SCAM ALERT UPDATE! I recently stumbled upon the following advertisement on Facebook, which got me thinking. As chutzpadik as it is for a person to shnorrer funds to write a book, faux-indigenous rights activist Ryan Bellerose only required $27 for his ongoing GoFundMe scam (his promised book on "Jewish indigenous rights"), since this is the likely route this lazy, low-energy, slug will eventually take. That is, by turning his previously written articles into a digital book of reconstituted garbage in PDF form. After all, what sensible publisher would ever agree to work with this lazy clown?
Someone has been posting defamatory statements accusing me of being a "con man" asking where the book is that I have been writing and inferring that I am not writing at all.
I have been writing and the book is in first edit, I reworked some of it. I have posted excerpts before but here is a sample chapter. It hasnt passed first edit so forgive any typos and its not finished obvs
Chapter #
“There is no point in talking about shit that doesn’t matter, it’s boring and nobody cares, when you do that, you lose your audience.”- Merv
There is a school of advocacy that is extremely counterintuitive to me, basically its based on poker, where you never expose your hand so to speak. Never talk about the key issue because you might alienate some of your audience just by making the assumption that the key issue is important.
Several mainstream organisations that were doing pro israel work actually taught young advocates to avoid talking about the “settlements” because in their words “ you shouldn’t defend the undefendable.” that defeatist attitude permeated their advocacy and the adversaries not only noticed it, they attacked it. If there is one thing that I have learned in my sojourns on the interwebs its that the asshats smell inconsistency and indecision like a shark smells blood, if you act like you have something to hide, they will find it. The proper way to attack any argument is not to be spineless and apologetic but to go on the attack. If all the other side wants to talk about is the “settlements” you better be able to defend them with all your heart, because thats the hill they are choosing and you better not die on it! This is what leftwing pro Israel advocates havent figured out yet. All the flowery arguments fail if you cant defend the most basic thing, a Jews right to live in peace in his ancestral homeland. I am sure you have seen these guys ina debate, they are the ones who when asked a question, try to reframe it in an obvious way and the audience sees that and immediately thinks they are avoiding the question because they have no rebuttal. I advocate something much different, its call being unapologetic. Why should you be ashamed to be defending one of the most basic rights of indigenous people? The right to self determination on our ancestral lands? The main reason I am writing this book is that there is way too much apologetic bullshit coming form our side. “ yes the settlements are bad but israel makes cherry tomoatoes” argumentation that literally makes our side look like a bunch of people with aspergers.
The other side never admits any culpability so they dont even have to worry about looking apologetic. Our side is constantly “meeting them partway” but there is no quid pro quo.This is something the other side has done much better than our side, and its actually kind of funny because they don’t even have the advantage of having the truth on their side. They BELIEVE their side is right and They actually have to really believe in what they argue because its so rife with mental gymnastics that any honest questioning of their narrative at all leads to the realisation that their entire side is based on a foundation of bullshit. If you watch them, they tend to argue by rote, literally by the numbers. The best way to beat someone like that is to remain calm and press their buttons. They will invariably lose their cool and say something stupid, that’s when you press the attack and start throwing facts at them. If you do it before then, they might actually try to refute them, if you wait till they are losing it, they will almost always descend to insults and even if they do not, their anger makes them sound like they are weak.
I often use humour to destroy their points but if thats not your strong suit its ok, but know this, there is nothing more destructive to an overwrought emotional dramatic argument than a witty one liner. It is something I have become known for.
To understand why they work,Its important to understand a few things about the actual argumentation, the patterns they use, the tricks they try to get you off your game, and the basic phases and statements they tend to overuse. Once you understand that, you will find that the one liners come easy.
They ALWAYS go on the attack, they do this because they know they cannot defend the arabs human rights records, or the fact that the PLO and Hamas are actually terrorist groups. They cannot defend the human rights abuses or the outright child abuse and animal abuse endemic in arab society in the levant, so instead they will start off with what I call the “baffle them with bullshit” technique, basically they will introduce several antisemitic or anti Israel tropes into their opening as possible, knowing that you cannot refute every single one without sounding pendantic or overbearing. I will pick the most egregious one and refute that one THOROUGHLY, and while making sure to say “ there are too many lies for me to refute every single one so I picked the worst one.” now the moderator might say “please feel free to refute them” in which case you destroy each one, but if he doesn’t, then you still introduce doubt to anyone listening/watching.
Now instead of just refuting their points you MUST immediately go on the attack, depending on their statement you will have a few options. My favourite one is to question their most common and bombastic claims.
Ie “israel is an apartheid state” the immediate response is not to say “ no its not.” say “ Ok if you make that claim, an apartheid state is one that has two seperate laws for two seperate people in the same nation state, can you please tell me 3 laws that make israel an apartheid state?.” now you just showed the audience that you know what the real definition of apartheid is, while asking them to back up a claim that cannot be backed up.
“Israel is illegal under international law!” really? Can you please quote those laws because actually under UN resolution 242, israel is absolutely a legal and valid state as determined by the league of nations at san remo and reinforced by the Un with resolution 242, so which laws exactly are you quoting?
I will go into detail in a later chapter with the standard arguments and some good responses but I hope you see the difference between responding aggressively and just being defensive.
One thing I like to lead with is something I use when my opponent uses the “rising voice” trick. I am sure you have all seen it, its when someone starts off speaking quietly and slowly raises their voice, until at the denoument, they are literally yelling. Its a way to engage people emotionally and a historical figure who used it to great effect was someone all Jews should know about. Adolf Hitler. If you watch his speeches, he always starts off calm, but works himself up into a froth, repeating key statements and slowly getting louder and louder until he is yelling. He used flourishing hand motions and table pounding for emphasis as well. Many arab orators use this technique as well. Funny that.
So when my opponent uses it, I always refer to them being from the “adolf hitler school of public speaking” almost every time several people will recognise it and laugh. I sometimes even mock them with a short impersonation to show how facile and transparent that technique is to anyone who is paying attention.
So when my opponent uses it, I always refer to them being from the “adolf hitler school of public speaking” almost every time several people will recognise it and laugh. I sometimes even mock them with a short impersonation to show how facile and transparent that technique is to anyone who is paying attention.
Also think of a good argument as fishing, you cant just drop a line and grab the fish, you gotta bait the hook, you gotta set the hook and then you reel it in carefully. I think the bait is that they think you wont refute their bullshit, the hook is the mistake they invariably make with making an untrue statement and the reeling in, is you making damn sure that everyone listening can see the lie. Because here is the thing about debates, if you tell a lie in one, and get caught, you lose. Because once people see you lie, you lose credibility. This is why you gotta be prepared, and also never say anything you do not believe. I am not talking about picking at dates or stats, if they say “in 1945” when you know it was 47 just say “47” and dont refer back to it, you made your point that you knew and they didn’t, I am talking about stuff like “ The Jews were never living there” kind of stuff, thats when you hammer home every point you know that shows they were.
I expect the apology and donation to shortly follow, you know who you are.
Wow. You will never get those moments back, the one's I caused you to waste by reading such nonsense. And his disclaimer about editing gives him a window of a lifetime to always be putting the final touches on the book. A real page-turner. Mind you, this is coming from a clown who works for the liberal eunuchs of the Bnai Brith.
I am actually hoping that Bellerose puts out something one day, since it will be the worst thing he ever does; disseminating a treasure trove of foolishness, inconsistencies, contradictions, and historical fallacies. It will be a goldmine to undermine his never-ending stream of nonsensical beliefs. In the meantime, those who even contributed a shekel to this scam, should be screaming from the rooftops:
No comments :
Post a Comment