318 words
1. The Last Three Counter-Currents Radio Streams of 2025
December 13: Greg Johnson will be joined by Rich Houck, Angelo Plume, Endeavour, Matt Parrott, and Karl Thorburn
December 20: Merry Christmas stream where we discuss 2025 with Kevin MacDonald, Mark Weber, Tim Murdock, Roger Devlin, Kevin Deanna, and Frodi Midjord
December 27: Happy New Year stream where we discuss the best and worst of 2025 and predictions for the new year, with Jared Taylor, Mark Collett, Laura Towler, Basil, Josh Neal, James Edwards, Leonarda Jonie, and Millennial Woes
Join us at the normal time: noon Pacific, 3pm Eastern, 9 pm Central Europe at:
- Odysee: https://odysee.com/@countercurrents/ccradio
- DLive: https://dlive.tv/Counter-Currents
- Send questions & donations to Entropy: entropystream.live/countercurrents
2. Greg Johnson on Millenniyule, Our Christmas Tradition
We all love our holiday traditions. But how do traditions start? Generally, they begin with a person with a vision of something new and useful, the creativity to make it real, and the discipline to repeat it over and over again until it sticks. Such people are rare. One of them in our movement is Millennial Woes. Millenniyule is his Christmas gift to our movement, now in its 11th year. It is our Christmas tradition.
Greg Johnson and many other guests are appearing this year on Millenniyule 2025. Greg will appear on Sunday, December 21st, at noon Pacific, 3 Eastern, 9pm Central European Time. For a listing of this year’s Millenniyule lineup, click here.
3. Fundraiser Update
Thanks to our generous friends, our fundraiser total is now at $160,123.59. But we are still lagging way behind where we were last year at this time: $205,870.39. We are hoping for a Christmas miracle! There are many ways to donate, but the easiest is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.
You can explore all your donation options on our Donate page.
Remember: those who fight for a better world live in it today.
Thank you again for your loyal readership and generous support.
Greg Johnson
Editor-in-Chief
20 comments
Hoping there be some commentary on what seemed to be a train wreck of an interview with Fuentes and Piers Morgan? I could take about half an hour and it became torture.
I’m not as tuned into Fuentes as others, but if there was any glimmer of hope he retained some part of himself as serious figure, it’s been dashed. He’s an influencer to a group of followers, who’s good at creating energy, but he’s not able to articulate a defense of this under pressure.
He wasn’t prepared for that kind of interview. Piers Morgan will only get right wing people on who he knows he can dominate.
I believe the most effective approach we can take is what I call Plain-Vanilla Nationalism: unwavering, unambiguous pro-white message plus zero distractions that the Pier Morgans of the world can talk about instead of said unwavering, unambiguous pro-white message.
For edgelords, the intoxication of hearing others wince trumps all other concerns, like employing more effective but less glamorous strategies, unimpeachable strategies. The problem with those strategies, and why they are so intolerable to the edgelord, is that they take him and his “look at me, I’m the crazy guy!” antics out of the spotlight for two seconds for a greater good.
In short, immaturity is the problem. Immaturity is easily dismissible, because immaturity is rash, unreasoned. Immaturity is, for our enemies, a welcome proxy for all of our (sane, reasonable, irreproachable) talking points.
“Have Greg Johnson on the program? No thanks!” says the program director, “let’s schedule that guy out sieg-heiling on the overpass.”
>In short, immaturity is the problem. Immaturity is easily dismissible, because immaturity is rash, unreasoned.
I think you guys are being a bit too dismissive of the immature edgelord slopulism. You and the others on C-C. Is most of it bad? Absolutely. Is it causing harm? Definitely. But there’s a lot of benefit in it still.
The target audience is teenagers, and teenagers are immature and rebellious. They naturally look up to edgelord psychopaths. Kids do look up to terrible people if left to pick their own role models, you get some serious cluster B vibes from pretty much all of the youtube stars for teens. Kids like to see them being smarmy and deprecative of everything, and attach themselves parasocially to that and feel power via proxy. Kids getting their first taste in politics typically go down the Hasan or Fuentes route these days, who are both terrible people that are mean spirited.
Anyone over the age of 21 still watching Nick Fuentes styled infotainment politics isn’t to our benefit, but people under that age will grow out of it. Many will go on to read books, go to university, get established in their career, and the seeds planted in those early years will come to bloom. And while the arguments for white nationalism are embedded in a contradictory grift, he is expressing them, and he is expressing them in a way that his target audience likes. The Alt-right stuff was just as pathetic and annoying, but we are seeing a flowering now as the teenagers from back then are now embedded in conservative institutions. He is influencing the next generation to a heavy extent, and there’s a lot of race realism and expressed pro-white positions there. Gone are the days where the white youth wastes its time with libertarianism.
The Piers Morgan debate with Nick Fuentes did show Nick Fuentes as immature, smarmy and smug. And while that’s grating for us that take these ideas seriously or are older, teenagers absolutely loved it. Many teenage chuds still at public school watching that would see in Nick Fuentes the way they want to respond to their millennial teacher forcing anti-white lessons on them. The way Nick Fuentes responded is how they’d respond to forced guilt about the holocaust, guilt about slavery, the taboo around talking about white interests. They can’t, because they’d be sent to the principle’s office. Piers Morgan served as a personification of their elders they want to rebel against, right down to his age. Andrew Tate serves as a similar power fantasy for swarthy teenagers from third world cultures being alienated under a feminized western school system.
You can’t really have a counter-culture without a pathetic juvenile component. The new left of the 1960s had their own juvenile rebellious slop content. Not all the arguments for free love and desegregation were well reasoned, sterile and academic, most were actually really weak. They had their own version of Nick Fuentes grifters who just wanted to assemble a harem in the back of their hippie vans, and it didn’t end up costing them their victory. If you take away immaturity, you lose the youth. It sucks, but it is what it is. I do think we could do better than Nick Fuentes in the smarmy teenager niche, but we also could certainly do worse.
“Is most of it [edgelord slopulism] bad? Absolutely. Is it causing harm? Definitely. But there’s a lot of benefit in it still.”
The big question for me is whether that benefit is a net gain for the cause we’re trying to advance. I tend to think it isn’t, even if it does have its appeal to teenagers.
But speaking of teenagers, I also honestly believe (if you’ll forgive the hot-take) that teenagers want more guidance than we give them credit for wanting. I’m admittedly projecting my own feelings about it here, harkening back, but I believe I would have taken some guidance the right way (at the very least appreciated the gesture and considered it) provided it was offered in a way that wasn’t berating or condescending.
The idea that teens are bound to screw up, make missteps, and learn only from their own mistakes (rather than imparted/learned wisdom) has been around for a relatively short time. It’s just a hunch, but I think, rather than always being left to botch it on their own, many teens would welcome a little help. I got a lot of leeway in my own upbringing; in retrospect, I question how much of it was genuine respect for my individuality, and how much rather was just others’ being too busy to get involved.
A final point I’ll express here that I haven’t seen anyone else raise is that Nazi Germany had to resort to slopulism. This was a country where race realists had 100% totalitarian control, and even they had to begrudgingly put embarrassing tabloid slop out. I went through some of the archives of Nazi periodicals and found they produced several different ones. A full spread across the entire bell curve, with each one hitting a different level. Some were on the level of Amren and here, where you’d have interviews with hosted biologists. Some were middle of the road where they’d focus on family life and news reports. Others like Der Steurmer were fictional ragebait slop that the more educated Nazis rolled their eyes at. The solution Der Steurmer offered for NAXALT was “all jews are like that, and all Aryans are like that”, unfortunately a sizable percentage of the population is so stupid that they have to be told that. Perhaps that’s really our version of Plato’s noble lie.
Jon Minadeo ‘handsome truth’, Jeremy MacKenzie, Devon Stack, and Ferryman are way better on this than the smarmy prick fuentes could ever hope to be. People can trash the GTV streamers all they want as juvenile unserious edgelords (a claim I don’t believe) but such punch-hard tactics are an entertaining window into our world despite not being ideas-centric, funny + racist no(se)ticing will awaken curious kids to our cause. AmRen may not simply embody enough relatable raw aggression and anger for teens without futures plodding through the modern antiWhite world.
