Thoughts on Nick Fuentes

Post Reply New Topic

Simple question, do you have rock solid proof Robinson is "left wing"
I can certainly show you receipts
1. His family are MAGA
2. Robinson is a Groyper

I've used deductive reasoning based on
a) photographic evidence he spread Groyper memes
b) social media posts quoting Groyper language
c) Inscribing Groyper memes on bullets used to shoot Kirk
d) Fuentes ordering his followers to go after Kirk

Point c) is most telling. If you research shooters and mass killers they often inscribe some message on their bullets, Robinson made it clear the sender of the message to Kirk.

Yeah that doesn't mean Robinson is left wing...

Ernst Rohm the famous Nazi brownshirt was gay. Being gay doesn't automatically make him a communist.

It’s odd that you have quoted a question that I asked you, only to completely ignore that question, and then fire off an unrelated question of your own. Maybe you could try answering my question above at some point, but I won’t hold my breath.

It’s also odd that you seem to think the onus is on me to provide evidence of Robinson’s political leanings, when my claim simply chimes with mainstream reports that are easy to find, whereas you have (as yet) provided no evidence whatsoever for your position.

And Robinson’s parents being MAGA is hardly that significant, since young people often have different politics to their parents (and are more often than not to the left of their parents politically).

But fine, I’ll answer your question. And once I’ve done so, perhaps you could show us some of these “receipts” you claim you have. But again, I’m not expecting much from you, if your previous attempts at constructing arguments on this thread are anything to go by. And frankly, as far as I can see, the idea that Robinson was an innocent (left-leaning) patsy has more going for it than the idea that he was a groyper.

Here are some relevant passages from media reports:

Like I said, Robinson's links to Fuentes has been scrubbed clean from the internet. An example of digital erasure.
Fuentes himself has cooperated (probably for self-preservation) and scoffed at any link with Robinson but strangely continues to encourage his Groypers to go after Kirk's widow.

I realise you are clinging to the narrative it's an open and shut case. But questions linger about Robinson's motivations
Like:
1. Fuentes has a long history of animosity with Kirk
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/ ... e-kirks-b/
and he (Fuentes) stood to benefit from Kirk's departure
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... 235471204/

2. Now we establish Robinson's ties to Fuentes, starting with memes Robinson used (now deleted)


we are told "nothing to see here, just Tyler Robinson dressing up as Groyper for Halloween."

Interestingly foreign journalists were the only ones brave enough to pose the question


3. the bullet casings were supposed to be evidence of his left wing leanings, but what they only show was his interest in online video game memes
https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-bullet-memes/

4. In 2017, Robinson appears to have dressed up in a costume of President Donald Trump, with the Trump’s face painted green. A possible reference to the Pepe the Frog edit of Trump that the president first shared in 2015. And in 2018, Robinson appears to have dressed up as a “squatting slav” Pepe meme. (all these images have been scrubbed from the internet) easy to point to these costumes as proof that Robinson was a far-right extremist radicalized online by 4chan

5. 4Chan themselves believed Robinson was one of theirs


As I said there were hundreds of social media and foreign articles linking Robinson to Groypers. Now all gone. while definitive proof no longer exists, the speed at which Megan Kelly and Matt Walsh pointed the fingers at left wing extremists without proof deserves a 2nd or 3rd look.

Now its your turn to show receipts Robinson is "left wing"

Quizzymodo -
Maybe I'm totally wrong here, but I sense a certain need to defend Fuentes on your part. Are you sympathetic to the Groyper movement? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just interested.

^^^ I think he's defending right wing grifters like Megan Kelly and Matt Walsh who have sanitized MAGA beliefs Robinson is a left wing trans terrorist.

Remember all the accusations about Robinson being a left winger flooded MAGA circles before it was revealed Robinson was in a relationship with a trans.

Nick Fuentes screams 'neurotypical reaction bait' to me. I remember back when I was a more practicing conservative rather than an eclectic centrist I liked Dennis Prager and Bill Bennet, my friends only reacted to the screaming and ranting of Michael Savage, because it was out and masculine rather than demure, pensive, or measured. Nick Fuentes is that dangling Michael Savage type IMHO (ie. not Darwinian = weak). He looks jagged and different enough from the mainstream conservatives or even what bit of carefully measured and defensible virility MAGA tried to re-inject into the Republican party.

I had a thread about Kegan stages a while back and talking about Kegan stage 3 - socialized mind? Something like 65-70% of the population is in socialized mind, ie. their 'self' only lives in approval and disapproval of others, without exterior sign posts they psychologically unravel. Nick Fuentes sounds like their anger, they don't have internal voice really (or prefer not to use it), so he becomes their surrogate internal voice. That and dark tetrad love this kind of stuff because they find extremism sexy (whether they choose right or left wing versions seems to vary by life experience and psychological profile).


Another thing I worry about - we're lucky to be autistic in that if we don't have kids we can argue with ourselves that there's a compassion element to decide not to. For them? If the social system effectively makes dating impossible and seems set to 'snuff them out', that's a kind of boiling anger that we're lucky has only been stented to online gaming and weed consumption. It's all they can see in their field of vision because they have no disabilities as an excuse. I do hope we get our crap together and figure this one out because you can't just tell a bulk of guys without disabilities who are having their germ lines terminated by the lack of social contract 'up yours' without some palliative measure like AI dolls or a very legally 'high and tight' version of escort services. If you truly say 'up yours' you're begging for things to kick off, not as a threat but as a matter of physics, and you have no idea which way that will go.

So yes, he's probably an ass hat we'll be seeing a lot more of. If I find any of my friends listening to him I'm going to have to ask them, seriously - 'What does he uniquely source for you?'. I'd like to make them aware that they don't have a great answer to that.

How convenient for you and your position.

And who do you think it was who scrubbed all this from the internet? The groypers? Or the FBI?

If you think the FBI would bother going to such lengths to cover for a groyper, then you’re just as detached from reality as those right-wingers who thought the US authorities were covering for the Brown University shooter because “he was really a Palestinian”.



If Fuentes has encouraged his Groypers to go after Kirk’s widow, there is nothing strange about that. Lots of people have criticized Kirk’s widow for her behaviour following Kirk’s death.



No, actually. I’ve said above that, as far as I can see, the idea that Robinson was an innocent, left-leaning patsy has more going for it than the idea that he was a groyper, and I mean it. I only replied to this thread because I saw you and Kraichgauer making several posts claiming Robinson was a groyper while producing no evidence at all, and while using some of the most ridiculous reasoning I’ve seen in a long time.



Lol, those five points are the “receipts” you have chosen to go with? Ok, here we go.

1. Kirk had enemies on the Right and the Left. You can go on about Fuentes’s dislike of Kirk as much as you like, it is still not evidence for Robinson’s political views. This point could hardly be any simpler.

2. The photo apparently shows Robinson from 2018 imitating the Squatting Slav meme. That meme in its original form was non-political. That original meme seems to be what Robinson is imitating, not any specific modifications to the meme that came later (e.g., by right-wingers sticking Pepe’s face on it). As for that Youtube video, it's in German, which I don't speak. If you would like to summarize the info in that video yourself, please go ahead.

3. Ok, so the bullet casing messages seem to indicate EITHER that Robinson had left-leanings OR that he was interested in online video game memes. They provide no positive evidence whatsoever that he was a groyper.

4. You’ve provided no evidence that Robinson dressed up as Trump in 2017. And even if he did, so what? He could have been dressing up as (in his mind) a pantomime villain. And even if he was a Trump supporter in 2017, so what? If he’d stayed in the same place, then he’d have been sympathetic to Charlie Kirk in 2025. He’d have to have moved further to the right in 2025 to have become a groyper, whereas (according to news reports) his own mother claims he moved further to the left in recent years. As for your claim about the "squatting slav" meme, that is just a repeat of your claim made in point 1.

