Something that strikes me about mornings is that it’s the time when inspiration strikes. For example, I went to bed and woke up planning to spend the morning reviewing the chapter against Sigmund Freud in my Hojas Susurrantes, which I’m translating into English. But inspiration struck while I was getting ready, so I decided to write this post instead.
______ 卐 ______
I’d like to clarify what I have said in my two previous posts, about the movie The Village and Nick Fuentes (here and here). The crucial phrase doesn’t appear in the articles, not even in the question I posed in the last one (“Does such 21st century American film exist…?”), but rather in the comments section and even in parentheses: “Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”
I will explain it in this entry.
I’ve been reading the recent articles about Fuentes published on Counter-Currents. I think we’re all missing the main point.
Fuentes is like the kid who says the emperor has no clothes. At 27, he doesn’t have my maturity, or the erudition of the authors of C-C. Compared to me or my mentors William Pierce and Savitri Devi, Fuentes seems like a child. But it’s important to remember that it’s precisely that naive cry to a cowardly public—that the emperor has no clothes—that’s the first step in making them see the obvious.
In racialist forums I’m ignored for taking the message of white nationalism to its logical conclusion: violent revolution à la Third Reich. And I’m not just referring to the question I asked yesterday, which was left hanging (although I admit that only a film expert could answer it). I’m referring to the fact that regarding those crucial words conflating my last posts (“Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”) I haven’t received any response on X either, where I tweeted them a day ago. Of my 259 followers on X, nobody has said a word yet. As I was told in an email yesterday, they leave me talking to myself “because increasingly—silently, clandestinely—their egos are bruised by the scolding truth brings, and they are otherwise in distaste, having disagreed silently in the background but without the balls to add more.”
But let’s return to Fuentes, who, unlike my followers in X and here, is always willing to discuss important issues with great frankness. He’s like the kid in the story because he speaks the truth—as far as he understands it—about the ethnocidal levels of migration and feminist ethnosuicide: the cancer in the Aryan collective unconscious of our times (cf. what I said yesterday about The Village).
In fact, young Fuentes is far more mature than the veterans Jared Taylor and those of VDARE, insofar as he has already awakened to the JQ (see this clip). On the other hand, by obeying the Christian mandate to love all human beings (remember that from our POV most are exterminable Neanderthals), Fuentes falls into a great contradiction (see, for example, this other clip).
At the end of Tucker’s interview, he asked Fuentes if he would run for president in the future, and Fuentes said perhaps. Tucker asked him what he would do in power, and Fuentes replied that, since the Left wants to crush us (remember that if Harris had won, the First Amendment would have been at her mercy), the Right should crush the Left as a prophylactic measure.
Fuentes is right. Trump promised a Wall in his first term, and there’s nothing of the sort. In his second term he has promised to destroy Antifa, and the same thing happened: there aren’t thousands upon thousands imprisoned like Nayib Bukele is doing in El Salvador, or much better: what Hitler asked Himmler to do in Dachau, a place I love with all my heart and which I visited this very year!
César Tort, the Editor of The West’s Darkest Hour in Dachau Camp, Germany (see my report on that trip here).
Fuentes’s humanitarian sentiments in the second clip are that American whites must resign themselves to the fact that 100 million non-whites will be residing in the US, even though the Enemy imported them without any plebiscite. This represents a major contradiction with what he told Tucker, the same contradiction as Trump’s unfulfilled promises. Tellingly, both Tucker and Fuentes concede in that interview that it is precisely Christian scruples that compel them not to solve the problem (as Himmler was solving it before the deluded Anglo-Americans intervened).
This said, the adolescent way in which Fuentes speaks, shattering post-WWII taboos, is the right one. He speaks out in a crude manner, like an innocent child with no self-consciousness surrounded by adults under the delusion that the emperor has clothes. It doesn’t matter that compared to us, the 21st-century National Socialists, Fuentes seems like a kid. He uses the exact tone that the Aryan collective unconscious needs to awaken!
