First a question to think about: Why did I choose the title I did? There's more than one reason. By the end of this article you'll know.
What follows are a few of the most proven techniques of persuasion from experts in the field. These ideas are backed up by dozens of experiments in social psychology (for whatever that's worth).
An important idea I want you to keep in mind here is that we are only planting emotional seeds. That's it. Plant the seed in a persons mind, and it will water itself with confirmation bias. You don't need to plant an entire tree. You don't need brilliant arguments that consistently traverse from A to Z. You don't even need data and sources (though they help provide authority, and authority is a persuasive emotion). You just need to plant an emotional seed, and you will persuade.
Now let's jump right into some basic techniques.
This one is particularly important for the alt-right. Our ideas are considered taboo, and thus social proof often plays against us. People are afraid of standing out in a negative way, people are afraid of being different. For that reason the alt-right has initially attracted many contrarian types (many of whom are unpersuasive edgelords, but some are fairly persuasive autodidacts).
Social proof is social permission. People want permission to think and act in a certain way. And the permission to think and act in a certain way is the knowledge that others are thinking and acting in that way. To call us "herd animals," as Nietzsche does, is not far off the mark.
"Nobody takes the Left seriously today." This type of argument is founded on social proof. It's planting an emotional seed, that being on the Left is unpopular today. Whether it's literally true or not doesn't matter. It's a persuasive statement in itself.
So the method is simple. Tell the public that your ideas or product or organization are normal, common, even popular. Don't worry too much about the details, just tell people it is the case. Use high-profile and popular figures as social proof, if you can manage. If you really need a source, tell them that 24 million Americans think like the alt-right. It's just a big number, lots of people. The percentage or details are irrelevant, that's more useless logic. The point is they've been given permission by 24 million people to think this way. Your job is done.
Rather than saying "Read Culture of Critique," we say "People are reading Culture of Critique." This is solid social proof technique. The image that people are reading it entices others to read it. It also makes it socially acceptable to read it. You better read the book, if you don't want to be left out! Don't be that one guy out of the loop!
This is the single strongest persuasion method of the Left. They control the media, and so they control most of the emotional associations. Their main argument against us is not an argument at all. "NAZIS!" That isn't logic. That isn't reason. It's just an emotional association. White identity = racism = nazism = holocaust = evil. To make such leaps is clearly absurd. But that is what actually happens in peoples heads, whether they realize it or not. It is effective persuasion (until it becomes transparent and overused).
In the chain of associations I linked above, the left side of the equation has weaker emotional associations, and the right side has stronger emotional associations. For that reason it would be a mistake to focus your efforts on the right side. You aren't going to rehabilitate Nazism or the holocaust, and doing so will simply associate yourself with evil. You've got to be very careful what you associate yourself with, especially in your personal life.
Associate your brand, or self, or idea, or side, with positive associations. Associate the other side with negative associations. Remember: We are planting seeds here, not trees.
This is an argument I've used repeatedly. You should recognize it by now.
Q: "Why should I care about my race?" A: "Why should a mother care about her child?"
Q: "Why shouldn't we just take in all the smartest people around the world?" A: "Why shouldn't a mother trade in her child for a smarter child?"
I'm making an emotional association between love of family and love of people. It's not exactly the same thing of course, though they are both rooted in genetic similarity. But the important thing is the emotional association.
Recently someone posted an article trying to "refute" the idea of white genocide (another highly persuasive term). Take a look at how I took his argument, changed just a couple of words, and shifted the entire tone and feel of the paragraph:
Imagine there are five white people in a room. Two Africans, two Asians and two Latinos walk into the room. The whites are no longer a majority, but this doesn't mean they are the victims of genocide or that they will cease to exist. In fact, their position is unchanged, it's just that the non-white share grew faster.
Imagine there are 5 family members living in your home. Two Africans, two Asians, and two Latinos walk in and take up residence. Your family is no longer a majority in your home, but this doesn't mean you are victims of genocide or that you will cease to exist. In fact, your position is unchanged, it's just that you have 6 new strangers sharing your home.
The natural revulsion felt at this proposition is the association we are looking for with mass immigration.
Humans are visual creatures. We process visual data better than any other data. An image will always be more effective than a sentence. A meme says a thousand words. 4chan took off because it was an imageboard, not a wordboard. We were born on the back of memes.
Now not all of us were meant to be YouTubers and meme creators. I've personally focused on the written word, and Reddit is mostly text-based. But showing doesn't always have to be literal. Use your words to paint an image or picture in someone's mind. They will visualize it for themselves. That image will be more persuasive than abstract arguments or data.
The wall is a simple, visual idea. I can see it in my mind now. Trump always kept the wall vague, and that is good persuasive technique. It allows people to fill in whatever they want in their imagination.
The details didn't matter. The feasibility didn't matter. The cost didn't matter. What mattered is that people were captured by an image, whether they agreed with it or not. The fact that people argued over the details, the feasibility, the cost, means Trump had already won. He set the frame of the conversation, and people were talking about it. If his slogan had been "Secure Our Borders!" that would have been far less effective. It isn't visual, it's just a vague idea. It's just words.
Food for thought: When you use the word "ethnostate," do you see an image in your mind? Do you think others see an image in their mind? If you answered yes to both, are they the same image?
Like it or not, fear is the single strongest persuasive tool in existence. And whites have natural reason to fear the future. This is the primary reason we have grown as large as we have, and will continue to grow. We didn't even have to do much, really. The persuasive influence is already baked into the cake.
Not everyone is aware of what is happening to whites. It is our job to inform them. And simply informing them is all it takes. Studies have shown a rise in white identity with a rise in white anxiety about becoming a minority. So show them we will become a minority. And them remind them. Repetition is persuasive. Believe me.
Take a look at the bullet points in the sidebar. I put these at the top for a reason. Whenever I'm arguing with normies outside of this sub, this is my goto argument. I literally copy paste it.
Self-advocacy is necessary to ensure self-preservation. White peoples are being displaced and replaced through foreign mass migration, low birth rates, forced integration, and promoted miscegenation. In the period from 1950 to 2050, just 100 years time, the United States declined from a 90% white nation to a minority white nation. Europe is likewise predicted to become a majority Muslim continent at some point in the future.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Demographic trends are one of the strongest persuasive tools we have. They point directly to the displacement and destruction of white people and nations. That is legitimate reason to fear, and fear owns the mind.
There is an important caveat to make about the point above. Humans have difficulty dealing with fear and dread. They have an instinctive need to relieve their dread. And so if you simply pile on fear and dread, at some point they will shut down.
We've seen it a hundred times. Someone shifts from "whites aren't at threat" to "well there's nothing we can do so no point in caring." We call this becoming black-pilled.
Researchers have studied the effects of telling smokers about the harmful consequences of smoking. The dread of death rises in the participants, but then something strange happens. Rationalizations kick in. "My grandfather smoked a pack a day and lived to be 90."
Why does this happen? Because they don't have an outlet for their dread. They have to relieve it, and so they relieve it through denial.
So what is the solution to this dilemma? It's very simple. Just give them something constructive they can DO to relieve the dread. After informing people of the risks of smoking, giving them simple steps they can take to change gives them an outlet for their dread.
Apathy is a symptom of hopelessness. The solution to apathy is to offer solutions. It's not enough for us to tell everyone "the white race is dying." We MUST offer constructive actions they can take, or they will fall back into apathy again.
This is a point made strongly by Saul Alinsky in his classic Rules for Radicals. (People are reading Rules for Radicals.) He describes how the poor feel powerless to change anything, and so they don't act, and so nothing changes.
An individual is indeed powerless to change anything. But power exists in numbers. Alinsky would give an individual power and a means to take constructive action by linking him with others in a cooperative organization and offering useful suggestions for activism. The apathy is replaced with hope, and the organizing provides a sense of collective identity that will last for years to come. All it takes is a leader to make it happen.
So, to finally answer the question... why did I choose the title I did?
One reason is known to everyone who has studied basic human psychology. The mind follows the heart. What we call our "reasons" for believing something, are usually just rationalizations. We pick our side based on emotion, then find reasons to justify our picking that side. But the emotions are the king, and the rational mind is a peasant.
That answer was obvious. But there are more important, persuasive reasons for picking the title I did. For one thing, it's twisting a common phrase, "winning hearts and minds." That unique twist on a popular phrase catches you off guard, helps to grab the attention. In addition, saying I'm not interested in winning minds is provocative. Provocative grabs attention. You are more likely to click and read what I have to say.
Perhaps the most important reason: it is a subtle bait for the Left. I'm giving them an opportunity to play a "gotcha" on me. I'm sure you can imagine the post titles now. "The alt-right admits it doesn't care about facts and logic." But note by giving them an opportunity to try and embarrass me, I would be massively increasing exposure to the article, to the sub, and to my ideas. Trump was masterful during the campaign at baiting the predictable media into constantly focusing on him. "It's OK to be White" was another brilliant baiting campaign. The Left is boringly predictable, and we must continue to exploit that weakness.
Of course now that I've explained this trick, I'm less likely to get that attention. But in exchange I've helped illustrate some more simple persuasion techniques. As for the second half of the title... "effective persuasion techniques" indicate you could personally gain something from reading this article. We are attracted to value, it's human nature. Adding the five makes it a list, and people are suckers for lists.
Why did I ask you to think about the title at the beginning of the article? To keep you hooked on a mystery until the end.
I hope you have, indeed, gained something of value here. Thanks for reading.
Date of publication: September 25, 2018