How To Recognize Meaningless Rhetoric From Masters Of Deception

Identifying and understanding the use of rhetoric is an excellent way to defend yourself against progressive poison. It is an equally good thing to apply against those who cannot be reasoned with logically. First, it is necessary to understand the distinction between logic on one hand, and rhetoric on the other. Then, we will look at examples and explore why one is more politically useful than the other.

When we consider logic, we are talking about the soundness and validity of arguments. Soundness deals with whether the argument is properly constructed and whether the premises lead to the conclusion, and an argument does not have to be true to be sound. Validity deals with the truth of an argument’s premises and their subsequent conclusion. Logic deals with sequence and building, which are in large part left- or male-brained concepts.

Rhetoric, on the other hand, is constructing phrases and arguments that appeal to a listener’s emotional landscape. It picks the audience up, takes them on a ride, then places them back down where it wants them to land. It has nothing to do with truth, relying instead on inducing a trance-like state of suggestibility and gullibility in the listener(s). It is less “built” and more “flowing” and “creative.” In that sense, it is more feminine or right- brained than logic.

The benefits of each method


Now, some of you may be wondering, “which is more persuasive?” Well, that depends on the context. If an engineer needs to know which parts to put in which order to build a machine, he’s going to use logic and sequential thinking in order to begin putting the pieces of the puzzle together…now, if you want to convince a typical non-thinking audience of something, then rhetoric will get you much farther.

Since progressives of all types are essentially unthinking meat puppets living in fear of what their friends might say should they stray from the party line, liberal politicians know better than to use logic. It would go over the heads of their audience, boring them and driving them away. Instead, liberal politicians pluck the heartstrings of their emotional puppet constituency by saying words that sound good and result in good feelings.

Then, they use shaming rhetoric to instill bad feelings in association with certain thought patterns that are labelled as “Politically Incorrect.” The term itself is a shaming tactic, and a young brainless liberal knows that should he dare think naughty thoughts, he will be attacked by others until his compliance improves.

The masters of rhetoric

Much as I despise Barack Hussein Obama for running the free world despite having never accomplished anything of significance besides smooth-talking, I have to give him props for being one of the best (liars and) rhetoricians I’ve ever had the enlightening experience of hearing speak. He and his team have cooked up some of the most meaningless, emotionally persuasive glittery nonsense I have ever heard.

I want to examine his favorite word from the campaign years, back when he still had to pretend that he would follow through with his promises. The name of that sinister syllable is:


Barack Hussein Obama, the brother of a man under investigation in Egypt for affiliation with a terrorist organization, loves the word “change”—but not as much as his audience does. In conjunction with top-notch NLP, Obama litters his speech with phrases just vague enough for them to mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.

This is what NLP is, from a purely Ericksonian standpoint: language patterns vague enough for the listener to project his own experiences, assumptions and desires onto. It is essentially like handing someone a blank that feels really good, and having them fill it in.

For example, “If you care about America, then you should care about change” is a phrase that sounds great….and doesn’t mean anything at all. This is typical speech from a man like Obama. First of all, I will show you where the NLP is here.

The first part of the sentence, “If you care about America,” has two parts. It is the “if” half of an “if, then” statement, which begins with the next part of the sentence. It is also an embedded command, “care about America,” which the speaker would say with a drop in vocal tone or a gesture at the same time to mark the command. The second part of the sentence completes the “if, then” statement and includes another embedded command: “care about change.”

Now, it’s already a very good sentence rhetorically. However, the real genius is in the use of the blank canvass term “change.” Everybody listening to that word has some change they would like to see, whether in themselves, their families, communities, nations or even the entire globe. By using such an ambiguous word, whatever the listener wants to change is automatically linked to “something Barack Hussein Obama promised me.”

He might have promised one person less income inequality, he might have promised another that feminists would rule the world, and he might have promised another that order would be restored. And all he had to say was one word. Best part is, it is impossible for eight years (or one year, or even a day) to pass without change occurring, so in this way, Barack Hussein Obama also covered his own ass. He promised change, and then change happened! Isn’t he great?

Words like “hope,” “progress” and “equality” all belong in the same grouping as “change.” What does progress mean? Depends on what the listener believes should change about the world. What does equality mean? Absolutely nothing. What does hope mean? Something different to everyone. Keep your eyes open for when politicians, media loudmouths and public agitators use words like these. They have been chosen deliberately by those people for a reason, so next time you hear them being used against you, it is on you to figure out the speaker’s agenda and decide what you really think based on truth and logic.

So now that I have explained to you a little about the mechanics behind vague words and liberal rhetoric, it will be easier for you to identify it, guard your mind against it, and mock it openly and publicly so the mouth-breathing hordes and their evil masters know that we will not go down without a fight.

Read Next: Tactics For the War Against Cultural Marxism in 2015

118 thoughts on “How To Recognize Meaningless Rhetoric From Masters Of Deception”

  1. Interesting article, although probably more about NLP than about classical rhetoric, since the author seems to consider pathos to be the most powerful element of the triumvirate, at least for the masses. Interestingly enough a lot of people don’t think NLP works, yet the irony is they often think NLP has conned the public into thinking it works….which would kind of indicate that it does work I guess. NLP loves Milton Erikson I think partly because he is very good at hypnotic like persuasion with those who have already decided they don’t want to be persuaded. My understanding of Erikson is that one of his principal means of overcoming ‘resistance’ (usually in a therapeutic setting) was to use anecdotes which would draw the patient, overcoming the direct threat to the ego of someone who did not wish to be persuaded – the actual therapeutic (or alternatively trojan horse like) suggestion could then be ’embedded’ in the anecdote. Obama’s rhetoric is certainly effective but seems simpler than this. As the author says there is some very careful packaging, and at the time – pre-red pill, I found myself taken in by his charm, and by his promise (yes, I feel shame for that). One thing not mentioned though: ‘change’ has always struck me as a very potent word symbolically too. Change means something to everyone as described, but it also taps into a long tradition wherein ‘change’ meant some kind of marxian praxis, the potentiation of words and ideas to become action – practice. Indeed since Obama came on the scene don’t we spend half of our time talking about the scourge of the social justice warrior? And what is a social justice warrior, but a ‘change agent’, a more soft-focus version of the traditional marxist vanguard. And where did they come from? Who ever heard of a social justice warrior before Obama? Before he came along you just had activists, now ordinary people have been ‘activated’ by hypnotic Eriksonian words into ‘change agents’ for ‘progress’. Unpack all of these words and you’ll find yourself sitting in the front row at the First International.

    1. Change was the perfect incantation, because it appealed to the young and old, both of whom saw themselves as edgy, risky, radical actors. Yeah! down with the old, everything must CHANGE! In fact, of course these people have been the mainstream power-structure of U.S. institutional life for many decades. They’ve changed nothing, except to deepen totalitarian cultural and legal ‘improvements’ within America, while filling their pockets.
      They aren’t wild eyed radicals. Even in the Sixties, most of them were fakes… wannabees. But now they are self-absorbed, materialistic converts to the Religions of Feminism and of Identity, looking for lifetime tenure in a cult that promises a future of unending, dramatic, self-pleasing rebellion.

      1. The system depends on guilt-based re-distribution, and many do very well out of it, but in order to do very well out of it, they have to identify themselves as being on the right side, working towards progress, justice for all, which is a way of avoiding guilt, and claiming the moral high-ground. That moral high ground is increasingly the psychological condition of becoming wealthy. I’d say the rich are increasingly likely to be democrat now, or at least inclined to demonstrate their patronage of social justice issues. There’s something quite perverse about the most privileged becoming the most privileged by bleating about the least privileged, usually while the real poor get poorer.

        1. Democrat, Republican, left or right or apolitical, they are all on the same team as far as I’m concerned. All feeding at the same pig trough, while bleating to one another about their political and moral superiority. Their precious Holy Opinions. The Culture of Me, while pretending to be just so EXTREMELY CONCERNED about sex-trafficking in Africa. Puh leeze.
          Their works define them, and their works are selfish, cowardly, and hypocritical.
          What a punk nation. Three generations of snakes and jackals, telling themselves they are lions.

  2. You need to fix the paragraph on logic, because your definitions of validity and soundness are incorrect.
    A valid argument is an argument for which it is logically impossible that all the premises be true and the conclusion false. This means that an argument can be valid while all of its premises and its conclusion are false.
    A sound argument is a valid argument which has true premises. This means that a sound argument has a true conclusion.

  3. For me the Gettysburg Address takes the grand prize for empty rhetoric. It’s an interesting exercise to read it and then try to paraphrase in plain English what he’s saying. He seems to deliberately conflate the ideas of national unity and representative government and individual freedom in saying how great it is that the soldiers died for these causes. And he implies that without this hideous war, we wouldn’t have any of these things. As with the idea of “change”, different people can read into the speech whatever they want.

  4. This is great advice.
    It’s also good to cultivate your logical awareness. People will try to engage you in logical arguments, but they have premises they take for granted, and paradigms of thought they employ, often unknowingly. This is especially useful when dealing with SJW bullshit, because they often argue from behaviorist, materialistic, and economic paradigms.
    For example, SJWs like to assume a behaviorist paradigm when talking about gender. (The view that a man who cuts off his dick and behaves like a woman becomes a woman). If you want to fuck with an SJW going on about gender as performance, then ask some off-topic hypothetical questions about a man in a coma. Then, point out that gender as performance assumes a behaviorist paradigm, which they only selectively employ, given that they just accepted the premise that someone could be both comatose (no behavior) and a man.

    1. Man who cuts his dick and acts like a woman is a transexual and not a woman no matter how hard he tries.

      1. Sexuality and orientation starts in the brain. Lots can go wrong with children in the womb. My kids were gender oriented from day one (straight) – it’s not something you can control. Remember, all foetuses start off female, no wonder there will be something that goes wrong at times. It stays forgotten that ancient cultures had methods of dealing with those who were gender confused – and it did not involve killing them.

        1. True. But the transsexual technically is neither a man or a woman. Their brain structures may be more like that of the opposite sex they were born as but their body isn’t. Their brain and their body don’t match up so that’s why they are a transsexual.

  5. An NLP expert once told me he could get me to believe anything he told me. I chuckled and said “try me”. Then he walked away. Strong minds don’t fall to jedi mind tricks.

    1. Sooo, he wanted you to believe that you have a strong mind and aren’t susceptible to NLP huh?

        1. Now, I want you to think back to the weave of the cloth of the pair of pants you were wearing the first time you watched that scene. Can you do that for me? Good.

    2. There’s a lot of arrogance in the NLP (or was at least) – I’m thinking especially of Richard Bandler who used to claim for example that he had cured a catatonic who hadn’t said a word in twenty years just by provoking a reaction, but I was always put that down to NLP making bold claims in order to sell itself to sceptics. Its actual techniques seem more subtle and less adversarial, although some point out that its effectiveness has never been proved

  6. It would help if the author actually knew something about NLP, Ericksonian hypnosis, or classic rhetoric. Simply saying “empty meaningless phrases” coupled with “Barrack Hussein Mooslim Guy Oblackman Obama” and “progressives” or “cultural marxism” isn’t enough, this article is about as devoid of content as a weasel worded come on sales pitch for a PUA “Inner Game” infomarketing product.
    EDIT: Which is to say I expected better from ROK.

    1. This article is pure dreck and the person who wrote it will almost certainly be replaced by an SEO blogbot within a few years.
      I guess it’s indicative of their opinion of the readership that an article about logical rhetoric would have so many logical fallacies. Just from skimming there’s an associative fallacy, a bunch of meaningless ad hominem rhetoric that has no place in the vocabulary of a logical thinker, and a complete lack of any falsifiable propositions. Give it a clickbait title and it’s good to go!
      At this point Jezebel and Return of Kings are locked into a race to the bottom of the content barrel in their respective echo chambers and they’re both winning, which means western civilization is losing.

      1. “At this point Jezebel and Return of Kings are locked into a race to the bottom of the content barrel in their respective echo chambers and they’re both winning, which means western civilization is losing.”
        Two sides of the same turd?

  7. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is constructing phrases and arguments that appeal to a listener’s emotional landscape. It picks the audience up, takes them on a ride, then places them back down where it wants them to land. It has nothing to do with truth, relying instead on inducing a trance-like state of suggestibility and gullibility in the listener(s). It is less “built” and more “flowing” and “creative.” In that sense, it is more feminine or right- brained than logic.
    This reminds me of when I debate the left about IQ, about how, yes, IQ plays an important role in individual socioeconomic outcomes, that IQ is congenital and heredible, and that no among of wasteful govt. spending will boost IQ. I give empirical examples, and the left has no rebuttal but adhominem, assuming they even respond. Most simply back down when confronted with empirical evidence that rejects their wishy-washy views.

  8. I have to give him props for being one of the best (liars and)
    rhetoricians I’ve ever had the enlightening experience of hearing speak

    And I admire him for being one of the best politicians I have ever seen: He does what he promised to do. Doesn’t happen so often in politics anymore.

    1. I agree with you. Obama said he was a statist and that is what the mindless Americans want. And the next President will probably campaign on being an even bigger femicunt than he is.

    2. When I first heard Obama give a speech , he used the Helegian dialectic of Marx.
      Thesis -giving rise to the conflict or antithesis , in order to result in the predetermined solution /synthesis.
      Everything he does ,is a deception
      He starts with what he wants to happen, then creates a problem , so what he wants is the solution.

    3. True dat, Anti. Feminism pushed by elites, media and schools can not sway people who aren’t already largely disposed to accept and adopt the Religion of Feminism… or Religion of Femaleness, really.
      Feminsm couldn’t have taken over the West, and especially America, so rapidly and comprehensively, without a very broad and consistent base of demographic and electoral firepower. The screeching campus Victimocrats are only the theatrical face of the demographically diverse lure of feminism, or de-facto matriarchy.
      The elites, both financial and occult, want feminist dominance, for many practical reasons. In the U.S., millions of jobs (often a quite tidy salaries) exist for Feminst and Identity Politics brown-nosing: endless Equalties Officers, Diversity Coordinators, Anger Management Counselors, Womens’ Studies Deans, various professors, vast bloated family law firms, Equal Opportunity (for some) Officers. Etc. Etc. The culture is heavily incentivized to set females in positions of influence and power over males, in order to teach the white male his ‘place’ and to remove from him his putative ‘privilege’. Everything is a Debbie Dragon Re-Education Kamp in New Amerika.
      Then you add the heaviest stone — the influence of parents-of-daughters on feminist infiltration throughout media, schools, courts, government offices, the arts, and so forth. No privilege, no empowerment, no set-aside, no Valedictorian ripoff, no free ride is too good for their Special Snowflake Princess. Meanwhile, some Poor Chump’s Son gets little or no access to the cornucopia of American goodies. Instead, he’s the target of group shaming for his ‘privilege’ . . . even if he grew up mucking hog pens on his uncle’s farm, while the grrls shopped at malls.