Let’s compare Fuentes’s most controversial statements in the clips the Left has been circulating with the boring C-C articles or those published by Jared Taylor and VDARE. Alex Linder compared them to those gatherings of posh people who eat crustless sandwiches and speak in politely low voices. With those bourgeois types we’re not going to get anywhere! We need classy thugs. We need an archipelago of Dachau camps throughout the West! Linder spoke with the right tone—the way potential revolutionaries speak.
Since Linder is no longer with us, I think that for the American collective unconscious, a voice like Fuentes’s is the first baby step across the psychological Rubicon in our direction.
9 replies on “On Nick Fuentes”
Wow… I just reviewed the first of the Greenwald clips you share, during his ‘acting on principle’ moment.
I must say, the other day when I discussed him with you I was particularly unaccommodating, having lost patience over his Christian morality drives, but, yes, looking at it again today in light of what you say, I realise now, though young, that he isn’t without merit.
There seems to be some order to doing this that is most pragmatic. Clearing out the left with a Dachau-esque set of establishments does indeed seem like a more productive first move, rather than trying to launch a racial struggle where there are still hordes of lower level (white) anti-white traitor foot soldiers scattered across all levels of society, from the Antifa of the street, and similar groups, to Hope Not Hate tier ‘charities’ and wire-pullers, to positions in council and government and the organs of the System that rely to some degree on those massed braindead street agitators and subversives for divide and conquer strategies of tension (much as I think Muslims would still retain the advantage to initiate racial war this country – the UK – being well in advance of the natives, that’s not the case in America).
We risk otherwise having too many counter-revolutionaries to handle, what with their long-term attempts already to side with the non-whites, however manipulated they are by the latter (thinking of their naïve, ill-fated Islam-communist alliance in this country, or those activists prepared to lick the feet of BLM before punching right-wingers to the ground, baseball bats in their hands).
Much as so far their assassinations and attempts at such have been of the political leader calibre, or otherwise the school shooter variety, they are still it seems weapons-training into militias in the background, and could pose quite a problem directly in combat against any guerrilla force our groups could rouse if left unchecked.
Those leftists could be rehabilitated then following deprogramming, if such was successful. So I think he’s right on that (even if he might use more legitimate – probably more successful too for that reason – means than us in the establishment of detention facilities, though the message they imparted certainly would not be so coherent as ours).
It’s just a shame about the Christianity. I don’t know if that’s something that you think would change in him in time. I was under the impression that if someone is Christian by 12 they’re like that for life, but, unlike the devout, self-centred cowardice of Brad Griffin, Fuentes does seem more ambitious somehow, almost as if he feels his hands are tied on the matter more by politics than by religion. That’s just the subtle feeling I got, on listening again.
His tone does at least have a marvellous ‘oh yeah, and by the way…’ frankness to it.
Unlike other Nazi concentration camps, Dachau’s objective was to re-educate the wayward Aryan. I don’t know if that is now possible… During my visit this year, I saw a reconstruction of the Dachau crematorium, although comparatively very few were cremated there (obviously, many white traitors died in the camp’s conditions).
My point is that only the spoken word galvanises the masses. That’s what the young Fuentes does! The posh literature of the racial right crushes my spirit because it fails to galvanise the masses. Not only those on our side knew this—Hitler, Goebbels, and Mussolini—but also our enemies, like Lenin.
Linder said that the only important article C-C ever published was this one by Andrew Hamilton, where he spoke precisely about the power of Hitler’s oratory.
