Category: 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.

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….

Did Your Ever Notice: Media "Debate"

Debate, or the lack thereof?

Did you ever notice:

That news shows (the PBS NewsHour is the undisputed master of this), whenever they have a “debate” or “discussion” on any topic touching on race, immigration, multiculturalism, culture, hate speech, free speech, etc., NEVER include any viewpoints further to the right of Jeb Bush?

In fact, they often have “debates” between people who are in basic agreement on the fundamentals of an issue, always of course promoting a left-of-center anti-White viewpoint.

So, for example, if there was a discussion on immigration to the USA, they would include the following three debaters:

1. Someone who favors more legal immigration and wants to give a full amnesty to illegals, including citizenship.

2. Someone who favors more legal immigration and wants to give a partial amnesty to illegals, including permanent residency but not citizenship.

3. Someone who favors more legal immigration and is not sure about amnesty, but who wants to make illegal immigration irrelevant by a total open borders policy.

How about changing American demographics and an impeding White minority?

A classic debate between someone who thinks White minority status would be a great thing and that it will cause no problems vs. someone who thinks White minority status would be a great thing but there will be a problem with White racism and a White backlash.

Race relations in America?

A Black who blames everything on White racism and that Whites should be exterminated vs. a White who blames everything on White racism but all we need are more hate speech laws (White extermination optional).

Anti-Semitism in America?

A debate between the ADL, the SPLC, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Pro-Mixing Propaganda

Cheerios Revisited
Several months ago, I wrote about a particularly abominable commercial – an advertisement for Cheerios featuring a mixed-race family (Black male, White female, hybrid offspring).  I described why the promotion of miscegenation is destructive, particularly to Whites, and I observed that the mixed-race child represents a backward step in the evolutionary path of humanity. I also asked readers to boycott General Mills – advice that I myself have been following (and I do hope others are following this advice also).
I noted that there was some “blowback” to the ad, in the form of “racist vitriol” from the “knuckle-dragging bigots,” and I wondered then, as I wonder now, why General Mills was, and is, apparently uninterested in alienating their customers, and, seemingly, are willing to take the risk of losing profits in order to score some sociopolitical points with the anti-White Left.
Well, General Mills is “doubling down” on their pro-miscegenation propaganda, and they are, basically, giving White America an extended middle finger on the most important commercial night of the year: Super Bowl Sunday.
The new ad is described thus:
Cheerios previewed their new Super Bowl 2014 ad on Wednesday, which features an interracial couple and their biracial daughter. The new ad features an African-American father explaining to his daughter–using Cheerios–that she’s getting a baby brother, as her pregnant white mother looks on.

At this point, I could engage in some extreme vitriol, but I will not.  But, I will say that I do believe that this ad, and the behavior of General Mills in this instance, is absolutely disgusting and despicable.  And, true, I will state that, in my personal opinion, all the individuals involved in the creation and promotion of this ad, including the White actress playing the mother, are subhuman monstrosities, bereft of character, lacking in human decency, with a gaping void of soul and spirit; in other words, grotesqueries who are of less value to humanity than the most pathogenic bacterium.
But, I’ll take a different tack. 
One interpretation of this whole issue is that what General Mills/Cheerios, the ad company, and the actors and actresses, are doing here is nothing more or less than the promotion of genocide.  That’s based on the rationales described at this website; I would point that the U.N. definition of genocide includes activities designed to decrease the numbers of the targeted group.  When you have a demographically threatened, declining group, such as people of European descent, then the promotion of miscegenation involving that group does indeed fall under the description of activities resulting in decreased numbers of the group. Just because the U.N., for political reasons, does not fairly apply their description of “genocide” (or, for that matter, their definition of “indigenous peoples”) to European-descended people, does not mean the definition should not apply.  The definition should apply to all people, and, to my reading (and, in my opinion, any fair and reasonable reading), what these commercials are doing is promoting genocide. 
Noted womanizing plagiarist M.L. King famously declared “I have a dream.”  Well, I have a dream as well.  Actually, I have a number of dreams – one of which is that a future White ethnostate will feature legally convened tribunals to call to account all those promoting White genocide, including those involved in the creation and promotion of these commercials.  The Nuremberg trials can serve as precedent; after all, the System declares that those trials represent the high point of majestic and objective jurisprudence.  I would think that trials designed to address what should be considered the greatest crime in human history –  the destruction of Whites worldwide – would be most appropriate, and welcomed by all right-thinking people.  Indeed, only those bigots, spewing their hatred towards Whites, could possibly object to a judicial balancing of the scales of history.  So, I look forward to the trials and for a proper balancing of the accounts.
That is my dream, and I hope it is yours as well.