Top 50 Nick Fuentes Pedophile Scandals (Karlstack)
| Karlstack | 03/25/25 | | .,..,.,.;,.,,:,.,.,::,...,..,:,..;,.., | 03/25/25 | | average/ordinary/typical citizen/person | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | a trade show for your mind | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | a trade show for your mind | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | cock of michael obama | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Juan Eighty | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Faggottini | 03/25/25 | | cock of michael obama | 03/25/25 | | Diamond Dallas Trump | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | cock of michael obama | 03/25/25 | | Faggottini | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Faggottini | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | hebraic stratagems | 03/26/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | sam hyde inseminating boner police's mouth via gjr | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/26/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/26/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 03/25/25 | | Oh you travel? (_) | 03/25/25 | | cock of michael obama | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::, | 03/25/25 | | fulano | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/26/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | saibaman | 03/25/25 | | ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... | 03/25/25 | | Harry Chang | 03/26/25 | | Oh, ni lu xing ma? | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::, | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::, | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Oh, ni lu xing ma? | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | .....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,; | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Oh, ni lu xing ma? | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | Oh, ni lu xing ma? | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Faggottini | 03/25/25 | | lex | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Cumbutt | 03/25/25 | | '"''"'"'''""" | 03/25/25 | | ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... | 03/25/25 | | UN peacekeeper | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | amalek | 03/25/25 | | Scott Bulllock, aka Lawis4losers | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/25/25 | | daniel gay luis | 03/25/25 | | chilmata | 03/25/25 | | bboom@perkinscoiefacts.com | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | metaphysical certitude | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/25/25 | | Karlstack | 03/26/25 | | chilmata | 03/26/25 | | Karlstack | 03/26/25 | | ...........,.,.,............:::: | 03/26/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 25th, 2025 2:26 PM Author: Karlstack
This 33,000-word exposé is the most in-depth investigation ever conducted into Nick Fuentes’ media empire. It draws on leaks, public records, and interviews with ex-girlfriends, ex-employees, streamers, FBI informants, catboys, police chiefs, and a Catholic priest, to uncover 50 interconnected Groyper scandals ranging from grooming, child pornography, revenge pornography, and pedophilia to swatting, doxxing, drug trafficking, crypto scams, tax fraud, rape, brainwashing, mental illness, mass shootings, election interference, foreign interference, and domestic terrorism. The Groypers operate like a cult, targeting young conservative grappling with autism, trauma, or sexual identity, and grooming them into unwavering loyalty to wealthy, older gay men who exploit them for sexual gain, blackmail, and kompromat.
https://www.karlstack.com/p/top-50-nick-fuentes-pedophile-scandals
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781076)
|
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 3:31 PM
Author: .,..,.,.;,.,,:,.,.,::,...,..,:,..;,..,
wtf is this shit? you realize like 0.0001% of people know who the fuck "nick fuentes" even is let alone want to read your disorganized word vomit about how he's a pedo, which anyone who has seen a picture of him already knows because of his pedo face.
get a real job you stupid ass bitch. you could have made like 2000 jimmy johns sandwiches in the time it took you to put this pile of shit together.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781270) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 2:32 PM Author: cock of michael obama
152 minute read? come on man, lol
you should have broken this up into a 5 parter or something
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781094) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 2:35 PM Author: metaphysical certitude
Christopher Brunet's 33,000-word exposé, published on March 25, 2025, investigates Nick Fuentes and his "Groyper" movement, uncovering 50 interconnected scandals involving pedophilia, grooming, doxxing, swatting, and domestic terrorism. Drawing from leaks, interviews, and public records, Brunet portrays Fuentes as a cult leader exploiting vulnerable young men, with ties to alleged federal informants, mass shooters, and foreign interference. The article details Fuentes' association with figures like Ali Alexander, accused of sexual predation, and highlights the America First movement's links to criminal activities, including tax fraud and election interference, culminating in a call for federal investigation into what Brunet deems a national security threat.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781106) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 2:36 PM
"The Groypers operate like a cult, targeting young conservative grappling with autism, trauma, or sexual identity, and grooming them into unwavering loyalty to wealthy, older gay men who exploit them for sexual gain, blackmail, and kompromat."
