Thoughts On Nick Fuentes?

Essentially, this means everyone simply standing on US soil is protected by the Constitution and has equal rights under the law.

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.

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.

Yes I do agree with him, and I have a problem with non-Catholics if they make it a problem

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. 

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. 

- I take it you disapprove of him, & of Trump. Why exactly do you disapprove?

modern Swede, Canadian, New Zealander live today closer to serfs then, than lords used to, in terms of government control & restriction. The state, as the master, dictates & regulates virtually every aspect of your life, your food, your banking, your transactions, your education... & can at whim confiscate your property, abduct your children, confine you...etc if you don't comply.

• Objectively false. 
  
• LIFE- Let's say you are born poor farmer in any of these countries today and you would like to be a cook or a truck driver.  That is a totally reasonable and common practice in these countries.  That was not true in 12 Century Europe- if you were born a poor farmer you would die a poor farmer in 999 cases out of every 1000.
  
• BANKING- Banking, moneylending, and charging interest were considered sins under Catholic rule.  Banking was run almost exclusively by Jews for an almost exclusively aristocratic, international set.  The average serf never saw much coinage and never experienced a bank transaction.  By contrast, most Western citizens have a bank account today.
  
• The price for most transactions were set by the autocrat and only rarely changed during one's lifetime.   Most ordinary goods and services were produced very locally and cost the same whether the quality was excellent or poor.  By contrast, the price for most goods and services today are set by the seller and only a small range of goods and services are controlled by the state.
  
• EDUCATION- most education for the lower classes was considered a sin.  Many medival states outlawed literacy and maths for serf and the working classes- such functions were used as instruments of control.  Almost every Westerner has access to a taxpayer-funded education up to adulthood and most states offer a lot of options for continuing and extending education.  A diverse and agile education system is seen to today as an essential part of any state's capacity to compete.
  
• DUE PROCESS/HABEAS CORPUS- The first due process laws in the west came into being in the 13th century and those rights were at first extended only to barons.  Every citizen of any modern Western democracy enjoys some right to due process, legal counsel and representation, capacity to challenge witnesses and testimony, right of appeal, etc.

You have given one of the only fully relevant responses in the entire thread. Unfortunately, Yassine will now derail his own thread in an attempt to promote Sharia law.

I disapprove of Fuentes because he’s a white supremacist and go figure, but I have a problem with antisemitism, racism, and hatemongering.

Trump is all that and more, he’s a lawless, sociopathic autocrat with a movement that is attacking the very foundations of my country’s democracy and freedoms.  He has undermined the institutions that are foundational to our government and spread divisiveness and hatred. 

I suppose I should have also mentioned Trump's Islamophobia.

"I think Islam hates us." - Donald Trump in 2016

You have given one of the only fully relevant responses in the entire thread.

Unfortunately, Yassine will now derail his own thread in an attempt to promote Sharia law.

Genius, Sharia and Islam are more right wing and mistreating of other races and cultures vs the majority in their own nations than any white christian nation you can name right now, so if you're gonna go there, you're pretty dumb.

Tell me something, do you think Muslims are closer to Trump's politics or yours? Think very carefully before throwing out 'phobic' when you don't know what is feared. In fact to be saying such nonsense in 2022 December given what is finally being exposed in Qatar and Iran recently, is sheer ignorance. That is Islam, it's always been Islam.

Actually, let me see how you handle Yassine, our resident Sharia propagandist, in how he proceeds to challenge you. Spread your love of Islam far and wide.

Objectively false. 

LIFE- Let's say you are born poor farmer in any of these countries today and you would like to be a cook or a truck driver.  That is a totally reasonable and common practice in these countries.  That was not true in 12 Century Europe- if you were born a poor farmer you would die a poor farmer in 999 cases out of every 1000.

BANKING- Banking, moneylending, and charging interest were considered sins under Catholic rule.  Banking was run almost exclusively by Jews for an almost exclusively aristocratic, international set.  The average serf never saw much coinage and never experienced a bank transaction. By contrast, most Western citizens have a bank account today. The price for most transactions were set by the autocrat and only rarely changed during one's lifetime.

Most ordinary goods and services were produced very locally and cost the same whether the quality was excellent or poor.  By contrast, the price for most goods and services today are set by the seller and only a small range of goods and services are controlled by the state.

EDUCATION- most education for the lower classes was considered a sin. Many medival states outlawed literacy and maths for serf and the working classes- such functions were used as instruments of control.

Almost every Westerner has access to a taxpayer-funded education up to adulthood and most states offer a lot of options for continuing and extending education. 

A diverse and agile education system is seen to today as an essential part of any state's capacity to compete.

DUE PROCESS/HABEAS CORPUS- The first due process laws in the west came into being in the 13th century and those rights were at first extended only to barons.

Every citizen of any modern Western democracy enjoys some right to due process, legal counsel and representation, capacity to challenge witnesses and testimony, right of appeal, etc.

