Groyper
Masks Off: Tucker Carlson Takes Swipes at Nick Fuentes
Published
3 hours agoon

Tucker Carlson vs. Nick Fuentes – Hypocrisy, Projections, and CIA Shadows
In the ever-volatile landscape of right-wing media and activism, few rivalries have captured as much attention as the ongoing clash between Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes. What began as ideological skirmishes has devolved into personal attacks, accusations of federal infiltration, and charges of hypocrisy. At the heart of this feud lies a potent irony: Carlson and Owens have accused Fuentes of undermining “sincere” conservatives by associating them with extremism, yet Fuentes counters that they are the true establishment gatekeepers—potentially projecting their own flaws while gaslighting their audience. Adding fuel to the fire is Carlson’s inconsistent narrative about his father’s ties to the CIA, which raises questions about transparency and credibility. This article dissects the feud, highlighting these contradictions and the broader implications for the American right.
Background: Ideological Fault Lines and Rising Tensions
Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host turned independent podcaster, has positioned himself as a critic of mainstream conservatism, neoconservatism, and endless foreign wars. Candace Owens, a prominent conservative commentator and former Daily Wire host, has similarly built a brand around challenging establishment narratives, particularly on issues like race, Israel, and cultural decay. Nick Fuentes, the young white nationalist and “America First” advocate, represents a more radical fringe, known for his unapologetic ethnonationalism, Holocaust denial, and criticism of Jewish influence in politics.
The feud’s roots trace back to at least 2022, when Fuentes dined with Kanye West (Ye) and former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, drawing widespread condemnation. Carlson, who has praised aspects of “replacement theory” in the past, distanced himself from Fuentes, refusing to platform him despite interviewing controversial figures like Ray Epps and Kevin Spacey. Fuentes, in turn, accused Carlson of collaborating on a 2023 hit piece against him in The Grayzone, a publication run by Max Blumenthal (son of Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal), labeling it a targeted smear to discredit his movement post-Ye24.
Tensions escalated in 2024 and 2025. Fuentes criticized Carlson for subliminal swipes, such as blaming him for conservative Joe Kent’s 2022 election loss in Washington state. Carlson, meanwhile, repeatedly “fed-jacketed” Fuentes—implying he’s a federal agent designed to discredit the right—without naming him directly until recently. Owens entered the fray in July 2025, interviewing Fuentes on her show, where they debated race, IQ differences, and antisemitism. Owens later called the experience “entirely fraudulent,” accusing Fuentes of dishonesty.
Calling Out the Hypocrisy: Projecting and Gaslighting on “True Neocons”
One of the most glaring elements of this feud is the apparent hypocrisy from Carlson and Owens. In a recent interview on Carlson’s show, the duo lambasted Fuentes as part of a deliberate effort to “discredit reasonable voices” on the right, suggesting he’s funded by nefarious forces to make conservatives look extreme. Carlson went further, describing Fuentes as having an “angry, gay kid thing going on” and a “weird little gay kid in his basement,” while implying he’s a tool to oppose “true neocons” or establishment critics. Owens echoed this, framing Fuentes as a disruptive force obsessed with her and Carlson.
Yet, this accusation reeks of projection. Fuentes has long positioned himself as an anti-neocon warrior, criticizing Carlson and Owens for what he sees as their ties to establishment conservatism, including support for Israel and reluctance to fully embrace ethnonationalism. He argues that they are the ones gaslighting the base by pretending to be outsiders while maintaining connections to power brokers like Peter Thiel or intelligence-linked figures. Owens herself has noted Fuentes’ “emotional power over neocons,” inadvertently acknowledging his role in exposing what he views as faux-conservatism. By accusing Fuentes of sabotaging “true” critics of neoconservatism, Carlson and Owens appear to be mirroring the very tactics Fuentes uses against them—deflecting scrutiny from their own inconsistencies while portraying him as the infiltrator. This dynamic not only gaslights their audiences but also divides the right, potentially benefiting the establishment they all claim to oppose.
Fuentes’ supporters amplify this point, arguing that Carlson’s refusal to debate him—despite platforming others—reveals fear of exposure. In response to the recent attacks, Fuentes posted a photo of Carlson with accused sexual predator Kevin Spacey, highlighting what he sees as selective moral outrage.
Tucker’s CIA Contradiction: A Timeline of Admissions
Central to Fuentes’ attacks on Carlson is the latter’s family ties to intelligence agencies. Tucker’s father, Dick Carlson, served as director of Voice of America during the Cold War, a U.S. government-funded outlet often linked to CIA propaganda efforts. Tucker himself applied to the CIA after college but was rejected, a fact he’s publicly acknowledged.
The hypocrisy peaks in Carlson’s shifting narrative. In a June 2024 interview on the Shawn Ryan Show, Carlson openly discussed his CIA application and his father’s involvement, stating, “My father worked in conjunction with CIA. I’m not being false about it.” He even declared himself a “sworn enemy” of the agency. Yet, in his 2025 interview with Owens, Carlson claimed he only learned of his father’s CIA ties “this year” after his death in March 2025, expressing shock. This direct contradiction undermines Carlson’s credibility: How could he admit knowledge in 2024 but feign ignorance in 2025? Fuentes and his allies seized on this, arguing it proves Carlson’s duplicity and potential ongoing ties to intelligence circles.
