Article Type: Broadcast Recap
Broadcast Date: October 7, 2026
Watch: Episode 1760 on Rumble
In his October 7 broadcast, Nick Fuentes responded to Jiang’s “fed” accusation before examining the National Conservatism conference in Jerusalem and its influence over the American right.
Opening Updates on Iran and Yemen
After introducing NatCon as the featured story, Fuentes briefly discussed reports of possible escalation against Iran. Citing Axios, he said Trump was considering renewed attacks, including strikes on energy facilities and government targets before the U.S. midterms or Israel’s election.
He also discussed reports that Saudi Arabia, after Washington declined a request to intervene against the Houthis, was seeking 10,000 to 20,000 Syrian fighters for the war in Yemen. Fuentes linked the proposed Syrian force to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the group Ahmed al-Sharaa once led, and warned that sending Sunni fighters into Yemen could deepen divisions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
“These are the wages of the never-ending war in the Middle East,” he said.
He then paused the news coverage to address Jiang.
Jiang’s Accusation After the Jack Neel Interview
On Sneako’s stream, Jiang had been asked whether accusations that Fuentes was a fed were true. “I’m often surprised by how accurate my instincts are,” Jiang replied, before suggesting that certain ideas were “implanted” in Fuentes.
His example came from their conversation on the Jack Neel Podcast. After discussing Jews, Israel and political influence, Jiang posed a hypothetical question: which group would they make disappear to solve the world’s problems? Jiang chose “baby boomers”; Fuentes answered “criminals.”
“And he should have said the Jews, right? He didn’t do that. He said criminals. That’s really odd,” Jiang said on Sneako’s stream.
Fuentes dismissed the idea that his answer meant he was working for the government. “How does that even follow?” he asked. “It’s a complete non sequitur.”
Fuentes also rejected what he described as Jiang’s claim that he knew things about Iran that were not publicly available. “Like what do I know that is not on Rerum Novarum, that’s not on Twitter, that’s not in the IRGC press or in the Israeli press or Axios or Reuters or the Journal?” he asked.
Their interview together had included substantial disagreements over religious influence and secret societies but ended with plans to spend more time together. Jiang encouraged a Japan trip, Fuentes invited him to Chicago, and they discussed another appearance.
“So you wanted to hang out with the fed in Japan,” Fuentes said. “You wanted to organize all these collabs.”
He recalled the audience reacting positively to the episode and said Neel had contacted him afterward to express satisfaction with it.
“Everybody was happy. We were all happy with how it turned out.”
Fuentes compared the dispute to his experience with Tucker Carlson. He recalled visiting Carlson’s home in Maine for an interview he hoped would clear up their differences. According to Fuentes, Carlson later explained in another interview that letting him speak would expose what was objectionable about his views. Fuentes saw that as a betrayal of the friendly invitation.
He briefly mentioned Candace Owens in the same context before returning to Jiang.
During the Neel interview, questions about the guests’ affiliations had already come up. Fuentes declined to speculate about Jiang’s background, saying, “What matters is a message, not the messenger.” Jiang agreed, and the conversation moved on without a direct confrontation over the accusation.
“If you’re going to call me a fed, then let’s talk about it when we’re face to face,” Fuentes said on Wednesday. “You sat with me for three and a half hours. We had a good talk and now you’re right back to the bullshit, which you didn’t want to confront me about in person.”
He called Jiang’s conduct dishonorable and said people often blamed him for his reaction while overlooking what had provoked it.
NatCon and the Definition of Nationalism
Fuentes then turned to NatCon’s role in organizing the right after Trump’s rise. Its conferences brought politicians, donors and intellectuals together around immigration restrictions, social conservatism and opposition to unrestricted free trade. He named Peter Thiel, Josh Hawley, Ron DeSantis and J.D. Vance among those associated with earlier events.
“They’re more nationalist than CPAC, but they’re less nationalist than AFPAC,” he said, referring to his own America First Political Action Conference.
The Edmund Burke Foundation’s October 6–8 conference at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center brought American and European conservatives together with Israeli officials, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
Fuentes directed much of his criticism at conference chairman Yoram Hazony. He questioned why an Israeli philosopher whom he described as a dual citizen should help define American nationalism.
He also challenged NatCon’s principles rejecting judgments of individual worth or loyalty based on physical features, skin color or ancestry. Fuentes tied his own definition of nationalism to preserving a country’s historic population, including America’s white population. He cited Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor as writers he said NatCon had excluded because of their racial views.
Support for Israel was another point of disagreement. Fuentes argued that Republicans could question commitments to other countries more readily than they could challenge the relationship with Israel.
“You only run into a problem in the Republican Party when you try to put America over Israel,” he said.
He accused NatCon of using its institutional influence to set those limits on nationalist politics. “By dominating and controlling and owning the forum, you get to then articulate and define the label,” he said.
Fuentes criticized efforts to sell support for Israel through its strong borders, religious identity and military power. He argued that admiring those qualities did not mean Americans should adopt Israel’s priorities. He linked that concern to the fight over who would lead the Republican Party after Trump, naming Vance, Marco Rubio and figures associated with the Claremont Institute.
Keeperman’s Speech on American Support for Israel
Fuentes next turned to Jonathan Keeperman, known online as Lomez, who spoke on the conference’s “American Right: The Next Generation” panel chaired by Hazony. He pointed to Passage Press, its publications by Curtis Yarvin and Steve Sailer, and its essay competition as examples of Keeperman’s influence beyond social media.
