Counter-Currents
Emotional Intelligence:
Exploring An Alternative Solution to Our Problem
Azrael Rand
1,448 words
We all know what the problem is, but the recurring question we keep asking ourselves is, how do we fix it? This article is not a comprehensive, step-by-step master plan on how to establish the ethnostate. Rather, it’s a conversation-starter on what we can do to be more effective as a movement. This was inspired by – and is written as a response to – Jared Taylor’s video exploring the liberal mindset, “Do They Really Hate Us?”, which he concluded by correctly stating that we need to become more effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHMsiTAaSXc
My proposed solution? Acknowledging human nature as it exists, not as we would like it to exist, and internalizing this knowledge into our mindset. By adjusting our persuasive approach accordingly, we will be able to arrive at the most effective means of overcoming the obstacles we are facing: the mass indoctrination of our people based upon a utopian view of human nature that cannot be easily dispelled due to people’s emotional investment in it, and their life decisions that were built upon these false narratives. Truly understanding human nature at a deeper level – such as the fact that we are led by emotions as opposed to rationality, that we are both selfish and group-oriented in nature, and that there are numerous cognitive biases impacting our perception of reality – will allow us to develop the means required to solve the problems we’re facing. As Jared Taylor said in his video, it matters that we get it right. We can’t fix a problem we don’t understand. We must improve our understanding of and ability to act upon human nature; in other words, our emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence is what set Donald Trump apart from his challengers, both Republican and Democrat, during his presidential run. He won not because he had the best arguments, but because his understanding of human nature and his ability to act on it far surpassed that of any of the others. Emotional intelligence can and will work for us, as it worked for Donald Trump, if we decide to embrace it.
One of the most important lessons to be learned about human nature is that the things you discover don’t merely affect others; they also affect you to the same degree. When we talk about white advocacy, the implication is that we’re doing something to help other whites, but in reality our efforts are directed at advancing our desired worldview and/or goals pertaining to whites, be it freedom of association (voluntary separation), the ethnostate, or an anarcho-capitalist free society by and for whites. These goals represent conclusions each of us arrived at after deliberating on our understanding of reality. Objectively speaking, this is not white advocacy; rather, it is self-advocacy.
Advocating for or empowering whites means providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions rather than trying to force our conclusions onto them. I’m not saying this to assign blame, as we’re all equally guilty of this (it’s human nature, after all); rather, it’s to reinforce the point that we can only fix the problem if we have an accurate understanding of it, and that includes acknowledging that we’re also part of the problem. In order to break through the barrier of prejudice when interacting with other whites, we need to make them our focus, and not our vision of the future.
What whites need to know and understand is what it means to be white. How is being white different from being a member of any other ethnic group? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being white when dealing with members of other groups? This is what they need to know in order to make informed decisions. Sure, we address a few of these points somewhere along the way as part of our current approach, but only to make the case for our desired outcome. We will reach many more hearts and minds if our approach is based upon genuine empathy for our fellow whites.
Furthermore, people naturally dismiss ideas outside their frame of reference (i.e., what they consider normal). This tendency has major implications when it comes to persuasion. We need to work within our audience’s frame of reference as much as possible. Whatever capacity they have to move beyond their current mindset should be exploited towards helping them to acknowledge the reality of white identity and race realism. But in order for people to think about race, they first need to become aware of it. By focusing our approach on our conclusions (such as the JQ, or opposition to race-mixing), we step outside of our audience’s current frame of reference, and the real message – raising awareness in order to expand their viewpoint – gets lost. You can’t teach someone calculus before they’ve mastered the basics of addition and subtraction, and the same principle applies here. Let’s all take a vow to stop trying to teach calculus to first-graders.
You might be thinking that we’re already making gains as a movement and that it’s possible that we’re already on the right track, and thus that what I’m proposing isn’t really necessary. I think that’s a dangerous frame of mind to be in. The reason race realism is gaining some traction at the moment – albeit arguably limited to the political Right – isn’t because we’ve somehow become more effective. Rather, it’s that some of the more reasonable people on the Right have seen and heard things that they simply cannot explain away with their current belief system and are seeking answers for themselves, which they discover when they find us. However, the same cannot be said for all white conservatives, and especially not for those whites on the Left who are brainwashed to the extent that they’re able to rationalize any and every event reality throws their way that doesn’t correspond to their beliefs. I sometimes wonder what the final thoughts were of those liberals whose lives were sacrificed upon the altar of diversity. Did they spend their final moments rationalizing their victimization, or were they finally able to acknowledge the truth that race matters? We’ll never know.
