I’m working on a Simple White Advocacy Guide that will help activists in the movement with the basics of persuasion and discourse. Its primary inspiration was the Israel Project’s Global Language Dictionary, but it will include a set of Appendices that will serve to aggregate our community’s tribal knowledge on these topics. For example, those of us who’ve put a lot of time into persuasion and discourse know that West Virginia’s relative lack of crime is good to bring up if the persuadable suggests that Black criminality is caused by Black poverty. That will be included as an item in the “Challenge/Response” appendix.
Chapter 2 of the guide is Six Rules of Discourse. It’s an attempt to boil what people need to know about conversational discourse down to a handful of memorable rules. I’ve pasted the first draft below and would appreciate feedback. Am I missing anything? Are any of the rules tangential? Is there a better way to sum up the rule? If you are thinking of suggesting an additional rule, go for it, but keep in mind that the total number of rules needs to remain as low as possible.
Six Rules of Discourse
Rule 1: Flip the Table
When cowboys are playing poker in the saloon and they realize that the deck has been stacked against them, they flip the table over. Be a cowboy. The words and phrases people learn to describe racial issues in America are stacked against us, loaded with false assumptions, blatant biases, and the Marxist worldview. If you don’t learn how to hijack the discourse, an intelligent debate opponent can easily redirect you into arguing in favor of the KKK, declaring that you’re “a racist”, and supporting “the continued oppression of minorities”.
When you forfeit the language battle, you’ve lost the debate before you say a word
Don’t take language and terms for granted. Ask the persuadable to define loaded terms. If he declares that he rejects “racism”, ask him to define racism. If he calls them minorities, point out that they outnumber us globally and will outnumber us at home in a couple decades. If he brings up academic terms like “White Privilege”, “institutional discrimination”, or “historical oppression”, then you’re not dealing with a persuadable. Don’t waste your time with him unless there’s an audience to influence.
Rule 2: Focus, Focus, Focus
Our people have a right to exist. We don’t need to fight forgotten wars, defend dead people, or associate ourselves with any historical movements. There’s nothing to gain here and everything to lose. Don’t dwell on the problems other races have, either. Even if Black criminality were cured tomorrow, our people would still have a right to exist as a separate people.
If the persuadable brings up slavery, ask how many centuries have to pass before we move on. If the persuadable brings up the Holocaust, flip the table by declaring that you’re against genocide: every people has a right to exist. If the persuadable brings up hatred or bigotry, ask the persuadable to explain why our desire for a separate peace is “hate”.
Don’t let yourself get sidetracked from the objective of persuading the persuadable to become aware of and supportive of White American interests. The typical person can only be expected to learn and consider a finite amount in one conversation, so it’s important to keep that conversation focused on the core concern: our people have a right to exist. This simple and positive assertion can serve as a seed, growing over time in the persuadable’s mind as he considers whether his people are being allowed to exist as a separate people by today’s political and social environment.
Rule 3: Hone your Tone
Nobody likes to be preached at, but many people enjoy having a conversational exchange of ideas. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not passionate when so much is at stake. It’s hard to pretend like you’re not angry when people are so naive about what’s going on. But when you come at a persuadable with passion or anger, he’s going to become defensive, combative, and unwilling to give your ideas a fair hearing.
Additionally, we’ve been slandered by our opponents as “haters”, so passion and anger – no matter how righteous – will usually be perceived as “hate”. The tone of your voice and your body language should encourage a frank and friendly conversation. Even if the persuadable says something that offends you, smile warmly and explain why the statement was offensive. Don’t cross your arms, furrow your brow, or bug your eyes out in exasperation.
There’s no such thing as objectivity, but most Americans don’t know that. Feign objectivity. Be very careful about statements of fact, particularly sweeping statements, so you establish credibility as an unbiased expert on the subject. Even if you don’t change their mind right away, you may be able to establish enough credibility that they may want your opinion on racial issues in the future.
Rule 4: Listen and Learn
Most people love to talk. Let them. Ask them open-ended questions then find things they said in their answers that can lead to further questions. If you ask the right questions (see Appendix II – Conversation Starters), you can lure a talkative persuadable into changing his own mind while you sit there and listen intently. This is called the Socratic Method, and it can be a very effective way to lure the persuadable into examining the minefield of ridiculous beliefs and assumptions that have been planted in his head.
Rule 5: Know your Audience
Ask the kinds of open-ended questions that help you figure out how knowledgeable a persuadable is and speak at that level. Don’t lay a bunch of heavy information about the Federal Reserve system on your apolitical aunt. It’s imperative that you figure out what your audience’s position is before you attempt to persuade them.
Don’t skip any steps. If you haven’t convinced them that our people exist and have a right to do so, then they won’t really care if another group of people is threatening our existence. If they don’t know that a certain group of people moving into the neighborhood will have a predictable and negative effect, then they won’t really care if those people are moving into the neighborhood.
Some people are deathly afraid of disagreement and other people are itching for a debate, use an appropriate style for your audience. But know who your audience is. This isn’t always obvious. For example, your cousin is in for Christmas from his freshman year at college and is openly explaining to the extended family that all the jobs went to Asia because Asians are smarter and work harder. In this case, the audience isn’t your cousin. The audience is the extended family. Reply to him but in their language and at their concerns.
Rule 6: Patience and Persistence
People don’t change their worldview that often, and rarely do so right in front of the person who got the ball rolling. The work of advocating for our people isn’t very rewarding work, but it’s important work. The seeds we plant take time to grow and often require some sort of trigger event that causes the persuadable to reconsider his worldview.
Even a failed attempt to persuade may help the persuadable realize that we’re not frothing hatemongers. There may also be some unforeseen event happen in the future which awakens millions in a short period of time. If you’ve established credibility with friends and relatives as a fair and sensible advocate of White interests, they’ll turn to you for answers and guidance at that time.
Most lively discussions contain at least one assertion of fact which is either contested or not entirely accepted. Use that as an opportunity to follow up with the person after a couple days. Even if you were incorrect about the fact, follow up with the correct answer. It will help protect your credibility. If you’ve shown yourself to be sloppy with facts, you’ll be incapable of persuading anybody.
Good stuff Wikitopian.
Y’all ought to check out the following book written by the person runs the excellent ‘Subverted Nation’ website: http://www.lulu.com/content/hardcover-book/basic-training-for-revolutionaries/7559310
A worthy project. and well written.
There is leverage here on liberals known to have concerns about endangered species and indigenous peoples. Redirect their guilt back where it belongs. What makes the spotted owl or Amazon indians more special than ourselves? Denial that we exist is genocide 101. Challenge them to defend their “wing-nut”-like disdain for White endangeredness and indigenousness.
The next step is to explain how their guilt has been used to manipulate them into to worrying about everything else on earth except the extinction of their own kind. What were they thinking? They weren’t.
Yes. Planting seeds is a useful metaphor. Nobody needs to be browbeaten with the truth. People like to come to their own conclusions, and trigger events aren’t necessarily big. The aggregate drip drip drip of mundane and personal experiences can suffice. Anti-White rhetoric and double standards are pervasive. Point them out and a previously spell-bound drone will soon be telling you where they’ve seen the light on their own.
Excellent thinking here, guys, that’s what White ‘think tanks’ are supposed to foster. Planting seeds of doubt is vital at this juncture of the historical process of White decline. The liberal phase of White self-destruction has to run its crazy course and bottom out, before a White racial awakening can really gain traction. It is our duty to prepare the ground for this coming revolution in thought, and build cadre to facilitate eventual White liberation. Eventually, this is going to mean effective organization, because we are all in a race against time.
The biggest parlor trick of liberalism, I have noticed, is to assume the burden of proof is on anyone that would defy liberal principles, rather than the burden of proof being on those who advocate change or advocate the majority goes against its interests. They make it as though any deviation from absolute liberalism–such as opposition to gay marriage or open borders–requires some kind of proof or defense, rather that liberalism’s many deviations from our tribe’s collective interests and desires.
This is an example, btw, I believe of what race realists should be doing from time to time in mainstream conservative locations:
http://patterico.com/2010/01/02/patterico-banned-at-lgf/comment-page-2/#comment-604786
Good article.
The conservatives in that thread were unable to substantively respond to Roach at all. All they did was squeal and screech about “anti-Semitism” the way leftists do about “racism.” As Roach pointed out, they are willing to analyze Muslims as a group, but they howl with outrage if someone analyzes Jews as a group.
