Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson.
Listen to another Nick Fuentes interview just for 50 seconds starting from this moment.
It is clear that, due to Christian universalism, which drives Nick to love all humans including Neanderthals (compare it to our exterminationism), Fuentes will never be the American Führer who saves whites from extinction. He, with his million followers, is a man of his time (the Christian Era). I, with Ben, am a man against our time (the Hitlerian Era).
11 replies on “Fuentes”
I know what you’re saying. What an idiot – that was my only real reaction, recoiling in distaste as I listened to him (for a few minutes; as long as I could last). I think his true conservative colours came to the fore with this traitorous statement as he ‘flings open the gates’, surely – really – what motivates them all [spoiler: it’s his wallet]:
“Well… I think that, the most important thing to consider about immigration is… it’s just the volume, the numbers. I don’t have a problem in principle with immigration at all! If we brought in a million – or, maybe not a million – if we brought in, let’s say, 300,000 people every year that are like you… that are intelligent, productive, that are going to be generative…”
All I really see is him justifying the vacuous, nihilistic mindset of Homo Economicus, where the highest good in any society is dictated by its economic success (not that even that would occur in practice were our current society not bending over backwards to pander to and artificially bolster the productivity of a vast mass of demonstrably dangerous, inept, lazy, low IQ, fundamentally incompatible foreign scum, to which a handful of equally alien-to-us ‘midwit’ outliers make not a shred of difference at all).
He’s certainly a Christian, then, much as it seems the godless materialism is subtly prominent in his mind also. Truly the exact opposite of real thinkers, like Hitler, or Himmler, or Savitri Devi, with their understanding that (an unblemished, pure, Aryan) race is rightly of paramount importance, and not just for any economy, but for culture, for life quality, meaning, and future well being.
Outside of his bank account, and the accounts of his back-patting cronies, what really is Fuentes fighting for, for whom? I can’t see any valid relationship between him and his folk (and to be honest, I question his own phenotype also, as someone surely not very white, and so, in tandem with all the rest of his mental antics, disqualified from even making ‘leader’ decisions over those who are nothing much like his people, those who deserve better than to be thrown under the bus by him, this snake-oil selling, subhuman zealot. No wonder race is not his top priority. I would say he was perhaps – surely a little – jealous over it).
Another one on the ever expanding list that I hope someone (and I wouldn’t mind if it was the left or the right) works around to assassinating, and before he brainwashes too many more gullible, pre-loaded cult devotees, taking valuable racial bodies out of the system, only to render them as mentally deficient, double-crossing, and, ultimately, useless to white survival as himself.
If we return to Joseph Walsh’s point—that all white people, including racialists, are ethno-suicides—let me tell you something.
As you know, the conservative Swede’s essay on the “Red Giant” was seminal for my site. What I omitted when quoting him is that once he said it wouldn’t be a bad idea to import a few Italians to Sweden, given that it’s “too Scandinavian.”
Another case. When Richard Spencer was famous, he said in an interview that some mulattos could stay in the ethnostate, as long as there weren’t too many.
Another ethno-traitor, since it’s obvious that over time these niggers and sandniggers end up sleeping with white women!
Fuentes, the Catholic, is of the same ilk as the Swede and Spencer, both of whom are readers of Nietzsche.
And let’s not talk about typical white nationalists. None of the most prominent among them has openly repudiated their parents’ church (insofar as all churches admit niggers to the altar of marriage with white women).
Put another way, for a WN not to be an imposter, he must first have rejected not only Christianity, but the French Revolution’s notion of human brotherhood (neochristianity). For example, the Swede even used the word “psychopath” in 2009 when I confessed in the comments section of Gates of Vienna that my exterminationism dated back to my early childhood.
After Charlie Kirk died, Fuentes became the most popular racialist in social media. That’s why I had to mention it on this site, which tries to bring the ideals of National Socialism to their logical conclusion.
Fuentes-style antisemitism is not enough. We must also consider the CQ.
Thanks for the reminder. I see how profound Joseph Walsh’s point is now. Yes, it’s appalling. I saw another example for myself, from a UK-perspective a few months back, monitoring a Patriotic Alternative forum which highlighting some type of informal ‘what do you think of National Socialism?’ ‘poll’ where they were debating NS’ merits.
One of the commenters was called (and I take it this is accurate too) ‘Arab National Socialist’, and, rather than shun him as a worthless, biased and irrelevant non-white, they were all very polite, welcoming, and indeed egalitarian towards him in the discussion, giving his opinion validity and weight, seeming more interested in his proposed ideological adherence to National Socialism than to the fact that – in a broad discussion on the crimes and long-term incompatibility of non-whites – that they were all openly praising a racial enemy, at the expense of a small handful of more astute, legitimate NS commenters present, whom in fact they treated with far more disdain.
This fascination with out-group ‘Other-love’ seems the longest term historical weakness of the Aryan race altogether, this natural, suicidal desire to be open and welcoming, sometimes even seeming intrinsic irrespective of the (admittedly still vast) impact of two thousand years of Christian thinking which has turned this naïve weakness into full atrocity for them.
As for ‘psychopath’, I feel for you on that. It’s far too easy these days for people to pathologise from their armchairs, on Christian morality grounds, a bit like calling someone ‘crazy’. You know they just mean ‘heretic’ or, in coded language, ‘I am afraid’. I mean, I was called a psychopath by long-term bullies at school for standing up for myself (once!) after years of physical and mental abuse. It gets flung around very easily. In your case, it’s logically (and emotionally) very obvious why you are called to exterminationism, and you’ve made the case well in a myriad detailed documents otherwise.
It always goes back to the ‘all our wingless bipeds are at root innocent/sacred’ argument on dogma that they make, same as when my partner calls me a monster for my comments on blacks and abortion, or, you know, my compromise, letting them starve in Africa rather than endlessly donate money and pity. Without meaning to fall for the same sloppy reasoning myself too much, once could just as well reverse their accusation, and claim that to not care about our plight -our plight, not everybody’s! – to this logical-conclusion, fully adult degree, and to instead sabotage it and act in its disservice (or bury heads in the sand) is an uncaring, psychopathic disposition to hold, given the existential threat we face. I know they could never think like that though. What people do and do not have a problem with is never usually consistent, as our slaughterhouse points put adequately the other day.
These conservative pacifists and revolutionary violence-phobes infuriate me, the ‘no, don’t be silly, let’s not go too far, all we have to do is…’ set of Keith Woods, and Mark Collett and the like. The problem is, there’s so many of them. How to call out their illogic, childishness and moral cowardice given that, against this ridiculous ‘united front’ where they all have each other for back-up, self-policing, lest anyone step above the parapet?
Since I live in this city of over 20 million people, I’m like Diogenes, not speaking to anyone. I have no choice but to imagine imaginary conversations, and indeed, when in these imaginary conversations they call me a psychopath, I reply that they are the psychopaths: in a single generation, they are destroying what took the Cro-Magnons and their Nordic successors tens of thousands of years to generically build! If Tucker were to interview me and use that word against me, I would tell him that.
And I would also tell him that his Christian beliefs are fantasies. These guys know nothing about the history of the first millennium of Christianity, which is why I took the trouble to translate some chapters by Deschner (PDFs available in the featured article).
Keith Woods and Mark Collett are the UK equivalent of Fuentes. Here in Latin America, we have Agustín Laje, who is enormously popular and constantly travels to almost every Latin American country and Spain to give lectures: a conservative figure who, although he criticizes gender ideology and third-wave feminism, is against abortion (the overwhelming majority of Latin Americans aren’t white and, from our POV, must abort).
They all seem pretty much the same to me, and the worst part is that white nationalists are just a couple of baby steps ahead of them, on a Rubicon they still refuse to cross.
A good way for you and me to have a podcast would be to identify in what ways these racially right-wing pundits are ethnosuicidal and explain it to the audience. The quote you posted from Fuentes is so clearly ethnosuicidal that it would be quite easy to expose in an audio-visual podcast.
The crux of the matter is that to continue crossing the Rubicon, our visitors really have to question Christian ethics.
The recent Carlson x Fuentes interview… I thought, who needs feds when you have christians? That talk once again showed the ‘upper limit’ of this belief system. There is no winning with these freaks.
“I am not a racialist: I am a Christian” —Nick Fuentes (quoted by Dave Smith in this moment).
I think that Tucker Carlson is an Episcopalian as well.
Dave Smith’s similarly disgusting falsehood, like a hippie schoolgirl at a Beatles concert:
“that’s what we need! … and I just thought, there was something really powerful about that, it’s a paradigm-shattering thing… [tailing off into that inane ‘you know what I mean?’ bullshit]”
Um. No it’s not. I see no paradigm shift there. It’s a desire to keep the wretched Christianized status quo of the modern world exactly how it is. The cynic promoters have moved in quick with the tactical sycophancy. I got caught out by one channel on YouTube last night, titled “Right Wing Coalition”, ladling on the praise for Fuentes, having laid the groundwork about 2 months ago, another confident little fraternity of ‘grassroots’ ethno-traitors for you.
All I could see it doing is further augmenting his popularity among this endless crowd of popular, smiling morons, all very interchangeable: the first thing the other interviewer commented on in anecdote was his money/career, and I haven’t listened to all of this one – and don’t think I could bear to – but I’m imagining something like the same. Perhaps a little suspicious of him at first (or pretending to be), but now very much ‘one of the club’.
I compare this American liberal media patriotard complacency with the building mainstream rage on this little island, and I think, how long until the likes of him are lynched from streetlamps, or variations of such. I just cannot see it happening over there (much as the natives here aren’t exactly out of street protest activist-tier idealism yet, they’re organically angry enough to be snapping a bit at the edges, even without financial collapse to assist them: this island is hell on account of Fuentes’ shared belief, or a secularised equivalent).
The problem is Christian ethics which, as Joseph Walsh said in that memorable epigraph, metastasised cancerously after 1945 to the point of Aryan ethno-suicide: a terminal metastasis that, according to Walsh, even reaches today’s racialists. See, for example, what Greg Johnson said yesterday in the comments section of the recent Counter-Currents article about Nick Fuentes and his interview with Tucker:
Johnson, whose “New Right” fully subscribes to Christian ethics (which is why he’s outraged by the imagery of William Pierce’s hangman’s day), heads a webzine of WN pundits who, unlike Fuentes, do read. But what’s the result? Although I sometimes link to The West’s Darkest Hour in the comments section of Counter-Currents articles, I see that they simply ignore me. Why?
Any honest racist who reads the PDFs linked in our featured article would be able to detect the aetiology of the cancer that is killing the white man. It would mean starting to look at oneself in the mirror and not simply being content with seeing the subversive Other. But they don’t because that would mean abandoning their beloved Judeo-reductionist paradigm. It’s not that Fuentes isn’t a scholar. It’s that even the scholars of the movement aren’t honest or valiant enough to see the basic aetiology of the disease (the CQ, not the JQ).
In a word, they have no HONOUR.
It highlights the impossibility of discourse as a solution. We can criticise them (and readily do) until the cows come home, pointing out their weaknesses, but I have learnt the hard way – and still often forget by optimistic instinct – that one cannot browbeat the intrinsically (it is close enough to fundamental to be considered so) dishonourable into honour, or the dishonest into honesty (the empty mirrors into self-reflection), even as more and more of their personal errors of soul are laid bare before them; the emperor’s new clothes for their shoddy characters. Back to the old canard, almost a paradox of life: how do you tell the idiot he’s an idiot?
It’s like when I am am beseeched “don’t you shame me!” by those simply too arrogant to be open to accurate criticism.
They have had too many years to sink into their complacent, self-serving patterns. If Christian ethics is not unplugged by choice, can it even be removed by force – even environmental force, much as that would surely have some impact, though I don’t know how muted – or are they forever dead wood? The sacred law of Nature in a panentheistic universe, in line with all observable evolution, demands their pruning.
I question myself over that repeatedly. My mind suggests they are, that ‘all that you can be’ has been psycho-spiritually fulfilled, and they are as much as sealed.
One could go mad analysing the dishonourable after a while. I always have to keep in my mind that they are indeed enemies, just as any, as you say, subversive non-white, not ‘wayward potential friends’. Not even ‘whites’ anymore; an honorary disqualification. After all, they do side with their alien god.
Perhaps I’m pessimistic, after all.
The quotes I recently posted from The Turner’s Diaries hit the nail on the head. Pierce wrote them in the 1970s, a couple of decades before the term “white nationalists” even existed. Who would have predicted that the WNsts of the next century would take such giant steps back across the psychological Rubicon: ever closer not to NS, but to Normieland, Christian ethics (secularised, as in the case of C-C)?
Only the convergence of catastrophes (the collapse of the dollar, energy devolution, chimp-outs throughout a West enriched by masses of migrants the colour of poop), along with millions of whites killed in such a massive skirmish, might move a few to question—finally!—the Christian ethics that have been killing them.
That would certainly be optimistic, that some might wake up. But considering the psychogenic tragedy that after 1945 almost no one thinks like Pierce or Savitri anymore, is pessimism the only logical option?
If the racialists of our century looked in the mirror, instead of only seeing Jews, they would realize how ugly they are for obeying the commandments of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament (cf. David Skrbina’s book), even though most of those who obey those commandments now are hyper-Christian atheists.