My point here is that the current approach relies on things getting progressively worse, hoping that more people wake up to the truth before it’s too late. This is not a winning strategy, especially considering the human mind’s ability to distort reality in order to protect one’s feelings and preconceived notions. Victims of sexual abuse don’t become predators themselves because they enjoyed their abuse and want others to share it. Rather, to protect themselves from the trauma of what they experienced, they normalize and reenact it in order to maintain a consistent worldview. This is just how the liberal mind operates. To say we’re doing okay as we are is to wager Western civilization on the ability of Leftists to think and act rationally, when the truth about human nature already confirms that this is nearly impossible. How is that approach working out for the Boers in South Africa?
To effect real change, we need to be able to reach out to both liberals and conservatives alike, and to do that, we need to bring our A-game. We need to improve both ourselves and our approach by increasing our emotional intelligence and making spreading knowledge of the reality of white identity and race realism our one and only priority, until we’ve attained the ability to exercise influence at the political level. Once we’ve established political clout, we can and will discuss alternatives as a collective, weighing the pros and cons of different courses of action – but now is not the time for that. By refining our approach, we will attract more supporters, drawn from those individuals currently sitting on the sidelines, unable to contribute due to the negative connotations associated with some of our conclusions (the ethnostate, freedom of association, the JQ, views on race-mixing, etc.).
However, if all we’re doing as a group is raising awareness about what it means to be white – a right that is granted to every other ethnic group – it makes the case for public support of our beliefs that much more compelling. We need the movement to go mainstream. We need powerful and influential allies in both the cultural and political realms. This approach lays the groundwork for doing exactly that.
As Jared Taylor said, we need to get it right; we need to become effective, and to do so, we need to understand how the human mind works in order to change things for the better. Time isn’t on our side, but there are still things we can do to bring about meaningful change, and the first step is to reevaluate our current approach and embrace the concept of emotional intelligence.
8 comments
Thank you. Every content creator needs to read and digest this.
This is a great essay and important for those of us trying to redpill those around us. One thing that I constantly have to deal with from Western Europeans is that White AmericansAmerican have no culture because they are just a bunch of mixed Europeans and that African migrants are more European than me simply because they live there and “integrated.” Talking about genetics with these people is useless and the only thing I have ever gotten is trash like “American whites always act like there is such a thing as white culture for them because they are so mixed they don’t know what they are”
Don’t believe them. By ‘integrate’ they merely mean that they engage in 24/7 degeneracy as they would in US. Or, they mean an opportunistic appropriation of ‘democratic values’.
I know this may sound quite absurd, but this argument stresses me out and frustrates me to no end. It is not only that “white culture doesn’t exist,” but it is the whole white people don’t exist and Irish, Italian, Slavs etc. weren’t considered white nonsense. I don’t know what to say these people because they will insist on these arguments no matter what is being said. It should not stress me out, but I am still affected by it.
I’m grateful for your contribution Azrael, though I find myself unconvinced and critical of your piece. Let me offer a few thoughts and questions below in good faith, in the hopes you can respond to and build off them if they’re fair.
First a contrast:
“Truly understanding human nature at a deeper level – such as the fact that we are led by emotions as opposed to rationality….”
vs.
“What whites need to know and understand is what it means to be white. How is being white different from being a member of any other ethnic group? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being white when dealing with members of other groups? This is what they need to know in order to make informed decisions.”
Both the idea of helping white people make “informed decisions” and the questions you present leading up to making informed decisions don’t strike me as turning an emotional flank, and doesn’t seem to follow your opening premise. What am I missing?
Further:
“Advocating for or empowering whites means providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions rather than trying to force our conclusions onto them.”
You’re right that forcing an argument on people who don’t share your frame of reference is difficult, but what you discuss sounds more like a call for a softer style of rational discussion. Again, where’s the emotional flank? It’s not clear to me what the ‘how’ is here for the objective.
