The Arguments Against Citizen Vigilante

Rebutting the fatalistic paranoia

My “review” of Citizen Vigilante is very long. Here I will focus purely on why it is bad strategy to condemn the film.

First off, it is a bad film. Let’s get that out of the way. I am not claiming it is a worthy contribution to the Western artistic canon. It is cheap, badly-written “shlock” entertainment. My claim is only that it is good for the White nationalist cause.

Of course, the film is already massively successful and will become a cultural milestone whether you and I support it or not. Even if you are not interested in the film or not persuadable, this essay will hopefully be useful as an analysis of bad arguments and a demonstration of better ones.

I will go through all of the arguments against it that I have seen.

The lead actor is Jewish

First, Armie Hammer didn’t write the script, so his ethnic background is of limited relevance. However, people on our side often take this kind of thing as a sign that “shenanigans are afoot”; even if he didn’t write it, he took the lead role, which must mean he understands the film to be operating in Jewish interests (and therefore, the film must be operating in Jewish interests, even if we can’t see how it is).

That chain of reasoning falls apart, however, as soon as one realises that Hammer is really not a Jew anyway. Not only is he not halachically Jewish, he is three times over not halachically Jewish, coming from three generations of White Christian mothers:

Armand Hammer (J) + Olga Vadimovna von Root (C)
→ Julian Armand Hammer (1/2 J)

Julian Armand Hammer + Glenna Sue Ervin (C)
→ Michael Armand Hammer (1/4 J)

Michael Armand Hammer + Dru Ann Mobley (C)
→ Armie Hammer (1/8 J)

This would have been enough to satisfy some very hard-to-satisfy people. In another time and place, Michael Hammer might have been wearing a Hugo Boss uniform and Armie might have been in a certain youth organisation.

Ah, but he had his children by a Jewish woman! No, he didn’t.

Ah, but, despite being only 1/8th Jewish, he has described himself as “1/2 Jewish”! The paranoid explanation for this is that his Jewish ancestry must be very important to him. Occam’s Razor would say he thought it would help his career in Hollywood; exaggerating or even faking Jewishness has helped so many actors that even Caryn Elaine Johnson laughably tried it.

Ah, but he has a Hebrew tattoo! Most likely, he got it for some standard Millennial “it’s my ancestry” reasons.

Uwe Boll intends Sanders to be Jewish

This argument is that, even if Hammer isn’t really Jewish, his tattoo must mean that his character Sanders is Jewish, and this will condition the gentile public to see Jews as our saviours.

First, do you really think Uwe Boll was thinking at that level?

Second, even if he did hope for this effect, do you really think it will succeed? Do you think the normie general public, glimpsing that tattoo, will recognise it as a Hebrew symbol, then assume it means the character is Jewish, and from that take the lesson that Jews are our saviours? If you do, I think you need to be on medication.

In all likelihood, when ordinary viewers glimpse that tattoo, none of them will have a clue what it is. If this was a Boll manoeuvre to subtly condition the masses into accepting Jewish supremacism, it was even more far-fetched and ridiculous than his film’s storyline.

The vastly more likely explanation for the tattoo being there is that Boll, insisting on toplessness for the sex scene, didn’t have the budget to digitally erase the tattoo, or more likely didn’t care and didn’t know what it meant anyway. If he did know what it meant, he probably hoped it would help stave off allegations that he (Boll) is a White supremacist.

However, given that there is not a single other suggestion of Sanders being Jewish in the entire film, I think Boll didn’t even know what the tattoo meant.

The film was funded by Jews/Israel

As far as I can tell, this is completely untrue. My understanding is that it was funded by Uwe Boll himself (some sort of tax write-off scheme).

However, even if it were true, that wouldn’t change the content of the film, whose likely effect on the general public can be judged in isolation from its funding.

It is distributed by a Jewish-owned company

Of course, because every film distribution company is owned by Jews. I have read that Quiver - owned by two supposedly hardcore Zionist Jews - got the US distribution rights to the film because they were the only company that made an offer.

On the face of it, this is a good argument, except for two things:

First, Jewish film distributors tend to like money. Once the controversy started, it would have been obvious to Messrs. Sackman and Meyerowitz that there was big money to be made, which is enough of an explanation for them buying the distribution rights.

Second, none of this changes the effect the film is likely to have on the general public.

Hollywood is not our friend

Indeed, but this is not a Hollywood film.

But even if it were, that wouldn’t change the effect the film is likely to have on the general public.

Uwe Boll is a Zionist cuck who did a Holocaust film

True, but so what? Something can be true yet have no bearing on the matter at hand. The film is still the film it is, and will still have the same effect, regardless of his previous (and future) films and, indeed, regardless of his beliefs.

Uwe Boll doesn’t agree with us about race

Again, so what? Do you think the ordinary viewer will take the time to go and research the director’s political stances? That is an absolutely ridiculous notion. People in our sphere really need to understand that Joe Public thinks in very broad, simplistic and obvious terms. He is not nearly interested enough to do the research that would steer him away from the nationalist instincts that the film clearly pushes him towards.

Uwe Boll didn’t intend this to be a racial identitarian clarion call

Yet again, this is irrelevant. (There are so many irrelevant things that people persuade themselves “change the game”.) His intentions with the film are completely superseded by what the film actually achieves.

Having said that, I think Boll’s intentions are a big step in our direction: to embolden the general public to say that diversity doesn’t work and that most Third World people haven’t integrated into the West, won’t ever do so, and probably can’t do so. I think he believes this on cultural/religious grounds, not racial, but who cares? It works for us.

It’s exactly what the Establishment wants!

How…?

Because it might encourage “copycat” behaviour which can be prosecuted? That’s hardly worth the price of legitimising nativism.

Because it blames everything on Muslims? But it doesn’t. The killing in the opening scene is by a Black guy. He might be Muslim, or he might not be.

Because it neglects to “name the Jew”? True, but it still argues that diversity doesn’t work.

The banning is part of the trick!

This argument is that Boll and his (supposed) Jewish collaborators ensured the film got banned in Germany so as to achieve notoriety and “sell” the idea that the film is dangerous, when actually it is exactly what the establishment wants (see above).

First, the ban affects only one country (Germany).

Second, it’s not exactly “banned” in Germany. The ratings board has chosen not to give it a rating, which merely means that cinemas will not “want” to screen it.

Third, how could Boll “ensure” his film got banned? By including the crucial climactic scene which he had to include anyway? The film’s narrative would be severely hampered without that family execution.

Fourth, why would the German state do anything to help a film which explicitly rejects the open-borders mania of the German state? Much more likely is that, seeing the finished film, the ratings board shook their heads in despair and chose not to “dignify” it with a rating. What else could they do?

Fifth, to what extent has the film exploded because of the ban, really, rather than because of endorsements from Elon Musk? I’ll agree that the ban helped somewhat, but even then, that doesn’t mean the ban was intended to help. Not everything that happens is intended.

Nothing happens by accident

This is an example of the “everything is a psy-op” mentality. Paranoid nuttery, it holds that virtually everything that animates the public towards our ideas is actually a trick to ward them away from our ideas by misdirecting them - limited hangouts. So, if something looks too good to be true, that’s because it’s false! “Don’t be fooled, people!”

Okay, so how does the success of Citizen Vigilante harm our cause? It doesn’t. It helps our cause. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is it was indeed made (and then thrust into notoriety) by a series of accidents: a cucked Boomer pissed off enough by mass rape and murder to make a quasi-racist film, a German ratings board inevitably leftist enough to ban such a film, and two Jewish film distributors greedy enough for money to buy the rights to such a film.

It doesn’t point to the real perpetrators behind the Great Replacement

First, neither does Renaud Camus.

Second, of course it doesn’t. Uwe Boll is a Boomer German racked with Holocaust guilt!

Third, so what? Do you want everything to happen at once? If it did, do you think the general public would be receptive? Or would including that angle give them an excuse to reject the pro-White angle? (The answer is it would.)

Better reasons to condemn the film

All of the above reasons for condemning the film are retarded, but here is a good reason. It could be used to dismiss all right-wing/nativist art and drama as bad quality and undeserving of funding. But in most countries the institutions already believed that and would never give us funding anyway. I think the days of trying to persuade captured institutions to fund our projects are long, long over.

Reasons to celebrate it

What we on the Right need is new distribution systems and new institutions to fund our projects, and Citizen Vigilante might prompt some billionaires to realise the potential here, leading to films that surpass it artistically (which wouldn’t be difficult).

I have mentioned several times “the effect it is likely to have on the general public”. Let us spell out that effect.

Even if the film was funded, written or performed by Jews (which it wasn’t) you still need to look instead at the film itself, because everything else is actually irrelevant.

The ordinary viewer will take Citizen Vigilante at face value and see in it the vindication of his forbidden concerns. It tells him he is not alone and that he is not wrong.

Now, there are dangers consequent to this event (he gets led astray) but the event in itself is not a bad thing. And the alternative is that Joe Public never sees his concerns vindicated.

Many normies are watching Citizen Vigilante. We know this because it has shot to the top of several global streaming charts, including Amazon and Apple. Many, many people are being told for the first time that their feelings are valid, the problems are real, and the solutions to them are necessary.

Conclusion

People in our sphere need to learn to take a win when it’s handed to them. We are so accustomed to losing, we can’t believe it when something happens in our favour, so we invent reasons as to why it is actually a trick.

Instead of looking at the most likely explanation for something, we look for the most grotty explanation.

Instead of celebrating its most likely (even if unintended) effects, we forecast the most detrimental effects it could have, then persuade ourselves that the thing was only made in the first place so as to have those (unlikely) detrimental effects.

If this movement were a mental patient, the psychiatrist would be rubbing his hands.