P.S. sorry, I wasn’t sure if I could type this in time. In terms of controversial quotes to compare, in light of what I said about the difference between him and the worldview of, say, ‘Hunter Wallace’… I think this is pretty controversial as far the latter and his ‘just raising my family’ hands-washing isolationism is concerned:
The latest article on Fuentes at C-C, “Nick Fuentes Is a Liability” by Lipton Matthews, misses my whole point above. Typical of these consumers of crustless sandwiches…
The argument “he’s just doing it for attention” as a criticism doesn’t ring true to me. Surely they’re all doing what they’re doing for attention from their public – otherwise why bother writing their pretentious pseud articles at all? The more I listen to him (and I watched the entire Tucker interview yesterday) the more it highlights just how much charisma he has – a genuinely likeable person despite the errors of immature thought – and far more persuasive than the tired formulism of their over-polished gaggle of lit-critics. They may have the ‘learning’ but they’re intensely boring to read, seeing every tired reactionary cliché come to the fore as they effectively rest on their laurels, with the cringeworthy stabs at ‘coolness’ and academic humour that render them forever as bourgeois nerds.
I actually feel very bad that I expressed my rage against him to the point of condoning his physical assassination. I’m so used to those of *our tier* disappointing me (where there is less room for personal error), that I didn’t cut him enough slack. True, if he gained presidential power, and continued to facilitate the immigration and political sustenance of masses of dangerous, miscegenating non-whites, that would be a different matter, but for the moment I’ve come around to your perspective, in that, yes, I agree with the basic spread of issues he can discuss already (I very much liked his comments on drugs and alcohol too – even if he didn’t seem read up quite enough on the psychology of the school shooter/random hitman types, or indeed psychology/mental health at all), and perhaps find it easier to naturally remember that he is on the same side, albeit much more entry-level material, purely because he is indeed so personable, unlike these cold, smug, arrogant ‘elitists’.
When he thrives on emotional release, he is indeed doing no different to Hitler at his early meetings; a very successful strategy in the long run. For all their ‘it’s more complicated than that…’ patter, I suppose the reason they – those white nationalists with some settled power – turn on him is, despite their accusations of buffoonery, he is indeed a very tangible threat to them. Wouldn’t Thomas Kuhn point out similar? We need fiery demagogues, firebrands, and orators. We do not need more of their self-indulgent, ticked boxes prolefeed.
And still they claim they’re ‘serious’! I think that furious, nit-picking back and forth they had on holocaust denial that seemed to rope in the entire pedantic user-base some months back put paid to that! The silliest, stuffiest group of outdated, irrelevant professors and doctorate-holders on the entire right-wing, that made me laugh very hard indeed at them. Unz, trashy that it is, isn’t really that different. A billion new words each day, and no progress at all. It might as well be pornography for them, and seems to function with the same addictive pointlessness.
“He has no journal, no publishing outlet, no cadre of researchers or writers. He lives off internet drama, not ideological development.”
Given all we’ve noticed about them already, I found that telling expression of their sheer unironic pretentiousness (which I think needed an exclamation mark to capture it in full sentimental accuracy) hilarious too, and imagined them sat in their sick, middle class morning rooms gasping in horror at his active, down to earth efficacy over a tray of gourmet cream cakes and dainty canapes. If anyone has no self-awareness… The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
P.S. I don’t even know (well, beyond their egos) why C-C put so much effort in their sales pitch to present as ‘literate/erudite’, as if that encompassed every domain of knowledge and research. In my opinion they should have stuck to reviewing books of trashy pulp fiction and decadent post-war writer types and reactionary political theorists or whatever, as, despite the verbiage, they still approach academic science and history like these Guardian (UK leftist newspaper) literature aficionados in their fan-clubs, or a pipe-smoker in a swanky gentleman’s lounge, as opposed to understanding that these disciplines need an entirely different set of skills and abilities to master, and are thus crap at understanding them, as regularly evidenced.
One sees that – and their lack of rigour – just for example, from their inability to broach the subject of 19th Century race science from a genuinely scientific angle, as opposed to simply applying a culture of critique, or from their inability to master the patterns and grander insights of history altogether to the necessary depth, despite the breadth of useless anecdotes and context-stripped pet points they fling in willy-nilly and defend to the death at the drop of a quilted hat.
