← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 11143 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-11-18
2003-11-18 22:02 | User Profile
Does it work? What works and what doesn't? How to approach these, the most dangerous of issues, and not frighten everyone? Or does a hammertone work best?
I have found that slamming "Israel" gets far better responses than slamming "Jews."
I don't know. I guess I'm starting to see why some conservatives just gave up on racial issues/Jewish influence and started talking about "crime" and "Zionism."
2003-11-19 00:15 | User Profile
I spend several hours a day trying to enlighten people on forums and I don't get very much positive feedback. I don't let this discourage me in the least. If I have to work at it an average of 50 hours for every one I convert, it's worth it. Even at that rate it's a great opportunity that we can't afford to pass up. As a matter of fact, it's our duty. We have to be out there and be the voice of reason. The Jews are all over the internet forums, their Rabbis must be instructing them to do it. We don't have the luxury of dismissing this kind of activism as not effective enough to justify our time. I believe the internet is the best chance we have and when it get's censored we may be goners.
Challenging long held beliefs/values takes time and patience. I just let the ridicule and insults roll down my back and keep the dialogues going as long as possible. I keep things as logical and polite as I can. I dive in with both feet and ain't shy about the "J" word. It's hard for intelligent, self-respecting people to run away from a logical discussion. I stay on the same forums for months and months, I hang on like a pit bull. I never was any good at not taking things personally but I have learned that people defend their false beliefs in cruel ways. Now I just smile when they insult me. They are our people even if they are misled. We have to help them no matter how much they resist it. I find that the more intelligent they are, the easier it is to converse with them. There are a lot of dull people on forums, echoing what the rest of the herd says. Go for the lead cow with all the determination you have. Don't give up. I never even went to high school and worked blue collar most of my life. I had to learn to write and debate logically. I even studied epistemology and logical fallacies. If I can do this any of you can. You must.
2003-11-19 16:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Now I just smile when they insult me.[/QUOTE]
Well, God bless you. I find that difficult. But I agree that it takes time and patience.
2003-11-20 00:01 | User Profile
I suspect that when you name the Jew on discussion boards that seem outwardly hostile to your message, there are often quite a few folks on that board who take what you say to heart but are afraid to say so; they don't want their fellow board members turn on them.
A couple of years ago I was a member of a board (AssaultWeb.net -- better known as AssWeb) where I was arguing against US support of Israel on a number of grounds. In particular, I was debunking the usual specious arguments that America owes Israel support because "the Bible says that God is always on the Jews' side" (the Bible says no such thing, even if you believe everything in it). The debate turned ugly (as expected), but I kept at it for a while in spite of my growing frustration. When arguing with some of those nitwits, you feel like you're debating with vicious, noisy dogs behind a fence, trying to talk them into stopping their barking. But later on, when it was over and I checked my email, there was a message from someone on that board who hadn't participated in the debate. He had written just to thank me for clarifying certain issues for him, saying he'd always wondered how the Israelis could be "God's Chosen" and yet do so much evil to the Palestinians and so forth. So you see, even people who don't get involved in the debate often DO read it and DO think about what's been said.
By the way, here's a handy tip for arguing with misguided "Christian Zionist" types. The latter always claim that the Bible says the Jews are "God's Chosen People," and that God will bless those who bless Abraham's children and curse those who curse them, etc. To debunk this, point out Chapter 3, verses 28 and 29 of Paul's letter to the Galatians:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The above statement could not be any clearer: the Bible teaches that "God's Chosen People" are the Christians, regardless of race. There are similar verses in the New Testament, but this one has a lot of effect even by itself. Even if you're not religious at all, it's important to acknowledge the powerful effect religion has on peoples' minds, and thus it's good to keep verses like the above handy in order to combat the religious arguments of "Christian Zionists."
2003-11-20 00:15 | User Profile
Jesus was an unJew.
Jews will burn in Hell.
Jews are anti-Christs and Christ-killers.
2003-11-20 03:09 | User Profile
Angler,
I found your post interesting and useful. I printed it out so I can use it next time I get cornered by Christian Zionists.
Since I'm not religious and am ignorant of these matters, I usually tell them that The Jews I'm talking about are not from the seed of Abraham because they are mostly Khazars and that since the Talmud supercedes the Old Testament, Talmudic Jews are not really Jews. None have agreed or disagreed so far.
