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

[Niall]

I watched Ryan Dawson over the years on and off. I was hoping he will learn something at some point, especially after the Kirk thing. Doesn’t seem like it. Like with Fuentes I don’t have much hope and I am not holding my breath that this will change anytime soon with Dawson.

Dawson is very full of himself and has a big right man syndrome and not seldomly lashes out in not so decent ways. He seems to be a true believer in Andrew Tate and all the “Alpha Male“ lunacy. He is pretty materialistic too. For decades now he complains that nobody wants to talk to him because he thinks what he is doing is so great and right that people don’t have the guts to air him. While that might be partly true it doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the way he treats people and being so full of himself might also be a significant reason why nobody wants to talk/associate with him.

He claims that he has actually more or less figured out the Epstein List thing and all its tentacles through hard and primary source research from official documents. And that there is actually no list as such hidden anywhere. Which in a way could both certainly be true. In that regard, he has all the research on paper and all the relevant names through that research. BUT, instead of making that research public so that people can look at it and come closer to the truth he seems to hide it and instead tries to get famous people out there to talk to him about it so that he can explain what is happening while not making it public. Well, maybe he needs to look after his financial income and thinks it is better to not make it public and get compensated for his hard work. Which would be understandable and maybe justified but at the same time you have to wonder how much of a truth teller he is and how big his commitment to the truth and justice actually is when he makes such a secret about stuff like that. Sometimes I have also wonder if he is “a fed“ with what he is saying. But I think he likely isn’t a fed but his nature/character just makes him appear that way sometimes and makes it easy to be mislead and directed by forces.

Dawson, to this day, insists that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and that anything to the contrary is 'internet-spazz'.

 

[Alana]

In a sense, it was Charlie himself that started the rumors about Israel.

On August 13, Harrison Smith of Infowars made the following post (Interesting that it's about Nick Fuentes, btw):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1955705962964111425

The post resurfaced right after the assassination, and when Owens, Kelly and Carlson (people very close to Charlie) started talking about his jewish donors that went against him and started threatening him for changing his stance towards Israel, it was seen as corroboration.

Then yesterday, Harrison Smith posted the following:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968663351149392100

Given that the official story about the murder is full of holes, people are justified to be looking into a deeper conspiracy and contemplating that some Israel/deep state related function might have taken Charlie out. Netanyahu's insistence that Israel had nothing to do with it, or his lies about how Charlie felt about Israel just before his death, only adds to the suspicions.

So far, I didn't see anyone say, "Surely, Israel was behind this murder", but if anyone has an inkling of history, the capabilities of Mossad and their implication in the assassinations of US political figures, the suspicion is a sane and logical one. And for Nick Fuentes, of all people, to not only vehemently refute any suspicion that Israel might be behind it (just like Bibi, funnily enough) but to attack anyone raising this suspicion as a possibility, tells me that maybe my previously mentioned impression might have been correct.

I was telling some friends recently, half jocking and half serious, that, whether he knows it or not, he is being funded by Zionists

or it's his psychological issues getting in the way:

He probably has so much animosity for Candace and Tucker that he refuses to take their side, no matter how much their side is the right one.

or, he got the memo.

 

[luc]

He probably has so much animosity for Candace and Tucker that he refuses to take their side, no matter how much their side is the right one.

Also, you can be so "smart" and contrarian that you think yourself into the wrong corner. Many such cases. Like, "how can I be even more edgy than Candace? By not going along with the Israel thing even though I'm the proverbial Israel hater." That's probably not the only reason, but I think double-reverse-triple-layered-irony meme-lolz culture can take its toll.

In other news, Roger Stone joins TeamGoodGuys:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968293573679513892

 

[Joe]

When do people stop making excuses for him?

I'm not chasing members down who side with Nick over Candace.

Seems to me that the large majority of comments here are NOT in support of Fuentes. We can agree with his take on Israel but find his general attitude lacking.

just saying he'd need to see some actual supporting evidence before believing Israel had a hand in it.

Fuentes has been backpedaling from the "israel is behind everything" narrative.

but if anyone has an inkling of history, the capabilities of Mossad and their implication in the assassinations of US political figures, the suspicion is a sane and logical one.

I think the problem here is what the definition of "Israel" is when it comes to the assassination. When I say it, I don't necessarily mean Netanyahu (in the sense that he "ordered the hit"). It's more like a US'deep state/Israeli Mossad nexus. In that sense, we're talking about a trans-national group that have infected many world govts. and have impressive access to state apparatus, who periodically meddle in global affairs in a big way but from behind a 'veil'. Basically, "Israel" may not have assassinated Kirk, but the people who did were probably operating in the interest of Israel (among other things).

 

[Yupo]

Seems to me that the large majority of comments here are NOT in support of Fuentes. We can agree with his take on Israel but find his general attitude lacking.








I think the problem here is what the definition of "Israel" is when it comes to the assassination. When I say it, I don't necessarily mean Netanyahu (in the sense that he "ordered the hit"). It's more like a US'deep state/Israeli Mossad nexus. In that sense, we're talking about a trans-national group that have infected many world govts. and have impressive access to state apparatus, who periodically meddle in global affairs in a big way but from behind a 'veil'. Basically, "Israel" may not have assassinated Kirk, but the people who did were probably operating in the interest of Israel (among other things).

Very much like how that Clinton body count doesn't actually implicate The Clintons, but more a shadow world tasked with keeping them in power.