So, I listened to this.
1. I thought the discussion good and productive, although I am far more pessimistic about the situation than any of these three gentleman. My pessimism does not mean that I counsel surrender or inaction. Quite the contrary: continue the fight. However, do not cling to false hopes, and do not get discouraged when the (currently) objectively worthless White race refuses to stir itself in response to even the most outrageous provocations.
2. Johnson's points about ridicule are important. I agree on this: satire and ridicule are tools that the Right makes far too little use of. We have abdicated the whole field of battle with respect to satire and ridicule to the Left. The other side, with their inflated self-importance, hypocrisy, delusions, etc. should be easy targets. We are basically leaving "low hanging fruit" untouched. And, given that "a picture is worth a thousand words," satire/ridicule should include cartoons and videos, not only text.
[self-promoting side note: my other, anti-HBD blog is built upon satire and ridicule, so in my battle with that anti-White creed, I am following my own advice here].
3. Le Brun makes a crucially important point about why Americans don't achieve more, re: activism, despite our "free speech" protections. "Free speech" in America does not apply to private institutions, leaving so-called "social pricing" as an effective tool of the System to suppress dissent. Following up Johnson's (half-serious?) thought that we need here in America more protective laws I say, that yes, a "political opinion protection act" - extending the "diversity" "protected classes" to include "diversity of thought" - would be useful. Of course, the likelihood of that happening anytime soon is nil, as it goes against two pillars of modern America: (1) enforced political correctness and (2) giving business a free hand to do as they please as long as it does not violate pillar #1.
4. Le Brun notes different levels of discourse, and states the importance of a Marine Le Pen victory in France. I need to clarify myself here. I have made clear for a while here that I am not a fan of Marine-style mainstreaming, and I'm not optimistic that a Le Pen victory would really "save France" to any significant degree. That said, given the lack of a better alternative, I do hope for her electoral success. The mere fact of a Front National victory would upset the status quo, and create the sort of sociopolitical chaos helpful to our cause. I understand Le Brun's point about order vs. chaos and it actually applies here. The chaos in this case would not be caused directly by the Right, it is caused by the reaction of the System/Left to the success of the Right. The more chaos, the better, particularly as the chaos would be generated by the Left and make the Right seem like champions of order. On the other hand, a bit of Rightist chaos itself would be good - remember what Nietzsche said, you need to have some chaos within yourself if you want to be a "dancing star." All order and no chaos leads to the Last Man. The Overman harnesses his chaos in the service of order.
So, yes, I criticize Le Pen and also Putin. I want to explain to all the starry-eyed fanboys and blushing schoolgirls that these folks are not "one of us." But, it could be worse for both France and Rusiia than Le Pen and Putin. And for the pathetic passive Whites, worse is not better. Chaos is not "worse" in this case, since chaos is, in the long run, worse for the System, which, in its "anarcho-tyranny," wants the anti-White chaos of Western decline to be administered in an orderly fashion.
Thus: The Left wants orderly chaos - chaos imposed by a politically correct authoritarian nanny state. The Right should want chaotic order - order created through struggle and the Overman High Culture's overcoming.
5. I myself prefer a ruthless national socialism to any sort of "White pluralism," but to each his own.