Jow Forums WRITING THREAD

That's a real good story, I especially like the greentext stuff embeded in it, even if it's just a little. Did you write that or is it just a screenshot?

Attached: POLLITICS4.png (1200x1200, 15K)

Always loved reading and won a few awards at school for my writing. That was such a long time ago though.

Any resources for beginner writers?

Best way to get good at writing is to read some stuff, write, and get criticism.

Just write something, post it, get critique, and apply it.

Attached: pollittics4.png (799x799, 48K)

Just a screenshot. The guy said he'd post further but then I've not seen anything else from him.

Might try a little somethin' somethin' over the weekend then. Biggest hurdle is probably fear of failure. Oh well, time to suck it up.

no thanks

Well he might visit us here sometime lol

Nice!

Lit is more for discussing literature, this thread is specifically for making Jow Forums lit.

Attached: 1529942292345.jpg (790x1280, 117K)

>no non-fiction
>on Jow Forums
I was going to participate but now I'll just call you a faggot instead while saging.

Faggot.

>>no non-fiction
Where did I say that?

Also here is a new discord code if that one doesn't work:
>YKCgWY
>YKCgWY
>YKCgWY
>YKCgWY

You didn't. I meant it wasn't listed in the examples because fiction took precedent. It would fall in the "anything else" pile which is sad considering this is a politics and news forum, literally non-fiction by default. I suppose you are alluding more to board "culture" which probably makes you an even bigger faggot than I previously thought. I can smell the cock on your breath from here. Let's try out my writing skills.

There OP sat in his rickety chair as he had done for hundreds of hours before while rolling his slightly erect two-inch penis between his thumb and index fingers as he watched old videos of Tyrone about to penetrate his wife. As Tyrone pinned his wife down in a forceful and dominant manner that he could never achieve, he became more aroused at the sight of the pleasure on his wife's face. Years of onions consumption had now rendered OP's libido almost entirely incapacitated but the gentle whimpers could be heard as he furiously whipped his wrist back and forth. Tears began to roll down his face and in his mind he told himself "at least she's happy."

No , short stories, novels, poems, epic poems, etc. can all be non-fiction if you want.

I've been writing for many years, Picasso was right that art is never finished. The stories grow with my awareness.

Post something

Also, I realize that nobody really has anything to post since it is one of the first writethreads, so for now we should just share ideas or something

Attached: political.png (1600x1600, 633K)

bump

Siege

Someone said they thought it was Ayn Rand when they read it.

Attached: socialJusticePg1.png (817x781, 126K)

Also new thread every day, so if you write something, look for the thread. If it's not there, make one using the template above

Feels like galt's speech with modern lingo, the similarity is startling. Did you write this yourself? The giveaway is the mention of God and Eden, which clues you in that it isnt Rand.

In short, Randian vibes + Biblical imagery + modern terms. Swap the last two out for the power on the mind and it's pretty much there

Too add on to what i said, from Atlas shrugged: "Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster". Compare this to paragraph 2, sentence 2, they are very similar. There probably are more sentences I could find and match.

Reading is for fags. Except for internet articles and such. Wanting to read is like admitting that your brain isn't good enough to come up with the right ideas on its own.

Attached: losing means you shouldn't have tried.png (1366x768, 683K)

I never really understood Rand’s hatred of God but boner for Aristotle. Randian rhetoric + biblical imagery is GOAT and she never got that.

I do love how you got “they cry out in pain as they strike you” in there.

>American flag
>Edgy anime pic
>Retard opinion

12 year old slidefags are here.

>making sure you aren't reinventing the wheel
>checking if your work does not have mistakes others pointed out already
>not just getting the right ideas but getting them in their best form
>Willfully accepting the possibility that 3 millenia of people who put pen to paper are in no way perhaps even 1 step ahead of you.

Do yourself a favor and dont wager your ear or fingers on something.

>I never really understood Rand’s hatred of God

Attached: 1486693388159.jpg (790x894, 247K)

If not reading produces such nigger ideas like yours, then you're proving your own statement wrong.

If you believe that you should not sacrifice yourself to anything or anyone, I dont find it surprising that christianity in the '50s doesnt mesh well with your idea. Heck, only ofter the whole atheist wave of 2010~ is christianity starting to be enjoyed as something seperate from organized religion. If I lived in her time I would have seen them as one entity as well, as many of us probably would have.

Naw bro Ayn Rand is like totally with us on a lot of stuff like she is a capitalist, just like everyone on pol, amirite? Doesn't matter that the is a jew, shes totally #based lmao. #based jews are better than whites hahahahahah right? We should all be selfish hahahahahah what a smart idea lol

You missed the second part of what I said, “but her boner for Aristotle.”

Any abstract philosophical opinion doesn't require a novel to be explained. Reading books to pursue facts is fine, but placing any great importance upon fiction is just silly. It's entertainment, not sport. Creative reading and writing is just the vain pursuit of people to be acknowledged as smart or artistic. They get it into their heads that expressing things in inefficient ways will indicate some deep knowledge, while others will praise that retardation in the hopes that one day their own inane rantings will get the same respect. If you want to learn things about what you're supposed to believe then you're better off getting into internet arguments. That way there's an incentive for success. Failure means embarrassment. Reading frivolously only instills an erroneous perception of intelligence. In this day and age it's the hobby of cucks. Prove me wrong fgt.

From what i've read Rand tries to balance 2 unconditional principles: Do not sacrifice yourself and Do not sacrifice others. From this flows her Trader Principle in which acts are only good of both parties gain something, and the way to find out if something is good for the other party is by them agreeing. If for everything you do you must also worry that the other person is not acting in their self interest you must coddle them and "carry the world". My satanism knowledge is limited, how much does this overlap? While the question of whether rands philisophy is conducive to a healthy society is an interesting one, saying "just like secret goat people ewww" doesnt feel like the strongest rebuttal.

Summary: Rand believed that selfishness vs altruism as For yourself at the expense of others vs For others at the expense of yourself was a false paradigm, and that the only moral path would be to act for yourself sacrificing noone. Does satanism say the same?

>Any abstract philosophical opinion doesn't require a novel to be explained.
Yes, the reason so many philosophers did it is because they are retards, instead of smarties like you, right?

The rest of your post is the most retarded shit I have ever read. You sound like a 12 year old jew who just started learning subversion, or a kid who was too dumb to read anything and is angry about it. You are a literal retard kiddo

i've writen a little something.
it's called Gas the Kikes, Vol.1.

here what i've writen so far :

>Gas the Kikes.

please support me on my patreon.

Reddit

spacing.

Attached: 1529744895321.jpg (323x318, 31K)

I wrote it myself. I've Atlas Shrugged before, but didn't really realize teh similarity until it was pointed out. I started writing in an attempt to discuss Weimar and modern culture in a Weimarica essay or stream of thought and it quickly spiraled into the social justice piece.

I wasnt really sure where it was going and havent finished it.

read something other than rand. Read Plato's dialogues.

whoops missed that indeed. gonna go out on a limb here and say that she saw aristotle as dealing with reality as falsifiable, and plato as dealing with unfalsifiable abstractions. She thinks the latter can be discarded, and probably why she threw out religion. Thats my best guess, equating working with observable reality and logis as aristotalian.

Did what? Write a book? Look at you, boasting of the helpfulness of books but forgetting to express your own points properly. You're making my argument for me. What good has all your reading done for you if you struggle so much to articulate what's wrong with what I've said? You people have just launched personal attack after personal attack, trying to assure all listeners that I must automatically be stupid because I don't like reading books. You only made one real point, and it was tangential anyway. Philosophers in the past wrote books for good reason. Most of their conclusions, especially in ancient times, were completely unique and necessary for a healthy worldview. In our modern times, though, we already have the full spectrum of philosophy. There's no shortage of esoteric meme garbage out there. People who are actually interested in refining their beliefs would do much better to argue about them online than to put books out on Amazon.

FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
FUCK OFF TO /LIT/
>FUCK OFF TO /LIT/

Ive read Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Hobbes, and Marx (Capital), Smith, and many more. I actually prefer more Stoic beliefs and ideology and how it relates to Christianity (prior to the breaking down of the establishment and media portrayal of Church and Christians).

>Did what? Write a book? Look at you, boasting of the helpfulness of books but forgetting to express your own points properly.

