Think about a politician you really hate. Like Trump, Netanyahu, Sanders, Starmer…. Or think about a social movement or an ideology that makes your blood boil.
You know they are dangerous. So understandably, you hit them as hard as you can. You argue online, you share the gotcha articles, and you call their supporters completely insane.
The problem is that you’re probably not hurting them at all and are even giving them more power. Because the way you attack matters… A lot.
If you actually want to destroy an ideology or a politician, you have to take a different approach. You need to be more subtle and a lot more lethal.
The flaw is that when you get into a debate, you assume there are only two groups in the room: Your side and the enemy.
But you are completely blind to the only group that actually decides who wins.
The Undeciders
Whenever there are discussions about important topics or about adopting an ideology, you have three groups of people.
- People who are sold on the issue or ideology
- People who are against the issue or ideology
- People who are neither.
We all tend to assume that our side holds the majority. But in reality, that third group is almost always the largest. This is especially true the moment when you’re convinced you have the numbers on your side.
To see how fatal this blindness is, look at the 2024 U.S. election
Even though I’m not an American, I was following the media during the election year because I love politics. I find it very entertaining.
So I’m watching these popular shows on YouTube [John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers…] and every day I was on Reddit, which is overwhelmingly against Trump, and it was clear to me that he would lose by a landslide.
Then something weird happens. He escapes the assassination attempt and instinctively poses for that iconic photo.
That should’ve been a massive clue that the situation had dramatically changed, but I downplayed it.
Near the election, he’s on Joe Rogan, and the podcast receives 26M Views in 24 hours.
That’s when it finally dawned on me that he could win; That only a Hail Mary could save Harris.
You see, we tend to get so invested in an outcome that we ignore the glaring clues of how the situation is going, and most importantly, we totally ignore the groups of people who could sway the result.
To give you the same example:
Did you find it surprising that Trump saw an increase in votes compared to 2020 from women, Latinos, and black Americans?
So did I.
Apparently, they didn’t really care about identity politics but were concerned about the economy and were attracted to his unapologetic defiance.
Plus, his campaign was focused mostly on podcasts, YouTube, and X, where these people usually hang out.
We got blindsided [as a viewer of course] because we were inside our own bubble. And it seems like the propagandists of the democrats were also blindsided.
Why does this happen?
The answer is very simple.
The media outlets are very selective in picking certain facts and events and present them in a way that confirms their narratives.
They are rarely objective, and honestly, they don’t have to be because their business model is not to fight for Truth.
They’re only fighting for two things:
One is Ad money.
Second, which is more precious, is your absolute, unquestioning loyalty.
Because if they have millions of people paying attention to their shows, and a good chunk of them are radicalized then they can make deals with the politicians.
This way, they have political power without ever asking for your vote.
Btw I’d highly recommend watching Succession. It’s an amazing show, and it illustrates how the media really operates.
Now while this situation is incredibly profitable for them, for you it is NOT… AT ALL.
You are constantly irritated. You are angry, often without a clear reason, and you also become very predictable – in the sense that it affects how you communicate.
You rely on a style of arguing where you attack the establishment [the ones with the most power] in an exaggerated or even completely unreasonable way.
As a result, you repel the largest group [undeciders] and without knowing you are hurting your own cause.
Obviously, that’s the last thing we want to do. So here’s how you can win a debate or make better propaganda for your favorite issue or ideology.
As we said, we have a group that is pro, a group that is against, and a group that is maybe.
You don’t strive to convince people who are pro because they are already sold.
You also don’t strive to convince those who are against. Because while IT IS possible to change their minds, it takes too much energy.
Plus, you need the haters. I know it sounds weird, but haters are good.
You need fierce opponents to keep your base fired up.
Remember: What is the best way to strengthen a group?
You present an enemy group.
So you always need to have a boogeyman.
And do you know what’s better than that?
A eunuch boogeyman.
Meaning, you have an enemy strong enough to enrage your supporters but not enough to seriously threaten you.
Now how do you recruit the maybes?
You do it by admitting flaws in your approach or conceding good points from the other side, then attacking where they are actually weak.
For example, a massive mistake I’ve seen in the US-Iran war is presenting the IRGC as the good guys, or that they have the moral high ground, which to me is fucking insane.
And from what I’ve noticed, Western media interviewed IRGC representatives and framed them as diplomats, as just some men fighting for their country. When in reality their hands are soaked in the blood of innocent people.
I really think that this supportive approach is going to eventually hurt the left media and even the democrats.
What do you think happens when those viewers come across content that takes them by hand and shows the brutal reality?
They’ll either stop watching the biased media or even flip on this particular issue.
Now the best argument against the war could be made regarding Trump.
I mean, the US and Israeli militaries are formidable. They have been planning for this for a long time. But at the end of the day, the Commander in Chief is an impulsive man who’s obsessed with the spotlight; a man who’s easily influenced by what his base thinks of him.
And that could hinder the war.
The IRGC representatives understand this.
That’s why they have used the left media and a chunk of the right media to increase the political pressure and make Trump give in to their demands.
They know that even though they’re decimated, they’re hoping that the US will withdraw. If they’re left alive, they’ll eventually regain their strength.
They’ve got all that paper from the sale of their oil and from essentially extorting the ships.
Do you think they’ll spend it on infrastructure and public services? Lol.
They’ll use it to rebuild the military.
In this scenario, where Trump has withdrawn without a decisive victory, the democrats would be on the path to winning the election and would be soft or even sympathetic to the IRGC [just my opinion].
But a real headache for the IRGC would be the far right in Europe. They will gain more power and affect foreign policy.
However, I don’t think Trump will withdraw without a decisive victory or a massive show of force that looks good.
So, to make better arguments or propaganda for your cause, you need to consider the advantages your opponent has and attack from an angle they cannot easily defend.
You always try to find the hinge of the debate – a statement that, when proven wrong, everything collapses.
In this case, you don’t call him names or throw the typical insults that are now cliches, but you actually point out that he’s the weak link.
That might even push him to make unforced errors just to prove you all wrong.
But here’s the problem:
You will never find the weak point or the hinge of a debate if you’re stuck in your media bubble.
If your entire strategy is to repeat the same talking points your favorite influencers have been pushing for years, you might convince some people.
But it will be temporary because now that they are curious, they’ll pay more attention to the issue and discover that you told them half-truths or were plain wrong.
That’s when they stop supporting your cause, or worse, get convinced by the other camp.
To see how fatal this mistake is, let’s look at another democratic country because this is not an American phenomenon; It happens everywhere.
And it’s not just about politics, it’s about ANY issue worth debating.
Last year I explained in my course how the opposition in Kosovo was shooting themselves on the foot.
They constantly portrayed the PM Albin Kurti as malicious, as a wannabe dictator, and my favorite – as someone who is secretly working for Serbia.
You have this politician who has excelled in the negotiations [even though the diplomats clearly sided with Serbia] and his government has completely destroyed the parallel, criminal structures set up by Serbia in the North of Kosovo – They have achieved in 3 years what others didn’t in 20… Yet the opposition was saying that he works for the serbs.
It’s like they thought people were stupid.
Even though I don’t live there, I was fully aware of the situation, and that’s why I wrote that the more they attack him, the more they emphasize his narrative as the protector of the country, and the more powerful he becomes.
Recently his party won 51.1% of the votes – the highest result ever.
And keep in mind that the media spent the entire year saying that he was weaker than ever, that even if he wins, it will be a much lower result than before.
So the media and the opposition were embarrassingly WRONG.
Normally, such failure can prompt you to change the strategy, right?
Well, they didn’t.
They still continue with the same bs.
And here we are, 3 months after the election, and according to a poll, the support for the government is 68%
Obviously, a TV poll is not a credible source, but this media outlet is biased against the prime minister. It’s like CNN made such a poll on their Facebook page and got that kind of result for Trump.
To me, it’s a clear signal of the general sentiment. It proves that being hysterical doesn’t pay.
Now, as a voter, I lean to the right, and Kurti is a leftist.
But if I lived in Kosovo, I’d always vote for him.
Because even though sometimes he tests our patience to the limit by playing politics like 3D chess, at the end of the day, he’s CONSISTENT.
We know that his intention is always for the good of the country. He can change the methods but not the goal.
Here’s where it gets problematic…
I know that many of his supporters (including me) claim to be very rational. We are like, “If he ever slips up, we would quickly notice and oppose him more than his actual opponents.”
But if I have to be honest, he has us in the palm of his hand.
In other words, he can make mistakes, and that’s not a big deal because that can be fixed.
But what if he’s making a catastrophic mistake? Something that seriously undermines the country in the future?
Well, the supporters will think he’s just playing 3D chess, the opposition will make some idiotic attacks, so no one will take them seriously, and consequently, he will essentially have unchecked power.
And this is why I sincerely hope that the opposition will get its shit together, because even though he has proven to have tremendous discipline, I wouldn’t trust Marcus Aurelius himself with unchecked power.
Now, this is the second time I use him as an example to better understand the situation with Trump because both of them have a strong narrative and weak opponents, but I’ve also realized that they carefully pick their battles.
You know, if you pay attention to public figures [influencers, celebrities, politicians], they will have strong views on everything.
That’s a mistake because you cannot be heavily emotionally invested in so many issues.
Trump and Kurti might talk about many things to dominate the news, but they actually spend their political capital on a few core, massive issues.
Trump hammers the danger from China, immigration, and an America First policy.
While Kurti hammers anti-corruption, reciprocity, and self-determination.
He views corruption and the shady deals by diplomats in the past as existential threats.
He knows that Kosovo, even though it’s independent, is in a very vulnerable situation because Serbia is waiting for the right moment to attack.
In the past, his predecessors accepted bad deals to appease the diplomats who essentially wanted to avoid conflict at any cost, which, of course, is paid by eroding the republic.
So when you worry too much about stability, you will eventually wake up to find you no longer have a country to defend.
Long story short, he has some core principles that he doesn’t violate. He doesn’t waste his energy on the noise, and neither should you.
Stop wasting your political capital on every trending debate. Don’t put yourself on the line for issues that you don’t really care about.
Only fight about things that really affect you on a visceral level.
You might be wrong, you might be fighting a losing cause, but it’s not really a problem as long as you give it everything you have.
Just the fact that you’re fighting for something you truly believe in is not only thrilling but also beneficial to your country. The last thing anyone needs is a population where everyone thinks the same.
And of course, always consider what the other side is saying.
If you do, you won’t just defeat them.
You will DESTROY them.
