I have a sneaking suspicion that the panned still of the above video was taken from a moment no longer than the blink of an eye. The editing, the editing.
Deconstruction – Neutralization of a contrary opinion or message and its advocate’s standing by baiting the advocate into regressive explanation with entreaty for clarification of first principles.
Intersectionality – The determination of an individual’s social welfare and political correctness by the confluence of that individual’s demographic markers like race, sex, economic class, religion, etc.
The first term, deconstruction, is the practical technique essentially developed by Jacques Derrida under the guise of a ‘philosophy’ that is really a more concrete manifestation of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, itself really a strategy of creating a complex of abstract fundamentals to serve as a foundation by which world communism may be implemented through cultural rather than military conquest.
This comes from the Wikipedia entry “Frankfurt School”:
Whereas traditional theory can only mirror and explain reality as it presently is, critical theory’s purpose is to change it; in Horkheimer’s words the goal of critical theory is ‘the emancipation of human beings from the circumstances that enslave them’.
This comes from the Wikipedia entry “Critical Theory”:
Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.
Whereas a true theory presumes to report an aspect of reality, so-called Critical Theory presumes to substitute an alternative reality, which is intellectually dishonest. Masturbatory intellectuals, those of high IQ that fool themselves as they misrepresent their intellectual worth to others, have their masturbatory vocabulary hiding pretentious absurdity. The problem is that others give it a logical, deceptive purpose: world conquest. Critical Theory is a strategy not a theory.
The second term, intersectionality, is another intellectual trope of reverse causality developed to engineer the goal that is Critical Theory. Instead of acknowledging that individuals are of different abilities and worths because of different constitutions, we are to blame the reality of peoples’ constitutions or circumstances for the injustices of the world. The solution to such a ‘problem’ would be a grand government mandate of equitable constitutions and circumstances for all!
This comes from the Geek Feminism Wiki entry “Intersectionality”:
Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.
We are then to believe that if some authority does not control every aspect of our lives, the oppressed will never get relief from the oppressors. Only through absolute centralized control can we have justice for all.
Deconstruction is a rhetorical weapon designed to convince targets that they lack the ability to know who they are or anything at all. Intersectionality is a rhetorical weapon designed to convince targets that they lack not only individuality but individual agency.
What I have given is a rough background on two terms that denote rhetorical techniques you are likely to face in your interactions with sheeple, you PUA, you.
I could give my analysis of the following video clip “Paul Elam of a Voice for Men on ABC 20/20 discussing Men’s Human Rights”, but that would give you an easy subconscious out. If you like, watch the interaction between Elizabeth Vargas and Paul Elam.
Question #1: Which of the two rhetorical weapons are being used and who is using it?
Question #2: Did the target identify and defend against the rhetorical attack, and if not, what could the target have said as a counter offensive to improve his/her social standing and the acceptance of his/her message?
In all fairness, question #2 is a bit hyperbolic. The video ends before we can conclusively say the target should have explicitly handled the rhetorical weapon itself because factual responses may have been adequate. Additionally, since the interaction is recorded it can be filtered.
However, the point here is the forest not the trees. I want you to understand that target could have counterattacked the logical foundation of the attack and by association (as sheeple always ideate unphilosophically) the standing of the attacker. Here is a hypothetical exchange.
Post-wall Careerist: “Why don’t they get a fair deal?”
Masculine Realist: “You are paid something like six figures to follow and understand current events. How can you seriously ask that question?”
At this point, Careerist can either volunteer a position to defend…
Post-wall Careerist: “Us women are so patient with you men, like right now. Ha, ha, ha.”
Masculine Realist: “You aren’t being patient. You are avoiding factual, adult conversation on the critical issues of marriage and family and pretending this is television journalism.”
Or, Careerist can stay on point…
Post-wall Careerist: “It’s a legitimate question. Why don’t men get a fair deal?
There is a shit load of reasons, enough for a deluge.
Masculine Realist: “Women file for divorce twice as often as men, and they are vicious about it. Wendy David got her husband to liquidate his assets to pay her tuition and then filed divorce the next day. With evolution theory and the empirical testing of modern seduction, with the obvious breakdown of the family and various statistics and stories we know what liberated women are. Liberated women are promiscuous, spoiled, and unrealistic about marriage. The one thing of value a woman can give a man that he can’t get elsewhere better is sexual and reproductive value. A liberated women does not provide nor commit enough value for the damages she can and does impose through the state at will. Rape charges, domestic violence charges, sexual harassment charges, divorce with a restraining order and without notice or discussion. We don’t want to pay through the nose for infrequent and lousy sex, false promises, and vindictive deceit when casual sex with these same women before marriage offers a better product no less available for free.”
What I want to see is PUAs that have tight game beyond just getting laid. The narrative lies are so blatant that they are a house of cards waiting to be knocked down by someone well versed in rhetoric, anecdotal evidence, and statistics. Quite frankly, men don’t have the balls to be men. It’s going to take serious work, but we can win these social battles for public opinion and social standing.
Tell me who had the social skills in this exchange: Chris Cuomo or Julien Blanc?
In summary, this is the practical idea we can apply to stop getting reamed. The content of what sheeple say is not their motivating logic or purpose: it is bait. There is no viable logic in sheeple narrative. Protect yourselves. Hell, fucking start winning! I would not challenge the system, but if you can’t socially take down one sheeple woman or one sheeple man in conversation, your masculinity and your charm/seduction/game are weak and need work. This is our journey, until they take away the Web at least. Savor the opportunity. We are the Manosphere. You only live the days you get one time.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 04 March 2015