Counter-Currents
Nick Fuentes Should Not be Reinstated on Twitter/X
Travis LeBlanc
2,585 words
Whenever there is a mass shooting that is attributed to White Nationalism, Greg Johnson posts a commentary in which he bemoans the fact that he has to keep writing the same thing over and over. I’m in a similar position now, as I feel compelled to rewrite the same essay I wrote two weeks ago in which I discussed Lucas Gage getting a three-month suspension from Twitter/X for a video rant wherein he said that Jews are “literal demons” and that we should “slay them.”
Gage’s defense was that the clip in question had been deceptively edited, and that if one watches the entire discussion, he clearly meant that we should “slay them” metaphorically. Many cried that Elon Musk’s excuse for the ban was disingenuous and that the powers-that-be were just looking for any excuse to ban Gage because he was standing up to Zionism.
Lucas Gage explained in his non-edited video statement what he meant by “slay demons.” He was referring to how to handle *debating* zionists–which aren’t necessarily jewish.
“You shame them, you call them out, you show people what they are. THAT’S ALL YOU DO.”
cc: @elonmusk… pic.twitter.com/GhCxkdpc7t
— Sam Parker 🇺🇲 (@SamParkerSenate) December 29, 2023
As far as I know, I was the only person on the dissident Right who defended Musk’s decision to suspend Gage. The refusal to talk about violence, ever, and not even ironically, metaphorically, or theoretically is White Nationalism 101. It’s called “fedposting,” which means that if you talk about violence, you are either a fed or you are about to have feds show up at your doorstep.
This is not merely an issue of “optics.” The dissident Right just went through a six-year Optics War which was about many things: swastikas, accelerationism, Nazi fetishism, and how to present ideas to the normies. But one thing that was not up for debate was whether fedposting is acceptable. Even the most LARPy plastic Stahlhelm-wearing wignat knows that you do not talk about violence. Fedposting is no joke. There were people in the Discord chat for Charlottesville who were criminally charged for memeing about the “Day of the Rope.”
“I was taken out of context” is not a defense. Deceptive editing and taking things out of context is what our enemies do. Although our side does it, too. If Jonathan Greenblatt were to say the same thing that Lucas Gage said, except about white people, I have no doubt that people on our side would deceptively edit it to make Greenblatt look as bad as possible. All’s fair in love and war, and we are in a propaganda war. And if it is true that the authorities were just looking for any excuse to ban him, Gage was foolish for giving them that excuse.
It would have been grossly irresponsible for Elon Musk not to suspend Lucas Gage, because if some kid shoots up a synagogue and Gage’s name was anywhere in that kid’s online history, that clip would be put on endless repeat in the mainstream media and continually referenced from here to eternity. The narrative would be that “Elon Musk’s ‘free speech Twitter/X’ is getting people killed,” advertisers would start leaving in droves, and it could potentially be the end of Elon Twitter. A wise man once said, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.” By suspending Lucas Gage, Musk was doing exactly that: providing against a preventable evil.
As I said two weeks ago, if Elon Twitter fails, we are in big trouble. If the richest man in the world can’t pull it off, no one else is going to try. This is our one chance.
At the beginning of last week, I heard about another suspension of a dissident Right figure who had used violent rhetoric: Vince James.
James tweeted, “Wash the gay away with Purge.” You see, this is a bit of wordplay. He’s taking the shampoo slogan “wash the gray away” and changing it to “wash the gay away,” and instead of naming the shampoo brand Pert, he writes Purge. Purge is a reference to an ultra-violent movie series about a dystopian alternate universe where society holds an annual “Purge Night” during which all crimes, including murder, are legal for one night. (For the moment, we will leave aside the fact that “wash the gray away” was actually the slogan for Clairol and not Pert.)
This case of violent rhetoric is the least egregious because it is obvious on its face that it is a joke, and James was reinstated shortly afterwards. But why take the chance? How hard is it to not talk about killing people?
You can buy The Alternative Right, ed. Greg Johnson, here
Then, later in the week came the banning of @AutumnGroyper, which was Nick Fuentes’ ban-evasion account with 60,000 followers. A lot of people on the dissident Right are throwing their toys out of the pram over this: “But — but — but Elon Musk promised us free speech! You’re only banning Nick Fuentes because he names the Jew!”
First of all, Musk did not make this promise in regards to anything. He also did not make that promise so that you would vote for him. He did not crowdfund the purchase of Twitter, telling donors that if got enough money to buy it, he would make it a free-speech platform. To put it in legal terms, there was no “consideration.” There was no quid pro quo attached to that promise. My belief is that Musk purchased Twitter with the intention of allowing free speech on it, only to find out afterwards that there are practical reasons as to why this is easier said than done. Musk does not owe us anything, and we should be grateful that he has given us any amount of free speech — because before him, there was none.
Secondly, Fuentes never did anything useful with his @AutumnGroyper account. It’s not as if he had been dropping white-hot red pills about race realism, racial crime stats, or whatever. All Nick did it was to pick fights with other Twitter/X users and accuse random followers of Bronze Age Pervert of being Jewish. Sure, free speech is a good thing, but in terms of propaganda, it’s not that much of a loss.
Third, the claim that Nick was banned for standing up to the Jews is untrue. To understand why Nick was really banned, let’s look at the most recent Fuentes controversy immediately prior to his banning.
On January 15, the night of the Iowa caucuses (or the “Hawkeye Cauci,” as Rush Limbaugh used to say), Fuentes did a stream on Rumble during which he ranted about his love for Donald Trump:
I serve at the personal pleasure of Donald Trump, my supreme leader. I am part of the paramilitary wing of the Trump movement. I am part of the revolutionary guard. I do not answer to the Pentagon. I do not answer to the civilian government. I am the praetorian guard of Donald Trump. If Donald Trump ordered me to do an extrajudicial killing, I would perform it.
Antisemitic white nationalist Christian fascist Nick Fuentes declares that he is “a Donald Trump cultist”: “I am a soldier for Donald Trump … If Donald Trump ordered me to do an extrajudicial killing, I would perform it.” https://t.co/fSHuoW2gPe pic.twitter.com/8zr0lvgOn5
— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) January 17, 2024
That is the dictionary definition of fedposting. It would get you banned from any message board. Even if were to comment that you are prepared to commit some “extrajudicial killings” even as a joke on The Daily Stormer, you would not only get banned but also be accused of being a fed by other users. I don’t think you could even say what Nick said on Gab. Why Rumble tolerates it is anyone’s guess; probably because Rumble is a new platform trying to get off the ground, and Nick is a Top 10 streamer there. Beggars can’t be choosers and all that.
“C’mon, man!” you say. “It was clearly a joke. Lighten up!” Maybe it was, but even then, I think Elon Musk has better things to do with his time than explain postmodern irony to his advertisers. If this were an isolated incident, I might be able to shrug it off, but the fact is that this is the third time in six months that Fuentes has talked about killing people.
Back in July, Fuentes held a rally where he talked about killing his enemies:
Unlike our opposition, we are willing to die for what we believe. We’re in a holy war, and because we’re willing to die in the holy war, we will make them die in the holy war.
Christian fascist white nationalist Nick Fuentes delivered a speech last week that was filled with virulent and violent antisemitism: “We will make them die in the holy war … The enemies of Christ have no future in this world.” pic.twitter.com/OYt64gafDX
— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) July 19, 2023
As I pointed out in my last essay on this subject, this was not merely an off-the-cuff adlib. This was a prepared speech, and Nick had had plenty of time to meditate on the wisdom of saying such a thing — and said it anyway.
Then, in December Fuentes said:
There is an occult element at the highest levels of society, and specifically among the Jews. So many of the people who are perpetrating the lies and destruction on the country, they are evildoers. They are people who worship false gods. They are people who practice magic or rituals or whatever and more than anything, those people . . . When we take power, they need to be given the death penalty. . . . I’m far more concerned about that than I even am non-white people or mass migration. These people who are communing with demons and engaging in this sort of witchcraft and stuff and suppressing the name “Christ” and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power.”
