Saturday, September 17, 2011

Declining to Play the Game

Rhino scrimmage, by Louis Wain

The following essay is based on a series of group emails and skype discussions which took place over the past few weeks.

This synthesis attempts to draw attention to the meta-rules governing all discussions that take place within what we call the “mainstream” culture, especially the media. If we are to reverse the ongoing destruction of Western society, we must devise a new set of sane, healthy meta-rules for conversations about Islam, immigration, and Multiculturalism.



Main Premises:

1. Media coverage of the Counterjihad is stacked against us.
2. This overwhelming disadvantage can’t be significantly improved.

The organs of the Socialist Left have a stranglehold on all discourse about Islam, immigration, Multiculturalism, etc. This stranglehold is maintained through the iron grip of the Left on education, NGOs, large corporations, the media, and the permanent bureaucracy.

Each new generations is even more brainwashed than the previous one, guaranteeing that the demonization and marginalization of people like us will only intensify. We cannot improve our standing to any useful extent in the media without conceding the Left’s major arguments about immigration, Multiculturalism, and “racism”.

The New Mainstream

During the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Norway, one of our people expressed his despair over the situation. He said, “Now we’ve lost any chance of even partially winning over the mainstream.”

My response was, “Forget the mainstream. We never had a chance anyway. We will create our own mainstream.”

This may sound grandiose, but when “we” are thousands of people who follow the same program independently, we create a new common discourse that abandons any elements of the current mainstream. When enough people adhere to such a strategy, the “mainstream” becomes irrelevant, and eventually withers away.

In order to build a coherent set of values that reflects what the vast majority of Westerners support — the new mainstream, in other words — we must refuse to accept the basic premises that inform what now passes for “mainstream” thought. We do not accept the validity of those premises, so we must decline to enter any discourse based on them.

The Game is Rigged

The media game is rigged against people who believe what we believe.

The rules of the game state that it can only be won by someone who accepts the “mainstream” premises about immigration and Multiculturalism. Players are “racists” if they do not accept those premises.

Examples of the ground rules of the game which all players must accept if they expect to win:

1. Immigration is a good thing; it enriches our culture.
2. Our society has a history of racism and intolerance for which we must atone by becoming more open and inclusive to foreign cultures.
3. To oppose the importation of foreigners from widely different (and often antagonistic) cultures is to be guilty of racism.
4. No culture is inherently preferable over any other culture. They are just different. In fact, if anything our own culture is somewhat lacking. Therefore, by importing foreign cultures, we improve our own.

We cannot win this game.

According to the rules of the game, the only way to win is to acknowledge the truth of the above premises. If we do that, we have joined forces with our enemies. If we don’t, we lose the game.

There are two teams in the game, the “Islamophobes” and the “Multicults”. In effect, the only way for the Islamophobes to win the game is to defect to the other team and join the Multicults.

That’s not much of a “victory” in my book.

Forget About Partial Victory

Without realizing it, up until now we have been attempting to gain a partial victory in this absurd game.

By denying that we are “racists” (“We have a lot of Jews in our organization!”), repudiating “racist” groups (“We have nothing to do with the BNP or the KKK!”), and agreeing that we love foreign cultures, we hope to gain at least a few yards against our opponents.

However, these tactics only concede the field to the other team. We pull further and further back, and the inevitable result is an “own goal” against ourselves.

According to the terms of the mainstream, if we do not concede the inherent value of mass immigration, we are morally deficient racists and xenophobes. We cannot change this perception without conceding the game to the opposing team.

A partial victory is a chimera. It is simply not possible: the rules prohibit it.

The Alternative: Decline to Play the Game

Once we realize that we cannot possibly win the mainstream game and still remain Counterjihad activists, the only prudent course of action is to refuse to play the game.

Don’t accept the rules.

Don’t recognize the authority of the referee.

Don’t call the toss.

Don’t even go onto the field.

It’s very difficult to avoid being sucked into the game, because we’ve been playing it for so long. Virtually everyone else is playing it, too. No one else recognizes how screwy the rules are. Very few people realize that the game is rigged so that only the Multicults can win.

