1,557 words
Nick Fuentes on the Tucker Carlson Show.
Full interview available here.
Overall, despite one glaring flaw, Tucker Carlson’s interview of Nick Fuentes was a major net positive for the movement.
Fuentes’ strongest point was towards the end, when he gave a surprisingly tasteful explanation of the woman question which Tucker mostly agreed with. It was a refreshing change from Fuentes’s low IQ “incel” nonsense from previous years.
Fuentes began with his red pill story. He was canceled for asking common sense questions about Israel, while at the same time Mark Levin was talking about America becoming majority non-white. He initially disliked Trump for being a statist in his libertarian-leaning PragerU days, but then he realized the importance of immigration and of winning elections, no matter what, to combat censorship. I have no doubt that Tucker’s audience will find Fuentes’s red pill story to be relatable.
Echoing Machiavelli’s advice to either treat men generously or destroy them completely, Nick ended by saying, “You either crush the left or feed them. There’s no middle ground.” He added, “Half-measures just antagonize and empower them.” This is an important message for Tucker’s conservative audience (along with the Trump administration) to hear and internalize. In fact, internalizing it may be a matter of life and death, of total victory or total defeat.
But Fuentes fumbled on pushing back against Tucker’s mushy race-blind civic nationalism. This was surprising, given that Fuentes has a long history of criticizing people who are weak on race realism. After initially rejecting Tucker’s suggestion that he had internalized their attacks, Fuentes missed several opportunities to advocate for race realism.
Basic 4chan 2016 talking points would have sufficed to rebut Tucker’s position, which mostly boils down to a shallow desire to be nice because of his Christian values. And Fuentes’ handling of the woman question shows that it’s possible to be radical without being abrasive. It would have been easy to poke holes in Tucker’s Alt Lite civic nationalist and tone policing without being nasty. But Fuentes passed up opportunity after opportunity.
Fuentes failed to push back against Tucker’s extreme religious individualist statements. Tucker actually claimed that God created individuals not groups, which is obviously false. Groups are real too. Such ideas as a “chosen people” and “original sin” presuppose not just the existence of groups, but the existence of group-based moral traits.
Tucker also sought to undermine group identity with the NAXALT fallacy (not all X are like that, a common barrier to race realism which we explored in our internal poll of the movement). NAXALT is true but it’s also not an argument for ignoring groups and group differences. You can still hold the door open for an old black lady while understanding that our races are unsuited to living together.
Tucker also said that we are required to love everyone based on a faulty interpretation of “love thy enemy.” But as Carl Schmitt explained, Christ was referring to a private or personal enemy, not a public or political enemy. The ancient Greco-Roman world which Christ was steeped in had a stark differentiation between public and private enemies. We don’t need to play patty cake with our political enemies.
Fuentes also disavowed “genuine racial hatred” and Tucker concurred. No, I don’t think it’s healthy to be seething about blacks all the time. But I find the Christian urge to tone police internal thoughts and feelings as opposed to objective conduct to be tiresome and unhealthy. It is perfectly normal to get angry at the sight of Iryna Zarutska being murdered by a black career criminal while other blacks look on in bovine indifference. I see no value in lying about our feelings.
Furthermore, there is a tedious double standard in which conservatives will tone police white people but not non-whites, or at least not with the same vigor. This problem is echoed in Tucker’s rejection of collectivism and identity politics. Dr. Greg Johnson wrote an entire book explaining why white identity politics is necessary, inevitable, and perhaps most importantly for conservatives, moral. The argument I found must compelling in White Identity Politics is that nonwhites have no incentive to drop their identity politics, thus it is unlikely that they will do so, and thus whites must develop their own identity politics to survive. This is perfectly fair and just.
If Tucker and other conservatives don’t like identity politics then they should devote the vast majority, if not all, of their energy into combatting nonwhite identity politics instead of white identity politics. Again, the tone policing only goes one way, and in the opposite direction of what is logical and just.
Fuentes did assert that identity is reality, and Tucker seemingly agreed, but Tucker then said that America would just be like Rwanda, and Fuentes failed to criticize this outlandish claim. Fuentes could have pointed out that failure to assert white standards — i.e., a lack of white identity politics — has led to most major American cities being violently ethnically cleansed of whites. Multiculturalism doesn’t lead to racial harmony. It leads to Yugoslavia. Conservatives are not obligated to make unworkable and malevolent multicultural policies somehow work.
Despite all historical evidence to the contrary (just ask a campus liberal about how racist the Founders were) Tucker clings to the notion that America is unique because it is a proposition nation. Fuentes, again, failed to rebut this. One of baby’s first red pills is how the meme that America is a “melting pot” came from Israel Zangwill’s play by the same name in 1908. Even then, the keynote line that “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming” was regarding European immigration, not pet-eating Haitians or truck-crashing Sikhs. Historically, 1908 was yesterday afternoon, and most of the random people we’re expected to sing kumbaya with arrived only a few years ago. America was never a proposition nation. Modern migrants aren’t pioneers. America was always a normal nation until it was retconned as a social experiment in the 1960s. Even if it was an experiment, it was a mad science experiment that catastrophically failed.
Tucker and Fuentes would probably have to agree to disagree on whether differences between people is driven by race or culture. Fuentes could have acceded the point for the sake of continuing the conversation and then asked if differences are cultural, why should whites be expected to assimilate nonwhites into American culture? Who will pay for it, and what will be the cost in time and money? The first question is rhetorical, we all know whites will pay.
In 2003, Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion for Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld “race conscious admissions” which is a euphemism for get whitey. She wrote “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” 22 years have passed and non-whites are still not our equals. Ironically, some of the least assimilated are blacks, who have lived here for centuries. Fuentes could have asked Tucker for a plan on how to assimilate nonwhites, along with a loose timeline and budget. Maybe real multiculturalism just hasn’t been tried yet.
So why did Fuentes fumble on race when he did an exceptional job addressing the woman question? Both are biological facts with political consequences which the establishment wishes to be taboo. I can’t read his mind, but maybe he is leaning towards his priors as many of us do. Maybe seeing Charlie Kirk die shook him, especially after there was an attempt on his life. Maybe he is trying to cast himself as a more radical version of Charlie Kirk like he cast himself as a more optical version of Richard Spencer, but if so, it’s unlikely to work given his extensive past comments. The most likely explanation is that Fuentes decided that honey was better than vinegar, but overdid it.
I do not think Fuentes “sold out” as some have suggested, but his discussion with Tucker highlights how easy it is to fall into using surrogate issues for white identity politics like religion, economics, culture, constitutionalism, etc. because they are easier. That’s by design.
Fuentes did a very poor job advocating for race realism when he had the perfect opportunity to do so. He could have firmly defended his principles without being abrasive. But that failure is overshadowed the huge success that is the fact that the interview took place at all. It used to be a common rule that if Tucker said it, so could you. Thus, Tucker and Fuentes dealt a major blow to cancel culture simply by having a respectful conversation together. It also synergizes well with JD Vance, Elon Musk, and Matt Walsh standing by the young Republicans who were doxed in a group chat leak by Politico and Gavin Wax.
Despite Fuentes’s lacklustre performance on race, I am confident that his interview will only serve to further unite the Right so we can crush the Left. If Tucker is willing to interview someone as controversial as Fuentes, why not Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, or Kevin MacDonald? I’m certain that it is only a matter of time until Tucker has them on and that they will do a much better job explaining race realism than Fuentes. That’s ultimately why Tucker’s interview was a decisive victory for all of us.
64 comments
It must infuriate Greg Johnson seeing how successful Nick and the groypers have become over recent months.
He really is the definitive leader of this movement with no one even close to his level of influence. Even Tucker acknowledged Fuentes’ superior oratory skills and intelligence. He’s fully mainstream now. It’s great to see.
Yes, it is infuriating to see this slimy, unprincipled non-white interloper being mainstreamed to sabotage white identity politics.
He’s roughly 12.5% indigenous, the balance 50% Irish, 25% Italian, 12.5% Spanish. And that’s assuming his Mexican ancestry is 50/50. Given his looks, his indigenous ancestry is probably less than 12.5%. So I don’t think you can describe him as non-White, and should he ever have children, they will have an even higher percentage of European blood.
He is white when it is convenient and code switches into a Mexican when it is convenient.
I am guessing he plays the “I’m a Mexican” card when he gets called a racist or white nationalist?