I’d wager they don’t even understand politics fundamentally, having turned it back into a polite novel to pick up, or something for a ambitious university tutor’s personal cubby-hole of 7 people, not seeing it as it is as an arena phenomenon, and, as you say, seem content to sit cloistered away like monks busy copying out their extensive ‘this is why I’m right in another gleaming 50,000 words’ set of ‘explanations’ to the brute majority as opposed to wading in and just having a confident chat right up in their faces. Thus they have established no tangible authority, and can expect no real political change in return, and all this true despite the lucrative nature of their in-house enterprise, a Mecca for professional fools.
I’ve started more to try and present crafted, slightly theatrical speeches in real life myself, just to the leftists and ‘former leftists/centrists’ (so leftists then) I try and shift, although I’m still very inexperienced at this, unaided certainly by a ridiculous bumbling voice and very few teeth. Fuentes isn’t anything like me, in that he can actually pull this off. Perhaps not so much a liability as liable to be a thorn in their side, which I think is the more the merrier really.
Well, I think if you could have a podcast in a country where the tentacles of the UK’s Thought Police couldn’t reach you, many English people would consider you eloquent precisely because they don’t speak out themselves (and when they do, they get imprisoned, as happened to my friends Joseph and Chris).
In both Tucker’s full interview with Nick and with the Jew Dave Smith, I realised that Tucker’s Christian POV is more detrimental to the 14 words than the Jew’s POV. Tucker’s closing words, as a recent guest on Dave’s show, underlined his Christian universalism: “tribalism leads to genocide,” something he said more than once.
In other words, let’s accept living with 100 million non-whites in the US (instead of a Turner Diaries scenario). In reality, what Jews or Chinese people do is natural: tribalism, and white people did it before the Roman Empire. Paul’s universalism, whom Tucker greatly admires, is what screwed up the Aryan mind.
Regarding what the author of Counter-Currents says about Unz, this other Jew is infinitely more of a charlatan than Fuentes. The latter at least matures his position on the Holocaust from denier to affirmer. Unz lives in a sea of conspiracy theories that completely undermine the credibility of his site. I hate it.
What bothers me most, not only about Counter-Currents but about the entire racial right, is that they are professionally inept because they never talk about how the hell they are going to seize political power. They have no strategy for it.
I see you on Ron Unz (I’ve barely read C-C consistently in my life, but I’ve read it a great deal more than I’ve spent time on The Unz Review so I know the latter far less). Conspiracy theories are an ultimate pain on the right (much as the man I’ve begun to refer to as ‘my woke pen pal’ buys them also, to an abominable degree).
I’d love to do this podcast; can’t wait actually. As you know… it’s just life temporarily in the way, out of my hands, and kind of waiting for it to fall into place. A very optimistic part of me (the suspicious kind that capitulates and thinks people might actually want to listen) still worries pessimistically almost simultaneous to that that the system will somehow screw me over in the interim. I feel very sorry for Chris and Joseph. I think it has anyone properly alert in the UK is especially on edge, all that sort of punitive attitude… the daily life in an atrocious police state. I’m surprised I get to sleep at all – not that I always do even – I’m so afraid they’ll knock my door down again and brutalise their way in, yet more of ‘the heavy-handed usual’, and I feel I never know what it would take anymore.
I’d especially love to discuss the latter point you raise in proper detail, but certainly, you’re right, it’s not a thing on mechanical safety grounds that I could convey from over here (much as I occasionally forget that).
In the meantime, I can acknowledge at least that, yes, C-C et al. do not think like this. It’s very bothersome indeed. I hope they find this little discussion today, one of their ‘reputation scouts’ or something (which I’m sure they must have in some capacity as they seem the vain type).
I don’t know if you knew this, but Greg Johnson was kind enough to approve one of my recent comments on his article about Nick Fuentes, which links to this very article on my site.
The problem is that the C-C visitors who clicked on that link and read this article don’t want to discuss it with us. They leave us talking to ourselves. My guess is that they have nothing to say because the truth is too much for their egos, as mentioned above…