On a central dialectical con: Shifting the level of abstraction to force compliance and abandonment of reality

In a conversation with a friend yesterday, I was trying to describe one of the main cons the left has used to deracinate our culture, and for that matter, our basic sense of reality. Certainly to manipulate our behaviour, and it has been MASTERFUL at that. Examples are relatively easy to find and think of, but it was nice to come home and check messages and find that a near PERFECT example of this technique was dropped in my lap that made this essay easy and fun to do.

First, let me explain the con.

Pills are good for you.

Anything we call a pill is therefore good for you.

If I take pig faeces and put it in a pill, you will take it cause it is good for you.

If you do object, you are an anti-piller and therefore a danger to society as you are a potential spreader of misinformation by telling people not to trust or take pills the state tells you to take.

By Taxon shifting, you make the narrative attack impossible to criticize.

By shifting the level of taxa,
the propagandist moves the discussion up or down the categorical hierarchy until the category you want forced, becomes immune to criticism.

You can no longer object to this pill because you’ve been linguistically maneuvered into objecting to pills as a category.

Once the conversation has been shifted away from the specific, where evidence lives, to the general, where slogans live, the argument is already won—by them.

• A specific objection is reclassified as
  ? an attack on the entire category.

• Once you are framed as attacking the category,
  ? you become immoral, irrational, or dangerous.

• Then the social pressure enforces compliance,
  ? not through facts but through taxon manipulation.

And that is when the magic trick is complete.

You can see this pattern in every Mass Line narrative attack or dialectic that is launched on the West. Women’s rights become total disempowerment of first, men. and then women as in the trans-narrative. 4th wave feminism was for the destruction of women. Any objection to that and you are misogynist. I could go on but any reader of this site can easily recognize this particular rhetorical weapon in the multitude of narrative attacks we face every day. The Mass Graves in Western Canada being just one of the current ones, where pointing out that there is zero evidence of mass graves and in fact unusually, evidence of absence of mass graves makes you a racist and unfit for society.

On to the example:

Liam Neeson Narrates Anti-Vax, Pro-RFK Documentary

Liam Neeson has a very particular set of skills—skills he recently lent to a new anti-vax documentary that glorifies the rise of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.

The Academy Award-nominated actor, known for leading roles in Schindler’s List and the Taken franchise, narrated the film, which includes interviews with Kennedy and other prominent anti-vaccine activists.

Plague of Corruption: 80 Years of Pharmaceutical Corruption Exposed features a bevy of discredited claims about vaccines, including that they cause autism and aluminum toxicity, and frames Kennedy’s leadership of U.S. health policy as hopeful.

The film is based on a book co-authored by disgraced researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits—known for her role in the Plandemic series—and attorney Kent Heckenlively. The book was published by Children’s Health Defense, the multimillion?dollar anti-vax group founded by Kennedy.

This is just the first four sentences alone!

It would take me the rest of the day just to expose all the sophistry just in this segment. But let’s hit the main points here.

Liam Neeson has a very particular set of skills—skills he recently lent to a new anti-vax documentary that glorifies the rise of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.

I haven’t seen the documentary. he may or may not “glorify” RFK, but this article is certainly written to bring both of them down in credibility in a classic critical theory manner. (See Saul Alinsky Rule XIII) However calling anyone “anti-Vaxx” because they note real harms done by products falsely or properly called “vaccines” is itself a dialectical con. As in the pill example above, not everything injected into you is a vaccine, but if you broaden the definition enough, then heroin is a vaccine to prevent withdrawal.

This first sentence alone is already an example of Taxon Shifting. To focus the analogy:

All vaccines are good for you

Anything we say is a vaccine is good for you

To oppose any vaccine makes you anti-vaccine and therefore a public menace.

This is spell craft and it is manipulative for the purpose of mass destruction of every single vector, component, aspect and attribute of our identity as individuals, and as a civilization.

The Academy Award-nominated actor, known for leading roles in Schindler’s List and the Taken franchise, narrated the film, which includes interviews with Kennedy and other prominent anti-vaccine activists.

Same mechanism at work here. Calling people who do real science, meaning you examine the efficacy and safety of a given product then determine its risk-benefit (like ALL MEDICATION EVER) in terms of its fitness for purpose. If the benefits outweigh the risks, it should be used for those cases. Opiates are hugely beneficial to the health when used for serious pain temporarily. They are hugely damaging when used as a way to kill a Friday night.

This entire article is premised on the notion that:

All vaccines are good for you and the public

All people should take all vaccines.

To argue anything else makes you subject to a critical theory attack on your person and value as one. Read on and check the adjectives used for all the people referenced. Its clear as day.

As to the science of vaccines, yes lots of them have done real harm. The Swine flu vaccine (the term Vaxx is usually reserved for mRNA platform gene therapy injections to distinguish them from classical vaccines as they have always been understood) was discontinued after I think, 40 deaths thanks to the activism of German doctor, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg:

• German physician and epidemiologist

• Former head of health for the Council of Europe

• Very influential in halting the 2009 Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccination campaign

• Publicly exposed the WHO’s redefinition of “pandemic,” and the pharmaceutical lobbying behind mass-vaccination contracts

• Later appeared with Reiner Fuellmich during the early COVID investigations

Shakespeare opined in Romeo & Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

To which the Simpsons rightfully responded: “Not if they were called Stink Blossoms… or Crapweeds.”

Homer Simpson was more immune to mass line attacks than about 80% of humanity it appears.

Here are a couple of related videos. One on Spellcraft which is now called “political Warfare” and another which is not on this thesis but I am told, is an excellent debunking of the mass graves narrative attack on Canadian concepts of private property. And remember, that is the level of abstraction for which that attack was meant to work. NOT on any other aspect of anything said about abuses at Residential schools. This is about deconstructing Western Civ, one brick at a time and the concept of private property is a huge one.

Again, “With the left, the point is never the point, the revolution is always the point.” (David Horowitz, attributes this massively important quote to leftist activists in the US during the 1960s.)

I linked this video above but I think it’s worth putting in the post. On Spellcraft, which then became Political Warfare methods.

Below is a recent documentary on how people are treated if they present the truth in contradiction to the mass graves narrative attack. Again, this is what we might call an acceptable counter narrative, as by arguing the point itself, we are not noticing the actual purpose of the narrative attack. Perhaps a clearer example of that might be:

[NARRATIVE – mRNA experimental gene therapy injections, several of them, are good for you and will protect you from disease etc. etc.] [Acceptable counter narrative: here is the science on that and none of this is true and we can prove those who said its true are lying and these are not good for you, nor do they work, and there is no acceptable use case for them]

As long as you argue the acceptable counter narrative you do not see the target of the initial attack, and therefore do zero good for the strategic goal, even if arguing the truth and real science is necessary to save some people from making dangerous choices.

[The PROPER response: I don’t give a damn if these shots work or don’t. The state has no right to demand I take them or coerce me in any way. This is massive state over reach and I will not comply. The choice to take them is my own. The role of the state is to inform and allow the public to act in its own interests based on the best information. There is no condition under which the state should take the authority unto itself to act in the way it did and is.

The proper response is always drowned out by the allowable counter narrative and the debate that takes place between them as a result. 

Is this what Hegel meant by “Thesis, counter-thesis, Synthesis”? He may as well have.

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2025/12/13/on-a-central-dialectical-con-shifting-the-level-of-abstraction-to-force-compliance-and-abandonment-of-reality/