Category: advice

Free 2016 Debating Advice for Donald Trump

Pay attention, “God Emperor.”

Don’t flip flop.  Backpedaling makes you look weak and indecisive; keep in mind your popularity is due to plain speaking on important issues.  Now, of course, you can polish your delivery of the material, sound more presidential and knowledgeable, but that is presentation.  The actual content, the fundamentals, should not be compromised.  You need to learn how to use political ju–jitsu to turn the tables on her arguments, so as to continue to appeal to your base while also not turning off all of the cucks.  As an example: the charge that you are being cruel to immigrants and refugees who want a better life – deporting families, breaking up families.  Here, you should take a page from Edward Ross and argue that open borders are cruel to Americans and their posterity, that the Democrats are more interested in the rights and interests of immigrants, particularly illegals, than they are of American citizens (lay on that civic nationalism real thick, appeal to the cucks).  Paraphrase Ross, in that future generations of Americans beseech us with their interests, needs, and desires just as much as do the migrant hordes.  Also, that we can’t take in all who want to come – open borders will destroy us without really helping the overcrowded others, whose problems can only be solved in their own nations.  You’ll need to know the facts though (see below), to answer the lies about how Immigration “benefits” natives. You should also be prepared to not only answer the usual economic arguments, but to state, clearly and forthrightly, that there are issues at stake here that go beyond economics, dollars and cents – the posterity of American citizens, their rights to their own country, their culture and their identity (“identity” is as close as you can get to race, unfortunately).

A devastating riposte to all the talk about “compassion” is to openly ask your opponent: “Why do you seem to care more about illegal aliens and potential terrorists than you do about actual American citizens?”  You can point out that charity begins at home, and that there are plenty of problems right here in America that require our attention, without importing other people’s problems from overseas. If you really want to win over the cucks and women, ask about Jamiel Shaw: “Why does Hillary care more about illegal gangbangers than she does about African-American student athletes?”  (The cucks and “college-educated women” will eat that right up, I’ll tell you that for nothing).  Note to Trump: More commercials featuring Jamiel Shaw Sr. – that’ll get those cuck loins stirring.

And don’t be apologetic about foreign policy, including Putin and Russia. Russia is an important nation, a nuclear-armed nation, and Putin is a powerful and popular leader.  It is in the interests of the American people that we have reasonably good relations with Russia. You can point out that we had a chance for a cooperative relationship with Russia after the end of the Cold War, and that was ruined by the Neocons (whose foreign policy Hillary supports) and their pathological hatred of the Russian nation.

In summary, do not backtrack.  Forcefully state that you represent the American people, the people out there watching the debate, not the special interests and outsiders supporting Clinton in her contempt toward, and hostility against, Middle America.

Don’t be too abusive.  Unfortunately, you cannot be too abusive to Hillary, and I say unfortunately because I would really like to see you subject her to a withering attack of abuse and humiliation. However, that will alienate all the white-knighting moderate GOP cucks, and turn off the “college-educated women” and other flotsam and jetsam whose votes you need.  Be relentless, but not abusive.

Push her hard.  Hillary Clinton is a sick “woman” – sick both physically and mentally.  While I have no doubt she will be well propped up medically – perhaps through the use of drug stimulants – that can only go so far, and medical interventions for someone as sick as she comes with its own set of debilitating side effects. You, Donald, are by far the healthier, more energetic, more robust of the two of you.  You need to push, challenge, keep up a fast pace (to the extent possible within the debate format), stress her (without being overtly abusive as noted above).  If she has suspect stamina and depleted natural energy, do all you can to exhaust, frustrate, and tire her. The details can be worked out with your campaign staff, who know more about the details of the debate format than I.  But, details aide, the objective is clear: your opponent is not well and you must, if possible, push her past her limits of endurance and of patience. Imagine if she collapses on stage. Or merely looks exhausted, even with artificial aids.  Or looks confused, or needs “bathroom breaks,” or loses her cool in a moment of heated debate. The possibilities to make her look bad by leveraging her bad heath and nasty temperament are all there for you to take full advantage of.

Know your material.  As part of preparation, you need to know facts, you need to have plans behind your proposals.  You can’t answer questions about the nuclear triad with “the devastation is very important to me” (while I find that amusing, your typical BMI-enriched soccer mom will think you’re a lunatic) and you can’t keep on bloviating about “a big beautiful wall” that “Mexico will pay for.”  And you need to get things straight about deportation. Why not dust off self-deportation?  It’s a reasonable plan.  Let’s be honest: you have a pretty low threshold to reach here – the impression is that you are an ignorant buffoon.  If you can at least give the impression of being reasonably well-informed, it’ll shock – in a positive sense – the audience. Expectations are low here, so you can easily exceed them with some work.

Don’t be baited. Did you learn your lesson from the Brown Star Family fiasco?  Democrats in general, and Hillary and crew in particular, despise the military; therefore, the only reason for the brownsters was to bait you into making a hostile response, so as to alienate all the GOP cuckservatives and chicken hawks who worship the military (just as long as it’s someone else providing the service and the sacrifices). You fell for it. Don’t let it happen again.

The whole racism and Alt-Right issue will come up. most likely. Don’t be baited, and do NOT throw your own supporters under the bus.  Turn it around and make the issue one of the “basket of deplorables” comment with which “Hillary has smeared millions of hard-working American citizens” (of all races! – cuckadoodledoo!), she is “spewing hate” (use the Left’s own language against them), all “right-thinking people” will reject “her message of division and hate.”  Stress how your own policies are moderate and reasonable, and that you cannot control who supports you, but that you are not going to denounce concerned Americans who want what is best for their country, even if “some may not always express themselves as eloquently as one would hope.”

If Duke is mentioned?  You can state truthfully that you have disavowed him – and you can ask Hillary when she will disavow some of her own questionable supporters (get names from your campaign staff – there should be no shortage there).  

Why do these “radical” people support you?  Look, the American people have been ignored by the elites so long that folks get frustrated and some “may go too far,” but the mass of your supporters are decent, hard-working, law-abiding American citizens (like Jamiel Shaw Sr. – cue the cuck heavy breathing) who should not be smeared by Hillary’s spewing hate. If she is so stupid as to mention Pepe, or anything similar?  Shake your head sadly and mock her for wasting time with something so silly.  Then counter-punch and cite her own inflammatory remarks and questionable supporters. You get the picture.

Prepare!  For godssakes, don’t be a jackass and think you can “wing it” without ample preparation. Sure, you don’t want to appear robotic or over-rehearsed, but you nevertheless need to be as prepared for this as for anything you’ve ever done before.  Practice debates with someone standing in for Hillary are essential, and your mock opponent should be instructed to try to rile you, bait you, and anger you.  You must be immune to provocations, and be ready for a devastating counter-attack. Solid preparation avoids mistakes and builds confidence. Your mock interview opponent should viciously attack you; you must anticipate everything, and prepare for anything.

More on Advice for Young White Men

Podcast.
This was another excellent Johnson-Le Brun podcast.  I have already critiqued many of the ideas presented here.  A few further comments, some of which overlap with my past analysis.

I found the last part of the talk the section for which I had the most agreement.  We need collective action, we need tribalism, we need networking, we need reliability, and we need to eschew the defectives.  The problem with all of that is no one actually wants to do it: culling the anti-racist trolls, conspiracy-theorists, Aryans from Atlantis types from being taken seriously, from being allowed to comment on blog threads – that would be a small start, a tiny step, but no one wants even to do that. And the only folks I see trying to community build are the “neckbeard” types and you are not going to have fully functional communities with the “top 20%” with that leadership, more likely you’ll get the “bottom 10%.”  Also, the “ethnic affirmative action policy” of the “movement” needs to end, but that would necessitate jettisoning the whole Gunther-Pierce-Kemp sci-fi/fantasy school of racial thought, and the “movement” seems to have too much invested in those memes to make a clean break.
Other points:
As advertised, the talk is aimed at young White men.  Older folks will not gain anything very useful from this advice.
Unlike Brun, I am no fan of Greene’s work, which I find internally inconsistent, too abstract, and not realistic for many real-life situations.  I have already written on this in detail, so I need not repeat myself. It’s real utility is to identify manipulative techniques of others (in that way it is useful in some real-life situations), but I would not use it as a primer for your own behavior.
Also, if we are to find niches to suit our strengths and personalities: some people are, by nature, introverted, highly moralistic, sarcastic, grouchy, etc.  There are indeed careers and activities well suited for such types, dismissing them as “Debbie Downers” is casually juvenile, particularly when such people can provide valuable insights and harsh truth-telling when such is required.  Rather a reliable and intelligent and productive pessimist than a cheerfully moronic and useless optimist.
Certainly, in most circumstances, one should not mix politics with work, in the sense of an offensive (in the military, not moral, sense) direct promotion of White nationalism.  But, in the name of “democratic multiculturalism,” there may be ways of “monkey wrenching” the System independent of openly declaring racialist views.  If you are being racially abused and discriminated against AND you are in a position to (relatively safely, even in some cases anonymously at first) protest against it, then do so.  You are not doing it as an open and declared opponent to multiculturalism, quite the contrary, you are basically challenging the multiculturalists to take their own rhetoric at face value and to take their ideology to its logical conclusion: everyone is obsessed with their “identity” and everyone is “discriminated against” and everyone “has a problem that needs to be solved.”  The point is: do not make yourself the problem, instead very patiently and very carefully spin your web so as to make the multiculturalists the problem.  Imagine: the high priests of diversity at “Company X” revealed as “hateful racist and sexist bigots!”  Of course, to be successful, one needs to have the “right touch,” extreme patience (it may take months or even years of slow and careful effort), one must be a clever counter-puncher, and one must have the sure instinct of how far one can go and when one should back off.  It’s not for everyone and not for every situation, but the same can be said of the Johnson-Le Brun advice. If your situation falls into the category in which “democratic multiculturalism” is possible, do so.

I wonder if some of Le Brun’s comments on strategic thinking and cunning subterfuge was meant as an endorsement of Le Pen’s mainstreaming; however, I think Le Brun would agree that the “proof the pudding” here is the outcome.  If Le Pen succeeds in genuinely advancing racial nationalism (even if indirectly) one could in part forgive (but not forget) some of her “transgressions;” however, in the absence of such success, then this “mainstreaming” would be a pragmatic failure in addition to being a moral disgrace.
In general, however, the Johnson-Le Brun advice is sound.