Anti-marketing

The more I learn about business, the more I’ve come to believe that marketing, as in, actively telling people why they should buy your product, is bullshit. Marketing is overselling. If your product is good, there is no need for you to oversell it. A good product spreads by merit of being good: no word like word of mouth. If you depend on google ads, your business model sucks.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that I should incorporate that same attitude in selling Jimianity. Instead of convincing people that this new religion is the bees’ knees, much better to keep my mouth shut and use it’s secrets to my own advantage. Let people figure out the religious angle for themselves.

Originally I thought I had to pitch an active sale, because after all that’s what Paul did with Christianity. But it just doesn’t feel right. I have wondered what the difference is between me selling Jimianity and Paul selling Christianity. My best guess is that at the time of Paul writing, Christianity was already spreading like wildfire. So Paul’s letters were not so much door-to-door marketing as they were a matter of letting people know: yo, this Christianity thing is going to happen either way, if you get on board now you get an early bird discount, here I’ll show you how.’ Paul was not selling Christianity to people, he was explaining Christianity to people who already bought it. Since we’re not in that situation, I don’t see the use of me proselytizing like Paul. So I won’t.

If it remains to be seen whether a product is good, people need to test it on their own. And if, after testing, the product indeed is good, word of the product will spread on its own. In neither case is marketing required. I do believe that is all I have to say on the topic of marketing.

23 Comments

  1. I don’t think you were overselling.
    Your ardent support of Jimianity is a great testament to its success. Jim is too humble, which is probably a good characteristic for a prophet to have. But Jesus’s apostles had to do a lot of heavy lifting.

    MacClear, shaman, yourself and other commenters do great jobs expounding on topics that Jim is too busy to cover himself. The Jimian side of NRx is always more satisfying to read than anything else I find in the dark enlightenment.

    Talking about how Jimianity enabled you to have a obedient wife, a child and live a fulfilling life is great marketing. Seeing an ideologys ability to inspire zealous supporters is always great marketing.

    Proselytizing always looks so easy in the Bible, Jesus simply says “follow me” and he had a whole flock of people. But I think you’re doing well.

      1. The idea of having an obedient wife, kids, etc. Appeals to me, but I’m skeptical of the results. Marriage in the West means voluntarily giving up financial sovereignty to the wife. I find it weird how becoming alpha somehow negates that. It’s understandable that social behavior is more than just laws, but I find it fascinating that a woman can see a man who has essentially given her power over him as alpha considering the whole idea is not allowing her to have power over you. Am I missing something? I’m not trying to be an asshole, I’m legitimately curious because it’s something I think about when it comes to the possibility of marriage.

        1. You’re not missing anything – that’s exactly the reason I haven’t married yet. So strictly speaking I have an obedient girlfriend and a child out of wedlock.

          We’ll probably marry eventually, but with marriage being what it is, I’m in no rush whatsoever.

  2. Marketing is an art. Most people who do it aren’t good at it, but sometimes there is good marketing, usually whenever there is a product that is sold in huge quantities at a high margin. In the political realm, the left very often has excellent marketing. Open borders was marketed in Germany very successfully, pictures of women with children, drowned children etc. A solid majority voted for more barbarian imigration in Germany. If that was excellent marketing, what is?.

    Good marketing isn’t about telling people why they should buy a product. Rational arguments are a distant second to emotions. Marketing is about creating desire. It is an art like seduction. Telling a woman why she should have sex with you, isn’t a good seduction strategy.

    Marketing is about making something high status. Quality of the product is not quite irrelevant, but close. Leftism isn’t a high quality product -just look at the unhappy lonely and childless lives a typical leftie has- but it is high status.

    On your blog you sold Jimianity to the tiny fraction of the population that can be moved by reason and rational argument. That is fine. Most of the rest of the population simply needs a different marketing concept, something that is not based on reason.

    Unfortunately, I don’t know how to create such a marketing concept.

    Your point about Paul is correct. He wasn’t selling Christianity in his letters. These letters were the teachings of a bishop to his priests. Paul surely did pitch a sale, just not in his letters.

    1. Marketing is an art.

      Is it? For instance, in your example, I don’t think it was the marketing that sold people on immigration. It was giving the vote to women that sold people on immigration — when women have the vote, they instinctively know their men are weak, consequently vote in favor of barbarians to conquer them. The marketing changed nothing, merely emphasized what was going on, like the icing on the cake.

