In the vid at the foot of this page, Canadian libertarian pundit Stefan Molyneux and American in Europe,Vox Day meet up to speak of most things current day.
They concentrated on how the SJW warrior operates and those points are further down here but before that, I have to say that it’s not just SJWs, I’ve seen the right, in the form of the Rubiots and Cruzites, employing the same tactics and this is no accident. Hellary is, of course, the Grand Mistress of Lies.
An example is a couple of Cruz supporters on Twitter to whom I put an increasing amount of back up material regarding Ted’s alleged affairs. When one of the women’s sister-in-law confirmed the affair [and the woman had never denied it herself, just skirted around it], the Cruz supporters did not know what to do.
This was no issue for the establishment type who had no qualms – he went straight on the attack about my own IQ. How IQ related to the fact or not of this woman’s affair I do not see. When I pointed to the material again, with links, he said that was typical of all racists/fascists whatever. We contrive our own reality. When I said this is pure leftist playbook, he said he was not a leftist. I do believe him, for the establishment republicans have been using just those tactics.
I’ll come back to this last point further down.
Carrying the moment
If I write “Vox said this, Stefan said that”, it is not out of sycophancy – readers know me well enough – but because these two people, one in Canada and one, an American in Europe, were articulating thoughts I’d been having and I’d wager so many around the world, blog writers and readers, have also been thinking these things.
We’ll also come back to “diminishing” as a tactic further down but suffice it to say that this is not just some flash in the pan one-off kook – this is many people of a very similar outlook. And it was logical that, as Vox Day says, Trump is not his type and yet he supports the way the man’s stood as a rock against all the flak fired his way. There’s a type of mind [ours] which admires strength, be it for Donald Trump or be it for his nation – I suspect he sees the two as interchangeable. This post is not about Trump per se.
The average person takes at face value
In the workplace, when that document is brought to you and you make phones calls and act in the interests of those employing you, you usually just accept what it is at face value. In outside life, there’s a certain amount of this starting position too when watching and listening to the media, be it CNN, Fox, the Telegraph or the Guardian.
Persuasion and manipulation organizations such as Common Purpose rely on this “taking in good faith until later found to be false”. Yesterday, I went into Michelle Fields’s pretty face, fragile look and demure manner until she is in, then she goes for the jugular. It’s her way and many do not like it because it is so transparent in the wake of the Corey L claims. It’s also false.
In most things, we take at face value until proven otherwise but increasingly, esp. in govt bodies and utilities firms, for example, many people are not buying anymore. We feel we’ve been duped. The left have not been buying the banksters for decades, nor Big Brother, but they’ve been abetting both by voting more money to it once every few years. And a substantial number are poised to vote in the criminal Hellary.
Rhetoric versus dialectic
Vox makes mention of Aristotle whom he studied as part of the classics and rhetoric v dialectic say much about the way the internet and politics works today:
Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions.
I.A. Richards, in Science and Poetry , writes of this but also of rhetoric:
We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.
For the rhetorician, ultimate truth is of little consequence, the only important thing is to carry the day, to carry the moment. If it is subsequently shown that what was said was not right, then no matter, it can be put down to a change of circumstances, a changed culture, a new world with new requirements, whatever. We all have to “keep up”.
This ideally suits politicians, lawyers and other persuaders. It is not necessary to come in with facts, it is necessary to come in with a certain emotion, gravitas, rhetoric and a smattering of data thrown in to support that. No one is going to read a 20 page blogpost but they’ll read a three paragraph post high on emotion and short on facts, or with selected facts in point form, ignoring those counter to the argument.
Providing people see that writer/speaker as “sound”, that gives that speaker/writer great persuasive powe, fine if what that person is saying is not destructive but that’s the crux of the matter, no?
Rhetoric and relativism make congenial bedmates
Part of the rhetorician’s armoury is relativism – that there are any number of truths which change shape depending on the requirements, that there is no one, extrinsic truth. In fact, in one field in which eternal verities play a large part – Christianity – the way the modernist evangelicals are operating is to push this very relativism of the rhetorician.
Wait and recycle
A common tactic is to wait maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month, to let a debunking die away in people’s short attention spans, then come back in, days later, with an “everyone of course realizes that …”
A specific case cited by the Vox and Stefan was the Michelle Fields throw-down she alleged.
