Consume Product - Arete Network

It's not about "defending communism", but Stalin as a person. I watched some hours of videos about him. That man just glided through his regime without competence, doing A and ¬A, applying maximum brutality and ruthlessness. That was his secret ingredient, to be absolutely malevolent.

But I do disagree on Nick on several issues:

1. He believes ignorance about Hitler makes him somehow morally or intellectual superior. But it only renders him a wilful idiot. He also claims Stalin is more interesting than Hitler, which is wrong. But I think he says that only to appeal to normies more, because as we all know "Hitler bad." The story of Stalin is that of a bureaucrat rising up to become a thug in charge who excelled in brutality and ruthlessness, but was as competent as an average, idiot bureaucrat. The story of Hitler is a man who made sacrifices and went against the grain to become adored by Germans. He wrote a book that expanded on his knowledge and experiences - he identified the true problem and dealt with it successfully. He promised a LOT and delivered. He caused Germany to rise up from a desolate, depraved state into a global superpower. He prepared for a world war he knew 1933 it would be brought upon him.
2. He opposes the theory that Charlie Kirk was killed by the jews. I have made the [theory](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1AR0LQZHxw/about-the-charlie-kirk-situation/c) 2 days after it happened. I basically solved it BEFORE all these people started to talk and "ask questions" about it. He buys the FBI narrative 100%. With an attitude like that, the jews can do whatever the fuck they want, and because it's never 100% certain, according to Nick they get a pass.
3. He ties that to Candace Owens, who talked about Charlie Kirk around 1 month after it. Which arguably is kookifying it by going wild with the theory, even dragging in France and Egypt and whatnot.
4. He has too many "allies" who are niggers or subhuman.
5. His goals aim at the right direction, but are insufficient. If he'd have his way to design the country, barely anything would really change.
6. When he talks about jews, he is focused on israel. It's like that is the only way through which he names the jew. While he seems to be quite knowledgeable, he doesn't know the important things.
7. He doesn't talk about jews or israel in his interviews. Understandable to take it easy, but it makes them pointless and disappointing.
8. He gravitates towards becoming more moderate and mundane as he gains popularity.
9. He has a vindictive attitude, and he can't stop rambling about other people like those he interviewed with, or especially Candace, and in his opposition he even goes against his own audience. That's purity spiraling in action, and a prime recipe for defeat.

But he is not a fed. This fed-accusation is retarded. He is just a flawed man and nowhere as "radical" as we are. If he'd know any more and talk about it, he would be buried even more. But alas he is just riding the Trump-bad and israel-bad wave, so that's on the edge of what is allowed.