This was a really interesting discussion. I found Daniella's anti-natalism fascinating from a Christian point of view, in light of a few things.
Firstly, the principle of "being fruitful and multiplying" - that having kids is an inherently good thing instituted by God. I'm not sure how one would reconcile that principle with anti-natalism.
But secondly, in response to the problem of suffering and hell in particular (not wanting to bring up children who might end up in hell) surely the biblical principle here is to raise your children in the faith so that they have a high chance of remaining in it and not going to hell? Obviously people make their own choices as they grow up and mature but you can reduce the odds of apostasy through good catechesis and prayer.
I do appreciate though that she distinguishes between natalism as a public policy issue Vs as a personal one. They are necessarily different.
So Pentsak, what exactly is your position on Fuentes? Do you think he's completely irredeemable, or does he still have potential to turn things around? If the latter, what positions would he need to either revise or take up in order to become acceptable as part of the wider right wing movement? Just curious.
He has reached his mid-twenties and still acts optically cancerous and cannot figure out which figures are poison to the movement and which are constructive (Ali).
I’m aware that it is his personality that essentially created the movement, so my suggestion will go unheeded. It may be impossible, but I don’t think it has to be.
I think as time goes on, the movement will either 1. Die out, or 2. grow well beyond Fuentes. I am betting on 2.
He may still fundamentally change his personality. I am not saying it is impossible per se, but it is interesting that he is not reaching mid-twenties and still acts this way. If he allows for other figureheads to co-lead the movement and represent it, I think there may be more hope there for them. However, that doesn’t seem to be his wish.
What can he theoretically do to become more acceptable? One, stop acting foolish on his streams. Have a greater sense of decorum, not to ostracize women, etc. In other words, be a good representative of the behavior he wishes to invoke. Hanging out with Ye, Milo, etc. really discredited him imo.
Thanks for replying. I genuinely appreciate it. I never take it for granted that people in these space engage with the comments - it's always nice when it happens.
OK, so we've established that you want him ostracized from the acceptable right-wing discourse. And I think it's fair to say that you deem him completely irredeemable, simply because he's unlikely to change. All fair positions to hold and I appreciate your honesty there
But I'm still not clear if the root of your opposition to him is personal, political or philosophical. Can you clarify?
By personal I mean: do you simply take issue with his presentation and management style, and the people he associates with? Basically, what can loosely be termed the 'optics'.
And by political, I mean do you have fundamental disagreements with his explicit America First policy positions vis a vis things like foreign aid to Israel and Ukraine, and domestic issues like abortion and civil rights law? What tenets of his America First agenda do you disagree with?
And lastly, by philosophical, do you disagree with his ultimate vision of the future, one which would basically resemble a patriarchal white Christian nationalist ethnostate - something akin to Franco's Spain?
Which of these is the root of the disagreement, or is it all three?
I guess an easier way to answer this question might be if you can name someone - a public figure of some sort - who more closely aligns with your own views - someone that Fuentes would have to basically become if he were to ever become acceptable in your view. So, do you have any public figure like this already in mind? I'm just curious as to who you would vouch for as a good leader or representative of the movement you see yourself as being as a part of.
Note that I'm asking you this and not Walt as I think Walt has already pretty well articulated his overall position in contradistinction to Fuentes, so I think I already know where the root disagreements lie. But I'm not clear on your position, at least not from this podcast. If you've articulated all of this elsewhere then feel free to point me to it (so long as it's not paywalled).
Her critiques on him were dripping with resentment. Vitalists-types almost never have good takes on him. I say this as an atheist who is not a part of his movement in any way.
On one hand no, the anti-woman thing is a problem that will become a bigger problem as his movement grows. Though I haven’t heard him talk much about women lately. Seems hyper-focused on the JQ. However the inceldom will inevitably attract weirdos and unsavory characters. Especially considering that Gen-Z is a mess when it comes to sexual relationships.
On the other hand, he has a spell on the young White male demographic in a way nobody comes close. Which is the fundamental why people don’t like him (envy).
In sum, I think he’s a weird, neurotic person who may not be particularly pleasant to be friends with, but he’s kinda of a genius. He could absolutely be the face of White Identity( he already is).
It's willfully ignorant to suggest that the anti-woman thing isn't a fixed part of the community he knowingly cultivated. 'Dripping with resentment' is one way to put it; however, I would more so call it ‘applying practical observation’. It is undeniable his leadership is negatively affecting the message of the movement. The movement operates around the personality of a single individual who acts childish and optically foolish, leaving the messages of the movement easily dismissed by mainstream voices.
there are already states in the US (and especially canada) where if you cohabitate with a romantic partner for two years they gain some kind of quasi-marital rights and can’t be kicked out without some sort of settlement or division of assets. I dislike this because I don’t think the state should be in the business of determining who is and isn’t a romantic partner in the absence of a formal declaration thereof (or children), but I could probably deal with it if it were like 5 years or something.
It was a pleasure to speak with you!
This was a really interesting discussion. I found Daniella's anti-natalism fascinating from a Christian point of view, in light of a few things.
Firstly, the principle of "being fruitful and multiplying" - that having kids is an inherently good thing instituted by God. I'm not sure how one would reconcile that principle with anti-natalism.
But secondly, in response to the problem of suffering and hell in particular (not wanting to bring up children who might end up in hell) surely the biblical principle here is to raise your children in the faith so that they have a high chance of remaining in it and not going to hell? Obviously people make their own choices as they grow up and mature but you can reduce the odds of apostasy through good catechesis and prayer.
I do appreciate though that she distinguishes between natalism as a public policy issue Vs as a personal one. They are necessarily different.
So Pentsak, what exactly is your position on Fuentes? Do you think he's completely irredeemable, or does he still have potential to turn things around? If the latter, what positions would he need to either revise or take up in order to become acceptable as part of the wider right wing movement? Just curious.
Remove him.
He has reached his mid-twenties and still acts optically cancerous and cannot figure out which figures are poison to the movement and which are constructive (Ali).
I’m aware that it is his personality that essentially created the movement, so my suggestion will go unheeded. It may be impossible, but I don’t think it has to be.
I think as time goes on, the movement will either 1. Die out, or 2. grow well beyond Fuentes. I am betting on 2.
He may still fundamentally change his personality. I am not saying it is impossible per se, but it is interesting that he is not reaching mid-twenties and still acts this way. If he allows for other figureheads to co-lead the movement and represent it, I think there may be more hope there for them. However, that doesn’t seem to be his wish.
What can he theoretically do to become more acceptable? One, stop acting foolish on his streams. Have a greater sense of decorum, not to ostracize women, etc. In other words, be a good representative of the behavior he wishes to invoke. Hanging out with Ye, Milo, etc. really discredited him imo.
Thanks for replying. I genuinely appreciate it. I never take it for granted that people in these space engage with the comments - it's always nice when it happens.
OK, so we've established that you want him ostracized from the acceptable right-wing discourse. And I think it's fair to say that you deem him completely irredeemable, simply because he's unlikely to change. All fair positions to hold and I appreciate your honesty there
But I'm still not clear if the root of your opposition to him is personal, political or philosophical. Can you clarify?
By personal I mean: do you simply take issue with his presentation and management style, and the people he associates with? Basically, what can loosely be termed the 'optics'.
And by political, I mean do you have fundamental disagreements with his explicit America First policy positions vis a vis things like foreign aid to Israel and Ukraine, and domestic issues like abortion and civil rights law? What tenets of his America First agenda do you disagree with?
And lastly, by philosophical, do you disagree with his ultimate vision of the future, one which would basically resemble a patriarchal white Christian nationalist ethnostate - something akin to Franco's Spain?
Which of these is the root of the disagreement, or is it all three?
I guess an easier way to answer this question might be if you can name someone - a public figure of some sort - who more closely aligns with your own views - someone that Fuentes would have to basically become if he were to ever become acceptable in your view. So, do you have any public figure like this already in mind? I'm just curious as to who you would vouch for as a good leader or representative of the movement you see yourself as being as a part of.
Note that I'm asking you this and not Walt as I think Walt has already pretty well articulated his overall position in contradistinction to Fuentes, so I think I already know where the root disagreements lie. But I'm not clear on your position, at least not from this podcast. If you've articulated all of this elsewhere then feel free to point me to it (so long as it's not paywalled).
Cheers.
Her critiques on him were dripping with resentment. Vitalists-types almost never have good takes on him. I say this as an atheist who is not a part of his movement in any way.
Do u think he is setting a good example for his people?
On one hand no, the anti-woman thing is a problem that will become a bigger problem as his movement grows. Though I haven’t heard him talk much about women lately. Seems hyper-focused on the JQ. However the inceldom will inevitably attract weirdos and unsavory characters. Especially considering that Gen-Z is a mess when it comes to sexual relationships.
On the other hand, he has a spell on the young White male demographic in a way nobody comes close. Which is the fundamental why people don’t like him (envy).
In sum, I think he’s a weird, neurotic person who may not be particularly pleasant to be friends with, but he’s kinda of a genius. He could absolutely be the face of White Identity( he already is).
Love your work Walt!
It's willfully ignorant to suggest that the anti-woman thing isn't a fixed part of the community he knowingly cultivated. 'Dripping with resentment' is one way to put it; however, I would more so call it ‘applying practical observation’. It is undeniable his leadership is negatively affecting the message of the movement. The movement operates around the personality of a single individual who acts childish and optically foolish, leaving the messages of the movement easily dismissed by mainstream voices.
there are already states in the US (and especially canada) where if you cohabitate with a romantic partner for two years they gain some kind of quasi-marital rights and can’t be kicked out without some sort of settlement or division of assets. I dislike this because I don’t think the state should be in the business of determining who is and isn’t a romantic partner in the absence of a formal declaration thereof (or children), but I could probably deal with it if it were like 5 years or something.