Argument honing thread

Have used the dog argument before, even showed them breedist.jpg, they say it's not the same thing cuz "muh humans r superior yet no animals are people too!!!!" but thank you.
Evolution stopping at the neck is something that would probably trigger a few people so I might just use it for the keks.
As for evolution and harsher climates, i've heard the excuse that if a white is put into a tribe in Africa from a young age he'll develop the same way mentally as the rest of the tribe, anything to combat that bullshit, user?

When we say Jews, we mean gobalist Jewish-supremacist money lending cabal. Of course, jewish genetic and cultural traits keep providing that particular group of people with fresh recruits and allow it to continue its existence.

Shitty underclass Jews raise shitty Jewish generations which in turn feed that globalist sect. Example: middle class jewish family makes a child. He has high verbal IQ and all the wrong shit that comes with ashkenazi genes. They chop off the tip of his dick and raise him with Talmudic morals. They send him to some Jewish school where they teach him talmudic subversion bullshit. He socalizes with his Jewish peers and establishes a social network. He engages in generic degeneracy and debauchery. Then, he starts his career.

Maybe as a promising EU bureucrat, maybe as an assistant director etc.

These people are beyond saving.

What happens to Jewish underclass generally doesn't matter. They can always run to Israel.

Depends on the country, the US depends on meddling in foreign countries to prop up the dollar. For a small country like Britain right now focusing domestically allows you to solve social problems like wealth gaps and boosting production. An extreme example is Japan following WWII. They didn't need to focus on the external world because the US was protecting them. This allowed them to become a world power again at a much faster rate than expected. Another example is Carthage in between the punic wars. They focused domestically and were able to pay back 50 years worth of war reparations in 10 and had an economy on pace to drastically overshadow the Romans.

A counter example in this case was the Roman's. If they did not focus externally and proactively worked to cripple carthage they would have been crushed during the punic wars and they nearly lost the 2nd one with Rome only avoiding getting sacked by a tactical mistake from Hannibal.

well there are studies that show adopted niggers have about the same IQ (85) as the rest of the nigger population in USA, which seems to indicate (among very many other studies) that IQ is mainly hereditary
I guess the adoptees might fare better in life in general because of better upbringing, but the IQ stays the same

Britbong here, how do I counter the argument that 9/10 economists are against Brexit?

...

Vid related, he casually drops a few arguments for why that is in that part where he 'brainstorms'.

Basically, Europe is the main competitor for Israel (also Europe is the main proponent of BDS besides Palestinians) so eliminating a competitor allows Israel to fill the vacuum a defeated Europe would leave.

Africans fail the mirror self reflection test at ages up to 6 years old. White and asian babies pass this test at 18 months. This is a good one because it's the test that scientists use to determine self awareness in animals, yet Africans themselves can't do it until way later. It at the very least suggests that their mental development is delayed if it ever happens at all.

Vid related. Posted here because someone else posted before:

Trump is unpresidential
fucking cripplekike

The two blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the Nile and Euphrates. That's the Israel the Zionists want - everything between those two rivers.

They want get the Arabs focused on taking over Europe rather than defending the land the Jews want.

Yeah I forgot this was a stormfaggot hugbox nowadays.

Tell them that they can either say that being colonised has a negative effect on IQ, in which case whites, never having been colonised, have higher IQ, or it doesn't, in which case IQ is independent of being colonised.

Either way, ask them why Jews have a higher IQ despite suffering persecution and exile for so many years.

TBH lad libertarianism would only work in an environment of +115 IQ whites.

It's a way of thinking that requires a stupidly high time preference and the plebs would just up and chimp out after a few months.

Got to have a gun pointed at them though the state so they don't do anything too stupid.

Be more specific. I think if you went the route of Nationalist Libertarianism, i.e. Nationalism with respect to dealings with international players but domestic libertarianism, then you might have a better audience.

Libertarianism does have a lot of holes that are never addressed. What do you think about food safety standards? How about selling recreational nukes to kindergartner prostitutes to buy heroin?

The problem with libertarianism is that there is no clear consensus on where the small government part should end, and there's never any rational acknowledgement that whenever a country auctions off its infrastructure to private companies that it almost invariably goes to more shit than if they had not.

This isn't some symbolic, semiotic shit /x/ tier shit. This is literally the Yinon plan.

globalresearch.ca/the-yinon-plan-and-the-role-of-the-isis/5459366

seconding this

underrated toast

He is a dictator, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing since it seems to be the preferred government type in that section of the world. Not to mention you might ask the Libyans if they'd prefer the modern government or to live under Gaddafi and I'm sure you can guess the response.

If I'd meant the Yinon plan I would have said the Yinon plan.

YP "fits" the facts if you think Israel wants to surround itself with failed states. That is only an interim goal.
The follow-on from a failed state is Eretz Israel

jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.pt/2006/06/zionists-on-zionism.html

Raising an organism in a certain environment doesn't completely alter their mentality all of a sudden (unless that goes on for a very long time), it only tames it because humans are good at adapting to climates and environments (some much better than others). We take chimps and other animals and raise them in captivity, but those animals will always retain most of the traits that are ingrained in them even if you can teach them to respond to some human words. If you take a domesticated pig and release it into the wild, it will become feral in no time. Likewise, if you plucked a white kid from an African tribe, he will be as productive as any other person of his race once he has caught up with the language and so on.

There is a good example involving Russians which can be used against slavery too. They lived under serfdom for many centuries (like 900 years or so) and yet they managed to put people into space, have many great mathematicians, composers, chess champions, etc., but where are all the African ones? We gave niggers entire countries (South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Haiti) complete with modern cities and so on and what have they done with it? Those places are falling apart fast and it's not because da white man is keeping them down. No, the white man has done the opposite: he set the negro loose.

I guarantee you that this white kid raised in an African tribe will ascend to Warlord by the time he's a young adult because he's going to be twice as smart as any black African by virtue of his birth. Yes, that's a "privilege" bestowed upon him by nature, but not something that came about without much effort from his ancestors. "Any attempt to stifle that is akin to crippling a race horse because it runs faster than donkeys – now how is that just?" You can probably get them to admit their envious hate along this train of thought.

(cont.)

You can ask them, "Why does evolution suddenly stop when it reaches humans? Don't you realize that you're basically the creationists of genetics and biology?" That should piss them off and make them look like morons since they like to pride themselves on science while being some of the most unscientific people in the world. Mock them by making them look like the things that they mock.

>Yes, you can't see borders from space, but you can't see your entire circulatory system by just looking at someone either, yet it's there, and it's there to separate parts of the body from other parts of the body so that those parts don't interfere with one another. That's how it works. We aren't amoebas, we're humans.
>Every person or family wants their own little separate pocket of the world (an environment to call their own) in which they can live in. We call those homes and they too are borders – I mean what do you consider a fence to be or walls separating apartments or even your own fucking front door for that matter? Hell, even something as simple as drapes to keep your privacy! These are all examples of borders that we have developed to maintain order, security, and a general feeling of being content. If you're seriously against these things then I don't know what to tell you except that maybe you've got a few screws loose and that you should probably concentrate on fixing that before trying to fix other people's lives.

Nature is the ultimate Fascist.

Notice I didn't really throw facts/numbers out yet nothing I said is false. I think it's better to argue with imagery and to steer them in the direction you want them to go (which should be to humiliate them). It didn't take facts for people to believe in the shit they do today, it took propaganda like movies to make them believe that Negro Actor A is equal to White Actor B (or even superior these days), but imitation is not intelligence or equality but rather a facsimile of those things. This imitation requires outside pressure and nothing less (in this case, a script, a director, acting coaches, etc.). By itself, forcing our standards onto others could not exist without that force (or pressure). And just like the domesticated pig, people will revert to deeply ingrained behavioural traits once set loose into the wild (like blacks in ghettos which closely resembles Africa versus the few in richer neighbourhoods who are constantly pressured to behave a certain way, which some people call whitewashing). One can even compare blacks before the 60s to ones after the 60s: they were wearing suits, playing jazz, and so on because there was outside pressure, yet that all changed when they were "liberated." Why the change once pressure has been let up? Because that adaptive strategy is how organisms have evolved and thus is deeply ingrained. Their increased willingness to commit violence, rape, inbreed, and so on, is simply their overt survival strategy: kill them before they kill me, fuck her and make her pregnant before someone else does, and so on…

All Jews are zionists by definition. There are no good Jews. There are also no uninitiated Jews and no Jews who do not actively work toward the same globalist goals. They don't exist.

Reported for intl.

Reported.

You don't have to post for every report my dude.

Explain to them (1) false-flags are used to make you think you need to fight them over-there, (2) if they were all kicked out of the country there'd be no threat here, (3) how you are more likely to die from a bee-sting than some terrorist attack here, (4) let's "fight them here" then and get rid of them all (5) the fact that the government leaves the border open proves they don't care about 'here' .

Give it your best counter-argument

That's the expert gimmick. A "recognized expert" is somebody the elite will "recognize" and dissenters are "unrecognised" and "discredited" and "outside the mainstream". The idea of the "expert" is to make you sublimate common sense and trust a high-priest witch-doctor type phoney whose perpetuates his job security by hiding as much as possible the true information and hyping the importance of his own stuffy opinions. People are lazy and often child-like in wanting to trust experts rather than risk the scorn of being viewed as stupid for holding heterodox opinions - even if they are right. And people are mob-like and insecure and nasty so they get joy being part of a pack of dogs that can be praised for tearing apart their fellow mutts with the "bad opinions". Dispel the psychology and then deal with who is paying the economists, and what motive to they have to report what is best for the workers in the UK? Of course they have no such motive. And explain internationalization of corporations - they enjoy the economies of scale that come from a larger market to penetrate previously shielded markets - and to put the small local businessmen out by heavy regulations. Small businesses and individuals can't each pay for a lobbyist but the concentrated special interest group and big businesses can and do. After dispelling the mystic of "experts" and showing their paymasters and true motives, then deal with the economic issues in a common sense way. Isn't it better that we buy British goods, from British companies, employing British people, who then buy British goods? With the EU goods will be made in the cheapest country, the profits will be off-shored to tax havens, and the British consumer will disappear because his job went to Poland or Bulgaria. And British firms will bring in cheap labour from East Europe driving wages down to the lowest level. That's common sense.

This is the evolution fallacy that things just naturally get better, which is wrong. Things get worse through randomness.
Farmers know that the best thing to do is keep your breeds pure and not allow random mating/pollination. But when then do experiment with hybrids they end up with an unsuccessful result 99% of the time. It takes long period of killing many and only taking the best results until a good strain is developed. Once it is developed, you have something extraordinary and should seek to maintain it pure at all costs.
White people have absolutely nothing to "gain" by trying to produce idiot mullatoes - 99% will be worthless and the 1% that succeed won't outperform the original white population. This is why people should study the laws of genetics and not erroneous theories like evolution.

That's evolutionary Lamarckian inheritance error again.

Lamarck thought the giraffe got a long neck over successive generations in responce to their environment - in order to reach the leaves in the tree. This is a false.

The laws of genetics prove that we only pass on what we have inherited - we do not invent new genes during a lifespan in response to the surroundings or what happens to our bodies.

A nigger is stupid because his parents were stupid all the way back to the first stupid nigger. It has nothing to do with slavery.

It isn't. Libertarianism is an adolescent fantasy. Grow up.

Environments have nothing to do with genetics. This myth has do die.

Lamarckism is a false idea and has been disproved repeatedly.

(There may be a few characteristics that can be coaxed to express themselves in future generations after repeated environmental stimuli, but these arise from innate already existing protogenetic packages of information that are pre-existing.)

The fact of the matter is niggers are niggers because of their genes, not Africa. Since they have such wildly different genes they must have come from a different origin.

8ch.net/pol/res/6300251.html#6300296

Thanks for the reply and thanks for all your other replies.

That's not exactly true. Genetics that code for heat retentive fat deposits on a body would be beneficial in an organism in a very high latitude. I think environments shape genetics, but this is done on a very long time scale.

The mistake many people make is thinking that raising a lion from birth on a vegan diet will make him suddenly not a carnivore. This of course is a metaphor for people thinking that giving one generation of niggers an edjewkayshun will suddenly make them on par with whites.

In a way, I feel bad for niggers. Evolutionary selective pressure was removed almost entirely before they were able to spontaneously generate intelligence. It's a pitiable situation they find themselves in.

encyclopediadramatica.se/Alt-right
Say, anyone got any refutations for these?

Does one really need to seriously respond to bait? Pick a few if you're really interested and I'll reply to those.

Well, how about countries with a higher proportion of muslims having a lower murder rate, as with jewish ties to communism?

This comes from the fact that Karl Marx, the founder of the Marxist branch of Communism, was himself Jewish through blood and through matrilineal Jewish practice as his mother was herself a rabbi. The more pernicious link between Jews and Communism is the fact that 92% of the Bolshevik officers were Jewish. These were the gulag running murderer of countless Russians that probably also cry endlessly at the 'muh six million'.

I'd have to know which countries you mean, this doesn't even pass the taste test. I find it hard to believe that a country with so many justifications for ritual murder would have a lower murder rate.

Questions that would immediately come to mind is whether or not these countries count ritualistic murders (i.e. stoning for adultery) as a murder since it is technically allowed under sharia. These countries ostensibly want tourism so it's in their best interest to downplay their actual murder rate whenever possible. Another factor would be if they accurately report possible murders. In Brazil, they had an enormous crime problem to address before they could realistically host the Rio Olympics. In the years leading up to the event, they did their best to root out nearby favelas of their huemonkey drug dealers, but their crime statistics were still through the roof. Instead of really solving their problem, they started to list people who went missing as that, missing. It's obvious they died but they don't classify it as a murder because there's no body.

I forgot to mention, the most banned book in the world is the book that directly links the Jews to the Bolsheviks. Two Hundred Years together by Alexander Solzhenitsyn is the most banned book in the world for (((reasons))). The book is considered so dangerous that there has never been an official translation to English. There's a German translation but there's only sparse translation to English and one can never really be sure how well it was translated as to convey the original meanings.

They are eternal problems.

yeah, let me know when we all wake up in a white utopia, I will become a libertarian the second there are less than 92% minorities

*8%

Ask them how they can believe that A) slavery was so terrible that through unknown mechanism it would depress the inheritable IQ of the slaves, and B) IQ is not inheritable and human races have not been separate for long enough for significant divergent evolution to have taken place?

If they're saying that slavery actually has affected the IQ of descendant populations they're saying that IQ is both heritable and readily able to evolve over short timespans. If they're saying this they must be open to the possibility of it changing drastically in populations that have been separate for 20,000 years or more. In short: does not compute.

You might want to ask them if they believe that intelligence is heritable. If it is, then there is a possibility of it changing differently in separate populations, inevitably leading to them having different IQs. The only question at that point is how fast the evolution is, and the answer is "very fast" if anyone actually looks at evolution. It's determined by strength of pressure and life-cycle of the organism only. Time per se has nothing to do with it. Not to mention there is plenty of evidence of rapid human evolution, such as lactose tolerance. On top of that, ask them why the simplest and most obvious explanation for differing intelligence (evolution) is wrong, and why their claims of a magic invisible force that can only be detected by its effects is a more valid explanation? That's completely unscientific and akin to asserting the existence of a demon moving your thrown ball through the air instead of, say, its own momentum continuing its motion. If their only evidence for its existence is "it causes this" then it's not a valid explanation, especially when more realistic and observable explanations exist.

On the serf thing: press them to explain exactly how it was different. The conditions were basically identical (if not a whole lot worse for the serfs), and thus any realistic mechanism for intelligence depression would be identical, discounting their theory.

Always remember that condescension is your greatest weapon. Mock them for being uninformed and for believing in magic, supernatural forces instead of real science. Make them feel ignorant and stupid for believing in leftist fantasy theories.

Why can't they use Muslims to kill the white people and white people to kill the Muslims? Where's the contradiction in using both to destroy the other because Jews want both to be docile slaves?

Ask them for proof of that. Point them to the fact that South African and Rhodesian populations had essentially identical IQs to other Europeans.

There probably isn't any proof because Africans can't even raise their own children without killing half of them. After they slaughter the albino niggers, of course. I doubt a white child has ever survived in an African tribe.

Who cares? Tell them you don't live in Syria and its not your concern how they live or are ruled.

The claim of free markets tending towards monopolies is never substantiated. I'd be interested in seeing someone try.

I like to use haaretz, times of israel, and other jewish sources to bypass the accusations of bigot nazi.

Encountered this one recently:

Help?

Then how the fuck does genetic diversity occur, nigger?
Proto-giraffe A had a short neck, was weak and emaciated and had weak, emaciated offspring (if any) that died.
But Proto-giraffe B was a mutant and had a weird slightly longer neck that let it nibble on food more than A, so it was stronger and had healthier offspring, thus creating more long neckers
This process repeated until we got modern giraffes

This video might help you.

Sounds like commie logic to me.

They don't gain the best, they become unhealthy due to mismatch and incomplete polygenetic trait expression. Since most of humanity is of the retarded shitskin variety any mix would have an IQ below 100. It wouldn't prevent wars, let alone race wars. The whiter populations would establish themselves as masters over the browner ones, just like in Haiti.

Counter this:

Mutations.

Animals with beneficial mutations propagate more than animals with lesser traits. Beneficial mutations spread widely in response to the environment.

A nigger is stupid because to nature there is no reason for him to be smart.

Environments stop the propagation of harmful genes and encourage the spread of beneficial genes. They also influence mutations to a minor degree.

Their genes exist because of Africa. If their genes were not conducive to living their they would die out.

Well, let's go point by point.

Already retarded. Laws are not magic and Syria is not representative of the many shitskin varieties represented under the label "Muslim."

Were the girls Syrian? This vagueness takes away credence from the point, they don't add to it. I doubt they were altruistically rescuing white girls. Also isolated report, not statistics. "African makes invention" as a headline doesn't prove that Africans are industrious and clever. It also goes against their point by mentioning the rapist tendencies of Afghans, another variety of Muslim.

Do I even need to address this? Pushing communism on gullible high-schoolers is apparently the same as feminists pretending to be raped for money.

A Jew describes the behavior of all top-ranking Jewish communists. Amazing. And this apparently proves that communism is both not Jewish and also not a tool for sucking populations dry.

Of course a Jewish communist opposed Jews returning to Israel instead of living in communism amongst the goyim to suck out their lifeblood.

What a laugh. All those ideologies are about weakening enemies and centralizing your own power. If that isn't being concerned about self-interest I don't know what is.

Don't communists keep telling me he wasn't a real communist? And yet this asserts that Stalin's actions prove the disconnect between Jews and communism. Amazing. More like "Jewish communist puppet goes rogue and attacks former masters in order to seize power for himself."

Don't forget that it's erroneous to compare Muslims in 100% nonwhite countries with Muslims in European countries.

Meant to link for the second response.

The proposition that the US at that time was actually free is debatable. Robber barons are also vastly overplayed.

Moreover, that at best is a correlative assertion. It'd be like me "proving" that Islam causes innovation because of a brief burst of innovations at the same time as Islam began. In other words, it ignores the possibility of other causes, and this argument is made all the weaker by the fact that I've yet to encounter anyone who can provide a theory as to how a monopoly would form in a free market.

Now, most economics is shaky as-is, but no capitalist critics of the "muh monopolies" variety have bothered trying to construct any alternative, leaving us with only current economic theory to argue with. And under current economic theory there has been no provided argument as to how monopolies could form and stay formed without government intervention.

I'd be interested if you could provide one, but the fact that nobody has yet been able to is a weakness in any criticism. It's like communists claiming capitalism is the exploitation of the workers without any sort of proof.

The second one here.

How can anyone argue for lots of military spending overseas when so much of the budget goes to military and there is already so much debt?

Did you mean getting backlash for their usury mafia practices and being exiled for them?
Because "suffering persecution" sounds really Schlomo-esque.

Christcucks are at fault for the migrant crisis for selling Europe out to the Jews, christianity is a cucked jewish religion that preaches masochism and suicide.

Pagans are just a bunch of LARP autists trying so hard to feel different they will literally worship dead religions and will autistically sperg whenever any other religion is mentioned.

Atheists are a plague upon the white race that pollute our society with their nihilism. Their belief that there is no god is as contradictory as their extreme tendency towards degeneracy in their facade of intellectualism and enlightment.

Free tendies for whoever makes a coherent counter-argument for all three.

I will never vote for Donald Trump because he reminds me of Hitler, the guy who killed more whites than any Muslim suicide bomber ever did. I'm tired of their close-mindedness, Trump supporters are the sort of people who refuse to learn Spanish despite the fact they are a huge community in our country now which would help them integrate, who wouldn't bother to attempt an Arabic class (probably because they don't have the IQ) and understand the advantages of Sharia Law - maybe if they did they could see that Muslim countries have a much lesser crime rate than white countries. Their hero, Uncle Hitler, was a massive supporter of Islam too. Aside from hating Muslims, they also hate Jews - even though many of their idols are Jewish; such as Donald Trump (at least his family), Peter Hitchens and even Walt Disney (who made hand-drawn animated films a true art unlike those awful anime cartoons). They think people such as Stalin were Jewish, when he clearly was not; hell, they'll deny the Holocaust but then insanely advocate for something called the Holodomor. Hilariously, these people think Stalin and Communism were the root cause of famine around the Soviet Union even though famines happened before communism was even a thing.

Thanks. I needed that reminder.

I can accuse him/her of going on the assumption that jews are a hivemind. And he/she will insist no, that is what I'm doing. That will give me an opportunity to bring up jewish nepotism, while simultaneously saying with a smile, "Jews are a diverse culture."

I'm also restrained by having to feign a bit of naivety on the Jewish question.

Who does that even leave then? That's basically just equivalent to an oldschool Holla Forums defeatist screaming "You're all shit and there's nothing you can do to win!"

kek

Do more research into the term loxism. Your friend probably hates the -isms so if you see that semites have their own version of discrimination being well documented then it'll maybe open an eye or two. Also you could go with the idea that Jews practice in-group preference, and if that's not a problem why can't whites do the same thing?

I really don't want the thread to devolve into religious shitflinging.

you aren't willing to achieve libertarianism because you don't believe we should remove the other races (I assume), because you are a libertarian. The lengths that are required to achieve this perfect society are not allowed within its own ideology.

Here's your answer, O.P.
→ →
→ →

How does this strike you?

I believe in genocide of the inferior races and the death of all jews worldwide, and also nationalism. But the country I want to live in is not a fascist Long Live Holla Forums! country, but a country that values personal freedoms and capitalism. It's only as much of a fantasy as your politics. We called communism fantasy but it's coming alive tbh.

Whenever some faggot screeches about how people can't help being gay and healthcare should be provided to those who indulge in dangerous behavior, just post this to blow them the fuck out.

Found this in a Holla Forums thread of all places and it shut the whole fucking thread down.

I liked

Olympics. Whites are predators, they win competitions of pure strength and anything with tool use. Blacks are prey, they win all contests of running and jumping. You'll find in sprinting only blacks from a certain half of africa will sprint in under the 10second mark. When competition comes down a fraction of a second, yet a racial disparity of 10% emerges at the highest tier in sports, how else do you explain it? Doesn't matter if they were raised in American culture or an African one. Their results end up in racial ranges.
White shotput as one example, the black records will fall full meters behind instead of feet. Even paradoxal things like pole vault that should relate to jumping. If there's a tool involved, whites will win long term. This will apply in all areas, the more northern cold of a country, the better sniper records.

Yes, it does. Stop confusing Lamarck with Darwin. Natural selection is well established and makes perfect intuitive sense - mutant genes that cause an animal to survive more easily in the environment will end up reproducing more, given enough time, they'll become the dominant population.

You have it wrong. Africa is a really dangerous environment, especially with insects and disease. They evolved sickle cells which cause sickle cell disease if you get fucked with two parents holding the otherwise arbitrary gene just as a way to get around malaria. But in a way they were also evolved closely to their envirnoment.

Leaving the heat for the cold forced humans to develop intellectual solutions that walking monkeys didn't need, we didn't have the physical characteristics to survive but were smart enough as animals to make fur, fire, etc. Strong intellectual skill was adapted for until you get to modern man.

But yeah, I feel bad for the nignogs too. They're an artifact incapable of living in the modern world. Either they'll be delegated to a giant, maintained landzoo, or brought back under the heel of generous colonialists, or possibly brought up to speed by genetical engineering. At the moment, they're completely fucked in a shit situation and it's really the fault of you know who, not them.

How do I Stump the Trump?

How do I Stump The Trump?

On a related note, genes and race doesn't just imply we are fully formed similar copies to one another. Lamarck's evolution: a mouse will perform better at a maze it's parent performed, even if it never meets the parent. Memories you gain before becoming a parent, get passed onto your kids at a subconscious level.
We are born with an advantage literally building off our forefathers. Physical resources have little value when compared to the value of a single cell in your body. One human cell can replicate and build everything in the human body because it has the blueprints. All computer hard drive storage space in existence can't hold the same amount of data as one tiny cell. We don't have enough space to store the resolution of one brain at a meaningful level to see what's going on either.

Libertarian Nationalism > Libertarianism

Oy vey. They don't HAVE higher IQs, collectively they're dumber than Europeans, thanks to the hidden Hassid dysgenics, but the idea is to get a normie to let go of the Equalist mantra by LETTING THEM work out the contradictions in their programming.

Red pilling people is like tickling fish.

All ideologies break down as their descendants become lazy in enforcing dogma. They compromise basic principles that causes a cascade, breaking the ideologies effectiveness.
As you replace the board of a company with SJW or Merchants, it's form will slowly die in the same way. Republics like the US are the briefest of affairs, once the original generation dies out. The next generation will compromise and appease.
The majority of all early crusades were against heretics. Meaning anyone calling themselves christian well changing dogma. If a gay group decides to call themselves a christian sect, well preaching homosexuality like wiki will give you a list of 100denominations currently doing. The only effective method is combating and reinforcing dogma every time.
The most effective strategies are always short lived as they require longterm constant investment. So we largely default to easier weak willed solutions. Challenging the body like exercise, strengthens it. Progressively getting stronger and stronger. Enemies aren't always a bad thing. You just have to attack them on a regular basis to gain the benefits.

You can't stump the Trump.

You won't stump the Trump.

I guess that's asking a little too much…

Like telling welfare recipients to get a job or sumthin

Not an argument.

Top kek m8. These fucking leftards, I swear.

Fits in with what I heard that African gestation is shorter than White and Asian pregnancy, and that affects brain development

Not entirely true. There are self hating jews who can be used as useful idiots, and jews with majority European blood who didn't find out until later in life, who might have our interests at heart. Still the point stands, never trust a jew, always scrutinize everything they say. Should we win, 1/32 jew blood should be reason enough to disqualify that person from any position of power.

Every study I've seen on the whole "Jews have a high IQ" meme has small sample sizes, often less than seventy-five.

While I like to entertain the notion that we're being bamboozled by a bunch of brainiacs that excel for reasons other than racial favoritism and amoral opportunism, I haven't seen a solid basis for it yet.

Its 1 week less for Africans - study was across '000s of non-induced deliveries in London.
Its not so much it affects brain development, more that it indicates there's less brain to develop. 40cc less in African adults of the same weight as European adults.

I kinda agree. We're being bamboozled by the smart ones who also use the methods you mention. Again, breaking the "Equalist" frame is the important thing here, because it allows the other guy to start letting differences through their cognitive filter.

9/10 economists have spent their life in the study of jew science and that has left them devoid of any sense of anything beyond the figures.
Ask most English people if they would rather have England full of English people, but be 25% worse off finnancially (which won't happen anyway), or continue with the EU knowing that England will no longer exist in a generation.

I wish you luck in your argument, OP, but I must warn you: it is nearly to get normies to agree with you rationally.

I've been there. I've presented incontrovertible evidence. No one even had an argument against it - not kidding, they didn't actually respond at all. But they still refuse to believe it. It's such a paradigm shift that it's too difficult for them.

Monarchy: Absolute dictatorship under a beneficent dictator is the ultimate-tier government.

Environments only increase or decrease the percentage of the population carrying certain pre-existing genes. Environment do nothing to create genes.

That means you can put niggers anywhere under any conditions and come back in a million years and they will still be niggers. What you start with you end with.

You'd have to kill 99.9% of the blacks generation after generation based upon IQ results to regrow a population that is moderately intelligent - but you would have lost genetic diversity and in other respects and be left with an unhealthy gene pool and all the other negative traits that niggors possess (poor hygiene, no impulse control, over-sexed, etc).

Whites are a better race and it has nothing to do with our environment either. We never "culled the herd" to selectively get rid of dumb nigger-like white people, but we are still the better race.

The only thing that creates new genes is 'mutation' and that only creates defects not improvements and is not a logical means by which a population's genes would be materially bettered.

How do you argue against relativism for a secular audience?

Go into specifics please.

Universal right vs wrong

I like to appeal to nature's law.

Unless you believe in god and that there's some sort of ultimate guidebook (I don't) then there is no inherent morality. You could say that there are universal maxims that are nigh undeniable, such as the maxim that one should comport himself in such a way that he always strives to reduce unnecessary pain.

I would flip the tables on your friend and ask him if he thinks murder is inherently wrong. As in, does he think murder is relativistic or not. Most people struggle with this one. Imagine a society that has evolved with murder as a socially accepted mechanism (muslims) and watch him do backflips because his own survival instinct will kick in. You could make it female genital mutilation, whatever. Just find his pressure points and exploit it. If it's a woman, she will be intensely sensitive to genital mutilation, but guys may not. Honor killing is a cultural phenomenon in the Islamic world, but I doubt any non-uber cuck would hand waive that away.

Since nogs in the first world pretty much all have some white heritage, wouldn't it be for the best interest of blacks the world over to be repatriated to Africa? The average IQ of Sub-Saharans would rise, and they would no longer be in a civilization that was not built for them, that they simply cannot keep up with.

This seems like a no-brainer to me from a merely humanitarian point of view. You don't even have to consider White self-interest to effectively make the argument.

Mutation. Radiation or reactive chemicals come into contact with the DNA (via "the environment") and cause it to have a different chemical structure — i.e. a different gene. New genes are created in this way, and completely randomly. The genes can either have a good, bad, or nonexistent effect, and the bad ones are weeded out by the environment killing of organisms with them.

Only if the selection pressures on them never changed, which, over a million years, is fantastically unlikely.

This implies that genetic diversity is somehow inversely proportional to intelligence, which is nonsense. They're independent, roughly. To preserve genetic diversity you'd only need to leave enough alive — somewhere above ten thousand. That would leave sufficient diversity to account for any future environmental changes. To prevent inbreeding you'd only need a population size above five hundred.

No, the environment did it for us with as yet unclear mechanisms. Most of Holla Forums theorizes it to be drastic environments requiring future-planning, but that's only one theory.

On what basis is it impossible to mutate a beneficial allele or gene?

No, obviously the creation of nothing but beneficial genes by a random process is ridiculously improbable, but that's not the mechanism. Mutation creates random genes and alleles for good or bad, and if they're bad the people with them die off. Rinse and repeat many times with only those with good genes surviving and you end up with a population whose genes were "materially bettered," to use your phrasing.

You could probably go into realistic specifics, such as your morals leading to better outcomes for populations via civilization, but beyond that there is no objective way to convince them, I'm afraid. At that point they have rejected the concept of truth and logic, and you can no longer argue with them. There's just no point, and you need to accept the only solution to your disagreements is a life-or-death struggle.

If you're trying to pitch that to leftists it wouldn't work because they're not actually arguing about "justice," "fairness," "oppression," "privilege," or any of that garbage. Look past their words to see what they're really saying: "Give me more free shit." That's all they want and they'll say and do whatever they have to to get it.

There is no (non-biological) "white privilege." They don't believe it, and neither does anyone with a brain. They don't actually care about it or whether it exists, they only care about how much money complaining about it will get them. Like a spoiled child crying to get goodies from its parents, these people are not wounded or hurting. They are only seeking material wealth, and if complaining about "white privilege" gets them it, that's what they'll do.

You won't get anywhere with your argument, is what I'm saying. It doesn't address what they really care about, and so it'll be rationalized or ignored. You will always be racist because they will always want more stuff from you.

Don't be like braindead good goys who are senselessly committed to only ever arguing at face value. Ignore what their words mean and see what they're really saying. Just like you shouldn't believe that North Korea is a "Democratic Republic" so you shouldn't believe that (nonwhite) leftists care about "white privilege."

If you're pitching it to anyone right-wing (that doesn't mean cuckservatives) they won't care so long as the nonwhites leave. There's no point in trying to sell them on what might be in the black interest, because that's not their concern.

TL;DR: that argument won't really be useful.

Although it's true that immigration has been common throughout America's history, this immigration was heavily limited to white Europeans, primarily those from Great Britain and North-Western Europe, and to a lesser extent Eastern and Southern Europe. America was always intended to be a nation made up of white Europeans, and this was how our immigration system was specifically designed right up until it was changed in the 1960's (under the guise that our demographics would remain unchanged) to allow for the flood of immigrants from every racial and ethnic group.
America was founded and built by whites, and was always intended to remain white. Our nation's identity is inseparable from our history and struggle as a race throughout the ages, and our culture is wholly European in nature. A non-white does not share this deeper bond or connection with our race and white identity, and thus their presence is inherently degenerative to the vital racial foundation on which this nation was built. A multiracial "nation" is a complete oxymoron, since a nation draws its very spirit from a unified racial and cultural entity.
It was the white race that built Western Civilization - our culture, our vigor, our unique drive for greatness - and it is for this reason that we are the only ones capable of maintaining it. Civilizations draw their strength and spirit from the race that produced them, not the other way around. If ones race dies out or gets replaced, so does their civilization.
Maintaining ones nation and ensuring the future viability of ones civilization comes hand in hand with preserving the racial integrity of ones society. Any population of non-whites in our nation inherently poses a threat to this just like any sizeable population of non-Japanese in Japan would irrevocably change the ethnicity and culture of their nation. It’s for this reason that the non-white presence in every Western nation must be reversed in the form of returning all non-Europeans back to their respective homelands, and reasserting the racial foundation that has defined us in the past.

Gaddafi was a dictator. Saddam Was a dictator. Look where it got us removing them.

Not only that, people need to actually give a fuck about each other. You can't have complete freedom if the people don't have the best interests of their nation and their fellow countrymen as the highest priority.

Testing IQ at an early age indicates the potential the child has. If you grow up nigging about, it should be no surprise that your mental capabilities degrade over time.

The problem with niggers is that they score low even at the earliest age. And although socio-economics do play small a role in a child's intelligence (healthy eating habbits, sleep schedule, reading, math, …) that difference almost completely vanishes when that child becomes an adult. (I was 143IQ as a child, 134 at the age of 21, And I'b be lucky if I'm still above 130 now)

- There is the argument that the serfs in Russia were pretty much slaves and yet they're still at a decent IQ level.
- There is the Italy/Spain argument that where there is a higher nigger admixture, their IQ is lower. With the whitest parts of Italy having some of the highest IQ numbers in all of Europe.
- There is the argument that niggers never had a proper civilization, never invented the wheel, never achieved anything noteworthy even though they had contact with Egypt, Persia, Arabia, and Southern Europe.
- The Australian aboriginals are also always a very good example of why races aren't equal.
- Racel specific health issues and genetic disorders are also always redpilling.

We're still all animals. Do you not believe in evolution? Are you denying science? Tens of thousands of years, Different groups have been living apart from each other. Different cultures (important because culture has a lot of influence in the traits that are seen as attractive and therefore passed onto the next generations), different weather and environments and other circumstances like natural disasters, famine, war, … .

Eat a massive dick, you fucking faggot

t. epigenetics.

Hybrid vigor is something extremely rare. When you breed something into an extreme, such as toy dog breeds that can't even walk straight, then introducing "true genes" (eugenes) that normalise its gait (its skeletal structure), that's hybrid vigor. Or pea plants with shriveled leaves with "normal" plants that unshrivels its leaves. Inbreeding in the wrong way produces unhealthy mixtures. Like dogs that can barely breathe with their constricted snouts.

Mixing distant groups like whites and niggers very rarely produces organisms with the best of both traits. Instead, they recombine poorly, usually showing the worst of both groups. Not just that, but, per society, the resultant emotional and higher aspects of identity, are all fucked up. First gen legal immigrants are often good, smart people; subsequent generations revert to the mean of shitty, violent, stupid apes. It's nothing on the parents, except they come from a genetic pool that has not been pressured over very long periods to reliably create organisms that are not violent retards.

They need more time in very cold, unforgiving environments full of danger and starvation if they aren't forced to use their brain and plan ahead and kill their unfit children.

Giraffes most efficently feed at levels just above their shoulder height. Their neck length is used for sexual competition, males will swing their horned heads toward eachother until one is gravely injured or gives up. Then they're bros again and walk away.

youd only have muslims killing non-muslims

...

Did it ever occur to you that it imply isn't and that's why you can't convince people it is?

Compare the lifespan of societies with loose government control (Capitalism) in comparison to societies with strong government control. (Communism)

...

Have tried variations of those
None of us do, they're pretty red-pilled on niggers and Arabs.
they say they just love god more and follow his text.
They fully do, they think they are inferior to Jews.
They point out the verses about making a great nation out of Abraham's lineage and other pro-Jew verses. When I bring up anti-Jewish verses they just brush me off with shit about, "Well you're an atheist anyways, so your interpretation isn't to be trusted"

I basically just stopped bringing it up eventually because they're a lost cause on this issue.

Postan some argumentation theory.

Remember that on forums or online you can take all the time you want to contemplate a good reply, whereas in person you're operating under time constraints. The easier and more structured you make your argument, the better chance you'll have at making what you say look good and winning people over.

Toulmin model pdf (web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Toulmin.pdf) gives a good breakdown of the structure of most arguments. This can allow you to identify weak points in the arguments you construct as well as the arguments of others.

Refutation pdf (public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/spcom322/refute.pdf) gives an overview of how to approach the arguments of others. Pay special attention to the steps listed when actually giving your refutation.

Most people you'll encounter just make blind statements or assert their viewpoints, and so you'll have to suss out what they're basing their beliefs on. They'll operate on "what is right is what feels good" and feels before reals bullshit. For some people, it might be enough to just refute their stance, but the goal should be to redpill others.

You can induce a large amount of uncertainty by simply asking someone where they got their ideas from a few times and casting some doubt on their answers. Once they're uncertain, drop some mild redpills that give them some certainty back and seem agreeable enough. Provide them with simple, hard to dismiss reasoning that seems unobtrusive enough. Encourage them to look on their own and point them in the direction of other information that'll continue the process. The point is to get them questioning and answer their uncertainties with the ideas you want them to adopt. Some people will violently resist this process, and are essentially lost causes. When dealing with these people it's best to just appear more reasonable to whatever crowd you're around. Represent your arguments well and you'll potentially win bystanders.

Naturally, you should have your shit in order and be immune to this same sort of strategy.

Tell them the reason is irrelevant and not of your responsability. You're not a mother, therefore you're not responsable for their growth.

You should simply focus on "what is" and in what benefits you and your children. Normies tend to break off when you talk about these things.

>forward.com/news/breaking-news/318770/trumps-strong-jewish-ties/
ww-wat?

That one's easy just show that most of the "refugees" are not from Syria.

I suppose you could ask them why God demands that you enslave yourself to people objectively terrible, but I suppose once you've illogically accepted that it's God's command there's no saving you.

That's not the same as worshiping or enslaving yourself to Jews. Vague references in the fucking Old Testament are not conducive to religious commands. Ask them where explicitly Jesus says to worship Jews. Ask them whether they believe that Saint Paul, effective founder of Christianity, was wrong in saying that Jesus doesn't give spiritual preference to people.

Honestly at this point they're basically heretics. They're going against basically all Christian teaching, which was effectively founded on the rejection of Jews as a Chosen People. Before then it was just a sect of Hebrewism.

But yeah, I'd have to say I agree with your analysis. They're probably lost, and at this point you honestly just need the local bishop to come down and scorn them as heretics before forcing them to convert to a wholesome faith.

Everyone in my area is Southern Baptist

Show them this. He has a better one but I couldn't post it.

Is this the real reason they went after Nixon so hard?

I'm so sorry. I can't imagine what it must be like living with religious Zionists.

It's too bad there's no authoritative Church to scorn them. I'm sure they'd fall in line very quickly. No offense meant, of course.

I don't live with them, just spend a lot of time together as our family, even extended family, is close. Go hunting and fishing together with uncles, cousins, and my dad, everyone meets up at grandparents every Sunday after they have church. It does feel like religion makes a bit of a gap between me and the rest of the family, thought of faking a revival of faith before just to close it but don't want to live a lie, also wondered if I'd be more likely to have stayed Christian instead of becoming atheist if all Christians around me weren't zionists, pastor Anderson kind of resonates with me on some levels.

I really wouldn't if there's something as big as Zionism in there. No point in adhering to a religion that marks you as inferior.

Without knowing you personally I can't honestly say. All I know is that I've stayed grudgingly Catholic, but that's mainly because of tradition and agreement with previous Church doctrine. The only one of my family who I could honestly say has loyalty to the current Pope and Church is my mother.

Here's a breakdown of the second amendment I just used to defend the rights of gun owners in the USA. Along with the rebuttals, yes I was posting this on kikebook, names removed to protect anonymity of both parties, myself and the other poster.

I can post plaintext but I already put effort into making these somewhat presentable.

Fantastic effort. You clearly swayed a fence-sitter.

I would've mentioned when he brought up the preamble about "the general welfare" that banning guns would do nothing for that anyway, and would, in fact, harm the general welfare. Best way to point this out is that the places where gun ownership is most strong have crime-rates on the low end of Europe's.

Well, fence sitters are the ones to go after. He made it easy.

I'll take that point into consideration if I have to make that argument again. I was getting pretty sassy with the third part of the second amendment, but it's all logic and understanding the relationship between words. I was a bit strong with the opening volley though, but I guess that made the pill easier to swallow.

Best way to win an argument, ask questions immediately followed by showing them the answer. Also don't use contractions, when I'm arguing, I don't use them as much if at all, very subtle but it does wonders. It forces the opposition to read the post not once, but multiple times to completely understand what you said, thus reinforcing your point with very little effort.

Tons of people getting red pills from me due to the Orlando shooting, whether or not they take the pill is another question entirely.

Your interpretation of the grammar is atrocious, but job well done nonetheless.
The first clause is an absolute clause which functions adverbially; in this case the missing adverbial subordinator would be "because": because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right…"

Yeah, you did come off as a bit sarcastic there, but he was obviously receptive to it.

Something to watch out for, though, because sometimes it'll not be received so well.

I understand your annoyance though. It's basic fucking English, and you'd have to be a complete retard to construe the "right of the people" to in fact belong to the militia, not the people. Leftists, I swear.

How can i rebuke the

In regards to all but muzzles you can shoe statistics and averages. The one they know are outliers etc.

In regards to muzzles you'll have to argue that a sovereign nation has no obligation to take in anyone.show the high percent of "radicals" and that even IF not all muzzles are that way, you don't need all of them to cause chaos and terror.
1% of 1Million is 10 000 which are plenty.
I thunk you gt the jist. You keep going down this line.

As the other user said, statistics and averages.

Look at it like a cost benefit ratio. Bringing Muslims into your country is a high-risk activity, so it must accordingly be high-benefit. Well, what's that benefit? None. They are universally a drain on everything.

Never concede the starting position. Don't act like you've accepted the premise of letting Muslims in already and are looking for a reason to stop it. The default position you need to force them to start from is "Why should we let them in/keep them here?" Push them on that and don't relent. I guarantee you they won't be able to come up with an answer that isn't "D-D-Diversity?" which is a non-answer false value you can call them out on.

I just took it as it was, and pieced it out logically. I am not, how would I put this best, an English scholar by any stretch of the imagination.

Spoiler bit: Good to know, will take that into consideration, thanks for the critique overall.

Our public education system is the worst, it has basically raised 1 to 2 generations of retards who do not understand basic English or other important skills like basic logic or the ability to actually think critically about something.

One risk you need to be aware of is the "We can just evaluate the individuals!"

There are several responses to this. First is the question "Why bother?" It is unarguably a bigger use of resources to evaluate every individual, so the increased cost needs a justification. They probably won't be able to give you one.

Second is to say that individual assessment is faulty. Terrorists and murderers have been personally vouched for by reputable people, and yet have gone on to commit atrocities. If even personal friends cannot give a fully accurate estimate of a person's character, who's to say a lazy bureaucrat will give an acceptable analysis? "But user, how could we do anything then?" Cost-benefit again. Why do we want/need them? Throw in there corruption, because the current government can't be trusted to just let in "the good ones."

Third is to emphasize how much more intensive individual judging is. A good way to do this is asking them if they'd hire an ex-convict. Just because he murdered someone before doesn't mean he'll do it again. Not all convicts reoffend. They don't know him personally, so how can they judge him? Reinforce the idea of pattern recognition and its acceptability. That it's okay — even necessary — not to invest time and resources into analyzing every individual when simple risk analysis can be quickly and easily performed and will, 90% of the time, give you the best result. "But user, that's so heartless! Are people just numbers to you?" This isn't an argument, so your best bet is to respond to it by not responding; that is, accuse them of something instead. A good one would be "You care more about your posturing than saving people's lives. Your plans result in dead people."

Hope this helps.

Thankfully I wouldn't know. I hear it's pretty bad though.

That's Commiefornia for you.

Geez, you don't catch a break, do you?

It's a construction found in Latin and Greek, and as the founding fathers were classically learned they would know of and employ this construction.

Another argument for the second amendment is that the weapons that US colonials had were equivalent in terms of power the British military of the time. So relatively, we should be able to have tanks and so on. It's just not realistically feasible for the common citizen any more.

I'm actually curious about why that is, given that quite a lot of private citizens in colonial days could own and operate their own warships without getting anywhere close to breaking the bank, one would think that a modern analog would be in existence.

Trying to come up with a reason why military technology should suddenly have accelerated to such expensive heights is a bit of a puzzle.

I remember not long ago some scandinavian country talked about making a cheap and reliable APC without unnecessary bells and whistles, asking if there is interest. But to my surprise there was none. At least not from the burgers. Maybe it's on purpose to drain money from the millitary industrial complex?

Well, probably no money from the US because it's really fucking hard to get any sort of heavy armament. You'd probably drown in paperwork trying to get anything that isn't at least sixty years old.

Elsewhere there just isn't enough of a culture for it.

Yeah, I'm convinced it's partially because the government has driven up military prices so much. Same reason personal planes are so expensive even though the technology for something like a Cessna is fifty years old and could be build for less than the price of a modern car.

Looks like i didn't make it clear. They were offering it to the millitaries, not the citizens.

I think that we didn't pick the Super Hornet because it isn't as tacticool as the F35 is all the proof we ever needed that we don't want reliable war tech without bells and whistles. We just want pork barrel spending for MIC.

Ah. Well, you know governments these days; looking to bankrupt their citizens in whatever way possible. Why would you ever need or want a cheap military vehicle?

Non-Western militaries don't care about quality anyway and will happily buy Soviet/Chink shit.

Morality is a shortcut to the answer that does the most benefit to society.

One might argue that Christianity, as an example, is full of bad examples and questionable morality. Take the Old Testament, for example, especially the Laws Of Levitictus. There are a lot of outdated rules, like not eating shrimp or pork. One could easily throw these out because they're no longer relevant to modern society with our understanding of food preparation and cooking things until they're safe, whereas before it could kill a man.

Other examples include the bit about man not laying with other men, something something, it's an abomination. These will offend modern sensibilities, and there's not much you can do about that. Unless, of course, you intend to sit down and explain every aspect of every degradation they inflict on the world, anyway.

Prohibitions against sodomy are perfectly sensible though. You only need mention "rectal prolapse" (don't Google it) to see why it should be discouraged. It pretty much is an abomination.

It's also entirely separate from the issue of the undesirability of homosexuals.

I have a disgusting muslim in my class who argues that blacks are only stupid because "muh slavery" and blames whitey for fucking up africa. What is the best way to BTFO him?

A good counter to that argument is to point out successful post-colonial countries. Iceland was a colony of the Danish. Flipland is far from perfect but nowhere near as bad as any single sub-Saharan African country.

Also, look at this post:

What are some of his arguments?

Ask by what mechanism slavery could make blacks stupid? This would constitute a powerful biological mechanism that has magically not been seen in any other people subjected to labor, but it also sidesteps the question by admitting the biological stupidity of blacks. At that point he can only try to convince people that whites somehow "owe" blacks for making them stupid and that they cannot (morally) keep them out of their societies. You can merely retort that it would only be the 2% of slaveowners and, at best, their descendants who are responsible, and that blacks have no right to be inflicted on the rest of the innocent white population.

TL;DR: If he says blacks are stupid because of slavery, ask "So blacks are biologically stupid then and incapable of becoming smarter?" You may also ask "How come other peoples subjected to labor aren't stupider?" or "How would hard labor make people stupid?" Following that: "If a few generations of hard labor is enough to evolve stupidity in Africans, it's highly probable that the thousands of generations that the races have been separate would have made significant evolutionary changes, probably including intelligence, don't you agree?"

I disagree, read up about Feral Children. If a child grows up say in the woods or something (which in all fairness is better than growing up with niggers), he won't be able to learn as much as he would have been able, if he had been raised in a proper environment. That is to say, if you don't start teaching a child, he won't ever enter "a receptive teaching phase".

The kid will be smarter by virtue of his genes (if he wasn't abused or something), but other than that he won't ever be as good as he could. More so, the nigger around him will be probably more suitable for warlord, since they have been growing up for it.

Again we are talking about being raised with Africans.

Good

Sin exists separate from worldly harm, adultery is wrong even if no one is hurt. Your understanding of theology needs improvement.

For people that don't agree with Christianity, that viewpoint is null. It's only a valid argument within your paradigm, not without.

Trump talking about decreasing the military budget while increasing military strength isn't just hubris, the amount of waste is insane. Politicians frequently ignore generals' advice on what equipment to pursue in favor of costly projects by companies who donated to their campaigns, even when that equipment is subpar.

You get it by experience.
First start of small, shitpost on youtube and 4cuck, troll and bait people, just play around and get to know the psychological buttons of the enemies that you need to get to know to use against them.
Then start of with short, to the point emotionally loaded and emotionally explained sentences that will turn their doublethink on themselves and either redpill them or make them go into major tantrum.
Just so you know, unless youre debating in professional setting , debating is for most parts a cock fight of "the other side is idiot lunatic". Make them look like a lunatic and idiot and you win.
ez

Except that's not true at all. This isn't a meta-arguments thread, merely a thread where you can post specific arguments you have trouble making or common rebuttals you encounter. I have been convinced many a time by reasoned anons calmly explaining their viewpoints. It's what happens when you and the person you're speaking to isn't a retard.

I think it's a little silly when people show up and drop a 'please tell me how to defend X ideology' and expect a large write up when it seems you haven't put forth any effort into solving the issue yourself. I would refer back these people back to the OP image.

ignore the haters, show people this.

The actual number is 8%.

Still less than 1 in 10 people, so the argument is still valid.

Underrated post. Bamp for interest.

Your infografic does not address immigration at all, our favorite issue. Libertarians are notorious for being open border supporters. Pic related, this is what Gary Johnson thinks of unlimited immigration from Mexico with source. How is this parallel with Holla Forums in any way?

One kike shill advocating for open borders doesn't invalidate an entire ideology.

You can still be libertarian and write in a few nationalist clauses into your constitution in order to ensure the long-term health of your people and society.

So it seems the only way to be a strong advocate for your people/country is to be a bad libertarian. See why we invalidate the ideology now? Nationalism makes more sense in every way.

excellent idea, op
constructing arguments / thesis are our weapons of war in this kulturkampf

Libertarianism is not a free-for-all anarchy with no laws and wide open borders.

Just a little anecdotal story about environment

As you get older it's not so much faking a revival as going back to good practices. My mother is becoming demented so she is happy I still have the faith… which I do, because you may go on about this green frog but it feels like Jesus Christ to me.

The keys of David. Talmud in sex magic from buttsex with young goys, I mean boys.

Except the official party platform thinks otherwise. Gary Johnson is the official nominee. That'd be like saying Trump doesn't represent Republicans now. You can't just say 'but he's not a true libertarian' simply because it doesn't suit you, user. I never said it was anarchy, simply that Libertarians tend to support open borders when Nationalists, myself included, think that's the worst position on the most important issue.

No 3rd world immigration without the welfare state.

He was democratically elected under international supervision

Digga the people around me are so cucked before I can get anywhere there is genuinely this that they need convincing of:

Also there's this conversation that for some reason keeps repeating itself and I genuinely get the feeling I'm dealing with kikes.

Either that or they break it off earlier with the same result. I'm genuinely getting creeped out by this shit.

Transcript from conversation about banning race-mixing for eugenic purposes (he's a known oil driller):

lib: "Like if you want to only get offspring from the best in society genetically, that makes sense

But races are an extremely rough grouping of "good genes"

It's just stupid, you mid as well go at it genetically"

[…]

lib: "I mean I seriously don't get why you wouldn't just take the best of all humanity genetically and work from that"

He later went on to talk about DNA scans and how they're easy to do amd will become easier in the future. What's the justification for racialism when you can pick and choose the cream of the crop of humanity?

I don't even follow the official mainstream Libertarian party. I only care about Libertarianism as an ideology.

So a bunch of semi-leftist cucks and kikes have infiltrated the official party ranks; so what? All conservative and nationalist parties are also infested with traitorous cucks as well. Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders are both zionist scum. Does this discredit nationalism? Are all nationalists also zionists?

Let's agree to disagree.

I would hit him with the argument that he's effectively advocating for the destruction of diversity. He'll be aghast and ask why you think so, then you explain that endless race mixing will see the destruction of every distinct peoples and that every race should remain distinct to preserve diversity.

Sounds like a cuck position but it's very, very useful I've found. You won't convince him with the Holla Forums 'just glass the entire turd world' arguments, so just poke his diversity buttons.

ask them two basic questions:

1 - Is the economy doing well?

2 - Can we do better?

Genetics doesn't work like that. By their own admissions, leftists say there are no genes unique to any race. That is, any gene or allele (there are some unique alleles, such as lactose tolerance ones) which might be desirable can be found in one race. There's no reason to "go abroad" for them, really (especially since other branches of humanity at best only have some potentially useful disease-related genes, rather than anything like intelligence).

Add on top of that outbreeding depression and you get how shitty racemixing is and how it wouldn't create better individuals. You can't just "pick from the creme" of humanity like that. You'd have to work within one race where there is no, by and large, outbreeding depression.

Or you could just ask any dog breeder whether they choose the best of all breeds for their mixes. Hint: they don't. All the best breeds have come from small stocks. Merino sheep are a good example of this. There's a particular Australian breed renowned for fine wool that came from a single farm in the late 1800s.

To add to this: constant mixing makes it very hard to increase the frequency of beneficial genes. This is often because of gene mismatch: say there's a beneficial intelligence gene — let's call it IG1 — in Race X that you want to increase in frequency, and another few beneficial genes in Race Y, so you breed them together. Suddenly IG1 is no longer being expressed, because genes from Race Y (which doesn't have IG1) are either (by chance) taking IG1's spot on the DNA, or other genes from Race Y are suppressing IG1's effect.

Or consider an alternate scenario where you have a polygenetic trait: a trait that requires multiple genes all occurring in Race X to be expressed. In order to get your trait you need all of your rare Race X alleles. But when you mix with Race Y you get a bunch of Race Y alleles instead, meaning that the trait you wanted isn't expressed.

There's so many combinations like this on a genome so enigmatic that, were you to constantly mix races, it would essentially be impossible to artificially increase beneficial traits by selective breeding. You just wouldn't realistically be able to do it.

The only thing you might be able to do is use a DNA-editing technique (there are a few ones coming) to "edit in" a desirable gene that the population in question might not have. For instance, it might be desirable to take particular malaria alleles from South East Asia that don't have side-effects instead of African malaria alleles, which cause sickle-cell. Or you might wish to take alleles that drastically reduce heart-disease such as those found in remote villages (there's one in Italy, I believe, that reduces it by 90%).

At any rate, all of that means mixing is not only unnecessary, but outright harmful. If he wants actual eugenics he needs to work with a small and already healthy population — that is, an intermixed group with desirable traits, such as might be found in specific regions of Europe.

What the hell is going on?

You god damned retard, they absolutely were

When I speak in favour of libertarianism, I don't promote cuck johnson's poorly disguised liberalism (IE not libertarianism, but liberal socialism)

I speak about white nationalistic libertarianism.

And before you say "no true scotsman", remember that forming a new and different ideology, separated from the modern day libertarian party, based on the historical foundation of America is not the same as when a lefty sprout "muh snowflake socialism has never been tried".
Because this form of white national libertarianism has been tried.
and it worked!

Cuck Johnson isn't this years libertarian candidate.
Trump is.

You have to admit that in order to be truly nationalistic you would have to conflict with several libertarian principles, such as voluntarism. Obviously you're not going to have universal agreement on borders, making it coercion to keep them without constant referendums.

Best way I can figure to get around this is to set up the system policies first: that is, if you don't like it you're free to leave. As opposed to the people-first approach of most libertarians where they envision a bunch of individuals getting together and agreeing on common rules.

That way you might get some sort of "internal libertarianism" with the attitude of fencing off a libertarian system that people are free to leave if they don't like.

I'm not a libertarian but those are just my thoughts.

This board has been severely lacking lately.

You no longer need books to be a highly educated human. All you need is research journals that digested all the research projects that ever came to be (which are significant), you even dont need that if you can comprehend and read the research yourself.

You can learn more about scientific projects that map out all walks of life, than you can even learn of some obsolete, old human who does not know shit about anything of importance and who just likes to masturbate around with words.

Yes, books are obsolete.

By your own admission you're like the baby chick who just gets fed regurgitated information. How can you even seriously advocate not going to the source material other than to fulfill your fantasy that hard work isn't involved with being educated.

Yes, if you are an idiot.

there are many research things that come out, landmark research projects however first usually get through a portal. Why would you have a need to know that certain material is a little bit better with a certain combination with other chemicals to conduct electricity for example? Portals can be a good thing.

that is a non argument.

My argument still stands. To be a highly educated human being in this modern age, you could replace books with scientific research.

Do you really untrust a scientist, Dr. Shekelsburg, to make the conclusions for you instead of just drawing them yourself?

I think we are disagreeing because you are talking about science and we are generally talking about the softer political realm. I get it you're a scientist or an aspiring one, but you're conflating two things that shouldn't be conflated. Having a (((historian))) pour over history books doesn't really make his conclusion any better since he can still be subjected to his own biases since history is heuristic and flawed by design.

Do you really trust**

You are not suited for this argumentation. You bore me you low IQ normie.

...

...

...

...

Shitposting aside, what do you have against what I said? What do you have to say against the charge that you seem to be conflating the softer study of history with hard science? I would like to reason it out, even if we dont eventually agree

I need a good argument for this here:

"But user, how can you say that multiculturalism and multiracialism are bad? Just look at the high HDI of countries like Canada. It looks to me that multiracialism and multiculturalism have a good effect on our country."

if you could, keep it in the context of Canada, since I'm Canadian myself.

People like you are not capable of thinking creatively. When I utter those words the first thing that came to your mind is your fallacious defense the old. Its plain and unreasonable. Its static and nothing more than just a copy pasted response. You have not thought about what purpose books had in society. What kind of information they had. Which people used them. For people of your IQ, it takes people from my end to try to dumb it down further so that you may grasp at my intended message.

But I am not too thrilled about giving it out, because I know that in 5 posts you will be using dumbfag fallacies (like you already did), shitposting and generally behaving like an animal (which you are) who lost his favorite poking stick.

If I want to push my opinion, I have to make sure to insult you enough infront of everyone, and then just wait for the usual lurkers who then do grasp at it and then use it, because of some feelings of btfo.

I am tired of this ritual. So instead il just keep this nugget of truth inside of my instead of sharing it with a retard.

Hit them with this one:

In 2010, Sweden was #15 on the HDI scoreboard. This is when they really started to kick their multiculti into overdrive. At the end of 2015, Sweden's position on the HDI had declined to #25. Sweden is projected to be #45 by 2030, all because they decided that it'd be a great idea to import an enormous amount of shitskins from the turd world with no skills other than ficki ficki.

For reference, Saudi Arabia is #39 and Bahrain is this year's #45.

:^)

tune that 5 posts down to 1 post, haha, typical retards.

How is that even an argument? That's not even a correlation-causation fallacy, as no data has been provided. He could just as easily argue that Canada has Trudeau as prime minister (?) now, and that he is therefore the source of all Canada's wealth.

In other words, you need to look at the trend. How was Canada's standard of living relative to the rest of the world before multiracialism? After? As multiracialism has increased has relative HDI changed at all and if so in what ways?

Key point here is relative HDI. It wouldn't do to compare it unrelatively, as I'm sure there'd be a positive trend as technology increased that could be misconstrued by retards as being due to increasing multiracialism.

I'm not Canadian so I don't know much about Canada specifically, but point them towards all the evidence of multiracialism being bad. You have stuff like the fact that no empire in history has started out multiracial and that the vast majority of innovation and wealth in the world has been generated by monoracial civilizations. Then there's the study work; a good one is Putnam's, because in his quest to prove a cause other than multiracialism he pretty much discredited any other explanation and showed that multiracialism destroys social trust and cohesion. There are plenty of others so I won't list them all, but that's a good start.

You can also hit them with theoretical arguments, such as the fact that people want to live with people as similar to them as possible because it's the least risky. Cheetahs and lions don't live together, for example. Birds in particular are a good example because there are huge amounts of competition there over the smallest differences. Squirrels too; red and grey squirrels don't cooperate. Why would people be different? Given this, you can then hit them with group theory: groups only form to combat other groups, based on biology mainly. Because the only other competitor groups are other races (there is no competitor species to humans), cohesive and functioning groups will never form above the racial level, since then you would effectively have one group and no groups to fight against, nullifying the point of having a group. In this case that results in a breakdown of the group into smaller ones seeking their own interest. You can bring out the big guns and point out this means multiracialism is antithetical to liberty, as all groups will be competing against each other in a zero sum game to get the maximum advantage over the others, and the only way to prevent bloody conflict is with an authoritarian state. Point out that this is exactly what has happened in every multiracial society ever. Even just multicultural ones of the same race (e.g. Russia).

If you want to be a bit shitlord-y about it, you can ask them if that means they think shoving wildly different people together will produce prosperity (might pay to ask them how) and, given that, whether they'd be in favor of forcing different African tribes together arbitrarily to give them much needed prosperity. This is a good one because "Africa's only violent because Europeans shoved different tribes together without consideration!" is a common leftist argument.

Hope at least some of that helps.

Quads.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

Nigger.

:^)

Kek? Is that you?

I shouldn't humor you again but thought I'd refer you back to Sagan when he said:

Then again I enjoy reading since it's what I do a lot. I'll pre-post a Stefan since you seem to be incapable of anything other than insults.

Get off your high horse and just call yourself a low IQ tard, its the only way Il bother to write something more profound.

I don't really consider myself smart, but then again I think it's incredibly childish to throw out IQ arguments. Can we move on?

Thats not good enough, still too hostile against me. Tell me that I am your superior and il CONSIDER it.

...

Guess not then user.

Thanks mate. I did try a few of the arguments you provided such as the social cohesion/social trust one, but he just went on talking about "muh living in harmony!! muh it works in Canada!! muh HDI proves trust is good! muh making something new and better with immigration".

Funnily enough, he said that Europe and America fucked up their immigration system, but somehow Canada did it right. I think this has more to do with the fact that the Canadian Government and media keeps a tight lid on any ethnically "sensitive" information, though. He's a cuckservative, so he refuses to even entertain the idea that the destruction of culture and racial integrity is a negative thing at all. I tried telling him that a multiethnic nation is an oxymoron, since a nation itself functions on the principles of a shared racial, cultural, and historic identity, yet he just decides to reject that and continue on spouting shit about how "it works in Canada" for now, dumbfuck - wait 'till we're a minority and see how nicely they treat us

I think another argument to respond to, and one that the "social cohesion/trust" argument still applies to, but is hard to convince Liberals (and even many civic "nationalists") of, is the process of Asian immigration. In Canada Asians have essentially been colonising our Western-most provinces and completely overwhelming the demographics, yet people refuse to accept them as a negative threat because they "work hard, don't commit crime, and assimilate well".

The argument I've tried making, but which falls on dead ears, is the fact that regardless of where immigration comes from, it poses a threat to the racial integrity of the nation, which, in the long run, is the only tangible thing that guarantees your civilisation's survival and propagation. I've also tried making the argument that ones civilisation is a product of the race that produces is, so replacing ones race inevitably leads to the disintegration of that civilisation and its replacement with another. An Asian might on the surface love "muh values", but his presence is naturally degenerative to the innate deeper racial element in our society's identity, and completely negates the vital importance a unified racial and cultural identity provides.

The problem with using these kinds of arguments, is that they simply do not register in a leftist/liberal/cuckservative's brain as valid. The idea of cultural integrity, long-term survivability of ones civilisation over many centuries, preserving racial identity as a means of uniting a country, and all the other facts we on Holla Forums simply assume everyone already accepts as true due to their blatant obviousness, have never even occupied the slightest amount of head space in leftist's mind, thus, trying to convince them that these concepts are even valid starting assumptions is a bigger challenge than anything else.

I also need an argument against this:

"But user, Italians in Montreal are heavily involved in the mafia and organised crime, yet I don't see you calling for us to ban them or deport them. How can you then say you want to keep muslims out for a similar reason but not the Italians?"

Keep in mind that we haven't had terror attacks in Canada like you've had the US, and the guy I was arguing with completely rejects arguments or examples that pertain to anything but Canada.

As an Italian, you can definitely cede the point that maybe Italians don't belong in the great white north. The difference in the argument is that the mafia, at the very least, doesn't shoot up gay bars. Any violence is usually turf warfare, but that's increasingly uncommon as the mafia has been a white-collar crime org for a long time now. That said, the metaphor to be drawn is between mafia:Italians and jihadists:Muslims.

In the mafia:Italians comparison, you don't have 15% of the Italian population sympathetic to the mafia as you do with the jihadists:Muslims (these people are known as Islamists). If 15% of the Italian population were cheering on mafia takeovers and aiding+abetting them, then that argument would hold water. Italians don't, so it doesn't.

Fighting elsewhere makes sure that when the fight gets to America, the entire fucking world will hate us enough to join in the curbstomp.

sageniggers are worst

There is literally nothing wrong with islam.

But Italians have contributed greatly to Western Civilisation and are of European genetic stock. I think Italians are perfectly acceptable immigrants who do not lessen the white/European nature of this society, and do not threaten our racial stock, so I won't start discriminating against fellow whites.

he can and did use the argument that "most muslims in this country reject what ISIS does", which is technically true going by pew research polls and the likes.

I think the best argument to go by is that Italians are an ethnic group that don't all believe in a certain religious book that calls for violence against non-believers, but muslims on the other hand, have it written down in their very sacred holy book, meaning every muslim is in fact a potential radical. There's also the argument of creeping Shariah, which is also perfectly valid and doesn't apply to Italians.

...

just fuck my shit up schlomo pls

It's like you want your daughter gangraped by fifteen achmeds

I would agree to that, but we have our own country so if Italians were a pervasive problem, something I don't believe, then I would agree that maybe we don't belong. Sicilians are usually half-niggers anyway, so that's why I can admit that some Italians behave like animals.

The difference is that while most muslims might reject ISIS, a good number of them believe pernicious things. Pic related, only 4/5 of the population believe that suicide bombs for their faith are never justified. That leaves at least 1/5 thinking it's sometimes or rarely justified. This is an amazing number because you can take this number, 20%, and multiply that by the current U.S. Muslim population and arrive at an estimate at how many people would be sympathetic to a suicide bomb for, say, a drawing of the prophet here in the United States.

3.3M * .2 = 660,000 Islamists

That's really an astounding number, and it's only getting worse. Muslims are really pack animals though, so they only show their true colors when they amass themselves in an area. Take Dearborn, Michigan for example. This is an area that became famous last December for having a pro-ISIS rally. MSM shat their pants and said that them flying the ISIS flag was 'ironic' and that it was actually a protest of ISIS. Tell me, what do Muslims do when they protest a flag?

THEY BURN IT

They are clearly flying KSA and ISIS flags in solidarity with the San Bernadino faggot since this rally took place two weeks afterwards.

do their dicks extend across the continents?

That doesn't make them white. It's in the JEANS.

Who ever made the first one sounds pretty mad.

...

top kike

MIDF in full force lately. Listen guy, this is an argument thread, not a green texting merchant thread. Please make an argument instead of contentless posts. Do a write up of your opinion if you want.

you're bad at this. We don't need to ally with shitskins for them to hate Jews. If they kill each other, then it's a win win for us.

0/10
>>>/oven/
is there even a MIDF? wewlad

(check'd)
Agreed.

fuggg, forgot ebic merchant
have 2 for combensation :-DDDDDDDD

What do they teach you in the ME, Ahmed? Because Islam has consistently shown that it is far from harmless, and far from friendly towards Europeans. Just ask the Greeks.

Here is one:

Give me a valid and falsifiable proof that an objective morality exists independent of human subjectivity, and that humans are adequately equipped with the apparatus to perceive and track said objective morality.

This is an insightful point. You are correct in that there are basic assumptions that the right takes to be true self evidently (same for people on the left too), and they simply aren't shared so there is no common ground.

Nationalists think that everybody prioritises members of their own race over others, yet, atleast in my personal experience, people prioritise simply those who they socialise most with and get on with. A white man who has lived in Hong Kong for years, where half of his close friends are Asian and half are multiple white nationalities, will likely reject your statement that he has more in common with some white pleb in his county of origin than others who have shared more of his life experience.

In order to circumvent that you have to keep making statements, going further down until there is an assumption you both agree with. Then the process is a matter of proving that your view is the one that logically results from that statement that you both share.

Agreed. It's incredibly difficult to create any sort of common ground during an argument, because there are so many basic underlying assumptions that really determine how infomation is processed by individuals. A person who simply holds no value in culture or race or preserving ones identity cannot be told why these things are necessary. They have to discover them on their own like so many here on Holla Forums have done. Someone who holds the assumption that all people hold equal value simply can't be told or convinced that concepts of superiority and inferiority are valid, because the very idea of it clashes with their underlying ideological foundation.

I think what nationalists claim is that every race has a natural inclination to looking after their own people instead foreigners that is ingrained in their biology, and that this fact is vitally important to consider when forming a nation or determining immigration systems. Nationalists don't claim that people of different races can't work together at all, but that societies that are multi-racial/cultural inevitably have more inter-ethnic conflicts/disputes, are un-unified, and lack a vital racial component that helps to animate the population and gives them the drive to create wonders of cultural expression and reach their full potential as a race.

bump

Well that's just a flat out lie. Look at any statistics and they'll tell you social trust and civic participation across the Western world are lower than ever. Ask him to prove his harmony.

So his argument is that multiracialism improves HDI which improves social trust and he hasn't provided evidence for any of it? All evidence shows multiracialism lowering social trust. There's literally no way around that. How the hell is he "proving" that multiracialism improves HDI except with an, at best, tenuous correlative fallacy?

Making what new and better with immigration? Deal in specifics, because I'm damn sure he won't be able to prove shit.

I'm 90% sure they're pretty much identical in any meaningful way.

Ask him what the fuck he's "conserving" or fighting for then, because it sounds like jack shit. Get to the root of where his ideology springs from, and you may be able to work from there. If he seeks to preserve civilization (might pay to ask why or for whom does he wish to preserve it and why) then you can say "Wouldn't the best way to preserve civilization be with tried and true methods such as ethnocentrism? Why go with something risky and dangerous that has no proven benefit and could destroy civilization forever?"

That doesn't address what you said though. Ask him directly if that means he thinks Canada is a functioning country filled with many nations? Ask him why he thinks nations should be forced to live together.

Yeah, that's a tricky one. Best way I find to go about it is to say "So, let me get this straight, if you could get a child that behaved better than your son/daughter you'd be fine replacing him/her? You'd be fine with your grandchildren disappearing from the Earth?" Also, a good issue here is to confront them on caring more about the GDP than the people. Ask them why they care more about being rich when neither them nor their descendants will enjoy that wealth. Ask them what the point of going extinct for other animals is. If they accept such a thing (at that point it's pretty much a lost cause), ask them why they haven't killed themselves and donated all their possessions to the Chinese. The only difference, after all, is timeframe. At this point they'll probably either deny it and ignore it, or they'll go full hedonist and claim that the future doesn't matter since "they're getting theirs." Essentially they'll say that everything's fine because they're living a good life. If they go this way there's really not much you can do other than call them despicable hedonists stealing the future from their children. Logically they shouldn't be having any with that worldview anyway.

While that's true, that's a hard sell to people who haven't accepted the importance of the nation. You need to sell them on that first before you can use it to justify things. The best place to start is to emphasize that the nation is, in essence, just an extension of their family. Dealing with the family as an analogy is a good tactic here; as I said above, you can ask them whether they'd replace their family members with strangers who "worked harder," "were more pleasant to be around," etc.. Essentially this worldview is a profoundly ugly and selfish one valuing people solely because of how they impact your own life. This is made clear by the above analogy. No one would call the man who replaces his family with people he likes more a loving man.

You're sort of arguing it backwards. I get that you're trying to appeal to their selfish worldview, but in the end you'll never out-hedonize them with that. You'll either convince them of the importance of the nation — and thus of everything else, such as preserving/improving civilization — or you won't convince them at all. Appealing to their sense of materialism won't really help in most cases, I'm afraid.

Same thing as above. It's true, but you won't convince them on it when their current worldview is already so satisfying in the present. It fellates their ego, tells them they're a good person, and makes them (in the short term if they're rich/smart/connected enough) wealthy.

No, because they are neither long-term thinkers nor possessed of a proper sense of ingroup preference. They are, in a very real sense, mentally defective, and you can either try and "switch on" those parts of their brains that deal with this stuff or just accept that they'll only be convinced by a gun when the time comes, as harsh as that sounds. Unfortunately for any of the dedicated ones it'll be nigh on impossible to get them thinking long-term as part of an real ingroup.

Pretty much. They're self-interested hedonists, and you'll have to get rid of those tendencies before you can do anything else.

thanks for the in-depth reply, mate. I'll definitely use the family analogy next time I get into an argument. I didn't really consider that in the moment, but it's very convincing.

Well, the first step is determining how much they're involved, and compare that proportionally to Muslims — or whichever nonwhites you're dealing with. I don't know of Canada specific states, but the mafia is pretty irrelevant these days. I have no doubt that nonwhites commit orders of magnitude more violent crimes and the like.

Much as I hate to say it, you may want to agree with the deportation of Italians. Along these lines you can go for the Anglosphere argument of Canada being meant for the English/Scots/Irish/general northern European.

But keep proportions in mind. I don't know about Canada specific stats, but I doubt mafia crime is anywhere close to a serious problem.

You may want to, again, consider cost/benefit. What do Italians bring versus what they cost? I know it may be a bit of a slog, but there's always the point that only white immigrants are acceptable anyway, making Muslims an automatic "no." Italians can then be considered as a "maybe" and analyzed from there. I doubt you'll get anywhere with that argument though.

I also have to add that the guy you're arguing with is an idiot if he won't take examples from the rest of the world. Canada's not so unique.

That's really not the point. Would they stand up and fight against ISIS? Would they protect the other nations they live amongst? History says no. I've never heard of a Muslim protecting non-Muslims against his barbaric brethren.

Begone.

one more point he made that I didn't mention, is that he said our country took in a lot of Ukrainian immigrants in the early 1900's and they turned out fine.

Although this is true, I think a good response is that these immigrants were all European racially, meaning that integration and cohesion is immediately more easy based on pure physical appearence, and that as a group, they have contributed to our greater Western civilisation and are thus capable of sharing a deeper racial bond with the majority given enough pressure to culturally integrate. I suppose this argument also relies on the underlying assumptions we take for granted, but at least it's convincing for someone who might be warming up to ethno-nationalist beliefs.

Yeah, they're white. That literally just proves your point. White people assimilated into a white country, nonwhites didn't, ergo multiracialism doesn't work.

I haven't really looked at most research, but I will say this: although I believe that Eastern/South-Eastern Slavs are the most distant of all white peoples from the others, they are incredibly similar to the point that you'd notice barely anything amiss. And even that would take a lot of work. Worst you might suffer is a one point IQ drop if you took enough.

Best I can offer is that there are certain behaviors that, when practiced by an ingroup, lead to objectively more powerful, prosperous, successful, and innovative civilizations. From a biological perspective, that behavior vastly increases fitness, which increases the survival of the given group, which, if you are a part of that group, should really be easily labelled "good."

Ergo, those behaviors would be what you could call "moral" behaviors. They would then constitute a system of objective morality. That, of course, is only objective insofar as one accepts the goodness of group survival and success, but if you reject that you're a biological failure who should be killed anyway.

Humans are capable of using their collective reasoning and good old trial and error to approach said morality. We've already discovered the "badness" of, say, murdering someone of your ingroup, and its easy to see why that would harm the fitness of the group.

This morality will change in response to various things as well. A beneficial behavior in the Bronze Age might very well be disadvantageous in the Industrial Age. Although that does bring up the argument of a behavior only being "moral" insofar as it is independent of circumstance.

Really you've asked too complex a question for me to fully answer here, but hopefully this puts you in some interesting directions. We've have over two thousand years of literature on this, after all, so I'm sure you'll be able to find something.

Just noticed that my ID changed. I'm 240fbf if it wasn't clear.

I agree but I just think that it's probably due to summer.

Nice try Muhammad.

...

Every true Holla Forumslack hates fags. Every true Holla Forumslack cheered for the shooter for killing 50 fags, in a fucking gay nightclub.
>>>/oven/

we hate both mudslimes and fags, you nigger.

that image was strongly pro-fag you autist

Only shills and shitposters use that word

didn't even check

bump

Here's a definition for what social structures ought to be socialized:

"If the denial of an institution's service would gravely inhibit or remove citizens from participating in the marketplace, that institution should be a public burden to maintain."

So the best examples are the case of fire and police stations. There is no acceptable fire that could be left to run rampant, as this would destroy property or kill people - both which gravely inhibit their ability to participate in their society. Likewise police are necessary because too much crime inhibits everyone's ability to conduct themselves in the market.

This would apply to hospitals in that necessary procedures, like cancer treatment or serious injuries, would be paid for by the state, while optional procedures like tit jobs and wart removal would be paid by the individuals. The former is a service which will leave people crippled, diseased, dead, or otherwise severely inhibited from market participation, while the latter doesn't affect their ability to participate to the point of leaving the marketplace.

Institutions which enhance a citizen's economic capabilities but whose services, if denied, would not necessarily remove a person from the marketplace fall under the optional category for the state - individual municipalities or states can determine whether or not to provide such services. While not having a car can make it a pain in the ass to get around, one still has legs (or state-provided wheelchairs) to get you going, and public transportation is a very common service that is optionally provided in many cities that people could use.

I am looking for arguments against the statement from which I derive these results. Right now I have been contemplating how food and shelter works into it - do the citizens have an obligation to provide baseline services for these, such as food banks and homeless shelters, or are they optional? Would the service provided to the people be something other than the food and shelter itself (such as job training programs and mental health services)? And of course what other institutions might exist that shouldn't be socialized that would run afoul of this definition, and ones that ought to be that would elude this definition?

youtube.com/watch?v=YE74zTAHQyk

study these memes
feel them and know them
then use them

75% support Sharia, and they're mudslimes.

Every true Holla Forumsack hates Shari and midslimes.

Every true Holla Forumsacks cheered the death of faggots, then cheered the death of a mudslime faggot.

You have to go back to
goat-fucker.

I feel like ethics is a possible approach for these sorts.

There's a massive mental block because people don't understand that just because the range of capabilities for two groups differ, doesn't mean there's an ethical basis for treating two individuals differently solely because of group membership.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh… That's iffy.

It's true though. You don't hand a team the win just because they have the better record, you still have to play the game.

You don't get to say "he's dumber than me because he's a nigger", you still have to show it.

Sharia has a lot going for it. Even bans usury!

I hate most muslims, but that's because they're inbred arab subhumans or niggers.

I need some help with the argument that Ethiopians are based.

can anyone help?

tell him they have a fine selection of goat pussy

They had that rastafarian king. It's something.

...

All that theory derives from the liberal theory of "inehrent value", which doesn't take into account the fact that what the state spends to help some citizen to "participate in the marketplace" is much higher than what that citizen would produce in a lifetime.
Not to mention it assumes that all citizen agree to have the burden to spend in order to have everyone else participate in a competitive market of all things, in which high participation means lowering the value of everything from labor to products.
It's a very fallacious, absolutist and laughable theory.

If people want to pay for other people for services that not everyone agrees that have to be socliazed, they can do so voluntarily.

The trap behind "inherent value" is that the people who argue for it are asking OTHERS to pay money for THEIR ideals.

Liberalism is the art of creating social programs, making non-liberals pay for it, and then take all the credit.

You never see liberals saying "ok we'll make public HC and we liberals will pay for it since we care so much".
No they say "we want this and therefore EVERYONE ELSE pays for it":

The history of their iron smelting and production is quite impressive, actually.

This ignores that an institution can be available to people without the state providing the service. Healthcare, for example, was much better in the US before the government started fucking around to make sure doctors got paid more. The same would apply to many similar institutions (such as lawyers), as they are only ridiculously expensive because of fuckery.

I prefer to look at it from the perspective of: "How well would a civilization do with and without this practice?" History gives us a pretty clear view of a lot of things when viewed through this lens.

Hammer of the Patriot
Outlines some good responses to common rhetoric used today.
8ch.net/pdfs/res/3.html#1271

Looks interesting. Anymore like it?

Any refutations?

You're speaking to a disingenuous faggot. Jewish presence has always been minuscule but concentrated. Through nepotic means they weaseled their ways into the halls of power and used that power to oppress non-Jews with loxism. That the Bolshevik leaders were 92% Jewish and they murdered 20 Million russians also makes sense because Talmudic Jews think of non-Jews as cattle to be slaughtered. There's a famous rabbi that said that a thousand goyim should die before a Jewish fingernail gets touched.

Marx was Jewish and produced the communistic 'always one murder away from utopia' ideology that they love so much. This is not irrelevant just because that faggot says so. Jews, as a group, have pushed the ideal that we are all equal and that multiculti is the way to go because the last time they were singled out as an out-group it didn't go so well for them. In this regard, it's in the best interest to push ideas, such as communism, that puts everyone on the same level ideologically, even if it doesn't ever happen realistically.

How to refute this?

Told someone how communism caused the deaths of millions and used the USSR + Holodomor as examples then he said:

Except your friend is an idiot who's trying to claim that the deaths of millions were the result of a "mentally ill cunt" when in reality it was the attempted implementation of communist policy and its inevitable opposition with human nature/interests that led to the deaths of millions. You can show him that all of the deaths were done directly in the name of the "revolution" or in furthering communist interests. Also get him to explain why every single communist nation resorted to murdering millions of its own people if it was only because of "a few mentally unstable cunts". Clearly communism results in "mentally unstable cunts" gaining power, and thus should not be advocated for

By the same logic, Nazism should be exonerated of its sins as well. He's just moving goalposts because he will never admit that about Hitler.

"Did adaptation spare the brain?"

Thanks for this. Currently arguing with someone who turned out to be a muslim from the netherlands himself.

>but I don't want to kill people

what sins? Jews were never killed systematically

I agree, but your friend probably doesn't believe that and it's a logic trap.

By the way, if anyone's defending the wall, a very effective way to make people reconsider is to bring up the fact that mexico itself has a wall on its southern border, mexicans treat their illegal immigrants like shit - they kill them and classify them as felons, and the fact that 90% of women travelling across the border get raped - it's such an issue that stores before the border sell a huge amount of contraceptives

You only need to examine whether communism advances Jewish interests, which it is quite easy to do. Communism creates an elite ruling class over a large slave class: Jews were the primary people in this ruling class, whereas the slaves were mostly non-Jews.

It's hard to see how that doesn't further Jewish interests.

Communism always leads to that though, making it very much the fault of communism. Ask him how he expects giving ultimate power to a small group, or even one man, in the quest for "true communism" would ever end up giving you good results. Tell him he has a naïve faith in humanity, and especially in leftists who care more about concepts than people and so can never be expected not to sacrifice whoever they deem necessary, hence mass deaths. Ukrainians? The price of communism. Polish leaders and intellectuals? The price of communism.

You can add that as well: communism inherently demands huge numbers of people (the middle and upper classes, for a start) be killed for its utopia. Why would it suddenly stop killing people it deemed barriers to that utopia? There is no constraint to communism.

You might also want to mention the fact that communism goes against anything natural and so needs to be forced, leading to mass death.

That's only half the point, right there. Many Muslims want to kill people — and if he's brown there's a good chance he would as well — but even more of a concern is that "moderate" Muslims (the ones that everyone pretends exist) won't stand up for non-Muslims against their barbaric brethren.

Have you ever seen an anti-ISIS Muslim militia protecting non-Muslims? When was the last time a Muslim fought, in combat, for Western civilization? For Westerners (whites)? For even just one Westerner?

You don't. All you see is one sect of "radical" Islam trying to gain primacy over another sect.

Ask him whether he would fight to the death against those who declare themselves to be the truth of Islam. Ask him whether he would sacrifice everything to stop Shariah becoming the law of the land. Ask him whether he would spit in the face of a "radical" Muslim for daring to try and abolish the Western civilization that benefits him so much. Ask him whether he would go outside, right now, and scream to the world "I oppose Muslim extremists! Radical Muslims are the enemy of Islam! They must be killed without mercy! I condemn them, their actions, and everything they stand for!" I doubt he would. He'd probably mumble something like vague agreement to those sentiments without having to prove anything. Better yet, ask him if he would do that in front of his local Muslim gathering (whatever they call those), or his (presumably) Muslim family, his father or even grandfather.

If he fails all of those tests, you can tell him that's yet another reason Western civilization doesn't need Muslims.

You've already talked about how multiculturalism and multiracialism are shit though, right?

nationalactionlondon.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/zeiger-hammer-of-the-patriot.pdf

That is a good one for "appealing to the crowd".

Thanks. Made a big reply with all those in mind, but he still doesn't budge.

Also forgot to add:

I asked him 3 questions I got from your posts.
These are his responses:

1) Explain why every single communist nation resorted to murdering millions of its own people.

2) How do you expect good results giving ultimate power to a small group, or even one man, in the quest for "true communism"?

3) Communism inherently demands huge numbers of people (the middle and upper classes, for a start) be killed for its utopia. Why would it suddenly stop killing people it deemed barriers to that utopia?

"So you want peace by killing the opposition. Then why not end racism by killing all non-white people?"

Ghaddafi brought Libya out of the stone age and suppressed Sharia-loving mudslimes.

This, Libertarianism is the final endgame, after everything is said and done. Until then Ist Volk Time.

He's conflating what something nominally is and what happens in practice. I can say that I'm for liberty while I shoot people in the back of the head, but that doesn't mean it was being for liberty that caused me to do so.

Communism, on the other hand, inevitably leads to this. Not just calling oneself communist, but communism actually in practice. Communism calls for the centralization of all power — money, production, police, military, etc. — in the hands of a small group, or even one man. Communism calls for handing unlimited power over the country to a select few. This is indisputable.

Given that we've established that, the question then becomes "How likely is that power to be abused?" And I think history shows conclusively what the answer to that is.

That's just one of many theoretical criticisms of Marxism/communism. Another is that communism lives in a fantasy land of unrealizeable utopian dreams, and will do anything to achieve that. Ask him what he thinks would happen when you're willing to sacrifice everything for the impossible. Hint: you keep sacrificing until there's nothing left.

The second thing is just sophistic nonsense. Firstly, you're not discussing the validity of monarchism as far as I'm aware. Secondly, the "validity" of communism — if it has any, which is another method of attack; too often cuckservatives will say that "communism is good in principle but can never be achieved" which is outright false; communism is disgusting and ugly, and must be rejected at every level — is demolished pretty conclusively by the fact that it fails every time it's implemented. To go back to his ridiculous French Revolution example (for fun you might want to point out that that was the original leftist revolution, so it's no wonder it ended in bloodshed), there have at least been success stories in the book of liberty. Communism has a 100% failure rate.

A good allegory I came across on Holla Forums was this:

That is, communism is based on unsound premises (discussed below), uses faulty logic, and then fails every time someone tries to implement it, as was predictable in just the same way that trying to build on a foundation of quicksand will always end in disaster. Communism does not even approach the real world, and so its complete failure at every turn is expected. It does not have validity as a concept.

As for unsound premises, there are a few obvious ones:

Those are all I can think of right now. Hope it helps.

1) Explain how the USSR was a puppet state. Explain how puppet states inevitably lead to mass murder, despite the fact that any other puppet states (such as the US puppet states he mentioned) never even approach the murder numbers of communism. Explain how every single communist takeover has somehow managed to be a puppet state; perhaps if communism is so weak then it ought not to be considered seriously, seeing as it inevitably becomes a puppet.

2) That isn't communism then (he'll probably agree, so best not to use this; it'll be his special brand of leftism). Not much you can do here unless you're willing to criticize democracy. In that case, there are two attacks you can use. First, you say that in order for democracy to be viable as a successful strategy, the majority of the electorate must be making the right decision most of the time. Ask him whether he believes this (no one should, but I suspect he'll be deluded enough to believe "After we communists have enlightened the masses…"). Else, one must believe in "principles" above success or survival, in which case you can question why we should value principles that cause us to die out and what makes those principles worthwhile or "good." I suspect here he'll probably just brush it away by declaring the values to be self-evidently good. The second line of attack (not mutually exclusive with the first) is to ask whether he believes democracy will not be able to be subverted, or what will stop it from being a puppet democracy such as what we have now, with a façade of choice over meaningless issues while important issues are off the table. I suspect you'll be able to make your own way here.

3) It requires that those "classes" be abolished. I think I discussed in my previous post why that's impossible because of division of labor, but that's not relevant to this point per se. Ask him why, in abolishing these classes, there would not be violence; why does he believe that his supposed revolution would come without blood? I suspect here he'll prattle on about a bloodless, nonviolent revolution, in which case he falls into the same trap as libertarians: constrained by his own morals to never do anything coercive and merely try to convince people of his religion. If he does this you can ask why a noncoercive, nonviolent movement would ever gain power over one willing to use violence. You can even, if you want to be mean, ask why anyone should care about a movement that constrains itself to preaching about fantasy things. You could also tell him that most people are never going to choose his way, making him irrelevant.

Gaddafi also used the threat of nonwhite invasion as a lever against Europe. When he said that Europe would be flooded without him that wasn't a way of saying he was altruistically being Europe's protector.

I forgot to add, but you probably won't convince him. Communists and their ilk are deluded and live in fantasy, so getting them to accept reality is basically impossible. You need to remember the rule: arguing with communists (or anyone, really) is not to convince them, but to convince the audience. Your opponent is personally and publicly invested in his position and won't be swayed; your audience isn't. They can change their minds without feeling like they've made a fool of themselves or come off as weak. If you don't have an audience you're probably wasting your time.

You'll probably just have to accept that his position is the way of suicide and failure, and that he'll either have to realize this on his own or die. Either way, there's little you can do except make sure you're on as firm a path as possible.

Thanks for the big effort. I need to learn more about this since all the info I had (when I started arguing) came from a few infographics.

I'll make one more reply to him with that in mind, but I agree that he probably won't be swayed. I'll focus on convincing the audience next time.

Communism is economically impossible because of the calculation problem of socialism and command economies in general. Without decentralized private property and trade, there are no accurate prices which convey the best allocation of resources based on scarcity and demand, scarce goods in high demand are inevitably expensive which curtails overconsumption of natural resources, governments do not have the aggregate inputs from thousands of consumers, producers, and entreprenuers necessary for accurate pricing and therefore are inextricably unable to allocate resources effectively. For example, subsidies of scarce goods inevitably cause overconsumption and underproduction because of artificially depressed prices and therefore artifically excessive demand, price controls and other interventionist measures make pricing impossible to convey supply/demand accurately and cause shortage or misallocation of resources. Ownership of capital goods has to exist in the form of decentralized private property for economic calculation to be possible.
wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Furthermore, the central thesis of communism that division of labor is exploitative and should be corrected by "workers owning means of production" is flawed. See pic related. There is nothing stopping workers from "owning means of production" in a capitalist society because there are free markets in the purchase of capital goods. If you want to benefit from economy of scale or division of labor however, these capital goods i.e. means of production have to be coordinated with other workers and entrepreneurs to be profitable, labor is not intrinsically valuable at all, digging holes and filling them repeatedly involves labor input but adds no value whatsover to anything, labor theory of value, another inextricable component of communism is absolutely retarded.

Tyranny is also completely inextricable from the 10 planks of communism, which involve centralizing all private property, money/credit, and industry in the hands of the state, means of production are not given to the workers, in every single communist regime they are given to the ruling communist party. Despite transparent and worthless rhetoric to the contrary, every single communist regime is oligarchic at best and despotic at worst, and this is inherent to the 10 planks and command economies in general. If your special snowflake version of communism somehow does not involve these 10 measures, than it is not communism at all by definition.

It's impossible for a whole bunch of reasons.

You misunderstand the labor theory of value. It doesn't say that all labor is valuable, only that only labor creates value. It's still wrong, of course.

While this is true, it doesn't do anything to combat the weaseling of leftists. They'll just say it's some other magically special version of leftism that avoids the problems of all the other varieties.

You convince the audience by way of debating your opponent. It's a fine line to walk trying to pander to the audience without making it seem like you're addressing them instead of your opponent, and that's territory you don't generally want to stray into.

That was pretty funny, who is this Weev faggot. A friend?

jej

More or less. A half-Jew rabid anti-Semite 1488er pagan who openly calls for race-war and spends his time successfully converting normalfags.

This might be his last reply as he didn't respond to anything else I said.

He responded to things I got from (Except for #2 I just said he admitted that he didn't expect good results.)
Well then.

1. The Soviet Union committed mass murder. He explained that this was because it was a puppet state. So the Soviet Union is not then a puppet state? Then why did it kill millions? Why did communist China kill millions?

He's not even arguing the point anymore, so I wouldn't bother to address all that other shit. For background, though, US weaponry was neither against the Geneva Conventions (or the Hague Conventions, which are the ones that regulate weaponry), nor is the US an actual signatory of those conventions. That is, the US follows them only because it deigns to. Moreover, he's living in fairyland if he thinks the Soviets would have hesitated to use far more nefarious methods of warfare, or didn't engage the US because of US use of such weapons.

2. How does democracy fix corruption? What stops me, say, puppeting all major parties to ensure vigorous debate over inconsequential issues that don't challenge me? What stops me becoming a dictator by swaying the people into voting me unlimited power?

Tell him to look at the ten planks of communism and the transitional "get to communism" period that Marx and every notable communist revolutionary described: maximum centralization.

As predicted. His special snowflake brand of leftism.

His point about capitalism is asinine and untrue, and, more importantly, says nothing about the centralization of communism. Don't get sucked into his diversion, except maybe to throw in a "That's bullshit, and besides the point. Don't deflect."

3. Right, as predicted. His miraculous stuff only requires absolute compliance from everyone. How is he going to get every single worker to reject money?

And so is money raining from the sky. It's still improbable as fuck. Why bother contemplating it? Again, as predicted, he's relegated himself to irrelevance and pointlessness, and you can tell him so. Tell him to start working for things in the real world instead of living in deluded fantasy based on pernicious ideals.

Here's a good argument we should always make: Muslims never do anything bad. Everything which portrays them in a bad light is slander - all of the rape scandals, mass shootings, and terrorist events involving Muslims are botched stings, false flags, and hoaxes. Not a one of them involves a genuinely fucked up Muslim, because such a thing does not exist and nor could it.

How can you possibly believe this? Research papers have a high error rate regardless of whether they're natural or social sciences. Well-written books in those same topics, where the author carefully selects his source reference materials, will not have nearly the same dismal error rate as your standard research paper. A good book stands the test of time better than most papers could.

The problem with "reading papers" is that generally, you're reading abstracts unless you're using scihub. Even then, you have to parse the jargon and knuckle down to learn the statistics.

When a most white leftists and even many so-called conservatives are willing to signal against the explicitly violent elements of Islam (the 'radicals') in only modest and weak terms, what should we expect? Islam is on the ascendancy for now while Christianity is experiencing its decline. Christianity will likely never return to its former power. We likely live in a post-Christian Western civilization. Even if we pull through this with most of our lands, treasures, and people intact (a tall order), I do not think there will be any future Christian revival. I believe any future religion will have to separate itself from the Nazarene.

This is important to keep in mind. The "moderates" look upon violence with some combination of unease and tacit approval. They're marginal supporters either because they have some reservations which social pressures easily cause to fall by the wayside, or other factors (age, health, or poverty for instance) mean that they can't really lend much support by way of material or manpower to 'the cause.' Yet these are the mainstay of your Muslim communities, and they will never rat on the shit heels to authorities. The only ones who will rat are the most liberal, and the problem is that they're generally marked and it's well known who these are because, as one might expect, they tend to be less pious and sometimes they've voiced their opinions. Horizontal enforcement of social norms is by far weakest among individualistic white communities and strongest among, for instance, Muslims and blacks.

That wasn't really what I was talking about. I was talking about arguing against accepting "moderate" Muslims because such a thing neither exists nor is beneficial.

I liked your first post but your second one is batshit retarded.

If you bring up Lamarck's notion of evolution you will be mocked, on the storage space of a brain to a computer that is also not true if we are talking about very small neural systems.
==========

If you want to talk about racial differences first compare humans to dog breeds to frame their mind and talk about differences from intelligence to innate learning abilities of dogs such as behaviors when used hunting.

Discuss how for hundreds of generations people from very cold climates in the world had to store and prepare food for the winter. This required planning, community systems, family structures to evolve. Point out that people who couldn't store food did not attract a mate and did not pass on their genes. This planning and civilization building did not originate in places of warm climates.

Multiple generations in civilized society had begun a natural selection process for law abiding tendencies, good behavior and altruism to succeed. This never occurred in Africa. Interestingly there are a few peer reviewed papers on the emergence of the Ashekenazi jews having a significantly higher linguistic and mathematical IQ than the rest of Europe and having significantly lower spatial IQ. This was put down to the fact that they had a small population forced into a merchant strata with little interbreeding with other groups where money often dictated how many children they had so the the ability to make money was a positive trait. Additionally due to being kicked out of almost every country in Europe at some time only the smartest Jews in each Jewish population survived and reproduced under these societal pressures. This resulted in less than 20 generations a genetic intelligence difference and a plethora of genetic disorders from a small population adapting strongly under certain stress factors.

Before you go that deep in your discussion I like to mention a "Gorilla/chimpanzee" idea to people to get them thinking.
Pose the question to people;

If they say yes, keep pressing them on specifics. Should they be given welfare? Are they living in poverty if they lack money and a house? Should child support take away their children? Should they be put in schools? Should programs try help get them into university? Should they be arrested for being naked in public?
If at any point they hesitate on these points call them racist. Feel free to discuss the humanity and traits of the hybrid offspring too.
Feel free to mention that entirely different species such as polar bears and grizzly bears can interbreed or whatever.

Additionally when you get your opponent to agree that race is not a social structure be highly specific when you mention races. Don't simplify it into asians, whites, blacks, indians etc. Mention individual racial groups within Africa such as the pygmies which are being genocided and sold into slavery for the past hundred years. Mention the Vadoma people of Zimbabwe, a race of people with only two toes on their feet in an arrangement that helps them climb trees.

When talking about race never mention that one is better than an another, just state that they are adapted for their environment and surroundings. European races tend to be adapted for cold climate and complicated social structures but are not well adapted for life in the Kalahari desert like the bushmen for genetic reasons.

Here are some pictures showing some obvious genetic variation between races in humans with very different traits.

You can convince people of racial differences without resorting to stating unproven theories of where the white man's superior intelligence came from as fact.

The Jew bit might be better, since it's fairly well documented and studied.

The rest is really good.

Thanks, I'd like to add that in these discussions it is important to liken your opponents argument to those they despise and disagree with. If you are discussing race with a liberal atheist character for example it is enjoyable to imply they don't believe in evolution for religious reasons or that they believe in man's inherent equality based on christian morals.

If it is a communist character establish that immigration is completely separate from refugees and that immigration is a tool used by capitalists to keep the minimum wage low. Question if the previous working race of a nation should be replaced for economic reasons. Argue that immigration is a skill drain from impoverished nations and a means for treacherous parties to secure more votes.

If there is an environmentalist who is pro-immigration/ does not believe in racial differences point out how people would want to protect the environment for their children and their people at a base subconscious level and that is eroded with the current policies of population replacement and low natural growth throughout the civilized world. Environmentalism is neither left nor right and the issue of climate change just splinters groups. Often it is forgotten that those who do not believe in man induced climate change can also care passionately about the environment, pollution and water degradation. Immigration and environmentalism completely contradict each other and it is bizarre that environmental parties can be pro-immigration.

On feminism…. You can argue anything from a feminist perspective depending on how you phrase your argument.
Sex workers are empowered free women or they are the result of oppression and evil propaganda.
Immigration is introducing more radical patriarchal values into a feminist country.
etc.

Never fully commit to your views, your arguments remain for your amusement so if you can always laugh it off and not lose any face. You merely enjoy being devils advocate but your message will ring true every time. Mock being offended/politically correct at some of the things they say if it can be taken the wrong way so they can't use that line against you. If for example they say "white people" tell them that that term is offensive and ask them what exact race they mean by that, are Slavs white? Greeks? Irish? Jews?.

Yes, that's always an excellent tactic to make their heads spin. One of my favorites is pointing out that multiculturalism destroys diversity.

I honestly don't really get most lefty environmentalists. Why bother advocating suicide on the one hand but try to preserve the environment for your children (they actually say this, trying to appeal to people's sense of duty to their posterity) on the other? I guess they just want a cause so they can feel worthwhile.

Depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to make a leftist look the fool then this is a good strategy, but it's not really good for swaying audiences when you want them to become RWDS.

this had nothing to do with climbing trees. There aren't even any trees around where those two-toed people live. That's a genetic defect that people all over the world have, but the reason its prevalent in that tribe is because of a small population that caused the bad gene to spread to all members of the tribe.

…The idea that communist oppression was somehow Jewish in nature is belied by the record of communist regimes in countries like China, North Korea, and Cambodia, where the Jewish presence was and is minuscule."

Duh. There are no jews in North Korea and Cambodia.

Communism was mostly a jewish movement in Poland and in Russia at least. And in Germany before the war I think most communist leaders were jewish [there's an infographic somewhere, I saw it here once].

Communism was perceived to be a tool to dismantle the traditional cultures of european countries. Antisemitism was a component of those traditional cultures – as it is a component of all traditional cultures that have a history of having to deal with the presence of jews.

Jews will support anything that weakens the ethnic majority of the country they live in. In Europe they supported Communism. In the U.S. they supported mass immigration. Read Kevin MacDonald's book, The Culture of Critique.

IIRC there's a growing Jewish presence in Asia.

the Mongols slaughtered entire cities of us, but we are still great.

Russia?

...

The US are sucked dry. Soon (((they))) need another host. Why not China?

They're already making moves in that direction. That's why "Asian privilege" is starting to become a thing.

The yellow man is next.

Bump for good thread.

Thanks for the replies to I lost this thread and just found it again.

Your counter-argument sounds very much like the Libertarian ideal, which I in turn have to disagree with.

Not 'some citizen' - all citizens. If a citizen is dead, they will not produce anything at all, nor spend any money. That is not useful to the economy, which is an imperfect but quantifiable proxy for societal health. Participation in terms of my proposition is setting up the capacity FOR participation, not handing people money like the social programs you are opposed to. It would be like saying that roads are such a societal necessity that, without them, people would not be able to participate in the marketplace in any real capacity. Therefore it is society's responsibility to maintain them rather than private individuals who may or may not choose to.

Then we wouldn't have roads, police stations, fire departments, courts, or taxes at all because first not everyone can agree on literally anything of any merit, and the vast majority of people would like to keep their own money rather than give it to someone else - even if that thing is in their best interest. The whole reason why people have become dependent on social security is because they don't invest their money in their youth for instance - they should, but many don't because of various human flaws. The State can adjust systems keeping things like that in mind to create a more prosperous society (not that they always do, obviously…).

That's part of my pondering with things like farming. People need food or they will die, and thus it would run aground on my proposal even though, as the Communists showed, socialized farming is vastly inferior to profitable farming in all respects. But does that mean that societies themselves would have no obligation to provide food banks or homeless shelters for instance? It sort of gets tangled in a morality/practicality web that is tough right now for me to untangle.

However, while healthcare may have been more affordable in the past before the 'government fuckery', there would still be people who would get sick, injured, or harmed and wouldn't be able to afford to get the cure. That is morally reprehensible, as that system selects against the poor for no reason other than they simply don't have the money to get well. And since it is in the public's best interest to keep its citizens healthy and productive, it seems also logical that such a service be, for those necessary procedures to maintain life and productivity, provided by the people who enjoy its benefits.

This is so fucking ironic it hurts.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is a satire site.