shack009 said:

---

You have Fuentes confused for someone who isn't 27 years old...

He supported Trump at first then changed his mind based on what happened with Trump in office. That's what smart people do. Dumb people continued to support Trump thinking "Trump 2.0" was a real thing. They're being proven wrong, unfortunately. Would have loved for Trump 2.0 to be different, but he isn't.

---

Yes, flip flopping on support and starting "Groyper War 2" based around internet memes that failed completely definitely indicates what "smart people do". I don't even know of an elected official that supports Fuentes or would be seen publicly with him, they certainly don't want his endorsement. So how exactly is he ever going to get anything done other than make money on people that follow him? I'd love to know the political strategy involved there.

The other reality is we live in a time of binary choices and our political system makes it where it will be a 2 party system, it just depends on who controls those parties. So once the primaries are over you can either support the Republican or the Democrat or you can just make yourself irrelevant.

So please tell me what this master plan is for Fuentes where he is going to either gain power or support someone who gains power to make changes. Seriously, what is the plan? Or is it simply to try and tear down the folks who agree with you on 90% of the issues and help the folks who you agree with on almost 0% of the issues win? I can see how that benefits Fuentes personally but I don't see how that benefits the country or any of the issues that he supposedly supports.

What is the point of agreeing on 90% when the 10% includes fundamental issues, including an issue that could get me and/or my children sent to war for another country's interest?

I do realize that no boomer politicians and hopelessly Israel-First-Programmed politicians want Fuentes' or my support. That means nothing to me. It's probably going to take some time for things to change.

Hopefully the younger generation grows up far more radical (and with far more knowledge thanks to the internet) than the older generations who have ruined the country.

Fuentes has probably excluded himself from running for office, but hopefully he's still the voice that speaks to millions of people like the DW currently does. And people who grew up listening to him and have less personal baggage are able to accumulate support and eventually power.

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

---

Because the left considers them colonizers and the young right hasn't been programmed to support Israel at all costs like older generations of right wingers.

"Israel is our greatest ally" is mocked online. People have also been able to see how Israel has conducted this war in real time online. So, at best, right wingers are like "let them do their war, but America shouldn't support it." And those are the ones who aren't just saying "f israel" outright.

Hmmm. Well they should consider what China, or Russia would have done after an Oct 7th. Let alone the Reich, or Franco. Or Imperial Japan. Or the old British Empire. If anything Israel seems to doing things in a very one step forward two back manner trying to avoid extremes. Maybe not to the self-defeating extent we did after 9/11, but certainly not 1940s in tone --- even by Allied powers.

titan said:

---

Hmmm. Well they should consider what China, or Russia would have done after an Oct 7th. Let alone the Reich, or Franco. Or Imperial Japan. Or the old British Empire. If anything Israel seems to doing things in a very one step forward two back manner trying to avoid extremes. Maybe not to the self-defeating extent we did after 9/11, but certainly not 1940s in tone --- even by Allied powers.

---

They're considering what's best for America. Unending support for a country that lots of people hate isn't in our best interest (and a country that desperately wants regime change in Iran). Like it or not.

Very well. If they insist on not supporting them, don't demonstrate in favor of their enemy that rates what the entities above would do. If they must be isolationist, don't criticize their answers and let it alone.

titan said:

---

Very well. If they insist on not supporting them, don't demonstrate in favor of their enemy that rates what the entities above would do. If they must be isolationist, don't criticize their answers and let it alone.

---

The right isn't demonstrating for Hamas. The left is.

The future is either pro Hamas or pro White/Christian. Time for choosing.

Oh that's already made. Just disappointed at the unusual support for the reprehensible.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

You have Fuentes confused for someone who isn't 27 years old...

He supported Trump at first then changed his mind based on what happened with Trump in office. That's what smart people do. Dumb people continued to support Trump thinking "Trump 2.0" was a real thing. They're being proven wrong, unfortunately. Would have loved for Trump 2.0 to be different, but he isn't.

---

Yes, flip flopping on support and starting "Groyper War 2" based around internet memes that failed completely definitely indicates what "smart people do". I don't even know of an elected official that supports Fuentes or would be seen publicly with him, they certainly don't want his endorsement. So how exactly is he ever going to get anything done other than make money on people that follow him? I'd love to know the political strategy involved there.

The other reality is we live in a time of binary choices and our political system makes it where it will be a 2 party system, it just depends on who controls those parties. So once the primaries are over you can either support the Republican or the Democrat or you can just make yourself irrelevant.

