A Marked Aversion to Nick Fuentes:

Could Catboy Fuentes Be Part of a Black Propaganda Campaign?

A Poison Pill? A Grotesque, Repulsive Figure Achieves Prominence and Influence

Recent appearances on both Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan have propelled Nick Fuentes into a state of seemingly intractable prominence and influence. Somewhat suspiciously, this has coincided with a surge in coverage in mainstream outlets that is far less vitriolic than one might expect. Many opposed to the left and Jewish power and influence regard this as a most positive development. However, a cursory review of Fuentes’ rhetoric and personal life reveal that this is almost certainly a long-term liability, and may even prove to have devastating repercussions in the short-term as well. Indeed, many details of Nick Fuentes at least suggest the possibility (if not probability) of a black propaganda campaign. If he is not part of such a campaign, he might as well be.

For those unaware, black propaganda is the most devious and arguably most sophisticated form of propaganda. A black propaganda campaign discredits ideological opposition, enemy of the state, or other target by propping up a speaker or entity that appears to represent the target of that campaign, but in fact serves to discredit or harm the target in any number of ways.¹ To the public at large, the mouthpiece appears to speak on behalf of fascism, communism, or whatever person or entity is targeted by the black propaganda campaign, but the mouthpiece is in fact crafted and choreographed in a way that is ultimately discrediting or damaging, or galvanizes the populace against the target in some other way. This is done while carefully concealing the actual source of the propaganda effort.

Black propaganda is closely associated with another form of discreditation known colloquially as “nutpicking.” “Nutpicking” describes the phenomenon whereby media outlets and sophisticated but subversive content creators will specifically curate representatives of a disfavored ideology or point of view with a specific intent and design to choose persons and groups that will discredit the point of view these entities express or avow. Whether fairly or unfairly, this explains why for a long time David Duke was chosen by mainstream media outlets. Regardless of how persuasive or articulate he may be to those of a more radical persuasion, he was—fairly or unfairly—off-putting and discrediting to a critical mass of the public at large. This also explains why such outlets shy away from figures like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald²; they know these and other figures will be remarkably persuasive for their dissident views. This same phenomenon explains the sorts who would appear on various tv tabloid daytime talk shows, from Geraldo Rivera, to Jerry Springer, from Ricki Lake to Sally Jessy Raphael. Very often the subjects of such “nutpicking” campaigns were and are discrediting. Other times otherwise articulate and sensible persons are set up by unfair, unscrupulous, and deceptive tactics to make them appear discrediting to the public at large. Interestingly, absent perfect information as to the true nature of such subjects, even the most sophisticated will sometimes be unsure if a subject is part of a black propaganda campaign, or is acting in good faith and pure intentions but has been made the target of this “nutpicking” method of manipulation and propaganda.³

Whether Fuentes is in fact part of a black propaganda campaign or is simply the latest exemplar of this nutpicking method of manipulation and deception is impossible to determine, both at this time and most likely into the future. Even so, the number of liabilities that Fuentes suffers from are staggering and should be of grave concern to any sensible person. Incredulously, far too few are regarding this matter with the caution or trepidation these and other considerations warrant.

Despite the fervent temperament of his many supporters, Nick Fuentes, particularly given his recent rise to prominence, does indeed invoke these very problems associated with both black propaganda campaigns and this “nutpicking” method. The general consensus of his appearance on Piers Morgan is that legacy media lauds Morgan’s performance as a devastating expose of Fuentes’ racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, so on and so forth: some of this may be sincere, but much of it fits the mold of the lying press, die Lügenpresse. Much of right-wing social media takes the opposite view, that Fuentes made an ass of Piers Morgan. That is largely true, but Fuentes nonetheless revealed many of the liabilities and flaws that render him both undesirable and a long-term and possibly even short-term risk as well. As just one example, Fuentes embarrassed Morgan in response to the stupid argument that school shootings somehow discredit charges about the wild overrepresentation of black perpetrators in violent crime. Fuentes' retort asking in disbelief whether Morgan actually does not understand “per capita” or is “just playing dumb” was similarly devastating. Fuentes also remained steadfast in the face of the ridiculous clip by Daniel Finkelstein cawing about “me mum and pa,” a moment which has since made “Danny the Fink” an object of ridicule on Twitter and other venues. Fuentes is to be lauded for insisting that emotional manipulation regarding the Holocaust does not work on him or his generation. It is nonetheless lamentable and a very bad harbinger that he has become the most renowned mouthpiece on these and other matters.

