It's about the power of the image. Not just woman with a child, which already carries power and weight, but a white woman with a white child.
What matters is that she just said what millions of white people have been thinking for decades - and only that matters. It has the power to spur a huge wave of nigger-shaming, which is a massive win!
This isn't the time for purism. It doesn't matter if she gets cancelled, harassed or killed. It doesn't matter if donating money seems daft, or if others make similar videos (good!) just to scrape for donations. It doesn't matter if the video virulence is artificial (mistake!). It doesn't matter if she has an impure past, votes the wrong way, has said/done dumb shit or says/does dumb shit in the future.
What matters is that niggers just got called out and everyone saw it. There's a lot of reluctance and doubt here - and justifiably so - but it's a huge cultural win and the correct response to detracting factors is "I don't care". Remember, normies are only surface-level when interpreting it, and they outnumber the culturally-aware by a couple orders of magnitude!
India is aligned ostensibly with the west. India claimed pakistan was the sponsor of the terrorist attacks. India put out a war-preps video.
We can conclude war prep videos by western-aligned nations are therefore used as an intelligence signal either ahead of actual strikes, or as a sort of bluff. We can further conclude that this is therefore a western playbook.
As an aside, what other nations have put out 'war preps' videos? Germany, France, and a few others.
Now germany has promised taurus missiles to ukraine. And the candidate who promised them has won election (somehow) after losing the initial vote. What a turn around.
But conspiracies aside, an annihilating war between india and pakistan would be a great way to force india to choose a side (they've been waffling a lot, esp. with respect to brics). A lot like turkey actually, but I digress.
The war has now expanded from kashmir to punjab. Arguably it was a fly over, but then if fighting is happening in that region, it is a lot more than a fly over on the way to kashmir.
They say they're striking terrorists, which is a reasonable, perhaps even honest, statement. Assuming thats who they actually hit.
Pakistan claims otherwise.
And all of this out of the blue over a terrorist attack no one is claiming responsibility for. Terrorists don't typically refuse to take responsibility for their attacks. Usually attacks are explicitly about making a message heard by as many people as possible. Two reasons for that: the people authorities claim did it aren't actually responsible, or they did in fact do it, but under coercion or as mercenary work for another group or nation.
Chatter came out right after the attack in india that pakistani terrorist groups (sponsored by the pakistani government or not) have, along with the government of pakistan, worked as mercenaries for western intelligence for some time, if only reluctantly (though how reluctant or enthusiastic about it is anyone's guess).
Were they responsible, and the pakistani government is disclaiming responsibility first we have to conclude that of course pakistan is going to claim they're not responsible. But second, if pakistan was ordered to do it on behest of another power, say russia, china, or the u.s. it would explain the chatter. And if not responsible why would the pakistani government not be vigorously going after the groups responsible? And thats the big tell.
Face-saving not-withstanding, if they were innocent, they'd be looking to be proactive to prevent war.
And if india weren't involved in a provocation they would have commenced with strikes against the terror groups rather than going the round-about way by cutting off strategic water supplies first.
Thats arguably something you might do to pressure a government to go after terrorists, which pakistan wasn't doing, but its not the FIRST thing you do, as a matter of policy, especially before diplomacy, especially if you enter the crises with good-faith or good intentions, which as far as diplomacy goes, goes without saying--good faith being required at minimum on a surface level.
But they didn't because they had no intention of entering with good faith.
Which would explain why pakistan didn't go after the terrorists, or if they did, the western media didn't publish as much: Precisely because the pakistani government was blindsided and couldn't definitely determine which group was responsible. Which explains why no group claimed responsibility. Because none of the groups in pakistan were responsible. And how do we know this?
Because if it was a non-pakistani intelligence operation, the operation would have tried to claim it was a pakistani group as cover. Which tells me most of the terror groups in pakistan are either heavily monitored and/or well-known and tightly coupled to pakistani intelligence.
Which means by implication any outside party committing an attack in india wouldn't be able to easily claim the attack was committed by a pakistani-sponsored terror group. They'd be found out too quickly and the conflict would be resolved before it began between india and pakistan.
Hence no pakistani terror group claiming responsibility. Hence why india escalated quickly past strictly diplomatic measures to strategic water supply cutoffs, which is a move, taken in context, thats way too fast considering they didn't have all the facts.
Which means they entered it with that outcome in mind.
So now we know the players and who intended what, but not why. So theres either elections, politics, or money involved somewhere, and the government of pakistan is in the dark.
But you know who isn't in the dark? India.
If I was a gambling man I'd be looking at the odd pick of JD Vance, with his indian wife, and how perfectly these events line up with that VP pick in hindsight, especially in relation to the isolation of china, but thats just one interpretation, and by all means, not the only thread.