He described Keeperman and figures such as Bronze Age Pervert as attracting young men, particularly young white men, through classical European culture, literature, bodybuilding and admiration for strength. That cultural appeal, he argued, made their followers more receptive to their political views, including support for Israel.
In his Jerusalem speech, “Israel and America, As I See It,” Keeperman acknowledged American resentment over foreign aid, costly wars and neglected domestic priorities. He argued that religious obligations, Holocaust memory and accusations of antisemitism no longer secured the support they once had. His recommendations included greater Israeli self-reliance, less dependence on American military intervention and more respect for American priorities. Younger people, he said, responded more readily to “strength and competence and confident optimism” than to appeals centered on historical suffering.
Fuentes interpreted this as an effort to recover support from Americans who had become skeptical of the alliance.
“If we want Americans to still support Israel, we need a brand refresh,” he said, summarizing Keeperman’s message.
In his view, presenting Israel as strong, technologically capable and protective of its national identity offered a new appeal to the younger right while preserving the same political objective.
“It’s a way to corral them back into the fold and identify being pro-Israel as somehow part of the nationalist paradigm,” he said.
He extended that criticism to Yarvin, Sailer, Alex Karp and Joe Lonsdale, alleging that their different messages encouraged the same support for Israel. He also accused several writers of Jewish supremacy, treating their identities and views as evidence of a shared agenda.
Fuentes argued that comparisons between American and Israeli politics reinforced this appeal. He described a message that presented Israelis as fellow nationalists, Palestinians as counterparts to Black Lives Matter and the Israeli military as a counterpart to ICE. He rejected the idea that supporting strong borders and national identity at home should also mean supporting Israel.
The speech also led him to reject assurances that Keeperman was sympathetic to him and different from the pro-Israel conservatives he criticized. He challenged Auron MacIntyre and John Doyle for calling the speech brave, arguing that they were praising advice intended to win Americans back to Israel. To him, their response showed that the newer right had retained the older conservative movement’s commitment to the alliance.
“It’s Charlie Kirk in Israel. It’s Ben Shapiro in Israel. It’s Jack Posobiec in Israel,” he said. “It’s the same thing all over again.”
Fuentes closed this portion by arguing that Israelis should not lead an American nationalist movement.
Trump’s Succession and Kevin Roberts
Fuentes returned to the question of who would lead the Republican Party after Trump and determine its priorities.
“This is the war of Trump’s succession,” he said.
He argued that this fight was already taking place through decisions about who worked in Republican administrations, which writers and ideas received support, and who led influential conservative organizations. His own movement, he said, was challenging those networks with far fewer wealthy donors and political allies.
He then singled out Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts. In his Jerusalem speech, Roberts had described Israel as an essential part of Western civilization and invited the audience to help shape a broader conservative coalition.
Fuentes connected those remarks to the backlash Roberts had faced after defending Carlson’s interview with him. Citing the speech and Heritage’s Project Esther initiative against antisemitism, Fuentes said Roberts was trying to win back approval from pro-Israel critics. He regarded this as a retreat from Roberts’s earlier defense of allowing the conversation with Fuentes to take place.
“Kevin Roberts is the Benedict Arnold of our time,” he said.
Fuentes also objected to a conference appeal urging the audience to recognize Vance as Trump’s successor and stop calling him antisemitic. He interpreted that appeal as American conservatives asking an Israeli audience to approve their party’s future leader. This reinforced his criticism that support for Israel remained a condition of acceptance within the newer conservative movement.
He closed by crediting Keith Woods, Basil and other commentators with warning about NatCon’s pro-Israel direction before the Jerusalem conference.
With no time left for the fuller Iran discussion he had planned, he moved to superchats.
Superchats and Another Return to Jiang
During superchats, Fuentes rejected the suggestion that he simply told viewers what they wanted to hear. He also dismissed a proposal for Americans of European ancestry to move to Europe and defend their ancestral homelands as unrealistic.
Asked about the October 7 attacks, he said: “I’m not in favor of what happened on October 7th. I still think it’s a tragedy.”
Returning to the clip of Vivek Ramaswamy struggling to lift a child, Fuentes joked about having called the boy a “little baby.” He acknowledged that the child was older and resisting being picked up, making Ramaswamy’s difficulty understandable.
After brief exchanges about Cornell, Dave Smith and Carlson, he encouraged viewers to get involved in local Republican groups and campaigns.
“The Republican Party is ripe for the taking,” he said.
The discussion later returned to the use of the word “fed.” Fuentes said it once referred to someone suspected of encouraging crimes to entrap people. Now, it was being used against anyone who questioned a conspiracy theory.
“Now, it’s like if you don’t agree with the latest conspiracy theory, you’re a fed.”
He discussed another possible appearance with Anna Khachiyan and Dasha Nekrasova, then considered taking an extended break after 2028 or 2029 to read and study.
When a viewer brought up Jiang again, Fuentes said he often gave people second chances. He recalled receiving a nostalgic message from Sneako about their time with Ye and taking it as an attempt to repair their relationship. “I thought he was like trying to be nice,” he said. “And I hearted the message. And then he goes right back in the next day talking shit.”
The remaining questions covered faith, entertainment, space travel and history. When a viewer suggested Jiang and Carlson were coordinating against him, Fuentes replied: “I don’t know if they’re in like cahoots or something, but they’re definitely pushing a similar angle.”
He closed the show by thanking viewers and saying he would return the following evening.
Editorial Note: AF Observer is an independent publication and is not affiliated with Nick Fuentes or America First. This article summarizes and analyzes statements made during the broadcast. Claims and opinions are attributed to the speaker and should not be read as independent endorsements by AF Observer.
Discover more from AF Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.