In an era when the word “Nazi” is often used loosely, Nick Fuentes stands out as a literal case. He openly praises Adolf Hitler, minimizes or mocks the Holocaust, rejects women’s right to vote, and advocates for an explicitly white, Christian state.
Fuentes’ worldview is built on antisemitic conspiracy theories, including claims that “organized Jewry” secretly controls governments, media, and finance. He has made explicit racist statements about Black people, defended segregationist ideas, and framed democratic equality as a civilizational error that must be reversed. He treats democratic equality, women’s rights, and Western civilization not as achievements to be protected, but as corruptions to be undone.
Fuentes does not flirt with extremist ideas — he endorses them openly, rejects the moral foundations of post-war democracy, and treats mass-murder ideology as a source of admiration rather than shame. Part of his appeal is how he says it, explicit, straightforward and not beating around the bush. (At least he’s honest I guess?)
What makes Fuentes relevant is not just what he believes, but how many people now hear it. His interview with Tucker Carlson — the most influential figure in conservative media, with nearly 17 million followers on X and a podcast that has topped Apple and Spotify charts — has drawn over 18.4 million views on X alone. A separate appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored has reached nearly 5 million views on YouTube in under a week, extending Fuentes’ reach far beyond fringe communities.
As hostility toward Jews has intensified since October 7, figures like Fuentes show how racism, antisemitism, and misogyny can be repackaged, amplified, and normalized when extreme claims face little public challenge.
So what do we do? How do we counter this? We think it’s simple – talk.
Social media makes it seem like everyone is antisemitic, racist, a Nazi, or a Hamas supporter. Many people are. But the data shows a small fraction of users generate the overwhelming majority of political content. Meaning, not everyone is as insane as they look online — the insane people just post more.
The result of all this is a large group of passive observers – people without fixed ideological commitments – whose understanding of politics is shaped almost entirely by what their feeds show them. Right now, that ecosystem is saturated with extremist content: Nick Fuentes aura-Hitler edits, “Another $20 Trillion to Israel” memes, and general conspiratorialism that sells hatred under the guise of comedy. This is not accidental — social-media algorithms systematically amplify extremism because extremism is provocative and therefore profitable.
Crucially, the average young man isn’t looking for Holocaust denial or white-nationalist talking points. Algorithms put it in front of him. Some shrug it off. Some fall into Hamas stan culture or neo-Nazi pipelines. Either way, when no counterargument exists in the same information ecosystem, repetition starts to feel like consensus.
Extremists thrive in this vacuum — not because their ideas are persuasive, but because no one else is talking. The old strategy was censorship: ban them, erase their content and hope the problem disappears.
This approach failed horribly. As scholars have noted, suppressing extremists doesn’t diminish their influence — it multiplies it. It turns conspiracy peddlers into martyrs with “forbidden knowledge.” Kicking Fuentes off YouTube, Spotify, and putting him on the TSA’s No Fly List strengthened his appeal by making him seem like a truth-telling martyr being silenced by the elites.
Censorship doesn’t work. Silence doesn’t work. But dialogue does. Arguably, the event most responsible for the rise of Nick Fuentes is the death of Charlie Kirk. And Charlie, before his tragic death, said it best: “When we stop talking, that’s when hatred begins.”
Echo chambers make people bolder and dumber. Bringing ideas into public conversation — where they can be challenged — breaks their power. Entering with facts, explanations, and moral clarity is the antidote to Fuentes’ demagoguery.
When someone starts flirting with Holocaust denialism, that has to be confronted head-on. When someone argues for racial segregation or claims Black people are genetically inferior, that needs to be dismantled with facts, history, and moral clarity. What actually convinces the broader public that extremists have a point is not hearing their arguments; it’s watching everyone else stay silent.
Remember the 60-70% of onlookers who haven’t chosen a side yet. They must be exposed to a more sane worldview. And if you’re thinking, “I don’t feel equipped to rattle off 20 detailed facts and identify exactly where he’s wrong,” that is not what is required. You don’t need to be a historian. You just need to challenge bad ideas in plain language. Most of the time, the simplest pushback is enough to break the illusion of consensus that extremists rely on.
We aren’t trying to out-debate Fuentes on live TV. But when the random kid in the back of class drops one of these talking points, show the room he’s not an expert. When a kid in the dining hall says, “bro, fuck AIPAC, they control our government,” why not say something? Ask him to explain how a group that doesn’t even crack the top 15 in lobbying spending supposedly controls everything.
Even if he doesn’t change his mind, everyone else at the lunch table will take him much less seriously. Honesty and integrity will trump (no pun intended) accusations and irrelevant callouts. If we engage effectively, we will even begin to swing the most radical.
We can talk about the specific reasons as to why the far-right feels so emboldened now, but that’s another conversation. For now, let’s talk to Nick and the Groypers.
