Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Nick Fuentes Thread
- Thread starter MusicForThePiano
- Start date
I was nodding my head the whole time, because he's right. Listen to :50 - you have 2 kids, then you check out. That's exactly what happens. You bubble-ize, you barely talk to other people and friends, you act like your wife and kids mean all this and that, and to be quite honest, they don't.
While having families is a good thing, it has turned more into this mimicry state where old women pop out 2 requisite kids, the parents do their best, but are uninterested in anything else. If we're honest, Nick is right.
It is supremely uncomfortable for people to hear this, but it's what I've said and is the truth, so I have to tell you (re: population boom hypothesis): nothing changes until people have fewer kids and/or a die off happens. If you think about it, however sad that is, it's the opposite of the demographic people's claims (they are always wrong as I have documented), which makes it very likely the truth. Even if we don't like it; it also makes sense. No change until people finally feel threatened. Right now, they are complacent. Still.
Post/video of the week, for sure. Key points, which need to be heard by everyone.
I mean, bravo and all, but I ain't getting involved in sh*t. Been there done that. Hard pass. F*ck all y'all (not directed at anyone here). Good for Nick, get rich and put your life on the line everyday so you can run your mouth in public. Sounds exhausting. But I wouldn't call what Nick is doing as "getting involved." Sure, maybe one day he'll run for office and win a governorship or something, but that's a young man's game. My experience with the world says that idealism and thinking that you can "make a difference" is a waste of time.
If I'm lucky I've got 30 years left and I plan to enjoy the decline. I've heard enough, and I've heard it all. Nick is a whipper snapper who in 40 years will look back at his 2025 clips and see a young man who knew nothing and got (almost) everything wrong. It's called wisdom, something Nick doesn't have (yet).
That's a different topic. The main advice the normies are given, as he says, is just to have kids. Do you disagree that this is just a marginal thing for the reasons he states? I think he is spot on. Are you arguing that Nick Fuentes doesn't have more of a chance to influence things or make for bigger or better change (if possible) than random husband and wife who pop out 2 kids and send them to public school?
He knows nothing? What is foolish about his takes?
It's possible that he'll regret things in 40 years, but it seems that your take is that he's unwise, but you don't really substantiate that claim. For a guy who's every second post is about the "jews" and how bad they are, Fuentes can't be that foolish in your view, can he?
Yep. It is hard to take it seriously. This is shock jock material.
In making the claim (paraphrased), "Having kids does nothing for us... it doesn't cause big changes, rather it reduces time for individuals' political action and won't improve society"...
Fuentes does recognise some hard truths (e.g. "men in marriage tend to be whipped"), which we fully agree on:
Continued from here:
^ This is absolutely critical for men to know...
^ This is absolutely critical for men to know...
Yet he gets them in a tangle with misrepresentations (e.g. downplaying the effort involved in raising children), seemingly to get attention by being controversial. He also appears to neglect his incongruence here (e.g. saying "if men had focused on children they wouldn't have gone to war", yet previously warning men to not get duped into fighting for Israel in its proxy wars through the U.S).
Then there are many counterpoints that are seemingly overlooked (e.g. convincing research showing that parenthood makes people lean conservative; and that, compared to men, it is womens' time for and interest in political involvement tends to be disproportionately reduced by having kids).
Similarly, having kids forces most people to mature. Parenthood often compels people to act less selfishly, to let go of childish and hedonistic things, and to contribute to an environment that supports future generations. Conversely, singlehood makes degeneracy much easier to maintain. I know this through personal experience.
Fuentes may not be interested in the nuance of these ideas, because he is an entertainer and needs clicks and reactions. Accuracy and consistency may be less important. Fuentes says extreme things like "your body, my choice" as rage bait that get him international attention.
Yes, he's 'based' in many ways and he has probably said 100 things I agree with, yet just as many I disagree with. Here is just one example from the clip: "Having kids is easy"
^ Said like a childless virgin who wants to be edgy. This is either a mental cope to justify his own decisions and/or part of his shtick to say extreme things to get engagement.
If I met Fuentes I would shake his hand for having the courage and smarts to publicly voice what many people are thinking. He has balls and I respect that.
That said, the idea of not having kids and instead committing your life to socio-political change is incongruent with conservative values such as opposing white erasure, opposing career-driven feminism, placing children first, valuing the life of unborn babies, etc.
Homo progressives with a dog would agree that political action trumps having children.
In debates about the supposed wage gap and other myths, feminists fixate on the 'motherhood penalty' whereby children get in the way of career progression, social status, daily comforts, freedom, saving the planet and more. Many conservatives recognise that this is an inversion of what should be emphasised, which is how careerism, social status, etc get in the way of family formation.
Children should be cherished and held aloft in society. Nothing beats moments like this for giving meaning to life beyond yourself:
For what are the seasoned, genuine conservatives most likely fighting for, if not a future for their communities, and in particular their family and children? Aside from the very small number of highly motivated and talented conservative men who can selflessly enact wide social change for the greater good (without a desire for children), reducing the value of having one's own family won't make sense for the vast majority of conservative-oriented people.
Conclusion
I have a very fulfilling career, yet it can't come close to the meaning I feel in the day to day moments with my children. Of course I need time away to be alone or hang with friends, as having kids can be extremely stressful and exhausting. Still, ai believe that the meaning of life isn't found in seeking comfort above all.
As always, this is NOT a dig at members without children. Some of my closest friends are single and I can't and won't tell them what to do with their lives. In fact I'm GLAD I have single friends because they actually have time and willingness to catch up regularly.
Above all, you don't need children to live a deeply meaningful life and to get right with God. If you feel a calling to act selflessly for the greater good, even without kids, than may God bless you.
Nonethless, the idea of children getting in the way of traditionalists making societal contributions is not convincing as a tenet for organising conservative social efforts.
Sources
1. Having children tends to make people lean conservative, especially men.
Source
2. For women, having children tends to make them more agreeable to Christian-aligned values such as protecting the rights of unborn babies. One stellar example of advocacy from a mom of 5:
Not a chad per se, but a...
Queen Down Under
She is doing important work not just online but also in person, and...
Queen Down Under
She is doing important work not just online but also in person, and...
3. Compared to men, womens' time for and interest in political or broader social involvement tends to be disproportionately reduced by having kids. Women become more interested in community works, rather than distant topics like foreign wars.
Source
His argument encouraging good people to not have kids is retarded because it assumes that if they don't have kids, they'll become some revolutionary political activist that will be able to wield influence and enact change. Sorry Nick, not every person who doesn't have kids will become a based right wing streamer with a large following.
Flawed logic.
Flawed logic.
Last edited:
I think the main point (not having the greater context, just that 5 min or whatever clip) is that only having two children per couple is below replacement. So unless you have kids AND are politically active, it's not going to bring about some sudden, great change anytime soon. Especially when foreign immigrants, legal and otherwise, are having massive families.
Calisto
Catholic
My point is that there it makes no sense to be ethnonationalist if your people goes extinct there in a few decades. (If you ever consider Nick to be white in first place). Even if your average white couple in X state are goyslopers liberal NPCs it's likely that you need them as genetic livestock while you purge israelis from your government or whatever.
Most people will be mediocre by human nature but you need them for your race to keep existing
Yes it does. His argument is not that he is suggesting no one should have kids, though, and if you listen you'll hear this (not what you want to hear, you should listen to what he says). It's that what he sees is that most people who have kids aren't making any impact and are far more self focused with their mini main player situation, doing little to change things, still sending kids to public schools, etc. He's arguing that AT THIS POINT it's more likely for a single person of major means or influence to change things than families of old women or average of 2 kids (and he's right).
Not really, it's that the status quo and the way marriages go these days confirm what he's saying, as I detail above.
He didn't do that.
It's clear to me that people are doing worse with this slow motion non action, indifferent, low fertility marriage and family (less common) with older women of less energy.
The population loss is actually desirable in that it'll finally wake people up. In general, we've thought this for a long time around here. It's pretty clearly the case. Now, I'm not "rooting" for it, nor do I control it. But it's clear that it either has to happen, is coming, or both.
And good can come out of that too
InspCallahan
Catholic
The problem of a young White man not having the buying power to raise a family in a Christian World with Family Support and Relative Homogeneous Communities with Values.
Kinda sucks if you go through the motions and have a family only to be consumed by the Jewish Multicultural Dump and lose those children to that Dead End World. Sadly White Man has lost his Ethnic Identity and only allies with Other Wealthy Men. Newsflash, not everyone is gonna be a Man in a Fat Revenue Stream to paper through the mess of Multiculturalism and other Degeneracy. Thus the problem many have mentioned about 1 Alpha male and the rest of men left with scraps or Nothing worth marrying.
Bottom line, we need a Healthy Middle Class Western European Society to foster the natural Male-Female Chase and those Communities where you can leave the doors unlocked.
That worship of Jewish Mammon has to be Destroyed 1st i reckon!
Kinda sucks if you go through the motions and have a family only to be consumed by the Jewish Multicultural Dump and lose those children to that Dead End World. Sadly White Man has lost his Ethnic Identity and only allies with Other Wealthy Men. Newsflash, not everyone is gonna be a Man in a Fat Revenue Stream to paper through the mess of Multiculturalism and other Degeneracy. Thus the problem many have mentioned about 1 Alpha male and the rest of men left with scraps or Nothing worth marrying.
Bottom line, we need a Healthy Middle Class Western European Society to foster the natural Male-Female Chase and those Communities where you can leave the doors unlocked.
That worship of Jewish Mammon has to be Destroyed 1st i reckon!
Has there ever been as many childless, single white men? Where is the impact?
He seems to be making an inverse "you're wasting your life" argument. White men becoming normies in marriage and getting preoccupied with keeping the matriarchal house running. Unfortunately, this is one of those "you get your ass kicked for saying something like that". You don't tell a man you disapprove of his family life. Obviously he's making a broad observation but this is going to put people off regardless.
Nick to me is coping, he has a faint idea of how things should work and is being a smart ass. In an ideal world he would be the voice of the right, all the white nationalists would be suited up Chads and all the new money elites would be red pilled and hiring white guys, while using their resources to influence politics. White women would be at home baking cookies.
I don't really care about his frustrations with his circumstances to be honest.
He needs to be careful with the disrespect he dishes out on his groypers when they say something "stupid" or "need" something explained. Yes, it's a political show but at the end of the day people watch him because they "enjoy" it. He enjoys doing commentary, and apparently it pays. That's what life is about, finding joy in things. There are low hanging fruit "vices" but you can find joy in anything; working out, reading, growing food, etc. So when you interact with people you kind of want to spread the joy around, if you have any. That's what people are looking for. We push and motivate each other to do certain things we otherwise wouldn't. Most people want to have a real relationship with the opposite sex and I think people subconsciously want to pushed in this direction by their "frens". In most friend groups one the worst things you can do is to be a repellant for women. Tearing people down in some ideological "your behavior displeases me" is not a recipe for success. There's a real psychological response of rooting for someone's failure and in my opinion Nick is starting to ask for it.
As you know, I've explained why (the population boom and too many men/too many simps/too much material support and spoiled women. There isn't impact because men largely don't care about other men, women definitely don't, and the only fix is an economic collapse and/or die off. Sorry to bring the bad news. This has happened in history many times before, though, if we are mature about it.
It's correct but largely irrelevant, and you could say the same about most of our assertions on this forum. You have really good posts. I have enlightened others from time to time. The point is that women being awful is the rate limiting step. Men are expendable.
My greatest disappointment is older people and types that should know better (Orthodox Priests) being willfully ignorant, not saying anything for fear, or perhaps worst of all, indifferent or wanting to just let time pass for it to "fix itself." A lot of times these are very sharp guys otherwise that are amazingly focused on the wrong things. For example, does a lack of father ONLY hurt men? Would men behave with purpose if women were around that were worth being with and were helpmates as the Christian world suggests they should be?
The truth is, no young women are around in the churches to even address this. Thus, it's a bias - men are actually seeking meaning. Women are mired in propaganda and free shit, or fake jobs. But they have these groups of young men that are like "jackoffs anonymous" or "porn users redemption" when the truth is, if you've got a population boom and no one is there to have sex with, what do you think is going to happen? I honestly think they hate the idea that women should have a role at all. They say they do, I'm aware, but I don't see it really acted on or young women being formed into anything but just weak little men with no accountability.
Neither do I.
I think a lot of good and bad things in the world were born out of masculinity, including the social structures we yearn for, and the desire of men to control their own destiny. I think your utility as a man is the single most important variable in your life. I think a man can be satisfied in a multitude of roles, whatever the environment demands. You can be satisfied working the land, satisfied with competition, the hustle in the town square, marching with sword against a foe, etc. Essentially men are a multitool, with a mind, an ego and feelings. This is why I personally advocate for the empowerment of men. Give back men leniency and autonomy. If you kill somebody and it's a lawful killing, we just let you go. That's how everything should work. Big responsibility - big consequences - happy people.
The modern world has completely stripped this autonomy and utility from men. Men try to distract themselves with sugar and toys, but eventually there's two directions that men gravitate towards nowadays since we feel useless. Some men want to settle for married life, a tried and tested lifestyle that will keep you busy and somewhat satisfied. Then there's the outliers, the men that feel a great evil in the land and they realize it's time for war, time to kill. So far we've not been able to break that psychological wall, the normies refuse to acknowledge what time it is. As soon the normies concede, the killing will commence. It's just we have nothing to do until then but to sit on our hands. The fact that these boomers don't understand what's happening is disheartening but I guess their task is tying up lose ends, going on that dream cruise or whatever. They're not ignorant, just busy in their work. Too busy for us.
This is the only part I disagree with. They are largely ignorant. Most are not very aware at all of how they also were more interested in maintaining wealth and their material comforts than caring about other things, even if they dedicate some time to doing other things.
On a somewhat unrelated topic, but one that is connected, I see the family people who had messed up kids, or annoying ones (those that think the kids should never cause problems or bother them again) think that because they had some issues it means that any issue or struggle for others is irrelevant. It's part of that narrative that "all people had to go through it, 'pay your dues', etc" nonsense. As if the times didn't drastially change and the ROI is still the same, jobs are still available, etc. Guys like Dave Ramsey are the prototype for this non thinking and seeming inability to re-evaluate things as they change each decade. I've said elsewhere that it's these same types that don't realize that 40 years later, the "Democrat Party" is a sick, demonic institution that is anti christian but a number of people who call themselves christians justify their support or voting for the sickos. Of course, this is also based on direct/political/monetary benefits or feel good "I'm a good person" nonsense.
I'm guessing here a bit but I'm pretty socially attuned. A lot of them presume many things, like if you enjoy hanging out with your parents, you're some leech since you aren't leaving them alone to just do whatever they want in retirement or old age. The weird thing is that people talk all the time about how little you see your kids or parents as we age, but then when you do it they make it a scenario as though you're still trying to be some kid that wants to extract as much out of the parents as possible. I think it's that whole last generation of "Once you're 18 or older, get out and don't bother me" type thing. But it's really contradictory, and most people don't have a context to make the claims they do. They have no idea, for example, about what children do in supporting their parents monetarily. They presume a lot. Most people aren't smart enough to really consider that they don't know all that much, sadly.
I'm definitely an outlier who feels that there is a great evil in the land but I will not be killing anyone as I don't have the desire, the fortitude, nor the skillset to engage in such brutality. I mean, I'm angry for sure, but not angry enough to start baking jews in ovens. I'm also a bit too old to feel such passion and emotion towards political endeavors. And I just don't see large swaths of fighting age "men" out there with the balls to kill, what I do see is a bunch of limp wristed soy boys (Fuentes being one of them). So my answer to all this evil is to just move out away from it all into the woods and forget about it. Now, if someone approaches my compound with hostile intentions I will break out my arsenal of weaponry and mow them down. But seeing as how I've only got about 30 years to live I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
In this case, I would tend to agree. A man with no kids has much more time to commit his life to another cause.
I would say on balance that there will only ever be a very small number of highly motivated and talented conservative men who can selflessly enact wider social change for the greater good -- all without a desire for children.
I could only wish there were more of them.
From my own observations, and what I see in the data, having less viable and desirable options in the dating-marriage market leads more men to "check out" of engagement with their community and remain absorbed in distractions or proxy need fulfilment, such as porn, video games, and other online avenues. This reduces their motivation to use their abilities elsewhere.
For example:
Young Men and Society, Part 2: Social Isolation, Gaming, and Porn
We made clear in Man Interrupted that excessive video game and porn use should be more researched and openly discussed. Hard-core pornography is one-click away, video games are designed to be addictive, and boys and young men themselves are increasingly asking for help because they don’t know...
ifstudies.org
The issues of video games, porn etc are very complex; however the broader point is that, due to the reign of tech-based proxy need fulfilment, the notion that not having kids would free up men's time for noble pursuits is not particularly convincing any more.
If remaining single could lead men to fully dive into a greater mission, including the adoption of conservative political ambitions, that would be a great outcome.
Maybe decades ago this was more likely.
So far I'm not seeing much evidence for this in recent years. Due to modern phones and 24/7 internet access, it's just too easy and convenient for young guys nowadays to detach and "check out". And without a future worth fighting for and a broader purpose beyond themselves, I wouldn't blame them.
Whether it involves marriage and children, or not, young men need and deserve a mission in life that compels them forward to achieve something admirable -- a mission that makes taking risks and making sacrifices worthwhile.
I yield to that. I think the mind has many defence mechanisms, the mind over relies on past experiences and I think as men we kind fall into certain molds over time and we just don’t know how it happened. The defence mechanisms shape you to deal with the walls in your life. For example I noticed that with depression narcissism starts to flair. I assume with enough fear, murderous intent will start to take root.
Point being every man is a unique mold or tool. That’s why we need hierarchy and ways to organize ourselves, but with certain amount of freedom or the iron heel of authority will choke out ambition, turning us into rats scavenging for food. The boomers seem over reliant on the system working and the news media does this dread edging on them, constantly convincing these boomers there’s some kind of unorganized breakdown of polite society and the state requires their support more than ever. At the end of the day we all want to remove the cancer and once the tar and feathering starts the deep resentment from the transgressions against us will awake in many men.