As we grow as an individual, and integrate our fragmented sense of Self through observing our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and reflecting on them, we grow psychologically from physically oriented beings into moral and philosophical beings. Each state of being transcends and includes the previous states of being, and each state that we master makes us more and more powerful as conscious and autonomous individuals distinct from the collective’s unconscious mind. These four psychological states of being are:
Physical → Emotional → Rational → Moral/Philosophical
Typically, fairminded and balanced discussions can occur between those who are residing in the same realm of integration, for example, a rational discussion, or a moral/philosophical discussion, are usually productive and have the opportunity to increase the knowledge and understanding of both parties. Unfortunately, lower states of being can defeat higher states of being when one is tricked down a level, but arguments from higher states of being are superior to arguments formulated from lower states of being when the one leading the conversation stands in their own territory; basically the low ground defeats the high ground when the low ground is allowed to control the conversation, while the high ground defeats the low ground when the high ground is leading the conversation.
For example, when the low ground is allowed to control the conversation, physical force will defeat emotional abuse/appeals to emotion, emotional abuse/appeals to emotion defeats rational arguments, and rational arguments defeat moral/philosophical arguments. A radical leftist screaming at a muscle bound alpha about their white privilege will be defeated by a solid punch to the jaw every time. However, when the high ground stands in their power and leads the conversation, especially when they are standing in the realm of the moral and philosophical, they have the totality of the three previous psychological states of being plus the moral/philosophical realm working together as one, so against an emotional appeal it is 4 vs 2, and against a rational appeal it is 4 vs 3. I will clarify that when I am standing in my power in the moral/philosophical, and a person is shouting at me from the emotional, my stability and poise may annoy them to the point they try to drop down further into physical force to defeat me, which will backfire on them, because they are now 1 vs 4 rather than 2 vs 4—my natural right (based upon moral/philosophical principles) to physically defend myself with force remains, and I can and will rock their world.
So basically, if after we have achieved a higher state of being through engaging in collaborative (win/win) interactions, we are tricked into lowering ourselves and engage in power struggles at lower psychological states of being, we bite the forbidden fruit, fall from grace, and therefore metaphorically leave the protection afforded to us by abiding in the Garden of Eden. Thus we lose our power and become susceptible to the consequences of the zero-sum game of control and manipulation (win/lose), when we allow lower psychological states to control the narrative and conversation.
When interacting with others, Marxists, SJW’s, and extremists in general tend to come from the emotional realm and use emotional appeals instead of rational or moral/philosophical arguments when they convey their ideas, especially those appeals to emotion that have the potential to evoke a sense of shame or guilt, either through appealing to those emotions with a sad story, or by outright ridiculing the listener in an attempt to emotionally abuse them into feeling ashamed and/or guilty.
For example, in Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy wrote: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”
Rather than defending against their emotional appeals, I, as a moral/philosophcial being, choose to keep all of my arguments and positions in the higher developed psychological realm of morality / philosophy, and occassionally in the lesser developed realm of rationality (as rationality is already contained within morality / philosophy), because that is where my true power lies, and as psychologically underdeveloped people who envy the strong, their power is limited to tricking people down into the lesser developed psyhcological state of emotional appeals. They use the deceptive tactic of emotional appeals and ridicule as a means of causing emotional pain, instability, anger, frustration, and division within their target audience, in order to make it appear they have the moral high ground, when in fact they actually have the emotional low ground, in order to get their way.
SJW’s and Marxists may bark a lot with their emotional appeals, but they have no bite. They typically need large groups, like Twitter mobs, to feel safe enough to navigate life. When confronted by an individual standing in their moral/philosophical power without their group to keep them safe, they crumble—they’re incredibly weak willed people with little to no inner character.
For example, when an SJW stated the following in a discussion about a new Star Wars game by EA where a character within their story prefers the pronouns of “they/them”, they stated, “But it’s not political, people’s pronouns aren’t an idea of left or right wing, it’s a mere idea that people should be respected the same way. Star Wars is a space world with aliens, why is it wrong for them to do this, and get fans respond in such a negative way?”
They subjectively state that it’s not political, which it clearly is when someone understands the underlying philosophy of Marxism and identity politics, and there’s an emotional appeal of guilt “that people should be respected” even when from a philosophical perspective, they’re parroting Marxist and nihilistic worldview that is eroding deeper meaning and purpose that is cultivated between the polarity of the two sexes.
My response was a moral and philosophical one, because it’s “a character used to push Marxist political ideology that contains identity politics’ concept of oppressed vs oppressor within it. Marxism is a nihilistic mental virus that deconstructs meaning without creating any alternative that’s actually meaningful, and does so from envy.” Because I kept the actual moral highground, that of morality and philosophy, which contains within it the physical, emotional, and rational realms, it easily overwhelms the emotional appeal that only contains within it the physical.
Here’s another emotional appeal on the same thread about personal pronouns of the new non-binary Star Wars character, “”no one cares about pronouns!” cried a bunch of manchildren, strangely caring a whole lot about pronouns.” In this, the emotional appeal is shaming people who care about the infusion of Marxism into a beloved Logocentric franchise like Star Wars as “manchildren”. My response was a rational one, which held within it the previous psychological states of emotional and physical, thus carrying more weight and defeating their emotional position 3 vs 2. I said to them in response, “nice use of insults instead of reasoning”, and I then shared a quote by Charles R. Anderson that stated, “observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” I was pointing out their use of an ad hominem logical fallacy they used via ridicule in place of a valid argument that considered the moral and philosophical worldviews contained within EA’s choice to politicize Star Wars.
If in either of these cases, they would have reacted with more emotional appeals, especially emotional abuse, I would continue to respond with comments that point out their weak reasoning and philosophical positions, until they ran off with their tails between their legs, which they usually do. Such people are completely dependent upon our chasing their red herring’esque appeals to emotion as their means of winning, and really don’t have anything else to use should we stand in our power by leading the conversation from beyond their level of psychological development.
We’re not actually teaching SJW’s and Marxists a lesson though, rather we’re standing our ground and preventing them from destroying what’s left of our culture, while also providing a positive influence for any onlookers who witness the exchange. We can model how to stand up for solid moral and philosophical principles, while also giving solid viewpoints that onlokers may not have heard before; they’ll clearly see that rationality, morality and philosophy trumps baseless appeals to emotion. People tend to follow the perceived winner, as it is a natural inborn tendency to follow an alpha like pack leader, therefore we need to develop ourselves into worthy alphas, and give people something better to follow than screeching leftists and their psychologically weak character. It is our responsibility to show our people what true leadership looks like, and to influence them in a positive manner that reflects the moral and philosophical principles found within our Logocentric culture.