Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The driving force behind arguments, and controlled ops.

I got interested in the psychology behind why people believe in ridiculous controlled ops. Perhaps better minds than mine have already figured out the principles which I will lay out in this post and can elucidate them better than I, I only try to do my best with the limited knowledge I have. By the way if I every say something that is wrong, or that you disagree with don’t hesitate to correct me. I would rather be wrong 1,000 times and learn the truth in the end than live a life of smug error.

After much study, it seems to me that throughout history many of the conflict which arose of peoples  against peoples, nations against nations were fought for reasons that only became apparent to those who participated in the wars until well after their conclusion.

For instance we can say that the Jacobite Rebellion was really about restoring Catholicism to England more so than restoring the Stuarts to the throne.

the Casus Belli of the American Civil war was stated to be about States rights, economic differences, slavery etc.. But I submit to you that it was really about forging an American Identity.

WW1 and WW2 far from making the world safe for democracy were about destroying the Christian order in Europe and establishing communism in its place.

I bring these examples up to show that often what we are fighting over is a stand in for what we are really fight about. Imagine if you will two kings who send their champions to fight in single combat instead of having a battle of the rights to who owns a town. The champions are doing the fighting, but the conflict is really between the Kings. I think if we can understand this paradigm it will go a long way to understanding how controlled operations are set up. Why people become attached to them. And hopefully how to “deprogram”(for lack of a better word) true believers.

In any conflict where you have competing arguments and each will have its hierarchy: A central point, often called the premise, supporting points and evidence. This would be sufficient to explain all arguments if people were computers, but alas we are not. For better or for worse people are motivated by higher, (or lower) ideals and to every person every argument takes place under the auspices of the ideals which they believe in. They are formed by the person’s worldview, their values, basically what they believe in, who they are. These manifest into an overriding sprit by which the argument and its conflict operate by. This is what I call the Spirit of the Argument. Thus two arguments in conflict are often really not about the arguments themselves, but are a conflict between the Spirit’s of the Arguments.

outline of an arguments structure, Latin makes things sound more official 🙂

Latin makes things sound more official.

I find this to be generally true in charged subjects and especially true in the case of controlled opposition.

Controlled opposition will take a spirit which is righteous and chain it to a retarded argument and then defeat that argument without ever have to deal with the spirit directly. Thus they infect in peoples mind that the Spirit of the Argument was bad and wrong and has been vanquished. Controlled operations thus operates like a sacrificial goat, sacrificed for the intellectual sins of its counter argument

By attacking conthpirathy theories and troothers using the techniques listed below controlled opposition operations not only ignores the driving force behind the arguments, but seeks to chain it down by association in the minds of the many, without bringing attention to it.

For example the Flat Earth Movement is clearly controlled opposition. Yet the Spirit of its argument is one of a general perception that science has become corrupted, monetized, no longer seeks after the truth, is full of hacks, that science has become dogmatic and religious, too abstracted and increasingly unprovable, non observational, and full of word salads and run on sentences 😉. This is why Flat Earth was created, and created to look so stupid to discredit the Spirit of the Argument which supersedes it. In fact I think that without Flat Earth people would have questioned Covid a lot more. Flat earth is the tail side of the coin which is the Sprit of its Argument: In Science we Trust.

The other thing we should look at is that people are naturally attracted to and follow arguments which align with their own worldviews a lot less critically than they would other wise. It’s easy to get sucked into arguments when they support your beliefs and general perception of things and without discernment you may find yourself defending the undefendable because you know that your Spiritus Argumenti is righteous. But discretion is the better part of valor and to put you at a disadvantage is the nature of controlled ops, so you must be, as Scripture says: innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.

Yet many, if not most, on our side fall in or have fallen into one of these controlled ops traps. That is why I think it is helpful to identify a person’s Spiritus Arumenti and go after that. This is also a helpful tactic when dealing with any argument, especially arguments made in bad faith. If we can identify the “why” a person believes in something, it makes it that much easier to deal with them. For instance I’m sure each and everyone of you has come across the situation where no matter how well you explain something, how perfectly you prove it, the other side will not budge. They are simply a cow who has been led to a river, but wont drink water. What you are dealing with is a person’s lynchpin which if they admit is broken their belief system, their Spiritus Argumenti, falls apart. It’s not even about winning or losing the argument to them at this point, they simply cannot deal with the idea that their worldview may be incorrect.

For example if you were to mention the genetic intelligence component correlation between race and crime most people’s eyes would glaze over and they either get very angry or glitch out. That’s because they’re Spiritus Argumenti is essentially I’m a good person and feel good about myself because all people are equal. Now I know that what I just wrote is not logical, but a Spiritus Argumenti doesn’t have to be. In fact most probably aren’t. The truth is that we all have been so inundated with programming that if you believe all people are equal you’re a good person and should feel good, that most people have internalized it to the point that it is their worldview. They have internalized it so well that I doubt most of them are even aware of it, which is another point about a Spiritus Argumenti, most people are unaware of it’s existence too. They have only a vague notion that it exists as the motivating force for their beliefs.

But getting back to the example I believe if you were to convince a liberal that being a good person, feeling good, and all people being equal are three separate things which have nothing to do with one another it would go a long way in convincing them of race realism. Believing that their emotions and sense of self worth were independent of racial relations they would start to have a different, less tolerant view of criminal behavior, though they would struggle to tell you why.

For another example I think that many people on the right support Russia because they feel hopeless in resisting the ever advancing tide of degenerate communism. The right has been demoralized to the point where many do not believe there is a viable political pathway. Thus Russia, and be extension easternism have become to them an avenging angel. Their Spiritus Argumenti is that of righteous vengeance. Russia plays into this by giving lip service to Kosher-Trad™ Christianity. Yet we know what a Christian society looks like, our own countries were Christian countries not too long ago and thus by comparing them to Russian Kosherdoxy we can draw the necessary conclusions.

 

Ok this post is getting a bit long, and I’m getting a bit tired. I hope you’ve been picking up what I’ve been putting down. I might add to it soon.

EDIT

Just as the spirit is thought to be the animating force of a living creature so an arguments spirit can be thought of as the animating force behind an argument which brings it to life, motivates it and gives it its character. But just as the spirit is incorporial to the creature so to the Spiritus Argumenti is not found within the argument itself. Hope that helps.