Print this post Print this post

Six Rules for White Advocacy

1,335 words

German translation here

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.

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.

From Occidental Dissent, January 2, 2010

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

14 Comments

  1. cladrastis
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    I’d add humor to that list. If someone announces in a public forum that race doesn’t exist, that immigration is good for the economy, or some other such nonsense, we shouldn’t be afraid to laugh at him. One of our problems is that we take our opponents way too seriously; the ideas they promote are anything but serious. With some chortling provocation, the speaker may even reveal himself for the hater that he is.

  2. Ethical Rhetoric
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Flip the Table by using the incendiary rhetoric of the SPLC and ADL when talking about them and their ilk.

    Anyone who attacks Whites and our White Privilege as racist should be attacked with the same language that our haters attack us. Anyone who teaches multicultural tolerance, inclusiveness, Diversity, Interfaith, etc, is an anti White hatemonger racist and should be called that.

    Use progressive language. “We just can’t afford to let our children be taught that Diversity is Our Strength. It is a step backwards to the shameful days of the Brown v. Board and MLK’s crusade against White happiness when we allow vile, anti White hatred to spread on the Internet like a toxic and virulent cancer. Anti White hate speech creates a climate that encourages violence against Whites. We have much more work to do in bringing restorative justice to all the White Communities that have been destroyed by racial integration and non white immigration. Our work is unfinished.”

    We need to learn how to sound like and oppressed, marginalized, victimized minority, which we are, in contrast to the Jew agitators who sound like it, but aren’t. We have the moral authority to be whiners, not them. We need to be as shrewd at rhetoric as they are. We are not whiners, but we need to sound like it in order to get the payoff of compassion from White women who can’t resist helping the underdog. Deception is the credo of our enemies, and by measuring their victories over us, we should co opt their tactics.

    Just re-word anything put out by the masters of propaganda at the Center of American Progress, and make it fit our more sacred and urgent uses. Pat close attention to the buzz words they use in their headlines.

    Today, they are on “reform”.

    “We must reform the anti White hate speech policies that mandate Affirmative Action and bring about a more just and equitable application of the universally accepted value of equal protection under the law.”

    • Lonely in the Cellar
      Posted November 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      We need to learn how to argue like the experts. Look at the rhetoric they are now using against Glenn Beck. Just short of calling him anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. We need the same attack against Affirmative Action and the Diversity Privilege for the blacks, for whom we’ve done far too much already.

      http://www.faithfulamerica.org/action/

      Dear Supporter,

      Last week we told you about our three-pronged plan to combat fear in our public discourse. [combat racism in college admissions, government hiring, unearned Diversity Privilege Afro Affirmative Action] Thanks to you, we now have the funds we need to leap into action!

      We’re starting right at the source: FOX News. [SPLC, ADL, NAACP, Congressional Blak Caucus, La Raza, Brown v Board, Civil Rights Acts] The smears, distortions and hate speech on FOX News get worse and worse. And it’s hurting our country — a new poll found that FOX News viewers are more likely to believe smears about Muslims than those who get their news from other sources [1], and a would-be terrorist credits FOX News’s Glenn Beck as his inspiration to attempt a shooting spree. [2]

      It’s time to call for real change.

      Tell advertisers: stop supporting FOX’s dangerous hate speech, smears and lies.
      Glenn Beck has a particular dislike for people of faith who are concerned about social justice and the common good. He’s attacked Faithful America directly, as well as many of our allies in justice work, including making anti-Semitic attacks on our friends at Jewish Funds for Justice. [3]

      FOX also has played a key role ramping up Islamophobia over the past year, particularly around the Park 51 project in New York. The resultant anti-Muslim fervor has led to unprovoked attacks on our Muslim neighbors and their places of worship across the country.
      It’s clear we need to send FOX News a message they can hear. And the best way to do it is by targeting what matters most: their advertising revenue.
      Sign our petition and tell advertisers to stop subsidizing fear-mongering on FOX News.
      We know this strategy works. A campaign last year to pressure companies to stop advertising on Beck’s program succeeded in getting over 35 major companies to withdraw their support.[4] But Beck is able to stay on the air, and even ramp up his hateful rhetoric, because the advertisers on other FOX shows subsidize his program. We need responsible companies to drop FOX entirely until they change their ways.
      We’re joining a broad movement of concerned groups like Media Matters, People for the American Way, and the Tides Foundation on this campaign. Together we can make an even stronger case to business leaders.
      Strengthen our movement: Add your signature today!
      We’ll keep you updated on our campaign’s progress. Thanks for helping us take real steps to end the fear and hate in our media.
      – Beth, Nick, Dan, Kristin, John and Jennifer
      The Faithful America Team

  3. LEW
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    I need solid rebuttals for the various attacks premised on White collective guilt: White Privilege, Institutional Racism, Legacy of Slavery, your ancestors committed Indian genocide, etc.

    • Ethical Rhetoric
      Posted November 17, 2010 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      Just rebut the way Pat Buchanan does: Blacks in this country have the highest standard of living anywhere on Earth, all thanks to what we Whites have done for them. We demand gratitude.

      Until we get that through their doing their part to make America safer and stronger, we admit nothing. Whites don’t know how to negotiate on racial terms. We never make a counter offer, even when our survival depends upon pulling the enemy into a “dialogue” of our making.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      @LEW
      I’m particularly interested in the notion of white privilege as it is a central idea at the heart of anti-racist theory. In general, I think white advocates should be well-versed in anti-racist theory and it would be nice to see sites like this chipping away at it, exposing the hypocrisies and falsehoods.

      With white privilege, what I try to do is keep my eyes out in current events for examples that contradict the idea. For example, AmRen does a great job of documenting the ongoing scourge of racially motivated attacks on whites by blacks in Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Colorado, Richmond CA, Seattle, Baltimore, St Louis, Ohio, etc. When you compile these cases you get a clear picture of something that most white people already know instinctively but which can be confirmed factually – that there are many places in this country which are no-go areas for white people, places where it is literally unsafe to walk the streets because the color of your skin is white.

      Where is white privilege in this context? Even if blacks aren’t necessarily holding “institutional power” aren’t the facts of these cases, when taken together, enough to prove a kind of “systemic racism” that discriminates against whites? Of course this is not enough to take down the entire anti-racist construct of white privilege, but it’s a good stick to jab them with.

      There are plenty of less extreme cases of discrimination against white people too. I came across a recent study which showed that whites from rural, red state regions were discriminated against when applying to Ivy League colleges. The study showed that the better student the applicant was – for example, say the student was head of his school’s chapter of the FFA – then this actually worked against them. All such studies like this should be compiled together to build the case against white privilege.

      Another tact is to point out the advantages (like affirmative action, college scholarships, etc) that minorities get that whites don’t. The anti-racist will say that these advantages are needed to correct historical injustices. You can respond then by saying that fine, take your advantages, but don’t bitch about white privilege while you do it. They can’t level the playing field (or tilt it in their favor) while also simultaneously complaining about how unfair things are. Call them on it.

      I think it’s also worthwhile to point out that the notion of white privilege is a “designer term” contrived by anti-racist activists in academia with very specific intentions and goals. Remember, for the Politically Correct left language itself is a tool for indoctrination, re-education, manipulation and ultimately, control.

      When they say “white privilege” what they are really describing is a set of phenomena that occurs in most any context where there is a dominant majority and a discriminated against minority. And yet they didn’t call the term “majority privilege” did they? No, the term was designed for particular use against whites, and most insidiously, it was designed in such a way as to get white college kids to self-criticize and even hate themselves. White college kids aren’t taught that majority/minority dynamics are a problem across the globe in practically every place where they exist – no, they are taught that this dynamic is a particular problem with white people – a white pathology, in fact, is what they call it. It’s a toxic bit of sophistry they’ve built and it should be called out as such.

      I could go on but off the top of my head these are some points at which to attack the notion of “white privilege.” I would very much love to learn more. Personally, I think it’s important to have good counters for these anti-racist concepts rather than simply write off the anti-racist as unpersuadable. As has been pointed out, there’s an audience that’s watching.

      • LEW
        Posted November 19, 2010 at 7:47 am | Permalink

        Good stuff. Thanks.

  4. White Republican
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    Matt Parrott,

    I’d like to know more about your Simple White Advocacy Guide. As this article was first published early this year, I hope that the Simple White Advocacy Guide will appear soon.

    You might like to study Jean Ousset’s book, Action (Norfolk, VA: IHS Press, 2002), which has many excellent ideas on activism. The following excerpts (pp. 222-225) are relevant to your rules for White advocacy:

    It is not enough just to proclaim the truth on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If we want results we have to take the situation as we find it, make the best of a bad job, draw all the advantages we possibly can from circumstances which in any other respect we may well consider deplorable.

    For instance, we cannot but deplore the muddled thinking, the incoherent illogicality so prevalent nowadays. It is obviously, in itself, a bad thing. But, such as it is, we can use it, at least to a certain extent. It is undeniable that our generation has lost its appetite for the truth–at least for the whole truth, a truth developed, ordered and presented systematically. We are uncomfortable in the presence of large-scale doctrinal syntheses. All that is left is our natural, inalienable taste for small gobbets of truth, learned from our own experience or from those who have formed our minds for us.

    It was La Fontaine who said ‘long books frighten me.’ Similarly, our contemporaries are terrified by the sight of the vast fresco of truth. If we cannot interest men in the wide synthesis of truth as a whole, in its systematic totality and unity, there is only one solution left. We must not water the truth down, make it less true, but we can break it down into assimilable fragments, without revealing in advance the final synthesis, the full title as it were of what we are trying to hand on; rather as Socrates, far from imposing his conclusion at the outset of the discussion, led his disciples by a series of apparently innocuous questions to ‘discover it for themselves.’ The men of today have a horror of being ‘indoctrinated,’ but provided we are aware of this, it is not too hard to get round the difficulty.

    Think of the number of Catholics who, quite sincerely, support divorce, communism or euthanasia. Likewise vast numbers of Lutherans and Calvinists know next to nothing of Luther and Calvin. Plenty of communists have never studied Lenin or Marx, and how many socialists could tell you what the word ‘socialism’ means? A pitiful state of affairs, no doubt, in one sense, but in another, a very fortunate one, for it proves that one can generally afford to ignore the ‘label’ and concentrate on the underlying reality.”

    . . . there are a host of fundamental truths that we can get over to people who, if were to judge purely by the ‘label’ they display, ought to reject them, but who in fact can be brought to accept them–the fact being that beneath even the most marked forms of ideological error there always lurks a grain of common sense and a readiness to accept the truth when it is properly presented.

    It is to this grain of common sense that we must appeal, this unavowed readiness to accept the truth that we must try to satisfy. Thus, by a patient, piecemeal re-establishment of single truths, one by one, we must work towards a restoration of total truth in all its fullness in men’s minds.

    Make no mistake: this tactic does not dispense us from deep and serious study and understanding of basic doctrine. In fact, it makes it all the more necessary. It is no use patly trotting out doctrinal propositions we have learned by heart. We need to assimilate them so well that they inform and impregnate our conversation without being so aggressively obvious that they arouse our opponent’s instinctive suspicion, their inbuilt resistance to what they consider as ‘brainwashing.’ We must so present our arguments for the truth that they have all the acceptability of clear and evident common sense and wisdom.

    To achieve this, our doctrinal training needs to be oriented not towards pure scholarship as such . . . but towards an ability to assimilate and use our knowledge effectively.

    If such an action is to have any chance of revitalizing each and every corner of the social organism, it must be omnipresent and thoroughly diversified.

    Our methods and our timing, therefore, have to be well-timed and flexible so that the doctrine or action we are proposing finds a form adapted to the special needs of each case and each milieu in society.

    We cannot expect to convince everybody or proclaim every truth that needs to be proclaimed everywhere and at the same time. In the present state of opinion, an enormous amount of good would be done if we only managed, in each milieu, to sow the seeds of one basic truth in such a way that it gained acceptance.

    You don’t have to share Ousset’s Catholic and counter-revolutionary views to appreciate the quality and utility of his book. I can strongly recommend it.

    • Posted November 20, 2010 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      That excerpt’s intriguing. I’ll follow up on this.

      I especially like this part…
      We must not water the truth down, make it less true, but we can break it down into assimilable fragments, without revealing in advance the final synthesis, the full title as it were of what we are trying to hand on; rather as Socrates, far from imposing his conclusion at the outset of the discussion, led his disciples by a series of apparently innocuous questions to ‘discover it for themselves.’

    • Posted November 20, 2010 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      Oh, and the SWAG is almost complete, and will be completed. I’ve buried myself in too many projects and some of the ones in the queue are starting to gather dust.

      • White Republican
        Posted November 21, 2010 at 3:33 am | Permalink

        This is good to hear. The Simple White Advocacy Guide sounds promising. Can you provide a brief summary of its objectives and its contents? How exactly do you intend to publish it?

        I intend to adapt the ideas of Eric S. Raymond (The Cathedral and the Bazaar) and Everett M. Rogers (Diffusion of Innovations) to the development of nationalist discourse. I think it might be worthwhile to develop nationalist discourse in a manner analogous to open source software. I’ve previously remarked that “ground level Gramscianism” would involve “developing nationalist discourse to make it as presentable and persuasive as possible in relation to the audiences to which it is addressed. This work would involve carefully selecting and molding the ideas, arguments, examples, language, imagery, tone, and style of nationalist discourse for optimal effectiveness.” Molding nationalist discourse in this way is very much a collective effort. It requires, to use a phrase of Peter Kropotkin, “the severe effort of many converging wills.”

  5. LEW
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Matt, 

    I think we need strong arguments and discourse focused on showing that organizing around White identity doesn’t suggest hate or ill will toward other races. 

    Most White people live their lives with day to day interactions with Jews and non-Whites that are not part of the problem. We all have Black, Jewish and other non-White colleagues, clients, customers, and acquaintances. My Chinese neighbors, for example, don’t bother anybody, and one of my Black neighbors recently ran off some punks (Black ones) in the neighborhood looking for trouble. 

    So in developing our discourse, we can’t lose sight of the extent to which many White folks’ lives are entangled with non-problematic non-Whites. This is another reason on top of everything else Whites resist our efforts at persuasion. When I talk about our ideas with people, usually the first bromide I get in response is “but I know so and so, and he’s a nice guy; Pedro is hard worker,” and so on. Of course everyone of these non-Whites and their kids benefit from quotas, affirmative action, set asides and other policies that discriminate against Whites. And none of them let their acquaintanceship with us stop them from voting their ethnic interests and seeking collective power that is used at our expense and leading to our dispossession. But we have to stay grounded in reality. Most Whites, especially the middle and upper class ones we most need to influence, don’t perceive their neighbors as a problem because they’re not gang members or pushing La Raza conquest rhetoric. 

    I’m a hardened WN and personal relationships even cloud my judgment sometimes. The fact is my Honduran contractor is a nice guy, hard worker and a productive member of the community. The guy has done work for free for me at times. So sometimes even I have to remind myself why an ethnostate is necessary. 

    Side Note:

    If anyone reading this is tempted to give me grief for employing a Honduran contractor, please don’t. There is a long story behind it. 

    • Posted November 20, 2010 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      What I always wonder about these hardcore “haters” is whether they’re one nice Black guy who finds and returns his wallet or one attractive Asian girl who flirts with him at the ice cream shop away from realizing that his worldview is a lie. Non-Whites are fully human, an obvious reality that seems to escape some people in the stuckment.

      It’s the enemy’s job to tie our cause to the anchors of impotent rage and dehumanizing vulgarity – not ours.

  6. Sunjay
    Posted November 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I don’t believe in your racist cause, but I will use your article to convince my fellow men that FEMINISM is a hate movement which tramples the civil rights of men everywhere. So for that, I thank you white hoods.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance