While visiting a relative, I mentioned visiting a younger member of our large extended family. My relative said “He is looking forward to arguing politics with you. He likes to argue.”
I had been thinking about how to deal with the many liberals among friends and relatives. Arguing politics is generally useless, even with the most positive-sum arguments and gentle styles, nobody’s mind is changed. I get a lot out of them because it stimulates thought, but those are usually better arguments, not changes to my base position.Most people are like that, we all become more intransigent, more fixed in our position, by the nature of arguments and minds.
Additionally, I am a professional propagandist*, so I know how to cut to the core and destroy their entire foundation of political thought. That is a large responsibility, people are not the same afterwards, and may not think you did them a favor.
This is the process I have decided upon :
First, do we have epistemologies that allow argument to be useful?. Another of my younger relatives a year or so ago told me he didn’t believe in an objective external reality, that the only meaningful ‘reality’ in human affairs is what is shared in minds. I immediately stopped arguing with him, we neither had a philosophical basis that could convince the other.
This particular person is running a chemical company, so it is more likely he has the same values I do, and we merely disagree on the mechanisms to achieve ends we agree upon. Assuming that is so, I will warn him about the risks :
I take my epistemology seriously, and my understanding of the world is that your political views cannot work, have not worked, and are at the root of our many problems in America and around the world. If you argue with me, I will easily convince you of the same, and will do so with an example from the physical world that only requires you to make a judgment based on elementary physics and chemistry. You will not be able to avoid the conclusion about an aspect of reality which will destroy all of your illusions.
Worse, the case I will use is merely one of many such cases, all obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the evidence, although that evidence may be more complex than simple physics and chemistry.
All of that knowledge is carefully excluded from the minds of all of your fellow liberals and progressives, who have made it socially unacceptable to know. It could cost you your marriage, your job, your sanity. I advise you not to argue with me.
As a young man, a winner in life, you will want to do so. Sheer hubris will drive you, you are certain of your understandings. I know, I was the same at your age. Don’t, I advise from my greater wisdom, better to conform with the groupthink. Go along, get along. Don’t make waves. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
At this point, I will wait for the young and naive man to decide to argue. He will, of course, warnings work to make people confident that they know how to handle the problem that is warned about.**
I am going to force you to take this seriously by a bet that will force you to decide between your political views and taking money from me as well as betraying your personal and scientific values. Believe me, the amount you will lose will be a minor consideration compared to those. This is fighting dirty : it pits your judgment and integrity against your political views.
So, you decide how much you are willing to lose. I will write a check to you for that amount to you and sign it and give it to you, right now. You don’t cash it until you have evaluated the evidence I present, along with anything else you think might refute it.
Step by step, I maneuver the poor innocent into the trap. Candy from a baby.***
I figure he will bet the price of a set of golf clubs, $500.
The evidence is simple : first, the 3 buildings that collapsed on 9-11 all fell at close to free-fall speeds. F = ma. No way that can happen if they had collapsed as the government claims, a top-down collapse, floor by floor, because each floor would have opposed the acceleration of gravity, an opposing force. Reduced acceleration == slower fall. Thus, free-fall means something removed that resistance before the falling top of the building reached it. There is a peer-reviewed EuroPhysics News article documenting all of that.
Second, also discussed in that article, 4 different studies have found large amounts of the reaction products of nano-thermite and smaller amounts of un-reacted nano-thermite in the dust of 9-11. Those account for the lack of resistance to the falling top of the building, all of the concrete pulverized into dust, and the steel columns all cut into convenient lengths for hauling to the Asian recyclers. Also for the fact that no forensics testing, mandated by law, was done on any aspect of those building’s collapses. Jones et al discuss that also.
There is no way to explain those facts of 9-11 beyond a false flag operation. No conceivable terrorist organization could have placed so many tons of explosives in buildings with so many very sensitive government offices without it being an inside-job, much less coordinated those detonations with the arrival of airplanes. The government’s lies are ludicrous.
This has other links to good analyses of 9-11, but no more refutation of the government’s story is necessary beyond those two facts.
And no more refutation of your political views are necessary beyond 9-11, although Sandy Hook and the many equivalent faux events, the CIA’s heroin and cocaine smuggling, the NSA’s blackmail database, the CIA’s systematic corruption of every institution in society via pedophilia and #Pizzagate, the entire ‘gun control’ debate, the dismal performance of our justice, educational and medical systems, and the crashing Ponzi schemes that are Social Security, public retirement systems and other aspects of our centrally-managed economy and society are a few of the many equivalent facts.
Don’t try to deny them, you didn’t allow yourself to know about 9-11 either!
Those are all well-known, but unacknowledged by ‘serious’ people in our Stasis Quo, although the term ‘Deep State’ is finally being forced into the public consciousness, even major publications acknowledge that those mafias have supported Hillary Clinton in the recent election and continue to oppose Trump.
As I have been saying for the last couple of years, if peace comes, they hang. They cannot allow peace. Thus, the wars continue with no purpose and no chance of winning. Thus, the continuing political discord here at home.
Government, in other words, is not at all what you think it is.
And you are siding with the CIA! And opposing those of us who value freedom and democracy, who side with Trump against the Deep State and associated mafias.
Your own incredulity is major evidence — people are not what you think either.
QED. Your political foundations have been smashed, and you owe me $500, I am sure you will agree, being the honest, reality-based individual that you are.
*The usual warning. This author is serious about wanting you to adopt his thoughts, and I use the best propaganda possible, 100% truth, with evidence, insofar as I know it. That is the best way to change minds. It is not, of course, 100% long-term full-context Truth, but works as well, short-term. Long-term? Well, that takes omniscience, so I excuse myself, and hope history does also.
**I routinely use warnings to disarm you, the reader. You continue to read my warnings, even to like them.
***I warned him and warned him. I am sure he will be better for the loss of his illusions, long-run, and it will be better for all of us, long-run, that his generation gets over their indoctrination. Short-run, he could lose a lot, and I am indeed responsible for that. TINA, favorite rationalization of reformers everywhere, revolution is so much worse for all of us.
Besides, I stand to make $500. You can do a lot of rationalizing for a few wins like that, so I will be OK.