Any other suggestions on how to leap over the "God's Chosen" barrier?
2003-11-20 04:51 | User Profile
Hey, Angler,
I am gonna use that Bible quote. Thanks.
2003-11-21 04:06 | User Profile
No problem, guys -- I'm glad you found that post useful.
Any other suggestions on how to leap over the "God's Chosen" barrier? Actually, yes. First of all, there are other Bible verses besides the one mentioned earlier that can be used as "debate ammo." There are quite a few of them in the New Testament, especially in the Gospel according to John.
The New Testament says that when Christ was on earth, He made it clear that you're only one of "Abraham's children" if you ACT like Abraham, i.e., if you do God's will and avoid sinning. Here's an excerpt from Chapter 8 of John's Gospel:
"I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." They answered and said unto him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus saith unto them, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, "We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
ââ¬â John 8:38-45
The point Jesus was making -- and he makes it very clearly -- is that whether or not a given person is one of "God's Chosen" (i.e., one of the "Children of Abraham" whom God promised to bless) is determined on whether he does good or evil, not on who his ancestors were. Besides, which alternative makes better sense to our own consciences and sense of justice -- that God judges people by their actions, or by whom their parents were?
This isn't to say that ALL Jews are evil -- there are a few decent ones, and their mere existence can be a very powerful ally. That brings up the second useful debate tactic: the "Which Jews should we support?" argument.
Even if we were to assume that the Bible really does say Americans should support the Jews, we can still bring up the Neturei Karta. Have you heard of them? They're a sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews who join in on the anti-Israel side in demonstrations and participate in other anti-Israel activities! Their web page contains many arguments -- some religious, some based on simple conscience and respect for human rights -- for why they consider Israel's very existence to be blasphemous.
With the above in mind, we can always confront the Christian Zionists with something like this: "If we assume that we're supposed to support 'the Jews,' then why shouldn't we support the cause of the NK instead of the Zionist Jews? Just because the NK are a minority among Jews doesn't mean they're wrong, and since they follow the Torah scrupulously, it can be argued that the NK are the only real Jews, just as they themselves claim." If the people you're arguing with have any brains at all, they'll see the difficulty in their position.
The NK get very little press, as the Zionist-controlled press have good reason to avoid giving them too much exposure. I highly recommend that you read through their site a bit if you haven't seen it already:
[url]http://www.nkusa.org/[/url]
It's also worth noting that even these ultra-Orthodox Jews point out that there are a number of converts in early Jewish history from which modern Jews descended. That is similar to your point about the Khazars. All in all, even if we were to accept the fallacious argument that "Abraham's children" are his biological descendants instead of his spiritual descendants, it is nevertheless true that most modern Jews aren't directly descended from Abraham anyway!
That's all I have for now, but I hope it comes in handy in future debates. Even if you don't believe in the religious aspects of all this, the subject is kind of interesting anyway, and it's good to be able to successfully fight the Christian Zionist loonies on their own turf. Some won't change their minds no matter what you say, but others just might -- even if they're only watching the debate in silence from the sidelines.
2003-12-20 00:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I have found that slamming "Israel" gets far better responses than slamming "Jews."[/QUOTE]
I always avoid saying "the Jews". It's a blanket term that is most often rightly rejected by readers. Instead, I specify more which Jews I am referring to - I say "Zionist Jews" or "neoconservative Jews" or "Israeli Jews", etc. As another example, I'll never write that "Jews are communists"; instead I would write, "Proportionally speaking, Jews are more likely to be left-wingers and the historical record shows that a high percentage of Jews were communists in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century". An anti-racist or semitophile will always have much more of a tougher time debating you when you stick to statements like these.
2003-12-25 11:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Does it work? What works and what doesn't? How to approach these, the most dangerous of issues, and not frighten everyone? Or does a hammertone work best?
I have found that slamming "Israel" gets far better responses than slamming "Jews."
I don't know. I guess I'm starting to see why some conservatives just gave up on racial issues/Jewish influence and started talking about "crime" and "Zionism."[/QUOTE]
I'm a good example of a cyber-convert to nationalism.