So please tell me what this master plan is for Fuentes where he is going to either gain power or support someone who gains power to make changes. Seriously, what is the plan? Or is it simply to try and tear down the folks who agree with you on 90% of the issues and help the folks who you agree with on almost 0% of the issues win? I can see how that benefits Fuentes personally but I don't see how that benefits the country or any of the issues that he supposedly supports.

---

It is true that no current elected offical will openly associate with Fuentes (although some are rumored to support him in private). Fuentes seems to be promoting a 2 phase plan. He does currently do political activism, although it is sparingly. He famously caused Joe Kent to be defeated in the biggest upset of that election cycle. I think it was 2022. He fundraises for candidates occasionally.

He lays out his more long term plan in detail pretty regularly. You would know this if you've watched his streams like you claim to do. He encourages his fans to be good Christians. He encourages them to study and get into the most prestigious schools. Obviously he tells them to "hide their power level", which means don't broadcast your politics. He encourages them to get involved with campus politics. Network, organize, work for campaigns. Eventually run for office, perhaps. If they don't feel called to public life, he encourages them to become rich so they can fund politics. The long term plan is to slowly take over the institutions like the left did over a period of decades. Once his zoomer fans have achieved positions of influence, change can be enacted.

titan said:

---

Oh that's already made. Just disappointed at the unusual support for the reprehensible.

---

It's not even reprehensible man. The programming has been so strong on the older generations.

It's perfectly normal to think you should do what's best for your own country/people.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Oh that's already made. Just disappointed at the unusual support for the reprehensible.

---

It's not even reprehensible man. The programming has been so strong on the older generations.

It's perfectly normal to think you should do what's best for your own country/people.

---

Oh that, is yes. I meant anything other than some kind of 9/11 or even 12/7 response to Oct 7th. But starting with 9/11 we started seeing this weird split that just isn't earned by the enemy.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

---

Titan, you're a boomer and don't get your political information online. Every Zoomer uses the following only: Tik Tok, X, Telegram, and maybe Reddit for specific things.

If you just come here and watch tv news, you'll have no clue about how rapidly news advances nowadays and how quickly it goes from a small corner of dissident X to the Trump admin. Same thing with Tik Tok.

Israel is not remotely popular or even liked by anyone from any side at these places. Does this mean people support Hamas? No, most barely care about them beyond the left supporting them because they are brown and they see Israel as white supremacist colonizers. The right just doesn't like what is happening in Gaza and Israel's influence here.

Stone Choir said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

---

Titan, you're a boomer and don't get your political information online. Every Zoomer uses the following only: Tik Tok, X, Telegram, and maybe Reddit for specific things.

If you just come here and watch tv news, you'll have no clue about how rapidly news advances nowadays and how quickly it goes from a small corner of dissident X to the Trump admin. Same thing with Tik Tok.

Israel is not remotely popular or even liked by anyone from any side at these places. Does this mean people support Hamas? No, most barely care about them beyond the left supporting them because they are brown and they see Israel as white supremacist colonizers. The right just doesn't like what is happening in Gaza and Israel's influence here.

---

I am not a boomer, but GenX, but stipulate your point so that's just a detail. However, I do far more than just come here or watch news (relatively little) and are well aware of these undercurrents you are speaking about. However, that said, it is surprising to see the more recent degree of just Israel dislike blooming up.

Its not that there isn't possibly a `story' to it. Will grant your group one factoid --- an outlier detail that may matter. Some conservative Jewish friends very Maga-ish, never liked Bibi and still do not. And it predates the hyper political angst raised by the OBidens. Never knew what to make of it but such tells can matter. But notions like Kirk being killed by them do not even rate a hearing without some incredibly strong up front evidence. But milder things, like breaking agreements, perhaps that takes place as alleged.Even Kirk's question was there a stand down order--- all these are theoretically possible. Governments are more malignant than not, especially 21st C ones but they have no monopoly on that over earlier -- just seem to have less reservoir of the decent.

I liken it to the fact the British Empire did some pretty bad stuff, and to the degree we officially knew about varied during the times.

titan said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

---

Titan, you're a boomer and don't get your political information online. Every Zoomer uses the following only: Tik Tok, X, Telegram, and maybe Reddit for specific things.

If you just come here and watch tv news, you'll have no clue about how rapidly news advances nowadays and how quickly it goes from a small corner of dissident X to the Trump admin. Same thing with Tik Tok.

Israel is not remotely popular or even liked by anyone from any side at these places. Does this mean people support Hamas? No, most barely care about them beyond the left supporting them because they are brown and they see Israel as white supremacist colonizers. The right just doesn't like what is happening in Gaza and Israel's influence here.

---

However, that said, it is surprising to see the more recent degree of just Israel dislike blooming up.

---

It's still surprising to me that it's surprising to people. We are watching online as they murder tens of thousands of women and children.

Couple that with the fact that they have a severely outsized influence on this country's policy and discourse. So much so that it's basically impossible to get funding as a republican if you aren't avowedly pro-Israel. People are over it.

Quote:

---

It's still surprising to me that it's surprising to people. We are watching online as they murder tens of thousands of women and children.

---

Do you really stipulate that? "tens of thousands" Trust what viewing? Do you think one like Charlie Kirk would run interference for that and not expose it? It sounds like what was said of us in Iraq, but the story was more complex and full of bewildering rules of engagement and had a lot to do with hidden cells of support.

Frankly, if you genuinely believe that, then your aversion would be understandable.

Hispanic White nationalist who's really in to catboys

Point of order. That mainstream probably needs to settle. This has been constructive. If the dissident right believes "tens of thousands of women and children" are being killed, firmly believe this, then that matters. The easy thing to say is that is false. But its probably more important to make sure it is false. Its the same thing much of the liberals believe. But there is a serious obstacle absolutely unique to this age -- and thats the ability going forward to probably seamlessly forge video. Its not the great reliability it used to be---frauds on the combatants in the Ukraine war have illustrated this.

This is a whole different level than crackpot statements about having Kirk killed. Is this happening or not --- and if not, why exactly, do so many find it persuasive it is. This is the challenge. It implies a Covid level lie that has already gotten many killed.

This does explain the very real rift between elements of the right at present. The other main divide is over what call the Scott Adams declaration and its correspondence to what see the Left enables.

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

Absolutely not true. I addressed this earlier

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still surprising to me that it's surprising to people. We are watching online as they murder tens of thousands of women and children.

---

Do you really stipulate that? "tens of thousands" Trust what viewing? Do you think one like Charlie Kirk would run interference for that and not expose it? It sounds like what was said of us in Iraq, but the story was more complex and full of bewildering rules of engagement and had a lot to do with hidden cells of support.

Frankly, if you genuinely believe that, then your aversion would be understandable.

---

Last I checked about a month ago the reporting was 40,000 dead civilians, most women and children.

How many do you think it has been and many more women and children have to die for Israel to lose your support?

Would Charlie Kirk run interference for it? I wouldn't put it that way, but he was unapologetically supportive of Israel throughout.

shack009 said:

---

What is the point of agreeing on 90% when the 10% includes fundamental issues, including an issue that could get me and/or my children sent to war for another country's interest?

I do realize that no boomer politicians and hopelessly Israel-First-Programmed politicians want Fuentes' or my support. That means nothing to me. It's probably going to take some time for things to change.

Hopefully the younger generation grows up far more radical (and with far more knowledge thanks to the internet) than the older generations who have ruined the country.

Fuentes has probably excluded himself from running for office, but hopefully he's still the voice that speaks to millions of people like the DW currently does. And people who grew up listening to him and have less personal baggage are able to accumulate support and eventually power.

---

Politics involves a degree of compromise and building coalitions unless you favor a dictatorship. I'm out on that because I don't trust anyone with that level of power, especially someone like Fuentes or someone that supports him. Not a fan of war and neither is Trump or Kirk so not sure where that is coming from.

I look at Israel like any other ally. So long as it's mutually beneficial, great. When not, nope. The USS Liberty is something every American should remember. We get a lot of benefits from Israel in foreign policy and like it or not there are a significant number of Americans who are dual citizens. Groypers often cross the line into hating on all Jews or anyone that supports Israel though depending on the day and that's a no for me.

Careful what you wish for on people "growing up far more radical", that rarely works out the way you want. You should read Animal Farm. As for Fuentes he's still a tiny group and most people outgrow him. Maybe his dream of these stealth operatives somehow comes to pass but I wouldn't hold your breath on that. I like actual plans on how to work within the system to impact change. Fuentes is a long way from anyone even affiliated with his group being considered acceptable and he's doing a bang up job of alienating the people who at least agree with him on many issues. I know my boys are Gen Z and very smart and very conservative and they want nothing to do with groypers nor do their very conservative friends.

I know you love to rag on anyone "born before 1990" but age also spawns wisdom. Some of us have seen this show before. Eventually you will probably figure that out though.

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

Absolutely not true. I addressed this earlier

---

I listened to Kirk from early on, he really didn't have significant shifts and he sure as hell wasn't a groyper.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still surprising to me that it's surprising to people. We are watching online as they murder tens of thousands of women and children.

---

Do you really stipulate that? "tens of thousands" Trust what viewing? Do you think one like Charlie Kirk would run interference for that and not expose it? It sounds like what was said of us in Iraq, but the story was more complex and full of bewildering rules of engagement and had a lot to do with hidden cells of support.

Frankly, if you genuinely believe that, then your aversion would be understandable.

---

Last I checked about a month ago the reporting was 40,000 dead civilians, most women and children.

How many do you think it has been and many more women and children have to die for Israel to lose your support?

Would Charlie Kirk run interference for it? I wouldn't put it that way, but he was unapologetically supportive of Israel throughout.

---

Key word is reporting. Do you trust it? There was reporting about Iraq, even videos. But it had a marked bent. But see my post above. It is a war --- but the implication being made goes beyond that.

Discovering the truth of this or not is the task that needs to be discussed. If only because so many believe, especially on the right, it it needs to not be swept under the rug. It risks a serious loss of significant percentage going forward if believed and simply not addressed/refuted.

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

You have Fuentes confused for someone who isn't 27 years old...

He supported Trump at first then changed his mind based on what happened with Trump in office. That's what smart people do. Dumb people continued to support Trump thinking "Trump 2.0" was a real thing. They're being proven wrong, unfortunately. Would have loved for Trump 2.0 to be different, but he isn't.

---

Yes, flip flopping on support and starting "Groyper War 2" based around internet memes that failed completely definitely indicates what "smart people do". I don't even know of an elected official that supports Fuentes or would be seen publicly with him, they certainly don't want his endorsement. So how exactly is he ever going to get anything done other than make money on people that follow him? I'd love to know the political strategy involved there.

The other reality is we live in a time of binary choices and our political system makes it where it will be a 2 party system, it just depends on who controls those parties. So once the primaries are over you can either support the Republican or the Democrat or you can just make yourself irrelevant.

So please tell me what this master plan is for Fuentes where he is going to either gain power or support someone who gains power to make changes. Seriously, what is the plan? Or is it simply to try and tear down the folks who agree with you on 90% of the issues and help the folks who you agree with on almost 0% of the issues win? I can see how that benefits Fuentes personally but I don't see how that benefits the country or any of the issues that he supposedly supports.

---

It is true that no current elected offical will openly associate with Fuentes (although some are rumored to support him in private). Fuentes seems to be promoting a 2 phase plan. He does currently do political activism, although it is sparingly. He famously caused Joe Kent to be defeated in the biggest upset of that election cycle. I think it was 2022. He fundraises for candidates occasionally.

He lays out his more long term plan in detail pretty regularly. You would know this if you've watched his streams like you claim to do. He encourages his fans to be good Christians. He encourages them to study and get into the most prestigious schools. Obviously he tells them to "hide their power level", which means don't broadcast your politics. He encourages them to get involved with campus politics. Network, organize, work for campaigns. Eventually run for office, perhaps. If they don't feel called to public life, he encourages them to become rich so they can fund politics. The long term plan is to slowly take over the institutions like the left did over a period of decades. Once his zoomer fans have achieved positions of influence, change can be enacted.

---

I said I have listened to Fuentes, I didn't claim to be a regular listener. He lost me a LONG time ago, I like serious people to spend my time listening to. That plan is pretty half assed as you describe it. Basically some type of long term sleeper cells that emerge I guess. At best a few might gain some power I guess but by the time they do who knows how they may evolve. The convenient thing about his plan is it is vague and doesn't actually require any expectation of results for a very long time so there is nothing to hold Fuentes himself accountable while he criticizes those who are actually working on problems.

I'm all for the general ideas of getting involved and working to elect people. Problem is it sounds like no one can pass the purity test so not sure who they can campaign for. Since they can't broadcast they are groypers or openly take up the "10% issues" that often involve blaming Jews that's a real pickle. Getting married and having kids and making money are all good things, I'm happy he wants people to be productive. The issue he will likely find is that when that happens many of those people will evolve into being practical old guys like me and become less radical.

Like I said it's actually very similar to David Duke and others from years ago, this is not a new idea.

aggie93,

You once went to bat for the controversial Alex Jones to some degree, so know fully aware of the nuances and layers of government realities.

What do you make of a sizable block of the young right, let alone the left, believing indeed claiming they see (not saying a lie either) "tens of thousands" being killed? Is it not important to discover why this impression is there and especially to show it has no basis? (As in, the deaths may be so, but are a product of war, and not off-scale)

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still surprising to me that it's surprising to people. We are watching online as they murder tens of thousands of women and children.

---

Do you really stipulate that? "tens of thousands" Trust what viewing? Do you think one like Charlie Kirk would run interference for that and not expose it? It sounds like what was said of us in Iraq, but the story was more complex and full of bewildering rules of engagement and had a lot to do with hidden cells of support.

Frankly, if you genuinely believe that, then your aversion would be understandable.

---

Last I checked about a month ago the reporting was 40,000 dead civilians, most women and children.

How many do you think it has been and many more women and children have to die for Israel to lose your support?

Would Charlie Kirk run interference for it? I wouldn't put it that way, but he was unapologetically supportive of Israel throughout.

---

Key word is reporting. Do you trust it? There was reporting about Iraq, even videos. But it had a marked bent. But see my post above. It is a war --- but the implication being made goes beyond that.

Discovering the truth of this or not is the task that needs to be discussed. If only because so many believe, especially on the right, it it needs to not be swept under the rug. It risks a serious loss of significant percentage going forward if believed and simply not addressed/refuted.

---

I mean it's probably not exact, but it's probably in the neighborhood.

What do you think the number is and how many more women and children have to die to lose your support?

titan said:

---

aggie93,

You once went to bat for the controversial Alex Jones to some degree, so know fully aware of the nuances and layers of government realities.

What do you make of a sizable block of the young right, let alone the left, believing indeed claiming they see (not saying a lie either) "tens of thousands" being killed? Is it not important to discover why this impression is there and especially to show it has no basis? (As in, the deaths may be so, but are a product of war, and not off-scale)

---

The last reporting I saw was 20,000 Hamas combatants and 40,000 civilians (obviously most civilians would be women and children because most men there are combatants).

So twice as many civilians as combatants. That isn't acceptable for our supposed "greatest ally." It's not ok when Russia does it and it's not ok when Israel does it.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

aggie93,

You once went to bat for the controversial Alex Jones to some degree, so know fully aware of the nuances and layers of government realities.

What do you make of a sizable block of the young right, let alone the left, believing indeed claiming they see (not saying a lie either) "tens of thousands" being killed? Is it not important to discover why this impression is there and especially to show it has no basis? (As in, the deaths may be so, but are a product of war, and not off-scale)

---

The last reporting I saw was 20,000 Hamas combatants and 40,000 civilians (obviously most civilians would be women and children because most men there are combatants).

So twice as many civilians as combatants. That isn't acceptable for our supposed "greatest ally." It's not ok when Russia does it and it's not ok when Israel does it.

---

If they are supporting Oct 7 and have not yielded, they are part of the enemy support and Israel has few options other than trying to be as selective as possible about what they bomb and destroy. They have given that impression but concede something may be missing. Yet those were the terms we have imposed in the past. War stops when you surrender. So it may matter alot how many of these are "gratuitous." But still, your point is valid. How do you differentiate -- what is too far?

titan said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

What the older normies need to understand is that Israel has very little support among under 30s. The current democrat party still supports Israel when it comes to policy, despite being semi anti Israel in their language.

So the future power holders will absolutely be anti-Israel. The future choices will be anti-White Jew haters who allow our country to become the third world or Anti-Israel, pro-white, pro-American, pro-Christian leaders.

That's where this is going.

---

Why is that in fact--so little support you say? Hamas is so unsympathetic. Even liking fascist takes makes more sense, and they would deal with what Israel is facing even blunter.

---

Titan, you're a boomer and don't get your political information online. Every Zoomer uses the following only: Tik Tok, X, Telegram, and maybe Reddit for specific things.

If you just come here and watch tv news, you'll have no clue about how rapidly news advances nowadays and how quickly it goes from a small corner of dissident X to the Trump admin. Same thing with Tik Tok.

Israel is not remotely popular or even liked by anyone from any side at these places. Does this mean people support Hamas? No, most barely care about them beyond the left supporting them because they are brown and they see Israel as white supremacist colonizers. The right just doesn't like what is happening in Gaza and Israel's influence here.

---

I am not a boomer, but GenX, but stipulate your point so that's just a detail. However, I do far more than just come here or watch news (relatively little) and are well aware of these undercurrents you are speaking about. However, that said, it is surprising to see the more recent degree of just Israel dislike blooming up.

Its not that there isn't possibly a `story' to it. Will grant your group one factoid --- an outlier detail that may matter. Some conservative Jewish friends very Maga-ish, never liked Bibi and still do not. And it predates the hyper political angst raised by the OBidens. Never knew what to make of it but such tells can matter. But notions like Kirk being killed by them do not even rate a hearing without some incredibly strong up front evidence. But milder things, like breaking agreements, perhaps that takes place as alleged.Even Kirk's question was there a stand down order--- all these are theoretically possible. Governments are more malignant than not, especially 21st C ones but they have no monopoly on that over earlier -- just seem to have less reservoir of the decent.

I liken it to the fact the British Empire did some pretty bad stuff, and to the degree we officially knew about varied during the times.

---

It's really not that surprising at all. There are thousands of videos of Gaza and the atrocities there. Then there is the fact that at any given time hundreds of American politicians are being paid to travel to Israel and then do nothing but speak about Israel constantly while ignoring issues here.

The fact that less than a week after Kirk died, 250 state senators were in Israel is extremely telling. We are sick and tired of idiots like Ted Cruz proclaiming the greatness of Israel while ignoring this nation. All of them are paid off big time by AIPAC handlers.

aggie93 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

the only thing a kirkfuentes debate would shape is a livestream chat. calling it more important than presidential debates just shows how small your frame of reference is.

---

Groyper War 2019 was where Fuentes followers (groypers) went to Charlie Kirk events and asked him questions during the scheduled Q&A. He was questioned on immigration, homosexuality, Israel, H1B1, all of the hits.

You may not remember this, but Charlie Kirk was way more liberal on these issues back then. He supported stapling green cards to diplomas, he was pro H1B1, he was pro homosexuality (famously congratulating Trump for facilitating the decriminalization of homosexuality in various countries), and obviously pro whatever Israel wanted. Over the years, thanks to pressure from Fuentes and others to the right of Kirk, Kirk amended his positions on almost all of this. It's not clear if he was personally convinced, or just saw which way the wind was blowing from his base, but Fuentes and the groypers absolutely pulled Kirk further to the right.

A debate between them would have done that times orders of magnitude.

---

Facts not in evidence.

---

It's demonstrably true. Kirk was pulled to the right on every single issue by the dissident right. We owned pretty much all online right wing discourse on every major social media site.

With that said, Kirk carefully researched these issues himself and made himself informed. We may have exposed him to the ideas, but he quickly got up to speed on most of them and that was all Kirk. He deeply cared for this nation and once he saw what the real issues were on the ground, he would research them, and then change his tune. I saw this happen many times.

The man had a gift at speaking with others and disarming them. It was a gift that cannot be replaced by anyone because most, like Fuentes, are agents provocateur and don't do this. It takes a special combination of charisma, faith, and conviction to do what Kirk did and that's why he was special.

---

Kirk was pretty much the same on every issue the day he died as 5 years ago. Christian based conservatism. Of course apparently that wasn't enough for groypers so they both tear him down and take credit for him simultaneously while everyone else looks at them and shakes their head.

---

No he wasn't, not at all. If you think this then you clearly never paid attention to him. He went from supporting legal immigration to wanting a near total ban on the H1-B and wanting all loopholes fixed. This year in particular he had been going more and more hardline on a number of issues. It's not surprising given what has been happening recently.

Let this question be asked. What should Israel be doing to win -- not what they should not be doing, but what can they be doing instead. Second, do you agree or disagree with the basically unrestricted bombing the Allies carried out against the Axis to win the war? If you do, how does that square. If you do not, that poses a retroactive problem for WW II, but is at least consistent.

titan said:

---

Let this question be asked. What should Israel be doing to win -- not what they should not be doing, but what can they be doing instead. Second, do you agree or disagree with the basically unrestricted bombing the Allies carried out against the Axis to win the war? If you do, how does that square. If you do not, that poses a retroactive problem for WW II, but is at least consistent.

---

I don't care if Israel is glassed into a wasteland, why would I care about trying to figure out how they win?