Recent Escalations and Broader Implications
The feud hit a boiling point in August 2025. Carlson and Owens’ interview devolved into personal jabs, with Carlson accusing Fuentes of being a CIA plant. Fuentes fired back, declaring “war” and challenging Carlson to a debate. Observers from both sides have called it “ridiculous” and divisive, with some arguing it distracts from real issues like foreign policy or cultural decline.
Ultimately, this feud exposes fractures within the right: Carlson and Owens represent a more palatable populism, while Fuentes embodies unfiltered radicalism. The hypocrisy—projecting infiltration accusations while dodging accountability—erodes trust. As Fuentes himself asked, “Why not me?” for a fair platform. Until these figures confront their contradictions, the infighting may only strengthen the neocons they all purport to fight.
Groyper
Groyper War 2.0: Saving President Trump From Zionist Saboteurs
Published
12 months agoon
August 10, 2024
In the ever-changing arena of American governance, a powerful voice has emerged among the disheartened supporters of the initial Trump movement. Nick Fuentes, with his magnetic persona and unwavering dedication to the America First cause, has become a beacon for those who feel their concerns have been overshadowed by the infiltration of Zionist elements within the Trump administration.
The complaints of these devoted Trump backers are not without merit. They contend that the presence of Zionist forces within the administration has diluted the fundamental principles of an America First government, which should prioritize the interests of the native European population above all else. This perceived betrayal has fostered a growing sense of disillusionment among the original Trump base, who believe their grievances have been disregarded in favor of appeasing external interests.
Fuentes, with his unapologetic stance on critical issues such as immigration, trade, and foreign policy, has become a rallying point for these disenfranchised supporters. His call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a clarion call to those who believe that the original vision of the Trump presidency has been compromised by the influence of Zionist elements.
The Groypers, a term coined by Fuentes himself, represent a new generation of conservative activists who are unafraid to challenge the establishment and demand a return to the principles that initially propelled Trump to victory. They argue that a government that prioritizes the interests of the native European class is essential for the preservation of American culture and values.
Fuentes’ grievances are not merely ideological; they are rooted in a profound sense of betrayal. Many original Trump supporters feel that the president has failed to fulfill his promises to eliminate corruption and put America first. They argue that the presence of Zionist influences within the administration has resulted in a government that is more concerned with the interests of foreign powers than the welfare of its own citizens.
The call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a call to action for those who believe that the only way to restore the America First vision is through a grassroots movement that challenges the status quo. Fuentes and his followers argue that the time has come for a new generation of conservative activists to rise up and reclaim the mantle of the America First movement.
In conclusion, the grievances of the disenfranchised original Trump supporters, led by Nick Fuentes, underscore the need for a reevaluation of the role of Zionist influences within the Trump administration. The call for a Groyper War 2.0 is a rallying cry for those who believe that the only way to restore the America First vision is through a grassroots movement that prioritizes the interests of the native European class. As the battle for the soul of the conservative movement continues, it remains to be seen whether the Groypers will succeed in their quest to reclaim the mantle of the America First movement.
Groyper
Nick Fuentes’ Live Stream Hacked to Play Obscene Material
Published
1 year agoon
May 20, 2024
Nick Fuentes, a controversial figure known for his far-right views, recently found himself at the center of a hacking incident that disrupted his online activities. The incident, which occurred in May 2024, led to his proprietary livestreaming site being compromised, with the alleged culprits claiming to be associated with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Unit 8200.
This is getting desperate.
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) May 18, 2024
My proprietary livestreaming site was hacked after my stream went offline by someone claiming to be IDF Unit 8200.
The hacker took credit by watermaking the porn and leaving messages on the back end of the site.
Easily disprovable nonsense. pic.twitter.com/s5GKM2jW8x
The hacking incident involved unauthorized content being posted on Fuentes’ platform, including watermarking of illicit content and messages left on the back end of the site. This event has sparked discussions among Fuentes’ followers and the wider online community about the importance of cybersecurity and the need for content creators to remain vigilant in protecting their digital presence.
Despite the disruption caused by the hacking incident, Fuentes has demonstrated resilience and determination to continue his online activities. The event has also raised questions about the security measures employed by Fuentes’ platform and the potential vulnerabilities that may have been exploited. As online content creators continue to face challenges in safeguarding their platforms, it is essential for them to remain proactive in defending their digital presence.
The hacking incident involving Nick Fuentes serves as a stark reminder of the ever-present threat of cyber attacks in the digital age. It highlights the importance of cybersecurity and the need for content creators to invest in robust security measures to protect their work and reputation. As the investigation into the hacking incident unfolds, it is hoped that valuable lessons can be learned to prevent similar occurrences in the future and ensure the safety and integrity of online platforms.
Groyper
Charlie Kirk Changes His Tune: But will he apologize?
Published
5 years agoon
April 11, 2020
United States – Once upon a time, Charlie Kirk was cool. A political commentator, often appearing on Fox News — impressive for a college drop out. He’s an example of how being intelligent and quick-witted can take someone a long way. Before Trump was the obvious Republican nominee in 2016, Charlie was still on the Ted Cruz train, calling Trump a political opportunist. To be fair, a lot of people didn’t quite know what to make of Trump at the time. He did come around as a MAGA guy, and shifted his messaging through his organization, Turning Point USA, towards combating socialism. He’s popular for his YouTube clips DESTROYING basement-dweller Antifa idiots (with FACTS and LOGIC). Whether it’s always been the case — or Kirk morphed over time — it seemed to many people that the only thing he wished to conserve was capitalism and the free market. For real conservatives, who wish to preserve their Christian culture, and even demographics, Charlie’s free market libertarianism just wasn’t fitting the bill.
In November of 2019, Charlie made the ultimate slap in the face to social conservatives and traditionalists. He went on tour, and named it the Culture War. The problem is, he replaced the battle of Conservative vs. Progressive virtues with an economic argument. He promoted mass immigration, which electorally leads to socialism, and even promoted “homosexual conservatives.”
You may recall a decades-long debate on meaning of marriage, culminating in the 2015 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of “same-sex marriage”. Along came the America First Patriots, sometimes called “Groypers”, to point out the hypocrisy. Their method of attack? The Q & A line. Many of these “Groypers”, were fans of online personality Nicholas J. Fuentes, who gave livestream advice on the type of questions to ask. The questions were well thought out, tough questions, mostly about immigration, but included topics on foreign policy and various social issues. What was Charlie Kirk’s response? He responded with indignation and arrogance. He even went as far as banning Nick Fuentes from his events, and slandering Patrick Casey as a White Supremacist for his involvement in a group called Identity Evropa. Identity Evropa is now defunct. Patrick now leads a group called the American Identity Movement, which seeks to fight globalism and end foreign entanglements.
After months of slandering people like Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey for their “hateful” views, Charlie has had a change of heart on immigration. In the video below, you can see him demanding that we “suspend all visas until we reach pre-pandemic employment levels” and “to pass Senator Tom Sutton’s Raise Act.”
Millions of college students went into debt to get a high paying job
This is now the toughest job market in American history
Foreign nationals should NOT get preference until our students can get jobs
Pause ALL visas until we’re back to full employment
Put US citizens FIRST! pic.twitter.com/rhSLOWVEZc
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 10, 2020
This begs the question, why were the other’s views on immigration and demographic change based on hate? Why were the smears brought on them from the SPLC, ADL, and Antifa hacks valid? Former Congressional Candidate, and highly respected author, Pete D’Abrosca stated in a tweet, “I remember saying this almost to the letter on Tucker [Carlson] in December. I remember America’s largest news outlets calling me a ‘White Nationalist’ for it. I don’t remember Charlie Kirk or his ilk defending me.”
The Raise Act, introduced by Senators Tom Coffin and David Perdue, seeks to cut legal immigration into the United States by nearly half by ending family chain migration. The bill does not do enough in addressing visa programs, such as H1B, that leads to foreign replacement of thousands of high skilled American workers. A proposal such as Pete D’Abrosca and Jerome Bell’s 10-year moratorium at net zero would be preferable, bringing legal immigration down to pre-1990 levels of about 250,000.
Only time will tell if Charlie Kirk is sincere in his change of heart, or if he is just a shape shifter that secretly wants to staple visas to exchange students diplomas. Either way, one thing is evident, some apologies are in order. An apology to Pete D’Abrosca, Nick Fuentes, and Patrick Casey would go a long way in indicating his sincerity. Even reaching out to Michelle Malkin, who was much maligned for defending Nick Fuentes from the relentless mistreatment from Kirk and others from the Conservative mainstream. Perhaps, while he is up to this whole changing his tune thing, maybe he will go the extra mile and embrace a return to traditional Christian values. It is time, Charlie, not to yield the floor to Rob Smith, but answer Dave Reilly’s question, “how does anal sex help us win the culture war?”
Charlie Kirk could not be reached for comment.

Masks Off: Tucker Carlson Takes Swipes at Nick Fuentes

Twenty40 Challenging Linn County for $9 Million in Assessments

BREAKING: ‘RICO in Iowa’ Complaint Amended & Filed Under Duress

RICO in Iowa: Will Frazier’s Battle for Justice
