by Daniel Friberg

Aug 10, 2024

Daniel Friberg asserts that Nicholas J. Fuentes’ bold declaration of a new ‘Groyper War’ against the Trump campaign is both a strategic masterstroke and a moral crusade aimed at rescuing Trump from the devastating betrayal of his 2016 values.

Yesterday, America First influencer, organiser, and commentator Nicholas J. Fuentes, a rising star in America’s political landscape, made a public declaration of a new ‘Groyper War’ against the current Trump campaign. The announcement quickly trended on social media, sparking widespread discussion and generating headlines across various news outlets.

Given the swift and intense reaction from some well-meaning commentators, it is clear that not everyone fully understands the significance of what is unfolding. This analysis aims to break down and explain the underlying moral and strategic reasons behind Fuentes’ declaration.

The Trump campaign of 2024, much like his 2020 campaign, is markedly different from its 2016 iteration — unfortunately, this change has been entirely to its detriment. The campaign lacks the energy and rebellious spirit that originally propelled Trump to victory. Instead of rallying the core demographic that secured his 2016 win, the campaign is now more mainstream, pandering to every conceivable group in society except for those who are actually voting for Trump. This shift towards placating fringe special interests rather than focusing on the core issues that resonated with his base has weakened the campaign’s effectiveness and alienated many of his original supporters.

Fuentes’ strategy of openly challenging the Trump campaign’s leadership and communication strategies is a calculated move with significant potential benefits. By taking this aggressive stance, Fuentes positions himself to claim credit in several potential outcomes. If the campaign stays on its current track and ultimately loses, Fuentes can argue that his criticism was justified and that he predicted the failure. Alternatively, if the Trump campaign makes adjustments in response to his criticism, he can claim that his influence was instrumental in steering the campaign in the right direction. Even if Trump were to win despite sticking to his current strategy, Fuentes could still assert that he and his supporters did everything they could to ensure victory, bolstering their credibility.

This approach is also a smart way for Fuentes to keep his grassroots base energised and engaged. By taking a proactive and assertive role, he ensures that his supporters remain active and vocal in the political discourse leading up to the election. Additionally, Fuentes’ actions generate media attention, keeping him relevant in the broader political conversation. The alternative — merely criticising without taking any meaningful action — would be far less effective in mobilising his supporters and maintaining his influence.

Criticising the Trump campaign is, however, not only strategic for Fuentes but also a moral imperative. Trump’s deviation from his 2016 campaign promises and his failure to deliver on key issues represent a betrayal of the voters who put him in office. It is important to call out this shift, particularly as his current advisors — whether through malicious intent, incompetence, or both — seem to have convinced Trump to take his core voters for granted. They appear to expect that these voters have forgotten about previous broken promises, and it is only right to challenge this assumption and hold Trump accountable.

The hope now lies in the success of this new ‘Groyper War’, which could potentially push Trump to make significant changes to his campaign organisation. This would involve replacing much of the current leadership with more competent and loyal individuals who view the America First agenda as more than just a marketing gimmick.

Additionally, Trump needs to break free from the influence of the special interest donor class, who primarily see him as a means to secure favours for Israel — at the expense of American taxpayers and American strategic interests. In the worst-case scenario, which unfortunately seems more and more plausible, these special interest groups could even drag the United States into a war with Iran, costing American lives.

If Trump fails to take this criticism to heart and does not reorient his campaign and policy proposals, the biggest losers in the upcoming presidential election will be the American people, especially the White voters, regardless of which candidate wins. In the end, the true measure of success will be whether this push results in a campaign that genuinely serves the interests of the American people.

Let us all hope and pray that the coming ‘Groyper War’, led by Fuentes, will not only be victorious but will also reignite the fierce, uncompromising spirit that once defined Trump’s movement. Fuentes stands at the forefront of this momentous struggle, determined to reclaim the American soul from the corruption of power and the erosion of true values. In this battle lies the last hope of ensuring that the will of the people prevails, restoring the vision that once inspired millions.