/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

>>4918276

>How would you put forward your argument which I'm assuming is going to be pro-white, without triggering everyone's mental block and hurting your cause?

when arguing with a liberal, you have to trigger them

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/about.html

>>4918287

Looks like an interesting book, gonna check it out

>when arguing with a liberal, you have to trigger them

It's not even that I want to change the minds of these people. The guy who simply replied with "I rest my case" has a history of talking about sexism in tech and feminism, so to me he's already dead. My main goal is to get other people to feel comfortable talking about this issue. And that can be difficult to do if the conversation devolves into slurs and the majority is against you.

People of this kind are not logical creatures. Their positions on issues such as race are determined almost exclusively by the attitues in the media and among their friends. To debate them using logic is insufficient beacuse they very easily feel uncomfortable even approaching certain areas of discussion. There are a many subjects which they are not able to think about in any logical "cause-and-effect" manner, since that requires leaving the option open that one might have, initially, had the wrong idea. For most leftists to even consider the possibility of being wrong on the issue of race, for example, is unthinkable since it might lead to bad thoughts. This is one of the reasons why leftists feel like they have won the argument as soon as a trigger word, such as "race", enters the conversation. Specific words or topics, because of conditioning, demands from the leftist a certain emotional response which hinders further logical discussion. I am not sure how to debate with leftists, but using logic is not enough. Perhaps using moral arguments might be effective to a certain degree.

>>4918276

Unload an entire gore folder. That usually works.

Keep it interrogative. Pretend to be an outsider asking questions.

For instance don't say "refugees should be sent back as they rape our women", say "I don't know, I've heard people say they rape our women. Do you think it's true?" and instead of following up by saying "cologne proves it and all these other cases also show it" say "well that's what I heard happened in cologne or case x, y, and z". Basically pretend you don't hold the stance and are simply an outsider trying to a address the points. You'll gradually sow doubt in their mind and they'll be more open to your arguments.

>>4918513

Is this the scorched earth strat?

>>4918528

That's a very good idea

>>4918276

http://laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/Zeiger%20-%20Hammer%20of%20the%20Patriot.pdf

This book has basically all liberal debate tactics

>>4918276

The divide and conquer played by the jews against europeans is showing its effects as you can see by yourself.

Europeans very much love their blood nations, but they would fight to the death anyone from the other side of the mountain …

>>4918528

To me, that has been the most effective strategy so far.

But it takes a very long time to create change, we don't have decades to solve the problems the jews are causing. We have to solve them now, otherwise we will jeopardize the future of several generations to come and their job of cleaning the place will be much harder.

First of all, just talking about these issues is a step in the right direction. /pol/acks complain that SJWs are inherently illogical and will never change and so there is no point arguing, but that's rubbish. If you never speak out, we will never move forward at all.

My advice is:

1. Don't get sidetracked or bogged down in the details. I've had arguments that just sidetrack massively into some tiny issue which everyone gets stuck on. If this happens, give your answer but immediately reiterate your point. For example:

>But how are you going to transport all these refugees?

If a million can come by sea, then a million can go back by sea. Look, the point is that they must go.

2. If you're clever you can use the philosophical dialogue way of getting to a point. You ask a series of questions that seem unrelated, get the answers from the other person, and then smack them in the face when they've dug themselves a hole.

For example:

>But anon, love is irrational! You can't tell people who to love!

Question: would it be right for me to get involved with a 12-year-old girl?

>uh, how is that related? But yeah, it would be wrong.

Is that a rational choice?

>I guess.

Therefore, do we not make rational choices about who to love?

>We do, I suppose.

Therefore, why is it wrong in this situation to apply rationality to love when you have just said that you can indeed make rational choices about love?

>…

But that second one can fail if the other person pre-empts your point and interrupts you.

>>4918603

>But it takes a very long time to create change

This is very true. It's more useful for converting family or friends, people you interact with regularly.

For redpilling the masses you need to be shocking and provocative to get attention to your points. Humor helps as well of course.

>>4918287

What is the conclusion of the book? How do K strategists prevent r strategists from taking over? (Other than culling them.)

>>4918611

>1. Don't get sidetracked or bogged down in the details.

Extremely good advice. I have experienced this before. You are discussing an issue on a general level only for the discussion to suddenly drop down to being about some particular, minute detail where it might be tougher to uphold your own position. Leftists are very fond of bringing forth particular examples in which their position is hard to argue against. One should keep the discussion on a more general level to be able to clearly communicate the excellence of ones own principles in contrast to theirs. I view this strategy as a desperate attempt from the opponent to grasp at anything which might disprove my argument. When they can't win the argument they get obsessed with details.

>>4918627

With their strong grip in the media and education, the jews have created a "narrative":

- I think we should defend our white people against these muslim invaders.

- Racism is bad anon.

- Why is racism bad?

- Everybody knows it is bad.

So, we have to undo that, if not us, it will be the coloreds themselves that will do it with their retardness. But waiting for that to take effect will mean like two or three decades of suffering with scars that are gonna last for centuries.

How about leading by example? If being racist was a sign of success? How can we be racist and at the same time get to power positions exactly because we are racist?

Like the jewish nepotism, they get to power because they are jews, it is just that. How do we help each other and make the so called white privilege real and use it?

We wouldn't be suffering like we are if white privilege was real, how can we create it?

>>4918611

>you can use the philosophical dialogue way of getting to a point

Just from my experience, it doesn't work very often, especially when arguing with liberals, but when it does, it is extremely destructive.

But they're both good points, thank you.

>>4918707

The whole logical part of their brain shuts off when they discus. Which is why leading questions wont help.

The only conclusion they'll draw from the line in question is taht you want to fuck a 12 year old, which makes you a pedo. And pedo's are bad, so anything by virtue you support is to make it easier for you to fuck kids. And who wants to listen to a guy who only wants to fuck kids?

Anti-logic :^)

Whe whole by virtue-part is their entire shtick.

They consider themselves to be good people, and their "friends" (aka anyone who agrees they are good) thinks they are good. So by virtue, any action they do is good, which makes actions they would not take bad. Which are actions you would take, which makes you bad (by the same lack of logic). And bad people are unwanted in society.

>>4918724

>They consider themselves to be good people, and their "friends" (aka anyone who agrees they are good) thinks they are good. So by virtue, any action they do is good, which makes actions they would not take bad. Which are actions you would take, which makes you bad (by the same lack of logic). And bad people are unwanted in society.

This is by far the best definition of lefties I've seen so far.

They are like the Christians were 5 centuries ago when dealing with new world people.

But today Christians think anything but that they are good or virtuous.

How can we break that leftist mindset and show them how evil they really are?

>>4918724

>They consider themselves to be good people

Convince a man that he is righteous and every one of his actions, no matter how abhorrent, will be justified.

It's the same idea that drives a selfish man to become non-selfish in order to benefit his personal standing in society.

>Being from Latvia

No kurienes?

>>4918329

>Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

It was in one of the recent monthly reading packs:

>>4848571

>>4848571

>>4848571

Consider buying it if you like it - support Anon Conservative.

I've never had any problems debating besides anxiety, most people don't really have any foundation for their views, they don't actually think too much.

That's why they resort to ad homs and dumb jokes and think they've won anyways, its fucking pointless.

>>4918528

Well can you help me then?

Because this used to be exactly my MO, but they, probably by accident, shut this the fuck down very well.

Basically what happens is that I pretend to be the neutral outsider who only happens to have picked up this and that point that might/will lead to a pro-white/pro-below-on-oppression-scale argument, and then they'll deliberately lie to me and tell me things that I know for a fact, are wrong.

I think the longest that it happened to me was three times.

Me: Well I've heard X, what do you think about it?

Shill: X is because (falsehood) Y

Me: Oh really? Well that's strange. I was pretty sure Z is the case because [link]

Shill: Z is because (falsehood) A

Me: Wow, this is surprising. I was pretty convinced that B (that contradicts/disproves A)

Yeah if it wasn't three or four, it never went above five, that whenever I'd pretend to be an uninformed normalfag, that would lead to some leftist blatatly lying to me. What do you do in such cases? Reveal your powerlevel or something else?

>>4918705

I'd say protip: You can't.

The reason is even if you hired white people, white westerners have been conditioned by the media to hate themselves and other white people. In terms of how they prefer and avoid, hiring a white person is like hiring a nigger, while hiring a nigger is like hiring a nigger. They all favour niggers. You'd have to vet based on politics, and having /pol/tier politics or generally politics that would allow to create "white privilege" and putting them to one's name is career suicide. Which is why the people that aren't libtards won't exactly put that on their facebook profiles. The only way would be if you had some sort of vetting ritual during job interviews, where you lock the door and tell them that this is the moment where they can reveal their powerlevel/show their true politics.

Well here are some ways

> go to uni/college

> get a proper degree

> become a professor

> participate in admittance process

> vet applicants based on race and political stance

> Start/run company

> do exact reverse of approved hiring

> only niggers and women you hire are verified /pol/acks/alt-right

> whenever you need services from someone else, vet companies you give your money to based on politics and race

If you do go to uni, something that definitely would help would be to, already, while still studying, gradually vetting fellow students and looking for contacts that share your politics or just generally have nationalist politics and understand how severe the situation is.