There's a hole in this dream and you must find a way out

brb>>10667870

They don’t do that, user. I’m currently engaged in a quite longstanding argument on a forum (yes, a proper old vBulletin-style forum) of another website. Liberals DO NOT DEFINE THEIR BELIEFS. They’re extremely careful not to do that–particularly if they have an idea of what you believe, but also to complete newcomers, too. They absolutely REFUSE to state what they believe or any of the tenets of their beliefs. I would say, “they know that they’re wrong and posting them will prove that,” but that’s not true. They genuinely DON’T know that they’re wrong. They truly believe their delusions, even when they’re proven to be lies, because the alternative is too terrifying for them to imagine. If they were to post their beliefs–or attempt to substantiate them–in doing so, they open themselves up to the possibility of being wrong. But a liberal cannot be wrong. I’ll say that again: a liberal cannot BE wrong, because there is no such thing AS ‘wrong’ to a liberal. Moral relativism. Subjectivity. There is no such thing as ‘truth’. All truths (opinions) are valid when you are a liberal, because that saves everyone from the hurt of the “evil” that is “being wrong.” The only wrong beliefs–to a liberal–are that which are not liberal. Do you see the cognitive dissonance here? These people are MENTALLY ILL.

I understand fully that we’re not talking about CONVERTING liberals–only exposing their delusions to a third party–but they don’t talk about their beliefs. They will shower you in the platitudes of their beliefs and use thought-terminating cliches against yours. But they won’t say what they actually believe. EVER.

The one who defines language is the one most heard.

I agree with everything you've said, but I believe the cognitive dissonance is at a tipping point.

You must make arguments that make them look unbelievably foolish. The vocal liberals will loudly express their opinions, to the amusement of anyone around. But expose the preacher as a heinous villain to their counterparts, and you've begun a D&C they won't be able to stop.

Actions speak louder than words, so (((they))) say.

It only works like that when you're arguing with retards. The second they have a smidgen of intelligence, they just use open ended questions like that to reframe the entire argument.
Dialectic doesn't work against them. If you want to completely fuck with them, force them to use rhetoric to outline their positions, then tear it apart using facts and logic. They'll get really pissy though because they don't understand rhetoric, for the most part.

I like the thinking here, but I wouldn't bother getting them to try to define their beliefs or engage in dialogue. A better approach would be to just mock them for attacking things that are clearly not Nazis.

A discussion is more likely to go like this:

Instead just go total open ridicule and start defining their position yourself. And don't take "turns" or follow any rules of civility; Don't wait for their response. Just start flooding information at any audience and make fun of them personally as much as possible.

I've taken a complete departure from the good faith style of argument and gone ruthless. I like it better.

You've never had this argument before have you? Liberals don't argue with reason. As soon as you say "So all whites are racist?" they won't give a direct answer and will sperg out.

Also, Scott Adams says definitions are the least persuasive form of argument. He recommends arguing by identity instead, like "A true American respects the flag and the troops." which would persuade more people.

Don't be defensive by allowing them to frame the conversation in the first place. You're allowed to change the setting anytime you want and not respond to their premise at all. This is a plus because you reframe the power dynamic.

DON'T DO THIS IT MAKES MUSTARD GAS

Deconstructing someones argument using semantics can be really strong against honest people, but as points out, most liberals (especially online) won't ante up, but will rather deflect.

This is a pretty cool insight

Intentionally discrediting with bad optics.

That guy seems to post in every thread. Just look for the post with a slew of images with IMG_xxxx for filenames. His posts tend to be good natured and natsoc, but he seems to get lazy sometimes (leading to the shitpost he dropped into this thread). I like to think he's some user trying to outshill the shills.

How about "define racism"? Yea… good luck getting a leftist to do that!

I have done this before, Tucker Carlson also did this to that Yvette Felarca subhuman and she gave the same answer you'll always get, vague double talking nonsense straight out of Moishe's playbook. Something along the lines of "any ideology that supports the elmination of people" or something along those lines, which, of course, is referring to immigration. Easy to attack from there which you've revealed the vapidness of their claims.

I've had a lot of success by making them define racism and after they define it in some super general way that applies to basically everything, I would say "well then, based on that definition what's wrong with racism?" You then get stumbling bumbling backtracking nonsense, in response, as they are on the verge of defeat. It's pretty easy at that point, if you just stay calm, to viciously counterattack and destroy them. Never ever try the "so based on that, YOU'RE A RACIST TOO" line of cuckservative attack. Attack their leftism directly as an affront to humanity. When they say its inhumane to deport people talk about how inhumane it is to destroy the cohesive small town neighborhoods that the working man escapes to as his only source of comfort in a word constantly exploiting him. How inhumane it is to spit on the working man's labor, the towns and communities he has built, as some sort of ideological experiment.

A Nazi is somebody who doesn't like taking nigger dick up the ass while a jew with a mutilated dick masturbates nearby.

No never mind the fact that muh mass immigration literally is genocide and is literally destroying unique ethnic groups now and literally always has.

I do like the key point of this thread, though: Marxist faggots do not objectively define their beliefs. I remember Horus talking about objective terms in his terminology section early on.

(checked)

You must realize that the liberal is shapeless. The liberal assumes whatever form is most beneficial to them at any given time. That is to say that their views shift and twist to suit any given argument, so it's impossible to truly nail them down on anything. Its why they're so horrendously contradictory in everything they say and do. It's why they can say they oppose rape culture, but then turn a blind eye to mudslimes and nog refugees raping white women. Why they can claim race doesn't exist (that there is only one race, the human race, or that race is a social construct), yet still proclaim that racism can exist (which, if there is no such thing as race, then by default racism CANNOT exist).They don't HAVE any real beliefs, they're simply mouthpieces for whatever the jew tells them.

That's not what racism means, you dumb faggot. Simply believing in separate kinds is racism, opposite to "one-race" humanism.

now I can't stop imagining an autistic user with a chan folder dating back to 06 organized numerically by relevance running a program to detect new threads auto-posting natsoc imagery to assert dominance over shills.

(checked)
praise kek

Most of the don't do it's will result in you gassing yourself. Some of them will result in vigorous bubbling, or the production of explosive shit. (Especially the ones involving hydrogen peroxide sometimes generate explosives.)

Goddamn, next time you make a thread, fix your fucking grammar. Great ideas though.

It's what the left defines it as you stupid faggot.

You cant just ignore your enemies tactics and carry on like they aren't happening.

The poster you are calling a faggot doesn't "believe" that separate definition, he is just explaining what the left has been taught in schools.

That fact that I even have to explain this to you speaks volumes about your IQ.

OP… what are you doing with your life? Playing word games online with subhumans? It's pointless. We don't need or want them. Do something useful. Challenge yourself. That's how you improve.

Already do this everytime, always ask them to define Nazi, ask them to define racist, ask them to define racism. When they used a made up bullshit definition instead of the actual definitions used for millennia and found in proper dictionaries that's when you go "Ahah! So you hate me because I'm white".

Did somebody tried to push hard logic in public? I suspect that they might work like Jews in private, but in public others would hear that horrible lack of logic and they wouldn't be able to just shrug it off because of activated almonds.

The kikes have changed meanings rapidly.

Keep trying.

This works kids. Its why we are also the cool kids on the online block anymore too.

good luck

Praise kek

Were can i train dinosaur?

Look it up first you dipshit

Praise kek

Were can i train dinosaur?

Look it up first you dipshit

wut

Why talk about Nazism at all? LARPing won't win us any normies.

Silly yet effective rhetorical tricks I've used lately:

"No Jew has ever done anything wrong ever."

Can't get in any trouble saying it yet it's obviously incorrect. Especially effective in discussions whose natural tendency is for the opposition to become automatically dismissive of anything you say no matter what's being said. I'm not an anti-semite what are you talking about? :^) Yet it's so obviously false that it breaks the conditioning. This of course assumes your chat participant can actually evaluate the truth of a statement and is subconsciously verifying what you say, which can be a stretch…

You can also conflagrate the irony by making it even more ludicrous and revealing:
"Absolutely no Jew ever, in all of history, ever did anything wrong to anybody, ever. They are completely innocent victims, always." (juxtapose with a painting of Jesus on the cross…)

Say: "I hate ALL supremacists. Black supremacists, Asian supremacists, Indian Supremacists, Jewish supremacists, female supremacists."

This line puts a chink (gook) in the "white supremacist" ID bad guy label. The listener subconsciously is imagining Jewish supremacists or Black supremacists as they are listed, which they've probably never considered before, and they put these folks into a negative connotation. Supremacist = Bad. Which is a favorable association for them to have, especially considering how easy it is to display that Black Lives Matter or Feminism are exactly Black supremacist or female supremacist. It's a judo move they MUST agree with which makes them categorize these groups as negative. If they disagree, simply retort "So you're saying supremacy is good?"

This is basic stuff but it's worth mentioning and sharing.

...

This is what I was going for. This is a giant weakness in their entire ideology

Even gasses can be contained.

There's no such thing as racism. People hate behavior, and consider visual differences justifiably suspect, because they are indicative of foreign, possibly negative, behavior. That, and it is deep in everyone's nature to achieve longevity for our genes, which necessarily means depriving other genes from achieving the same thing due to limited resources. There's a practical reason for everything.

Words like "racism" exist to stop some genes from realizing their longevity goal, by stopping people from discerning truth (the source of all power).

This is okay.. against your average drone leftist who probably isnt active in politics much. But its easily countered by the more indoctrinated ones who take in a steady stream of propaganda and listen to arguments by other leftists.

The simple counter (in their minds) to "im against all supremacist groups… *names them*" is "THERE ARE NO BLACK/FEMALE/ETC SUPREMACIST GROUPS!" or "they arent out there calling for the deaths of out-group people" and such like that. If you attempt to say they are oppressive towards other out-groups or desire bad things to happen to other groups, they'll demand proof, if you provide examples of feminists or nigger power types, they'll simply dismiss it as "one person, doesnt represent all of them."

And even then, even IF you can provide them with enough examples (or examples that have been "liked" or "supported" by enough of their kind to show a strong following for those ideas) that they cant keep hand waving it away like that, they'll simply argue "well, those groups have no power in society, they are oppressed minorities who cannot exercise those ideas even if they actually wanted to (again refusing to admit those groups actually want those things), white males have all the power in western society and CAN try to genocide those other groups, therefore only they are a problem."

You, at this point, are left trying to prove to a leftist of all people that white males do not have a dominance of power in the western world anymore, and they're going to spew random stats at you about the rate of political positions held by white men and so on, they're going to talk about white male CEOs, and so on. Effectively making you derail the argument into trying to explain why those are, and then when you DO try to explain any of those things or the reasons for them (females making different choices for careers, niggers 'culture' not encouraging them to seek those roles in society, and so on) you're just going to be called an apologist and labeled racist/sexist/etc for trying to "dismiss the REAL problem" (because they're asserted that white maleness IS the problem through these arguments and anyone who disagrees is clearly a bigot, and have forced you into a position wherein to try to prove that those other groups are "just as bad," you're now effectively trying to prove that 'white maleness' isnt the great satan, which they will not accept, and by appearing to detract from that in any way you are allying yourself with it, and thus, you can be instantly ignored and dismissed)

So, thats about how that pans out. There also is no way around this mindfuckery. You can't just "agree (with caveats)" them into submission. They're going to FORCE you into proving that those other things even exist, that they pose a real danger, and that they even have the ability to enact that threat they pose, and the sheer act of attempting to do so will make you look like you are defending white maleness, and therefore you are instantly wrong.

Its the same tactics they use when arguing FOR communism. They will dismiss examples of it in practice failing as "not truly communism" ie: not an actual representation of it, just as black supremacists calling for the deaths of whites dont "really" represent anyone despite countless blacks agreeing with them. If you attempt to prove "agree" them into submission on it, to trap them in some argument with only two polar extremes, they'll very quickly force you into arguments that make you take a stand against their beloved communism, at which point they'll dismiss you and your arguments entirely.

I'm not saying they'll be right, I'm just saying thats what they'll do. So, like I said, your idea works well for the common pleb leftist who is just mildly under (((their))) control in any given way, but it does not at all work against the hordes that pay attention, and they can and WILL jump in to any public discussion about these things to try to keep each other in line, to keep their indoctrinated sheep from breaking rank.

The principle implied here is that power is a problem. I would approach that subject with them, and bring up the fact that somebody is always going to have power, and, in fact, you need power to defeat those who have it. Will they give up power once they have it?

This exemplifies the truth that humans need an enemy. We always need something to overcome. We will forever compete in order to bring meaning into our lives, even if it is vicariously (loyalty to sports teams, gaming systems, whatever faggotry). Knowing this, what better reason could you possibly come up with to argue against multiculturalism? It's in our nature to compete. Whites tend to do it more peacefully in their own societies. Blacks do it violently everywhere.

Their retort
or

Your argument, in their minds, is flawed because it relies on a hierarchy existing wherein some are above/below others. In their little commie utopia they are all equal (at the bottom). But even regardless of that, they will insist white males should be stripped of power because "they abuse it and have oppressed others" and "theres no evidence other groups would oppress them" they'll even go so far as to argue "they would be nicer because they know whats its like to be oppressed" completely ignoring that whole idea of "revenge" and all.

Again, not if we all just become gommies and sharez eburthan. That'll be their rebuttal more or less. You're still not understanding the special kind of "logic" they use that effectively renders them incapable of accepting ANY situation that benefits white males or any argument that validates anything they've ever done. FFS man, these people are already at the point of protesting lincoln and defacing his statues, mind you this is a few years AFTER they tried to say he was half-nigger to begin with (guess they didn't know how anti-nigger he really was, they flipped positions when they found out)… why? Because hes a white male, and they can't have that being held up in any way. Ergo, no argument you can make to them is going to get them to be bullied into a corner of accepting white males having power. It is their "great satan" of sorts.

Checked

I think you're the great satan. Got any suggestions besides

tfw not on list

I didnt say give up… exactly. I said don't try to use these tactics on hard leftists who drown themselves in the propaganda of the left, you're wasting your time and only giving them a chance (with these methods) to further harden the average drones against your arguments in the future.

My point was, don't use these tactics around them, limit their ability to see them, if you want to target the softer leftists with this, great, go for it. Just don't do it where their more "dyed in the wool" types can jump in and "rescue" them, because they are hard coded to be able to "defeat" (ie: dismiss, or argue around in circles) these sorts of tactics.

As for the hard leftists, there is no solution to them except the oven. For the softies, like I said, use it, but use with caution and care to stay out of sight of their other "harder" kin who could derail your efforts into freeing the softer targets from their control. Its basically a "meme with caution" warning of a sorts. Do it, but tread carefully and don't leave yourself or your target open to finding one of their truly brainwashed types getting involved. You'll lose your target at the very least in the moment, if not for good.

This is where you pivot to the strategy in the first part of and seize the opportunity to define terms.

Sort of Negative High Ground Maneuver/Inversion,

"On Demand Abortion is not any more controversial than a drunk driver killing a woman 275 days pregnant, in fact, any additional manslaughter penalties should be removed – it's tantamount to double jeopardy. If States want to nullify Roe v. Wade, health care providers ought to reclassify abortions as "amputations" to get around it. We have to win by any means necessary."

It's essential to speak in their jargon when framing, to recapitulate their own ideology against itself (Alinsky; 'hold them to their own standard.')

This. "We could de-colonize technology - particularly modern -western- medical science, – but that would entail 19th century infant mortality for 5-6.5 billion people."

Infant mortality improvements alone saves the 'colonial' world population several times over annually; 'whitey' could do three world wars worth of intentional genociding every year and that numbers game remains self-justifying.

Just because you can make shit justifications for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I especially hate their concept of 'privilege.' It's taking your natural pride in your comfortable life due entirely to the hard work of your ancestors and predecessors and turning it into guilt.

In other words, hard leftists are not salvageable?

Leftists don't want you to feel guilt for having privilege. If you feel guilt, you are a cuck.

thehumanist.com/commentary/want-to-help-end-systemic-racism-first-step-drop-the-white-guilt

Maybe you should read more about the left instead of staying in an autistic echo chamber

Super Satan quads for a post mentioning 'great Satan.' Damn, checked.

this is probably one of the greatest cia-tier psyops threads i've seen in a while.
Archived at archive.fo/T7ds3

says the torfag

i archived it for later reading. is that unreasonable?

'Deflating inequality'is the same thing. The advantages we have come from our own superiority and power. They are not something that should be thought of as bad. Natural order. If you claim that leftist politicians and media don't try to make normie white guys feel ashamed or apologetic for 'keeping down' everyone else on earth, I can't help but feel that you're dead wrong. Deflating inequality means bringing down the top (Europeans) and simultaneously bringing up the bottom. They do the former by channeling normal pride in ones ingroup into guilt that leads to disdain for said ingroups. That paragraph you quoted is just deceptive lefty doublespeak. They know they're doing it. They want whites gone. They have to pretend they're hardcore and not cucked to maybe recruit non faggot whites, but even these hardcore lefties would be more tuned in with their natural state fighting for their own in group instead of fighting to deflate them. Recruitment pitch.

...

In my opinion, yes. But we're talking about the aids skrillex types, the "big red" types, as well as the "i watch msnbc 16 hours a day" types, the ""le drumpf iz hitlur" still after months types. You can't reach these people, they're beyond salvation. The more moderate ones you can reach pretty easily by showing all these flaws in their would-be arguments to. Problem is, like I said, if you do this in the presence of such diehard leftist zealots, they'll jump in the middle and defend their comrades and argue in circles for hours just to prevent you from reaching the "normie" that you could have otherwise reached, and ofc the normie will slink back into the shadows and let the marxist do the fighting/arguing because, after all, they're normies and don't want to really "deal with this stuff" so they'll take the chance to retreat, only popping in once in awhile to maybe toss an "i agree with that" comment at the hard leftist filth, because its what they've been taught to believe.

Again, just target them on their own, away from the hard leftists, out of their sight, otherwise you're going to have wasted your time

I already explained how they'd counter this

Using the socio-SEXUAL matrix is a good framework to find the best approach for redpilling and speaking to leftists.
First: females. Don't use logic on them, it's completely useless. As you know, they are followers guided by their emotions, thus the only way to be heard is to be dominant / alpha. Being high on the sexual market value is very important (attractive / confident etc… ), but women are not very important to persuade anyways.

Regarding males, there are two types which are the most prevalent. The first one is the regular dude, in his 20s or 30s, would be a patriot if not for (((school))) and (((media))) brainwashing. Gets laid from time to time, moderate self-confidence. In a debate, he will typically parrot opinions from his social programming, but he is capable of listening opposite opinion, especially if it comes from someone they trust (a leader, a friend etc…). Using facts is useful, as is playing the long game. These guys will eventually turn right-wing while getting older and getting more life experience.
The other common type is usually a harder leftist, it's the bitter "gamma" of the social hierarchy. These people are much harder to deal with: they are the typical white knights or SJW whose sexual frustration and lack of female success is redirected towards being a full-blown nice guy (that is, the archetypal leftist). They usually hang around female "friends", who don't see them as sexual people. They are the most bluepilled, and using logic is pointless because they will always have an argument (these are your inexhaustible debaters who love being right and having the last word, typical reddit population). It is better to attack them for what they are in order to force reality into their mind "If you know better than everyone, then why don't you ever get laid ?". Attack directly their biggest weaknesses, but beware these faggots can become violent IRL.

Note that I didn't consider the two rarest types: pure alphas (which are usually decently redpilled since they have built their worldview through real life experience and with little external influence), and pure omegas (which are rare, and easily redpilled through the internet).

Checked

I agree with most of what people say when it comes to the extreme left. But we don't care about them right? We need force to remove them, or make them change, which we don't cohesively have. The fight right now is to turn the political lemmings on our side. Expose the illogical arguments and ridicule them in public.

There need not be one single target

Interesting outlook. Someone should create a thread/infograph of common liberal/commie archetypes and the defenses against them.

Underrated post and a profound read. Goes in depth on the tactics of triggering the innate fear of being disposed of as an outcast and how to control that fear in an anti-white progressive.