America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes / "Nick the Knife" - Basically just Lauren southern with a love for catboys

Is Nick gay?

  • Yes

    Votes: 522 57.5%
  • Yes, but only ironically

    Votes: 386 42.5%

  • Total voters
    908
I don't think Nick is becoming irrelevant about 8,000 people watch his show every night it sounds pretty relevant to me
He's also develop connections with extremely influential people such as Michelle Malkin
And other influential paleo conservatives - 300
wignats and do not have a coherent ideology unless you consider Eric Striker the quintessential wignats
If that's the case I'm pretty sure no one's interested in Eurasian bolshevism
How is Michelle Malkin influential? I’m pretty sure even Nick has surpassed her in relevancy. As far as view counts even people like Vaush who started being a lefty political streamer last year are pulling those numbers on a bad day nowadays. Hell, his RNC stream surpassed Nick’s on Dlive iirc. Nick’s base is very insular and it seems like it hasn’t reached anywhere except the online far right.
 

KiwiJoe

Anime Jacinda Ardern
kiwifarms.net
How is Michelle Malkin influential? I’m pretty sure even Nick has surpassed her in relevancy. As far as view counts even people like Vaush who started being a lefty political streamer last year are pulling those numbers on a bad day nowadays. Hell, his RNC stream surpassed Nick’s on Dlive iirc. Nick’s base is very insular and it seems like it hasn’t reached anywhere except the online far right.
There have been some attempts I've seen of Nick and his community trying to branch out and become 'mainstream'.

I think he's been trying to go for the meme route since I see so many Nickers like to quip his catchphrases and try get them viral as a meme (stuff like "NO EGIRLS, EVER!", "Google Dancing Israelis," etc,) and he does sometimes interact with apolitical comedians like that Canadian weather report guy (forgot his name), BGKumbi (okay not that apolitical but still comparatively), on Twitter and other platforms to branch out.

Its also why he plays video games on stream sometimes, and does 'cool zoomer stuff'. It's to garner an audience that others in the same political sphere wouldn't have otherwise. If its one thing Nick is good at, he tapped at a niche market. A market of teens to 20-somethings, who mainly just want another e-celeb to follow, but that's 'hip, rad, and totally understands the daily internet+political climate yo'. Basically, the Fellow Kids market, but actually successful to a degree.

It's kinda like how Coppercab is part of Gavin McInnes' network. Gavin may not be mainstream but if he can somehow 'rub off' his brand onto someone semi-famous like Coppercab then it'll spread his word out. I've yet to see Coppercab actually pull his weight though but thats a different topic.

Back to Nick, the issue is that its hard for someone like Nick to actually get into politics and become mainstream, it's gonna be very hard unless he makes changes and that ship may have sailed already. His optics are clearly not as good as what he says they are. Most people know him as that holocaust cookie oven guy. Which isn't an issue if he's just a comedian, entertainer, or even a pundit.

But if he's priding himself as the guy who'll SAVE AMERICA!!!11! and lead the TradCath Zoomer Revolution, then he won't get anywhere no matter how many times he claims to have better optics than the wignats. I have a feeling later down the road he's just gonna become something like Alex Jones or whatever.

Nick may have better optics than Varg, sure, but what's the point if a few days later you're going to say something that's just as edgy as what Varg would say.
 
Last edited:

GedsForth

Kill your local pedophile
kiwifarms.net
He may have better optics than Varg, sure but what's the point if a few days later you're going to say something that's just as edgy.
If having better optics than Varg is your baseline, you're basically fucked lmao.

Not to mention, a significant portion of Varg's fanbase only cares about his music, whereas Nick's fanbase is purely political, so the idea that Nick does have better optics than Varg is really questionable.
 

KiwiJoe

Anime Jacinda Ardern
kiwifarms.net
If having better optics than Varg is your baseline, you're basically fucked lmao.

Not to mention, a significant portion of Varg's fanbase only cares about his music, whereas Nick's fanbase is purely political, so the idea that Nick does have better optics than Varg is really questionable.
Yeah, I got a bit pedantic about that. I don't know too many 'wignats' that's why to compare.

To me whenever that word comes up I just think of Varg or Murdoch Murdoch. And if Nick keeps bragging about how he's above them in terms of optics, like yeah no shit, that's a given.

