Thoughts on Nick Fuentes

Post Reply New Topic

^^^ One of the weirdest episodes of fake news perpetrated on Americans.
You have some elements of MAGA blaming Netanyahu for Kirk's shooting and rank and file MAGA pushing a lie that the shooter was far left pro-gay and brainwashed by democrats.

I had to literally read Indian and Arabic news to see tyler Robinson's social media (it seems to be erased elsewhere on the internet) and Robinson is 100% a Nick Fuentes follower and a Groyper.

The "Groyper Wars": Starting in 2019, Fuentes orchestrated his followers (known as "Groypers") to disrupt Kirk's Turning Point USA (TPUSA) events. They heckled Kirk during Q&A sessions, labeling him a "fake patriot" and "Conservative Inc." for his stances on Israel, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights.

Targeting Kirk's Widow: Since Kirk’s death in late 2025, Fuentes has launched personal attacks against Kirk's widow, Erika, calling her tribute to him "disgusting" and labeling her "fake".

Ideological Attacks: Fuentes has publicly described Kirk as a "clown," a "Zionist front," and an obstacle to the "America First" movement.

I point out the above as Fuentes saw Kirk as his enemy. Very plausible who radicalised Robinson.

Speaking of which, have you guys seen the pictures of Erika Kirk hugging J.D. Vance? Looks like they're more than just friends. I mean, what man puts his hands on a woman's hips while hugging her when they're "just friends"? So yeah, I don't blame Nick Fuentes for suspecting that her tribute was fake, given that she seems to have immediately started monkey-branching to other high-status men the moment her husband was pronounced dead. Obviously people move on and remarry when their spouses die, but shouldn't there be at least a brief moment of grieving in between? Then again, conservatives are almost never loyal to each other or anyone else (with the exception that most of then are ride-or-die Trump loyalists), so it's pretty much par for the course.

Eat s***': JD Vance hits out at Nick Fuentes over racial slurs hurled at wife Usha

He's probably cheating on Usha with Erika TBH.

Vance has a convoluted relationship with Fuentes and other far right spokespeople. Vance supports many far right pet projects. Most notably the great replacement theory using key buzzwords like invasion and replacement of Americans when referring to Mexicans crossing the border.

Vance's choice of wife is therefore obviously going to create a conflict in MAGA and to people like Fuentes. He (Vance) hangs around with racists, openly supports their free speech and says racist stuff. But why is he married to an Indian?
Fuentes clearly doesn't like it.

But...In March 2024, when Candace Owens (who is married to a white British man) was fired from the Daily Wire over her criticisms of Israel, Fuentes instructed his followers to "stand with Candace" because he shared her anti-Israel stance. He also loves Kanye west (who regularly has white partners and biracial children) because of Kanye's shared admiration of Hitler and antisemitic speeches. Fuentes himself has native indigenous ancestry.

So Fuentes doesn't have a clear cut position on race either despite what he preaches.

I guess it's getting harder to be a hard core racist these days!

the old one drop rule would probably wipe out half of MAGA...
But as you say Fuentes regularly says anti-trans stuff but secretly like trans. Interesting also Robinson has never said a single negative thing about Fuentes, kind of invalidates MAGA conspiracy propaganda that the only reason he targeted Kirk was because he was doing it for his g/f. She was interviewed by the FBI and said she had no problem with Kirk. that leaves only one path for Robinson's radicalisation. the Groypers.

Of that I have no doubt.

^^^ And if you openly blame Fuentes for radicalising Robinson on social media you risk incarceration in the US. Kirk has actually been more valuable dead to the MAGA cult than when he was alive.

Oh and turning point USA has a new messiah after Kirk
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/21/ente ... ump-digvid

Really? I've trumpeted how Kirk's shooter was a Groyper on every internet site I've come across on which the subject has come up, and I have yet to be arrested.

^^^ Yeah judging from people charged post-Kirk's assassination it seems to be screenshots taken from social media sites that clearly identify the person based on a) photo and b) full name and c) comments. I think you should be safe.

Another point is people charged were openly mocking/celebrating Kirk's assassination (usually on video). And not just in the USA. In Australia a school teacher was sacked for dressing up as Charlie Kirk in a Halloween costume. And two Australian police officers were stood down by their superiors for posting videos (in Australia) saying Kirk's assassination was a good thing.

I've been careful not to mock Kirk and have said that Robinson should never murdered Kirk.

But...Nick Fuentes has encouraged his Groypers to continue mocking Kirk's widow. I find it strange how the FBI don't come after him or his followers in the USA when people half way around the world in Australia are being terminated from their jobs for having an opinion about an American??

I agree with Nick Fuentes on the weaponization of antisemitism accusations to silence speech and ruin lives.

Christopher Hitchens argued the same long before:

To be sure, freedom of speech means freedom to speak the unpopular, or even the untrue. If the speech is untrue, then the remedy is speaking just as loudly against it.

The reasoning in this post is so nonsensical on so many levels that it could almost be designed to discourage people from putting in the time necessary to refute it.

Officials have indicated that Robinson had become more left-leaning and supportive of trans rights in recent years, and that he had a trans girlfriend.

So, if we accept that Robinson was the shooter, the official story points to a general “left vs right” motive (although authorities won’t say so). Any supposed MAGA claims that Robinson “was doing it for his girlfriend” are more specific, but are consistent with the general motive that the official story points to.

What you have done in your post is dismiss the alleged, specific MAGA claim (on a nonsensical pretext), and ignored the more general motive that the official story points towards, and then claimed (without any evidence) that this only leaves the groyper radicalization theory.

Let’s walk through this. There are several different but similar possible “non-groyper” theories regarding the motive - some that are consistent with the official story, some that are consistent with the MAGA theory you are quoting, some that are consistent with both, and some that are consistent with neither.

1. The motive could have been a general left vs right animus.

2. Robinson could have been motivated specifically by anger at Kirk’s anti-trans views without any thought towards whether or not his girlfriend would support his action

3. Robinson could have been motivated specifically by anger at Kirk’s anti-trans views combined with the belief that his girlfriend would appreciate it, even though he never checked with her.

4. Robinson could have been motivated specifically by anger at Kirk’s anti-trans views combined with the belief that his girlfriend would appreciate it, because he mistakenly thought his girlfriend had told him that was the case.

5. Robinson could have been motivated specifically by anger at Kirk’s anti-trans views combined with the belief that his girlfriend would appreciate it, because his girlfriend actually did tell him that was the case.

6. Robinson could have been motivated by something else entirely, such as anger at seeing a well-known, vociferous Israel supporter two years into Israel’s genocide in Gaza (this is often presented as a left vs right issue, when it’s more just a question of decency and morality).

7. Then there’s the “Israel did it, and Robinson was a patsy” theory, which at least people put more effort into defending than you have put into defending your groyper theory.

Regarding your claim that “Robinson has never said a single negative thing about Fuentes” and that this invalidates “MAGA conspiracy propaganda that the only reason he targeted Kirk was because he was doing it for his g/f.”

Firstly, you don’t know everything that Robinson ever said or wrote, so you’re talking nonsense.

Secondly, even if he really did never criticize Fuentes, so what? Perhaps Robinson didn’t know who Fuentes was, or didn’t know what Fuentes’s views were, or didn’t consider Fuentes significant enough to comment on, or (like you, apparently) suspected that Fuentes was “secretly” pro-trans. Anyway, even if we accept the claim that Robinson never criticized Fuentes, it doesn’t invalidate ANY of the seven claims I have listed above.

And regarding your claim that Robinson’s girlfriend “was interviewed by the FBI and said she had no problem with Kirk. that leaves only one path for Robinson's radicalization. the Groypers.”

Again, so what if Robinson’s girlfriend told the FBI she didn’t have a problem with Kirk? Even if she was telling the truth (let’s assume she was), that only contradicts theory 5 above. It doesn’t contradict ANY of the others.

So how do you go from this to the theory, without any evidence, that Robinson was radicalized by “groypers”? It’s ridiculous.

This sound like more nonsense. Do you have any evidence for this? And I don't want to hear about people who have got into trouble for encouraging or condoning violence. I was to see evidence of people being incarcerated in the US specifically for blaming Fuentes for radicalizing Robinson.

^^^
Just because the shooter had a trans girlfriend hardly means he's gone left. As stated earlier, the split between Fuentes and Kirk involved matters like trans acceptance. We know the shooter's history, and that he was raised to be a far right gun nut. We know he was a Fuentes fan. I have yet to see any evidence that he had embraced any left wing ideology.