Counter-Currents
1,400 words
Louis Theroux has made a career as a documentarian by going out into the “bush”—basically, anywhere outside the urban and online bubbles where his kind dwell. There he meets weird and marginal people. He is nice to them in order to get them on film. Then he displays them—like so many Hottentot Venuses—for the amusement of condescending liberal urbanites like himself. This allows Theroux’s audience to feel doubly superior. They can look down on “those people,” but they can also pretend that they are being classy, respectful, open-minded, and even willing to be “challenged.”
The first episode of Theroux’s new BBC documentary series Forbidden America is called Extreme and Online. It focuses on Nick Fuentes and three associates: Baked Alaska, Beardson Beardly, and Brittany Venti.
If this was supposed to be a hit piece, it is extremely inept. Fuentes comes off looking great: intelligent, articulate, and self-confident. Baked Alaska looks pretty good too: buffoonish and insincere, but also self-confident and on message. Before watching this, I knew Beardson Beardly only by his reputation, which is terrible, but I can’t really criticize how he handles Theroux. He patiently endures Theroux until it becomes obvious he’s just a jerk, then throws him out. Humiliated, Theroux gets revenge by playing a clip of Beardly threatening to anally rape Brittany Venti. Beardly is hardly good optics, but Fuentes has stuck by him, and—amazingly—serious people are sharing a platform with him at Fuentes’ 2022 AFPAC conference. Venti scores some sympathy points, but she’s neither interesting nor impressive. Theroux only includes her because she is a woman with visible non-white ancestry.
The big loser, however, is Louis Theroux himself. This time, it is no more Mr. Nice Guy. Theroux hectors and badgers his interviewees. The mask of respect is discarded. The arrogant liberal jerk is fully on display. It isn’t pretty. Nor is it formidable. Fuentes and company easily parry Theroux’s challenges, making him look inept. But Theroux is not the only one being humiliated. With his dorky persona, wretched posture, slovenly clothes, and middlebrow smugness, Louis Theroux is the embodiment of the international Bugman. His humiliation is their humiliation. He really let down the team.
The net result is that Fuentes and Co. come off as smart, funny, and relatable even while saying outrageously politically incorrect things, whereas Theroux seems like a sanctimonious scold accusing his interviewees of the sins of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Like the priest of a dying god, he is often visibly frustrated when these magic words fail to induce stammering disavowals and apologies.
Leftists should be livid. Theroux has given Fuentes and company a mainstream platform where they shine. Theroux could have included footage of Fuentes and Baked Alaska that is every bit as obnoxious and embarrassing as Beardson’s anal rape rant. But he chose not to. This is tantamount to whitewashing Fuentes. One wonders why. Is Theroux a secret sympathizer? Is his ineffectual badgering an attempt to provide cover for himself? I am sure Theroux’s superiors will get to the bottom of this.
Theroux repeatedly accuses Fuentes and Co. of being “Alt Right” and “White Nationalists.” They deny these charges, and correctly so. They really aren’t White Nationalists, because White Nationalists want to create or restore homogeneously white ethnostates. But Fuentes and Co. are not just color-blind civic nationalists like the so-called “Alt Lite.” Civic nationalists believe that race doesn’t matter as long as we all think American thoughts.
Instead, Fuentes and Co. are what I call “uppity white folks”: white people who take race and demographics seriously, who defend the essential whiteness of America, and who wish to take their own side in a fight. As Fuentes says in one of Theroux’s clips: “White people founded this country. This country wouldn’t exist without white people. And white people are done being bullied.” Fuentes also openly talks about white genocide, the Great Replacement, and Jewish power.
Even though Fuentes and Co. don’t want to live in a white ethnostate, they insist that they want to live in a normatively white America, with a white supermajority. This means a return to the immigration and naturalization policies that were in place during most of American history, from 1790 to 1965. They would probably uphold freedom of disassociation among the races as well.
