YouTube channel. He talked about the corruption of the GOP establishment. Said that the party leadership are puppets for the donors, and the donors don’t give a damn about the country which they just see as an economic zone. He had a line about how the elites see Americans as a group with nothing in common but the fact that they all eat at McDonalds and shop at the same malls.

The last speaker was John Doyle [37] who has a +300K subscriber YouTube channel. I honestly only watched the first few minutes of this before I switch over to watch Nick Fuentes who was doing his first show in a couple weeks. I figured I would watch the rest of the conference on replay in the morning, but when I got up, it was gone from the internet.

Overall, it was a decent conference. Although I can think of a few complaints.

A big gripe of mine is that a lot of the people were reading their speeches off pieces of paper. That looks amateurish. Either memorize the damn thing or get a teleprompter. Notes are fine to jog your memory but it is not a good look to spend the whole speech looking down. Red Eagle Politics went a step further and just held the paper in his hands in front of him as he read off of it.

If you wanna be a purist about it, you could complain that no one named the Jew or I’m not sure anyone “named the white” either although Kai Klips did mentions WASPs which is an adequate proxy. I’m not a WASP myself. I’m a WCLC (white Celto-Latin Catholic) but I understand that the term WASP is a euphemism for a hardcore white person. But there was not any real deep discussion of white identity.

I think if you look at the history of dissident right-wing politics, the Alt Right tried to learn from the mistakes of WN 1.0 (although ultimately, due to a lack of quality control, ended up repeating them), the Groypers tried to learn from the mistakes of the Alt Right, and now APU is trying to learn from the mistakes of the Groypers. No Cookie Monster jokes.

While watching the stream, a lot of the live chat were comparing the conference unfavorably to Fuentes’ America First. There were a lot of “AF > APU” type posts but I think this is mostly silly fanboyism.

The night of the APU summit, Fuentes made passing reference to it on his show and gave a tepid approval of it. However, the next night, a superchatter sent Fuentes a message calling APU’s event “Nickism without Nick” and Fuentes went off on a rant.


“I don’t have a problem particularly, necessarily, with the APU people” Fuentes began.

But here’s the thing. They did snub me. They had their big conference the other day and they snubbed me. They didn’t ask me to speak, they didn’t ask me to go and they made it clear that they didn’t want me there. And they don’t dislike me. I guess they like me but they made it clear that they didn’t want me there. They do their event and it very obviously influenced by me and my show. They were literally ripping sections of speeches that I had done. It sounded just like me… I know what they are trying to do. They don’t want to be associated with me because they think I’m a liability.

Beyond the personal snub, Fuentes thinks that they were watering down the message, basically doing Diet Fuentesism.

There is no question that it is better to have something and push something that’s the real deal and a real challenge that’s been blacklisted and push it through the artillery fire, push it through no-man;s-land and it get it across the finish line then to push some kind of diluted imitation under the impression that we can avoid fighting the war. That we’re just going to cleverly outmaneuver the enemy with verbal trickery and if we are just silent about certain things. That approach is not going to work and I don’t see a huge value in that approach.

Nick later says:

It’s not about my ego. There’s room in the eco-system for many America First voice. But to go up there and pretend like its so-called “good optics” to not talk about the real issues, that it’s good optics to not talk about race, not talk about Israel, to not talk about other things that are going on.

So let me say a word in APU’s defense. As one of Counter-Currents’ leading Nick Fuentes apologists, I think I have earned enough goodwill to play devil’s advocate to the big man.

One of the ironies here is that a lot of the criticism Fuentes has of APU are the exact same criticisms people had of Nick when he first came on the scene. When Fuentes came on the scene, people accused him of watering down the message and not going hard enough on certain issues. I addressed these arguments in first article I ever wrote about Fuentes was back in January 2020 called “Nick Fuentes & Our Xenus [38].”

As I said above, Nick Fuentes does entry-level content. The more intellectually curious of his fans who like what they hear will eventually discover more advanced and hardcore stuff and wind up hearing about Xenu. There have been occasions where I’ve recommended a podcast to someone, and then I’ll talk to them a couple months later and they’re halfway through The Culture of Critique. The hard part is getting people to enter the rabbit hole. Once inside, they will find their way to the bottom.

I still stand by that statement and in my experience, that is correct. My observations from Fuentes’ live chats, the comments on his old Youtube page, and being physically around them is that the average Groyper, especially the more hardcore ones know all the red pills, even the ones that Fuentes does not talk about himself. They know about the wooden doors. They know about the Khazar Empire. During Stop the Steal, Nick had to chew out some of his supporters for posting sonnenrads.

Groypers know everything the Wignats know. Some even listen to wignat content on the sly. The reason they are not Wignats is because they disagree with Wignats on strategy, not because they don’t know what the Wignats know. They understand what Nick is doing strategically and sort of “play along.

Nick understands this too. He would occasionally tweet things like “Palestine is not the only country being occupied by Israel” and when he does, he is assuming that his audience is aware of memes that are more hardcore than the ones he talks about on his show.

What I am getting at here is the “rabbit hole effect.

My entry point into the Dissident Right was John Derbyshire, a guy in a mixed-race marriage who doesn’t talk about Jews at all. But then I listen to an interview he did with Richard Spencer on Radix. When I was on Radix, I decided to check out an interview Spencer did with Mike Enoch. That took me to TRS where I listened to the Daily Shoah, Fash the Nation, then I was off to the races.

Any normie conservative who discovers APU will discover Nick Fuentes about 15 minutes later. So even if the message is somewhat diluted, they are still bringing people into the rabbit hole.

About optics. My conception of optics is a bit more complicated than just a list of do’s and don’t’s. For one, I make a distinction between what I call “backroom activism” (propaganda for us) and “frontline activism” (propaganda for the masses). I don’t really care all that much if someone wants to larp as a Nazi on their blog or their podcast because that is “backroom.” If they want to go out in the streets and larp as a Nazi or larp on Youtube, now I have a problem because will be shared around by the media.

I also factor in talent. In my opinion, good optics is that which is effective, and bad optics is that which is not effective. Anything can be good optics if it is effective. This is where talent comes in. The more talented you are, the more you can “get away” with. If you are really funny, that can help the medicine of painful truths go down.
In this sense, I actually consider Mr. Bond “good optics” because he is very effective at what he does. But then again, Mr. Bond is a genius. A lesser talent who tried to do what Mr. Bond does as hard as Mr. Bond does it, it would probably be bad optics.

If you are going to wade into really explosive topics like Jews or race realism, you need to have your shit down. You need to know all the arguments, all the counter-arguments to those arguments, and the counter-arguments to those counter-arguments. If you don’t, there is the potential that you can do more harm than good for the cause.

In other words, if the APU guys who are mostly in their early 20s are not Nick Fuentes-level talented, they may want to refrain from going as hard as Nick Fuentes until they have more experience and confidence.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here: