Express.
Thoughts On Nick Fuentes?
Posts
Total:
57
just another edgelord.
Wikipedia:
Fuentes self-identifies as a Catholic integralist and Christian nationalist.
He has stated:
I want this country to have Catholic media, Catholic Hollywood, Catholic government. I want this to be a Catholic-occupied government, not a Jewish-occupied government.
In March 2022, Fuentes stated that he is a reactionary who supports autocracy and called himself "a 12th century man", adding "Catholic autocracy? Pretty strong. Pretty strong record. Catholic monarchy? Catholic monarchy, and just war, and crusades, and inquisitions? Pretty good stuff."
3% literacy? genrerational slavery? zero human rights? no idea about anything further than 10 miles from your birthplaces? Pretty good stuff
He is largely irrelevant, despite what his social media influence might make you think.
With the exception of Kanye, Donald Trump, and Destiny, the larger community of celebrities do not associate with him.
Seems like a swell guy
I want this country to have Catholic media, Catholic Hollywood, Catholic government. I want this to be a Catholic-occupied government, not a Jewish-occupied government.
Based
-->
@Greyparrot
just another edgelord.
- Elaborate?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
He is largely irrelevant, despite what his social media influence might make you think.With the exception of Kanye, Donald Trump, and Destiny, the larger community of celebrities do not associate with him.
- What do you think about his ideas?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Seems like a swell guy
- I suppose you agree with what he says?
I want this country to have Catholic media, Catholic Hollywood, Catholic government. I want this to be a Catholic-occupied government, not a Jewish-occupied government.
- Do you want the same thing? What do you do with non-Catholics?
-->
@oromagi
Wikipedia:Fuentes self-identifies as a Catholic integralist and Christian nationalist.He has stated:I want this country to have Catholic media, Catholic Hollywood, Catholic government. I want this to be a Catholic-occupied government, not a Jewish-occupied government.In March 2022, Fuentes stated that he is a reactionary who supports autocracy and called himself "a 12th century man", adding "Catholic autocracy? Pretty strong. Pretty strong record. Catholic monarchy? Catholic monarchy, and just war, and crusades, and inquisitions? Pretty good stuff."
- Catholic "autocracy" could only dream of achieving the level of government control & subjugation that the current West has. If anything, a Catholic autocracy is a much smaller government than yours. Maybe then people can finally have some autonomy when it comes to their finances, their mutual contracts, the currency they use, the education of their children...etc. I think most people would easily sacrifice public degeneracy for more private & communital autonomy. – The Crusades back then were at least honest, contrary to the West's current crusades promoted as "liberation" & "justice". LMAO! & why would you need inquisition when you can just mass indoctrinate the children from very young age into your belief system, & abduct them if their parents resist. Inquisition seems mild in comparison.
3% literacy?
- I guess 88% literacy is indeed better. I don't think he meant literacy though.
genrerational slavery?
- He doesn't sound like he is asking for much, since that's still the case today. Huge proportions of your population is still enslaved, though you like to call it otherwise. For instance, your prisoners are literally slaves according to your constitution. Your soldiers are effectively slaves. Apprentices, interns, or students who work to pay their loans are for all intents & purposes slaves. Prostitutes... etc.
zero human rights?
- Well, back then they granted rights to the nobility & clergy class, & none to others. Today, you grant rights to nationals, & none to all others. You still grant ZERO human rights, since neither class-based rights or border-based rights are *human* rights by any stretch of the imagination. You're better at naming things than the Catholic Church was, I'll give you that.
no idea about anything further than 10 miles from your birthplaces?
- I mean, Americans are notorious for having little idea about anything else than their birthplace...
Pretty good stuff
- Honestly, he doesn't seem like he is asking for much. If anything, he is calling for a milder version of your horrible system of government.
-->
@Yassine
"What do you think about his ideas?"
His ideas make him a danger.
To himself and others. Being a monarchist in today's time will get you laughed out of most places. Combine that with his views that women are harmful parasites, he has certainly spread a narrative that will make it more difficult for his followers to have a healthy interaction with women.
And the fact that he's a holocaust denier who openly praised Hitler? Oh boy, this is a perfect recipe for disaster.
He is a liability at this point and the amount of delusions this guy rambles on about makes me think he is in desperate need of psychological help. Were it not for his large fanbase, he would immediately become a social pariah. This guy's beliefs and ideas are not functional in this century or in modern society.
Without knowing a lot about him, since all the times I've ever listened to him he's come across as a white nationalist, racist agitator. I would call him a white nationalist, racist scumbag who might have neo-Nazi leanings.
By racist I mean in the philosophical sense and the literal sense of trying to foment hate against other races. It is possible to be a White Nationalist and not a racist depending on the definition used for racism. To me, white nationalism and racism are an oxymoron, because I believe racism is regarding one group as better than another by racial characteristics. But for many the definition of racism is based on actions and not ideas.
-->
@Yassine
- Catholic "autocracy" could only dream of achieving the level of government control & subjugation that the current West has.
- If not trolling, then profoundly ignorant. Either way, such opinion is easily proved wrong and just as easily ignored.
-->
@Yassine
Never heard of him.
-->
@oromagi
- Catholic "autocracy" could only dream of achieving the level of government control & subjugation that the current West has.If not trolling, then profoundly ignorant.
- You don't have to embarrass yourself like that. If you're ignorant about your own History, it doesn't mean everybody else is too.
Either way, such opinion is easily proved wrong and just as easily ignored.
- Sure you can ignore it, since you got no rebuttal. Good luck disproving it though. This is fact. Maybe you wouldn't mind having a formal debate about the topic, you can show us how easily this is proved wrong.
- This actually goes beyond Catholic rule. Literally no government in Human History has ever even come close to the level of control & reach that the modern Western Liberal government has. Very few governments in the past succeeded in imposing universal laws on the whole population, & most failed fairly quickly, such is the case of the Xin Dynasty. This is even truer for the state involvement in the imposition, regulation & monitoring of currency, wealth, private life, taxation, commercial contracts, financial transaction, standardized education, secular liberal academia, social service, family matters, communal issues, child care...etc. Evidently, in a liberal secular egalitarian society, there are only individuals. All traditional roles taken by family, clan, tribe, community, village, sect...etc, are overtaken by government. A liberal egalitarian society necessarily engenders a maximal government.
-->
@Public-Choice
Without knowing a lot about him, since all the times I've ever listened to him he's come across as a white nationalist, racist agitator. I would call him a white nationalist, racist scumbag who might have neo-Nazi leanings.
- What do you think of his ideas?
By racist I mean in the philosophical sense and the literal sense of trying to foment hate against other races. It is possible to be a White Nationalist and not a racist depending on the definition used for racism. To me, white nationalism and racism are an oxymoron, because I believe racism is regarding one group as better than another by racial characteristics. But for many the definition of racism is based on actions and not ideas.
- Are you a White nationalist?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
His ideas make him a danger.To himself and others. Being a monarchist in today's time will get you laughed out of most places.
- The US is, for all intents & purposes, a republican monarchy, ruled by a dual branch dynasty, where legacy is hereditary by apprenticeship, much like how the Roman Empire was in its beginnings.
Combine that with his views that women are harmful parasites, he has certainly spread a narrative that will make it more difficult for his followers to have a healthy interaction with women.
- Feminism has already made it more difficult for women to have a healthy interaction with men. What is the issue here then?
And the fact that he's a holocaust denier who openly praised Hitler? Oh boy, this is a perfect recipe for disaster.
- How is that?
He is a liability at this point and the amount of delusions this guy rambles on about makes me think he is in desperate need of psychological help. Were it not for his large fanbase, he would immediately become a social pariah.