I was a conservative, and I'd been out in the world enough to know that Jews run it. I'd also read the Bell Curve and a few other things, and was convinced that racial groups didn't have identical endowments on average as the PeeCee police insisted. I'd left the GOP in 1990 when Bush stabbed us in the back on taxes, and I was a big PJB supporter after that.
But I never put two and two together until I read Yggdrasil's site. That was several years ago. It all makes so much sense once it's presented in a coherent and orderly fashion like Ygg does. My thinking has developed since then, in no small part to the interactions I've had here on OD and previously on Sam Francis.
All I can say is that the internet had a big impact on my politics, and I think that just the existence of a forum like OD is so important if for no other reason that that it denies our racial enemies an absolute monopoly on the flow of political information and opinion. Maybe we're small, but the fact is that we're here and anybody in the world with an internet connection can read us. Our Marxist masters DO NOT have a complete monopoly on information flows, thanks in no small part to Original Dissent (thanks, Tex), Liberty Forum, Ethernet, and a handful of others.
I think that just denying the bastards a monoply is reason enough to stay in it.
Walter
2003-12-25 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I always avoid saying "the Jews". It's a blanket term that is most often rightly rejected by readers. Instead, I specify more which Jews I am referring to - I say "Zionist Jews" or "neoconservative Jews" or "Israeli Jews", etc. [/QUOTE] "The Jews" as a formulation may not be ideal, and "the Jewish community", for instance, is preferable. However, it is important to remember -- and to convey to others -- why the Jewish community is so successful in pursuing group goals. It is the fact that it is a community, a collective, a biological entity, and even those who do not directly interact with the gentile population form a support structure -- and provide resources -- for those who are the "Communists" etc.
We construct societies that are capable of handling individual parasites or criminals. Western indivdualism, however, is incapable of handling collectivist strategies (egomorphically, we have difficulty identifying or even imagining such strategies), which is why the Jewish group succeeds so easily. You must understand and explain (carefully and advisedly) that the destructive forces noted above are indeed due to "the Jews", not disproportionately due to a lot of "individual Jews". Jews are not individuals; they are components of an individual that may be denominated "Jewry", "the Jewish people", "the Jewish group", "the Jewish community", "the Jewish nation", etc.
2003-12-25 18:33 | User Profile
I like to use "Jews" or "the Jews", and not "Israel", for a lot of reasons. I think it's more honest and that we can never hope to "out-deceive" natural-born deceivers. I believe that Jews are a bigger problem for us than is the American creature, Israel. The historical record is IMMENSE and very damaging to Jews, much more so than is the few decades of Israel's existence, bad as it may be. I also think that shedding some of our extremely dense genes - and who doesn't get it by now except idiots? - will strengthen us again in the long run.
Suppose "Israel" is suddenly written off by those whose existence is a function of weighing costs and benefits? Those who attack "Israel" would be out of an argument, though still ruled by JEWS.
Deceit is feminine and dishonorable and reminds me of kids in Wichita blowing niggers for their lives. Frankness is masculine and isn't worth existing without, even at the risk of extinction.
Those who think they're EVER going to convince the masses, or that cleverness is a good substitute for defiant confrontation, usually end up begging.
2003-12-25 19:04 | User Profile
"Zionists" may be expedient to a degree, but imprecise and misleading. Jews had been pests long before the political movement of Zionism was formulated.
2003-12-26 20:10 | User Profile
Prosletyzing in cyberspace with the objective of enligtening our bretheren of impending doom means we must use tact. "Zionism" is a term that gets much more tolerance than "Joos". Strategically it seems more effective to use the former term, at least that has been my impression. Using the term "Zionist" to mean "Jewish supremacist" is false, however doing so never seems to get as much backlash, even from Jews.
Personally I have found it more logical to use "Jews" instead of "Zionist" but am gradually being convinced of the strategic advantage of doing otherwise, espescially when discussing the Middle East. I have also found that "Talmudist" is very useful and more accurate in many cases, however some people don't understand what I'm talking about.
2003-12-26 20:16 | User Profile
A multi-front attack is the best. It's not just about politics, but about destroying the false Hollywood-created image of "nice" Jews too. So we have skunk on LF with his skits ridiculing the zhids and their lies. Zhids hate him!
2003-12-26 21:04 | User Profile
Skunk is the greatest.
