Category: failure of right-wing propaganda

Political EGI VI: Know Your Audience

Calibrate your arguments.

With respect to introducing EGI to political discourse, I am sure the attitude will be: “most people will not be convinced by rational, scientific arguments; instead they will be influenced by emotional arguments instead.  No one will care about EGI.”

This is truth to that – but I also do not believe that ”most people” are going to be influenced by cartoon frogs or screams of “Hail Kek!”– but I’ve never said that “most people” should be addressed by discussions of gene frequencies or of “Hamilton’s Rule.”

Obviously, if you are addressing who Pierce would call “Joe and Jill Sixpack” then you are not going to be invoking “genetic kinship” and explaining the fine points of On Genetic Interests.  You could, however, invoke the language of family and tribe, stoke the “us vs. them” divide and equate face and family to stimulate protective instincts for the group against those threatening it.  

 As one moves up the intellectual hierarchy then one can be more explicit about EGI, although the “full story” is likely going to make complete sense only to scientifically literate and sane individuals with triple-digit IQs (leaving most of the “movement” out of the running).  Along the continuum of human understanding, knowledge, and intelligence one must calibrate the rhetoric and arguments for optimal receptivity.

So, no, I’m not arguing that one should go to a local town hall with charts of Fst values or what have you, but the fundamental principles can be put forth in language understandable to the target audience, even if one must use analogies and rhetorical proxies for some major points.  In past “Political EGI” posts I gave some examples of calibrated arguments: I’m no politician or speechwriter, and I’m sure those that are can do an even better job of formulating EGI-based arguments that can resonate to even Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack.

One can also argue – and it’s likely correct – that the less intellectual Whites, the Sixpacks, are more inherently tribal and will require less prompting to unleash their instincts in that regard. They just need guidance so as to direct that unleashing in the proper political direction (not to GOP cucks or Trumpain frauds, for example) and they need to be inoculated against “we are all the same” leftist rhetoric that, while they may not believe it “in their bones,” may still confuse them.

On the other hand, it are the more intellectually advanced “professionals” among Whites who lead rarefied lives apart from tribal instincts so it are precisely they – the ones best as understanding EGI concepts – would be benefit from more explicit, albeit still carefully calibrated, appeals to more rationalized EGI arguments.

So in that sense it works out well: those Whites least capable of understanding the more explicit EGI arguments are in the least need of them and those Whites most capable of understanding have the most need.

At this point someone will say I’ve missed the original point, which was one of emotion trumping logic, not one of understanding or not.  That’s true, but consider that the “lower class” Whites tend to be more emotional/irrational and the “upper class” Whites are relatively more rational, and hence rationality and understanding go hand-in-hand.  In addition, remember I’m still advocating calibration even for the upper classes; likely pure EGI is suitable for the highest intellectual groups, academics, top intellectual activists, etc. Some “irrational” arguments may need to be made to the rank-and-file upper class, but these would need to be calibrated differently than those used for the Sixpacks.  Perhaps less raw tribalism and more Universal Nationalism? This post is not the place to evaluate this at that level of detail, but to point out that those with rhetorical skills can make EGI-style arguments palatable to specific target audiences.  It’s more a matter of will – wanting to do it – rather than the rhetorical technics.

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….