I Watched Nick Fuentes So You Don’t Have To
The white supremacist who thinks Hitler was "really f***ing cool."
A special offer from The Next Move: Happy holidays! To celebrate the end of a successful first year on Substack, we’re giving away five chess boards signed by RDI’s Garry Kasparov. Anyone signed up as a premium subscriber by December 31, 2025 will be automatically eligible to win.1
Emily Marshall is a master’s student at American University studying Political Communication. She recently served as the communications intern for the Renew Democracy Initiative.
Last week, Nick Fuentes appeared before an audience of more than four million people on Piers Morgan Uncensored. For two hours, Fuentes spewed vile attacks on immigrants, black Americans, Jewish people, and women. But who got his praise? Adolf Hitler.
To answer the obvious question: yes, it was every bit as bad as it sounds.
I watched the full two-hour long headache so you don’t have to. Here are just some of the hateful and bizarre musings Fuentes shared:
1. Hitler was “cool” and the Holocaust was “not that deep.”
Fuentes openly praised Hitler as “really f***ing cool.” He dismissed the Holocaust as overblown and “not that deep,” and mocked a journalist whose parents were victims of the Nazi genocide.
“I don’t think it’s powerful. I think we’ve been hearing that our entire lives, okay? The Schindler’s List. Let’s just be honest. The propaganda is over the top.”
He doubled down on his antisemitic rhetoric, claiming the Holocaust “casts a long shadow” because it confers political benefit on Jewish people.
2. Fuentes says white people should steer clear of black people.
Like any good white supremacist, Fuentes openly expresses his hatred for black people, advising white people that they “would be wise” to go out of their way to avoid them.
“There is a menace, which is young, black, adolescent men. They’re extremely violent. And we have been told that we have to pretend like they are every other person.”
3. But black people are Fuentes’s “biggest fans.”
Fuentes tries to dress up his blatant racism as moderate by claiming that black people are his “biggest fans.” He even cites his relationship with Kanye West as proof that he has black friends. Yes, the Kanye West who once sold swastika t-shirts. Even in his shameless attempts at tokenism, Fuentes chooses a neo-Nazi.
4. Also a misogynist.
Who does Fuentes like? Not Jews. Not black people. And apparently not women, who are also demonized in Fuentes’ worldview. He argues that they should “absolutely not” have the right to vote. He further degrades them, claiming they have gotten fat and they routinely fantasize about being raped and beaten.
He also calls women “difficult to be around.” No Nick, they just don’t want to be around you.
5. Fuentes revealed that he’s a virgin. Probably good for women everywhere.
While a lack of relations with women is not inherently problematic, it is worth considering how it shapes his views on them. Fuentes’ hateful attitudes towards women appear to be informed by a complete absence of any real experience with them.
Fuentes, for his part, preempts and denies this notion. Obviously not by implying that men don’t need to have sex with women to respect them. No, that would be far too respectable of a position for Fuentes to take. Instead, when Morgan confronts him with the question he responds:
“There's sort of like this alliance between the guys that don't have sex and the guys that get the most sex. We know what women are about. It's the guys like you in the middle, the beta male orbiters, that say, she's amazing, you're a misogynistic pig.”
6. Non-white babies = white genocide?
Nick Fuentes asserts that there is a “genocide” against white people in America. The culprit? Non-white children who have the temerity to just be born.
“Our people are being genocided in our country. 50% of the live births in the United Kingdom and in the United States are non white. In a 100 years my ancestors, your ancestors, your kids, who are so empathetic and compassionate, they’re going to be a minority.”
None of this will shock anyone even remotely familiar with Fuentes. But what should shock us is that in 2025, a self-described racist who proudly praises Hitler, dismisses the atrocities of the Holocaust, and demonizes entire groups of people, is granted a mainstream platform reaching millions.
Views of Fuentes’s sort have always existed, but they were relegated to the fringes until recently. Not long ago, there was an accepted norm in American life that airing such beliefs was shameful and disqualifying of any serious political influence. In 2008, when a woman told then-presidential candidate John McCain she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because he was “an Arab,” McCain was quick to shut down the conversation, defending Obama:
“He’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”
In 2002 when Senator Trent Lott made comments embracing segregationist appeals, President Bush sharply condemned them, rebuking his comments as offensive and not reflecting “the spirit of this country.”
That norm appears to be troublingly absent today.
We may be tempted to dismiss figures like Nick Fuentes as unserious—as the stuff of hysterical basement-dwelling conspiracy theorists who wield no real influence.
But denying political reality is dangerous. Recall that in 2016, no shortage of pundits asserted that Donald Trump could never win because of his attacks on Hispanics, women, and other groups.
President Donald Trump ended up having dinner with Nick Fuentes.
There’s a grave political cost to underestimating what you’re up against.
The truth, difficult as it is to digest, is that Nick Fuentes commands a significant following. He has over one million followers on X, and at one point, his podcast boasted the number one spot on the Spotify trending chart.
His ideas may be revolting, but they are no longer on the fringe.
So how did we get here? The answer lies, at least in part, in the economic incentives governing modern media.
Social media platforms are not neutral gatekeepers of discourse; they are profit-driven organizations designed to maximize engagement. And as any comment section can demonstrate, anger is the most reliable driver of engagement. It does not matter if interactions with content are complimentary or condemnatory in nature; they all produce the same effect: amplification.
This has created an economy of hate and outrage. One where anger is the currency and division is endlessly monetizable.
For figures like Fuentes, the anger they elicit isn’t just a symptom of their rise—it’s central to it. Every abhorrent comment is fuel for the algorithm, designed to provoke outrage from critics and mobilize supporters in defense. Both reactions drive engagement, pushing his content further from the margins into mainstream view, lending his ideologies an illusion of outsized prevalence and legitimacy.
This amplification expands his reach, making him more visible to potential “Groypers,” as his coalition of incessantly loyal supporters is called, and dragging ideas that were once on the margins of society deeper into the public discourse.
This is not to suggest that Fuentes’ extremism is merely performative. I have no doubt that Fuentes is very much committed to the vile ideology he espouses. The point, rather, is to explain how that ideology has been given the opportunity to flourish. In a hyperpolarized climate, where identity-based conflicts drive our politics, Fuentes’ brand of politics is uniquely positioned to weaponize the incentives for division. White nationalism, which is inherently defined by conflict between in-groups and out-groups, is optimized to exploit the outrage economy.
After Fuente’s previous interview with Tucker Carlson, debate erupted over whether Carlson should have granted Fuentes access to his platform. A similar debate can now be had over whether Piers Morgan should be offering his audience and legitimacy to Fuentes.
It is reasonable to posit that unmasking these views and exposing them to harsh scrutiny is necessary if we are to actually contend with their rise. As Morgan himself puts it:
“People who say you shouldn’t give him a platform overlook the very obvious fact that he already has a platform of his own, which is often bigger than most of the people complaining, and he uses it to speak unchallenged to as many followers.”
We are certainly not safer for ignoring the existence of Fuentes and his beliefs. But he already has his own platforms. Does he need another? We cannot ignore the inherent risks granting such a platform to Fuentes poses. Every screen Fuentes is offered access to is an opportunity for amplification, for expanded reach and perceived legitimacy. Just looking at the YouTube comments from Fuentes’ appearance, it is staggering how many are celebrating what they perceive to be a win for Fuentes.
I, for one, have little interest in trying to argue in good faith with those who lack any of their own. Yet Piers Morgan and even Tucker Carlson didn’t create Nick Fuentes by themselves. The root of the problem is a media ecosystem that puts a premium on outrage and division. Until we reckon with these dynamics, those of us repulsed by Fuentes will continue to inadvertently reward him for our anger.
On the fence about becoming a paid subscriber? We have a special offer to make the decision easier for you: $49 for an annual subscription—a 30% discount—now through December 31. Anyone signed up as a premium subscriber, including existing supporters, will be automatically entered to win one of five chess sets signed by Garry Kasparov. Paid subscribers get exclusive benefits like interactive Zoom calls with Garry Kasparov.1
More from The Next Move:
How to Understand Tucker Carlson’s Interview with the President of Iran
When it comes to dictators, Tucker Carlson presents a false choice between censorship and softball interviews. There’s another way.
 | A guest post by |
Most of my relatives perished during the holocaust but I don’t take offense form idiot who doesn’t offend me. We do need to pay close attention and not underestimate how hate has metastasized, for if we do not it will be at our own peril. My remaining aunt said “every generation they come for us.”
I want that hat.