Although it is not White Nationalism, this could be justly called “white privilege,” even “white supremacism.” But if America is the homeland of Americans, who are a white people, why is it problematic for a people to be “privileged” and “supreme” in its own homeland? Is it problematic for the Japanese to be “privileged” and “supreme” in Japan?
A place where one enjoys power and privilege as a birthright—a place where you speak the language, understand the customs, and feel comfortable—a place where nothing is alien to you—is pretty much the definition of a homeland. There is nothing unfair about the privileges that come with a homeland, as long as you don’t deny other peoples the privileges of having homelands as well. (For more on this issue, see my speech “The Very Idea of White Privilege.”)
Fuentes and Co. are perfectly positioned where American nationalism and populism are growing: the space between White Nationalism and the Republican Party. There are millions of white Americans who have positive racial identities, reject white guilt, see that whites are under attack, and want to organize to fight back. They are, in short, uppity white folks, ready for white identity politics but not (yet) ready for White Nationalism because they don’t envision the ethnostate as a solution. (For more on this, see my speech “Uppity White Folks and How to Reach Them.”)
Uppity white folks are a constituency looking for political representation. But most Republican politicians will not represent them (yet) because they hold the absurd view that there’s nothing worse than identity politics, but only when white people practice it. That would be “racism,” and there’s nothing worse than racism, but only when it benefits white people.
This morally repugnant double standard is, however, crumbling, and when it finally gives way, the dammed-up floodwaters of white identity politics will completely remake America’s political landscape. Fuentes’ America First movement is one of the places where this dogma is breaking down, hence his association with former Representative Steve King and sitting Representative Paul Gosar. (For some concrete political proposals to advance the interests of uppity white folks, see my essay “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto.”)
I find it annoying when Theroux repeatedly trots out “White Nationalist” as an accusation. I am not annoyed that Fuentes and Co. deny the charge, since it really is untrue. White Nationalists need to work harder to destroy the stigmas attached to our ideas. We can’t expect anyone else to do that for us. To their credit, however, Fuentes and Co. do dismiss such stigmatizing words as “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia.” They also treat Theroux and the rest of the mainstream media with well-earned contempt.
Theroux doesn’t just show Fuentes’ strengths. He also shows his limits. Fuentes is what I call a “Right-wing sectarian.” He wishes to link white identity politics with Right-wing add-ons such as Christianity, which split white identitarians. This strengthens Fuentes as a leader of his sect while making the movement as a whole weaker and less capable of cooperation. Fuentes, moreover, has made his bones attacking other individuals and groups on the Right. This has created a great deal of bitterness and a large number of people who want him to fail.
But wishing won’t make it so. One reason I advocate “big tent” nationalism is that you really can’t purge people from a decentralized movement anyway, so it is best to try to live with them. Fuentes is extremely effective at arguing that America is a white nation, that white people are under attack, and that white people should fight back. He is humiliating our common enemies and mainstreaming our issues and talking points. He’s an agent of radicalization. White Nationalists can build on that. We need to provide humane and workable proposals to halt and reverse the Great Replacement and restore white homelands. More people than ever are receptive to our message. If we can’t persuade them of our vision, the fault is ours alone.
It is always a gamble for white advocates to talk to the press. I don’t recommend it. But in this case, Fuentes lucked out. I recommend Extreme and Online. I think it is a net positive for the cause of white identity politics.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
63 comments
As a groyper that also likes the counter-currents, I appreciate your fair review. I was also reminded of your “uppity white folks” essay you reviewed on the recent counter-currents podcast stream. There was a lot of acrimony directed at Nick Fuentes before this documentary was released; that he’d get the typical hit piece treatment but Nick demonstrated that he is able to deftly handle establishment journalists one-on-one and come out looking extreme to current norms but like a normal, intelligent guy. It reminds me of that infamous interview of Jordan Peterson on Channel 4.
You can’t attribute the outcome to Fuentes, since everything he said could be and was edited. It was a stupid gamble, frankly, since Theroux could have made him look very bad. The fact that Theroux didn’t do so is most likely due to the invincible smugness of libtards, who simply think that everything we say is self-refuting nonsense. They are so out of touch with healthy, normal people that they often let compelling statements from dissidents get through to the public. Fuentes was simply lucky.
I also thought you gave a fair review for Nick. But I believe you’re demonstrably wrong in your thinking here: Nick has been interviewed and featured on MTV, Associated Press and now BBC with Louis Theroux. He has also rejected tons of other mainstream inquiries. And he has come out looking great in all of these, with all intending to make him look bad. He’s 3 for 3 and there may be others I’m not thinking of. This would suggest that Nick DOES understand how and when to play the media.
Since he doesn’t have editorial control over the final product, the best you can say is that he’s a thrice-lucky fool.
Glad you watched and reviewed it so I don’t have to listen to that insufferable clown’s voice.
I’ll leave to the readers of this comment to guess who.
I don’t think anyone involved can confidently evade that charge.
Ha!! Great comment.
Seems to me that ZOG is losing the optics war–although now it seems like small victories and little battles won, eventually, the floodgates of victory will sweep the political establishment into ruin and defeat.
I think that “White Nationalism” is only just around the corner for Whites–2025 or 2026–and by 2050 (assuming we maintain our current winning streak) we should have a fully functioning de facto White ethnostate. And ZOG will be too weak to oppose it; their consistent genetic and cultural degradation will leave them at severe disadvantages as we pull ourselves from the sludge of ruination and the negation of civilization.
As always, keep fighting the good fight!
We need to provide humane and workable proposals to halt and reverse the Great Replacement and restore white homelands. More people than ever are receptive to our message.
Must we really? Who, might I ask, is going to implement them? Or are these purely rhetorical proposals meant to attract public support and show seriousness?
Nothing tickles John Q. Public’s fancy like a policy proposal. Nothing says serious like coming up with policies that have no chance of implementation.
Given that this site advertises itself as the ‘North American New Right,’ maybe we could take a lesson from the success of the European New Right. The European New Right avoided exactly this kind of thing in favour of metapolitics and focused entirely on their ideas. Now their discourse is everywhere.
The GOP is already sloganising ‘antiwhite.’ They picked that up from us. Is that because they read our detailed proposals for remigration? No, it is because our ideas filtered down to their voters and now the politicians are forced to play along if they want to win elections.
Instead of wasting our time trying to write policy that could never be implemented under the current regime, why not focus our efforts where we have had success? Right now in (my country) Canada there are thousands of uppity whites blocking roads in the capital. Their support comes from whites under thirtyfive. They have the manpower, but no real ideology. We should focus on trying to reach them and provide them with the ideology that they lack. If we succeed, they will implement it on their own in due course.
Yes, we must. Setting out workable solutions is just as much “metapolitics” as getting memes like “anti-white” and the Great Replacement circulating, and it is the next logical step for our movement. Otherwise, we can be justly dismissed as nothing but whiners who have no real solutions to offer.
“Humiliated, Theroux gets revenge by playing a clip of Beardly threatening to anally rape Brittany Venti. Beardly is hardly good optics, but Fuentes has stuck by him, and—amazingly—serious people are sharing a platform with him at Fuentes’ 2022 AFPAC conference.”
Fuck these degenerate subhumans and fuck you for supporting them and claiming they’re pro-white. Rapists are not pro-white, this movement is not pro-white, and you are not pro-white. A real white advocate has zero tolerance for rapists. Fuck you.
Wignats are real.
You’re too generous, Greg. Irony and humour are wasted on Wignats.
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt he’s not intending to be a rapist. Though it was a lousy, unfunny way to intimidate during a pissing match. I commend her for taking the high road and not wallowing in victimhood. Maybe the real offense is incels thinking that is clever repartee that will change their lot.
I wish they had challenged Theroux more about his whiteness. I think its plausible he has anxiety that a person of color will get his job in the name of equity. Thus to make the case for his legitimacy as a white man with his job, he must loudly stand against any dissident whiteness.
