Disaster White nationalist Nick Fuentes has never had a girlfriend

Link (Archive)

White nationalist Nick Fuentes has never had a girlfriend​

Fuentes says the Taliban beat the United States because they weren't 'distracted' by women.​

In a recent podcast appearance, white nationalist Nick Fuentes shared his deeply sexist views about women. His opinions were apparently formed without dating one. Fuentes said he’s never been in a relationship with a woman.

On You Are Here, Fuentes said women shouldn’t vote and described the Taliban’s treatment of women as “ideal.”

The Taliban is notoriously restrictive of women’s rights. Women under Taliban rule in Afghanistan can’t work or attend school. Under its previous rule, women were forced into marriages and beaten for appearing in public without a male relative or for wearing something other than a burqa.

Fuentes also described a “nagging wife” as his “worst nightmare.”

Co-host Sydney Watson didn’t take too kindly to Fuentes’ views. She began by pressing him on his admiration of right-wing authoritarians, as he hasn’t lived anywhere but the United States.

“You can only do so much reading before practical experience actually should take some precedence,” Watson said.

She then pivoted to Fuentes’ statements about women.

“Have you been in a relationship with a woman?” she said.

“No,” Fuentes replied.

“So how are you telling other people how to behave towards women when you yourself have not had any physical interaction with them in a romantic capacity?” Watson fired back. “Or in fact in any capacity when you uphold them in a way that treats them with respect.”

“I have to question what kind of a person who has had no experience with women is in a position to basically promote these ideas,” she said.

“Well, I’m having an experience with a woman right now,” Fuentes retorted. He went on to say that he’s “talked to” and “known enough women to know what’s going on.”

Further, based on things men who are successful with the opposite sex have told him, he thinks it takes a few tricks to pick up women. (Presumably he hasn’t used them himself). Nevertheless, thus, he concludes: “They’re not fully rational. I do not believe that like men they possess a full rationality.”

A clip of the exchange posted by Hannah Gais, a senior researcher with the Southern Poverty Law Center, has more than 600,000 views on Twitter. In the comments, Gais added, “Also to be clear, not dating is ok!”

People weren’t particularly surprised that the white nationalist and sexist young man who some claimlived with his parents until recently (and may still) hasn’t had a girlfriend.

Many were amused or even embarrassed for him.

“You can actually see his soul trying to embarrassment-escape from his body,” tweeted@annamerlan.

Several suggested that they would never have admitted it.

One Twitter user posted a screenshot of a tweet that says: “Water boarding couldn’t have gotten this outta me.”

Some pointed out that conservatives and far-right figures have complained that their dating lives suffer because of their views. Incel (or involuntary celibate) culture is notoriously right-wing.

“Dude, you went full Tim Pool at the age of 23,” tweeted @thetomzone. “You never go full Tim Pool at the age of 23.”

Pool once blamed feminism for him being single.

The clip of Fuentes admitting he’s never had a girlfriend made its way to the Cringe subreddit. The comments there were brutal.

“My guy is 23! Who listens to whatever he has to say? And why???” said one.

As for Fuentes, he’s endeavored to prove his indifference to being perpetually single by postinga doctored video of him tuning out everything Watson says.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The rest is, like I said, particular to Nick Fuentes because he's the one claiming to have some sort of sex/gender political ideas while having no contact with women and thus... no opinions worth listening to on the matter.

What about his opinions would be enhanced by having had sex with a woman? Would eating a woman out give him more insight on the capacity for women to be rational in their policy opinions? Would enduring her faked orgasms convince him of the superiority of an asymptotically egalitarian society? Shoot, what if he was an abusive boyfriend that raped his girlfriends? Would he have been qualified, then?

That's what I'm trying to communicate-- when I talk about it being used as an insult, I'm more referring to it being used as argumentum ad hominem. It's a waste of time, either way, but if it was an unanchored insult used in the same way as "I fucked your mom", it would be trivially easy to dismiss and you could either just laugh at it or just get angry.

But it's supposed to have a point, here.

So what is that point? That if he spent time with women, he would think that they were worthy of voting? Well, shit, why couldn't she have said that, instead? Why couldn't she have argued that? There's no way he hasn't witnessed anything about women at all, even if he hasn't had sex, so maybe challenge those impressions, or explain why they're so inferior to personal experience as to be completely useless.

She gets to retain the insult, and make a point-- as is, at best, she made an incomplete argument bordering on non sequitur, and that's the kind of thing that rankles me. She masquerades as having a point, but you have to think about it to realize that you wasted your time because there wasn't any point and she just didn't even have the balls or integrity to make a blunt insult. And that's how those "you're a virgin" arguments generally go outside of discussion of specific sex techniques (talk less of political discussions).

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

Isn't he homosexual? Like, using the clinical definition.

So they're virgin-shaming him in spite of it. I thought the left loved homosexuals, but I shouldn't be surprised that some homosexuals are more equal than others.

I don't know, sounds like he'd be the type to argue that fucking traps isn't gay and we all know that Traps have the same effect on trannies that saying nigger has on blacks. Trannies are the top of the victim hood pyramid, so he'd be the bad kind of gay.

 

[JambledUpWords]

I wouldn't call myself a "white nationalist" (who would?), but I am certainly sympathetic to many of the arguments of race realism and this idea that our society is fundamentally successful because it is fundamentally white. I'm hiding in plain sight because I have a family to support, and I think that's probably true of a lot of normal white people. Unless you're a Hispanic grifter like Fuentes, open white nationalism is economic suicide.

I just don’t see a point in race realism because it oversimplifies things down to race, which I don’t think are always good indicators of how good a society runs. Sure, some predominantly white countries might have more in terms of technology, but not all of them are what I’d consider automatically better. Take Australia for instance. The way their government is run right now has restricted people’s ability of movement so much that it’s pretty much a prison, and it’s other white people agreeing with it and enforcing it. Germany is having a similar issue and making vaccines mandatory and is increasingly becoming even more of a police state to enforce it. Being mostly white countries does not guarantee better quality of life in all cases. I guess after hearing race realists talk so much, I’ve become less sympathetic over time because they’ll fetishize being white so much that they’ll sometimes ignore that it’s a lot of white people enforcing the very things they don’t like, on top of pushing for the immigration they don’t want. Because of what I mentioned above, I’m more of a white neutralist these days. I don’t find any shame in being white and I don’t want others to be ashamed of it either, but white nationalists/race realists take the white identity to autistic extremes. They begin to sound like black nationalists, except with it reversed, and both are annoying.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I just don’t see a point in race realism because it oversimplifies things down to race, which I don’t think are always good indicators of how good a society runs. Sure, some predominantly white countries might have more in terms of technology, but not all of them are what I’d consider automatically better. Take Australia for instance. The way their government is run right now has restricted people’s ability of movement so much that it’s pretty much a prison, and it’s other white people agreeing with it and enforcing it. Germany is having a similar issue and making vaccines mandatory and is increasingly becoming even more of a police state to enforce it. Being mostly white countries does not guarantee better quality of life in all cases. I guess after hearing race realists talk so much, I’ve become less sympathetic over time because they’ll fetishize being white so much that they’ll sometimes ignore that it’s a lot of white people enforcing the very things they don’t like, on top of pushing for the immigration they don’t want. Because of what I mentioned above, I’m more of a white neutralist these days. I don’t find any shame in being white and I don’t want others to be ashamed of it either, but white nationalists/race realists take the white identity to autistic extremes. They begin to sound like black nationalists, except with it reversed, and both are annoying.

"Whiteness" is a social construct that doesn't take into account that there are cultural and genetic differences even between Europeans of different regions, much less countries.

It's not just an oversimplification of matters down to race, it's an oversimplification of matters down to an oversimplification of race. Plain racists have more integrity.

 

[byuu]

What about his opinions would be enhanced by having had sex with a woman? Would eating a woman out give him more insight on the capacity for women to be rational in their policy opinions? Would enduring her faked orgasms convince him of the superiority of an asymptotically egalitarian society? Shoot, what if he was an abusive boyfriend that raped his girlfriends? Would he have been qualified, then?

Isn't it fair to say that the opinions on women of some incel loser or repressed homosexual are heavily biased?

Nick wants us to trust him on women being worthless. You can't cry "ad hominem" here because Nick never made any proper rational argument to begin with, he only stated his opinion with nothing to back it up. Attacking his personal biases is fair game in this case.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Isn't it fair to say that the opinions on women of some incel loser or repressed homosexual are heavily biased?

As opposed to the opinions that Chad, Joe, or any woman have about women?

Everyone's biased. What matters is whether you can justify those biases.

Attacking his personal biases is fair game in this case.

Attacking his biases would be fair game in general. And an ad hominem attack can be valid. But she never fleshes out a rational ad hominem argument (thus my prime question) even though she's clearly trying to make a point, herself.

 

[byuu]

But she never fleshes out a rational ad hominem argument (thus my prime question) even though she's clearly trying to make a point, herself (regardless of whether Fuentes is trying to make a point himself).

