The Left long ago abandoned logic and non-contradiction with little apparent effect on their reach, so perhaps Fuentes's shtick should not be surprising. We are just not used to seeing it from a Right influencer.
I can't believe I have to write this because it's so stunningly obvious. Fuentes' racism (or his fathers for that matter) is no greater or lesser than the average black or brown person's. The issue here is not Fuentes but the double standard that you and others have for whites. I reject those double standards. Either all are allowed to make jokes or no one. Either we're all allowed to preference our race for dating, hiring, friendship, or none of us are. Which is it going to be Rob? And when can we expect you to write similar articles aimed at non-whites?
He’s not making jokes and no reasonable person could infer that they are such - he is promoting vile ideologies, aided by grifters like Tucker Carlson. I am just grateful for honest commentators, like Rob Henderson, who possesses an extraordinary level of insight, who can explain what is happening in plain English.
Precisely how is Tucker Carlson a "grifter". He's built a subscription platform on the Internet. People join and pay for what they like. What are your thoughts on Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann, and the like? Are they more or less legitimate and deserving of their public platforms than Carlson?
They're entitled to their platforms. We didn't have to listen to them, and I don't, because from what I hear from about them, they don't sound like they are saying things worthy of my limited attention.
At some point their hatefulness and prejudice and irrationality needs to be countered with reason , but I didn't think they are of enough influence to be worth it. Giving them attention is just playing into their hands and amplifying and maybe even legitimizing their message.
> The issue here is not Fuentes but the double standard that you and others have for whites. I reject those double standards. Either all are allowed to make jokes or no one. Either we're all allowed to preference our race for dating, hiring, friendship, or none of us are. Which is it going to be Rob? And when can we expect you to write similar articles aimed at non-whites?
Er, his entire oeuvre for the past decade since he started writing? What do you think luxury beliefs *mean*?
In a messenger conversation with two friends I mentioned the other day that politics seems to have fully reached the level of professional wrestling, where the audience knows that everything is theater, and the narrative being played out is mostly for the benefit of functioning as a projection screen: people by and large do not truly know their preferences (which can be understood as the integration of all values a person holds, or what would emerge from the alchemical process if they were successfully integrated anyway). And because value integration is hard work, it is *much easier* to respond intuitively to a dramatized version of that alchemical process, especially one where you can also observe the reaction of many other people watching the same spectacle. So, for me, political theater has become this: the publicly available drama that, under more normal (non-Kayfabe) circumstances would be going on as internal thinking in a person is externalities — because thinking is hard. And in a way, I think this really *is* replacing fairy tales and fictional movies as the means for people to figure out their stance on topics. One reason I sense this is happening is that fictional stories can only ever get so close to the reality which needs to be decided about, and the speed by which decisions need to be made (think of the geopolitical moves by Russia, China, and Venezuela with respect to heavy crude oil reserves in the latter), that people would rather see this all played out as a drama in real time… it’s a risky move, but I assume it paid off before, when apes became reflectively conscious, and had an inner theater (the mind) to play out conflicts, only that we have not learned to simulate outcomes as large as planetary consequences in our mental inner theaters, and so we require much larger projection screens…
That's right and we've observed that for decades in the racial identity left. That's why when a black, criminal named George Floyd overdoses on Fentanyl while in police custody the left and their media, corporate, Hollywood, NGO, and political apparatus speak with one voice to demonize the entire white race for the actions of one white cop who did....nothing wrong. They can even pretend that the officers actions weren't standard police protocol or that the other three officers involved weren't white and voiced zero concern with their white colleagues technique. And that white cop can even by found guilty in a kangaroo court and then nearly murdered in prison for a crime he didn't commit. That kind of racial identitarianism is not new to anyone in America -- the only thing that's new is Fuentes is playing that exact game for whites on the right...and now there's endless gnashing of teeth and pearl clutching by the fake, woke elites. I shake my head every day reading this vacuous drivel, faux outrage, and blatant hypocrisy.
Thank you, this is the absolute best commentary I have read about Fuentes - although I have to observe that it also seems to apply to Tucker Carlson (who is actually scarier to me because he has managed to convince a lot of influential people that he is a “truth teller” even though he is not - rather, it seems he is infected by the same virus as Fuentes).
Is this a bot? How could you possibly have missed the commentary pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies being promulgated by Carlson? Starting with his Putin interview and travelogue about Moscow - moving forward to his constant insinuations about Israel and the Jews, including platforming and promoting (not asking any probing questions whatsoever) of the so-called “historian” who seeks to recast the history of World War II - his unhinged and incorrect assessment of the likely effects of our preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities - and, most recently, his trip to and interview in Qatar (which omits any acknowledgment of the realities of living in that country, especially for Christians). Rather than posting a string of citations, I refer anyone actually interested to the excellent coverage being provided on an ongoing basis by
You wanted more histrionics and gotcha style questions of Putin -- that's a perfectly valid if not particularly original opinion to hold. I disagree. But what was Carlson's lie, exactly? What insinuations about Israel are you particularly upset with Carlson about? Is he not allowed to ask questions or hold opinions about AIPAC and lobbies that actively work to influence American politics or gain access to weapons, intelligence, and funding from American taxpayers? And you have every right to criticize everything he says or does but, I am struggling to find the lie exactly and appreciate your clarification. I suspect Carlson really does feel AIPAC holds a great deal of influence over foreign policy and so does Jon Mersheimer and a great many others. These are sincere opinions and you likely disagree with them I can only guess.
"The moral charge of racism does not bother him. The suggestion that he belongs to a lower rank of backwards bigots does." Is true and sad because most of us feel that way now. When the definition of racism changed rapidly during the pandemic it took me an odd couple of years to realize that according to the elites controlling the 2020 discourse I was a racist (by believing in equality of opportunity despite race, not equity because of it). The elites who apologize for being white also believe they are racists, but better than the "backwater bigots". The more I learn about this character the less I like, and I only have heard of him because he's now popular, but this particular shtik of his wouldn't work if it weren't the pendulum swinging back hard.
I think Rob is an important voice for sanity, but I think this analysis is a little bit lacking.
I disagree with the contradiction in terms of the Dad. It’s extremely reasonable that he wouldn’t want to give his Dad the same labels he gives himself. 1) It could get his dad fired (like he said). The word still has meaning for OTHER people, 2) Who actually cares about his Dad? That’s kind of weirdly personal and, 3) Maybe his dad is actually not racist. Who knows? Maybe Pierce should have got him on the show, Jerry Springer style.
His whole point is these are just words that are used to stifle his critiques. He’s just an extreme version (possibly some dark-triad in there) of someone who became highly oppositional after being punished for critiquing out-group behavior. If you live in a highly non-normative, multi-cultural society, a lot of the critiques you will have will naturally involve other groups and norms just by sheer probability. Out-group critique by the (current) majority is punished in our society - a massive departure from most (all?) of human history. What happens when you effectively criminalize the ideas that work for the largest amount of people in a society? It seems like it’s making some people snap.
It’s unclear if the new, incoming majorities will have these same thought restrictions. So characters like this are pushing back like it’s their last chance, anticipating a sort of internal Thucydides Trap, and trampling some legitimate pieties in the process.
Okay, maybe -- I can consider that possibility. But to make that claim you should also state which views of his are the paid, insincere views that he does not organically hold and ideally some evidence of this insincerity. Otherwise you're just making baseless accusations on no evidence. And, we wouldn't want to do that right?
He’s a social media influencer. All his views are paid. None of them are sincere. He repeats whatever maximizes engagement and shifts whenever the incentives do. The contradictions themselves are the evidence. He’s a puppet, and anyone can pull the strings. And if you want to know who’s pulling them, ask who benefits.
Yeah perhaps so. I don't think there's any question Fuente's is offering white identity political commentary and that he collects payment from fans and viewers although he's been largely banned from most platforms and thus unable to collect any compensation from the best paying venue's such as YouTube. So in your view, no YouTube or X or Substack communication that involves compensation can be considered sincere? And do you apply that idea pretty equally? Are we not chatting in a thread only by way of paying for a subscription to Rob Henderson's substack and all Henderson's works here insincere? And if not then could you elaborate a finer point to make the distinction please.
Both Fuentes and Henderson are modern internet-based influencers. Fuentes is a lot more famous, and making a lot more money now, but of course he has a different schtick. He's a talented, performative, broadcast-style entertainer--similar to Morgan and Carlson, but quicker and more talented than both. Rob is trying to go the academic intellectual route, and I appreciate that which I why I subscribe.
If you don’t understand the difference between subscription-based economies and ad-based economies, and their underlying incentives, then you’re not equipped for this conversation.
I guess I am therefore dismissed. I don't believe you have any data either way on Fuentes and how he's paid. My best guess is that it's largely not ad-based for the obvious reason that most ad platforms banned him.
You did not. You just vaguely said it must be someone else and to look at "who benefits" and then insulted me as "not equipped for this conversation". It is pretty apparent that you're incensed by Fuentes, your comments are emotionally driven, and thus it's you who aren't equipped.
This is a sharp diagnosis. What’s being exposed here isn’t just extremism, it’s instability of self. He survives by switching frames faster than accountability can land. When someone can’t hold a single identity under pressure, contradiction becomes the strategy. Long form doesn’t defeat ideas — it reveals whether there’s a real person underneath them.
Excellent review of this show. However, each show organized by Piers Morgan would end up like a delicate Morton Downey Jr.-like show.
One one hand, we can live happily ever after without listening to Fuentes, Tim Pool and others or, on the other hand, all of them make it obvious how much Charlie Kirk is missed, because he has left us with a void of common sense. May his memory be eternal!
The Left long ago abandoned logic and non-contradiction with little apparent effect on their reach, so perhaps Fuentes's shtick should not be surprising. We are just not used to seeing it from a Right influencer.
I can't believe I have to write this because it's so stunningly obvious. Fuentes' racism (or his fathers for that matter) is no greater or lesser than the average black or brown person's. The issue here is not Fuentes but the double standard that you and others have for whites. I reject those double standards. Either all are allowed to make jokes or no one. Either we're all allowed to preference our race for dating, hiring, friendship, or none of us are. Which is it going to be Rob? And when can we expect you to write similar articles aimed at non-whites?
He’s not making jokes and no reasonable person could infer that they are such - he is promoting vile ideologies, aided by grifters like Tucker Carlson. I am just grateful for honest commentators, like Rob Henderson, who possesses an extraordinary level of insight, who can explain what is happening in plain English.
Precisely how is Tucker Carlson a "grifter". He's built a subscription platform on the Internet. People join and pay for what they like. What are your thoughts on Joy Behar, Keith Olbermann, and the like? Are they more or less legitimate and deserving of their public platforms than Carlson?
They're entitled to their platforms. We didn't have to listen to them, and I don't, because from what I hear from about them, they don't sound like they are saying things worthy of my limited attention.
At some point their hatefulness and prejudice and irrationality needs to be countered with reason , but I didn't think they are of enough influence to be worth it. Giving them attention is just playing into their hands and amplifying and maybe even legitimizing their message.
And Carlson and similar will do what they can to counter your prejudice and irrationality and so it goes.
Exactly, he's free to listen to me, or not, and I'm free to listen to him, or not.
> The issue here is not Fuentes but the double standard that you and others have for whites. I reject those double standards. Either all are allowed to make jokes or no one. Either we're all allowed to preference our race for dating, hiring, friendship, or none of us are. Which is it going to be Rob? And when can we expect you to write similar articles aimed at non-whites?
Er, his entire oeuvre for the past decade since he started writing? What do you think luxury beliefs *mean*?
In a messenger conversation with two friends I mentioned the other day that politics seems to have fully reached the level of professional wrestling, where the audience knows that everything is theater, and the narrative being played out is mostly for the benefit of functioning as a projection screen: people by and large do not truly know their preferences (which can be understood as the integration of all values a person holds, or what would emerge from the alchemical process if they were successfully integrated anyway). And because value integration is hard work, it is *much easier* to respond intuitively to a dramatized version of that alchemical process, especially one where you can also observe the reaction of many other people watching the same spectacle. So, for me, political theater has become this: the publicly available drama that, under more normal (non-Kayfabe) circumstances would be going on as internal thinking in a person is externalities — because thinking is hard. And in a way, I think this really *is* replacing fairy tales and fictional movies as the means for people to figure out their stance on topics. One reason I sense this is happening is that fictional stories can only ever get so close to the reality which needs to be decided about, and the speed by which decisions need to be made (think of the geopolitical moves by Russia, China, and Venezuela with respect to heavy crude oil reserves in the latter), that people would rather see this all played out as a drama in real time… it’s a risky move, but I assume it paid off before, when apes became reflectively conscious, and had an inner theater (the mind) to play out conflicts, only that we have not learned to simulate outcomes as large as planetary consequences in our mental inner theaters, and so we require much larger projection screens…
That's right and we've observed that for decades in the racial identity left. That's why when a black, criminal named George Floyd overdoses on Fentanyl while in police custody the left and their media, corporate, Hollywood, NGO, and political apparatus speak with one voice to demonize the entire white race for the actions of one white cop who did....nothing wrong. They can even pretend that the officers actions weren't standard police protocol or that the other three officers involved weren't white and voiced zero concern with their white colleagues technique. And that white cop can even by found guilty in a kangaroo court and then nearly murdered in prison for a crime he didn't commit. That kind of racial identitarianism is not new to anyone in America -- the only thing that's new is Fuentes is playing that exact game for whites on the right...and now there's endless gnashing of teeth and pearl clutching by the fake, woke elites. I shake my head every day reading this vacuous drivel, faux outrage, and blatant hypocrisy.
Thank you, this is the absolute best commentary I have read about Fuentes - although I have to observe that it also seems to apply to Tucker Carlson (who is actually scarier to me because he has managed to convince a lot of influential people that he is a “truth teller” even though he is not - rather, it seems he is infected by the same virus as Fuentes).
What specific lies has Tucker told that you're concerned with? Thanks in advance for clarifying. We wouldn't want to just make baseless claims, right?
Is this a bot? How could you possibly have missed the commentary pointing out the inconsistencies and outright lies being promulgated by Carlson? Starting with his Putin interview and travelogue about Moscow - moving forward to his constant insinuations about Israel and the Jews, including platforming and promoting (not asking any probing questions whatsoever) of the so-called “historian” who seeks to recast the history of World War II - his unhinged and incorrect assessment of the likely effects of our preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities - and, most recently, his trip to and interview in Qatar (which omits any acknowledgment of the realities of living in that country, especially for Christians). Rather than posting a string of citations, I refer anyone actually interested to the excellent coverage being provided on an ongoing basis by
https://x.com/aghamilton29?s=21 , The Free Press, Ben Shapiro (Daily Wire), among others.
You wanted more histrionics and gotcha style questions of Putin -- that's a perfectly valid if not particularly original opinion to hold. I disagree. But what was Carlson's lie, exactly? What insinuations about Israel are you particularly upset with Carlson about? Is he not allowed to ask questions or hold opinions about AIPAC and lobbies that actively work to influence American politics or gain access to weapons, intelligence, and funding from American taxpayers? And you have every right to criticize everything he says or does but, I am struggling to find the lie exactly and appreciate your clarification. I suspect Carlson really does feel AIPAC holds a great deal of influence over foreign policy and so does Jon Mersheimer and a great many others. These are sincere opinions and you likely disagree with them I can only guess.
"The moral charge of racism does not bother him. The suggestion that he belongs to a lower rank of backwards bigots does." Is true and sad because most of us feel that way now. When the definition of racism changed rapidly during the pandemic it took me an odd couple of years to realize that according to the elites controlling the 2020 discourse I was a racist (by believing in equality of opportunity despite race, not equity because of it). The elites who apologize for being white also believe they are racists, but better than the "backwater bigots". The more I learn about this character the less I like, and I only have heard of him because he's now popular, but this particular shtik of his wouldn't work if it weren't the pendulum swinging back hard.
I think Rob is an important voice for sanity, but I think this analysis is a little bit lacking.
I disagree with the contradiction in terms of the Dad. It’s extremely reasonable that he wouldn’t want to give his Dad the same labels he gives himself. 1) It could get his dad fired (like he said). The word still has meaning for OTHER people, 2) Who actually cares about his Dad? That’s kind of weirdly personal and, 3) Maybe his dad is actually not racist. Who knows? Maybe Pierce should have got him on the show, Jerry Springer style.
His whole point is these are just words that are used to stifle his critiques. He’s just an extreme version (possibly some dark-triad in there) of someone who became highly oppositional after being punished for critiquing out-group behavior. If you live in a highly non-normative, multi-cultural society, a lot of the critiques you will have will naturally involve other groups and norms just by sheer probability. Out-group critique by the (current) majority is punished in our society - a massive departure from most (all?) of human history. What happens when you effectively criminalize the ideas that work for the largest amount of people in a society? It seems like it’s making some people snap.
It’s unclear if the new, incoming majorities will have these same thought restrictions. So characters like this are pushing back like it’s their last chance, anticipating a sort of internal Thucydides Trap, and trampling some legitimate pieties in the process.
Nick Fuentes is an op.
Okay, maybe -- I can consider that possibility. But to make that claim you should also state which views of his are the paid, insincere views that he does not organically hold and ideally some evidence of this insincerity. Otherwise you're just making baseless accusations on no evidence. And, we wouldn't want to do that right?
He’s a social media influencer. All his views are paid. None of them are sincere. He repeats whatever maximizes engagement and shifts whenever the incentives do. The contradictions themselves are the evidence. He’s a puppet, and anyone can pull the strings. And if you want to know who’s pulling them, ask who benefits.
Yeah perhaps so. I don't think there's any question Fuente's is offering white identity political commentary and that he collects payment from fans and viewers although he's been largely banned from most platforms and thus unable to collect any compensation from the best paying venue's such as YouTube. So in your view, no YouTube or X or Substack communication that involves compensation can be considered sincere? And do you apply that idea pretty equally? Are we not chatting in a thread only by way of paying for a subscription to Rob Henderson's substack and all Henderson's works here insincere? And if not then could you elaborate a finer point to make the distinction please.
Both Fuentes and Henderson are modern internet-based influencers. Fuentes is a lot more famous, and making a lot more money now, but of course he has a different schtick. He's a talented, performative, broadcast-style entertainer--similar to Morgan and Carlson, but quicker and more talented than both. Rob is trying to go the academic intellectual route, and I appreciate that which I why I subscribe.
If you don’t understand the difference between subscription-based economies and ad-based economies, and their underlying incentives, then you’re not equipped for this conversation.
I guess I am therefore dismissed. I don't believe you have any data either way on Fuentes and how he's paid. My best guess is that it's largely not ad-based for the obvious reason that most ad platforms banned him.
If you think he's a puppet, then who is pulling his strings?
I already answered that.
You did not. You just vaguely said it must be someone else and to look at "who benefits" and then insulted me as "not equipped for this conversation". It is pretty apparent that you're incensed by Fuentes, your comments are emotionally driven, and thus it's you who aren't equipped.
Oy
This is a sharp diagnosis. What’s being exposed here isn’t just extremism, it’s instability of self. He survives by switching frames faster than accountability can land. When someone can’t hold a single identity under pressure, contradiction becomes the strategy. Long form doesn’t defeat ideas — it reveals whether there’s a real person underneath them.
Excellent review of this show. However, each show organized by Piers Morgan would end up like a delicate Morton Downey Jr.-like show.
One one hand, we can live happily ever after without listening to Fuentes, Tim Pool and others or, on the other hand, all of them make it obvious how much Charlie Kirk is missed, because he has left us with a void of common sense. May his memory be eternal!