- This doesn't really address anything he said. Clearly millions of Americans relate to his ideas, for some reason which is appealing to them. Such dismissal is unwise.
This guy's beliefs and ideas are not functional in this century or in modern society.
- Why is that exactly?
Literally no government in Human History has ever even come close to the level of control & reach that the modern Western Liberal government has.
- What is the name of "the Modern Western Liberal Government" of which you speak. Which state does it govern?
- Say you are Jew in a 1944 Nazi deathcamp or a black man on a Missisippi Plantation in 1855. Would you call that greater government control or less government control than being Jewish or Black in say, 21st America?
-->
@oromagi
What is the name of "the Modern Western Liberal Government" of which you speak. Which state does it govern?
- Read that one more time. You can use your glasses if you need to.
Say you are Jew in a 1944 Nazi deathcamp or a black man on a Missisippi Plantation in 1855. Would you call that greater government control or less government control than being Jewish or Black in say, 21st America?
- Red herring. Neither relate to government control. As to your 21st century America, this same applies to, say you are an Arab in Iraq -or pretty much a non-American in non-American soil. In 1944 Nazi Germany, identity was nation & ethnicity based. In 1855 Mississippi, identity was birth & race based. In 21st century American, identity is border & flag based. All else thus are other & not deserving of protection, hence no rights are granted. The same way you see the Iraqi -or non-American in non-American soil- today, Nazis saw Jews & non-Aryans then. Not because your rights are contingent on borders does that make you superior to Nazis who set their rights to be contingent on ethnicity. You're all the same level of barbarous scum. In our tradition, this is called Jahilia, which is to deem the worth of someone's life based on ethnicity, nationality, lineage, class...etc.
- Read that one more time. You can use your glasses if you need to.
You claimed:
" Literally no government in Human History has ever even come close to the level of control & reach that the modern Western Liberal government has."
I'll repeat the question:
What is the name of "the Modern Western Liberal Government" of which you speak. Which state does it govern?
Please answer the question as directly as possible.
Red herring. Neither relate to government control.
- I see but there's no denying that Aushwitz or the Fugitive Slave Acts were govenmnent projects.
- You're saying that Richard I can't be called an autocrat for laying waste to the English treasury and men of fighting age because he only recognized himself as the sole inheritor of any natural rights as king
- You're saying that so long as Israel refuses to acknowledge Palestinians as citizens, that government need not respect any Palestinian human rights.
-->
@oromagi
You claimed:
I'll repeat the question:What is the name of "the Modern Western Liberal Government" of which you speak. Which state does it govern?Please answer the question as directly as possible.
- The 'modern Western Liberal government' is in the abstract. You can infer therefrom the countries which concretely represent that description.
I see but there's no denying that Aushwitz or the Fugitive Slave Acts were govenmnent projects.
- The funny bit here is that you live today closer to slaves then, than free men used to. Your government is in your life business almost as much as the master was in the life business of his slave back then.
You're saying that Richard I can't be called an autocrat for laying waste to the English treasury and men of fighting age because he only recognized himself as the sole inheritor of any natural rights as king
- Drop the stupid labels. I am not American, this nonsense means nothing to me. I wasn't indoctrinated into this BS since birth like you. There is no such thing as an absolute ruler. That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! The world is not contingent on the whims of humans, it is humans who are contingent on the determinism of the world, i.e. God's Will. – Humans are always in struggle, until one side submits to the conditions of the other, by choice or surrender. The latter is the dominant & the former is the dominated, i.e. the State & the Subject. As Ibn Khaldun says, a State is an organization which prevents injustice except that which it commits itself. This is true regardless whether the state is a blood dynasty (like a monarchy of England) or an apprenticeship dynasty (like the two party republic of the US). – You're assessing the rulership of another from the perspective of Power you're currently subject to. LMAO! Sheep gotta be sheeping.
You're saying that so long as Israel refuses to acknowledge Palestinians as citizens, that government need not respect any Palestinian human rights.
