Video summary
The discussion centers on Nick Fuentes, a prominent figure in the far-right movement who has maintained significant influence despite facing bans, ridicule, and condemnation from mainstream Republicans and media figures like Piers Morgan. The speaker argues that Fuentes's enduring popularity stems not merely from his political stances or populism, but from an ethos that rejects what he terms "pearl clutching"—a refusal to adhere to traditional social norms regarding race, gender, and historical sensitivities. This approach has allowed him to resonate with young white men who feel alienated by progressive cultural shifts, effectively capturing a demographic that feels targeted by accusations of inherent bias or original sin related to their identity. A critical aspect of Fuentes's appeal involves his controversial views on women and sexuality, which the speaker highlights as deeply problematic yet strategically effective within this specific subculture. During an interview with Piers Morgan, Fuentes admitted he is attracted to women but claims they are difficult to be around, further stating that women should not have the right to vote and should stay at home. He also revealed a surprising lack of sexual experience despite his age and charisma, suggesting a voluntary celibacy driven by ideological rigidity rather than inability. The speaker critiques this mindset as adopting a "bad frame of reference" where all women are viewed monolithically, arguing that such closed-mindedness prevents the unlocking of potential in relationships and fosters bitterness instead of partnership. The conversation delves into Fuentes's admiration for historical figures like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, framing these views through the lens of generational trauma and a rejection of established narratives about genocide. When confronted with the horror of Hitler or Maoist policies, Fuentes dismisses them as "cool" to younger generations who feel their families have suffered enough from past atrocities that they no longer need to dwell on history. The speaker counters this by comparing it to an overactive immune system; just as society may sometimes react excessively to gluten while ignoring actual parasites, the cultural response to historical evil has swung too far into denial rather than balanced remembrance. He notes that Mao and Stalin were orders of magnitude more efficient at killing yet are often overshadowed in public discourse by Hitler's brief but intense PR campaign. The speaker concludes that Fuentes functions as a catalyst for shifting the Overton window, not through gradual nudging but by yanking cultural boundaries to new extremes where previously unacceptable ideas become normalized. This strategy relies on the psychological principle that when individuals feel attacked or labeled based on immutable traits like race or gender, they will band together defensively, often radicalizing further in response. While acknowledging Fuentes's undeniable influence and ability to generate content-driven attention, the speaker expresses deep concern that this trajectory could lead an entire generation down a path of intentional alienation. The ultimate hope is that such figures remain fringe anomalies rather than becoming "pied pipers" who successfully steer millions toward aggressive nationalism and racial identity politics based on bitterness.
Read the full video transcript
He is as far as I can tell one of the
most influential people certainly on the
far right, maybe the right in general.
He's guaranteed to get attention. You
actually think he was very [ __ ] cool.
Nick talks about being a big fan of
Stalin. I really hope we don't go down
that path, but it is certainly [music]
possible.
Nick Fuentes was talking to Piers
Morgan. He has captured something that I
think a lot of Republicans thought
Charlie Kirk had, thought Trump had,
thought it was a menace to the podcast,
but we're starting to realize no, this
is an entirely different ethos of people
and for some reason he's not going away.
He's been banned, he's been ridiculed,
he's been quote unquote reprimanded,
condemned, he's been disavowed, he's
been told not to play with the the
grown-up Republicans, but yet he doesn't
he's still on Tucker, he's still on
Steven Crowder, he's still on Piers
Morgan. What's your take on Nick Fuentes
and how he has been so electric in the
movement? I think he sums up his own
position very well, which is we're done
clutching our pearls, we being
especially
young white men, but I think young men
in general. And I remember watching this
and Douglas Murray just really had
clarity on this and he said, "Listen, if
you keep bashing
white men and saying that whiteness is
bad, it's some sort of original sin, I
guarantee you what's going to happen is
they are going to band together, they
are going to start thinking of
themselves as white first and you do not
want people grouping up based on being
white first. That's exactly what's
happening." And so, this is a
psychological principle. If you beat me
up and tell me that I'm bad bad bad for
insert trait that I can't change and
then I run into somebody else who has
that same trait and I know they've been
treated exactly the way that I've been
treated, like all of a sudden I'm going
to be like, "Hold on, we're going to
glom on and if there are
millions of us, like bro, this is a bad
strategy. It was a dumb idea when they
did it, it's a dumber idea now that they
see what's happening and they're
continuing to double down. It's so dumb.
The youth is always going to take over.
Do you really want them to take over out
of bitterness and aggression? I would
put forward no, that's a terrible
[ __ ] idea. I don't know what they
thought the end game was, that they were
really just going to be able to feminize
every man, get every white person to
back the [ __ ] off and sit down and shut
up. Like that is a dumb [ __ ]
strategy. It doesn't work with anybody.
So, am I at all surprised by his rise to
popularity? I was when it happened, I
won't lie, but now as I look back and
math it, I'm like, yeah, this is
precisely what Douglas Murray was trying
to warn us about. All right, let's jump
into his um interview with Piers. The
thing about Nick that I think gets him
in trouble is not his populism, it's not
what he's rooting for, it's not even his
political stance, it's that he belittles
things that I think are more important
or or sacred than people have, but let's
go into his thoughts on women for a
second and maybe this can kind of color
where he comes from and how he became
the person that he is. Just to clear up
one of the many theories about you, I've
no idea what the answer is and you
haven't got to answer, but are you
actually attracted to women?
I am attracted to women. You're not gay.
No.
But I will say that women are very
difficult to be around. Okay. So,
there's that. And do you think they
should have the right to vote?
I do not. No, absolutely not. They
should stay at home.
Well, yeah, absolutely. So, basically
you're just a misogynist old dinosaur,
aren't you? For a for a young guy. I
mean, I know I'm the boomer I know I'm
the boomer here, but actually you're a
27-year-old dinosaur, aren't you? Aren't
you Nick Fuentes? Have you ever had sex?
No, absolutely not. Wow, says the guy
who's never got laid. Here I would have
never thought to ask that question.
I was shocked when he was like, no.
What?
This may be the part of
the young male experience that I'm most
confused by. I remember being like 14
and it hit me one day and I was like,
this is going to be [ __ ] wild. And
so, for him to be like,
I don't it's it is a bad frame of
reference to have adopted. I'm not
saying that I can't walk people through
the steps that have led us here, but it
is a very bad frame of reference to
adopt, to be closed off, to lump all
women together as if they are some
monolithic body, to think that while
women are very different and I certainly
understand that there can be
frustrations to cohabitating certainly
with a woman because they view the world
so differently, but when you think of
them as a partner, unbelievable things
unlock. It's weird to me that he is just
so nonchalant. I mean, how old is he?
27. Wow, bro, that is wild. He's making
money at this point. So, oh, he is
voluntarily celibate, make no mistake.
Like this is not a kid that can't get
laid. He's good looking, he's very
charismatic and boys and girls, if you
are confused, women go for charisma long
before they go for just like rugged good
looks. And if you put together charisma,
fame and money, like there are a litany
of women that would sleep with this kid.
I I guess the thing about me is similar
to you, there is this North Star, at
least I was growing up that you kind of
go down two paths where it's like, I
need to become the best person I can be
so that way I can then increase my value
in the sexual marketplace so that way I
can get laid, get a girl, have a family.
Or the other thing was like, okay, I
already look good, I'm going to just get
a girl then. So, I feel like as a young
man, those are your two options, either
get better to get a girl or just get a
girl. So, the fact that he is 27, he has
risen in popularity and he also is
voluntarily celibate, like what is that
North Star then? Maybe is that where the
hate is coming from? What what are you
using what are you doing with your time?
And I know that that sounds very trivial
and there's probably women in their chat
rolling their eyes right now, but like
seriously as a driver for men, that is a
incentive to become better. All right,
and so we talked about his sexual
orientation, let's talk about something
that's actually like matters. This is
his comment about the Hitler is cool.
You say that Hitler was very cool.
Are you joking or do you actually think
he was very [ __ ] cool? The most
genocidal monster of
the last 150 years.
Yeah, the thing is my generation, we're
just done with the pearl clutching, you
know, we're we're done with the pearl
clutching. You might be, but then your
generation hasn't gone through what
Danny Finkelstein's family went through.
So, maybe maybe the pearl clutching has
a way to go for families whose whose
family members were murdered. Yeah, we
we got all that. We you know, me me mom
me mom like we're you know, I don't even
know who this person is. Why is this
person talking to me? This old British
guy is saying me mom got killed by
Hitler and me dad got killed by Hitler.
He doesn't find it funny when you say
Hitler's very [ __ ] cool. I don't
care. I don't care. I don't care. I know
you don't care. That's fine. You don't
have to care, but he does care. Does
that guy care about America? Does that
guy care about me and my country and my
family? No. The Hitler is cool thing to
me is just stupid. I think Nick explains
the point. Like he certainly is able to
articulate exactly what it is that they
find cool. It's the same way that I feel
when Nick talks about being a big fan of
Stalin. It was December 18th, I remember
because that's an important date to me
and it's just a Stalin's birthday. Oh,
I'm a fan. You're a fan of Stalin.
I was an admirer. These are mistakes
that history makes over and over and
just an ungodly number of people die.
So, having some mental defenses against
those things is very shrewd. Like there
are things that the immune system should
respond to. Now, I'll admit we've had a
cultural immune system for the last 30
or 40 years that has responded to gluten
as if it's a brain parasite and that's
dumb, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't actual brain parasites. It
doesn't mean that there aren't actual
things that the immune system should be
responding to. And so, when I hear him
talk, it's like, okay, we had an
overactive immune system that did really
bad things. And so, now just shut off
the entire immune system. Everybody's
cool. Like it's funny, it's hilarious.
Look, because of my time with and by the
way, I hate it when people say that
Hitler was the biggest progenitor of
genocide that we've had. Do do people
not know who Mao is? Like do people not
know who Stalin is? It that one is
traumatic. There's something about the
Hitler was horrific. He's one of the
Mount Rushmore of monsters. Let me be
very clear on my stance on Hitler, but
man, people just do not seem to know
that Mao and Stalin existed or if they
do, they seem to think that Hitler
somehow is outpacing them. Hitler burned
really bright, really fast and he ran a
PR campaign for his [ __ ] but dude, Mao
and Stalin were orders of magnitude more
efficient at killing. And it's just
getting lost by history. Does he have a
point where he says we don't care
anymore? Because I do think that just
like right now, there's this thing
called black fatigue and we're tired of
hearing about black people's problems.
Leave me alone, DEI, whatever like that.
I don't care about slavery, I don't care
about none of that none of that doesn't
matter, get over it. Now, when Nick says
that to the Jews, it's 80 years ago.
Come on, wrap it up. Y'all had a movie,
y'all got Schindler's List. America
first. Is he just kind of perpetuating
that we don't care about the past
anymore, we're struggling now, do
something now. We're tired of the pearl
clutching. This is how you change. I
hate to say it, but what he's doing is
exactly how you move the Overton window.
You don't try to nudge it little by
little, you yank it to where you want it
to be and that is exactly how you start
making the cultural change you want to
make. This is just the physics of how
the human mind works. You're always
going to get a character like this that
rises up because other people feel it,
but they don't know how to express it.
He feels what or he expresses what
they're feeling. People want to follow a
strong person in times like these.
You've got this guy that's willing to
take all the slings and arrows, who
survived all the attempts to cancel,
de-bank, all of that. And so, there is a
sense that he's the antibiotic resistant
strain of this. And this is literally
what happens every time that you go
through these cycles and somebody has to
like shake it up. So, my only hope is
that he becomes a fringe character and
not an actual pied piper that leads an
entire generation down a path where
they're alienating themselves
intentionally. It's like, "Oh, you're
going to tell me that I need to think
about my race all the time? Rad, I'm
going to think about my race all the
time and point out that I'm the best
race ever." It's like, "Oh god, like I
really hope we don't go down that path."
But it is certainly possible. We'll see.
Does Do you think Nick is actually
impacting how
elections swing?
>> He's a real voice, 100%. He will have an
influence, to be sure. There's no doubt
about that. He is, as far as I can tell,
one of the most influential people,
certainly on the far right, maybe the
right in general. That I haven't audited
closely enough, but yes, I think he's
influential. Now, how influential is a
question I don't feel I have enough data
to answer, but he is I mean, he's
guaranteed to get attention. If you're
going to talk about Nick Fuentes, it's
good for content. Anything that's good
for content is going to have an impact
on culture.