You responded to my remark about Christianity and didn't clarify who you were talking about, while using triple quotes, which is used to talk about jews.
Better question would be what good would engaging with these nons do? Of course, you need the DSCI perspective to understand why it's an issue, but you don't care for Christianity, so you won't.
He is quite informative about the history of the CIA, jews in general, israel, Iran, etc.
For example I didn't know that the CIA was tightly interwoven with jews from its very beginning, as jews fled Germany to reveal secret information. The CIA had the function to gather that information and use it against Germany.
Then the somewhat complex relation between the US, Soviet Union, israel and Middle East. The Soviet got a foothold in the Middle East because the US was hellbent on supporting israel, and the Arabs were obviously opposed to that.
Then that the kikes pushed to involve the US into Middle Eastern wars for ~40+ years, especially against Iran, claiming how they were just *about* to develop nuclear missiles.
Things like that. He is very clear about the jews being *the* problem. And is also explicit about the traitorous, jew-dick-sucking nature of Trump. But his information goes quite deep and is fairly objective... which paints the jews quite negatively, as it should.
See it as a stepping stone to further the noticing to the public a little more. Why should we oppose that? Because Nick Fuentes doesn't pass our puritanism bar? Don't be picky. I take what I get when it comes to increasing the noticing. And he is quite eloquent and informative. Others will follow who *do* pass our puritanism bar.
> Maybe you shouldn't make unsolicited suggestions.
Enjoy following every type of non-white, rather than the creator of white men. I always have to LOL when people don't understand this.
Remember, the topic was Nick Fuentes.
Better question would be what good would engaging with these nons do? Of course, you need the DSCI perspective to understand why it's an issue, but you don't care for Christianity, so you won't.
For example I didn't know that the CIA was tightly interwoven with jews from its very beginning, as jews fled Germany to reveal secret information. The CIA had the function to gather that information and use it against Germany.
Then the somewhat complex relation between the US, Soviet Union, israel and Middle East. The Soviet got a foothold in the Middle East because the US was hellbent on supporting israel, and the Arabs were obviously opposed to that.
Then that the kikes pushed to involve the US into Middle Eastern wars for ~40+ years, especially against Iran, claiming how they were just *about* to develop nuclear missiles.
Things like that. He is very clear about the jews being *the* problem. And is also explicit about the traitorous, jew-dick-sucking nature of Trump. But his information goes quite deep and is fairly objective... which paints the jews quite negatively, as it should.
See it as a stepping stone to further the noticing to the public a little more. Why should we oppose that? Because Nick Fuentes doesn't pass our puritanism bar? Don't be picky. I take what I get when it comes to increasing the noticing. And he is quite eloquent and informative. Others will follow who *do* pass our puritanism bar.