Antisemitic white nationalist Christian fascist Nick Fuentes says that when his America First movement takes power, all non-Christians will be executed: “When we take power, they need to be given the death penalty … They must be absolutely annihilated when we take power.” pic.twitter.com/V9nVJC8Xf6
— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) December 11, 2023
Another wise man once said, “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.” Taken individually, there could be reasonable doubt concerning each of these examples. But the fact that he keeps doing it is weird. Really weird. Fuentes used to be the poster child for optics. He knows not to do this. He used to kick people out of America First for saying things that were less extreme. Fedposting is indefensible on either tactical or strategic grounds. So why does he keep doing it?
I’m not saying Fuentes is compromised, but I wouldn’t blame someone for thinking that. Fuentes’ ex-roommate, Jaden McNeil, claimed that Fuentes used to talk about reporting ex-groypers and various rivals to the FBI. How Fuentes was able to get out of incitement charges related to his participation in January 6 has also been a headscratcher. For someone who bills himself as a threat to the system and claims the establishment is scared of him, it is particularly curious that the establishment refuses to prosecute him when they have the opportunity to do so delivered to them on a silver platter.
A more likely explanation is that the dramatic Overton window shift of 2023 has triggered an edginess arms race. Formerly taboo subjects such as race realism and the Jewish Question are now mainstream, and so Fuentes has to ratchet up the edginess if he is to remain on the cutting edge. I’m not sure, but that’s a possibility.
Now, there are also petty reasons as to why Fuentes should not be reinstated on Twitter//X. For example, I could say that Nick does not deserve to be there due to his history of ordering his minions to mass flag his rivals. In an infamous 2022 stream, Nick ordered his followers to mass flag YouTuber Porsalin in retaliation for him saying that he disagreed with Fuentes’ position on mass flagging.
The ‘most censored man in America’. https://t.co/qxDjlgvx1S pic.twitter.com/FTVGHROHUO
— Porsalin (@Porsalin) May 7, 2023
That same week, Fuentes had a debate with Mister Metokur where he defended his right to deplatform Porsalin on the grounds that because Porsalin had Twitter and Fuentes didn’t, Fuentes was unable to respond to his criticisms and was therefore well within his rights to do whatever he could to get Porsalin banned from the internet. Now that Fuentes is banned from Twitter/X again, I presume that this policy will be going back into effect.
Woe is Nick. pic.twitter.com/TsOlF4U7Me
— Porsalin (@Porsalin) May 7, 2023
I could also argue that Fuentes doesn’t deserve to be on Twitter/X because he just ain’t got that kind of karma. But as I said, that would be petty. That would be me putting my personal feelings ahead of The Cause. Someone can be an asshole and still be a net gain for The Cause.
But this isn’t the argument I’m making. My argument is that someone who can’t or won’t stop talking about killing people is a liability to the movement on the face of it and is treating the survival of the white race as if it were a game. The dissident Right has spent years trying to convince people that White Nationalism is not inherently violent, and now we have this clown who thinks it’s cute to go around talking about extrajudicial killings. We deserve a better class of martyr.
Does Fuentes have talent? Sure. When he is not being retarded, he is good at what he does, but no one person, no matter how talented, is worth risking blowing up the entire movement for. All it would take is one groyper carrying out a mass shooting to set the dissident Right back by decades. And because Fuentes is probably the most recognizable White Nationalist, it would be difficult for us to make the case that he is an exception to the rule.
Some might point out that there hasn’t been a high-profile White Nationalist-related mass shooting in years. While things aren’t as bad as they were in 2018-2019, when there was one every few months, there have been a few White Nationalist-related shootings recently. There was one in upstate New York in 2022 and one in Florida in 2023, neither of which garnered the kind of attention that, say, Brenton Tarrant or Robert Bowers did. This might be because with Biden in the White House, these shootings are not as politically useful. But with Trump back in the news, you can expect White Nationalist shootings to once again get the Bowers treatment. If you are one of those people who believes that all mass shootings are psyops, well, it’s an election year, and thus the perfect time to roll out such an op. Given this, it would be grossly irresponsible for Elon Musk to allow Fuentes back on Twitter.
One argument I might sympathize with is that it is lame for Musk to ban Nick Fuentes for things he said outside the platform, since strictly speaking, he did not violate Twitter’s terms of service. In principle this is true, but if the worst-case scenario happens and you’ve got a pile of corpses on the ground, I don’t think the average person is going to be persuaded if Musk argues that Fuentes didn’t say such things on his platform. People would want to know why he had platformed someone who had been talking about killing people at all.
So there’s my argument. Discuss.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
74 comments
Elon Musk presumably platforms murderers/rapists. Fuentes has never been convicted of any crime. He also never violated TOS with his original account.
I say let him back on and only ban him when he explicitly breaks the rules under his own name on X. He makes the best content of the dissident right by a country mile, no-one else comes close other than Andrew Anglin.
Dude, find something more constructive to spend your time on and write about. Most of your Twitter posts these days are whining about Fuentes and reposting other people’s whining about Fuentes. Now you’re writing full-length articles on Counter-Currents whining about him. Get a life.
I don’t personally like Fuentes – he’s a very dislikeable person, and doesn’t do much in the way of constructive things, either. But surely you can’t think that you’re actually doing work “for the cause” of “the white race” (sic) by endlessly and pointlessly whining about this guy. I think the libs have got the anti-Fuentes efforts plenty under control without your help, actually. You aren’t moving the ball forward by attacking people on your own side.
You didn’t used to be like this. You used to be one of the best writers on this website and publish noteworthy and interesting content. I don’t know if Fuentes personally made fun of you, or one of your friends, or your work, or what. Just let it go. Who cares. Like you said, he’s a small man who doesn’t care about anything other than petty gossip and drama and farming narcissistic supply for himself. So be the bigger man and ignore him and focus on real and constructive things.
I write about what people are talking about. Nick Fuentes being banned from Twitter is the gossip du jour.
It’s hard for me to believe this when your entire Twitter feed is now whining and circle jerking about Nick Fuentes Bad. It’s pretty clear that you personally have an issue with Fuentes in particular, for whatever reason. You’re not just poasting the latest gossip/news from RW circles that happens to be about Fuentes.
Don’t let him drag you down to his level. If participating in dumb, gay, catty in-group status and drama squabbling is really all you aspire to, then disregard I guess. But it’s never seemed to me like that’s what you’ve been about. I think you’re just hung up on this guy because he slighted you personally (my guess) and you need to let it go and move on.
Ignore Fuentes, let him do his occasionally useful stuff, and don’t engage with him beyond that.
The dissident right in America gravitates to foolishness
I have no idea why Fuentes says those things at times. It’s not funny and it’s self-destructive. He is also on record numerous times condemning calls for violence.
Didn’t Musk say he was going to end lifetime bans? If someone violates Twitter/X rules, then, fine, suspend their account or close it permanently if the violation is deemed serious enough. But the person should be able to create a new account, even if they have to wait a few months before doing so.
Also, the Twitter rules aren’t being applied equally. Many others have said things that could be considered calls to violence, and yet they aren’t banned for life.
Whether or not Fuentes is good for White Nationalists is a separate issue from whether Musk ought to reinstate Nick’s account and do away with lifetime bans altogether as he apparently said he would.
White Nationalists would benefit more from Musk doing away with permanent bans than WNs would be hurt by a reinstated Fuentes saying unhelpful things on Twitter. And, of course, Fuentes can also be a very effective pro-white voice when he wants to be.
Yes, he did say he wanted to end lifetime bans but then no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
Yes there are all sorts of double standards working against us on Twitter. What are you going to do about it? What CAN you do about it? Vote Elon out at the next election? Go back to Gab? As far as I can tell, you have two options. You can either whine about it or you can strategize accordingly.
I would say to complain and complain loudly about the double standards. Yes, “whine,” if you will. We can strategize accordingly and also never shut up about Musk’s broken promises and the need for free speech protections. And as for the Fuentes situation, review the arguments against his reinstatement:
Fuentes didn’t do anything useful with his autumn groyper account. Therefore, he shouldn’t be reinstated.
Musk doesn’t owe us anything. Therefore, Fuentes shouldn’t be reinstated.
Fuentes tries get other people banned and celebrates when his rivals get banned. Therefore, he shouldn’t be reinstated.
Fuentes’ rhetoric reflects poorly on White Nationalism. Therefore, he shouldn’t be reinstated.
Even if Fuentes doesn’t violate TOS, Musk would be criticized by the media for letting Fuentes back on X if a certain kind of terror attack were to happen in the future since the media would try to link the attack to Musk’s decision to unban people like Fuentes and those with similar political views. Therefore, he shouldn’t be reinstated.
None of these are strong arguments. And all of them imply that we ought to accept the idea of lifetime bans. How many others should never be reinstated? Some say that Trump and J6 participants engaged in violent rhetoric as well. And from there it leads to guilt by association and pretty soon we’d be back to pre-Musk Twitter. Look, I largely agree with you about Fuentes. Over the last few years I’ve gone back and forth about whether he is a net positive or net negative for WN. He seems like a horrible person who would be a horrible friend, and I would advise any friend to avoid getting mixed up with his organization. And some of the ideas he promotes are harmful to the nationalist cause. But he is an effective and entertaining communicator who sometimes promotes white identity politics and has an impressive ability attract a large, loyal following. Am I upset that he’s not on Twitter, and would I want to lead the campaign to get him reinstated? No thanks. But I think it’s good that his supporters are agitating for his reinstatement on free speech grounds, even if Nick’s supporters wouldn’t do the same for other banned people.
My argument is that people should live in the real world. People are literally expecting for Twitter to be more free speech than the Daily Stormer message board and I say that is not realistic.
It was never going to be free speech in the purest sense of the word. There were always going to be people who were never going to get back on. I assume that there are practical and possibly legal reason for why not. The US government can allow free speech because the US government doesn’t have to turn a profit.
Come on, this pearl-clutching about Nick Fuentes is such a bore. It’s not like the establishment media is going to cut you any slack for disavowing him.
Yes, that is my motivation. I’m trying to get the establishment media to stop running hit pieces on me.
There were people in the Discord chat for Charlottesville who were criminally charged for memeing about the “Day of the Rope.”
Sorry to be a critic but this is totally made up. What is your source for this statement? You should include links to sources for claims like this and if you can’t find one, just leave it on the metaphorical editing room floor.
Mike Enoch said something to that effect one time.
“Mike Enoch said something to that effect one time” is not an appropriate source for a statement of fact by any known journalistic standards.
You make some interesting arguments in the article. Its a shame for it to be marred by something like this.
Free speech.
For everyone. Including people I don’t like, opponents, rivals and even enemies.
That includes an X account.
I agree. Just let free speech prevail. Hearing all these arguments by some people to silence others with whom they disagree gives me a headache.
Why do you think that Elon Musk has not already done that? Do you think he COULD do that and is just choosing not to?
I wish he would’ve ripped the band-aid off at the beginning and restored all accounts in a general amnesty. But there’s a good chance if he would’ve done that then Twitter/X would’ve been nuked from the AppStore & the Google Play Store. Advertisers would’ve used the opportunity to pull everything from the platform, essentially killing it.
I think Musk might be employing a slow drip strategy to have a viable free speech platform. Theres still ways to go though.
“…white [sic] nationalist Christian fascist Nick Fuentes says that when his America First movement takes power, all non-Christians will be executed: “When we take power, they need to be given the death penalty … They must be absolutely annihilated when we take power.”…
… white (sic) nationalist Christian fascist Nick Fuentes declares that he is “a Donald Trump cultist”: “I am a soldier for Donald Trump ..
Christian fascist white (sic)nationalist Nick Fuentes delivered a speech last week that was filled with virulent and violent antisemitism: “We will make them die in the holy war … The enemies of Christ have no future in this world.”
Are these accurate quotes by Fuentes from “Right Wing Watch”? I’ve never heard of RWW, maybe because I’m not in the right-wing that they apparently watch. I clicked on their little avatar shown with the alleged quotes to find this: “A project of People For the American Way that monitors and exposes the activities of Radical Right political organizations.”
What self-respecting White racial nationalist gives a whit about People For the American Way or for the activities of those they claim are Radical Right organizations, for that matter? Looking at some of the groups and people RWR monitors and exposes, most appear to be Christian nutcases, like Fuentes, who BTW is claimed to have 60,000 followers on Twitter/X.
I’ve never been on Twitter/X and never will be. Same for Jew-owned Faceberg, Instagram or the other popular social media that we do not control. I have no need to gather anonymous “likers” or “followers.”
X-owner Elon Musk could easily help the cause of White preservation, but hasn’t. Regardless, I liked when he told his smarmy little Jew interviewer, Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Go F–k yourselves” to the big sponsors like IBM who had attempted to blackmail the multi-billionaire with money or with advertising on X if he would simply quell rumors that he is an “anti-Semite.” I thought for a moment Elon had suddenly found his backbone when I saw that.
All one needs to know about young Mr. Fuentes and his silly Groypers was exposed more than four years ago by revisionist truth-teller, Hadding Scott, here: nationalvanguard.org “America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control”
How can any serious White person follow this twit when he even claimed that he’s not White?: “I’m not even White…2% African, 14% Native American, 25% Mexican.” The source for that quote is found in Hadding’s piece from 2019!
Before Musk, Kevin MacDonald and James Edwards were allowed on Twitter.
Musk is objectively worse than the old regime.
This is a poor article
I regret nothing.
No, it is actually quite good.
I will share specific reasons when you deign to share your specific objections.
I must to correct the record ☝️🤓 about Vincent James. Purge is a product, he wasn’t making a reference to a movie or violence. It’s a “parasite cleanse” and he mentions it in every show lately because Purge is his sponsor.
Also, nobody has done more to challenge jewish power than Nick Fuentes. It’s counterproductive not to stand behind him, even if you clearly have irreconcilable differences. He’s a bulldog, ripping off masks, naming them, shining a spotlight on the disgusting and pathological behavior of jews. This is necessary for the survival of our people and a future for our children.
The only way to have a free speech platform is to have strict and principled rules, which X doesn’t have. Initially, Elon Musk had the right idea by saying all legal political speech should be platformed. He also said permanent bans should be used sparingly. If the rules are open to interpretation, the powers-that-be will always pressure the outlet to censor whenever it publishes truths that cut too close to the bone and puts them in a bad light.
Musk has opened up X/Twitter in a couple of areas that I see. He allows talk about a rigged election and also criticism of the vaccine. It seems that the smaller accounts are able to talk more about Jewish power, but individuals who want to organize against it are banned without breaking any rules – I think of Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, David Duke & Mark Collett as some names, all of whom are very careful to avoid “fed-posting”.
I agree that the 3 instances cited are things Nick Fuentes shouldn’t have said. The one about the Holy War was basically saying that if you’re not willing to die for a cause, your cause isn’t going anywhere – but could have been stated differently. Also, Fuentes consistently and repeatedly says DON’T engage in violence or break the law. It’s possible that Fuentes will say something seemingly outrageous so that it gets some publicity and people will click on it and realize he’s not a bad guy. I don’t quite get Fuentes’ love of Trump. Fuentes sees the Catholic Church as the sole holder of truth and Trump is a Protestant who probably didn’t pick up his Bible once in the decades preceding his political run. Trump does have a greater chance than other modern pols of being a revolutionary figure, but that is also a long shot. Trump just wants to MAGA and be liked.
Musk is slowly caving to the censorship lobbies. That’s why he subjects himself to an X-Space Sanhedrin and flies to Auschwitz with Ben Shapiro as his escort, while Israel is in the process of flattening Gaza. The same Ben Shapiro who wrote favorably about ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arabs.
To sum up, Nick Fuentes SHOULD be on X (block him if you don’t like him) and him not being on there IS NOT saving free speech for the rest of us.
Censorship is quite political. Amazon deplatformed all books on Holocaust revisionism, followed after a couple of years by all books on the dissident right. However, the book by Joan peters, From Time Immemorial, denying the existence of the Palestinian people prior to the creation of the state of Israel, remains available on Amazon! The book has been thoroughly debunked by scholars of Jewish origin. It’s who/whom in this world. The pattern gives you an idea of what political force is behind the book banning. It shows you that it’s not “the left”, there is no moral principle driving these decisions, but rather the interests of a particular group.