Yes
Incorrect. Only 79.1% of his ancestry was categorized as European (incl. 63.7% Southern European, 13.2% Northwestern European). The remaining 20.9% were classified as such: 14.8% East Asian & Native American (the latter specifically at 13.7%), 2.3% Middle-Eastern & North African and 1.3% Sub-Sahara African. About 2.5% were apparently uncategorizeable.
His genetics were released. He’s a real mongrel – but he’s mostly a Turk
Recently, Fuentes claimed that Ukrainians weren’t white.
I think he’s basically an entertainer, the type of person that doesn’t care about being factually correct or consistent (no wonder he gets along well with Alex Jones), pushing falsehoods to get engagement, not caring how many people are misled as a consequence. Poisoning the info-stream for clicks, basically.
Carlson, on the other hand, is an honest but not very smart person. He’s also too emotion-driven.
I don’t hate Fuentes per se and he does say some really good things at times, taken as capsule vignettes, but I do think he is being mainstreamed for tactical purposes, similar to Candace Owens, in that he links strong discussion of particularly the jq but also race with ridiculous ideas like creationism and the existence of living dinosaurs. With Fuentes, there seems to be something kabbalistic going on—I’m not sure, it would be hard to explain.
How are you defining “this movement”? (What are its basic beliefs and objectives? Who are its enemies? Etc.)
Also, you’ve made it a point to imply some animus toward Greg. Why do you feel that way toward him?
These are the little games Groypers play.
I thought I might be reading a groyper, but wasn’t sure without the little frog beside the pseudonym.
(I do genuinely wonder though what a groyper means by “this movement”.)
(I do genuinely wonder though what a groyper means by “this movement”.) A revolution of his bowels apparently, on open proWhite racialism in a highly public forum.
Nice try, Hasbara.
🙂
“If Tucker is willing to interview someone as controversial as Fuentes, why not Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, or Kevin MacDonald?”
While I’d like nothing better to see an interview with Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson broadcast to a mass audience, I suspect that the reason Tucker invited Fuentes (and the reason Fuentes kept his cards close to the vest) was the Charlie Kirk factor. If, after wide exposure on Tucker’s show, some lunatic with a rifle chose to dispatch Fuentes, would Tuck cry? I doubt it. Nor would I: we may regret their loss, sure. But American ethnonationalism can afford to lose a Kirk, or a Fuentes.
Losing Greg Johnson, however? That would be a body blow–seriously crippling.
The next step for the left, and cuckservative enablers of the left, may be to just paint bull’s eyes on our best and brightest. Interviews on Tucker is not a bad way to do it.
In my view, Johnson is the only one on that list who needs to be talking to Tucker. Kmac is wonderful but interviews are not his strong suit. Taylor cannot be trusted because he’s a cuck on the JQ. Both are way too old.
I would add DeAnna and James Edwards, but still give the edge to Johnson because he has advanced the clearest vision of what we’re trying to do and has done so in simple language that anyone can understand, which would make it hard for Tucker to play dumb as is his habit.
Thanks. Jared would be great, as would Edwards and Deanna. These things need to happen. And the Fuentes interview makes them more likely.
Both are way too old.
Really. Too old for what? And what are you going to do with Greg when he turns 70? Kick him to the curb, too? SMH.
I agree with you: Greg would be the best interviewee and would present the most unambiguous, well-rounded picture of what White Nationalism is (and isn’t), without question. But I have to defend Jared Taylor here.
It isn’t accurate to call Jared Taylor a “cuck” apropos of the JQ. Having had the privilege of asking him about the subject recently, his comments revealed that he is quite clear about the JQ; he just has a different idea about what strategy works best for the advancement of white interests, as he labors toward that end. That’s not cucking.
For example, if I say, “White people should have the right to live and thrive in white countries and keep racial others out; anyone who opposes that should be resisted and their efforts to keep white people from achieving that goal defeated,” I have included every enemy (including Jews, implicitly). But what I’ve also done is deprive my enemy of a hot-button proxy to attack (“antisemitism!”) rather than a position that is reasonable and unimpeachable, much more difficult to refute and less charged.
Strategically, it’s much more irreproachable, harder for enemies to argue against. It’s not the only approach, but it is one that most definitely has its place, and should be respected. It takes into account entrenched pro-Jewish realities and avoids giving our enemies a rope to hang us by, by simply circumventing those pro-Jewish realities altogether: “Someone else at some other juncture can talk about the Jews, but I’m going to talk about white people and their rights.” It’s a perfectly valid approach.
