Cultural conservative/nationalist rhetorical strategies

To focus on a specific issue first. Using progressive and tactical rhetoric. Using appropriate rhetoric is essential in communicating a message successfully.

The word " race", “white”, “ethnic” or " nationalist" for that matter should never be used in modern debates with adversaries or individuals who may have been subject to severe indoctrination. These words are so stained by history and post-war media coverage that you are basically just undermining yourself and the message you seek to communicate by actively using them. It’s wise to limit the use of all words that has stigma attached as well as or the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist mainstream media will attempt to label you as a bigot. If you use the word " race" you are basically contributing to committing character assassination of yourself or will contribute to self-defeat of the organisational goals you are representing. You need to understand the following; the modern European man/women has been indoctrinated or conditioned in a way that he is likely to run for the hill or active subliminous mental defensive blocks if you use rhetoric containing these words in your attempt to reach out to him or her. Ill try to explain this more throuroughly as this applies to me as well. In a world where the absolute arch sin is to be a Nazi, words who are associated with Nazis must be avoided at all costs, regardless of the justification for associating them with given ideology. I have researched this quite throuroughly as I have discussed immigration, European identity and culture with hundreds perhaps thousands of individuals over the years. My intention for discussing is often to reaffirm my beliefs by getting the individuals to agree with me (which is normal when you discuss politics with someone). In other words, I am initially assessing the individuals knowledge level before deciding which rhetorical strategi I am to use. If he is a humanist (naive), I will use a specific approach, a different one if he is a true cultural Marxist and yet another if he is a capitalist globalists. I have programmed in perhaps a hundred different rhetorical approaches wheter the individual is a national Bolshevik or a laizzes faire capitalist.

included most of the facts and arguments I actively use in this compendium so everyone has the opportunity to become a master debater if he or she so chooses. The clue to win over new sympathisers or supporters it done efficiently by telling them how the world works but by asking the right questions or rather excellent arguments disguised as questions.

I use demographical data a lot, f example: Lebanese example (once a Christian country, now Muslim) and add:

What is your reasoning for believing that Western Europe will not end up as Lebanon from a demographical standpoint?

And if, let’s say, Western Europe is likely to end up as Lebanon, shouldn’t Europeans be allowed to prevent this from happening?

Or a couple of other examples:

You say that preserving Tibetan culture is a just cause, that the Chinese strategy of dempgraphical warfare using Han Chinese settlers is immoral. Why do you then oppose European patriots trying to preserve European culture?

You claim that you are an anti fascist. But why do you ridicule Europeans demonstrating outside Wahhabi Mosques when Wahhabism is clearly a fascist ideology. Doesn’t this make you a hypocrite?

Using fact based arguments disguised as questions are killers and works extremely well. I have coached several hundred individuals around the world in rhetorical strategies and have thus contributed to win over hundreds perhaps thousands of new supporters and sympathisers.

I have aprox. 2500 Facebook contacts at the moment. Whenever I put up a new story (usually involving the current suicide of Europe) I get many comments. My general rule is to delete all posts containing naughty words (listed above). The reason is that these words act as deterrents and paralyzes the debate. Patriotic “more politically correct” individuals who would normally comment will be afraid to comment after a any definition of “blurp posts” containing f example one or more words: “white” “race” “genocide” “civil war”.

In their mind they are terrified to somehow be associated with given individual as they fear being labelled as a racist. The thought paralyzes them and activates their self preservation mechanics which again tells them NOT to post. It’s sad but we cant really do anything but to adapt to the reality that so many patriots are indoctrinated to a point where they are completely brainwashed.

Whenever I ignore sensor of these words in debates, I end up with 5 or less commentators. On the other hand, if I sensor any comments containing these words I usually get more than 15 individual commentators (TRIPLE the amount).

The lesson we can learn from this and other examples are: the end goal is the only relevant thing. Containing your rhetoric within certain politically correct parameters is the only logical approach to go. Not doing is will often be counter productive or self defeating.

The example of self containment should be used in other rhetorical circumstances as well. We have the truth. Now HOW do we communicate the truth most efficiently? There are counter productive ways and optimal ways to communicate the truth based on which individual or target group you are communicating to.

If your target group is clearly a victim of systematic institutionalised indoctrination like most humanists are, telling the truth directly, “in simple words”, will just contribute to activate their mental defensive mechanisms which will scare them away. Instead, you must articulate yourself through very vague illustrations which almost indirectly will allow the individual to ask himself essential questions (also known as mental conditioning or anti-indoctrination rhetorical strategies). For examples, see essays published at sites with more moderate cultural conservative lines.

Evaluating one example:

Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology used to deconstruct European cultures, traditions, identities and national states.

This statement would be just too brutal and direct for many indoctrinated people and would possibly scare them away. There is always room for considering what is the most optimal thing to say and what is counter productive. I’ve seen several 10 page essays which boils down to the above conclusion, brilliantly written. In many cases, that 10 page essay could win a supporter while the small statement could scare them away. It all depends on the individual and of course what your goal is. For a large pan-European organisation with huge ambitions it would be smart to think long term and tread softly, while individuals who are debating 1 on 1 or with a smaller audience will usually use more “powerful and direct rhetoric” usually designed to ridicule or undermine rhetorical adversaries.