Preserving your reputation shields to achieve maximum penetration/ influence towards all target groups

 

Let’s say you are a spokesman who wants to target various conservative groups (with different ideological backgrounds – percentage indicates current potential for sympathisers):

 

 

1. Hardcore white supremacists or certain hardcore NS (>5%)

2. White nationalists – 14 words etc. (>10)

3. Cultural conservatives (15-30%)

4. Moderate cultural conservatives (critical to multicult) (30-35)

5. Pro-multiculturalist conservatives (40-60%)

 

 

Different types of rhetorical strategies must be applied to all the above groups. Usually a serious political party will use quite moderate cultural conservative rhetoric knowing that he will by default win all the more dedicated sympathiser base.

If you use rhetorical strategies designed for group 5 you will appeal to all the other groups etc. However, if you use rhetoric designed for group 3 you will be considered too extreme by target group 4. and 5.

 

Preserving your reputational shields involves using the correct rhetoric. Which groups would you want to reach out to in the future. Think 10 -20 – 30 years ahead. Because past choices will be used against you by the cultural Marxist establishment should you ever choose to become “more ambitious”.

 

Sadly, this is not the case with the left wing as Barroso is a clear example of. It is a well known fact that he used to be a member of the Portuguese Communist party, yet NO media company has ever tried to character assassinate him as they would have done with any and all cultural conservative.

 

Opportunistic political parties or larger organisations may decide to “sell out” their most essential principals in order to increase potential support. There are examples of political parties in Europe who used to be 2. but who reformed into 5. with the hopes of becoming “political relevant”. This can end as a political disaster as that organisation or political party is ending up in a situation where they are sensuring themselves to a degree that they in fact become irrelevant. This may also upon up the posibilty for new players right of them with more credible principles. Some conservative parties have ended up supporting multiculturalism which just underlines that they have defeated themselves and should no longer be allowed to call themselves conservatives.

 

As for target groups to reach out to; forget about cultural Marxists or more hardcore Marxists. No matter how good your arguments and documentation is, they have decided they do not want to hear the truth. Instead, focus on humanists and naive or ignorant people in general – the great bulk of people. THAT is where the potential for support is. Use deceptive means when required, the worst and most incompetent debater is ALWAYS the most sincere debater. They are swallowed and chewed to bits in seconds and are generally vulnerable to character assassination. This is why 95% of all politicians are liars or manipulators of truth, they wouldn’t be successful politicians if they weren’t exactly that unfortunately.

Modern politicians tend to use the words: non-Muslim, conservatives, cultural conservatives, Christian European, "the indigenous peoples of Europe, or native European, or if I absolutely have to - ethnic European when describing "Europeans". Some of these words are relatively ”inclusive” and can appeal/reach out to all specters of the right wing including the Christian Movements in addition to free market liberals.

 

Furthermore, it can be smart to limit the use of words like: ethnic groups, but rather focus on Islam, non-Islamic, Muslims, non-Muslims. Also, use the term: anti-Islamisation instead of anti-immigrant. As for trying to describe a threat, focus on Global Islamic Ummah and dhimmitude (yes, some educating into the meaning of some words will have to be included). People in general are unfamiliar with many of the ”new words” so certain explanatory comments would be required.

The use of a clearly defined "rhetorical strategy" is the essence of success for all Conservative politicians, master debaters and leaders. Unfortunately folks older than 40 tend to blurp up "dirty outdated rhetoric" now and then, while people younger than 40 are usually more disciplined in regards to rhetorical containment.

Also, I’ve said this before several times. It’s a strategic mistake to use "nationalist" or "national" in a political party name - the case with BNP and National Front. There is too much stigma attached to the word and many people will subliminously see parallels with Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, it can be a strategically smart to use female spokespersons in debates involving immigration and Islamisation (topics that for many people traditionally has evolved around ”angry, single, white men”

We didn't create these rules, but it’s in our interest to follow them if we want to more successfully distribute our messages.

 

Consider Islam as a decease you can take advantage of. The Islamisation of Europe and the ongoing demographic warfare being waged against Europe by the Global Islamic Ummah is basically THAT SOMETHING that will bring the cultural conservatives together and eventually to power (within 40-70 years). So in the mean time, it’s essential that the older generation cultural conservative start adapting to this "new reality" and start updating their rhetorical strategies or shut the hell up.

On a different note, Racial Conservatism is dead and should not IN ANY WAY be linked rhetorically to Cultural Conservatism (Racial Conservatism died in WW2).

Our battle on the other hand involves Cultural Conservatism, our duty and right to resist Cultural genocide and Islamic demographic warfare. Cultural Conservatism has NOTHING to do with Racial Conservatism. Learn from past mistakes and exercise rhetorical containment.