Louis Theroux with his Media Glasses and studied Quizzical Countenance has been ripping off the mannerisms and modus of the vastly more talented and interesting filmmaker Nick Broomfield for decades. As others have pointed out, Theroux’s shtick is the thrill of a trip to Bedlam and he is always careful to ‘send the right message’ through mawkish scorn and clever editing. Sometimes he gets it wrong, as when he concluded a bout with Jimmy Saville the prolific BBC paedophile by declaring a ‘renewed respect’ for the man. And he has augmented his demolition job on Fuentes by bragging about how he could have beaten him up. Sometimes the mask slips.
Theroux’s documentaries are not about the subjects he films. They are always about him.
Where do Black Americans fit into this vision of a White privileged America ?
They were here since before the founding of the republic.
Do you consider this to be their homeland as well ?
Why or why not ?
We have 400 years of experience indicating that blacks are not a good fit with the American nation. Thus I favor a separate homeland for blacks in America.
Why do you think that they are not a good fit ?
Obviously, you’re playing the “coy rabboni” role, but still, you’re implying that they are a “good fit”.
What is it about black/white relations that strikes you as beneficial in any way to white people?
The arrangement is great for black people: they have a despised enemy at arms length whom they can steal from, pummel, and denigrate with legal impunity.
Comeuppance. That is what drives the supposed imperative for us to live in the same space. If you had a loved one in a marriage like black and white people figuratively have, you would do anything necessary to facilitate a separation and ultimate divorce, given the irreconcilable, violent character of that marriage. So the only conclusion one can reasonably make is that people who want us to stay together don’t care about the “one” getting abuse (white people), and relish watching us suffer.
Simply put, white nationalists reject that. And we are willing to work toward not having to endure it.
Did you sleep through 2020?
You must be white.
I have been around a long time and I have noticed that when non-White groups focus on their own needs, concern about how it might affect Whites never ever comes up. And none of them ever challenges each other about it. On the contrary, if their project hurts us, so much the better ’cause we deserve it.
But when Whites start paying attention to our needs, especially since we are the only racial group it’s more than OK to trash, and in our own land, there’s always some GoodWhite who cries, “But wuttabout the X?”. I think the term is pathological altruism.
By the way, Blacks create their identities and tell their history as survivors of America, despite America, against America. As Malcolm X said, “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us.” America is not their homeland. They need one of their own. Just like us.
How is America not their homeland if they’ve been here for over 4oo years ?
Because they don’t fit.
You say they don’t fit but what do you mean by that ?
What is the difference to you between a law abiding Black person and a law abiding White one ?
Or between a Black criminal and a White one ?
Does the White criminal fit in better than that law abiding Black citizen ?
If so, how ?
How does a constructive law abiding Black person not fit into America ?
I guess we’ve got a “race is merely skin color” conservative here. “Skin color” is superficial, so that means race is merely superficial. So let’s base society on something less superficial. Like what? How about “law abidingness.” “If we just focus on law-abidingness, race won’t matter.” Yes, because you choose to focus on an abstraction, “law abidingness.” As if we didn’t see in 2020 how superficial black law-abidingness is.
Race is real, concrete, and differentiates people from their skin to their bones to their values. Color-blind conservatism seeks to create a nation, not out of concrete people, but out of adherents to a small cloud of data points on things like “law-abidingness” and one’s “work ethic.”
We shouldn’t allow these people the pretense of claiming that we are the superficial ones.
The Israelites were in Egypt for more than 400 years and clearly that was not their homeland. And they went there voluntarily.
I think James Kirkpatrick clocked you rightly, coy rabboni.
Well, one things for sure: this guy (and his ilk) do not want to talk to real white nationalists. They are not ignorant; they know where to find them. Surely they’re aware of Counter Currents, and that they could speak with avowed WNs who will unwaveringly answer “Yes” when asked directly if they are white nationalists. Watching this thing last night, I couldn’t help thinking about how Greg would have handled this guy. Someone with social media accounts on Theroux’s platforms needs to suggest he court Greg, or Uncle Jared.
It is a foolish risk to talk to mainstream journalists, since they are liars who have editorial control over how you are presented.
But I would be happy to debate anyone, as long as the debate goes out live and is not altered in any way.
They really heavily on the accusation/denial tool–too heavily. Take that away, and they don’t have much.
The unedited debate format between you two would be a showstopper.
Bringing back something like internet bloodsports might be worthwhile, as disillusionment is at an all time high. I think that a lot of people on our side grossly underestimate how many are receptive to our message but haven’t heard it. I had a debate with a Destiny fan a few months back and he’d never heard of race and IQ but was open to it. And he wasn’t even rightleaning.
In Canada, assuming that the supporters of the Freedom Convoy are as white as the crowd in Ottawa, it looks like the majority of whites under thirtyfive fall into that category, from the polling. We need to find a way to reach out to those people and start talking with them directly. The disillusioned are usually open minded enough to at least hear us out.
I’ve been thinking about reserving a room at my local library, or meeting in the downtown gazebo, for a CC-article-reading series, billed as an education about true white/ethno nationalism, finding out what it is, wading through the demogoguery and misinformation.
Whatever we do, you’re right: we’ve got to stop pussying around like we’re committing some crime, and start taking a chance and share what we believe.
Enmity exists, true, but discretion can surely become cowardice real quick. I’ve “taken some chances” sharing lately. Maybe it was pearls before swine and maybe it wasn’t. Frankly, at this point I don’t give a fuck.
That’s not a bad idea, although you can always reach more people through the internet than in person. Unfortunately we can’t get on Tucker Carlson Tonight, but I’m sure that there are plenty of e-celeb types with livestreams or podcasts popular among the disillusioned that would have you or me on. We can reach a lot of people that way.
See Louis and the Nazis (2003).
He did a documentary on Afrikaner separatists too.
This guy, this schtick, is just so passe!
The simple summation of it all: ” Believe like us, or we’ll try to make you feel stupid.”
That’s it. Nothing profound.
I appreciate the suggestion, and I watched this one because Greg recommended it, but this fool isn’t worth any more of our time.
For completely different reasons Law and Disorder in Johannesburg (2008) is worth checking out.
I found it enjoyable watching Theroux try to reconcile his liberal principles with the brutal reality of South Africa.
That one actually does sound interesting. SA is another world altogether.
Some lefty rags are taking a victory lap, but not this one.
The author seems worried.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/louis-theroux-forbidden-america-b2014659.html%3famp
Fuentes and Co are not my style, but I think it is important to recognize when folks are essentially motivated by most of the same concerns as what happens here. Here’s hoping such a bloc doesn’t cannibalize itself by back and forth sniping, backbiting and purity tests…. Leave that to Jezebel magazine.
What we need is White primacy, not White supremacy. There’s a very clear difference between the two.
It’s funny how here Theroux uses the boilerplate “white nationalist” as a pejorative and then you have not only Fuentes denying he’s a white nationalist but you have self-identified white nationalists like Greg Johnson agreeing, “yeah, these guys aren’t white nationalists.”
It does seem like there’s a fine line between white nationalists and “uppity white folks” as you called Fuentes et al. Where would Jared Taylor fit in as? I’m guessing white advocate would be synonymous with “uppity white folks.” If you’re reading this, Greg, maybe you could clarify the discrepancy between white nationalists and “uppity white folks” a bit more? You distinguish between white identity politics and white nationalism. There seems to be a sort of an overlap like a Venn diagram but I agree as you suggested that there are some differences. The big one it seems to be is the white ethnostate. By white ethnostate, is it like the WASP country club in that it’s strictly whites only? Everyone from the lettuce picker to the nuclear physicist is white? I’d like to point out that Israel, as an arguably Jewish ethnostate, also has minorities who are citizens, vote, hold office, and serve in the military. So it begs the question, can you have an ethnostate with other minorities?
It reminds me of either a podcast I heard where they were joking about giving all American BIPOCs reparations in the form of the getting the homes and wealth of all the whites living the suburbs and cities and all the whites have to move to the Indian reservations but get full autonomy. Give it a generation, then all the BIPOCs will want to move to the white reservations.
I think it’s important for White Nationalists to consider the real possibility that “Uppity White” politics may be as far as the biggest majority of whites will ever be willing to go, and while not at all ideal, it’s at least a political position that has a spine.
I’m so very tired of seeing accusations of gatekeeping directed towards all entities and groups who share beliefs with us but who retain caveats in their ideas. Has it ever occurred to some of you that beliefs exist on spectrums and they always will? That as right as we are about the unnatural conditions of diversity, being right about something factually doesn’t always equate to “practical rightness”, and that the vast majority of people will choose paths that offer as little resistance as possible to a desired outcome.
I think we are standing at the brink of White Americans being willing to stand up for ourselves in large enough numbers to force ZOG to back down. Once that occurs, radical blacks will no longer have their voices amplified disproportionately. They will be forced back into the fringes where they belong. But that doesn’t mean that droves of white people will be lining up to migrate them out of our homelands.
What is more likely to occur is equitable separation, a return to the right of free association.
Do you know the one right above all others that I want to assert without fear? The right to freely talk to my children about race without fearing social repercussions and family divisiveness. It was within living memory that a father could “forbid” his children marry outside their race, and the vast majority of children respected their father’s authority (and his genuine sincerity about the matter) enough to obey his wishes. I promise you, black parents freely and openly discuss their feelings about race mixing with their children and nobody bats an eye about it.
I support the goals of White Nationalism, but I also see the wisdom in accepting the grey areas and the nuance outside of our idealogical bubble.
“I’m so very tired of seeing accusations of gatekeeping directed towards all entities and groups who share beliefs with us but who retain caveats in their ideas”
Same here. In the five years since Charlottesville, I’ve effectively gone from WigNat to “Uppity White Folk” as I’ve watched the 2015-16 Moobment disintegrate around me and become what they really are: Paranoid malcontents and all around nasty human beings who, like a super fundamentalist church, will not accept any doctrine or political position that falls short of exactly how they want it to be.
I’ve seen “our guys” go after awakening Normies in comment sections with shit like “bUt WhAt dO YoU tHiNk oF tHe JOOOOOSSSS?? Its no wonder they accuse Tucker of being a CIA agent (“hurr durr, his Daddy was in the CIA!” So was my coworker. Who gives a shit?), or accuse Nick and Bronze Age Pervert of being “GOP grifters.”
I think a lot of WigNats just can’t bring themselves to accept that the Democrat Party abandoned its platform as the “White Man’s Party” when JFK and LBJ got behind Civil Rights, and they just don’t want conservatives and moderates in their precious moobment. They want White Racial Identity to be tied to Social Liberalism, Collectivism, and unthinking obedience to the “experts” and technocrats. They want a sort of Alt-MSNBC or Alt-CNN. Tucker Carlson is a CIA plant whose purpose is to corral White Resentment back into GOP politics, but Joe Biden’s Presidency is “based”? Sounds to me like Basic Bitch Team Blue Partisanship. Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr. are unironically preferable to that.
“I think we are standing at the brink of White Americans being willing to stand up for ourselves in large enough numbers to force ZOG to back down.”
If we are indeed at that point, then we’re gonna find out once and for all whether ZOG has the capability of launching a Sampson Option or, as I see it, a thousand Dresdens everywhere. They probably don’t have enough fighter jets or willing pilots to drop incendiary rounds everywhere, but seeing as physical force is the one thing that can keep people in check, I think they have something up their sleeve. You don’t get that close to World Domination and then just walk away with your tail between your legs. They’re gonna go out in spite. Maybe a weaponized version of smallpox gets released from its two existing locations in Atlanta and Moscow? I have no idea, but I fear its gonna be something. Hopefully thats just the WigNat paranoia in me and these people really do back down when confronted with total loss of legitimacy. Then we can get back to the project of linear, upward progress, with each generation being better off then the last. I’m 32, and I don’t want to spend the entire first half of the 21st century wasting time with these ankle biting dregs.
