Orbiter 🏳️‍🌈🐱 Nick Fuentes / Nicholas Joseph Fuentes / der America First Pürrer / "Nick the Knife" - CatboyKami's ex. Flipped fed asset after January 6th. Groypers are pardoned for January 6th, still a fag. Kept Ali Akbar, brown muslim boy-hungry pedophile, around groypers knowing what he was. Hates white women more than blacks and jews.

Sammich said:
And your stupid ass doubles down. The "List" is notoriously wrong, and even a fucking setting senator was hassled over his name being on the list. I'll be honest, i'm just sort of dumbfounded someone would simp for the government.
Click to expand...
Yes but the article said the only reason the senator was on the list was because his name was the same as a terrorist. There's nothing, anywhere, that says they put child molesters on the list. That isn't simp for the government. The list has errors, it's stupid and doesn't make anyone safer but it only exists for terrorism - that's its purpose. The article reinforces that
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: 6thRanger and Chris Chad
NeoGAF Lurker said:
95% of it is that he’s one of the only people on the alt right/dissident right that isn’t totally deplatformed. He’s almost there, though. Probably when Theroux’s documentary airs. Nigga is running on borrowed time.
Click to expand...
the only thing he has left is twitter. He can't ship his merchandise traditionally because those services have banned him. I don't know if you're not paying attention or if you're retarded
 
1623616950925.png


the platform is heavily censored but if there was such a huge group behind 'sexism/homophobia' then clearly other platforms without censors would see a massive influx of users. Right?

If Pewdiepie was this 'groyper' you imagine him as Nick..Why wouldn't he just take his massive audience to a 'free speech' platform so he can say any word he likes with no worries?
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: AltisticRight, GenericReviewerDraco, JambledUpWords and 2 others
San Dimas High School said:
Yes but the article said the only reason the senator was on the list was because his name was the same as a terrorist. There's nothing, anywhere, that says they put child molesters on the list. That isn't simp for the government. The list has errors, it's stupid and doesn't make anyone safer but it only exists for terrorism - that's its purpose. The article reinforces that
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's definitely not unlike a government to ever use powers beyond its intended purpose, especially not the US government. They would never, they're the good guys!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger, George Floyd Sneed, GenericReviewerDraco and 3 others
gaystoner said:
if there was such a huge group behind 'sexism/homophobia' then clearly other platforms without censors would see a massive influx of users. Right?
Click to expand...
No, you're retarded for thinking the system works like this.
Rule #1, Capitalism is not about money.

Also: Many upstart platforms like Bitchute, Odysee, and even Stream.me garner dissident right and white nationalist content because there is such a large market for it, but once these sites get large enough, credit card companies and other institutions of finance will pressure them into banning all 'hate content' or whatever.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: 6thRanger, George Floyd Sneed, Chris Mclean and 1 other person
gaystoner said:
If Pewdiepie was this 'groyper' you imagine him as Nick..Why wouldn't he just take his massive audience to a 'free speech' platform so he can say any word he likes with no worries?
Click to expand...
Molyneux couldn’t even get a tenth of his audience to move to bitchute with him and he had a million subs on kiketube. This is why he refuses to put his ass on the line by doing political commentary these days. Dont be an idiot
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Sicko Hunter, 6thRanger, Mariposa Colorado and 6 others
Reginald Fairfield said:
Molyneux couldn’t even get a tenth of his audience to move to bitchute with him and he had a million subs on kiketube. This is why he refuses to put his ass on the line by doing political commentary these days. Dont be an idiot
Click to expand...
It’s cause the majority of molymemes audience has either moved along further in the dissident right path and they no longer watch molymeme and the fact that the remaining segment of his audience are boomers who just watch whatever is placed in front of them at any given time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericReviewerDraco, Pomniman, REGENDarySumanai and 3 others
gaystoner said:
View attachment 2261241

View attachment 2261244

He is so creepy in this clip. Im gettiner 'error' on my archiver but holy shit is it gross.
Click to expand...
He's not entirely incorrect within the "Age of Consent being a feminist construct" thing, because feminists were the spearhead of legislation for it, but it's such a bizarre thing to mention if you're right wing at all. I think it stems from this idea that girls below 18 aren't "riding the cock carousel" and therefore younger girls are the only chance at getting a virgin gf or something, but what do they think will happen if the age of consent stops being a thing? They'll have a better opportunity to get based and redpilled Christian girls who totally aren't whores? No, what will happen is that with the abolition of the age of consent, porn and the broader rampant sexualization of society will affect younger people even more than it already is. If anything, the right wing should be pushing for harder punishments towards it and the punishment of websites and other things that market sexuality towards children. It's well known that the average age kids first find porn is around the 10-12 range, and basically all porn sites target kids to get them hooked and they get by the law with the *nudge nudge wink wink* "You're 18, right? You wouldn't lie to us, right? ;)"
I don't really buy the "Nick is a homosexual" stuff, but I do think the age of consent talk is really suspect, it's such a bizarre hill to die on for anyone unless you have some personal stake in it, just like all the weirdos who vehemently defend lolicon but totally don't jerk it to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger, TomatoTomahto, Colonel Gaddafi and 8 others
gaystoner said:
then clearly other platforms without censors would see a massive influx of users. Right?
Click to expand...
What other platforms? There aren't any that have anywhere close to the infrastructure and financial incentives as mainstream platforms like Youtube, Twitch and twitter. And the leftist tech companies, media, financial institutions will shut down companies that try to build them (as they did with Parler).
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 6thRanger, greengrilledcheese, Lobster Cult High Priest and 2 others
BiggieSlonkLoyalist said:
I'm getting tired of this "underage girls with older adult men as having been socially acceptable until the feminists ruined it" myth. They're creeps with a sexual disorder. Pedophile, ephebophilia, and hebephilia have the philia suffix in common because theyre abnormal sexual fixations for men past a certain age. Fuck these sickos, call them out for what they are.
Click to expand...
This is the same argument homosexual pedophiles make.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Sicko Hunter, George Floyd Sneed, Rekkington and 7 others
BiggieSlonkLoyalist said:
Why do all reactionaries think women only start to lose their virginity when they go to college? It's not 1960 anymore. They're all completely delusional and naive about people's experiences.

It's not a throwaway comment from him, he keeps talking about it and doubling down and gets reinforcement for his views from his followers. Clear to see why he has no problem with the Chaggot situation. He's spreading the idea that its okay to have sex with and marry girls that have fully developed bodies by age 13 because then they're post pubescent. They're fully developed and "not children".

They also have this delusion that everybody in the past was marrying teenage girls which is completely false and easy to disprove if you do the research, but all they all jerk each other off with fake graphs and stupid anecdotes that are exceptions to the rule.

View attachment 2261743View attachment 2261775This newspaper segment is from the early 60s. The guy in the article would sit in his car opposite the street where the girl would get off the school bus and watch her. One day he went up to her and took her to the ice cream parlor. She had just turned 14. The parents didn't agree to their relationship and had him arrested many times but he frequently skipped bail or broke out of whatever place jail or institution he was sentenced to and went on the lam with the girl from state to state. They were fugitives for the duration of their sham marriage that they had in Vegas. The marriage didn't last because he was revealed to a conman, a bum, and a drunk that put their newborn baby in a footlocker. Nick would have defended this marriage as based and red pilled.

I'm getting tired of this "underage girls with older adult men as having been socially acceptable until the feminists ruined it" myth. They're creeps with a sexual disorder. Pedophile ephebophilia and hebephilia have the philia suffix in common because theyre abnormal sexual fixations for men past a certain age. Fuck these sickos, call them out for what they are.
Click to expand...
One other thing as well, is the Hajnal line, which is were the modern western world/civilization comes from, which is birth/marriage patterns
Hajnal_line.jpg


Inside the Blue and Red lines, and note this is before feminism, starting around the 1500s the west of the red line, the average age of marriage was 23 or older for women and 26 or older for men.

West of this line, the average age of marriage for women was 23 or older,[19] men 26, spouses were relatively close in age,[20] a substantial number of women married for the first time in their thirties and forties, and 10% to 20% of adults never married.[21][22][23] East of the line, the mean age of both sexes at marriage was earlier, spousal age disparity was greater and marriage more nearly universal. Subsequent research has amply confirmed Hajnal's continental divide, and what has come to be known as the 'Western European marriage pattern', although historical demographers have also noted that there are significant variations within the region; to the west of the line, about half of all women aged 15 to 50 years of age were married while the other half were widows or had never married; to the east of the line, about seventy percent of women in that age bracket were married while the other thirty percent were widows or nuns.[24] That a number of widows remarried also kept the age of marriage comparatively high;[25] if women married for the first time at 21 years of age and twenty percent of all weddings featured a widowed bride and the average age of remarriage was forty years then the average marriage age for women would be 24.8 years: (21 × 0.8 ) + (40 × 0.2) = 24.8.[26] The proportion of marriages that were remarriages (widows and/or widowers marrying again) in the late 1500s was as high as thirty percent; that proportion had fallen to just over eleven percent in the early 1800s.[27]

While the average age at first marriage had climbed to 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries by the end of the 16th century,[28] and the percentage of Englishwomen marrying fell from over 90% to just over 80% through the 17th century and their average age at first marriage rose to 26,[29] there was nonetheless great variation within Western Europe; while Lowland Scotland saw patterns similar to England, with women married in the middle twenties after a period of domestic service, the high birth rate of Highland Scotland and the Hebrides imply a lower age of marriage for the bride.[30] Similarly, in 1620 the average age of first marriage for Swedish women was roughly 20 years and the proportion of single women was less than 10%, but by the end of the 18th century it had risen to roughly 26 years and continued to climb with the celibacy rate as a result of falling infant mortality rates, declining famines, and other factors.[31] Similarly, Ireland's age of marriage in 1830 was 23.8 for women and 27.5 for men where they had once been 21 and 25, respectively, and only about 10% of adults remained unmarried;[32] in 1840, they had respectively risen to 24.4 and 27.7;[33][34] in the decades after the Great Famine, the age of marriage had risen to 28–29 for women and 33 for men and as much as a third of Irishmen and a fourth of Irishwomen never married due to chronic economic problems that discouraged early marriage.[35]
Click to expand...

So this idea that in western society it was normal to fuck and marry kids is just not true. I dont know where this myth comes from. And this started BEFORE feminism in the 1500s.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Sir Yarnsalot, Lieutenant Rasczak, mickey339 and 22 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back