So I will start with trying to accurately represent my blog dissenters’ views, a courtesy I wish they would reciprocate. It is interesting to note that Denise uses a particularly irritating polemic device of attacking a misrepresentation of what I wrote, rather than engaging what I said.
I know that I am writing clearly because Clytemnestra and Hipster, among others, make comments that engage what I am saying more completely. Cly calls it the “Cultural Anthropology Approach.”
Denise writes that I am foolish to imagine that I can have any long term influence over any Jews. I believe I stated this view of hers accurately.
My response is that attempting to have long term influence over Jews that I encounter is one among many things I attempt. Sure, it’s one of many, many things I attempt. It’s a big game to me, with very low risk. Denise seems to think I’m risking something, or am in danger of “being fooled by Jews,” as if one cannot have casual social contact in the world with people without being at a risk of them somehow “getting me,” or “screwing me over.”
So what if a Jew with whom I have casual social contact, “reverts to type?” Is that somehow going to be bad for me? By contrast, it would be fascinating for me! I’m not trying to convert Jews to anything the way a missionary does. I’m all about gentle manipulation, to see if I can “herd” someone in a certain direction without their realizing they are being herded at all!
It’s an influence game with anybody and everybody I meet. Every person I meet, I drink them in, I look into them deeply, to see what makes them tick, and I try to get a positive emotional response out of them. I believe I am able to do this because of a regular qigong practice for many years. My energy is sufficiently purified that I can perceive the energies of others. What I want to say is that it’s something anyone can develop. It’s not some inborn talent. I remember not having it.
Mosin has asserted that what I am doing will not work. Here’s his quote:
This Nice Portlandian Hipster strategy cannot succeed, because to imitate we must admire and appreciate, and we must BECOME what we imitate. Tradition and truth, not taqiyya and trickery!
Really? We must BECOME what we imitate? Just because? It’s impossible to infiltrate a social group and keep one’s deeply held beliefs? This is here be dragons again. Don’t go there! You’ll become corrupt! You’ll lose your purity of hate!
This is the same argument that Glenn Miller made against the Market Dominant Minority Entrepreneur strategy. He said that if a WN made a bunch of money, he’d take a suitcase full of cash to Las Vegas and forget the Cause.
Too much Happiness will Corrupt you! Watch out! Here Be Dragons!
My experience is exactly the opposite, Mosin and Denise. One of the big weaknesses of WN is a lot of turnover. People come and go. Five years is about the limit. They burn out on rage. They can’t sustain it. You can’t go around angry all the time. The Rage-Aholics disappear after 5 years, and generally don’t accomplish much of anything real in those 5 years, because it takes much longer to have real accomplishments.
I don’t want you guys to burn out on impotent rage. Failing to move beyond impotent rage leads to one of three outcomes — drop out, go on a violent rampage/get in trouble with the law, and/or turn traitor. Most just drop out, thank heavens. The other two options are horrible.
Why the impotent rage? Because the world isn’t doing what the Missionaries want it to do, and the Missionaries can’t accept that. The Rage-Aholics are frustrated Missionaries.
WN 2.0 are Cultural Anthropologists. We don’t preach or proselytize. We learn about our subjects, and then we can use this knowledge to reflect it back to them, so when we talk to people, it’s as though our voice is speaking their own thoughts. People love when you do that for them/to them.
Our “converts” should not even know they were converted. Taqqiya and Trickery, Fuck Yeah!
There are two kinds of people who go out to meet foreign people; Missionaries and Anthropologists. Missionaries seek to mold everyone to their ideal, and not just to get them saying “Jesus,” but often radically change a native, primitive culture to dress in Western clothes, use modern devices, and give up their old ways. Anthropologists, in stark contrast, study the native people and want to change as little as possible about them. They fear the “observer effect” of their presence, and would ideally be flies on the wall watching them, or perhaps via hidden cameras.
The CIA used to use missionaries; these days they prefer anthropologists.
Missionaries have answers.
Anthropologists have questions.
Missionaries want to be seen.
Anthropologists want to blend in.
Missionaries teach the natives to speak English.
Anthropologists learn the native language and don’t want their subjects to learn English.
Missionaries teach, preach, proselytize and convert.
Anthropologists learn, write about what they are learning, and develop a body of work about the subject people, so they know more about those people, than the people themselves.
Louis Theroux fancies himself an anthropologist, but he’s a missionary all the way.
Here’s a Cultural Anthropologist/Gamer/Spy in action: