Founder of The Wilkes Booth Project
Update, the FBI is now looking into the 500k bitcoins. Lucky for Nick, they're only looking into if foreign governments were involved or the bitcoins were used to fund illegal acts(which considering the timeframe is pretty doubtful). Unless Iran somehow was using this French guy, I don't think anything will come from this.Wall Street Journal is talking about Nick Fuentes, getting $522,000 now:
View attachment 1848838
News article: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-impeachment-house-biden/card/vHIedsWP1ZHINSWHhnVD?mod=e2tw
Democrats are trying to investigate this
The only thing nick cares about is that they used a bad photo of him, what a faggot
View attachment 1848837
As part of the investigation, the bureau is examining payments of $500,000 in bitcoin, apparently by a French national, to key figures and groups in the alt-right before the riot, the sources said. Those payments were documented and posted on the web this week by a company that analyzes cryptocurrency transfers. Payments of bitcoin, a cryptocurrency, can be traced because they are documented on a public ledger. But the cryptocurrency payments prompted the FBI to examine whether any of the money was used to fund illegal acts, which, if true, raises the possibility of money laundering and conspiracy charges, the FBI official said.
This guy looks like TommyNC2010 if he went on a diet. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.View attachment 1851476
Nick telling his followers to consider destroying their phones if they were at capital hill & immediately afterwards trying to save his ass by saying wait don't do that, basically the only in minecraft defense. Once again proving Nick has no idea of optics, possibly getting his groypers into even worse trouble by getting them to destroy evidence the feds clearly have already.
View attachment 1851450
source some daily dot journo:
Pure genius. All you'd do is add attempted destruction of evidence to the charges you're already getting. Feds love that one. And about the only thing worse than telling the truth to the feds is lying to them, which is why you shut the fuck up and don't do either.I love when people who don't know anything about technology try to opkek
I'm admittedly naïve on this stuff, and for me it's always been one of those questions that I feel is too stupid to ask. Can you expand a little on what it means to be a "fed" in 2021? How does the traditional definition of a "fed" differ from the kind of brand you see accusations of here on KF?There's being a Fed
- an actual agent, undercover or otherwise
- some schmuck CI with a handler that's the agent
Bigger dipshits than Baked have been the latter more times than we will ever know
Nick doesn't understand optics. He thinks optics = wearing a suit (I WORE A SUIT), not saying nigger and kike in public, MAGA hats instead of swastikas. Optics is what a movement does and what that conduct communicates to people. Nick communicates that he is a toxic faggot grifter.STFU opticscuck!
He seemed like a troubled person (due to his failing health and also probably some latent mental issues) who was isolated IRL and so bounced between internet fads to find meaning. Not uncommon on the alt-right.The guy did a complete 180° turn on his worldview sometime between 2013 and the date of his death. On the French politics forum he constantly attacked left- and right-wingers and liked to shit on Christians too. In one thread he even supported that idea of France paying reparations for colonialism. And then in his suicide note he laments the lack of religion in his younger years and writes about the decline of Western civilization.
I get the impression that he went from MLP watching smug French centrist to internet trad-Cath LARPer in a short time.
When people say "fed" on here, they usually mean a CI like your friend. It's easier to seek out the weak links in a movement to turn (which the alt-right/AF has no shortage of) than to insert a deep-cover Donnie Brasco Groyper.I'm admittedly naïve on this stuff, and for me it's always been one of those questions that I feel is too stupid to ask. Can you expand a little on what it means to be a "fed" in 2021? How does the traditional definition of a "fed" differ from the kind of brand you see accusations of here on KF?
When my friend got a coke charge he was approached by a detective before his court date. This detective laid out an offer for a plea deal with a much lighter sentence in return for him becoming a confidential informant. In his case the details for being a C.I. involved a request to do 3 "controlled buys" where he'd wear a wire when picking up from his mid-level dealer and that intel would be relayed back to the alphabet boys.
Do feds use a similar strategy when approaching the dissident types that we discuss here, perhaps when they are in a jam facing legal trouble/tied up in court similar to my buddy who was caught with blow? I feel like an idiot asking this question, the truth is I just don't have a clear idea of what a "fed" looks like and what their job consists of in this particular sphere starting in the late 2010's, more specifically after Charlottesville. My brain jumps to historical examples like the Black Panthers being infiltrated and sabotaged from the inside out, and I just can not envision a modern equivalent campaign centered around the Groypers, perhaps related factions but not the frog avy crew.
