This past Monday Nicholas Fuentes paid a visit to Bettendorf, Iowa, and spoke at the Immigration Forum hosted by the Scott County Teenage Republicans. The past couple of months, Nick Fuentes and his followers have started a rigorous debate within the conservative movement, which seems to have a strong support from the generation Z, who are frustrated with continuous compromise by the mainstream conservatives. Despite my own previous work criticizing the enlightenment foundation of our political system, I also decided it was prudent for the imminent good of our nation to get involved myself. I view the immigration crisis, and social crisis, such as the LGBTQ agenda and abortion as a crisis, and I felt that helping to get President Trump re-elected was in the best interest of both my short term, and long term goals. So to pursue this, I moved to the battleground state of Iowa to campaign as a volunteer. After learning of weak abortion position of Congressional Candidate Marionette Miller-Meeks, I quickly became interested in the congressional campaign here in district 2. During one of the meet ups I was given the opportunity to speak, and it is there that I met Miller-Meeks primary opponent, Bobby Schilling. I introduced myself to the entire audience as host of the Hearth & Fire Podcast, and contributor to The American Sun. None of my reactionary and traditionalist views were hidden from anyone, in fact I incorporated them in my talks, which were well received. Bobby Schilling himself was impressed, and eventually I joined his staff to help him defeat a person I view as corrupt and part of the establishment. All of this aside, the Immigration Forum in Bettendorf, IA which was to feature the Angel Families, Scott Presler, and Dylan Wheeler, also known as Educating Liberals on Twitter. And this is where Nick Fuentes comes into the picture. Dylan Wheeler and I both felt, that nuanced positions on Immigration, including legal immigration need to be discussed in our community as well. That is why I decided to help Dylan Wheeler get Nick Fuentes into the event, ultimately to speak in his place. We thought it best to keep it a secret, due to the unfair character attacks of Nick and the potential of having the event cancelled. The Teenage Republicans were not fully aware of what was happening when Nick Fuentes became a last-minute replacement for Dylan, who caused scene and was removed from the event. Having listened to Bobby Schilling regarding pushing back against political correctness, and the establishment, I never imagined that he would react the way in which he did, completely caving to far left progressive smears.
The morning after the event I was summoned to a meeting with Bobby Schilling to be chastised for allowing him to attend an event, in which a “White Supremacist” would be speaking. Before that meeting I received a call from his son, Terry Schilling. Terry asked if I knew who he was, I said I was aware of his background, and that various mainstream conservatives supported him, such as Michelle Malkin, but others had disavowed both of them, most notably Charlie Kirk. At one point in the conversation Terry said something along the lines of, “Even if what he is saying is true, you just can’t say it unless your a plumber or something.” And we briefly discussed how to advise Bobby to react to the negative press coming in. He also mentioned hating cancel culture stuff, and he seemed really torn between upholding what he knows to be truth, and navigating the waters of political correctness. I think at heart Terry Schilling is an American First guy, with a solid foundation of true conservative principles. I suppose he is struggling with how to navigate between truth and acceptable ways of saying it. Anyhow upon meeting Bobby about an hour later, I advised him to merely state that he had no idea who Nick Fuentes was, and disagreed with his positions, but not to disavow too harshly considering that the younger voter base for the most part likes the guy. Bobby Schilling missed an opportunity at upholding his much touted supposed value of free speech, and took the positions of the ADL and SPLC at face value and completely blasted the guy. His initial tweet was, “I had no idea who Fuentes was up until a few minutes ago…His rhetoric is disgusting and I want in no way to be associated with him. His racist anti-Semitic statements do not reflect my own views. I proudly support Israel and I love people of all colors and ethnic backgrounds.” Knowing how liberals operate and use such labels to silence and censor, how could you possibly come to that conclusion after only learning who the guy is a few minutes ago? He later even added that his views are “bull shit and completely off the wall.” Marionette Miller-Meeks caved to the establishment narrative as well stating, “ I was not aware that Nick Fuentes was going to speak at the Scott County Teenage Republicans Forum until he began speaking….Fuentes’ views are racist and anti-Semitic and they in no way reflect my own…There is no room in this country for racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and hate. I have long been a supporter of Israel and celebrate people of all backgrounds.” While not having any personal ties to Nick Fuentes, I have often retweeted some of his takes on Twitter, and come to his defense on some things. Needless to say, when Anti-Fascist retweeted some of those tweets, mostly out of context of course, I was no longer on the Bobby Schilling staff. This is all a very sad state of affairs quite frankly, and displays a huge lack of political courage of both of their parts. I guess when they say that they support free speech, what they really mean is speech that their donors and progressive gatekeepers like. Nick Fuentes’ views are completely misrepresented and it is wrong of the GOP, “conservative” politicians, and the Republican establishment to take cues from the various leftist groups, and organizations that supposedly represent the interest of all Jewish people and Israel. Rather than disavowing based on the lies of the ADL & SPLC, if you think that your ideas are better, confront his ideas fairly & civilly.
Let’s first address the accusation that Nick Fuentes is racist, and made racist remarks at the Immigration Forum. As Graham Ambrose with the Quad City Times put it, “…far-right activist who delivered racist remarks Monday at a forum hosted by the Scott County Teenage Republicans.” Aside from being a buzzword used to silence valid opinions, what does that word even mean? Even the dictionary definition has morphed over time, as it seems progressives get the prerogative to dictate to everyone the meaning of words. The current top definition on Mariam Webster is the following, “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” When I was younger, and in school growing up we were taught that racism was treating people unfairly or discriminating based on the color of their skin, with no regard to personal merit. From most of what I’ve seen from Nick Fuentes, his position is more nuanced even by the standards of the most up to date definition. He has pointed out group differences, but has highlighted influence from a variety of factors. Including the fact that progressive policies in our system incentivize minority and migrant groups to vote for leftist policies. Regardless of our nations unfortunate racial history that includes horrendous things such as slavery, today migrants and minorities are given privileges that offspring of the original Anglo/European Americans just aren’t. Big business favoring cheaper labor both from illegals, and work visa workers, provides what many consider an unfair competitive advantage. Affirmative action both in the workplace and education system is a glaring example of this as well. Frankly, for white Christian males, the deck seems stacked against them. Pair that with the constant anti-White rhetoric from the left, how could you in good conscience oppose push back against this? When people speak out against this, they silenced by words like racist, fascist, White Supremacist, precisely to protect this system of incentives, and the socialist agenda. Is Nick correct that immigration must be addressed first in order to prevent a collapse into a Marxist hell hole? I’m not sure, but I know he isn’t racist for asking the questions and proposing solutions. The correlation between demographics and political leanings is clear, as is the correlation to demographics and violent crime. As someone who fled Baltimore for the Midwest, I can attest that the difference is clear. Demographics do make an apparent difference in quality of life, and apparent value systems. I’m not making a judgement at this as to the cause, and whether it strictly is racial, but I certainly don’t buy into the Marxist notion that systematic White Supremacy and Oppression is the cause of the crime and political leanings in “diverse cities” such as Baltimore and Chicago.
On to the next fun one. “Nick Fuentes is an anti-semite.” Another word that is very confusing to figure out. As much as I’ve observed, Nick has not stated that he hates individual Jewish people strictly for being ethnically Jewish. He has criticized policies that appear to put the interest of Israel ahead of the interest of the United States of America. He’s also criticized Jewish lobbies that promote globalism, the lgbtq agenda, tech censorship, and other various progressive ideas that oppose his traditional values. I have as well. In fact one of the tweets dug up in the aftermath of his appearance was one in which I stated, “White Supremacy equals anything that Jewish don’t like, and is used as a smokescreen for their own supremacy.” My choice of words were poorly chosen, as I did not mean to generalize that much, as I do have close Jewish friends who do that agree with these principles. I was alluding to Jewish Mafia groups such as the ADL and SPLC, who use buzzwords and labels to silence anyone who opposes their globalist and degenerate agenda. And frankly there is an obvious supremacy here. Our society has reached a state in which it is completely acceptable to criticize whites of European ancestry, but any criticism remotely tied to anything Jewish is denounced as anti-semitic. Advocating for the interest of white people is strictly forbidden, and enforced by proxy via corporate censorship through what operate as public utilities. I stand behind Nick Fuentes’ stance, that the interest of our nation should be put ahead of that of foreign influence, to include the state of Isreal, and when our interest is to the detriment of theirs, so be it. I will always put America First.
As far as Marionette Miller-Meeks comment about Nick Fuentes peddling hate, at this point that should rather obvious. Being hateful, and being honest about the harmful effects of mass immigration are not the same thing. It doesn’t negate judging people on individual merit, and using that as a basis for personal associations. And yes, there should be a better way to vet people coming in, and some people from some cultures are less likely to assimilate. As a nation, we do become, who we bring in here. One individual in the Quad City Times article mentioned that her “son is half hispanic and that the term racist is thrown around too freely.” Well that’s exactly the point isn’t it? Pragmatic arguments regarding demographics based on data, however accurate or not is, does not make Nick Fuentes a racist. Even Nick Fuentes pointed out during his Q & A that he is 1/4th Mexican. He made no value judgements on individuals based solely on their race. He made that rather clear. Acknowledging rapid demographic manipulation is an entirely different thing, and winning them over in an ideological battle seems to be an uphill battle.
Another thing brought up frequently to discredit Nick Fuentes is his attendance of the Unite the Right Rally in 2017. Honestly who cares? A lot of people from various ideological bents did. It was billed as a free speech rally to protest the removal of a confederate statue. Not everyone that attended were White Nationalist or Neo Nazis. There were genuine Trump supporters there. Did it turn into an absolute disaster? Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and not everyone who showed up, knew what they were getting into. He was not to my knowledge a member of any White Nationalist, Nazi, or Supremacist group, nor has he been after. The intent was to the free expression of ideas and dialogue.
Rabbi Linda Berthenthal from Davenport’s Temple Emanuel is quoted in the Quad City Times as saying, “The idea that diversity is not good is deeply racist and un-American…Fuentes doesn’t understand what I think is the most basic lesson of Judaism and the most basic ideal of America: All people are created in the Image of God. It’s not white people in the image of God. It’s all people in the image of God. Diversity is good.” There are few things to breakdown here. First, Nick Fuentes is a Roman Catholic, and also believes that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God. He has never argued that the value of whites is more than that of non-whites. It literally has nothing to do with understanding the political and societal ramification of forced diversity and demographic change. Arguing against multi-culturalism and its effect, may contradict the idea of a “proposition nation” theory, but the disagreement comes down to what it means to be a nation. Even a quick google search brings up the following definition of a nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. The notion that a nation can be united behind an idea, especially enlightenment ones, is pushing against the entire history of nationhood. We don’t even seem to have a common culture to unite around anymore, and certainly the progressives are attempting to push their ideas of what that should be upon the rest of us. The same proponents of the “American idea” have perpetuated the notion of freedom of expression. There is an apparent contradiction here. Nick Fuentes freedom of expression is being attacked via slander, labels and censorship. Even Allan Ross, the director of the Jewish Federation of the Quad-Cities said it himself, “….haters shouldn’t be given a platform and should be marginalized.” How American is that?
Finally, the most dishonest accusation of them is the charge of being a holocaust denier, and the reference to his cookie monster parody in which he alluded to the commonly touted 6 million figure of Jews killed in the holocaust being exaggerated. First of all, questioning the figures themselves, are not tantamount to holocaust denial. When I was in school, I remember being taught that the figures were an estimate, and that there was legitimate disagreement in the figures. I’ve heard estimates anywhere from 1.3 million, to the most common of 6 million. While I don’t believe it’s that productive to bring up and even question, the numbers do seem shaky on the surface. The idea that there were roughly 9 million Jews in Europe before WW2, and exactly 3 million after doesn’t seem to account for various migrations to the United States and Palestine. Should one decided to address this, I don’t blame Nick for taking the ironic parody route. Given the virulent climate that we are in politically, it’s tough to figure out the safest way with the least amount of backlash. Ultimately math, is objective.
Yes, Nick Fuentes incorporates race into his arguments regarding immigration and demographics. These topics are not comfortable or polite to talk about. However, given the potential consequences for those who desire a traditional culture, and safe society, it is a necessary conversation. Towards the end of Nick’s speech at the Immigration Forum, he brought up the need to develop a Monolithic culture, to even give migrants something to assimilate to. The word monolithic means, large, powerful, and intractably indivisible and uniform. I can’t speak for Nick, but I took that to mean there needs to be an overarching agreement of what our values really are. As a Roman Catholic, and myself an Orthodox Christian, I think we would agree that we must build a solid traditional Christian society, that rejects the global progressive agenda. I’ve argued in the past that this problem is symptomatic of our system, and a failure of enlightenment principles. I’m not completely sure that Nick and I agree on this, and thus we probably have different ideas as to how to accomplish this. That being said, disavowing Fuentes and marginalizing people who remote agree with him, only hinders the necessary discussion needed to restore our nation to any semblance of traditional values. The local GOP, Bobby Schilling, and Marionette Miller-Meeks missed a golden opportunity to have constructive dialogue with a rapidly growing conservative movement. Shame on them for caving to progressives and Marxist pressure.
11 Comments Add yours
Under what delusions must one operate in order to view the GOP as a plausible vehicle for “traditionalist,” or “reactionary,” politics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Valid question. lol And frankly experimentation seems to be validated to a certain extent with hindsight and experience. However on the same token, given some of the momentum and debate happening within the party now, maybe it could be? I don’t claim to have all the answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We must play the cards we are dealt. And truth be told, this event being a platform for Nick to have more mainstream exposure is far more important than the candidacy of some powerless 2 bit replaceable bureaucrat. Electoral politics may be thoroughly liberal, but we can certainly appropriate its visibility for reactionary ends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
well , ” The local GOP, Bobby Schilling, and Marionette Miller-Meeks missed a golden opportunity to have constructive dialogue ” and they always will . I have been down the road you are on. as I enter my 6th decade, I have a long history of working for, donating too , and campaigning for the GOP . they have never failed to disappoint me . no matter WHO you send to Washington , and we got our guy there , they will turn him or destroy him . they will use committee assignments , donor incentives , and promises of future lobbying gigs to turn them . If that fails , they will get donors to fund smear campaigns and fund primary challengers that will lavishly spend against you . the media will develop a curious interest in all your rumored faults. and when they run you out of office , you will find not a lobbing job to be found . not one. this is to make a an example to any other independent minded person who manages to buck the system to get elected.
where as if you paly ball with the donors , even if you lose your seat for doing it, then there will be lavish and sometimes seven figure gigs for you . just ask Paul Ryan or Eric cantor . https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/09/spiteful-virginia-gope-target-dave-brat-for-retaliation/ . here is a good take on some of their shenanigans . http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19238
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly true. When Bobby Schilling was voted out initially, he was a lobbyist in China.
here is an excellent article on what the GOP will get from trump for not voting to remove him from office.
and an good article on how Washington is currently structured http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19253
I hate to say it but it sounds to me like you went into this from the rather naïve position that political leaders are elected in this country rather than selected. Voting is mostly mock -liturgy, not practical political action.
Also, you say you worked with Dylan to bring in Fuentes and then he chimped out at the last minute? It sounds like Dylan played on your naiveté to get you bounced from the campaign and cut off from any potential benefit from the racket that a successful campaign almost always is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dylan didn’t chimp out per se, as much as he created pre-text for replacing him with Nick Fuentes. That was actually rather important in making this happen. Honestly, had my tweets not been dug up supporting Nick, I wouldn’t be fired. lol I wasn’t interested in going on to become a congressional aide in DC anyways….I literally just moved from there to the midwest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Optically speaking associating with catboy enthusiasts isn’t the wisest decision, no matter what you believe about swastikas or whatever.
“We don’t even seem to have a common culture to unite around anymore,”
Culture is deeper, far deeper than the internet, or the TV, academia.
For instance you probably now are safer leaving your doors unlocked in the Midwest.
My main complaint with this piece is everything is framed in liberal terms, and you made the common mistake of letting them frame the show trial with you playing Defense.
Stop apologizing for their crimes.
Go on offense. Go after Loxism, Jewish Racism, Israel as ethnostate.
Black racism is certainly not concealed.
The Left’s entire program centers on hatred of whites, and it’s Democratic Party Policy.
Offense: Go after anti-white pre-genocidal actions of erasing our history in 2020.
You can certainly point out the racial bias of BLM, the academic bias that whites are intrinsically evil.
Then bring up the entire suite of pre-genocidal and genocide incitement behaviors against Whites that happened in America in 2020.
Incitement to Genocide is a crime and yes even under US Law.
If we could hang Julius Streicher [editor of Der Sturmer] for inciting genocide, we can certainly investigate and probably indict Zucker at CNN, the NYT, and everyone who organized the toppling of statues last year. This pretty much cuts across the entire progressive spectrum ‘racially’.
One could also mention that for people who put race in everything, as law and policy it’s evil and insane for them to accuse others of the crimes they are committing.
And yes, they are crimes….
Incitement to Genocide. 18 USC, S. 1091
Please pay attention to sections A, C, D – A covers what happened in 2020
C- covers Conspiracy or attempt
D- covers anyone in the USA
(I should mention I expect no one to be charged, this simply lays out the moral/legal case, and mostly for the common man, who needs his laws to feel justified).
Incitement to Genocide. 18 USC, S. 1091
(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1)kills members of that group;
(2)causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3)causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4)subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5)imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6)transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1)in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2)a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d)Attempt and Conspiracy.—
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.
(e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
(1)the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or
(2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is—
(A)a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(B)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(C)a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or
(D)present in the United States.
(f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.—
Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.
(Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)