Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Why Nick Fuentes is Popular

All Episodes

Nov. 12, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

17:57

Why Nick Fuentes is Popular

The old conservatives must change.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There are a lot of normal conservatives who don't seem to understand why Nick Fuentes is popular.
	And so I thought I would record this video to explain.
	Now, I'm too old to be a fan of Nick Fuentes, but I can understand why young men like him.
	I can understand what his appeal is to them.
	And I just want to explain it.
	Because a lot of people approach Nick Fuentes along ideological lines.
	They say, he said this about Israel, he said this about women, he said this about black people, and therefore.
	And it's like, okay, yes, he talks a lot.
	His job, his career is as a professional talker.
	And when you are small on the internet, it's very easy to gain attention by saying quite radical things in order to attract an audience.
	You'll notice that in recent years, he's moderated himself because he has found his audience.
	He has polished his craft, shall we say.
	And all of the clips that you see of him saying the most radical things are quite old now.
	They're from a few years back.
	This is actually not terribly surprising and not really very interesting to what is actually happening.
	Because again, condemning him on ideological lines, that's great.
	But, you know, that's very easy to do.
	Anyone's capable of doing that.
	But the problem with the Normi cons, as they do this, is not only do they set themselves up against the next generation, they blind themselves to that generation's problems.
	Because really, they've kind of failed to update their own ideological software.
	The Normie conservatives, who are about my age, the sort of, you know, elder millennial, younger Gen X, and older, need to understand that we grew up in much more homogenous societies than the Zoomers are.
	And you think you won the argument against the left.
	So for the first bit, America in 1990, when I became, what, you know, 10, 11 years old, and, you know, the 90s generally were an absolutely amazing decade to become a teenager in.
	Very vibrant, fun, full of life.
	There was technology, but the technology hadn't taken over.
	So it was genuinely a wonderful transition period to have grown up in and to have matured into.
	In America, the non-Hispanic white population was 75%.
	And that's with the historic black population next to it, about, again, 10, 13%, something like that.
	So you had what was a very homogenous society.
	And this wasn't a society that was entirely well-spaced either.
	You had areas of America that were historically far more diverse.
	But the rest of America was basically historically white.
	And so that has gone down to now 55% non-Hispanic white as of this year.
	And of course, predictions for the future, if trends continue, mean that that's just going to go down further and further and further until white people are a minority compared to the non-white people in the United States.
	So this, whether you like it or not, has generally discredited Buckleyite conservatism.
	This has rendered its arguments out of date because the assumption of the Martin Luther King colorblind society was always predicated on a kind of invisible understanding.
	And again, this sort of presupposition that everyone around will basically hold the same opinion.
	Well, in a highly diverse, multicultural society where there is no one overarching demographic that sets the agenda of the nation, that's not true.
	It's not a true assumption that everyone basically holds the same opinion.
	And therefore, the kind of colourblind buckleyite conservatism can work.
	That paradigm has come to an end, because socially, that's just not how things go.
	And then you've got the question of the sort of infinite Reaganomics of eternal growth.
	Well, as we saw with Trump today, the American establishment is still on that train.
	But I can't help but notice that that's come alongside his proposals for 50-year mortgages, because this is a system that is spiraling out of control.
	It is actually making it more and more difficult for the people born within it to get ahead using it.
	And this is why so much of the left, the Mandani faction of the left, have got a very strong argument in some ways on their economic policies.
	Again, whether you agree with them or not, the argument is persuasive.
	It is rhetorically effective.
	And it is forming a large coalition that is capable of winning elections.
	And so if you're a Buckleyite, Reaganite conservative, you can't form an effective counter-argument because it is your position that brought us to this point.
	You are offering more of the same.
	And actually, more of the same doesn't seem very appealing to the young people who are growing up now.
	Actually, they're looking at their own civilization and saying, well, this isn't terribly good.
	And they can see videos and movies and just historical footage from just 30 years ago when the civilization was so much better because things were different.
	And then you've got these other aspects to it, which are not necessarily quantifiable.
	Enoch Powell is a hated figure by the British liberal establishment.
	But they can't deny that what he said about demographics was true.
