Mailvox: lessons in rhetoric

MJ suggests a rhetorical device:

I thought of something while last night about the immigration crisis in Europe.  We should start calling it Vichy Germany (probably could say Vichy Europe, but I feel like Vichy Germany would have more impact for most).  Merkel is acting like Germany is a Client State to the Muslim world.  They allow an occupying invasion force to abuse their own people.  They cover up Muslim crimes and avoid arresting and/or deporting known criminals that are Muslim.  They arrest the German Resistance fighters who have risen up to fight the Muslim occupiers. Multicultism is propaganda to berate the native population into submission to the occupying force.

I don’t know what the occupier-to-populace ratio was in Vichy France, but it seems like it probably is similar to the Muslim-to-German ratio in Germany right now.  Anyways, I thought of this last night and thought that you would probably be able to use it as a rhetorical device.

Unfortunately, “Vichy Germany” is not going to work rhetorically for the following reasons:

  1. It is fundamentally dialectic in nature. Anything that has to be explained is more likely to be rhetorically impotent. How many Americans or English adults even know what “Vichy” means?
  2. It doesn’t flow. That’s always important.
  3. It doesn’t move the emotions. No one has any emotions about Vichy France, except perhaps
    the French.

Now, if the Front National began referring to the two mainstream French parties
that have banded together to stop it as “L’Alliance Vichy”, that would be effective rhetoric. But it’s not going to work in the
Anglosphere because the concept of Vichy is only really applicable to the French.

Contrast with “Vichy Germany” the rhetorical device of “Invader-American”. This is effective due to the following reasons:

  1. It flows.
  2. It directly targets the hyphenated identity of the various New Americans: Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, Indian-Americans, and so forth.
  3. It works directly upon the emotions. Immigrants get very upset at being called invaders, even though that is what they are. The term also links the children of the invaders to the invasion, depriving them of the ability to wrap themselves in an American sheepskin simply because they were born inside its borders. There is a reason Nimrata Randhawa Haley prefers to be called “Nikki”; it allows her to pass for something she observably is not.

And, of course, the term is quite literally true. Remember, the best rhetoric has a sound foundation in the truth. The children of those who invaded America are Invader-Americans and as such, they are distinct from native Americans… as well as Native Americans.

Ann Coulter is an expert rhetorician. It would behoove her to adopt the Invader-American term, as it would be extremely effective for her. Notice how she managed to trigger the cuckservatives of the GOP establishment with a single tweet.

    Trump should deport Nikki Haley.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley: “No one who is willing to work hard should ever be turned away.” That’s the definition of open borders.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley says “welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of religion.” Translation: let in all the Muslims.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Haley: Let in unlimited immigrants “just like we have for centuries.” Has she read a history book? Coolidge shut it down for 1/2 a century.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016

    Nikki Haley: “The best thing we can do is turn down the volume” Translation: Voters need to shut the hell up.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 13, 2016