In a much-anticipated debate hosted by Adin Ross and Sneako, conservative provocateur Nick Fuentes faced off against 20-year-old Gen Z influencer Dean Withers. What unfolded was not just a clash of political ideas but a bizarre spectacle of moral posturing, gender debates, and outright contradictions, leaving many viewers disillusioned by the state of Western discourse.
A Debate on Morality—And Celibacy?
At the heart of the debate were contentious issues like Christian nationalism, gender roles, and the supposed superiority of traditional morality. Nick Fuentes, founder of the "Groypers," focused on pushing his vision of a Jesuit Catholic society, where men are superior to women, and homosexuality is rejected outright. Withers, known for debating conservatives online, countered with a defense of gender equality and inclusivity, often framing the conversation around individual rights and modern liberal values.
Fuentes argument against homosexuality was strange to me, one point he made was on the STDs one can aquire from gay sex, STDs that can also be acquired from practicing heterosexuality. Which then led to his claim that he is, in fact, “not straight… yet”.
What was particularly strange about Fuentes' contributions was his repeated claim that he practices celibacy due to his religious convictions. Fuentes, however, simultaneously claims to be asexual, which raised eyebrows among both his critics and followers. Asexuality, the lack of sexual attraction to others, is not synonymous with celibacy, which is a deliberate choice to abstain from sexual activity for moral or religious reasons. Fuentes’ use of both terms interchangeably seemed to reveal either a misunderstanding of asexuality or an attempt to mask personal complexities behind religious rhetoric. For someone who places so much emphasis on "traditional morality," the confusion surrounding his sexual identity raises questions about his own ideological consistency. Sexual identity is determined by attractions, not actions.
Symbiosis of Extremes: Woke vs. Groyper
While the debate may have had some enlightening moments for those unfamiliar with these perspectives, it largely felt like an unproductive clash of extreme ideologies. Withers, representing woke liberals, was quick to dismiss Fuentes’ viewpoints as outdated and oppressive. Meanwhile, Fuentes and his followers see themselves as the last defenders of "Western Civilization" as if Christianty wasn't founded in the East. In many ways, the debate highlighted the symbiotic relationship between these two movements—each feeding off the other's extremism.
The woke left and the far-right Groypers have become emblematic of America's deepening political divide. While Withers and Fuentes may appear to be on opposite sides of the spectrum, their mutual dependence on outrage, cancel culture, and online echo chambers points to a deeper problem in modern discourse. Both sides thrive on polarization, making civil, meaningful dialogue nearly impossible in today’s climate. This dynamic has not only affected the younger generation but has also eroded the broader social fabric of the United States. This is not me speaking as a boring centrist, this is me speaking as someone who misses good faith arguments.
Zionism and the Real Deal Breaker
For me, one of the most glaring issues both sides conveniently avoid is the bipartisan support for Zionism in American politics. Figures like Kamala Harris (who Dean supports) and Donald Trump (who Nick occasionally supports) may come from opposite parties, but their unflinching support for Israel and Zionism remains a deal breaker. Whether it's Trump moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or Harris continuing to uphold pro-Israel policies, the blind allegiance to Zionist interests is something that neither the woke left nor the Groypers effectively challenge. Their focus on performative culture wars often obscures more pressing global issues, including the U.S.'s role in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Fuentes is a subject of the first Jesuit pope and Withers is a subject of the woke mob. The Jesuits can be blamed for Futurism which led to Dispensationalism which led to the establishment of the Zionist State. While Fuentes claims to oppose Israel, I have & will continue to posit the theory that he serves a role to make anti-Zionists look bad, it's either this or he's intellectually impaired. Fuentes has condemned Trump at times for Israel First polices but subsequently redeems Trump for xenophobic demagoguery. On the other hand, any specific statements from Withers on Israel are not well-documented, but in him being a defender of a ZioCrat like Kamala Harris, I feel I can put two and two together.
My Verdict: Both Sides Lost
In the end, the debate left me with the same distaste for both camps. The wokeies and Groypers represent two sides of the same coin—each locked in an endless cycle of self-righteousness and contempt for the other, yet both are complicit in degrading the quality of public discourse in America. As long as this toxic dynamic continues, America will find itself more divided, and the social fabric that once held us together will further unravel. It's this dynamic that makes me think that maybe a civilized national divorce would be for the better.
In short, both Withers and Fuentes lost—though they probably don’t realize it. Neither managed to offer a path toward unity or meaningful progress, and their battle only served to highlight the deeply flawed nature of their respective ideologies.