Let me break it down for you.
I quoted you saying:
>Any abstract philosophical opinion doesn't require a novel to be explained.

Then I said "Yes, the reason so many philosophers did it is because they are retards, instead of smarties like you, right?"

You not realizing that I was talking about the explanation of philosophical opinion through a novel (The thing I literally quoted) makes you a retard.

The rest of your post is you sperging out because you are unable to connect the point I quoted and what i wrote directly under it.

Also:
> we already have the full spectrum of philosophy

Imagine being this much of a delusional fag

Awesome

Perhaps also soften the goebbel’s call-out as well. That one is pretty well known.
Don’t want to reveal your power level in leaf-land.

It's more for personal writing. I have no intentions on publishing or anything. I'd go to jail for something like this in this socialist hellhole.

I'd like to think that you just don't have a pure mastery of the English language. The only action in the text you quoted was "to be explained." The words "write a book" aren't in there, meaning that you should have said that yourself. The fact that you didn't realize that you shouldn't use "it" to refer to actions which haven't been explicitly stated means that you aren't very good with words. Even if I had used the words "write a book," you'd have to realize that it would be alongside the words "to be explained" leaving people open to interpret it as you saying that philosophers explained things. Ambiguity like that is poisonous to argument. You're trash at argument. All you do is insult me, screeching like an autist because I'm saying things that you won't allow yourself to understand. You're nothing more than a close-minded brainlet with a side of pretentiousness. As I said before: If you were really interested in words as art then you'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable with expressing yourself.

Subsisting on Rand is a unbalanced diet, so branching out is worth it.

If you dont want to throw out the piece, there are interesting differences between today and what Rand predicted.

Differences:
The government demands not of companies that they work for them, they skim of money at the end of it all. How would this effect the Randian Supermen? Having lobbyists has not lead to worse companies wrecking better ones en masse. What is the the RS to do? should they cease influence through this way to keep to themselves. While populism is on the rise, going for appeasing the masses isnt quite what both american parties are going for. would new pressures would they put on an RS? The internet has given avenue to put your "mind" out there to everyone immutably, how would rand's "retreat of the mind" factor in the internet, actually go there rather then retreat into your head? These could all be intersting departures from Atlas. As to incorporating religion, there is someone beter to advise you on that.

Also, im a big fan of Rand, but do not do 1200 pages, and do not make 70 page monologues. I think fountainhead did things more crisp: “Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."
Roark: "But I don't think of you.” A more elegant way to position your character i feel is to make them asnwer questions rather than state them. But thats just me.

You never know when something might be found.

>I'd like to think that you just don't have a pure mastery of the English language.

Because It's my fourth language, retard. And I still speak it better than you

>The only action in the text you quoted was "to be explained."

>doesn't require a novel to be explained.
>require a novel to be explained
>it = requiring a novel to explain

You fucking retard.

As always the rest of your post is sperging out because you were too stupid to read what I wrote

this, the only way to get good at writing is to do a ton of bad writing

also, the more you discipline yourself to write the more freedom you'll have

more personal discipline in the present alway creates more personal freedom in the future

So you're suggesting that philosophers required novels? No they didn't. Descartes actually made a point of not relying on the works of his contemporaries. Philosophical truths don't just come into existence upon being first articulated by some old bearded guys.

Side note: Your argumentative style is to just pick one point that you think you can win on, then say that you won't respond to the rest because it's just "too stupid" to respond to. Silly. That's the same thing as when SJWs go "I literally just like can't even right now" in order to get out of arguments that they're losing.

Thanks for the input. There's a lot to think about. This was literally a first attempt at getting into writing and expressing feelings and thoughts on world today. As I said in previous posts, Rand isn't the only thing I've read nor do I completely agree with her philosophy. The piece seems to mirror it greatly though, which I hadn't realized until someone pointed it out.

My original intent was a novel from the point of view of a man that feels out of place in the world and expresses his philosophy and discontent while contrasted with modern America or Canada (as I said, I was going to call it Weimarica as I feel we're fast approaching a similar "vibrant democracy" as that period).

Thanks again for the input. A lot to consider when I get back to my original intent at beginning writing.

Attached: socialJusticePg2.png (805x801, 123K)

True

>So you're suggesting that philosophers required novels?

What the fuck are you talking about, burger? I am saying that pretty much all philosophers used long books (novels) to express ideas, even your own example, Descartes, wrote multiple books. Are you so fucking retarded that even after having it explained to you multiple times, you still don't get it?

Side note: your argumentative style is to write a stupid point first, sperg out over a few sentences, and get mad when I don't respond to them.

using a gentile to mask her true nature

Rand isn't really wrong though, self-sacrifice is the excuse that the communist state will tell you before they send you to the gulags.

Then again this image quotes a literal satanist meme.

Best of fun while writing again. Reading the second part makes the departure clearer, so you seem to be going in your own direction. General writing questions which seem fun would be the following: Is this the first act or the final act? The one could be a slow burn of your protagonist becoming more estranged from people with every question he asks until he blows of the lid with sudden clarity, the other could be a system confronted with their enemy but seeming unable to grasp what drives the opponent (writing a socjus protagonist examining this weird man?). Examing a system throwing everything at the protaganist and having nothing stick? Another thing that baffles me every day is that there are no deathcamps or secret policemen enforcing socjus but is is adhered with such zealotry, Is this social media's doing? Is there value in selecting your social group imperfectly through everyday life because you can change and not lose everything because imperfection was there from day one? Social media is so funneling that any change makes you disconnect with your group. Perhaps an inquiry into the nature of friendship or community as transcending matching interests en goals? For positioning the speech, it seems more a frustrated rant of trying to find the right words, rather than a calm dissection of society, would be interesting to see that factor in to the story (I dont know whats wrong with society but you don't know either inspector and at least im trying to dammit!). just some random thought. Putting it online would be fun, im out of books at the moment and I never minded rough material.

Self-sacrifice is wrong when it is compelled, but then again that’s not really “self” sacrifice.

Lots to digest there. Thank you again.

If I were to eventually use this in a story format, I could see it in a similar position to John Galt's declaration to the world on the radio from some protagonist or possibly, as you have suggested, being heard by an SJW opening his eyes to the world. I'd argue this would be a climax type of speech.

Regarding social media, I'm of the mind the more connected we are, the farther apart we truly are. Social media is like a drug for the mind. We require those likes, those shares, those retweets. The more we post, the more we need that instant gratification and validation of who we are. This leads to more and more extreme posts and degenerate behaviour in search of this validation (instagram "thots" and shameless facebook photos about personal things or virtue signalling nonstop, etc).

Text messaging also does not correlate to writing letters in the past. You could recognize someone's writing and effort and feeling put into it and identify it immediately by the words and actual handwriting. It was a thoughtful gesture with feeling behind it to close the gap.

Texting is a throw away and forget action. People will text and walk away or ignore even instant replies. It's a twisted sense of dialogue where you can calculate what you say and the emotion is hidden from the other person.

>Self-sacrifice is wrong when it is compelled
um user? youtube.com/watch?v=PzRg--jhO8g
> then again that’s not really “self” sacrifice.
also no true scot.
Just face it this image is just mindless jew hatred

I love writting, what the words I love the most nigger faggots penis incel KYS faggot jew spic beaner gook kike

Um, user? I don’t think JFK was trying to compel anyone.

And it’s hardly a no-true-Scotsman to point out that compelled self-sacrifice is not “self” sacrifice, it’s just a taking.

>Just face it this image is just mindless jew hatred

...he says, implying there is something wrong with that

Rand hated communism after growing up with it and seeing what they did to the people. I havent seen anything from her on hatred of Christianity that most Jews express.

I also believe both her and Rockwell have similar beliefs in regards to sacrifice. Rand comes from state enforced and societal pressures to give to the needy, which is the ones in power define and move goalposts thereof. Rockwell speaks of sacrifice in regards to universal good and finding balance between greed and self interest and bettering yourself and others.

Rand does not advocate giving all that you own and produce - by compulsion - to those that the government and mob tell you deserve it. To not give into what is demanded and required by others too weak or lazy to do for themselves.

Unless you can point to some specific hatred and mindless jew hatred from her, I am willing ot give her the benefit of the doubt in this case as everything I have read seems to contradict your point. This isnt a Shapiro or other controlled opposition or other Jew two faced doctrine.

