“In one of your podcasts you spoke about how debating is kind of effeminate and a better way to approach conversation is to look for ways build people up, especially other men. It sort of struck me like playing toss - you want to give the person something they can feel good catching. Would you speak to this?”
-Polymarchus
The Plague Upon Our Words
The question here is, on an intellectual level, whether we support investigation or invalidation.
On a personal level, the concern is can the person you are considering awakening to the truth capable of consuming it without going mad?
Further, there is the questionable wisdom of seeking to inform and enlighten those who mean you harm without immediate cause, in that you did nothing to them. These people will tend to be aligned with the overarching control mechanisms of the extra-human aspects of society.
The most disastrous type of government, democracy, is centered around debate, which is a form of opinion negation and thought invalidation done before an audience, making it inherently corrupt. True conversation should be for the enrichment of the participants not the entertainment of the onlookers. Also, the onlooker aspect tempts the person with the higher level of social cunning to enlist the crowd as supporters and make the debate an exercise in ostracism. Most importantly, the debater is well served by not revealing facts which he knows could be used to counter his argument and which his opponent may not know. It is no accident that debate has become a highly paid spectator support precisely at the time in our decline where two thirds of our society each hates the other beyond reason and the silent third is drugged in cannibalistic slumber.
I will not debate.
I would rather discuss a subject with someone who also has an interest in it in order to build our knowledge base. The method I prefer is to search for points of agreement and by deduction find those points where we disagree and save those for a time after mutual trust that we are truth seekers and not social partisans will enable us to discuss our differences with good will rather than acrimony.
Our Emotional Dependents
Various types of people are our emotional dependents who rely on us for inner and outer needs in their struggle to remain human and sane in an inhumanly constructed matrix which is designed to submit most minds and drive those few which do not imbibe the nectar of the hive mind and submit to programing to the brink of sanity and over into the babbling abyss.
I abide by this strictly when dealing with people who have placed trust in me as an employer, coach or companion. As an employer I never attacked an opinion of someone dependent on me in the workplace but used that expression of theirs to better understand them. Even in the case of having to change Joe’s mind about the importance of working his back stock before writing the order, I did not argue with him, but waited until his dumbass reordered something that was on his overhead and then suggested working back stock first, as if I had never said it, rather than dredge up the subject in argumentative form by saying “I told you so.” This gave him the sense that I was not looking to burn him and he began to trust my intentions.
Fighters must trust their coach, so I never attack their beliefs and opinions, but consider them in the context of his persona and wrack my brain to find a way of easing him into a wider understanding, if and only if, he desires to expand his understanding. He may have limited capacity in this regard. If he holds to an opinion that certain kinds of people are bad, you could simply introduce him to a person of that kind who is good and then after he has declared the third person a good dude, simply mention that this good dude is also one of “those people.”
The best overall method to chip away at delusions or beliefs that might be holding back someone you care about, is to simply offer facts that might counter an aspect or assumption implicit in that belief without moralizing the fact.
As for folks you don’t care about, why would you try and help them find the truth? The truth can be weaponized by evil people as easily as the lie. This brings me to mind of the abortion struggle being waged as I write. Why would a sane person, worried about the decay of the values in his society, object to his moral, religious and political enemies killing their own unborn babies?
This brings us to the final category of person who is likely to disagree with your rational opinion on many a question, your Frail. This might be your mother, your sister, your wife, your lover or your daughter. Whoever she is, she is designed with a fundamental desire to show compassion and to serve the very person who is aggressing upon her. The foundation of human reproduction is the woman’s acceptance of aggression upon her person. The more she identifies with her society in a tribal setting the more she will crave violence upon enemy peoples and become the most bloodthirsty gender of her group. The more she identifies with a Civilization as an ideological concept, the more likely she is to crave and reward violence against herself and others by outsiders and underlings. Civilizations are morally sterile and a frail wants to be fertile, maternally and as an object of contention.
It is, by my crude estimation, not possible for 9 in 10 women to imbibe and be awakened to the Truth without, at some point in the process, breaking down. Weaker women will simply refuse to believe facts or beg for them to be twisted into flowery platitudes. Stronger women run the risk of insanity and deep despair once reality has intruded with finality upon their inherent vulnerability.
As emasculation progresses and seems to be the keen foci of The System, more and more men have and will become psychologically female. This is why democracy is a terminal political disease, because it promises to make every man a chief even as it turns them into women.
As we remaining men venture into the long night ahead, understand what criminals have taught us about fighting Civilization; that you must keep the tender minds of your frails veiled.
Happily Ever Under: The History of the Sexes According to Jack and Jill
Sage advice here James. Hope you’re feeling well.
I one made a comment to one of my sisters in a similar vein to to your comment on abortion.She thought it beyond the pale though she also recognizes who the enemy is.
Thank you.
I'm stopped up on the words "invalidation." Can you speak to that more?
To me it seems you're making a distinction of emphasis and intention. Where is my understanding wrong? Certainly two men who trust one another will point out where the other is wrong, with the goal of helping the other arrive at truth. But the goal of an argument is not to arrive at truth, but to be seen by others as correct.
So, narrowly, "invalidation" occurs in both scenarios, but in the masculine instance, it's not the goal.
Done properly, correcting trusted friend is validating his worth.
Emphasis and intention are clutch aspects to masculine interaction.
I have written 3 articles on this and will post them over the next two weeks.
thanks for the material.
"his brings me to mind of the abortion struggle being waged as I write. Why would a sane person, worried about the decay of the values in his society, object to his moral, religious and political enemies killing their own unborn babies?"
Because infanticide begets more infanticide and if the most innocent among us can be subject to capital punishment for their mothers' crimes, how much less can we expect justice from the State?
Justice from the state as a notion is a dangerous fantasy that has gotten us where we are.
Also, the notion that those who wish to surgically alter, maim, kill, chemically castrate and rub us out, are "us" is even more dangerous.
These unborn babies will be indoctrinated to outlaw your very thoughts and make your faith a crime punishable by sterilization and other chemical means. You finding away to force their parents not to kill them, all but guarantees that they will be among those calling for and perhaps implementing your erasure.
"Justice from the state as a notion is a dangerous fantasy that has gotten us where we are. "
You and I are both skeptical of the nation-state, but governments have always existed. As a Christian, I am never exempt from obeying the lawful commands of lawful authorities (Romans 13). I disobey only in cases where rules are illegitimate or they ask me to disobey God or the government's wickedness compels me to disobey. Examples include them engaging in genocide, etc. Abortion actually falls into the category of genocide and a line should've been drawn in the sand a long time ago by some lesser magistrate such as a governor. We now have a de facto ongoing genocide against the unborn.
"Also, the notion that those who wish to surgically alter, maim, kill, chemically castrate and rub us out, are "us" is even more dangerous."
It's definitely heading in the wrong direction. The philosophical and religious and therefore ethical underpinnings of our civilization have been undermined to the point that obedience to the state and rulers will only be achievable through brutality.
"These unborn babies will be indoctrinated to outlaw your very thoughts and make your faith a crime punishable by sterilization and other chemical means. You finding away to force their parents not to kill them, all but guarantees that they will be among those calling for and perhaps implementing your erasure.""
The biggest problem is that they expropriate our own children because we fail to train them or shelter them from atheistic ideas. Many people blame the public schools but I think the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of parents. Either way, babies are innocent.
Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=EJsuYqyYT5c