Most of our enemies were raised by single mothers. While this is a disaster for society at large, it’s great for us, as it makes them easy to beat in any confrontation. I consider the nature of my enemies to be one of the great blessings of Elohim. They’re emotionally unstable, they’re hormonal, they’re confused, and they’re easily controlled.
I’ve been in bar fights, and I’ve been in ideological squabbles. The bar fights are more dangerous, with legal problems and physical injury a real possibility. The debates may not be life threatening, but I argue they are just as important. It is through expression that we have the power to shape public opinion, in a small but notable way. We do this by appealing not to our ideological opponent, but to all the observers, who look to us for entertainment. That’s the first rule, and I’ll explain immediately…
In any ideological argument, there are going to be three general factions.
SET A is a small minority, ~15% of the general public, who will never take your side. These are the skank-ho single moms, the radical bulldyke feminists, the simps who submissively supplicate to filthy wimminz, and all their hangers on. We can speculate about the motivations behind this atypical dysfunctional behavior, but it doesn’t matter. They don’t matter themselves. They are life’s failures, and none of our energy should be spent trying to reason with them. They are to be crushed and utterly humiliated.
SET B is another small minority, ~15% of the general public, who will always take your side. These are the men who have emotional problems, men who have an unhealthy hatred or obsession with wimminz, men with mother issues, men who had a bad divorce, etc. These men may agree with you, but they’re too damaged (at least temporarily) to be reliable. They’re also prone to make you look ridiculous. We don’t want to associate with them if we can help it.
SET C is the vast majority of onlookers. The kids on 4Chan call them “normies,” and while that’s pejorative, it’s not a bad term for the sake of its etymology. These are the men and women who are interested, but decidedly disinterested in the arguments.
Your target is any and all the members of SET A. Your goal is to convince any and all of the members of SET C to join your side.
SET A and SET C have no intersect space. No one is a member of both C and A.
You do not appeal to any member of A, you humiliate her. Through the spectacle, you appeal to members of C.
Members of C are not convinced by reason, logic or proof. Members of C are swayed by humor, charisma and mastery.
Recently, a disaffected Marxist (of the Frankfurt School variety) decided to troll whining liberals. He put a colorful sticker into an elevator on the campus of a large university, just in time for a scheduled Anti-Trump rally. The shitlibs kooked out, and I imagine that fellow had a few laughs, as he watched the meltdown from the sidelines. Whoever he was, he must have had inside knowledge of the placement of the elevator’s camera, because defacing an elevator with a sticker might be construed as vandalism.
Check out the design and syntax of the message.
Our man successfully hijacked the terms that are usually mangled by the neoliberal left, and made a number of salient points, all while he robbed the protestors of their ability to use Marxist terms to forward their capitalist agenda. He wrapped it all up in a colorful 1960s retro package, to shiv the boomers who remember campus protests from that era. When the usual suspects started crying and whining, they revealed themselves for who they were, to all the observers in C. The whole amusing spectacle cost our brother about a dollar, and ten seconds for installation.
Never aim to get our enemies in A on our side. They’re not worth the effort, and they’ll never join, anyway. Always aim to convince passersby in C, by using our enemies in A as an example of stupidity, dishonesty and incompetence.
lol…hijacking the socialist construct of globalism with capitalism.
Now if only somebody could hijack feminism by doing something like ‘feminism was the creation of the evil patriarchy to continue the oppression of women’.
Although I’m sure many have seen this video before…but my previous statement isn’t so far fetched as I made it out to be.
Agreed, the logical arguments have always been on our side, but we’re in the trouble we’re in because we been trying to reason with the unreasonable, focusing efforts on A. Our traitorous “conservative” leaders have been disingenuously telling for years that “we’ll win in the marketplace of ideas”, but like you say A will never listen to us.
Trump is good at this stuff and sets a good example for our side. He’s always communicating to C even when he’s directly insulting A; CNN Fake News, Crooked Hillary, Pocahontas Warren.
GBFM? Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?
I’ve seen this goony conspiracy theory video before. Who is the “Rockefeller” being referred to here?
Bang! That’s exactly where I got this from. Nobody puts the general strategy into practice more effectively.
Nick…there’s another video out there talking about 9/11 before this where he mentions that name.
I don’t know where GBFM has gone with his desouled Bernakified butthexing theories…but I can’t disagree with the results of women’s lib and where we are at today. I’ve read some claims that Lenin tried the ‘put the women into the work force, have the state raise the kids, legalize abortion and no fault’ when he got into power. There was even one claim I saw that ancient Babylon implemented these things.
A couple of points to consider…
1. Scuttlebutt suggests that there isn’t a “Nick Rockefeller” in the immediate Rockefeller family. Even if there were, I don’t know why he’d talk to this goon.
2. The feminists are now the “conservatives” who are in charge of society. Whether you like it or not, you’re not a conservative. You’re a revolutionary. If you want to be effective, you ought to read Lenin, because he wrote books on how to defeat the conservatives.
3. The Frankfurt School never had any influence. This is a flat historical fact. I’m one of about 1000 people, worldwide, who has read their work, and the other 999 are just as impotent as I am, when it comes to writing policy. I think it’s a shame, because while they had some goony conspiracy theories themselves (Jazz as promoting soulless decadence, for example) they would hardly have been more destructive than the theorists who dreamt up the status quo, in which we are daily forced to wallow.
‘Whether you like it or not, you.re not a conservative. You.re a revolutionary.’
I’m neither a conservative or revolutionary…because they have shown they are fruits are of the same coin. The only difference is the speed of their rebellion. Revolutionaries want now and conservatives want it at a slower pace. It’s about where you obdience lies.
I think the worst place for a revolutionary to be in is the in charge position. Instead of being in the wheelhouse of rebelling against ‘the man.’..you are now ‘the man’. That’s why things like dissent, protests and riots will still occur when their Dear Leader is in charge.
Much like communism…feminism and the globohomo complex will eventually fall over like the house of cards it is. Unfortunely like communism both will wipe out a lot of innocent human lives in the process.
While I’ve been rebellious like everyone else…I’ve seen the point of obedience to God’s commands & lawful authorities and why it is the better path to take. It truly is an inner peace the world can’t understand.
Fulton Sheen describes it better.
https://servusfidelis.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/archbishop-fulton-j-sheen-obedience/
About a year ago I watched one Fulton Sheen video, thanks to you, and a couple of days later, I had at least three dozen of his shows in my youtube history. He’s a brilliant speaker. Thanks!
Some are hard to distinguish between a and c, IMO, Sheila, for example.
I forgot to share something I read recently, when you were discussing China at Dalrock’s, I think.
The May 4th movement in China in 1921 openly endorsed equality btw men and women.
And this is a slogan from the 70s (?): “women holding up half the sky.” Or “iron girls.”
Chinese communism “liberated” women from persons in a family into persons in a society and Mao gave women rights they didn’t have before.
Please correct me if these are not accurate facts.
I wish I could remember the point in the back and forth that made me want to bring this up at the time. You or the other person may have said something about China not being sold out to feminism, and I wanted to add that it is more complicated, unfortunately, as evidenced by the above history.
Dear Swanny:
These are technically accurate, in that Mao mouthed some platitudes to keep feminism from taking off in China. He rightly saw feminism as a grave threat to his society, and whether appeasement was the way to go, he did do a good job of limiting their destructive potential. Bear in mind that these same types of wimminz tore apart the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. with their lunacy. Khrushchev put hundreds of feminists into labor camps, and they still rioted in Leningrad in the 1970s.
Last I checked, the Chinese Communist Party has offset the costs of single mothers and bastards by refusing household registration (like a family ID card) to unmarried couples, and by fining single mothers ~20,000 USD, payable before a bastard starts school. The Communist Party also wisely rolled back divorce laws, refusing to give Chinese wimminz cash and prizes for nuking their happy homes.
It is also the practice of the state to forcibly sterilize repeat single mothers (it’s part of the two-child policy – which for single moms is really a one-child policy). This seems brutal from our perspective, but a healthy society has to control these filthy wimminz somehow, and I wonder if it’s really any worse than our practice of handing out freebies to these parasites, at the expense of functional, healthy families.
I should really get the details and write a whole post about the Chinese. They seem to be handling their wimminz much more deftly than we are.
Boxer
And I’m guessing that group B would be the *actual* Neo-Nazis, Klansmen and other fringe groups who supported T…wait, DID they support Trump? I’m not even sure…I don’t think it even matters. What matters is that group A is trying to paint the won-over group C members with the group B brush.
Trump has been doing this ever since he started a Twitter account, and group A has still not picked up on it yet. They just can’t resist taking the bait. I mean you’d think that the 2016 election would have been a wake-up call, but you’d be wrong. They seem to be getting more unhinged every day. I think we’ll ultimately be surprised at how long he will have been able to keep this up.
He’s not the first, though…he’s just the best at it. I have seen the RNC do this before, back in 2004, actually . that was the election year of Bush vs. Kerry. Do you remember where they held the RNC that year? It was right smack in the middle of enemy territory: New York City. The mass demonstrations were a bigger news story than the convention was (Well Bush was the incumbent, so there wasn’t much action there anyway). You basically had everything from naked union workers riding through Times Square on bicycles in rainbow wigs, to violent protesters throwing marbles at police horse hooves . a good old fashioned rage riot. Only about halfway through the debacle did one of the Democrat leaders call for the crowd to stop, lest it tarnish the image of the Democrats nationally…but it was too late. The Republicans’ plan had worked beautifully, and I really don’t doubt that this, along with a few other things, gave Bush the boost needed to make all the difference.
Well, they still haven’t learned. In fact it seems that even if the media (which has basically slipped into group A) realizes that they’re hurting their image with group C, they either think that the penalty is outweighed by the benefit of firing up the left base, or they think that group A is much bigger and group C is much smaller than what they actually are…well, or they simply don’t know any other options, and they’re now just swinging wildly with their eyes rolled back in their heads.
Whatever the case, I haven’t and still don’t think that the Dems are going to regain the House in November, despite what the “experts” say about a “blue wave”. First of all, the “experts” were saying that Hillary was a shoe-in, and we know how that turned out . their lack of self-reflection since then is evident, and thus, I don’t think there is any reason to think that their “data” is any better now than it was two years ago; and secondly, probably even more than voodoo data, their idea that there is a blue wave headed for the November shore is mostly predicated on the fantasy of Trump’s first two years being a complete disaster, and all of his supporters having buyer’s remorse. Uh, well, last time I checked, the misery index isn’t too high (for groups B and C anyhow), ISIS has been all but wiped out, we haven’t seen minorities being hauled off to the gas chambers, we haven’t seen women everywhere being grabbed by the pussy (outside of Sweden and Germany, that is), WWIII hasn’t started, and the Mueller probe seems to be going precisely nowhere. His approval rating is hovering around 50%. So, where is the blue wave going to come from? Answer: group A’s imagination.
I mean we know it’s all wishful thinking because, indeed, if they did take the House back, they’d vote for impeachment, Day 1, first order of business, no high crimes or misdemeanors necessary . they simply hate him, they will impeach him . and don’t think for a second that they wouldn’t have enough Republican votes in the Senate to get it done. I bet that the majority of Republican Senate traitors would love for nothing more than to welcome in President Mike Pence. Voters know this, so I can pretty much guarantee that the Dems will NOT take the House back. The people rolled the dice on Trump before he was president, before he had a record of anything in government, and they sure as hell aren’t going to rock the boat now that it seems to be somewhat even keel again.
One thing to add: I saw an article the other day saying that Democrats in House races have outpaced their Republican rivals on fundraising (although the RNC is way, waaaay outpacing the DNC on fundraising)… That may seem like it contradicts what I’ve said above, but it doesn’t, and here’s why: They don’t really say exactly where these funds are coming from, between big donors and small donors. Even if it says on paper that it’s a bunch of small donations, big donors have their ways of dicing their cash up and re-funneling it back in so as to create the illusion of many small donors, but I didn’t see anything in the article indicating that that was happening. So, what I infer is that limousine liberal oligarchs are pumping major cash into House candidates’ campaigns, and that’s to be expected . as I was saying, if the Democrats take back the House, the first thing they’ll do on the first day is go straight to an impeachment vote, and this is what the Soros/Hollywood bloc are gunning for. The article called it “the green wave”.
They seem to have missed one of the most important lessons of 2016: campaign cash doesn’t equal votes, and a green wave doesn’t equal a blue wave. Before Trump came along, conventional wisdom said that campaign spending was directly proportional to votes, but that was then, and this is now.
Let them waste their money, just like Hillary wasted A BILLION DOLLARS, only to end up not being president.