2003-12-27 03:05 | User Profile
LF is getting a multi-front attack and that's great. I work there too and sometimes I feel like I'm preaching at the choir. freeconservatives and freerepublic desperately need our attention. I wore out my welcome at both. The zhids are are having a field day brainwashing and herding the stupid goyim and I hate to see them get by with it knowing we have the truth on our side.
2003-12-29 20:15 | User Profile
December 28, 2003
Author: Moshe Gorali
The state denies there is any such nationality as `Israeli'
A group of Israeli public figures last week petitioned the High Court of Justice to order the Interior Ministry to register them as Israelis. "We're Israeli, and wish to be registered as such," said the petition, presented by Attorney Yoela Har-Shefi.
The Interior Ministry has a list of 137 nationalities, including Abkhazi, Assyrian and Samaritan - but you won't find "Israeli" among them. The State of Israel doesn't recognize the existence of "Israeli" as a nationality.
The petitioning group is headed by Professor Uzi Ornan of the Hebrew University and the Technion and the 38 intellectuals, academics and scientists include Shulamit Aloni, Uri and Rahel Avneri, Yehoshua Sobol, Gavriel Solomon, Yigal Eilam, Meron Benvenisti, Yehoshua Porat and Oren Yifta'el.
Also in the group is singer Alon Olearchik, formerly of the army Nahal entertainment group and the Israeli rock band Caveret - his mother is Christian and father Jewish, so he is not Jewish. Adal Ka'adan, the Israeli Arab who tried in vain to buy a house in the Katzir community, also wants to be registered as Israeli.
Among the petitioners are those categorized on the identity cards as "Jew," "Druze," "Georgian," "Russian," and even one "Hebrew." Not one of them is "Israeli," and the reason is simple - the Israeli state does not recognize any Israeli nationality that isn't Jewish. Even the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that there was no such thing as Israeli nationality.
Georg Rafael Tamrin returned from a visit overseas to find a new law - an amendment to the law following the "who is a Jew" affair - ruling that to be an Israeli one must be a member of "the Jewish nation." Tamrin asked the population registrar to change the nationality clause in his identity card from "Jewish" to "Israeli." He maintained that "there is already a definite Israeli nationality today, to which I belong according to all subjective criteria - identification, feeling of belonging, loyalty and declaring it."
Tel Aviv District Court Judge Yitzhak Shilo rejected Tamrin's suit stating "a person cannot create a new nationality just by saying it exists, and then say he belongs to it." Shilo then added the real reason: "I can fully declare that there is no Israeli nation that exists separately from a Jewish nation."
Tamrin appealed to the High Court of Justice, which adopted the District Court's position. Justice Shimon Agranat denounced the petitioner: "If a handful of people or more wish to separate themselves from the Jewish people - only 23 years after the establishment of the state - and acquire the status of a separate Israeli nation, this separatist trend should not be regarded as legitimate and should not be recognized."
Who is a Druze?
The new petition challenges these conclusions. Professor Ornan, formerly the chairman of the League Against Religious Coercion and the Israeli secular movement, is the chairman of the "I am Israeli" organization, which has collected more than 2,000 signatures of Israelis. One petitioner, former Air Force commander General Benny Peled, died, but signed a power of attorney for the group.
Another petitioner is Druze businessman Carmel Wahaba. In 1990 he and his French partners wished to set up an import-export company in France. The company's registration required a notarized translation of his birth certificate.
When the French clerk saw the translated documents, he scolded Wahaba: "What's a Druze nationality? I know of no Druze state. Do you want to tell me that there is a Druze state within the State of Israel?"
Wahaba, who was suspected of trying to trick the French authorities, tried to explain but the clerk would have none of it, demanding authorization from the embassy that the translation was accurate and that Wahaba was indeed an Israeli whose nationality was Druze.
Petitioner David Yanukshvili, a pensioner, is registered as "Georgian." The petition says: "He abandoned Georgia and wishes to conduct his whole life in the State of Israel, not merely as a citizen but as a member of the Israeli nation. Why is the Georgian nationality being foisted on him?"
Ornan once classified himself as Canaanite, a member of an ideological group whose founders included the late poet Yonatan Ratosh. When Ratosh's ID was lost, the Interior Ministry issued him a new one, citing his nationality as "Jewish." Ratosh hastened to appeal to the High Court of Justice to be registered as "Hebrew" again - a term which appears on the Interior Ministry's list of nationalities.