As much as I detest the usual double standards, I’ll have to say that there are pragmatic reasons not to say things that are unhinged or can be taken the wrong way.
I’m with Travis on this one. Even if you can say stupid things, it’s important not to do so. This seem likes a good time to apply (((David) Cole’s)) Rule: Don’t defend stupid.
Marshall McLuhan famously observed that “World War III is a global information war.”
Ancient military wisdom: “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”
Robert Heinlein noted somewhere, “Roll with the punches but do not stool for the warden.”
Ultimately, the only way for the Dissident Right to operate freely on the Web is to control an IT company. Falling short of that, there needs to be an alliance with an oligarch controlling said IT company.
Act accordingly.
Well written article with good arguments. On his good side, Fuentes is one of our very best. The enemy has us at his mercy. Removing one of our best just because he also does certain things that favor the enemy is not something I would do. But you can’t argue against this: sitting in monologue talking about how people should, must or deserve to be killed, or that you yourself want to kill, is a legitimate basis for censorship.
I appreciate the article’s ambition to educate the movement a bit. Although the movement represents the best ideas, the movement itself is repulsive to many people. The ideas are timeless, but the movement is vilified and subject to sabotage from within and without. I hope Fuentes stops talking about violence in this way. But he’s always in front of his webcam, so maybe three times isn’t so much? Send him the book “New Right vs Old Right”. Take care.
Do I disagree with the wisdom and content of the Fuentes quotes mentioned? Yes.
Do I think Fuentes should be censored? Absolutely not.
First, X is not comparable to a niche right-wing forum as it has effectively usurped the public square and is no longer a private company at this point, but a public utility. Imo the ruling of Marsh vs Alabama should apply to the internet because its where people live their lives more than in real space, to such an extent that people in le movement frequently question whether real life activism has any merits at all. A rule will have to be created to identify when a private company becomes a public utility by usurping the public square as in theory it can be ambiguous. But with X it is not ambiguous at all.
Second, if X is the public square, then 1A jurisprudence should apply. I admit caselaw is all made up by judges but its still useful, and we should demand that it work for us. As it stands, current caselaw from Brandenberg v Ohio says that threats of violence need to be imminent and likely to be illegal. Imminent means basically right now. Not this afternoon, and certainly not if some contingent thing happens first. For example, when Fuentes unwisely talks about extrajudicial killings, it is contingent upon Trump ordering him to and is at some vague point in the future. That will probably never happen, so its not likely either.
Third, Fuentes going off the rails is something for us to deal with. Not Elon Musk or the ADL.
Fourth, Elon allows all manner of illegal content on X. For example, while antifa doesnt have quite as much free reign to spread doxes around as they used to, they still regularly get away with it. Each dox is part of a campaign of harassment, stalking, intimidation, implied incitement to violence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and tortious interference in contracts. That civil and criminal cases against doxers usually dont go anywhere does not mean that the underlying conduct isnt contrary to civil or criminal law, it just means that the courts are biased and broken. Leftists also frequently say things like ‘hang the rich with the rope they sell us’ and guillotine post without consequence. There’s a clear double standard here.
Fifth, I doubt Fuentes being banned had anything to do with what he said. Yes, he shouldnt have provided a flimsy pretext for banning him. But the fact that two of these statements were from the past and that this ban coincided with Musk visiting Auschwitz and tensions rising over the Gaza crisis strongly suggests that this has a lot more to do with Zionists wanting to silence their critics.
Sixth, speech which you agree with is easy to defend. But if you wait until censorship comes for speech which you like, its usually too late. Censorship tends to work from the margins inwards. Fuentes having free speech serves as a bastion against censorship for the rest of us. Free speech is all about defending speech with you find offensive or disagreeable. It has to be absolute, for otherwise it tumbles down the slippery slope.
“I may disagree with every word you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” is just a cutesy slogan for conservacucks which they only apply to Leftists who hate them. For me, its a difficult challenge which I intend to live up to.
David M. Zsutty: January 23, 2024 “I may disagree with every word you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” is just a cutesy slogan for conservacucks which they only apply to Leftists who hate them…
Isn’t that quote usually attribute to Voltaire, hardly a conservacuck? In fact the quote is associated with Voltarian liberalism, as I found used here: muse.jhu.edu/ pub/8/article/241751
Jean-Pons-Guillaume Viennet (1777–1868) is one of those public figures who traversed the nineteenth-century literary and political worlds, observed it all from up close, knew everyone, but left no trace in posterity. Viennet, a Voltairian liberal, pursued three careers: as a (respectable) officer, an (inconsequential) centre-left deputy, and a (mediocre) author who tried his hand at every genre, from poetry to tragedy, melodrama to fables…
And
Voltaire was the pseudonym for François-Marie Arouet, an eighteenth-century French man of letters who personified and popularized the intellectually liberal climate of the Enlightenment…
Reading the various comments under this article, I find it incredible that any White preservationists still take seriously young Mr. Fuentes and his Groypers.
Voltaire may have first said it but its a common refrain in any debate about free speech, even if few people actually live up to it.
David M. Zsutty: January 24, 2024 Voltaire may have first said it but its a common refrain in any debate about free speech, even if few people actually live up to it.
I see. Thanks. I didn’t know that, David. But, then, I don’t follow cutesy conservacucks. so how would I have known? The problem with free speech is that there is too much of it, most of which is opposed to strict White separation/preservation.
—
Scott: January 23, 2024 I personally can’t stand Fuentes and Anglin, and cannot see how they or an appeal to Christian Zoomer Inceldom helps with White Nationalism in any way.
Thank you for that, Scott. I’d “like” what you say but my “like” button appears to have been disabled.
Inceldom? That’s a new one on me. But if Inceldom is connected somehow to feckless Christian Zoomers and Groypers, and if Fuentes and Anglin are trying to appeal to Inceldom, you are right: it’s another losing strategy for White racial nationalism.
It’s a quote that’s often misattributed to Voltaire, just like the famous “To learn who rules over you” quote that actually came from Kevin Alfred Strom. It’s from a 1906 book called The Friends of Voltaire in which Beatrice Hall, writing under the nom de plume S. G. Tallentyre, was summarizing Voltaire’s attitude toward free speech:
“How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.”
I personally can’t stand Fuentes and Anglin, and cannot see how they or an appeal to Christian Zoomer Inceldom helps with White Nationalism in any way.
But that doesn’t mean I necessarily want them banned. Free-Speech actually means tolerating what you don’t like.
However, I do strongly agree with the article about not tolerating Fedposting. It is juvenile, and nothing good will come of it.
I also don’t see the appeal with Twitter/X in general. Maybe some good 280 character propaganda can be had from it, maybe not. Don’t let me discourage anybody.
But Musk is currently on his apology tour to Auschwitz. That speaks toxic volumes. At best Musk is potentially a useful idiot.
🙂
I personally can’t stand Fuentes and Anglin, and cannot see how they or an appeal to Christian Zoomer Inceldom helps with White Nationalism in any way.
I am convinced that certain people are funneling money into the movement to control it. They are using their control, in turn, to sabotage it with repulsive misogyny. The misogynists’ arguments are completely irrational and have been shown up as such for a long time now. In fact, they rarely even try to justify their hate any more, because they know they can’t.
Brad Griffin posted an article the other day in which he actually blames women for the incipient attempt to normalize “polyamory.” All you have to do is take a look at the gender distribution among prostitutes to see that this is completely insane. Did Epstein even have any male hookers? If he did, how many of their customers were women? Female sex tourism is negligible compared to male sex tourism, and even there, there is usually at some sort of pretense of romance, at least. Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is that women, if we’re so keen on casual sex with multiple partners, don’t just go and pay for it? Seriously, I’m open.
On Red Ice the other day, poor Henrik casually mentioned that more Swedish men choose immigrant mates than Swedish men. Making his priorities clear, some creep wrote in to point out that Swedish men have to marry out to find a “tradwife” (a housekeeper with benefits who never makes demands or talks back). This didn’t surprise me, of course, because White men have a long history of replacing their own with more pliant aliens. They don’t like to negotiate wages with free White male citizen labor and they aren’t willing to accept egalitarian coexistence with White women either, not even to save their own race.
Christianity is not to blame for this, nor are frustrated zoomers. It is the Boomers who are to blame. Kevin McDonald is a retired professor, and, so far as I know, not dependent on superchat shekels to support his children. He should have nipped it in the bud long ago. Jared Taylor, thank goodness, appears to have cut it out, but only after being repeatedly shamed for allowing no criticism of Jews but no end of attacks on the female half of the population that he claims to represent.
On the other hand, James Edward’s will keep going on about how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, even after White women, once again, ignore the media and vote for Trump. Keith Alexander will go on demanding identity politics for “White males.” I guess he thinks that White men are so awesome they can literally take on the whole world all by themselves, even though they’re only like 6% of the global population and falling. I don’t know what you do with people like that. They are either malicious bad actors, or they are completely out of touch with reality.
On the other hand, James Edward’s [sic] will keep going on about how women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, even after White women, once again, ignore the media and vote for Trump.
While I understand the point you are making, voting for Trump is not my idea of good judgment. Indeed, voting for anyone at all at this point is futile.
Mind you, there is one positive aspect of Trump getting elected: we get another entertaining show of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Lexi,
Brad Griffin is happily married and has two sons. His wife is no pushover. I’m confident she’d resort to violence to defend herself if the situation called for it. Last I heard, James Edwards is also married with three kids.
Inceldom and anti-feminist ragecels like Anglin inherently disgust normal Whites because their rhetoric and proposed policies paint an image of a society that resembles Gilead from The Handmaid’s Tale. Whites as a race look down on the dark races who violently oppress their women. We were the first race to give our women what the feminists call “Legal Rights.” It was White Men who made the 19th Amendment a reality in 1920. It is White Men who to this day have an inherent sense of respect (!) for women.
Then some entitled brat such as yourself comes along and helps justify the whole anti-feminist narrative. Your complaint isn’t that the incels want to violently subjugate women, or wants to take away White Women’s rights, or something that would come across as both rational and morally justified. Instead, its this Disney laden tripe:
“some creep wrote in to point out that Swedish men have to marry out to find a “tradwife” (a housekeeper with benefits who never makes demands or talks back)”
Also this gem:
“White Men aren’t willing to accept egalitarian coexistence with White women either.”
I unironically don’t want egalitarian co-existence with anyone who can’t demonstrate that they are either on my intellectual or my moral level. If they are above me in this regard, I’m inclined to look up to them and defer to them. If they are below me, I ignore them and insist they stop talking to me, because they don’t have anything important to say to me. Character is the determiner of whether I value the opinions of another person, *not* their mere physical existence.
Your proscription for gender relations between White Men and White Women is Dead-On-Arrival, on account of the fact that it demands equality without consideration of the inequalities and differences that exist between the specific man and woman in question – to say nothing of the generalized differences that exist between most men and most women.
Speaking for myself as a White Man, I don’t want a woman or anyone else talking back at me unless they know what they’re talking about, and I don’t want them making demands unless those demands are reasonable. I can and will judge harshly the character of the person who makes outrageous demands and talks back just to talk back. Any self-respecting White Man would.
Get the picture?
Well said. But while I have very definite views on the Woman Question in relation to the Race Question, I think (for now) we need to cast as wide a net as possible. With the exception of excluding outright criminals (real ones, not Regime-designated unfortunates), the white preservationist movement needs to appeal as broadly as possible, and that means muting differences and mutual criticisms among white ethnicities and identities (male/female, straight/gay, married/single, parent/childless, Christian/pagan/atheist, wealth status, etc). Prowhites should never criticize women as women.
It’s about acquiring power. With more of it, our options will expand, too. Once we have an Ethnostate, all sorts of reactionary stances can be resurrected, or revolutionary ones realized. But not before.
Spot on. The modernist project of ‘egalitarianism’ within the household and the nation is a chief culprit of the downfall of our civilization. That is the last thing we need to tolerate on the DR. Men are not going to marry an entitled girlboss to save the white race. All healthy, heterosexual masculine men want a feminine, supportive and pro-natal wife. There is no successful white nationalism without healthy families and there aren’t healthy families without traditional gender roles generally. Exhibit A is the status quo. F Roger Devlin is the most insightful thinker on the DR on this, by far in my view.
Egalitarianism? You are not part of the right. Egalitarianism is liberal/modernist horseshit that is at odds with reality and human nature.
Most normal, healthy, masculine men want a non-argumentative, feminine wife. Not a girlboss, or an ‘egalitarian’ woman (ie a feminist). It’s precisely these trends that have killed the west: a loss of respect for the natural order. You can call yourself what you’d like but you aren’t a rightist.
Bronze Age Pervert just released a fascinating 2.5 hour podcast about the resurgence of paganism as a necessary precursor to the Italian Renaissance. Nick Fuentes “names the Jew.” I don’t understand how there’s a fight between these two or why anyone would side with the latter, but if lines are gonna be drawn, in team BAP all the way
Something Nick Fuentes has in common with Richard Spencer is that Spencer was not content just being a player on the team. He had to be leader and he would accept nothing less. So Spencer would tear down anyone on the right getting traction unless they had bent the proverbial knee. If Bronze Age Pervert started kissing Nick’s ass, Nick would have no problem with him.
I’m fine with people criticizing BAP when he says something stupid but I don’t get the obsession. BAP appeals to a certain kind of person. A lot of ex-Bernie Bros became BAPist. I mean, if it is true that the BAP scene are all Jews then that means they are not stealing any gentiles from us so then who cares?
BAPs greatest sins are believing that white nationalism is not a viable political program in current year USA, that Jews are better understood as parochial ethnic narcissists rather than Machiavellian schemers, and that Christianity is not a necessary precondition of a vigorous nationalism. That being said, the majority of his output is not political in nature. As to whom he appeals to, I guess I don’t know. I really love his stuff and I might be typical: I’m a bookish attorney with a family and my own business; I love history and fucking despise the left and their gay racial egalitarianism. I also abhor movements and fake solidarity. Perhaps this makes me a Jew in the Fuentes demonology I don’t know
You have a link to this? This sounds like a somewhat interesting podcast. I’m more or less set in my ways when it comes to podcasts and what I read. I think it is good to branch out every now and then.
https://bronzeagepervert.gumroad.com/l/BronzeAgePervert
This sort of divisive cat-fighting in 2024 is worse than when TRS was pretending no election was happening in 2020. C-C should be better, and do better.
This reads like a TLDR Spencer. Destructive contrarianism for no apparent reason. Logically consistent, even thoughtful, but ultimately an own-goal. Stinks of wrecking.
Election years require a simple message repeated endlessly, whether you care about elections or not. Something like, but better, than that “White Votes Count” line someone suggested a while back.
This is not the way to up the dontations.
Why don’t you just admit that you are a Fuentes fan and cannot abide criticism of your idol? It would be far more respectable than this passive aggressive word salad.
PS: As a rule, people who play the “This will depress donations” card never donate a nickle.
I would not mind if you stopped reading CC altogether.
I see a lot of people, freeloaders, on here complaining about this article not being relevant, or up to Current Standards, or “this is a poor article.” That’s a little on the nose, don’t you think? It’d be like being invited to your friend’s BBQ and going, “for Christ’s sake, Ralph, if I knew you were getting USDA choice burgers instead of USDA prime I would not have come at all!” Another non-donor commented how articles like this aren’t going to help with donations… wow. It seems like the donors enjoyed the article, with exception to some constructive criticism from Mr. Kessler.
I enjoy these articles for two reasons. One is that LeBlanc goes into Fuentes BS or some other BS so I don’t have to. I don’t have time to listen to hours of podcasts to get the QRD on how/why some sort of drama developed. I also can’t stand Fuentes’ voice and him saying insane things has a synergistic effect that makes his voice even more annoying. Two is that the drama is either relevant and/or has some sort of angle that is either extremely funny and/or raises a lot of questions that deserves some commentary.
Case and point our catboi courting Fuentes. I think it’s important to get across that he isn’t /our guy/. I agree, he has talent, but he has flushed it down the toilet. Is he even still running conferences and courting Congressmen? I’m guessing he is instead courting catbois and incels and just gives political commentary as he plays Minecraft. He had potential and he blew it. Fuentes talks a big game but we all know he cannot play that game. The guy is a has been and has been for quite some time now.
There’s also the cognitive dissonance of how Fuentes was once “Mr. Optics” and how here he is talking about being a “Trump cultist” and how he would do extra-judicial executions if Trump told him to. This is the rhetoric of a saboteur. This is not going to be swing voters to vote for Trump hearing a so-called Trump activist saying this stuff. So good riddance I say if he is banned from Twitter. If anything he should be banned for staying stupid things.
I have mixed feelings when it comes to Fuentes. Normally I admire any young man who sacrifices a regular life and has the gumption to say what needs to be heard, as it will cost them in life if they do — but Nick kinda goes back and forth with a lot of things, and I think he comes across as whiny and often unprofessional. I don’t know in the grand scheme of things if he will be of any value to us.
I saw an interview with him about a month ago, and he was taking to a typical normiecon white girl. Nick stated that he can’t possibly see the United States working at any 1st world capacity without a population that’s at least 80% white, if not more. But then he immediately followed it up with “I’m not saying that blacks and Mexicans are inferior! I’m not saying that Indians are inferior!” It’s just that…….
It’s just what, Nick? If you have enough courage to say that the USA needs to be supermajority White in order to function, and that it can’t be the same under large populations of other races, why does he still choke when it comes to explaining “why” the country needs to be White?
Travis is right. Fuentes is an insane, egomanic, obnoxious moron, drunk on his on edginess and showmanship. The phoney religious posturing is especially annyoing. An utterly worthless, damaging creature that I wish would just shut up and get some decent job.
It’s also worth noting that Nick Fuentes regularly directs his followers to boost Activist of the Year Keith Woods on Twitter. Would Woods have reached as many people as he did this year without the regular, enthusiastic boosting from Nick’s highly engaged AF audience? Woods seems to value his alliance with Fuentes, and the two seem to work together on certain messaging and attacks (such as the criticisms of BAP).
He also directs his followers to report the accounts of people who displease him. In short, he uses the censorship regime for his own petty ends then cries foul when it is applied to him. That is juvenile and utterly squalid.
You’re absolutely right. And Fuentes also doesn’t hesitate to backstab and discard loyal supporters, including those who have sacrificed a lot for him. I think those closest to him are afraid of him because they fear how he might send his supporters to attack and dox them. It’s awful.
I don’t think Nick is being totally altruistic. Keith was already an established name in his own right and had his own audience before he came into Nick’s circle and it’s debatable as to which party gains more from the relationship.
There are benefits to associating with Nick. He has an good-sized audience and can help boost your content. Keith has a lot of credibly in the DR and in several adjacent movements. For example, Keith did help Nick break into the pro-Palestine scene which helped kick off something of a comeback for Nick.
But then Nick also has a lot of baggage and a lot of enemies. There are some trade-off associating with Nick whereas there are comparatively fewer with associating with Keith Woods who has far fewer enemies and a scandal-free history.
Keith is a smart guy but he is perhaps not very “street smart”. We tried to hell him about Spencer, we tried to tell him about Striker, and we tried to tell him about Fuentes. I don’t like it but the kid’s gonna do what he’s gonna do.
I am a free speech absolutist. Thus I don’t rejoice when fools are censored. I just wish they would shut up/drop dead/get a life/grow up . . . whatever it takes to raise the standards of this cause. The future of our race and planet are at stake. We need leaders and followers who take this all a bit more seriously.
I consider myself a free-speech absolutist as well ─ or close to it.
I’m a pretty staunch 1A kind of guy. I pity countries that don’t have a strong First Amendment tradition.
The problem with the Left is that they think that their literal violence is so justified on the basis of human rights or whatever quatsch that it is only free-speech.
At the same time, the Left sees the free-speech of their critics and the Right as hate, incitement, and literally violence.
I consider myself on the hard Right.
But I recognize that good White people will sometimes have to agree to disagree on some things. And we have to be transparent and open to constructive dissent.
The reason why even if we win we can’t have a rigid orthodoxy is because, even the good guys can be and sometimes are, WRONG.
I can think of numerous examples where, for example, Revisionists lost their way and got some things very wrong. It was then tough to set things straight because they had become too big to fail. Criticising their mistakes was equated with heresy.
Similarly, when you see Lefitsts attempting to deify Science, they show that they don’t even know what the word means.
History is full of lessons like this.
The “Man For All Seasons” lost his head in 1535 for opposing the royal divorce ─ he could have recanted but he said that he served his God more than he served his King. Sir Thomas More is considered a martyr and was even canonized by Rome in 1935 and made a Saint.
But when doing his tour of duty as the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas was happy to put heretics like the tongue-wagging Lollards to death.
They talked too much and they had wanted things like Holy Scritpture published in something other than dead languages that they could actually read.
For his past loyal service, King Henry VIII modified Sir Thomas’ sentence from being drawn and quartered to simple beheading like the monarch’s errant wives.
Thomas More wrote an interesting book called Utopia in 1516, the year before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door. But Luther had support from nationalistic German barons who were fed up with Rome, whereas More’s king had once been dubbed the Defender of the Faith.
St. More seems to have become a victim of his own rigid mores. If you know that you have the Truth, after all, why not put all doubters to death?
There is some speculation that Thomas More named his book ironically as a Greek pun. Does Utopia mean U-topia (no-place), or does it mean Eu-topia (good-place) ?
To me the book is thoroughly dystopian.
But I could be wrong.
🙂
I gravitated more towards the WigNat side of things in the Optics War that began in August 2017, right after Charlottesville. I particularly despised Anglin’s pivot towards “American Nationalism,” which I thought was jarring and two-faced after he gleefully spent all of 2014-2016, and the first half of 2017, spreading pro-NSDAP aesthetics, memes, and imagery.
But, that was almost 7 years ago. I’m not convinced any side truly “won” the Optics War, since Fuentes and Anglin remain where they were in 2017, while the WigNat side, although it took its usual level of attrition from infighting, remains extent and active on the internet. In 2024, I agree with Trav’s strategic take here: Fuentes is a liability to all of White Nationalism, and he needs to be thrown overboard.
There needs to be an essay on how the norms of Free Speech on the internet have changed since roughly 2014. The golden era where we could post WN content on major platforms such as Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook without facing any sort of censorship or deplatforming, is over. It’s been over for almost a decade. 2016 is when it kicked into high gear, and by the time Elon Musk took over, the very business model of Twitter – and all major social media platforms – was dependent on restricting “hate speech.”
Here’s my take on the matter of Free Speech: I think everyone on every website in existence has their own personal code of conduct for what they instinctively allow, and what they restrict. No website or platform in existence has unrestricted free speech, nor should they.
When White Nationalism becomes hegemonic, I have no doubt there will be restrictions on what type of propaganda can be spread on the public web. For example, there will be no tolerance for speech that promotes miscegenation, nonwhite immigration, or the myth that Jews are somehow innocent of promoting the destruction of our race.
If we attain power, we *will* ruthlessly censor and prosecute our enemies. I’m not interested in debating with or negotiating with those who fervently believe in the narratives of the post-1945 world order. I support restriction of speech not because WN ideas can’t withstand critique – reality is on our side after all – but rather because I want peace and quiet, which requires consensus.
I also genuinely detest disagreement over stuff that is Obvious, even if the topic at hand is arguably subjective. I do not want to live around or even be around others that disagree with me on fundamental matters. Insofar as I have to tolerate them, I cope and seethe at them internally.
Anyway, this is all food for thought to consider on the issues of Free Speech Absolutism. To me, that position was always a (not so) clever strategic way to trick the Enemy into allowing ourselves – as a persecuted, powerless minority – to say whatever the hell we want and get away with it. The Enemy was never going to stand for that as soon as we became relevant enough, and by 2016, we were relevant enough to become dangerous, which is why they deplatformed us and censored us.
Agree, true power does not tolerate free speech because it does not allow dissent. Free speech is something for small enclaves of genetically similar people who basically already agree on everything. The weak side is always the one crowing for free speech.
i’m not saying that’s what I want, that’s just the reality of the matter.
LeBlanc says in the comments here that his argument is that people ought to live in the real world. And, if you’re correct, then LeBlanc is also telling us that Fuentes ought to be “thrown overboard” (not my words… I don’t want to be accused of saying anything violent) because he is a liability to all WN.
Who is going to do the “throwing overboard”? Is every nationalist expected to shun Fuentes? How *realistic* is it to think that Fuentes could be completely shut out of WN? Fuentes leads one of the most influential “nationalist” (though his positions are all over the place at times) groups, after all. And this is while he is still officially banned on Twitter and other platforms.
Is dislike of, and opposition to, Fuentes worth dropping opposition to Twitter censorship and lifetime bans?
Finally, can anyone honestly say that Fuentes’ overall messaging is characterized by violent speech? Of course not. And, to be fair, LeBlanc isn’t even saying that. Out of perhaps thousands of hours of Fuentes’ speaking, LeBlanc could only find a few instances of Fuentes talking about violence. If Fuentes were an honorable person known for treating others well and doing all he could to boost other nationalists rather than seeing them as competitors to be destroyed and if this hypothetical, honorable Fuentes made some unhelpful jokes or statements about violence over the years, would we still see articles like this one saying Fuentes should be banned from social media? I doubt it. The understandable desire among some to keep Fuentes banned seems to be due largely to the fact that Fuentes is an admittedly detestable person who has caused all kinds of drama and sucks up much of the oxygen in the nationalist scene.
It would be better to take a principled stand against lifetime social media bans and for free speech, while still criticizing Fuentes’ tactics and behavior and pointing all the myriad ways he is bad for the scene. It is a tricky situation because, for all the harm Fuentes does to other nationalists, he has also benefited nationalists. It’s not black and white.
What I think about all that is this: White Nationalism is still small enough as a movement that the voice of an individual writer like Travis LeBlanc or an established organization like Counter-Currents still carries outsized influence compared to, say, the Bernie Bros revolting against the DNC.
Trav as an influencer and Greg Johnson as a leader have the capability of facilitating already existing momentum against an individual like Fuentes who acts increasingly out of line. It’s one thing for a few disgruntled voices in the comments section to oppose someone like Fuentes, it’s another thing for a growing chorus of influencers to do so. The National Justice Party just got done collapsing in a similar manner.
In terms of personalities, White Nationalism has its constants, but it also is a scene of changing faces. Nick Fuentes is becoming the latest of those changing faces. He was Big Time once. He had Marjorie Taylor-Green speak at his conference as recently as February 2022. Before that his groypers nationally humiliated both Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr. These were all good things.
But that was then. Just like the motley crew at the NJP, he lost the plot. He lost his place in the movement. 2016 shitpoasting was the TRS schtick, and they wanted it to go on forever. “America First” was Fuentes schtick, and he wanted it to go on forever. White Nationalism moved on. The world moved on.
What we’re seeing from Trav here is, in my interpretation, an act of a Nietzschean Push: That which is dying must be pushed overboard (or something). Its possible to push someone as (formerly) influential as Nick Fuentes overboard.
DP84: January 23, 2024 When White Nationalism becomes hegemonic, I have no doubt there will be restrictions on what type of propaganda can be spread on the public web. For example, there will be no tolerance for speech that promotes miscegenation, nonwhite immigration, or the myth that Jews are somehow innocent of promoting the destruction of our race.
If we attain power, we *will* ruthlessly censor and prosecute our enemies. I’m not interested in debating with or negotiating with those who fervently believe in the narratives of the post-1945 world order. I support restriction of speech not because WN ideas can’t withstand critique – reality is on our side after all – but rather because I want peace and quiet, which requires consensus…
Thank you for your sober comment, DP. This topic has about run its course, but I won’t unsubscribe because I’m looking for more comments like yours rather than all this blather about the merits of social media and fear of fedposting, whatever that is, on them. I’d like to see the plug pulled on all social media, even Musk’s. He’s no friend of racial nationalism. except Zionism.
You say “If we attain power…” That borders on defeatism. If we don’t get serious, and quick, and attain power, our people face eventual extinction.
On the National Alliance’s tiny forum, WhiteBiocentrism dotcom (WB), moderated by trusted National Alliance members, we’re not interested in how many warm bodies we can attract. We seek consensus of speech, not “free speech.”
Anglin and Fuentes will never be allowed on WB because their pomposity and reputations as half-baked troublemakers precede them.
Many commentators I see here on C-C would be uninvited, not because they would promote “miscegenation, nonwhite immigration, or the myth that Jews are somehow innocent of promoting the destruction of our race” because none of that nonsense is seen here. But disagreement with the National Alliance’s sound ideology and program, once understood, does not build consensus with William Pierce’s unique, alternative ideology and program. It’s that simple.
I sense disagreement with NA’s approach from some here who have no idea what it is and are not interested in looking into it. It was for no reason that the ADL called Pierce “the most dangerous man in America.” It was for his ideology and National Alliance program for building a new, Jew-free, White World.
The one and only thing I have to say on this subject is that one of the life-changing concepts that dissident (far-Right, whatever) voices convinced me of is that we shouldn’t allow the language, values, presumptions, and conventions of the “Left” to frame the narrative. (As in, “you’re racist! Racists are bad!”… where the conservative or normie recoils in horror at the accusation, instead of challenging the Leftist to defend, and thus examine, their presumptions)
I care nothing for Nick Fuentes, and I also have no issue with shunning people who are counter-productive or liabilities. I also do not exist to worship any Internet personalities.
I do take issue with the idea that “hate speech is violence” or anything that remotely touches on that idea. Before 2016, the standard by which speech was banned on most platforms was if it was a “credible threat” or credible threats of violence directed at specific people or groups. Last year an old crippled Boomer was attacked and murdered by Federal agents for making non-credible threats directed at POTUS on Facebook or something. I forget the guy’s name but you all remember the event, and his community coming out in stunned defense of the man.
There are near-infinite numbers of non-credible drunken rants and ill advised posts every day on the internet. A higher profile person does need to couch their words, but the same standards of credibility should be used to determine the seriousness of the threat.
The post-2016 censorship regime is framed upon Leftist hysterics. They’ve abolished the “credible” criteria. I don’t care if you think Fuentes is good, or bad, because nothing he said was “credible”, and because we know he isn’t going to hurt anyone. If any of his followers are capable of, or actively planning, to cause anyone harm, they’re rational actors who should be held accountable for their own actions. We can’t blame Fuentes for the behavior of someone who happens to watch his VLOG. Just as no writer on CC should be held to account for the behavior of a reader.
I would obviously advise anyone who is an ally, fellow traveler, friend, or co-belligerent in this war to be careful what you say. The Left has all the power and the mainstream cuck-right is too fake and gay to mount real opposition to their power. So being careful is smart. But saying that Fuentes SHOULD be banned from Twitter for the reasons outlined in this article (and I like Mr Leblanc) is buying into the Left’s assumptions and if we’re going to do that we’ve already lost. (IMHO)
It’s not a leftist frame. “Ban people who talk about violence” is the policy of every white nationalist message board that I am aware of. If you are honestly expecting Twitter to be more free speech than the Daily Stormer message board, I don’t know what to tell you.
Travis, is it the policy of every such message board to ban anyone who has ever said such things anywhere? Or do the policies of certain message boards prohibit certain content from being published on those message boards?
Since you seem to admit that Fuentes hasn’t posted any ban-worthy, violent rhetoric on Twitter, is it also your position that Fuentes should be banned from every mainstream social media platform (including new platforms not yet launched), whether or not he has ever used the platforms? And what if Fuentes tried to sign up to comment on one of your articles? Would you want him blocked and banned?
Your article isn’t “why talking about violence is bad” or “why Fuentes is bad for WN” or even “why Fuentes is a terrible person.” You provide a lot of evidence and good arguments for those conclusions. But you set out to show that, “Fuentes should not be reinstated on Twitter,” and you don’t really make that case.
In all seriousness and with due respect, I’m not attacking your article, nor am I advocating the very stupid idea of talking about committing violence, and admonish anyone who is stupid enough to do so.
But I would disagree that prior to 2016, in the “before times”, that unserious, off-handed comments that were obviously sarcasm, a joke, or whatever (anything other than alarming, credible threats) would get you banned, even on Twitter.
This isn’t because the Right started complaining, reporting, and pearl clutching. The left did, Antifa did, and within a year, especially post (that stupid rally that I won’t even name) all the terms of service changed and the heavy hands came out.
The Right has responded to this out of self preservation (as it should and must). I’m not against the censorship on practical terms (I tried to explain this in my post). What I’m against is saying that someone SHOULD be banned, or they DESERVE IT.
I’m stopping short of validating the censorship while maintaining that we should and MUST self censor, and anyone who doesn’t is a knucklehead. Nick Fuentes is a knucklehead. I agree. We need to work within the framework that the people with the whip hand force upon us, but we don’t have to publicly scream that we agree with them and validate the Censorship.
Our reason for censoring message boards, comment sections etc should be simply, “We can’t allow this because this site will suffer the consequences”. To my mind, admitting that “self preservation” dictates the reason we have to do it is perfectly valid. I also know that Elon Musk has the same self-preservation imperative. All of that is perfectly reasonable to point out. I just stop short of validating it by saying “people SHOULD be banned/censored”.
I hope that makes sense.
If Elon Musk is not able to make Twitter turn a profit, he will eventually sell it and then we will all be sad.
All the people who are now crying “Waaaaa! Waaaa! X is no better than it was before because Elon Musk doesn’t understand that Lucas Gage meant “slay Jews” metaphorically! Waaaaaa! Change my diaper and give me my bottle!” will come to realize just how good they had it.
I, for one, would like to see the white race to survive. For that to happen, we need Elon Musk Twitter to survive. This isn’t about rights. It’s about survival Does having Nick Fuentes on Twitter make Elon Twitter more or less likely to survive?
Look, the purpose of self-censoring is to avoid getting censored by someone else. A guy who can not censor himself will bring censorship down on the rest of us. And IMO, if someone wants to be a total individualist and just do whatever feels good to them in the moment, they forfeit the right to make appeals to collectivism later (“Hey, we’re all on the same team!”). Was Nick thinking about the team when he said “We will make them die”?
I could see how someone might think that I am kicking Nick when he’s down but I didn’t write an article about the first two times he talked about killing people but then did it again and everyone was like “Nick only got banned from Twitter because he was standing up to the Jews!”
I say no. I say it is perfectly reasonable if not necessary for Elon Musk to not want to have someone who repeatedly talks about killing people on his platform. You think that’s unreasonable? Why should Elon Musk want ANY connection to someone who say that anywhere?
So if you would like to see Elon Musk Twitter survive, yes, Nick should be banned.
I say it is perfectly reasonable if not necessary for Elon Musk to not want to have someone who repeatedly talks about killing people on his platform… So if you would like to see Elon Musk Twitter survive…
—
Needless talk advocating the killing of specific people or groups should call for a permanent suspension on any serious platform. Who would not agree with that?
I hope Musk does not survive. Go back to what you do best: rocket ships and electric cars. He is another “free speech absolutist” who is told by his ADL masters who to allow to speak and about what. Consider this from the American Dissident Voices broadcast last month: EM (Elon Musk, Economic Man) | National Vanguard
…Elon Musk, creative though he may be in certain aspects of his life, is surely in the camp of “economic man.”
This came to light in a very personal way for me in the last two weeks. The short version is that X, the gigantic online discussion platform formerly known as Twitter, “permanently suspended” me within hours of an ADL attack on me. The powerful but largely discredited Jewish group published an article on November 30 attacking me for a couple of my posts on the platform, posts in which I’d done little more than express my sincerely held religious belief that Cosmotheism is the spiritual path forward for our people and offered a link to the Cosmotheist church Web site. That’s right, X, owned by Mr. EM himself, who’s recently called himself a “free speech absolutist” and who had a public feud with the ADL and with the Jewish power structure generally over their censorious and anti-White activities, has banned yours truly, Kevin Alfred Strom, because of a ridiculously tenuous and unbelievable claim that my support of the Cosmotheist church was somehow “funding hate.”
Who’s funding hate? Musk is working with the ADL to silence Cosmotheists. Fact!
Kevin Strom is a spiritual man. Big difference between him and the world’s richest economic man, Elon Musk. Imagine how things would be for our race if Kevin had hundreds of $billions to promote Cosmotheism.
Sometimes I feel like I am the last optics warrior. Ricky Vaughn’s gone. Anglin’s talking about marry teenagers. Nick keeps talking about killing people. I’m the last one. I’m the last optics warrior. I’m the last one with the strength and moral fortitude to stand up and say “NO!!! IT IS NOT OK TO FEDPOST!!!”
It’s not okay to fedpost. Ever. I believe any serious person would agree with your opposition to it.
As for Fuentes and Twitter, did Fuentes fedpost on Twitter? No? Then opposition to fedposting shouldn’t be used as a justification for why Fuentes shouldn’t be reinstated on Twitter.
I apologize for posting so many comments here, but I just want to add a couple more things. First, the idea that Fuentes’ talking about using the death penalty against political enemies is some kind of new development since the “optics wars” is wrong. Fuentes made similar comments when he was broadcasting for “Ride Side Broadcasting.” See the 2017 Young Turks YouTube video “Trump Fan Wants Globalists…” to watch the clip. Even as Fuentes was chastising others for “poor optics,” he was making “unoptical” jokes and not practicing what he was preaching. Similarly, in recent years as Fuentes would post comments denouncing doxing as unethical and something he opposed, he would simultaneously be instigating doxing campaigns against his adversaries. He is not an honest person. I wish I didn’t have to resort to name-calling, but I don’t know how else to understand Fuentes than to see him as a two-faced brat who gets a kick out of saying outrageous things and not worrying about the fallout. He knows that he doesn’t have to answer to anyone, and he seems to actually take pleasure in inflicting pain on others, including on his own allies. He has been this way since he came on the scene. He knows how to appear and sound responsible when he wants to or needs to. He can come off like a well-behaved, serious commentator one minute on Russia Today, for example, and then minutes later go on his webcam show and make disturbing jokes about opposing the age of consent. Just as his claims to oppose doxing are insincere and self-serving, likewise his claims to be a faithful Catholic are total baloney, in my opinion. I’m frankly shocked that so many take his gimmicky, religious posturing seriously. You cannot take him seriously most of the time, as he is simply a two-faced, sadistic brat with zero shame. It’s really a shame that this rotten person is also one of the more talented and effective commentators in the “dissident right.” He thrives off nasty insult fests, and, as another commentator pointed out above, he attacks and bullies other up-and-coming, young right-wing talent and tries to bring them into his cultish circle. What I would do is encourage friends not to get too close to him or his organization, while also trying to avoid tangling with him directly. He has hurt many people who have worked for and with him. I doubt that Fuentes can be a good friend to anyone. How to deal with him? See the examples of people like Patrick Casey and Scott Greer who have been able to avoid confrontations with him in recent years while pursuing their own things.
Anti-Whites are flooding White countries with third worlders and forcing Whites to integrate with them to be blended away.
Only Nick Fuentes speaks the term “WHITE GENOCIDE”
“Nick Fuentes says, ‘WHITE GENOCIDE is the most important thing going on in the world today.’” https://www.fightwhitegenocide.com/2023/03/04/nick-fuentes-says-white-genocide-is-the-most-important-thing-going-on-in-the-world-today/
Conversations about race that don’t even mention WHITE GENOCIDE already have a rather quaint feeling.
The claim that “only” Nick Fuentes speaks about white genocide is untrue. Maybe you have not been around this scene very long. But we have been talking about white genocide since 2011. I even wrote an article on the subject. If you’d like to read my book The White Nationalist Manifesto just email [email protected] and we can send you a free copy.
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
Lost your password?Edit your comment