Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
Nick Fuentes Thread
- Thread starter MusicForThePiano
- Start date
That was a good discussion. Nick said Trump changed the dialectic and made the standard America first, even if he often failed to live up to it.
Like other podcasters, Nick Fuentes comes across better these interviews than he does in some of the random clips of his show that I've seen. I think parts of his show and tweets are for attention and red meat for his audience.
As usual, you are channeling your inner boomer.
On his show in the past month, multiple times, he has said that as Americans become less and less white, you are not going to see people who look like George Washington and Burgum anymore. It was a bit.
Because you are only interested in drive-bys on Nick et al, you take the very open phrase "If only you knew..." and give it the most bad faith interpretation as if Nick was saying he wants political action a la Burgum.
Just stick to the bodybuilding and Trump threads, man. You don't have anything of value to offer in the Fuentes and Anglin threads.
Why do I have to accept that?
Nick's making a point about race when the person he's touring we should support simply because he's white and looks like George Washington was sympathetic to BLM and is a bill gates butt boy?
I think I'm well enough able to interpret a meme and read between the lines big dog.
Nick Fuentes is incredibly negative. Trump survived an assassination attempt from the most dangerously evil people in the world. How can you not feel excited and energized right now?
"BuT hE dOsNt TaLk AbOuT tHE JOOOWS"
Fuentes is overly critical and always sees the glass as half empty. This is why I don't consume his content - it's very bad for your mental state.
No no no, that's just your inner boomer coming out. You must accept Fuentes as a beacon of truth and understanding and intellectual congruity!
Never mind his support of Kanye who's erstwhile totally trapped and toying with supporting pornography.
It's JD Vance's Indian wife that's the problem.
Just think want could have been with a guy like Burgam!!!
Wait wait wait. So let me get this straight. Nick must be perfect, but Trump is allowed all the degenerate free passes?
No... I Trump never claimed to be the end all be all if perfection.
Do try to catch up...
Nick is claiming to be a trump champion yet he supported and was a member of the campaign of an obvious Trainwreck that co-opted him and any valid criticism Kanye might have brought against his Jewish handlers by his extreme crackhead antics in a weirdo mask on Infowars.
I don't trust his judgement. I find his commentary at time amusing, and he has an audience that is generally aligned with my values, but I'm not drinking the groyperaide.
He's taking a photo of Burgam, whos only real point is to be supported here because he is white when I. Fact Burgam would disavow Fuentes faster than you can say Sheckles.
Again, in this space I think Scott Greer does a much better job poking fun at the entire conversation and has been consistent since day one.
I'll be super good faith and just say you totally don't get Fuentes and Anglin's sense of humor. Which is fine, I'm not saying that everyone has to get it or appreciate it. But I am saying you have a big gaping failing by thinking that your misunderstanding of them leads you to an accurate assessment of their effect.
I'll try one more time to explain the Burgum thing.
Nick never said he supports Burgum. Never said he supports his policies. Never said Burgum was a beacon of America First, or that Burgum was on his side.
His point (during the RNC, when Burgum spoke) was that he wants to live in country where there are people who LOOK LIKE BURGUM (obviously you can extrapolate from there), and with our current demographic, immigration, and birthrate trends, that will not be so in just a few generations.
^ the above is something that even Choppa can agree with, it's fair to say, given your posts on this forum and the last... notice that the observation above is value-neutral as stated
So the joke / bit / quip (can you follow this?) is to show a bushy eyebrowed dude who looks like an extra from a Sleepy Hollow movie, next to his blonde white wife, and say "If only you knew how different things could be…". In other words, I want to live in a world where, when I leave the house, people look like these two, and not like pajeet street shitters, African pirates, or blue-haired gender-fluid demons.
You can say the humor is not your style. But what you can't say -- because it is absolutely not being claimed -- is that Nick is making any other statements.
Yet you continue to try.
You are just triggered so hard by these guys. I don't know why. And I'm not entitled to know why, but man, it is as clear as day that you have zero objectivity when it comes to them.
I'll try one more time to explain the Burgum thing.
Nick never said he supports Burgum. Never said he supports his policies. Never said Burgum was a beacon of America First, or that Burgum was on his side.
His point (during the RNC, when Burgum spoke) was that he wants to live in country where there are people who LOOK LIKE BURGUM (obviously you can extrapolate from there), and with our current demographic, immigration, and birthrate trends, that will not be so in just a few generations.
^ the above is something that even Choppa can agree with, it's fair to say, given your posts on this forum and the last... notice that the observation above is value-neutral as stated
So the joke / bit / quip (can you follow this?) is to show a bushy eyebrowed dude who looks like an extra from a Sleepy Hollow movie, next to his blonde white wife, and say "If only you knew how different things could be…". In other words, I want to live in a world where, when I leave the house, people look like these two, and not like pajeet street shitters, African pirates, or blue-haired gender-fluid demons.
You can say the humor is not your style. But what you can't say -- because it is absolutely not being claimed -- is that Nick is making any other statements.
Yet you continue to try.
You are just triggered so hard by these guys. I don't know why. And I'm not entitled to know why, but man, it is as clear as day that you have zero objectivity when it comes to them.
Christianity will never be the type Andrew Tate wants, at least not in the US. His language is pretty foul and honestly when I catch myself talking like that I inherently feel evil taking over me. Nick can be foul as well and this is usually when I'm tempted to turn it off. I understand righteous anger but it can be better controlled. Additionally, I feel that people have become hopeless on protesting and it is often seen as a more liberal response to things they don't like (since they love big daddy government).
That's a stupid pont. Trump literally surrounded himself with Zionists from the Claremont-crowd. Sure, he promises protected borders, but he also all but promised war with Iran and complete and utter subjugation to Israeli geopolitical interests. Sorry, that you don't want to hear about that, but it's an important argument to make.
From the policies announced, the Zionist ones are the only once guaranteed. We know that from the past 100 years. Zionist policies tend to be enacted, even if they are not promised. Now he's got a VP who kissed the wall and LARPs as a Christian while married to a pagan non toilet paper user. The RNC was the worst RNC in history, in terms of symbolism. The content presented was vaguely good because they talked about economic nationalism and so on, but again, none of it was described in detail, as opposed to Zionist geopolitics. Trump tweeted that he hopes Iran gets wiped off the face of the earth. Bibi, who backstabbed him, will reliable get his crack cleaned out orally by the powerful nobody-tells-me-nothing titan for Israeli Americanism.
Trump said he even considered Nikki Haley as a running mate. He's 100% neocon at this point. I don't even believe he'll give up Donbass (the only thing that would end the war in Ukraine at this point).
Maybe he'll secure the borders a little bit and replace the reduction in immigration with Indian HB visas. He made it clear that he loves that, and then rich Republicans will most likely find wives cheaper to get divorces from than White women.
Tate will go to prison for more than 5 years, because he got caught locking women into his house in order to get them to become cam whores for him. He's garbage and liking him is kind of a Con Inc thing at this point.
I understand there may be a lot of truth in what you said, but unlike Fuentes, or yourself, I choose to appreciate the positives. I don't want to spend my time and energy feeling down about something beyond my control.
That's more the point I was trying to convey.
Sure, I understand that, but that doesn't invalidate criticism. A Christian doesn't have to believe in a personality-oriented political project. There will probably be dynamics where actual Christians could get their vote in and make a positive impact. But regarding Trump, it looks as of he has all but abandoned the original project of re-empowering the White American populace.
You don't have to feel down about it, but there's also no reason to feel particularly thrilled about it. Trump appears very unlikely to genuinely help White Christians. Sure, if you held a gun to my head if I was American, I'd support him over Harris easily, because at least he won't touch states' rights to restrict abortion or protect the border, but given his track record and those of the people surrounding him, I think it's unlikely he will do many very useful things. And then there's the very real danger of him starting a war with Iran.
In case you haven't yet pondered that, this would essentially mean an all-out war with the religious Islamic world, solely with the intention of cementing Israel's (geo)political ambitions. I live in an area with many Muslims, as does my family. We already have frequent attacks as it is, I don't want it to blow up even more. There's a distinct chance they will let even more Muslims into Europe even after starting that war. That's obviously just a side note to the many lives of Christians lost in the Levante because of it, obviously, but that's how it affects me.
The people responsible for all of this will receive 100% protection by Trump. My people, my family, my nation won't. At least Kamala is a clear villain. Trump is a chameleon.
Trump is pro-gay, pro-mass immigration, and pro everything Talmudic, and credibly so. He fundamentally doesn't appear to subscribe to any values Christians would care about, outside of VERY vague lip services.
White Americans have good reasons to vote for him, because the Democrats already have their minds set on destroying everything White. But mid- to long term, I think Trump might genuinely be just as bad, if not worse. At least if the Democrats rule, America will decline so steeply that it won't have as much power to wield to further undermine Europeans. I'm not sure at all that Republicans wouldn't have bombed Nordstream II. Even Trump himself.
If Trump had continued to run on his anti-war, economic nationalism platform, I'd be on the Trump train right now, but now I hardly even see a trace of it.
Last edited:
Your suggestion that Trump is pro war escalation is not based in actual observed activity. He constantly de-escalated or kept status quo at worst.
He's the only candidate pushing to end the Ukraine war.
As far as the economics, I don't know where you're getting he isn't running on a pro-nationalist view.
His only arguments for ending the Ukraine war was that he would have somehow deterred Putin from doing anything.