We need to reinforce our inner determination by reminding ourselves over and over again that the rules forced upon us for the past forty years are irrational, insane, and evil. They permit only one outcome: the destruction of our traditional Western culture.

Avoiding Intramural Versions of the Game

It’s crucial not to allow the rules of the mainstream game to enter our internal discourse. No one should fling the “racist” term at other members of the Counterjihad. Nobody that shares our goals should be described as a “neo-Nazi” or a “fascist”.

Such behavior is a sign that the game has been internalized by our own people. It displays an unconscious acceptance of the mainstream premises.

Declining to Play the Media Game

When dealing with the media, it’s important to refuse the interviewer’s implied rules of discourse. This is tough to manage, because the grooves of the old behaviors have been worn so deep over the decades. If we don’t engage the interviewer on his own terms and attempt to convince him that we’re not “racists”, we feel morally inferior.

Just remember: You can’t prove you’re not a racist unless you surrender your most important principles.

It’s disheartening to realize that there’s no point in going through the whole I’m-not-a-racist charade. It’s discouraging to discover that victory is absolutely impossible using the terms dictated by the mainstream.

So refuse to accept the terms dictated by the mainstream. Be steadfast, and repeat the same response over and over again, like a broken record:

“I don’t acknowledge the validity of the premises of any arguments based on ‘racism’

“If the premises of an arguments are false, the conclusions are meaningless.

“Therefore I will not discuss any issue using terms like ‘race’ and ‘racism’.

“That’s all I have to say on this topic.”

The same statements can be used for alternative terms, such as “xenophobia”, “Islamophobia”, etc. From the media’s point of view, they’re all interchangeable.

Interviewers will keep throwing the same old loaded questions at you, but if you stick to statements like these, after a while they’ll realize that it’s no use to continue. If they want any interesting footage for their program, they’ll have to discuss the issues on your terms. They’ll have to engage you on the importance of preserving the traditional customs and values of your own culture, and hear you describe how destructive immigration and Multiculturalism are to the fabric of Western society.

If they don’t, the interview will be short and pointless. But you will have avoided compromising your own principles.

Conclusions

Forging a new mainstream is a long, difficult, thankless process. It will take at least a generation to undo the indoctrination and propaganda that have spread throughout every institution in our society. Young people will have to be exposed to new games that have different rules, games that are more interesting and fulfilling to play.

We begin by declining to engage the mainstream on its own terms. There is no other way to accomplish our purposes, because playing the mainstream way is a mug’s game. We can’t help but lose it.

Islam is not the problem. The problem lies in the rules forced on us through more than a half-century of Leftist dominance. Islam would never have made such devastating inroads into our culture if the vast majority of Westerners had not unwittingly accepted those rules.

Decline the rules.

Refuse to play the game.

21 comments:

Nilk said...

I guess when a reporter asks or comments on your supposed 'racism' you can always respond with a comment to the effect that you're glad they've stopped cheating on their other half.

It's just a variation on the old, 'when did you stop beating your wife' theme anyway.

Dymphna said...

The Game is most obviously played between the jornolists and politicians.Thus, when Rick Perry, a candidate for the Republican presidential primary called Social Security "a ponzi scheme" - something that many sensible people have been saying for years, there was much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by his opponents. The silliest, most blatantly hypocritical stance so far. Here's some discussion:

Wedge Issue with Young Voters?

This current round of political football amongst the Republicans veers between tediously trivial and beastly boring. If this is the best we can do, and Obama is the best the Dems have to offer, God help us all.

Think of it: those engaged on the field think they're playing a very important game. But the majority of Americans are doing other things, like having a life. When they bother to look up, they notice that for all the heavy breathing and adoration directed at Obama by the prostituted press, Obie's #s continue to plummet.

A reader sent an email showing a pleading Obama telling some audience, "if you love me, make them pass my jobs bill".

Pass the spoon, somebody.

I agree with Nilk: treat the interviewer like they're bonkers and barely deserving of your time, much less your respect. Up the ante -- it works for Obie.

laine said...

Thank you for this game plan of not playing by leftist rules which boils down to throwing off the manacles of political correctness as well as exposing the Left's hypocrisy, the double standards favoring themselves. The caution to conservatives about not internalizing any part of the leftist set up is also in order since our brains are bathed in their miasma unless we live like hermits. For example, instead of labeling the two teams "multicults vs/Islamophobes", we should avoid using the leftist/Muslim generated term Islamophobe by substituting "Islamorealist". This changes the term for conservatives from one with irrational fears (a negative) to one who is knowledgeable (a positive). Also fight fire with fire. Let's get across the abysmal ignorance of liberal multicultists defending Muslim culture by calling them "Islamonaifs". It's perhaps too kind a term for people who don't do their homework and sling mud at those who do, but it has a nice patronizing whiff that conveys how pointless it is to argue with people who bring no knowledge to the field, just moral posturing and emoting. Verbally pat them on the head like a PhD to a six year old and tell them to read a book or ten or twenty on Islam (recommend some good ones), then come back to play.

doxRaven said...

Exactly right - refuse to play the game.

"Islamphobe" is a made up charge like the medieval charge of being a "witch". Its a way to eliminate your opposition.

Also, hyper-immigration is often justified on a moral basis but would a the world be in any less of a mess if we had had a 10th of the immigration the last thirty to forty years? I would argue just the opposite. The "moral" argument is not that at all but propaganda for a political end.

Refuse playing the game of guilt tripping.

Gregory said...

Dang good article. I will keep this in my 'documents' file for future reference...Thank G_D for the internet. And you.

lallatin said...

Good points til the third-to-last paragraph. Islam IS the problem, the core of all non-resolvable dimensions of the issues cataloged. Atop all the reasons why differences won't be solved, Islam is the reason they CAN'T be solved.

chrisse said...

With the racist tag, I just reply along the lines of, well, okay, it must be racist to criticise communism then because according to you communists are a race. Any group/s work - National Socialism, Facsism, Christianity. I call it intellectual ridicule, ie I'm making a serious tongue-in-cheek argument that displays the absolute ridiculousness (is that a word?) of their racism name calling.

wheatington said...

I ask opponents to read the Koran. I quote from the Koran.

I have sent a link to online Korans to every Member of the Canadian Parliament and to local, regional, and national newspapers. I ask the recipients to educate themselves.

I contact reporters who have written stories about so-called good Muslims to tell them what a devout Muslim believes.

I do not do business with Muslims, nor with companies, like Ikea and Campbell's Soup, who cater to Muslims.

I feel that, in my area, I am one man against a tide of apathy.

I thank you for your heartening blog.

Jolie Rouge said...

The mistake here is the contention that the left is the exclusive driver of the multikulti project and the only grouping with a vested interest in its completion. Whilst the left were its chief architects they are by no means the most enthusiastic engineers, the accolade of enthusiastic multikulti engineers can equally be applied to the right - the multikulti paradox a conservative globalisation jihad.

Ben David said...

We encountered this in Israel during the "Peace" process. Three points from the media battlefield:

1) Surrender all hopes of winning while being "Nice". The urge to be nice is used to control - exactly as you say, "being nice" is predefined to lead the discussion in one direction. There is a very fine line between being polite to the media and trying to win them over. This leads to...

2) Your real audience is NOT in the studio. It's the silent majority that knows something's wrong, but can't articulate it.

Don't bother trying to win the journalists over - get your message across to the larger audience.

One point is to NOT waste time attacking the PC framework - again, this can reinforce the authority of the PC establishment.

3) Take back the language. Do NOT use the language created by your enemies to slant the conversation.

Some examples from our experience in Israel:

"Peace partners" vs. "Terrorist Organizations"

"Territorial Concessions" vs. "Surrender of lands"

"Withdrawal from Gaza" vs. "Expulsion of Jews from Gaza"

etc.

.... the more experienced spokesperson can actually do a great job by confounding/angering the journalist - this is best in live broadcast. The PC worldview is so full of contradictions that it is easy to let them "hang themselves" with ridiculous statements.

This often grows out of the use of honest language. The PC journalist/debater tries to impose their false terminology, and you can simply call attention to reality.

We did this very effectively when left-leaning journalists in Israel started calling victims of terror attacks "sacrifices for peace."

