The contrast between the well-educated “Right” and the “dirtbag”/prole Right is interesting.
Fuentes is one of those guys like BAP where the man himself can be interesting and correct on certain points.
But when you encounter their larger fan base, it's often quite different, the fan base isn't necessarily picking up what the big guy is laying down. https://t.co/5v5c44DERD
— VB Knives (@Empty_America) October 1, 2026
Fuentes built a huge audience/brand catering to the latter. Conversely, BAP reads books and can write. Fuentes does neither. Same for the latter’s large audience, composed mainly of average-IQ teen or 20-something “Fortnite/Discord types”, whose media consumption is entirely visual in nature (e.g., short-form videos/clips, livestreams, and chats).
But what is remarkable is how savvy or prescient his audience is. Despite eschewing any pretenses of intellectualism and being hostile or allergic to the written word, they have a strong intuition of knowing what is right or wrong, or not being fooled or succumbing to seductive hype/narratives.
They can just see when something is bullshit and call it out, even if it’s from their own side/team. It’s sorta like street smarts, if the “street” were limited to Discord, Twitter/X, and livestreams. Like, when it came to tariffs or Iran, they knew immediately that the tariffs would be counterproductive/useless and would not help because the costs would be passed down to consumers, which was correct.
And about Iran, they again arrived at the correct conclusion instantly that it would backfire and be unwinnable. It’s like, “Bruh, tariffs don’t work and Iran was a mistake.” They didn’t fall for the hype. It’s a sorta supernatural ability to instinctively arrive at the correct answer despite the absence of formal credentials or expertise.
Sometimes this even means going against Mr. Fuentes himself when he’s wrong, which shows they aren’t beholden to any authority or status.
For example, when Fuentes praised the April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs as a tax on corporations, his own followers and fans rebutted him, correctly arguing that the costs would be passed on to consumers:
These again are just “randos” without much status or credentials. Many do not have degrees, good jobs, or are particularly well-educated. By comparison, for Iran or the tariffs, I observed it was among the “smartest” accounts, if we go by signifiers of educational status, who performed mental gymnastics to argue that the tariffs would work or that Iran would capitulate quickly, and oil prices would soon fall. I remember seeing this and being like “It’s not like that.”
Or about Maduro, it was again these random 20-something Discord users who were right that ousting of Maduro betrayed “America First” principles, and correctly surmised it would not lower oil prices or help make things more affordable for Americans (I was right about this too). Again, Fuentes faced backlash:
Indeed, a year later, oil prices are near record highs. Same for attacking Iran causing oil prices to surge (as it turns out, intervention has a poor track record for lowering oil or gas prices; who knew).
Yes, in 2025 Iran caved quickly, and I was right, but this was far worse. It was obvious Trump didn’t just want to disrupt Iran with limited airstrikes, but, similar to Iraq, force a restructuring of its leadership, which unsurprisingly had the same poor outcome. I was right about the tariffs not hurting the economy as much as others feared, but at the same time, I was correct it would not be a boon for consumers either. The affordability situation got worse, as I said it would.
Overall, there is a sort of irony: the people who know a lot in terms of credentials, e.g., erudition, degrees, etc., consistently arrive at the wrong conclusions, whereas people who just watch livestreams and are on Discord often get it right without any of that.