Are there modern examples of purebred feds who entered the scene under false pretenses all along instead of being later converted to one?
What kind of pressure is usually required in these type of scenarios that ultimately results in an otherwise respected/trustworthy guy who is a part of the scene taking the offer to side with and assist the feds? Circling back to my coke buddy earlier, if you're fighting charges in court, paying a lawyer, and also being relentlessly deplatformed which is jeopardizing your entire job and ability to support yourself, the feds know just how backed up into a corner you now are. However, from what I understand guys like Nick have never had anything more than light run-in's with the law at a polling location, which of course shuts down this particular theory for him (at least on an individual level). For fuck's sake, didn't Baked of all people have a crystal clear criminal record just up until a few dozen pages ago?
Are there elements and players in scenes like AF who are just on the fed payroll and otherwise playing the part and laying low? Using that example, what would be traditionally asked of them to provide back to the feds? What kind of responsibilities does a new "fed" take on while actively remaining around the scene? Let's say a fed weasels himself into a web developer role for a prominent wignat, certainly he might be encouraged to forward all names and addresses of customers buying patches with sonnenrad's on them back to FBI or w/e, right? What are some other typical responsibilities for a "fed" in the modern era attempting to penetrate dissident groups which exist largely online?
I've been wanting to ask these questions since I joined KF and simply felt they were too stupid of questions to ask, which writing them down certainly does confirm that feeling. The answers I would get elsewhere online would not be the kind I'm looking for so yeah, what's the deal with feds? This post obviously brought to you by adderall.
Siege GFInteresting, one of Nick's cronies, who surprisingly appears to be a natal woman, has been arrested for her role in directing rioters into the Capitol. Sorry hun, the rule is: DON'T wear the mask while doing legal things. DO wear the mask while doing illegal things. Not the other way round.
View attachment 1853460
El Goblina....Interesting, one of Nick's cronies, who surprisingly appears to be a natal woman, has been arrested for her role in directing rioters into the Capitol. Sorry hun, the rule is: DON'T wear the mask while doing legal things. DO wear the mask while doing illegal things. Not the other way round.
View attachment 1853460
There'd also be the lesser variant of the fed, just a plain old snitch. A CI generally at least has some working relationship or agreement on an ongoing basis to do something. A plain old snitch doesn't.I'm admittedly naïve on this stuff, and for me it's always been one of those questions that I feel is too stupid to ask. Can you expand a little on what it means to be a "fed" in 2021? How does the traditional definition of a "fed" differ from the kind of brand you see accusations of here on KF?
Correct me if I'm wrong because not a lawyer. Until the feds subpoena your phone if you destroy it you aren't destroying evidence but telling someone to destroy something because it might be evidence could be a crime from my understanding. I mean if the feds come and say "give fone" and you tell them you don't have it any more they can't really prove you destroyed it to hide evidence. Not that it matters anyways. Unless you have things on your phone you never uploaded the data they need is all in the cloud anyways. I mean really all the evidence they need is on camera images they already had because it's not like any groypers are catching a charge more serious than being where they weren't supposed to.Pure genius. All you'd do is add attempted destruction of evidence to the charges you're already getting. Feds love that one. And about the only thing worse than telling the truth to the feds is lying to them, which is why you shut the fuck up and don't do either.
You have no general obligation to retain any piece of information you own, but if you destroy it specifically because you believe it might be evidence against you, it's destruction of evidence. It all has to do with the state of mind of the defendant. If you have a standard policy of always deleting all your email after reading it, and had no notice or reason to believe it was related to any legal proceeding, you can do whatever you like with it. You are generally allowed to whatever you like with your own property, including destroying it. If some retard told you to do it, though, because it might be evidence against you, that kind of meets the notice requirement if you saw it and acted on it.Correct me if I'm wrong because not a lawyer. Until the feds subpoena your phone if you destroy it you aren't destroying evidence but telling someone to destroy something because it might be evidence could be a crime from my understanding.
What the fuck? Is he trying to get banned so he can claim to be a victim or something?
It's an old Nick line, he's brought it up every single year on MLK day and he usually ends up deleting his tweets after people sperg. He's always brought it up on his show and given big lectures.What the fuck? Is he trying to get banned so he can claim to be a victim or something?
Note this is what Nick Fuentes said in the clip starting at 3:50. I do not endorse this opinionwhat can you or I do to a state legislator? Besides **** them.
I mean im not advising that but, I mean, what else can you do, right?