But my point still stands. On most days he may have 'better optics' than your average wignat but on some days he's no better than them, and yet he'll claim that he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffrey Epstein

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
How is Michelle Malkin influential? I’m pretty sure even Nick has surpassed her in relevancy. As far as view counts even people like Vaush who started being a lefty political streamer last year are pulling those numbers on a bad day nowadays. Hell, his RNC stream surpassed Nick’s on Dlive iirc. Nick’s base is very insular and it seems like it hasn’t reached anywhere except the online far right.
Muchelle Malkin is still a bestselling author and has numerous speaking engagements all over the place. She is flirting a lot with the Far Right especially on Telegram but she's always going to be able to walk that Fashy Filipina tightrope.
 

GedsForth

Kill your local pedophile
kiwifarms.net
To me whenever that word comes up I just think of Varg or Murdoch Murdoch. And if Nick keeps bragging about how he's above them in terms of optics, like yeah no shit, that's a given.

But my point still stands. On most days he may have 'better optics' than your average wignat but on some days he's no better than them, and yet he'll claim that he is.
To most people, the WigNats and the AmNats are really no different, they just think of them as "Alt-right", and thus outside of the overton window. However, the one thing the WigNats do is produce some actual content that people outside of their political circles can enjoy. People forget, but Murdoch Murdoch was popular among a number of right wingers, who otherwise didn't agree with their politics, just because it was funny. Varg's music is the same. WigNats know their politics will never be excepted by the mainstream, but their otherwise apolitical content could. The AmNats' memes function as their more mainstreamable content, but they have yet to realize that just because their memes are excepted by the mainstream doesn't mean their politics will be.
 

Based_Papa_John

Gabriel is blowing his trumpet. Can you hear it?
kiwifarms.net
How is a podcast called “Fash The Nation” this reasonable? If Nick had any ounce of shame or humility, he’d be crying right now. Fortunately for us he’s high on an assload of catboy cum and will continue being a pathetic sperg.
I don't think he's a fed, but they're right in his doing this for self-gratification. I mean, what program does Nick stand behind other than edgy Holocaust jokes and general buffoonery?
 

KiwiJoe

Anime Jacinda Ardern
kiwifarms.net
I don't think he's a fed, but they're right in his doing this for self-gratification. I mean, what program does Nick stand behind other than edgy Holocaust jokes and general buffoonery?
Personally, I don't believe the fed accusations for most e-celebs, usually.

To me, the real feds are the like extremely obvious people like 'Crying Nazi' Cantwell. Though I definitely think Nick does his thing for just the money, clout, and also having a fanbase that'll always stroke him off and hail him as their internet daddy. That's why I have a feeling he's just gonna continue to remain 'stagnant' because despite claiming to have higher aspirations, he's more than content with just talking on stream and getting donations forever.

If he was a fed I don't see what purpose he would have, what's he gonna do, tell an incredibly niche audience to vote for Trump?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NeoGAF Lurker

chainlinktrillionaire

kiwifarms.net
I don't think Nick is becoming irrelevant about 8,000 people watch his show every night it sounds pretty relevant to me
He's also develop connections with extremely influential people such as Michelle Malkin
And other influential paleo conservatives - 300
wignats and do not have a coherent ideology unless you consider Eric Striker the quintessential wignats
If that's the case I'm pretty sure no one's interested in Eurasian bolshevism
"Relevant" media figures are guys like Tucker Carlson, guys with cable news shows, millions of live viewers, and communication lines to the president himself. Not guys like Nick who have a few thousand viewers on some two-bit streaming platform

The sad thing is that nick could have followed down that path if he could have hid his power level for 5 seconds, but instead Nick just wanted to get called "baste" by a bunch of pol spergs.
 

NeoGAF Lurker

An Niggo
kiwifarms.net
Guys who accuse everyone else of being feds tend to be feds themselves, interestingly enough.

I doubt Nick is a fed. He’s doing what the TRS goys did which is self-ghettoize and exploit his hardcore followers. TDS and FTN hit 100,000 downloads in 2015-2016 but are now content with a couple thousand paypigs because that’s a couple hundred thousand a year, enough to keep Mike Enoch in Hidden Valley Ranch and Sven in guitars.

In Nickers case, it’s convincing a few hundred fags that supporting him is good optics over those wignats. Also gib lemonz plz lol.
 

TwoDollarPeePeePooPoo

I'm not gonna read that
kiwifarms.net
In Nickers case, it’s convincing a few hundred fags that supporting him is good optics over those wignats. Also gib lemonz plz lol.
Nick offers guilt-free white nationalism. He’s like the “diet” snack you convince yourself is healthy despite still having 90% of the calories.

