Category: Edward A. Ross

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.
Advertisements

The Moral Arc Of Right-Wing Ineptness Is Long But It Bends Toward Failure

More rightist failure.
I am sure many on the Right cringe with disgust, as I do, upon hearing leftists such as Obama and other self-righteous smug fools talk about “the right (or wrong) side of history” or “the moral arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice” or any other such sniveling liberal cant.  Nevertheless, despite our private disgust, we must recognize that those words – however we see through them – have a degree of power over the masses, and even among certain elites (leftists and cuckservatives) who are easy prey for power politics masquerading as moral sentiments.
Certainly, Der Movement plays lip service to the idea that rational arguments (such as they exist in the “movement”) are not enough, and that people respond better to irrational triggers.  But then, what is produced?  Alt-right snark?  Juvenile racial mockery?  Yes, “cuckservative” has its uses, and I’m sure Der Movement found “Willie and Marv” quite amusing in its day, but those are like pea-shooters against the rhetorical nuclear weapons of the Left.
Therefore, the Right plays that game rather poorly, and that’s a shame, because we need to use approaches that work, even those that we ourselves have private contempt for.  Further, not all moral arguments need to descend to the level of obvious cant.  The Right used to be able to make effective moral arguments, tinged with just the right amount of self-interest.  For example, in opposition to immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, Edward A. Ross wrote:
I am not of those who consider humanity and forget the nation, who pity the living but not the unborn. To me, those who are to come after us stretch forth beseeching hands as well as do the masses on the other side of the globe. Nor do I regard America as something to be spent quickly and cheerfully for the benefit of pent-up millions in the backward lands. What if we become crowded without their ceasing to be so?
Quite right.  If that is true of intra-continental immigration the, so much more true is it about inter-continental immigration today.  That is an argument that can be put into the language of moral rhetoric, given even a modicum of intelligence and the will to use it.  But these, alas, rightists seemingly do not have.  
This type of material is best produced by those whose background suggests an affinity: business, philosophy, law, advertising, etc.  I admit that science-based people are better suited for the rational-based arguments that serve as the foundation for the ideology, initially targeted to elites, and that which can be modified, by others, to serve irrational instincts.  Why not put EGI in the irrational language of familial love?  Translate the ethical section of On Genetic Interests into effective moral cant?  Can the ad geniuses of today come up with something better than “Willie and Marv?”  Can all the alt-rightists come up with something better than “cuckservative?”  Come on, now.  We uptight rational-based guys will produce the underlying memes and you guys translate them for the masses.
And it is not only words. Visual imagery is important as well.  As I write this, the Internet is abuzz with breathless awe over a (to us, crudely staged) photograph of a Negress in a “flowing dress” being arrested by White police in riot gear.  A “legendary picture” shrieks the mass media, it’s “one for the ages.”  Meanwhile, the mainstream Right drones on about “capital gains tax cuts,” Trump tells us about his “yuuugeee” body parts, and the far-Right is busy measuring each other’s cephalic indices with calipers.
Excuses that leftist propaganda is aided and abetted by control of the mass media fail because: (a) the propaganda genuinely resonates among the masses as shown by its viral nature on social media, and (b) what was the Right doing all this time when the media was coming under control?  Muttering about tax rates and about “Kali Yuga?” The loss of control of public institutions is more proof of the ineptness of the Right, not an excuse for it.
Ironically, while the Left supports affirmative action, it practices meritocracy when it comes to the important things, such as producing propaganda and the top management of wire-pullers; the Right (especially the far-Right), which allegedly opposes affirmative action (except for the Negrophilic Trump), only accepts ideas and leadership from “the boys.”   Is this why the Right is like a helpless, floundering child when confronted by leftist propaganda, propaganda which could be easily refuted, or copied to a more effective degree of utility, by people with cutting intelligence, a realistic sense of the masses, and a strategic sense of proportion?
And what will be the response to this?  Ignoring it most likely – we cannot criticize the “Holy Right” and its inept quota queen “leadership,” and who cares about practical matters anyway?  More important is discussing “negging hotties,” Trump worship, HBD cultism, Caesar’s eye color, tax rates and government regulation, etc.  And if anyone does pay attention, the riposte is likely to be the same toward the idea of Democratic Multiculturalism – trying new things that may work is “weakness” and “dishonoring our ancestors.” 
And the affirmative action band plays on….