      I feel the same about commercials. It’s not so much that commercials convince you to buy a product — you must have already decided to buy that product, the commercial merely emphasizes that you made the right choice.

      The art isn’t in the ad, the art is in arranging that your products are present in the supermarkets.

  3. Women got the vote, politicians took advantage of women’s innate nurturing instinct and extended it further than it was meant to while simultaneously gaining new workers and voters to enslave. I don’t think the issue is women’s instincts betraying our own men. I think there was a study that shows how we (women included) prefer our own race over foreigners. If women really did prefer the stronger foreign men, then I’d expect that to be reflected in data. Blacks are often stronger than whites, yet white women still choose white men. Not all, but much of the harsh truths on women are probably just overexaggerations that conveniently make all the intelligent White men not want to reproduce, marry, and be strong men.

    But it’s just a thought and I could be wrong. I mean, if I was an evil mastermind, I’d want to convince a nation’s men that their women are disloyal, hypergamous, and all kinds of other accusations that women are generally not intelligent enough to disprove. (That’s a true harsh truth, that women are generally less intelligent than men when it comes to manly subjects like politics and the data supports this).

    Yet, I can’t deny my personal experience either because I’ve had my encounters with women who are obviously looking for a beta provider. But is that a bad thing? If I wanted a wife, I’d want her to be fertile and sexually attractive.

    Meh, just thinking out loud.

    1. >Blacks are often stronger than whites

      That addresses how Blacks have no real representation in the Olympic medalists outside of fields like running and that the bulk of strongman record holders are White.

    2. I don’t think the issue is women’s instincts betraying our own men.

      Women instinctively betray their men in order to test their strength, as Eve betrayed Adam to test his strength. Adam failed Eve’s test, and we are failing our woman’s test by listening to their vote to import millions of foreigners who hate our guts.

      Blacks are often stronger than whites

      Personal observation is that blacks look stronger than they actually are. Which indeed is backed up by strongman record.

      much of the harsh truths on women are probably just overexaggerations

      Women are sweet and gentle and beautiful, but none of Jim’s truths on women are overexaggerations.

      1. Either way, whether it’s hypergamy or an innate empathy, the result is the same. They invite in foreigners. The issue with the hypergamy narrative is that regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s bad marketing. I’m a sigma male and don’t care much for social pressures, so if I were to accept this narrative, then what’s my motivation for ever being with a woman period? How can I ever respect or more importantly trust such an inferior being led by instinct alone?

        Now if I believe that women aren’t all that bad and they’re just misled by a higher capacity for empathy, then that’s something that can be worked with in a way. We also have to remember that women are more herd like than men and the cathedral tells them to vote for the foreigners.

        So we have a lot of factors here. Hypergamy, the cathedral, empathy, etc.

        So in short, if you truly believe all these harsh truths about women, including their instinct to betray you, then why ever involve yourself with one?

        Agreed on Blacks. I meant strong as in they are often more alpha than white men. If alphaness is what attracts women, then I’d expect more black man white woman couples. But obviously it’s more nuanced than that (hate to use that word).

        In other words. Marketing is important, otherwise the ideas don’t get tested like I’m testing them.

        1. Sigma is a word that does not map to reality – no one rules alone. By branding yourself a sigma, all you do is reveal that you are not part of a male hierarchy, and that you take Vox Day too serious.

          Hypergamy is nerdtalk for ‘she wants the biggest asshole’. The word maps OK to reality, but does not clarify, as Rollo Tomassi stopped clarifying matters when he became too afraid to address the political implications of what he was talking about.

          if you truly believe all these harsh truths about women, including their instinct to betray you, then why ever involve yourself with one?

          Because I know it is a test and I feel like a man when I pass her tests. Also, when you pass a woman’s tests, she is the sweetest thing in the world – cooks, cleans, gives you children. Very cool.

        2. >I meant strong as in they are often more alpha than white men.

          You just outed yourself as a nerd who doesn’t experience enough of the world outside of the MSM and degenerate entertainment like pornography.

          Negroes by large are either momma’s boys, tweaked out muggers, or affirmative action hires. They’re either fatties or scawny. Are the faggiest population short of Jews.

