Nicholas J Fuentes Phenomenon

[Iwannaplato]

Do you seriously think I support the US sticking its big, fat snout in as usual?

No idea until now.

The tedious, 'N was funding Hamas' bullshit. It's called aid. Countries do it all the time. Gaza got billions in aid from all over the place. No one knew that it was using it to build tunnels instead of infrastructure and to line the pockets of Hamas leaders.

He was told a number of times what was happening to the money. And by people on his own staff.

If Israel was so desperate to acquire Gaza then why the f*** did it leave it to govern itself in 2005?

That was Sharon. Well, there were a number of reasons that was good strategy.

1) They only 'left'. They maintained control over electricity going on, water going in, food going in and controlled Palestinian movement.
2) Israeli leaders feared that a permanent occupation of Gaza’s growing Palestinian population (then roughly 1.3 million) would eventually force Israel to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic one. By 'leaving' Israel removed nearly two million Palestinians from its demographic considerations, helping to maintain a Jewish majority within its borders. They had destroyed the airport and did not allow it to be rebuilt. They restricted fishing to a much smaller area. They also created a buffer zone the Palestinians, not coincidentally, used for agriculture, 40 % of their arable land. They didn't need to occupy to have nearly complete control.
3) They didn't have to spend the extremely large amount of money needed to protect Jewish Settlers there.
4) It removed international pressure. Extremely high control with much less burden.
5) Sharon's senior aide, Dov Weisglass, said that the withdrawal was intended to supply "the amount of formaldehyde necessary" to freeze the peace process. By leaving Gaza, Israel hoped to reduce international pressure for a Palestinian state and justify a stronger, more permanent grip on larger, more strategically valued settlement blocs in the West Bank. -- in other words, it was a strategic move, not a long term giving up of turf.

And claiming that BN 'knew' the attacks were going to happen is conspiracytard bs 101

We know he was warned. We know that soldiers reported what they considered strange orders to stand down routine security measures they do regularly. There have been a number of whistleblowers who reported systemic reductions in security just that day.

Why are people so eager to believe insane garbage that makes no logical sense whatsoever instead of Occam's razor?

Actually Occam's Razor means we don't need to have so many explanations. All the disparate strange reductions can be more parsimoniously explained by a conspiracy. Countries do these things.

So-called 'palestinians' have been slaughtering Israelis for as long as Israel has existed.

Far more Palestinians have been killed in the time since Israel formed.

Imagine how the US would react if Cuba sneaked into the US and slaughtered and tortured to death American children, women and men.

The US doesn't need a single US citizen death to kill thousands of men women and children in other countries. Perhaps we are about to see that happen again. I don't know what moral justification the US's hypothetical reaction to a Cuban incursion lends to Israel's actions. Hamas is fucked up. But they don't come close in the killing of women and children to Israel.

[accelafine]

Oh look. An American who has personal inside knowledge of every thought in the head of Israel's leaders and everything they were or were not aware of. You should contact your alien reptile masters and let them know ASAP!
Btw, children killed at the hands of their own people is nothing to do with Israel. You might as well say the Holocaust was nothing because other people were killed in greater numbers. Perhaps you do. You can do anything with numbers. Humans war with each other. I doubt if that's ever going to change. Not all humans commit acts so sick, sadistic and depraved that they sicken people hundreds or even thousands of years later. Vlad the impaler had his own people-- children, women, and men-- impaled on spikes so that his enemies would know how ruthless he was and not dare to attack.
If Gaza chooses to hide its killers and weapons in schools and hospitals, and refuses to allow civilians to leave after being warned by Israel prior to attacks, then that's blood on the hands of Hamas-- NOT Israel.
I don't recall Israel ever blowing up school buses full of children or throwing children off the roofs of school buildings, or beheading babies (the lucky ones), or kidnapping and torturing athletes, or ripping out the internal organs of young men and gleefully holding them up to cameras.......''Palestinians'' have been doing these kind of atrocities over and over again to Israelis, while Israel is expected to just sit on its hands and take it.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh look. An American who has personal inside knowledge of every thought in the head of Israel's leaders and everything they were or were not aware of. You should contact your alien reptile masters and let them know ASAP!