    4. Women are pawns, just like the rest of us. The elite are the true culprits. And these elite persons are men.

      1. Women are pawns, just like the rest of us. The elite are the true culprits. And these elite persons are men.

        No No No.
        1. Why are you portraying women as victims?
        2. The elite like Obama have been given power by women (by women’s suffrage to be more exact).

    5. Maybe I was listening to the wrong promises, but I feel that O hasn’t fulfilled hardly any of his promises. I was mildly optimistic that we were going to get a change from the warmongering, anti-intellectual, anti-science W administration, and O has continued or increased almost every bad thing that W did, and added some new bad things of his own.
      I don’t specifically remember him promising to help feminists, although perhaps I wasn’t listening for that. Politicians lie about so much, and the two pseudo parties D and R have their set groups they pander to: You expect platitudes to blacks, women, Jews, the poor from party D and to weapons enthusiasts, evangelicals, gay bashers and the high school dropouts who think they might become millionaires one day from party R, so I tend to just expect those meaningless lies and they don’t even register.
      I don’t find O to be a persuasive speaker at all. He doesn’t come across as a dumbass the way W did, but frankly he just bores me and I don’t believe anything he is saying. His voice is fairly dull and uninspiring, and the language he uses is weak. Clinton, however, is a brilliant orator. The most recent example was his speech at the DNC for the 2012 presidential election.
      What I *DO* typically find is that each party will implement horrible things that the opposing party could never get away with. IE only Republicans can pass things like immigration reform, gun control, free prescription drugs for the elderly, the EPA, etc. and only Democrats can implement presidential kill lists, drone warfare, asset forfeiture, balanced budget / fiscal reform, etc. Notice how the right wing justices are usually the ones allowing in gay marriage and greenlighting the affordable care act (secretly written by a right wing think tank). It is all a smoke and mirrors game and if you distract all the criticism to the “opposing” party while simultaneously getting the things you want accomplished, the public falls for it every time. FYI I’m personally in favor of environmental protection and immigration reform but the examples fit the model above.

  9. I keep reading “liberals this, liberals that”. The same way I read the endless bitching “men this, men that” in feminist mainstream media.
    And I notice that republicans are never included in this website’s articles. Why is that? All of these things can be equally applied to any politician. Are you republican? Traditionalist?
    I read this website with great interest, by the way. My intention isn’t to troll here. My intention is to understand more of what is left unsaid in your articles.

    1. Most readers and writers here tilt right, which is why they focus more on the Dems. However, I don’t think many here have many illusions about the GOP either.

      1. Yes. That’s what I thought. Why would anyone have illusions about the GOP???
        By the way, traditions brought us nowhere. Had we stuck in traditions and “natural” things, we’d still be living in huts or extinct. It’s because many individuals abandoned traditions that we developed and dared to go beyond.

  10. Off topic… but did anyone catch this feminist commercial during the Super Bowl? It’s about saying “like a girl” is insulting and states that many girls’ confidence plummet during puberty and many never fully recover.
    These feminists are getting out of control
    Always #LikeAGirl – Super Bowl XLIX:

    1. I hadn’t seen it (didn’t watch the Super Bowl), but American feminazis have been out of control for a long time.

    2. I didn’t see this one, but now I’m more convinced than ever with this feminism brainwashing in the media. If I were in a sports bar watching the game and this came on, I would’ve screamed what the FUCK is this shit!?
      I watched the last few minutes of the game and noticed the previews of upcoming shows on NBC and it’s all female dominant shit. Also when a guy slaps a kid to discipline him, the guy was put on trial or some shit. Totally shaming masculinity and authority figures.

      1. Then if a woman does the same thing, it is called disciplining her child because she has full rights to the kids if ever she divorces her husband.

    3. Stupid, pointless ad. The difference is nonexistent. The Feminazis are just making a big deal about these things. Men are still faster than women. But other than that, there is no ‘girl’ way of running. People are just making shit up.

      1. They’re actually justifying the firing of the president of the PGA for saying some obnoxious player was ‘acting like a little girl…which he was, but god forbid we accept that

    4. Mouth was hanging open after that one. I was with a group of people who decided to invite their girlfriends and their friends over. Needless to say, I was ready to smash heads by the end of the game…
      We’re supposed to be concerned with confidence issues in girls?
      The same girls who are bombarded with attention and praise, even when hideously fat?? Lord have mercy, I cannot wait for lower body day tomorrow.

      1. I see a problem with modern girls/young women’s confidence. The problem is that they are so massively overconfident that their own lives are being seriously compromised, without them knowing it. They are so convinced of their flawlessness, goodness, supremacy etc that it kind of deadens their brains. You won’t see a modern female down in her basement passionately trying to invent something, to make a name for herself. Why would she? They get the message by age 3; Females are Gods on Earth.

        1. I´ve hardly ever met a woman with confidence.
          They´re really great at acting confident but that´s just masquerade. All the attention, praise and advantages they get in life still isn´t enough for their narcissistic egos.
          You can´t feed a woman enough attention to make her feel confident.

        2. Agree. The girls are setup to “fail” from the beginning thanks to society (plus mom and dad buying into the over the top feminist 3.0 bullshit).
          These girls are told they are wonderful and they are the best from birth (everyone gets a trophy mentality). The very same group pushing this shit is the same group that sets them up to fail.
          More people need to point this out (logic) to them.

        3. They’re confident – make no mistake.

          They’re stupid and arrogant, not confident.

        4. I just don’t understand how you can see it that way. I see Western women as being sick with excess confidence. If you ask them to actually DO something, like fly a helicopter, build a house or fix a car etc. Then, yeah, they will show a lack of confidence. But when are they ever actually asked to DO anything? Almost never, so it hardly factors in. They’re confidence in their own righteousness, awesomeness and importance is up in the ranges of mental insanity for 95% of them.

        5. They’re confidence in their own righteousness, awesomeness and importance is up in the ranges of mental insanity for 95% of them.
          Exactly, that´s because they are narcissistic and arrogant. Has nothing to do with self-confidence.
          Women sometimes look like they´re confident and “tough” because of their good acting abilities. It´s in their nature to manipulate and pretend things.
          Have you never had a verbal confrontation with a woman? There you can see it first hand how non-existent female confidence really is.

        6. Indeed, most women are too hungry for social interaction/approval to ever spend time tinkering in their basement, or going alone to a cabin in the wilderness, or simply shunning society in favor of personal growth.
          Women, particularly feminists, deflect any criticism of the human female’s lack of historical greatness by claiming “women weren’t allowed to create anything”;as if poor blacks in the south were ‘allowed’ to create the blues and jazz. It shows that women, rather by nature, will only do what they’re told. Maybe if a man in ‘the olden days’ had commanded a woman to create greatness, she would have built a computer out of 2 bags of dirt and a rock.
          Also, their claiming ‘we weren’t allowed to’ shows how ignorant these types of women are; they think all the great achievements of mankind were just whipped out of the ass of their inventors, rather than labored over, in basements and barrooms, over the course of a lifetime.

        7. My favorite anecdote along these lines is the Amelia Earhardt story. So, Amelia wanted to fly, so what does she do? (The feminist imperative would already chomping at the bit to hear some story about Amelia having to ‘fight the patriarchy’ or pose as a man or just roundhouse kick, bad-ass her way through all those men picketing her flight lessons. Well, actually the men were working that day. No one picketed. No one cared. Amelia simply walked down to the airfield and signed up for flight lessons. You know who her instructor was? A female…no shit. Where’s oppressive patriarchy there? Hmm…
          Adding to your take. How many women got to live in pure idleness thanks to men’s work? When you factor that in, their lack of innovation gets downright eerie. I have an aunt who has lived for the last 40 years in sheer idleness. Rich enough to even have house cleaners. Not one single hobby that I can mention. She’s never picked up a book. She can’t even name a TV SHOW that she likes. She just has kind of floated around a huge home for 40 years being a higher breed of human, I guess. Like a true princess wouldn’t dirty her hands with something as crass and bourgeoise as a ‘hobby’.

        8. I disagree entirely. To have the take that American millenial females have low self-confidence issues is actually kind of extraordinary to me. Yeah, I get scenarios where you could say, “Hey, let’s go rock climb.” And she says, “No. I can’t do that.” But then she’s off taking selfies and blabbing about herself again a half-second later, taking over entire city blocks with her commanding man-growl, bitching about how hungry she is and ‘Why isn’t there a goddamn ice cream parlor on this block!’ . They may lack confidence in some activity here or there but it’s not like they even attach any emotion to it. They have been pedestalized like Egyptian royalty of old. Christened as Gods (and knowing it) by age 3.

        9. I was unaware that Amelia Earhardt was taught by a woman…explains a lot though.
          Indeed, middle and upper class girls in Europe over the last few centuries were always encouraged to play instruments; they then played for dinner guests, or friends, or maybe even had a recital; yet not a single one of these girls ever created a piece of great music. All the privilege in the world, yet there is no female Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, etc… Suppose that’s patriarchy too.

        10. I hear what you’re saying: these women are treated like delicate snowflakes that are automatically beautiful and perfect just the way they are. And yes, there are women who respond by acting as if they are, although they clearly are not. However, this is not confidence, but narcissism. Why? Because if someone tells them that they are not beautiful or perfect and that they need to take responsibility for their bodies and overall actions, they fly into a rage (a narcissistic rage); these women IDENTIFY themselves with the beautiful/delicate/perfect narrative, but they do not truly believe it. A person confident in their beauty and perfection would NOT be stirred if someone told them that they are not. That is the difference between narcissism and confidence.

    5. It’s a self conflicted message.
      If girls are just as strong ,powerful and capable as boys, then they don’t need an ad, or movement , or any help doing things.
      In fact, if being told “like a girl” stops them in their tracks or makes them cry then it proves they are not strong, not powerful and not capable.
      So the ad should say;
      If you cry like a girl, you probably are

      1. Plus the fact that this phrase is a rarely used insult anyway. As if boys are never told they are stupid. Who hasn’t heard a woman say “Men!” in that harrumphing, hateful tone. The message doesn’t even need a sentence behind it. Just mention the word ‘men’ and everyone knows the long list of negative traits.

        1. the natural derogatory stuff is far more towards fems, not obvious? tits, cunt, pussy, bitch, chick, chickFlick, like a girl, on and on.most of the male negs come from artificial shit like TV+campaigns. . give me a break!
          in real world, how many men feel slighted when some1 calls them a cock? a dick, prick is nowhere near the same level of insult as cunt or pussy. like with blacks and whites, nothing is close to NIGGER. again, lets not b dumbasses.

      2. It’s the never ending “victim” mentality, again, that society feeds them. We’re all supposed to be equal (by now) but this group continues to keep this shit alive.
        How about women are shitty negotiators when it comes to this pay gap versus blaming everything else (men) for their low pay? I’ve worked long enough to see this action. Women will take less (work for less) and they won’t speak up – that’s the reason for the gap.
        The truth would hurt their feelings – so we tell society that it’s men that are keeping women “down” with their pay.

        1. yeah true, equal is only possible with sameness, there are no exceptions. So thus men and women will never be equal. The only equality between men and women is the right to be free, the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
          You wouldnt say an apple and an orange are equal just because they are both fruits, but feminist dont know logic, their natural narcissistic tendencies get in the way.

        2. Thei was at a dinner party a few weeks ago and the topic (of course) came up. After regaling us with a very long winded and extremely self serving speech by how this one (feminist naturally) woman (?) was paid less for the same work some guy there there was the usual muttering and shaking of heads. It kind of just dropped there… I asked in a very concerned tone what her boss said when she demanded more money from him. She looked angry, offended even and claimed that she didn’t bother because he was obviously “sexist”, when I told her that she should really contact the labour board and a lawyer she said that the system was sexist. Are there no female lawyers ? Sexist law schools etc etc. after an uncomfortable silence I suggested that she should maybe consider hiring a negotiator. Silence…

      3. While we’re at it, we oughtta just make speaking illegal. That way, no one ever has hurt feelings, a leading indicator of weaklings and failures.
        How can they not understand that it’s the person, not the words they hear, that forges the adult.

      4. clearly women and other power minorities r not yet as good as white alpha-patriarchal men, but yep.. the system needs to change a bit in not crushing the souls of young women at their most vulnerable. doesn’t matter for most men for no1’s knocking them or saying crap like pussy and “u throw like a man” as an insult..ANYWHERE!
        love this blog but we have to stop the liberal and fem-hating stupidity. one can b an alpha w/o slamming others who r different.per example, acting like what Obama+libTards do is any diff than bush+righTards coming up with “compassionate conservative” +all the other crap karl rowe threw out there. as I recall all this rhetoric crap got put to a whole new level by bush1’s guy Lee Atwater. even now, Republicans often refuse to say Democratic Party or affordable care act (opting for obamaCare), on and on.. this blog should really go out of its way to b as non-partisan and non-sexist as possible.
        its about growing one’s brand. I know tons of “libs”+Dems who r alphas and would this message, plus many independent women who love partriarchal alpha men! y insult and alienate them? one cabt b a female patriarchal masculine alpha? many women I know who grew up in such homes with moms who didn’t slam it LOVE it! y force them left or towards others in the marketplace by cheapShotting them? they r NOT the enemy!
        the enemy includes female patriarchal masculine-alpha individualists/libertarians and your garden variety institutional matriarchy types. see, about institutionalizing stuff. this mag could b the voice of this by offering more honey and broadening the core message!

        1. the only reason people hate feminism is because feminism is a bunch of lies and hate filled propaganda aimed at demonizing all men and ridiculing all women who do not follow feminism. Feminism dug its own grave, people hate it because feminism has become a pungent and hateful cult.

    6. So goddamn ridiculous. It’s over. Prepare wisely. The more power that the left is granted through faux victimhood, the more they will pump up their faux victimhood…because it works. Why would they slow down?

    7. Yes, I also saw this. No surprise they ran it during the Superbowl, when there’s a large male audience. If a girl doesn’t throw “like a girl,” then end gender segregation in sports and see how many women make it to the big leagues.

    8. A tampon commercial during the superbowl that hardly has women watching and those that do , are in the kitchen getting the snacks during the commercial.