I assume that he might give up Donbass in exchange for Russia to back off from anything Iran or Israel. Looking at his running mate and whom he publicly considered (Nimrata Randhawa), I think it might be next to impossible to do it any other way. His last term almost failed because of the people he hired, but it doesn't really look as if he learned from that. One of the reasons the Ukraine conflict was pushed to an escalation was because there were tribal people in the US government who had an ancestral hatred of Russians, but also that Russia didn't commit to Zionism geopolitically. They never broke ties with any anti-Zionist country. Trump attacked anti-Zionist countries repeatedly and fairly consistently. Think of his order to kill Soleimani.
Also:
Regarding economic policy, the current economic Neocon project is to switch from off-shoring to near- or friend-shoring. Meaning industrial investments would be changed from places like China to places like Mexico, and then maybe some crumbs for Latin America or Europe.
In his first run, he presented solid, Wharton School type nationalist arguments for economic policy, but at least at the RNC, it wasn't outlined in any way close to that.
That doesn't necessarily imply that he won't go for it, but why not double down on his strongest points from 2016? My guess is that he didn't want to talk about it because the people he's beholden to, like Miriam Adelson, don't like it, and that's it.
He now has the unique power to attack establishment Republicans in whatever way he sees fit, but there is none of it. He called plagiarist gaylord JD Vance to be his running mate, again going for a never-Trumper who's mobbed up the the extremely Zionist Straussian Paypal Mafia (JD Vance is mobbed up with Thiel and Moldbug, two Claremont giants).
Why would he let go of points that made him strong, when he would now be a lot surer that he'd have the backing of his base? Kamala and her people are extremely unpopular. If he chose to emphasize tariffs and non-intervention, he'd be the bipartisan voter base candidate.
The Gaza thing is a dealbreaker for traditional left wingers who aren't completely retarded, like Jimmy Dore, so he could at least mildly criticize Bibi's reckless policies, particularly given that he got stabbed in the back by that guy in 2020, and Bibi's power, and even his time outside of a prison cell, seems very uncertain. It certainly would fit his psychological profile. Instead, he's holding back and gathering all the shabbes goy Likudniks around him. That appears to be a very bad omen from my point of view.
That being said, I obviously hope that I'm wrong. If Trump had it in him to rebuke Likud and get the West back on speaking terms with Russia, that would be awesome. But my intuition says it will be the exact opposite.
EDIT: I also wanted toi remark that he could do the same thing for Israel he wants to do for Ukraine. "There is weak leadership, I'm going to broker a deal that will be better for everyone", without explicitly going against Israel. He could lean against escalation in the Middle East with basically zero negative electoral consequences. Die-hard evangelical boomers wouldn't break with Trump for Kamala just because he's against Bibi. Half of Israeli media is against Bibi.
I cannot believe he would have gotten this risk-averse unless he's more or less entirely beholden to counsellors who tell him this is the best path to take, and those people will be making policies in a Trump government.
I personally don't think that you have to be explicitly against the state of Israel in order to effectively call them to restraint as an American leader. Israel has a high potential for dynamic political change right now and whereas, sure, their attitude won't fundamentally change, the policies could change for the better A LOT. It's just a state bound to the geopolitical chessboard.
Last edited:
Even if Trump is wrong in thinking that Iran tried to kill him, it doesn't change the fact that the deep state tried to kill Trump because he will end the gravy train of wars.
None of the "Trump is secretly controlled oppo" arguments make sense if they are trying to shoot him in the head. No one needs to shoot controlled opposition in the head.
Trump is everything the big chews hate, so, in order to placate them, Trump uses rhetoric to make it seem like he's friendly to them. But they aren't fooled, since Trump didn't give them war with Iran or Syria in his term, which is why they rigged an election against Trump, throw him in jail with bogus charges, and then shoot him in the head.
Trump ended the war in Syria. If it wasn't for Trump, the Antiochian Church in Syria would have been wiped out by ISIS. You don't know what's going on Rasko. ISIS actually kidnapped the Patriarch of Antioch's brother back in 2014, who himself was the Bishop of Aleppo, and he hasn't been seen since. The Patriarch of Antioch continues to issue public calls demanding an inquiry in locating the body of his brother, 10 years on.
Think how much worse it would have been had Trump not won in 2016. Clinton would have given ISIS enough money to destroy all of Syria and half of the Middle East.
All the garbage you've read on Trump is false, he's the most anti-war candidate in over 100 years. The idea that suddenly he's going to do an about face, when they are trying to blow his head off, makes absolutely no sense.
Trump will do his best to end the war in Ukraine without getting impeached, he will seek some kind of compromise with Putin so he can save some face. If Putin is smart he'll give it to Trump because it's a good deal for Russia, and I expect Putin to be reasonable and take the deal. It will allow Russia to take a breather from the war until Democrats most likely get back in in 2028.
As for Bibi and Israel, Trump will almost certainly get rid of Bibi, but he isn't going to say that out loud right now because there's no advantage in doing so. But, the situation in the Middle East is a nightmare, and Trump may not be able to avoid a war there. Any other President than Trump is war guaranteed, but with Trump there is a chance for peace which Trump did in his first term. Still, Trump has been publicly criticizing Bibi after Oct 7th, and with Bibi out of the picture peace becomes more much obtainable in the Middle East.
Trump's reasons for removing Bibi might be the wrong reasons, but in politics results are what matter so if Trump gets into office Bibi will be pushed out.
None of the "Trump is secretly controlled oppo" arguments make sense if they are trying to shoot him in the head. No one needs to shoot controlled opposition in the head.
Trump is everything the big chews hate, so, in order to placate them, Trump uses rhetoric to make it seem like he's friendly to them. But they aren't fooled, since Trump didn't give them war with Iran or Syria in his term, which is why they rigged an election against Trump, throw him in jail with bogus charges, and then shoot him in the head.
Trump ended the war in Syria. If it wasn't for Trump, the Antiochian Church in Syria would have been wiped out by ISIS. You don't know what's going on Rasko. ISIS actually kidnapped the Patriarch of Antioch's brother back in 2014, who himself was the Bishop of Aleppo, and he hasn't been seen since. The Patriarch of Antioch continues to issue public calls demanding an inquiry in locating the body of his brother, 10 years on.
Think how much worse it would have been had Trump not won in 2016. Clinton would have given ISIS enough money to destroy all of Syria and half of the Middle East.
All the garbage you've read on Trump is false, he's the most anti-war candidate in over 100 years. The idea that suddenly he's going to do an about face, when they are trying to blow his head off, makes absolutely no sense.
Trump will do his best to end the war in Ukraine without getting impeached, he will seek some kind of compromise with Putin so he can save some face. If Putin is smart he'll give it to Trump because it's a good deal for Russia, and I expect Putin to be reasonable and take the deal. It will allow Russia to take a breather from the war until Democrats most likely get back in in 2028.
As for Bibi and Israel, Trump will almost certainly get rid of Bibi, but he isn't going to say that out loud right now because there's no advantage in doing so. But, the situation in the Middle East is a nightmare, and Trump may not be able to avoid a war there. Any other President than Trump is war guaranteed, but with Trump there is a chance for peace which Trump did in his first term. Still, Trump has been publicly criticizing Bibi after Oct 7th, and with Bibi out of the picture peace becomes more much obtainable in the Middle East.
Trump's reasons for removing Bibi might be the wrong reasons, but in politics results are what matter so if Trump gets into office Bibi will be pushed out.
Last edited:
Long post...I appreciate your indepth comments but thinking it's reading a narrative into frustration:
On war... Nothing you've posted refutes that his M.O. isn't to avoid war. It's a description of activities but not a description of the strategy to escalate war. Again he chose not to when given multiple opportunities. He chose strategic strikes over direct engagement.
RE local nationalist economics: it's a bunch of questions and conjecture. If he continues to use Peter Navarro (who went to jail for him and he recognizes as a loyalist) seems like your projecting assumptions. If continued tariffs and protectionist activities ensure that's a positive.
RE: Ukraine: if he brokers peace in ANY capacity it's a net win. I say that as an Orthodox Christian and someone with a Ukrainian background.
I agree we have to work on this Boomer Israel love. That's his biggest problem... But increments of the elephant are how it gets eaten
Is that taken as a fact now? I mean, none of us really know. Frankly, the boss of the Secret Service being a shitlib woman who did diversity hires completely suffices for me to explain that some young tard could take a shot like that.
I mean, it would be a weird one, if in the past, Deep State murders were always conducted by professionals who left nothing up to chance and than now it's suddenly some bugman goofball without military experience.
I wouldn't put all my eggs into the "the Deep State conspired to kill him" basket, because it doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't succeed in doing it.
The regime also isn't monolithic. There are weird globalist technocrats, there are shady, black magic Zionists and then there are some groups that overlap, such as the Palantir people. It's not beyond my imagination that some of them see value in infiltrating Trump's team as they did in the past, and others wanting him gone because he threatens to weaken some of their projects. Trying to take over both sides is what they usually do, but that doesn't mean that they control everything. I don't think they have full control over Trump and are more nervous about him than most Dems, but they tend to hedge their bets. It's what I would do if I had the means.
The point about Trump being that I am not under the impression that he really understands the fundamental problem of American politics, which is Talmudic subterfuge. If he doesn't recognize that, they will bamboozle him as they have done in the past.