I’ve heard Heather speak many times and she’s always struck me as articulate and impressive.
A friend says: “What Heartiste meant is that she is not enough of a demagogue when she speaks. In fact, for the right audience, she is a terrific speaker and advocate. Heartiste would rather that she be more polished and a better polemicist such as Ann Coulter. Unfortunately, a speaker or writer’s voice in some way has to reflect the speaker’s personality. I don’t know what Ann Coulter is like but her writing style, speaking style have been so developed that if her personality differed initially, its all merged now. MacDonald never wrote to shock, but to set forth in a cold clear bloodless brief style her strongest case. She speaks the same way which is not conducive to speaking in sound bites. Heartiste wants her to be something other than what she is. At her age (born in 1956) she isn’t going to change.”
Heather MacDonald now sports a wedding ring in her photograph at the City Journal.
From the Chateau: Heather Mac Donald was recently a guest on NPR to discuss (as the one token representative of the right to balance the four leftists) the myth of the black lives matter narrative. Her hatefacts were unassailable, and to her credit she did not shy from dropping the most explosive truth bombs on the NPRatchiks (you could practically hear them sucking in breath between their teeth). But, her speaking and debating style was halting, labored, and lacking inflection, leaving the listener with the obviously misleading perception that she lacked the smarts or gravitas to know what she was talking about.
This is something I’ve noticed with more than a few public Realtalkers; they express themselves much more cleanly and forcefully in writing than at roundtables full of sneering leftoids. If the Dissident Party is to get off the ground, it needs better impromptu public speakers — Trump is a great example — who can parry leftoids on their turf. Machiavellianism comes more naturally to leftoids, so taking them on will demand a certain facility with the crimson arts.
I think what holds back Dissident mastery of the public sphere is self-doubt. There still lingers a hesitation to embrace the ugly truth with both arms, hugging it till it becomes one with the soul. When the last shadow of doubt is expelled, the fire within can glow again, and only then will NPR echo chambers quake and crumble under the persuasive might of righteous alt-right rebellion.
Executive summary: Game matters, most of all when the truth needs selling to a catatonic public.
* I hear what you are saying and that’s why Nigel Farage is such a rock star. The guy can deliver in public.
* A combination of self-doubt and the understanding that expressing hate facts as if one should actually change public policy can get you Richwine’d or Watson’d or Summers’d or Derb’d. Much safer for one’s own hide to express hate facts as curious academic findings warranting further study. Only a truly NFG spokesman, like Trump, will deliver the message in a populist, convincing way. If one has anything of value to lose, the enemy is too strong at the moment. Hence the reason Le Heartiste is anonymous.
* Jean Marie Lepen has been at the front of right wing politics for more than 50 years in France (saddly getting a bit old and senile now).
The next generation looks pretty hot: Marion Maréchal Lepen . She is a bit softer/more pc than her grand-father.
* The Right has trouble in debates because they’re required to think before they speak, which eliminates the cool, suave wittiness of friendly conversation. The Left doesn’t need to think; they merely recite the same things “everybody” else is saying, with enough individualized spin, charisma, attitude, or what-have-you to make their words sound better. They aren’t challenging each other, nor are they learning anything of value by listening to each other. They don’t think.
That’s what makes a debate between the Right and the Left so difficult. The Right has to think their way through the conversation (like Men), while the Left thoughtlessly vomits up whatever nonsense they’ve heard that made them feel good about themselves (like women).
Game is brilliant in these matters. Don’t bother debating. Hold frame. Tease them. Call them out on their nonsense and make them feel bad, then give them a conversational pathway to feel good. They’ll take it. They have to. They don’t have the mental ability to think for themselves, and they have no idea what you’re doing or how game works or why they like you so much even though they hate you.
Don’t worry about the issues. That argument was previously lost, and it can’t be gained back in a culture that openly despises logic. So work their feelings. It’s their weak point, as they’ve purposely built up their own personal feelings as more important that truth, reality, or general Goodness. You can’t win with the issues. You can only win by teasing them until they feel too silly to speak.
* ben shapiro i think handles situations pretty well (like that monster tranny death grip) but it seems like probably because he’s autistically unaware of other people’s emotions more than anything else.
ideally mark steyn would go full red pill and tear them a new one laughing all the way. he doesn’t back down
* Ben Shapiro is a great at verbal war but he pulls the same magic act on nice conservative folk that has been done to them for 60 years: Align on a few issues, but eskimoisrael is the absolute #1 no compromise.
I wanted to like him, I really wanted to like him after his gun debate with sniveling Piers Morgan, but he is very staunchly pro-eskimo in a way that is really irritating. If you want to find his few golden quips, you have to sift through mountains of him calling people anti-semitic.
* Yes, and with such folks, you will ALWAYS be betrayed. Those unaware of this are surprised when suddenly the Zionists and their loyals suddenly turn against the best and brightest on the Right, denouncing them as “extremists”. The average member doesn’t understand and says “Why can’t we all just get along?”
“Because he said this and this!” shout the Zios. “So he’s an extremist! He makes us all look bad!”
The ordinary member will go along with them for the sake of peace. Only a few people will be expelled, but then there will be peace. And those people get so angry during this process (surprise, surprise), so maybe the Zios were right, they really do cause trouble.
And then one of those expelled says something REALLY forbidden about the Zios, because he just doesn’t care to keep silent anymore. Now, we can’t have that. The ordinary member is relieved that he now has a good reason for supporting the expulsion.
And so it begins. This happens over and over again in nationalist parties, which are infiltrated by the usual suspects – but only when the hard, initial work has been done for many years, so that the party could get off the ground.
It will happen in the alt-Right too. People are holding up the Breitbart website as alt-Right now. That website is a very late member, set up by the Jew Breitbart only after people sacrificed careers and relationships to spread the truth for many years. Now you have a Jew like the homosexual Milo Yiannopolous there, saying some easy anti-mainstream lines – then denouncing “White supremacists”.
The same guy also declares that he would never sleep with a White man, only Black men. They love saying disgusting things as a by-the-way in a discussion about something else, knowing people will keep silent for the sake of unity. And he claims that homosexuals are “natural allies” to the alt-Right because they are “anti-mainstream”, the media being mainstream. False and absurd, but people keep silent in the comment section so as to not rock the boat. Giving loyalty to those who show no loyalty. You have to recognize the infiltrators’ modus operandi.
* The most important thing on the alt-right is that we stick with our own kind.
Don’t trust a yid or black on anything.
It’s like these cucks who want to get behind Ben Carson because he throws you a few bones.
Have you learned nothing?
* It’s what I am saying about writing fiction vs practical non-fiction. The former is like masturbating. You can make shit up as you go along. The latter requires real effort to get it right in a way that captivates readers. Leftists write fiction.
* It doesn’t help that most right-wing women, especially “reasonable” ones like Heather MacDonald, are natural appeasers and temporizers, as opposed to the deranged harpies of the left. It take a woman who is a fanatic, and two-thirds nuts herself, like Ann Coulter, to really go for the throat and stuff these people. As Eric Hoffer once said, “If you have a cause that needs fighting for, you had better get yourself some fanatics, because you won’t win without them.” Hence the enduring failure of the Cuck Right…
* “I think what holds back Dissident mastery of the public sphere is self-doubt. There still lingers a hesitation to embrace the ugly truth with both arms, hugging it till it becomes one with the soul. When the last shadow of doubt is expelled, the fire within can glow again.”
I heard this from a man in a nationalist party who was going to debate a local politician for the first time, in front of a high school audience I believe it was. It was the first time he would be in a debate and he was nervous, and he prepared thoroughly as the other guy was a Real Politician.
“But when it started I realized, he didn’t have anything! He only had the usual platitudes that they throw at each other. That you either need more welfare or lower taxes for immigrants. When I brought up all the statistics that we talk about he didn’t have anything to say. His hands even shivered and he looked down and got all red in the face.”
If there had been screaming leftist cohorts in the audience, that would surely have strengthened the mainstream politician, or if there had been a moderator who had propped him up as they usually do. But lacking moderator or audience support he had nothing. Anti-Whites can never win an unrigged debate with pro-Whites. And this was a revelation for my friend, who toughened up in future debates and interviews.
He also learned that you can never try to reason with reporters, or with those politicians who know the score and who willingly serve the media owners. (As opposed to the aforementioned politician who was simply a bureaucrat who believed his party.) If you meet those, you have to know it’s not a debate as such. They simply set out to deliver lies and half-truths meant to fool the people. You don’t “debate” them, you steamroll them before they steamroll you. You show clearly that you know they are the enemy.
Tekki. Have you seen the scene in Shogun where Blackthorne meets Lord Toranaga for the first time, and the interpreter is a monk from Portugal, a country at war with Britain? He doesn’t try to placate the monk – he doesn’t try that in the whole series. He points to the monk and says “tekki,” the Japanese word for enemy, so that Toranaga will know their interaction won’t be as advertised.
That is what Trump does with the media. He points to them and loudly says “tekki,” to tell people that the media won’t relay information about him in an honest manner. This is also a big difference between alt-Right and cuckservative Right.
* I think Dissident Rightists need to be a bit less pedantic in their style of speaking (as opposed to writing). These days it’s the soundbite and the emotive word-picture that will convert people – remember, you’re seeking to convert, not to reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with you. Enoch Powell’s “Tiber foaming with much blood” speech was a great piece of oratory, but today at least, it would work better if the warning were expressed more demotically.