Disruptive Chat

Disruptarian Community

Nick Fuentes Is a Symptom, Not the Disease (and the State Loves the Disease)

by | Dec 14, 2025 | Podcast | 0 comments

the rise of Disruptive Influencer Nick Fuentes

Nick Fuentes Is a Symptom, Not the Disease (and the State Loves the Disease)

I made this video because I’m watching the same pattern play out again, just with new names and fresher memes.

After Charlie Kirk was killed, the internet did what it always does: it panicked, picked villains, and started blaming the nearest political “other.” Within hours, people who didn’t know a single verified fact were already acting like they’d solved the case. Some of them were sure it was “the left.” Others were sure it was “the right.” And a bunch of folks decided Nick Fuentes must be the hidden hand behind it, because that story felt useful.

That’s the real problem. “Useful” has replaced “true.”

This post is not an endorsement of Fuentes. It’s not a defense. It’s a hard look at how we keep manufacturing the conditions for radicals, then acting shocked when they show up. It’s also a reminder that the people who run the system don’t actually want peace. They want leverage. And nothing gives them leverage like a country split into angry tribes.

The first lie is always the most popular

When a high-profile political killing happens, facts move slow and rumors move fast. The first narrative out of the gate is usually wrong, but it spreads the farthest. Why? Because it’s emotional. It’s simple. It lets people feel like they’re doing something when they’re really just sharing memes and pointing fingers.

You saw it after Kirk’s death. Claims about motive. Claims about affiliations. Claims about “who’s really behind it.” The usual suspects got blamed before the actual suspect even had a name in the public mind. That is what happens when people treat politics like pro wrestling. You don’t want a fair outcome. You want your side to “win” the story.

And once you reward that behavior, you train everyone to do it again next time.

This isn’t just a “bad internet” problem. It’s an incentive problem.

If your worldview depends on the other side being a threat, then every crisis becomes proof. Every tragedy becomes a marketing campaign. And once you do that, you stop caring about the person who died. You stop caring about truth. You care about narrative control.

Libertarians should be the loudest people in the room saying: slow down. Verify. Due process matters. Individual responsibility matters. Not vibes. Not tribal guilt. Not “I saw a clip.”

“Nick doesn’t exist without the left.” True, but incomplete.

In the video, I said a line that made some people mad: Nick Fuentes doesn’t exist without the left.

I stand by the point, but I’ll sharpen it here.

Movements like Fuentes’s don’t rise in a vacuum. They rise as backlash. They rise when a culture spends years telling a certain group of people that they’re born guilty, born toxic, born oppressive, and that their moral standing is determined by skin color.

You know what happens next? Some of those people stop trying to prove they’re “one of the good ones.” They stop playing defense. They lean into the label just to spite the system that branded them.

Not because it’s right. Because it’s reactive.

That’s the “guilty of being white” theme I brought up. It’s not new. People have been mocking collective guilt for decades because it’s a dead-end ideology. It’s lazy thinking dressed up as moral insight.

Here’s the libertarian piece that both parties hate: you don’t get to assign guilt to a person for the actions of other people, living or dead, just because they share a demographic category.

That’s not justice. That’s not even rational. That’s tribalism with a college degree.

And tribalism always breeds counter-tribalism.

If you build an entire moral framework around “oppressor vs oppressed,” don’t act surprised when someone else builds a mirror framework around “us vs them.” Same engine. Different flag.

The establishment wants tribes, not citizens

The political class loves identity politics for the same reason the Fed loves paper money. It makes control easy.

If people see themselves as individuals, you have to persuade them. You have to justify what you’re doing. You have to face limits.

But if people see themselves as tribes, you can manage them like rival gangs. You can hand out favors. You can pick winners. You can punish enemies. You can rewrite rules in real time and call it “equity” or “public safety.”

And when things get tense, when the temperature rises, people start begging for protection.

That’s when the state grows. That’s when surveillance gets normalized. That’s when censorship gets sold as “responsible.”

Here’s the thing: the state doesn’t need you to love it. It just needs you to fear the other tribe more than you fear government power.

So the system quietly benefits from the worst people on both sides. The extremists give the state excuses. The media gets content. Politicians get votes. Agencies get budgets. And regular people get played.

You know what? It’s like watching two drunks fight in a bar while the bartender keeps pouring shots because the chaos is good for business.

The media loves monsters because monsters keep you watching

Corporate media has a business model. It’s attention. Outrage is attention. Fear is attention.

So they will highlight the most outrageous voices, then pretend those voices represent half the country. They will find the most inflammatory clip, then run it like it’s policy. They’ll treat a fringe figure like the face of a movement because it makes for good TV.

Nick Fuentes is easy content. He’s built for the outrage economy. You can clip him, label him, and hit publish. And depending on the outlet, you can use him to smear the right or to provoke the left. Either way, the machine wins.

But here’s the part people miss: when you constantly elevate the worst examples, you also create a “forbidden fruit” effect. People who feel rejected by mainstream culture start watching fringe content because it feels like rebellion. They don’t even have to agree. They just have to enjoy watching the establishment squirm.

And then the algorithm does what algorithms do. It escalates.

If you want fewer monsters, stop feeding them. Stop making them the center of the universe. Stop building a culture where young people are told, daily, that they’re irredeemable because of group identity.

Deplatforming isn’t “problem solved,” it’s a power test

A lot of folks try to simplify deplatforming into one sentence: “Private companies can do what they want.”

Yes, private property matters. Contract matters. Platforms can set rules.

But that’s not the whole story anymore, and anyone pretending it is either naive or lying.

When the same small set of tech platforms, payment processors, and financial rails can choke off your ability to speak, bank, or earn, you’ve built a soft version of a social credit system. Not because there’s a single government score, but because there’s a centralized choke point. And a choke point is power.

People in polite circles will say, “Just build your own platform.” Okay. With what hosting? With what payment processor? With what banking partner? With what app store approval? With what ad network?

This is why libertarians keep warning about centralization. Centralized systems always become political. Always. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s incentives. If a handful of gatekeepers can end your livelihood, they will eventually be pressured to do it. By activists. By politicians. By regulators. By “safety” boards. By backchannel threats.

And once that weapon exists, it won’t stay pointed at the same targets.

Today it’s the racist. Tomorrow it’s the anti-war guy. The whistleblower. The journalist. The person questioning the next emergency order. The crypto developer building an exit ramp. The mom screaming at the school board.

Silencing speech is like putting duct tape over a smoke alarm. The fire still burns, you just can’t hear the warning.

“So what’s the answer, Dickie?”

The answer isn’t left-wing collectivism, and it isn’t right-wing race politics. The answer is liberty. Equal rights. Equal rules. Individual responsibility. And a hard “no” to demographic guilt.

If you want a society that doesn’t produce Fuentes-type backlash figures, you don’t fix it by preaching group guilt harder. That’s just pouring gas on the same fire.

You fix it by rejecting collectivism in all forms.

That includes the kind that comes wrapped in academic language, and the kind that comes wrapped in nationalist aesthetics.

Because once you accept the premise that humans are best understood as tribes, you’ve already lost. After that, you’re just negotiating which tribe gets to rule.

And that’s what the state wants. Tribes begging for a referee.

Libertarianism says no. No referee. No special rules. No protected classes. No collective punishment. No collective rewards. Just the same rights for everyone and the same limits on power.

What I wish the “young guys” heard

If you’re a young man who feels cornered by the culture, I get it. I’m not here to lecture you like some HR lady holding a clipboard. I’m telling you straight: don’t let the corner turn you into a pawn.

Don’t trade one lie for another.

The lie on the progressive side is that you’re guilty by default.

The lie on the far-right side is that your worth is your group, and your enemies are other groups.

Both lies end the same way: more conflict, more control, more state power, less actual freedom.

If you want to win, build. Don’t just react.

Get strong. Learn skills. Start a business. Lift yourself out of the online sewer where every day is a new outrage. Make real friends in the real world. Read real history. Study economics. Learn how incentives work. Learn why governments love emergencies. Learn why bureaucracies never shrink on purpose.

And when the narrative machine tries to hand you a ready-made identity, ask one simple question:

Who benefits if I believe this?

Because most of the time, it’s not you.

It’s the people selling fear, and the people collecting power.

The point of the video

The point of my video was not “Nick Fuentes good” or “Nick Fuentes bad.” That’s toddler-level politics. The point is that our culture is manufacturing predictable outcomes, then pretending those outcomes are mysteries.

You can’t spend a decade teaching people to think in racial categories and then be shocked when someone says, “Fine, I’ll think in racial categories too.”

You can’t spend years shaming people for traits they didn’t choose and then be surprised when they stop caring about your approval.

You can’t keep inflating fringe voices for clicks and then act like you hate the fringe.

And you definitely can’t hand the government more power to “solve” the chaos when the government benefits from the chaos.

Electing a new politician to fix government is like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic and calling it a rescue mission. The ship is still taking on water.

The off-ramp is individualism. Real individualism. The kind that treats people as people, not avatars of a group.

If you want a freer, calmer country, stop playing the tribe game.

And stop letting the state referee your life.

Sources

Video + Biography

Charlie Kirk killing, court proceedings, and misinformation

Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the platforming controversy

Deplatforming and hate-speech policy references

Ruby Ridge and federal overreach references

Minor Threat “Guilty of Being White” reference

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Disruptarian on Rumble

eChaos Music cosplay and steampunk gear and clothing

eChaos Music cosplay and steampunk gear and clothing

Archived with Internet Archive | Powered by Spun Web Archive Forge