Just watched it. What a sneering prick Theroux is. I wouldn’t say that he interviews the vapid Venti “because she is a woman with visible non-white ancestry.” I would say he does it because she is somebody with a net audience who is willing to speak out against the movement she once counted herself as part of, and ‘prove’ the misogyny of the movement in Theroux’s eyes. I mean, Theroux, a totally obnoxious, self-righteous halfwit, could easily have interviewed a woman at the conference with something positive to say, but chose a woman with an axe to grind. The anal rape “joke” was totally out of bounds, though, ‘ironic’ or not.
Hey AF Supporter here, This is a great review and I respect you and counter currents a lot. The only thing I have issue with is referring to Nick Fuentes and America Firsters as CivNats.
Civic Nationalism as I understand it, is usually, a rejection of ethnic nationalism and embraces liberal values and in regards to American Civic Nationalism usually upholds stuff like the constitution, shared values, and loyalty. But AF is opposed to liberalism to the fullest extent, embraces Racial Identity, and does not believe shared-values is enough for a nation to survive and thrive.
America First is Cultural, and Religious(Christian), Nationalist. It believes race is implicit in the word Nation, but does not believe Race is the end all be all, it’s a combination of Shared Religious, Cultural, and Racial background that makes a Nation Strong. Lumping us America Firsters in with people like the Alt-Lite I believe is unfair.
You should reread it, because I did not say they are CivNats.
Oh you’re right, my bad. I misread that one sentence and it threw me for a loop. Apologies. 10/10 article then
The one sure thing I take from all of this is that Fuentes is super cute.
Let’s abolish the leftist media archetype that is the one-way exchange between incredulously moral interviewer and “freak show” interviewee. Greg has said we might lack resources but we have truth on our side, so answer their predictable question and then put them on the defensive. They do not debate, so make them.
A global slug like Theroux could be disarmed with a well-timed question. How? Because they’ve spent their entire lives not held to account for their wishful thinking and facile views. Someone above mentioned Jordan Peterson’s Cathy Newman interview, and his willingness to calmly punch back is precisely what silenced her. And while it wasn’t pretty or all that rhetorically effective, Richard Spencer putting Gary Younge on the defensive was the right idea. (An emotional Younge did walk away in a huff, you might recall.)
None of these journos have spent a fraction of the time thinking through these issues like dissidents have. That’s our greatest resource.
But Gary Young was deemed by all liberal media to have triumphed in that exchange and indeed attained secular sainthood for his forbearance from literally dismembering Spencer on the spot. As a reward Young was created Professor of Black History at a leading British university from which chair he spews his unceasing bile into the minds of youth. By contrast Spencer is an unperson. There is little point in contesting such people in the liberal media arena where they make the rules and all the bouts are rigged.
You’re correct that Younge was still sainted after that, but what would’ve been the alternative? Guardian headline: We need to have a reckoning about Black inadequacy. CNN ticker: White supremacist defends his people against Black journalist’s grift.
No, the value is having the exchange before our very eyes and having the dissident interlocutor remain confidently aggressive rather than passive.
It’s been a few years, but Jorge Ramos’ living room interview with Jared Taylor is such an example.
I’ve been back and forth on America First and Fuentes. Nick’s a dedicated guy which is admirable, and he’ll make some great points from time to time. But these are some of the issues I have with America First:
1) Constant attacks on people who are not in lockstep with their ideology, chiefly those who advocate for Whites
2) Placing Christianity above the existence of our people
3) Suicidal attachment to the failure that is Conservatism
4) Unhealthy attitudes towards women, family, etc
5) Cult leader (AF lives and dies with Fuentes at this point)
6) Extremely online, lack of actual irl networks
7) Associates itself with god-awful people (Ali Alexander, Laura Loomer, Milo, Jacob Wohl, Baked Alaska, Beardson, etc)
8) Hated by the GOP, but still supports the GOP at the end of the day
9) Culturally centered around video games, black people music, and gay drama commentary
All of this is true, and there’s more. But for some reason, Fuentes still comes off looking impressive in this episode. Thus it is a net gain for white identity politics. It is telling that the weakest — and the most outright damaging — parts of the episode focus on Fuentes’ associates. These people really bring him down.
1) Constant attacks on people who are not in lockstep with their ideology, chiefly those who advocate for Whites
Fuentes is a Jared Taylor / Samuel T. Francis / Kevin B. MacDonald acolyte. Catholicism is not a component of these men’s work and he still spreads their message. He criticizes people like Richard Spencer, as he should.
2) Placing Christianity above the existence of our people
See above
3) Suicidal attachment to the failure that is Conservatism
Sam Francis said that conservatism is another word for loser which Fuentes has echoed. He doesn’t use that word.
4) Unhealthy attitudes towards women, family, etc
He is hyperbolic but the point is to express the total inverse of our feminized society. His real attitude is probably not much different from how men viewed women in the 17th century, that is, healthy.
5) Cult leader (AF lives and dies with Fuentes at this point)
National Alliance died with Pierce, NSDAP died with Hitler, PNF died with Mussolini, so what?
6) Extremely online, lack of actual irl networks
AFPAC, rallies, protests, guy is active IRL
7) Associates itself with god-awful people (Ali Alexander, Laura Loomer, Milo, Jacob Wohl, Baked Alaska, Beardson, etc)
… and Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow… I concede that the people you listed are bad except Baked Alaska who is good because he is funny. Even Louis Theroux thinks so.
8) Hated by the GOP, but still supports the GOP at the end of the day
“We are going to destroy the GOP”
https://youtu.be/16WuvaqzN1Y
9) Culturally centered around video games, black people music, and gay drama commentary
Correct. Gaming and R&B/hip-hop has got to go, as well as his promotion of McDonald’s and generally poor health. He also talks down about SSPX which is the only real Traditional Catholic organization and the only chance of making the Vatican mediæval again. Whether he really is a pleb or it’s to appeal to plebs it’s not good.
9) Culturally centered around video games, black people music, and gay drama commentary
I became racially aware right around the time when I noticed that rap/hip hop had seeped into all aspects of modern life (Exhibit A: last Sunday’s all-rap Super Bowl hafltime show.)
No single fact of contemporary America depressed me more than the ubiquity of a sound that 1.) offered me no stimulation or joy yet 2.) was mystifingly enjoyed by so many Whites. Nay, worshipped.
A White-positive political movement whose soundtrack would be celebrated by Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Marc-Lamont Hill is, frankly, untenable.
Could you give some examples?
People are welcome to assemble and link “Worst of Nick Fuentes” collections here.
Literally no one in America is going to see this documentary.
You need to look up the definition of “literally.”
The entry of “Literal” in Oxford New Edition 1992 “3 Prosaic; matter of fact”
Ambrose Bierce in The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary defines
“Literally, adv. Figuratively, as: “The pond was literally full of fish”; “The ground was literally alive with snakes,” etc.
But here’s an example which Greg Johnson might appreciate but not pleased being said publicly; an allowance he has made. I Believe I am literally in arrears of the annual payment set out in the contract with counter-currents. I am almost certain I owe you money.
So I looked up literally and found a tin Copenhagen Chewing Tobacco in my efforts not to lie or exaggerate my attempt to find a paper copy of a dictionary.
I don’t follow Nick Fuentes. What has he said about the Confederacy or the assault on Southern history? I’m a Southerner and I’m interested in his opinions, if any, on this. Supposedly, he was on his way to Charlottesville in 2017 but didn’t make it there?
Great article Greg.
The only point I found myself disagreeing with was in relation to this Beardsley character.
The way he reacted did not reflect well on himself or AF, his patience wore out awfully quickly when confronted with an accusation he should have been prepared for and there was no reason to deal with Theroux in anything other than a calm but firm manner.
We can’t all be a Marcus Aurelius but individuals involved in dissident movements with ambitions to act as spokespeople should know their limitations, their leaders should too.
I didn’t mean this to be in response to [email protected]
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment