Normie Narratives:

I used to think you'd have to use some cold hard facts and stick to them to start redpilling. That was before I found out that normalfags actually love pol style humor(provided your timing and jokes are on point). It gives them this giant thrill to hear people say things that are largely thought to be verboten. Before you know it they'll be making nigger jokes right back to you. I think I have started to understand this. Normies are completely burnt out on politics. They are tired of hearing about Trump even if they still don't like him, they are tired of hearing news stories that take hours of research to comprehend. They are hungry, hungry for something that will keep their attention and let that pressure in their head out. Nigger and muslim stuff is the best as anyone with a set of eyes can see what is going on there. That said this pamphlet is an excellent idea for that one cuck who wants to push back or call you rayciss.

bumperoo

Bump for OP. When you have pests you get a pesticide designed for the pest, you dont try to Walter White some in your kitchen

Go for it, OP.

This. This is why the bantz was vital last year. The normie feels the tension of the lies he's forced to believe, and humor starts to make them ridiculous. It shines the light on them, and the kike scrambles for cover.

Arguing with them in seriousposts means they have legitimate points to address. They don't. They're fucking clowns and should be treated as such.

Bump. I'll start collecting the leftist (((arguments))) I come across on social media and post them here. Pics unrelated.

Look up the ancient Liberal Doublethink chart. Highly relevant even if it's not the same thing.

Look up the ancient Liberal Doublethink chart. Highly relevant even if it's not the same thing.

Fix your servers chodemonkey. I hit the reply like 4 times because it failed to post.

Serious question, is there any reason I shouldn't worship Lucifer, Moloch, Ba'al, Mammon, etc El? The elites worship them and they're the elites so they must be on the right track here. Praise Moloch.

...

Because the Book of Revelation is a fortelling of the fucking of you over so hard. Also gas yourself kike.

someofmybestfriendsarewhite on tumblr has a lot of answers to common arguments on FAQ
would you care to check it out?

Look up The Hammer of the Patriot. It's a handbook on arguing with normalfags written by a guy from Ironmarch. It focuses more on rhetoric and reframing the debate than logical argumentation.

...

Do some on gun control OP.

Thanks guys, I appreciate all the encouragement.

I do appreciate what you're saying. And, though the shills will jump in after I say this, the bants on The Daily Shoah is the reason a lot of my edgy normie friends got into white-nationalism and looked into the JQ rather than staying as 'capitalists' and 'conservatives'.

However, in my experience talking to people about these issues I've identified a huge demographic of apolitical people who fancy themselves 'logical libertarians' and 'rational centrists'. Basically, they are low-info people who are conflict-avoidant because they don't know what they're talking about and don't want to look stupid. They often act as the 'moderating voice' on places like Facebook. I think you know what I'm talking about now.

I'm specifically targeting these people by appealing to their pseudo-rationality and using deductive reasoning.
But I'm also including rhetorical replies to bait them into showing their bias. For example:
"'White' doesn't exist, what is white?"
"What other group would you say that to?"
Once they show their bias and start stumbling to explain themselves you can start posting your materialist explanations of why race does exist. I'll have the book set up so that the rhetorical responses are before the scientific/materialist responses.
Again, the bigger point is convincing the many more people reading the comments to be like 'well, this clearly makes more sense.'

Thanks lads, I'll look through all the sources, post as many as you can.

Yeah, that's utter shit. It's largely rhetorical as I say in the introduction and has a hostile irrational tone to it.

I might add it in later. I'm mainly focused on race, gender differences, explaining Jewish influence from a normie perspective, immigration, the idea of Nazism as an animating myth that Jews use to undermine all Tradition, the idea of the holocaust and it's historical insignificance especially after revising the death tolls to realistic numbers (Look at the Bengal Famine, The Holodomor - why do we only here about the holocaust?), etc.

Plus, gun control is extremely easy to argue against.

Personally, I hink this is a wild goose chase with these people. You're on point with you assesment that they are combat-avoidant types, but thet aren't simply low information. They are intentionally low-info because they are cowards afraid of defending any real position, but delude themselves from this fact through appeals to and defense of jewish created moral frameworks. They can't be swayed from a position if they never take one.

Just because a site has Rational in its name does not mean it is. Half the articles are just blatant ad hominems on alternative theories. I recall reading an article about Expanding Earth Theory on there which, instead of refuting it on sound basis, literally just called the theorist 'batshit insane' (very rational) and just kept repeating 'we have evidence tectonic plates tho!' which did nothing to refute the theory. The site is a fedora filled cringe fest

...

Shit, OP, I forgot I had this. Take this, it'd ought to help you.

Good idea OP. I've been thinking about making a specific pamphlet related to Brexit in case they (((give))) us another referendum like they did with Norway to try to reverse the vote. Here are some talking points I've found work quite well;

This is an easily digestible version of nationalism vs globalism without triggering idiots' programming so they stop listening and start shouting. Many left-leaning normies have a useful dislike already for buzzwords like 'bankers', 'giant corporations' and 'the global elite'. For example;

Use stories, not statistics. Statistics can be used to prove anything and the normie won't bother reading them. For example I don't use stats on how globalism has affected the working class. I'd say something like this, tying it in to the previous point;

Basically, take the absolute moral high ground and stick to it. Don't be defensive in any way. They're programmed to go along with oppressor/oppressed narratives. Phrase it so they can't possibly disagree with you without sounding like they hate poor/oppressed people.

Is not going to convince anyone who cannot think for themselves, which is exactly the people we're trying to convince. You have to lead them to conclusions, like leading children.

I would add to that list something that has reared its head in the last year, something like;

Or

I would add that many (myself included a few years ago) just don't want to deal with all this conflicting information some of which seriously undermines and outright disproves many of the (((facts))) they have been taught are true
It takes courage to swallow the red pill and most normies are too afraid to do so

no they don't retard. cognitive dissonance sets in, they feel woozy, and they ignore your dialectic because it carries bad feefees. very few people change their opinions because of sweet reason.

I have a general question. What do you use as a response when you give someone statistics and they tell you that "it doesn't matter, statistics can be manipulated"?

Then question any and every statistic they dare to quote.

Normalfags like shiney numbers right?

Fiscal Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics

archive.fo/ZM3sc
archive.fo/sBR50

There are people who follow rules, and there are people who use rules.

This is a nihilistic, scorched-earth debate tactic that's been popularized by (((critical theory))). Most often, I've gotten this shit from women, as they genuinely have no interest or value in being correct, accurate, or even logically coherent. Reflexively, I would turn the argument into a refutation of the so-called accomplishments of critical theory, which is a totally barren landscape populated by shitshow retard cucks sucking dick all day, as you should know, but this is a complete waste of time. In reality, any and all debate with the person who believes in critical theory is doomed to failure, a philosophical nihilist has convinced themselves they are smart because they cannot be defeated in debate. A nihilist has a weapon that mirrors its damage on both parties, you can point out that they then have no statistics to back up wage gap/cop violence/white privilege/campus rape, but they literally could not care less. "So what, your arm is off. Can't hit me, can't hit me!"

The only way to debate a nihilist is to abandon the 'debate' as such; they have no interest in victory and accept no defeat. The correct direction, at least for me, is to look as smart as possible, put on my monocle, adjust my bow tie, make sure my coattails are straight, and then proceed to shit all over the person with cheap rhetorical tricks while pointing out how idiotic their nihilistic tactic actually is.

In all honesty, beating the truth into some basic bitch liberal is the only effect method for them to understand.

Okay, thanks. There are just some arguments that to this day I still get pissed about and wished I had said something different.

...

Now, why would cops be scared of negroes?
Also, is that nigger implying that number change according to who you're working for because his teacher said so?

I forget who I was having argument with. As the user pointed out how he usually gets this argument with women, I'm pretty sure it was a female.

angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.pdf

laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/Zeiger - Hammer of the Patriot.pdf

From what I've seen in Baltimore, cops aren't scared of niggers, they just figure policing them is a waste of time, endangers police lives, and if they actually shoot the shitskins they have a million law suits and the city smearing them all over the news, basically destroying their career. It's a thankless, dangerous job and they know that the dem mayors and governors, and predominantly black city councils, don't have their back against the criminals.

Humor user here. Your idea is absolutely essential and I see your strategy now. I will say however I think humor is still the way.
The key is the conflict avoidance part here. The low-info types you talk about only act this way because they think they are swimming with the current. What they don't know is that an increasing number of normies are seeing the world for the way it is. The whole context of the discussion needs to be shifted via humor which will bring in der normie on your side. Like I said normies are burnt out on politics. So much so that they are beginning to resent any political discussion which goes over their head(read:all of them). Putting this discussion in the context of simple truths that when denied illuminate the absurdity of the opposing argument will get normies back in the discussion but on your side. Normies crave being able to voice their poorly thought out emotional responses. Give them what they want and watch as the twerp larping as a philosopher is completely unable to hold their interest or communicate with them effectively. The low-info type is more interested in appearing smart than effectively communicating their ideas. A favorite tactic of mine is the 'poop swastika' routine. A supposed hate crime pops up on tv or in the news and as others act shocked you calmly say:
The story if you don't remember was about a nog drawing a swastika on a bathroom wall at some university with poop that eventually got exposed. The beauty of this is that the story about the hoax is going to come up on any search of 'poop swastika' and it immediately seems funny. While your normie friend is searching for this there is a good chance they will realize how ridiculous this story is. While they do this play up this ridiculous side by playing on the normie's ignorance.

Came here to rec this too, it's exactly what OP is looking for. Only negative is that it's a bit dated for some of the more cutting edge normie topics, but it's a great place to start.

This is exactly where I have had my successes. IF normies could use reason they wouldn't be normies. Give them a little soft-shoe.

...

This is absolutely correct. How many times have you heard some asshole saying 'everything is politicised these days, I hate it', or 'I'm not interested in politics anymore, it was just a phase'.
But we're really thinking of two different subsets of normies: the pure normie and the normie who fancies himself the 'intellectual' and 'unbiased' person. It's the second party I'm mainly targeting; it's a bit easier to manage a pure normie by just memeing so you won't need a book on that kek.

Good goy.

Your approach is in a way hacking cultural marxism and using it to get the upper hand.

It kills me that normalfags are so indoctrinated that the only way to keep their dwindling attention span for even a second is to play by marxist rules.

I'm not discouraging you from doing anything regarding this (quite on the contrary, actually), but if your goal is to get normalfags to share your thoughts in the end, I'll give my 2 cents.

Force of persuasion works 20x better than force of evidence. If you knew normaltards you'd know that the scientific/evidence basis of what they believe isn't that important as the popularity of that idea and the sense of community they find when expressing it. Presenting a pile of studies to counter a falsehood so laughably incoherent like "there aren't only 2 genders" only makes you look like a tryhard and somebody who isn't able to discuss like a normal person.

Lactose intolerance is common among non-whites. Is your body too weak to handle milk user?

East-Asian spotted.

Lactose Intolerance is deeper then just East-Asians.

OP, remember that normies will discredit any type of sources that doesnt fit the (((narrative))).
I've talked with some friends that studied psychology and when we start bringing up statistics, they always resort to "those are wrong, check your sources next time user :^)" but their (((sources))) are impervious to critisism.

>OP, remember that normies will discredit any type of sources that doesnt fit the (((narrative))).
Good point user. Normies are handed down plenty of excuses from the MSM for not even looking into various facts. Look at what is successfully used by the MSM. Isn't there some absurdly high percentage of people getting their political news from comedians? And that shit isn't even really funny. If you tell someone something they don't know they will dispute it just because they don't like to seem uninformed. However if you tell someone a joke they will feel inclined to laugh along especially if there are others laughing too. Understanding this mindset is extremely important and though facts are the other half of it this really won't work without that ability to cut through the brainwashing.

...

hate to be the shill here, OP's ideas are good, but most NPC's are like that, don't be unrealistic. Sitll, our purpose is not to redpill everyone, but to redpill the right people, who have the will and the skills and reason. It's the fanatical 10% of the population we should be after.

I've done something similar in the past. It takes a while to get the ball rolling, but with the "skeptic" crowd being in this year, you'll manage to entice at least a few, and they'll do the rest.

Best thing to do is be as factual as possible and broadcast as "Im not biased, but there are these trends.." that's what I've had success with, even on topics like the holocaust. It's the age-old saying of "It's not what you say, but how you say it." Frame it in a way that normies can identify with, and it'll be effective

Moldylockes is a teacher? I'm not so sure I'd want a violent nappy-hair hippy lesbian amateur pornstar teaching my children anything.

OP this is a great idea. I think there is a LOT of theory out there for debating normies/libshits, but what's missing is CONCRETE EXAMPLES, which sounds like what you are getting at, especially with this comment:

That's brilliant and something that Mike Enoch used when some minority chick asked Richard Spencer "how white is white enough?" during a speech. Mike jumped in and asked her if she ever said that to a nonwhite, then turned it around on her by saying "how black is black enough?".

BTW I understand that libertarian autist types might respond better to rationality and reason than rhetoric, but rhetoric (as others have alluded to) is still absolutely critical when talking to the average normie.

Agreed. Something else the guys on the Daily Shoah say, is that one of the keys to awakening normies is to show them that it's ok to feel proud of being white, it's ok to not want to live among minorities. That for thousands of years all races regarded racial pride and preference as normal, it was only in the 1960s that this all changed (and only for whites).

So I think it would be really useful to have a resource that contains examples of libshits etc getting BTFO in arguments, and debates with normies that ended up in them becoming more open to red pilling. Weev does this using his R.A.C.E. method, might be worth looking into:

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8683-i-sing-a-song-of-racewar/

Got any good books on rhetoric? I'd like to be a bit better at telling when I'm being bullshitted, and to devise ways to trick retards.

Hammer of the Patriot is exactly what you are looking for, if it hasn't been mentioned. Google it there should be a pdf out there.

Got it, thanks. Anything else I should look for?

I wish I did friendo. Aristotle's Rhetoric? maybe others can help out. However, online sources on rhetoric are:

heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/rhetoric-vs-dialectic-how-game-principles-apply-to-politics/
and I hear Vox Day has some good things to say about rhetoric vs dialectic, voxday.blogspot.com/search/label/debate

Heartiste is a particularly good blog to read because it's quite heavy on PUA stuff but the material is very useful for being persuasive in general.

Holy shit this looks awesome. From the intro:
"When people within the same group debate a point, they are playing for the same team, and genuinely want to learn the truth, because they will all benefit from having correct knowledge. But debates between opposing groups of people like liberals and na- tionalists are not about logic, or finding out the truth. They are struggles for dominance. They are shows of force. The two par- ties don't want the same thing, they're not playing for the same team. So the public wants to know which team to join. They don't care which team has the best arguments, they want to be on the side of the winners. In such a verbal struggle, strength is truth."

Thanks bro

I haven't read it but a number of anons have recommended The Psychology of Persuasion in the past. Scott Adams talks about some interesting persuasion things as well. It wouldn't hurt to read Aristotle's Rhetoric either.

Yeah, it is. I use a number of the arguments from that book.

...

You're just saying that because I'm White. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

This book is good. It has an emphasis on sales persuasion, but it should be insightful when read with politics in mind too.

user do you know what indoctrination is?