Good argument!

Btw, children killed at the hands of their own people is nothing to do with Israel. You might as well say the Holocaust was nothing because other people were killed in greater numbers. Perhaps you do.

Really good argument! It's clever to invent positions and attack them. Saves responding on topic.

You can do anything with numbers. Humans war with each other. I doubt if that's ever going to change. Not all humans commit acts so sick, sadistic and depraved that they sicken people hundreds or even thousands of years later. Vlad the impaler had his own people-- children, women, and men-- impaled on spikes so that his enemies would know how ruthless he was and not dare to attack.

One can do anything with numbers? Great. That'll put an end to a lot of thinking. Should I say you'll probably say there was no Holocaust cause you have this general opinion? Perhaps you are a Holocaust denier. One can do anything with numbers.

If Gaza chooses to hide its killers and weapons in schools and hospitals, and refuses to allow civilians to leave after being warned by Israel prior to attacks, then that's blood on the hands of Hamas-- NOT Israel.

yeah, that's how most of the children have died.

I don't recall Israel ever blowing up school buses full of children or throwing children off the roofs of school buildings, or beheading babies (the lucky ones), or kidnapping and torturing athletes, or ripping out the internal organs of young men and gleefully holding them up to cameras.......''Palestinians'' have been doing these kind of atrocities over and over again to Israelis, while Israel is expected to just sit on its hands and take it.

Cool, make up more opinions for me. If once questions what is happening, then it means nothing should have been done.

It's good we have your example in a philosophy forum of what philosophy is: binary thinking, insults, mindreading, making up positions for the other person, no effort support your position, avoiding responses to direct points made and criticizing the use of numbers at all - while implying knowledge of numbers at the same time.

If only everyone thought and communicated like you do, the world would be a better....well, actually it would probably look at lot like it does. Keep up the good work. I'll leave you to it. And about 2005, you asked. Not one point made in response to what I said. Nothing. Pathetic. Do a little research. See if I needed any 'knowing the mind of the leaders to know', much of that is public record, including the quote. Oh, jeez, sorry. That was like I was talking to a discussion partner. Yes, yes. I'll leave you in peace.

[accelafine]

Lots of childish ad homs.

Done and dusted...

[Iwannaplato]

Lots of childish ad homs.

Done and dusted...

Not ad homs.
That's sweet as, then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This being a philosophy forum, you will get challenged to define your terms. I have heard this phrase "Cultural Marxism" a lot lately, being thrown around in a rather vague way. Do you simply mean "every dude I disagree with" or do you actually have a definition of it that in some way links back to the actual writings of Karl Marx?

The premise of the term ‘cultural Marxism’ is that when overt Marxian praxis (revolutionary activity in traditional Marxist ways) was shown not to be either timely or simply not to work, that other means of undermining institutions became necessary. But the objective is still revolutionary, though perhaps far less militantly so.

I think that you will get a strong sense from this speech by Jonathan Bowden that gives a very good sense of what cultural Marxism means to him and those who think like him.

In the simplest explanation these Frankfurt School Marxist devised new tactics when they came to America and began their teaching work.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nick Fuentes is foul, and Morgan is an imbecile.

Actually Fuentes is a group of things, some directly contradicting to others, and they are all quite alive in a very talented communicator. It is a significant task to sort all this out ‘fairly’ and ‘judiciously’. For this reason Alexis Jacobi has incarnated in this your world!

1) His Catholicism is superficial. So, right there he is conflicted to the religious ideology he says he is committed to. But, what level of sincerity he does have keeps him from inculcating “hatred” (of others). There are groups in Europe (France and Belgium as I am aware) who seek to define a more socially militant Catholicism and Fuentes is a bit similar to them.

