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

[Arlind]

He also represents a tendency to "identify" too strongly with some immutable characteristic (such as sex or skin colour), or some "tribe", (religion and/or political party).

That's the unfortunate distinction from his peers (Carlson, Owens etc) who seem to have understood, internalized and are in the process of transcending the identity politics trap. And I mean, at a deep level. He is simply too attached to it, and seemingly has not made any effort to see beyond.

 

[Ruth]

That's the unfortunate distinction from his peers (Carlson, Owens etc) who seem to have understood, internalized and are in the process of transcending the identity politics trap. And I mean, at a deep level. He is simply too attached to it, and seemingly has not made any effort to see beyond.

Yes, and sadly he may not be able to ever 'get there', which is a shame for everyone who has such high hopes of him. Unless, of course a person is a Zionist and then Fuentes merely gets exploited and used for their own benefit (another shame, in my opinion because it is so terribly obvious).

What I'm really happy about is to see the rise of the "gun bros" most personified in the increasing popularity of Nate from Valhalla VFT (your post #195). It's a relief to find people are resonating more with strong, down to earth, eloquent male role models. Nate is especially suited to that role because of the way he looks in addition to his long experience with special forces and the military. I've very pleased to see an increase in the number of good male role models in the internet space.

 

[Cosmos]

Fuentes on sex:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903816615512215605

People are saying this aberrant attitude towards relationships likely means he's closet gay. I think it's more like he sees himself as a warrior-monk for whom sex must be 'sublimated' in order to 'achieve the highest good'. Otherwise, sex for him is "purely utilitarian," for propagation of the species, which is decidedly not what its primary purpose is, as Laura's been explaining recently. He may fall under Cleckley's Caricature of Love as one who 'hates women'. He's certainly afraid of them, or strongly resents them.

A “warrior-monk“ could IMO certainly be at least part of it. It could also be that he convinced himself at some level that he “has transzendent“ the sexual and might even view it in a rather schizophrenic way as categorically “evil“ or beneath “his great standards“ of what spiritually should be or look like.

Whatever the case, I‘m pretty sure that his views especially on woman are pretty plainly pathological and he either isn’t willing (at this point at least) to deprogram himself and/or isn’t able. I also think there is a good chance that he is a closet gay in some way or that he had proclivities towards something like that at some point in his past. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

 

[Moine]

People are saying this aberrant attitude towards relationships likely means he's closet gay. I think it's more like he sees himself as a warrior-monk for whom sex must be 'sublimated' in order to 'achieve the highest good'. Otherwise, sex for him is "purely utilitarian," for propagation of the species, which is decidedly not what its primary purpose is, as Laura's been explaining recently. He may fall under Cleckley's Caricature of Love as one who 'hates women'. He's certainly afraid of them, or strongly resents them.

He's just still too young to have the necessary life experiences, and vocabulary, for him to be able to eloquently state his position. Instead, he utilizes brute caricatures that drive emotional reactions in his audience, due to their minimal context and wide applicability.

Furthermore, matter sublimated often yields sublime essence. There is something to be said about intercourse as not only an end itself, but also a means towards an end. To those who see intercourse as a means for propagating a species, it's still a tool. For those who see it also as means for forming a stable and meaningful relationship, it's still just a tool. For an innumerable and compounding assortment of ends to which intercourse can serve as a means, it's still just a tool.

For any tool is just the culmination of examination and creativity sunk into the object for a particular purpose. Yet still, that tool is only as functional as the dexterity and carefulness of the craftsman's hands which wield it. A given tool of said quality, in the miserly hands of any craftsman, will only produce work that is befitting appreciation of its aesthetics attributable to it -- namely in others who share in the particular aesthetics of the work. However, the purpose of the work will only be as just, as the intent put behind making it.

That said, there is a difference between desire, and appetite. Desires can be approached through a variety of means, much akin in matters of love between: your partner, your children, your profession, your interests, et.c. - interchanging per your aesthetic preferences in finding the ideal experience in life to not only witness yourself, but also to share with another. Appetites are something else, as they essentially seek to fill that gnawing hole of desolate meaninglessness that is often experienced in one's being, but usually not identified properly. This is the error that moderns make.

So Nick is not sublimating his nature properly. He fails to address his appetites, by denying their existence, along-with mandating some notion of righteous sanctity in the assortment of his preferences. His appetites thus bubble-up through different means of expression, which is why there are many problems in his behavior. With that, his desire of wanting to be a creative expression that contributes to public discourse is subverted. This subversion of desire, compounds with his denial of appetites, and it propels him in such a way that is not only easily steered by another, but it becomes dangerous to himself. He's essentially in the withdrawal stage of drug addiction.

You do not beat drug addiction by refusing it outright. Instead, you recognize the harm that it does to your person, so that your conscious ego, and subconscious machinations do not fight with each other, and your own being. Only then, will the drug of appetite no longer taste, or feel so good, and is easily forgone.

 

[Phill4]

Ian's full interview is basically giving Nick all the evidence he keeps crying about (dishonest request from the start). Flaaaaaawless clapback.
and for someone as petty , miserable and emotionally unstable, as he is it's just crickets on all his socials.
Been sharing how i find him incredibly dishonest Fuentes is and his logic is upsidedown half of the time.

Other than that, It's a great summary of all the evidence nontheless in case someone is not up to speed with the case and general response to the critizism against Candace's stances.

 

[Benjamin]

Fuentes on sex:

I ran into this Fuentes short yesterday. I then read Laura's article from Niall's link today and the meaning of Nick's response changed. On first hearing it sounds quite logical but now his "just wants to be alone" sounds like there might be more to his narrative. Yeah, he's young still and maybe he's just enjoying his freewheeling lifestyle as an island. And yet, the way he tries to come across as doing the woman a favour by saving her from grief feels off.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

By the way, Ryan Dawson is also continuing to say and post pretty dumb and silly stuff while throwing truth tellers and seekers under the bus including Candace. I’m not surprised at all though. Dawson has probably missed the boat quite a while ago and now keeps digging deeper. He also recently developed an eye condition, which makes him cover that eye like a pirate quite often. As tone death as he is he will probably never even remotely consider the idea that his eye condition might be a reflection of his doings.

In a number of ways Fuentes and Dawson strike me as pretty similar characters.

 

[dredger]

There's a recent article on the french site Egalité & Reconciliation which wonders if Nick would'nt be Trump's attack dog ?
Just asumption, but this remains worth to read and it's not a long one.

Here's the link to the article in french.
I would like to post the link to an auto-translate done by google translate, but the site is heavily attacked since a couple of days and put some protection measures, which render difficult (or impossible) such translation. You'll have to use the auto-translation provided by the browser once the page successfully loaded to have it translated.

Here's the translation of the last part of the article :

The mad dog theory​

​

In politics, a mad dog is the more or less official lieutenant of an important politician who cannot afford to get carried away or provoke others. He delegates these tasks to his mad dog, who is considered unpredictable and dangerous. The mad dog attacks on behalf of his master, protecting him by keeping his enemies at bay. After all, who wants to mess with a mad dog?​

​

In recent history, we see that all dictators or presidents had a mad dog. Chirac had Pasqua, Stalin had Beria, de Gaulle had Messmer, Mitterrand had Deferre, Hitler had Himmler, Brigitte had Manu, Xi had Kim... Yes, a mad dog can be from another country. Kim keeps Japan and South Korea at bay with his nuclear missiles, but he wouldn't do so without the approval of the great Xi. Khrushchev had Castro, but that didn't last long.​

​

On the other hand, America and Israel have a bunch of mad dogs: for example, in our country, Sarkozy and Valls, respectively.​

​

If Nick is Trump's mad dog, who has the right to bite his uncles and aunts (Musk and Candace), what exactly is he good for? Well, for causing chaos or applying pressure wherever Trump wants him to. If Nick went to respond to Morgan, it wasn't to celebrate Christmas in London with Pakistanis.​

​

Trump's goal, and Musk's too, is to overturn the Europeanist table and deal with member countries bilaterally, not with the lunatics in the Commission. The United Kingdom can still be considered part of the EU, given that, like Germany and France, it is led by globalists. And that is what Trump is fighting against above all else: he may be the man of peace, but this is his real war.​