I hope that it it stops here, it should stop Current Time 0:19 / Duration 3:08 Mediaite Nick Fuentes Warns His Followers He Will ‘Disown’ Them If They Turn to Violence After Kirk Killing 0 View on Watch View on Watch Far-right conspiracy theorist and highly controversial online influencer, Nick Fuentes, told his followers, known as “groypers,” that if they turn to violence in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk, he will “disavow” and “disown’ them. “This is a very delicate situation. This is a very delicate situation. I fear that this has set off a chain reaction. I pray to God there is no further violence. I pray to God that nobody else is hurt as a result of this. I hope that it stops here. It should stop here. To all of my followers: if you take up arms, I disavow you. I disown you in the strongest possible terms,” Fuentes said on Rumble. Shave 5 Shots Off Your Scores Without Changing Your Swing Ad Shave 5 Shots Off Your Scores Without Changing Your Swing PerformanceGolf call to action icon Fuentes and his so-called “groyper army” have long been critics of Kirk, infiltrating his events in the past to troll the speakers and try and turn the crowd toward a more extreme, white nationalist version of conservatism. Earlier in the year, Fuentes praised Kirk for his campaign against Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights attack, declaring, “Charlie Kirk, as we know, has become a white supremacist. And that’s a huge victory. But he remains a, he remains a Jew lover!” “He remains a Jew lover. And that, I don’t use language like that, you know, but he is an Israel shill,” said Fuentes on his internet show in February. Fuentes, who dined with President Trump in 2023, was deplatformed in recent years over his explicit anti-Semitism, as well as his repeated calls for limiting the rights of women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community. His regular use of violent rhetoric has also caused alarm. Investing in the Future of Genetic Medicine Ad Investing in the Future of Genetic Medicine Curation Connect call to action icon Fuentes took a very noticeably different approach, however, in discussing the Kirk killing. He added, “That is not what we are about. And the same goes obviously for the other side. And I want to make that very clear. It would be a profound moral, political mistake for anybody to take the bait and to engage in any kind of reprisal, retaliation, or revenge.” “Remember, we are the good side. And what makes us good is that we have Christ. What makes Christianity and Christ so different from the other religions is that our religion is based on the bearing of suffering for the sake of even those that persecute us. An overflowing of love, an overflowing of self-giving love,” he said, adding: So much of it, it cannot be contained. And unconditional, absolute standard of love for all of God’s children, even those that are misguided, even those that persecute us, even the most heinous among us. That is what makes us different. That is what makes us good. You think you’re good? You’re not. You are not good. I am not good! You are a man. I am a man. You are a sinner. I am a sinner. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot save this world. God can save us. God can save the world. Watch the clip above.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment