Based Closet Case Goes All-In For America

Nick Fuentes won’t debate me. Not only will he not debate me, he won’t risk having any contact with me whatsoever. Apparently, he doesn’t want to risk getting rolled like he’s been doing to those TPUSA clowns.

See, I have a (not very active) Twitter account that I use solely to troll anti-semites. When I say anti-semites, I don’t mean your grandmother saying “Jew ’em down.” I mean full-retard anti-semitism, which is a megalomaniacal form of Dunning-Kruger effect (esoteric Dunning-Kruger, you might call it) that’s starting to become dangerous again thanks in part to a perfusion of unlettered mountebanks on Twitter, who are easy to skewer because their view of history and anthropology is just a lot of sub-literate jews ex machina. I’ve had the pleasure of BTFOing (and being blocked by) numerous alt-right “thought” leaders, including Mike Enoch and Erik Stryker.

But having never gotten around to aiming a single barb at Nick Fuentes, when I went to view his Twitter account amid the recent flurry of media attention surrounding his “Groyper War,” I was surprised to find that he had blocked me. I have fewer than 100 Twitter followers and, as far as I can tell, there are maybe three or four dozen regular readers of this blog. So for someone like Fuentes who’s in the national media spotlight to take precautionary measures against me seemed strange. But activism, after all, is a form of PR. I have a great deal of suspicion for anyone who makes a business out of it—the more vehement they are, the more suspect. Fuentes is clearly a savvy marketer, and like all savvy marketers, his effectiveness depends on the simplicity of his message, and the credulity of his audience. In this regard, he really is no different than Charlie Kirk.

For example, here is Nick debating some (apparently Jewish) little weirdo in a MAGA hat. The subject? Israel. I couldn’t stomach a whole 90 minutes of Fuentes smirking insufferably at this poor braying sperg (and neither should you) but I did watch the first few minutes. Right out the gate, Nick states that Israel’s interests run counter to America’s, because America is interested in defeating ISIS, and Israel is not. Of course, if Nick is referring to the interests of the U.S. government, this is laughable obscurantism, and if he’s referring to the interests of the common American folk, one would think his paleocon isolationism would’ve kicked in to stop him advocating foreign wars, period.

But what’s more revealing is when he goes on to opine that Israel is a pariah state, because its foreign policy is to divide its enemies against one another, and that this has caused a great deal of mideast instability, particularly the Syrian civil war. But does any country that has enemies not have a policy of dividing them? Every country in the mideast has a policy of dividing Syria. Syria has a policy of dividing Syria. That’s how the Assads stay in power when so many of “their people” hate them. The whole Assad-protects-the-Christians meme completely ignores the fact that a fuckton of Syrians legitimately want to kill Assad, not because they hate Christians or because the Israelis goaded them, but because of the very un-Christian things his family has done to them over the decades.

What this leads me to is what has always been creepy and worm-infested about the left anti-war movement of the G.W. aughts, as well as paleocon isolationism and its offshoots in the alt-right. Here’s a heinous (if warmed-over) example of the former:

“Time for a full response from Beijing”? Are you sure it isn’t time to lite more communists on fire? Because I have no doubt that Galloway, apologist that he is for every form of Muslim violence (when it’s directed against Israel or the West), knows all about China’s “full response” to its Muslim population. Yet the alt-right, which is so opposed to comparatively mild internet censorship here in the west, largely thinks like Galloway when it comes to China’s censorship regime:

How’s that for “cultural Marxism”?

Imagine how little regard this charlatan has for his followers. What Enoch is doing in this tweet is essentially peddling the idea that the CIA spreads freedom. The system conflates freedom with rap music and butt-fucking, and instead of seeking the real thing the alt-right eagerly buys this straw-man and demands dictatorship in its place. When every mechanism of hi-tech social control that’s being put into place in China is installed in the West, the only complaint the alt-right will be able to make on principle is the mulignanos in the TV commercials.

If you support big tech with your data, you’re supporting what they do to your society. Yet every alt-right grifter is intellectually masturbating on these platforms and begging not to be thrown off. There is a poem about this:

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

All these e-“dissidents” want the lights kept on just as badly as Joel Osteen, Howard Stern, and Rage Against the Machine do, even if it means eating a soyburger, sucking a dick and bombing Tehran. The USG funnels trillions per year to private contractors for ridiculously cynical boondoggles. It has 150,000+ troops stationed around the world, directly, physically defending dozens of foreign governments. The alt-right has nothing to say about any of this, and everything to say about Israel, because out of $30 trillion in national debt, only $3.8 billion per year promises to up your headcount on Twitter if you bitch about it.

