"He's always the problem"
Really?
Want to know what this is? Start here.
Here’s your soundtrack:
The Cozy Boys and their obsessive haters are so much like women that it’s absurd.
But it makes sense, right?
They have cut women out of their experience (allegedly) in order to stay sexually pure until marriage and, to balance the lack of female influence in their spaces, they fight with each other like a bunch of high school girls.
Everything is dramatic! Everything requires overblown bullshit, video responses, private conversations being released publicly out of context and twisted to present in the worst possible way.
You’d think it might be easier to just get laid and beg God’s forgiveness later.
I promise, boys, God loves you and wants you to be happy.
Anyway, such as it was this week when Nick streamed with Richard Spencer, and pissed off Andrew Anglin, who then dramatically publicly denounced him.
Catch up on the full drama here (of course, they make videos documenting the drama, because why wouldn’t they?):
Now, I have no use for Richard Spencer or Andrew Anglin and won’t spend much time on them other than to say that one of the things I’m sure of is that neither of them has a penis any larger than my pinkie finger, when erect.
But the reason I bring this up is this: In Anglin’s denunciation of Nick, he mentions how Nick is ALWAYS the problem, he’s ALWAYS the person who sabotages relationships, no one is EVER guilty but Nick.
This is a line I’ve heard from Nick haters over and over and over again: It’s always Nick, it’s never anyone else.
And it’s a giant red flag.
It’s too familiar: When I was being gang stalked by a mob of woke idiots for three years, one of the things they said over and over and over again was this:
“Karlyn is always the common denominator. Why does Karlyn fight with everyone? Why does Karlyn destroy all of her relationships?”
They said this over and over and over again.
When it happens to you, you see things differently. You know the difference between what the mob is saying and what the truth is. Here’s what I know:
I didn’t even know, and had never spoken to, the people who were pushing the talking point. They all claimed to be friends of mine that I had betrayed, but I couldn’t tell you their names if I had a gun to my head. I have no idea who these people are.
They would make mountains out of molehills, where I would disagree with something an influencer said and all of a sudden there was a big falling out. A single tweet would get blown out of proportion as evidence that I was the problem.
Of the people who I have legitimately had fallingouts with, they were are all friends in the same internet clique. There was not a single person outside of that internet clique involved that I had a real falling out with.
I also know that most of those falling outs were because I didn’t have any desire to have a relationship with that person anymore because they had stabbed me in the back or done something otherwise untrustworthy, and most of those people were just trying to use me to build their brand. The ending of the relationship wasn’t a loss to me. It was a loss to them.
But most importantly, I haven’t had a falling out with everyone I know. Very few, in fact. The only people I’ve had fallingouts with are grifting content creators who aren’t as smart as me and usually have platforms significantly smaller than I do.
So, I know the line is fundamentally untrue. And yet it’s something that morons on the internet have been screaming for literally years. They do so every time they declare that I’m going bankrupt and can’t get a job and am obviously going to fail. Everyone hates me, no one supports me, blah, blah, blah.
They’re never quite able to address the question of how I do what I do if everyone hates me, no one supports me, and that I make no money. But, of course, that doesn’t matter. The mob is very selective about the information that “matters.”
Internet mobs are predictable. They operate with the same patterns of behavior over and over and over again. If one cancel mob does something, I’m not going to be surprised if the pattern shows up elsewhere.
So, is it really always 100% Nick’s fault? Really???
I’m skeptical.
I’m skeptical because Nick is surrounded by people who obviously love him.
I’m skeptical because Nick can immediately attract tens of thousands of new followers on any account he has, even when it’s not even under his real name because he’s been banned on the platform.
I’m skeptical because Nick has all these interns running around, willing to work for him for nothing just to be in his sphere of orbit.
I’m skeptical because when two of Nick’s former employees betrayed him by spilling the beans publicly and encouraging others to quit, it doesn’t seem like there were many defectors.
I’m skeptical because Nick garners thousands of viewers in an instant anytime he goes live, even if it’s at 2am with no advanced notice, or in the middle of the day and he’s just playing games or watching content.
I’m skeptical because Nick has made a lot of money doing what he’s doing, which means he’s providing value to a lot of people because they’re willing to voluntarily pay for it.
I’m skeptical because Nick’s haters are so obsessed with him that you would be forgiven for assuming they’re a bunch of bitter ex-girlfriends that got their hearts broken by Nick when he wasn’t into them anymore.
Do I think Nick makes stupid decisions? Absolutely. Not all the time, but often enough that it’s noticeable.
For example, he should have listened to Big Tech. He’s one of the few people Nick should try to patch things up with - he’s smart, gave Nick really good advice, and is someone who I think wants Nick to be successful.
So, no, Nick is not perfect in his decision making.
However…
Richard Spencer is 45-years-old.
Andrew Anglin is 39-years-old.
Nick Fuentes is 25-years-old.
Take a wild guess: Who am I going to cut some slack with when it comes to decision-making?
Those two could literally be Nick’s father, and you expect me to hold him to the same levels of wisdom that can only be gained through life experience?
The bigger question I have is why they placed all their trust in Nick to be the leader of their movement in the first place. Hasn’t Nick basically always been the same?
And why do they believe that Nick needs their permission or blessing to do anything?
It seems like he’s doing just fine with the audience he has. Whether they’re love-watching him or hate-watching him, there’s obviously a lot of people who want to hear what he has to say.
He needs permission why?
The only reason to publicly denounce someone is that you want to hurt them in some way.
If you didn’t care about them, you wouldn’t care enough to denounce them.
And most often, the people who are publicly denouncing others are doing it for attention.
Do you know who spends time worrying about who Nick Fuentes is on a Zoom call with, and then spends more time writing a multi-page letter crying about Nick talking to someone on a Zoom call to insert himself into a conversation he wasn’t involved with in the first place?
Someone who needs to get a job.
Not all relationships are meant to last forever.
Especially in a space where money and clout will always take priority for the fame whores of the internet.
With rare exceptions, people who are drawn to being famous on the internet should not be trusted.
The minute that others show you who they are, believe them and don’t look back.
And if someone has a high track record of doing that, I’m going. to assume that they’ve sadly got involved with the wrong people and made the decision to move on when it became clear those people would do them more harm than good.
When I see someone who doesn’t need other people to be successful breaking off relationships with people less successful than he is, I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing.