The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk has left a deep vacuum within the American right — one that various political actors are now attempting to fill. For roughly a decade, the mainstream media labeled anyone who opposed Big Government, collectivism, or high taxation as some kind of “far-right radical.”
After years of misusing and diluting these labels, society now finds itself unable to distinguish genuine extremism from ordinary political dissent. This confusion has created the perfect environment for figures like Nick Fuentes to present themselves as merely “controversial conservatives,” when in reality their ideas sit entirely outside the American political tradition.
Fuentes began his career as yet another podcaster. His rhetorical skill is undeniable; it even earned him a seat at a dinner in Mar-a-Lago with President Trump and Kanye West shortly before he was banned from practically every major social-media platform. Even so, he eventually returned and now aspires to position himself as an ideological figure within the American right, despite the fact that his ideas cannot be placed within conservatism, or indeed any classical Republican ideology.
In recent interviews and public appearances, Fuentes has openly expressed admiration for the communist dictator Joseph Stalin, describing him as a model of ruthless political efficiency: “Now that the dust has settled, can we admit that Stalin was a genius? Can we admit that Stalin was the most effective leader in history?”
He has also made profoundly disturbing remarks such as: “Many women want to be raped… Many women really want a man to beat them.”
And he has declared openly and without hesitation: “Forget about liberty and safety. It’s about order… I don’t believe in the individual.”
Fuentes’s worldview places him far outside the American tradition, and to understand why, it is essential to revisit the core principles that defined American conservatism in the twentieth century.
Conservatism and the American Political Tradition
To situate Fuentes’s worldview in context, it is essential to revisit the core tenets of American conservatism as it developed in the twentieth century.
1. Individual Liberty as a First Principle
From Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative (1960) to Ronald Reagan’s landmark speeches, the conservative movement has consistently rejected the subordination of the individual to the state. Natural rights, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, are inalienable and derived from the Creator — not from government authority. American conservatism is built upon the idea that the individual precedes the state, not the other way around.
2. Skepticism Toward Concentrated Power
William F. Buckley Jr. and the early National Review intellectuals positioned conservatism as an explicit counterweight to centralized control — whether communist, fascist, or bureaucratic. American conservatism is fundamentally distrustful of authoritarianism, regardless of ideological coloration. Any project that seeks to grant the state sweeping authority over society contradicts the ethos of the movement.
3. Constitutionalism and Limited Government
The Constitution begins with “We the People,” anchoring the legitimacy of government in popular consent. Its structure — federalism, separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights — was designed precisely to prevent the emergence of the all-powerful state Fuentes openly admires. The Constitution is not simply a legal document but the embodiment of the American suspicion of concentrated power and the celebration of individual autonomy.
Fuentes’s statements therefore place him outside this tradition. Admiration for Stalin, calls to abandon individual rights, and proposals to merge extreme left and right movements around illiberal ends are not deviations from conservatism — they are direct rejections of it.
The Constitution: Pillar of the American Way
Few historical documents have shaped a civilization as decisively as the Constitution of the United States. The American right, with all its internal debates and disagreements, continues to defend its principles in broad outline: political power emanating from the people; resistance to Big Government; and the protection of individual liberties.
The Constitution’s architecture reflects an abiding commitment to individualism and an aversion to the tyrannical tendency inherent in unchecked state power. The first ten amendments explicitly enumerate what the government cannot do: it cannot silence speech, cannot restrict the press, cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, cannot disarm citizens, cannot imprison them without due process, cannot seize their property arbitrarily, and cannot impose cruel or unusual punishments. These prohibitions were designed precisely to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful state claiming authority over the conscience, autonomy, and dignity of the individual.
Fuentes, however, does not believe in this tradition. He rejects individual autonomy and, despite claiming to be “a Christian,” does not treat rights as endowed by the Creator but as instruments to be granted or withdrawn by an authoritarian ruler imposing “order.” In other words, his worldview is not merely non-conservative; it stands in direct opposition to the constitutional foundations that define American political life.
The Problem of Empty Labels
One of the central problems in contemporary political discourse is that extremist labels have become empty from overuse. For years, commentators have called anyone who criticized socialism or Big Government a “fascist,” a practice that has left society unable to recognize actual authoritarianism when it appears. Yet Fuentes fits that description literally, not metaphorically. He is a conspiracy theorist, a neo-Nazi, and a white supremacist who believes in authoritarian state control, collectivism, and the suppression of individual and market freedoms.
In one of his appearances, he even proposed a pact between the far left and far right under shared illiberal objectives: “The left has to give up immigration; the right has to give up on the free market.”
His appeal thrives in a cultural landscape where many young men feel alienated and stripped of meaning. They also don’t feel welcomed by mainstream institutions. After years of being branded racists or Nazis for trivial reasons, they no longer trust the moral judgments of the culture around them. As a result, they become desensitized to legitimate warnings about extremism and more willing to follow anyone who claims to speak for them. This makes them prime targets for demagogues — con men and would-be authoritarians — who offer them a ready-made identity built on grievance and a sense of belonging grounded in resentment.
There is no American conservative doctrine — historically or presently — that calls for abolishing natural rights, dismantling individualism, or submitting the population to state control. Nor has the classical American tradition been rooted in racial identity rather than ideas.
The United States was founded on the belief that all who are willing to work, contribute, embrace the culture, and honor the American tradition can belong, regardless of creed or race. Fuentes seeks to redefine American belonging on illiberal, identitarian, and authoritarian terms, a vision incompatible with both conservatism and the founding principles of the republic.
A Warning About the Present Moment
Perhaps one could simply note that Fuentes openly admires Joseph Stalin, architect of one of the deadliest totalitarian regimes in human history, and leave it at that. But the reality is that thousands of Americans are being radicalized daily by figures like Fuentes — individuals who, instead of appreciating the privilege of having been born in the most prosperous nation on earth, seem determined to undermine it from within, dividing the population, degrading public discourse, and empowering America’s adversaries.
The American tradition does not silence dissent; it confronts it with arguments and moral clarity. If Fuentes wishes to pursue an illiberal political movement, he is free to do so. But no one should mistake his project for conservatism or for any authentic expression of the American right. His admiration for Stalin, his rejection of individual rights, and his calls to fuse the extreme left and right around authoritarian objectives are not expressions of the conservative tradition — they are categorical repudiations of it.