Finally:
“My point here is that the current approach relies on things getting progressively worse, hoping that more people wake up to the truth before it’s too late. This is not a winning strategy, especially considering the human mind’s ability to distort reality in order to protect one’s feelings and preconceived notions.”
This is your article’s weakest point; it may not be an optimal strategy, but the view of waiting for things to get worse is deeply rooted in emotional persuasion. It acknowledges two facts I assume you’d agree with regarding emotional persuasion: 1) Discomfort, i.e. the degradation of order, safety, and welfare in a society, is incredibly emotionally persuasive. It is visual, experiential, and inescapable. 2) In light of 1, discomfort does not exist for most whites. They perform great feats of evasion, distortion, and confirmation bias to dismiss present facts that will lead to an uncomfortable future, especially considering the discomfort they’d suffer by changing camps.
If anything, the approach of waiting for things to get worse recognizes the difficulties of persuasion you’re trying to address. I don’t see how anything discussed in this article would be more effective; hoping you will clarify and elaborate.
I don’t want to distract from the questions above, but I will offer this much for consideration: does consensus building with normie converts matter more than personal excellence and tight-knit mannerbunds who aim for power over those normies? Depends on how the future plays out, but in either case, living a strong, healthy, life and possessing visible means is more persuasive than any rhetorical approach.
It’s a good point being made. Basically, take when you know is important to your audience and show them how OUR worldview will safeguard those things, or how the Left’s goals will destroy them.
-Oh, you love your children? Well child abuse seems to be skyrocketing in parts of Europe with high Muslim populations. Is diversity worth even a 1% risk of that happening to your child?
-Oh you have gay friends? Well in a browner world they would face way more oppression than they would in the world we want to create. Remember the Orlando club shooting?
-You have an issue with gun violence? Black neighborhoods have the vast majority of it and they do it with illegal guns, not guns purchased legally. Many of these guns come from across the border too, by the way.
– You don’t like the idea of women being raped? In Europe rape has skyrocketed due to immigration and in America our Hispanic immigrants account for a large proportion of statutory rape.
Stuff like that, I suppose. I haven’t really personally tested all those arguments (or maybe I did while I had some drinks and don’t remember) but I imagine they are a step on the right path to bringing our worldview down to Earth.
I appreciate the article. It fits in with my contention that the most important approach to wake up Whites is simply exposure to vibrancy ! Because exposure is an experience rather than a “thought”! As you say, the emotions make things happen, not the brain. To feel! Where vibrancy is experienced, i.e. felt, Whites do learn their lesson irreversably. And then they will self-segregate – self-segregation my strongest argument in the race question: people do not want to live mixed!
I would like to contribute an answer to this point:
I sometimes wonder what the final thoughts were of those liberals whose lives were sacrificed upon the altar of diversity. Did they spend their final moments rationalizing their victimization, or were they finally able to acknowledge the truth that race matters?
Ooh yes these liberals know that they are lying ! An acquaintance reported his old and dying father´s wish: do not let blacks nurse me! Oh these damned liars: when it´s up to them to be really exposed to vibrancy, when they cannot avoid: then, and only then, will they finally be honest !
Great article.
If I may add an approach I have found working quite satisfactory in order to break through the mental “this isn’t normal speech” barrier.
The “why are we even talking about this” , with likely the unspoken “what’s the matter with you ?”.
I start with talking about climate change / the “global warming “, so-called driven by carbon dioxin
emissions. Anyone who cares about change peoples mind, is able to have all the facts gathered and debating points in a couple of weeks.
It is an excellent use case to demonstrate to people how the media are lying indeed, even about facts, and how delusional people can be, believing manipulated ‘facts’ with absolute certainty.
If you succeed in people having realized the above, admitting for themselves they had been lied to, then you have your entry point for a lot more of truth.
But do not rush it, let them ask ‘and what’s your taken on this or that’.
Do not talk about race, keep that for (much) later. Islam, feminism, cultural Marxism, etc. are way better topics to have a conversation growing.
And I don’t ever, ever, touch the JQ. That’s toxic, even with people that are , let’s say, three quarter red-pilled. If people are ready, they will discover that by themselves, at their own pace.
I do not say this approach is fitting for anyone else, just that it has worked for me.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment