His views are predictable.
I knew for example he would be an anti-vegan before he recently
called veganism "lame" and criticized vegans.
Firstly, that's Sean Last not Ryan Faulk. Secondly veganism is legitimately bad at least for Eurasians, or at the very least it is bad in so much as vegan "health food" is typically loaded with seed oils/PUFAs at an even higher rate than non-vegan food where it's already bad enough and in almost fucking everything. You probably could be okay (adequate?) if you somehow managed to avoid that shit, but unless you're West African (and probably some other groups too like Dravidians) the memes about "meat and dairy being bad for you" are mostly garbage.
The talk of red meat causing heart disease is mostly because they don't racially separate people in these tests; West Africans are poorly adapted to eating lots of meat or at least red meat. Before you call this "fringe" and "racist" keep in mind it's widely known that different races/population groups/whatever you want to call them have different rates of lactose intolerance, with northern Euros generally being the most tolerant (or at least the most well known as tolerant), so at least try and be open-minded to the fact this is at least possible before you knee-jerk. It's not like it's the naughty thoughts about the brain.
The other issue is how meats are processed, not meat inherently. So there's that. Note that I used to actually lowkey counter-signal against "anti-vegan" rhetoric because it admittedly became a bit trite and overdone; I thought "Yeah I'm not a vegan but you can
probably be healthy on a vegan diet if you do it right". Now I'm not so sure, and at the very least animal products are anything but inherently unhealthy.
I use political right v left in terms of reactionary vs social change/reform. Sean Last is a reactionary about almost everything and that's why these white nationalists / far-right "HBD" people are so boring and predictable.
Which is mostly why it's a shit concept. Things aren't good or bad because they're new or good or bad because they're old. Yes, I do hate people who give off "reactionary" vibes as well—especially weirdo Evolafags who just jerk off to inequality for the sake of itself and freakish chud creeps who justify treating women like garbage, but I digress. It's just not a good way to seek truth in the world. Some "right-wing" policies & critiques are good and some "left-wing" policies & critiques are good. Leftists are certainly right about capitalism being unfair garbage, for example, even if some specific claims made by Marx are questionable (labour theory of value for example) and his social views were arbitrary and dumb.
Why does that commend respect? The guy is a retard who thinks that Jews rule the world. He's totally ok with eugenics and being shitty to brown people.
Uhhhhhh Ryan Faulk has given various nuanced takes on the whole """jewish question""" subject—though he admittedly can seem "inconsistent". It's really just because the guy lacks confirmation bias at least compared to the vast majority of people. He's not infallible, sure, but my point is him making a video defending France in World War II and shitting on Nazi ideology in various other vids might FEEL inconsistent with him also making holocaust revisionist points here and there and making an "How Germany could win WWII" video, but there's really no inherent contradiction thereat all. It's just very atypical because most people are hella biased.
I'm kinda iffy on his recent holocaust revisionism spiel. I know that a lot of holocaust denial arguments are objectively bad but that doesn't mean there couldn't be good arguments too. I don't really know, but Faulk has criticized Nazi doctrine multiple times if you've watched enough of his videos. He's flat out said Nazi views on race are pseudoscience, for example.
And like all alt righters he's a liar who misrepresents research and makes things up
Even if Faulk has been wrong about some things he's right about enough things, and those things he's right about are enough to flip the bulk of the narrative.
They have never proven that population clusters—which proxy "race" or are in many cases synonymous with "race"—cannot and do not pool average mental dispositions. That's the bottom line, and there is no good reason to treat it as impossible or even heavily unlikely.