“Bro you don’t want those poor wignat optics, you want those based TradCat that I’m offering you. Now let’s kiss to own the Jews”
 

Based_Papa_John

Gabriel is blowing his trumpet. Can you hear it?
kiwifarms.net
Personally, I don't believe the fed accusations for most e-celebs, usually.

To me, the real feds are the like extremely obvious people like 'Crying Nazi' Cantwell. Though I definitely think Nick does his thing for just the money, clout, and also having a fanbase that'll always stroke him off and hail him as their internet daddy. That's why I have a feeling he's just gonna continue to remain 'stagnant' because despite claiming to have higher aspirations, he's more than content with just talking on stream and getting donations forever.

If he was a fed I don't see what purpose he would have, what's he gonna do, tell an incredibly niche audience to vote for Trump?
I tend to think that if anyone in the Alt-right is an actual Fed, my money would be on Richard Spencer. No one has done more to destroy the movement for media attention than him. Unlike these other guys, he's actually had experience in the federal government, so...
Nick offers guilt-free white nationalism. He’s like the “diet” snack you convince yourself is healthy despite still having 90% of the calories.

“Bro you don’t want those poor wignat optics, you want those based TradCat that I’m offering you. Now let’s kiss to own the Jews”
A wignat in his dad's suit is still a wignat.

Edit: This just hit me. I remember years ago that historian Niall Ferguson got in trouble for saying that the reason of John Maynard Keynes' economic myopia - "In the long run, we are all dead." - was in part due to his homosexuality. He had to backtrack that, but I get what he was saying: those with homosexual tendencies tend to be more interested in short-term gratification rather than delaying gratification for something else down the road. Think about it. There's no incentive to have kids, as sex is purely a sensual act devoid of purpose outside of hedonism. Your line is going to end with you anyway, so why not? I don't think its unreasonable to assume that such attitudes go hand-in-hand with the Big Gay.

As for our boy Nick, I'd say he has a similar attitude. It's clear that he actually hates women, not in the sense of the Left's definition of misogyny this week or in a frustrated incel sense but in an actual sense. He really doesn't intend to start a family because that would mean he'd have to put up with a femoid for the rest of his life if he's going to be a good Catholic. Given that he has destroyed any chance of getting a decent job or support network when AF is booted off of every platform and every bank refuses to do business with him, I'd say he never cared in the first place. If he did, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to dynamite his entire life over the past few years. If he does have homosexual tendencies - and at this point, I'd say he does - then this seems to make sense.
 
Last edited:

lukashenko

kiwifarms.net
Not to gunt shield, but let me explain Nick's viewpoint in a way that might be easier to understand than his often annoyingly conceited and sarcastic manner of delivery:

Nick's take regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was correct. It fascinates me how some people are still simultaneously able to understand how lopsidedly stacked the current system is against white identity/solidarity/consciousness, yet still believe that almost entirely fruitless vigilantism (which drags the vigilante into direct confrontation with that very system) is any way going to improve those ideas' standings in the minds of normal people, who are necessary to affect change.

What us right-wing dissidents see is a brave, young, right-wing, white man coming to the aid of his people and a neighboring community (which happens to be out of state) with his legally-obtained firearm in order to stop these savages from destroying it; he was forced to open fire on people who were attacking him, some of them died, and this was all completely justified using our moral framework.


However, other people see this in a myriad of ways:

-The anti-white mainstream media sees him as an alt-right, neo-nazi, mass shooter terrorist, who proves the point that white people are inherently villainous and should have their gun rights stripped away. They see him as someone who responded to a far-right call to violence online and traveled hundreds of miles to a different state (omitting the fact that he traveled like 15 fucking minutes from a town right on the Illinois-Wisconsin border) in order to cause trouble.
-The anti-white social media companies see him as someone who responded to a Facebook group which ended in this transpiring, which will likely lay the groundwork for giving them an excuse to disallow all further militia calls on their platforms in the future.
-The anti-white legal system sees him as child (under 18 years old) who took a firearm which he did not own, across state boundaries, looking for a fight, out in public instead of using the firearm strictly in matters of the defense of life and personal property. The legal system does not operate based off obvious intent and circumstance; it is based almost entirely off narrative spinning, legal loopholes, precedence, and deception. Being that the legal system is an institution made up of fallible and biased people, the majority of whom, statistically speaking, will be either non-white and/or liberal, and will consume the aforementioned anti-white mainstream media, Kyle will be up against a system which is designed (as wignats will agree) to see him fail. Will he somehow be able to scrounge together a winning legal team from donations around the country from sympathetic people? I hope so, but I'm not going to hegde my bets; this kid will be going up against this behemoth of a system which wants to fucking annihilate him and anyone like him, while relying on strangers from around the country to bankroll his uphill legal battle.
-Almost all non-whites and all white liberals (50% of the population) take the same position that the mainstream media feeds them. Most normal people, let alone low-IQ and self-hating ones, are simply not willing to go to /pol/, dlive, or "the right stuff dot biz", which you can't even find on Google, in order to get a completely novel viewpoint. You can safely assume that at least 50% of the population, at any given time, believes precisely what the (presently anti-white) mainstream media tells them to believe.
-Sympathetic non-whites and normal white conservatives (45% of the population) believe that he was justified in how he defended himself, but nonetheless believe that he should been more tactful in his approach. A good benchmark is to assume that 90% of this group will go with whatever Fox News tells them. The sentiment that I see the most is that he was justified in shooting the people jumping at him while he was on the ground, but he should have stopped shooting immediately after they started retreating. They also frequently site how he should have stayed and defended his own town, not one in a different state (once again, most are not aware that he lived 15 minutes away, right across the border in Illinois). The majority of even these people see the self-defense as justified, but find the other facts about the case problematic. These people will give money and attention to the case until it's no longer in the news. These people do not see this situation as an implicit stand for white identity; some of these people can be woken up, but the majority are simply too old/dumb/reluctant.
-Militant anti-whites (5% of the population) see this as an excellent opportunity to further their narrative. Considering many are Jews or are otherwise in high positions of power, these are the ones who will be directing the media to spin as negative a narrative as linguistically possible and fight the opposing legal battles.
-Socially demonized Internet Nazis on obscure websites (.00001% of the population) believe that Kyle is a hero who will inevitably be acquitted (because he's in the right guys!), or will at the very least be sanctified as a white nationalist/identitarian martyr; they think that after the easily-distracted public inevitably forgets about this event in 2 weeks like every event before, this kid will somehow manage to fight this behemoth of a system over the course of years and come out victorious. This tiny minority of authentically pro-white people left will screech his name into the void until they, too, inevitably forget until the verdict comes out 18 months later. This goes for TRS, WNs, the AR, and, yes, AF.


We should try to remember his name, help where we can on his legal battle, offer support on social media (and IRL where peacefully available), and cheer for him, but when the he most likely catches at least one case, we need to use this as a learning opportunity. The elites (many of whom are Jews) do not fear a handful of angry white men going out and shooting people out of self defense. The notion that "they're afraid now that Kyle Rittenhouse shot two replaceable nobodies and is finding support from people on the Internet" is actually fucking laughable. Most normal people will never, ever, ever, ever, ever know the whole truth of the case or the deeper social implications therein; all they will ever know is what the mainstream media (most of which is run by Jews) will tell them. We should still talk about the truth so they trickle down to us and understand the whole situation, but we should never be under the guise that normal people will ever get fully on board with it until and unless serious cultural and structural change occurs.

Now, a hard truth: doing something like this to begin with is a recipe for disaster. The public tolerates the BLM rioting and looting because they've been brainwashed to believe that this is a fair way for minorities to grieve. They do, to our amazement, genuinely do believe that non-whites can do no wrong because they're being oppressed by a pro-white nationalist government - keep in mind that 99% of people don't even know George Floyd died of a Fentanyl overdose because the mainstream media didn't report on it; despite this, Derrick Chauvin was still fired and charged with manslaughter. It does not matter who is in the right, it matters who the public (which is overwhelmingly swayed by Jewish mainstream media) and legal system perceive as being in the right. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from lashing out at a system which wants nothing more than to see you lash out so it can point and say, "See?! We were right about them! We need to continue attacking them and demonizing their worldview!" to its adherents. Attacking a tank with a baseball bat while screaming about how you're correct will never result in your victory. Always remember that the Germans lost WW2, regardless of how much of what they had to say was true.

If you feel the need to defend your life and property from these hordes of animals, do it in your own town, do it when you are 110% being directly threatened, do not shoot more than is necessary, do not shoot to kill, do not be underage, do not go out of the area you're defending alone, do not look for trouble on public streets, do not be using someone else's firearm, and do not leave the community you belong to, especially if it's out of state. I cannot stress enough how much deeper the shit that Kyle is in because he crossed that little invisible state boundary. Sit in your fucking house with a shotgun and wait for them to approach your door, warn them to leave, and shoot to maim when they refuse. Do not go through all of this bullshit to defend a fucking gas station that you don't even own.


In short,

What has been gained:
-5000 white people waking up to the media's anti-white bias, maybe 40 of which will eventually find themselves in the authentic dissident right sphere 2 years from now.
-A rallying cry for grifters on social media.
-Memes shared on obscure websites.
-Podcast material for a couple days.

What has been lost:
-Mainstream conservative solidarity on matters of militialike self-defense and how we should go about practicing it.
-Kyle Rittenhouse's life, pending a verdict on the murder charge.
-Likely the ability to perform militant calls to defensive action on social media platforms.
-The support of line-trodders who were unsure about whether or not it's possible for a peaceful defense to the riots to take place, who are now disenfranchised due to the physical act of murder, regardless of how justified it was.
-Any tiny amount of recent progress we've made in getting our worldview normalized, thanks largely to the publicity of the violent riots. The media will begrudgingly accept that some riots have gotten out-of-hand, but are happy to shove this young white kid in front of the entire country so they can paint him as a far-right murderer, regardless of the facts of the situation.


Don't be a hero just so faggots on imageboards and podcasting websites can talk about how based you are for a week. If you play it smart, play it tactfully, and network with trusted people so you get in one of those positions of power, you can be far more useful by exercising your power to effect change than you ever would be by going out and shooting 2 of the 30,000 violent rioters.



Nick has some glaring issues regarding his approach, many of which are touched upon in this thread, but he is certainly correct on the vigilante question. I'd be happy to explain this in even simpler terms if need be. I would love for someone to offer an actual retort to anything I said that has any baring on the reality of the situation and doesn't rely on idealistic fantasies, because I can't seem to find anything of the sort from TRS, spergs on twitter, or retards on /pol/. I'm happy to participate in open discussion.
 
Last edited:

Hyrip123876

Chernobyl FM
kiwifarms.net
What has been lost:
-Mainstream conservative solidarity on matters of militialike self-defense and how we should go about practicing it.
If conservatives are unwilling to defend such a blatant instance of self-defense then they never knew what it all meant to begin with. I have non-Americans on my feed and even they are saying the teenager did nothing wrong, this is with their full names and careers attached to said internet handles.

You defend your rights because eventually, you're going to find yourself in a situation where they are necessary for your survival. If Rittenhouse loses his court case the 2nd Amendment and all these gun enthusiasts have lost without even fighting. What's the point in owning a gun or expressing solidarity with fellow gun-nuts when legal fuckery prohibits you from using it? That Mexican store-owner got charged for merely brandishing a fire-arm to dissuade arsonists ffs.

If you don't want to lose these rights, then in cases like Kyle's (in the words of Maxine Waters) you push back on them, and you create a crowd and make noise, and tell the prosecution they're not welcome.
 

NeoGAF Lurker

An Niggo
kiwifarms.net
Not to gunt shield, but let me explain Nick's viewpoint in a way that might be easier to understand than his often annoyingly conceited and sarcastic manner of delivery:

Nick's take regarding Kyle Rittenhouse was correct. It fascinates me how some people are still simultaneously able to understand how lopsidedly stacked the current system is against white identity/solidarity/consciousness, yet still believe that almost entirely fruitless vigilantism (which drags the vigilante into direct confrontation with that very system) is any way going to improve those ideas' standings in the minds of normal people, who are necessary to affect change.

What us right-wing dissidents see is a brave, young, right-wing, white man coming to the aid of his people and a neighboring community (which happens to be out of state) with his legally-obtained firearm in order to stop these savages from destroying it; he was forced to open fire on people who were attacking him, some of them died, and this was all completely justified using our moral framework.