The last vid showed her clearly not being thrown down but edged aside. She did not dip down in any way. She lied. However, those with a stake in supporting her story, i.e. anyone anti-Trump who wished him harm, including left and right establishment, plus left thinking people, throw up tweeters, for example, who now come in with: “As you know, Trump trolls were debunked [or annihilated, destroyed – they love these words] …” and then they repeat the lie and build upon it.
Hang on, that’s not how it was. Nor was the evidence of Cruz’s affairs debunked and even today, I’ve had to go back yet again and post the material which shows she lied.
Rhetoricians love to dip into the plethora of false science on any topic, e.g. in education, women’s issues etc.. The reams and tomes of guff the feminazis fill university libraries with, especially on the oppression of women in, say, the 50s, provides quotes and stats sufficient for a speech, which is what a blogpost essentially also is.
Polls at the moment are well nigh unable to be trusted.
The rhetorician comes in with the manner, the all important manner, as if what he bases his case on is a given, it sounds grand. How can he be gainsaid?
The average person does not know
And the average person cannot know, because firstly, they’ve come to learn and secondly, the rhetorician has picked his audience. Common Purpose always profile their students before.
The audience clearly do not wish to appear foolish and so they remain silent throughout. When it’s time to draft a resolution, e.g. Julia Middleton with the dragged in delegates to the study of the arts in Scotland years back, all tacitly agree.
There is always someone active in the Chair – just how that person got to be the Chair is never adequately explained. Common Purpose’s main mission locally is to place one of theirs in that Chair.
Cognitive dissonance and techniques of coping
Vox pointed out that if one believes in a narrative which has so many contradictory elements to it, the only way to reconcile these is to develop mental tactics to cope. Or one copies those of others in the group.
Holding two contradictory views at the same time is not necessarily cognitive dissonance to such minds. Bernie Sanders was railing against the violence Trump had begun, the division and how Trump does not control his rallies.
When it was pointed out to him that it was his supporters who had disrupted those rallies, that they were disclaiming Trump’s violence when they themselves were doing precisely that, he said it didn’t matter – Trump started all this anyway.
I’m not even going into that one.
They begin to actually believe their own narrative
Sanders may not actually have been lying though, in the sense of consciously lying.
In fact, it could well have been that he had convinced himself so deeply of Trump’s guilt that that was the reality in his mind and as a consequence, that “reality” was the only one being put, as to put anything else would be a falsehood.
And he might very well believe it would be a falsehood, as the last thing he wishes to do is fact-check.
Anyone showing up contradiction in the rhetorician’s arguments must, ipso facto, not be possessed of the truth, therefore that person is a fascist and liar. And the person who argues using emotion, the rhetorician, really, truly believes that.
Hardening a position
Both Stefan and Vox go into the hardening of positions, especially that coming from SJW narrative, to the point that authentic information has no effect, no relevance, to the narrativist.
In a similar way, Yuri Bezmenov, the Soviet escapee said:
You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated.
They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words [for] these people, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.
Wishing something to be so
Stefan makes the point that the building of a case on corroborated facts, step by step, has no place here. The four important things are:
1. Carrying the moment
2. Delivering the emotionally rendered and “fact-dotted” narrative
3. Assuming acquiescence to the proposed actions
4. Vilifying any opposition
Truth therefore is what one wishes it to be. Logically, in his mind, if he is right and I am calling him out, then I must, ipso facto, be bad and thus all sorts of labelling is permissible, even necessary, in order to call out the caller-outer.
Projecting one’s own faults onto the target
I’ve mentioned many times in blogposts how uncanny it is that the person coming in accusing me is precisely what she is accusing me of.
Vox and Stefan come back to the Trump rally and Sanders supporters in Nazi T-shirts, disrupting with violence, then accusing Trump of Nazism and violence.
Vox mentioned an SJW who said the only reason Vox “carries on” like that is because he is insecure in his own intellect. Christie O, the anti-feminist, mentions the women who have told her she is insecure in being a woman.
Denigration to separate the supporter from the group or the idea
This might be called “applied demonization”. The aim is to target someone normal, the “face-value” sort of person mentioned before, someone neither misogynist nor racist in real terms.
As Stefan points out, this person has a few things going on in the head. Firstly, he’d be horrified at being labelled misogynist or racist – that’s precisely why those buzzwords were coined. Islamaphobe. Homophobe.
The target is made to feel hurt or feel small and will take steps to dissociate himself from this group or idea now labelled as such by this external force. So, people believing Trump is standing for America now start to fear, not that Trump actually is Nazi or anti-women but that the supporter him or herself has been associated with such reprehensible things.
Impervious bastards don’t engage
As Stefan continues – the real racist, e.g. the KKK man, is not going to give a damn about this. “You’re a racist.” “Sure am and we’re gonna send the nigger back to the cottonfields.” He doesn’t give a s*** about any narrativist/rhetorician tactics.
There’s another type of person too, the non-racist and non-misogynist who’s seen so much in his or her time [or who’s read this blogpost], all the shoddy tactics, all the subterfuge, all the NLP, all the dishonesty and when the rhetoricians, be they SJWs or whatever, come in with this s***, this “impervious bastard” laughs.
At my place, there’s a song coming up this evening in a post, an Italian song which I translated with help and one of the lines is:
Se giochi tu io non gioco più. If you [continue to] play [this way], I’ll not play [your games] anymore.
There it is. They do not engage with the whole media and pollie gamut of lies and demonization. He says – here are my positions on paper, take ’em or leave ’em.
The real horror in the US is that all their little games are no longer working, or at least are working on fewer people. Many people would not like the lable but I’d still say they’re turning into impervious bastards.
And the irony is not lost. How are Bezmenov’s hardwired narrativists any different to us impervious bastards? You can supply the answer to that yourselves.
You see it in teen girls, says Vox. The aim is not, as in protection rackets, to gain pecuniary advantage on top of the dominance but just the dominance, to be the Queen Bee. Taylor Swift is a perfect example, surrounding herself with “her” girls.
It’s a sick societal set-up and differs from the Donald in that the Queen Bee lives only for this adulation but never constructs anything extrinsic, external, never actually creates a safe environment for the bees- they vicariously feel empowered just by being acknowledged.
With Trump, his idea was: “I’ve headkicked all my working life for my companies and family, taken it to the limit, had successes, had some failures, always stood up and pressed on. And now I’ll do that for America.”
The more vitriol poured on him, the stronger he gets. This appeals very much to people like Vox, Stefan, many readers of this blog, contributors to this blog – the idea of the dirty tactics no longer working, the payback on its way, Them up above getting some of their own back now and not liking it. The narrativists and elite having had it their own way for too long.
A key tactic mentioned by the boys is that of minimizing any achievement by those opposing the narrativist’s s***. Therefore, in narravitist eyes, the Muslim problem of now is just a few kooks, maybe just ISIS, not Islam itself in any way.
And anyway, only 8% of people in the society agree with us. It’s always couched in terms like “your point of view is”, “you are …” followed by a list of personal faults. The closer to the truth, the more shrill the personal denunciations, always avoiding debate on the topic itself. Real debate. Dialectic.
I’ve kept this to second last – it’s a few comments on my blogging and it illustrates many of the points above:
# The Higham fellow is a pathetic, sick individual. He embodies every bit of superstitious belief, ritual, taboo, violence, viciousness, exploitation, and ignorance of any creed known to man. What an ignorant philistine he is. Imprecate vocabulary always is. [Socialist Will]
# Have you ever considered that you might be the Anti Christ? Mad, full of hate, mysogynistic, just plain weird. Man, you tick all the boxes. You are one insane son of a bitch. Bitter. And left as scrap. [Feminist Suzie]
Another lady blogger added:
# For someone who doesn’t like you or respect you she sure has a lot to say about you.
And a man:
# I generally find your posts on here [at OoL] to be amongst my least favourite and amongst those I agree with least, however, that shouldn’t stop one reading them.
This post, however, was absolutely excellent and had I been amongst those who just ignore posts by those with whom I disagree I would be diminished by that wilful ignorance.
That moves me because it is a call for true debate, for considering the facts, not just our likes and dislikes and certainly not achieving change based on lies and subterfuge. In other words, it’s a call for dialectic, not rhetoric.
Much of the clip below dealt with Gamergate, on which Vox was a main commentator but the first 15 minutes was on the Fields issue and all that surrounded it. If you can spare the time, it’s not bad.
The issue is, of course, if can you spare the time.