Tucker Carlson’s interview with far-right antisemite Nick Fuentes divides conservatives over support for Israel

[essentialsaltes]

Reviews are in: Heritage Foundation thumbs up; Rubio thumbs down

Conservatives are fighting among themselves over the far-right commentator Tucker Carlson’s decision to interview the antisemitic white supremacist Nick Fuentes on his podcast, where the two men decried conservatives who support Israel.

Kevin Roberts, the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, defended Carlson after the episode, saying Carlson “remains and, as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation”.

Fuentes thanked Roberts for the [support] in a reply on X, citing his “courage in standing up for open discourse and defending Tucker against the Israel First Woke Right”.

On the podcast, Carlson called out Republicans including Senator Ted Cruz, the former president George W Bush and the ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, for being “Christian Zionists” who have been “seized by this brain virus”.

“I dislike them more than anybody,” said Carlson, the former Fox host whose podcast has skewed further to the right during the second Trump term.

In remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition after the podcast aired on Thursday, Cruz said: “Now is a time for choosing. Now is a time for courage … If you sit there with someone who says Adolf Hitler was very, very cool and their mission is to combat and defeat ‘global Jewry’, and you say nothing, then you are a coward, and you are complicit in that evil.”

Cruz also said he had seen more antisemitism on the right in the last six months than he had seen in his entire life, claiming it was a “poison” and that the party and the country were “facing an existential crisis”.

In recent weeks, reporting revealed that a group chat of young Republicans included a host of antisemitic comments, and texts revealed a Trump nominee – since withdrawn – who said he had a “Nazi streak”.

Fuentes went further on his views in a video after the podcast. “Do us all a favor,” he said. “We are done with the Jewish oligarchy. We are done with the slavish surrender to Israel, the wars, the foreign aid, the policing of antisemitism, the Holocaust religion and propaganda.”

---

Just to make it clear to the people eager to confuse the issue. This is not about free speech. Neither Cruz nor I are calling for Tucker to be 'taken off the air' or that he shouldn't be allowed to interview Nick Fuentes. It's about the choice to use one's own free speech to point at and deplore antisemitic speech, or the choice to go along with it or ignore it.

 

[Chesterton]

It's about free speech. I'll just paste part of what I put in the other thread:

I'm not here to defend the views of Tucker or Fuentes or anybody. I'm here to defend free speech. You think Fuentes is dangerous? I think probably 99% of the entire Left is very dangerous, they're destroying Western Civilization, and they are platformed on every kind of platform that exists, from the internet to TV to city streets, etc.

In 1999, David Duke was interviewed on TV on C-Span, and allowed to promote a book he wrote. We had more free speech back then. I don't agree with Mark Dice on everything, but he made an excellent video about Fuentes appearing with Tucker. Normally when I post a video, I don't really care all that much if anyone looks at it, but I do encourage anyone reading this to watch it below. (Warning: Dice sometimes uses profanity. I saw this two days ago, so I don't recall if he does in this one.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm guessing Ted Cruz is just pouncing on what he thinks is an "easy opportunity" to justify his unwavering support for the idea that we should continue to pump billions of dollars into the Israeli government so they can use it for things that a lot of people here don't approve of.

The most interesting part of this (to me at least) is the political horseshoe on the topic of Zionism.

A portion of the far-left is rabidly Anti-Zionist, and obviously so is Nick Fuentes, but they're scrambling to find rationales to justify it in a way where they can claim "our reasons are very different", when they really aren't.


When you boil it down, what I would call the "rabid" opposition to Zionism (and the foreign entanglements that accompany it) is really all coming from the same place.


The belief that a people holding the position of
"We're entitled whatever land we want, we're God's chosen people, the purpose in life of the "others" (their word for it is "Goys") is to cater to us and be merely tools that help us facilitate our walk with the Creator of the Universe since we're the important ones -- just look it up, it's in our book"

...can, and does , lead to some pretty obnoxious behavior that doesn't jive with the concept of a free and flourishing society.


The rationales between "why the progressive left hates Israel" and "why Nick Fuentes hates Israel" aren't as far apart as they'd like to think.

In many ways, I think Fuentes has become "the boogeyman" that's a convenient opportunity to employ "guilt by association" tactics with whenever someone interviews or talks to him.