2) Fuentes in an echo of a much earlier America First movement. It is nativist, mostly masculine, and blends sone aspects of Catholic social doctrine into a populism that attracts (mostly) young men who believe they have been fucked over by a previous generation. Their definitions therefore are all tending to the radical Right, but weirdly their ideas are not unlike sone genuine Leftist from a previous phase in American politics. As when the Left opposed unrestricted immigration because it negatively affected wage earners, and hurt the family.

3) I believe that the origin of Fuentes Jewish issue is for the most part an expression of his understanding of the level of influence Zionist Israelis have on American policy. He is not a structured, committed antisemite however. But he definitely inspires his followers to (let’s say) experiment with it. But here is the thing: most do not have any background in understanding the Jewish diaspora and so are ignorant about Jews. Yet there is a strange fascination alongside the contempt.

There is, naturally, much more to say about Fuentes …

Another figure in this new world of Dissident Right politics is Adam Green. His antisemitism is underneath it all a type of anti-Christianity. However, he has cordial relations with some Rabbis who agree to talk with him, and a good deal of respect for, for example, Brother Nathaniel: a very dedicated Jewish convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Here is a talk (or debate?) they had.

All this new material, including a new Jewish anti-Zionism, can only be looked at with fresh, unprejudiced eyes.

Obviously, I am intensely advanced in this and — like Moses — have made myself your servant to get through the dry crags and profound valleys of dire confusion that will lead! if youll only listen! to a Promised Land if high-level understanding.

PS: You must also realize that only now (with all the publicity!) has Fuentes begun to make real money. Like in the millions. So you have to also understand that world (of podcaster) as a bona gide and lucrative business.

[FlashDangerpants]

3) I believe that the origin of Fuentes Jewish issue is for the most part an expression of his understanding of the level of influence Zionist Israelis have on American policy. He is not a structured, committed antisemite however...

Meanwhile...

Mom, dad Hitler was right. Hitler is awesome and the Holocaust didn't happen

Continuing meanwhile....

“All I want is revenge against my enemies and a total Aryan victory,”

Additional meanwhile....

Perfidious jews!!!

It talks like a nazi...

If I take one hour to cook a batch of cookies, and Cookie Monster has 15 ovens, working 24 hours a day every day for five years... how long does it take Cookie Monster to bake 5 million batches of cookies...

... none of it really adds up ... so six million cookies? Uh-uh I don't buy it.

....and so it goes on ...

I don't want to live around black people. I just don't. It would be irresponsible if I had a wife and kids to live near black people

.... it goosesteps like a nazi ...

"It was better for them (African Americans) too — They had to drink out of a different water fountain, big f*cking deal. Oh no, they had to go to different schools. Who cares grow up”

[FlashDangerpants]

I think that you will get a strong sense from this speech by Jonathan Bowden that gives a very good sense of what cultural Marxism means to him and those who think like him.

Jonathan Bowden was a senior member of the Neo-Nazi British National Party. People who think like him are.... well .... you know... that thing that Rick thinks it's impolite to point out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Those quotes of Fuentes are definitely his. And how one assesses them a big part of how one will “frame” him. You could have included any number of other quotes that contradict that “trolling”. But there is no doubt: Fuentes deliberately says outrageous things.

As to Bowden, I find him super sharp and highly insightful and his views seem very useful, spot-on in some areas. I do not know very much about the BNP but I can say that Bowden at least did say that he felt England should have “made peace” with Germany, avoided the war that cost its empire and its wealth. I do not know if that is quite the same as being a German-type National Socialist but there you have it.

Bowden was a very conflicted man with lots of weird foibles and personal issues. That’s a fact. But he had a good deal of brilliance. He described himself as a “mediumistic speaker”. His talks were sort if like channeling and spontaneous exposition. I have learned a lot from him.

[FlashDangerpants]

Jonathan Bowden was a senior member of the Neo-Nazi British National Party. People who think like him are.... well .... you know... that thing that Rick thinks it's impolite to point out.

I have learned a lot from him.

The two statements above are entirely compatible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That technique, your technique, doesn’t affect me nor influence me, Flash. The currents that operated in Nick Griffith’s politics — counter-Islam, pro-Nationalist, and pro-White, are just as current and relevant as they were then.