Yes good points. I’m also quite a believer in a good cop/bad cop model with our cause, and I haven’t got a problem with edgy memes, but I don’t know how it works if you’re trying to do both. You can do it up to the point that someone hostile, public and experienced puts pressure on the whole thing and you, on their terms, on their platform. And then it doesn’t carry anymore. It’s very easy to make that person look completely stupid to that particular audience.
Morgan, despite having some strands of popular sentiments, is a hard nosed tabloid journalist. He’s not going to mess about. And his mission as a journalist is to uphold the most sacred myths of the system. Fuentes made his job too easy.
Now the other commenter also has a point about youthful energy vs the stuffy old commissars, and I always suspected Morgan’s show was an effort to pull people back towards the idle centrism of the past. Back into the old days of television values. Albeit slightly updated, you can see where Morgan has ‘bravely’ shifted the boundaries a bit, to the Young Turks or whatever. Whoopee doop. But everything revolves around Morgan’s lardy ‘common sense’ politics. Sure he can push against woke, which wasn’t part of the plan, and then say with glee, “but I’m not racist. Here are my anti-racist credentials”.
If our serious people were asked on, we could ask if it’s worth it. It might be the best one can do is make Morgan look hypocritical, stupid, pandering and generate some sympathy for our side. I don’t know.
War game this hard beforehand. Get someone to help you drill it and the kind of tough cross examination style questions and dilemmas he’s likely to want to put you in. Know your boring facts too. But facts alone aren’t enough.
Fuentes, because of the way he’s done things, and I never saw his edgy stuff – I’d heard people talk about it, he came on and looked like a retarded slimy weasel who didn’t care what he was saying from one moment to the next.
It may be the most unhelpful performance I’ve seen on the right since Spencer’s ‘liberal racist’ lecture during the Floyd riots. Spencer wasn’t under pressure in a hard interview, but Fuentes’ one will be seen by many more people, many more normies or half-normies, who are still nervous on these issues.
Ok, I will revise my original view a bit. I got brave and watched the rest of it. Everything I’ve said is true for the first half hour. It’s a horrible impression in that first chunk. Perhaps that’s the intention. Once you get past the first half hour it settles down a bit into something else. And whatever his faults, Fuentes does raise some points that are real about demographic replacement and it looks like Morgan doesn’t want to engage on those points. Fuentes also makes other fair points like not being beholden to the holocaust as some kind of doctrine we arrange society around. You have treat it more on its free flowing ‘news entertainment’ terms.
“And his mission as a journalist is to uphold the most sacred myths of the system. Fuentes made his job too easy.”
This is the crux of it for me: Fuentes made Morgan’s job [delegitimizing white self-interest] too easy. This is where my point about immaturity enters the equation.
What would maturity have done here? First, it would have recognized and dropped all the edgy proxies, the stand-ins for the legitimacy of white self-interest: Women voting, women wanting to be raped, women being fat and ugly, Hitler, Jewish power, the Holocaust, misanthropic affectations…all softballs lobbed across the plate for a terminal pragmatist like Morgan to rhetorically knock out of the park, by proxy destroying the case for white rights. Wisdom (i.e., maturity) knows that since white rights do not stand or fall by those things, those are therefore necessarily superfluous; wisdom also knows they are sacred cows, so introducing them is like dropping one’s guard and saying to the savvy boxer standing before him, “Go ahead, I’ll let you take the first shot…and the second, and the third….”
Sure, teenagers might not care, but this was heard by millions of people; there are other age groups that needed to hear our message, and I’m afraid many of them heard something that sounded less like an unimpeachable appeal for white race realism, and more like an edgy teen’s (even though Fuentes is 27) desperate cry for attention. Attention that is easily dismissed by the adults in the room.
That said, he did have his moments. Credit where credit is due.