Genius, Sharia and Islam are more right wing and mistreating of other races and cultures vs the majority in their own nations than any white christian nation you can name right now, so if you're gonna go there, you're pretty dumb.

Tell me something, do you think Muslims are closer to Trump's politics or yours?

Think very carefully before throwing out 'phobic' when you don't know what is feared. In fact to be saying such nonsense in 2022 December given what is finally being exposed in Qatar and Iran recently, is sheer ignorance. That is Islam, it's always been Islam.

Nonsense, first of all, you are talking about a billion people, if you think you can characterize such a large and diverse population that way, you are extremely dumb. 

Sharia and Islam are not the same thing, less than half of the majority Muslim nations even have Sharia Law, and the private practice of Sharia is very diverse among Muslims.  Sure, there are Sharia countries that can be characterized that way, but it isn’t an inherent characteristic of Islam by any stretch. 

Most of the world’s nearly fifty Muslim-majority countries have laws that reference sharia, the guidance Muslims believe God provided them on a range of spiritual and worldly matters. Some of these nations have laws that call for what critics say are cruel criminal punishments, or place undue restrictions on the lives of women and minority groups. However, there is great diversity in how governments interpret and apply sharia, and people often misunderstand the role it plays in legal systems and the lives of individuals.

Second, you are just trying to justify prejudice and bigotry, and some lame ass argument that “they started it” doesn’t cut it. 

1. Regarding the issue of rape, the rape of Muslim women is forbidden. However the rape of woman who have been kidnapped and enslaved is not only permissable, it’s encouraged.
   

“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)”2. Regarding the issue of Aisha, Muhahhad took Aisha from her father by age 6 declaring the marriage “the will of Allah” and then raped her at the age of 9 and continued to rape her on an almost daily basis from that point forward. Muhammad was 56yo when he first raped Aisha.

“The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with `Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years , till his death. Bukhari 7; 62–88”

There’s your honest answer with verses and citations. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

The Golden Rule is a foundational principle to both Christianity and Islam, both Jesus and Muhammed imparted a vision for a world order based on compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace, and love. 

Verse 5:33 has frequently been quoted by disbelievers against the Qur'an. To understand the verse we need to be aware of the Qur'an as a whole - as well as be in possession of the necessary faith and wisdom provided by Allah. Initially, here is verse 5:33 on its own:

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

"The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great torment." (Qur'an 5:33)

The Qur'an has to be interpreted as a whole. A believer must use his or her Quranic wisdom and knowledge when reading a particular verse. This requires him to have read the Qur'an before-hand and be able to use wisdom in applying his knowledge of other verses.

The expression in verse 5:33 is very specifically defined. For example, "hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides." i.e. left foot and right hand. Elsewhere in the Qur'an, we find that one of the greatest tyrants on the earth, 'the pharaoh' threatens the few true believers who had joined the Prophet Moses in the same manner:

قَالَ آمَنْتُمْ لَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّهُ لَكَبِيرُكُمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَكُمُ السِّحْرَ فَلأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ وَلأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ أَيُّنَا أَشَدُّ عَذَابًا وَأَبْقَى

"He (Pharoah) said: 'Have you believed in him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!' " (Qur'an 20:71)

This is repeated once again in the Qur'an:

قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ آمَنْتُمْ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّ هَذَا لَمَكْرٌ مَكَرْتُمُوهُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لِتُخْرِجُوا مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ

{123} 'Pharaoh said: 'Have you become believers before I have given you permission? This is surely some scheme which you have schemed in the city to drive its people out; you will reveal what you know".' (Qur'an 7:123)

لأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ ثُمَّ لأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ

{124} "...'I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all'."

قَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَى رَبِّنَا مُنْقَلِبُونَ

{125} "They said: 'It is to our Lord that we will return'." (Qur'an 7:125)

The point to ponder over is, why is the specific threat pharaoh made repeated in the same manner by Allah in verse 5:33 (i.e. cutting alternate hands and feet and crucifixion)? 

This is because Allah is not actually commanding the believers to carry out this punishment in verse 5:33. Rather, it is a statement against pharaoh's quote who threatened the believers. More specifically, in 5:33 Allah is inferring that it is not the believers (who follow Allah's messengers) who deserved that, rather those who fight against Allah and His messenger (how pharaoh did), who truly deserve the punishment they wish to inflict on the believers. This point is made in a striking way by referring ironically to pharaoh's threats to the believers.

This interesting observation conforms further with the verse immediately before 5:33, which sets the context of the time of pharaoh! Both 5:32 and 5:33 are quoted below:

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُون.َ

{32} "It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel: 'Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people.' Our messengers had come to them with clarification, but many of them are, after this, are corrupting on the Earth."

{This sets the context of pharaoh's response to Moses}

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم

{33} "The recompense of those who fight Allah and His messenger, and seek to make corruption in the land, is that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides or that they be banished from the land; that is their disgrace in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution."

Thus, the immediate context of Pharaoh's time also supports the understanding that this verse is in relation to pharoah's threat described in other verses. Lastly, note that even grammatically, the verse is not worded in the imperative (as an order or command). It is written in the manner in the translation ("that they be killed or crucified..."). This compares with pharaoh's "i will do", commanding sentence.

Therefore, this verse makes the powerful point that those disbelievers who threaten 'Allah and His Messenger' with punishment and persecution, they are actually the ones who truly deserve the same retribution - not Allah's messengers or the believers who invite mankind to the ways of peace - to know their Creator and the existence of the Hereafter.

I disapprove of Fuentes because he’s a white supremacist and go figure, but I have a problem with antisemitism, racism, and hatemongering.

Trump is all that and more, he’s a lawless, sociopathic autocrat with a movement that is attacking the very foundations of my country’s democracy and freedoms.  He has undermined the institutions that are foundational to our government and spread divisiveness and hatred. 

- I see that happening from all sides. Do you have any tangible objections to his ideas beyond labels?

I suppose I should have also mentioned Trump's Islamophobia.

"I think Islam hates us." - Donald Trump in 2016

- That was a funny one. I am not on any of your sides. It's all the same to me.

Democrats don't accept Muslims, or in fact any group. They accept only liberals who happen to be Muslim, or among another group. Republicans don't accept Muslims in general. Things are changing lately though... It's not about Trump or Schrump, the system itself is f*cked. 

That's OK, Trump's not going to be on any ballot in Turkey any time soon anyway.

but it's simple bigotry to define people using labels like you do...and

Yes, the way you see the system is f*cked, it's going to just keep getting worse until we stop seeing labels and start seeing individuals.

There's only two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are only two kinds of people, and those who don't. 

By beyond labels, do you mean like words, you want me to draw you a picture or something?  Sorry, to communicate I'm gonna stick with using language, my objections are "tangible" as presented.  

- "white supremacist" "racist" "antisemite"...etc, are just labels, charged with the right amount of emotion to antagonize & dehumanize others with no actual cause.

You must show first that the act is objectionable, & for what reason it is objectionable, & that it was actually committed. 

That's OK, Trump's not going to be on any ballot in Turkey any time soon anyway.

- Maybe he can become Erdogan's adviser.

Trump exacerbated the divisiveness, especially for Muslims, and yes, our internecine strife is more political than ever before,

- You have it backwards. It's the boiling real divisiveness in the country that led to Trump.

This is why a secular egalitarian democracy is doomed to fail. Imposing a single mold of thought & practice on all people may in the short term create a fake harmony with diversity of appearance, but it will inevitably collapse on itself. People are not robots, they are diverse, not just in skin color & gender, but more importantly in their ways of thinking, their values, their beliefs...etc. A secular democracy is not equipped to deal with that kind of diversity, of beliefs & practices.

but it's simple bigotry to define people using labels like you do...and

- The wisdom is not in the label, it's in the meaning. Meanings are natural universals (abstracts) extracted from the real world. A dog in the real world, is represented in our mind with the concept of dog. This is meaning. Words are conventional sounds or letters to refer to those meanings. Hence, words are contingent on meanings, not the opposite. When the conventional meaning of the word expresses a real distinction in the world, then the word has real meaning. –

The issue arises when using labels (words) to designate fictitious things which have no substance or bear no real distinction in the real world. 

Yes, the way you see the system is f*cked, it's going to just keep getting worse until we stop seeing labels and start seeing individuals.

- People are not individuals, they are individuals of a society. What you're promoting to avoid a society made of some groups is a society made of millions of them, i.e. individuals. A society of lone individuals is the most divided & most vulnerable that could possibly exist, perfectly & utterly at the mercy of the state & the enemy. 

Thoughts On Nick Fuentes?

Express.

you must show first that the descriptions aren’t tangibly factual, & for what reason you disagree & that it was tangibly disagreeable..

Trump earned my descriptions with a lifetime of objectionable actions, maybe you’ve been living under a rock for the last few decades or maybe you just weren’t paying attention, either way, bringing you up to speed is not my responsibility.

They are cut from the same cloth, so yeah, maybe so.

I know that, Trump is a symptom of global trends toward divisiveness and autocracy, but he exploited and exacerbated it with a cult of personality based on lies, deception, conspiracy theories, and hatemongering.

and tolerance of diversity makes a society stronger and more resilient.

You are talking nonsense if you think the solution is to try to turn people into robots by imposing a more restrictive way of thinking, values, and beliefs, onto the diversity, that is oppression.  

Thanks for that review, Captain Obvious, but I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on how language works, been using it to communicate with for decades.

Nope, people ARE individuals, and they are individuals IN a society.

What I’m proposing is the real world, where a society is a collection of individual people living together

and a secular democracy is the best way to ensure the people control the state.

The most dangerous people in history have been closeted gays. Hitler’s a classic example. 

I wonder what Milo’s roommate thinks.