Conservative Marc Theissen column: Trump built a winning coalition. White nationalists will destroy it.

[ThatRobGuy]

I went to McDonald's for breakfast. The guy who tried to take my order couldn't speak English. I had to wait for the hi-tech image machine to keep moving and show what I wanted so I could point at it. Blood sucking leeches who thrive off of the destruction of the United States. No, not the employee, the multinational corporation.

Unless that experience also caused you to have the conclusion "The Jews are orchestrating this because they have an innate desire to destroy and weaken other nations for their own enrichment so that they can preserve their own strong ethno-state" -- then I don't see what that has to do with Fuentes.

 

[Chesterton]

Unless that experience also caused you to have the conclusion "The Jews are orchestrating this because they have an innate desire to destroy and weaken other nations for their own enrichment so that they can preserve their own strong ethno-state" -- then I don't see what that has to do with Fuentes.

It's obvious you don't see what that has to do with Fuentes. Maybe focus a little less on information technology and a little more on information.

 

[zippy2006]

Censorship is only politically expedient if one's own house "is in order" regards to to the Overton Window.

But suppose the right's house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window, and therefore they rely on censorship to remedy that problem. Suppose, for example, the the right successfully censors the far right. Wouldn't that make them appear more moderate? And wouldn't this be expedient even on our premise that their house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But suppose the right's house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window, and therefore they rely on censorship to remedy that problem. Suppose, for example, the the right successfully censors the far right. Wouldn't that make them appear more moderate? And wouldn't this be expedient even on our premise that their house is not "in order" as regards the Overton Window?

No, censorship would not be expedient for them because they do have a sizeable portion of their base that objects to the concept of social media censorship as a general principle, so it would be one of those "bad look" type of situations.


It'd be sort of like that situation we recently saw with regards to certain republicans in the administration floating the idea of Transgender gun bans.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/politics/nra-transgender-gun-control

Despite the fact that, broadly speaking, the GOP certainly doesn't have a "friendly" relationship with the trans community, the fact that there was level of perceived restrictions of a freedom they hold dear, even if aimed a group they don't particularly get along with, it caused an internal backlash.

 

[zippy2006]

No, censorship would not be expedient for them because they do have a sizeable portion of their base that objects to the concept of social media censorship as a general principle, so it would be one of those "bad look" type of situations.

But isn't that basically what is happening with Fuentes? It's not as if the move to try to make the party exclude Fuentes is without rationale, even from the perspective of political expediency. The only counterargument I can see is something like, "Fuentes isn't extreme enough, therefore it would be a 'bad look'." Okay, but someone to the right of Fuentes could be censored with expedient political effects, no?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's obvious you don't see what that has to do with Fuentes. Maybe focus a little less on information technology and a little more on information.

I've gone down the rabbit holes and watched several full Fuentes interviews and know what he believes.

I've even gone as far as watching full length interviews with people far more extreme than Fuentes, like Gypsy Crusader, who's like Fuentes on Steroids (both figuratively and literally)


Your personal insult notwithstanding... what exactly is this "information" you wanted to discuss?

Posting a 90-minute long video of an opinion-based interview isn't a valid rebuttal in a debate.

You're supposed to be giving me a counterpoint, not an hour and half long subjective homework assignment.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, it’s not merely the greater exposure that the Groypers are getting. It’s also that they’re becoming more numerous on the right, particularly among their younger ranks. Social media isn’t just exposing these folks, it’s creating more of them. The Republican party of old would have censored this stuff themselves.

The GOP are courting danger in a movement they cannot control and will not be content to give any quarter to any sense of morality or respectability.

 

[Chesterton]

I've gone down the rabbit holes and watched several full Fuentes interviews and know what he believes.

I've even gone as far as watching full length interviews with people far more extreme than Fuentes, like Gypsy Crusader, who's like Fuentes on Steroids (both figuratively and literally)

See, this is an example of where you need more complete information. Gypsy has/had mental illness and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Nick. Would Nick ever refer to himself as a "gypsy"?

Your personal insult notwithstanding... what exactly is this "information" you wanted to discuss?

I apologize. I didn't mean any personal insult, but I can see how it sounded that way.

I'd like to discuss how America should behave as every other country outside of the West behaves - in its own interest.

Posting a 90-minute long video of an opinion-based interview isn't a valid rebuttal in a debate.

You're supposed to be giving me a counterpoint, not an hour and half long subjective homework assignment.

Again, sorry. The last couple of weeks you've seemed interested in the "Fuentes phenomenon". You've written a lot about it, I thought you might be interested in spending some time listening to a clear explanation of it.

Is there something specific to which you'd like to hear a counterpoint?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

See, this is an example of where you need more complete information. Gypsy has/had mental illness and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Nick. Would Nick ever refer to himself as a "gypsy"?

Gypsy is a guy who got jumped while videoing at an Antifa rally, and when he (along side of a few members of the Proud Boys fought back and messed some of them up pretty bad), he was the one who got arrested and charged with assault.

I can sympathize with his frustration... he ran 6 blocks and hid multiple times trying to avoid a fight, but when he was cornered and couldn't run and hide anymore, he put some of his professional kickboxing experience to use.

He dresses as the Juaquin Phoenix version of the joker for a reason (someone who's been wronged and had their life ruined, and then went crazy), and says "My message to all other white people, you're one bad day away from becoming me"

I'm not unfamiliar with his backstory.

He should be mentioned in the same sentence in Fuentes because they both have similar views about Jews and Black people (for the same reasons), Fuentes is just a little bit better about not using works that start with K and N to refer to them on their videos.

I apologize. I didn't mean any personal insult, but I can see how it sounded that way.

I'd like to discuss how America should behave as every other country outside of the West behaves - in its own interest.

I have no problem with an "America first" message in a pure sense.

But when that gets dovetailed into a "and this why we should be walled off from any peoples who aren't white Christians", that's where it goes off the rails.

Again, sorry. The last couple of weeks you've seemed interested in the "Fuentes phenomenon". You've written a lot about it, I thought you might be interested in spending some time listening to a clear explanation of it.

Is there something specific to which you'd like to hear a counterpoint?

I'm familiar with him...

He views himself as a "racialist" and not a "racist"

The distinction being a perceived difference in "willful malicious intent", but that's not any different in terms of practical outcomes for the policies that get advocated for.

So (by Fuentes' own definitions)

A racist would say: "I hate Blacks, Jews, and Arabs because they're different than me"

A "racialist" would say: "Sure, Blacks are generally lazy, will commit crimes against other people to get by, and Jews will try to control the money and manipulate everyone to preserve their own ethno state, but that's just because it's ingrained in their DNA, they can't help it, it's not a conscience choice...it's no different than a person being 5'2 instead of 6'0 or being born with red hair"
(which is why Fuentes will do interviews with the Hodge Twins and Candace Owens and be friendly to them)

But the friendliness comes from a place of condescension. He'll talk to them the same way a lot of people would talk to someone who's mentally retarded.

And the end result, in terms of policy conclusions, are the same, which is "the races need to be separated, white people need to have their areas, and black people need to have their areas, and we just need to stay separate and do our own thing"