A Tale of Two Narratives

The St James Massacre

The St James MassacreThe recent spree shooting by Dylann Storm Roof is a travesty that cannot be rationalized.

Barging into a Church and firing on defenseless elderly people taking part in Bible study is not something that fits into the basic moral system of the vast majority of nationalists, whether they are Christians, National Socialists, secessionists, or anything else. In lieu of this, condemnation of the action has been almost unanimous amongst both suit and ties and revolutionaries.

There is a small number of people who point to the brutal and random violence that white people are subjected to by blacks on a daily basis as a sort of “tit-for-tat” justification for this kind of behavior, but real white power is rooted in our internalization of ethical consistency. This was not a situation where these victims were killed by accident or collateral damage, this was a cold-blooded attack that has no political significance for our race. Instead it empowers enemies with an agenda that is just as homicidal, but greater in scope, than the action of the bowl-cut butcher.

The real criminals here aren’t political dissidents, they’re the cynical Bar Mitzvah boys and Bat Mitzvah girls that have been typing away, bouncing new strategies off this tragedy with the intent of maximizing interracial violence and censorship of white people; hardly containing their joy at this crime in the process. While a minority of honest journalists have categorized this act as a manifestation of mental illness that should be categorized with other mass shooters like Elliot Rodgers and James Holmes, after the revelation that he was taking a psychiatric drug, the loudest entities see an opportunity to make this political.

The Dreidel Rocks The Cradle

Some of the angles undertaken by the media are outright bizarre, but make sense when you see the pattern in the context of the war on Western civilization and its creators. One malicious piece by Emma Gray, “The History of Using White Female Sexuality to Justify Racist Violence” suggests that white women ought to fear and boycott white men and “white masculinity” because we’re all potential Dylann Roofs. The Jew Gray, who was indoctrinated to hate Gentiles at the Habonim Dror Camp Moshava in Maryland (a Jewish summer camp that on its website describes itself as a “Kibbutz-style co-ed Zionist youth camp”), practices real rape denialism by implying that white women who accuse black men of rape are lying!

She cites nothing but anecdotes in defiance of hard facts, such as the historical case of Emmett Till, the Michael Brown of his day, who had become the darling of the media in 1955, after the prophecy of Jewish political takeover featured in The Great Gatsby had long-since come true. Till allegedly was killed for flirting with a white woman, but only his cousin and an “anonymous source” that emerged decades later ever substantiated this claim. Carolyn Bryant, the woman at the center of the Till controversy, testified that Till had attempted to force himself on her until she escaped and grabbed her pistol, and when her 24 year old husband Roy Bryant learned about what happened, he flew into a rage and beat Till to death.

If these Jewish journalists were honest, they would disclose the fact that Emmett Till’s father, Louis Till, was court martialed and executed for the rape and murder of an Italian woman during World War 2, but they lie and omit for their political agenda. In America, despite the fact that black males are only 6% of the population, 35,000 white women are raped by black men every year, compared to 0-10 cases of the reverse. Any white woman who thinks these Jewish feminists are their friends better hope they are never one of the white women sexually assaulted by a black man every 34 minutes, because on the cultural Marxist food chain, you’re barely scraping the bottom.

Leftist HypocrisyThe more typical angle has been to heckle Southerners, their heritage, and renewed calls for attacks on free expression and gun control. The Southern Poverty Law Center Kohanim, the millionaire Richard Cohen, has been using the publicity to demand the eradication of all public displays of the Confederate flag. The self-hating hipster Baynard Woods was given the floor at The Washington Post by the Jewish head editor Martin Baron, to collectively blame whites for the actions of one person. Woods’ pathology stems from guilt he feels for being part of the small minority of wealthy whites who owned slaves in America. This warped young man from South Carolina has found enablers for his mental illness with the urban Jews giving his complex oxygen, and putting his self-hatred on display, as seen in an act of archetypical journalistic malpractice in the Baltimore City Paper last April, framing the Freddie Gray narrative with nothing but lies, as the sole Gentile signing his name next to co-authors Evan Serpick, Brandon Soderberg, and Caitlin Goldblatt.

None of these individuals ever show any outrage when innocent white people are murdered. In fact, their job is to hide and justify it. Global Jewish oligarch George Soros’ 33 million dollars allocated specifically to cause racial strife out of thin air in Ferguson bought an intense climate over an unjust cause that directly led to the brutal hate crime death of a white St. Louis man at the hands of a hammer-wielding black lynch mob. The story did not get any attention outside of some brief conservative air time, that never puts things in the right perspective.

The Genocide in South Africa, and the Monsters Who Condone It

While racial nationalists have for the most part condemned Roof’s attack, the ethical contrast between ourselves and the system browbeating us at the moment is blinding. A perfect juxtapose to the Charleston shooting happened on July 25th, 1993, when black terrorists from the Azanian People’s Liberation Army barged into St James Church in Cape Town, murdering 11 people and wounding 58 others–old, young, and in-between–in a military assault aimed specifically at whites attending a service. Bassie Mkhumbuzi, Gcinikhaya Makoma and Tobela Mlambisa, the organizers and participants, were pardoned and released only 5 years later by the black-ruled government after lodging an appeal justifying their actions:

“Whites used churches to oppress blacks. They took our country using churches and bibles. We know and we have read from books they are the ones who have taken the land from us,”

Gchinikaya Makoma went on to kill again. In 2012 he was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to life in prison. This time he killed a black person, and only then was he treated as a criminal.

The most nefarious move by the Judeo-Left, however, is its atrocious support for the mass murder of whites in South Africa. This mindset is typified by Sally Frankental’s “authoritative” book, South Africa’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook (2005), which has a section speaking on the matter titled “Farm Killings and Farm Evictions: Ethnic Cleansing or Class Struggle?”:

“One possible explanation is that the criminals who kill farmers are usually former farm laborers, recently fired and/or evicted from farms where they have lived most of their lives. Given that the old racist and abusive regime still operates on most of the farms, the violence is part of a continuing farm labor “policy”, and the killings are connected to the abuse and murder of farm workers” (pg 219).

Jewish and Marxist “intellectuals” call it “class struggle”

Jewish and Marxist “intellectuals” call it “class struggle”

It doesn’t matter to these genocidal maniacs and the savages they unleash on whites that most rural Boers in South Africa are poor, institutionally racially discriminated against despite being a tiny minority, and have their applications for asylum to Europe and the America’s rejected as a rule. The Jew Frankental, the former director of the University of Cape Town’s “Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies and Research”, provides an incredible “intellectual” justification for the irrational black violence against thousands of whites at the hands of marauding gangs that no black would ever do the mental gymnastics to come up with on their own.

The babies are killed by being boiled in scolding water. The women are gang raped, often penetrated with broomsticks or shotguns. The old people are forced to watch their family get tortured to death until they have their skulls bludgeoned by South African establishment figures such as Julius Malema. Thousands are being slaughtered, with nothing in their house stolen. And it is all obfuscated by the Jewish-run media, because they want it to continue happening and they want to export it to Europe and the rest of the New World.

This is of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas putting on a show about “white privilege” and the “violence of white racism” in the mass media, as well as the Jews bolstering them, financing them, and writing the scripts they read, all secretly believe that the white babies being mutilated by blacks in unspeakable ways in rural South African homes–with pictures of these crimes often showing their poverty with boarded-up windows and dwellings in desperate need of repair–deserve it.

The animosity isn’t class based, because blacks don’t touch the Anglo-descended businessmen or the Jewish precious mineral gangsters they brought with them after the Boer war, living together in gated communities. They also don’t go after the blacks in charge who have sold them out and lowered their living wages and living standards to far below Apartheid level. The hate is racial, against mostly poor and vulnerable whites, and nothing else.

Don’t let these people make you feel responsible for the lone and isolated action of one white person, just like Muslims aren’t all responsible for ISIS. We don’t need to apologize because we’re on the right side of history. They have no moral high ground, they are eagerly anticipating the day that white people in America are a minority, preferably disarmed. The dream of the anti-white writers on Gawker and the Huffington Post isn’t to join hands and sing Kumbaya; it’s to create conditions so they can watch your family get raped and killed, and laugh as the perpetrators get away with it by arguing that it is “class struggle”.

Anti-Defamation League endorsed/bankrolled black activists and politicians sometimes talk about the scourge of ‘black-on-black crime’ , but don’t think black on white crime is even a crime. None of these sanctimonious self-styled media “civil rights commentators” will condemn what blacks are doing to Boers in South Africa. They secretly, or not so secretly, laud it and hope for more.

This is why I wish Dylann Roof would’ve reflected on his terrible idea, would not have not been plied with SSRIs, and would have done some productive work instead. We need all hands on deck, not in prison, so we can fight the system in constructive ways from a position of strength, rather than petulantly lashing out at random church ladies and making every enemy of our race’s dream come true.

4 Comments

SimplyFred

Every word in this essay is priceless! The only thing worth adding, time to send blacks back to africa for their own safety! If you care about blacks, like oj simpson, and bill cosby you’ll realize they need their own continent!

Lew

I’ve read that Nelson Mandela admitted to planting bombs on school buses, but I’ve never been able to find any primary source document behind this claim. If anyone knows were that is, please let me know where to find it.

Dave

Behavior Modification

Behavior can be modified by changing the conditions or situations that lead up to the (Target Audience)’s current behavior. Behavior can also be modified by the manipulation of the consequences of the TA’s current behavior or by introducing new consequences (rewards and punishments) a TA receives for engaging in a behavior.

Decreasing a behavior involves devaluing or reducing the positive consequences and increasing the value of the negative consequences a TA receives. Removing something desirable or pleasant to a TA that is currently reinforcing a behavior, or introducing something into the TA’s environment that it finds unpleasant, are ways of decreasing a behavior.

Increasing a behavior involves increasing the value of the positive consequences and decreasing the value of the negative consequences a TA receives. Introducing or emphasizing things in the TA’s environment that are desirable or pleasant when it engages in the desired behavior, or removing things that are unpleasant when it engages in the desired behavior, are ways of increasing a behavior.

Psychographics

Psychographics are psychological characteristics of a TA. These are internal psychological factors— attitudes, values, lifestyles, motivations, and opinions. Psychographics might include characteristics such as fears, loves, hates, cultural norms, and values. Psychographics are vulnerabilities because they provoke an emotional response from the TA that can be used to increase the effectiveness of a PSYOP argument or PSYACT. Although often difficult to derive from standard intelligence and open sources, they can prove to be very effective in persuasion.

Psychographics include the following:

• Fears: What does the TA fear?
• Hates: What does the TA hate?
• Anger: What angers the TA?
• Loves: What does the TA love?
• Shame or embarrassment: What does the TA consider shameful or embarrassing?
• What is the TA dissatisfied with? (What are its gripes?)
• What are the cultural norms? (How is the TA expected to act?)
• What does the TA value? (What is important to the TA?)
• What are the frustrations? (What does the TA want that it cannot get?)

Appeals

An appeal is the overall approach used to present the main argument. It is the flavor or tone of the argument. Appeals gain the TA members’ attention and maintain their interest throughout the argument. Appeals are selected based upon the conditions and vulnerabilities of the TA. For example, a TA that does not believe the government of its country is legitimate will not be swayed by an appeal to legitimacy, whereas a military TA may be greatly affected by an appeal to authority. The following is a list of general persuasive appeals commonly used in PSYOP:

• Legitimacy.
• Inevitability.
• In group-out group.
• Bandwagon.
• Nostalgia.
• Self-interest (gain/loss).

Legitimacy appeals use law, tradition, historical continuity, or support of the people. The following are types of legitimacy appeals:

• Authority: An appeal to laws or regulations, or to people in superior positions in the social hierarchy. The TA must recognize the authority for the appeal to work.
• Reverence: An appeal to a belief-teaching institution or individual that is revered or worshiped.
• Tradition: An appeal to that which the TA is already used to. It is behavior that is repeated continually without question. Because it has always been that way.
• Loyalty: An appeal to groups to which the TA belongs. This appeal is usually used to reinforce behavior that already occurs.

Inevitability appeals most often rely on the emotion of fear, particularly fear of death, injury, or some other type of harm. It can also be an appeal to logic. Both require proof that the promised outcome will actually occur. Therefore, it is crucial that credibility be gained and maintained throughout the argument.

An in group-out group appeal seeks to divide a TA or separate two TAs. It creates an enemy of one group, and encourages the other group to rebel/discriminate against them. This appeal frequently points out major differences between TAs, or factions of a TA. If PSYOP cannot effectively portray the in group in a negative manner, the appeal will fail.

Bandwagon appeals play upon the TA’s need to belong or conform to group standards. The two main types of bandwagon appeal are an appeal to companionship and an appeal to conformity. Peer pressure is an example of the conformity type of bandwagon appeal.

Nostalgia appeals refer to how things were done in the past. This appeal can be used to encourage or discourage a particular behavior. In a positive light, it refers to the “good old days” and encourages the TA to behave in a manner that will return to those times. In the negative, it points out how things were bad in the past and how a change in behavior will avoid a repeat of those times.

Self-interest appeals are those that play directly to the wants and desires of the individuals that make up a TA. This type of appeal can play upon the TA’s vulnerability for acquisition, success, or status. A self-interest appeal can be presented in the form of a gain or loss. An appeal to loss would be exploiting the fact that if the TA does not engage in the desired behavior, PSYOP cannot satisfy a want. An appeal to gain would inform the TA that to satisfy a want, the TA must engage in a desired behavior.

Techniques

For the purposes of TAA, techniques refer to the specific methods used to present information to the TA. Effective persuasion techniques are based on the conditions affecting the TA and the type of information being presented. Determining the most effective technique or combination of techniques to persuade the TA is only accomplished through a cultivated understanding of the TA and its behavior.

Persuasion and influence are the primary tools of PSYOP. As such, PSYOP Soldiers must strive to become familiar with, and ultimately develop, tactical and technical proficiency in the use of persuasion techniques. The following are some specific techniques used to present supporting arguments to the TA:

• Glittering generalities. These are intense, emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that the appeals are convincing without being supported
by fact or reason. The appeals are directed toward such emotions as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor.
• Transference. This technique projects positive or negative qualities of a person, entity, object, or value to another. It is generally used to transfer blame from one party in a conflict to another.
• Least of evils. This technique acknowledges that the (Coarse Of Action) being taken is perhaps undesirable, but emphasizes that any other COA would result in a worse outcome.
• Name-calling. Name-calling seeks to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda as something the TA fears, loathes, or finds undesirable.
• Plain folks or common man. This approach attempts to convince the audience that the position noted in the PSYOP argument is actually the same as that of the TA. This technique is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the usual manner and style of the audience. Communicators use ordinary or common language, mannerisms, and clothes in face-to-face and other audiovisual communications when they attempt to identify their point of view with that of the average person.
• Testimonials. Testimonials are quotations (in and out of context) that are cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role of the individual giving the statement is exploited. There can be different types of testimonial authority. Official testimonials use endorsements or the approval of people in authority or well known in a particular field. Personal sources of testimonials may include hostile leaders, fellow soldiers, opposing leaders, famous scholars, writers, popular heroes, and other personalities.
• Insinuation. Insinuation is used to create or increase TA suspicions of ideas, groups, or individuals as a means of dividing the adversary. The PSYOP Soldier hints, suggests, and implies, but lets the TA draw its own conclusions.
• Presenting the other side. Some people in a TA believe that neither of the belligerents is entirely virtuous. To them, messages that express concepts solely in terms of right and wrong may not be credible. Agreement with minor aspects of the enemy’s point of view may overcome this cynicism.
• Simplification. In this technique, facts are reduced to either right, wrong, good, or evil. The technique provides simple solutions for complex problems and offers simplified interpretations of events, ideas, concepts, or personalities.
• Compare and contrast. Two or more ideas, issues, or choices are compared and differences between them are explained. This technique is effective if the TA has a needs conflict that must be resolved.
• Compare for similarities. Two or more ideas, issues, or objects are compared to try and liken one to the other. This technique tries to show that the desired behavior or attitude (SPO) is
similar to one that has already been accepted by the TA.
• Illustrations and narratives. An illustration is a detailed example of the idea that is being presented. It is an example that makes abstract or general ideas easier to comprehend. If it is in a story form, it is a narrative.
• Specific instances. These are a list of examples that help prove the point.
• Statistics. Statistics have a certain authority, but they must be clear enough to show the TA why they are relevant. In most cases, it is best to keep the statistical evidence simple and short so the TA can easily absorb it.
• Explanations. These are used when a term or idea is unfamiliar to the TA.

Primary Influence Tactics

These primary influence tactics are widely applicable to many situations, cultures, and TAs. By using the appropriate influence tactics in products and actions, the persuasiveness of PSYOP will be magnified. The following are examples of primary influence tactics:

• Rewards and punishments: “If you do X, you will get Y,” or “if you do not do X, Y will happen to you.”
• Expertise: “Speaking as an authority on the subject, I can tell you that rewards/punishments will occur if you do or do not do X.”
• Gifts: Giving something as a gift before requesting compliance. The idea is that the target will feel the need to reciprocate later.
• Debt: Calling in past favors. We need your help in stopping these groups by reporting any information you and your people may discover.”
• Aversive stimulation: Continuous punishment, and the cessation of punishment, is contingent on compliance.
• Moral appeal: Entails finding moral common ground, and then using the moral commitments of a person to obtain compliance.
• Positive and negative self-feeling: “You will feel better/bad if you do X.”
• Positive and negative altercasting: “Good people do X / Bad people do Y.”
• Positive and negative esteem of others: “Other people will think highly/less of you if you do X.”
• Fear: “Bad things will happen to you if you do X.”

Leave a Reply