TO ZOOM PAGE: Hold Ctrl and press+/- or use Mouse wheel

YOU CAN COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY by clicking "Comments" under each post, and then, chose "anonimac" (anonymous). Write your comment, chose a nickname (Vaš nadimak), and send the comment (POŠALJI)

Who was Captain Nemo?
Scroll down the post.

Beautiful Melodious Music

Topic about substances that could inhibit the Coronavirus infection

Sunburns: how to treat and prevent

Istria is the world's best region for extra virgin olive oils six years in a row (Well it had to be said ;-))


Captain's Blog

16.03.2021., utorak

From the Stormfront Topic "Major Problems"

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

One issue that I noticed is that beyond the question of legitimacy that I emphasized before, there is a psychological obstacle that poses serious problem.

The thing is that one can use excellent rational arguments, unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of what I call legitimate racism (or racialism, like some people on this forum seem to call it), unbeatable arguments for the legitimacy of the preservation and preferential care for one's own White race, but there are people out there who simply can't be touched by such arguments.

Why? because they have purely irrational psychological reasons to prefer to care for other races.
They feel noble, they feel that they are breaking some evil obstacle to universal goodness and humanity. Even when they see some Black who is obviously an individual of the worst category, they don't see that, they see some image in their head about poor good Blacks, always persecuted, always misunderstood etc, etc...
Such people feel that they are good if they feel that way, and if you want to take that from them, they will perceive you as their worst personal enemy, because you are trying to take from them the patterns that they use to feel self-worthy, the basis of their self-worth.

So, for those people, very subtle psychological strategies are needed.
One must deconstruct for them, how their feelings function, the semantic and emotional frames involved in the hierarchy of meanings that leads to the self-worth feeling must be made clear for them.
Then, one must reconstruct, showing how their particular pattern is misguided, how their self-worth is not dependent of the patterns of meanings that they used, but that, on the contrary, there are better ways to self-worth, involving the meaning that to care about the world you must first care for your own, that self-destruction and racial suicide are in fact the wrong way, etc, etc...

Another post in the same topic:

One must understand that if someone has linked certain beliefs to his sense of self-worth or to any core values of that person, one can't change these beliefs by purely attacking them, because this is perceived as an attack on those core values and the self-worth of that person.

One must take the deeper layers linked to those beliefs. One must address the link between the belief and the core values.

It is not realistic to expect to change someone's mind by telling them that they are dirty pieces of race traitors, when in fact they feel that their beliefs are representative of core positive values.

The thing is that the beliefs you want to change are not the only layer involved. There is at least one other layer involved, perhaps more. Attacking the surface layer without addressing the deeper ones is a loss of time and effort, and could be in fact reinforcing those very beliefs you are trying to change.

The semantic relationship between layers must be uncovered first, then deconstructed and de-linked. Only then can you reconstruct another way using the very same core values that you de-linked from unwanted beliefs as a starting point.

People versed in such things don't even always do these steps sequentially. It is possible to design messages that cover the full semantic depth at once, and not even explicitly but implicitly, so that the message is reinforced by the subjects own reflections and efforts to fill the gaps.
Different reinforcing messages from various angles are also a good tactic.

But This sounds more complicated than it really is. This is just fancy vocabulary for the need to understand why people chose to believe what they believe, what are their real reasons, they are sometimes even unaware of themselves.
Sometimes, clarifying those motivations to them can do half the work. Clarifying how they were manipulated to link their values to certain beliefs can help too.

Core values are important.
If one person wants to be "good" (or any value) and has linked this value of goodness to certain beliefs, you can't just attack those beliefs, you must make that person realize that what he or she believes does not determine his or her goodness. You must send the message that you too share the same value of "goodness" and that it is this very same goodness that leads you to another vision of reality.
One must make clear that the core values are in no way threatened by the change of beliefs, but rather elevated to an even higher level of these values.

Yes I know how it must sound to some of you... When the war erupted in my country a little more than a decade ago, I mail ordered all kinds of military manuals, some from the United States.
Having no clue about military affairs at the time, I was baffled by the zillions of things that I was supposed to remember. Things like checking for booby traps ALL the time etc. seemed like just too much for me. This wasn't the simplistic war seen on the movies where the hero kills a hundred men with thirty rounds of ammo and without checking once if he was under fire...
But, when your life depends on it, you learn some things quick.

Fortunately, I don't think that there is a necessity to address these semantic beliefs and values issues on an individual base. I think that there are mass frames out there with very similar standard structures of belief-values links, and very similar semantic paths that lead to certain beliefs.
I believe that we can find standard layers of meaning connected in similar ways. A strategy must be designed having these collective frames in mind.

I would even potentially propose to those who are interested in the design of such semantic strategies to engage in discussions with the members or people under the influence of organizations that promote multiethnicism and multiculturalism. Not to try to convince them, but to figure out how their minds work.

It is important to distinguish the enemy from those who are simply manipulated. The minds of these manipulated ones are the ones that interest us. It would be unrealistic to expect to convince the enemy, even if sometimes...

Of course, I am not saying that the aspects I am talking about here cover it all, not by a long shot.
There are people who have strong beliefs, strongly connected to values that are important to them.
Other people live in an more loosely connected personal universe. But even in those people certain belief-values connection exist as a "background music". For addressing the issue of legitimacy, that I was talking about before, this "background sound" must be taken into account and can in fact be a leverage more than a hindrance if people are made comfortable that a new orientation is not disrupting their sense of values and sense of relationship with the world.
Of course, on the other hand, at a certain level, this is exactly what you want, but the trick is to make those inner revolutions compatible with the vision people have of themselves in relation to the world. :D

Besides values, there are also questions of interests etc.

One last thing.
I emphasized the link of beliefs and values, but even if there is a direct hierarchic path between them, there are other semantic paths that either reinforce that link or inhibit the change of that link. Those frames can be of a totally different nature than the main path.

For example, the main path can be a sense of value and goodness if one is loving all races equally, if "we are all the same" etc.
A parallel path could be of a totally different nature. It could be fear for example. People would be afraid to change their beliefs because they are afraid of conflicts, they feel that it would lead to conflict, racial conflict etc.
These reinforcing or inhibiting paths must be addressed too by convincing them for example that change doesn't lead to chaos but to more security (the value in question in the example).
I must add here, and it will not please some people, that a "Nazi" projection is not exactly what is needed (and an advice in general: forget Nazism and the Nazis).

What I am saying is that there are main hierarchies of meaning linking certain beliefs and values, but there are parallel secondary ones that either reinforce these links or block other links from other angles.

Link to the Same Topic on Stormfront

- 20:45 - Comments (0) - Print - #

<< Arhiva >>

  ožujak, 2021 >
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31