Misc advice on rhetoric and arguing ⭐

Also published on Twitter

An important thing to realize about propaganda is that people (both enemies and neutral bystanders) won’t believe the explicit claim you’re making, but will (even subconsciously) believe the implicit assumptions you make.

Dwell on the implications of this for a minute.

Also published on Twitter

Do you see what’s going on?

The whole Javed Akhtar “debate” is an example of leftist kayfabe. The point of it is to have both sides accept a common premise that “Muslims are oppressed”, so as to reinforce that consensus.

Also published on Twitter

The way to think of it is: assuming leftist frameworks in your argument generates “intellectual debt”. May address the direct threat in front of you but affirms the assumptions (because, like I keep saying: more than the point you make explicitly, people are convinced by what you assume implicitly).

The one correct way to do it is to cite things that are in your enemy’s frameworks but not fundamental to them, but actually are important to you. Think e.g. Buddha citing non-fundamental things in H literature to accuse Brāhmaṇas of hypocrisy, e.g. “Brāhmaṇas should not take usury, but they do!”

Similarly it is good to attack Muslim supremacy or frame Left-liberalism as a colonial empire, because these actually are problems, and the left really doesn’t want to apply those principles in these cases.

Also published on Twitter

Good tweet, but looking at the replies you see why we need to be extra-explicit when explaining things to our retard publick.

Don’t say “contrast this…”. Explicitly say: Opposition was anti-Trump when Trump was pro-India and loves Trump now that turned anti-India.

https://x.com/KiranKS/status/1953299189414154513,KiranKS

Modi supporters became Trump supporters when he was pro India. They rejected Trump when he turned anti India.

Now contrast this with the other side.

Also published on Twitter

Same reason why doing sarcasm and ironic poosting doesn’t work.

This is not 1980s Britain. This is the land of emotionally incontinent reel-addicted seethekicking juvenile baboids. Just say things explicitly.

Also published on Twitter

They criticism they would levy against a Hindu saying something analogous would be far, far disproportionate. But doing the bare minimum acknowledgement here lets them pretend to be fair and secular.

Same applies for Shekhar Gupta types paying lip service to the farm laws to LARP as libertarian, or CentristLibs™ pretending to be different from leftists.

“See I criticize my side when it’s the wrong, I’m so fair!”

The trick is to pick an irrelevant crazy-sounding person/claim on your side with zero traction, and criticize it—bonus points for doing it in a way that actually gives it legitimacy as if it were a reasonable suggestion.

Also published on Twitter

Hot take: when it comes to making another religion’s conservatism look bad, Indian RWs should learn from the undisputed masters of propaganda: Western libs.

Libs have been incredibly successful in making Western conservatives look like incels (even when most are not)–

https://x.com/Zoomerjeet/status/1793144844325687755

Nobody understands aesthetics as well as libs do.

This is the movie Olivia Wilde made specifically to shit on Jordan Peterson.

Abhorrent shitlib bullying, but it gets its job done: makes men seeking a traditional 1950s wife look like pathetic losers who are also r*pists.

The Kerala Story should have been a literal remake of this movie: a medieval Islamic palace & zenana in a desert, turns out to be a project of Muslim incels world over who drugged their gfs/cousins, bankrolled by a Qatari prince. The men leave for “jihad” (cab driving) every day.

Libs don’t cv*kpost about how conservatives are “taking their women”

They just make traditional American conservative relationships – both the men and the women in them – look low-status.

And this is important even beyond childish “I f*cked your mom/planted my bhagwa” bs–

Because this was their primary weapon in turning all the status-conscious elites liberal.

Also OT but the use of the “kheti” quote as an own is embarrassing, because it demonstrates never having engaged with your own religion. The kheti analogy is very common in Hindu literature. E.g. Kautilya:

Also published on Twitter

Seethe against Aella is a good ex of why people think “conservatives are mean/bullies”.

Libs bully too, but for specific political/cultural goals—they bully their enemies, or bully people into supporting them. Whereas RWs do it vent frustrations, signal hate & disgust without aim.

Also published on Twitter

There is a Hot-Crazy tradeoff for Party Members, it is the Smart-Unreliable tradeoff.

IT cell boomer: Smart 4, Unreliable 0 Hanania Montana: Smart 7, Unreliable 10 @hindookissinger: Smart 8, Unreliable 6

Somehow MAGA managed to fill its ranks entirely with Smart 0 Unreliable 10

This isn’t a shitpost btw. People should think in terms of this Smart-Reliable Pareto frontier more when evaluating if someone is valuable.

One who is far from the frontier should not be elevated or rewarded. One who breaks the frontier should be regarded as a thought-leader.

Also published on Twitter

BJP posting gobi memes is dumb.

“Harsh” rhetoric must be done by anons (that too with more seriousness) while the adults provide rhetorical/legal cover for it.

Published on Twitter by @

Also published on Twitter

The most important points to hammer in to the in-group right now are:

1. TFR/natalism-pilling
2. Nirṇaya-pilling i.e. getting serious about the muslim problem
3. correct conceptualization of the Liberal Raj
4. BJP is good and we should do everything to give it more power

Also published on Twitter

One imbued with faith may acquire excellent learning even from a lowly person, special law even from the lowest, and the gem of a wife even from a base family.

---Manusmṛti 2.238

This spirit is what made “good-faith debate” possible in Ancient India.

Something old-school American classical liberals/conservatives failed to understand is that in a highly “credentialist” society, debate only ever favours those who already control the institutions.

Because if you pwn those without credentials, people will just say “great job pwning a rano”, and those with credentials can simply refuse to debate you saying “why would I debate you, you’re a rando”.

Also published on Twitter

See this is what I’m talking about when I say the ancient Hindoo practice of good-faith debate can never be replicated again.

In antiquity, this guy would be challenging all proponents of his rival ideology to debate, and they would have to take it or risk losing their honor.

Also published on Twitter

The correct position is:

• sappott US RWs
• don’t believe in their magatard theories about health etc
• oppose lib ideology
• fight libs
• learn from their tactics

Most Indian RWs do the exact opposite:

• mudfight US RWs all day
• believe in magatard theories
• do unrequited simping for lib ideology saar we feminist saar we environmentalist
• hardly even recognize libs as a serious enemy
• don’t learn from their tactics

Also published on Twitter

The right is plagued by those who lack virtue (grifters) and those with an excess of virtue (Yudhiṣṭhira-syndrome virtue-signallers).

What is necessary is a calculated willingness to sacrifice virtues for a greater cause.