Nick Fuentes won’t debate me. Not only will he not debate me, he won’t risk having any contact with me whatsoever. Apparently, he doesn’t want to risk getting rolled like he’s been doing to those TPUSA clowns.
See, I have a (not very active) Twitter account that I use solely to troll anti-semites. When I say anti-semites, I don’t mean your grandmother saying “Jew ’em down.” I mean full-retard anti-semitism, which is a monomaniacal form of Dunning-Kruger effect (esoteric Dunning-Kruger, you might call it) that’s starting to become dangerous again thanks in part to a perfusion of unlettered mountebanks on Twitter, who are easy to skewer because their view of history and anthropology is just a lot of sub-literate jews ex machina. I’ve had the pleasure of BTFOing (and being blocked by) numerous such alt-right “thought” leaders:
But having never gotten around to aiming a single barb at Nick Fuentes, when I went to view his Twitter account amid the recent flurry of media attention surrounding his “Groyper War,” I was surprised to find that he had blocked me. I have fewer than 100 Twitter followers and, as far as I can tell, there are maybe three or four dozen regular readers of this blog. So for someone like Fuentes who’s in the national media spotlight to take precautionary measures against me seemed strange. But activism, after all, is a form of PR. I have a great deal of suspicion for anyone who makes a business out of it—the more vehement they are, the more suspect. Fuentes is clearly a savvy marketer, and like all savvy marketers, his effectiveness depends on the simplicity of his message, and the credulity of his audience. In this regard, he really is no different than Charlie Kirk.
For example, here is Nick debating some (apparently Jewish) little weirdo in a MAGA hat. The subject? Israel. I couldn’t stomach a whole 90 minutes of Fuentes smirking insufferably at this poor braying sperg (and neither should you) but I did watch the first few minutes. Right out of the gate, Nick states that Israel’s interests run counter to America’s, because America is interested in defeating ISIS, and Israel is not. Of course, if Nick is referring to the interests of the U.S. government, this is laughable obscurantism, and if he’s referring to the interests of the common American folk, one would think his paleocon isolationism would’ve kicked in to stop him advocating foreign wars. But what’s more revealing is when he goes on to opine that Israel is a pariah state, because its foreign policy is to divide its enemies against one another, and that this has caused a great deal of mideast instability, particularly the Syrian civil war.
Now, if you only breathe through one of the holes in your head, this sounds logical. But does any country that has enemies not have a policy of dividing them? Every country in the mideast has a policy of dividing Syria. Even Assad has a policy of dividing Syria, it’s how his family stayed in power when most of the country’s Sunnis hate them. Exacerbating wars among our enemies is the entirety of Brzezinski’s argument in The Grand Chessboard. Accordingly, the U.S. supports separatist insurgencies all over the mideast and Central Asia. Russia does the same thing, arming separatists in breakaway regions of U.S.-allied former Soviet states like Ukraine and Georgia.
What this leads me to is what has always been creepy and worm-infested about the left anti-war movement of the G.W. aughts, as well as paleocon isolationism and its offshoots in the alt-right. Here’s a heinous (if warmed-over) example of the former:
“Time for a full response from Beijing”? Are you sure it isn’t actually time to light more communists on fire? Because I have no doubt that Galloway, apologist that he is for every form of Muslim violence (when it’s directed against Israel or the west), knows all about China’s “full response” to its Muslim population. Yet the alt-right, which is so opposed to (near non-existent) internet censorship here in the west, largely thinks like Galloway when it comes to China’s censorship regime:
How’s that for “cultural Marxism”?
Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not a neocon. War is probably less destructive than saran-wrap and styrofoam packing peanuts, but I’m not interested in more of it. It’s just that war is interested in me, and you, and everyone.
The simple fact is that if you’re against American global hegemony, you’re against America. The founders were as liberal as it was possible to be in the 18th century, and they were not isolationists, they were expansionists—even Jefferson. Especially Jefferson. (What’s so hard to understand about “All men”?) So it’s lovely to think that we could all just go back to a rustic yeoman’s republic—and as soon as I have about $7 million for a lake in western Maine, that’s exactly what I’ll do. But even if you’re stuck in the ‘burbs, no one’s stopping you from doing plenty of prepping and bartering, it’s just that that’s not what attention-seeker Nick Fuentes and e-celeb Richard Spencer and e-marketer E. Michael Jones and all the rest of them are doing, or encouraging you to do. No, they’re busy titillating themselves on social media—and making a randy go of it, considering they have no cleavage to recommend them. In the words of the poet,
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
Well, that was in 1939—today, we “see [exactly] where we are,” we just want to blame someone else for it, and pad our PayPals and Patreons doing it. This is not the mentality of free men. And all these e-dissidents want the lights kept on just as badly as Joel Osteen, Howard Stern, and Rage Against the Machine do, even if it means bombing Tehran. Liberal democracy has created more power, prosperity, security and innovation than all the fascist strongmen the alt-right so longs for, combined, and they’re feeding off of it like pigs in a trough, scuttling every minute of their day into artificial diversions. “I can’t believe I’m doing this, I swear I’m not that kind of girl” is all their activism amounts to. Without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these alt-right clowns would be warming his hands over a trash can fire.
So Fuentes can call his podcast “America First!”, but if America is as bad as he and every other little alt-right hype-man says it is, then America’s adversaries are necessarily sympathetic. These fuckwits think dystopian China is “based” and Russians are like, the Amish or something. But nothing could be further from reality than the suggestion that Putin’s Russia is a defender of “traditional” values. Church attendance there is extremely low. One-third of all Russian families are fatherless. The country has the highest abortion rate in the world, yet its fertility rate is among the lowest—except among lumpen Muslim migrants from Central Asia, who are everywhere in Russian cities, and may soon comprise as much as a third of the country’s total population. And Putin’s archimandrites are as parasitical as even the most Jewish of his oligarchs:
Granted, I’m not a big fan of PornHub, or drag kids on ketamine, but if you think America is so satanic, you might want to ask yourself: is what China is doing to the Muslims of Xinjiang (and to its Christian population, by the way, including Catholics) not satanic? Is Iran’s treatment of Christians in that country not satanic? Is Putin, as a man and a leader, not satanic in his own right? No? Are you sure? Don’t be ridiculous. Either America rules the world, or China does, and if you live in America this should be a no-brainer. Either Saudi Arabia fixes oil prices at our behest, or Putin fixes them at China’s behest, and jacks up the price of everything you eat on a daily basis.
And it’s not just a matter of economics. Russia and China heavily censor the internet. Isn’t that the problem all these alt-right Iran apologists think they have with Twitter and YouTube? (Even though those platforms give the alt-right 99.9% of its considerable reach.) Russia, on the other hand, just banned Wikipedia outright, the same way it did PornHub a few years back. How infantilizing is that? Does a sufferable regime need to limit its citizens’ access to information? Would you rather have Putin stop you from masturbating, or stop yourself? I get that the NSA and Facebook are using our data against us, but their Chinese and Russian equivalents are using their citizens’ data against them, too, for more repressive ends and without nearly as many of the benefits.
Do you really think you wouldn’t get a fairer trial in Duluth or San Antonio than you would in Irkutsk, or Shenzhen? The fuck out of here. Of course I’d rather my AR was full auto, but China won’t let their people have so much as a slingshot, and Russia’s permitting process for the .22 bolt-action squirrel peeler I could take home from Big 5 this minute makes Canada look like Peshawar. (I have family in Russia—I know what I’m talking about.) Yet paleocons want these regimes to have more power. They think it’s wrong to stymie them. Don’t believe me? Here is an article from Pat Buchanan from two days ago in VDare:
On the day it came out, it had not one good word to say about the protesters. Though the article expressed concern for what will ultimately happen to them when PRC cracks down, it more or less called them criminals and lauded Beijing’s restraint. I chastised Buchanan in the comments, and the following day (yesterday), this appeared in TakiMag:
It’s the exact same article, with that one line (“…America is on the right side”) added. That same line has been edited into the VDare piece as well; it wasn’t there on Monday. Well if America is “on the right side” in Hong Kong, then just why does Buchanan think it’s so wrong to call on China to stay its hand? Never mind that this aggressive regime is delighted to stymie America at every opportunity. Never mind that our ports, universities and national labs are crawling with Chinese spies. Never mind that China is pumping fentanyl into this country as part of an open policy of weakening the United States. According to Buchanan, stymieing China in these pursuits by simply voicing moral support for college students fighting for their lives in Hong Kong against the grimmest totalitarianism to yet make an appearance on this planet is meddlesome interference in a sovereign nation’s internal affairs.
Just like liberals and their self-righteous bumper stickers, this is a mentality that can never wonder how the meat gets to market. It is hermetically sealed against the thought that maybe (just maybe) life is sordid, and American machiavellianism abroad is reasonably connected to the material interests and political liberties of the people who live here. Instead, these manicheans who have never been tested for cowardice have to imagine a fairytale enemy, to save themselves from dying of boredom.
Marshall McLuhan put it this way:
You cannot cope with vast amounts of information in the old fragmentary, classified patterns. You tend to go looking for mythic and structural forms in order to manage such complex data.
And that is why Nick Fuentes and the alt-right literally blame everything on Israel. Simply speaking out rationally against e.g. trans kids on ketamine isn’t exciting. It might actually get results, and then what to do with all the sado-masochistic tension these sheltered, vindictive sorts derive from their peculiar form of slave morality? There’d be no edgy titillation to set their activities apart from beer pong, Star Wars, Steven Crowder or any other banal diversion from comfort, convenience and routine. At least people who dig comic book movies realize that they aren’t the protagonist.
So if what you’re really all about is traditional metaphysics, or family values, or free speech—as opposed to just channelling narcissistic aggression onto Twitter—and you think that opposing the Jews is crucial to defending those things, then you’re not really defending them at all. Have you seen Jews? Can you show me on the frog where they hurt you?
What someone like E. Michael Jones can never allow to occur to himself is that the Church gave way to PornHub because, until 1945, it used force, not reason, to keep people in the fold. None of these tradcaths—not EMJ or Nick Fuentes, not herpes-crusted Roosh V or duckbilled Faith Goldy—genuinely wants the kind of mind control by gilded pharisee eunuchs they all pretend to advocate. Porn, student debt, your parents’ divorce, the war no one’s asking you to fight: according to their whole weltanschauung, it has to be the Jews. Scratch the surface of this sad psychology and you’ll find these charlatans aren’t really blaming the Jews for rejecting Christ. They’re blaming the Jews for original sin. Doesn’t their penchant for gibbering about porn all the time strike you a little odd? They don’t actually want to live under the High Church of Sicut Judaeis. No—they just want to see those screws put into other people.
So it should come as no surprise that there is very convincing evidence that Nick Fuentes is gay. (I mean, evidence other than just his impish, Baby Stewie gayface, which has the disproportionally large forehead, pointy chin and horizontally long mouth characteristic of so many gay men, e.g. Pete Buttigieg.) It takes a great deal of cleverness for a gay man to dissimulate as heterosexual, and Fuentes is nothing if not sly. Everybody who’s been to high school has met an over-the-top closet case trying to cover over his sexuality. The Church has always been a hiding-place for these types, and stentorian anti-semitism suits both the gay penchant for melodrama, and the need for extreme dissociation. The model here is of course Father Coughlin, who was deeply closeted (the relevant passage is about nine paragraphs down, but it’s a hum-dinger.) The subconscious logic is, I may be a faggot, but if I denounce the Jews hard enough I might just get into heaven through the back door.
Neither is the type of grug-brained fanatic or impressionable college sophomore to whom Fuentes appeals given to looking askance at any charlatan who offers this kind of easy admission to esoteric intrigues. The Dreyfus Affair was utterly of the same species: the cheap scapegoating of a Jew by a coterie of officers invoking patriotism, Catholicism, and Jewish conspiracy—all in order to cover up their own incompetence, and the treason of one of their colleagues. Again—without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these alt-right clowns would be warming his hands over a trash can. But if my whole schtick was to press Jesus Christ into service e-marketing psychological distance to sub-literates on YouTube, I’d be doing a Father Coughlin impersonation, too.