Update on the progress of the publication of my second novel

It's good! I have made significant progress is bringing my second novel to the release date. It's going to be self-published on Amazon, at least in the initial stages,  so I have to do all the formatting and prep-work for publication. It takes time. 

But I am getting close. I have a graphic artist working on the cover art so that should help in drawing attention. I am very excited and I feel very good about this book. When I started this project, which by the way has been 15 years ago, I saw it as being a "historical thriller." Now that it's complete I'd say a more accurate description of the genre is 'historical fiction'. It's still a very exciting story, it's by no means a historical accounting of events. There's plenty of suspense, drama, and action. But the setting, timeframe and many of the characters are real. Trust me, it's a great story. I'll give you a hint by revealing the title:

"Between the Whistle and the Gun"

It's very close to release, so stay with me. It'll be online very soon!

Operation Epic Fury and China, Interesting Connection...

 Operation Epic Fury, the U.S./Israeli military campaign has created  some tectonic reverberations for Xi Jinping. This is owing to Xi and the CCP's belief in the dogma of inevitability. (here) The pounding Iran is currently taking is causing some profound confusion in the corridors of Chinese power. 

Xi is scurrying like a rat who hasn't smelled cheese in a long time. The Iran strikes have caused big problems for China. In 2021, Xi told senior party officials that "the East is rising and the West is declining, that America was the biggest source of chaos in the present-day world." And that China was entering a period of strategic opportunity. One big problem, Iran was central to that premise. Beijing needed a defiant Iran to keep Washington rattled, to sustain a sanctions-proof energy corridor, and to stand as living proof that American power had limitations. The framework of the CCP's 'dogma of inevitability' rested on Iran's ability to endure. Epic Fury removed that foundation in a single afternoon. 

Ayatollah Khamenei was key to the ideology. He was a man whom Washington had threatened, sanctioned, plotted against, and skirted for over four decades, yet he was still on a prayer rug every Friday. Xi personally signed the comprehensive strategic partnership with Khamenei's government. He personally authorized the weapons transfers. And he personally wielded the U.N. Security Council veto. None of it saved his life once Washington decided he was done. 

Xi's message to his people, that America is a declining power incapable of decisive force, doesn't at all align with what happened in a matter of hours over Tehran and many sites around the country. Of course, what the public hears is only what the CCP allows them to hear, but the military planners and foreign policy officials know what they saw. 

There are energy implications for China as well. China bought 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian oil last year and take over 80% of everything Iran ships. Half of China's oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The Gulf's strategic balance has shifted decisively toward Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, whose energy ties with the United States have a long history and are strengthening, now that Khamenei is dead. China had an unwritten agreement to buy Iranian oil and not mention human rights. With no government at present, and a successor unknown, Gulf producers are feeling confident that they are protected by an American security guarantee that has just proved to be quite effective. 

Strategically, China can neither condone nor condemn the strikes. Their only remaining option is to take cover under UN rhetoric. China's foreign ministry spokesperson called the strikes "a grave violation of sovereignty." That sounds like tough talk, but the Belt and Road countries are watching are what they are seeing so far is a confused superpower talking and American forces doing the deciding. 

Chinese companies have spent billions investing in oil infrastructure and port facilities across the Gulf region. Iranian missiles aimed at Gulf States are in fact, inflicting damage to China. The Strait of Hormuz situation compounds the problem. Iran's Revolutionary Guard announced that no ship would pass through the channel, a threat intended to impact the West. The U.S. has a shale industry and the strategic petroleum reserve just for situations like this. As of March of last year, China had only filled 56% of its above ground strategic and commercial storage facilities. The Houthis have resumed attacks on Red Sea shipping, every skirmish in Iraq threatens oil concessions funded by the Chinese. Iran's resistance is effectively and profoundly disrupting Chinese interests throughout the region. 

The clearest indication of Beijing's confusion is the absence of action. No diplomatic maneuvers, no military positioning, nothing. Their only reaction; a press conference. Apparently, Chinese influence in the Middle East was strategically tied to Iran, and that no one would ever question it. The tie has been broken and the influence, gone...

Ah yes, Eileen Gu...

 It's hard to miss the numerous articles in the news of late regarding Eileen Gu. After reading some of them, it's hard not to form an opinion regarding her decision to represent China in the 2026 winter olympics. I suppose that one's opinion will vary depending on whether you're Chinese or American. In case you haven't been keeping up, let me give you a little background.

Eileen Gu is a world-renowned freestyle skier, fashion model, and student at Stanford University. Born in San Francisco in 2003 to an American father and a Chinese mother, she has become quite well known for her record-breaking athletic performances and her decision to represent China in international competition. Taking into consideration that she is of American and Chinese descent, one might argue that her decision was not unreasonable. There are, however, some mitigating circumstances. 

Gu is a documented American citizen. She holds an American passport. At the time of her decision she was not a Chinese citizen. China does not recognize dual citizenship. In order to become a Chinese citizen, Gu would be required to renounce her American citizenship. She has not done this. Several of her sponsors that finance her training, travel and expenses are American corporations. Her mother was educated at Stanford, where Gu is currently enrolled. Gu actually began representing China in 2019, and the Chinese Consulate General has stated that athletes in her position would need to be naturalized or gain permanent residency status to compete for their team. 

It has not been documented that Gu was granted Chinese citizenship, though it's quite obvious she is representing China in the olympics. In early 2025, a public budget document from the Beijing Municipal Sports Bureau accidentally included the names of Eileen Gu and figure skater Zhu (Beverly) Yi. The document designated approximately $6.6 million for the two athletes for "striving for excellent results in qualifying for the 2026 Milan Winter Olympics." Over a three year period leading up to the 2026 games, the two athletes reportedly received nearly $14 million in total government support. It is likely Gu received the larger share considering her three olympic medals. While these direct payments were revealed, the vast majority of Gu's income, estimated at roughly $23 million in 2025, comes from private endorsements and sponsorships, including Red Bull, Porsche, Louis Vitton and several Chinese companies such as the Bank of China and Luckin Coffee. The disclosure of these state payments ignited vigorous debate on Chinese social media regarding public spending on US-born athletes, and the names were removed from the published budget documents. 

Given these dubious, and might I say nefarious circumstances, there's one other minor circumstance I'd like to mention. To cement her status as a 'polarizing' subject of the Milan Winter Games, in an interview with a reporter Tuesday Gu responded to a question about her winning two silver medals instead of gold, as a "ridiculous perspective." She responded, "I'm the most decorated female skier in history. I think that's an answer in and of itself. I'm doing things that quite literally have never been done before." 

So, to each, his own regarding her questionable, misplaced allegiance. Evidently, there's nothing questionable about her arrogant, narcissistic attitude, however. One must admit though, she belongs to a very small cohort, those who aspire to be Chinese and American, depending on who pays the most...

Let's Talk About AI...

 There's been a lot of discussion about AI of late, and a lot of controversy. One of the biggest points of contention is that it is going to be the cause of job losses. Possibly thousands, or even millions of jobs. As of right now, AI has already resulted in some job displacements. The vast majority of these losses have been entry-level and routine task jobs. Meaning, of course, younger workers, aged 20-25 have seen significant drops in employment opportunities. Oddly, older workers in the same sectors have not experienced the same drops. Interesting, huh? Layoffs across such industries as tech, media, and customer support that have been linked to AI adoption predict more workforce pressures ahead. 

However, as of today, broad, mass unemployment from AI adoption hasn't happened yet. Central bank data suggests that AI adoption hasn't significantly increased overall unemployment so far and is more associated with re-training than layoffs. Studies find no evidence of large-scale job loss overall and unemployment rates remain relatively low in economies aggressively adopting AI. 

So, why exactly, so far, is the impact 'mixed'? AI doesn't always eliminate jobs outright, it often transforms jobs by automating parts of the work, changing what people do rather than making them obsolete. Analyses estimate that AI and automation create new roles, as in AI development, maintenance, oversight, and complementary fields that outnumber direct AI-related cuts, though they may require higher skills or retraining. 

Workers in routine, repetitive, or entry-level positions are most at risk today, while roles requiring complex human judgment, creativity, care, and interpersonal skills are more resistant, and these roles may even grow. 

Economists and business leaders disagree on the scale and timing of future job losses. Some forecast modest job losses in the next decade with a significant need for worker retraining. Leaders in the technology field have explicitly warned that AI could automate a large share of white collar jobs within a short time frame, which could pressure employment if adaptation lags. International organizations (like the IMF) highlight that many jobs will be transformed or enhanced by AI, not simply eliminated. 

To sum things up, it's fair to say that AI has already contributed to job losses and reshaping of roles in certain sectors. But it has not caused a widespread collapse of employment overall. Many displaced workers are moving into different jobs or retraining, and new AI related job opportunities are emerging at the same time. We are experiencing more of a 'transition phase' than something more serious and disruptive. 

Now that we have discussed AI from a broad perspective, let's talk about it from a more personal viewpoint. For students, when given an  assignment to write an essay, or discuss the fine points of a book, or 'give your views' on what message the author was trying to get across, it's too easy, too inviting, too irresistible to not ask an AI app to do this for you. It can be done in a matter of seconds. And the answer will be credible, perhaps even impressive. Professors, teachers, often pressed for time and underpaid will be more than willing to assume that the student has read the essay, or book and given the assignment due diligence and written what they think. If that's the case then they have indeed learned something. Like how to understand and interpret what they have read. Undoubtedly, a very critical skill required for success in life. If they have copy/pasted what ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini told them, what have they learned? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Nada, zip, zilch, zero. AI wasn't intended for that purpose, but it's pretty safe to assume that it is often used for such. 

There are endless articles of literature and science and the arts that expand our view of the world and help us to understand it. But if we lack the basic ability to read and understand and interpret, then the work of the great thinkers before us is lost. The works of Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci have fascinated humans for centuries. But for those curious enough to ask why, why their work is so fascinating, who was Michelangelo and daVinci, what were their  lives like, where did they come from? Yes, those answers can be found (quickly) through an AI app. But nothing on any AI app can give you the insight that can be gained through reading a book on Michelangelo or Leonardo daVinci. A book where an author has taken the time to research their lives and interpret all the knowledge he has learned from his research. We can all look at the frescos on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, St. Peter's Basilica dome, the Mona Lisa, and appreciate them. Without knowing a thing about who created them. But once you have taken the time to read about them, who they were, what happened in their lives that made them the artists they became, then you can truly appreciate their magnificent work. Fascination becomes real. Michelangelo and Leonardo daVinci didn't have AI. They didn't need it even if it were available to them. They were creative thinkers...

Between the Whistle and the Gun

Some stories begin as ideas. Others begin as obligations.
This one began as a question that wouldn’t let go: What happens to ordinary people when history moves on without them? After more than a decade of writing, revising, and living with that question, I’m finally nearing the publication of a novel that grew out of it.

---

Between the Whistle and the Gun

I’ve been working on this novel for a long time. Long enough that it stopped feeling like a project and started feeling like something I owed to the story itself.

Between the Whistle and the Gun is a work of historical fiction set in the final decades of the 19th century, in a country that no longer exists on any modern map: Indian Territory.

It is a place caught between worlds—between treaties and treachery, between law and lawlessness, between survival and erasure.

At the center of the story are Clint Franklin and Vivvy Tuttle, two young people whose lives become entangled with forces far larger than either of them imagined. Railroads carve through the land. Outlaws stalk the margins. Presidents make promises from distant offices. And ordinary people are left to live with the consequences.

This is not a novel about famous men alone, though some appear. It is about the people who live in the wake of history—those who must decide whether to bend, resist, or endure when the rules are written elsewhere.

Much of the story is rooted in real events: train robberies, political maneuvering in Washington, the collapse of tribal sovereignty, and the quiet heroism of people trying to build a life where stability is constantly under threat. The fiction lives in the spaces between the records—the private conversations, the moral choices, the cost of doing what feels right when the outcome is uncertain.

At its heart, this is a story about heritage. About what is taken, what survives, and what must be defended even when the odds are overwhelming.

I’m nearing the end of the long road with this book now. As publication approaches, I wanted to begin sharing more about it here—not as marketing noise, but as context. This story has asked a great deal of me over the years. I hope, when it’s finally in your hands, it proves worthy of your time as well.

If you’d like to follow the journey toward publication, I’ll be sharing updates and reflections here as the book makes its way into the world.

Thank you.

C. Clayton Lewis

An Intelligent Somalian

 Considering the massive fraud that has taken place in Minnesota recently in the U.S., primarily in the Somali community in Minnesota, and the persistent denials of any complicity by congresswoman Ilhad Omar, it's no wonder that the perception and reputation of Somalians has taken a major blow. The total tally of the money stolen in the fraudulent acts is in the neighborhood of $9-10 billion. Some of the programs that were to be funded by the stolen money not only leave the taxpaying public shaking their heads, it leaves hearts broken. Food for needy children and families, help and support for autistic children, you get the idea. And the stolen funds have been used to buy luxury cars and homes, international vacations, jewelry... It's beyond disgusting. Many of the depraved offenders have been caught, tried, and convicted. There are many more yet to be caught. All of the offenders are not Somalian, but the vast majority are. And the epicenter of the fraud is the district represented by none other than Representative Ilhad Omar, a Somali immigrant. Both the optics and the reality are obscene. 

Amongst what appears to be a group of immigrants with no conscience, morals or values is an example of a fine human being who happens to be quite intelligent. And who is also a Somali immigrant. After President Trump took the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos to declare that Western civilization must defend itself from an existential attack, Somali-born activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, "Trump is right."

Trump shocked other politicians and leaders Tuesday night by declaring, "The West cannot mass import foreign cultures." The situation in Minnesota is a shining example of his point. "The explosion of prosperity, and progress that built the West did not come from our tax cuts. It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common. We share it, but we have to keep it strong. We have to become stronger, more successful, and more prosperous than ever. We have to defend our culture and rediscover the spirit that lifted the West from the depths of the Dark Ages to the pinnacle of human achievement." 

In response, Hirsi Ali said Trump is communicating a critical truth. "Trump is right, and I can't think of a more powerful platform than the President of the United States to say, 'Hey, you guys wake up.'"

As a child in Somalia, Hirsi was subjected to a severe form of female genital mutilation. Later in life, she fled the country to escape a forced marriage and served as a Dutch lawmaker. She is now based in the U.S. and uses her platform to advocate for women's rights, critique Islam and voice support for Western greatness. 

"I think every American and every European should know what the president is trying to say is that what made America and Europe great is there's a unique culture. If we don't understand the culture and we do not defend it, we risk losing it," she said. 

"The economy is very important. Military is very important. All these other aspects of government are extremely important, but more important than all of that is our value system. And it's our heritage. And it is our national identity."

Regarding Trump's critique of the Somali immigrant population's involvement in the massive Minnesota fraud scheme, Hirsi Ali said, "I wholeheartedly agree with the president. The president is right when he says Somalia hasn't even made it into a nation," she said. "Every attempt at building something, making something out of Somalia has always failed because of the clan code, because of Islam, because of Marxism. We've had all the bad ideologies, and, as Somalis, we've run away with them." Hirsi Ali went on to say the situation in Minnesota exposes a subversive agenda in the U.S. to transform it and to Islamize it using American institutions and the American vocabulary of civil rights. You see the Somalis exploit and extract the benefit system," she said. "They tell everyone, if you expose this, investigate it, object to it, stop it, you're racist. You're an Islamophobe. You are a bigot. 

"If we keep on doing what we are doing, getting huge numbers of people from the Third World to come and establish themselves in the United States and European countries and depend on welfare benefits, that is to take and take and never contribute, then we're setting ourselves up not only for failure. We're committing a cultural and national and political suicide."

To combat this she said European nations must follow the Trump administration's example in sealing their borders. She said the U.S. and Europe must also address their broad welfare systems, which she said, "Are just too expensive. We've got to force them to assimilate, or we've got to give them that choice and say, "If you don't want to assimilate into American society, then you will be denaturalized."

JD Vance put it this way: "It's not what we are fighting against, but what are we fighting for? What are we fighting to preserve? If you can't answer that question, then I think you are lost. And the European leaders are lost. And I think he is trying to help them find their way," she said. 

What a breath of fresh air your perspective is, Ms. Ali. Keep up the good work. 

Trump's Tariffs, Maybe He's not Crazy

 China has recently boasted that their trade surplus with the entire world just hit an all-time record of $1.19 trillion in 2025. But what China didn't boast about is their surplus with the U.S. declined by 22%. The reason: U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports average over 50%. 

China's consistent trade surplus is based on illegal trade policies, including currency manipulation, subsidies, and domestic market protection, that cost the U.S. and other countries jobs. Until last year the main loser has been the United States. China simply diverted subsidized exports to other countries with lower tariffs. 

But what about Trump's tariffs on exports from other countries? A tariff is a tax, a tax on consumers, importers, and on producers who use foreign-made components. By raising tariffs, which aren't based on any well-measured plan other than his resentments and whims, Trump presumably has wreaked serious, economic damage. According to the Yale Budget Lab, Trump's policies have raised the average tariff rate from about 2.4% in late 2024 to 17% by late 2025, the highest level in almost a century. Economic disaster, right? 

Maybe not. Herein lies an interesting economic mystery as well as perhaps a possible lesson for the next Democratic administration. That's a big ask, but we'll continue.

Currently, inflation is running below projections. In December, inflation was 2.7%. The November/December 2025 inflation numbers were the lowest since 2021. Tariffs have had surprisingly little effect pushing consumer prices up. Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings wrote in a recent article, "Tariff pass-through to consumers has been much milder than anticipated." Yet revenue from tariffs has generated close to $300 billion in 2025, up from about $80 billion in 2024. At this rate 2026 will produce over $350 billion. 

So, who exactly is paying these taxes? The evidence suggests that most costs are being absorbed by foreign exporters or by domestic sellers accepting lower profit margins. Since the actual tariffs on different countries are a crazy matrix of different rates, producers have also become adept at shifting their supply chains to countries with relatively lower rates. 

There's a tendency to overstate the effect of tariffs on household costs since imports are only about 14% of GDP. In other words, there are no tariffs on 86% of GDP. And the high tariff rate on China skews the averages. Excluding China, the effective tariff rate for the rest of the world, adjusting for trade share and exempt categories, is not the average 17%. It's well below 10%. 

The chronic U.S. global trade deficit has been shrinking due in part to tariffs. The October deficit was $2.4 billion, down nearly 40% from September. The decline continued for November, the last month for which statistics are available. 

Some of this radical decline is the result of fluky factors such as an increased flurry of gold purchases and reduced pharmaceutical imports. There is also softening consumer demand, stagnant wages and high consumer borrowing. But the trend is real. 

A research study by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank reviewed tariff policy and economic performance over more than a hundred and fifty years finds that higher tariffs actually correlates with reductions in inflation. That doesn't really seem logical, and the researchers don't have a comprehensive explanation. One likely reason is high tariffs, such as those enacted by Smoot-Hawley in 1930, reducing effective purchasing power (and demand) which restrains prices. 

This is by no means an endorsement of Trump's tariff policies. I was patently opposed to them when he introduced them, and I remain so. They were not the result of trade planning and industrial strategy, but more so his peevishness and desire for retribution. 

The one sensible exception is the high tariff on China. Even so, his overall China policy stupidly combines excessive export controls which reflect his penchant for cutting corrupt deals (remember the deal cut with Nvidia?...). A more strategically targeted tariff policy linked to domestic industrial policy would actually make a lot of sense. A prime benefit of well-targeted tariffs is they can a part of a well-considered plan to boost U.S. industrialization. Just because Trump loves tariffs doesn't necessarily make them flat-earth economics. He just doesn't know how to use them wisely. 