Personally, as far as my own concepts go, I am not pro-Islam for the nations of Europe for sound and non-Nazi reasons. And I definitely believe that strengthening national identity with recognition of ethnic elements is in itself not bad or evil. And I definitely understand why the issue of “White identity” is in itself not bad or evil.

All of this I can explain calmly, fairly and reasonably. No need to resort to extreme ideological positions.

I think that what we are all witnessing, and this is certainly true in your country, is the beginning of breakdown of that former, established order. And certainly people will tend to lay hold of formerly established stances as they seek an articulated and reasonable position. For example I (“”) support in certain senses the French RN party — insofar as I understand what their larger objectives are. And the elder Le Pen was a “sympathizer”. It does not effect (for me) the sensibility of their program and efforts in the present.

My view is that everything can be put out on the table snd examined, and sorted through carefully and thoughtfully.

Your techniques though I find wrong-headed and underhanded in the sense that you think you hold to a position of moral superiority. And I do not think that we can be so certain now. But the crucial thing is the freedom to discuss it. Your strategy, Flash, achieves the precise opposite of what one gathers you want.

Do not take my word: observe what is taking shape in your own region.

that thing that Rick thinks it's impolite to point out.

That is an example of “underhanded tactic”.

[FlashDangerpants]

Personally, as far as my own concepts go, I am not pro-Islam for the nations of Europe for sound and non-Nazi reasons. And I definitely believe that strengthening national identity with recognition of ethnic elements is in itself not bad or evil. And I definitely understand why the issue of “White identity” is in itself not bad or evil.

All of this I can explain calmly, fairly and reasonably. No need to resort to extreme ideological positions.

No you can't. You would never get to the point. You are much too weak.

[phyllo]

Your techniques though I find wrong-headed and underhanded in the sense that you think you hold to a position of moral superiority. And I do not think that we can be so certain now. But the crucial thing is the freedom to discuss it. Your strategy, Flash, achieves the precise opposite of what one gathers you want.

He manages to get you to shut up.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No you can't. You would never get to the point. You are much too weak.

This is the thing, Flash, and we have been over this too many times to count: whatever point I do have is one that in your view is utterly reprehensible to have, and therefore you associate it with Nazism. It is a mechanism that you established or has been established in your mind. It could be described as Pavlovian.

Let’s continue a bit more, I will try to help you out. Presently, in England and France (just for two examples and one very close to you) there are cultural and ideological struggles and conflicts over the important issues I mentioned above: 1) The rising power of a new demographic and their religion, 2) the issue of cultural and racial identity in a nation: what is right and good in having such identity, and what is wrong and bad about it. 3) A range of questions about the politics of Liberalism and how the present arrangements came to be. I.e. came to be established and supported by popular ideology. These questions seem always to turn within an established pole: either that of the Left or that of the Right. And at the extremes either the Radical Left or the Radical Right.

What I found when I sat down and read the theorists of the Right and the Extreme Right is that their ideas, even if I might not align with them, were part of coherent structures. (This is certainly so of the views of, say, Noam Chomsky and other Lefty theorists of whom I have read a great deal.) And here I am obligated to point out that in the widest sense the thinking of National Socialists, of Hitler and other theorists, as well as Fascist theorists, neo-Fascist, Extreme Right, Conservative Right, Dissident Right, can be thought of as originating out of one pole (of thought but also of “interpretation of reality”).

Generally, those of the Right-tending side, and the more extreme side, tend to be those of very sharply defined metaphysics. Fir example militant Catholicism of one like Fr. Fahey (famous for his “Christ is King” book titles. His metaphysics resolve to “The world must conform to our Lord, not He to it." Frankly (in my view) it is ideas of this sort — radical and demanding definitions — that we can label as fascistic or semi-fascistic. You can trace similar lines of thinking in René Guénon and Julius Evola, but also in the (earlier) Interwar thought of Aldous Huxley. For example Proper Studies.