Being right is not enough.
This essay (the current one in TOO, not the original 1989 version) by McCulloch is fine as far as it goes. The logic is good and the moral reasoning is sound. One cannot easily criticize the fundamental argument from a theoretical standpoint. The only real objection at the current time is empirical: moral arguments, on their own, have not worked to convince White people to pursue their racial interests.
It is not merely, as the essay asserts, that Whites do not care because they do not know, or that they do not know because they do not care. One can find Whites who will reasonably agree to the premise that genocide against any group is wrong and, as a matter of course, that every group has – or should have – an inherent right of self-preservation. Very well. But if you then – using facts, logic, and the language of moral persuasion – attempt to convince them of the reality of White genocide, and the moral imperative of resistance, you will typically encounter immediate and unalterable hostility. They will deny the reality of White genocide regardless of facts and logic; Whites have been conditioned to automatically reject and deny any appeal to racial self-interest.
And I use the word “automatically” advisedly. No matter how much the person had previously asserted their agreement with anti-genocide and pro-preservationist premises, as soon as those premises are explicitly linked to specifically White interests, their minds close down and self-righteous hysteria and moral posturing – usually using the language of cant – ensues. One can make arguments such as those suggested by McCulloch in this essay, and yet all these people will hear is “blah-blah-blah-racist hate–blah-KKK-blah-Nazi-blah-blah-blah.”
I have no easy answers for overcoming this conditioning. I would suggest that Hitler did state what is likely a fundamental truth with his assertion that the masses are decidedly feminine in behavior. Thus, the messenger is as important – or perhaps more so – than the message. Now, I do not like stating that. As a rationalist and an empiricist, who judges arguments by their memetic content, the idea that the messenger should rise to an equal or greater level of importance as the message strikes me as one step along the road to idiocracy. It is irrational. But as Yockey tells us, life is irrational. In this sense, the existentialists (using the broadest sense of that word) are correct: when viewing reality from the human perspective, there are limits to the rational, limits to empiricism, limits to positivism; man is inherently irrational.
Therefore, what would be helpful is coupling a sound message with appealing messengers: attractive, confident, successful men, speaking from a position of strength, well-liked and respected, and resistant to the inevitable backlash, thuggery, and social pricing resulting from their pro-White position. One could imagine some popular celebrity – actor, athlete, or respected political figure or businessman – being better received than the typical pro-White activist. Of course, such people, even if they were pro-White, would likely be resistant to expressing these opinions – they would fear an end to their careers, an end to their social standing and reputation (even, thus retired celebrities would be hesitant), and so only marginal dissident figures publicly express pro-White views, a situation that the masses perceive as a lack of legitimacy.
Context is important as well: the feminine masses want to see strength, virility, defiance, success – a “winner.” The same message with the same messenger will be differently perceived and received dependent upon the context surrounding the message’s delivery. Thus, a messenger who stands his ground and is able to deliver the message without disruption, and who of course never backs down under pressure, will more effectively deliver the message than the exact same messenger, with the exact same message, who is shouted down, chased off-stage, punched in the face, is surrounded by a motley crew of cosplay-wanna-bes, has a urine-filed bottle bouncing off his head, has his rally cancelled, and, especially, backs down under stress. On a purely rational basis, the content of the message, its inherent truth, should be independent of these external factors; however, the irrational reality is that these external factors are as important, or more so, in convincing the masses, than the message itself. I wish it weren’t so, but it is what it is.
If this is true, then great care must be taken in choosing the right messengers and also choosing the optimal environment within which to deliver the message, to invoke perceptions of strength and success. It also follows that recruiting celebrities and other public figures, and convincing them to speak out, successfully and without a damaging backlash, without backing down, would yield more benefit than the typical preaching-to-the choir that goes on online – the powerless and marginal engaged in memetic group onanism.
Again, how to actualize these suggestions is beyond the scope of this essay. I honestly do not have the answer to this puzzle.