This tweet, dated December 17, is typical of Morgan’s twitter feed, indicating that his interview with Fuentes has not gone as well for him as he and others insist.

A meme related to the “per capita” part of the discussion. In respect to certain violent crime, the meme is misleading as blacks outnumber whites in absolute numbers in various categories of crime, as 13/50 went up to 13/60.

Certain moments in the interview require an examination of the overall context of Fuentes’ personal life. A particularly salient portion of the interview concerns Fuentes’ lack of romantic success and his celibacy, a matter on which he oscillated, stating it is voluntary at one moment in observation of his Catholic faith, while later admitting he was an “incel.”⁴ The manner in which Morgan attacked Fuentes has also been the subject of ridicule and criticism, as the foppish British twit confronted and insulted the firebrand because he “never got laid;” the salient portion of the transcript reads as follows:

Morgan: I mean, I know I’m the boomer. I know I’m the boomer here, but actually, you’re a 27 year-old dinosaur, aren’t you? Aren’t you, Nick Fuentes? All women. All women are annoying. All women grow old. They all get fat. Says the guy. Have you ever had sex?

Fuentes: No. Absolutely not.

Morgan: Wow. Says the guy who’s never got laid. Wow.

Fuentes: That’s the thing, though. You boomers, it’s always…

Morgan: Are you an expert in women given you never got laid?

Fuentes: Yeah, we’re going back to the stone age. You’re absolutely correct

To see and hear a 60 year-old man carry on in this manner, replete with the dated boomer expression “getting laid” is quite the spectacle, as it was one of those highlights for which Piers has been excoriated. Consider however the seemingly blithe assertion that this moment made both men look grotesque, irredeemable even.

The interview with Fuentes is in the context of Morgan's interivew with Tucker Carlson shortly beforehand, in which he made some reprehensible and preposterous remarks for saking his country and posterity for a "good curry." Piers Morgan remains too arrogant to understand or even perceive that he was made to be an object of ridicule and scorn among many even before this interview.

“Incel” has of course become a go-to insult, most especially for women to ridicule and chastise men, very often men they know nothing about. Men of a particularly effeminate disposition, such as so-called “male feminists” and others of similar ilk, are also using the term with increasing frequency. Very often this term is thrown around in a way that reveals a staggering ignorance about the true dynamics of female sexual attraction. It is a lazy, off-the-shelf insult, similar to speculations about small penis size that a particularly vapid sort of woman as well as a certain sort of man blurt out as a mindless exhortation.

These qualifications notwithstanding, being a virgin at 27 is not a desirable state of affairs. It is a tried-and-true trope to make men an object of ridicule, a phenomenon exhibited throughout many portents of American popular culture (and classical literature as well). As just one example, virginity into young adulthood was one of the most common jokes aimed at the character Bud Bundy in the irreverent but somewhat intelligent Fox sit-com Married with Children: this among myriad other examples. As stated, Fuentes initially cited his Catholic faith. This is in tension with a later admission that he sees himself as an incel, noting that both “chads” and “incels” are in agreement concerning the appalling state of modern women and perhaps even the innate condition of womanhood universally.

This matter of course requires an examination and admonition of inflexible Christian morality, and Catholic prudery more precisely. As has been stated several times by this author, the reactionary right must embrace a balance between wanton sexual profligacy and hyper promiscuity on one hand and rigid, stodgy sexual prudery on the other. Hook-up culture, several iterations of the “slut generation,” which have in fact cascaded with increasing severity since the boomer generation, are to be condemned forcefully and unequivocally. Unworkable prudery is not the answer either, however.

The Christian ideal prohibiting sex before marriage is laudable to a small, limited degree, but requires a society and set of norms where young adults marry much younger than is currently the practice in the modern world: after high school or at the very least towards the end of the college years at the absolute latest. Society however is presently far removed from these norms. Lauding the Christian prohibition against sex before marriage with no consideration of or adaptation to these mitigating factors is thus foolhardy, just as it will repel far more people than it will attract. In relation to the sort of young men who are apt to support Nick Fuentes, known in Internet parlance as “groypers,” such rhetoric is less than helpful, particularly as there is no emphasis, to this author’s knowledge, to seek relationships when young men need to do so and at least aspire to defy the societal trend that delays marriage into the late 20s and throughout the 30s and beyond.

Such advice harms young men in other ways. Lack of sexual intimacy and romantic interludes guarantees personal neuroticism and engenders bitterness, frustration, and loneliness. More importantly, it renders future prospects of relationships and even marriage far more difficult than it would otherwise be. This vital consideration is revealed through a proper understanding of female sexual attraction, and the vital role social proof—also known as preselection—plays in female sexual desire and romantic interest. Men of course desire beautiful, attractive women, but beautiful, attractive women do not desire handsome men nearly as much as they desire men who are desired (or perceived to be desired) by other attractive, high-status women. Entertaining the maddest folly of prolonged, indefinite celibacy into one’s twenties and thirties is the kiss of death for most prospects of romantic interest and even marriage for precisely this reason. One can scarcely think of a greater liability to repel most women than this sort of intentional self-sabotage. In direct contravention to Fuentes’ boasting about being a 27-year-old virgin, a young man should develop romantic interests during those crucial adolescent years and young adulthood at the very least to obtain that social proof and to develop experience interacting with and courting interest from women. Once that window of opportunity is missed, women perceive—often intuitively—this lack of experience and the prospects for romantic success are compounded greatly in difficulty, often to a degree that can never be recovered from.

The will to sex, for lack of a better term, is part of the life force. Society must again achieve a state of affairs where young white men and women desire each other—sexually and romantically—with designs for certain carnal delights, while also tempered by a societal and individual emphasis on long-term, committed relationships, with an eye to marriage and child-rearing. Fuentes and the groyper movement are—to a very large degree—antithetical to this crucial directive, not just by propping up a celibate “weirdo” as a frontman, but in other ways that exacerbate the divide between the sexes.

“Weirdo” is effectively a noun for someone who is weird. These words exude estrogen, which is why “weirdo” was selected with quotation marks. More importantly, such considerations also suggest why Fuentes is being heralded—perhaps even propped up—as a mouthpiece for the new, hard right.

Just before this moment in the interview, there was an even more telling admonition by Morgan in which he questioned whether Fuentes was gay. This was done as a lead-up to Fuentes’ alleged misogyny and declared celibacy (voluntary or involuntary). The relevant portion of the transcript reads as follows:

Just to clear up one of the many theories about you. I have no idea what the answer is and you haven’t got an answer. But are you actually attracted to women?

At an initial level this seems most directly related to the question of Fuentes’s celibacy and lack of romantic experience or success with women. Note however the phrase “many theories about.” This alludes to a greater context of—if not scandals—liabilities and embarrassments about Fuentes that have been documented in certain, undisclosed corners of the Internet. These matters further impugn Fuentes and implore caution that he is at best a long-term liability to any meaningful opposition to the left. First and foremost among these scandals is that Fuentes was caught having a browser window featuring tranny catboy pornography. This was followed by another incident in 2024 where a gay pornographic stream came on one venue, but not others, lending some credence to the hacking theory in that particular instance. He has also been associated with a particularly odious twink known as “Catboy Kami.” Consider also embarrassing rants like this video, insisting that gay sex is (somehow) not really sex. Another scandal of note concerns Fuentes being linked to a discord server in 2018 that included a “Catbois” channel featuring sexualized animations of underage boys. This vile genre is known as shotacon.

Above, an image documenting the 2022 incident, below the leaked image from a discord tied to Fuentes from 2018. A screenshot of the tranny pornography on the browser window (the 2022 incident) is available in the hyperlink above pertaining to that particular matter.

Apologists and defenders of Fuentes have rationalized these and other scandals in various ways. Some insist the window tab with catboy tranny pornography in 2022 was due to some sophisticated hacking. Particularly in relation to the 2022 incident, such rationalizations should be utterly unpersuasive to most readers. For his part, Morgan could have redeemed himself to some limited degree if he brought up these and other matters, but such unpleasant topics doubtlessly offend his politically correct sensibilities. After all, the man who forsakes his posterity and phenotype with glee for a good curry would never want to be accused of homophobia or intolerance of such sexual deviancy.

Piers Morgan and those of his ilk are too daft or too cowardly to discern that now that we have their recipes, there is no reason for them to stay.

The Black Propaganda Theory

These and other liabilities should fill anyone opposed to the left with alarm and consternation. Far too few however heed such calls. At the outset, persuading others of the validity of such concerns requires some sort of explanation how Fuentes could possibly be part of a black propaganda campaign or, alternatively, the “nutpicking” method of discreditation described above. Why would the ruling class prop up a figure like Fuentes, particularly as his efforts have been so successful in rallying core opposition to liberal orthodoxy among a critical mass of young men?

There are certainly problems with the black propaganda theory⁵, and readers should not necessarily be persuaded by these theories, at least not conclusively. Consider however one plausible theory that, if not entirely probable, is at least plausible and sensible. Despite being backed by unimaginably wealthy and powerful interests, woke ideology has, for the moment, faltered in much of the public consciousness. Public opinion has, at least for the time being, turned against much of the transgender menace, although conservative opposition was meek and ineffectual, rendering a process that took a decade when it should have been over very quickly. Public opinion has also largely turned against the Black Lives Matter movement, just as a critical mass of whites are yielding to what many amusingly refer to as “black fatigue,” although often with a different, much more evocative epithet.

If the backlash against leftist woke ideology is an inevitable certainty, as the pendulum always swings back and forth in modern, liberal democracies, those powerful interests beholden to such ideology would be well advised to contain such backlash, isolate it in a controlled, confined space with fatal flaws already built into its very framework. This theory discerns Fuentes as a prophylactic measure to prevent effective opposition from gaining prominence, one without so many flaws and embarrassing liabilities. More importantly, the tremendous flaws built into Fuentes’ personage allow for controlled demolition to undercut and neutralize the backlash against leftist orthodoxy once these and other liabilities come to a head, as they inevitably will.

The Fuentes phenomenon serves other purposes as well. As Lipton Matthews has articulated, Fuentes is “the perfect villain for liberal audiences—too unserious to threaten power, yet outrageous enough to fuel outrage clicks.” In this way, “the dissident right loses credibility” with Fuentes’ rise, as does any opposition to the left more generally. Consider for example Kevin MacDonald’s criticism of Fuentes’ simplistic denunciation of the Jews as a group. MacDonald writes the following regarding Fuentes’ statements on Tucker Carlson’s podcast:

Tucker seems to be implying that we should only talk about the Jews as individuals, never as a group — “the Jews,” implying that by referring to the Jews, Fuentes is putting all Jews in the same basket. This is the wrong way to think about it. Of course, one can’t put all Jews in the same basket, implying that all are on the same page on anything. Who says that?? You can’t think of Stephen Miller like you think of Jonathan Greenblatt.

And yet Fuentes makes these and other errors with his simplistic dogma. MacDonald elaborates further on the intellectual approach that must be articulated both to understand the Jewish Question intelligently and to articulate the matter in a way that will be both persuasive and working from a sound intellectual basis. That sound intellectual approach requires an acknowledgment and embrace of a “middle ground that acknowledges that Jews should be judged as individuals, but that it also makes sense to talk about Jewish power as the consequence of the activism of particular Jews acting in particular influential groups.” MacDonald elaborates further:

The question that must be asked is: How much power do groups of activist Jews have, where is Jewish power directed, and which Jews are behind that power? The ADL and the Israel Lobby, along with the massively organized Jewish community are creations of the mainstream Jewish community.

This is just one example where Fuentes’ arguments and rhetoric seem to have implosion built in by design, crafted with weak points built into the framework, a consideration which bolsters the designed-for-controlled-demolition theory. Beyond that, this and similarly crude and intellectually lazy rhetoric likely galvanizes and rallies leftist elements to a much greater extent than the amount of support he garners.

Just as Fuentes lacks intellectual depth, which Matthews, MacDonald, and others have documented at length, he further fractures and balkanizes the opposition to the left with his antics while causing harm in other ways as well. His rhetoric further propels young women to the left, a demographic the right needs and that European civilization and its diaspora need for demographic and societal recovery and to restore equilibrium in the sexual marketplace. This is all the more damning in view of the P.J. O’Rourke “hot chick theory” of politics, which dictates that, particularly in American society, the success of any political, cultural, or ideological movement requires some contingent of attractive young women in its ranks.⁶ This is compounded by some order of magnitude with his propensity to routinely attack any contingent that does not fall lockstep into the “Tradcath” mold: a remarkably small and rigid enclave that can provide no basis for widespread opposition to the democrats and the left. A disruptive, trollish figure who sows discord and acrimony among a tenuous coalition is a veritable godsend for those interests that want to see such opposition fail.

For now, this is just a theory as to why the ruling class would prop up Nick Fuentes either as a black propaganda campaign or, alternatively, as part of the “nutpicking” method of discreditation. It should be noted in passing his involvement in both Charlottesville and January 6 curiously has not entailed the sort of dire consequences many others, even most others have faced. Andrew Anglin has noted his association with Chuck Johnson, who Anglin asserts is an informant with the FBI or other federal agency. Whether he is ever in fact proven to be part of such a black propaganda campaign is somewhat tangential. Above all else, the staggering liabilities and flaws recounted above (and many others besides) should properly be seen with grave consternation and concern precisely because these flaws and liabilities seem made-to-order for both black propaganda and “nutpicking.” This in turn reveals a crucial blind spot among many opposed to the left that fails to discern these liabilities or how such a grotesque figure is seen by others who are not already convinced of the limited number of sensible positions he purports to advance. If he is not part of a black propaganda campaign, he nonetheless has many if not all of the harmful effects of such a campaign. These and other considerations implore the necessity to find true thought leaders capable of supplanting him before he permanently and irreparably discredits and harms burgeoning opposition to the left.

---

IMPORTANT: given the controversial nature of this essay and the particular zeal and at times obnoxious manner with which many supporters of Nick Fuentes conduct themselves, readers of this essay in particular are urged to familiarize themselves with this publication’s somewhat more stringent comment policy, if they have not already done so. Trolling, abusive commentary, and other such antics will not be tolerated, nor will screeds that indicate that the person either did not read the essay or did so with little care. Finally, if a response by this author or others has been entered to any dissent, get off the merry-go-round. See rule five.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE: the eventual success or failure of this endeavor depends in large part on reader support and collaboration. readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription in consideration of the time and labor expended to write and publish these texts. Readers who enjoy this essay are also asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor. It is also important share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.

1. There have been suggestions that talk of Covid vaccines including microchips was devised by Cass Sunstein and others to discredit vaccine skepticism writ large. The theory is people will lump in such ideas with skepticism that is much more logical and reasonable.

2. It is noteworthy indeed that many years ago MacDonald stated he went to New York at Comedy Central’s expense for a possible segment on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. He did this even though many confidants implored him no to, warning him it was a bad idea. He was interviewed for several hours by Samantha Bee. It is telling that they never went with it, because he is impervious to such “nutpicking.”

3. This explains for example why Tucker Carlson asserted David Duke is a federal informant. If someone had the time, inclination, and resources to do so, it would be interesting to compile all appearances by skinheads, klan members, and other examples of nutpicking in daytime talk shows and the like and ascertain how many were genuine and how many, if any, were counterfeit plants.

4. Defenders will assert this was stated in the same “irony” that his generation has become infamous. Many, including this author, are not persuaded.

5. Hereinafter the term “black propaganda,” “black propaganda theory” and the like will operate on an alternating hypothesis of either a black propaganda campaign or mainstream outlets highlighting Fuentes as part of the “nutpicking” method of discreditation.

6. John Derbyshire mentioned this some time ago on his weekly podcast, but as this theory was coined before the age of the Internet, search queries yield few results on this important concept.