As regards the stone throwing of Day Vox and Owen Benjamin in the above link, it should be noted that they live in their own glass houses with their own baggage and agendas.

• • • Rash judgment & detraction Publicly imputing grave sins without competent proof, venue, or jurisdiction is classic rash judgment; broadcasting a person’s alleged private sins is detraction—even if true—when there’s no proportionate good. Accusation-as-content violates the Eighth Commandment. A Catholic critique writes itself: “This is not how Catholics pursue justice; this is how we farm outrage.”
    • No due process, no witnesses, no forum of correction. Matthew 18 gives a graduated path; Canon law reserves crimes of sɛҳuąƖ abuse to competent ecclesial or civil authority. Turning suspicions into monetized streams/blogs is the opposite of fraternal correction.
    • Scandal and spiritual harm. Milking lurid insinuations (“pervy,” “honey pot,” “underage”) creates scandal—driving the weak to contempt or cynicism—without actually protecting anyone. If there’s truly a crime: report it; if not, stop smearing.
    • Incoherence with claimed goals. If the stated aim is defending Christian civilization, then calumny, mockery, and innuendo are self-refuting tools. Catholics can say: “You don’t defend Logos by bearing false witness.”
    • Pride & profiteering. Personality-cult feuds (refusal to debate, purity tests, victory laps when platforms ban rivals) reek of vainglory. A traditional Catholic response: “Less YouTube court, more confession.”

I've been listening to Fuentes since last September, during the election. I've been supporting and defending him this year. But after some things were brought to my attention last week, I had to change my tune. I cannot support him anymore, though I'm certain his news analysis will remain very interesting.

https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/my-opinion-about-nick-fuentes-as

As regards the stone throwing of Day Vox and Owen Benjamin in the above link, it should be noted that they live in their own glass houses with their own baggage and agendas.

• Rash judgment & detraction  Publicly imputing grave sins without competent proof, venue, or jurisdiction is classic rash judgment; broadcasting a person’s alleged private sins is detraction—even if true—when there’s no proportionate good. Accusation-as-content violates the Eighth Commandment. A Catholic critique writes itself: “This is not how Catholics pursue justice; this is how we farm outrage.”
• No due process, no witnesses, no forum of correction. Matthew 18 gives a graduated path; Canon law reserves crimes of sɛҳuąƖ abuse to competent ecclesial or civil authority. Turning suspicions into monetized streams/blogs is the opposite of fraternal correction.
• Scandal and spiritual harm. Milking lurid insinuations (“pervy,” “honey pot,” “underage”) creates scandal—driving the weak to contempt or cynicism—without actually protecting anyone. If there’s truly a crime: report it; if not, stop smearing.
• Incoherence with claimed goals. If the stated aim is defending Christian civilization, then calumny, mockery, and innuendo are self-refuting tools. Catholics can say: “You don’t defend Logos by bearing false witness.”
• Pride & profiteering. Personality-cult feuds (refusal to debate, purity tests, victory laps when platforms ban rivals) reek of vainglory. A traditional Catholic response: “Less YouTube court, more confession.”