Why I think Fuentes is a Fed

Political activism is a carrot and stick game. Doesn't matter if you're an establishment centrist, a wealthy donor, running a terrorist guerilla movement like the IRA, or Mao Zedong starting a cultural revolution... (though the method changes)

The Goal is to punish behaviour you dislike, reward behaviour you do like, and create predictable associations that factions start to automatically do what you like and can negotiate with you... Fuentes consistently does THE OPPOSITE, and maximises friction and muddies that signal

Take H1Bs everyone rationally ripped into Vivek and Elon when they were pushing them... But then Elon about faced and started attacking Subcontinental rape gangs in Britain (an almost 100% about face that gave the slightest deniability) everyone rationally rewarded him with good engagement, and this reinforces the signal: Elon and Trump will get massive attacks over H1Bs, and get rewarded for attacking migrant crime. Incentive is clear...

Fuentes consistently does the opposite where he'll attack good things, and paradoxically reward really poor behaviour for no reason...From a RW perspective. But the carrot and stick logic 100% maps everything fuentes does if you assume it's the FBI telling him "You can say it whatever way you want, but you need to attack X person, or rewary Y person, or create Z division now"

This also seems to be why the thing Fuentes is best on and most in line with his previous hard right commitments and the news cycle is Foreign policy like Israel... The FBI is concerned about their power and impunity in the US, and direct protests, organizing, etc. affecting US electoral politics... General youth sentiment towards Israel is a thrice removed concern for them, they're concerned about their jobs and not getting investigated after the next election. And they're really concerned about in person organizing of the type that gets them names and compromising material on people (I never ask people for real names or specific detail for this reason, I've many friends I've met dozens of times and we've never exchanged our real names)

And the thing is even on Israel he went vastly harder on Trump, who was a wildcard and now seems to have ended the war in Gaza via backdoor negotiations, than he was on Kamala who's married to a man who's pretty obviously an Israeli operative, and who was in a whitehouse that armed Netanyahu no strings attached for over a year as 10s of thousands of Gazans died.

There's a reason the Muslims in Dearborn voted for Trump, whilst Fuentes told you not to vote for Trump.

.

But you might say this is speculative, a vibe. Indeed I was reticent to accept other people I followed saying "He's a Fed" with equally viby explanations... So just pay attention to what he says and does as he says and does it... And ask yourself "Are these the carrots and sticks that a far-right anti-Israel populist would put out normally or rationally? Does it just seem confused, and tonally weird, like he's young and oddly passionate about certain stuff? OR does it seem seem to so consistently to align AGAINST what a far right populist would naturally be praising and punishing, but exactly with what the FBI would want incentivized and disincentivized?

I don't have a smoking gun. But when my friends said he's a fed I started asking myself that question, and I've never seen him break the pattern of punishing good behaviour and rewarding bad behaviour... praising really rotten behaviour as "Still better than" whatever, and punishing good behaviour as "Still no undoing" or "simply covering for" whatever....

There's contrarianism (which I like to think I'm good at) and then there's belligerence and seemingly wilful sabotage.

But don't accept my judgement... Just pay attention and ask yourself "Would I have expected a right wing populist to attack X in light of Y today? Does that seem like a normal rational response? Does that carrot-good and stick-bad?" ask yourself "Does this apply pressure for our side at the moment of contact, when it matters?" or does undermine and disperse action at the critical moment in favour of some series of abstractions or point of principle, that inherently cannot matter for years into the future, at which point he could easily have another such objection delaying again indefinitely?

Again that might seem really vibey, really intangible, honest thinkers disagree on methods and goals, and topics, people misjudge moments, people do genuinely just get angry or hung up on principles.

I didn't really buy these arguments when my friends made them... I mean really he's saying tons of hardcore far right stuff? The FBIs leaving a guy out there redpilling the zoomers on Israel what?! I'm not sure I'd expect that. That seems authentic.

But if you just ask these questions, it's not subtle. Its every single time, in the most dramatic way. Everything that by his own logic would be relatively good or comparatively better, he attacks , everything that should be horrible and in need of denunciation, he finds a way to ignore or paradoxically praise.

Again the Deerborn muslims voted for Trump even as he told everyone not to vote for Trump over Israel... That's an individual piece of evidence... but if you just look for that pattern you will see it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Always exactly what you'd think the FBI would want in terms of proximate action, never what you'd think a far right populist would want... And never in a way that lines up with his own ideology or any ideology you might project onto him.

Don't take my work for it... Judge yourselves.

See him give carrots for bad behaviour and sticks for good behaviour, using bizzare womanly logic of "Well that's still not enough" and "Well actually that's refreshing, she is brat"... And then ask, would an FBI agent not want to hand out carrots and sticks this way? Would they want to tell people not to vote for Trump, or to keep the focus on the H1B debate after that's sank Vivek and Elon's already shut up about, weeks later even as the grooming gangs we've been screaming about for years are finally exploding into the public scene... What incentives does he create at the moment of crisis? How does he wield his influence and pressure when just a bit more might make a difference or have an impact on something that's LIVE. Does he weild that influence to augment the energy of the moment? Or to disperse it?

I've drawn my conclusions, You judge.

Don't just jump to conclusions, observe the pattern, be generous, allow that rational people disagree on methods and emotional energy and topic all the time... take his ideas in good faith... And assume that everything he says is a coherent ideology with meaningful implications to be taken seriously... Then ask yourself: Do his actions advance that? Does his energy add to that? Do his attacks and critiques seem at all predictable or in line with what you'd expect before hand knowing his ideas? Or he always strangely using populist language and to loop about to supporting THE OPPOSITE of what you'd expect someone with his beliefs to push? Is he always dissipating mood, energy and effort for seemingly no reason the second anything is happening and strangely attacking people not when they're doing bad things, but good things? Dragging up sins at the moment when you'd expect him to momentarily praise a good deed, or shrugging off an outrage with a "whatabout" until the moment has passed when talking about it might do anything, then attacking when no-one cares.

Again this might sound vague like a paranoid vibe... Until you notice it’s every time!

You judge. Tell me if I'm crazy or not.