Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface

I have not posted in awhile because I have been working on this series of posts on a debating technique. This series is complex, and so interrelated that I need to roll the posts out all at once – both, so they may be taken together, in their entirety, and they will appear together on the blog. The concepts here will be somewhat radical as well. They were born of such unique personal experiences that I fear some may find it difficult enough to grasp these concepts through the written word, given all of the information at once. Were it not all presented together, individual posts might be more difficult to understand, absent corresponding information in their associated posts.

The basic premise of the posts will be that Liberals are processing incoming stimuli during debates through a completely different neurological filter compared to Conservatives, and their goals within debate are different as well. As a result, Conservatives will argue within the bounds of honesty and honor, to find logical truth, while Liberals will argue in a less rule governed fashion, simply to acquire followers, and create consensus around their views – in essence validating them through public acceptance. This difference in purposes during debate can be exploited, if you understand it.

There is some limited evidence that individuals process incoming information differently. It has been shown that those with low dopamine function tend to show high levels of activity in parts of the brain associated with self awareness, social behavior, and perceptions of environment, and that this is different from those with high dopamine function, who tend to be more task-focused and rule oriented in matters of competition. If, as we assert, Liberals exhibit lower dopamine function, this would explain our inability to reach consensus in debate, even when facts are clear, and conclusions inevitable.

If true, Conservatives will instinctively fail to meet the Liberal on the correct elocutionary battlefield, for it will not be enough to simply be correct. One must also focus upon preventing the Liberal from feeling as if they are amassing consensus around their false premise.

By combining these strategies, one will acquire the support of both those who base their decision upon logic, as well as those who base their decision upon the consensus of the masses. It will be only through these means that one maximizes the support within the populace for Conservative principles and values. It is my hope that this distillation of Liberal debate techniques, and the purposes they serve, will aide in this.

I will probably put this material out in much more detail in a book at some point, but for now, I want to get the basic concepts out there, and on the record. You never know what the future holds, and I would hate to take this to my grave, when I feel it could do so much good for the movement and freedom.

Next up, Part I – Foundational Understandings

Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics

Table of Contents

Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part I – Foundational Understandings

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part II – Mike Wallace Debates a Marine

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part III – Mike Wallace’s Amygdala On Overload

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part IV – The Presentation

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part V – Distilling the Stimuli

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VI – Additional Stimuli

Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part VII – Amygdala Development and Inducing Maturity

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Politics Fact Checker
11 years ago

Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I’ve really loved surfing around your weblog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I am hoping you write again very soon!

SolutionEboh
Reply to  Politics Fact Checker
11 years ago

Help, I’ve been informed and I can’t become ignorant.

DonnaSusieQ
DonnaSusieQ
Reply to  SolutionEboh
11 years ago

That is profound. LOL

trackback
11 years ago

[…] The particular posts which he used to help construct his argument form with Leftists can be found here and I really encourage everyone to read all 7 of them. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe […]

trackback
11 years ago

[…] Today 08:38 PM #4 Vic Ferrari MGTOW Skilled Status : Online Join Date : Oct 2011 Location : California Posts : 1,787 Liked : 8768 times Reputation : 58795 "Don't EVER do that to a woman!" I’ve always been amazed (until I started reading here a year ago) why a woman would reject personal identification and defer to her group by using a noun. If I find myself in the position to advocate then deference to a group is understandable. If I feel threatened, I don’t say “Leave MEN alone!” That would make me sound like a crazy person because I WOULD be a crazy person. Then I read this recently and it all made sense. Interesting theory as far as it goes but incredibly illuminating on some aspects of the female psyche. It is directed at the political binary of “Left vs Right” but useful in understanding my wife’s behavior. I won’t mention details but the “response” I got from these techniques were interesting, to say the least. This is NOT meant to flame brothers on this board who are progressive or “liberal” but helpful to understand aspects of the female’s use of irrational arguments… and their tendency for deferring to “Groups” for identity and validation. Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface | […]

trackback
11 years ago

[…] Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface | My column on Mara Hvistendahl’s book noted that in many developing countries, “female empowerment often seems to have led to more sex selection, not less.” Adam Serwer thinks that idea is self-evidently ridiculous : If “women’s empowerment” led to sex-selective abortion, that would offer a powerful argument against abortion since everyone agrees sex-selective abortion is bad. The problem is that even abortion rights supporters think sex-selective abortion is bad, and the reason is because sex-selective abortion is obviously reflective of coercion by culture if not the state. […]

trackback
11 years ago

[…] that because liberals (and feminists by extension) have malfunctioning amygdalae, it’s possible to destroy them by stimulating it to the point of overload, known as an “amygdala hijack.” This is done […]

trackback
10 years ago

[…] this point I’ll refrain from exploring its rhetorical implications.  (He does so on his own here.  I seem to have instinctively developed many of the strategies he’s discovered […]

trackback
10 years ago

[…] I go any further, I would turn your attention to the works of the Anonymous Conservative, who’s written extensively on the tactics of debating with liberals.  Liberals tend to have […]

trackback
10 years ago

[…] A long read but an interesting perspective on why Liberals are unable to be swayed by facts; An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics also see r/K Selection Theory Reply With […]

trackback
9 years ago

[…] to Deal With the Brainwashed. Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface – I have not posted in awhile because I have been working on this series of posts on a debating […]

trackback
9 years ago

[…] this is ringing bells, Anonymous Conservative discussed amygdala damage in liberals and feminists. Claims of anxiety disorders and PTSD? Yup. Starting to make sense, […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] You absolutely must at all times retain the moral high ground. This means being completely unflappable. Avoid extreme language, except when prosecuting your target. Your goal should be to out-group the leftist and make them feel morally repulsive to everyone watching. This will drive them insane. […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] part series on hijacking a liberal’s amygdala . Hilarity […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] is associated with agony. That is why he put this here. Remember “out-grouping,” in Touching the Raw Amygdala? This is […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] Blogger “Anonymous Conservative” wrote this series of essays a while back to explain the overall motivations of leftists who seem bound and determined to destroy the societies in which they live. The short version is that they suffer, as a group, from narcissistic personality disorder that causes them to act as they do to protect their fragile ego structure from the harsh facts of reality. It is a sad fact that they will do anything to avoid facing the reality about who and what they are, including the destruction of Western Civilization. […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] point you can’t ignore them, than crush and flatten them to the point of no return. Use an amygdala hijack, discredit them, or otherwise destroy them to where they cannot recover. If they are going to waste […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics – Preface […]

trackback
7 years ago

[…] weapons will be turning their own definitions against them and some good old mockery.  If you can trigger their amygdala, they will quickly turn into a sputtering, loud mess of insults and threats at which point you can […]