 The Arctic region is a strategic priority for the U.S.. It has been for a long time. Trump has pointed out that China, Russia, and possibly other U.S. adversaries are already active in the region and can threaten U.S. national security. He is also right in pointing out that not enough has been done to guarantee American presence and security in the Arctic and in Greenland. But that is not the fault of Denmark or Greenland. And "owning" Greenland isn't the answer to solving the problem. 

Past U.S. administrations had little interest in securing a foothold of any kind in Greenland. Trump could do so and he could do it without alienating or losing the support of fellow NATO allies. A 1951 treaty with Denmark, which was amended as late as 2004 provides all the legal basis the U.S. needs to structure an agreement to keep NATO allies like Denmark and others strongly supportive of any result. Past administrations walked away from using Greenland for security opportunities, Trump grasps its importance. 

For much of the Cold War, the U.S. had multiple military installations and as many as 6,000 troops there. Prior U.S. administrations, not Denmark, deprioritized Greenland, withdrew U.S. forces, closed bases, and ignored American security in the Arctic. The U.S. now has one base and approximately 150 troops in Greenland. This is a result of America's own decisions and actions. Denmark has maintained some installations America abandoned and can make any future arrangements needed to accommodate an increase in American forces. It has increased its own spending and presence in the Arctic, due to its own security needs, and partly because of American withdrawals. 

The Trump administration could develop a plan for securing the Arctic to include a larger military footprint. It could coordinate with Denmark to provide host-nation support. He could then go to Congress and seek funding to significantly expand America's military influence in the Arctic region. 

Trump's notion that the U.S. needs to "own" Greenland to establish its presence is misplaced. It is also not without problems. Seizing the territory of a NATO ally would undoubtedly cause a fracture and perhaps destroy NATO. NATO is also a strategic alliance the US needs. The NATO alliance has created the largest expanse of free, law-abiding, prosperous territory on earth, all of which is allied with the US. If the US were to become the party threatening the territory of a fellow ally, the alliance would be irrevocably damaged. 

If Denmark and the Greenlanders saw the U.S. as an eager ally as opposed to a hostile political takeover, US investments in Greenland would be welcomed, opening access to vast natural resources. Doing this as a security and business maneuver instead of a political move would avoid the wounds that a takeover would entail. 

Mugabe and Weaver; two peas in a Socialist Pod.

For those in other countries, American politics is a chaotic state of affairs at present, to say the least. A deepening chasm in political ideologies, cultural shifts, and there appears to be no end in sight. There was a time, not so long ago, that we all considered ourselves 'Americans', indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Immigration was hardly a topic of conversation. Ever. Not only has it become a common topic of conversation, it has become a national mess. As far as differing political ideology, there is a cohort in America, evidently quite a large one,  who believes that illegal aliens are due all the rights and privileges of American citizens. They often include criminal illegal aliens when it comes to legal protection. Mind-boggling, but here we are. 

Our political leftists are known for some wacky, unfounded and weird behaviors. The recent election of the Democratic Socialist Zohran Mumdani as mayor of New York City has brought some of the wildest and depraved leftist behavior the world has seen since Robert Mugabe governed Zimbabwe beginning in 1980. Best described as a Marxist/Socialist, Mugabe hated the country's once-ruling white minority. In his view of justice and reform, he authorized the seizure of white farms without government compensation. 

Mumdani's appointment of Cea Weaver as Director of the Mayor's Office to Protect Tenants has put on display behavior that mimics that of Robert Mugabe. My posts typically aren't that long, and intentionally so. But I could write an extensive missive describing the failures of Mugabe's misdeeds. While Weaver is promulgating a vision wherein "families, especially white families, are going to have a different relationship to property than the one we currently have."  Mugabe established that same different relationship as well, mainly being deprived of it. Weaver is enthusiastic about finding ways to shrink the value of real estate. Mugabe did it as well. From 2000 to 2001, commercial farmland lost about three quarters of its value. 

Summarily, Mugabe's transgressions resulted in the total collapse of Zimbabwe's economy, and hyperinflation that peaked at 79.6 billion percent. At this point, the daily inflation rate averaged 98 percent, meaning that inflation effectively doubled every 24 hours. 

The socio-economic consequences of private property expropriation were extensive and beyond damaging. It is also beyond disturbing that Cea Weaver's ideology and worldview so starkly resembles that of some of the most putrid and destructive people on earth.

Happy Holidays!

 I want to take this opportunity to wish all my readers the very best for this holiday season. To the Christians around the world, a very merry Christmas to you. May you have a joyous time with your family and friends. 

To others of all religions, Jewish, Buddhists, Islamist, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintos, Baha'i's, I wish all the very best to all to you! 

May the new year bring happiness and prosperity to everyone! Thank you for being loyal readers of my blog. I promise to continue bringing you interesting and informative content through the coming year. If you have any suggestions or requests for a particular topic, please let me know. 

All the Best!

C Clayton Lewis

Nick Fuentes Has a Foothold...

 Younger audiences, especially Gen Z men, tend to gravitate toward online-first political figures for a mix of format, psychology, and context. Gen Z, for others like me who get a bit confused at the ages of the generations, are young people between the ages of 13 and 28. To give some insight into the mind-set of this age-coterie, let's take a look at a prime example; Nick Fuentes. Fuentes is a 27 year-old far-right political commentator and livestreamer who is the founder of the America First movement. He emerged in the late 2010's through online platforms, especially live video streams, where he blended nationalist rhetoric with provocative humor and confrontational tactics. 

Fuentes promotes a strain of white nationalism and Christian nationalism, while opposing immigration, feminism, and mainstream conservatism. He has made numerous statements widely criticized as antisemitic, racist, and misogynistic. His notoriety grew via livestreams and social media, though he has been frequently banned or restricted across major platforms for policy violations. Fuentes is a polarizing fringe figure, yet wielding significant influence within a narrow online subculture, but largely marginalized in mainstream politics. This, owing to sustained criticism, legal scrutiny around events, and platform bans. 

So, how does an uneducated, banal, bellicose young man come to occupy such a position of influence among his age group? What collection of circumstances blend and meld to make this possible? You may have heard detectives say, 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one.' To understand the psyche of this generation, we have to get inside their heads. First, let's look at their media habits. Livestreams, memes, Discord chats feel personable and interactive. They provide real-time engagement and a sense of belonging, as opposed to passive consumption. Traditional conservatism still centers on TV, op-eds, think tanks, formats younger users rarely, if ever, seek out. 

There's a sense of rebellion against institutions. Gen Z has a tendency to distrust universities, legacy media, political parties, and corporations. Anti-establishment rhetoric feels transgressive, especially when it provokes bans or outrage. Deplatforming, which Fuentes is acutely familiar with, paradoxically increases credibility among audiences primed to distrust authority. Younger men, especially this age group, often feel economically deprived, socially sidelined, and opportunity-starved. Movements like America First offer:

• clear villains
• simple explanations
• a strong in-group identity

This contrasts with mainstream conservatism's abstract language about markets and institutions. Fuentes' style of rhetoric provides shock humor, irony and taboo language which feels riskier and more exciting, not to mention appealing, than policy debates. The line between politics and entertainment becomes blurred; controversy becomes content. Younger audiences raised on viral culture favor attention, not moderation. The online platforms they favor tend to push: highly emotional content, conflict-driven clips, and "us vs them" narratives. 

To be a part of this 'landscape', there is no need to read books, attend meetings, or understand policy. Online content can stimulate a feeling of being politically awakened. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand requires patience, historical knowledge, and gradual engagement. 

As Gen Z ages, many of these young idealists will shift their perspectives toward stability. They will come to appreciate policy over provocation. Careers and families will leave little time for online identity politics. Younger audiences aren't necessarily attracted to extremism, they're attracted to immediacy, identity and defiance. Figures like Fuentes meet those needs far more effectively than traditional conservatives, even if the appeal soon fades to an erstwhile fad.