I'll admit, 99% of the opinions I had about him initially were the result of what I read about him, prior ever actually hearing an interview with him.

After hearing various interviews with him, my conclusion is still that he holds some troubling views about race that I wouldn't want to associate with, but nevertheless, he still has friends and business partners that are black and Jewish, and most of the comments that he makes that are labelled as racist, are often pointing out double-standards. (For example, he makes comments about mixed-race couples that I obviously don't agree with -- being a part of a mixed race couple), but the nature of what he's saying is to the effect of "if a Black person said they wanted to only date and have children with other Black people as a means of preserving their racial identity and culture, it wouldn't be controversial, but if a white person says it, it's viewed as racist"

And that's true... I know that first hand. I've mentioned on here before that my significant other is Indian. Her parents (and 75% of her family are not a fan lol), she rejected an "arranged" situation to be with me. That didn't go over well. Yet, nobody calls her parents and 2 of her 4 siblings "racists", it gets labelled as some sort of "wanting to uphold a cultural tradition"... if the roles were reversed, and my mom treated her as a social pariah because "I wanted my baby boy to be with this nice white girl that we liked more and got along well with their parents", my mom would get labelled as "racist"


But to hear the way people talk about him, you'd be led to believe that he's a racist on the level of someone like Gypsy Crusader. (which, don't look him up if you're sensitive to offensive rhetoric...but if you want to see what real racism looks like, Gypsy Crusader embodies it)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'll admit, 99% of the opinions I had about him initially were the result of what I read about him, prior ever actually hearing an interview with him.

After hearing various interviews with him, my conclusion is still that he holds some troubling views about race that I wouldn't want to associate with, but nevertheless, he still has friends and business partners that are black and Jewish, and most of the comments that he makes that are labelled as racist, are often pointing out double-standards. (For example, he makes comments about mixed-race couples that I obviously don't agree with -- being a part of a mixed race couple), but the nature of what he's saying is to the effect of "if a Black person said they wanted to only date and have children with other Black people as a means of preserving their racial identity and culture, it wouldn't be controversial, but if a white person says it, it's viewed as racist"

A racist being able to present themselves as somewhat sane in an interview just proves that they have some knowledge of PR and a degree of self-awareness.

And that's true... I know that first hand. I've mentioned on here before that my significant other is Indian. Her parents (and 75% of her family are not a fan lol), she rejected an "arranged" situation to be with me. That didn't go over well. Yet, nobody calls her parents and 2 of her 4 siblings "racists", it gets labelled as some sort of "wanting to uphold a cultural tradition"...

I think most people recognize that as racism. There's typically some hesitation to call out examples of racism from minority groups, because it's something that an unscrupulous person could turn into a very uncomfortable situation - or just because people want to keep the peace. I've seen plenty of cases of socially-unacceptable behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) being laughed off, handwaved, or ignored because no one wants to rock the boat. That doesn't mean that people don't see it for what it is though.

But to hear the way people talk about him, you'd be led to believe that he's a racist on the level of someone like Gypsy Crusader. (which, don't look him up if you're sensitive to offensive rhetoric...but if you want to see what real racism looks like, Gypsy Crusader embodies it)

To hear people talk about him, you'd think he's the most racist person they're aware of. Which isn't particularly far-fetched - I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have heard of Nick Fuentes is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who have heard of Gypsy Crusader (no idea who that is, BTW).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Reviews are in: Heritage Foundation thumbs up; Rubio thumbs down

The far right has been more overt and becoming more mainstreamed in the "conservative" movemet for the last few years, but there has been a bit of public sorting going on lately. Let's see what we have this time..

Conservatives are fighting among themselves over the far-right commentator Tucker Carlson’s decision to interview the antisemitic white supremacist Nick Fuentes on his podcast, where the two men decried conservatives who support Israel.

We already knew this is who Tucker was. It's been pretty obvious since Tucker left Fox News.

Kevin Roberts, the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, defended Carlson after the episode, saying Carlson “remains and, as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation”.

We know who you are now Mr. Roberts. Turning Heritage in the an X-Nat operation was one thing, but making excuses for anti-semites and white nationalist?

Fuentes thanked Roberts for the [support] in a reply on X, citing his “courage in standing up for open discourse and defending Tucker against the Israel First Woke Right”.

