Our beloved and dreaded Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH) has released a new Voxiversity video, and once more he and the Voxiversity Foundation have done a superb job of illustrating and teaching the difference between dialectic and rhetoric:

The audio is unfortunately a bit of a problem, at least when it comes to Voxemort the Malevolent’s voice, but the lessons imparted are important nonetheless.

He even gets in his own rhetorical “kill shot”, of sorts, right at the end, directed straight at The Littlest Chickenhawk – which, of course, is also a rhetorical device of his own making.

Nonetheless, this may well be the most important video that has yet come out of the Voxiversity.

This is not an exaggeration. Previous videos, which focused on immigration and war, trade, the importance of Christianity to Western civilisation, and of course the Crazy Christ, were all exceptionally well done, with great production values and plenty of meaty content for anyone to dig his teeth into.

But those videos all looked at broader aspects of the ongoing war for Western civilisation, and were more focused on teaching general themes and values. They were dedicated to helping viewers understand the nature of the war.

This video, on the other hand, teaches viewers actual, useful, relevant skills for real warfighting. To use an unfortunately quite imperfect analogy, this video is Basic Training, while the others are Officer Candidate School.

The previous videos teach us why we fight – but the latest one teaches us how to fight.

The key thing to understand here is that the Right and the Left speak completely different languages, for the most part. That is because we literally think differently – we on the Right have a fundamentally different psychology than our erstwhile friends on the Left, and this fact has been known for quite some time.

There is an entire book – highly recommended, by the way – dedicated to the ways in which these psychological differences manifest themselves.

Conservatives by and large respond well to facts and logic, and tend to argue on the basis of the same. This is not universally true, of course; there are plenty of ways to emotionally trigger a conservative.

Liberals and Leftists, by contrast, respond well to emotive arguments, and tend to argue likewise. Again, this is not universally true – but how many of you have recently been able to hold a factual argument with a liberal or Leftist?

A personal anecdote may help illustrate the scale and nature of the problem.

Back in May, before I had to leave the USA, I met my aunt and my cousin for dinner. As I have written before, my aunt and I are literally diametrically opposed on pretty much any issue related to politics. She is a hardcore Leftist these days, whereas I am very much a nationalist and Western civilisationist. My cousin, on the other hand, is more moderate in his political views, which is a big part of the reason why he and I get along quite well; he understands and acknowledges that his own upbringing, which was – let’s face facts – very privileged and consequently heavily steeped in liberal platitudes and multiculti nonsense, is disconnected from the reality of about 99.999% of Americans.

My cousin and I can easily have a civil discussion about politics, because even though he was raised by Asian immigrants in a very wealthy home and had every possible advantage growing up, he is a small business owner and understands just how insane high-tax liberal “Utopias” like New York really are.

My aunt and I, however, always and inevitably experience severe clashes with respect to politics.

That last dinner with my aunt and cousin was quite a fascinating exercise in rhetoric versus dialectic.

At some point during the evening, the discussion got around to the God-Emperor and his plans to severely restrict immigration. I basically dropped the rhetorical equivalent of a nuke on her when I said words to the effect that people who cross over into America illegally are, basically, an invading army, and that there is only one proper and historically correct way to treat invaders.

That is very simple: you shoot them.

I went further than this and stated bluntly that anyone coming into another country illegally is, by definition, breaking the laws of that country, and therefore needs to be deported.

Now, I did not start the discussion this way.

I started, instead, by pointing out the dialectically correct fact that immigration has historically resulted in war each and every time it has been tried. I provided detailed facts and analysis to support my argument. I noted in some detail the results of the infamous Roman experiment with the foederati in the late 4th Century – referenced by His Voxness in his first Voxiversity video after the project was restarted – and pointed out that the result was the death of the Emperor Valens and a huge number of Roman soldiers at the Battle of Adrianopole just six years later, as well as the sacking of Rome by the Goths about 40 years after that.

I stated clearly the fact that previous waves of immigration to the United States had taken place with significant gaps in between, and that even with those gaps it took decades for the newcomers to integrate successfully.

These are dialectic arguments. They are designed to convince those who think primarily through logic and reason about the validity and correctness of one’s position using deduction, induction, and evidence.

The responses from my Leftist aunt were, of course, predictable.

She went on and on about how America owes the world entry, and how the people streaming over America’s borders are just here for a better life, and eventually the usual Leftist supposed “kill-shot” came up: “won’t somebody think of the CHIIIIIIIIILDREN?!?!?”

I resolutely stuck to my guns and flatly stated that the real crime involved parents making their children complicit in their crimes.

You can more or less imagine how that went down.

No doubt readers would be either amused, or appalled, depending on their political leanings, to discover that the evening ended with a walk to the train station in which the topic of abortion came up, and I simply called it outright murder – which, if you think about it for more than two minutes, it is.

Let’s just say that my aunt and I are not really simpatico, at least when it comes to politics. Other than that, we get along pretty well, but politics is a reflection of values, and her values are obviously very different from mine.

I do not bring up this anecdote to show that I am any sort of rhetorical wizard. I am nothing of the sort. I simply use it to illustrate the difference in mindset and thinking between the modern Left and the modern Right.

The former thinks almost entirely in rhetorical terms. The latter is increasingly beginning to think in both dialectical and rhetorical terms. That is one of the reasons why the Hard Right will eventually win the culture war – as long as we continue to focus on out-memeing, out-thinking, and outfoxing the Left.

We know that the Left can’t meme – and that their only response to that charge is to resort to a dialectical attack, which goes something like this:

Or this:

Seriously. That’s the best that they’ve got.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Learn from the Supreme Dark Lord (PBUH). Learn how to speak in both rhetorical and dialectical terms. Learn how to take on the Left’s arguments – such as they are – and beat them like unwanted stepchildren.

You will be a lot happier for it – trust me on this one.