A friend in the academy: “The approach of giving straightforward arguments/evidence isn’t working. We just get steamrolled by emotional propaganda. I think it’s important for race realists to be focused on results–what is actually going to lead to positive change. Rational arguments have the potential to influence people (if not directly then indirectly), but we’re not presenting them in the right way. Or we’re making some kind of strategic error.”
When I think of examples of race realists winning debates, they seem to depend on ‘facts and logic.’ Big case would be kraut&tea vs JF and Alt-Hype. When I think of more successful race realists in terms of staying in the debate they seem to depend on ‘facts and logic’ approaches, William Shockley, JP Rushton, Charles Murray. Those who use emotional approaches seem to get crushed like pathetic bugs. Your Spencers, your Enochs. People LOVE technobabble explanations for things. That’s why KMac is popular for instance. His idea is complete nonsense but sounds technical. So people think ‘whoa, deep’.’Ozone hole’ rhetoric gets regulation. ‘Silent spring’ rhetoric gets legislation passed. ‘Global warming’. These are all very technical ideas, not something broad and emotional like the sierra clubs environmentalism. ‘Peak oil’. I don’t see a lot of race realists running around giving straightforward arguments and evidence, and those that do seem to be moderately successful – those I mentioned before, Cochran, Emil Kirkegaard – they aren’t doing anywhere close to as terribly as the alt-right. The race realists who give good arguments don’t tend to be political zealots, not coincidentally. Political zealots make terrible scientists. I think political fervor needs to be combined with race realism in a healthy way, which means race realism can’t and shouldn’t be the main focus. The HBD umbrella should be the focus – individuals are different, genders are different, races are different, classes are different, age groups are different, every individual and group is meaningfully different – so politics that depends on a blank slate can’t work. I think this lends itself fundamentally to conservative and libertarian ideology – assume people are where they are for good reason.
Friend: “I’m not sure I agree with this. Shockely and Rushton were/are written off by the mainstream as Nazi cranks. Charles Murray has been successful in a sense, but only because he is very wishy washy about race realism. In TBC there’s only a vague statement about how genes probably make a contribution to black-white IQ differences, and when it matters Murray often denies even this. (There’s the notorious incident on the Stephen Colbert show where Colbert asked Murray if he said that genes play a role in IQ differences and Murray responded, “I never said that.”) Murray would never make a serious effort to think through the *political* implications of race differences, or at least he wouldn’t comment on this publicly. Emil Kirkegaard is so toxic in mainstream academia that even being associated with him can sink your career.”
Jones Very: “Why won’t the racial underclasses recognize their low station? — are we, the privileged & enlightened Sino-Jewish overcaste selling it wrong?”
“How can we explain to the masses that the status quo is actually good and that the Jewish-Asian global elite class that rules over them is necessary and just in a way that they’ll agree and submit to a yoke of slavery?”
Friend: “Watching now. I agree with KMG that deplatforming conservatives might might hurt Trump’s reelection. I’m not sure this matters in the long run, since Trump’s actual policies (e.g., de facto open borders) are difficult to distinguish from the democrats’. I still don’t think it will do much to suppress the ideas/ideologies the censors are targeting. There are different ideas about what it means for deplatforming to “work” or not.”