Groypers aren't very self-reflective. For all that they like to mock Blacks for failing the breakfast question, most Groypers can barely pass it themselves.
The Democrats were taken over by the cultural left. Their brand is still toxic as a result. I expect we’ll find that Nazism is even loss popular among normal Americans than men playing women’s sports.
I don’t see the democrats being “taken over” by anything. The left always had these beliefs, but they were so unpopular that they lose landslide elections for decades. Then I. The 1990s bill clinton and the triangulates said they would lie about their cultural believes long enough to win elections. By the 2010s the left was starting to think the white share of the electorate was getting low enough to rip the mask off because they would have a permanent democratic majority even if they stopped pretending. 2012 seemed to confirm it.
The problem what that Donald Trump came along and moved the party left on economics to appeal more to the working class of all races, and picked up a lot of races.
In a sense the left “won” in that we now have two parties that don’t care about deficits and try to buy votes with entitlements, but it also means that the republicans are competitive still.
I don't quite see the logic of Bill Clinton secretly wanting to defund the police, but publicly spending billions on hiring new police officers. The more likely scenario is that the Democrats surrendered to Very Online activists who, as recent elections have shown, alienated the average American with their radical beliefs. If MAGA gives in to the Groypers, it will be defined by them, just as the Democrats have yet to live down Kamala Harris supporting sex change operations for illegal immigrants.
It’s both simple and difficult to diagnose what I’d call Nick Fuentes’ brand of Neo-Nazism. You’re right: it’s not the technocratic or pseudo-intellectual kind; it’s the Röhm type, the style of the Sturmabteilung (SA): direct confrontation, raw homosexual virility, emotional politics. The same actionism that defined Ernst Röhm’s movement; violence before theory. Röhm himself remains one of the most paradoxical figures in early National Socialism: a veteran who couldn’t return to peace, who lived as if the Great War had never ended. He wanted to turn the SA into a people’s army, the instrument of a “second revolution” that would make Nazism genuinely social; almost proletarian in tone. His homosexuality and his contempt for the old Prussian military elite only made him more subversive in Hitler’s eyes. The Night of the Long Knives wasn’t just a purge; it was the moment when that plebeian, chaotic, revolutionary Nazism, the Röhm Nazism, was extinguished, replaced by the cold bureaucratic totalitarianism of Himmler and Göring. Fuentes’ movement feels like a grotesque digital echo of that same spirit. He lacks Hitler’s pathological charisma, so does JD Vance, or Himmler’s bureaucratic intellect (no one has this in MAGA, maybe Only Elon Musk, who is more like Hess) ; what he does possess is the SA impulse: rage without analysis, viril homosexuality without substance, ideology reduced to posture. His so-called “groypers”, the ridiculous online stormtroopers of moral panic, act first and think never. And in that vacuum of thought, antisemitism becomes the only remaining system of meaning.
People forget that fascism wasn’t born antisemitic. Mussolini mocked Nazi racial theories until 1938 and counted Jews among his early supporters and was a freat denier of the jewish question. The antisemitic turn came later, under the gravitational pull of Hitler’s Germany. The Spanish Falange, the Romanian Iron Guard, even Action Française treated antisemitism as political currency imposed by Berlin. I will write about ot at some point. The European New Right is very similar to this early fascism that rejected antisemitism.
I largely agree, though there is a distinction between the more straightforward homosexuality of Röhm and the implicitly gay, but explicitly women-hating posturing of Fuentes. This may actually be Fuentes' only ideological innovation to his otherwise rote SA-style Nazism. Not that it's totally original. After all, the Nazis approved of Otto Weininger's philosophical misogyny, and fascism has always idolized masculinity to homoerotic extremes. But Fuentes has realized the revolutionary potential of incels to serve as digital stormtroopers in the service of generalized nihilism. I may write another piece on this.