	But also the consequences, the political and moral consequences of that, which is about who holds the whip hand.
	That is, who holds demographic, political, and thereby legal authority over the nation.
	Now, again, during the Buckleyite consensus, I mean, America would have been about 90% white non-Hispanic during his era.
	And so it's easy to think that fundamentally everyone thinks the same as you because you are surrounded by people who think the same as you and who are not operating in a divergent ethnic interest because they are basically all the same.
	And so what you have is the kind of self-selecting political plurality of party politics.
	However, when you're in a country that's 55% white non-Hispanic, what you end up with is much more ethnically focused party politics.
	Parties are in fact a bit of a luxury that you can't really afford.
	You have to vote with your ethnic interests and in your community.
	This is what we are seeing, of course, with Mandani and with the Somalians and various other Mexicans as well.
	So it's one of those things where this kind, the sort of 20th century politics, I'm afraid, has run its course because it was undermined by the left.
	And this leading us on to, you think you won the arguments with the left.
	It's like you didn't.
	You didn't win the arguments from the left.
	You may have had it so that from your own position, you failed to lose, but that doesn't guarantee the victory because whilst you were fighting on one front, holding the line on this particular issue, the left was encircling you and completely outflanking you.
	And that's what they've done with mass immigration.
	But they've also done this in various other ways.
	I mean, like, the complete lack of proper punishment for certain communities, certain ethnic minorities in America is just crazy.
	Like, the crazy amount of permissiveness that the state shows to people of certain communities.
	So, they are complete repeat re-offenders, repeat reoffenders, repeat re-offenders, until they're just murdering people in the streets.
	This is wild, right?
	But what, I mean, like, for example, a great case of this is Daniel Penny.
	Like, oh my God.
	Like, I watched the events with Daniel Penny and was just kind of horrified by the response.
	But, I mean, there are so many examples.
	Just pick one.
	You know, just pick an example.
	What was the one where the black kid murdered the white kid with a knife in the sports field and then raised something like a million dollars from the black community because he had stabbed a white boy, right?
	Like, this resonates with these straight white young men because it doesn't make sense that their own society should be so stacked against them.
	It speaks to a profound unfairness in American society that predates these young men and that they were born and raised into not knowing anything different, but being aware that at some point in the past, it wasn't like this.
	And for some reason, their parents and grandparents allowed this to be given away.
	In addition to this, there has also been the non-stop campaign from the left to attack white people and specifically straight white men for being white people and straight white men.
	Now, this should never have been acceptable.
	And you thought you won this war, but you didn't.
	And like I said, you held your line, but demographic change has in fact just made your front irrelevant in the conversation because all of these groups that now make up 45% of the United States, they don't have any prohibition on considering themselves in an ethnic manner and advancing their own interests in said way.
	They don't have any prohibition on that at all.
	And so once again, you're looking at the unfairness of American society and saying, well, I'm sorry, straight white men.
	You're just going to have to suck it up.
	It should never have been acceptable to have had attack after attack after attack on white people, straighten people, white men, straight white men, in any form.
	But it carried on.
	And the left, therefore, dedicated themselves to stripping the authority, the moral authority away from white men.
	And for some reason, the conservatives couldn't bear to assert that moral authority on those same grounds.
	And so the argument was eventually lost.
	You said, well, I'm an MLK buckleyite.
	I don't see color.
	Okay.
	Your opponent does.
	And if you don't address it on those grounds, then you don't actually win that argument.
	The answer to are straight white men fundamentally immoral is to say no.
	Straight white men are not fundamentally immoral.
	In fact, straight white men are the source of a great deal of morality in American society.
	They are the ones that are cleaning the sewers, that are fixing the buildings, that are making society work.
	These themselves are moral acts, and they should have been defended as the moral acts of straight white men.
	But you didn't do it.
	And don't get me wrong, I was just as guilty.
	I was like basically a buckleyite liberal about 10 years ago.
	I was in the same position, but I have done a lot of thought on this.
	And you haven't.
	You have refused to change as the world has changed around you.
	So, anyway, combined with all of this has been the demographic shift in the United States.
	You know, Ben Shapiro called the Browning of America that he doesn't care about.
	Well, I'm sorry, Ben, but a lot of people actually do care about it, and it does have consequences.
