883 words
The dissident right has always been a fragile coalition—an uneasy mix of intellectuals, populists, and internet provocateurs trying to articulate a worldview outside the boundaries of liberal orthodoxy. Within that ecosystem, Nick Fuentes has become one of the most recognizable names. He is young, telegenic, and charismatic; his ability to attract media attention is undeniable. Yet, for all his notoriety, Fuentes has proven to be more of a liability than an asset to the dissident right. His sensationalist antics, lack of intellectual depth, and fixation on shock value have turned what could have been a movement of ideas into a carnival of outrage.
Fuentes’ greatest weakness is his addiction to performance. Every time he praises Hitler or mocks sacred historical taboos, it is not out of an effort to reinterpret history or to present an alternative moral framework—it is simply for attention. He hurls incendiary statements without context or analysis, feeding the very media ecosystem he claims to oppose. When he praises Hitler, he does not contextualize it within debates about authoritarianism, nationalism, or even the history of interwar Europe. Instead, he delivers lines meant to provoke rather than persuade. The result is that the dissident right becomes synonymous with buffoonish theatrics rather than intellectual defiance.
There is a difference between dissent and clownishness. Figures such as Ron Unz, Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson—whatever one may think of their conclusions—at least attempt to ground their views in research, historical revisionism, or philosophical argumentation. They publish essays, books, and empirical analyses that challenge mainstream narratives on a scholarly level. Fuentes does none of this. His monologues are rarely informative; they are designed for laughter, not learning. He has built an audience not through substance but through style, positioning himself as a digital performer rather than an intellectual catalyst.
This becomes evident when he speaks on topics central to the dissident right, such as race, intelligence, and the biological roots of civilization. Fuentes rarely, if ever, cites data or engages with the vast literature on group differences in IQ, heritability, or social capital. He shies away from discussing empirical research—perhaps because it requires discipline, nuance, and the risk of alienating followers who prefer slogans over studies. Similarly, when asked about historical controversies like the Holocaust, Fuentes admits that he has “not delved deeply into the topic.” This reveals a fundamental unseriousness. A man who wants to challenge establishment narratives should know them in detail, yet Fuentes seems uninterested in scholarship or historical method.
Instead, Fuentes thrives on emotional release. His “Groyper” movement is composed largely of untutored young men seeking catharsis, not clarity. They are angry at modernity’s hypocrisies, at the emptiness of consumer culture, and at the social alienation that defines life in the digital age. But rather than guiding that anger toward understanding power, institutions, or the long-term structure of decline, Fuentes gives them a scapegoat: the Jews. It is easy, lazy, and emotionally gratifying. The complexities of global capitalism, demographic transition, and cultural decay are reduced to a single villain. In this sense, Fuentes is not an educator but a demagogue, offering resentment instead of reason.
This demagoguery ensures that there is no “Fuentes-to-intellectual” pipeline. His fans do not graduate to reading Ron Unz or Greg Johnson; they do not explore serious debates about human biodiversity, historical revisionism, or the philosophical underpinnings of Western decline. Instead, they remain stuck in a feedback loop of memes, rants, and self-reinforcing outrage. Fuentes’ influence stops where critical thinking begins. He has created a cult of personality, not a school of thought.
The media’s fascination with Fuentes only amplifies this hollow spectacle. Journalists love him precisely because he confirms their stereotypes of the far right as unhinged, anti-intellectual, and hateful. He is the perfect villain for liberal audiences—too unserious to threaten power, yet outrageous enough to fuel outrage clicks. Every time Fuentes trends, the dissident right loses credibility. His presence ensures that genuine critics of liberal democracy or mass immigration are dismissed as mere shock jocks. His popularity thus serves as a pressure valve, allowing disaffected young men to vent without ever developing into serious thinkers or political actors.
Moreover, the attention Fuentes receives is not a mark of success. Influence is not measured by visibility but by the ability to shape discourse and institutions. Figures like Murray Rothbard, Sam Francis, or even Pat Buchanan managed to influence debates within conservatism despite being marginalized. They wrote, argued, and published ideas that percolated through think tanks and political campaigns. Fuentes, by contrast, has no such intellectual infrastructure. He has no journal, no publishing outlet, no cadre of researchers or writers. He lives off internet drama, not ideological development. His fame is parasitic, feeding off the media’s appetite for spectacle rather than society’s hunger for truth.
In the long run, Fuentes represents a dead end for the dissident right. He attracts attention without influence, converts outrage into entertainment, and replaces thought with tribal signaling. His movement is an emotional community, not an intellectual one. While he may draw viewers, he does not cultivate minds. If the dissident right wishes to survive, it must distance itself from his brand of performative extremism and reclaim the serious work of building a coherent worldview.
Nick Fuentes may be good entertainment, but he is bad politics.
63 comments
Can’t believe anyone ever took this little shyster serious from the get-go.
True. I loathed him almost immediately. He’s the most obvious sociopath I’ve ever seen. That disgusting evil smirk he always has on his squashed little face gives it away. He might as well be holding a flashing neon sign that says “Hey there! I’m an evil sociopath!” And yet braindead internet-addled fools treated him like the Messiah. I know I’ve said it before on the comments, but this is the result of 4chan hacker culture going mainstream. It promotes nihilism and extreme nastiness, thus normalizing little freaks the Goblin Burrito Messiah.
In 2021/22 Fuentes stated that he didn’t care about the White children killed by African terrorist Darrell Brooks in a hate crime, because “they’d grow up to be coal burners”. His fan boys will say it was a joke. Why would anyone serious about White interests make a joke like that? As far as I’m concerned he’s taking that black mark until the end.
Fuentes is great. I think basically all DR voices are great, Spencer included. Theres a flavor and style for all. If one doesn’t work for you choose another
The idea one can take down the movement by himself is laughable. The more voices the merrier. The Left has all sorts of diff voices and have any one of them ruined their movement ? Hardly
People who lie and waffle about essential issues, or who are more interested in media attention than actually educating people or changing politics, or who promote strategies that do more harm than good are harmful weeds.
Yes, because all the others have been so successful. Nothing like fighting from with-in.
We are going nowhere.
I’m curious how Ron Unz found his way into this list of names as he isn’t a thought leader on the right. He’s a general dissenter and a Jewish conspiracy theorist who decides reality through a combination of controversy, of one or more people with prestige who hold that view, and emergent publicity on that topic. So if those boxes are ticked, ‘it’s true’. It looks impressive to many people… And I don’t have a problem with Unz writing about what he wants to, and he may even happen to be a right some percentage of the time, but that’s not actually a pathway to reality.
Fuentes – I didn’t even know he made Hitler jokes. He seems to be talking to a young crowd. He has some abilities at that, and he’s happy to be inconsistent and opportunistic and is happy to foment pointless divisions on the right for his own upward mobility. I never liked him, yet there seems to be a lot of focus on him. Is he stopping better people and better ideas getting ahead ? Directly, I suspect not. Indirectly, maybe. This is internet social media culture itself, creating base fast content, built by influencers for bigger audiences and audiences gravitating to paths of less resistance. I wouldn’t say least resistance here, but less. And the chopping and changing of views, sometimes edgy, sometimes more mainstream, is part of this hollow scroll culture. Fuentes is a product of that it seems. I don’t know what he really believes in.
Nick Fuentes is a fed. He’s a willing tool of the Controlled Opposition.
Ron Unz is a great conspiracy theorist. He always makes a strong case for whatever improbable theory he is advocating. Whenever I read him, I learn something new.
There is nothing more harmful than a man who makes a strong case for a false idea.
“He always makes a strong case for whatever improbable theory he is advocating”
Which proves that he is a good salesman of ideas. You can always make a strong case if you leave out contrary evidence and frame things in the most convenient way. Ideological logic, reducing reality to those facts and arguments that suit you. A real truth seeker is impartial on everything except that the correct methodology must be used, while a salesman of ideas engages mostly in motivated reasoning, crafting a proof because he wants one, regardless what the facts on the ground have to say. Crooked intelligence
“He’s a general dissenter and a Jewish conspiracy theorist who decides reality through a combination of controversy, of one or more people with prestige who hold that view, and emergent publicity on that topic. So if those boxes are ticked, ‘it’s true’.”
You perfectly nailed the Ron Unz method in one single paragraph. Excellent!
I found out exactly what you describe last year. He never works on the ground level, always staying on an abstract cloud and picking sources who deal with the concrete evidence and details for him. Like some sort of lord who uses servants to never have to get his own hands dirty.
Thanks. Your description is apt. It hit me in one of the big discussions there last year too. He wasn’t interested at all in contrary information, he was entirely interested in things like how many Nobel Prizes people had, and that opponents didn’t have those things. But that’s not how we determine what’s happening in a scientific topic for instance.
I tend not to read his more controversial articles now, maybe I’ll read the AI summary.
I know what koloko means too. I have learned some interesting things from Unz. He wrote something on China once. It was a kind of racial negationism, but I learned quite a lot of things about China I didn’t know. And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with a certain amount of his angle on history.
And where he’s comparing different blocks of data…assuming the data is correct, and it’s adjusted (or not) for whatever it needs to be, it seems reasonable to do that, like covid vax ‘genocide’ or college admissions, that sort of thing.
His work on college admissions dates to 2012. I think he changed over time, and for the worse. Probably 2020-2021 was the turning point. And since October 2023, his ideological tendencies have become much more pronounced.
Maybe I’m overestimating the change though, given that I knew far less about the relevant topics in 2018 than in 2024 i.e. once you have an extensive background knowledge yourself, the shortcomings of the Unz method become more apparent.
Nick has had a massive influence on shaping the discourse, conservatives 8 years ago were no where near as racially aware as they are now. Just look at the stark difference between Charlie Kirk’s world view in 2019 (staple green cards to diplomas etc) vs before he was killed. Nick forced him to move closer to our side.
I read CC every day but it has a tiny fraction of the impact Nick does, especially amongst the youth which is vital.
I’d also strongly disagree that Nick is not intellectual, he has an incredible grasp on the Israel issue, and that’s why so many new people have started watching him in the last year because he offers the most succinct breakdowns of what’s happening. A stupid person can’t do that.
Agree, yeah, he definitely has something, but it comes in snippets and moments of clarity. He understands the JQ even better than I do, which mainly consists of a depth and pervasiveness which others wont admit.
Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist? NF apparently does not consider himself one, and you hold him in quite high regard, so I’m curious where you’re coming from philosophically.
I think you’re confusing good with perfect. Do Patrick Buchanan and Steve sailer consider themselves white nationalists?
No, that doesn’t apply here.
It’s a valid question. Why valid? Because the commentor is giving the impression that both she and Fuentes are interested in promulgating WN, with her “I read CC every day but it has a tiny fraction of the impact Nick does, especially amongst the youth which is vital.”
When something doesn’t appear to add up, you give the person the benefit of the doubt and ask him or her for clarification. It’s only courteous. And, on the off chance it’s just a groyper playing childish games, as they’re wont to do, it’s good to determine that, too.
Janice, are you “Buttercup Dew?” You have been “pissed” ever since Mr. Johnson kicked you to the curb! You may be able to fool the rest of Counter-Currents, but not me. I can sense your rage, and hate. 🙃
I doubt they are the same person but in any case it seems a bit irresponsible to speculate. It seems analogous to fed-jacketing…
You’re attributing changes to Fuentes that we can never really confirm had anything to do with him. Kirk didn’t really seem to change his rhetoric at any point during the “Groyper War.” It was years later that he changed his views. Like most people who have recently had a racial awakening, I think that was caused by living through the insanity of 2020 and the resurgence of Twitter. Fuentes generally gets tens of thousands of views. That’s impressive reach, but it’s not capable of transforming culture in the way you’re suggesting.
@Janice
I agree with you. I’ve watched You Tube closely ever since the Kirk Assassination and now the Tucker Carlson and Fuentes interview and the explosion of commentary about that, with pro and con sides lining up. The anti-Zionist you tubers are sprouting like mushrooms and most are favorable to Fuentes. I agree he’s a little erratic and all over the place but on the Jewish question he’s very solid and people are lining up behind him. He’s handling himself better now.
By comparison, the Ben Shitpiro, Mark Le-vile factions of the GOP are going bat shit crazy with attacking him and Tucker. Carlson’s strength is holding and he hasn’t retreated. People are opening up on the Jewish question like never before in my life time. All my life I’ve been told that “anti-semitism is rising.” Now it appears that’s actually true. ..not a moment too soon.
This analysis is spot-on!
🙂
The author is right. Nick Fuentes is a contagious loser. Avoid that sucker! And avoid his useless followers. What sort of person would choose to follow such a phony? Even Tommy Robinson is a better than that. Both are controlled opposition, but Robinson is a normal man. Fuentes is an effeminate freak.
I recall Jim Goad’s definitive take-down of Fuentes on 09-21-2023 – https://counter-currents.com/2023/09/the-virgin-queen-chihuahua-has-spoken/
And here is one is on Josh Kruger on 10-05-2023 – https://counter-currents.com/2023/10/dummy-kruger-effect/
Fuentes and Kruger have much in common.
Isn’t Ron Unz a Jew? Murray Rothbard is definitely a jewish name. 🙃
I believe Unz is half Jewish
How did you learn that, if you don’t mind me asking?
I know Unz is at least partially ethnically Jewish because he mentions being forced to go to a synagogue as a young kid in his Oddities of the Jewish Religion article.
I had assumed Unz was fully Jewish but was told by another White Nationalist that Unz’s father was not Jewish. I’m sure there are some biographical articles about Unz from around the time he ran for California governor in the 1990s that go into his family background.
Oh ok. Unz sounds Jewish. I thought he was pure Jewish. He looks like he is, but mischlings can be variable in appearance.
chat says he was born into a Yiddish speaking Ukrainian Jewish family. Chat is my superpower.
I don’t know about his father. Wikipedia says that Ron Unz was born in Los Angeles in 1961 to a family of Ukrainian Jewish descent and was raised Jewish in a fatherless household.
In a long interview on October 17, 2025 with Germar Rudolf, Unz describes his life and his attitudes towards the Holocaust:
https://codoh.com/library/document/interview-with-ron-unz/
I believe he describes himself as a “secular Jew.”
I think it is nice that Unz is open minded to debate on the Holocaust, but I really despise his kind of conspiracy-theory and Epistemological Nihilist approach to historiography.
I seldom can be bothered to pull up my rubber boots and go wading around at the Unz site. It is just not a productive use of time.
🙂
I’m not a fan of Fuentes. I’m not a Christian, so don’t care for his “Christian Nationalism”, and I also think his over-the-top anti-woman rhetoric is off-putting to normal people of both sexes. It draws antisocial personalities and sexual deviants to the broader White Racialist movement. We are far better off without the kinds of people who constantly joke about rape and promote pedophilia in group chats.
I haven’t watched his show for a couple of years, but based on what I remember, Mr. Matthews’ description is a fair one
I do, however, think there is some value to entertainers who can communicate our talking points to large audiences in ways that are easy for the average White person to digest. I, and I suspect most everyone who reads C-C, is the kind of person who wants to investigate “the truth” about any given subject and will devote hours to researching complex scientific and historical topics before making up our minds. We won’t just take someone else’s word for it.
But most White people are not like us. Some just aren’t very smart. And lot of White people of average or above average intelligence lack the intellectual curiosity to research these things on their own. And there are others who would be interested but simply don’t have the time to investigate these things because of family and school or work responsibilities.
We’re going to need the support of people like that if White Nationalism is ever going to achieve any political victories.
Seeing a viral clip, from Fuentes or someone else, that communicates an important truth about race and IQ, crime statistics, the Second World War, or Jewish power in a witty and memorable way can cause the average White man or woman to question what they’ve been told in the past and immunize them against future propaganda. There’s a place for scholarly critiques of the current system AND for entertainers who can reach the masses.
I have no problem with more “lowbrow” entertainer types who get the message out on a more popular level. The problem I have is with evil psychopaths. We should never support evil psychopathic monsters like Fuentes. Opposing them isn’t “punching right”. It’s punching evil and crazy.
Let’s compare Nick Fuentes with someone “roughly” his age who isn’t an academic either – someone like, for example, Darryl Cooper.
a) Cooper brings balance to every subject he investigates i.e. his presence tends to neutralize outrageousness and emotional intensity
b) Cooper is a researcher, first and foremost – basically the ideal of the “sperg” who only cares about the subject and spends enough time until he managed to assemble the complex puzzle correctly
c) when Cooper makes a recommendation, it invariably turns out great – Scott Horton, Ron Dodson etc
d) Cooper is honest. While I disagree with him on certain points – race and religion in particular – I respect him as a person with integrity who is honestly seeking truth and communicating his results without an agenda
Why would any person of intelligence care what Nick Fuentes has to say when they could listen to Darryl Cooper instead???
Sorry, typo, should be “normalizing little freaks like the Goblin Burrito Messiah”. Wish you guys had an edit comment feature on this site.
There is an Edit feature with the comments here, but it only works for members. There are also several other features available for members only.
I suggest you consider getting a Counter-Currents membership. Click on Subscribe, at the top. It costs $120 per year. Look at all the benefits you get! It’s fun to edit and upvote. And it’s for a good cause, better than anything else on the Internet.
The Goblin Burrito Messiah is a vile, smirking sociopath, and his “Catholic” shtick is utterly bogus. No one watching this gremlin rant for 5 minutes could ever believe that he’s any sort of sincere Christian. He’s an unrepentant, nasty, malicious creep who lives to spit venom and bile. Anyone who admires him in any way has got something deeply wrong with them.
If I wanted to make anyone who criticizes Jewish power look insane, evil, and stupid, I’d create someone like Goblin Fuentes. He’s the Eric Cartman of the Dissident Right.
Isn’t it possible that some of his audience, after maybe a dram of the more intellectual side of white nationalism, could use that exposure to pursue more in depth knowledge from CC or Amren? Even less than 5% of his audience seeing the light would be a boon. It’s the big tent theory, as long as it’s a white tent.
Does anyone on the DR defending this creep now even remember that he made his career by attacking White Nationalism? That he said you should only care about America, and not the European Race worldwide? That him and his cultish followers constantly smeared WN’s by calling them “wignats”? That he vilified the Alt-Right, which, whatever its faults, was 1000% more serious, real and decent than his sick personality cult? That he turned tons of impressionable Zoomers away from being seriously pro-White and into the dead end of his diseased Groyper movement? That he sowed discord and division within the pro-White sphere by turning Christian and non-Christian Whites against each other? Why are people now pretending he’s a White Nationalist or is in any way pro-White?
I don’t have any familiarity with Fuentes, so I don’t know how he operates. I do know several, extremely poised, well-spoken, fully aware, articulate and very young men who listen to him regularly. He seems to have a following amongst the youth. Some of those folks who I have met are not the liability this article describes Fuentes as being.
I do know that Fuentes being invited onto Tucker has given Tucker a youth infusion. It has done so on a very important issue – namely that Zionists own, occupy and rule America at least by all appearances. What just happened is seismic. Tucker having on Fuentes just shook the foundations of the Republican establishment. Look at this rant by Mark Levin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpxUGpWHzGE
Levin is counting on caricaturing of Fuentes as a brown shirt to keep Con Inc. morally bludgeoned and make MAGA morally bludgeoned. ‘I can’t grow a funny mustache and be one of those bad names.’
Perhaps the CC crowd should not defend Fuentes, but not attack him. Something momentous has happened. Israel in control of America has been outed in the Democratic party. Now, they have gone mask off in the Republican party. In terms of politics, now is the time to bludgeon the Zionists with Shapiro’s open admissions of being a foreign agent, of wanting the browning of America, and whatever ammunition they hand us.
We are in an alley fight for Our country. Levin just started slobbering and yelling and making threats. He is clearly worried. I would seize upon Fuentes’ calm and perfedtly reasonable statement that in the end Levin’s people have defined themselves apart from The West and that they hold a loyalty to themselves above anyone and everything else. As Fuentes said, that is perfectly fine, but not if you are permitted power in another civilization.
How can CC not pile on Fuentes for the moment, but pile on to Levin and . I can’t say if Fuentes is bad optics and no substance. He controls a big crowd, and so he has real power. Tucker figured out a way to use it to further his aim of taking back America for Americans and to end its humiliation at the hands of Israel and her agents within our media, government and other institutions. This is a big moment. America’s occupiers have huge amounts of money, but are now at the phase where bribery is a weak hand and tyranny eliminates a primary strength of being able to cloak themselves as, “Conservatives”, or “Liberals”, rather than as foreign interlopers.
How can we help push this along rather than attacking a major force that just gave any push we can give a huge amount of forward momentum.
mark levin is an auto-antisemitism generator. He and fuentes are repulsive.
To be fair, Nick has mentioned Kevin McDonald, Jared Taylor, JF and others on his show many times. (I don’t recall him mentioning Greg Johnson or CC.) But he doesn’t give book recommendations when his super chatters ask, which is frequently, so the claim that there isn’t a Nick-to-WN pipeline has some merit. Nick prefers the mainstream, which he associates with success. The trouble is the mainstream is always dumbed down. So he may increase his followers by doing these collabs, but it’s like the Catholic church filling its pews with Mexicans and Congolese. Because he’s not fully white and bangs on about God and America first his solutions were circumscribed from the get-go. He is good against Israel, but he misses the genetic component of the Jews or any other race for that matter so again there is an impotence there. Associating with Ye rather than speaking with more erudite and substantive figures reveals much.
I think the emerging consensus on the non-Neocon right is unambiguously good:
America First, Christ is King, and Free speech – not cancel culture.
America First – immigration restriction, non-interventionist foreign policy, and a fair deal for White Americans (America’s ethnic core)
Christ is King – conservatives are right about all the culture war issues
Free speech, not cancel culture – dismantle the Jewish cancel culture machine that holds us in bondage (ADL, SPLC, Antifa, RJC etc.)
Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens deserve a lot of credit for creating this emerging consensus. They made the right choice, and decided to criticize the Israel Lobby post-10/7. Too many on the right made the incorrect choice to downplay the importance of foreign policy and seek an alliance with the Israel Lobby post-10/7. Zionists were offering money, and protection against ADL/Antifa harassment. Those who accepted the bribes and/or cowered before the threats of the Israel Lobby are now paying the price of complete irrelevance among Whites under age 30.
If White Americans are going to have any kind of dignified existence, Jewish supremacy must be dismantled. To dismantle Jewish supremacy, we will need an antisemitic rainbow coalition. The best possible platform for this coalition is America First, Christ is King, and free speech.
The only valid criticism of Fuentes is a matter of style. He will do anything for a laugh from his audience, including being gratuitously rude and downright cruel to his own natural allies. For instance, mocking the Southern accent is a sign of severely flawed character – that is something a Jew would do. Whatever Charlie Kirk’s ideological shortcomings, he had the character of a leader. He was kind to his subordinates, respectful to his allies, tactful to everyone, and willing to give credit to others. Patrick Casey and Jaden McNeil would have received kindness and respect from Charlie Kirk.
I always thought Fuentes was good on most of “our issues”. Y’all seem to disagree, maybe you’re right. Who knows? I’m certainly not going to watch more Fuentes to find out.
But, let’s say the normie guy at work says, hey have you seen that Fuentes guy, what do ya think of him? And you start calling him gay, etc and that normie coworker actually thinks Fuentes IS a Nazi white supremist etc? And you’re shitting on him? And maybe over the months or years you’ve been planting WN seeds in normie?
How confused will he be now? He thought a Nazi was becoming cool, and you dumped cold water on him. Well done.
But I could be wrong, I’m going through an “I just don’t know” phase right now so forgive me.
My comment was not intended to be anti-Fuentes.
I give him a lot of credit for helping to create the new consensus on the American right – Christ is King, America First, and free speech (not cancel culture).
But as the descendant of Ellis Island era Italian immigrants, it is not his place to be mocking old-stock rural Americans. Their ancestors created the country his ancestors immigrated to. I hate how the Jewish entertainment industry dehumanizes old-stock Americans, and I have no patience with anyone else doing likewise.
And im not navigating this comment section very well, it was suppose to be a general comment, not a reply to you! Apologies!
There is nothing wrong with being a popular communicator rather than an intellectual. We need both intellectuals and popular communicators.
We need effective pro-White politics. Effective politics requires effective political speech. Effective political speech must be repetitious and simple. It cannot be intellectual. It must be at a high school reading level. Effective political speech must use slogans, not footnotes.
Bob Whitaker, the author of the mantra, should be considered a giant of the pro-White movement. He did things right that should be imitated. By doing these things right he also showed that being a popular communicator does not give you a pass to get these things wrong. They have been done right so clearly they can be done right.
Bob Whitaker was a deeply loyal White man. He was the furthest thing you can imagine from the sort that diverts White people’s attention away from our urgent and vital group interest in racial survival.
Bob Whitaker was smart. He didn’t show his reading, but he had done his reading. The simple words he used were carefully considered and tested. Popular communication should not be stupid communication. It should conceal its art, not lack art.
Bob Whitaker played well with others in our great cause. He didn’t cause drama and he didn’t add to drama. Horus the Avenger, a student of Bob Whitaker’s, is the same.
Popular communicators should not be condemned for being popular communicators rather than intellectuals, but they should be measured by these standards.
“Christ is King” is maybe the stupidest, most contemptible thing to come out of the Zoomer right. It’s a mindless, cultish, braindead chant used by people with a negative IQ. They use it as a catch-all zombie response when they’re called out on any form of bad behavior. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or him being King. Rather, it’s like a password proclaiming, “I’m a mindless cultist retard!”
And if you think Fuentes believes in “free speech” you are sorely deluded. He’s laughed about flagging his enemies and trying to get them banned. He famously did this to Mr. Metokur, who savagely called out his hypocrisy.
If anyone wants to know the truth about Goblin Fuentes, go watch the Kino Casino clips where they analyze his show and mock him. They really show how vile he is.
What is the qrd? I tried to get into kino casino. The fat guy is pretty funny. There is just so limited time I can spend on podcasts and I prefer reading anyhow. If memory serves they had Jaden McNeil on, at one time Fuentes’ right hand man, who had some very unflattering things to say. I think this included Nick using a black light on the couch Jaden hooked up with a girl; Nick being upset Jaden was not embracing inceldom.
They stream live on Kick, and have all of their uncensored clips and old shows there. The name of their channel is KinoCasinoGaming. They also have a two channels on YouTube, KinoCasino Clips which have choice segments of their shows and KinoCathedral which runs promos/trailers for their upcoming shows. They’ve got tons of choice material on Fuentes and his Groyper cult. If you look through the old clips, and there are a lot of them, just look for the ones in which Fuentes or the Groypers are mentioned in the title. These guys really are the best critics of Fuentes and his cult out there. They dive deep into his madness.
Jaden McNeil has appeared on their show several times, and what he has revealed about Fuentes is truly disturbing. Apparently the little freak liked to take pictures of Jaden while he was asleep. Creepy.
And thanks for bringing up the Incel thing. How anyone on our side can support someone who has the sick Incel cult as part of their ideology is beyond my understanding. It’s an extremely sick and twisted ideology that has literally driven many young men into madness and self-destruction. Jim Goad wrote a wonderful article about it at Taki’s years ago: https://www.takimag.com/article/affirmative-action-for-men-who-cant-get-laid/
So, after all these years it finally took the Lip Man to say what needs to be said to pro-Whites about this Fuentes character. Commenters here tend to agree with him.
Duh! That much is good.
—
The Lip: Nick Fuentes may be good entertainment, but he is bad politics. The dissident right has always been a fragile coalition — an uneasy mix of intellectuals, populists, and internet provocateurs trying to articulate a worldview outside the boundaries of liberal orthodoxy… Nick Fuentes may be good entertainment, but he is bad politics.
—
Good entertainment? Nonsense. He and his many followers are a bad joke and should be exposed and shunned by serious racial nationalists. It is obvious to me that Lip Man is not familiar with William Pierce’s body of work by the way he describes how the so-called White “dissident right” has always been.
To be viewed as serious our resistance movement should be more like an ice pick than a blunderbuss (scatter gun).
I may be wrong, but the reason Lip mentions Jared, Greg and KMac favorably may be because all three respected White leaders (excluding the multi-millionaire racial Jew Unz) republish the “dissident right” Negro’s essays. Do serious pro-White activists really need to be guided by this racial alien’s opinions? This White boy doesn’t.
Fuck Lip’s “fragile coalition” of Whites on the “dissident right.” We’re all not so fragile to be entertained by a social media twit as Lip imagines us to be. With the right ideology, program and leadership our people are quite capable of organizing effectively against our people’s replacement.
FIRST COMES THE WILL TO SEPARATE FROM NON-WHITES AND FROM A TWIT WHO TREATS OUR NOBLE CAUSE AS HIS PLATFORM TO ENTERTAIN OTHER WEAK-WILLED wHITE TWITS.
This is quite the boorish comment. Clearly you don’t grasp the concept of non-White allies. Mr Lipton contributes quite a few articles here, some insightful, others less so, but he deserves our firm handshakes and respect. His article on Fuentes hit the nail on the head, whereas as your comments, as a rule, prattle on worshipfully about William Pierce, punctuated by dollops of Cosmotheist slop.
I often think proWhite militants mistake non-White allyship as being roommates or a multiculti pass in the future ethnostate. There’s more nons who are anti-jewish than proWhite (which I don’t expect) but being a not-antiWhite authentic racial separatist is something we should accept.
Malaparte, to me: November 4, 2025 This is quite the boorish comment. Clearly you don’t grasp the concept of non-White allies. Mr Lipton contributes quite a few articles here, some insightful, others less so, but he deserves our firm handshakes and respect. His article on Fuentes hit the nail on the head, whereas as your comments, as a rule, prattle on worshipfully about William Pierce, punctuated by dollops of Cosmotheist slop.
—
Thank you Mr. Malaparte. I do not participate at C-C to argue with the likes of you but to move our White preservationist cause in a more serious, more radical direction, beyond the Lip’s “fragile coalition — an uneasy mix of intellectuals, populists, and internet provocateurs” A cause that a man in our midst of his race, who feels comfortable directing — the unfocused, uneasy big tent that apparently includes him and you.
I expect and accept your criticism. Please go to the rear of the line of my many critics.
You are correct. As a man of my race, I do not grasp your concept of non-White allies. Why is the Lip not influencing Black nationalists rather than White ones?
Ours is a biological struggle and non-Whites, to begin with, cannot make White babies — a biological fact. So why look to a Negro to tell us what we already know?
I don’t care much for anonymous Internet provocateurs. When I go to our post office, nearly every day, and pick up positive mail from our National Alliance members and supporters, especially new ones who do not consider Cosmotheism “slop,” but ask , “Where have you people been all my life?”
I can usually find something from NA founder Pierce from before most of these new White Internet activists were born, like the following from nearly 36 years ago, that we republished for the first time in this week’s American Dissident Voices radio broadcast:
“How to Recruit Whites to Our Cause: First, Change Yourself” at nationalvanguard.org
…Stop worrying about how many enemies we have and how much human trash in our own race is following the lead of those enemies. Nearly all of these people are essentially passive and mindless: which is to say that they are incapable of doing anything on their own initiative, including forming their own opinions. Their attitudes on any issue can be turned 180 degrees in a year of manipulation by the same techniques which were used to corrupt them. The Christians who now talk about the impiety of opposing the Jews because they are God’s chosen people can be made to talk instead about the impiety of collaborating with Jews because they are the spawn of Satan; all it will take is a year of sermons by preachers who have been given propositions they can’t refuse. The women who now parrot feminist cliches can be converted to ardent traditionalists with a few hundred hours of skillful television propaganda. All the homosexuals, race mixers, and hard case collaborators in the country who are too far gone to be re-educated can be rounded up, packed into 10,000 or so railroad cattle cars, and eventually double-timed into an abandoned coal mine in a few days’ time. All of these people simply don’t count, except as a mass of voters. When the power fails and their television screens go blank, they won’t know what to think. When the system breaks down and they can’t vote, they won’t count at all. This may seem a bit callous to some of the gentler souls among our members, but it is important in developing a winner’s attitude to lose one’s awe of the enemy. Those who speak against us now should be looked at as dead men — as men marching in lockstep toward their own graves — rather than as persons to be feared or respected or given any consideration.