Yeah very much. There’s a hard limit to immaturity and influencer culture. Like I say I think trolling has a role, but what’s happened is Fuentes has raced ahead of everything else happening on the right. It’s created a very lopsided kind of interaction and route, that’s not going to be sustainable. It’s not a situation one would choose.
Why is it that I see this little prick everywhere but our well spoken guys like Greg or Kevin Deanna or Zsutty aren’t getting the calls for Tucker or Rogan? Aren’t we at a point now after massie, MTG, and trump’s recent comments where the serious lucid people are ready to be heard on the bigger platforms?
Wow, I just thought I’d take a peek at the Piers-Nick comments, & I’m no huge fan of Nick’s, but I’m really pleased to report that *several* normies, (in addition to racial realists & pro-White folks, such as Dr. Ed Dutton) watched that interview & were completely taken away by just how bad *Piers* came across.
(Full disclosure — I watched many clips, but not the entire interview.)
On youtube a small group assembled to offer Piers some preventative damage control for the future. Some pointers! lol It was suggested that Piers needs to learn to follow logic, not allow himself to get sidetracked, resort to name calling & even attacking Nick’s dad?? Some said they were thrilled to see Piers exposed for using vocab he couldn’t actually define, not understanding the that ‘naxalt’ is irrelevant, and that he showed he resides in an absolute social bubble IRL.
Thank goodness Tucker got the ball rolling, by having Nick on. Even though Nick’s immature, a hound for attention, & I’ll go ahead & say: petulant*, the interview ended up being good for nationalists through Pier’s inability offer any follow-up questions on issues of serious social importance. This just causes even more dislike of UK msm. Piers has been left uncomfortably speechless by several American guests he’s hosted recently!
(*Nick announced on X that Devon Stack was “dead to him” after Stack simply asked Nick to clarify (y or n) whether he was now actually supporting anchor baby nationalism.)
Morgan didn’t attack his father. Fuentes declared to his followers afterwards Morgan attacked his father. Do you see the difference? Do you see the magic ? Look, everyone knows Morgan’s reasoning for that line of questioning was silly libtard stuff, but it was a reasonable journalistic question to ask Fuentes about a public statement he made. Fuentes had one of his insane bitchouts afterwards I believe, which are the norm after every interaction he has apparently, even the ones that are softball to him. But I’m sure you can clip the interview to make it look like whatever you want.
Folks who are not fans of Nick, agreed that Piers completely dropped the ball when he strayed from asking Nick questions, and pivoted to asking Nick about his family.
Again, as censorship is so insane in the UK, I’m very glad British citizens are absolutely loathing & questioning their mainstream media, as Americans are trotted onto their talk shows. Ironically Piers recently had a pro-black American youtuber on who, among other things, criticized interracial-adoptions. The anti-free speech tyrants in UK can’t handle American conversation, free thought, & skepticism.
Whites audiences are sophisticated enough to do research on facts and theories they were not previously aware of. Noisy & energetic, though sometimes irritating, free speakers will grab people’s attention. And garnering attention, good or bad, is the very first step in the process of sharing ideas.
Kim: People also see what they want to see with this or assess it via influencer culture. And it is a bit scary.
As a boring observation, I didn’t see Morgan ‘completely drop the ball’ in that segment. If anything he dropped the ball in the second longer segment. I saw him doing exactly what you’d expect him to do and ask exactly the questions you’d expect him to ask.
I suppose, to advance the cause or our sense of progress, we could tell ourselves Morgan attacked Fuentes’ father and dropped the ball, but it’s a not description of what happened.
If our better people ever get on that show, I’d expect the tone and questions to be consistently harder. Are we going to tell ourselves Morgan attacked us because he asked a question that made us uncomfortable, and then start some campaign about his wife ?
I didn’t watch it.
I didn’t watch it.
Fuentes brings to mind an old Cheech and Chong sketch:
What’s this?
Looks like shit.
[sniffing] Hmmm, smells like shit.
[nibbling] Yeah, and it tastes like shit too.
Good thing we didn’t step in it.
