"While racial slurs are allowed/recommended, not every reference to non-white should be a slur and their use should be based on the tone of the article. Generatlly, when using racial slurs, it should come across as half-joking - like a racist joke that everyone laughs at because its true. This follows the generally light tone of the site. It should not come across as genuine raging vitriol. That is a turnoff to the overwhelming majority of people.
'Nigger' is ok to use sometimes, but shouldn't be used constantly. The following racial slurs are allowed and advisable: negro/negroid, monkey, ape, spic, wetback, beaner, beanperson, kike, yid, sheeny, christ-killer, haji, sandperson, paki (can be used for non-pakistani moslems, especially Arabs, because that's funny) Muzzie, Chink
Women can be called the following: Slut, Whore, Bitch, Harlot, Trollop, Slag, Skag. Whenever writing about women make sure to follow the prime directive and blame Jew feminism for their behavior.
This has worked out very well so far, and the site continues to grow month by month, indicating that there is no ceiling on this. As such, though we do mean to keep readers who alreayd in the know informed and entertained, it should alwyas be considered that the target audience is people who are just becoming aware of this type of thinking.
The goal is to continually repeat the same points, over and over and over and over again. The reader is at first drawn in by curiousity or the naughty humor, and is slowly awakened to the reality by repeadly reading the same points. We are able to keep these points fresh by applying them to current events.
The basic propogaganda doctine of the site is based on Hitler's doctrine of war propoaganda outlined in Main Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter V!. If you have not this, please do so immediaitely.
Prime Directive: Always Blame the Jews for Everything
As Hitler says, people will become confused and disheartened if they feel there are multiple enemies. As such, all enemies should be combined into one enemy, which is the Jews. This is pretty much objectively true anyway, but we want to leave out any and all nuance.
So no blaming Enlightenment thought, pathological altruism, technology/urbanization, etc - just blame Jews for everything.
This includes blaming Jews for the behavior of other nonwhites. Of course it should not be that they are innocent, but the message should always be that if we didn't have the Jews, we could figure out how to deal with nonwhites very easily.
The same deal with women. Women should be attacked, but there should always be mention that if it wasn't for the Jews, they would be acting normally.
What should be completely avoided is the sometimes mentioned idea that "even if we got rid of the Jews we would still have all these other problems." The Jews should always be the begining and the end of every problem, from poverty to poor famiy dynamics to war ito the destruction of the rainforest.
The tonbe of the site should be light. Most people are not comfortable with material that comes across as vitriolic, raging, non-ironic hatred.
The unindoctinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not. There should also be a conscious awareness of mocking stereotypes of hateful racists. I usually think of this as self-deprecating humor - I am a racist making fun of stereotype of racists, because I don't take myself super-seriously.
This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that's neither here not there.
We are covering very negative content, generally, but still as much effort as possible should be put into presenting a positive message. We should always claim we are winning, and shold celebrate any wins with extreme exaggeration.
This does not mean we downplay the enemy, just that we play up ourselves. We overestimate our influcence.
100% black and white
Just as we mustn't present multiple enemies, we mustn't leave any room for nuance in any other areas. To the extent that it is possible, everything should be painted in completely black and white terms.
The basic idea is that everyone on our side is 100% good and everyone who isn't on or side is 100% evil. Of course in real life you can't exactly do anything 100%, but it should be as close to that as possible while still being coherent.
Hardcore nationalist parties and activities shold alwyas be presented as virtuous and heroic, while all opposed should be presented as disguesting and evil. The melodramatic nature of it also increases entertainment value.
This isn't being dishonest. It is just acknowlewding the practical reality that people cannot, as a rule, handle having doubt in their minds.
Packing our messaging inside of existing cultural memes and humor can be viewed as a delivery method. Something like adding cherry flavor to children's medicine. ... We want to takeover the culture, to consume it.
And it is ripe for this. The Jews have promoted nihilism to the point where their own "morality" is nearly impotent, as people are devoid of conviction. Flipping the whole thing upside down, through use of existing cultural memes, is like beating up a baby.
[Quoting mainstream news sources is good because:]
- it saves energy, while ensuring the facts themselves are communicated accurately
- it servers to break up text in a way that is appealing to the ADHD demographic we are targeting
- being able to see the mainstream source quoted allows us to co-opt the percieved authority of the mainstream media, and not look like one of those sites we are all probably familiar with where you are never certain if what they are saying has been confirmed
- by simply commenting on existing news items, rather than rewriting the facts of the sotry, we an bever be accused of "fake news" - or delisted by Facebook as such - as it is clear that all we are doing is commenting on existing news.
- the contrast between the mainstreams writing style and our own humorous, snarky style can be funny.
This site is in many ways modeled off of successful liberal blogs such as Gawker. They have produced a great method to appeal to the same age demographic we want to appeal to.
Breaking Down Mainstreaming Narratives by Exposing Contradictions
One of our greatest strengths has been exposing and mocking the obvcious internal contradictions of mainstream narrative. These internal contradictions create a situation where as a polemic mehtod, you can use their own arguments against them. Examples inlucde:
- Walls don't work, v Isreal must have a wall to protect itself
- Kosovo v Crimeo
- Feminism and homosexualist v mass Islamic immigration
- Gender is a social construct v being gay is biological
I'm extremely careful about never suggesting violence. I go beyond legal requirements in America. However, whenever someone does something violent, it should be made light of, laughed at.
For example, Anders Breivik should forever be refered to as a heroic freedom fighter. This is great because people think that you must be joking. But there is a part of their brain that doesn't think that.
When it comes to more immediate violent trends, I'm slightly more careful. The burnings of a migrant center is one of these things. I'm slightly hesitant to say "patriotic heroes burn another migrant center," givne that this could be contstrued as calling for more arson(whereas it can't be construed that I'm calling for Breivik to kill more brats).
Dylann Roof I have labeled "DyRo," and though I offer explanations for what he did, I never condemn him. I also think its very funny to say that he was simply defending himself when he was attacked in a church by black mamies trying to steal his iPhone. That sort of silly humor really bites at the Jews "Dylan Roof is pure evil" narrative."
The most interesting bit in this is how they recognize the important of vastly oversimplifying the landscape to just one enemy for best memetic transmission. It goes without saying that I completely disagree with everything quoted here, and reproduce it only out of a desire to understand the enemy, in order to defeat them.