However, other people see this in a myriad of ways:

-The anti-white mainstream media sees him as an alt-right, neo-nazi, mass shooter terrorist, who proves the point that white people are inherently villainous and should have their gun rights stripped away. They see him as someone who responded to a far-right call to violence online and traveled hundreds of miles to a different state (omitting the fact that he traveled like 15 fucking minutes from a town right on the Illinois-Wisconsin border) in order to cause trouble.
-The anti-white social media companies see him as someone who responded to a Facebook group which ended in this transpiring, which will likely lay the groundwork for giving them an excuse to disallow all further militia calls on their platforms in the future.
-The anti-white legal system sees him as child (under 18 years old) who took a firearm which he did not own, across state boundaries, looking for a fight, out in public instead of using the firearm strictly in matters of the defense of life and personal property. The legal system does not operate based off obvious intent and circumstance; it is based almost entirely off narrative spinning, legal loopholes, precedence, and deception. Being that the legal system is an institution made up of fallible and biased people, the majority of whom, statistically speaking, will be either non-white and/or liberal, and will consume the aforementioned anti-white mainstream media, Kyle will be up against a system which is designed (as wignats will agree) to see him fail. Will he somehow be able to scrounge together a winning legal team from donations around the country from sympathetic people? I hope so, but I'm not going to hegde my bets; this kid will be going up against this behemoth of a system which wants to fucking annihilate him and anyone like him, while relying on strangers from around the country to bankroll his uphill legal battle.
-Almost all non-whites and all white liberals (50% of the population) take the same position that the mainstream media feeds them. Most normal people, let alone low-IQ and self-hating ones, are simply not willing to go to /pol/, dlive, or "the right stuff dot biz", which you can't even find on Google, in order to get a completely novel viewpoint. You can safely assume that at least 50% of the population, at any given time, believes precisely what the (presently anti-white) mainstream media tells them to believe.
-Sympathetic non-whites and normal white conservatives (45% of the population) believe that he was justified in how he defended himself, but nonetheless believe that he should been more tactful in his approach. A good benchmark is to assume that 90% of this group will go with whatever Fox News tells them. The sentiment that I see the most is that he was justified in shooting the people jumping at him while he was on the ground, but he should have stopped shooting immediately after they started retreating. They also frequently site how he should have stayed and defended his own town, not one in a different state (once again, most are not aware that he lived 15 minutes away, right across the border in Illinois). The majority of even these people see the self-defense as justified, but find the other facts about the case problematic. These people will give money and attention to the case until it's no longer in the news. These people do not see this situation as an implicit stand for white identity; some of these people can be woken up, but the majority are simply too old/dumb/reluctant.
-Militant anti-whites (5% of the population) see this as an excellent opportunity to further their narrative. Considering many are Jews or are otherwise in high positions of power, these are the ones who will be directing the media to spin as negative a narrative as linguistically possible and fight the opposing legal battles.
-Socially demonized Internet Nazis on obscure websites (.00001% of the population) believe that Kyle is a hero who will inevitably be acquitted (because he's in the right guys!), or will at the very least be sanctified as a white nationalist/identitarian martyr; they think that after the easily-distracted public inevitably forgets about this event in 2 weeks like every event before, this kid will somehow manage to fight this behemoth of a system over the course of years and come out victorious. This tiny minority of authentically pro-white people left will screech his name into the void until they, too, inevitably forget until the verdict comes out 18 months later. This goes for TRS, WNs, the AR, and, yes, AF.


We should try to remember his name, help where we can on his legal battle, offer support on social media (and IRL where peacefully available), and cheer for him, but when the he most likely catches at least one case, we need to use this as a learning opportunity. The elites (many of whom are Jews) do not fear a handful of angry white men going out and shooting people out of self defense. The notion that "they're afraid now that Kyle Rittenhouse shot two replaceable nobodies and is finding support from people on the Internet" is actually fucking laughable. Most normal people will never, ever, ever, ever, ever know the whole truth of the case or the deeper social implications therein; all they will ever know is what the mainstream media (most of which is run by Jews) will tell them. We should still talk about the truth so they trickle down to us and understand the whole situation, but we should never be under the guise that normal people will ever get fully on board with it until and unless serious cultural and structural change occurs.

Now, a hard truth: doing something like this to begin with is a recipe for disaster. The public tolerates the BLM rioting and looting because they've been brainwashed to believe that this is a fair way for minorities to grieve. They do, to our amazement, genuinely do believe that non-whites can do no wrong because they're being oppressed by a pro-white nationalist government - keep in mind that 99% of people don't even know George Floyd died of a Fentanyl overdose because the mainstream media didn't report on it; despite this, Derrick Chauvin was still fired and charged with manslaughter. It does not matter who is in the right, it matters who the public (which is overwhelmingly swayed by Jewish mainstream media) and legal system perceive as being in the right. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from lashing out at a system which wants nothing more than to see you lash out so it can point and say, "See?! We were right about them! We need to continue attacking them and demonizing their worldview!" to its adherents. Attacking a tank with a baseball bat while screaming about how you're correct will never result in your victory. Always remember that the Germans lost WW2, regardless of how much of what they had to say was true.

