How Bots and Bigotry Built the Anti-Indian Movement

Poonam Sharma
In the volatile intersection of digital technology and identity politics, a new kind of demagogue has emerged—one who doesn’t just broadcast hate, but manufactures it. Nick Fuentes, a fringe white nationalist once dismissed as a “punchline with teeth,” has transitioned from adolescent provocateur to a strategic architect of racial animosity. Today, his crosshairs are trained on a specific target: the Indian-American community.

However, recent investigations reveal that this “movement” is less a groundswell of American sentiment and more a technological hallucination. A startling 61% of Fuentes’ engagement is driven not by disgruntled citizens, but by foreign bot farms located in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Russia. We are witnessing the birth of a “digital maya”—an illusion of consensus designed to destabilize the social fabric of the United States.

The Strategic Curation of an Enemy

For decades, the American far-right maintained a revolving door of historical fixations: Black Americans, Jews, and Hispanic immigrants. Indians were often peripheral—tolerated as “economically useful” or mocked through tired tech-support clichés. But in 2025, that tolerance has curdled into strategic resentment.

The primary engine of this vitriol is the “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) repurposed for the labor market. According to the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), nearly 70% of high-engagement racist posts against Indians frame them as “invaders” or “job thieves.” This narrative portrays the H-1B visa program not as an economic tool, but as a weapon of demographic warfare used by a “hostile elite” to hollow out the white middle class.

Fuentes noticed that racism against Indians was “available” for exploitation. As Indian-Americans ascended to the highest echelons of power—running Silicon Valley boardrooms, entering gubernatorial mansions, and shaping national policy—they became a visible threat to the white nationalist fantasy of racial hierarchy.

The Architecture of the “Digital Hallucination”

The rise of the “Groyper” movement (Fuentes’ followers) is a masterclass in algorithmic manipulation. NCRI data shows that Fuentes uses “swarm” tactics: foreign bots engage with his posts within the first 30 minutes of publication. This rapid influx of artificial activity hacks the platform’s algorithm, forcing the content into the “For You” feeds of millions of unsuspecting Americans.

This is not a grassroots movement; it is a scripted export. In the old world, political power required persuasion. In the digital age, it requires velocity. By the time legacy media outlets report on the “growing trend” of anti-Indian sentiment, they are inadvertently authenticating a manufactured crisis. They mistake volume for constituency, turning a psychologically insecure provocateur into a legitimate cultural actor.

The Theological Contradiction: Taliban vs. Hinduism

One of the most revealing aspects of Fuentes’ ideology is his admiration for the Taliban. While he performs the role of a “Christian Crusader” defending Western tradition, he toasts the Taliban’s victory as a moral triumph for “real men.”

This is not a religious affinity; it is a worship of authoritarian hierarchy. Fuentes admires the Taliban’s patriarchal control and sanctified violence. Conversely, he reserves his purest venom for Hindus. Why? Because the Indian diaspora demonstrates a truth white nationalism cannot digest: excellence is not Euro-inherited; it is human-achieved.

Hindus represent a civilizational confidence that does not require Western validation. Their success—earned through merit and continuity of ancient traditions—shatters the myth that competence is inherently white. Because they cannot be “conquered” or “metabolized” into his worldview, they must be delegitimized.

A Constitutional and Historical Betrayal

Historically, the American promise has been defined by the tension between its high-minded constitutional ideals and the dark reality of racial exclusion. From the 1924 Immigration Act to the present-day rhetoric surrounding “meritocracy,” the Indian community has often been viewed through a provisional lens—as “guests” whose belonging is conditional.

When Fuentes screams “go back to India,” he is asserting a hierarchy that violates the core of the American experiment. The success of the Indian-American community is, in many ways, the ultimate validation of the “American Dream”—the idea that hard work, regardless of origin, grants a claim to the nation’s custodianship. By framing this success as a “hostile takeover,” the far-right isn’t just attacking a minority; they are attacking the constitutional validity of America itself.

The Economics of Outrage and the Human Cost

Today, hate is a commodity. For lesser ideologues like Matt Forney, anti-Indian bigotry is monetized in clicks and social capital. They refine raw anxiety into pseudo-academic commentary, sexualizing hatred and turning a vibrant community into a “specimen” to be analyzed and excluded.

The consequences exceed digital insults. For an Indian teenager growing up in the U.S., this rhetoric is not “theatre”—it is “weather.” it is a constant, cell-level stress that suggests their home is not truly theirs. We have seen this cycle before with Jewish and Asian-American communities. History teaches us that rhetorical violence is always the precursor to political and physical violence.

Conclusion: A Precedent for Everyone
Nick Fuentes is not a pioneer; he is a vessel for the anxieties of a shifting world. He exposes the fragility of digital platforms that prefer explosive bigotry over boring decency and a media ecosystem that confuses disruption with relevance.

If we treat this as merely one man yelling into a microphone, we misjudge the scale of the threat. The industrial manufacture of enemies is a precedent. If it becomes normalized to hate Indians through algorithmic fraud, it becomes easier to apply that same machinery to any group.

Hatred never ends where it begins. It is time for a collective response—from policy makers, tech giants, and civic leaders—to dismantle this digital pandemic before the manufactured “maya” of the internet translates into the irreversible tragedies of the real world.