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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Brunet, I had to stop reading about a 1/3 of the way into the article. This was seriously well done reportage despite the comments of two pretty obvious trolls (no doubt more show up). May God grant us the opportunity to take out the trash.
I don't think Nick Fuentes is employed by any government to infiltrate and subvert the American Right as a Situationist agent provocateur. He seems to be a lone actor, playing the game as a freelance project. He suits himself. Paradoxically enough, in the philosophical sense, that level of Will To Power Individualism is as Right Wing as it gets. Another paradox: the charismatic appeal that propels the Fuentes Cult of Personality seems to consist entirely of deadpan chutzpah. Paradox on paradox.
One of Ayn Rand's books was titled The Virtue Of Selfishness. If Fuentes ever gets around to prompting an AI program to write his memoir, he should title it The Virtue Of Shamelessness.
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
Here on Substack, there are a few others that are good reads for the Dissident Right:
Good Citizen (conspiratorial but usually brings the goods)
Neoliberal Feudalism (always brings the goods)/ Neo-Liberal Review
Arthur Sido
Tactical Hermit
Z-man
Arktos Journal
Frank Wright
Contemplations on the Tree of Wow
New Right Post
The Right to Dissent
There are a lot on here but those are just a taste of pedo-free RW Substack.
Woe not wow. Screw you, autocorrect
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
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.
Also Ubersoy
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
A 600-page spastically garbled rant about teenage homo pedophile neonazis who call themselves “groypers”, and use a frog as their emblem?
Mommy must be super proud to know what her 34yr old unemployed son has been doing in her basement these past 6 months!
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.
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?
This is horrifying I couldnt read at all. Props on good journalism though. Mass redact groypers with redaction squads
A haunting read, well done.
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.
So, that post back several months where you featured a Fuentes video, was a ruse to get into his circles, eh? Time to tell the tale.
Mr. Brunet, I had to stop reading about a 1/3 of the way into the article. This was seriously well done reportage despite the comments of two pretty obvious trolls (no doubt more show up). May God grant us the opportunity to take out the trash.
Garbage "expose". Really pathetic too.
"I've changed my mind, Hobbes. People are scum." --Calvin
The sad thing is, I already knew about some of the people on this list.
I don't think Nick Fuentes is employed by any government to infiltrate and subvert the American Right as a Situationist agent provocateur. He seems to be a lone actor, playing the game as a freelance project. He suits himself. Paradoxically enough, in the philosophical sense, that level of Will To Power Individualism is as Right Wing as it gets. Another paradox: the charismatic appeal that propels the Fuentes Cult of Personality seems to consist entirely of deadpan chutzpah. Paradox on paradox.
One of Ayn Rand's books was titled The Virtue Of Selfishness. If Fuentes ever gets around to prompting an AI program to write his memoir, he should title it The Virtue Of Shamelessness.