Debating Jews

A piece of bread is worth a piece of bread, regardless of mutual agreement.

Mutual agreement is the basis of Fiat currency. But a kilogram of gold is worth a kilogram of gold, regardless of mutual agreement.

Mind you, mutual agreement is necessary to establish the value of a piece of gold relative to a piece of bread. But the gold piece has innate value by virtue that work had to go in obtaining the gold and crafting the gold piece, combined with gold's rarity.

Meanwhile, in the case of a Fiat currency, the currency usually has almost no innate value. The paper, cotton or plastic the bills are made of have no value. Paradoxically, the metal coins used to represent pennies have more innate value than bills.

Now, let us compare a gold standard where a bill is meant to represent a certain amount of gold which any holder can obtain any time he wants to a Fiat currency. In the former's case, there is a mutual agreement. A dollar is worth a precise amount of gold. In the latter's, the mutual agreement is gone. A dollar is worth whatever the banker tells you it is worth. And if he decides that it is worthless, then it will be. However, in the case of gold, someone deciding that it is worthless will not reduce its value. It has an objective value.

Mind you, gold's worth can still vary relative to other things. If there is a famine, suddenly the piece of bread will be worth much more relative to the gold. But it isn't the gold which lost its value, it is the bread which gained value.

Mind you, gold is only good as a standard as long as its value remains relatively stable. With its use as a conductor since the advent of transistors, I don't think it would be appropriate as a standard. But that doesn't change the argument about using a certain good as a standard.

Relevant beaver post.

Gold is also extremely valuable in electronics.

I never argue with people because it's not productive. You might think you've made great points and won the argument but all it really does is make your opponent resent you. In most people emotion is stronger than reason and so ill will and resentment will abide longer in them than any momentary change of opinion.

Debating people in order to change minds only really works with people who are open minded to begin with. You can sense these people right away when you talk to them, even on the internet. It's not going to work on your average blockhead though. These people are the epitome of the follower. They're not impressed by words at all.

If you want to win people's minds you have to show not tell, and that's really hard to do on the internet.

Does anyone have a complete repository of beaver posting?

And who the fuck is the beaver poster? Some alphabet guy that likes us?

All I have.

there is a striking amount of dubs in this thread

Don't you realize they won't change their minds?

You have to beat them then wait for them to absorb the 'new normal' after our views become more mainstream.

Only a jackass directly engages

I was just trying to sharpen my debate skills since apparently commies are organizing in the streets now.

It's effective to his peers to BTFO him, just that blank look on their face. So satisfying.

They're all up on /unitedpatriots/.

It's hard. I want to better myself. But pol is just to amusing.

What a do gooder faggot. He's the kind of proto-Marxist that ends up blowing the fucking world into pieces over and over to establish some pipe dream that if his reality doesn't come true the world will be blown into pieces

It's waffling. It's a nice read, but unnecessarily heavy prose.

Wow, it really is summer.

I know what you mean, OP; I just had a conversation lasting several days with my friend about how cops aren't biased in their shootings of blacks, which devolved into a topic about blacks, and Muslims. He said, and I quote, "Islamophobia is not a rational fear, dude". Patronizing cuck. He never rebutted any of the videos that substantiated my points that Muslims and Islam were cancerous and violent. All he did was, essentially, #NotAllRagheads.

Jews are not the only ones who utilize this debating tactic, but it is very typical of them to the point that some think they are born with this natural predisposition to doublethink. When you consider that Cultural Marxism is literally a Jewish pseudo-religion then you'll realize what the typical leftist thinking process is like. It is basically just maximum duplicity and hypocrisy, institutionalized in leftist politics.

Strangely enough, or maybe appropriately enough, a lot of religious apologists also debate like that.

Said religious apologists are either evangelicucks from pinko churches or Muslims and neither are right wing.

at which point you reply
if there's no meaningful retort, you know that he's a follower and not a leader

Nah, I responded with: "It isn't Islamophobia; it's Islamomisia". -misia being the Greek suffix for hate. When I reflected on it, I thought that a better response would be "If it isn't rational, then why have there been so many attacks perpetrated by Muslims recently". I'm sure he'd retort with "But #NotAllRagheads", which doesn't really refute anything since I later posted "The 'Moderate' Muslims" and "By the Numbers" The conversation's over anyway; he hasn't responded to my last post in a day or two.