There is a time for discussing the JQ, head-on and overtly. But for our purposes (i.e. whites’), the only time to discuss it is when it helps, doesn’t harm or divert attention from, our number-one goal: making things better for white people.
Exactly, and the same with the Big-H.
🙂
100%
HT admits that interviews are not his strong suit but would tucker have the balls to bring Rob Rundo or Warren Balogh on? If he was amerikan, Jeremy Mackenzie?
I was extremely excited and hopeful when I heard about this interview, but actually watching it was frustrating.
I get that Fuentes isn’t a White Nationalist and that race is just one of the main topics he talks about, but come on. Fuentes, love him or hate him, has to be the most famous and most popular racist since David Duke. He is famous and controversial mostly because of his views on race. And here when provided with a chance to speak to an audience far bigger than any that Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, Sam Dickson, Kevin DeAnna, and many others have ever had, race was hardly even discussed!
When you realise that Fuentes has never said a sincere thing in his entire “career” as a livestreamer, you will have fewer moments of frustration. All the “racist” things he’s said were just part of his act, his trolling, his joke, his Gen Z nihilism.
Fuentes is nothing more than the next stage Joe Rogan sheep dog. They know Rogan and his “this far but no further” types are losing the masses. Now we get a slightly more edgy Rogan who still has set boundaries they tell their sheep to not cross. He’s allowed to speak some race truths that Rogan types were forbidden, he’s allowed to be abrasive but ultimately he still has a “we can go a little further than Joe Rogan but not much further”.
He’s a tranny porn watching, pencil neck weakling and he’s who the regime has chosen to be our Fuhrer.
This is well put: “‘this far, but no further’ types”.
Immature types willingly go off in the weeds (i.e. become edgelords or sleezy or whatever) because they know that it gives them more wiggle room with the establishment than if they were simply decent white guys wanting decent white things and aspiring to be decent white neighbors.
They’re like the brusk-but-cucked comedian who gets a pass for saying ‘faggot’ or making a racey black joke, because everyone knows he’s going to prostrate himself in the next sentence.
In other words, they’re no threat to anti-white forces anywhere. So…carry on!
The comedienne Leonarda Jonie is delivering the race realist message loud and clear and apologizes to no one. She has bigger balls than Fuentes. I don’t know where they are be she’s got them somewhere.
Lol, you got that right.
Did you happen to hear the Counter-Currents podcast from a while back, when Greg interviewed her? She’s sharp.
https://counter-currents.com/2025/02/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-626-leonarda-jonie/
Those types are just this generation’s cuckservayids. People may hate them but HT, Gypsy crusader, Tom Sewell, and other hardliners are what people want and need to hear. Those whinging about ‘too abrasive’ can get lost and go back to squares like rogan. It’s not too icky to blame jews, defend Whites, call for Auslander Raus, and occasionally say nigger without the sky collapsing and people who think that’s too far are just deadweight who have been getting in the way for far too long,
I see no redeeming virtues whatsoever. Better to tie a millstone around one’s neck and take a power swim in the sea.
🙂
I interpret Nick’s failure to address race realism as his ambition for a more mainstream and profitable career. He once referred to himself as Mexican. Is he one of us? There’s still time for him to reform himself and become another Glenn Beck.
They probably already do this, maybe Fuentes would have done a better job if he had a list of questions he was going to be asked beforehand. Great article. 🙃
“Fuentes” does sound like a greaser’s name to me. 🙃
His aunt, Daisy, was so hot in the early 90s, at least as good as Katy Perry in her prime. Who can forget her on that episode of Wayne’s World? What was she, Cuban? More like Boobin’
Yes the White supremacist can never have an official representative with an Anglo Saxon, Celtic or Germanic name. It has to be some Aztec or black woman. It’s all kosher. Might as well be Nick Fuentestien.
News flash: Spaniards are white
NEWS FLASH: Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorians, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans ARE NOT Spaniards. The American experiment brainwashing has really set in for anyone that thinks they are. Speaking Spanish does not make them Spanish. Calling them misnomers like “Latin” does not make them Latin.
Only a woke globalist would insist on defining them as Spaniards/Latin. It’s no different to calling a Nigerian living in Ireland Irish, a Ugandan born in Wales Welsh, a Pakistani speaking English English, An Indian born in England an Anglo Saxon.
Compare this list of actual Spaniards:
David de Gea,
Cesar azpilicueta,
Marcos Alonso (former Chelsea FC)
Sergio Ramos
Unai Simón
Dani Olmo
To any average leaf blowing, lawn mowing Mexican walking around your sub urban neighbourhood. You’ll notice immediately that the Mexicans you consider Spaniards are nothing more than 4ft Aztecs who were conquered and forced to speak Spanish, and pray to a Spanish god.
You’re right, Fuentes looks exactly like the guy who mows my lawn.
I’ve attempted to reply to this but I may have run out of credit. I’ll try one more time.
It was your news flash that tried to claim lawnmowing Aztec Mexicans are White Spaniards not mine. Because one of them managed to impregnate a White woman who’s genes ended up dominating the appearance of the their offspring it does not change the fact that his father is a non White. Fuentes was born in Colombia and turns out his dad is half Colombian and half Mexican (same thing really)
My own nephew has a blacker than black Puerto Rican “White Spaniard” father and an actually White mother. He came out looking almost nothing like his father. One day someone like yourself will convince him (and yourself) that his father is a White Spaniard because he spoke Spanish. Even though his father looks like your average short, dark, fat, leaf blowing landscaper.
Sums it up well.
Did see it, and was underwhelmed. It didn’t seem to go anywhere too much after the bit about Fuentes’ background. There was a lot on energy spent on laying out platitudes and ‘I’m not a hater’, ‘I’m not a racist’ between the two which was unhelpful.
And that’s been the case with a couple of Tucker’s other interviews. I saw a chunk of the one with Alex Jones, it was not far off unwatchable. There’s a tendency to end up with a mix, vital issues mixed in with silly conspiracy stuff, now in some conservative ‘melting pot’ of ideas, but the ideas in that pot aren’t all equal. Some are essential for the future, some are junk, and if chase the junk ones at the expense of the essential ones, we won’t have a future.
Tucker himself might be playing this on the soft side to not set off too many alarms. If the net effect is taking us a bit more ahead by reaching more people, being a ‘good cop’ on the most important issues, that’s a positive, but it’s presence over substance currently.
The unseriousness really drips off Fuentes, he cannot keep that grin off his face. Or maybe he’s just extremely anxious and that’s why he does it. Either way, everything about him speaks “I’m doing this to be naughty, to shock, to be notorious” – not because he has deeply held beliefs that he takes seriously. The fact that he didn’t defend those beliefs properly indicates that he doesn’t think about them enough – if he did he’d have plenty of comebacks and talking points at the ready. I believe people like Fuentes are exactly the kind of “internalized racists” that Tucker accused him of being, the “I’m racist because a bunch of college Marxists said I was” variety, of which there are a lot on 4chan.
What’s the QRD on the woman question?
My take is that Fuentes is a sort of household name. I and I’m sure many people here have their legitimate criticisms of Fuentes but I think he may have a part to play. In that I think he can server as a sort of transition for normie (I hate that term) conservatives and boomer conservatives to eventually hear the ideas of Taylor, Johnson, and MacDonald. I don’t think Fuentes has written any books. I don’t have the time to listen to the interview but I reckon he didn’t have the proper delivery that Jared Taylor would have in explaining race realism. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but maybe this is the dress rehearsal for a Taylor interview. I think deep down Tucker is a race realist.
Someone above mentioned that maybe he fumbled the race realism question for career purposes. Multiculturalism and the dogma of diversity is still very much sacrosanct. Rest assured, if the left comes into power in the next couple years, they are going to go nuclear on anyone who does not adhere to their worldview.
I agree that the Carlson/Fuentes interview was a net plus for us, both because it was a good presentation and because it drove the enemy crazy. Yeah, Fuentes is a little soft on the racial realist issue, but no one is going to be as good as Greg Johnson, et al. Most of the comments to the interview and to those commenting about it on You Tube were VERY sympathetic to both men and gratified at their new found cooperation.
I monitored the You Tube reaction to this interview and our side of the Jewish issue and race realism are the dominate theme. People are wising up. Millions of them.
