In his monograph, Zionist Propaganda in the United States (Pleasantville, NY: The Fayez A. Sayegh Foundation, 1983), the late Dr. Fayez Sayegh, a notable Palestinian-American anti-Zionist, identified several rhetorical tools that Zionists in America use to shape the political activities of Americans in order to benefit Israel. These techniques are used to paint Israeli and Zionist activities in a positive light, coloring them in terms that subconsciously appeal to Americans. They are as effective today as they were thirty years ago, and they are useful things to consider for any potential propagandist of Americans. Unfortunately, since the political sophistication of Americans is generally low, such devices are more useful than sharp logic alone for generally-directed presentations.
Dr. Sayegh notes that from his long experience looking at American political habits and speech, certain patterns had appeared in Americans’ acceptance or rejection of ideas. Analyzing the contents of Zionist propaganda, Sayegh goes over eight ‘keys to the American mind’, which are presented here with comments.
1. The Underdog
The first of these keys is American instinctive sympathy towards and compassion for “the underdog” – the person who is exposed to superior power in such a way that he cannot be expected to resist, much less to survive, that power. Now this idea of championing the underdog means that if you are looking at a quarrel between two parties and you have nothing to do with either, and you find that one of the two parties is manifestly weaker than the other, you tend to sympathize with him.
This one strikes me as immediately apparent, with many historical and cultural examples: the militiamen who won independence for the colonies, the primitive peoples who were destroyed by the new nation, the men of the Alamo, Huckleberry Finn, Rocky, Star Wars.
Objectively, the struggle of Germany in the Second World War was also that of an underdog. A young nation, united for less than a century, managed to beat back the forces of dollar and sickle and assert itself for a time.
Today, although the traitorous white political class is quite wealthy and powerful, whites as a whole are underdogs: we are less than 10% of the world population, we are being systematically and officially discriminated against in our own countries, and our birthrates are below replacement when our homelands are being flooded with fast-breeding non-whites. In short, we are on the path to extinction.
It’s a fact that we are underdogs fighting against the system that wishes to destroy us and this should be emphasized in propaganda.
2. Respect for Guts
The second key is what might be called “respect for guts.” [. . .] It is admiration for [. . .] the guts of the underdog in standing up to challenges which lesser people would avoid.
One of the most laughable traits of the Left is their pretense of bravery in the face of opposition. The same is true of Jews. Deborah Lipstadt, for instance, is constantly lionized for her “courage” in fighting against David Irving. But Leftist values are everywhere triumphant, and Jews enjoy cultural and political hegemony. It takes no courage to agree with those in power. Thus we need to mock the enemy’s pretense of courage. We need to present ourselves as the true radical alternative to the status quo. And we need to emphasize that real dissent takes guts.
3. “What about now?”
Shortly after my arrival in the United States, I was called to make a speech on the Palestine problem. I started the speech with an historical review dating from World War I, and by the time the hour was up, I had not yet gotten as far as 1948. At the end of the speech my host came to me and said, [. . .] You loused it all up. Do you think any one of the people who came to listen to you came in order to listen to a history of Palestine? These people are too busy; they don’t have time; they are reading that there is trouble in Palestine; they came to learn what it’s all about. They did not come to get a course in history.” I thanked him for his advice, and I never forgot it. [. . .] what they want to know is what the problem is all about now. . . It is much easier for them to begin with the present . . . [emphasis mine]
This seems obvious too. Before the 1980s, the Arab world was mostly looked upon neutrally or as an ally by Americans. After several highly publicized terror incidents and an intensified U.S.-Israel cooperation, the simplistic Zionist chimera of “Islam versus the West” was programmed.
In the past this trait has caused unfortunate misjudging of policy, but paradoxically it is also helpful. A generation that hasn’t been taught history or the importance of it is easier to re-educate than one implanted with an opposing worldview.
The Holocaust is constantly trotted out by Jews to stigmatize even the most innocuous and reflexive displays of White ethnocentrism. But that was then. This is now. And today, it is whites who are facing genocide. Today, it is whites who need our own ethnostates. The Jews already have theirs.
Yet the majority of Americans, like majorities everywhere, do not live in the world of abstractions and do not as a matter of habit think historically, so as circumstances intensify and anti-white policies become more brazen, the alleged uniqueness of anti-Jewish persecution and its constant emphasis will start to fall on the increasingly deaf ears of the majority — and, at the same time, this narrative’s contradictions might start to catch the attention of the thinking minority.
4. Cause and Effect
Perhaps closely related to this is a fourth characteristic. That is the effect of the causal sequence of events. [. . .] They condemn the Arabs for their hostility today without going back into its causes and linking effect with cause.
Because of Americans’ anti-historical conditioning, general propaganda should focus on the present: what is happening to whites now, what the enemy is doing now, and commonalities between European-Americans apparent even in today’s distorted society. Obviously we cannot ignore history and causality entirely, but we will persuade more people with less effort if we go with rather than against the American bias toward the present.
5. Social Engineering
Every social problem, the moment it comes to the consciousness of Americans, becomes a challenge for a solution. Americans want to know, “Now what can we do about it or what must we do about it?” [. . .] As a result, he who can present an acceptable and plausible solution to the problem is more likely to find his version of the problem accepted by Americans than he who describes the problem and puts a fullstop and turns his back and goes.
Consider the urgency with which Americans collectively expressed in their support for the Patriot Act and the new healthcare law. In times of crisis, American support instinctively goes for the side with a ready plan.
So White Nationalists need to work out plans for actually creating an ethnostate. These plans have to solve racial problems in a sensible, humane way. Furthermore, one must be able to envision how these plans would be implemented in a world pretty much like the present one.
It is not enough to simply say that someday the system will collapse of its own accord and that a Fourth Reich will be established on the ruins. Unrest or upheaval can occur in infinite number of ways. We need to have plans and an infrastructure of some kind already prepared. Thinking that disaster itself can provide a new order is like betting on a tornado to rearrange a trailer park into a palace.
Since the System is based on lies and goes against the grain of nature, its policy proposals are necessarily complex and based on false or manipulated data. By contrast, our policies – if stripped of needless eccentricity — are based on truth and fundamentally designed to work with what is natural to European peoples. Thus our policies would be preferred by most White Americans if given a choice. Let’s give American do-gooders and busybodies some pro-white plans to carry out.
[. . .] when a partisan of a point of view can [be presented] it in a very simple fashion such as saying: “All we want is negotiations” [. . .], he is more likely to find his version accepted than he who has to go through the more sophisticated and more complex description of the solution.
“They hate us for our freedom.” “You’re either with us or with the terrorists.” “We’re bringing democracy to the middle east.” “Hope,” “Change,” etc. False dichotomy and base monotony abound in U.S. politics.
Fortunately for White Nationalists, our message can be reduced to very simple and compelling terms as well, such as, “separate or die” or “it’s about loving your own kind.”
7. Belief in Compromise
That every problem has two sides is an axiom of the American mind, and if every problem has two sides then every solution must be somewhere in between the two sides. Israelis stand before American audiences and declare that the Palestine problem is a conflict of two rights, not a conflict of right vs. wrong. Says the Israeli, “Don’t the Arabs have other countries? We don’t have another country and therefore we are entitled to Palestine.” That almost ends his presentation.
Consider the constant willingness of the American so-called Right to follow the Left, as if they are bound together with a short chain. Consider as well the willingness of members of the so-called Left who were rhetorically committed to peace to throw their lot in with Zionist warmongers. For all our talk of individualism, Americans are remarkably conformist (a fact noted by “collectivist” German observers seventy years ago ).
The American willingness to compromise can work in our favor as well. First, this is a place where our radical fringe can be of use. They can propose outlandish solutions, compared to which radical White Nationalism can seem a sensible compromise. Second, the reason that Right and Left end up compromising with Jews, is that Jews will not compromise on their ultimate ethnic interests. Whites need to be just as uncompromising. But nobody will compromise with us at all unless and until we have something that they want, and in the political realm that all boils down to power. Nobody compromises with the powerless, no matter how prone to compromise they may be.
And finally, there is realism. This key to the American mind has been exploited assiduously and manipulated by Zionist spokesmen for years. The “realistic” often-repeated slogan, “Israel is there to stay,” has far more effectiveness on the American mind than Arabs can even imagine.
Multiculturalists often claim that their policies are irreversible and that the rest of us just have to learn to live with it: the non-whites are here to stay. Non-white immigration is presented as a force of nature, rather than as a product of human policies that can be changed.
White Nationalists need to attack this false realism by showing that racial separation is more feasible than multiculturalism. While multiracialism is not inevitable, it is inevitable that multiracial societies will be characterized by ethnic tension, hatred, and violence. We have to show that mass population transfers have happened repeatedly in the 20th century and are here to stay. Furthermore, large scale and humane population transfers have never been more feasible.
Thus, when you speak to an audience in its language and appeal to its pet keys – the keys to its mind, when you already postulate a bond of affinity between your experience and the experience of you audience [. . .] it is hardly surprising if you win its support.
The themes common to American feeling and conditioning outlined above are ruthlessly exploited by System propagandists for ends that are destructive to our race. Nevertheless, the same attitudes are either fundamentally positive but distorted, or are fundamentally neutral and can be used to further our ideas. When we formulate our arguments to fit the general American apprehension of the world and also present them attractively and rationally, our arguments will work with the culturally-conditioned subconscious instead of against it.