Also checked.

Go through Vox Day's posts on dialectic vs. rhetoric. Once you realise the opponent has no intention of exploring the logic of your arguments, switch to attack rhetoric and give it to them good and hard. They are engaged in social game-playing, AMOG them.

Additionally, look up the history of the Red Guards. When the poz works downwards from college into high schools, that's what will be coming.

Of course I know beaver what I don't know is who he is.

user, grab this. This book isn't about rational debate, but it aims to provide easy "soundbytes" with which to bully lefties into shutting up and letting you continue.
my.mixtape.moe/wldynq.pdf

Interesting. Gonna have to read that.

nvb

This.

You can't reason with the unreasonable. If your interlocutor was capable of rational thought he wouldn't be a leftist in the first place.

Feels > facts. Always.

Always remember that your goal is to trigger and humiliate your opponent, not convince him of the truth of your position. Use facts and numbers to justify your points (and deny the leftists their go-to charge of being "uneducated"), nothing more.

Also, never formulate a rebuttal as a question. That's dialectic. Make statements instead.

Reading into it, and this leads me to believe the American public is quite fucking stupid, which explains the level of political debates in the United States. And I say that from a position of belief that the public is stupid in general.

Still reading because it's interesting, but I don't see his tactics working in, say, Canada. Let's take an example:

they're not as smart as whites".

He claims that the typical liberal answer to that will either be to bring up statistics or to call you racist. Though these can be expected responses in Canada as well, I would expect quite a different response to be popular, namely:

Now, I've only read the first few pages, but I'm led to believe his answer would be along the lines of "It's common knowledge." Then, he'd be told:

Maybe it's a fundamental difference between the US and Canada. But I know it's how it would go. The liberal would put the onus on you to prove that statement and make you look the fool with having to dig up data and studies.

Jews don't hold any actual beliefs, have any actual convictions.

To them the universe is made of words, and they're just ethnic propagandists.

Pardon the brusqueness, but what the fuck do you even mean?

They are eels who do not believe that there are essences to things, e.g., a rock is a rock because its qualities determine its essence. They believe that if it has a different name, it's characteristics will change, a very Jewish idea.

kek that's a new one

the American public is quite fucking stupid

By definition half the people are average IQ or lower.

The people trust their leaders, so the problem is what Kevin MacDonald says it is: our Elites are hostile aliens. They don't approach life on basically the same terms– indeed, they are antagonistic towards the majority; they bear a deep-seated ethnoreligious hatred for them, which of course they project into us, because they project everything.

The people aren't smart and are easily influenced by those more intelligent than they are, as is natural; so people need people like themselves ruling to lead them in the right direction. The Jews pretend to do this, while their real agenda is to play out their ethnic mythologies, with the idea that they are a supremely ethical superminority serving as a stalking horse for their true goal of agitation, extraction and eventual destruction of the host culture, just like in their "holy" books. In this environment, natural, decent leaders are pushed out of cultural institutions and the Jews make allies of the worst sort of goyim to help them achieve these goals.

Jews are obsessed with words and language– everything is words. Their invisible God spoke the universe into being. Their psychologists tell us that the psyche is made of words; that there is no consciousness without words. Their rabbis parse the same words in the same texts for thousands of years. They hate the visual and regard it as goyish. They hate nature because they can't lie to it and shape it with words. "Beliefs" or "Truth and falsehood" are just words to them– truth is what you can get someone to believe; everything is an argument either contrary to or good for Jewish needs and desires. They are profoundly different from goyim in this regard.

the whole fucking "religion" is about trying to outjew yahweh/moloch and weasel their way out of a religious covenant whenever they can

meant for

Eels are slippery and vicious; as such, it is a pertinent descriptor of the trait recorded in "On debating Jews" by the Fuhrer.

Abraham arguing a better deal with Yahweh in Genesis 19 is a big thing for them.

Hitler didn't fully understand what sort of creature he was dealing with. He assumes they have a core to their personalities in the way he did, that hypocrisy holds any meaning for them, and that they were like him but being slippery. They are wired in a fundamentally different way.

Although this isn't entirely true, I can only wonder what it would be like to not be capable of speech, internal and external. How would a person who cannot speak a language think? Perhaps images that represent certain concepts, which may lead to a pictographic form of language.

Eh, Genesis 18:16

That was Jung's answer to Freud. Freud is the origin of Psychology-as-linguistics. Freud started out with analyzing jokes and "Freudian slips" and he made his name with dream analysis, like old Joseph from the Torah. But nobody really studies dreams. What is studied is texts, because dreams cannot be observed directly. And in those texts, the "true meaning" is discovered because words don't mean what they mean– they mean some other word. It's another Jewish language game. Jung created a consciously anti-Jewish, Aryan, image-based Psychology, one focused on development and health, instead of being fixated on Jewish nastiness like sexual perversions and murder fantasies.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Funny how much we're told about Freud, yet not only did Jung prove him wrong (or rather, that his theory was very limited) but he created a very solid portrait of the psyche, yet we never hear of Jung.

It's like (((some people))) want Jung's words to pass into oblivion.

Let me get this straight, are you saying that a patient of Freud would describe his dream and Freud would play whack-a-mole with the meaning of words? If you can't trust the meaning of words, then describing your dream is impossible and any meaning is completely lost.

I'm not sure image-based is absolutely helpful, either. A mixture seems warranted between images and words.

youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ

Video related.
This happened to me too, the only way they understand and admit to be wrong is when it is too late for them.

After reading through the thread, I think I can safely recomend: soundcloud.com/noose_zeiger

It's a podcast made by the writer of "Hammer of the Patriots". In which he explains and improves the arguments he made in the (short) book, plus some podcast's aboud specific topic's.

Basicaly this, and he gives and explains the retoric that you should/could use against certain leftist talking point's.

Freud and Marx are ultimately the origins of Critical Theory which completely owns and has destroyed our cultural artifacts and has even transformed them into something to be used against us. Cultural Marxism is a branch on the same poisonous tree.

Rabbis do what is called Midrash, which is Jewish hermenuetics– interpretation. This is the origin of extreme word-parsing and reading a bunch of shit into texts. Whether it's dream analysis or a literature course with a Marxist professor, the Jewish inclination is the same. Always shaping reality for Jewish ends with words.

that kind of manipulation is especially effective with dreams, since the mind rarely holds on to them well after waking. We tend to remember the retelling of the dream to ourselves, or what's written in a dream journal, and that story can be easily changed with those tricks.

Believe it or not. Freud and Jung knew each other, and Freud even agreed with Jung's theories.

The two post i'm replaying to need to be switched. my first alinea is for the OP and my second alinea is for the other replay.

Yes, but interpretation has its limits; kikes just don't know when to quit in their neuroses.

Jung was set to be Freud's heir. Everyone in Psychoanalysis was Jewish, but Jung was going to be the goy face of what they regarded as a movement– a movement no doubt meant to poison all the goyim. Jung figured out what was up and decided to go his own way. Freud called Jung's theories "crazy".

...

Damn sorry for the sage, Bump.

Modern Freudians would call that another text– one effectively edited by the waking psyche. The dreams we remember, according to Freud, have been edited by the superego trying to protect the ego already, which is why interpretation was needed to get at their true nastiness.

Jews know Talmudvision and the big screen jew are reality for the gullible goyim.

Also just wanted to say that there's no reason to argue with Jews, because there's effectively nobody there to convince. Their "beliefs" are propaganda good for Jews, and it has always been that way. The only reason to argue with Jews is if there are other goyim listening who could be awakened to the problem by observing. The Jew himself will never be persuaded of anything contrary to Jewish interests.

First of all, you dont debate them to change their opinions. You are never able to do so. You only debate them to show others how crazy and uninformed they are.

Play on passive questioning that would revolve around topics that you want to be talked about. Whenever they use mental gymnastics use their argument against them and when they devolve in name calling you have won because you signal to everyone else that they are crazy.

You do not devate leftards user, you calmly and slowly explain point by poin why they are absolutelly undeniably 100% wrong, in small, simple words so that even a child could understand them, you provide links to proove your claim or with more detailed information and when they get stuck into the characteristic leftard stuborn denial and willing ignorance you point the fionger at them and laugh
You laugh at them being ignorant, you shame them for being stupid, never go on the defencive, you are right he is wrong you keep hammering and hammering until they break
Avoid Xbox live tier insults but do not shy away from mocking his complete lack of logical reasoning, common sence, knowledge and inteligence

Leftards are not human, they are born from humans, the look like us, they souind like us, they smell like us, but they are not human, they are animals in human flesh, lteraly goyim and you must treat them as such

Do offer them the redpill, there is always a chance that a goyim decides to brack the chains that bind him, but should he reject the redpill, then you turn him into your own personal /lolcow/ and start miilking keks out of him

Why would you need to? The sick are in need of a doctor, not the healthy.

They constantly switch goalposts without admitting that they're wrong.

You can't treat the dead.

Have you folks seen the /pol books mega?
There's a few hundred books there to start you off.

Those should go into a sticky imo fam.
Good info.

Actions, not words user.
Israel is effectively a nazi state. If it weren't so hell-bent on jewing all other nation-states and ethnicities out of existence, it would be admirable. Use comparisons. What's good for the goym can't be bad for the jews, right?

banners.8ch.net/random/pol

I agree that Jews make up a large portion of commies, however I just am really confused about why you morons hate Freud. I'm not trying to signal some kind of tolerance right now. I understand that is a feeling that has been bred into us since birth. I'm just telling you the truth that I think Freud's theories are ingenious, I think that the unconscious, ego, and id are very useful concepts and that denying the importance of Freud is something I will never do.

The funny thing is, I extensively used Israel as an a example in this debate. Why can't they accept refugees? Obviously this brain dead retard wasn't having any of that.

Labeling various impulses of differing origin with "id", merging politeness and the moral conscience into the vague "super ego" aren't exactly genius. Furthermore, everything else that encompasses Freudian psychology is only accurate for Jews. The Oedipus Complex is purely Jewish, and anything involving genital symbolism is so vague that virtually everything useful is a penis.

We need to design an aerodynamic shape to exit the atmosphere!
I need a long handle on my brush to sweep behind the oven.
I need to get as much velocity behind my shell so that I can launch it over enemy lines.
It's not my fault that objects longer than they are wide are more space efficient and useful than cubes, pyramids and spheres.

The trick to any debate is to prime the person to be receptive to some of your ideas and doubtful of their own BEFORE the debate. In the past this priming was done implicitly by the sense of culture and race that was prevalent in Western societies, young marxists (or any historical analogue) could be easily BTFO since their ideas had so little grounding to them.

In the [current year + 1] people are primed to be degenerates and deracinated, so now we have to manually plant ideas in people's heads and let those ideas grow BEFORE we try to correct them.

Jews owe almost their entire cultural strength to priming their kids with a very specific mindset, you almost certainly cannot convince them since their rabbi's have already heard every rational argument against them and come up with some talmudic interpretation to counter it. But everyone else is fair game provided you can still read people despite your autism.

Holy shit. They are bots. As if my paranoia wasn't bad enough.

Amazed that they are evolving and actually using KIKE now, but hey, you underestimate jews at your own peril.

The trick is not to waste time debating THEM at all. Just use ad-hominems and attack them, it usually works the best as they lose their masks and rational thinking. Don't debate them unless there is something to gain for you, like for say an audience, or worthwhile experience.

There's ultimately only one thing that really gets to kikes and that is brute force. We need to make the people understand that we have to throw the jew away from our countries and position of power once again.

...

I guess equality might not be the right word, but they all rely on one another functioning.

Freud's map of the mind is ingenious. I've read most if not all of the Collected Works and in his diaries and letters. But his theories are also a fiction; and like all complex Jewish fictions, however they might reflect reality accurately in parts, always serve a Jewish agenda– be it Marxism, Austrian Economics or Freudian Psychoanalysis.

This.
Just talk mad shit to them.

