It's kind of telling that he routinely denies the six gorillions with no ill effect (other than that one time years ago they froze his assets, then...nothing happened?) But Alex Jones was sued to the tune of a billion for questioning Sandy Hook.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
He is a literal caricature of every negative stereotype about the alt-right you can think of.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
I don't follow him. I've caught a few long-form interviews with him on podcasts that I do watch over the years (Hodge Twins recently). He did none of this. He talked about stuff that I would classify as mostly reasonable, and nothing he said made me feel like I need to go and subscribe to his channels/feeds/etc because I just don't find him that interesting or insightful.
Maybe he acts differently in other places. I don't know or care. I don't think he has much real influence; he has almost no presence outside of very specific Internet niche, but when he does leave it he at least seems to be able to behave himself.
But apparently not thinking he is a fed and is merely a troll is insufficient. Whatever.
There's been a propaganda strategy shift in the last 6 or so years that understands memetic transfer and tries to prevent the spread of ones they don't like with pre-exposure, much like how a [real] vaccine would prime your immune response with a weakened virus.
Attach the good point to something that makes normies recoil and the normies then get primed to recoil from the good point alone. It's the time-honored "poisoning the well" trick but with an extra payload to poison things outside of it.
Until now I never had a huge problem with him either like some people. There's lots of reasons not to like Trump, and it's legitimate politicking to try and push the culture towards your point of view, then convince politicians to make gestures to your movement if they want your support.
At some point you do need to recognize you've gotten all the concessions you'll get for this cycle, and lock in your political capital until the next - if you don't, people will question what your real goal is.
If good points were at all convincing to normies, they'd already be convinced. They're exceptionally good at ignoring the obvious if it maintains their social standing.
The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
Individual
Family/Kin
Clan
Tribe
Ethnos
Nation
Religion
Racial category
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
"Hello Fellow White Patriots! Have you heard the good word of Adolf Hitler? He was a true American hero! We must collectively organize as racial advocates of Social National Justice. Most importantly, we must do it public gatherings, wearing uniforms, in front of cameras, in homogenously democratic cities. Everything every Democrat has ever said about us is right, and that's a good thing!"
So you're describing behavior that doesn't describe what I've seen from Fuentes, and I agree that that the behavior you've described is 100% fed-speak.
Which is why he comes off as more of a troll to me than a fed.
I don't think he's a federal asset. He talks about the "JQ" way too much for that.
I think he's mostly a troll.
Dude like a quarter of all KKK-type organizations are feds lol. Have been for decades.
It's kind of telling that he routinely denies the six gorillions with no ill effect (other than that one time years ago they froze his assets, then...nothing happened?) But Alex Jones was sued to the tune of a billion for questioning Sandy Hook.
Nah, flip that, less than a quarter of them are serious retards, the rest are feds or globalists.
Endlessly bringing up the JQ is a classic Fed tactic, because they know there's nothing more toxic in terms of optics from a normie perspective.
Exactly this, they can't silence it completely so they have it coming out of the mouths of the worst possible spergs.
Classic well poisoning.
Feds don't bring up good points. They act as a racist caricature cartoon to serve as an example of "wow, don't be like that crazy guy."
I don't follow him, but from what I have seen, Fuentes doesn't strike me as that.
Fuentes is exactly like that though. He is a literal meme of a Mexican mutt short guy jerking off to femboys while screaming about how Jews bad and women evil.
He is a literal caricature of every negative stereotype about the alt-right you can think of.
I don't follow him. I've caught a few long-form interviews with him on podcasts that I do watch over the years (Hodge Twins recently). He did none of this. He talked about stuff that I would classify as mostly reasonable, and nothing he said made me feel like I need to go and subscribe to his channels/feeds/etc because I just don't find him that interesting or insightful.
Maybe he acts differently in other places. I don't know or care. I don't think he has much real influence; he has almost no presence outside of very specific Internet niche, but when he does leave it he at least seems to be able to behave himself.
But apparently not thinking he is a fed and is merely a troll is insufficient. Whatever.
There's been a propaganda strategy shift in the last 6 or so years that understands memetic transfer and tries to prevent the spread of ones they don't like with pre-exposure, much like how a [real] vaccine would prime your immune response with a weakened virus.
Attach the good point to something that makes normies recoil and the normies then get primed to recoil from the good point alone. It's the time-honored "poisoning the well" trick but with an extra payload to poison things outside of it.
Until now I never had a huge problem with him either like some people. There's lots of reasons not to like Trump, and it's legitimate politicking to try and push the culture towards your point of view, then convince politicians to make gestures to your movement if they want your support.
At some point you do need to recognize you've gotten all the concessions you'll get for this cycle, and lock in your political capital until the next - if you don't, people will question what your real goal is.
If good points were at all convincing to normies, they'd already be convinced. They're exceptionally good at ignoring the obvious if it maintains their social standing.
The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Are groups who think they are "God's chosen people" following a collectivist ideology?
Historically, when people believe they have the Will of God, they commit atrocities as a group, sometimes with someone leading them, yes.
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
That is called a religion.
That didn't answer my question.
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
😂😂😂
"Oh? My secular religion is religious? Hmm. Well then, is your religion religious? Checkmate, atheist."
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Committed Jews are retarded leftists, you heard it here lol
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Careful, he might throw out his favorite buzzword "Fabian" on you if you keep it up.
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
Literally a leading topic among feds.
"Hello Fellow White Patriots! Have you heard the good word of Adolf Hitler? He was a true American hero! We must collectively organize as racial advocates of Social National Justice. Most importantly, we must do it public gatherings, wearing uniforms, in front of cameras, in homogenously democratic cities. Everything every Democrat has ever said about us is right, and that's a good thing!"
So you're describing behavior that doesn't describe what I've seen from Fuentes, and I agree that that the behavior you've described is 100% fed-speak.
Which is why he comes off as more of a troll to me than a fed.