This was a victory for us. Not perfect but perfection will come in time I think. I’m gratified by the way discussion of the Jewish menace is becoming more widespread and more honest. All good things.
Good, even-handed article.
Nick gets asked every other show, “do you have any recommended books on politics?”, and his response is “if you’re too stupid to find books on your own, you’re too stupid for this movement”. I know I’m naive, but I wish that he would say “Just go to Counter-Currents” instead.
“Anybody that wants to unite for the sake of America First… it’s gonna be a lot of water under the bridge, but I’ll unite with anybody that will put America First. I’m open to that, I’m open to conversations, I’m open to debates, I’m open to alliances. I’m open to working together. Squashing past beefs, forging new alliances. Even if maybe we don’t agree 100%, I’m willing to work with other people.” – from last night
Translation: Fuentes doesn’t read. He spends his whole life online. When would he have a chance to read?
This is precisely why I will never gravitate towards Fuentes. His, “if you can’t find books you’re too stupid for the movement” is precisely a projection for what you commented, that he himself does not read. Ffs Fuentes was speaker at an amren conference, he could have at least name dropped amren.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but here’s the list if anyone’s curious.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iT7PLdBnv7OYYzLzL0PkiIYnsyNX9uUyMFTpV19Y1DE/htmlview#gid=0
The Bill O’Reilly book is a running joke lol.
Bill Orally’s books are always Killing someone. That old fartbag won’t go out to pasture where he belongs with hannity. frank luntz, krauthammer, world union of jews…? No thanks.
Oreilly has recently been on a redemption arch. Apparently, the bland, libertarian republicanism was an act.
I used to watch Fuentes years ago but decided that he was too labile and volatile and that his good points were often lost in a deluge of blather. Plus, it’s very hard, especially for a very young man, to be talking so much every day over years without running into yourself.
I have often referred to the Law of Unintended Outcomes but virtually always in a negative light, where good intentions wind up producing unpleasant results. Here it might be the alternative. As David says, he was a disappointment on race. But both his and Tucker’s talking about our servile attitude to the foreign nation of Israel is cracking that question open and it is highly adjacent to the JQ. Which would be a plus.
Yeah, that’s what I mean, he’s good in snippets and bites, but where is he gonna be when he’s 40 or 50 years old, when is this going to gel into a consistent intellectual platform?
Oh would you look at that, Nick Fuentes and Cucker Carlson openly declare they have the exact same grievances as the entire left establishment, Israel. What renegades.
The left establishment has spoken against Israel? News to me.
Oh that’s right it’s the left that is on the side of Israel and the Republican Christ Zionists that are pro Palestine.
Your inversion trolling will have no effect here brown man.
Ok I’ll bite. Let’s say in some fantasy world the left is against Israel. Should one suddenly be pro Israel just because the usual enemy is against? Makes no sense. Take an ally on an issue wherever you can, son
Claiming the left (controlled by jews) is not outwardly opposed to the “White supremacist Jewish State of Israel” is mendacious and mischief. To keep themselves safe and in control of the rabid leftists the jewish controlled left establishment has made a clear distinction between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jews’. This slight of hand is enough to keep their attack dogs on side.
Oh how so brave of Cucker and Fuentes to cuck to the left. Making sure to separate themselves from Kirk (who supported Israel until the few days before his murder). “Hey leftists don’t shoot us we agree with you on the current thing that’s currently making you all really mad”. No mention of jewish power in the USA, the stem of the entire Israel problem.
“Take an ally where you can son, even if that ally wants you dead on any normal day son”.
We can oppose Israel without being pro Palestine. But we can also state our main problem facing White Americans. Notice neither of them did.
I really have a personal dislike of Fuentes.
Not just for his politics, but for who he is as a person. There’s a leaked clip from when he was younger just absolutely mocking and bullying a guy working a menial job, and he sadistically laughed going “Imagine having to work with your hands, and not your brain!”. You’d expect that behavior from a twelve year old, not someone in their twenties trying to be a serious political commentator.
He’s toned the rhetoric down as he’s aged, but that smarmy arrogance is probably more accurate to his true mentality and worldview. He comes around to being pretty truthful on some issues precisely because he’s so disagreeable and pigheaded. But I’m noticing him pivoting to a softer brand as he goes for a mainstream appeal.