Here is an abridged version of the responses to Roach:
“Get back to your neo-Nazi rallies … typical anti-Semitic agitprop … you’ve already struck out, little neo-Nazi … you sir are a classic Joo-ish conspiracy anti-semite … you need to take an offline time out … It’s offensive … blech … neo-Nazis … coward/demagogue … Neo-Nazis have a certain way of talking to hide the fact that they’re neo-Nazis … old anti-Semitic propaganda line … Wouldn’t being a globalist mean you can’t be a universalist … How do we know this Roach guy isn’t some troll from LGF coming over … bilge … You’re pushing the same old crap that Der Sturmer did … not-so-subtle reference to Jewish Bolshevism … Neo-Nazi, I’m going to stop wasting my time with you … Still an anti-Semite, eh, Roach? … anti-Semitic propaganda lines … neo-Nazi … old canard … Mr. Roach Nazi.”
Excellent project. I have been hoping somebody would take this on. Thank you. Consider a dedicated domain/website so it doesn’t get buried as a blog post. Here is resource you should consult (and cite): http://www.resistingdefamation.org/
In that thread Roach linked, judeo-bolshevist commenter “chaos” doth protest too much.
When “the jews” aren’t hiding and denying they have any power they’re right out in the open wielding it. Either way “the neo-nazis” get the blame. Same old silly crap indeed. Four millenia and counting.
@White Preservationist
Thank you.
Austin’s book looks interesting, but I’m not in a position to pay for it. While I support his effort, the guide will be freely available and collaborative. It will also be less ambitious, aiming to merely push persuadables in a favorable direction, not jerk football fans into becoming Jew-wise racial revolutionaries in one sitting.
@Tanstaafl
Thank you
You’re anticipating a lot of another chapter that’s partially completed, “The Art of Persuasion”, which delineates a path of successive steps to accepting the central message: “Our people have a right to exist”. You’ll assuredly see your influence in the forthcoming final draft.
@Junghans
Thank you. I generally agree with the points you made. People should ask themselves, “What would help a motivated White Advocate succeed?” and then try to offer those things. It’s an attempt to actually grow some fruit off the tree of blogging and writing essays.
@Roach
You’re right. We have to help our advocates become more confident in rejecting the array of bogus assumptions and judgments that have been baked into contemporary discourse.
@Grimioire
An unqualified compliment from you is proof of perfection. Thank you.
@MGLS
As Roach and others have demonstrated, it’s possible to take on and defeat these people at discourse. They can almost always insult us or censor us, but those are innately pyrrhic victories. As newspaper comments show, there’s this unquantifiable but tremendous mass of people who are viscerally allied with us but have yet to find a voice.
@William Sheldon
It’ll be hosted on my own site, which is under construction at the moment. I’ve gone through that Resisting Defamation site and it has a lot of good ideas.
This is really impressive, Wikitopia. I like the idea of a handbook for activists, a training manual for political soldiers in the street. Well done.
Very nice start, wiki.
The conservatives in that thread were unable to substantively respond to Roach at all. All they did was squeal and screech about “anti-Semitism” the way leftists do about “racism.”
Conservatives don’t automatically scream “neo-nazi” at anyone who criticizes Israel. Jews do though.
A simple, useful tool would be a list of common liberal/left posturings and the best way to refute them, or undermine them. Just getting someone to try and explain/defend some common liberal meme is entertaining in itself. If they end up looking confused or stupid thats a win if only one person notices, even if its only the liberal loser concerned, they may have to reflect on their position especially if it happens repeatedly. I’m thinking here about online debates but the same arguments are equally valid in any setting.
The more polished and elegant the responses and the quicker they can be deployed the better.
It would be handy to have that permanently linked to not just lost in amongst the threads and comments. Ive suggested this at one or two other sites but no one seems interested.
Lurker,
Email me. wikitopian at gmail.
Here is an abridged version of the responses to Roach:
“Get back to your neo-Nazi rallies … typical anti-Semitic agitprop … you’ve already struck out, little neo-Nazi … you sir are a classic Joo-ish conspiracy anti-semite … you need to take an offline time out … It’s offensive … blech … neo-Nazis … coward/demagogue … Neo-Nazis have a certain way of talking to hide the fact that they’re neo-Nazis … old anti-Semitic propaganda line … Wouldn’t being a globalist mean you can’t be a universalist … How do we know this Roach guy isn’t some troll from LGF coming over … bilge … You’re pushing the same old crap that Der Sturmer did … not-so-subtle reference to Jewish Bolshevism … Neo-Nazi, I’m going to stop wasting my time with you … Still an anti-Semite, eh, Roach? … anti-Semitic propaganda lines … neo-Nazi … old canard … Mr. Roach Nazi.”
Sounds like some of the posters here (typically VNNers). Same hysterical, demented mind, different ideological bent.
*posters meaning commentators