          Negroes being “Alpha” is nothing more than how they’re portayed in entertainmemt and other forms of mass media. They’re all either rap music thugs or Idris Elba types to Morgan Freeman types (if they need to be respectable). Nerds and children and woman fall for it.

  4. Yes, I’m not a part of a hierarchy, but I don’t care to rule others, only myself. It’s a much more relaxing way of living rather than playing status games. I don’t know who Vox Day is honestly, but I assume he’s a radical individualist?

    Interesting. What do you think Maps closer to reality than “she wants the biggest asshole”? I’ve read Jim’s perspectives on women and I don’t see much difference between what he says and the hypergamy narrative.

    Can confirm and it is a great experience when a woman is sweet, but such things can be fleeting, so I’d rather rent (girlfriend) than own (marriage), especially when owning entails high risks. Thus, because I don’t own, I don’t have an incentive to be anyone but myself and that’s fine.

    Anyways, I don’t think we necessarily disagree much if at all, I think we just have different incentives behind our values based on our particular environment/situation.

    I’ve been wanting to read your book but I’m ignorant on how all this cryptocurrency stuff works and if I remember correctly you only accept that as payment.

    1. Voxday is the inventor of the word sigma.

      ‘She wants the biggest asshole’ maps very well to reality, ‘hypergamy’ sort of says the same thing, but obfuscated. For instance, that women are hypergamous can be interpreted as saying that women want men of higher status than themselves. Well, yes, but no — a career woman will f*ck a low-life quicker than you can say hypergamwhat? Hypergamy dances around the real issue, much like Rollo, the inventor of the world hypergamy, dances around the real issue.

      1. Fair enough. Thinking about it that way does seem to map better with reality than hypergamy.

        Let’s say we do defeat our enemies. How do we solidify that power? History is a tale of rising and falling civilizations and we also have the question of technology to deal with.

        Just like birth control changed our environment, artificial wombs, automation, AI, and sex bots may very well change ours.

        Do you believe in the West collapsing to be replaced with something else? If so, what do you think will replace it?

  5. As a marketer I have to comment on this.

    Marketing is about 2 things:

    1. Crafting smooth buying experiences and communication that go along with the product. Amending the product experience.

    2. Crafting front end and back end sales mechanisms and experiences that draws customers in and multiples them in order to create maximum profits.

    There are lots of amazing products that don’t see the light of day due to poor sales and marketing efforts.

    Branding on the other hand is completely different. If you look at the ad campaigns of large companies, it is to look good for regulators, telling the priests enough virtue signaling in order to be left alone.

    Second purpose of branding in today’s environment is to create a narrative for the consumers, it’s basically propaganda.

    1. When I say propaganda I don’t mean in the sense that capitalists try to do the dirty work of the priests.

      I mean that capitalists employ the same techniques as priestly propaganda to craft a narrative and story around their product to sell more of it.

    2. Well, if you phrase it that way, I of course agree that branding is the boogeyman, not marketing. But your definition of branding seems to have a lot of resemblance with the definition of customer service, and my -limited- experience with marketing guys has a lot of resemblance with branding activities.

      1. As you wrote, good products solve problems and are based on market needs.

        So it is with good marketing, it’s based on the market needs the product solves.

        I work in an acquired start up, the corporate acquirer employs marketing people who do things like customer journey mapping.

        Then you have the bitch on top, the brand director. Her job is to please the priests enough through big one off tv campaigns.

        The VP of PR’s job is drinking with priests to be on their good side, to keep them at bay.

        The lower level marketing manager create the customer experience often together with the product manager.

  6. Alf — off-topic, but read this and thought of you (esp. near the end) re Jimianity:

    http://www.amerika.org/politics/what-should-be-done-about-christianity/

    > A future Christianity for the West must involve more than the Bible itself. It must be read in context, especially since so much of Christian theology comes from Greek, Buddhist, and Nordic origins. We can merge those origins back into the religion and have it be more widely understood.

    1. He has his finger on the problem, but despite my best attempts I cannot make sense of his solution. We must “read the bible in Nordic context?” “Let nations decide the context of the bible?” We must “understand [Christianity] in the context of ourselves, not the other way around.”?? Sounds like protestantism version six thousand to me.

      To me, the solution is obvious: the time has arrived for Judeo-Christian Religion: The Next Chapter. For instance, a Judeo-Christian-Jimian religion.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *