Nick Fuentes is a mongrel.  

I have never heard of Fuentes until fanboys began posting on here. My gut instinct tells me he has some deep seated issues hence why I was interested. As for the link, it genuinely won't let me in, but I am so sorry that I bore you so much and it is so much trouble for you to even answer civilly. Just glad you're not my neighbour.

It may be that the website is banned by the country you are in.

I have never heard of Fuentes ....My gut instinct tells me he has some deep seated issues

  In what world does this make any sense?  You've never heard of "person A" but your gut tells you that "they have issues".

1.  If you've never heard of person A, how do you even know what they've said?
2.  If you've never heard person A talk, how have you verified if they are wrong?
3.  If you don't know if person A is wrong consistently, how can you tell they "have issues"?

You're either 1) lying about not-knowing Fuentes, or 2) you're pre-judging him based on...gossip.

This is the dumbest post i've ever read on this site.

  In what world does this make any sense?  You've never heard of "person A" but your gut tells you that "they have issues".

1.  If you've never heard of person A, how do you even know what they've said?
2.  If you've never heard person A talk, how have you verified if they are wrong?
3.  If you don't know if person A is wrong consistently, how can you tell they "have issues"?

You're either 1) lying about not-knowing Fuentes, or 2) you're pre-judging him based on...gossip.

This is the dumbest post i've ever read on this site.

She meant that she never heard of him until she listened to the entire clip that she summarized in Post #3.  From that post she had a gut reaction that something is not quite right with Nick (my guess is his lack of humility, but maybe we are just so used to soft men, that a confident man sounds strange. I don't know.)

Boru, correct me if I am wrong.

What do Fuentes' fans think about his confusion regarding his sɛҳuąƖity?

Controlled opposition Nick Fuentes says  ‘Having Sex with Women is gαy’
https://www.politicalflare.com/2022/05/white-nationalist-maga-leader-and-incel-nick-fuentes-says-having-sex-with-women-is-gαy/

. . .
“I think if anything [being an incel] it makes me less gαy. If anything, it makes me not gαy as opposed to less gαy, not that there’s any gαy, but it makes me not gαy.

“If we’re really being honest, never having a girlfriend, never having sex with a woman really makes you more heterosɛҳuąƖ because honestly, dating women is gαy, having sex with women is gαy.
“And having sex with men is gαy. Really it’s all gαy. The only really straight heterosɛҳuąƖ position is to be an asɛҳuąƖ incel. That’s it. That’s all there is.

See video
https://www.politicalflare.com/2022/05/white-nationalist-maga-leader-and-incel-nick-fuentes-says-having-sex-with-women-is-gαy/

This is a good overview:


He basically gives Theophrastus's argument against marriage / for celibacy, and Candace seems clueless (and also doesn't seem to realize that women generally benefit more more marriage than men do):

St. Jerome, in bk. 1 of his Against Jovinianus §47, gives the only source for the philosopher Theophrastus's On Marriage, "worth its weight in gold," in which he answers the question

whether a wise man marries. And after laying down the conditions — that the wife must be fair, of good character, and honest parentage, the husband in good health and of ample means, and after saying that under these circuмstances a wise man sometimes enters the state of matrimony, he immediately proceeds thus

Quote from: Theophrastus

But all these conditions are seldom satisfied in marriage. A wise man therefore must not take a wife. For in the first place his study of philosophy will be hindered, and it is impossible for anyone to attend to his books and his wife. Matrons [married women] want many things, costly dresses, gold, jewels, great outlay, maid-servants, all kinds of furniture, litters and gilded coaches. Then come curtain-lectures the livelong night: she complains that one lady goes out better dressed than she: that another is looked up to by all: 'I am a poor despised nobody at the ladies' assemblies.' 'Why did you ogle that creature next door?' 'Why were you talking to the maid?' 'What did you bring from the market?' 'I am not allowed to have a single friend, or companion.' She suspects that her husband's love goes the same way as her hate. There may be in some neighbouring city the wisest of teachers; but if we have a wife we can neither leave her behind, nor take the burden with us. To support a poor wife, is hard: to put up with a rich one, is torture. Notice, too, that in the case of a wife you cannot pick and choose: you must take her as you find her. If she has a bad temper, or is a fool, if she has a blemish, or is proud, or has bad breath, whatever her fault may be — all this we learn after marriage. Horses, asses, cattle, even slaves of the smallest worth, clothes, kettles, wooden seats, cups, and earthenware pitchers, are first tried and then bought: a wife is the only thing that is not shown before she is married, for fear she may not give satisfaction. Our gaze must always be directed to her face, and we must always praise her beauty: if you look at another woman, she thinks that she is out of favour. She must be called my lady, her birth-day must be kept, we must swear by her health and wish that she may survive us, respect must be paid to the nurse, to the nursemaid, to the father's slave, to the foster-child, to the handsome hanger-on, to the curled darling who manages her affairs, and to the eunuch who ministers to the safe indulgence of her lust: names which are only a cloak for adultery. Upon whomsoever she sets her heart, they must have her love though they want her not. If you give her the management of the whole house, you must yourself be her slave. If you reserve something for yourself, she will not think you are loyal to her; but she will turn to strife and hatred, and unless you quickly take care, she will have the poison ready. If you introduce old women, and soothsayers, and prophets, and vendors of jewels and silken clothing, you imperil her chastity; if you shut the door upon them, she is injured and fancies you suspect her. But what is the good of even a careful guardian, when an unchaste wife cannot be watched, and a chaste one ought not to be? For necessity is but a faithless keeper of chastity, and she alone really deserves to be called pure, who is free to sin if she chooses. If a woman be fair, she soon finds lovers; if she be ugly, it is easy to be wanton. It is difficult to guard what many long for. It is annoying to have what no one thinks worth possessing. But the misery of having an ugly wife is less than that of watching a comely one. Nothing is safe, for which a whole people sighs and longs. One man entices with his figure, another with his brains, another with his wit, another with his open hand. Somehow, or sometime, the fortress is captured which is attacked on all sides. Men marry, indeed, so as to get a manager for the house, to solace weariness, to banish solitude; but a faithful slave is a far better manager, more submissive to the master, more observant of his ways, than a wife who thinks she proves herself mistress if she acts in opposition to her husband, that is, if she does what pleases her, not what she is commanded. But friends, and servants who are under the obligation of benefits received, are better able to wait upon us in sickness than a wife who makes us responsible for her tears (she will sell you enough to make a deluge for the hope of a legacy), boasts of her anxiety, but drives her sick husband to the distraction of despair. But if she herself is poorly, we must fall sick with her and never leave her bedside. Or if she be a good and agreeable wife (how rare a bird she is!), we have to share her groans in childbirth, and suffer torture when she is in danger. A wise man can never be alone. He has with him the good men of all time, and turns his mind freely wherever he chooses. What is inaccessible to him in person he can embrace in thought. And, if men are scarce, he converses with God. He is never less alone than when alone. Then again, to marry for the sake of children, so that our name may not perish, or that we may have support in old age, and leave our property without dispute, is the height of stupidity. For what is it to us when we are leaving the world if another bears our name, when even a son does not all at once take his father's title, and there are countless others who are called by the same name. Or what support in old age is he whom you bring up, and who may die before you, or turn out a reprobate? Or at all events when he reaches mature age, you may seem to him long in dying. Friends and relatives whom you can judiciously love are better and safer heirs than those whom you must make your heirs whether you like it or not. Indeed, the surest way of having a good heir is to ruin your fortune in a good cause while you live, not to leave the fruit of your labour to be used you know not how.

She meant that she never heard of him until she listened to the entire clip that she summarized in Post #3.  From that post she had a gut reaction that something is not quite right with Nick (my guess is his lack of humility, but maybe we are just so used to soft men, that a confident man sounds strange. I don't know.)

Boru, correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you for you intelligent assessment Gray. Really, I couldn't have made it clearer when I used the word 'until' - I hadn't heard of Fuentes UNTIL the fanboys began posting - of which, as you correctly stated, I have been commenting on since and getting a feel for this young American pod-caster.  My father is an extremely confident man, the type that becomes the center of a discussion or party the moment he enters a room. But he is not rude and disrespectful and does not use bad language in order to seem "tough" and demand attention. When I watched the way Fuentes went on a rant about how Candace Owen treated him - seething with rage and indignation - and calling her a "bitch" several times in a row - even "black bitch", 'confidence' is not a word that comes to mind to describe Fuentes but rather 'a disrespectful, foul-mouthed brat'. And this is before I began to grasp his politics. Now some of what he says I would agree with. But some of it seems purposely designed to mislead and keep you guessing. Including his whole anti-Israel stance. It seems to me, and this is just a personal suspicion, that he is using the anti-Israel card as a means to divide and conquer and cast doubt on other conservative speakers. Just as Tucker Carlson mentioned. I admit that I don't know a whole lot about him, and it just could be that he is a loose canon with a big mouth, but his willingness to do a whole podcast, with realms of information and detail (and mocking), on why 'A' person of good reputation, is not to be trusted, is odd. It just doesn't sit right.

This is a good overview:


He basically gives Theophrastus's argument against marriage / for celibacy, and Candace seems clueless (and also doesn't seem to realize that women generally benefit more more marriage than men do):

St. Jerome, in bk. 1 of his Against Jovinianus §47, gives the only source for the philosopher Theophrastus's On Marriage, "worth its weight in gold," in which he answers the question

The philosopher Theophrastus was a Greek pagan writing from both a pagan's perspective and from the perspective of a philospher who put celibacy before marriage and children in order to focus on his love for higher learning.  St. Jerome uses him as an example to show how even a pagan philosopher saw the wisdom in staying single so as to avoid all the distractions and burdens that a wife and children would bring.  St. Jerome writes: "When Theophrastus thus discourses, are there any of us, Christians, whose conversation is in heaven and who daily say Philippians 1:23 I long to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, whom he does not put to the blush?" In other words, if this pagan is prepared to give up all for his studies, how much more should we as Christians be willing to give up all for Christ. For such a state - all for Christ - was indeed a higher state (in refutation of Jovinianus who declared the two states equal) than marriage where a man's focus is divided and distracted.

Context is everything. Clearly St. Jerome's argument against marriage for celibacy hinges on Christ; staying single in order to dedicate ones heart and mind to and for Christ.

Staying single so you can live a selfish life without responsibilities and without having to consider other people, is not what either St. Jerome or the pagan Theophratus were talking about.

So, the million dollar question - is Fuentes aversion to marriage so that he can dedicate all to Christ or so that he can dedicate all to himself?

It's quite possible that Candace wasn't quite so clueless as you accused.