LOL
This morning I inexplicably woke up around 6:30, wide awake and unable to do anything else without waking the rest of the house. So I put on the headphones, found the podcast on Spotify, and donated two hours of my life to something I never would’ve otherwise.
In a way, I feel sorry for the guy. He seems like a slave to self-inflicted controversy…all caught on video, for years. The rubber of “extremely online” really meets the road when you’ve got some Piers Morgan type (and staff) pulling clips and holding your hyperbolic feet to the fire. In some ways he did alright, two in particular: owning “racist,” and pressing Morgan (who was playing dumb) about school shooters who are white versus percentage of whites who are likely to be school shooters. But the rest was a textbook cautionary tale of staying out of the weeds.
Having not stayed out of the weeds for years, every softball proxy he could have offered an enemy was offered up (by virtue of his countless hours of recorded edgelording) for their full exploitation, distracting from any sane, mature case for white rights that might otherwise have been made.
I was also surprised to see no commentary on the Piers Morgan – Nick Fuentes livestream (i won’t even call it a debate, as it was more of a public humiliation for Piers.)
I suppose every commentator and his dog have covered it, but I do feel it was one of these watershed moments in politics. It was more than just Piers and Nick, too: it kind of felt like a passing of the torch, generational shift, or whatever. We know boomers and boomer-brained Gen Xers are anachronistic, but it really did feel like seeing them get left behind by the world in real time. I’m not a Fuentes fan boy, though I must point out I’m just not as opposed to him as people on this site appear to be. But he totally humiliated Morgan, and not just him but the boomer consensus in general – jews are magical, you can’t be racist/sexist, you have to have sex, and other tabloid style behaviour too – back in the days of newspapers, “HIS DAD WAS A RACIST!” would be a brilliant headline, total character assassination and record sales figures. Now…? It just comes across as underhanded and pathetic – especially seeing it live, and from an establishment, millionaire, Xoomer (boomer brained Xer) against a guy young enough to be his grandson, who has been consistently debanked and banned. I thought the whole thing was a huge net gain for people who think like us.
The stuff thats since come out about Piers Morgans wife is the icing on the cake, really. He’s literally a cuck. It’s like the curtain getting pulled back on the wizard of oz. Nick gave Piers enough rope to hang himself with, and Piers grabbed it off him and bungee jumped off the hoover dam with it. And smacked off it on the way down. Several times.
” if there was any glimmer of hope [Nick] retained some part of himself as serious figure, it’s been dashed. ”
… THAT was your take from the Morgan-Fuentes stream? … Seriously? Were you watching the same video as everyone else?
The first half hour is painful, and that’s all I watched up until I wrote that comment. In that context, on first viewing, especially to people not making special allowances for Fuentes because they are under his spell, not inured to a young influencer scrolling disposable culture, Fuentes looks like a ridiculous idiot. It’s hard to imagine it being worse.
Once you get past that section, once that’s been established, there’s a context/mood shift. Fuentes isn’t being held to account in the same way anymore, he’s given enough permission at that point to turn this into his usual performative exhibition where he’s comfortable- trolling, irony jokes, dropping some real points too – which he’s taken from us. Shifting around. It doesn’t make him look great, but I suppose you could just treat that big second section as giving the finger to what has been.
He does a lot of slithering about, obviously he’s comfortable there. It’s completely dishonest, it’s draining to listen to, it’s driven by a clicks/likes/engagement first mentality, it’s horrible nonsense, but if it were strictly aimed at the machine itself, and the machine accepts this as real information because it’s so bloated and stupid, and because for too long it’s done the same, as long as I don’t have to listen to it, maybe I don’t care that much. Trump himself is quite like that anyway too.
Indeed, the support for Fuentes in the comments on YouTube and elsewhere is almost 100%. Are they all his trolls and bots ? I doubt it. I think some of them, also wanting to give the finger to the machine, are filtering out the issues, filtering out the downsides, filtering out the way this is being delivered.
And there seems to be a real acceptance of Fuentes in the conservative movement. They don’t condemn him. Even among milquetoast conservatives.
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.