We simply repeated plain words like "violence" and "terror" and asked them what THEIR definition of these words meant...

General P. Malaise said...

this essay describes the failure of FOX news. in their attempt to be balanced the give the leftist/progs the stage.

Sagunto said...

JR -

I agree wholeheartedly with your observations. To cover both the left and right of one and the same political ball game (welfare state interventionism and social engineering), I prefer to use "progressivists" (In the US, this refers back to the so-called Progressive Party, forerunners of today's neo-cons). Right-wing progressivists (neo-cons) are only marginally, or rather, insignificantly, better on economic matters, but almost as bad when it comes to sloganeering about "diversity" and all.

One detail about "islamophobes" that I posted recently in another thread. While this buzzword is still around, I think it might be worth our while to expose the actual islamophobes, i.e. the beforementioned progressivists themselves. Forget about Muslim islamophobes afraid of leaving Islam and let's focus on Western appeasers.

I submit that the "Islamophobia" meme can easily be turned against the progressivist demagogues themselves.

They are in fact the real and true Islamophobes - so the "compliment" should be squarely returned to sender. Their biggest secret fear: that Islam spells a multitude of unmanageable problems for our welfare states. And nanny statist managers don't like that: a complete system of society and day to day behaviour, hostile to our way of life, that defies their "problem solving skills".
They are Islamophobiacs in the very real sense that their anxiety for this exotic and violent ideology stems from the fact that they don't have the discourse (and plans) ready to cope with Islam. They redirect their fear towards us, the disturbers of their multicult fantasies.
So therefore, whenever there's serious trouble and Islam might be involved, all effort is made to connect the problem with well-known progressivist themes: poverty, Western dominance, lack of democracy, social exclusion, racism, martians, blue jeans and Britney Spears or whatever.. Anything but Islam as a causative factor, however far-fetched.

So Islamophobia exists all right, but it almost exclusively troubles the anxious mind of the planners and progressivist "managers" of our Western societies and their MSM parrots. We, the people, are getting fed up, both with Islam and the state sponsored planners making excuses for this anti-human ideology.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Muninn said...

Unfortunately, we are vulnerable to the "racist" accusation because in Islam (unlike communism, national socialism, and Christianity), white-European adherents are not a large part of the religion, and those that are are perceived as "other" anyway. That's the only criteria that needs to be met for the "racist" insult to be used. There is no use in saying "Islam is not a race" as a defense. If we've done that we've already lost because it acknowledges that the racism attack is valid. Saying that we are against "Islam" and not "Muslims" is also ridicules because one implies the other. No one is fighting the philosophy of Aztec Paganism because there is no one around to fight with. "Moderate" Muslims are substantially more dangerous than extremists because they grant legitimacy to an inherently dangerous philosophy.

Defining ourselves as against Islam is a bizarre strategy. In order to win hearts and minds we need something to fight for, in our case this means traditional Western culture, of which Islam is NOT a part (except perhaps in Iberia, and even then it's shaky).

We must accept that we fighting for our survival as a civilization. We must accept we are dissidents and revolutionaries. The current Multicultural paradigm is fatally flawed, we are all aware of it, and we cannot afford to waste our time seeking its approval. The alternative we must offer is not modern liberalism (which will always be vulnerable cultural relativism), but instead to our shared Western heritage. We must fight Islam on the premise that it is not a part of our culture and never has been. We must fight immigration on the premise that we have a right (just like every other ethno-cultural group) to maintain our traditional culture on our traditional lands (this works especially well in Europe). This does NOT mean we shouldn't have solidarity with places like India, who arguably suffer more than us from the religion of peace doing what it does best.

At the heart of every "counter-jihad" sentiment is the belief that we have a right to keep and maintain our culture and lands without having foreign influence forced on us. This same basic sentiment is shared by many people who don't necessarily consider themselves counter-jihad.

Muninn said...

Extrapolated from anonymous polls and internet comments on MSM news articles: There is a substantial desire in almost all Western countries to remain Western, and extreme anxiety about immigration and cultural change but the current paradigm deems such feelings as inherently wrong or evil, thus a person who feels that way will repress those feelings or deny them as racist impulses of a less civilized age. In my experience, many people are caught in this conundrum. We need to stand up and say these feelings and worries are valid and no one is going to tell us otherwise.