"What is the Hebrew nationality?" asks the petition. "Just because two or three obstinate people insisted on their right to be registered as such, and the High Court consented, a Hebrew nationality was created, while the firm reality of an Israeli nationality is not recognized as such? It seems to us that the right of tens of thousands, who declared their nationality to be Israeli, is no less than the right of the Hebrews, whose right was recognized."
Social harmony
The petitioners believe every man has a right to belong to the nationality of his choice. It is not right to force a person to be classified according to his religion in an essential official document, since this leads to discrimination against members of various religions.
It is even less proper to force an atheist or someone openly hostile to religion to be identified with his "religion," since this is a kind of religious coercion.
The petition further says that "Israel and any representative Jewish organization are always fighting tooth and nail against mentioning that a person is `Jewish' in official documents of other states. How come something that is an abomination when done by others, becomes worthy and kosher when we do it?"
In democratic Western states citizenship is usually identical in meaning to nationality. In Israel the clause "citizenship" in the population registration office is accompanied by another clause called "nationality." Hence "nationality" and "citizenship" in Israel are two different things.
About three years ago, when the High Court instructed then Interior Minister Eli Yishai to register Reform converts as "Jews" in the nationality clause, the minister ordered the clause to be canceled in IDs. Instead of "Jew" a row of stars appears now. A lady who applied for a new ID when her old one wore out was amazed to find stars instead of her Jewish identity. She appealed to the High Court of Justice to reinstate the "Jew" classification.
Attorney Har-Shefi expects both petitions to be debated together so that the court can examine the affiliation between Judaism and being Israeli. There is no contradiction between the two, she says. Just like there is an American Jew, there can be an Israeli Jew.
"The American Jew is both American by nationality and Jewish, and so is the French Jew or the Norwegian Jew. We believe that an Israeli Jew is also eligible to be called Israeli, while being a member of the Israeli nationality, like his brother who belongs to the American nationality," the petition says.
The arguments go into values, interests and comparative law, the right of man for self definition, equality, realizing his rights from the Declaration of Independence and even strengthening the harmony in Israeli society.
The petition also cites the Or Commission's ruling that "a central goal of the state's activity must be obtaining real equality for the state's Arab citizens. Recognizing the right of all those who feel that way - both Jews and Arabs - and want to define themselves as Israelis, would open the way to minimizing discrimination, helping reconciliation, and establishing all Israelis identification with their state."
According to surveys, Har-Shefi says 60 percent of Israeli Arabs would jump at the chance of being registered as Israelis. Today only about 25 percent of them are registered as Israelis.
As for Jews, the recognition of the Israeli nationality would remove a source of dispute and division both among Israeli Jews and between Israel's Jews and the diaspora Jews, the petition says.
The petition's main object is separating state from religion, or at least separating religion from nationality. Petitioner Nili Kook is the widow of Professor Hillel Kook, who died two years ago.
"He told me that his great uncle, Rabbi Kook, would have supported the petition. Like the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitz, he wished to separate religion from nationality and the state. They believed only such separation would increase respect for religion in Israel," Har-Shefi says.
The appointment of Avraham Poraz as Interior Minister raised hopes among the petitioners but their requests to him, like their letters to Haim Ramon when he was Interior Minister, went unheeded. The loaded issue was shelved. A petition to the High Court is a good way to raise an issue for the agenda, but it is doubtful whether the High Court is the right address.
As Judge Shilo said, a nationality is not created by saying it exists. It is hard to assume that the judges say so would create the Israeli nationality. On the other hand, Supreme Court President Justice Aharon Barak is retiring in about three years and perhaps history, in the form of 38 "Israelis," has provided him with the last big case to create another revolution.
[url]http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/376724.html[/url]
2004-02-04 00:32 | User Profile
One thing I noticed during some knockdown fights with Jewish posters at the [I]Middle East Information Center [/I] forum is that they are susceptible to being exposed as engaging in logical fallacies or contradictory assertions. One good example was a character that claimed that certain agreed-upon historical conditions did not undermine some position he was taking (I forget the particulars), so I related that admission to the fundamental claim that Jews have a right to occupy Palestine, which is utterly dependent on a fabulously distant historical landscape to which no one is obligated. We went round and round, and he essentially had to resort to the type of absolutist assertions that any reasonable person witnessing the exchange would see as his entrenched and unjustified bias.
This is the kind of thing that one can have real fun with, but a cool head and some reasoned detachment helps. Be patient, take your time, and look at the overall fabric of the discussion and consider your opponentââ¬â¢s weaknesses before you respond ââ¬âthey have many.
An interesting tactic that I experimented with in that same forum was to be a minimalist in my responses, sometimes resorting to rhetorical devices (which is common amongst defenders of Zionism and other Jewish ââ¬Åpositionsââ¬Â on human rights and a variety of universalistic themes ââ¬âthemes that few people in Western culture can now argue against effectively). The point in this minimalism (short, question-begging statements) is to demand more energy from your opponent than you yourself expend. In frank truth, I saw that many people arguing for right ideas became exhausted in trying to explain themselves, in large part because they really expected that their opponents could be persuaded that they were well meaning and correct.
The assumption that you are arguing with earnest people (I am talking about the Jews in these forums) is 9 times out of 10 a mistaken assumption. There are a few, but the majority is there to confound you, tie you up in pointless debate, frustrate and exhaust you, and to distract you from more meaningful activism. The minimalist approach that I adopted in appropriate cases made them work much harder than I did, and I simply enjoyed watching them struggle to make their case.
In a number of arguments, it forced them to call upon their cyberspace comrades to come to the rescue, at which point I was obligated to become really clever ââ¬âor really restrained. Oftentimes, a single dismissive word (such as ââ¬Ånonsenseââ¬Â) was enough to keep them going. I looked upon it as time-budget management ââ¬âkeeping these guys at their computers while getting nowhere. Periodically I would throw out a big essay (which I enjoyed writing) and start it all again.
Watching these people gang up on a good opponent in the forum also enlightened me about the liveliness of the minor networks they maintain. Some of these Jews have committed themselves to cyberwar (perhaps many are geeks with no social life, or old Zionists bound to a wheel-chair), and they understand that they can swamp a discussion with their collective efforts ââ¬âsufficient to derail their opponents. This is another reason for adopting the minimalist strategy when you see this coming.
Indeed, such a stratagem is very characteristic of Jewish competition in general. For those who take the broad values of the European Enlightenment [I]seriously[/I], there is an immediate and potentially debilitating consequence to debating with Jews as if they were sincere. For me, the best measure of their sincerity in forum debate is to test them, very guardedly, and to preserve your suspicions about their disingenuousness, step by step, demanding specific concessions against Jewish particularity on precisely those points ââ¬âmoral and ethical, couched within either abstract or historical terms- where they are resistant to concede. To do this well, you must study your subject ââ¬âthe history of the Jews, the history of ideas, and history in general.
One thing that that I have noticed is often lacking in forum discussions -in opposition to Jewish polemicists- are a healthy measure of distrust and a sense of strategic thinking (regard debate as politics, contest or war by other means). These attitudes are more or less instinctive to your Jewish opponents, and you should put aside sophomoric notions about fair play and integrity when dealing with them. Nevertheless, the facts are on your side and you should master them.
Do not let them establish the terms of the debate.
Remember, your virtues can be turned against you.
2004-02-04 22:33 | User Profile
Nietzche, It takes great smarts to outsmart a Jew, even if you have the facts on your side. I'm not familiar with the forum you mention, but it seems that if they are known journalists participating on a forum with their real names, blatantly using logical fallacies may haunt them later, as they may get quoted. My experience with cyberkhazars is that they only admit to their ethnicity about a third of the time, and that as you say, they work together. I allways remember that I'm not trying to convince them, but rather the sheeple gentile audience, and thus I try to point out their use of logical fallicies and emotionalizing tactics and not use them myself. Since they have educated us by repetition, I often use the same tactic on them. If sheeple need to hear a lie 100 times to believe it, they may need to hear the truth only 10 times to believe it, this is our keen sense of the obvious. I'm careful about using language like "nonsense" as it may cause them to accuse me of ad hominem, which is not necessary to support my argument.
I'll try your tactic of short, question-begging statements some more. Usually I keep my posts under 100 words and ask many questions that force readers to think. Your advice not to let them establish the terms of the debate is good. I catch them doing this to others and cut in get discussions back on topic.