Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

1
When Obama beat Romney, someone asked Harry Reid about his hilariously transparent lies about Romney's taxes on the Senate floor. Reid did not address the question as an honest man does. He replied, "It worked, didn't it?"

Lying works. It is powerful. This is a war. Not a Saturday afternoon Republic serial. We need all the weapons we can get.

Once my heritage is secured, by blood or alse, then I will worry about whether I can sleep at night after lying about the people who want me genocided.

(I won't, most likely.)
The reason someone like that needs to be destroyed is because he is a liar. How you win, how you fight, etc, vs why you should fight, why you should win, why the other side should lose.

If you do the exact same thing the other side does, the side that should lose, then you just joined the side that should lose.

Subterfuge in war and lying are not always the same thing. You trick your enemies, but you don't lie to your neighbors. One okay, one bad.

Not that him being on one side of the equation means that the other side, romney, was good. It was two bads in a fight.

Replies

31
I can be charitable about it. There is room for a grey area regarding deception in war. You don't email your enemy with up to date numbers on your troops and movements in an effort to be honest. You deceive your enemy in battle. You make him think something that isn't true, so that he doesn't know what is true, so that you can catch him off guard.

That's something different than lying to the pool of potential recruits about why they should join you. "I want you to risk everything to help me fight this guy, but I don't respect you enough to tell you the truth about why."

Atrocity propaganda is a real and constant element of warfare throughout history, but it's probably more heavily weighted on the side that isn't fighting with defensible motives. If you had real and justifiable reasons to fight, why did you make up all that other stuff that didn't happen? Tends to be because the real reason wasn't defensible.
@weknowwhygary @s2208 yeah absolutely

>"I want you to risk everything to help me fight this guy, but I don't respect you enough to tell you the truth about why."
🎯

Atrocity propaganda is also what those who already rule you do to get you mad. It's not how you get power. It should be really obvious that those trying to take power need to act very differently from those that have it, but for some reason alleged Right-wingers still don't understand that the Jews didn't take power by winning elections in the 60s. Like dude, they didn't become so powerful by telling people about racial equality, they were ABLE to spread this nonsense because they were ALREADY in power.
Imagine thinking you need to compete with the biggest media machine on the planet by "uh just making MORE atrocity propaganda I guess" Great strategy pal...
Would you say a meme can be more powerful than a sentence? Is it not only possible, but regularly so?

The meme is not the literal truth, but it contains truths.

So it is with good propaganda. Digestible, powerful, actionable messages that suggest to a large number of people that it is in their best interest to orient toward your cause in a real way.

That is what the jews did; it crippled us as a culture; and it needs reversing.

But the language that did it is also the language necessary to undo it. You're not going to argue a man (or especially a woman) off the position he holds with facts if that's not how he came to believe it.

The meme is not a lie. The meme is myth made small enough to hold. While not literally true and not thorough in its proofs, it contains truth.

More than that, it contains the power to perpetuate our race, which we agree is a high value - perhaps higher than any other, save glorifying God.

Fire with fire, brother. That's all.
The problem with that plan is that if you want someone to go along with the child rape, you can't just invite them over to your compound and film them raping a child. You generally have to film yourself doing it as well and let them have the video so as to achieve mutually ensured destruction if one of you flips.

Psychopaths might be crazy, but they aren't stupid.
The problem here is assuming that the people involved are thinking about things in these terms. The people striving for power and wealth, and getting invited to the orgy island, are assumed to have this arithmetic of compromise and leverage on their minds, as though they are always cognizant of being perpetually "in the ring," and that's probably not the case.

We react like, "you fell for it? you got invited to rape island and didn't think there would be cameras?" Correct. That's not what they were thinking. They were thinking, "pussy."

It reminds me of the discussion about Enoch I had with @tyler and Rubeus years ago. Rubeus didn't think it made sense that Enoch would sell his entire inheritance for a bowl of soup without some other details to explain it (it wouldn't make sense that these strivers would get caught in the rape-cam trap so easily), but Tyler argued, yeah that makes perfect sense. People make those kinds of stupid short sighted decisions all day long (people get tunnel (pussy)-vision all the time).

