The metaphorical ‘slaughter’ is an example of the practice of psychological force. Since we men are not able to use our forte of physical force, we are limited to playing in the woman’s forte. I remind you of the “Bully Sheeple Destroyer Pattern”:
The Reality Principle is stronger than the Pleasure Principle because all socially existent principles must meet the requirements of existence and thus natural truth. Every viable Pleasure Principle strategy works exactly because of the Reality Principle strategy i[t] really is. If there is an advantage in hiding the truth, it is only because the overhead of hiding the truth, not to mention precluding cooperation, is less than the advantages of exploitation. If you are a superior person in potential, you only need expose the vitally relevant truth that makes the Pleasure Principle look as ugly as it really is. Your job in the circumstances of a psychological attack on your social status by a cultural inferior is to transcribe in convincing fashion from the frame of lies to the frame of truth.
Your job under psychosocial attack is not to measure up to perfect. Your job is to look better than your attacker. No one is perfect in the ideal. As I think I wrote before, a static ideal is nonsensical because change requires a certain amount of instability to create movement.
Exercise #1: So what is the ugly truth about the position of Dr. Oz disguised as irrelevant or as virtue in the rhetoric of his psychosocial attack on Roosh from the segment aired only two days ago?
I basically answered this in my example rhetoric from my analysis. For example, right at the beginning, I would have accused Dr. Oz of slander for his accusation of ‘hiding’.
Exercise #2: So what is the ugly truth about the position of SJWs/feminists/sheeple/demagogues disguised as irrelevant or as virtue in the rhetoric of their attack on Protein World for their “Are You Beach Body Ready?” ads?
Remember, these are not exercises in abstract logic. These are exercises in sheeple terms of logic as it pertains to their narrow concerns of relative status. The use of rhetoric for sheeple husbandry requires the translation into sheeple terms of the logical point. Think of how Jesus in the Gospel does this with challenging each mob member without sin to cast the first stone (John 8:7) and challenging the Pharisees to specify who they are vis-à-vis their criticism of Jesus, to expose themselves first (Mark 11:30).
When Dr. Oz had that stack of 50 papers, I would have asked why he did not send me copies several weeks earlier so I duly could consider it. Then I would have asked him if he had a 100% guaranteed solution that worked. Then I would have asked how a heart surgeon could allow people with a serious risk for heart disease to not be uncomfortable with their morbid obesity. Then I would have asked if he or any of his former colleagues needed any more business for heart surgery. I would have mentioned the bad medical advice pundits have accused him of providing, especially on weight lose. Very easily, Roosh could have swapped the roles of champion and villain. The phrase ‘tough love’ could have opened the discussion to the positive value of masculinity.
“I am here to challenge women to be more. Dr. Oz thinks you are fine just the way you are. If all men were like Dr. Oz, you really would need a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
Archetypal logic is something that sheeple understand. No mercy. Score more public points. For your own safety and welfare increase your margin of victory. Absolutely win. Sheeple gloat when they destroy a cultural superior.
Again with those papers and Dr. Oz’s claim that fat shaming does not work, don’t let that rest. I would have mentioned that not everyone will successfully reduce to a healthy weight, but the example of fat shaming will impress on young girls the importance of not being a food junky, whereas your fat acceptance pablum, Dr. Oz, will impress naive girls that impulse control with food is not necessary, even fashionable. A nation of morbidly obese people cannot stand. A food junky is clearly a personal failure. None of us like to associate with junkies for a reason. Their priorities are unhealthy, their behaviors are unhealthy. This issue is a national security threat, unlike so-called Climate Change. Are we going to bankrupt ourselves treating fattsoes with socialized medicine? Bankruptcy is a historical cause of national collapse. I remind you of the French Revolution. Furthermore, if women are too fat to provide for the basic sexual needs of men, don’t expect Prince Charming to come rescue you. We have needs. We are not your slaves. We will not produce to meet the needs of sloven ingrates steeped on the nonsense of woman’s studies, fat acceptance, women’s equality,… What is in supporting you for us? I am thin, I am masculine, and I don’t owe your fat ass, or want it. Unacceptable. Your waste of yourself and your national example hurts us all.
Fear is something sheeple understand, of not having safety, of low status.
Also, remember to talk to naturally rational men who are afraid to be rational. The brilliance of Hitler’s Mein Kampf was that he wrote to the entire spectrum of rational intelligence at the same time. If you got what he was saying, you were an insider with him, a pal. Like Saul Alinsky explained in Rules for Radicals, don’t be inexplicit about what you want. You want to get compliance from sheeple so they don’t hurt your and perhaps even hurt your immediate low-ranking enemies on the front lines, and you want to use the mass media to get your message out. You can get your message out by talking frankly yet over the heads of sheeple. They go by body language and hear what they want to hear. And having sheeple be your resource is becoming more and more an economic necessity.
Your answers for the above exercises are correct only if they are compelling to sheeple. What are their needs as they understand them? Supply that for the response you want and let them be your means and not the monopoly of the Nu Wurld Oder.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 30 April 2015