The grift here is simple: it’s a way for IQ-ceilinged and narrow-chested adult adolescents to sperg out, play tough, and show all the prim liberals that they’re really, really mad at daddy. Granted, I’m no big fan of PornHub, or 365 Black, or drag kids on ketamine; but if you think America is so satanic, you might want to ask yourself: is what China does to Muslims not satanic? Is Iran’s treatment of Christians not satanic? Is Putin, as a man and a leader, not satanic? No? Are you sure?

But the JQ is the one shibboleth that really confers admission to the clubhouse of would-be alpha dawgs. And if you enjoy that kind of circle-jerk, then by all means. But if you think you’re all about classical metaphysics, family values, self-reliance, human-scaled communities, etc., and that denouncing the Jews is the sine qua non of all that, then first of all, you’re sub-literate, because the Hebrew tradition is a pillar of classical metaphysics. More importantly, you’re externalizing your own angst and insecurity. None of these tradcaths genuinely wants the kind of mind control by gilded pharisee eunuchs that they pretend to advocate. How do I know? Because according to their whole weltanschauung, a non-Jew is essentially Judaized in proportion with how much he sins. Masturbating too much? You’ve been Jewed. Got college debt? It’s the Jews, etc. They’re not really blaming the Jews for rejecting Christ. They’re blaming the Jews for original sin. They don’t actually want to live under the High Church of Sicut Judaeis—their ancestors gladly immigrated to a country where the Church has no official status. No—they just want to see those screws put into other people.

So it should come as no surprise that there is very convincing evidence that Nick Fuentes is gay. (I mean, evidence other than just his impish, Baby Stewie gayface, which has the disproportional forehead, pointy chin and horizontally long mouth characteristic of so many gay men, e.g. Pete Buttigieg.) It takes an evolved kind of slyness for a gay man to dissimulate as heterosexual, and Fuentes is nothing if not sly. Anybody who’s been to high school has met an over-the-top closet case like this, and the Church has always been a hiding-place for them. Stentorian anti-semitism suits both the gay penchant for melodrama, and the need for extreme dissociation. The model here is of course Father Coughlin, who was deeply closeted. The subconscious logic is, I may be a faggot, but if I denounce the Jews hard enough I might just get into heaven through the back door. And this is quite beside the point that advertising one’s piety is not only shady and obnoxious, it is literally anti-Christian.

I’m not telling you what to think about Jews, okay? Your lived experience is your business, and in a system where public lying is endemic, with an elite more debauched and venal than any before in history, we’re going to get anti-semitism when 50% of that elite is Jewish. But secondhand opinion is fake and gay, and what I am asking you to do is to consider whether “Jewish” is a real criteria of right and wrong, reason and unreason—and what psychological purposes it serves to pretend that it is. The Dreyfus Affair was utterly of the same species as this: the cheap scapegoating of a hapless kike by a coterie of officers invoking patriotism, Catholicism, and Jewish conspiracy—all in order to cover up their own incompetence, and the treason of one of their colleagues. Without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these groypers and tradclowns would be warming his hands over a trashcan fire. But if my whole schtick was to press Christ Jesus into service e-marketing psychological distance to sub-literates on YouTube, I’d be doing a Father Coughlin impersonation just like Nick Fuentes.

7 thoughts on “Based Closet Case Goes All-In For America

  1. But but.. What about ” Muh U.S.S Liberty ” ? Isnt that the most pressing issue of our time? Our you not based and tight suit pilled?

    Like

    • I don’t agree that the USS Liberty is a non-issue. IDK what really happened there and I don’t pretend to. But (to your point) I think that today it’s most relevant in terms of the lack of gov’t transparency, not foreign relations.

      Like

      • You make a good point. But what exactly did that accomplish for the Nick and Co. ? Did it really make Charlie Kirk any more of a buffoon than he already was? Or did it just confirm what most normies thought of them in the first place?

        Like

      • Well it was just one issue of several that they raised… I think that overall they were successful in pillorying mainstream conservatism, if only for a moment. That’s a good thing. My point was just to show how anti-semitism made their party programme frivolous in the long term. It isn’t just a polemic, it’s quality control. I am on the far-right just like Fuentes’s followers.

        Like

  2. You make a good point. But what exactly did that accomplish for the Nick and Co. ? Did it really make Charlie Kirk any more of a buffoon than he already was? Or did it just confirm what most normies thought of them in the first place?

    Like

    • Well it was just one issue of several that they raised… I think that overall they were successful in pillorying mainstream conservatism, if only for a moment. That’s a good thing. My point was just to show how anti-semitism made their party programme frivolous in the long term. It isn’t just a polemic, it’s quality control. I am on the far-right just like Fuentes’s followers.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: