Know Your Enemy

This.

That's what I thought I thought till I went NatSoc. The truth is, that while capitalism was not invented by the Jews in the same way as Communism, its structure still allows the Jews to gain power and influence too easily, which is what they have done. We didn't always have this 'crony capitalism'. Somewhere along the way, due to the inherent weakness of the capitalist system, the Jews gained power.

Thanks, user. You NA yourself?

Just spotted it in a similar thread.

Leftists essentially run scripts on us, so it's pointless to respond to them with actual thought. It only puts us at a disadvantage.

What we need are counter-scripts. Even if you don't like the specific scripts in the PDF, you need to start thinking in those terms. Canned arguments from lefties -> canned responses from you.

Leftist are mentally retarded. The core belief is a revolution in which a dictatorship is established to give power to the workers. They dont understand that power corrupts and everyone is a blank slate. They dont belive in the existance of psychopaths. So they all inherently fail to move on to a pure democracy. If x worker decided to control means of production and start picking apples and sells them hes no longer a proleriat and instad a burgoise which they hate. So anyone that not lazy and refuse to work is then evil

Agree. Save the actual thought for intellectual discussions, books, and the like. In debates, when trying to persuade, the book has it right.

A bulk majority of these people are doing it all for appearance. They might actually believe their lies or whatever, but it's mostly for virtue signalling and vindication. These are also the people that will ride the bandwagon when the pendulum shifts far enough so there's no real need to worry.
There are a (((few))) that know full well what they're doing. Those are the ones you have to worry about, the ones that are working feverishly day and night to stop you, white man.

1. This isn't all leftists, I think. One has to be careful, or otherwise they'll use their 'not real socialism' card.

2. In Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat is only a transitional state before the the classless, stateless society comes into being. In, say, Stalinism, your point is correct.

'Democratic Socialists' and 'Social Democrats' are hardly Socialists anyway, technically speaking. You will get these people describing themselves as Socialist though, which muddies the waters.

I actually got banned from Holla Forums by asking this question - if the workers own the means of productions, doesn't that make them bourgeoisie? Needless to say, they responded with nothing substantial (just pics expressing OMG, etc.) which leads me to believe that they have no answer.

Absolutely spot on. It's all basically ego-driven tolerance, in that they're only doing it because it's cool and trendy. I'm convinced of this more than ever now, since most have proved that they have no real idea of what Socialism actually is, despite calling themselves Socialists.

That's pretty accurate, yes.

It's like they pretend not to listen. Those people just need shit to get real first. Unfortunately, shit has to get so real that it probably means things have escalated to a point of no return.

The fact that the masses will march to the gallows, put the noose around their necks and only wake up when the box is kicked away from under their feet is a scary thought.

In Europe there are cucks who live in literal warzones and pretend it doesn't happen. In fact, those are the most rabid leftists too. Muds torching cars and throwing hand grenades and the fucking idiots pretend it doesn't happen.

But the good news is that we don't even need the majority to turn things around, because that rabble of thrash will short circuit once SHTF. We need a dedicated, awakened, relentless force of idealists. That has proven to defeat enemies who have strength in numbers many times throughout our history before.

well what's the difference between natsoc economy and capitalism without jews? apart from degenerate products and services are banned?

Under capitalism, capital is the master of the people. Under National Socialism, the people are the masters of capital.

(Continued)
archive.is/7CUMq

- Adolf Hitler 1938

Sometimes I get really jaded from debating them on the Internet. After some days doing it it leaves me with no interest to do so again, especially because of their lack of character. And you can't have a true debate if your opponent is a sophist. It also leaves me stressed and lacking energy. I find it better to actually disengage from that and spend my time and energy reading books and doing my own thing.

It's almost like there's no point debating them since they're all so deeply programmed.

I think making memes is a better way of fighting the kulturkampf.

About knowing your enemy, the ideal thing would be to know their literature better than them. That means reading Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Gramsci, so on and so on. That takes time, though and I prefer reading classics from the Western Canon, but maybe one day I'll tackle that.

That's a basic bitch-tier question that can be answered by reading a book (actually more than one). I'll give you a much smaller summary here:

In a NatSoc economy, although the state provides the individual and the business with the freedom to obtain private property and capital respectively, it also regulates the point at which obtaining too much private property or capital is destructive for the person's/business's surroundings.
NatSoc economy also didn't have a material measure for its currency at first, but the currency was made through work hours spent.
Lastly, NatSoc economy was part of a relatively big government.

Capitalism is more individualist, demands a much smaller government to be regulated, because its adherents believe that the consumer is rational and powerful enough to forge a supply-and-demand market that is optimal both for the seller and for the buyer (aka free market). It also relies on a material to measure the value of the currency (e.g. Gold Standard, Silver Standard etc…part of the reason American capitalism was subverted in the 1920 was because Rothschilds tricked the populace into giving all their gold to the banks, and then Rothschilds crashed the economy with no survivors and could buy whole companies and banks for chump change).

Hope that was enough.

the most based screencap ever

This is why beating them in an argument in a debate is mostly only effective when there is an audience, because they have to concede they are wrong to the audience, or risk being perceived as stubborn and even more of an idiot for not "getting it".

That goes out the window when the audience is already on their side, or in a one on one because there is no social capital to lose, since they can brush it off and go back to their friends who agree with them.

If it's on imageboards, then they have even less to lose since you're anonymous.

It's because the bourgeoisie owns the means of production and also exploits the proles. If you are not exploiting anyone you are not bourgeoisie. It's basic Marxist theory, so it's considered obvious. It's much like how we consider that differences between races are obvious, so racemixing threads are treated with derision instead of arguments in good faith.

that seems a little condescending

so what are the defining elements of fascism?

and why call it socialism if you have to says "no both that socialism", also appears to try to define something by what it isn't

I know, but it's mostly for the benefit of lurkers. Even so, never stop with the redpills, even if you need to take a break often.

This is more beneficial to you in the long run so by all means, do that.

They are effective, but posting source is effective as well - people can get redpilled. You won't see it, but it happens, and the sources spread further, leading to more redpilling.

To be honest, you probably don't need to read that much, just have an understanding of the different types of socialism and what they stand for. Most leftists don't even know this themselves, they're mostly actually state capitalists or social democrats who merely claim to be radical left. But I would absolutely recommend educating yourself on the left.

Don't forget the Jews, of course.

Go back to your containment board You're not fooling anyone with your "it's socialism, but not the shitty kind" bullshit.

if all you have is condescension, then why should I listen to you?

Indeed. It's a simple screencap consisted of a composition of 2 pics, but gives off an almost legendary impression.

Then don't.

most lefties rely on outside support to win an argument. when i undertake the highly dangerous and intellectually challenging task of

normies tend to derail a thread on FB by inserting shitty memes or saying "i lirrly cant even rite nao XDDD", this makes the leftist cuck feel brazen and they can try dismiss you arguments. to stop this, just call then normalfags who do this niggers. they'll get triggered and leave or continue their top tier bantz in which you can out meme them. also saying nigger will draw the attention of the trans-demiqueer brooklynite so they're emotionally invested in the debate.
-Sun Tzu, The current year

so basically it's capitalism, but only good stuff, and if anyone makes too much we take it off them?

oh, and we need a big government?

When comparing these two, you must also take into account the entirety of Liberalism just as you take into account the authority of the state when considering NS economy. "Capitalism" will be defined as Liberalism or the liberal economy.

...

in order to that the enemy must first be willing to participate in the debate themselves and whenever shit came down to it they wanted
>a neutral moderator of their own choice
>and the abiltity to shut it down when/if things get too hairy
And even under these conditions they still claim foul every time they neglected to bring under their sphere of control .There can never be a "debate" with them because they don't seek one it's either 'listen&habeeb' or 'fuck you' ; so i say hang them now , debate them later

I see, thanks. Of course, one could point out that there is nothing to stop the workers from exploiting their fellow workers once they seize the means of production. They seem to get equally mad about the human nature argument.

We don't care bout feelings, we tell like it is, and you've been brought up to believe in a limited scope of things when it comes to politics. NatSoc and Fascism transcend the political spectrum - this is the third position.

First of all, let me clarify that NatSoc and Fascism are not the same.

Fascism is fundamentally a form of civic nationalism that places extreme importance on the state - the state is the centre of all things. It's an inherently flexible ideology so changes from country to country but it has generally gone hand in hand with a corporatist economy. Other key principles are autarchy (economic self-sufficiency) and the elimination of class conflict (but not through class warfare, through a united nation).

NatSoc is similar in many respects, but differs fundamentally on worldview - NatSoc is about achieving a worldview, whereas Fascism is more of a means to an end. Another key difference is racialism. NatSoc is essentially ethnonationalism, promoting the native race of a country, while Fascism is civic nationalism.

If you want a more in depth answer, read books or other materials.

Holla Forums is NatSoc m8, fuck off back to reddit.

No.

"Too much" is a very vague term. Look into the 'economics' section of this pic to understand further.

A smaller government than the current one, for sure, but still big enough to fulfill its role as a powerful moderator of the nation's market and purge it of socially destructive elements too (e.g. porn companies would be banned in a NatSoc economy).

Here are some materials I mentioned:

laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/IronMarch - A Squire's Trial.pdf
archive.org/details/GottfriedFeder_TheProgramOfTheNSDAP
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederManifestoForTheAbolitionOfInterestSlavery1919
archive.org/details/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation
archive.org/details/WilliamJoyceTwilightOverEngland

youtu.be/cgltok5yYeY
youtu.be/pKnFN8P21-0
youtu.be/YkenkfRTn4c
youtu.be/_r9Z-hTn1r4
youtu.be/bAmgGmxHOMY
aryanism.net/politics/economics/
ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html
ub.edu/graap/EHR.pdf

and what if our next hitler is corrupt himself?

am I responsible for everyone else? surely I work to obtain resources to use for my family, and so should everyone else. I don't mind helping out people I know or my community, but voluntarily. how does a state justify deciding how much of your output to take? do you own any of it if they can decide how much of it is theirs?

when did the jews infiltrate america?

I seriously hope you don't actually click the link. It's much better to have such material saved anyways.

but it's a form of collectivism?

and I currently favor individualism. I should keep as much of what I produce as possible. since I made it.

I have no problem with charity as long as it's voluntary, but isn't being forced to give up a portion of your earnings a form of slavery?

I'll read your graph later

Reminder that the USSR after the 50s was right wing.

Nothing wrong with slavery, Shlomo.

Holy crap, where do all these burnouts masquerading as Holla Forumsacks come from?
"It's not real socialism if it is state owned we need the workers of the world yo unite"
"I'm a real nadsi, just like you :DDDDD"
Get the hell out of here.

The point is not to beat them but to convert normies.
These people are so batshit insane it will not matter if what they believe is wrong, they will cling to it regardless.

By arguing against them normies who see it will be convinced and join.

(((SJWs))) are about narrative.
Your opinion is based on your race, sex, "gender," etc.
If you drag someone of the same X as them they shut it down or fall apart because they don't know how to debate, it's really easy.
—-
Communists are something else.
Marxists follow Dialectical Materialism. It must go from Feudalism, to Capitalism, to Socialism, and then finally Communism.

"Socialism has never been tried yet" refers to this belief as China/Russia are seen as feudalist when they started out.

The classical definition of Socialism is, "the collective ownership of the means of production." It doesn't matter if it is through the government (state socialism) or if it's through other forms.

Whether they sell products or not the collective still own it.

you don't get it. The state is supposed to be composed of the people. your countrymen are supposed to be like an extended family. Everyone is expected to contribute.

As soon as they could

Moses Levy and the slave trade.

but really the industrial revolution and the reconstruction era offered fertile ground for european jews to come by the boatload. That is why things seem to have gone to shitskins after the 1800s.

Three of the current supreme court justices are jewish

What the hell is going on here? Are we being raided?

of course you care about feelings, but mainly your own

nothing wrong with telling it like it is, as long as you are being objective

not sure I understand what you mean by this

why should the state be the centre of all things? doesn't that lead to centralization of power? and the potential for corruption

what don't you like about the Constitution? do you believe in natural rights?

No, no. i'm sure you'd like it to be, but most of us here are not socialists, because we know where it leads. Poverty, death, destruction. It is worse than the plague, so take your shitty talking points back to leftypol, comrade.

only 3? kek, I've been telling people it's 4, oops

like the US 1776 to liek, I dunno, you know, 1913?

The central principle is that economics is not separate from politics in a natsoc state. But there is a lack of theory of what natsoc economy is, because economic theory wasn't a priority for Nazi Germany. It was all policy. To put it in context, you don't find theorists that hold the American WW2 war economy as an economic model, although you can find historical accounts of it. Ordering car factories to produce tanks instead was a matter of policy, but you can hardly say ordering factories to produce specific goods is an economic model. Likewise, I do not consider Nazi Germany's economy as a model that we should necessarily follow. Every nation will end up with its own kind of economy, depending on the racial and cultural character of its people.

I'm of the opinion that there is no upper bound to the amount of profit one should be able to make. My solution is to give positions of power within the government to those who are able to earn that profit. If that sounds like corruption, it's because in the current system, (((those))) who have the most money are able to buy their way into the pockets of those with power anyway. Ostensibly not to the benefit of the state, and by extension its people. Since they are behind the scenes, instead of visibly taking power, and because of the international financial system, then when shit goes south they can take their wealth with them and leave. They don't even have to bring anything, since their wealth is stored off shore anyway in the form of electronic data.

In a natsoc economy, at least those people in power will be serving the state. Their identities will be known to the public. And they can't take their wealth with them, because their wealth is wholly within the state.

"Exploitation" in Marxist theory means unearned profit that is supposed to belong to the proles. Sure, a worker can hold another worker at gunpoint and rob them, but it won't be systematic because they won't have enough pay groups of men with guns for long periods of time like the bourgeois does in a capitalist economy.

Soviets gave up Marxist economics and would be considered very right wing culturally.

The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch. 3 I see what you did there.

Get a load of this retard. He thinks he's in a charles dickens novel or something.

WE ARE BEING RAIDED
LEFTIES GET OUT!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Maybe in your commie lalaland. Everywhere else it is considered communist cancer.

No. That's literally what Marxists believe.
Gotta have Capitalism before you can have Socialism.
It's part of their ideology.

You could at least read my post lad. I wasn't arguing in favor of Marxism.

I'm trying to educate you on leftism so you can be more effective at fighting them. I'm not defending them, just explaining what they'll say and why they say it, and how to refute it.

Hello Holla Forums

Which is why it's better to read up on it first. It's not something that can be explained simply.

Because it's the only way to keep the Jews out.

Technically, yeah, but there is little corruption in NatSoc, since NatSocs are motivated by love for one's country, as opposed to being kike puppets.

Brit here, not US.

I can smell the newfag on you. Lurk moar.

And went Stalinist, which is still very left wing.

I know they repudiated some of the more liberal aspects of Leninism, but they was still state atheism and women being forced into the workplace, stuff like that. USSR is left wing, like it or not.

Another retard who sees a few words and assumes we're being raided. Actually read the post and you'll see he's explaining Marxism, but he himself is NatSoc.

That's not what marxists believe you godforsaken troll.
Marxists believe that the way to stateless communism goes through state socialism.
At no point is there a transition to capitalism you fucking retard.

sage, hide & report.

"HURRR DURRR IN NATSOC THE WORKERS RULE DOWN WITH LE BOURGEOISIE GET THE GUILLOTINES"
You think you are being cute you shitfaced antifa faggot?
Get the fuck out of here.

it's not in any state. government make regulations which effect businesses, businesses influence politicians

did they order it, or make orders for products?

oy I'll give 40 shekels for a tank, make me a tank you mensch

and who decides? and who watches the watchers?

kind of agree with the rest

We need a central register for this sort of stuff. Whether on TRS or whatever. When posed with a certain question or argument, to have multiple potential responses, ideally honed down over time and with solid input from multiple clued in individuals to a perfect flawless takedown counter. Preferably away from too many prying eyes but that's not a must.

What the fuck? Where is this written in any post in this thread?

Take your autism elsewhere.

well what worldview? aren't there many possibilities?

I can think of a way, teehee

I'd like to believe that, but ultimately there are greedy immoral Whites too, how do we keep these from power? every time you give someone power, you could be making a mistake.

I tend towards the less centralized power = less chance of corruption belief

brits have a constitution, magna carta, bill of rights and such

Use ctrl+f you limpwristed leftist larper
It's like taking a trip to the daily worker in here.
sage, hide & report.

yes. the entire thread.

You just confirmed that you only read a couple of words and jumped to conclusions.

We're discussing leftism and how to beat it, you retards, actually read the fucking thread, not just a couple of words.

Read the fucking thread.

...

I'll be honest

I read Atlas Shigged and inbetween all the strong woman having affairs shit, and all the longwinded drivel, tons of it hit home

and then I found out about jews, and rand was a bit of a cunt

and took welfare and was an adulterer, and was agaisnt racialsim, and other crazy shit

but certain points I can't dismiss

people should work for themselves, and if everyone does that society works

Precisely. If we know who the leaders really are, and we know what they own, and moreover we know they're "one of us", then we are receptive to having them lead us. Conversely, if they know that the people are oft their kind, and that their wealth is vested within the state and the people can easily rise up and fuck it up, they are going to do their best to preserve it out of self interest.

If you're talking about finance, the Federal Reserve (or Central Bank, depending where you live) is independent from the executive branch of the government.

If you're talking about economics, most mainstream models take government rules and regulations as a given.

They were paid off by war bonds. Basically the government borrowed money…from itself.

Required reading for Holla Forums

Here is a 8 part article explaining how to present emotional arguements to liberals, i.e. how to make liberals feel like shit.

anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

Basically, you need to act with utter contempt and disgust towards liberals. As if you cannot believe how retarded they are acting towards you, the king of the tribe. Read the articles and you'll get a whole new arsenal of emotional debate and trolling techniques.

Remember, use some basic talking points, but back them up more with contempt at the liberal than with facts which they ignore. The liberal will feel bad about voicing its opinion. It will be conditioned not to speak those opinions if it meets this reaction of disgust enough times.

Read all 8 parts.

one must have balls and take security seriously.

why are you quoting something I didn't say?

yet it's board is appointed by the pres?

No, the president gets to appoint people pre-selected for the role. You can choose kike a, b, c, or d.

Adding to that, one I hear a lot is "where did you read that?", usually followed by quick dismissal when it's not the mainstream media and is therefore "one of those conspiracy websites".

I was quoting

Also once appointed the president can't tell them what to do.

fair comment

the fed is a private institution run by kikes which magics money out of thin air and lends it to the gov at 6%

ok, but why is this seen as a problem of capitalism, and not kike subversion/takeover?

...

...

Here is the most important thing about lefties you need to know:
Both they and you vastly overestimate their(the lefties) knowledge about leftism.

Most lefties don't know shit about leftism except maybe the barest principles. They can't tell you why they support it or why it's a good idea. They never even bothered reading anything about it that is longer than a three paragraph text.
Your knowledge about leftist principles is almost certainly higher than theirs, because we WANT to know how to defeat our enemys core principles, they just don't care.

Basically everything below a college PhD in a marxism related subject only knows about leftism from some easy to swallow excerpts that were secifically designed to make leftism appealing. Try challenging any leftist who regurgitates some leftist excerpt to expand on it and explain it further. Virtually no one will be able to do this. Left intellectualism is all a faccade, nothing more.

The real thing about leftists that you need to know is that they go with leftism because it feels good and is the path of least resistance.
Leftists don't hold their principles because they have studied the coices and facts of life dilligently, they just do whatever feels best.

Leftists form their opinions in one of three ways:
1. 'Empathy' i.e. thinking "What would I want people to do to me if I was in a lower social position". Since most lefties are useless or frauds, they won't think about a future where they will be in any higher social postion, so they always side with the person of the lowest status.
2. Peer pressure - or rather other leftists threatening them with ostracism when they don't conform
3. Fear - Leftists are cowards beyond measure. If there is any way they can avoid a confrontation, they will do it, unless they fear that the discovery of this will lead to even bigger conflicts.

Defeating leftist ideology in itself is a matter of personal betterment, not a necessity in the ideological war. You need to defeat the leftist, not his ideology.

Knowing your enemy means knowing your enemy, not knowing how to defeat their ideology. you can't defeat ignorance with intellect.
The priority is prepare fo the battle that will come, not the one that might follow.

...

You might want to look at if you haven't already

→ 7257591

→

Ironically, they're being honest. Sure, they're glad to see corruption in a local police department or the Republican party since those scenarios conform to their political agenda.

However, the truth is that progressives genuinely accept corruption, even in their own institutions. When you're cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic, it's the only way you overcome the drag that your ideology introduces into a given system so you can get significant things done.

Experienced progressives understand this and will admit it openly if you have their confidence (but will obviously deny it in public). I suspect younger ones and students sorta pick up in the air that corruption is "no big deal", but the issue is just not something that is on their radar yet either way, hence why they seem bored.

Debate is important for the sake of who is watching. If you're alone with a leftist, it's pointless. However, your ability to prevail in a debate (or your awareness of when not to debate) can have a major impact on how bystanders and normies perceive "your side".

Ultimately, reality will prevail and the debate wont matter to normies, so it will always be more important that they 'get' that the Right are the ones to address their spiritual, emotional, and material needs even if that understanding is subconscious.

Very helpful responses, and a lot of interesting resources have been shared in this thread so far. I learned a lot of specifics I wasn't so sure about when it came to National Socialism thanks to this thread (only really knew the barebones beforehand).

I am not sure if I am straying too far from the goal of this thread, but could someone enlighten me on civic nationalism, and if possible go into the details of both that and fascism similarly to how NatSoc has been thoroughly explained here in previous posts?

I would consider myself a National Socialist, but I'd be lying if I said I was Aryan, and something as pure as NatSoc doesn't need mutts like me diluting it. Anyways, if someone could inform me more about fascism and (if they'd like to go the extra mile) civic nationalism, I'd appreciate it since I'd really like to be apart of something embraces my Italian heritage.

...

Let's do a case study. I think that'd be a good idea.
Reddit links, I know but what else am I going to use, tumblr?

reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/53vmqf/what_are_some_upsides_of_a_conservative_majority/

reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/53sdf6/what_was_the_biggest_event_personal_or_national/

reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/53sc80/why_did_trump_just_say_that_black_people_have_it/

reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/53lhxc/my_racism_tells_me_to_never_go_walking_in_black/d7ug0ie

reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/53otfz/there_are_days_when_i_feel_like_like_the_worst/d7v9d1m

reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/53f135/you_shouldnt_be_able_to_be_expelled_from_a_public/

At least they did not call you a horsefucker, HORSE PUSSY A WORST GIRL!

Dis nigga knows his shit.

Mosley has loads of book. They aren't very long and stright to the point. >>>/pdfs/ is always a good starting point.

For NatSoc info i can recommend this thread

Mosley, got it. Thanks for the info. I know that Civic Nationalism has a bad reputation around Holla Forums, I notice that whenever it's mentioned, it's almost to get guaranteed responses about how "cucked" it is, but I would definitely like to read about it and investigate why it's treated the way it is around here.

Any recommendations or places you can point me to for Fascism and/or Civic Nationalism?

...

Yeah, I know. But I hardly know anything about Civic Nationalism, I would at least like to read up on it so I can understand why it's such faggot shit.

Best result I have had is just call them out with disgust

Fucking commie
They shut up and move away you have caused a vacuume people ask what the fuck was that show image of how communists have murdered though out history.

Red pill about 4-5 out of a group of ten the rest are lost causes.

That was uncalled for pr police bs

I think it helps that the pengillum is on the way back

The fault of debating these people in general is that they make chaos out of nothing, therefore you are debating chaos and nothing. Think about that for a second.
How do you debate against Chaos?
How do you debate against Nothing?

The first answer is easy, it would be Order. Always form yourself, your sentences and your stance as Order. Chaos naturally will destroy itself in the end, for it is chaotic, it can not be controlled.

The second is a little tricky, hence why kikes and Marxism exist, they feed off everything and nothing. So the most logical approach to debating NOTHING, is with nothing aka Silence. If you can control the first and silence the second, you fucking win every time and they eat each other alive. It is quiet entertaining, I mean just watch that "debate" with Holla Forums getting blown the fuck out and eventually rage quitting.

Also, practice if you can, debating is a tool, even the best well spoken Marxist puppet can be brought to his knees by a well trained National Socialist. Also try not to get emotionally involved for you are dealing with faggots who feed off of feelings. Other then that, stay strong brother in arms. The light is coming.

Nope. That would be Kek.

Chaos is not bad. Chaos is the primordial high energy out of which Order, Life and Beauty can arise as isle within the cosmic shapeless ooze.

Liberals/leftards/egalitarians to not stand for chaos. They stand for homogenization, entropy and ultimately death and decay back to the amorphous ooze.

Intellectual debate does not work against leftists. They are not capable of any thoughts that do not promote the leftist agenda. Instead, crush them and humiliate them. Understand that all leftist insults stem from insecurities, and you can quickly identify weakness. Learn proper body language to assert power.

In all confrontations with leftists, dismiss and ridicule their arguments. Try to hurt their feelings, and make them feel like idiots. As soon as they display weakness, press them harder and harder until the snap.

Leftists have been programmed to bend over to authority and take it in the ass. You can truly break them if you continue to push them hard enough.

I forgot to add the most important part: force them to admit when they are wrong.

Ex: "if you won't even admit that you were wrong, there's no point in wasting any more time with you."

This is very humiliating for the leftist and will send them into a rage, because you are forcing them to concede, which their programming does not allow.

This dude brings up Trump's past on not paying his workers, bankrupting, and only being rich by having a big inheritance and connections from his dad. Cheating taxes. I can't really find good sources to counter argue.

When I bring up immigration, he'll say deporting them all will impact the economy by no employment in agriculture jobs. Also them leaching off welfare is no big deal because we have a "surplus" I didn't follow up on this. Then he'll go on a moral hill and say should we deport the kids too? Or there's nothing we can do and Obama has deported the most people out of any president.

Also can Trump stop reparations from going to Mexico? Dealing with banks and all.

You are a true hero, and I bump this thread in honor of you.

I like manako best, but horsepussy was the only one that i had a screaming image for.

>anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

READ THIS SHIT, FAGGOTS. THEN GO OUT AND DESTROY KIKES AND CUCKS WITH IT.

The video mentioned in
Touching the Raw Amygdala – Part II – Mike Wallace Debates a Marine
where the Marine savages Mike Wallace is on jewtube:

get a load of my ban (i meant to write politically correct in the greentext but i fucked up)

they claim to be politically incorrect (they even have a sticky for this shit), and the damn commies quote ORWELL. COMMIES quoting ORWELL in good light wtf.

they are so delusional they believe that just because marx said the proles should have guns, that this is what he actually believed. because that was totally carried out in every marxist state ever to exist.

my ban was in response to a thread talking about which types of (((hatespeech))) should be banned (yet they claim to be politically incorrect). leftypol is a pathetic bizzarro version of pol that is like a wandering ghost who desperately wishes to be as alive as pol.
its great that they never get shit done and theyre all just a bunch of special snowflakes competing for who can cram as many smart sounding words into the name of a political ideology. they are absolutely pathetic in all regards.

if you show them that coincidentally all their commie leaders were jews, show them examples like genrihk yagoda, and rabbi harry waton relating judaism with marxism, communism, and murder: they ACTUALLY believe that its pure coincidence, no joke.

they say: LOL what a retard you actually believe da ebil j00z are behind it all.

despite the fact that 82% of the bolsheviks are kikes

for fucks sake even the former leader of the european socialist party who is now one of the EU leaders is a fucking jew (schultz).

oh and a little while back i actually made a raid thread for Holla Forumsacks to come back me up in raping marxists on Holla Forums (got decent backup and support, i myself raped them to oblivion with my 11 gig pol folder).

and guess what? i got banned from Holla Forums for "interboard drama."

there is at least one mod for Holla Forums who is a fucking cointelpro kike agent.

i still think we should purge leftypol completely from this site as they spill over to other places, ESPECIALLY news and newsplus.

inb4 banned again

btw does anybody know who owns leftypol?

For anyone watching, the section worth watching starts around 33:30, the CRUCIAL part is around 42:30 when Colonel Connell says, "I feel utter contempt…"

Notice how,

1). He expresses disgust in the first sentence. This is easy and simple. This subconsciously shows you are superior and can look down on others

2). He shows no anger. Anger means you are upset. Connell is merely annoyed at the liberal's faggotry.

3). He paints a VIVID scenario of the liberal in pain. Not just danger, pain. This is not a threat either, it is a scenario.

4). Connell DOES NOT say he will kill the liberal or even threaten him. He paints a fictional situation in which the liberal in pain and Connell implies he will abandon the liberal. He says he won't, but it seems as though he might. Connell paints a VIVID scenario. He does not directly say he will abandon the liberal, he implicitly asks the liberal "why do you think I should save you?" Again, "WHY do you THINK I should SAVE YOU?" This works much better than a direct threat which Connell could not act on.

5). He says they are "journalists" and not "Americans." Mike Wallace, who is Connell is speaking to, has just been "out-grouped." He is now the other, not part of the tribe. The liberal has been kicked out by the dominant man. This is BEST done after step 3 or 4, not before.

I could go on more about the underlying assumptions and feelings going through the liberal's head because of the wonderful wording of step 4, but the articles do it better.

check out my 777 trips

i truly hope soros drops before hillary

goddamnit i forgot the image

That article is describing in scientific and psychological terms why pic related works and why the cuck thing worked so well. It's calling them out on their bullshit and then outgrouping them.

Fuck that's good shit. I see these r/k theory posts all the time and I never have time to get really into them. Thanks for posting. I can count the people here these days posting important shit on my fingers. Holla Forums used to be a graduate level think tank and now it's mostly just 4chan tier shitposting.

mfw George Soros is now immortal because user was being a faggot.

What do?

Shooting Spree?

Be aware of it.
Narcissism is pretty common in people nowadays and it's basically harmless if coupled with self awareness.

Go drink about 250mL of 60% w/w Sodium Hypochlorite

I genuinely believe I could do something greater. Uncle Addy never would have gotten anywhere if he had gone out whacking gypsies on the street in his youth.

Why do you think it's so common?
The decline of family/religion in the average person's life? The decreased level of discomfort and tragedy? Constant stimulation?

read a book nigger, fuck you

Cool digits.

I read it too. The popular rebuttal I've heard many times is "it's just an appeal to your sense of superiority, an ego stroke from someone with a big ego that clouds your judgement."
Bullshit. Anyone who doesn't feel like they have a real superiority to the rest of the world in at least one aspect of themself can die in a fire and the world won't mourn their loss. All humans who possess a will and a functioning frontal lobe should understand Rand's basic point that individuals working toward self-interest is the basis of a high-functioning society. I came to Holla Forums from lolberg roots and I have been instructed here on the failure of such systems due to their vulnerability to subversion by jews or any group putting a group interest ahead of self-interest. NatSoc is realpolitik which achieves nearly the same utopian outcomes as libertarianism desires,as nearly as I can tell. It curtails individualism slightly to protect the individual from the predation of groups that do not possess individualist values. It circumscribes the domains in which individualism operates with a balancing force that benefits the ethnic nation and uses the collective force of the ethnic nation to preserve the ethnic nation against subversion.
Knowing this does nothing to negate the ideals of libertarian utopia. If certain of Rand's assumptions about human nature were true and certain human instincts towards ethnic group preservation for not exist, libertarianism would be ideal. The factual situation of human nature requires additional elements regarding group dynamics to be factored into our political considerations. The resulting worldview leads one to NatSoc political ideals. It also leads to the concept of the Ubermensch which is also unjustly critiqued as ego circlejerking. There are many ways to show people the path to understanding. Randian ideals are very beneficial as a stop along the way to even more beneficial worldviews, especially to people of a particular rationalist but politically liberal mindset (most stem students in the US).

Reading now. This is superb. Thank you very much, based user.

I would argue it's because selfishness and self-obsession are encouraged by (((them))). Humans have been conditioned through repeated ideas, especially those who grew up with such conditioning. It's nothing a little willpower can't fix.

We should debate leftists openly, everywhere, anytimes.

Root them out, even one man vs a ton of leftists and that one man will win if his belief is strong enough.

Never falter, they fear us. We do not fear them, for what can they do to us?

At last, I truly see.

...

I think there is a dopamine/reward system stuff at play here.
The liberal gets its dopamine hit by conforming with the "acceptable" or "cool" social opinion or trend.

We, on the other hand get our dopamine hits from truth/ facts that support our rational positions.

liberals have female minds, we have male minds

It's cucked because it's a fake, race-blind "nationalism" which is fundamentally ideologically no different from cuckservatism or liberalism. It tries to present itself as nationalism while simultaneously rejecting the foundational racial element of a nation. Civic "nationalism" is a contradiction of terms, as a nation is, at its very core, a racial construct and not a set of loose "ideas". Anyone who has taken any amount of time to understand nationalist thought know that the people create the nation, not the other way around. The very idea of a multiracial "nationalist" country is ludicrous, since the very character and identity of that nation is intrinsically linked with the race that produced it. How can one have "nationalism" without first having a single, racially unified nation?

At its core, civic "nationalism" is still leftist and based on false egalitarian principles. In reality, there is no such thing as interracial unity, nor is "integration" of non-white populations possible or favourable. Nationalism entails embracing the founding elements of a nation - race and culture. Civic nationalists, however, reject the objectively more important element of racial unity in favour of some soulless state-worship, where a set of economic and social policies are paraded around and held up over the preservation and survival of ones own people. They believe in "cultural nationalism", which is also an oxymoron in and of itself, since culture is also linked with the race that produced it. One cannot transplant Chinese culture onto a white man without degrading the innate Chinese character of that culture. A white man will never be able to uphold the cultural values or identity of China, since they have no historical or deeper racial connection to this people and culture. Civic nationalism a cancer that must be stamped out. It is just as destructive as liberalism and cuckservatism, as it has no mechanism to prevent the further destruction of the white race, and thus our whole civilisation.