If you feel the need to defend your life and property from these hordes of animals, do it in your own town, do it when you are 110% being directly threatened, do not shoot more than is necessary, do not shoot to kill, do not be underage, do not go out of the area you're defending alone, do not look for trouble on public streets, do not be using someone else's firearm, and do not leave the community you belong to, especially if it's out of state. I cannot stress enough how much deeper the shit that Kyle is in because he crossed that little invisible state boundary. Sit in your fucking house with a shotgun and wait for them to approach your door, warn them to leave, and shoot to maim when they refuse. Do not go through all of this bullshit to defend a fucking gas station that you don't even own.


In short,

What has been gained:
-5000 white people waking up to the media's anti-white bias, maybe 40 of which will eventually find themselves in the authentic dissident right sphere 2 years from now.
-A rallying cry for grifters on social media.
-Memes shared on obscure websites.
-Podcast material for a couple days.

What has been lost:
-Mainstream conservative solidarity on matters of militialike self-defense and how we should go about practicing it.
-Kyle Rittenhouse's life, pending a verdict on the murder charge.
-Likely the ability to perform militant calls to defensive action on social media platforms.
-The support of line-trodders who were unsure about whether or not it's possible for a peaceful defense to the riots to take place, who are now disenfranchised due to the physical act of murder, regardless of how justified it was.
-Any tiny amount of recent progress we've made in getting our worldview normalized, thanks largely to the publicity of the violent riots. The media will begrudgingly accept that some riots have gotten out-of-hand, but are happy to shove this young white kid in front of the entire country so they can paint him as a far-right murderer, regardless of the facts of the situation.


Don't be a hero just so faggots on imageboards and podcasting websites can talk about how based you are for a week. If you play it smart, play it tactfully, and network with trusted people so you get in one of those positions of power, you can be far more useful by exercising your power to effect change than you ever would be by going out and shooting 2 of the 30,000 violent rioters.



Nick has some glaring issues regarding his approach, many of which are touched upon in this thread, but he is certainly correct on the vigilante question. I'd be happy to explain this in even simpler terms if need be. I would love for someone to offer an actual retort to anything I said that has any baring on the reality of the situation and doesn't rely on idealistic fantasies, because I can't seem to find anything of the sort from TRS, spergs on twitter, or retards on /pol/. I'm happy to participate in open discussion.
Rated this optimistic because it’s pretty optimistic to assume anyone is going to read this shit. This is also way more thought than any catnat has put into the issue so your essay is incorrect too.

If conservatives are unwilling to defend such a blatant instance of self-defense then they never knew what it all meant to begin with. I have non-Americans on my feed and even they are saying the teenager did nothing wrong, this is with their full names and careers attached to said internet handles.

You defend your rights because eventually, you're going to find yourself in a situation where they are necessary for your survival. If Rittenhouse loses his court case the 2nd Amendment and all these gun enthusiasts have lost without even fighting. What's the point in owning a gun or expressing solidarity with fellow gun-nuts when legal fuckery prohibits you from using it? That Mexican store-owner got charged for merely brandishing a fire-arm to dissuade arsonists ffs.

If you don't want to lose these rights, then in cases like Kyle's (in the words of Maxine Waters) you push back on them, and you create a crowd and make noise, and tell the prosecution they're not welcome.
You are spot on. Some conservatives figureheads are only begrudgingly supporting Kyle because of the groundswell of support of people tired of rampant unchecked anarchotyranny. Conservative talking heads are worse than useless.
 

Illiterate Wanderer

kiwifarms.net
What has been lost:
-Any tiny amount of recent progress we've made in getting our worldview normalized
I think you're overestimating how much Nick's "Let's make the GOP identitarian" strategy is/was working. The average nicker just shitposts on pol and twitter, and doesn't read any of the books from previous dissident rightwingers, besides maybe skimming Mein Kampf and the Bell Curve. Cozying up to Michelle Malkin, and using Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis' name only goes so far. It's like the Distributist said no based rightwing donor is going to cut Fuentes' a six figure check.
 
Tags
None