KARL THERE'S A TYPO IT SHOULD BE YOUNG CONSERVATIVES WITH AN S YOU FUCKING RETARD
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781109) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 2:41 PM Author: Cumbutt (gunneratttt)
1) How many words does it contain? How much of this is not quotes or citations i.e., how much is original writing from the author?
Word Count
The document contains approximately 33,000 words, as stated in the article itself: "This 33,000-word exposé is the most in-depth investigation ever conducted into Nick Fuentes’ media empire." Without access to the exact text beyond the provided excerpt (truncated at 100,410 characters), I’ll assume this self-reported figure is accurate, as it aligns with the scope of such an extensive piece.
Original Writing vs. Quotes/Citations
To estimate the portion of original writing, I examined the structure and content of the provided excerpt, which appears representative of the full article. The document includes:
• Original narrative: Brunet’s introductions, transitions, commentary, and conclusions (e.g., "I embedded myself in the Groyper underworld to find out," "This is the pedophile playbook 101").
• Quotes and citations: Direct statements from Fuentes, Groypers, interviewees, and external sources (e.g., Kessler’s article, Nick’s livestream quotes, leaked DMs, forum posts), often presented in quotation marks or as embedded excerpts.
• Mixed content: Descriptions of events or evidence where Brunet paraphrases or summarizes quoted material (e.g., summarizing leaked Telegram chats).
In the provided sample:
• Quotes and citations are frequent, especially in numbered sections detailing specific scandals (e.g., #50, #49, #48), where Brunet often pairs a brief original introduction with lengthy quoted material (e.g., the anonymous ex-girlfriend’s testimony in #49 or Nick’s pledge in #48).
• Original writing dominates in framing the investigation, connecting scandals, and offering analysis (e.g., "The Groypers operate like a cult," "Every ironic joke has a kernel of truth").
Based on a rough analysis of the excerpt:
• Quotes and citations (including full excerpts like the ex-girlfriend’s story or lengthy clips) appear to constitute about 40-50% of the text. This estimate comes from observing that many sections feature extended quotations (e.g., Kessler’s article, Nick’s rants, or forum posts) balanced by Brunet’s shorter introductions and commentary.
• The remaining 50-60% (approximately 16,500–19,800 words) is likely original writing, including Brunet’s investigative narrative, explanations, and conclusions.
Without the full text, this is an approximation. The article’s self-description as an "exposé" drawing on "leaks, public records, and interviews" suggests a heavy reliance on source material, but Brunet’s voice remains prominent in structuring and interpreting it.
Answer: The article contains ~33,000 words. Approximately 16,500–19,800 words (50-60%) are original writing, with the rest being quotes or citations.
2) What is the complexity of the article, e.g., grade reading level?
Vocabulary
• The article leans heavily on basic, emotionally charged words like "cult," "pedophile," "rape," and "scandal," which are accessible but lack sophistication. These terms don’t demand advanced comprehension and appeal more to visceral reactions than intellectual engagement.
• Internet slang ("Groyper," "catboys," "doxxing," "loli") dominates, but it’s shallow jargon, not complex terminology. It’s niche, not elevated, and assumes familiarity rather than challenging readers with new concepts.
• Profanity ("fuck," "cunt") and casual phrases ("I’m like yeah, what’s your point") drag the diction down to a conversational, juvenile level, undermining any claim to intellectual depth.
Sentence Structure
• While some sentences are long (e.g., listing scandals: "grooming, child pornography, revenge pornography, and pedophilia to swatting, doxxing, drug trafficking..."), they’re bloated with commas and lack syntactic complexity. They’re laundry lists, not nuanced arguments, readable by younger audiences with minimal effort.
• Short, choppy sentences ("I earned Nick’s trust." "Nick openly admits he runs a cult.") dominate elsewhere, resembling a middle-school essay more than a sophisticated exposé. They lack the layered clauses or transitions expected at higher reading levels.
• Repetition (e.g., "It’s a cult" repeated verbatim) further simplifies the text, reducing cognitive demand.
Conceptual Density
• The article’s ideas—cult behavior, extremism, allegations—are sensational but not intricate. It piles on examples without deep analysis, relying on outrage rather than requiring readers to grapple with abstract or multifaceted concepts.
• The numbered list format (#50 to #1) spoon-feeds information in bite-sized chunks, more like a blog rant than a cohesive narrative needing sustained attention.
• Subcultural references (e.g., Telegram, X) might confuse outsiders, but they don’t elevate complexity—they’re trivia, not theory.
Readability Estimate
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (estimated): Likely 6th–8th grade (ages 11–14). The reliance on simple vocabulary, repetitive structure, and shock-driven content aligns with a junior high comprehension level. It lacks the nuanced argumentation or technical depth to challenge older readers.
• Comparison: More akin to a gossipy tabloid or a heated Reddit thread than a serious investigative piece, suggesting it’s pitched to a younger, less discerning audience.
Answer: The article’s complexity is approximately a 6th–8th grade reading level, marked by basic language, simplistic structure, and a focus on sensationalism over intellectual rigor.
________________________________________
3) Is the writing on par with published journalism?
Weaknesses Undermining Journalistic Quality
• Structure and Coherence: The numbered list (#50 to #1) feels gimmicky and disjointed, more like a clickbait countdown than a polished narrative. Professional journalism, even in long-form (e.g., The Atlantic), weaves evidence into a unified story, not a fragmented tally. Transitions are weak (e.g., abrupt shifts from Kessler’s quote to Nick’s cult admission), lacking the flow of a seasoned reporter.
• Sourcing and Credibility: While Brunet cites leaks, interviews, and clips, many sources are dubious or poorly verified—anonymous testimonies (e.g., ex-girlfriend), unsourced screenshots, and speculative leaps (e.g., "likely a criminal informant"). Reputable outlets (e.g., The New York Times) demand corroboration, not hearsay or "trust me" appeals. The reliance on fringe sites (e.g., KiwiFarms, Counter-Currents) further erodes legitimacy.
• Tone and Bias: The writing drips with bias ("dangerous and sick people," "false prophet") and sensationalism ("rape, kill, and die"), abandoning the objectivity or measured tone of credible journalism (e.g., ProPublica). It’s closer to a polemic or personal vendetta than a dispassionate exposé. Even advocacy pieces (e.g., Mother Jones) temper outrage with restraint, which Brunet lacks.
• Professionalism: The casual, unpolished style ("PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER," "ChrisBrunet@protonmail.com") and self-promotion smack of amateurism. Mainstream journalism benefits from editorial oversight, purging such rawness. The confrontational asides (e.g., "I believe he panicked") and inconsistent formatting (e.g., erratic quote presentation) signal a lack of refinement.
Comparison to Published Norms
• Mainstream Journalism: The piece doesn’t approach the rigor of The Washington Post or BBC, where facts are triple-checked, bias is minimized, and prose is honed. It’s too sloppy and agenda-driven to sit alongside such work.
• Independent Journalism: Even compared to Substack stars (e.g., Glenn Greenwald), it falls short. Greenwald’s polemics are tightly argued and evidence-based, not a sprawling mess of quotes and rants. Brunet’s effort feels more like a conspiracy theorist’s manifesto than a credible scoop.
• Investigative Merit: The claim of "embedding" and "33,000 words" sounds impressive, but the execution—relying on shock value over substance—lacks the depth of true investigative reporting (e.g., Farrow’s Weinstein exposé). It’s more noise than signal, failing to build a compelling case beyond piling on allegations.
Specific Shortcomings
• Lack of Balance: No attempt is made to present counterpoints or Fuentes’ perspective beyond mocking his quotes, a stark contrast to journalism’s duty to fairness (even in exposés).
• Sensational Overload: The lurid focus on pedophilia, rape, and gore overshadows any serious analysis, resembling tabloid trash (e.g., National Enquirer) more than a respected outlet.
• Self-Publishing Pitfalls: Without editorial gatekeeping, the piece feels unchecked—raw passion masquerading as journalism, not a disciplined craft.
Answer: No, the writing is not on par with published journalism. It lacks the structure, credibility, professionalism, and restraint of mainstream or reputable independent work, resembling an unfiltered rant or tabloid piece more than a legitimate investigative report.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781123)
|
Date: March 25th, 2025 3:30 PM
Author: .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::,
this looks like a lot of work went into it brother, just should've published it serially
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781269) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 3:38 PM Author: metaphysical certitude
i mean come on just read it
Nick outsourced the development of Cozy to an Israeli man named Michael Zimmerman. While I couldn’t verify Zimmerman’s alleged IDF military service, I did confirm he also served (serves?) as IT Director for Alex Jones.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781286)
|
Date: March 25th, 2025 3:44 PM Author: metaphysical certitude
InfoWars employee: Nick also secretly runs around on dates with male prostitutes that identify as catboys while bashing gay people.
Alex Jones: Don’t know what catboys are
InfoWars employee: It’s like identifying as a cat
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781300) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:09 PM Author: Cumbutt (gunneratttt)
it's not a coincidence. the error in your reasoning is that you are assuming karlstack's journalism is about political causes and people he is passionate about, when in reality all of his writing is about personal grudges.
academic scandals = butthurt about getting dinged from econ school
chris rufo scandals = butthurt about getting dinged from manhattan institute
nick fuentes scandals = butthurt about getting pumped and dumped by groypers
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781364) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:08 PM
Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,.....................
Cliff's?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781362) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:14 PM Author: Oh, ni lu xing ma?
i read the whole thing. just finished. i don't like karlstack, but i actually do think that he did a real public service by publishing this
fuentes is a really, really bad person and has done a lot of harm to a lot of people. as have many of the people involved in his orbit
the format of posting that karlstack uses may be goofy and unprofessional, but it allows him to include an enormous amount of evidence to back up his claims. and he does indeed have a *lot* of evidence. this is unironically probably the most legitimate piece of journalism that he has ever published
anyways, i don't actually recommend wasting your time reading the post. you can be assured that these people really are that fucked up and evil. steer clear of them
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781383) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:29 PM
Author: .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::,
i have been a big proponent of clowning on karlstack but why get all worked up about something like this. the format is utter trash but he actually put in real effort and did real investigative work for once. are you really gonna burn him at the stake because it's "too voluminous." give it a rest for a day.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781428) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 5:05 PM
Author: .,.,.;;,;.,..,:,,:,...,:::,...,:,.,.;.:...:.,:.::,
who cares
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781546) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:32 PM Author: Oh, ni lu xing ma?
I mean, I'm not trying to go to bat for Karlstack here, but the message is very clear and something that the public can easily understand: the Nick Fuentes "America First" "movement" is not a "political" movement at all, and is instead just a vehicle for a gang of undesirables to take advantage of other people for their own unsavory gain
Karlstack has done a service here by compiling all of the hard evidence into one place for easy reference. Now in the future, people will be able to easily link to and reference this evidence whenever someone in Fuentes's orbit tries to pass themselves off as a good faith actor. And he gets traffic and clicks in return
He knows what he's doing. This may not be "journalism," whatever that even is, but it's a coherent and useful piece of work
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781434) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:43 PM Author: Cumbutt (gunneratttt)
"this is basically a kiwifarms poast being passed off as serious journalism."
aren't we saying the same thing? this is an autistic collection of evidence against a niche internet celebrity who, yes, is reprehensible and deserves criticism.
i'd also like to point out that karlstack was *THRILLED* to recruit the groypers and laud fuentes last fall. most of the scandals karlstack is reporting on were public knowledge at that time. so karlstack was eager to cozy up with these people when it suited him. so let's not pretend karlstack is going after feuntes because of moral outrage. this is just an info dump from a jilted former groyper.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781474) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:59 PM Author: Oh, ni lu xing ma?
Actually I think that Karlstack is a complete sociopath who never had any ideological alignment with The Manhattan Institute, the "groypers," or with anyone or anything else he has ever encountered in his entire life, and he has pretty clearly not done anything, ever, due to "moral outrage." I even prefaced my above post summarizing my thoughts on this blog with the verbatim words "I don't like Karlstack" to avoid this sort of misunderstanding by a reader, but this was apparently too much nuance for you to take in
My comments are in regard to this work that he just published, which I think is a good and useful public service, as I already stated, for the reasons I already stated
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781528) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:28 PM Author: metaphysical certitude
Destiny: “Children are hotter than adults.”
Nick Fuentes: “Based. Let’s fucking go. That’s why I love you.”
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781425) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 4:59 PM
Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,.....................
Yeah, how do you do an "expose" of someone whose public reputation is already rock bottom? Maybe Karlstack pulls it off, but I'm skeptical and can't bill any of my current clients for finding out by reading the thread.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48781527) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 10:27 PM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
none of this shit is a smoking gun. its all innuendo, bad faith interpretation, and guilt by association. Karlstttack is just ranting like an angry ex-gf
where is the hard evidence man
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782509) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 10:31 PM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
there's no hard evidence. Karlstack is expecting us to treat him like Jared Fogel, feels like bad faith
is the guy a little weird? yeah sure but this whole expose just sounds like a butthurt ex-gf screed
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782522) |
 |
Date: March 25th, 2025 10:36 PM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
i skimmed it, nothing jumped out at me. if he buried the lead then he's a shitty writer. did he not learn in journalism school (or wherever he learned his trade) to put the good stuff up front? even lolyers learn that of most basic writing
i'm not going to exhaustively study this long ass screed to find it. but i'll keep an open mind if the smoking gun was tucked away somewhere and you give me excerpts
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782542) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 10:51 PM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
After Nick’s address was made public, an elderly Jewish woman showed up at his door and Nick pepper-sprayed her and kicked her down a flight of stairs and stole her phone. The woman pressed charges, and Nick was arrested for battery in November 2024. The court process is dragging on...
The elderly Jewish woman, in VICE interview, says she was swatted multiple times by fans of Nick Fuentes.
Adjective of 'elderly' here says a lot about Karlstack's true loyalties despite his "anti-Zionism"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782587) |
Date: March 25th, 2025 10:57 PM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
Nick Fuentes forged his Groyper army from the broken dreams of desperate, lost boys, molding a monster to rape, kill, and die at his command. He reveled in its blind obedience, ignorant to the fact that every Golem invariably turns on its maker; that reckoning is now banging on his front door, eyes wild, gun cocked. The door held firm—this time—but the knocks ring clear: the Golem has Nick’s scent.
Twist: Karlstack is the Golem
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782596) |
Date: March 26th, 2025 2:12 AM Author: chilmata
karlstack, I don’t have a bone to pick with you although some of the criticisms resonate with me purely from an objective perspective.
So please don’t infer anything negative from these questions:
Do you actually enjoy engaging in potentially career ending conflict? Do you crave conflict?
Or do you feel compelled to expose Nick out of a moral obligation?
By the way, I didn’t read everything but I did move my cursor all the way to the bottom because I’m not a quitter. I just don’t have time to read all that—I have two mixed kids.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782825) |
 |
Date: March 26th, 2025 2:51 AM
Author: ...........,.,.,............::::
the main problem I have is that it seems you aren't judging him fairly. most of this seems like a journalistic hit piece based on guilt by association and selectively quoting the guy. you can crucify basically any public figure with that technique. its one of the reasons why partisan modern journalists are despised
if you had a real expose on Nick doing anything himself then i think it'd be a different story
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5699603&forum_id=2:#48782890) |
|
|