The song "You're gonna go far, Kid" by the offspring puts it best. Turning all against one is an art that's hard to teach.
However, it's easy to learn. Drawing from this song, personal experiences, random bits of knowledge, and common sense I'm going to teach it to you.
Show Me How to Lie
Lying is difficult for most people because of the character strength necessary to maintain the lie. In order to convincingly lie and maintain said lie, a weak character is an absolute must. If you run your life according to any sort of ethical or moral code it will be difficult to tell a major, harmful lie and stick with it. In order to obtain power, you must.
First, don't cross your fingers behind your back. Second, become a master on the subject you are lying about. Third... Lie.
The first step is a given, the second step requires a bit of effort on your part, and the third step may or may not be difficult to pull off.
One thing I've observed when people are lying or being deceptive is a clear tonal shift. Think of a lie like a difficult note in a song. When that note is hit, there's a natural tendency to "control" it in some sort of way. Most of the song has a natural rhythm to it. That particular note often either sounds out of key or awkward, because it is being forced. Oftentimes, when lying, people try to keep a straight face and they change how they are speaking in an effort to sound more serious. Try this: Stand in front of a mirror. Say five facts and one lie.
Was there an observable change? Did you attempt to steady your voice in an effort not to lie? Did you attempt to force your mouth into a frown?
If so, try this. Observe and analyze your natural speaking patterns. How often you smile, your general demeanor, and your general tone. Now, try to emulate those qualities while saying the lie. Try again. And again. Eventually, the lie will sound natural. Think about it- the less noticeable change, the less likely anybody is to catch you in a lie.
If this is too difficult, try a different approach. Instead of changing the saying- a- lie behavior, change the telling- a- truth behavior to match it.
If you fall to pieces when telling the lie, fall to pieces when telling the truth. If you're playing a game of "Mafia," start laughing before the game even begins and continue to do so as the game progresses. Continuity is key.
See. You're getting better all the time.
Another clever word
A carefully crafted pile of shit, sprinkled with specks of gold, can look like a pile of gold.
This ties into my next point. Your supporters/followers need something, some collection of data or statistics, they can use to defend you.
Example:
You wouldn't think there would be much data or statistics to support the argument that, on average, certain races are more intelligent than others. You would be wrong. Since a lot of people go into the discussion playing the race card, not expecting much substance, they are taken aback when faced with a substantive argument.
When people's expectations are already set so low, it's easy to exceed them. A blurb referencing a long-term study is all it takes to persuade people.
The average non-racist person who is not well versed in these studies wouldn't be able to refute his argument. Stefan, who is well versed in this topic, can easily spin a web of lies around them. A couple of good points is all he needs to emerge victorious in this debate.
Stefan is wrong. I'm not claiming to be intelligent, but I have read up on the subjects he's talking about. The basically IQ test Army Aptitude test is not an IQ test at all. Several of the sections evaluate how knowledgeable the test taker is on a given subject. Here's a question from the science section of a modern day version of this test.
Which of these is NOT a greenhouse gas?
Oxygen
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxide
Ozone
A) Oxygen
That question has nothing to do with intelligence. You would not find that question on any legitimate IQ test.
This isn't a strong point, so much as it is cleverly worded. Clearly Stefan has read and is aware of this study. Most of his detractors likely are not. This allows him to craft a strong argument. By putting forward the idea that the Army Aptitude Test is "basically" an IQ test, the argument becomes whether the study is or is not legitimate. The study is legitimate. However, the argument should actually be "Is the Army Aptitude Test similar enough to an IQ test that it can evaluate the same qualities. The answer to that is no. By simply being aware of a study that other people are not, Stefan can effectively argue his case.
Going back to point #2- If you want to be able to lie effectively about something, understand the ins and outs of that something. If you want to make an argument about healthcare, find some obscure study on page 100 of google search results. As long as nobody has read it, you can basically make whatever point you want about it. And you'll have enough information about it to give your argument credibility. And nobody can refute it. After the fact, when other people have read the study and are able to refute the points you made, find another study. Repeat this process over and over and over again. Understand potential arguments so you know what study to look for. What piece of information to look for.
Sets off an unsuspecting herd
Attempting the first and second techniques is a futile quest, unless you have the support of the majority.
However, you don't actually need majority support. You just need to have more supporters/followers than detractors.
You won't be able to convince everybody. You don't need to. As long as you can convince enough people of something, you will be able to con them into doing your bidding.
People want confirmation that their views are correct. That 2,000 likes to 14 dislikes ratio confirms this. The comments about "political correctness" and "leftist denialism" tells the viewer possessing these beliefs that they are not racist or prejudiced, but correct.
Objectively speaking, by any definition of racism, they are racist. I'm not saying that to shame people who express racist views, but to point out the power of self and group delusion. This is a group of people who believe black people are not as smart. Somebody, Employing the second tactic, could argue that as long as a given person doesn't view another person as racist because of their skin color and simply believes the data is an accurate reflection of the aggregate intellect of a race of people. I've seen that argument countless times on the internet, and it's clear that the person who accused them of being racist wasn't ready for a logical rebuttal. The rebuttal isn't correct, because science illustrates that our views of people as a whole translate into how we treat and view individuals. But it doesn't have to be correct. It just has to be viewed as correct by a majority of active participants in the conversation.
If 1% of participants are actively engaged, only .6% of participants have to support the speaker. The 99%, who are not involved one way or another, do not matter in this situation. What matters is that it appears the speaker has majority support and is well liked- not that, if the general population was polled, the majority of people would support them. No cult has four billion members.
A Mob Jumps to Their Feet
Here are the statistics for Stefan's Youtube channel:
243,884,085 views
800,000 subscribers (being generous)
Roughly .3% of viewers subscribe to his Youtube channel.
Percentages are not my strong suit. However, If I'm not mistaken, That's around 1/300 people. If your goal is to be well liked, the fact that only a small percentage of people agree with what you're saying is an issue. If your goal is power and influence, how well liked you are in general doesn't matter.
What matters is spread. If a video is seen on many social media websites, by many people, every day, it's easy for the channel that made the video to obtain subscribers. And detractors.
I think LimpBizkit is musically inept. So I don't listen to them. Unless somebody is so outlandish or dangerous that they pose an immediate threat, most people will just ignore them. Most people are not going to go through every video and check each and every study presented and check the source and check whether the study was biased in some way. Most people aren't going to watch something that annoys them just to dislike it.
However, people who actually do agree with what the speaker is saying are going to stick around and advocate for the speakers' beliefs.
One out of every three hundred viewers becomes part of the mob. However, as more people become part of the mob, more people will be drawn into the mob as well. So that number may adjust to one out of every hundred. So the mob grows.
You see this in debates sometimes. A well known debater will stand up, make a mediocre point, step back away from the microphone and get a standing ovation.
Even conspiracy channels on Youtube have far more active supporters than detractors.
Dance, Fucker, Dance
Most of these cultish personalities do not debate with experts. They don't have to. The chances that they're going to sway somebody from the expert's side are very low, the chances that the expert will sway somebody from their side are very high. High risk, low reward. Even if a hundred people demand a debate, all the speaker has to do is wait for them to leave. A hundred more people will come and leave. A hundred more will. Unlike their followers, the detractors probably won't accumulate in number much. An article on the WAPO could cause a temporary surge in the number of dislikes on a video, but people who read the WAPO generally do not want to expose themselves to people like Stefan Molyneux.
The best cult leaders know how to insulate their flock from outside opinions that could potentially change their views or minds. They can pre-construct an argument, accounting for a potential hypothetical future argument. "Anybody who says this..." "Any time you hear this..." They can go head to head with a topical dummy who they can easily beat and use them as a poster child for the entire counter-movement. They can even use the detraction to their advantage- THEY don't care about you. When white supremacists talk about BLM this is a common tactic. "BLM doesn't care about white people, look they called you X." As if they are pre-exposed to hatred and vitriol and the cult is protecting them when in fact the cult is exposing them to hatred and vitriol. They called you X because you believe white people are superior, not because you are white. You only need the cult if you maintain that belief. If you change your beliefs, you don't need to immerse yourself in a bubble to feel safe. But the cult leader uses the actions of detractors to convince people in the cult that the beliefs are correct. And the cycle continues.
I never had a chance
Maybe you have a very strong argument for why a cult or movement is dangerous or wrong. Maybe an argument so strong that, if presented on a public stage, people's minds could start to change.
No cultist wants a free-flow of ideas. They have no reason to let their followers hear you if you are talking sense. So, if worse comes to worse and you are dead-set on destroying the cult, they can either silence you or turn you into Public Enemy #1.
