From Thursday night, as part of the discussion group I ragequit from. Was asked for comment on the following video:
The main questions for me are:
1) What was was the goal?
2) Who is the intended audience?
The best indicator of whether it’s good or bad optics is whether the media is going to run with it. The Jews are very good at predicting this. Not omniscient, and some of the dumber ones start feeling their oats sometimes and start running their mouths on Twitter, but the media apparatus is very good at controlling the narrative.
I know from listening to The Daily Shoah regularly that the goal is not to pursue a political solution. It is probably not even to influence the optics of the election, because they’re very black-pilled on it and refer to such efforts as “Finklethink” (after Art Finklestein, the creator of modern political dialectic and the orchestrator of recent civnats like Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban, etc.). Therefore I would guess the goal is one of the following:
1) An attempt at simple meme magic a la esoteric Hitlerism. I would hope they learned better, but it’s possible.
2) An excuse for white men to meet up for political purposes which gives more 1st amendment cover.
3) Taking a chance to radicalize some conservative white men by putting out some rhetoric.
4) Demoralize Trump voters so they don’t turn out.
5) Gay op. I don’t think they’re controlled opposition but the list would be incomplete without it.
The intended audience could be any of the following:
1) Their existing audience, for morale or advertising purposes.
2) The Alt-Right more broadly, for advertising or coalition-building purposes.
3) White conservative men who are open to being radicalized.
4) Working class white men.
5) Normie rightist whites (through the hope of riding media infamy).
6) Normie whites in general.
7) The Jews themselves.
The apparent audience is 3 and 4 but that doesn’t mean they’re the intended audience. My best guess, based on my previous exposure to these guys, is reason #4, depress Trump turnout, among audiences #3 and #4.
Regarding the substance, I don’t have any criticisms. It’s all good and old hat. I’m happy they kept all the talking points normie-friendly. Regarding the presentation and rhetoric, mixed feelings. About 70% good, 30% bad, presuming my guess about the goal is correct.
All told, the primary issue I take with the presentation is there’s a mismatch in styles. This isn’t the speech you would give to a union or a VFW, it’s the speech you would give to the Young Republicans. The intonation, cheering, etc. would work on working class whites but be repugnant to self-styled “reasonable” conservatives who don’t like beer hall putsch aesthetics. You can’t do a blood and guts presentation of a fundamentally intellectual argument. Working class people want to get whipped up about petty local community involvement shit, not abstractions. Young Republicans want to get a fiery lecture about the importance of civic decency.
My last thought is, I’m not a big fan of the “barn burner” thing. I don’t know who that appeals to.
tl;dr for my review- It was a good speech, probably won’t go anywhere though. Would recommend downloading the audio and listening while doing your laundry because it’s a neat summary of talking points you can present to your normie-adjacent conservative friends. This opinion is subject to revision if the media decides to run with it as a story. I’ve put out feelers with my normies so they’ll tell me if they see anything about it in the ordinary course of things.