they can't and they won't. nick's "Christianity" is a purely aesthetic/rhetorical play. He knows jack shit about theology, does not attend service, does not receive communion, and, for all we know, hasn't even finished Catechism.
strap in, fellas, I'm about to go full turbosperg:
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but I can't imagine backing a "self-avowed narcissist", particularly with regards to politics, is something that ends well by any means other than pure coincidence.
so... a fictional movie villain and noted Christian paleoconservative... Josef Stalin? Grow up and/or get better references, holy shit. read a fucking history book or something.
that is literally never necessary for any reason lmao. Also, aren't Christians supposed to show humility?
if it truly made him invulnerable to the system, he wouldn't keep bringing it up all the time and bitching about it
how has he backed it up? I keep hearing about all of these sweeping groyper victories but when you dig even just a little bit they're all Pyrrhic victories, and even that's for the times they do actually score some kind of "win." Hearing groypers brag about their victories feels the same way as NATO shills bragging about the "ghost of kiev".
How is it working? I would genuinely like to know how having a conference where establishment politicians shill a bunch of ideas that are lukewarm at best and directly contradictory to your own supposed message and values at worst and then turn around and disavow the whole thing and pretend you don't exist within the next day is "working."
so is it just entertainment, or is it a super serious political movement? What's jokes and what's serious? Once you somehow manage to stumble your way into the seat of power, do you plan on legislating around what you think will be funny? I'm sure that will turn out well, lmao.