You get done eating that bowl of soup and pretty quickly realize you weren't thinking clearly about the deal you made.
@weknowwhygary @Verfassungsschmutz @s2208 @tyler there's also the fact that no normal person ever would ask for ID when he's invited to a private yacht party

like imagine being a millionaire, having been to hundreds of parties and someone goes "urm are these girls all eighteen?" Who would even ask that? Nobody.
They're not going in with the expectation that they are being entrapped, they just want to party. They probably don't even know that Epstein "hired" (trafficked) all the girls, necessarily.
This is very easy to pull off and the feds do it to people they don't like all the time btw. That Ghost Gunner guy comes to mind
I (try to) do the right thing because God commands it, not because I think it will benefit me. I trust that it ultimately will be to my benefit to do the right thing, but the ultimate motive is, "God said so."

I do the effective things, restricted to what is right, because that is prudent and sensible, and God has a lot of advice about doing smart stuff and not doing dumb stuff.

It's not right, nor is it prudent, to lie to the public about why they should join my side. Ignoring the moral issue, they will eventually figure out that they were lied to, and they will distrust any further appeals to join.

It's silly to me, though, because it isn't necessary. I have countless videos and screenshots of jews themselves saying everything I would need to convince a normal man that he has an enemy who hates him and wants him dead. No need to invent anything more.
@weknowwhygary @s2208 @WandererUber > If you do the exact same thing the other side does, the side that should lose, then you just joined the side that should lose.

Tactics are not goals. They are methods to achieve your goals. Someone has never watched the original Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain".

"ROCK: You are the survivors. The others have run off. It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted. However, you have failed to demonstrate to me any other difference between your philosophies. Your good and your evil use the same methods, achieve the same results. Do you have an explanation?
KIRK: You established the methods and the goals.
ROCK: For you to use as you chose.
KIRK: What did you offer the others if they won?
ROCK: What they wanted most. Power.
KIRK: You offered me the lives of my crew."
I could have worded it a little mo' better. As written, it's not correct.

You don't become the same as the enemy by doing what he does, that's bad logic. I didn't mean it that way.

I meant, you don't jettison your morality to win if the reason you should win is because you have that correct morality and your enemy doesn't. That's self defeating.
@weknowwhygary @s2208 @WandererUber > I meant, you don't jettison your morality to win if the reason you should win is because you have that correct morality and your enemy doesn't.

But as I said, tactics are not morals. Morals are why you seek to do a thing, tactics are how you do it. When it comes to war, any and all tactics that advance your goals are allowable.

And yes, this is a war.
Deceiving the enemy in battle and war is perfectly normal. Raiding the enemy's baggage train and taking his food is normal for a war. These things would be sins if committed against a neighbor under peace time, but are acceptable against an enemy during war. This wasn't really where the debate was.

The discussion was whether or not we should lie to our own people about why they should take our side against a common enemy.
@weknowwhygary @s2208 @WandererUber > The discussion was whether or not we should lie to our own people about why they should take our side against a common enemy.

I'm not at all sure that's what the discussion was. It may be what you think it was.

But the answer to that question lies in the answer to the question "Is it necessary to defeat an enemy that would otherwise kill those people?"
@weknowwhygary @James_Dixon @s2208 @WandererUber The winner of a conflict is often the one that adapts to and sometimes even adopts the successful tactics of the enemy.

Following the Marquess of Queensberry rules is all well and good in the boxing ring, but in an existential fight, a struggle that will determine if you remain free, if your people vanish under a wave of 3rd world immigration, in that case it's war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt. My grandchildren can worry about being moral, upstanding citizens. I worry there whether or not there will be grandchildren. I've done enough awful things in my life. Lying about the likes of Chuck Schumer would hardly show up on my list of sins.

Hell, I'd club baby seals and burn down nunneries if I seriously thought it would banish these fuckers to the outer darkness.