View Single Post
Old November 16th, 2012 #8
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
Karl Radl's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl

Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Rhetoric doesn't really change. The patterns of persuasion are the same whether they're applied to A or Z.
That's why any good debater knows you fight on two separate levels:

1) The intellectual argument (are you point-on-point dealing with your opponent's objections).

2) The propaganda argument (are you entertaining your audience so that you will maximise the number of people who find your argument appealing and thought provoking).

Also it is a good idea; if debating in great detail in the presence of an audience, to simplify and summarise points rather than go in for stupidly detailed rebuttals (Mattogno style) unless you are doing so in front of a specialist audience as opposed to a popular one.

Or put another way: humanise your argument, give rhetorical examples, traduce your enemies in a way your audience approves (e.g. 'the big-brained nincompoops' aka leftist/liberal intellectuals) and deliberately try to anger your opponent so they get unhinged and start making mistakes.

If you can spot these, you can handicap an argument pretty quickly--
Yep, which is why ideologues who argue like skeptics are as a rule difficult to deal with because they hide their ideology behind another ideology and you have to force them out of that situation before you can destroy their reputation.

even faster if you already know or strongly suspect the ideological position of the writer or speaker.
True, but then you have to know exactly what another person believes and sometimes; and I find this a lot with people's understanding of National Socialism, is that they attack what they are taught to believe you think, don't believe you don't believe what they think you believe and then get sadistically murdered in the ensuing debate because they don't understand your thought process.

Oh and something I learned debating jews is never go on the defensive ever... always attack as the minute you go on the defensive they will pounce on it. If you drive an entertaining intellectual steamroller over them then they can't do very much about it because they don't understand those rules: they love to scream rhetorical insults and as you squish them the rhetorical insults become meaningless to most of the audience (as it is evident they are hollow).

This very board demonstrates that every day.
True, but I still reckon the best way to learn how to debate and propagandise is to cut your teeth on issues that aren't too important too you as it forces you to do research and learn to improvise.

Oh and 'devil's advocating' is actually a good way to develop your understanding of your opponent as by trying to attack your own arguments you'll find their rhetorical and intellectual weaknesses and understand what you need to know to deal with that.

E.g. A leftist uses the Shakespearian paraphrase: 'We all bleed red' (or variants there of) so you respond 'So do dogs: have you taken a fancy to your Rottweiler lately?'

What you say would be true for deeply technical discussions, but not for everyday discourse. The vast majority don't suffer for lack of knowledge, but lack of thinking.
Yes the old 'rational population' fallacy: people don't want detail unless they go looking for it and then in varying levels of it and with different slants. That said they only go out looking for detail when you have piqued their interest about your explanation by entertaining them and allowing them to think they are on a proverbial 'voyage of discovery'.

Bread and circuses: simple as. People want entertainment, material comfort and the comfort of 'having special knowledge' of the world that makes them better informed than most about events (i.e. an ego trip for those without real power).

Emotion trumps fact.
Facts are malleable and so are emotions: you make each fit the contours of the other. The more seamless the fit the more fanatical people tend to be. That entails producing 'entertaining consumables' e.g. snappy political commentary, intellectual justifications, documentaries, media personalities (idols and hate figures), pioneering new forms of media (rather than playing catch up all the time) and creating an activist community to construct those materials.

That's why jewish control of mass media is the number one obstacle to any revolution.
I think that's misstating the problem as it isn't jewish control of the mass media that is the problem per se (the internet and the destruction of the tradition media hierarchy has dealt a powerful body blow to that), but rather that the medium of socially, economically and politically acceptable ideas is judeocentric (i.e. the jews are the centre of it all). However what must be understood is that you can turn judeocentrism to ones advantage as they've already made jews be the key-players in history so accordingly you just have to interpret their own story back at them and propagate that to make your case.

It is kind of the basic law of physics which states that everything has an equal and opposite reaction that in this case means that every propaganda system has the problem of its own ideas, norms and forms being taken to their logical extension and used against it by revolutionary new propaganda systems.

It is not about being right or wrong, but rather about winning. You win this war or you die trying to explain your failure away: that's the basic choice.

Last edited by Karl Radl; November 16th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.