He’s a domineering piece of work that enjoys his little groyper cult of pedophiles and homosexuals. He has a nasty habit of starting petty drama like a catty women for attention, and he has allegedly collected kompromat on the people he’s collaborated with. The only reason he attached himself like a barnacle to Kanye was because he knew how to manipulate that mentally ill racemixing BIPOC (everything trad Nick Fuentes is supposed to be against). He collaborates extensively with people in dire straights, like Alex Jones, anyone neutral on his level eventually has a falling out with him. He has to be at an advantage when dealing with people.
His form of race realism is Latin American race realism, which is fitting considering his name and heritage. It’s a form of racial awareness where you can admit the differences, be honest about the differences, but still dissuade others from actively seeking out a white ethnostate, and instead have an expressed hierarchy of the races. He’s happy for America to be a racial caste system where everyone suckholes up to the white man and is free to mock blacks. As someone who passes as white, he’s happy to just bloviate about how whites are superior and better, and have his groyper cult of nons look up to whites.
Nick Fuentes would be unhappy with a white ethnostate for the same reason he is unhappy away from his groyper cult. He wouldn’t feel like anything special. He has cultivated the most stupid audience of mindless sycophants, which he repetitively deprecates in the superchats. He whines constantly about how stupid his fans are, how dumb his supporters are, but it’s like bro, you’re the one that cultivated that audience. Any time any white person tries to do anything productive in white nationalism, he’s there mocking them. He wants whites living around nons, deep in his heart.
He will work against us and will subvert white nationalism if he gets mainstream appeal. We don’t want to point out racial differences to laugh at non-whites and to brag about being better, we want an explicit ethnostate so we survive as a people. He will work against that, so he’s a political enemy. I actually consider his sort of mentality a more substantial long term threat than the nonsense of racial egalitarianism, because the Latin American racial caste system is a working model. I would rather he retire and disappear, and I don’t celebrate him being on Tucker at all.
‘There’s a leaked clip from when he was younger just absolutely mocking and bullying a guy working a menial job, and he sadistically laughed going “Imagine having to work with your hands, and not your brain!” ‘
I remember about three years ago, there was a podcast by Fuentes in which he ridiculed poor White people living in rural areas calling them “hicks”, “hayseeds”, etc; pouring scorn on their lifestyles – their diet, clothes, and overall social difficulties, whilst he claimed to be a sophisticated urbanite. He was cackling almost uncontrollably as he spoke. If I remember, the podcast was linked to a Jim Goad essay. Perhaps it may well be the same item that you’re referring to; whatever the case, it was in extremely bad taste and shocking.
“22 years have passed and non-whites are still not our equals”
Guffaw! That’s a good one.
Carlson and Fuentes = thin pabulum, when what our people need is red meat
When discussing racial equality Whites need look no further than their own Russian racial nationalist statesman, Wolf Stoner, in this latest essay of his, put up yesterday: “The Delusion of Equality” at whitebiocentrism.com
The idea of universal equality among all bipedal creatures isn’t new. Since ancient times some people have been obsessed with this idea. Somehow, it mesmerizes all too many people with its illusory promise of happiness and harmony. In reality, any attempt to impose this delusion on a society always produced chaos and suffering.
I need not recount the events of the last century in order to illustrate this point. The Soviet and American globalist projects were attempts to implement in real life this delusional idea of equality.
But this problem goes deeper than the USSR, Marxism and Americanism. There is a defect in the minds of some people, which impels them in this direction. Instead of exerting efforts in improving themselves, they try to equalize their chances in life by depriving others of their material possessions or even denying their obvious mental superiority. It is insanity but it works. This war against the best people allows many lowly creatures to rise far above their natural place. Such hominids like Cornel West would have never achieved such a high social position if not for this equality-mania among decadent whites.
But it is not only a race or class problem; once started, this drive to equalize everything destroys everything. It is a war of the lowest against the best. It is what Russia experienced a century ago under the banner of class struggle and it is what America undergoes now in the form of “racial justice” quest. Regardless of different external appearances the core idea is always the same: destroy the best, promote the worst.
In a nutshell it is the ultimate triumph of Christian ideal with its “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong”. It is the core of the anti-white ideology that dominates modern societies.
White people need intensive mental treatment; otherwise, they are doomed. If this idea of equality is allowed to persist for yet a century, there will be nothing to salvage; the whole Planet will fall into chaos and organized society cease to exist….
… White society can only exist as a strictly separated one; aside and above all others. It is not my conceited desire, but a dictum of Nature. You can’t redefine at will what was created through a lengthy evolutionary process but you can easily destroy the valuable product if you handle it carelessly.
The delusions and careless behavior of the last generations of Whites will cost us all dearly. What was lost so easily, will have to be fought back with enormous sacrifices. There is no “peaceful solution”. No one is going voluntarily to return us to our special place on this Planet. Nothing is for free in the world. Everything costs something; and the best things cost dearest.
The special place in the world that was given to White people by Nature was lost through their carelessness, conceit and stupidity. The task of the future generations is to return to this place and to impose the mightiest state/social structure that will forever separate us from the half-beast underworld that constantly clamors for “equality”. The only equality that we owe them is to return this uncontrollable mass into the overall framework of Nature where they will have equal opportunities to devour one another.
Read more at the link.
—
Dave Chambers: October 30, 2025 …I get that Fuentes isn’t a White Nationalist and that race is just one of the main topics he talks about, but come on. Fuentes, love him or hate him, has to be the most famous and most popular racist since David Duke.
—
Are you shitting us, Dave? You’re smarter than that. “Most famous, most popular”? Where did you get that, from social media? I didn’t even know what this racially-mixed twit looked like until his phiz was just put here.
I don’t care what he says about race or anything after it was reported that the young right-wing “Christ is King” nutcase, who styles himself a leader of Whites, said that when his crew “takes over,” all who are not Christian will be eradicated?
Did I hear wrong? Did he say that? If he did, what more does a serious White separatist/preservationist need to know about him?
Fuentes and Carlson can both become more popular, more famous, if only they will join hands with Christian Zionists at the Turning Point USA crusade while it’s still hot.
The task of the future generations is to return to this place and to impose the mightiest state/social structure that will forever separate us from the half-beast underworld that constantly clamors for “equality”. The only equality that we owe them is to return this uncontrollable mass into the overall framework of Nature where they will have equal opportunities to devour one another. Well put. And cornel west hasn’t changed his clothes not once since I first became aware of that bloviating idiot 25 years ago.
“If Tucker and other conservatives don’t like identity politics then they should devote the vast majority, if not all, of their energy into combatting nonwhite identity politics instead of white identity politics. Again, the tone policing only goes one way, and in the opposite direction of what is logical and just.”
I’m glad you made this point; I noticed this too when I watched it, I thought Nick might say something, but he just sat there and nodded along. He didn’t even push back against Tucker’s fait accompli of multi-racialism bullshit, “Race consciousness can’t work here so everyone needs to be an individual.”, etc. Or, you know Tucker, it can work in America, and only ‘can’t work’ if you accept that what was done uncritically. There’s this idea that White people shouldn’t be frustrated or resentful, when, actually, Whites have every reason in the world to feel frustrated and duped, lied to and robbed. It’s a historical fact. And there’s also the hypocrisy in the fact that nobody cares about being mean to White people; even just passively by continuing this charade which harms our interests; yet the moment you talk of policies non-whites don’t like, which might exclude their interests, you better watch-out buddy! Nick should’ve made these points, but failed to.
Nick’s rimming of Trump also baffled me. Nick just says things completely at odds with other things he’s said, and completely out of recognition of what Trump is doing – or not doing. Yet, Nick guzzles the load and calls Trump one of the greatest Americans? Among other idolatrous nonsense. I can only suspect this as a tactical appraisal of Trump and those around him who might watch the interview; creating a barrier between what Nick ‘actually’ thinks and Trump would unnecessarily alienate them, and those around Trump who hate Nick might see that as playing into their hands. Who knows.
X is currently eaten up with the only snippet most will ever hear from this interview: that Tucker hates Christian Zionists and why. As the kids say, I didn’t have that on my BINGO card, and that alone was worth the rest being lukewarm. God willing, Jared Taylor will be next and he won’t stutter.
A coordinated effort to pressure Cucker to have Greg Johnson on would be better. The normies have had time to digest Mexican’s light race realism. I think they’re ready to hear about separation and the JP from someone like Greg.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.