You act like this was a formal debate. It's one guy going REEE women, and a woman replying lol virgin.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

You act like this was a formal debate.

It doesn't matter if it was. This is about the argument being a waste of time complexly masquerading as an argument. If I caught on to someone doing anything like that in any conversation I had, I'd tell them to fuck off.

It's like getting a gift box for Christmas, opening it, finding a giftbox inside, opening that, finding another giftbox inside, opening that, and finding a Bad Dragon dildo but it's, like, a Chinese knockoff.

 

[byuu]

It doesn't matter if it was. This is about the argument being a waste of time complexly masquerading as an argument.

If I caught on to someone doing anything like that in any conversation I had, I'd tell them to fuck off.

Have you ever seen a Nick Fuentes "debate"? It's all about getting some "own" and making the other side look bad, not proper rational arguments. And this sort of waste of time is why his retard fans watch his debates in the first place.

By Nick's own rules of debate, she absolutely annihilated him.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Have you ever seen a Nick Fuentes "debate"? It's all about getting some "own" and making the other side look bad, not proper rational arguments. And this sort of waste of time is why his retard fans watch his debates in the first place.

By Nick's own rules of debate, she absolutely annihilated him.

I didn't know that much about his debates, but I already said that I couldn't stand anyone in this non-troversy, including the person who took to their keyboards to write a whole article about how Nick hasn't put his penis in a woman's water slide.

 

[byuu]

to write a whole article about how Nick hasn't put his penis in a woman's water slide.

I disagree wholeheartedly. We desperately need more news articles that just call people virgin losers or fat pieces of shit.

 

[DamnWolves!]

"Whiteness" is a social construct that doesn't take into account that there are cultural and genetic differences even between Europeans of different regions, much less countries.

Of course it's an oversimplification, but we don't pick the battlefield, despite still having to participate in the war. Especially in America, refusing to acknowledge that races are groups that exist and have a significant impact on social policy and culture is rètarded.

You could say the same thing about Africa in terms of cultural and genetic differences, but no one seems to want to challenge the idea that the black race exists (unless, of course, you're a lolbertarian trying to argue for racial agnosticism); least of all, black people. It's common sense that when you're lumped into a group, and decisions are being made on the basis of that group, and the other groups want to eradicate your group, you stand up for your collective group interests, regardless of whether or not you chose to be a part of that group.

I could go on about what binds genetic Europeans together--history, culture, religion, values, evolving in cold weather, not being a turkroach... but you don't really have to go into any of that once you recognize that "whiteness doesn't even exist u guys!" won't be a useful defense during an event like the LA Riots, when roving gangs of blacks we're beating any whites they could find to death.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Of course it's an oversimplification, but we don't pick the battlefield, despite still having to participate in the war. Especially in America, refusing to acknowledge that races are groups that exist and have a significant impact on social policy and culture is rètarded.

It's common sense that when you're lumped into a group, and decisions are being made on the basis of that group, and the other groups want to eradicate your group, you stand up for your collective group interests, regardless of whether or not you chose to be a part of that group.

Sure, but ideologies like race realism rely on a homogenizing of various European heritages that can't be supported in reality.

You could say the same thing about Africa in terms of cultural and genetic differences, but no one seems to want to challenge the idea that the black race exists (unless, of course, you're a lolbertarian trying to argue for racial agnosticism); least of all, black people.

Most pan-Africanists are black Americans with an academic at best understanding of Africa or any country within, or the American-born and/or American-raised children of African immigrants. Historically, African immigrants and black Americans have not been on good terms.

I could go on about what binds genetic Europeans together--history, culture, religion, values, evolving in cold weather, not being a turkroach... but you don't really have to go into any of that once you recognize that "whiteness doesn't even exist u guys!" won't be a useful defense during an event like the LA Riots, when roving gangs of blacks we're beating any whites they could find to death.

If your argument is that "the concept of whiteness is a particularly American phenomenon", that lines up with my present understanding.

 

[nigga that crab pollack]

Of course it's an oversimplification, but we don't pick the battlefield

yes you do. this is the fucking problem. i am fairly sure one of the first things in sun tzu's art of war is "do not fight a battle on the enemy's terms" and you are straight up charging up a hill that the enemy picked specifically for the purpose of exhausting you and sticking you like a pig. that is only going to lead to your demise and anyone with a lick of sense knows it

Especially in America, refusing to acknowledge that races are groups that exist and have a significant impact on social policy and culture is rètarded.

you're creating a false dichotomy between race realism and some ass-blasted definitions of race specifically engineered to prevent you from being able to articulate particulars in any meaningful sense. 'whiteness' as a social construct in the modern context purely exists for rhetorical convenience and has no relationship to the historical reality of what whiteness as a social construct actually is. you are under no obligation to even acknowledge their definition as real, let alone give lip service to it to "help other people understand your argument". you're jumping through hoops that other people set up.

also you can say retarded here, and nigger, and faggot. nobody cares. you're literally too scared to spell it out, which is exactly what i mean about jumping through hoops.

It's common sense that when you're lumped into a group, and decisions are being made on the basis of that group, and the other groups want to eradicate your group, you stand up for your collective group interests, regardless of whether or not you chose to be a part of that group.

no it's not you fucking retard. other people's projected opinions of what group you belong to have no bearing on reality or even your own interpretation of that reality. the fact that you are legitimately trying to argue that a mob can dictate your reality and you are better off going along with the flow than disagreeing with their interpretation means that you can't even pretend to have a spine. while you're posting on a forum on the internet. that's legitimately pathetic. does it mean you're a retard, because i called you a retard? i guess so, right?

I could go on about what binds genetic Europeans together--history, culture, religion, values, evolving in cold weather, not being a turkroach... but you don't really have to go into any of that once you recognize that "whiteness doesn't even exist u guys!" won't be a useful defense during an event like the LA Riots, when roving gangs of blacks we're beating any whites they could find to death.

maybe that's because in that situation they picked the terms? you clearly understand the idea of there being different contexts and yet you're trying to apply the logic that applies to specific contexts globally, when it's really obvious to anyone who isn't clutching their pearls that it's completely non-productive and you're literally just playing into their hand out of fear. spoilers - that's the game they're playing and you're dancing to the beat of their drum

 

[Shidoen]

This is why you separate politics from a gf, it either always never gets you one or always ends in disaster.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Race is a shorthanded way of grouping ethnicities. Black, white, and Asian exist as much as blue, red and green do. There is gradiation, there is shading and there is overlap. But they are also absolutely concrete structures. Generally, living in an ethnically homogeneous society is better than living in a racially homogeneous society which is better than living in a racially diverse one.

Going 'oh well, living ìn Australia sucks' is a cope. Sure, Australia is shitty right now; but if it remained of solid European stock, that could be reversed. If it gets nigged up it's gone forever. Every society right now is going down as the percentage of non-whites goes up. This trend does not show signs of stopping anytime soon. Individuals do not mattet, collective action matters; if you think otherwise then you are retarded.

One good nigger doesn't matter, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand 'good' ones are a drop in the bucket. Not only that, but they will breed; and your 'good' niggers children will regress to the average of their kind. Somalia, Nigerian, eretrian. All of them do this.

Nick is a faggot grifter though, and his brand of white nationalism is A) Distinctly American and B) Clearly a grift. You can't create a top down movement the way he wants. You start with a group, then a community, then a movement. Even in Britain we have English, Irish and Scottish nationalism. America is going to be even worse. The concept of 'no more brother wars!' That Nick talks about is both retarded and historically illiterate.

Europeans - Or 'whites' if you want to be American. - have spent the last ten thousand years killing each other and assuming we survive being infested with outsiders,are likely to spend the next ten thousand doing the same. Fuentes and his ilk like to mention the H-dog, but WW2 was composed of Europeans killing each other to prevent a German hegemony on the continent. In British Nationalism we prefer the English first, then the Europeans second, then East Europeans next, then Asians, then Arabs, and we don't like niggers. But overall we want to preserve the Emglish ethnic group.

I have more in common with Arab Social Nationalist ( a guy not a movement) than I do with Nick, because Nick is American.

Race is a shorthanded way of looking at things. Ethnicity is better, ethnicity and culture is better still.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

Race is a shorthanded way of looking at things. Ethnicity is better, ethnicity and culture is better still.

Isn't this, effectively the origin of "Italians and the Irish aren't white? Racially both ethnicities are Caucasian, one bursts into flames in the sun and the other is generally Mediterranean, but culturally they feel more distant. Never mind getting into border cases like the Maltese or even more distant groups, like the Tocharians who were genetically Caucasian but so far on the edge would we even count them? Even if the Tarim Basin mummies that are likely related to them are identifiably white in appearance? Where does that put the Uighers who absorbed them, since genetically the Uighers are half European, half roach?

Complex and nuanced answers don't make for good slogans.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Isn't this, effectively the origin of "Italians and the Irish aren't white? Racially both ethnicities are Caucasian, one bursts into flames in the sun and the other is generally Mediterranean, but culturally they feel more distant. Never mind getting into border cases like the Maltese or even more distant groups, like the Tocharians who were genetically Caucasian but so far on the edge would we even count them? Even if the Tarim Basin mummies that are likely related to them are identifiably white in appearance? Where does that put the Uighers who absorbed them, since genetically the Uighers are half European, half roach?

Complex and nuanced answers don't make for good slogans.

Probably yes. 'White' can mean 'caucasian' or 'English' depending on who uses it. Italians and Irish are European so I consider them white.

Border cases are border cases, same as asking at what point blue becomes green. I don't really consider them honestly, and If I were to think on it I'd probably say sure. If they look like me, think like me and acts in our collective interests then they are fine by me. Same as individual cases, I have no issue with intermarriage (my aunt is married to a black man, I've dated both Jewish and Arabic girls) on an individual level I'm not going to blame someone for falling in love. I oppose the ethnic replacement of my people and the invasion of our homeland by foreigners.

The irony of doing so when the people allowing it are by and large white and (((white))) is not lost on me.

 

[nigga that crab pollack]

Probably yes. 'White' can mean 'caucasian' or 'English' depending on who uses it. Italians and Irish are European so I consider them white.

Border cases are border cases, same as asking at what point blue becomes green. I don't really consider them honestly, and If I were to think on it I'd probably say sure. If they look like me, think like me and acts in our collective interests then they are fine by me. Same as individual cases, I have no issue with intermarriage (my aunt is married to a black man, I've dated both Jewish and Arabic girls) on an individual level I'm not going to blame someone for falling in love. I oppose the ethnic replacement of my people and the invasion of our homeland by foreigners.

The irony of doing so when the people allowing it are by and large white and (((white))) is not lost on me.

if you have a shared value system then you can get along with people of different racial and ethnic groups just fine. i don't hang out with the vietnamese, black people, or the pakis. i don't fit in, and i don't expect to fit in, but i don't give a shit if they drink at my bar or open up resturants and stores that fit their sensibilities. they do the same. you can treat people like human beings while understanding they are different. this isn't some pie in the sky ideal, it's the reality that i live every day. but it's no surprise that places (mostly big cities that have existed forever) that have been heavily and VOLUNTARILY segregated for hundreds of years haven't magically solved centuries of cultural animosity. astroturfing safe spaces will not magically bridge the gap, it's not organic. making one group of people say they like the other group of people isn't going to solve generations of animosity. you can't force people to get along and hold hands and sing kumbuya if they both go home to different places 45 minutes away and don't share at least some common ground. i mean that in a literal sense. if we live in the same neighborhood, they aren't going to burn it down. but if it gets to the point where you have packs of roaming niggers lighting stuff on fire next to a mall they never visit, it's so far past the point where some half assed solution will fix it that. arguing otherwise is preposterous

the 'solution' that is really the problem with all of this is that they've decided that forcibly tearing down the barriers people put up going to fix anything. it's literally south park sock gnome logic. there is an expectation that everyone should pretend that they are entitled to a lack of barriers, and that barriers are actually bad, which just means that people with entitlement complexes latch on and corrupt it. it's not going to work and doesn't work. voluntary boundaries are not a bad thing, those people are entirely within their right to do that and just because a different system works somewhere else doesn't mean you can magically get it to work where you live.

there ARE places more in line with the ideal they are trying to create, they are just really upset that it had nothing to do with the social policies designed to create them and it's being done by people they have always disavowed as uncultured. there's no way to fix that problem, i don't think. you can't make an orange look like an apple no matter how you cut it up or paint it, and the current zeitgeist just keeps trying because they know it works on pears

 

[DamnWolves!]

also you can say retarded here, and nigger, and faggot. nobody cares. you're literally too scared to spell it out, which is exactly what i mean about jumping through hoops.

The word "retarded" was being autocorrected to "exceptional" by some old word filter Null turned on. I wasn't aware it had been turned off. Thinking I would "censor" myself by replacing a letter with the same letter with a little mark over it is retarded.

that's the game they're playing and you're dancing to the beat of their drum

That's the game everyone else is playing, so you either play or you automatically lose. Pretending otherwise ignores half a century of recent history and, more recently, the outright effectiveness of nigger propaganda on public policy and discourse. You aren't going to sit this one out in a cabin in Montana; your kids will be indoctrinated by these people, arrested for speaking out against them under draconian hate speech laws, and you will be fired for not clapping enthusiastically at their genocidal rhetoric.

Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it not exist. Grow the fuck up and learn to deal with reality on reality's terms.