On the podcast, Carlson called out Republicans including Senator Ted Cruz, the former president George W Bush and the ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, for being “Christian Zionists” who have been “seized by this brain virus”.

“I dislike them more than anybody,” said Carlson, the former Fox host whose podcast has skewed further to the right during the second Trump term.

We should not confuse Fuentes call outs of "zionism" as merely anti-Israel. He is openly expresses his hatred of all Jews and love of Hitler and Nazis and self-identifies as a white nationalist.

In remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition after the podcast aired on Thursday, Cruz said: “Now is a time for choosing. Now is a time for courage … If you sit there with someone who says Adolf Hitler was very, very cool and their mission is to combat and defeat ‘global Jewry’, and you say nothing, then you are a coward, and you are complicit in that evil.”

Cruz also said he had seen more antisemitism on the right in the last six months than he had seen in his entire life, claiming it was a “poison” and that the party and the country were “facing an existential crisis”.

Good for Mr. Cruz. If the conservative movement is to demonstrate any moral standing these stands are necessary.

In recent weeks, reporting revealed that a group chat of young Republicans included a host of antisemitic comments, and texts revealed a Trump nominee – since withdrawn – who said he had a “Nazi streak”.

Unfortunately Mr. Ingrassia is not the only minor Trump administration official with a "Nazi streak", or white nationalism. There are many, and not all are minor.

Fuentes went further on his views in a video after the podcast. “Do us all a favor,” he said. “We are done with the Jewish oligarchy. We are done with the slavish surrender to Israel, the wars, the foreign aid, the policing of antisemitism, the Holocaust religion and propaganda.”

-

Just in case things were unclear about Fuentes. He's been quite overt for years.

--

Just to make it clear to the people eager to confuse the issue. This is not about free speech. Neither Cruz nor I are calling for Tucker to be 'taken off the air' or that he shouldn't be allowed to interview Nick Fuentes. It's about the choice to use one's own free speech to point at and deplore antisemitic speech, or the choice to go along with it or ignore it.

He has his own internet "channel", but I wouldn't object to video platforms "de-platforming" him. (Consequence-free is not what free speech means). (I have this nasty suspicion his main platform is "rumble".)

To hear people talk about him, you'd think he's the most racist person they're aware of. Which isn't particularly far-fetched - I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have heard of Nick Fuentes is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who have heard of Gypsy Crusader (no idea who that is, BTW).

I'd never heard of this person, but it seems he is a lot like Fuentes in many ways. Both have Mexican heritage (this other person has Romani ancestry) and are "internet personalities" and not involved in the racist gangs. The "traditional white nationalists" aren't going tolerate either of them or (Jewish) white nationalist and acting president for domestic affairs Stephen Miller.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To hear people talk about him, you'd think he's the most racist person they're aware of. Which isn't particularly far-fetched - I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have heard of Nick Fuentes is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who have heard of Gypsy Crusader (no idea who that is, BTW).

What I've found interesting is that some of these far-right "influencers" that espouse white supremacist views are often times not even in the category.

You mentioned you'd never heard of Gypsy Crusader before... as background, like Nick, he's also half Mexican.

You had people like Enrique Tarrio (the leader of the Proud Boys) who was half Cuban...then there's people like Myron Gaines who's half black/half Arab.

The one underlying trait they all seem to share is that of being staunch Traditionalist Catholic.

...and while obviously most Catholics (not even most Traditionalist Catholics) share those kinds of views, I did hear an interview (I forget the guy's name now), but he was a former Traditionalist Catholic Priest -- maybe even a bishop? (turned Lutheran), who was explaining why that particular sect of Catholicism may be more of a fostering ground for those views than other off-shoots.

It stems from still seeing themselves as "defenders of Christian Civilization", and seeing any groups/advocacy that challenge that as a "threat to the moral order" (I believe were the words he used to describe it). In essence, viewing themselves as some sort of modern-day Knights Templars or something to that effect...

So, from what he was describing, it's less about "we hate certain people because they were born with a different level of pigment or from a different country", and more about "the ideological forces that are advocating for those groups are the same ones attempting to undermine the moral order we've built over the last 1000 years"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What I've found interesting is that some of these far-right "influencers" that espouse white supremacist views are often times not even in the category.

You mentioned you'd never heard of Gypsy Crusader before... as background, like Nick, he's also half Mexican.

You had people like Enrique Tarrio (the leader of the Proud Boys) who was half Cuban...then there's people like Myron Gaines who's half black/half Arab.

We've already established that minorities can be racist. Furthermore, white Hispanics are absolutely a thing - recall that most Central and South American countries started as Spanish colonies - so "But he's Hispanic!" isn't the gotcha it might initially seem like.

The one underlying trait they all seem to share is that of being staunch Traditionalist Catholic.

...and while obviously most Catholics (not even most Traditionalist Catholics) share those kinds of views, I did hear an interview (I forget the guy's name now), but he was a former Traditionalist Catholic Priest -- maybe even a bishop? (turned Lutheran), who was explaining why that particular sect of Catholicism may be more of a fostering ground for those views than other off-shoots.

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem - TradCaths are a relatively recent development, at least as a significant subgroup within the Church, and a significant percentage of them are converts.

It stems from still seeing themselves as "defenders of Christian Civilization", and seeing any groups/advocacy that challenge that as a "threat to the moral order" (I believe were the words he used to describe it). In essence, viewing themselves as some sort of modern-day Knights Templars or something to that effect...

So, from what he was describing, it's less about "we hate certain people because they were born with a different level of pigment or from a different country", and more about "the ideological forces that are advocating for those groups are the same ones attempting to undermine the moral order we've built over the last 1000 years"

Again, the ability to couch your racism in ways that make it more palatable to the general populace is merely indicative of self-awareness and a good PR guy.

 

[bèlla]

I think Fuentes is controlled opposition and permitted to say what he does much like Candace. Both achieve the same result of divide and conquer. The questions surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder in addition to the war in Gaza and funding Israel and Ukraine have forced the issue for conservatives and christians. There’s many who wouldn’t have tolerated Fuentes in the past but his message is less offensive now.

And Myron Gaines isn’t black. He’s Sudanese and Arab.

~bella

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem - TradCaths are a relatively recent development, at least as a significant subgroup within the Church, and a significant percentage of them are converts.

It would appear that the movement has been around since the 70's (both in the US and abroad)

Traditionalist Catholicism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And it would seem as if the Vatican/Holy See has given some of these groups at least partial recognition and ability to operate under the Catholic moniker with their "blessing".

So perhaps that's some internal business that the Vatican should be sorting out or being more scrutinizing with.

Again, the ability to couch your racism in ways that make it more palatable to the general populace is merely indicative of self-awareness and a good PR guy.

I was referring to the statements made by the former Bishop turned Lutheran guy (pertaining to how the movement/order fostered the kinds of attitudes Fuentes has), not to the actual statements/justifications by Fuentes.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It would appear that the movement has been around since the 70's (both in the US and abroad)

Traditionalist Catholicism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And it would seem as if the Vatican/Holy See has given some of these groups at least partial recognition and ability to operate under the Catholic moniker with their "blessing".

So perhaps that's some internal business that the Vatican should be sorting out or being more scrutinizing with.

Yes, it's been around since Vatican II (which is, itself, relatively recent in the scale of Church history, but that's by the by). I was specifically referring to the rise in prominence that the group has experienced over the past decade-ish, especially among American Catholics and on social media. And the Vatican has tried to address it - part of the problem is that a significant percentage of (mostly) American Catholics have been stepping right up to the line of schism, especially with the previous Pope. I've said it before on here, but I think there's a pretty good chance of an American Catholic Church splitting off from the RCC in the next decade or two.

'A step back in time': America's Catholic Church sees an immense shift toward the old ways

Across the United States, the Catholic church is undergoing an immense shift. Generations of Catholics are increasingly embracing religious conservatives who believe the church has been twisted by change.

apnews.com

The Growth of the Latin Mass: A Survey

The traditional Latin Mass seems to be on every Catholic’s mind right now, up to and including the pope’s. The recent motu proprio Traditionis Custodes restricting the celebration of the TLM has…

crisismagazine.com

I was referring to the statements made by the former Bishop turned Lutheran guy (pertaining to how the movement/order fostered the kinds of attitudes Fuentes has), not to the actual statements/justifications by Fuentes.

