Glad I followed my instincts on being a groyper. From my very brief exposure to Nick's content, it seemed fine, but when I followed him my algorithm on Twitter was ruined with pedos, tranny's, and people just saying disgusting things (listen, my views on race are highly unorthodox, but at some point you're just saying something evil). I blocked the weird accounts, eventually stopped using Twitter altogether for unrelated reasons and mostly ignored groyperism in favor of higher quality dissident right wing content.
But Pete Quiñones and John Carter are essential recommendations.
As far as Yarvin I still read everything he publishes and have read most all of his work. I see a lot flaws and things I don't agree with but for someone new to heterdox rw ideas you should read him for his bibliography if nothing else. I have a similar position on AA too, been a member of his youtube channel for years and read all his books not sure I'm on the same page lately but I will continue to follow his work for the unique analysis
Seems like your common theme is: they do not have anything negative to say about Jewish power, right? These seem like alternative but still "safe" right wing picks along the same lines as charlie kirk, ben shapiro, steven crowder, who are already bigger and say the same things to a larger audience afaik. How is it dissident if there is no distinction from the establishment's kosher-right figures? Did you accidentally use dissident as if it were a synonym for "small and powerless/toothless"?
To each his own I guess. I like many groypers, but the movement just had too many freaks and mentally ill takes to be something worth associating with.
This is unrelated to the article, but if you like those guys you'd probably enjoy Blood $atellite. It's been my favorite podcast in this space for several years now
Shocking that this article has generated so little interest.
I suspect the left has run amok to such an extent in the US that most on the right there are less interested in the sins of its particular members and allies than they are worried about the threat from the mass left. Like Stalin and Communism in WW2, the sins of their allies can be left to another day if ever.
I'm only a few pages into this and you're already off to a not so great start. You're giving him the Trump treatment and labeling him as something based on what somebody else has said because he was associated briefly more or less. There isn't any smoking gun evidence that I'm seeing yet (which should have been revealed from the start if you want to keep a readers attention). I'll charge my phone and continue reading to give my final thoughts.
From examples #50 to #2, they fail to signify the extent of these ties and just HOW involved was Nick's hands in all of these examples. The reason why this matters is because when you have such a large group such as America First, it's obviously going to be prone to bad apples. What matters more, is the extent of Nick's direct involvement and wether he condems the actions of others in which he doesn't have control of obviously in the midst of their association (not to mention, just how strong are these associations?).
The people you mention certainly make AF movement look bad but where are the examples of all the good apples? And do those good apples outweigh the bad, and by how much? It's clear that you didn't give a fair critique off all the people associated with the movement. You picked out the ones with glaring problems that have more to do with themselves and less so with everybody else.
As for #1 this certainly makes Nick look bad for not being proactive enough to boot a disgusting prick such as Ali from his movement. And it's very questionable as to why Nick didn't solve that issue right away.
That being said, it's clear what the purpose of this piece was. It was to make Nick Fuentes look bad. It was to bring the movement to a screeching halt but this doesn't suffice because you didn't bring any smoking gun against the man himself. This fails to do anything really, because it's clear you just have a vendetta against him. The AF movement lives on and if Nick can learn from previous mistakes then I think the movement will only become stronger 💪.
The groypers will minimize any wrong doings and dismiss them as a joke or a few bad apples. In reality Nicholas is high connected to these people and has spawned these examples with his loyalty pledge and his pure vitriol for those he doesn't deem worthy.
No, I do think that a lot of this is really bad faith. I think a ton of it is like "See, all these people are doing bad things, and when Nick jokes with them its TRUE and when he condemns it its OBVIOUSLY to cover his ass!" And it's like, be consistent. You can't condemn the jokes and not uphold the serious condemnations; facilitating peace between pedos and nonpedos is pretty gross. Doing all that is disgusting. I would say that's bad, and definitely shows up on Nick's purity. I would also say, that the whole "RKD4NJF" is super cringe, and I think it's wrong. I don't think the Destiny stuff is very damning, nor much of anything else in the article. What you're left with is like 5 points that are actually bothersome: Andrew Tate, Snowflake Peace treaty, Ali Alexander, RKD4NJF (which many of them, even when given as examples, wouldn't say the actual words; they would just say "you have my undying support," which isn't that weird) and online pestering/doxxing/swatting--especially how they handle rape in conversation. It's disgusting.
Now, those are all major issues, but I also think that some of this is non-damning even in video form. Saying that smiley "knew what he was doing" when Nick was a young minor trying to be politically active just a couple years ago should factor into this, like he probably thinks that he knew what he was doing, and is therefore superimposing his own confidence onto that. He also fully condemns in multiple streams what Ali did, and so that lends credence to the fact that we're ignoring some things. Some clips are blatantly misunderstood, like the clip about Nick having "abundant evidence that he wants to [have sex] with young, fascist, white boys LIKE MYSELF" and then he qualifies it "19 or 20." Like, dude, this is clear obfuscation. This is clearly biased. Whether its bad faith or not I don't want to argue, because this guy may be totally trying to be honest; I don't want to pretend I know the mind of the OP. It is cringe, however, when routinely I see clips where half of the quote is ignored and presuppositions are pushed onto the the first half. It's just not a fair treatment of Nick. And if you actually read the text messages, he'll say things like "I need nothing more than that [to begin to condemn Ali]," and all of that is just being ignored. If you don't like Nick, that's fine; he's really immature a lot of the time. I don't watch his streams, I watch his shorter political speeches, so I don't intake all the more rapacious joking that comes from his superchat interactions, but what I do see consistently in this article is a mischaracterization of a person. Now, I don't know if those text messages quoted were before AFPAC or not, and whether he went through with platforming him. I also don't know their interactions now; I hope he cut Ali off.
There is a probably equal possibility that Nick is a homosexual pedo-protector (at least) than that he's not, but this article doesn't prove that. It just shows that you view things from a lens, because everybody views things from a lens; and when he DOES disavow it everyone ignores it, and when he says it (lets be charitable and say its ironic) everyone takes it seriously. That's not charity. That isn't objectivity. That's definitely bias. I have only watched him for about a month, I have no dog in this fight; I have right-wing creators that are less problematic than him and probably more reliable in their geopolitical assessment, but this article doesn't prove anything.
Another issue I really have with this article, is that it'll go over here and say "this person is clearly a lunatic actively pursuing debauchery!!! NOW TRUST HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT FUENTES!!!" That seems like a tight line to walk. When a public figure does get publicly disowned or harmed by the AF movement due to their disgusting proclivities, the natural response of this article isn't to take said disgusting person's testimony with a grain of salt, or even acknowledge that this person is already bitter against Fuentes and gross in their own right, its to say "they did this thing, but SEE how they TURNED on this MORE BAD EVIL MAN???? The proof is in the PUDDING!!!!" And it just strikes me the wrong way. Some of the higher "lieutenants" being snowflakes, and those other issues I listed prior are all valid critiques, but its marred by just how unscholarly, often circumstantial, and blatantly retarded this piece can also be in other areas. If instead of being 33k words long or whatever with 50 different points, the OP wrote about 5 or less different points, hammering home Tate, Alexander, maybe Nick's reception of the groyper shooters, the snowflake stuff, and all that, then I would probably take this really seriously. But I went through the Kiwifarms thread and read it, even, and just like here, bad faith interpretations of the things being said--often to the total neglect of anything that could possibly vindicate him in the exact same sentence.
Also, condemning Andrew and Rachel Wilson for nearly arranging a marriage, that's stupid; arranged marriages are normal and fine, we're just rugged individualist and selfish nowadays. Now, they picked badly. That's an issue, and that can be addressed; they aren't saints. But overall, I don't have any problems with how they handled the swatting. If they want to stop criticizing Nick Fuentes publicly and work it out privately when they've already had their say online in order to protect their family, that's fine. Especially when in the EXACT SAME ARTICLE the OP says that its crazy how the groypers love the nation more than their family. If you refuse to be consistent, the rest of your valid points fall flat. Overall, I think this article is vapid and unconscionable. It just doesn't come across as authentic, nor as a valid critique, but actually feels almost like a hit-piece. I don't want to waste my time reading a stupid hit-piece.
They'll say things in the kiwifarm thread like "he actually wasn't put on the no-fly list because of his streaming and opinions, he was put on the no-fly list because of the fact he THREATENED to MURDER AND KILL AND ASPHYXIATE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT!!!" and its a video with a clear joke about how miserable masks feel and how he wants them to feel the same by "forcing the mask over their face til they can't breathe" or however he worded it. Like, he's making a point: masks are constricting and miserable on a plane. That's true, and that's a political point; and he was put on the no-fly list for it. That's not freedom of speech. Ok, he should stray a little bit from hyperbole because its immature and unchristian. Yeah, I agree. Cool.
My takeaways from this article: There are a lot of tight-knit groypers who are gross; Nick needs to calm down with his rape jokes and the way he corrals his fans into a sort of "cult of personality;" his clear interaction with Tate and Ali; and his tolerance of the snowflakes. Those things are gross, and if further investigation proves he was totally in the know and bolstered them until it no longer saved him face, that's really damning, but this article hasn't actually proved anything. It's just really bad scholarship.
Some of the stuff in this article is pretty tenuous, but I can tell you right now that the bad outweighs the good. For every Pinesap or Classical Theist associated with the AF movement, there are like 5 snowflake emoji people talking about lolis all day that are much more active than the average "normal" Nick watcher.
I wanted to express my heartfelt gratitude for featuring me on your Substack, Karlstack. The exposure has had a profound impact on my career, culminating in my recent promotion from Major (❄️❄️) to Lieutenant Colonel (❄️❄️❄️). Your platform has not only highlighted my work but has also inspired me to push further and harder in my endeavors. These children need to be corrected 💢😭
Your support and recognition mean a great deal to me, and I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity you provided. I look forward to continuing to make meaningful contributions and advancing in my field, thanks in large part to your influence.
Thank you again for your support and for being a catalyst for positive change.
This is... wow. No words. A part of me wanted to like Nick because some people I respect liked him (though I never was a groyper). I never really followed or cared for him though the past year really soured me on the guy. And this article just shattered him into the absolute dust.
Gold standard of what an expose should be. Excellent work Brunet
Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens would be interested to see this if you know how to get it to them: they were just discussing their mutual sense that Fuentes is a catspaw.
A group of loser males chock full of low-IQ rapists, unemployed pedophiles, misogynists, mass shooters, and literal murderers.
I'm sure they'll do a great job of putting America first and maintaining the white majority, especially since so many are non-white and their incel leader is a Mexican twink.
I've been an on and off again listener of Nick over the last 6 or so years. I think you are just out of touch with Gen-Z youth culture and take things too seriously. We love ironic, edgy, humor, you don't understand it and that's ok you're not supposed to. Just the fact that an ironic, fake "Groyper" cult exists is funny to most people that call themselves "Groypers"
A lot of money going to Lefty writers, likely mostly using AI, to generate huge articles that no one will read. Just rambling scrolls of bullshit they’ve pasted together. This kind of shit will ruin Substack, IMO.
Enjoyed reading this. It took me back to the time of alot of these events. The Dershowitz video of him admitting to getting massages is great. Cernovich taking heat for his prior association with Ackbar was funny as well. The multiple connections to the Epstein case is disturbing. You think Nick will end up being a Roger Stone figure. Being trotted out for planned controversies. Ackbar was also associated with Stone. I know Bannon had tie to Epstein as well. Anyway great article the scope of your article was already giant. Appreciate the screenshots.
Glad I followed my instincts on being a groyper. From my very brief exposure to Nick's content, it seemed fine, but when I followed him my algorithm on Twitter was ruined with pedos, tranny's, and people just saying disgusting things (listen, my views on race are highly unorthodox, but at some point you're just saying something evil). I blocked the weird accounts, eventually stopped using Twitter altogether for unrelated reasons and mostly ignored groyperism in favor of higher quality dissident right wing content.
You're not going to namedrop what/who the higher quality dissident right wing content is?
Happy to do so
Dave Greene (The Distributist)
Academic Agent
Copybook Court
Most of the authors at Chronicles magazine
John Arcto (before he disappeared mysteriously like a week ago)
Based Barrister
I have mixed opinions on Auron MacIntyre and Curtis Yarvin but they're generally fairly good (at least they don't touch kids/cat boys)
Librarian of Caelano
Endeavor
Morgoths Review
Decent list my list would be similar
But Pete Quiñones and John Carter are essential recommendations.
As far as Yarvin I still read everything he publishes and have read most all of his work. I see a lot flaws and things I don't agree with but for someone new to heterdox rw ideas you should read him for his bibliography if nothing else. I have a similar position on AA too, been a member of his youtube channel for years and read all his books not sure I'm on the same page lately but I will continue to follow his work for the unique analysis
Honestly all of those people are lukewarm
Haven't seen Pete Quiñones and John Carter. Thanks for the recommendations.
Seems like your common theme is: they do not have anything negative to say about Jewish power, right? These seem like alternative but still "safe" right wing picks along the same lines as charlie kirk, ben shapiro, steven crowder, who are already bigger and say the same things to a larger audience afaik. How is it dissident if there is no distinction from the establishment's kosher-right figures? Did you accidentally use dissident as if it were a synonym for "small and powerless/toothless"?
To each his own I guess. I like many groypers, but the movement just had too many freaks and mentally ill takes to be something worth associating with.
Not a lot of these guys are exactly known for being soft on the JQ
This is unrelated to the article, but if you like those guys you'd probably enjoy Blood $atellite. It's been my favorite podcast in this space for several years now
Also Ubersoy
This post is so autistic lmao.
Shocking that this article has generated so little interest.
I suspect the left has run amok to such an extent in the US that most on the right there are less interested in the sins of its particular members and allies than they are worried about the threat from the mass left. Like Stalin and Communism in WW2, the sins of their allies can be left to another day if ever.
I'm only a few pages into this and you're already off to a not so great start. You're giving him the Trump treatment and labeling him as something based on what somebody else has said because he was associated briefly more or less. There isn't any smoking gun evidence that I'm seeing yet (which should have been revealed from the start if you want to keep a readers attention). I'll charge my phone and continue reading to give my final thoughts.
the first few introduce you to the Groyper movement, and they gradually get worse until #1 which is the worst
Here are my final thoughts on everything else.
From examples #50 to #2, they fail to signify the extent of these ties and just HOW involved was Nick's hands in all of these examples. The reason why this matters is because when you have such a large group such as America First, it's obviously going to be prone to bad apples. What matters more, is the extent of Nick's direct involvement and wether he condems the actions of others in which he doesn't have control of obviously in the midst of their association (not to mention, just how strong are these associations?).
The people you mention certainly make AF movement look bad but where are the examples of all the good apples? And do those good apples outweigh the bad, and by how much? It's clear that you didn't give a fair critique off all the people associated with the movement. You picked out the ones with glaring problems that have more to do with themselves and less so with everybody else.
As for #1 this certainly makes Nick look bad for not being proactive enough to boot a disgusting prick such as Ali from his movement. And it's very questionable as to why Nick didn't solve that issue right away.
That being said, it's clear what the purpose of this piece was. It was to make Nick Fuentes look bad. It was to bring the movement to a screeching halt but this doesn't suffice because you didn't bring any smoking gun against the man himself. This fails to do anything really, because it's clear you just have a vendetta against him. The AF movement lives on and if Nick can learn from previous mistakes then I think the movement will only become stronger 💪.
The groypers will minimize any wrong doings and dismiss them as a joke or a few bad apples. In reality Nicholas is high connected to these people and has spawned these examples with his loyalty pledge and his pure vitriol for those he doesn't deem worthy.
Maybe you should work harder to be worthy instead of seething?
No, I do think that a lot of this is really bad faith. I think a ton of it is like "See, all these people are doing bad things, and when Nick jokes with them its TRUE and when he condemns it its OBVIOUSLY to cover his ass!" And it's like, be consistent. You can't condemn the jokes and not uphold the serious condemnations; facilitating peace between pedos and nonpedos is pretty gross. Doing all that is disgusting. I would say that's bad, and definitely shows up on Nick's purity. I would also say, that the whole "RKD4NJF" is super cringe, and I think it's wrong. I don't think the Destiny stuff is very damning, nor much of anything else in the article. What you're left with is like 5 points that are actually bothersome: Andrew Tate, Snowflake Peace treaty, Ali Alexander, RKD4NJF (which many of them, even when given as examples, wouldn't say the actual words; they would just say "you have my undying support," which isn't that weird) and online pestering/doxxing/swatting--especially how they handle rape in conversation. It's disgusting.
Now, those are all major issues, but I also think that some of this is non-damning even in video form. Saying that smiley "knew what he was doing" when Nick was a young minor trying to be politically active just a couple years ago should factor into this, like he probably thinks that he knew what he was doing, and is therefore superimposing his own confidence onto that. He also fully condemns in multiple streams what Ali did, and so that lends credence to the fact that we're ignoring some things. Some clips are blatantly misunderstood, like the clip about Nick having "abundant evidence that he wants to [have sex] with young, fascist, white boys LIKE MYSELF" and then he qualifies it "19 or 20." Like, dude, this is clear obfuscation. This is clearly biased. Whether its bad faith or not I don't want to argue, because this guy may be totally trying to be honest; I don't want to pretend I know the mind of the OP. It is cringe, however, when routinely I see clips where half of the quote is ignored and presuppositions are pushed onto the the first half. It's just not a fair treatment of Nick. And if you actually read the text messages, he'll say things like "I need nothing more than that [to begin to condemn Ali]," and all of that is just being ignored. If you don't like Nick, that's fine; he's really immature a lot of the time. I don't watch his streams, I watch his shorter political speeches, so I don't intake all the more rapacious joking that comes from his superchat interactions, but what I do see consistently in this article is a mischaracterization of a person. Now, I don't know if those text messages quoted were before AFPAC or not, and whether he went through with platforming him. I also don't know their interactions now; I hope he cut Ali off.
There is a probably equal possibility that Nick is a homosexual pedo-protector (at least) than that he's not, but this article doesn't prove that. It just shows that you view things from a lens, because everybody views things from a lens; and when he DOES disavow it everyone ignores it, and when he says it (lets be charitable and say its ironic) everyone takes it seriously. That's not charity. That isn't objectivity. That's definitely bias. I have only watched him for about a month, I have no dog in this fight; I have right-wing creators that are less problematic than him and probably more reliable in their geopolitical assessment, but this article doesn't prove anything.
Another issue I really have with this article, is that it'll go over here and say "this person is clearly a lunatic actively pursuing debauchery!!! NOW TRUST HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT FUENTES!!!" That seems like a tight line to walk. When a public figure does get publicly disowned or harmed by the AF movement due to their disgusting proclivities, the natural response of this article isn't to take said disgusting person's testimony with a grain of salt, or even acknowledge that this person is already bitter against Fuentes and gross in their own right, its to say "they did this thing, but SEE how they TURNED on this MORE BAD EVIL MAN???? The proof is in the PUDDING!!!!" And it just strikes me the wrong way. Some of the higher "lieutenants" being snowflakes, and those other issues I listed prior are all valid critiques, but its marred by just how unscholarly, often circumstantial, and blatantly retarded this piece can also be in other areas. If instead of being 33k words long or whatever with 50 different points, the OP wrote about 5 or less different points, hammering home Tate, Alexander, maybe Nick's reception of the groyper shooters, the snowflake stuff, and all that, then I would probably take this really seriously. But I went through the Kiwifarms thread and read it, even, and just like here, bad faith interpretations of the things being said--often to the total neglect of anything that could possibly vindicate him in the exact same sentence.
Also, condemning Andrew and Rachel Wilson for nearly arranging a marriage, that's stupid; arranged marriages are normal and fine, we're just rugged individualist and selfish nowadays. Now, they picked badly. That's an issue, and that can be addressed; they aren't saints. But overall, I don't have any problems with how they handled the swatting. If they want to stop criticizing Nick Fuentes publicly and work it out privately when they've already had their say online in order to protect their family, that's fine. Especially when in the EXACT SAME ARTICLE the OP says that its crazy how the groypers love the nation more than their family. If you refuse to be consistent, the rest of your valid points fall flat. Overall, I think this article is vapid and unconscionable. It just doesn't come across as authentic, nor as a valid critique, but actually feels almost like a hit-piece. I don't want to waste my time reading a stupid hit-piece.
They'll say things in the kiwifarm thread like "he actually wasn't put on the no-fly list because of his streaming and opinions, he was put on the no-fly list because of the fact he THREATENED to MURDER AND KILL AND ASPHYXIATE A FLIGHT ATTENDANT!!!" and its a video with a clear joke about how miserable masks feel and how he wants them to feel the same by "forcing the mask over their face til they can't breathe" or however he worded it. Like, he's making a point: masks are constricting and miserable on a plane. That's true, and that's a political point; and he was put on the no-fly list for it. That's not freedom of speech. Ok, he should stray a little bit from hyperbole because its immature and unchristian. Yeah, I agree. Cool.
My takeaways from this article: There are a lot of tight-knit groypers who are gross; Nick needs to calm down with his rape jokes and the way he corrals his fans into a sort of "cult of personality;" his clear interaction with Tate and Ali; and his tolerance of the snowflakes. Those things are gross, and if further investigation proves he was totally in the know and bolstered them until it no longer saved him face, that's really damning, but this article hasn't actually proved anything. It's just really bad scholarship.
Some of the stuff in this article is pretty tenuous, but I can tell you right now that the bad outweighs the good. For every Pinesap or Classical Theist associated with the AF movement, there are like 5 snowflake emoji people talking about lolis all day that are much more active than the average "normal" Nick watcher.
Thanks for doing this Chris its very troubling watching people carry water for these freaks online.
I appreciate someone exposing the silent underworld Fuentes developed over the years. What's hidden in the dark will be revealed in the light.
Dear Christopher,
I wanted to express my heartfelt gratitude for featuring me on your Substack, Karlstack. The exposure has had a profound impact on my career, culminating in my recent promotion from Major (❄️❄️) to Lieutenant Colonel (❄️❄️❄️). Your platform has not only highlighted my work but has also inspired me to push further and harder in my endeavors. These children need to be corrected 💢😭
Your support and recognition mean a great deal to me, and I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity you provided. I look forward to continuing to make meaningful contributions and advancing in my field, thanks in large part to your influence.
Thank you again for your support and for being a catalyst for positive change.
Best regards,
GroyperInsider ❄️❄️❄️
based mesugaki corrector, I stan
This is... wow. No words. A part of me wanted to like Nick because some people I respect liked him (though I never was a groyper). I never really followed or cared for him though the past year really soured me on the guy. And this article just shattered him into the absolute dust.
Gold standard of what an expose should be. Excellent work Brunet
protip: when making important articles like this don't link to YouTube videos, several video have been removed after this article came out.
Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens would be interested to see this if you know how to get it to them: they were just discussing their mutual sense that Fuentes is a catspaw.
Something tells me Carlson wouldn't be interested.
Yeah, too many people don't realize all these influencers are bought and paid for degenerates
A group of loser males chock full of low-IQ rapists, unemployed pedophiles, misogynists, mass shooters, and literal murderers.
I'm sure they'll do a great job of putting America first and maintaining the white majority, especially since so many are non-white and their incel leader is a Mexican twink.
Amazing.
We will see Fuentes unnaturally endorsed in coming months.
The Adelson checks have hit his account, you can tell
This is horrifying I couldnt read at all. Props on good journalism though. Mass redact groypers with redaction squads
I've been an on and off again listener of Nick over the last 6 or so years. I think you are just out of touch with Gen-Z youth culture and take things too seriously. We love ironic, edgy, humor, you don't understand it and that's ok you're not supposed to. Just the fact that an ironic, fake "Groyper" cult exists is funny to most people that call themselves "Groypers"
A lot of money going to Lefty writers, likely mostly using AI, to generate huge articles that no one will read. Just rambling scrolls of bullshit they’ve pasted together. This kind of shit will ruin Substack, IMO.
Character assassination. I don't see Nick involved with any of the site. I believe it was a setup by the FBI.
Enjoyed reading this. It took me back to the time of alot of these events. The Dershowitz video of him admitting to getting massages is great. Cernovich taking heat for his prior association with Ackbar was funny as well. The multiple connections to the Epstein case is disturbing. You think Nick will end up being a Roger Stone figure. Being trotted out for planned controversies. Ackbar was also associated with Stone. I know Bannon had tie to Epstein as well. Anyway great article the scope of your article was already giant. Appreciate the screenshots.