Nm

YouBet said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Never heard anything from him other than he's considered an actual far right personality by the most of the right.

---

Stop right there.

Most on the right consider him a loser playing Nuevo-Nazi for clicks.

---

So he's far left trying to co-opt the right? I don't know. Never paid attention to him.

---

No, he was at Charlottesville in 2017. He's never been a leftist. I don't care much for Fuentes but he's obviously right wing and has been the whole time.

Stone Choir said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Never heard anything from him other than he's considered an actual far right personality by the most of the right.

---

Stop right there.

Most on the right consider him a loser playing Nuevo-Nazi for clicks.

---

So he's far left trying to co-opt the right? I don't know. Never paid attention to him.

---

No, he was at Charlottesville in 2017. He's never been a leftist. I don't care much for Fuentes but he's obviously right wing and has been the whole time.

---

There are plenty on the right who refuse to admit they don't know anything about people who are more radical than them. And they become lefties when discussing those people.

shack009 said:

---

Decay said:

---

Fuentes = Laura Loomer

Do with that what you will

---

My word… Boomers should not comment on zoomer culture.

---

They hold equal validity. They're both attention trolls and desperate to grab attention.

You're right in that they're basically opposite on Israel. But they're the same in the end.

shack009 said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

Yes, he's a piece of trash. The fact he's associated with the right is a shame because he and his ideology should almost be a category to itself. I'm sure the "average" trendy liberal would say the same of their super far left equivalents, but I'd also say the left at large embraces the fringe far more than the right.

---

What is his ideology and why wouldn't it be considered right wing?

---

As best I can tell, his main concern is the displacement of Americans in their own country. He would tell you he's a racialist, but not racist. He's very open to ideas that genetic differences between races, like sub Saharan Africans, have something to do with the disparities between the levels of technological advancement and contributions to humanity. He's very anti Zionist. He has a very charitable, we'll call it, view of Hitler in that he'll say things like that he should be judged in light of the state of the world and set of circumstances at the time.

He's also an extremely good debater and very smart. Which is why people are taken by him.

All things that are right wing.

We all know there are differences between races and the differences are genetic. He's one of the few people who isn't afraid to say it.

He also says that we're all people of God and we all have human dignity. Also right wing.

Other than the first sentence on displacement of Americans, those are not "right wing" positions.

Don't know him, or his message.

But when you assassinate our peacekeepers be ready for them to be replaced with soldiers…

Bob Lee said:

---

shack009 said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

Yes, he's a piece of trash. The fact he's associated with the right is a shame because he and his ideology should almost be a category to itself. I'm sure the "average" trendy liberal would say the same of their super far left equivalents, but I'd also say the left at large embraces the fringe far more than the right.

---

What is his ideology and why wouldn't it be considered right wing?

---

As best I can tell, his main concern is the displacement of Americans in their own country. He would tell you he's a racialist, but not racist. He's very open to ideas that genetic differences between races, like sub Saharan Africans, have something to do with the disparities between the levels of technological advancement and contributions to humanity. He's very anti Zionist. He has a very charitable, we'll call it, view of Hitler in that he'll say things like that he should be judged in light of the state of the world and set of circumstances at the time.

He's also an extremely good debater and very smart. Which is why people are taken by him.

---

Also why nobody will debate him. I respected Dinesh alot for doing it. That was a good and even debate I thought

Decay said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Decay said:

---

Fuentes = Laura Loomer

Do with that what you will

---

My word… Boomers should not comment on zoomer culture.

---

They hold equal validity. They're both attention trolls and desperate to grab attention.

You're right in that they're basically opposite on Israel. But they're the same in the end.

---

Shack was right. Boomers should not comment on zoomer right wing stuff. They do not understand it at all.

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

Im Gipper said:

---

Other than the first sentence on displacement of Americans, those are not "right wing" positions.

---

They may not be "conservatism inc" positions, but they are right wing

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

No, you are probably thinking of Jared Taylor of American Renaissance.

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

I think you're thinking of Jared Taylor. Fuentes is a zoomer.

Also, everybody is a race realist. Only some are willing to say it though.

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

No, you are probably thinking of Jared Taylor of American Renaissance.

---

I looked it up. Yes, that's him. Even a similar build, though only in a general way. Also Jordan like in the kind of reasonable manner presented things. I think its fair to call this a version of the right wing view than it is of the left. Really depends on what scale one is using. His emphasis on the Founders being an example.