I am reminded a Joel Stein article in Time we he expressed such feelings about his home town of Edison, NJ when confronted with its transformation by Indian Immigration. He begins the article by saying he is very much in favor of Immigration and his conclusion is that understanding such feelings is the key to fighting them.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1999416,00.html

This is what we are up against. We are fighting a political-media-corporate machine that seeks to demonize our basic instinct remain ourselves as a people in order to get votes, readers and profit. I never thought it was much of a question that it is our emotional and passion that fuels our fight to save our culture, yet we have refused to recognize this as a strength, and instead play the "crimethink" game with the left and the media.

Immigration at such levels that it changes the character of a country is wrong. Forcing foreign cultures on natives is also wrong. This has to be our siren call. We have to convince people to act on the feelings that very many have, but very few would admit. Instead of playing cat and mouse with the left, we should rise up and affirm our right to exist as a people, nation and civilization.

Jolie Rouge said...

@Sagunto,

Posted a reply to your "islamophobes" point at - Are You a Roundist?


Excerpt - The points I was trying to make is that muscular liberals/progressives by their own ideology have insulated themselves from the "Islamophobia" label by ring-fencing any deviance that maybe beyond their "problem solving skills" and associated with islam as being culturally relative.

Nick said...

In light of premises 4 and 2:

The second world war comes to mind. The Brits and the Americans stood up to the Nazis.

Of course no morally sane person can say that there are no differences between cultures and they are all equally good, for that is to endorse Nazi-ism.

And the white races, the Brits and the Americans front and centre, who stood up to the Nazis and ground them into defeat, have no reason to feel guilt - none whatsoever.

So premises 4 and 2 are obviously FALSE.

If any multiculti wingnut wants to say they're true, then they're saying that they support what the Nazis were trying to do, and that it wasn't worth standing up to them - or rather, there was no reason to do so. Which is not only absurd, it is EVIL.

Egghead said...

Nick: "If any multiculti wingnut wants to say they're true, then they're saying that they support what the Nazis were trying to do, and that it wasn't worth standing up to them - or rather, there was no reason to do so. Which is not only absurd, it is EVIL."

Yes, your statement expresses the philosophy of both Muslims and their leftist enablers especially in liberal Europe. The Muslims did and do support Nazi goals - and leftists are hard at work to convince everyone that every life and every "lifestyle" is equally acceptable - be it homosexuality or polygamy or pedophilia. And, if you say that any "lifestyle" is unacceptable then, if you are lucky, you will be ostracized or censored; and, if you are unlucky, you will be put in prison for hate speech expressing crime thoughts.

Profitsbeard said...

Ask people who accuse you of being "racist" for "demonizing Muslims" if they want to live under a fundamentalist theocratic totalitarianism.

If not, then they oppose Islam's main aim: a global gulag run by self-righteous, universally incurious religious fanatics.

And by resisting this dark future, these people are Islamophobes themselves.

Works every time.

Martin Konvicka said...

A brief comment on terminology.

We cannot be >islamophobes<, because islamophobes are fearing islam. We are not fearing it - we are fighting it.

Short repetition:

Islamophobos - fear of islam - president Sarkozy, Robert Fisk, Angela Merkel, George W. Bush, etc.

Islamodulos - admiring islam - Tony Blair, princ Charles, mayor Bloomberg, president Obama, Naomi Wolffe, etc.

Islamoclastos - destroying it - Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Ibn Warraq, Nicolai Sennels, Baron, me, etc.

1389 said...

Hey, good post!

We push the envelope on our own blog further and further these days. We don't care what anybody thinks - mainly because our primary reporting beat within the Counterjihad includes defending the Serbian people. Anybody who defends the Serbs is automatically labeled a "racist." The irony of that is lost on everybody. But we don't care - we keep at it anyway.

embla said...

Forging a new mainstream is a long, difficult, thankless process. It will take at least a generation to undo the indoctrination and propaganda that have spread throughout every institution in our society.

Now I´m beginning to panic, one generation is to long, my contry, Sweden will be completely ruined in one generation.