- That's your disgusting system, buddy. Don't lump us with your barbarism. You have no human rights to begin with, that's just an empty label. At best you have national rights, particularly contingent on borders. The "Declaration of Human Rights" during the French Revolution was in truth the declaration of native French rights (who aren't Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Basque, Breton....etc); other humans weren't a concern. The rights previously granted to the French Noble, Bourgeois & Clergy class were simply extended to the French peasants & proletariat (some at least). – You criticize Hitler for killing supposedly his own people (the Jews), but guess what? He didn't consider them his own people, as that designation was accorded to the Aryans. Similarly, you consider your people those who are national Americans, & those who aren't not your people, thus no rights may be granted to them; & thus sanctity of their life & wealth null & without consequence. The 30 million people who lost their life (& the many more who lost their wealth & their homes) because of your country, have zero protection & zero legal recourse accorded to them by your government, since these are non-national. – There is effectively no difference between your government & Nazis, at least in respect to human rights.
- I am sure you're gunna keep pretending to not understand, lemme ask you straight. There is currently zero stipulation in US Law to protect non-Americans, answer me this: should US Law protect non-Americans?
The 'modern Western Liberal government' is in the abstract. You can infer therefrom the countries which concretely represent that description. The funny bit here is that you live today closer to slaves then, than free men used to. Your government is in your life business almost as much as the master was in the life business of his slave back then.
Got it. So you are are saying that any given modern Swede, Canadian, New Zealander is objectively less free then a 12th Century Catholic Serf.
I am not American, this nonsense means nothing to me. I wasn't indoctrinated into this BS since birth like you.
- Ouch, Richard the Lionhearted was a 12 Century monarch, not an American.
- Let's recall you said:
- "If you're ignorant about your own History, it doesn't mean everybody else is too.
- You made claims regarding 12th Century Europe but don't recognize the name of one of the most famous kings of that era
- You made claims about the "honesty" of the Crusades, but don't know that history well enough to know the name of one of the most famous crusaders, leader of the Fourth Crusade in fact.
- Anybody who's read Robin Hood or Ivanhoe knows a little of this history
There is no such thing as an absolute ruler. That's the dumbest thing I ever heard! The world is not contingent on the whims of humans, it is humans who are contingent on the determinism of the world, i.e. God's Will. – Humans are always in struggle, until one side submits to the conditions of the other, by choice or surrender. The latter is the dominant & the former is the dominated, i.e. the State & the Subject. As Ibn Khaldun says, a State is an organization which prevents injustice except that which it commits itself. This is true regardless whether the state is a blood dynasty (like a monarchy of England) or an apprenticeship dynasty (like the two party republic of the US). – You're assessing the rulership of another from the perspective of Power you're currently subject to. LMAO! Sheep gotta be sheeping.
- As a Liberal, I believe that power is ultimately derived from the consent of the governed, however oppressed. I've seen little evidence for God and don't trust anybody who claims to know God's will.
- You are diverging from your original claim (which we have now established was written in profound ignorance of European hisotry) that any given modern Swede, Canadian, New Zealander is objectively less free then a 12th Century European Serf.
The "Declaration of Human Rights" during the French Revolution was in truth the declaration of native French rights (who aren't Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Basque, Breton....etc); other humans weren't a concern. The rights previously granted to the French Noble, Bourgeois & Clergy class were simply extended to the French peasants & proletariat (some at least).
- Agreed but like the Declaration of Independence, that document continues to inspire civil rights moviements to this day.
You criticize Hitler for killing supposedly his own people (the Jews), but guess what? He didn't consider them his own people, as that designation was accorded to the Aryans. Similarly, you consider your people those who are national Americans, & those who aren't not your people, thus no rights may be granted to them; & thus sanctity of their life & wealth null & without consequence. The 30 million people who lost their life (& the many more who lost their wealth & their homes) because of your country, have zero protection & zero legal recourse accorded to them by your government, since these are non-national. – There is effectively no difference between your government & Nazis, at least in respect to human rights.
- Strongly disagree.
I am sure you're gunna keep pretending to not understand, lemme ask you straight. There is currently zero stipulation in US Law to protect non-Americans, answer me this: should US Law protect non-Americans?
- Your premise is false.
- Within the US Constitution, protections and rights apply to everyone on US soil or US jurisdiction. Essentially, this means everyone simply standing on US soil is protected by the Constitution and has equal rights under the law. This includes permanent residents, tourists, and yes, undocumented immigrants.
- The US Constitution specifically details several rights any person is entitled to. For instance, the Bill of Rights clearly lists a series of rights for all human beings, regardless of citizenship status. These ten amendments within the Bill of Rights are inalienable rights for every person on US soil, regardless of orientation, citizenship, gender, and nationality. All ten of the amendments use “people” or “person” and never “citizen.”
- These rights include:
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech
- Peaceful assembly
- Right to bear arms
- Right to petition the government
- Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
- Right to due process
- Right to trial by jury
- Right to a legal counsel
- Within the US Constitution, the 14th amendment ensures the right to equal protection under the law. This amendment states that any US governing body must govern without discrimination to anyone within US territory. In fact, this is one of the most important clauses in protecting the civil rights of people.
- Sometimes constitutional rights aren’t flat-out expressed by law, but rather through a series of court cases and rulings. One example of this is the right to family integrity. Modern day court rulings state that people have a right to be with their family. With this ruling, the government can’t separate families without a legal process.
- Another example is the right to education. While the US Constitution does not expressly state this, supreme court rulings have. Supreme court ruling states that both citizens and non-citizens alike should have access to free education.
- There are some exceptions that apply to citizens only. These include:
- Voting
- Certain areas in the US allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. These areas include California and Maryland.
- Running for office
- Immigration
- Unreasonable Searches
- Due process
Let's look at those again:
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech
- Peaceful assembly
- Right to bear arms
- Right to petition the government
- Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
- Right to due process
- Right to trial by jury
- Right to a legal counsel
A 12th century serf enjoyed none of these rights, even in his home town. Nobles might have been granted some of these rights by some autocrat but such rights were just as eaily taken away if met with disapproval.
-->
@Yassine
I believe he dislikes central bankers
-->
@bmdrocks21
Centralized anything is bad.
-->
@Greyparrot
Centralized anything is bad.
Not anything, a lot of centralized is good, there's central heating and air condition, Central Park in Cumming GA (where I walk our dog sometimes), and oh yeah, and best of all is central as opposed to extremism.
OK, say it with me, central = good, extreme = bad, deep breath and again, central = good, extreme = bad...
-->
@Yassine
Express
Nick Fuentes holds a leadership position in the Trump movement, last seen at a campaign strategy session with Trump a week after declaring his run for 2024.
He's an important figure in the Trump movement, with prominant positions on several of Trumps new cabinet committess, insurrection conspiracy, anti-semitism (of course), domestic divisiveness, and most imporant, he's is a essential figure of Trump's white supremacist coalition.
-->
@Sidewalker
OK, say it with me, central = good, extreme = bad, deep breath and again, central = good, extreme = bad...
But your centre may differ from our centre, so... are we trying to find the middle point taking account of everyone? Then that is populism.
-->
@oromagi
Such was the disparity imposed by natural hierarchy, intellectual imbalance and consequent lack of knowledge.
Notwithstanding that the majority of a serf's short life was taken up with basic survival.
Even so, the serf was still a necessary part of the social system.
-->
@Sidewalker
central heating...
Fun fact: My roommate and I saved 550 dollars last year using electric space heaters instead of the central gas heater last year.
We ended up remodeling the kitchen with the money we saved.
:D
central as opposed to extremism.
Sadly, Central is extreme when it's often one size fits all, especially if you are not that size.