	Like, you were spurging on about Mandani, but he is a product of that demographic shift.
	And so, the left combined their moral attack on white men with mass immigration to ensure that they would have a huge and growing constituency that could be relied upon to also have interests aligned against the white man.
	So, they would have an incentive to take resources away from the white majority of America and take it for themselves.
	So, it's not surprising that straight white men, Zuma straight-mike men, who have been saddled with this, are actually not happy about this situation.
	They're not happy, and also they feel vulnerable.
	They are looking for a way to defend themselves in the coming world and the present world that liberalism has brought about for them.
	They can see that they have lost something.
	But the thing is, that thing is hard to define because it's not material and it can't be quantified.
	But it made their parents' and grandparents' world completely different to their own.
	And that thing they've lost is a sense of possession.
	They no longer possess their country in the way that previous generations did.
	They look at their country as something that belongs to other people and not themselves.
	And this is a collective sense of possession.
	This is to say it is collectively theirs and not the property of other nations.
	And of course, they've been discriminated against expressly for their whole lives, right?
	They see themselves in a no-win situation.
	If they keep quiet about what they can perceive happening around them and the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, they are on the road to ruin.
	But if they speak out, they get cancelled by the feminized HR moms who run all of the corporations and make sure that they oversee the corporate culture of the United States.
	They get cancelled for this.
	And so it's like, right, okay, that's a pretty horrible position to be in.
	It's a bit of a Hobson's choice, isn't it?
	Like, do you just carry on to your own destruction, or do you just destroy yourself immediately?
	Hard choice.
	Hard choice.
	I think I know which one I've chosen, though, obviously.
	And over all of this is, of course, still the reign of political correctness.
	And the problem that the Buckleyite conservative boomers have is that they themselves are politically correct, which is why they didn't challenge any of this on the terms by which the left would present it.
	They themselves are part of the politically correct orthodoxy.
	They have been the acceptable containment measure that the left has allowed to continue to exist whilst they outflanked you.
	And so to defeat the reign of political correctness, it demands people who speak heresies, whether they are true or not.
	It does not matter whether you think the things that Nick Fuentes are true or that you think are untrue.
	It doesn't matter in the slightest.
	What matters is the authority which holds down ideas whose time has come.
	That authority has to be broken.
	And so that's why you get someone like Nick Fuentes being incredibly popular.
	I mean, he's been cancelled forever off of everything.
	He was on a no-fly list at one point.
	And he's only like 27.
	He has been through the ringer.
	He has really been through it.
	And he's still going.
	And so that turns him into a kind of Robin Hood figure.
	People find that appealing.
	I'm sorry, but he does have some virtues of his own, right?
	He is funny, he is lucid, he is able to speak clearly and engagingly about the subjects, even if you don't like what he says.
	He's still a good communicator.
	And to be honest with you, he is funny.
	Like, I see a bunch of the clips going around, especially the ones where he's been edited into like a restaurant or something and it's some insanely racist rant.
	And they are funny.
	They are genuinely funny.
	And I can see why they're popular.
	I mean, I personally have plenty of criticisms of him for being a gay Zoomer, but the Zuma men didn't make themselves.
	They are the product of the feminist system that the conservatives permitted to exist and form them into that thing that they are now.
	We collectively ought to have been more concerned with their well-being, but we relied on a series of assumptions that didn't hold up in the new demographic reality.
	We assumed that men and women are just interchangeable as teachers.
	Turns out that's not true.
	If you want a feminized workplace, have it so that 75% of the teachers are women.
	And you won't get the kind of masculine energy counterbalancing the feminine energy.
	It's just, it doesn't matter about the quality of the teaching.
	What matters is the kind of character of the teaching itself.
	But we let that go.
	We decided, nope, that's for some reason not something conservatives are prepared to stand on.
	Why not say, no, we want half of the teachers being straight white men and we will accept nothing less?
	Why would we not do that?
	That would have been the responsible thing to do for these young men.
	But the conservatives didn't stand on that.
	We let that go.
	I say we because I feel I am just as culpable, frankly, in all this.
	And it's not like it's going to be an easy road back either.
	Like, I don't think the previous paradigm is coming back.
	I think that's a historical artifact whose time has gone.
	And now what we have is a very large number of young, straight white men who have been villainized their whole lives.

▲