The mob will take care of the rest, one way or another
But No one really knew, it was really only you
This one's simple. Cult leaders do not want followers to be well informed. Many cult leaders know that they are spouting nonsense.
Lead the way show the light of day
If you can convince people that everybody else around them is being deceptive, who can people listen to. They have no choice but to listen to you. If somebody else emerges, spouting contradictory atypical beliefs, just start a conspiracy about them. Your followers, convinced that the outside world is a pathological liar, have no choice but to hear you out. What is actually going on. What they're not being told.
And, they say it with conviction. They don't leave room for other opinions. They don't say "maybe I'm wrong" they say "I'm right." They seem more confident, so people gravitate towards them. And they are confident. Confident that they can manipulate a number of people into believing a lie. Confident that whatever they're saying will resonate with their followers, solely because they are saying it. Confident in their own abilities. In some cases, confident that they are correct. Because their opinion is superior to all others.
Many people want to know what their purpose is in life. Want to know the truth. Cult leaders will tell you with absolute certainty how the world works and what makes people tick, because they are narcissistic enough to do so, whereas most people don't possess the level of self-aggrandizement necessary to make these outrageous claims.
Nice work you did
You're gonna go far kid
Really, that's all there is to it. According to me, I purposely shifted perspectives throughout this piece between "you" and "cult leader." This discrepancy isn't due to my laziness and not wanting to go back and edit the entire piece and my not writing it well enough in the first place.
Almost Anybody can be a cult leader. Most don't want to be a cult leader. You aren't a genius because you lied to someone to extort money from them, you're just a terrible person exploiting the goodness of other people.
The most effective way to deal with cults is to build a strong base of detractors. The longer the cult is left festering, the more toxic it becomes. If there are ten cults, each one of them should be addressed individually. Cults survive because supporters outnumber the detractors, or it appears to supporters that this is the case.
Take a look at Youtube channels that were caught up in massive drama. At the time they continued to do well. The current base wasn't affected. The NEXT base was affected. In order for a leader to maintain power, there must be a steady flow of support. If the detractors can get to potential followers beforehand, they can interrupt the flow.
So, how do you tell who is a cult leader?
First of all, cult leaders have Sociopathic or Narcissistic tendencies. If you get a vibe that somebody is being fake, that could be a sign. Of course, vibes can be misleading.
Second of all, cult leaders often talk in a very specific, measured way. "Slick" is the word I would use to describe them. Televangelists tend to fit into this cookie-cutter esque mold. They have a distinct and consistent rhythm and flow to their speech. Their speeches have an almost hypnotic quality to them. Easy to listen to. Not harsh. Smooth. Even when talking about the opposition they tend not to express much emotion. They come off as cool, calm, collected because they have no emotions and enjoy negative responses. They also tend to talk about emotions more than your average speaker. "I feel truly upset." Seemingly compensating for the complete lack of change in facial expression. Since people tend to believe the good in others, most people won't question them and will assume that if they are saying they are upset, they are upset. And they only need most.
Third of all, cult leaders do not expose their flock to outside views. I looked up Stefan Molyneux- the debates he's had are mostly with people who generally support him. So, if somebody decides to look up the person he's debating, they will not be presented with a completely different set of views.
Compare this to Ben Shapiro who will debate with just about anybody. His followers follow him wherever he goes and he goes on to debate some very knowledgeable and very intelligent people. Stefan's followers follow him wherever he goes, and he does not tend to debate knowledgeable and intelligent people with opposing viewpoints. Whether or not stefan is a cultist, some aspects of his channel definitely fall in line with those ideas.
Even famous cult leaders and televangelists tend to follow the same formula. Creflo dollar still gets his two million dollar jet even if 99% of people who watch his sermon disagree with him. And as long as, of the active 1%, the majority speak up, none of his followers will know any better.
When you walk away, Nothing more to say
Questions or Concerns- put them in the comment section. I will try to address all of them.
Disclaimer: I picked lines from different parts of the song
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
Interesting but this sounds more like a hit piece against Stephan; so, what’s your ulterior motive?
A hit piece against Stefan? I referenced him a few times, but a large amount of this piece wasn't about Stefan at all. He's a Youtuber who has also been accused of being a cultist. I can't say I have nothing against him- I have many things against him- but I can say that, if I really wanted to make an effective hit piece, I think I could produce something a little bit better.
This could apply to any other Youtuber accused of being a cultist but Stefan is the only one I am currently aware of.
Why just him, do you understand what I’m trying to convey? No one is above this including you.
So what bias do you have? What’s your motive?
I figured somebody might accuse me of engaging in the same behaviors I mentioned above. Didn't know it would be the first person, but you have a point and I see what you're trying to convey.
If I were trying to turn people against Stefan, this is the last place I would do so. I'm as likely to attract supporters as detractors and my statements aren't broad enough to rope people in. There's a decent chance that, given the title, Trump supporters will click on this either A) because they believe I'm praising Trump or, most likely, B) Because they believe I'm making fun of him. And there's likely some overlap between Trump supporters and Stefan's fans.
The channel statistics were the best way to illustrate my point. For people who are widely disliked, every X group of people that views their content is a net gain not a loss. Even though most people won't agree with them, very few will actively express this and only a tiny minority will stick around.
These are readily available statistics. I didn't want to start a flame war in the comment section by picking a Youtuber and making a new accusation, so I picked a Youtuber and an accusation that has already been tossed out by much more prominent figures.
If I was trying to shut down ideas I wouldn't choose a title that's likely to attract Trump supporters, who may be less likely to view Stefan in that light, or I would disable comments entirely. And I would have said in advance "People are probably going to disagree with me, because a classic tactic of cultists is to accuse somebody else of being a cultist." And I probably would have fabricated some sort of ridiculous story about Stefan. Which, yes, would raise suspicions in people's minds, but as long as I could attract a few suckers I would still have the effect I wanted.
I also used Stefan because I didn't want to touch on another topic- the genuinely insane cult leaders who believe the nonsense they're spewing. Stefan is an example of a guy who is knowingly lying and twisting information to change people's beliefs. He fits this mold well.
So are you a leftist?
Strawman. This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with cult of personality.
I just want to understand your perspective and motive
I spend three comments explaining my perspective and motive. My perspective is that he is a cultist and my motive was to demonstrate the techniques cultists use.
Oh that’s it?
Because why would you just focus on Trump supporters?
I was saying hypothetically I could. Trump possesses a lot of the same qualities. But, in the interest of being neutral... (and, by the way, I don't like Hillary Clinton either) I picked a guy who likes talking about eugenics. Figured across the board most people wouldn't mind me referencing him in a negative light. Whereas Trump, a lot more people would have an issue with. I didn't want this to be overly political, so I didn't pick Trump.
Am I biased? Against Trump, sure. Against conservatives, no. I believe most conservatives have good intent. Of course, Trump has done some good things in office but rarely, if ever, with good intent and the way he acts on the world stage is awful. And he's not knowledgeable about topics he should be knowledgeable about. He fits the "cultist" mold quite well. His speech pattern is a bit different, but effective in its own right.
Not Knowledgeable about what kind of things? Why not examine Obama? Wasn’t his followers cultist as well especially the media? Can Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Bill Maher not be cultists as well?
I would need sources that I can either agree with or refute. I'd certainly be willing to consider any of the possibilities you mentioned, but I cannot simply take your word on it. To clear up any bias up front- I watch John Oliver. I also watch conservative commentators. Where possible, I try to get my news from Reuters, a site that financially benefits from not being biased. Bill Maher is incredibly smug, but I do watch him as well at times. I don't watch Stephen Colbert.
I would be willing to review articles or information from any site if they have valid points regarding these commentators and cultist qualities. Then, I would review the site to see if it is biased or benefits financially from spinning stories to appeal to their audience. Then review the article. Finally, review the data.
Stefan Molyneux is a Youtuber many have accused of being a cultist. That's why I chose him. Otherpeoplecouldbeaswell, but I would have to see evidence or understand why you believethey'recultist
Unless a credible source has formally accused them and backed it up with some sort of information. A quick google search turned up nothing.
You do understand Google is pushing for “politically correct” ideas and filtering searches.
Again, sources. If I type in either liberals are or conservatives are I get negative results for both of them. If you can suggest a different search engine, I'm happy to try it. As long as it's safe to use of course. I'm not THAT desperate to read this stuff
What are you searching?
Liberals are...
Conservatives are...
www.washingtonpost.com/.../AB4TI9EB_story.html
It seems as though everyone lies and has ulterior motives. The question is who do we trust? Do we trust people who are independent but then at the end, everyone has a price?
This is why motive and intent should now be part of the fact-checking process.
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!