I wrote about Mussolini's antisemitic turn at https://1000yearview.substack.com/p/who-discredited-fascism. You're right that fascism wasn't born antisemitic, but we can't solely blame Hitler for the direction it took. For example, Romanian fascism was natively antisemitic. Historian Stanley Payne writes that Codreanu's Legion of the Archangel Michael "was possibly the only other fascist movement as vehemently anti-Semitic as German Nazis." Obviously, it was Hitler who prioritized genocide as his central ideological objective, but he did find eager collaborators among other European fascists. (Though not all, with pre-Salo Italy protecting its Jews even while adopting racial laws.)
Thank you so much for your clarifications and for taking the time to write such an important comment. I’ll read your article right away. Honestly, I haven’t studied the case of Romanian fascism in depth, but as far as I understood, it was quite influenced by Dollfuss’s Austrofascism, which wasn’t antisemitic, until that antisemitic wave swept through all of Europe. Mussolini himself admitted that antisemitism was never meant to be taken seriously in Italy, and that it only took hold because of Nazi pressure, but that isn't a justification, just like you have pointed out. The cases of Spain and Portugal are quite fascinating in that regard. Franco officially adopted what he called the Judeo-Masonic problem as part of the State doctrine, but he actually took care of the Sephardic Jews(being himself a descendant of conversos?) and, as far as we know, never took part in handing Jews over to the Nazis. Salazar had a very similar attitude, though his was more administrative and less dramatic than Franco’s.
On a more personal note, I’ve always had friends on the far right; people about Fuentes’s age (my own age) who, in the last few months, have turned furiously antisemitic. Very few have had the courage to say NO to antisemitism, or even to keep talking to me!
The same thing happened with my friends and acquaintances on the left, though there it’s about Gaza; a different kind of antisemitism, moralistic perhaps, but just as bitter. With the Groypers gaining influence, I can easily imagine something like an “ICE for Jews”; a sort of modern-day SA. And I completely agree with what you said about homoeroticism versus homosexuality: the whole aesthetic of virility, and one’s personal background, makes the difference. Fuentes is everything but virile.
I never understood how expediting the ethnic cleansing of whites out of South Africa, which makes the ANCs policies easier to implement, is pro - white
I guess it depends on whether you're a white nationalist or a white globalist. If you're a white nationalist, you'll want to maximize your own country's white population at the expense of others. "America First" and all that.
As usual when someone brings up NSDAP/WW2 it’s all surface, zero depth.
(The accusation is the point, and it doesn’t matter if the accuser is out of his depth and doesn’t KNOW the first thing about either Roehm or Groypers for that matter.)
Roehm was an extremist far out of tune with what Germany needed. Hence, when the night of the long knifes came, there was widespread support. Even inside the SA.
Fuentes on the other hand is far more in tune with your average conservative and average American.
(Ask a young Conservative, or American, whether they support Israel, whether another nation should dictate US policies or whether America should send billions every year to Israel, and their answer will invariably come pretty close to Fuentes.)
An attempt at couping the Groypers will therefore invariably fail. Just look at Shapiro floundering the past couple of weeks.
But Fuentes does much more than criticizing Israel. I'd buy that most young Americans agree with Curt Mills of TAC magazine, or Glenn Greenwald, maybe even Dave Smith for young right-wingers. But Fuentes goes beyond all of them. You can say he's right to, or that he shouldn't be taken literally, but the words he says are not what most young Americans believe.
Also, Shapiro has failed to move Fuentes' audience, and Fuentes' defenders have failed to move Shapiro's audience. They were different groups before this started, and not much has changed.
What are Fuentes’ objections to National Socialism? I’m genuinely curious. Does he have policy differences? Moral qualms? Disputes over who qualifies as Aryan? Since Fuentes has only ever praised Hitler, we’ll have to rely on a supporter to fill us in.
I think he even said that he never really found a valid critique of Nazism. He genuinely believes that Nazism was a great system… great precisely because of its violence, its plundering of the Jewries, its brutal SA-style politics…? Ha
The fact that the Groypers are gay just like the Brown Shirts were should give them pause. It won’t but it should.
Groypers aren't very self-reflective. For all that they like to mock Blacks for failing the breakfast question, most Groypers can barely pass it themselves.
I would submit that the Groypers -- and Fuentes in particular -- are parasites on MAGA. And the polling reflects that fact.
MAGA as a whole was a movement the establishment right wanted purged.
Sorry, but this is a trap. You can’t let your enemies determine what your movement is.
The Democrats were taken over by the cultural left. Their brand is still toxic as a result. I expect we’ll find that Nazism is even loss popular among normal Americans than men playing women’s sports.
I don’t see the democrats being “taken over” by anything. The left always had these beliefs, but they were so unpopular that they lose landslide elections for decades. Then I. The 1990s bill clinton and the triangulates said they would lie about their cultural believes long enough to win elections. By the 2010s the left was starting to think the white share of the electorate was getting low enough to rip the mask off because they would have a permanent democratic majority even if they stopped pretending. 2012 seemed to confirm it.
The problem what that Donald Trump came along and moved the party left on economics to appeal more to the working class of all races, and picked up a lot of races.
In a sense the left “won” in that we now have two parties that don’t care about deficits and try to buy votes with entitlements, but it also means that the republicans are competitive still.
I don't quite see the logic of Bill Clinton secretly wanting to defund the police, but publicly spending billions on hiring new police officers. The more likely scenario is that the Democrats surrendered to Very Online activists who, as recent elections have shown, alienated the average American with their radical beliefs. If MAGA gives in to the Groypers, it will be defined by them, just as the Democrats have yet to live down Kamala Harris supporting sex change operations for illegal immigrants.
Dear Ben Koan,
It’s both simple and difficult to diagnose what I’d call Nick Fuentes’ brand of Neo-Nazism. You’re right: it’s not the technocratic or pseudo-intellectual kind; it’s the Röhm type, the style of the Sturmabteilung (SA): direct confrontation, raw homosexual virility, emotional politics. The same actionism that defined Ernst Röhm’s movement; violence before theory. Röhm himself remains one of the most paradoxical figures in early National Socialism: a veteran who couldn’t return to peace, who lived as if the Great War had never ended. He wanted to turn the SA into a people’s army, the instrument of a “second revolution” that would make Nazism genuinely social; almost proletarian in tone. His homosexuality and his contempt for the old Prussian military elite only made him more subversive in Hitler’s eyes. The Night of the Long Knives wasn’t just a purge; it was the moment when that plebeian, chaotic, revolutionary Nazism, the Röhm Nazism, was extinguished, replaced by the cold bureaucratic totalitarianism of Himmler and Göring. Fuentes’ movement feels like a grotesque digital echo of that same spirit. He lacks Hitler’s pathological charisma, so does JD Vance, or Himmler’s bureaucratic intellect (no one has this in MAGA, maybe Only Elon Musk, who is more like Hess) ; what he does possess is the SA impulse: rage without analysis, viril homosexuality without substance, ideology reduced to posture. His so-called “groypers”, the ridiculous online stormtroopers of moral panic, act first and think never. And in that vacuum of thought, antisemitism becomes the only remaining system of meaning.
People forget that fascism wasn’t born antisemitic. Mussolini mocked Nazi racial theories until 1938 and counted Jews among his early supporters and was a freat denier of the jewish question. The antisemitic turn came later, under the gravitational pull of Hitler’s Germany. The Spanish Falange, the Romanian Iron Guard, even Action Française treated antisemitism as political currency imposed by Berlin. I will write about ot at some point. The European New Right is very similar to this early fascism that rejected antisemitism.
Greetings🌹
I largely agree, though there is a distinction between the more straightforward homosexuality of Röhm and the implicitly gay, but explicitly women-hating posturing of Fuentes. This may actually be Fuentes' only ideological innovation to his otherwise rote SA-style Nazism. Not that it's totally original. After all, the Nazis approved of Otto Weininger's philosophical misogyny, and fascism has always idolized masculinity to homoerotic extremes. But Fuentes has realized the revolutionary potential of incels to serve as digital stormtroopers in the service of generalized nihilism. I may write another piece on this.
I wrote about Mussolini's antisemitic turn at https://1000yearview.substack.com/p/who-discredited-fascism. You're right that fascism wasn't born antisemitic, but we can't solely blame Hitler for the direction it took. For example, Romanian fascism was natively antisemitic. Historian Stanley Payne writes that Codreanu's Legion of the Archangel Michael "was possibly the only other fascist movement as vehemently anti-Semitic as German Nazis." Obviously, it was Hitler who prioritized genocide as his central ideological objective, but he did find eager collaborators among other European fascists. (Though not all, with pre-Salo Italy protecting its Jews even while adopting racial laws.)
Thank you so much for your clarifications and for taking the time to write such an important comment. I’ll read your article right away. Honestly, I haven’t studied the case of Romanian fascism in depth, but as far as I understood, it was quite influenced by Dollfuss’s Austrofascism, which wasn’t antisemitic, until that antisemitic wave swept through all of Europe. Mussolini himself admitted that antisemitism was never meant to be taken seriously in Italy, and that it only took hold because of Nazi pressure, but that isn't a justification, just like you have pointed out. The cases of Spain and Portugal are quite fascinating in that regard. Franco officially adopted what he called the Judeo-Masonic problem as part of the State doctrine, but he actually took care of the Sephardic Jews(being himself a descendant of conversos?) and, as far as we know, never took part in handing Jews over to the Nazis. Salazar had a very similar attitude, though his was more administrative and less dramatic than Franco’s.
On a more personal note, I’ve always had friends on the far right; people about Fuentes’s age (my own age) who, in the last few months, have turned furiously antisemitic. Very few have had the courage to say NO to antisemitism, or even to keep talking to me!
The same thing happened with my friends and acquaintances on the left, though there it’s about Gaza; a different kind of antisemitism, moralistic perhaps, but just as bitter. With the Groypers gaining influence, I can easily imagine something like an “ICE for Jews”; a sort of modern-day SA. And I completely agree with what you said about homoeroticism versus homosexuality: the whole aesthetic of virility, and one’s personal background, makes the difference. Fuentes is everything but virile.
I never understood how expediting the ethnic cleansing of whites out of South Africa, which makes the ANCs policies easier to implement, is pro - white
I guess it depends on whether you're a white nationalist or a white globalist. If you're a white nationalist, you'll want to maximize your own country's white population at the expense of others. "America First" and all that.
And no, Groypers aren’t going to be long knifed.
As usual when someone brings up NSDAP/WW2 it’s all surface, zero depth.
(The accusation is the point, and it doesn’t matter if the accuser is out of his depth and doesn’t KNOW the first thing about either Roehm or Groypers for that matter.)
Roehm was an extremist far out of tune with what Germany needed. Hence, when the night of the long knifes came, there was widespread support. Even inside the SA.
Fuentes on the other hand is far more in tune with your average conservative and average American.
(Ask a young Conservative, or American, whether they support Israel, whether another nation should dictate US policies or whether America should send billions every year to Israel, and their answer will invariably come pretty close to Fuentes.)
An attempt at couping the Groypers will therefore invariably fail. Just look at Shapiro floundering the past couple of weeks.
But Fuentes does much more than criticizing Israel. I'd buy that most young Americans agree with Curt Mills of TAC magazine, or Glenn Greenwald, maybe even Dave Smith for young right-wingers. But Fuentes goes beyond all of them. You can say he's right to, or that he shouldn't be taken literally, but the words he says are not what most young Americans believe.
Also, Shapiro has failed to move Fuentes' audience, and Fuentes' defenders have failed to move Shapiro's audience. They were different groups before this started, and not much has changed.
“But who can doubt that Fuentes would’ve jumped at the chance to don a swastika in the 1940s?”
LMAO!
Yes, keep calling him a Nazi, I’m sure it’ll work THIS time!
What are Fuentes’ objections to National Socialism? I’m genuinely curious. Does he have policy differences? Moral qualms? Disputes over who qualifies as Aryan? Since Fuentes has only ever praised Hitler, we’ll have to rely on a supporter to fill us in.
I think he even said that he never really found a valid critique of Nazism. He genuinely believes that Nazism was a great system… great precisely because of its violence, its plundering of the Jewries, its brutal SA-style politics…? Ha