Count our friends instead of our enemies. Look at how fast the number of the former is increasing….
That’s good advice, Mr. Malaparte, whether you agree with it or not. I was curious about your username, so searched Merriam-Webster and found this similar word that Shakespeare liked to use:
malapert – adjective, ma-lə-ˈpərt: impudently bold: saucy. The noun malapert also exists and means “a bold or impudent person.”
Seems to me that your name might closely fit your personality. ;o}
I object, first and foremost, to your crude slurs—“The Lip,” “Lip Man,” “Fuck Lip”—a lazy racial caricature beneath a serious man’s dignity. Blacks en masse are our racial enemies, but select individuals can be allies. Reserve hate for them as a competing biopolitical entity, not for good-faith contributors like Lipton. Would you call Alexander Jacob a “pajeet”? I despise Indians as a group, want them repatriated, and routinely use the term—but never for Dr. Jacob.
Yes, the struggle is between competing biological groups, and Lipton’s is not ours. Yet he is a regular here, and in the article under discussion he offered the clearest analysis of Fuentes’s flaws—and how his rise risks harming the broader movement.
You seem to imagine whites will find salvation in a sacred remnant that survives the coming decades. That’s naive. As we are reduced to minority status, we’ll need allies—noble individuals from rival groups who grasp the justice of ethnonationalism for all peoples.
Cosmotheism? I know little about it and called it “slop” only to return your medicine. Still, it traces to the Jew Spinoza, and behind him to ancient Egyptian thought. No religion, philosophy, or music is racially pure; ideas cross borders. Europeans have always appropriated, just as others borrow from us. We must advance our race in exclusive territory, but that doesn’t bar taking foreign thought-products and forging them into our own. That is what Yockey means when he writes of absorbing and transforming foreign cultural elements into the inner form of the host culture, making them serve its own destiny—distinct from its opposite, culture-distortion.
Malaparte: November 6, 2025 I object, first and foremost, to your crude slurs—“The Lip,” “Lip Man,” “Fuck Lip”—a lazy racial caricature beneath a serious man’s dignity.
—
“Fuck Lip”? That’s your term. Mal, not mine. “Lip Man” is simply a variation of Lipton. Be glad I didn’t call the racial interloper “bubble-lipped blue gum.” Google ‘lipton matthews images” and you might see why I occasionally call him “The Lip.”
—
Blacks en masse are our racial enemies, but select individuals can be allies. Reserve hate for them as a competing biopolitical entity, not for good-faith contributors like Lipton. Would you call Alexander Jacob a “pajeet”? I despise Indians as a group, want them repatriated, and routinely use the term—but never for Dr. Jacob.
—
Never heard of your Mr. Alexander Jacob, not a common Indian name, but I’ve referred to those from India as ‘dotheads’ for years and only recently learned the term ‘pajeets’ here at C-C. If Jacob is a pajeet, I might call him that.
“Blacks en masse are our racial enemies.” I am a groupthinker, since my race is a group, Because the buzz about Fuentes is due to his interview with Tucker, I’ll refer back to what I said about him on our NA forum, whitebiocentrism.com in August 2019:
I like Tucker for the most part, mostly because he is singular among mainstream media talking heads for his exposure for more than two decades of the Southern Poverty Law Center as a criminal organization. He also points out the hypocrisy of constant controlled-media reports of “racism” aimed only at the White majority to demonize us.
When I say he can’t go further than that with his “conservative” criticism, consider that James Murdoch, one of his ultra-Zionist, part-Jew bosses at FOX, donated $1 million to the Anti-Defamation League of B;nai B;rith for those anti-White Jews to use fighting “hate” (read: anyone advocating for interests of the White majority): https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulfletch … 01ad163cd4
… Tucker Carlson may agree with some ideas we hold, but, believe me, he is not “one of us.” He opposes “group-thinkers.” As White racial loyalists, we are group-thinkers! That was the point of my commentary about Mr. Carlson. I’m sorry that was not made clear.
We’ll leave the door cracked for him when he is fired as a media pundit, blackballed by Jew-controlled media for not “playing by their PC rules,” as you call them, and labelled a “White supremacist” and “hater.” That could happen as the situation for Whites worsens. The SPLC now features this six-month-old article about Tucker on its Website: https://www.revealnews.org/blog/the-hat … r-carlson/…
… Carlson closes his show each night with the catch phrase that he’s “the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.”
Nobody cares much for pomposity and
smugness; that’s easy to claim. But he’s not the sworn enemy of
lying or of liars or he’d be telling the same vital truths to his
viewers that the National Alliance tells. He can’t. As for
groupthink, Carlson’s Jewish media bosses certainly think and act as
a group, judging everything by the simple question, “Is it good for
the Jew?” This is an important reason for their effectiveness and
power.
The White race is an identifiable group, and our group
needs to be thinking and acting as one — “groupthink,” if you will.
Is an issue good for our race and promotable, or is it detrimental,
to be opposed with everything our group has got?…Carlson has moved on from his days at FOX, and appears to be more Jew-wise now on social media — good — but does he think racially, or still oppose groupthink for his own race? We’ll see, but I’ll not hold my breath waiting for him to exclusively represent his race as a member of it. I believe he still puts his Christian beliefs ahead of any strong racial loyalty.
I’ll not compromise my view simply because the Carlson/Fuentes interview got 17 million views on X, or wherever.
—
Yes, the struggle is between competing biological groups, and Lipton’s is not ours. Yet he is a regular here, and in the article under discussion he offered the clearest analysis of Fuentes’s flaws—and how his rise risks harming the broader movement.
—
Any member of a competing race can parrot what White leaders have been saying for decades. Witness The Lip or racial Jews Ron Unz or Brother Nathaniel. I could give a whit that the Lip’s scribblings are promoted on C-C, AmRen and TOO. I cannot control those platforms. I only comment here on C-C and will continue to express my view that, like you say, The Lip is in a “competing biological group.”
—
You seem to imagine whites [sic] will find salvation in a sacred remnant that survives the coming decades. That’s naive. As we are reduced to minority status, we’ll need allies—noble individuals from rival groups who grasp the justice of ethnonationalism for all peoples.
—
Seek who you will as your ally and I’ll seek mine, thanks.
—
Cosmotheism? I know little about it and called it “slop” only to return your medicine. Still, it traces to the Jew Spinoza… We must advance our race in exclusive territory….
—
You must know that means no Lip Men in our living space. That’s what exclusive means.
Thanks for the admission that you know little about Cosmotheism, the belief system for Whites that you’ve characterized as “slop.”
Spinoza was an early Pantheist, not a Cosmotheist. Dr. Pierce explained this to some extent to new fans of his racial philosophy 48 years ago, here: “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future” at nationalvanguard.org. Don’t read this unless you want to better understand Cosmotheism:
…[W]e can find partial expressions of Cosmotheism among the writings of the ancients, 25 centuries ago. A great many of the Greek and Roman philosophers understood parts of our truth. The same was true of the pagan philosophers of northern Europe – and also of certain outstanding Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, despite the fundamental contradictions of Cosmotheism with the teachings of the Church.
Then in the 18th and 19th centuries there was an enormous outpouring of Cosmotheist feeling. Cosmotheism, or at least one aspect of Cosmotheism, was the underlying idea of the entire Romantic movement in art and literature, from Alexander Pope to Joseph Turner and William Wordsworth. And Cosmotheism is the underlying idea of 20th century science. Today, more and more thinkers, scientific thinkers in particular, are coming to understand that fact and also to give explicit expression to that understanding.
I pointed out to you in earlier meetings some of the specifically Cosmotheist statements of some of the medieval thinkers and also some of the more modern philosophers: Hegel, Fichte, and others. The more one looks into the matter, the clearer becomes this Cosmotheist thread running through the spiritual and intellectual history of our race.
Every week I run across more and more examples. Just last Thursday someone sent me this statement by the novelist D.H. Lawrence – and I quote just a part of a longer statement by Lawrence: “We and the cosmos are one. The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve-center from which we quiver forever… Now all this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”
Hundreds of other Cosmotheist expressions by prominent men during just the last few decades can be found. There can be no doubt that our people down through the ages have been groping for the Cosmotheist truth – and today, more than ever, they are finding it. Tomorrow, it will be the dominant idea in the world.
Now it’s possible to understand just why this is our moment in history – just why the Cosmotheist trickle over the last 2500 years should have become a flood today. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this tonight, but I will just point out a confluence of things which has led to this flood. Perhaps we can talk about them in more detail at another time.
One of the things in this confluence was the reorientation of Western thought during the 19th century from an essentially static to a dynamic view of the universe. Darwin, of course, is the man who played the key role in this reorientation, though it began before him and it was not complete at the time of his death. The medieval view of the world was as a finished creation. Since Darwin, we have come to see the world as undergoing a continuous and unfinished process of creation, of evolution. This evolutionary view of the world is only about 100 years old in terms of being generally accepted.
Before that, the people who expressed Cosmotheist ideas expressed primarily their feeling of the unity of the universe, in particular of the oneness of God and man as opposed to the Church’s view. These ideas fall under the general heading of pantheism. But pantheism is only one aspect of Cosmotheism. The pantheists, at least most of them, lacked an understanding of the universe as an evolving entity and so their understanding was incomplete. Their static view of the world made it much more difficult for them to arrive at the Cosmotheist truth.
Another thing in the historical confluence leading to the acceptance of Cosmotheism today has been the drastic decline in the role of the Christian church in the last hundred years. Until fairly recently, the Church dominated the intellectual life of the West. Church doctrine, which as I just mentioned is fundamentally opposed to our truth, strongly influenced the outlook of most – in fact, nearly all – thinkers, most teachers, and most writers. Today the Church directly influences only a relatively small minority of the leading thinkers. So this fundamental barrier to the acceptance of the Cosmotheist truth, a barrier which stood for more than a thousand years, has crumbled. I don’t mean, of course, that Christianity is dead, or that the Church has no more influence. Among the masses of the people, Church doctrine is still relatively powerful – but it is no longer so among the leading minds of the West…
[delete for brevity]
… We’re not subject to the sort of problem that the revealed religions have, in which the prophets may contradict one another, or some fine morning someone may claim that he had a vision – or that an angel showed him a book written on leaves of gold – or that Jehovah appeared as a burning bush and handed him a couple of stone tablets inscribed with a new set of laws. And no Cosmotheist can get away with babbling whatever nonsense comes into his head, like the Maharaj Ji and the other yogis can, because our truth is absolute: It must agree with our observations of the universe. And, because our truth comes from the soul, it’s something toward which everyone who shares the same race-soul, the same genes, naturally gravitates. This is, as I pointed out before, is why one can find a Cosmotheist thread running through the entire length of Western spiritual history, including those periods when fundamentally opposed ideas ruled.
But despite these advantages, we do have problems. We do face dangers. As I said, one danger is that of misinterpretation so as to draw socially acceptable conclusions. There’s also the danger of deliberate perversion of our truth. The Jew, after all, even with a different race-soul, is heavily involved in the intellectual and spiritual life of the West. Despite fundamental tendencies which have historically expressed themselves in an entirely different way, he is playing a role in modern science in particular. It may be generally true that the Talmud is the typical expression of the Jewish race-soul and that the Jew with intellectual pretensions is epitomized by the modern hair-splitting, haggling lawyer. Nevertheless, some Jews have seen the Cosmotheist truth underlying modern science, and they are quite clever and quite energetic enough to try to establish for themselves a dominant position in giving expression to this truth – and in interpreting it for everyone else, so that they can blunt the danger it poses to them, and so they can turn it aside and guide it into safe channels. It would be quite naïve of us to say that Cosmotheism is our truth, not theirs, and that we have a natural advantage in interpreting it and that it would be as unnatural and awkward for a Jew to try to set himself up as a Cosmotheist as it would be for a White man to set himself up as a Talmudist and try to debate the rabbis on points of Talmudic doctrine.
After all, a Jew, Baruch Spinoza, was one of the foremost expounders of pantheism in the 17th century, at a time when that was hardly a safe or a popular position for anyone to take. He was, in fact, excommunicated by his fellow Jews as a consequence. But because Spinoza was a Jew, he couldn’t help but give a Jewish flavor, a Jewish interpretation, to his pantheism. In particular, the ethical conclusions that he drew from his pantheism were strictly Jewish, and I think it’s only fair to assume that Spinoza had no ulterior motive.
I’m pleased to have drawn out from Malaparte such criticism of me, my mentor William Pierce, and Pierce’s non-Semitic belief system for Whites. Sir, if you will debate me, trot out you best arguments. We’re here to exchange ideas about racial preservation. May the best position prevail.
