Some thoughts about the groyper craze:

Who we are, who we think we are, and who others think we are, are three different things.

I have no idea who Nick Fuentes is as a person. So I will focus on the brand ‘Fuentes’: how others see him and the groypers. (1/15)🧵 (2/15) I believe that to a significant extent, the groyper craze is inorganic. This is neither an ad hominem attack nor an extraordinary claim. There are simply too many sides who want to use the brand ‘Fuentes’ for their respective goals; goals that are sometimes mutually exclusive.

This brand creation and manipulation comes from many sides: Fuentes himself, some leftists, some ‘conservatives’, and perhaps foreign actors who aim to promote their respective agendas.

Suffice it to say that this doesn’t have to have Fuentes’ approval. He doesn’t have to be a willing participant to anything other than his own efforts to create a brand name for himself.

The accusation that the Right is unprincipled for engaging in cancel culture in the way the Left does during the last decade is wrong. It also ignores crucial differences and diverts people's attention away from the widespread left-wing radicalism.

Here is why: 🧵 Treating the cancellation (I call it marginalisation) of those who cheered for the assassination of Charlie Kirk as the equivalent of leftist cancel culture ignores huge differences concerning the extent of cancellation, its manner, and the rationale for it.

In a textbook leftist-ideologue way, it views the issue abstractly, ignores the specifics, and just like infatuation with 'social justice', it focuses on the outcome without taking into account how the outcome came about. No better sign than this that this is an attempt at narrative control by 'progressivists'.

Classical liberalism is one of the most misrepresented traditions; sometimes intentionally. Its intentional misrepresentations often aim to present tyranny as the solution to our problems. Here is a thread about 11 persistent misrepresentations of classical liberalism:
🧵 1. ''Classical liberalism has no limiting principles.''

This is just false. Reference to limits is essential. People are supposed to be free to pursue their conception of the good life within limits.

Classical liberals advocate for respecting a regimented sphere of activities within which persons are free to engage in or not engage in without deliberate interference by others, whether civilians or state officials.

To paraphrase the famous saying: 'my liberties end where yours begin and vice versa'. Disrespecting that sphere is off limits from a classical liberal perspective.