Okay? And how does that relate to our discussion? Are you trying to say that the problem isn't racism, but rather Traditional Catholicism? Because I wouldn't frame it as an either-or thing - TradCaths are a problem on a spiritual level for the Church, and the movement has a tendency to attract people with racist views. The fact that they can reframe their racism as "preserving the moral order" or whatever doesn't change the fact that it's still racism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Okay? And how does that relate to our discussion? Are you trying to say that the problem isn't racism, but rather Traditional Catholicism? Because I wouldn't frame it as an either-or thing - TradCaths are a problem on a spiritual level for the Church, and the movement has a tendency to attract people with racist views. The fact that they can reframe their racism as "preserving the moral order" or whatever doesn't change the fact that it's still racism.

It may not be a true "either-or" thing as you mentioned, could be a combination of both having the ideologies that would attract someone like as well as having the propensity for creating new ones.

Although people will often try to separate the two (usually in the name of political correctness or politeness), doctrine and behavior can't be entirely decoupled.

(just to use another example)
The same way that some very strict sects of the Southern Baptist church will not only attract the type of people who already have certain biases against gay people, but a lot of the preaching/teaching will also inculcate people with those views who may have not already had them before.

Not to get too into the realm of potential apologetics (since I know that's not the purpose of the forum), I'd assert that the "TradCatholic" movement isn't as far of a far cry from the mainline as people are thinking. And some of the core underpinnings lend themselves to an easy slide from one into the other.

I don't think I'm saying anything false or "out of line" by pointing out that compared to some other Christian denominations, even the more mainline Catholic church does put a pretty high level of emphasis on the concepts of hierarchy, "maintaining the religious order", and preserving authoritative traditions.

So how much of the "trad" stuff is an actual offshoot?, vs. a case where it's a set of concepts that are being taken to their logical conclusion?.

I would say another apropos example would be between the LDS and FLDS sects of Mormonism.

In both cases, it would seem like the "more mainstream" counterpart is simply a case where the people in it are just exercising the minimum amount restraint required to not practice the things in their doctrine that happen to run afoul of certain social norms or secular laws. But nevertheless, it's still there in the doctrine, which means a percentage people are going to read it and embrace regardless of what the laws and norms of their nation dictate.


For example, I was part of a hypothetical religion that embraced Marijuana as a sacrament (sort of like the Zion Coptics), and it's outlined in the doctrines. Me saying "Well, I realize this concept is in our holy writings, but since the laws of the state we're in don't permit it, we just sort of don't practice that part and pretend it's not there"

Undoubtedly there will be some who say "hmmm...well if we're to be taking this book seriously, we're going to do it regardless of what society says, so we're going to form our own separate denomination", and that would be the natural consequence of exposing someone to those texts in the first place.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not to get too into the realm of potential apologetics (since I know that's not the purpose of the forum), I'd assert that the "TradCatholic" movement isn't as far of a far cry from the mainline as people are thinking. And some of the core underpinnings lend themselves to an easy slide from one into the other.

To an external viewer, I can see how that might be a reasonable conclusion. Doesn't mean that it's correct though.

I don't think I'm saying anything false or "out of line" by pointing out that compared to some other Christian denominations, even the more mainline Catholic church does put a pretty high level of emphasis on the concepts of hierarchy, "maintaining the religious order", and preserving authoritative traditions.

The rise of the TradCath movement has been explicitly about rejecting Church hierarchies - specifically, disagreements with the previous Pope. It's a fundamentally "populist" (for lack of a better word) movement driven primarily by laypeople/parishioners rather than Church leadership. In some ways, it can be likened to the rise of Protestantism.

You're seizing on one (relatively narrow) aspect of the movement and trying to extrapolate that into...I'm still unclear on where you're going with this or how it relates to Nick Fuentes being a white supremacist and antisemite.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The rise of the TradCath movement has been explicitly about rejecting Church hierarchies - specifically, disagreements with the previous Pope. It's a fundamentally "populist" (for lack of a better word) movement driven primarily by laypeople/parishioners rather than Church leadership. In some ways, it can be likened to the rise of Protestantism.

You're seizing on one (relatively narrow) aspect of the movement and trying to extrapolate that into...I'm still unclear on where you're going with this or how it relates to Nick Fuentes being a white supremacist and antisemite.

I'm more curious as to figure out where he was inculcated with those values systems.

It's easy to say he's a racist/antisemite now, but where did that originate?

Typically "Part Hispanic & raised in Chicago, attended Chicago Public School system, class President, studying Polic-Sci at Boston University" isn't the formula one would associate with end up with that type of "trajectory".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm more curious as to figure out where he was inculcated with those values systems.

It's easy to say he's a racist/antisemite now, but where did that originate?

Typically "Part Hispanic & raised in Chicago, attended Chicago Public School system, class President, studying Polic-Sci at Boston University" isn't the formula one would associate with end up with that type of "trajectory".

The easy answer is "the internet."

Seems like his parents were also an influence: Racism Runs In Fuentes Family?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is this issue dividing conservatives? Well, yes.

Heritage Antisemitism Task Force Leader Resigns Over Conservative Group’s Defense of Tucker Carlson’s Nick Fuentes Interview​

Mark Goldfeder resigned Sunday from the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, a project that falls under the Heritage Foundation, after the conservative think tank’s leadership chose “to defend and even celebrate Tucker Carlson’s decision to platform Nick Fuentes — a figure whose record of overt racism, sexism, and antisemitism is beyond dispute,” he wrote.

Goldfeder, CEO and director of the nonprofit National Jewish Advocacy Center, posted his resignation letter on X, adding that while Heritage has done “valuable work … I cannot serve under someone who thinks Nazis are worth debating.”

[Debating? It sounds like Tucker and Nick were high fiving each other.]

Full letter quoted in article. Here's a bit more.

Unfortunately, the recent decision by Heritage leadership to defend and even celebrate Tucker Carlson’s decision to platform Nick Fuentes—a figure whose record of overt racism, sexism, and antisemitism is beyond dispute—makes continued participation impossible. Elevating him, and then attacking those who object as somehow un-American or disloyal, in a video replete with antisemitic tropes and dog-whistles no less, is not the protection of free speech: It is moral collapse disguised as courage.

Free speech includes the right to associate, and equally, the right not to. Choosing not to share a platform with bigotry is not censorship; it’s conscience.

 

[rambot]

I don't know Fuentes from a hole in the ground but I had this theory that Secular conservatives will tend to be more critical of Israel and not understand the support while christian Conservatives view support for ISrael as a spiritual commandment by God at best (and a conflict that is meant to usher in the End Times, at worst).

Either way, I do NOT support Israel but I wouldn't express my lack of support the way Fuentes and carlson seem to (From the little I've seen).

 

[Chesterton]

[Debating? It sounds like Tucker and Nick were high fiving each other.]

Very observant. It was an interview, not a debate.

 

[Chesterton]

Either way, I do NOT support Israel but I wouldn't express my lack of support the way Fuentes and carlson seem to (From the little I've seen).

And you're free to do or not do that. Does that freedom extend to others or just you?

 

[rambot]

And you're free to do or not do that. Does that freedom extend to others or just you?

How come you ask that question?

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm more curious as to figure out where he was inculcated with those values systems.

It's easy to say he's a racist/antisemite now, but where did that originate?

Fuentes has been an (online) anti-semite and alt-right personality since roughly late 2016.

There is some information that some of his view are derived from those of his parents, in combination with a media diet that was made up of fringe conservative/right wing alternative media.

There's also some (potentially unreliable) information that his high-school friend group was into the manosphere/redpill/MGTOW thing, and were active in the GamerGate controversy in 2014-2015. He seems exactly the right age and background to have fallen for that whole toxic sludge of racism, sexism and misogyny on the various 'chan' boards at the time.

He's said that he was a fan of Alex Jones/InfoWars, Milo Yiannopoulus and various other fringe weirdos pushed through Breitbart. The caveat here is that Fuentes is anything from a reliable narrator, even about himself.

He seems to have publicly embraced various strains of paleoconservatism, white supremacy, ultranationalism, Christian identarianism and eventually neo-Nazism during his time streaming on DLive in 2016-2017. That service was notorious for its lack of content moderation (think Parler, Gab, Rumble or B.itchute now), so it's a little bit of a chicken and egg scenario as well. Did he become who he was due to the (profitable) feedback loop there, or did he already hold those views and just felt comfortable getting them out and getting paid for it?