On one hand, Nick believes in democracy and liberal values such as individual liberty, on the other, he wants women to be compelled into subservience a la theocracy. Occasionally he'll dip into reactionary politics. I recall him saying on his show before that there was no political solution, which is a pretty logical conclusion after one witnesses the events of the 2020 election and the utter incapability or unwillingness of Trump throughout his entire term to effectively combat progressivism, the American regime change/spy apparatus, the entropy of academia, and racial conflict. At this point, there's no guarantee that conservatives could ever fairly win an election again, let alone a truly anti-establishment candidate.
So what does Nick do after having made the same realization as everyone else on the DR? He decides to enter democratic politics. I was floored by that. Either this guy is dumb as rocks, which is possible, or he's just grifting his fanbase, which is more likely. His potpourri blend of contradictory political philosophies is proof enough. He's also kind of a chameleon. When Casey was still orbiting him he seemed to be more amenable to neoreactionary ideas of the Bertrand De Jouvenel/Moldbug sort. After he was kicked to the curb it seems like Nick's gone full bore democratist. He flip flops on his opinion of Trump -- today he's sore and disappointed at Trump's frequent betrayals and incompetencies, but tomorrow he gushes praise for him and paints him as a king.
Another strategic inconsistency that Nick possesses concerns optics. As the idea goes, to succeed politically as a dissident, you need to avoid PR blunders and to avoid associations made with numerous public enemies, like nazis, communists, and so on. The system will use every excuse to attack and smear dissidents, so it's logical to not give them any ammunition. This is sensible, if a bit naïve. So how dedicated is he to optics? Dedicated enough to praise Michelle Malkin on stage but to assert on his show that women shouldn't enter politics. Dedicated enough to surround himself with Jews in his inner circle while making thinly veiled holocaust denial jokes. Dedicated enough to imply that his supporters should kill government officials at rallies. Why does he think the FBI is investigating him? For no reason? The guy fedposted at an unlawful assembly, huge optics failure. He decries the disaster that happened at Charlottesville, but keeps showing up to retard rallies. It's unbelievable how dull he is. His dedication to optics is the same as Chantelle's attitude toward salads -- like you can double dip and still lose weight.
Nick's ideological interest, if he has any, is plainly superficial. He's jumped on a few bandwagons in the past, for example, when Evola became popular around 2018 on /pol/ he bought a copy of Revolt and started to read it. Things could have gone well for him and he may have learned something new for once, but I guess Evola's view of Italy is sadly correct: There are Romans, and then there are spaghetti-eaters. Nick is a spaghetti-eater. He couldn't understand it, so he wasn't even really able to grift on its basis. If he did understand it, he could have formed a traditional basis for the restoration of Christianity in mind that has nothing to do with "paganism." Evola paid special attention to the investiture crisis, viewing it as a demarcation of the fall of traditional Christianity in the west. His ideal was that leaders, as they did before the rise of papal authority, should have final spiritual authority as well as state authority. After the victory of the Guelph faction during the crisis, this spiritual authority was ceded to the papacy, and the state became more secular over time. Evola emphasizes that these functions should be one, otherwise the state begins to neglect spiritual values entirely, as would occur during the rise of Napoleon and during the enlightenment. The passive-feminine values of the priestly caste thereafter begin to predominate, leading society eventually to universalistic democracy. This theory shouldn't be objectionable to someone who wants to bring the same authoritarian Christianity responsible for the crusades back. That he didn't ever mention this part and sort of handwaved the book away as "pagan" demonstrates a real dearth of intellect.
Another note about his superficiality: Nick used to be an establishment conservative in high school and ran a pathetic podcast with dismal viewership. When Trump's campaign was in its infancy, he was fervently against Trump on the basis of image, that he was "unpresidential," a stock criticism I'd normally expect from a narcissistic woman or journalist. After it became clear the movement was enormously popular on the right (there's something to gain from parasitically attaching to it) he changed his mind almost instantly. Nick believes whatever is necessary to believe in order to maintain his cultic popularity. He's admitted in the past that he runs his movement like a cult, which he immediately backtracked after letting it slip.
So then, what about Nick's Christianity? How seriously does he take his faith, and what ideological role does it play? Like everything else about his persona, his faith seems superficial. I can't read his mind so I don't know how pious he is in private, but there's been a persistent rumor that he rarely ever goes to mass. Despite being a diehard catholic, which was historically a religious development out of primitive Christianity which sprang from 2nd Temple Judaism, he's anti-Semitic. This is clear contradiction of the faith. Jesus was a rabbi and probably racially Jewish. Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, i.e. it shares in the revelation given to a Jewish prophet of an impending apocalypse, it shares the same soteriology and the same materializing tendencies (although to a lesser extent.) He cannot possibly ignore the fact that he, a European male, is worshipping a foreign desert religion forked from the Jews whilst proclaiming to be both a nationalist and a critic of "Judeo-Christianity." Further, despite being a public critic of homosexuality, which he calls sodomy, he hangs out with probable pedophile sodomites like Catboy Kami and Milo Yiannopoulos. People tend to share some similarity with the company that they keep, so what gives? If he were really consistent with his faith, he wouldn't even hang out with these guys, let alone praise them publicly.
In the realm of politics, his Catholicism interferes with his nationalism. This is an unexplored topic for Nick it seems, because every American Catholic must face up to the reality that the fiercest Catholics aren't even white. Centuries of Catholic colonialism, miscegenation, and conversion have made hordes of low IQ 56%ers who are just as "Catholic" as the white people who founded America and who are afforded no less dignity under the universalistic and quasi-humanistic system of Christianity. All Christian nationalism exists in contradiction with the faith -- holding racial exclusivity constitutes race idolatry, which is against the catechism. All races are "children of God" the same, no matter their qualifications, no matter how much violence they cause in the streets, no matter how jealous they may be, or how high the crime rate grows. If you ask me, it's only a matter of time before "nationalist" Nick rebukes the volk altogether and becomes an unironic mestizo sympathizer rather than an ironic one.
Ideologically, his Christianity mostly serves as a crutch for him to lean on as he attacks women. His conception of traditional attitudes toward women conveniently leaves out the traditional symbolism of women as the bearers of wisdom, spirituality, and universal power, and the importance of unity between man and woman rather than enmity. Within Christianity there's good evidence that unity between the sexes is an important spiritual goal, i.e. Adam was an androgyne before the fall "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Traditional sources in general make it clear that men and women have different traits as a consequence of this division post-fall. Women are emotional, chaotic, and prone to desire, but also wise, nurturing, and spiritualistic. This poses an issue for Nick, who seems torn between traditional views and inceldom. On one hand, Nick wants to revive the traditional view of women and their role as counterparts to men. But on the other, he resents them for being differentiated -- his ideal girlfriend is an autistic male who reasons about things rather than empathizing. But in the same light, he wants women to have virtually zero freedom to engage with ideas. He infantilizes them in a way no one in traditional society would have. Even in traditional societies, women were important and held elevated positions. Kingdoms had queens and every now and then a queen could take rulership, aristocracies had dignified ladies who legitimized titles and played an important role. This cartoonish incel-based hatred of women is totally inconsistent with his ideas.
His failure to recognize the following is bizarre: 50% of the population are women and they have the right to vote. You cannot win elections while publicly proclaiming that women should not enter politics. Contrary to what Nick has stated on his show, women DO actually support right wing political movements. 50% of white women voted for Trump in 2016. In fascist Spain, hundreds of thousands of women supported the mostly Catholic Falange. In the UK, Oswald Mosley's blackshirt movement accepted female membership and was rather popular among them. Leftists of the period held the same attitude Nick currently has toward women since they were joining fascist movements -- they went as far as to argue against women's suffrage because it was advantageous to fascists. None of his women hatred is supported by evidence, on top of being ideologically contradictory.
