Nick Fuentes, from troll king to... leader of a true 'America First' movement?

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Also, I will never forget this. He has never been pro-Trump.

Pro Kamala, yes the pedophiles would have had a field day and Nick would have been able to have a 16yr old girl and not even have to marry her. He may have a good grasp of current trends but his personal landscape is very materialistic.

 

[Ricardo]

I'd say more on the nihilistic rather than materialistic... and then adding his schizoid tendencies makes it rather difficult to hear his ranting for long (imo).

 

[RedFox]

Being an avid podcast listener, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring on this as I see it.
Anyone of any notoriety I've listened too, even if I've found them distasteful. I forced myself to listen to the DailyWire Christmas specials in order to learn how they saw the world. I've listened to Tommy Robinson to learn what his appeal is. I've listened to Tate. I've listened to left, right, centrist, anarchist, libertarian etc etc
I did also listen to a lot of Jordan Peterson. It was what the C's or Laura said about podcasts that gave me more pause for thought about the level of self defence/observation I was exercising (i.e. the lack of) whilst listening.

I haven't really paid any attention to Fuentes, but I feel like the different 'reads' on him that people have posted in this thread are ample information for forming a conclusion. The main reason I say this is because of one person: Jordan Peterson. How often was he held up as a luminary of the "right", "alt-right", "intellectual dark web" etc? His psychological knowledge and ability to put himself in the shoes of others clearly exceeds Fuentes by a stellar mile. Yet for all his talent and knowledge, he still succumbed to the Zionist mindset. So what is the likelihood that someone like Fuentes will step up to do what Peterson burned out over?

The phrase, "So you're saying there's a chance!!!" comes to mind. Even though he apparently sees through the Zionist nonsense, with his shady entourage and chip on his shoulder about women, Fuentes just doesn't seem equipped to handle what the Matrix is going to throw at him, imo. When it comes to Zionist-aware truthers, Ian Carroll strikes me as a much more considered and likeable 'voice of reason' for the younger generation, osit.

This is my take too.

I have a question for everyone on this thread who has formed an opinion of Fuentes:

How much of his actual long-form content have you listened to?

By this I don't mean shit-posting clips on Twitter or snipped interviews. I am talking about his show on Rumble. Almost everyone I spoke to about Fuentes formed their opinion on hear-say, gossip, and short clips, yet hadn't actually watched any of his material.

I haven't listened to much, but can break this down into two elements:

On the plus side:
He is very knowledgeable and considerate on a large swath of global geopolitics - this aligns with a lot of what we say here
He can be an excellent orator - and would probably give Shapiro a run for his money.
He has great verbal depth and speed, and lightning fast thinking to go with it.
He speaks to the 'emotion' of many topics.
He likes to fight (verbally). His trolling can be very entertaining.

On the negative side:
I've listened to enough shows/read enough books on criminals/psychopaths to know this - they will often tell you the truth of their character. I detected no irony in those clips posted about his views on women and children. Therefore we should probably take him at his word when it comes to women and children.
His trolling is making more enemies than friends. He likes to fight (verbally). Tommy is very similar to this.

Why is it useful to see this?
Simple - how many of you still listen to Peterson? He has excellent things to say on certain topics. Is it because you are defending yourself against the pathological elements of his character, and the simplest way to do this is to not listen?
It takes a great deal of energy to pick through every aspect of what is said, and defend your mind and heart appropriately.

Mind viruses don't come in just one form you know. It's not just the 'left' that goes crazy.
I cannot find the quotes about guarding against impressions (such as when watching a horror movie, or listening to podcasts), but I did find the following:

Q: (Keit) On an emotional level, Amazing Grace had the most effect on me. (Allen) We can have you sing solo and then a choir of us come in and back you up. That's a thought.

A: Many possibilities, eh? Notice the "effect?"

Q: (Joe) Music to soothe the savage the beast!

A: Music to communicate to the soul.

Q: (L) Well, I really don't understand.

A: There are frequencies in your/our voice that are inaudible to the physical ear but affect the spirit.

Q: (Joe) True. (Scott) I wonder if that's why there are certain bands where the people totally can't sing, but everyone thinks they're great - I mean, above and beyond marketing and all that kind of stuff?

A: Yes! And some of them activate "interesting" frequencies!

Q: (L) When you say "interesting", what does that mean?

A: Shall we say that it is planned and deliberate for nefarious purposes.

Q: (Joe) What music were you thinking about, Scottie? (Scottie) I was just thinking after our talk the other day about objectively and subjectively good music and everything. I was thinking about some of the popular music, like pretty much everything... Like my workout music, grunge music, electric guitar music, rap music - all these different types of popular music. And some of it is actually done by somebody who can't even sing at all and people just absolutely love it. So there are all these different genres where some bands become popular, whereas you can go to a bar and here's somebody singing a song and they're ten times better, but... (L) But they're not famous. (Scottie) So why do these people who have absolutely no talent become famous, beyond the fact that they were "discovered", or advertising, etc...

A: Laurel Canyon anyone?

Q: (laughter) (Keit) We were just talking about it today! (Joe) Yeah, they were all picked. (C**) So would Laura's voice be kind of what Gurdjieff called "objective music"?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) I've got a great name for your album: Laura Canyon! (laughter) (L) I think I'll pass on that one. Unless you want to put an echo in so it sounds like I'm singing across the canyon. (PL) So, those bands in Laurel Canyon, those singers like the Mamas and the Papas, those bands that were obviously sponsored, because, through their music, they could put a kind of spell on some listeners, manipulate them, generate some negative emotions...?

A: "Spellbinders."

Q: (Keit) Maybe you can ask about movies? (L) What about movies? (Keit) We were talking about Laurel Canyon in relation to movies, and we see this same effect. (L) Did Laurel Canyon do movies? (Keit) Because it has that lab. (Allen) Oh, it has that CIA lab at the top of Laurel Canyon. (DD) Which is the spook lab. The spook's cinema lab. (Allen) It's all part of that same thing. (PL) They did some horror movies.

A: Yes. All part of the same programs.

Q: (PL) Does it generate just general negative emotions in listeners, or is it more specific nefarious purposes?

A: More specific...

Q: (Joe) Dissociation. (PL) To trigger some kind of programmed murderers or stuff like that?

A: In some cases. Like an audible "Catcher in the Rye."

Q: (C**) What's Catcher in the Rye? (Allen) Catcher in the Rye was the book that the guy who shot John Lennon had in his hands when he shot him. (L) Yeah? (Joe) Sirhan Sirhan. (L) And also the guy that shot John Lennon. (DD) It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.

A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this.

Q: (L) What do you mean "means to cancel much of this"? (PL) Counter-music. A counter-signal. (L) You mean it's gonna be the Battle of the Bands?! (laughter)

A: You got it! On a cosmic level too!

Q: (L) I think it's strange. (PL) One of the triggers is for murderers. But they say it's one of the specific nefarious purposes. Are there examples of other specific nefarious purposes? Can they trigger suicide in people?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) General association among young people, ya know what I mean? Turn their brains into... (Keit) Like psychopathy, and violent... (Allen) I don't think it has to be that serious. It's part of the frequency fence, the music...

A: Frequency fence! [spelling at the same time Allen is speaking)

Add to this:

(A Jay) Well, there were a few questions. The first one was, if any, what personality or character disorder does Nick Fuentes have?

A: Slightly paranoid schizophrenia.

Q: (L) But it is very mild? He functions pretty well?

A: Yes
[..]

Q: (L) So, what is the deal between him and Candace, and him and Tucker?

A: Induced antagonism exacerbated by Nick's paranoia.

Q: (L) Induced... Induced by who or what?

A: Beaming triangulation by deep state operatives.

Q: (L) So he is not paranoid enough, huh? [laughter]

A: Yes

Nick has no knowledge (protection) against beaming, being slightly schizophrenic means he's likely a good 'channel', and he has fantastic (hypnotic/spell binding) verbal skills.
Whatever he is picking up is likely being transmitted via his voice. Add in his apparently clearly stated views on women and children, and he is (just like Peterson and others) being used as a trojan horse vector.

So, with all that in mind. What "effect" do long term listeners of his notice is generated in themselves? What "thoughts" spring up throughout the day? What "emotions" are generated or sustained afterwards?
What parts of you "does he appeal to"?
What is this potential trojan horse delivering?

I'm making no judgement call here - just an ask for caution and self observation. Things can be learned from all of the above questions. It can be very useful knowledge to see what others 'trigger' in you. As well as asking if it's truly you/yours or something else.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've listened to enough shows/read enough books on criminals/psychopaths to know this - they will often tell you the truth of their character. I detected no irony in those clips posted about his views on women and children. Therefore we should probably take him at his word when it comes to women and children.
His trolling is making more enemies than friends. He likes to fight (verbally). Tommy is very similar to this.

Yes. And he smirks too much.

I'll just say this. Like Fuentes, if you ignore all the pathological, trolling, and perverted things Andrew Tate says, he actually has a lot of good takes.