Roosevelt should have mentioned that we have room for only one religion -- Christianity. But America had already been subverted in his day, and it was considered politically unwise to say such a thing. The rot was already starting to take effect under the surface. Christianity was overwhelmingly dominant, which made for stability and prosperity, but the Jews were gnawing away at the wires inside the walls. Eventually they would bring the entire house down, and then scatter off to other houses, as is their historic custom.
So many people are against pedophilia, against five-year-old boys being trained to wear dresses and make-up. But are they against all forms of homosexuality? No, most of them say they don't care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. But we have to care, because homosexuality is the beginning of pedophilia and transgenderism. One perversion leads to another. We have been sliding down the slippery slope into Hell for decades, and only now have some people begun to realize what has been happening.
Countervailing statements that commit to a position but have the affect of equivocation, work here.
That means when someone talks about gays you say.
"I'm not against gays. I'm just not real comfortable around them. And I'm unsure its healthy for them to teach their culture to kids."
They'll either equivocate themselves, believing you're just confused, or immediately go to the horn with "homophobe!" or even "fascist!", but it doesn't matter.
heres why
you've offered 'room' for them, while simultenously baiting them into rejecting the moderate position
your argument is based on emotion, which speaks to the moderates, and because it's based on emotion, makes it more difficult to argue against.
You've offered the false statement "i'm not against gays", which they now have to prove or push that you are.
making multiple statements in the same sentence, lets you choose which line of argumentation to respond with. So if you make statement A "im not against gays", and statement B "I just don't think its healthy.", whatever line of argument your opponent responds with, you can choose to ignore it and go with either A or B, depending on which forces your opponent to make a weaker argument. This will fly over their head, but the beauty of it is that it rarely flies over a crowds head, so it causes the other side to look disorganized, and if repeated, you can make them look unhinged, causing people to tune them out.
By premising your argument on uncertainty, if someone makes an argument too strong to ignore (or your opponent decides to whip a crowd into violence), you can retreat to that uncertainty. "Well I'm not saying either way. I'm just not sure.", and even when they make any sort of effective argument, you can troll with "I'm just not certain about that."
They'll then continue to argue the point again, which will bore onlookers. The key here is to make more frequent eye contact with the crowd (not staring, but frequently looking back at them). Punctuate the "I'm not sure" by timing it to coincide precisely with making eye contact with those in a crowd. This make people feel good, and cause them to identity with you and your statement. If you don't do this, the effect of your opponent repeating his argument will be to cause the crowd to agree with them eventually because typically the longer and faster someone talks, the more likely they are to convince someone (old marketing trick).
Use ambiguous statements, countervailing equivocation, and emotional arguments based on uncertainty. They work.
(post is archived)