Piers Morgan shows Nick Fuentes is unbeatable

Piers Morgan x Nick Fuentes Debate Review

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to write this review immediately after the debate. I am therefore writing it now, after the full fallout has unfolded, with the benefit of sober, post-factum reflection. I will begin with a short recap, explain the strategy of both sides and reflect upon the broader themes of this.

Piers started off with very strong cards; he first pretended to be genuinely curious and friendly toward Fuentes and immediately started accusing him of being two-faced, playing a moderate persona in his interviews and a radical extremist on his show. He then attempted to genealogically analyze the Fuentes phenomenon, in which he diagnosed Nick’s racism through exposure to his “racist dad,” as opposed to getting red-pilled by Mark Levin on race and then realizing that the state of American politics is crooked not just because of the replacement of Whites, but also due to the inherent Jewish-led order of the political establishment, which Mark Levin and Turning Point USA were a part of.

In the interview Nick Fuentes has successfully defended himself against both charges and managed to get on top of every question.

At around the middle of the interview Piers Morgan began to fumble really badly by not understanding per-capita and then by the end of it he was constantly getting triggered and exposed himself being totally disorganized, trying to score gatcha points at every opportunity like a tabloid journalist and

Nick’s tactical approach was to come out as a reasonable person, who is telling the truth and is real. His concession to Coleman Hughes that there is in-fact two Nick personas as well as the admission of being racist, precisely supports the common observation that Nick Fuentes is indeed a person who is not fake, like the vast majority of American politicians.

Nick’s central strategy was to affirm himself as the truth-telling iconoclast who sometimes can be humors and edgy but nonetheless is able defend an ideology which Piers Morgan was not able to refute.

Consider for instance, the part of the conversation starting at 01:19:30 in which Nick Fuentes is stating his position on the Jewish Question:

I’m an iconoclast. The Holocaust is not my religion, and it is treated like a religion. It is treated like a religion with dogma, with blasphemy laws, and that secular religion says, and you say, you say that’s a crock of shit.

It’s intentional. It’s called the open society by Karl Popper. It’s by these architects of the liberal order after World War II. They got together and they said, how can we make sure that Hitler never happens? How can we make sure that totalitarianism never happens again? And they came up with the consensus, which is that we need to take down nations, religions, fathers, the authoritarian personality. We need to be empathetic and altruistic. We need to be diverse and pluralistic. And that experiment isn’t working. And I’ll tell you the truth right now. And you can laugh at this. You can scoff at this. 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 they’re going to be a minority and maybe a Muslim country in Indian country and Hispanic country and these Jewish people that are a 100 years old talking about my grandparents and the Holocaust. They don’t care about that. Actually they like to see it at the SPLC. They’re literally counting down the days until whites are a minority in America.

So forgive me if I don’t believe them when they talk about compassion. There’s a genocide going on right now. It’s not against the Jews.

In response to this Piers couldn’t find a proper rebuttle other than questioning Nick on “how many Christians are there in the world and how many Jewish people there are”. After Nick replies, Piers Morgan comes back with the:

okay, soo.. with a straight face you’re gonna tell me… Oh.. The world is being OVERRUN BY THE JEWRY! By the 15 million people when there are over one billion Christians. There is a genocide of Christians like poor ol’ Nick Fuentes going on at the hands of these 15 million Jews.

Obviously, I don’t need to explain to you what the hell is wrong with this reply. Piers is simply unable to properly engage with what Nick just said. If I was a Jewish advocate, I would have certainly come up with a much stronger rebuttal to Nick than what was said. I obviously don’t want to give any ideas, but there is a number of ways in which this could be engaged with.

Another strong case in which he didn’t know what the hell was going on, is when Piers (and recently Dr. Phil) did not understand that when Nick Fuentes said it could be x100 6 million Jews who have died in the Holocaust, Nick was making fun of the Holocaust dogma. They thought he was “walking back on his Holocaust denial” and that “his fans would be surprised to hear that”.

But of course, the cherry on the cake was the appearance of Daniel Finkelstein with a pre-recorded message about “me daddy and me mummy, who died at the hands of Hitler and Stalin and therefore” neither of them are “fucking cool”. To quote Piers Morgan:

what do you mean by Hitler is very fucking cool? Because I think he’s very fucking a monster.

Daniel Finkeltein’s lame appearance in the show is probably the elephant in the room, a shameless plug for a book built around a Jewish victimhood narrative, aired almost immediately after Piers insisted that Jews never engage in the weaponization of the Holocaust for their personal gain.

This just shows how completely out of touch these boomers are with Generation Z and why we think that bringing someone like Daniel Finkelstein on Piers Morgan in a positive light is revolting.

Thankfully after this appearance, people started Googling who the hell he was, only to be completely vindicated on all the stereotypes.

Not only does he want to lecture White people on their speech and their identity, he managed to do that while being a Jewish Zionist who supports Nick Fuentes’ policies but for Israel.

Another vindication of that is his recent statement that multiculturalism is good, in response to a Conservative criticizing it, before flipping 180 TWO DAYS LATER, after there was another anti-Jewish shooting committed by the forces of multiculturalism in Australia. Now suddenly he “doesn’t feel safe” yet he felt perfectly safe when grooming gangs were raping White women,

After receiving numerous backlash he clownishly affirmed that he now supports a Christian Nationalist British state, like he supports Israel so that there is no contradiction, thereby completely backpaddling on his previous liberal and secular beliefs and reinventing himself as the ne Yoram Hazony.

Finally after all of that, he used his Jewish privilege to lend himself a another article at the Times, in which he proved once again that he hasn’t learned shit.

The Significance of the Debate

This debate like Nick’s appearance on Tucker has generated a great amount of discussion. Piers even had a post-debate stream in which he was comforted by other boomers who told him that he has totally annihilated Nick, even though the comments and the online reception is like 10-1 in Nick’s favor.

But the major significance of the debate is that while Tucker’s interview of Nick has been easy, this interview has been hostile and with a clear intention of exposing Nick as a racist, sexist, bad-actor, two faced and hypocritical.

To his credit Piers Morgan has done some research in digging up old clips of Nick, like the one in which he talks about his father being prejudiced against Black people, these clips ultimately work on those who subscribe to the same moral rules as Piers Morgan. For some strange reason, Piers imagined that Nick abides by Liberal moral framework in which there is no inherent hierarchy between groups and individuals and so he would ultimately backdown and lose control after he’s been exposed as not living up to the Liberal moral framework.

He instead heard the case for a post-racist morality, meaning that people acknowledge inherent group hierarchies and competition instead of being silent about them and work from that. To a liberal like Piers is, this is considered heresy and merely calling oneself a sexist or a racist is tantamount to a social excommunication, but unfortunately for Piers, Generation Z goes by different moral rules and Piers wasn’t able to guilt-trip Nick for being these things and instead received a lecture by him about how Liberal morality fails at the end of the day.

And that last sentence is the most fundamental lesson that we must draw from this debate. There is no real intellectual challenge to Nick. The guy is unbeatable and he is on a generational run. Piers tried and he failed.

The only person who came close to seriously challenging Nick was Destiny, during their collab with Myron Gaines and even that was largely because Destiny is a nihilist who doesn’t adhere to any coherent moral framework and is motivated primarily by debate itself rather than ideology. Even so, Destiny ultimately lost to Nick, and the loss was both clear and humiliating. He was repeatedly exposed as speaking beyond his depth and lacking a basic grasp of the issues something that is, frankly, characteristic of him.

That is why I don’t expect Ben Shapiro or other major Conservative and establishment figures ever debating Nick like the like to debate young leftist college students. This is ultimately a game about power, not of determining truth which requires exposing contradictions in once’s reasoning and the establishment is well aware that its reasoning cannot be defended against in a fair and honest debate.

I will be free in the last 10 days of the year and so expect a lot of content coming in, including a video on YouTube.