    9. Yeah, I noticed how the grown woman thugged the little boy into an ‘admission’ that he wasn’t fair to All Women…. or whatever. How very honorable! Yes how very typical.
      It was such an unsubtile and boorish piece of agit-prop that I couldn’t bear to watch the whole thing. More Female Empowerment Demands while the guys used to be able to just sit and enjoy a little pigskin with their buddies. Now, the Personal is Political, the Personal is even taking over men’s athletics, and there’s no hiding from the mind-puppeteers and their androgynous agenda of Excellent Equality! Next month, if you say she hit like a girl, it’s 6 months county and up to a $10,000 fine.

      1. Until the world goes to shit, and all these grrls finds out–to their sorrow–what it means to hit like a boy

      2. Women have won the battle of the sexes. Men didn’t even know there was one. But how did women win? Just like the commercial. A grown woman bullies a male child. Women attacked boys and then just waited for 40 years. That is the single most cowardly war tactic in world history. Have the adults on your side take on the children of the other side, undermining their confidence, wrecking their self-esteem and then just wait. Pitiful.

        1. You are so right. Unfortunately. That was exactly the strategy, and it worked. Little boys are owned by Team Woman/The State, raised and ruled by Team Woman, and then ‘educated’ by Team Woman.
          As the decades pass, masculinity is thugged and propagandized and shamed out of boys, and most become whatever the gynarchy wants. We see the results all around us in amasculine, broken men.
          Eventually the truth will come out about what was done to boys in America over the past half-century of femi-fascism. The reality is far worse than even men’s advocates can imagine, or believe. I wish I could tell you different, but horrible things are done to helpless boys every day in the U.S. America considers that a feature, not a problem.
          There is no ‘battle of the sexes’. That’s just more propaganda. Men have not organized to destroy motherhood and femininity. Men have not taken over the State and Churches as proxies to crush femininity and to force females to the collective will of males. But females (and enabling males) HAVE done all these things to males, under cover of Equality, Progressiveness, Fairness, Leveling the Playing Field, Protecting Poor Oppressed Women, and on and on.
          The constant agit-prop about a War on Women and a Battle of Sexes is just more cover for cowards, punks, and gender supremacists to disenfranchise and beat-down boys and men. It assumes that males, collectively, are waging some kind of concerted campaign to oppress and hurt females. There is zero evidence for this. It’s just another Useful Lie in a place and time ruled by liars and bullies, like the scum behind that sick PSA.
          Thx for the reply. Cheers.

    10. I saw it.
      Not sure, but I also think I caught a trend. Chevy trucks were advertised during the first quarter, with the message being something to the effect of ‘this large truck makes you more of a man’. It climaxed near the end of the first quarter where ordinary people were asked to compare pictures of the same man posing with the truck and with a smaller vehicle. The verdict was the large truck makes you appear more appealing, with one large and undesirable woman stating that she’d do the truck guy. She may have suggested that she’d cheat on the car guy. I can’t find the video to collaborate.
      I also noticed several ‘pro-father’ commercials. The theme suggested that a father is actually desirable in a child’s life. Now live up to all your responsibilities you men!
      Oh yeah….and towards the end, there was a commercial for the ’50 shades of Gray’ movie. How the marketing people came up with that demographic crossover is a mystery.

    11. Saw it. Was immediately pissed off by it then I thought to myself let me not waste emotional energy on this garbage.

    12. Whatever. It’s a tampon company trying to sell their shit by appealing to the official narrative of the moron market. Who cares? Turn the fucking channel!

      1. Some guys throw like girls some girls throw like guys. When it comes down to everything, the average guy throws further than the average girl.

    13. Yeah, I saw that. Totally ignoring that the word “man” has become a socially acceptable insult with expressions like “mansplaining,” “manspreading,” “manslamming” and any other ugly or unacceptable behaviour.

      1. “Hmmphh….Men!” They don’t even have to add anything. Just “Men!” stands alone as an insult.

      1. God the feminists have gone overboard posing as men calling anyone offended someone from “Pussville.” And they all got obvious names, e.g. “Throw like a man” and (picture of T-Rex) “Tyrann-Osorious” or something like that. It really is MK Ultra tactics on with the Superbowl ads. Pretty impressed with their efforts.

    14. You mean the ad selling tampons featuring a bunch of young children and no adults? Gross and inappropriate!
      The double standard of course is that men would be shamed endlessly by feminists as being perverse or called pedophiles for being attracted to younger developed WOMEN like the local college coeds. Meanwhile they are selling tampons using 7 year olds. Absolutely disgusting.

    15. That commercial had me cracking up, it was so stupid. The people watching the super bowl were looking at me like I was insane. Maybe I am…
      The Dove Men+Care (I think that’s right) commercial bothered me. It basically said that it is manly for men to take the role of mom.

    16. I hope they keep this shit up; it’s only a matter of time before even the whitest of knights start to see that modern feminist activism is no more than silly women demanding the world stop turning.
      Nothing says ‘life of privilege’ like bitching and whining about how hard your life is because…words.

    17. As a woman, I feel that kids need to be taught something quite different. When someone insults a kid, the kid needs to learn that whatever they were before the insult is what they are after the insult and the insult is to be ignored. A girl should also be taught how to throw a good right (or left) hook.
      Words can hurt. People need to get used to it before they kill themselves from a false despair.

    18. As a women I thought that ad was %##**%> stupid Feminists do nothing for women. We can be successful while keeping our femininity. They teach us to be more like men to succeed. Balderdash !! Feminists are more anti-man than they are pro-woman. They need to stfu. Notice in the ad how the boy is shamed for making fun of girls. Stupid. There’s a difference in men and women , it’s a fact! Men like Obama wish they could throw a girl.

  11. Obama is a tool for the cultural marxist overlords who run the financial sector, safe in their manhattan penthouses and upstate mansions. The only people benefiting from this monetarily are the banksters, contractors (I was one for years, so ok we are kind of amoral), and people who get handouts. Meanwhile, in Washington, aka The Legion of Doom’s headquarters, more and more deals are struck and sweaty pedophiliac hands are shaken, ending the future your children could have had. Don’t blame Obama, he’s just a puppet, albeit a very sniveling… conniving… mulatto puppet. To all my blacks and whites out there, guard your families, for soon you will be assaulted by the mongrelization of your race, as evident in his holy martin luther kingness.

  12. The day I learned about Pathos/ Logos and Ethos is the day my eyes opened up to the world.
    Our world operates mostly on Pathos. Excellent tool for manipulating people who don’t recognize it for what it is.

  13. Here it is, another article worth printing and reading closely for later-on analisys.
    Great article, mate !
    With continous deception goin on in today’s world, reading through lies becomes a mandatory skill.

    1. Thank you. I may or may not later write something that expounds on exactly the way in which liberal fundraising groups manipulate the public. If I do, it will really blow the lid off some things that should be public knowledge.

  14. Good article. We need more of this. The Feminazis have had decades of training to employ rhetoric and to make up their schemes, They’ve been funded by the government by way of public universities to do it., while men worked to pay the taxes to fund it all.

  15. When presidents make addresses and want to announce (or sell) something especially odious, they usually begin by talking about how dangerous the world is right now, and how as Americans we must prioritize the preservation of ‘our way of life’.
    This also is a blank-slate phrase, in which the hearer can plug in his/her desire or demand. ‘Our way of life’ targets the reptilian/limbic and mammalian lower-brain structures. It induces instant fear in the hearer. . . fear that their comfy, fat way of life might be disrupted. The Group hearing the phrase instinctually closes ranks, and becomes defensive and aggressive lest their Way of Life be disturbed, even slightly.

  16. If you spot your opponent using rhetoric, then responding with logic means that you lose the crowd.
    That’s why it’s important to understand rhetoric.
    Once your opponent isn’t playing fair, you have no obligation to play fair either.

  17. How about instead of taking the time analyze the rhetoric you just look at who the words are coming from. For example, if that farce of a man known as barack hussein obama suddenly appears on your light box and starts talking to you, its a pretty safe bet to just turn off the tv and assume that anything he says is automatically skewed, biased, or just downright not true.

  18. Yep – liberalism is shit – entirely emotive without any substance whatsoever…feminine in fact.

  19. The meathead ‘feel good’ pipers in power need a butt ass BOOTKICKING off their fucking pedestals. No such morons should ever have ANY significant power or influence over other humans other than them selves. Without pointing names or naming fingers, I can say that ALL the low life YOU KNOW WHO’S in YOU KNOW WHAT-ernment should BACK OFF with the femme feely cluster mind fuck-ocracy and get REAL jobs fitting for them like decorating cakes or something. No one persists in fucking with the order of sexuality unless they are NOT OF THE SPECIES and have the intent to do as an exterminator does on bugs by spraying hormone mimickers which arrest the colonies reproduction.

      1. Open your mind to think more than just in black and white. “liberal” and “conservative” are not the only answers. They are typically the worst answers, however.

  20. I love this article, but I don’t want to.
    “I have to give him props for being one of the best (liars and)
    rhetoricians I’ve ever had the enlightening experience of hearing speak.”
    I, personally, cannot bear to listen to this man speak, although I read the transcripts. His tone is insulting and he is dull, dull, dull.
    “Let me be perfectly clear…”(those words are a cue to plug in your own filter for any speaker’s next words.)
    He can only sound intelligent when his words are written for him. When he is off script, he still has to work to make sure he doesn’t say anything that has meaning. I think his speechwriters are fabulous and his ability to deliver a speech can be quite impressive. However, he usually scolds and is snide or condescending. I guess that’s the rhetorical part. However, fully half, if not more of his audience can’t hear him because of the tone. His people lap it up; people who are regularly beaten down and are used to being treated like dirt respond to it, but the rest of us, not so much. Now that I have said all that, I realize I have underscored your point.

  21. this is the reason im here, for years ive been noticing the feminist illogical rhetoric and stupid facts that a retard could figure were lies but i didnt put much thought into it, but now its in politics and in the court rooms, so i figured i would prepare myself for the real world and educate myself in stupid meaningless rhetoric.

Comments are closed.