5. An anonymous post on 4-chan with no details or evidence provided. What a joke!



What’s so significant about the speed at which Megan Kelly and Matt Walsh pointed the fingers at left wing extremists? People frequently speculate about these events far earlier than they probably should. Sometimes subsequent evidence will support their earlier speculations, and sometimes not.

What on earth are you even implying here? That Walsh and Kelly were covering for Fuentes perhaps? Do you even realise that they are both politically closer to Kirk than to Fuentes?

Ypu’ve done a lot of talking on this thread, but you don’t seem to understand the political world you are talking about, nor do you seem to understand how constructing an argument is supposed to work.



Your “receipts” are ridiculous.

I’ve already linked to mainstream media articles claiming that Robinson’s own mother said her son had moved further left in recent years, which you have ignored. I can’t be bothered to go looking for more.

People like you really are unbelievable.

Frankly, you’re projecting, or doing something close to it. It’s you and cyberdora who have brought the subject of Tyler Robinson into this thread, when you haven’t produced any evidence to justify it, and when any supposed link between Robinson and Fuentes (the subject of this thread) is contradicted by the official story.

In other words, it’s you and cyberdora who are displaying the extreme political partisanship here.

How can you and cybderdora fill up this thread with unorthodox claims while providing no evidence to back them up, and then claim that I am displaying some strange “need” for simply pushing back on them? I only joined this thread after seeing cyberdora combine his evidence-free claims with some of the most ridiculous reasoning I’ve seen for a long time.

Unlike you, apparently, I am capable of admitting that violence can come from anywhere on the political spectrum, including from the Left and from Groypers. If you want to maintain that Robinson was a Groyper, when the official reports contradict that, then try producing some evidence (preferably better evidence than cyberdora’s ridiculous “receipts” above).

I've only just read this post again, and it just provides more evidence for your lack of understanding.

Fuentes's issue with Kirk was that Fuentes saw Kirk as an Israel shill. It had nothing to do with the trans issue.

Honestly, seeing you and Kraichgauer discussing right-wing politics and "groypers" is a bit like watching a couple of 90 year olds discussing Pokemon and gangsta rap.

Fuentes - Piers Morgan interview

16 heinous quotes from anti-LGBTQ+ white supremacist Nick Fuentes

1. Does this sound like someone who is against anti trans hate would support?

2. I have not seen any evidence that Robinson has ever discussed Fuentes

So what do we have here? Robinson used a symbol associated with groypers. Robinson and Fuentes both hated Kirk.

Extremely weak circumstantial evidence that Robinson is groyper.

So what evidence do we have that Robinson is a leftist?
He is against anti trans hate a position associated with the left. His mom said he has moved to the left based on the right’s anti trans hate. He wrote on his bullet “Hey fascist! Catch!" . Being anti fascist is a position associated with the left(and most Americans). The expression is also popular gaming expression. Yes putting that expression on a bullet makes one think he meant Kirk should catch a bullet.

Holding a couple of positions associated with the left does not make one a leftist.

A thin circumstantial case that Robinson is a leftist.

Maybe one of you will be proven right during Robinson’s trail. For now what I see people grasping at straws in an attempt to prove Robinson is of the political side you don’t like.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 29 Dec 2025, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Historically, what we now know as Christian Zionism (formerly known as "restorationism") pre-dates (and helped to inspire) the founding of Jewish Zionism as an organized political movement (as distinct from just the traditional Jewish hope that a forthcoming Messiah would restore Israel). According to Israeli historian Anita Shapira, as quoted in a footnote to Wikipedia's article on Christian Zionism:


It is unlikely that Jewish Zionism, as an organized political movement, could have gotten off the ground without the assurance that at least some Christians would be their allies.

I may very well be unbelievable, but you have yet to answer my question about your own political leanings, and how they may have influenced your posts on this subject.

Even if Jewish Zionism was glommed from evangelical Christians it was Jews who were the leaders based on the pogroms that was happening to them.

The idea that Herzl and the founders of modern political zionism did not think of the idea on their own or needed permission from Christians to attempt to implement it is a stretch when the whole idea is that we have to do it on our own because the gentiles can never be trusted.