For every hundred critiques like yours, even from those who may style themselves so-called right-wing “WNs,” there will be one or two who agree with me. That’s to be expected at this stage in our revolution. I was honored earlier this year when C-C’s top interviewer, Ondrej Mann, asked if he could interview me. I granted his request and it appeared back in May, here: “Interview With Will Williams: Saga of the White Will Part 1″ at counter-currents.org.
I was able to quote respected pro-White author, Dr. Robert Griffin, Dr. Pierce’s official biographer, who did not “prattle” as he described Pierce, after Ondrej had asked me this question:
Ondrej Mann: What’s your strongest memory of William Luther Pierce?
Will Williams: I never heard Dr. Pierce lie, or even exaggerate about anything, so his truthfulness is what attracted me to him. That is memorable to me when comparing him to other leaders of our race. Other virtues of his personality are better articulated by his biographer Dr. Robert Griffin, who wrote as follows in “William Pierce: A Reminiscence” on National Vanguard.org:
Of course there was his intelligence. Simply, he was the brightest person I’ve ever been around… And there was his character. I found him to be a man of great integrity; there was the tightest fit imaginable between what he most deeply believed and the way he conducted his life. He had enormous commitment and dedication and perseverance. Day after day, year after year, decade after decade, he marched on. And he had courage. He put himself on the line. He went public; he used his own name. And he was incredibly hard working… I won’t be silent or controlled by fear, not now, not after knowing him. I seek to live with the courage he demonstrated. I want, in my own unique way, to live as he lived, as an honorable white man. Dr. Pierce was an honorable white man.
I am not as smart or as articulate as Dr. Griffin, but I knew Pierce as he did, or better, and can quote him, or others like him, or Pierce himself, as I attempt to introduce more racially responsible kinsmen to him. Comments under Part 1 of this interview were quickly closed, but I can still link to Dr. Griffin’s impressive reminiscence.
Malaparte, perhaps you’ll grant an interview to Ondrej to make your case? At least your alleged “non-White allies” would appreciate your story.
I think Fuentes is a bit obnoxious, judging from the clips I occasionally see, but I do hope that he can mature and use his audience and talents for good. If one day he starts being an unalloyed asset, his youthful obnoxiousness would be water under the bridge. I wouldn’t bet on it, but I hope for it.
Great article. I like how Lipton managed to distill why Fuentes is a liability in less than 1000 words. I would like to think that maybe the author is painting things with a broad brush in saying, “This demagoguery ensures that there is no “Fuentes-to-intellectual” pipeline. His fans do not graduate to reading Ron Unz or Greg Johnson; they do not explore serious debates about human biodiversity, historical revisionism, or the philosophical underpinnings of Western decline.” The groypers did do a pretty good job of putting the late Charlie Kirk’s feet to the fire (maybe not the best metaphor) on his civic nationalism and stance on Israel. I’d like to think that maybe there are some groypers who do “move on.”
As a personal anecdote, while not precisely a mirror image of Nick Fuentes, Milo Yiannopoulos had a similar style of being bombastic and more about showbusiness than substance. A quintessential demogogue, “look at me, I’m a gay conservative! We need to send Muslims back so that I can be so gayyy with my black boyfriend!” To his credit, Milo at least has written books and articles. I don’t even think Nick has written anything, not even a blog. He just does his show. Anyway, I had my “Milo-to-intellectual” pipeline. It’s hard to believe this was 10 years ago, but I think it was Milo who name dropped Takimag or linked to it. I found that the caustic commentary of Jim Goad and David Cole, back in the golden age of Takimag, carried substance and a message while also being funny; Milo on the other hand was primarily there to be funny and get a rise. I eventually stumbled on Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson, who from time to time give me a chuckle, but for the most part offer commentary from an intellectual angle. Despite my curiosity, I can’t bring myself to watch the Tucker/Fuentes interview because I value my time and feel it is better spent reading articles on here.
A common thread I see on here is that Fuentes is “more popular” than Greg Johnson. I think this critique is beyond puerile. The Beatles were arguably more popular than Frank Zappa but I think anyone with half a brain knows that Frank was a better guitarist and composer than The Beatles.
Did you know Pierre Boulez orchestrated and recorded a bunch of Zappa?!?! My brother use to listen to Zappa and his remembered was something about a banana, but the Boulez recording is really good!
Okay, I understand that propaganda should run the gamut from “Ivory Tower to Privy Wall,” as a certain jackbooted Commander once put it.
But Candace Owens is as dumb as a box of rocks. Avoid altogether.
I just saw a clip from her edgy podcast where she claims that the Utah State nickname, “the Beehive State,” proves that the Mormon pioneers were Communists.
And this also proves that they killed Charlie Kirk. WTF?
Well, the word for the apiary arts in the Book of Mormon (1830) is “Deseret,” and this is why that term features prominently in the state’s history, as the Mormon Corridor was once called Deseret, a proverbial land of milk and honey.
For example, the two Salt Lake City newspapers are the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Deseret News. The latter harkens to industriousness, that those territorial pioneers were as “busy as bees.”
When the Utah state flag was redesigned recently, it incorporated the old beehive, long the state symbol ─ although this was somewhat controversial because of the past LDS history and symbolism with the beehive, long seen on Utah state highways.
I guess some would prefer something more chic like “Ski Utah!” seen on many of the Utah license plates, along with “Greatest Snow on Earth.”
By comparison, SE Idaho was settled by LDS pioneers as well, and it probably would not be hard to outdo the cutesy slogan on Idaho license plates which is “Famous Potatoes,” also sharing space with the more bourgeois, “Scenic Idaho.”
But Candace thinks that all this symbolic provincial honeybee boosterism comes right out of 1848 Marx and Engels and refers to Communist workers.
Look, I am a natural skeptic, but I really despise these conspiracy-theory morons who make ominous associations like there were some cosmic meaning to throwing darts onto a wall covered in newspapers.
It is high time to state the obvious, that Online grifters like Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are the equivalent of digital fishwrap.
🙂
The so-called far-right in the US is at a crossroads between Christian Nationalism and White Nationalism, and things may come to a head. Spoiler alert: only one of these two will result in a whiter America. The USA may see its anti-woke Tradcath Christofascist commie-killer authoritarian state in the future, but it’s more than likely not going to be white.
Lipton, thank you for this article. It is a gem.
Fuentes, like Richard Spencer before him, is being elevated by the enemy press as the face of our movement not because he is a good face but because he is a bad one.
Fuentes and Spencer both cultivate media engagement by playing the villain in enemy constructed propaganda narratives.
The underlying problem is that many in our movement are still such uncritical consumers of enemy slop and poison that they are willing to allow our enemies to choose our leaders for us.
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.