I wont keep bombarding you but i cant help putting my mind to this. Random things: Put society forward a couple of years where internet of things is the status quo. Personnal networks have become so broad that you rely on your google glasses giving you the name of the person and your connection to them to keep up when you meet IRL. Protagonist A) has all connections severed for going against socjus or B) nukes his own account. Being unconnected or just giving people blanks when they scan can give him the freedom to go and do as he pleases, unnafected by a system that only deals in social punishment. You could give him an accelerationist spin, making him the most devout socjus egging on the division, making people act against themselves through the endpoint of socjus because they accepted the seemingly benign premise of it. Could be a great tribulation for the protagonist who has been the vanguard of of socjus having to ask himself and explain to others: "when is socjus enough?" Saving society from the brink of socjus endgame by revealing it all, and making society hang its head in shame as the antagonist reveals just how little he meant his words. Another thing that would be interesting is ramping up the hollownes of current day social media by ramping all the things you mentioned up to 11, making them more calculating, more aggrandizing and so forth, but making it faster and more connecting than the present. The arguments the reader needs to find te explain to themselves why this future version is lesser to the current day, is the same argument they can use to explain why the current day is so vapid.

mindlessly hating anything is bad for you.
you need to stop posting here.
I hardly know anything about the two, so I guess this gives more context, i was just going off of the context user was giving, but the fact it quotes a jewish satanist just immediately screams stupidity to me so maybe i was quick to judge, thanks.

Are speeches allowed?

Attached: 1524417909255.jpg (1200x800, 288K)

>you need to stop posting here
Fuck off.

I like that you’re using a new word “socjus”, it brings Ingsoc to mind and thus makes the connection to a meaning of “it means whatever the hell we want it to mean.”

A way she put sacrifice once in a tv interview was like this: Sacrifice is more just when you gain nothing? I find it moral if my husband is sick and i give him my cure, but not more moral if instead i give it to my neighbour who is also sick? While not an exact match, envisioning rand as diametricalyopposed to every tenant of communism from her day, and tying it together in a world view is a solid approximation.

As long as you wrote them

Hayek on social justice put it well in an interview, that they first found the name and then they searched for a meaning for it. It is so mind bogglingly vapid. In the particular context of social media, it only seemed natural it would get shortenend, #socjus. Perhaps a piece that looks for today's social juste IE the best sounding name and then finding something to fill it with would be more persuasive as it would be less on the nose.

A lot of this sounds like China's social credit program whereby if you say something wrong or dont participate/respond to government demands, they can deprive you of basic needs and wants.

For example, a reporter spoke negatively of the communist party and was he could no longer use the subway system or trains. They do many such things to enforce their rule.

I could see this as a progression of socialism/social justice. China requires you use your phone for their program. A future version could have digital ads custom tuned to each person, access to self driving cars limited by 'need' or how 'just' you are.

I fear it may be too ambitious a project for myself to tackle, but there is a lot more to consider and work with just from this little bit of dialogue on the subject. Thank you.

This is what I thought while seeing it. I usually use SJW, but hadn't thought to correlate it to Ingsoc.

Happy i could interest you user, and best of luck with your endeavors. Sesame credit is incredibly terrifying, but if you look at the black mirror episode, it is very on the nose about it all. The more subtle the punishment, the more interesting the comparison between to sides.

As a general note perhaps: The less on the nose and the more ambigous something is, the more interesting the dilemma. A takedown of social justice, be it in writing or in day to day conversation, is far more interesting if something of value is lost when we lose social justice, and if what we gain isnt all roses.

I write

Attached: IMG_20180628_195159.jpg (540x960, 147K)

Like to write

Attached: IMG_20180620_110318.jpg (1440x2560, 1.2M)

Attached: IMG_20180615_123416.jpg (1440x2560, 1.22M)

Good text, but work on yo handwriting, man

Actually, take my last comment with a grain of salt, sesame credits can become a very interesting short story, if the rebuttal was more eloquent. If its just a corrupt or authoritarian controlling system, that becomes the focal point. A self consuming socjus sesame credits might adress the system more head on, letting disabled black pansexual trannies get cabs first even if they are against soc jus because their identity breeds need over a completely devout white man tells something interesting about why the credits are unjust even if the system is not corrupt, and can tell something interesting about socjus (for a disability, there is some reason her no? perhaps the system compensates to strive toward balance, letting cabs roam free, and then possesing a few to balance the score again every hour.).

Attached: IMG_20180619_235434.jpg (1440x2560, 1M)

Tweakers tend to have poor penmanship.

Some interesting work here. My only concern is I don't feel anything from it. I'm only reading words. They don't seem to tell me anything or have any purpose or direction. What am I supposed to come away from this feeling or understanding? What is the message I should take from it? I may be missing it, so don't take this too personal, but it seems like it was written to sound regal and biblical moreso than to be regal or biblical in nature.

>Here goes:

For far too long the people of this nation have been lead astray by the powers that be, the masqueraders who control every facet of our lives: finance, education, corporations, the media, even our very government. Every institution has been slowly and carefully subverted by an outside force that is so craven, so diabolical, so damaging to our people, and yet we have not had the foresight to see it until now.

This force spans the world over, a supra-national cabal of slave drivers, hyper-capitalists, currency speculators, human and drug traffickers, war profiteers, bankers... this force has bankrupted the entire world at points, thrusting the good people of every nation into economic ruin. No matter the leader, no matter the people, this force has found a way to weave it's sinister web across this great world, and slowly poison our nations with its venom.

What is this force? It's the Jew!

The Jew are those who run the banking cartels, the Jew are those who run the media, corporations, education, you name it! The Jew is the precipice of all evil in this world, the apex of all that which we used to deem vile and unholy, the most baleful of proclivities they proliferate in our countries once the Jew has control over these institutions. Usury, moral degeneracy, normalization of wickedness! The Jew will not stop until the world over is at its knees, and he stands the victor.

But the Jew is a coward, it cannot let itself be shown in the light, it works in the shadows, silently and covertly. But what the Jew doesn't realize is that we are the light to their darkness, we are the matter to their anti-matter, we are the standard-barres of righteousness to their wickedness! Together we can overcome this evil, which plagues us, together we can make a stand for ourselves and reclaim our national sovereignty from this supra-national force. Together, we will win.

As pointed out these do seem somewhat rambly, like the ratings of a blind prophet or something. That might be entirely due to them being hand written.

Type it out, form it up into a more coherent point with a thesis and a conclusion rather than making it sound like your version of Ezekiel.

What is the audience for such a speech? Most people dont even know how the banking system works for their own personal finance, let alone sovereign debt or the equities market. They do not know what you mean by banks nor connect how they can control your government. You arent educating them in regards to your points, so come off ranting and raving about 'da joos' and are instantly an antisemite nazi and conspiracy nut by conventional social standards.

Many passages sound like you are taking inspiration from Goebbels or other Nazi orators in referencing Jews. This was a different climate and a different world and different political situation. Everyone knew the Jews had power. They were informed about their betrayal in WWI and saw the carnage of German Revolution by the communist party led by Bolsheviks. They lived through the Weimar Republic and saw what the communist party and jews had in store for them. They saw the theatres and prostitution and sexology institutes and who the rich were. The Nazi speeches were longer, more eloquent, passionate and with a great deal of social consciousness of the issues discussed.

People dont even know their favourite actors are Jews or that pretty much every personality or media person are Jewish. You speak in absolutes about things the general public does not know nor believe. Nazis spoke in universal truths. You preach to the deaf and blind.

This makes for an awkward speech for political change and will do the opposite of what you intend. If it is meant more as a personal dialogue and crying out against these perceived injustices, I can understand your point in that manner. You will need more acceptable rhetoric and social grace if it is meant for the uneducated masses.

It was just a speech I spent 5 minutes writing for this thread. It's mostly inspired by Hitler's speeches, it's not exactly meant as a real speech whatsoever.

In regards to the rest of your post I really don't think "acceptable rhetoric and social grace" gets anyone anywhere. What does matter is Veritas, the cold hard truth. The so called "masses" you allude to can't discern truth from fiction when someone is speaking to them, but they can discern reality from imagination. If one plants the seeds of truth, then he can expect a fruitful garden.