Nick Fuentes

a person i've been interested in researching for quite a moment.

firstly i know nothing about this person so far, aside from the fact that i've heard he's on a similar stem to ANdrew Tate

"Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political commentator and live streamer. He hosts America First, a livestream that has promoted white nationalism,[5] white supremacy,[6] Christian nationalism,[4] the incel movement,[7] misogyny, anti-LGBTQ views and antisemitism including Holocaust denial. His supporters are known as Groypers. " - Source

antivax too

first lets preface by saying that some consipiracy thoerys can cause real damage, think about far-right antivax. or at the very least, incredibly offensive, the claims that Alex Jones delivered about the Sandy Hook shooting being a government hoax (20 children and 6 staff members were murdered). What both antivax and Alex Jones have in common is that, when believed, trust between citizens and government is eroded. Which leads to authority and civility being undermined. Both are corner stones whihc society requires. ["fuck the police" is one of the most stupid things someone can say]

some of nick's political opinions:

White supremacy. Fuentes pines for the segregation era, saying it was better for Blacks and mocking the idea they had anything to complain about. So they had to drink out of different water fountains and go to different schools: “big f***ing deal”. This scabrous language is typical of him. Elsewhere he has insulted Vice-President JD Vance for marrying a woman of Indian descent, referring to her by means of a racial slur.

Hitler. Fuentes has called the genocidal dictator awesome and cool. Stalin, apparently, is too — an opinion he repeated in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

Loyalty and violence. He has mockingly called on his “Groyper Army” of supporters to swear a personal oath of allegiance to him: “I will kill, rape and die for Nicholas J Fuentes”.

Disenfranchisement of women — or in his words, “sluts” and “bitches”. He wants to take the vote from them and bar them from public office. And he says rape is no big deal.

Only Christians should occupy public offices.

the fact that theses aren't his most "passionate opinions" is ludicrous:

- stirring up hatred against Jewish people, labelling them as sinister figures who control the US governemnt (espescailly their banks), from the shadows.

Holocaust denialism. In perhaps his vilest video, Fuentes compares the murder of Jews in the Holocaust to baking cookies.

Political violence. He calls openly for the “annihilation” of “perfidious Jews” and others “when we take power”.

though i don't know Nick's true motives, he is blatantly and openly spreading hate against Blacks, Jews, women and many others. if he was given the opportunity to become the next Hitler, i'd be surprised if he doesn't take the reins. and its something that you and me SHOULD be wary of. Considering that he openly teaches his followers to adopt the old Trotskyite tactic of “entry-ism”: pretending to be moderate in order to infiltrate organisations, take control of them and radicalise them.

 After Kirk’s death he even launched a vile attack on Charlie’s widow, Erika. (COULD BE A POST HERE)

"This process of “normalisation” or “mainstreaming” — what is sometimes called “ideas laundering” — is no small matter. Political and moral communities are defined, in part, by what attitudes they believe to fall within a domain of acceptable opinion and what they find so vile as to be ruled outside consideration. Until recently, Western democracies had decided on an “Overton window” which put racism, antisemitism and religious persecution beyond the pale. To regard these as ideas that are up for debate, or to treat them with a kind of urbane tolerance as if they were just one more opinion (“Let’s just agree to disagree …” and so on) is not intellectual generosity or open-mindedness. It is a form of moral corruption.

This does not mean that such ideas can never be discussed, or that their proponents should be subject to political censorship or utter social ostracism — whereby they are effectively turned into non-citizens. But any such discussion must be conducted in a spirit that firmly refuses to be open to the conclusion that these ideas might be back on the table for public consideration. What that normally means is confronting such opinions by means of forceful pushback and frank condemnation. Doing so is not illiberal. It is living up to a duty shared by all citizens: when confronted with what is evil, we mount an opposition." FROM ABC