[Ex-BNP donkey nevertheless makes some points that functional conservatives who think they are WN because they hold WN positions do not understand: emotion is where the thing you're looking for lies. You have to get in their blood. That begins by making them understand that
you believe your own bullshit. Bold is Barnes.]
Posted by Lee John Barnes on April 28, 2012, 12:06 PM | #
Mr. Barnes as ever the charmer I see.
You want ‘charm’ then hire a dvd of Brideshead Revisited. Frankly I am sick of the pseuds and their endless tedious pseudo-intellectual onanism.
What are your practical tips and suggestions? You’re a longstanding activist so you must have some ideas beyond neo-Nazi raves for the kids?
I have given tips and suggestions on this site for years, re-read them all. As for the neo-nazi raves for kids, as long as those kids are not liberals I am happy for them to listen to what they want. I am not a precious pseud who think nationalism should be akin to an old ladies tea party filled with tedious wafflers trying to point score against each other on the ‘I Am The Biggest Pseudo-Intellectual Wanker Scale’.
For my part I have suggested the cardinal importance of considering the needs of one’s audience as the first rule of all political rhetoric (try to understand why they presently think as they do beyond the duped/moron cliché) - the needs of the speaker to ‘let off steam’ etc., are totally irrelevant. Secondly, the need to establish some tiny slice of common ground (it can be banal or trivial) as a ‘bridging mechanism’ to expand the scope of topics under discussion. Thirdly, the need to prevent the audience from ignoring what you have to say because of how you say it - basically do everything to avoid unnecessarily provoking negative associations - in terms of tone, language used, dress, mannerism etc., there is obviously far more to communication than merely the informational content of one’s message. All common sense I would have thought.
1) Your fist point is partly correct - one must seek to empathise with ones audience. But an audience is itself an aggregate of individuals - and what matters most to them, and which communicates to them most powerfully, are integrity and passion. If you dont believe what you are saying, dont say it.
2) An audience doesnt want to be lectured - they primarily want to be entertained. This is why there is a fundamental difference between an ORATOR and a COMMUNICATOR. An orator gives lecture and disseminates ideas, a communicator creates nationalists out of an audience of non-nationalists. We need communicators, not orators. Orators appeal to the converted, Communicators create the converted.
3) The primary way to inspire an audience is to appeal to their emotions and give them hope - that way you bypass the conditioning process. It isnt about intellectualism and lectures on Plato and Neitzsche to nationalists, it is about turning an suspicious audience into a converted crowd.
Again somewhat obviously it’s horses for courses - a rough and ready pub is not the same as a middle-class dinner party. And the New Criterion or City Journal comment pages are not the same as those of The Sun.
The communicator speaks to all of them and converts them all - they speak to their hearts and souls, hence they speak to them all at the same time.
Someone else said:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: until this movement can shed its crazies/liars/moles/general dysfunctionals, we’re not getting anywhere, or at least not as far as we could. There are very, very few places on the internet where quality discussions of our people’s future can really take place. To have them disrupted and cluttered with increasingly outlandish liars, slanderers, and nutcases is not doing anyone any good…including the nuts.
I agree - what have I been saying about self-styled dangerous/marginal antinomians for a very long time?
“antinomians”
In just one word you have defined exactly where the movement has gone wrong, and vanished up its own asshole.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/com...message_boards