Ferguson 2: Electric Boogaloo is upon us. If you're like me, you're laughing at this with your shitlord friends, feeling only slightly bad for silently hoping that the riots are as violent and theatrical as possible. It's always funny to see some common ground emerge between the mainstream media and the alt-right after Ferguson, Baltimore, or Ferguson 2.0; riots make good news for them, and for us, they bring out the Ben Garrison inside respectable conservatives, and bring out the respectable conservative inside liberals. It's a now somewhat well known fact that "demonstrations" geared towards forwarding leftist racial causes ironically push the Overton Window to the right; however, I want to explore this phenomenon further and see what it is about riots that bolsters the right, and how we can tap into it.
I think we can look at the way the Overton Window moves slightly to the left after officer-involved shootings of unarmed (or "unarmed") black men as a parallel. A common response from the mainstream right to the inevitable outrage following a gentle giant bixing his final nood at the hands of the police tends to involve suddenly pretending to care about urban youffs, usually along the lines of "You weren't rioting when a bunch of black kids were shot in Chicago last month!" It is indeed interesting how despite blacks dying from homicide very often every day, the outrage and growth of movements like #blacklivesmatter is reserved for single, cataclysmic events with large media coverage and names and faces attached. The statistics about blacks getting killed by cops and other blacks have always been around, but nobody cared until a good boi who dindu nuffin was shot down by Grand Wizard Darren Wilson.
This phenomenon is similar to the one that occurs among whites following riots and other cataclysms of mass cultural enrichment. It's easy to see the gentle giant stealing handbags from white women while clutching liquor bottles with bar spouts and start thinking about things like race and IQ, or about a white homeland. It's not as easy to think about those things when one break-in or anti-white hate crime happens, even if it's one city away. For most whites, this thought process simply doesn't start from reading crime stats or seeing one "bad apple." Like the black lives lost at the hands of gang violence, small instances of dindus doin nuffin are much more common, and can be shown through various statistics. However, riots are large events with media coverage, names, and faces attached. The media covers them, they are memorable, and they are much, much harder to ignore.
Statistics, as important as they are, cannot change minds on their own. They need an image, and the image of a rioter looting a store or a burning CVS will do the trick. The same way race and policing were brought to the forefront of the left by Mike Brown's death, race and crime were brought to the forefront of the right following the (now annual) Mike Brown Memorial Riot. Even cuckservatives started talking more bluntly about race, and a lot of whites on the fence about racial consciousness became racially conscious quite quickly. People don't realize that the left's policies are failing until all of their failure culminates in one big media circus.
An important part of this is the role that the media (cue echo) plays, specifically in constructing a narrative immediately following the riots (usually "they were largely peaceful",) and in building context denial in the following weeks by comparing looting dindus to Bundy Ranch supporters or Dylan Roof. This narrative doesn't change the minds of any TRS readers or critics of #blacklivesmatter, but seems to push leftists into a more extreme position of outright defending looting and violence, creating a more obvious contrast between the rational world and the left.
The media's combination of helicopter coverage, on-scene action reporters, BPLSWPL activist interviews, and split-screen arguments between police and hippie losers, intentionally or not, brings out a lot of honesty among people across the spectrum regarding race relations. The left is more likely to let pro-black nationalist or anti-white speech slip out, and conservatives are more likely to start using the word "black" in headlines about crime. Honesty is a friend of the right. We are never allowed to be honest because when we are, we are labeled Nazis. The left is almost never honest because when they are they scare people away from their shitty cause. Honesty means the left shrinks in agreeability, and right grows in strength and numbers.
I cannot stress enough how important it is that we let these events force the left to go into crazy mode. It is a key part of why riots push the Overton Window rightwards. When the failure of the leftist world is just a bunch of numbers and some headlines, they can keep speaking in seemingly harmless abstracts. Once the failure of their policies and worldview are shocking and apparent, they end up in a position where they have to directly and honestly defend violence and the destruction of property. Their game of obscuring their own opinions to appear agreeable falls apart quickly when Little Caesar's burns down. Worst case scenario, your average conservative walks away thinking welfare and fatherless homes caused all of it. The left's "blacks aren't really violent, it's just racism" narrative still looks batshit crazy when riots happen and they have to sit back and defend them.
So how can the right benefit from this knowledge? Well, outside of praying for more Fergusons and Baltimores, we can think about other events that take place which:
1.Demonstrate the destructive nature of leftist policies.
2.The media likes.
3.The left tries to defend, and looks bad in doing so.
There are more of these catastrophes than you'd expect. The knockout game comes to mind. Planned Parenthood's recent scandal does to a small extent. Across the pond, the Rotherham scandal is a perfect example of this, with leftists becoming rape apologists in trying to defend their obvious multiculturalist failure. The OJ trial, the destruction of Rhodesia, and a few other older examples work, too. In general, however, disasters caused by the left are more long-term, therefore less noticeable and immediate, and don't get much media coverage. It's rare that the left's destruction of society is so obviously apparent and well-known that it can let right-wing narratives flourish, but when it does, we can start discussing their less obvious failures much more easily.
If something happens, riot or not, which fits those three categories above, remember to let the left's narrative go as extreme as it can in responding to it, because the left defending the indefensible is one of the main driving forces that pushes people to the right following events like these. Let those on the fence see the way the left responds to the consequences of what it's created, and ask them if they really think the left is as rational as they seem in times of peace. When everything looks like it's going fine, winning hearts and minds is an uphill battle. When riots are in the news, it's surprisingly easy to convince someone that the college-bound youth "making some mistakes" on top of a cop car maybe isn't the way he is because he needs more after-school programs, and maybe even doesn't belong in a white society in the first place.
So why do riots bolster the right? The dynamic is twofold: the left plays a fiddle as Rome burns, and the right are the only people with a bucket brigade. Who are the center going to flock to? The ones addressing the problem, or the ones excusing it? When the left creates a disaster, never let it go to waste. Times like these are a brief window of time where people will be more receptive to IQ data, racial crime statistics, and perhaps even white separatism. Our narrative flourishes when the left creates a catastrophe.