As in, SellsWords
Philosophical Mercenaries.
That's the next big enemy. In fact, they've been here all along, but it's gotten to the point where the red line in the sand is encroaching upon their ability to act, and they are primed to self-destruct.
You probably don't know exactly what I mean, so that's what this post is about.
There has long existed a class of philosophers and popular speakers whose primary goal and vocation has been to infiltrate a political movement, appear as intellectual allies to that political movement, promote talking points and engage in philosophical debates, and carefully craft narratives and theoretical equivalencies which have strategically exploitable backdoors which the enemies of that movement can use to undermine said political movement.
Spies and Insurgents, in a way.
The original name for such a vocation, and class, is called Sophism. Anyone who goes about creating arguments with backdoors which can be hacked apart by the opposition are called Sophists.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sophism
SOPH'ISM, noun [Latin sophisma.] A specious but fallacious argument; asubtilty in reasoning; an argument that is not supported by sound reasoning , or in which the inference is not justly deduced from the premises. When a false argument puts on the appearance of a true one, then it is properly called a sophism or fallacy.
These SellsWords are especially dangerous because they can produce memes which a movement will get wrapped up in and subsequently burned by association as the Mass Media entities tear it apart. They win by forcing you to die on a hill which they secretly built up to explode.
Such schemes can be as subtle as they are malicious.
For example, consider the difference between these two similar debate points:
- Men cannot get pregnant.
- Only women can get pregnant.
What, you may ask, is the difference? Well, the first is an objective fact. The second is the Sophist's argument with an explosive backdoor.
Saying "only women can get pregnant" implies that women who are barren, and infertile, are not women, and therefore the argument and your stance is void because you are not accounting for all variables and exceptions to the rule.
By phrasing things just so, it permits the enemy to exploit the position by shifting the argument in a lateral direction, away from your key logical point, and towards a ground which they can cast you as a villain and as uncompassionate towards those who are infertile.
Among us in the movement are imposters*(kek)*, who promote flawed talking points and then casually send out flares for the stooges on social media to use as a que, at which point they then work to discredit the movement by deposing the intentionally flawed talking point.
Some of the laziest arguments can be seen as flat-earthers, jew-haters, boomer-bashers, etc. Those pushing such talking points are the lowest paid.
Then there are the highest paid shills and purveyors of subterfuge, who will drop red-pill after red-pill but make sure the capsule is dampened such that it gets caught in the throat on the way down. They make sure we end up re-tweeting and supporting their causes, and then plop out a big fat turd which is used to discredit them and those who follow them.
They give spicy hot-takes, and may even run for office at times.
Eventually, however, they manage to net enough of a following into their words that they become too hazardous to the enemy in terms of red-pilling, even if some of the arguments get stuck half-way down. They get so big that the discrediting efforts get overlooked.
At this point they must self-destruct and as a result lead their followers to feel abandoned, hopeless, demoralized, and even wanderers looking for another home, then taking their flawed arguments other places and souring their legitimacy as well.
Some of the bigger examples which I personally suspect are the likes of Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and possibly Jordan Peterson.
Those that remember the days of The Colbert Report might recall that he made a lot of pro-Conservative points in contrast to John Stewart's The Daily Show. I remember agreeing to some of his jokes that bashed Obama and Democrats, and that's what made him so dangerous. Those jokes were crafted specifically to undermine Conservative free-thought and allow them to curate and control the debate points on both sides.
Often, what they say isn't false, it's how they say it. When you parrot those talking points exactly, it allows their base to fire back with effective "got-ya's!"
Much of it is very true and revealing; just like the statement "only women can get pregnant" isn't necessarily false. However, the way the fact is stated and presented can result in the Truth being cast in a negative light, which turns away Normies.
We call this Controlled Opposition, but the original name for the vocation is a Sophist. A paid philosopher hired to be an intellectual insurgent in a political movement.
Beware the SellsWords.
That you had to elaborate and clarify, clarify, clarify is proof in how effective such a thing can be to derail a debate/conversation.
They want you to continue to clarify what you meant instead of attacking them because they have no logical basis for their side of the argument.
So many online debates and discussions involve Conservatives being forced into a defensive position with no way out. Because Conservatives are held to a moral ruleset we are vulnerable when we are seemingly not in keeping with that moral ruleset.
Saul Alinksy's 4th rule for radicals says as much: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
By keeping us on the defensive, in defending our moral state, they can permanently stay in an offensive posture -- attacking your character instead of defending their wonky worldview.
I'm not accusing you of derailing. Rather, they would easily use your words to derail the topic and cast you as a boogeyman.
You're right, but you're "too right."
Consider why the tactic is effective.
For example, you linked to a book of rules which they don't follow. If you make a single misstep in the rules, they will use it to attack your credibility and the credibility of your source. You cannot win on facts, logic, precedent, etc.
Meanwhile they completely disregard those rules, so they can break them or use them against you at a whim.
The second you try to bring up any set of rules and offer a longwinded explanation of what a Woman is to you, you only open the door for them to pick apart every bit of your stance by holding you to that rule set.
As soon as you begin to clarify, they will pursue you and force you to clarify every word you say. They then refuse your definitions, and when you try to coax theirs out they change the subject.
If you want a perfect example of this playing out, watch the Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan "interview."
I don't care about Andrew Tate, but the discourse between them shows exactly how easily you can be backed into a corner and forced to clarify over and over while being unable to get your actual thoughts across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWGcESPltM
Because you don't want to be villainized, it's easy for them to abuse you.
While I think your post was good, not sure your example was. I think "only women can get pregnant" is a totally valid statement which really has no counter arguments.
You might not see a problem with it, but they can use it to say "Then what about infertile women? Are they not women?"
Then it's no longer a discussion about whether or not men can get pregnant, but how horrible of a person you are that you don't see infertile women as women.
Then, when you say "infertile women are women" they will say "then trans women are women, because they are infertile."
Round and round you go, never actually talking about the objective truth in the matter. You're stuck on the defensive because they force you to clarify over and over again to avoid being seen as uncompassionate to a "victim" class, such as barren or elderly women.
Next thing you know, you're backed into a position holding beliefs you hadn't really thought about for the sake of "winning" the argument. You'll end up saying things you don't really believe necessarily because you think it can get you out of their trap.
Instead of all that, you could have just said "men cannot get pregnant" and avoided the whole sordid mess about fertility and what it is to be a woman.
They use exceptions to the rule against you, always, because you're the only one applying any rules. They break them as they please, which provides a very strong offense tactic.
Ok, cool.
So if your first statement is bulletproof, please explain how these sophists wouldn’t just use Thomas Beatie to “prove you wrong?”
Or Trystan Reese for that matter?
Anyone can be a sophist. I prefer the term pedantic.
The sophists wouldn't be proving me wrong.
You sorta miss the point if you think that.
A Sophist works in a movement to subvert that movement by offering up flawed arguments for the movement's enemies to pick apart, thereby whittling down the movement's credibility from within.
Therefore, a Sophist would use the second statement rather than the first because it can more easily shift the conversation instead of addressing the objective fact. Subversion from within is the goal.
Men can't get pregnant, because men do not have a womb. There's no place for a baby to form.
But just because there is a place for the baby to form, that also doesn't mean a pregnancy can occur. However, even barren women can often get pregnant through invitro fertilization, so long as the uterus hasn't collapsed. Their ovaries may be shot, but there is still a place for a baby. The amount of chop-shop you'd have to do to a man for a womb transplant just to give birth means you're less a man and more a monstrous chimera at that point...
Keep in mind, we aren't defining men by the lack of a uterus, because there are women who don't have uteruses. Instead, we open by defining men by their inability to get pregnant at all. Then, when asked to clarify on behalf of women who can't get pregnant, it's much easier to say they aren't men because they still have a uterus. Then, asked to clarify again, for women who also lack a uterus, we can simply present that they simply have no gender at that point, because they lack ANY ability to reproduce. No testicles, no penis, no ovaries, no uterus... What percent in the population are born that way? So long as their genetics are closer to woman than man, even if they lack all reproductive organs, then they are a woman.
All that said, there will always be exceptions to pick at, but if you approach it top-down rather than try to fight up, it's easier to make distinctions that make sense. "Men cannot get pregnant" is a better starting point for this discussion than "only women can get pregnant" simply because there is less room for them to keep saying "then what about this!"
What? Also makes no sense. I have no problem saying that a man that thinks he's a woman isn't a woman. Trust the science. If you're born a man you'll be a man for your entire life. If you're born a woman you'll be a woman for your entire life. There's no such thing as transgender, it's called a mental disorder.
You're not making any sense and you're suggesting that I said if you can't get pregnant then you're not a women, which I didn't say. That's an easy debate to win. Not too worried about people going down this route to try to trap me as you haven't successfully done that.
It's not easy to win because the response was not logically valid. You can't win an argument with someone who disregards logic..
"Only women can get pregnant" does not imply that "all women can get pregnant" so the existence of infertile women is irrelevant. But they don't believe in logic, only emotion.
He's onto something here. I experienced it with trying to voice my opinion with a group of friends that I believe free markets are good.
That topic aside, they took issue with it and probed me with questions. At first not to clarify, but to tell me I was wrong and for so & so reasons. Then I make a rebuttal with some evidence and logic. Then they twist that evidence and logic to dismantle it with some unrelated point of their own. Then they finally ask me to clarify on some definitions. So I do that. All through they stop me constantly to poke holes in the definitions so I gotta clarify even further
6 hours later at 3 in the morning and I never really got to convey the reasons why I thought free markets were good. After making just that opinion alone it was just constantly talking in circles about defining things without ever getting into the meat of it. They never let me fully outline the opinion or the reasoning behind it
This is so true. I've experienced this a lot these past few months.
The beautiful irony here, is that your post has already brought some sophistry to the surface. Kek.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Saying only women can get pregnant sounds reasonable to me as can to me means has the potential.
Another way to look at it is: "If you're pregnant you must be a woman". Which doesn't mean if you're not pregnant you're not a woman.
I know this, a woman cannot get pregnant without a man.
You can’t spell ‘woman’ without the word ‘man’. (They hate that saying…hehe)
"...but there are two i's in idiot" is a favorite saying of mine after the teams thing lol
Thank you for pointing that out. I love this post but your point is well taken too.
There are some here.
There's more here than people think. Say something against "the current thing" and it's handlers and see how quickly people lose it.
There's something they didn't take into consideration - Me.
Checkmate fuckers.
Would a sophist also be someone who is paid to go in and divide folks on beliefs? For instance, lets say you had a group of people all fighting for a purpose but then let's say a person is paid to come in and break it up and they do it based on the minute differences in belief. Such as creating resentment between muslims and christians? Both want their children healthy and not indoctrinated by blue haired liberals correct? They could work toward a common goal, but a sophist would go in and divide them. Turn them against each other on their differences and their beliefs correct?
So a sophist might be someone who comes here attacking completly valid opinions, name calling, etc in attempt to divide us up correct? Such as calling Kanye a 'jew basher' or attacking people who truly believe FE, or creationism by insulting them and driving them away. Right?
Alex Jones has woken up many many people and I like you believe he is controlled opposition. Russel Brand and Joe Rogan could all be controlled opposition. They could also have been white hat agents who infilitrated the left and are now showing their true colors. We don't know. We can only suspect.
I believe their are sophists here now. I believe this because I see people trying to divide us. That's what get's my spidey senses going. When I see people attacking and dividing consistantly. As far as logical fallacy arguments? People just need to quit trying to over logic the next and call BS for what it is. The only reason those exist is because the DS ran the media and could paint those narratives. That is no more for the likes of us. We see through it. We don't play those gotcha games anymore.
Quit all the innuendo, the name calling and BS. Not a single person here knows what's going on. We know that whatever is known would put 99% of us in the hospital and the deeper we go the less real it all becomes. But I think we are safe as long as everyone respects the golden rules.
Civil Discussion ONLY: They want you divided. They want you labeled by race, religion, class, sex, etc. Divided you are weak [no collective power]. Divided you attack each other and miss the true target [them].
Self-anointed ‘Persuasion’ expert Scott (Clott) Adams comes to mind.
My biggest worry is that people I really really respect are. I would be heart broken if Kari Lake were one or someone else I felt was a hero to the movement.
My husband likes her too, I think she is too slick and came out of nowhere but only time will tell. I felt the same about DeSantis. My husband thinks I'm crazy and that they are the next best hope. My intuition just doesn't agree.
Excellent post.
Additionally, some of my most frustrating attempts at redpilling have been with those under their spells. Crafty and insidious.
Man, ain't that the truth!
The fact that the author of the post makes a logical fallacy while arguing against sophistry just goes to show how hard it is to not fall into the traps.
Good post, OP. Logic and reason can get us pretty far down the path in putting things right.
SleepyDude, you are the wind beneath my wings.
Can you fly higher than an eagle?
Ironically, that one song is all that Bette Midler was ever known for, and now she's only known for being a total moonbat who can't shut up about Trump.
They rewarded her with Hocus Pocus reruns throughout Trump's time in office, followed by a sequel.
That's how that shit works.
Check back on November 8th a few hours after the polls close.
Only Pregnant Women are Pregnant Women.
Racism is the big one and everyone falls for it.
To skip right to it, it's a concept which can be invoked in any situation involving people, because the definition assigns people a race. But it is virtually never in peoples thoughts in real world. Perfect sophists tool, round and round you go.
(Thinking your country should be conservative about immigration, is called racism but wanting to have mass-immigration isn't, even though it also fits the definition etc..)
You get to a point thinking you need to say "it doesn't matter if you think it's racist, it is the right thing to do because x y z real world reasons, I don't care about racism"
Excellent posts, as always fren. 🙂
Sounds and reads like you've just described ol' Clown in America's favorite child... Alex Jones...
I agree with the sentiment, and the same types of sophistry can arise with most any topics.
Particularly, as conspiracy researchers, we need to try and examine topics objectively as possible. It's not like we are immune from cognitive dissonance, I say that because of how recently I was confronted with a topic where "it is known" and it took fighting back on the cognitive reactionary response and came to realize just how much I had taken for granted and not actually taken a critical look.
The thing is that, because we are also trying to attract normies into our ranks to get them up to speed, that there are issues that represent a bridge too far, even for those already red pilled on many topics.
My overall point is that, even amongst us, I expect that much of our world view will also be in a state of upheaval when the DS is out of the picture.
THE MEMO
https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Political-Warfare.pdf
Rich Higgins...
https://patelpatriot.substack.com/p/devolution-23#§aint-that-rich
POTUS & POLITICALWARFARE May 2017
BACKGROUND.The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then de legitimize and ultimately remove the President. Possibly confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat. If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.
This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken. At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives. Because the hard left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local (ANTIFA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels (OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate at the narrative level as well. In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the "politically correct" enforcement narratives they've meticulously laid in over the past few decades. In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.
"The question was, Mr. Higgins...
https://youtu.be/dsCk_g9Wjc0 (2 min, 8 sec)
You have operations taking what they see in places like this and then adding on their promises of med-beds or crystal healing or quantum-whatever and it means those followers are discredited with their social circles if they carelessly mention anything crazy. The MSM of course use it to build their "qanon" golem. They reel them off: JFK is coming back to save children from having pizza with Hillary, blah blah
Great points!
Defining them as SellsWords is an excellent way to explain an otherwise total clusterfuck concept. All at once it identifies a very specific corps of a very specialized class of enemy soldier with a very specific purpose that is used on nearly every field the DS is active. If you think of them as a class of soldier you can anticipate how a DS strategist could/would deploy them. How are they used, objectives, character. Weaknesses, flaws, past successes and failures. Origins, employers, names, receipts.
I have to apply this new word to my understanding of some things retrospectively now.
Sorcerers and Witches...our ancestors were much smarter than us; they called a spade a spade.
Deep sleepy. In the book the 4th turning these men were the prophets of the 3rd cycle of an 80 year period. Gates and the techies are also included. If it is his purpose to infiltrate then we need some training on the signs. Be watching for the sellwords
Ah. I disagree.
Thank you. Need more of this type of thinking as we get closer to endgame. These same snakes will try to be on our ship after the storm, and the waters are calm, and then they will introduce harmful ideas to take us in a direction that isn't our destination.
I would also add to beware of anybody trying to get our vote by opposing lunacy. Just because someone says only men can get pregnant does not mean they are on our side. That's just an easy ass way to get support in this clownworld
TL;DR
TLDR: Shills push talking points similar to the narratives of their target group, except the shill inserts [associates] a slightly flawed talking point into that narrative. Later, allies of the shill target (defeat) that flawed point, and discredit all of the victim groups talking points, because many people (who are not well versed in the subject matter) cannot differentiate between the true narrative, and the fake narrative inserted by the shill.
Grifters; the intellectual art of long range gaslighting and utter faggotry
well we know the certain demographic who is crippling us with this retarded mentality.
...also, beware of the ' name stealers ' aka [ Khazarian Mafia ]