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. M
ost 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.