I have been fairly successful in getting people to vote for trump, 2 total lefty friends and a total bernout, also getting my sister inlaw to vote for the first time ever in her life was an achievement too.

I mostly use the hillary is an evil cunt angle and mudslimes will destroy america, its fairly effective with all the happenings

I'll add that paper money backed by gold or other physical resources has historically meant that the paper could be surrendered to the issuing bank, and the bank would give the bearer the equivalent value in real gold. That doesn't happen with fiat, it can only be exchanged for other fiat.

Ofc fiat is determined by something (muh mutual agreement isn't a good explanation, though, and I'm not getting into that here). There's many different currency-backing philosophies, such as Feder's currency backed by labour. Part of the problem with that is that other countries are reluctant to trade based on the value of that country's valuation of their own labour rather than something concrete and transferable like gold, but countries still do barter. NS Germany did it, Russia does it, Venezuela, etc; arrangements like trading a few jets for some hundred tonnes of beef.

I never really thought about it this way, but it really explains everything.

...

What would be more appropriate as a standard then?

Not even advocating fiat currency, OP, but if you're serious then you're as retarded as the other guy.
The only thing with inherent value is God.

The stuff on Quebec is bang-on.

I've been looking for this image for a good year. Very grateful OP.

I highly recommend Hammer of the Patriots:
>>>/pdfs/1271

An extremely handy and well advised guidebook for leftist arguments and responses to turn them over to natsoc/white nationalism. The man clearly understands their mindset well, it's the best I've read in political rhetoric.

One of the key insights is that you're not arguing to convince the leftist, but to convince the crowd, which by effect vindicates your argument. You need to use rhetoric, not logic. The important thing is to look right, not be honest and rational, or else you'll always lose to the leftist. It takes humility, you have to set aside your pride and recognize public debate is a public discourse, and time and time again has proven to all of us that honest debate and rational discussion require virtues that escape the left.

Thanks for this.

Looks like it was shared ITT:

This is true. The problem is when jews are allowed to incur endless amounts of debt, go bust, and then foist all of it onto the goyim taxpayers. This is how our economy is currently being completely destroyed and they will attempt to do this with every kind of currency, fiat, gold backed, whatever.

This problem can be solved by requiring one dollar of capital for one dollar of debt, so no jews can "create credit out of thin air."

study pilpul

There are people who get excited about studying Plato to become on the road to enlightenment. And then there are jews who know studying logic and reasoning won't help sell anything. They study psychology so they can hypnotize you into obedience.

radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/cosmic-horror/

That video is quite effective. The sound it emits is entrancing.

That's just one of the problems. The other main one is a system of encouraging the goy to live a debt based life by financially enslaving themselves.

I've said much the same in other threads, and it's very applicable here.

OP, you need to change your goals when debating in public/online. You can't go in with the hopes and goal of converting leftists. That will only leave you pissed off, angry, depressed, and shitposting on Holla Forums. Debate, not to convert the person you are debating, but those who watch and listen. I've had so much more success and so many more people discuss ideas openly by simply arguing as a means of throwing up a flag saying "You're not alone. There are others, sane others, who are against this suicidal stunt." Aim for those sitting on the fence.

...

Mentioning Israel only works on "moderates" and cuckservatives. Hardcore leftists see Israel as a mean ol white country oppressing the poor moslems, and secular libshit jews hate what Israel is doing , but will never admit it to a goy. The best you'll get of a jew about Israel is "that's our problem, it's not for you to complain about".

Remember, most jews aren't in the loop, they generally believe what their rabbi tells them. They believe the holohoax, they really think the goys are out to get them, and they really see themselves as righteous defenders of minorities. Most of their slipperyness and their constant lying is due to genetics. It's just what they do. Have you ever talked to a pathological liar? They will lie even if the truth is better than the lie, they go into every conversation lying due to how insecure and defensive they are. Jews are the same.

...

No, the "public" is quite fucking stupid. You will be in the minority wherever you go.

Some populations are dumber than others, see Africa. But most people are not intellectuals by any means.

To expect anything spectacular from the common man is naive.

if one portion suffers, the chain is broken, hence the need for equity between the links