Dawson, to this day, insists that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and that anything to the contrary is 'internet-spazz'.
Nick Fuentes, from troll king to... leader of a true 'America First' movement?
- Thread starter mugacoffee
- Start date
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):
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:
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.
or it's his psychological issues getting in the way:
or, he got the memo.
On August 13, Harrison Smith of Infowars made the following post (Interesting that it's about Nick Fuentes, btw):
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:
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:
or, he got the memo.
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:
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).
Last edited:
He is also being pretty antagonistic towards Candace right now. I agree with everything @Cosmos wrote about him. He just can't seem to get out of his own way.
Darryl Cooper is defending Fuentes about this. The problem with their takes is that there is evidence.
Yep. There's obviously no smoking guns, but it's been pretty clear to me that Fuentes is willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to entertain a narrative for his audience.
As this thread progressed and I heard several people speak highly of him I listened to his latest (at that time) longer-form podcast. It was one where he was speculating that Trump had died and the administration was covering it up. It was a lot of cherry-picking data, carefully clarifying that most of the info he had was probably a lie, and then confidently drawing bizarre conclusions based on those lies.
He was willing to have an entire show declaring that Trump was probably dead based on the flimsiest data, but isn't willing to entertain the idea that Charlie Kirk's recent turning against Israel was a motive in the assassination? Nah, the memo has probably gone out.
BHelmet
The Living Force
Ever get the impression it is all one big stupid soap opera? As The World Turns? Days of Our Lives?
He said; she said; but last week he said this other thing; and God knows their opinions are SO important and significant because, well, they are all over social media; so-and-so (who is an authority on “he said/she said”) agrees with a popular voice with millions of followers who is part of a trusted network of truthers known as the loyal opposition; former 3-letter agency escapees all concur that X, Y, and Z couldn’t possibly be true and there is something wrong with you if you think so; look here, don’t look there; this stuff is really important! Stay focused on it! Et cetera. Et cetera, et cetera.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on.
And what is happening behind the scenes that nobody is actually talking about? And/or what do the promoted narratives pave the way for? IOW, it is, at times, good to take a step back and try to observe the battlefield instead of the individual skirmishes.
He said; she said; but last week he said this other thing; and God knows their opinions are SO important and significant because, well, they are all over social media; so-and-so (who is an authority on “he said/she said”) agrees with a popular voice with millions of followers who is part of a trusted network of truthers known as the loyal opposition; former 3-letter agency escapees all concur that X, Y, and Z couldn’t possibly be true and there is something wrong with you if you think so; look here, don’t look there; this stuff is really important! Stay focused on it! Et cetera. Et cetera, et cetera.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on.
And what is happening behind the scenes that nobody is actually talking about? And/or what do the promoted narratives pave the way for? IOW, it is, at times, good to take a step back and try to observe the battlefield instead of the individual skirmishes.
Phill4
The Living Force
One of his recent shows Nick made the PERFECT case as to why they are involved, his takes were flawless. But then he is dismissing it and minimizing it as much as possible because Candace
This is Trump after receiving several donations from the Adelson family in the article below:
(With the added benefit that he becomes the "sell out" and the fault guy, thereby weakening MAGA)
-_https://www.timesofisrael.com/miria...rump-campaign-making-good-on-reported-pledge/
If they got Jerusalem out of Trump, it's possible they wanted the youth out of Charlie Kirk....
Makes the donation piece is very significant
Because Nick is being dishonest and i felt the need to prove it. He's done 3 shows in a row about her so he kinda made it newsworthy. Not gonna beat the dead horse anymore abt it, I said enough, unless it's relevant.
Anyway
The main theories are that he (the suspect) was either:
1)Groyper(because of the beef Nick vs Charlie about israel controlling US politics, and groypers act weird)
2)Leftist(because his general anti-left "hateful" rethoric and they also act weird)
(Trump anounced today on truthsocial that he wants to lable antifa officially as a terrorist organization, symbolic move)
3)Israel indirectly(because the donation, pressure from donors and Chalie's own complains)
EDIT:hyperlink
My read on how Darryl Cooper and others in that camp think is that they engage in a form of unconscious motivated reasoning, mainly based on two aspects:
1) They are annoyed (and have been for a long time) by all the noise by the "conspiratards" - those poeple on the "conspiracy" side who are not really interested in truth, but rather their hobby is chasing dopamine hits by the latest crazy conspiracy theory based on stupid, lazy, borderline schizo reasoning. We all know those people, and they ARE annoying. A subgroup of those are the "Jooooos!!!"-screamers who will hit the comment sections no matter how unrelated the topic. So Darryl, Fuentes et al. want to counter-signal this crowd by "sticking to the evidence".
They are right insofar as there IS no evidence pointing to Israel. There are (valid, IMO) speculations about Israel's motives, but that's it. And even that is not a clear-cut case, because the whole thing led to massive blowback for them (although I still think it's a valid argument).
The problem with this is that people like Darryl and Fuentes SHOULD know better than to dismiss that angle completely, because "Deep History" makes Israel/Mossad/DeepState prime suspects. So to retreat to a "where's the evidence" position, especially given the massive holes in the official story, seems weak sauce. Also, you can dislike the conspiratards and still consider conspiracy angles.
2) They confuse 2 different spheres: getting to the truth of the matter and political expediency. I think many of those who dismiss the Israel angle somehow sense that if it turns out Israel/the Deep State did have something to do with it, this would undermine their hopes for enacting the conservative/MAGA program at home, because at this point there's nothing anybody can do about Israel really.
As political operators, this makes sense: all politicians, even the very best like Putin, have to "go along" with lies for strategic reasons. It's the nature of the game. However, it's a dangerous path, and it requires skillful compartmentalizing where a part of your mind KNOWS that it's lies and that there is a deeper truth, while the other part thinks strategically in the interest of the political cause, while ALSO having the truth have a say in your decisions in the back of your mind. If you can't pull it off and are not conscious of the dynamic, the lies will take over your mind and you'll start believing them.
The problem is also that these people are NOT political leaders, they are "intellectual truth tellers" (or want to be). As such, they have to decide whether to go "truth" or "political expediency", but since it's all jumbled up in their own minds, they get confused and WANT to believe what's expedient, therefore reasoning themselves into that exact position.
In the current context, the correct take would be "I want to get to the bottom of this, and this will help sort things out in the long run if I'm patient, and I don't really care about political expediency now", and also, "if Israel etc. did it, this means they have an iron grip on us, so we can't enact our MAGA policies anyway before tacking this question", but they just can't do it.
Again, motivated reasoning leading to wrong conclusions even though they have the necessary knowledge that would allow them to see clearer.
Hence this:
Ricardo
The Living Force
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Nick Fuentes, from troll king to... leader of a true 'America First' movement?'- mugacoffee
Replies: 116