MSNBC is the biggest reason Nick Fuentes has any following. Their effort to paint him as the face of MAGA and the right is how his name got mainstream.

He is a shock jock, clout chasing loser. He has every right to do what he is doing. He is right on a lot of things, but also kinda like that guy Richard Spencer who ended up doing more harm than good.

Sq 17 said:

---

He might be an outlier and a category unto himself
He was still invited for a sit down with the presumptive R nominee for president

---

Has it ever crossed your mind that he was invited because Trump wanted to meet him and see what he was about? I don't think Trump has associated with him since.

Trump didn't invite him.

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

I think you're thinking of Jared Taylor. Fuentes is a zoomer.

Also, everybody is a race realist. Only some are willing to say it though.

---

Depends on what you mean by `race realist' and everyone being one. Do you mean in the sense of the Jesse Jackson statement of he too, crosses the street when sees thug types? That might hold true.

If you by it you mean most buy into some genetic thing --- our generation was raised to disbelieve that, that it had no scientific basis. Yet you also got the impression any discussion was suppressed quickly.(Still unclear that, gene science not wheelhouse remotely)

I can say more are starting to wonder, though for the moment still hold to a particular view that if you eliminated literally, as in deported to Belgum the entirety of certain blocks of institutions and just removed an entire line of messaging and teaching we have to grow up with in the 21st C with now and replaced it with quality instruction, laws, expectations, context -- we would start to see differences were not so great. But its the possibly that is wrong that is disquieting.

If that is too arid a way of putting it, what I mean is we grew up with the "Roddenberry Star Trek" vision and rather took it to heart. Even now is part of the enthusiasm for Elon Musk's work.

But I speak only for the oldest of GenX who are very late Boomers under some models.. (I use the model of "Generations" where Obama would not be considered a Boomer. I certainly do not.

He is very popular among young conservatives and only growing. Had 500k+ watching his stream Thursday

Quote:

---

If you most buy into some genetic thing --- our generation was raised to disbelieve that, that it had no scientific basis. Yet you also got the impression any discussion was suppressed quickly.(Still unclear that, gene science not wheelhouse remotely)

---

I am a little older than you being born in 1959. I remember well the controversy over Dr. William Shockley's (Nobel for inventing the transistor) book about genetic differences between races in the 70s. And he theorized that reproductive rates among those less intelligent would have a dysgenic effect lowering the collective intelligence levels not just in the US but eventually worldwide.

He was very widely chastised and demonized for that. Today he would have been shot, I guess. So much of what you taught was in response to Shockley. Notably, to my knowledge, no on conducted any scientific nor statistical analysis to refute his hypothesis. he was just called a racists and that was that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

If you most buy into some genetic thing --- our generation was raised to disbelieve that, that it had no scientific basis. Yet you also got the impression any discussion was suppressed quickly.(Still unclear that, gene science not wheelhouse remotely)

---

I am a little older than you being born in 1959. I remember well the controversy over Dr. William Shockley's (Nobel for inventing the transistor) book about genetic differences between races in the 70s. And he theorized that reproductive rates among those less intelligent would have a dysgenic effect lowering the collective intelligence levels not just in the US but eventually worldwide.

He was very widely chastised and demonized for that. Today he would have been shot, I guess. So much of what you taught was in response to Shockley. Notably, to my knowledge, no on conducted any scientific nor statistical analysis to refute his hypothesis. he was just called a racists and that was that.

---

Hawg,
That is interesting. 1959 is the very year "Generations" considers the cut-off of Boomer and start of GenX so you can choose under that model. That is fascinating this controversy you describe. I "missed" that one outright--- the next time it came up for my wave was the debate and similar reflexive MSM suppression and hysteria (to use a modern term utterly accurate but unknown then) to a work called the `The Bell Curve.' That is much later, but maybe was covering similar ground.

Now caveat -- when you say what we taught was in response to it, you were probably right. But "Star Trek" had far more impact in delivering a similar message. It was the ideal represented by that which influenced more than any classroom declaration.

Its all the more intriguing you say Shockley was never specifically subject to re-analysis. Again sounds like climate change and from the same wing.

I'm 45 yoa and I had no idea who this dude was until today. I've known Charlie for years.

SquirrellyDan said:

---

First, this is in no way related to Charlie Kirk and I'm not saying the killer was alt right.

I'm wondering who here knew about Nick Fuentes prior to this happening? I've watched a few of his videos and the conservative movement needs to do everything they can to separate themselves from this guy and those like him. Guys like this are the problem and allow the left to group the right with people like Nick Fuentes, and we absolutely need to do more than what's already been done (if anything) to draw the line between the right and extremists like Nick Fuentes. Curious to see how others here view this guy.

---

I know about the putz. I consistently disregard his statements.

Wheatables02 said:

---

I'm 45 yoa and I had no idea who this dude was until today. I've known Charlie for years.

---

It's been designed that way.

FobTies said:

---

MSNBC is the biggest reason Nick Fuentes has any following. Their effort to paint him as the face of MAGA and the right is how his name got mainstream.

He is a shock jock, clout chasing loser. He has every right to do what he is doing. He is right on a lot of things, but also kinda like that guy Richard Spencer who ended up doing more harm than good.

---

That's the way I see him, although my opinion is based off the last couple of days since I first heard his name. No doubt he's a smart guy, but just loves the attention he gets from the shock value. Problem is that young people are so impressionable and I wish Trump and the larger "voice of the right" would be more intentional about distancing themselves from guys like Fuentes.

FobTies said:

---

MSNBC is the biggest reason Nick Fuentes has any following. Their effort to paint him as the face of MAGA and the right is how his name got mainstream.

He is a shock jock, clout chasing loser. He has every right to do what he is doing. He is right on a lot of things, but also kinda like that guy Richard Spencer who ended up doing more harm than good.

---

Didn't he end up being an Obamian plant? Or openly voting anti-Trump when it came down to it? Seem to remember he reached a point on the board of complete dismissal, rather than being taken as `either sides'.

shack009 said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Never heard anything from him other than he's considered an actual far right personality by the most of the right.

---

Stop right there.

Most on the right consider him a loser playing Nuevo-Nazi for clicks.

---

So he's far left trying to co-opt the right? I don't know. Never paid attention to him.

---

No, he was at Charlottesville in 2017. He's never been a leftist. I don't care much for Fuentes but he's obviously right wing and has been the whole time.

---

There are plenty on the right who refuse to admit they don't know anything about people who are more radical than them. And they become lefties when discussing those people.

---

Yeah I know. It's funny because those people have larger audiences than the people they watch on Fox News and often by a large margin.

Im Gipper said:

---

Other than the first sentence on displacement of Americans, those are not "right wing" positions.

---

The political spectrum is a two axis grid not a line.

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

I think you're thinking of Jared Taylor. Fuentes is a zoomer.

Also, everybody is a race realist. Only some are willing to say it though.

---

Depends on what you mean by `race realist' and everyone being one. Do you mean in the sense of the Jesse Jackson statement of he too, crosses the street when sees thug types? That might hold true.

If you by it you mean most buy into some genetic thing --- our generation was raised to disbelieve that, that it had no scientific basis. Yet you also got the impression any discussion was suppressed quickly.(Still unclear that, gene science not wheelhouse remotely)

I can say more are starting to wonder, though for the moment still hold to a particular view that if you eliminated literally, as in deported to Belgum the entirety of certain blocks of institutions and just removed an entire line of messaging and teaching we have to grow up with in the 21st C with now and replaced it with quality instruction, laws, expectations, context -- we would start to see differences were not so great. But its the possibly that is wrong that is disquieting.

If that is too arid a way of putting it, what I mean is we grew up with the "Roddenberry Star Trek" vision and rather took it to heart. Even now is part of the enthusiasm for Elon Musk's work.

But I speak only for the oldest of GenX who are very late Boomers under some models.. (I use the model of "Generations" where Obama would not be considered a Boomer. I certainly do not.

---

When you choose good schools or neighborhoods then you are making decisions by race because everyone knows what you mean when you say good schools, neighborhoods, and low crime.

Stone Choir said:

---

titan said:

---

shack009 said:

---

titan said:

---

Is he the so-called `race realist'? To be sure not a topic treated very fairly by Left academia for somewhat obvious reasons. Its sort of like climate change -- more politicized than objective.

For some reason thought it was a different name though --- someone with an almost Jordan Perterson demeanor but can't place the name.

---

I think you're thinking of Jared Taylor. Fuentes is a zoomer.

Also, everybody is a race realist. Only some are willing to say it though.

---

Depends on what you mean by `race realist' and everyone being one. Do you mean in the sense of the Jesse Jackson statement of he too, crosses the street when sees thug types? That might hold true.

If you by it you mean most buy into some genetic thing --- our generation was raised to disbelieve that, that it had no scientific basis. Yet you also got the impression any discussion was suppressed quickly.(Still unclear that, gene science not wheelhouse remotely)

I can say more are starting to wonder, though for the moment still hold to a particular view that if you eliminated literally, as in deported to Belgum the entirety of certain blocks of institutions and just removed an entire line of messaging and teaching we have to grow up with in the 21st C with now and replaced it with quality instruction, laws, expectations, context -- we would start to see differences were not so great. But its the possibly that is wrong that is disquieting.

If that is too arid a way of putting it, what I mean is we grew up with the "Roddenberry Star Trek" vision and rather took it to heart. Even now is part of the enthusiasm for Elon Musk's work.

But I speak only for the oldest of GenX who are very late Boomers under some models.. (I use the model of "Generations" where Obama would not be considered a Boomer. I certainly do not.

---

When you choose good schools or neighborhoods then you are making decisions by race because everyone knows what you mean when you say good schools, neighborhoods, and low crime.

---

Yes. That is why say the first kind of meaning for the term is definitely true. What was wondering is if the second view was gaining currency? If you re-read my statement, I believe if you basically eliminated toxic message, had Heinlinian standards and expectations of order, and thats what all grew up in, this supposed difference caused by culture would be gone for precisely the reason that entitled Left culture would be gone. But is that true......that is the million dollar question, and Hawg brought up a study and earlier controversy where this came up.

SquirrellyDan said:

---

First, this is in no way related to Charlie Kirk and I'm not saying the killer was alt right.

I'm wondering who here knew about Nick Fuentes prior to this happening? I've watched a few of his videos and the conservative movement needs to do everything they can to separate themselves from this guy and those like him. Guys like this are the problem and allow the left to group the right with people like Nick Fuentes, and we absolutely need to do more than what's already been done (if anything) to draw the line between the right and extremists like Nick Fuentes. Curious to see how others here view this guy.

---

User name checks out

Some background on Nick Fuentes vs. Charlie Kirk from wiki:

Quote:

---

In the fall of 2019, Charlie Kirk launched a college speaking tour with Turning Point USA titled "Culture War", featuring himself and guests such as Rand Paul, Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Lara Trump, and Dan Crenshaw.[3] In retaliation for the firing of St. Clair and the Politicon incident, Fuentes began organizing a social media campaign asking his followers to go to Kirk's events and ask provocative and controversial leading questions about his stances on immigration, Israel, and LGBT rights to expose Kirk as a "fake conservative". At a Culture War event hosted by Ohio State University on October 29, 11 out of 14 questions were asked by Groypers.[28] Their questions included "Can you prove that our white European ideals will be maintained if the country is no longer made up of white European descendants?" They asked Kirk's co-host Rob Smith, a gay, black Iraq War veteran, "How does anal sex help us win the culture war?"[31]

Fuentes's social media campaign against Kirk became known as the "Groyper Wars".[8][24] Kirk, Smith, and others at Turning Point USA, including Benny Johnson, began calling the questioners white supremacists and antisemites.[25][32]

Another Turning Point USA event the Groypers targeted was a promotional event for Donald Trump Jr.'s book Triggered, featuring Trump, Kirk, and Guilfoyle at the University of California, Los Angeles in November 2019.

Anticipating further questions from Fuentes's followers, it was announced that the event's Q&A portion would be canceled, which led to heckling and boos from the mostly pro-Trump audience.[33] The disruptions forced the event, originally scheduled to last two hours, to end after 30 minutes.[34][35][11][36]

Groypers' targets for heckling quickly expanded beyond Kirk and Turning Point USA[24][37] to other mainstream conservative groups and individuals, which they sometimes collectively call "Conservative Inc.", including Young America's Foundation and its student outreach branch Young Americans for Freedom, which included such speakers as Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire and Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch.[4][37] Groypers' questions often focus on United StatesIsrael relations, immigration policy, affirmative action, and LGBTQ conservatives.[5][38][8] They regularly use antisemitic dog-whistles, including questions about the USS Liberty incident and references to the "dancing Israelis" conspiracy theory alleging Israeli involvement in the September 11 attacks.

---

Please lock this stupid thread and quit giving that idiot space

All great questions that never got adequate answers.