Debating Zombies

I enjoy watching Charlie Kirk's debates with college students. Not necessarily for the (admittedly hilarious) entertainment Kirk provides as he 'demolishes' these 'woke' student's arguments and talking points, but rather to gain an insight into how leftist zombies debate - if you can call what they do 'debating' - and, on how to engage with them effectively. 

Here's what I've discerned, so far:

Their arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. 

While they all appear to genuinely believe in the positions they take, I've yet to see (or hear) any of these students express 'an original thought'. It's like they've been taught what to think but not how to think. They regurgitate leftist talking points and slogans but appear confused when Kirk refutes their point or asks them a question. It's like they don't have a sufficient understanding their own ideology to defend it. 

Lenin and Stalin had a description for people like this: "Useful idiots".

Instead of defending their position, they resort to a predictable selection of conversational / debating tactics. 

These include:

Refusing to define concepts, terms or words: A concept, term or word they use in one sentence can mean something completely different in the next. It all depends on the point they want to make in the moment. It's irrelevant to them, that what they say in one sentence might contradict what they said thirty seconds ago. Their only goal is to get their message out. 

Refusing to agree to or abide by, 'ground rules'.  

Constantly interrupting: This tactic appears to be designed to silence their interlocutor. And to a leftist, silence equals agreement.  

Going off-topic, introducing 'red-Herrings' and 'thought-stoppers': This is 'conversational Whack-a-Mole' and  is designed to keep the subject of the conversation so fluid that no rational conclusion can be reached.

Watching the zombies, I get the impression that they're less interested in having a conversation or a debate, than they are with having a microphone and the opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to their fellow leftists. Charlie Kirk is just an annoyance to be brushed away like a persistent Fly at a picnic. 

They absolutely detest being shown to be wrong in front of their peers. If outwitted, they will descend into 'hate-speech'. 

Objective reality, logic and reason having being discarded from their ideology, they argue everything from "morality". 

So. How to respond effectively to these tactics? 

1. The audience is what matters! There's no point engaging with a zombie unless there's an audience to witness it. Always keep in mind that your interlocutor is infected with the Socialist Mind-Virus. This is an incurable infection that will remain with them for life - like Herpes. They are the real-world incarnation of zombies. You can't change a zombie's mind. You engage with them in order to sway the audience to your point of view. 

2. Realise that your zombie isn't actually interested in debating you. From their perspective, you're just providing them with an opportunity to 'virtue-signal' to the audience. You're just an annoying interruption to their diatribe. Short-circuit this by insisting on ground-rules before you begin and enforce them every time the zombie breaks them. 

* Make it clear that you are not there to lecture each other.  This is a conversation (or a debate).

* Don't interrupt the other person. 

* Don't wast time. Make your point and be brief about it. 

* Keep your comments relevant. Stay on-topic. 

* Agree on your definitions before you begin. Refuse to start until you have. If they bring up a new word or phrase during the debate, refuse to proceed futher, until an agreed definition is established.  Define what they mean by (word). If they can't (or won't) define what they mean, then everything they say is meaningless and there's no point continuing. Or; If they can't agree on a definition, then we're just talking past each other and the conversation is pointless. 

* Be prepared to justify any statement you make, if challenged.  

* Call them out on every violation.

* Terminate the conversation if they keep breaking the rules.

3. Leftists always argue 'from morality', and always claim their position on any subject is the 'moral' one. Never allow them to claim the moral high-ground without challenge. Insist they justify their position. 

An example often serves to illustrate a point better than a long-winded explanation so, let's take a quick dive down this particular Rabbit-hole: 

On Abortion: Abortion is one of the pillars of leftist ideology, so it's a good one to attack as the zombies can't seem to restrain themselves from engaging. 

Instead of taking the position; "Abortion should be illegal because it's murder", instead, say; "Abortion is immoral because it's murder". 

See the difference? 

This short-circuits the "my body, my choice" argument, because you're not claiming any control over 'her' body. She's free to murder her unborn child if she chooses. She may be acting legally, but not morally. If they want to justify abortion, it puts them in the position of having to justify murder as 'moral'. 

So, they'll try to (re)define "Murder' as something other than "the deliberate, premeditated, unprovoked killing of one human-being by another". If they have a different definition, insist they justify why their definition is more 'moral' than yours. Don't proceed until they do. 

They'll argue that a foetus is not a human (it's just a "bundle of cells") and that life begins at some point after conception. To counter this, ask: "Is an Acorn an Oak tree?" Of course it's not! But can an Acorn become anything other than an Oak tree? Can it become an Elm? Or a Redwood? Or a Eucalyptus? Or a Sycamore? No, it can't. Therefore, while an an Acorn is not an Oak, it will become one if it germinates and grows. Just as an Acorn is a potential Oak, so a fertilized Ovum is a potential human, no matter if it's one cell, a "bundle of cells" or a foetus. 

Is an Acorn alive? Yes! It can't germinate if it's dead. And the moment it germinates, it will become an Oak tree. But it will die if it doesn't get the conditions necessary for it to germinate. Just as an Ovum will die if it's not fertilized by a sperm. New life begins at conception! 

Birth-control is moral. Abortion is immoral.     

Everything that's not S.T.E.M. can be argued from morality.

Gun Control is Immoral. Change My Mind.

It's a shame no statistics are kept on crimes that weren't commited because the intended victim was carrying a gun. Because, in the vast majority of these cases, the intended victim was unaware they were being targeted. The attacker saw the gun as they approached and walked away. No crime to report. It's called "deterence" and we know it works because it's the principal tool used by governments to keep the peace between nations. What's good for the Goose...

An armed society is both polite and peaceful. The clearest example of this was the American "Wild-West". Of course, Hollywood has assiduously spread the myth that the "wild" in that title, referred to the behaviour of its inhabitants, rather than the truth that it was a 'wilderness' devoid of government 'law 'n order', so everyone had to look to themselves for security. In a Saloon filled with armed people, you don't make an entrance like Yosemite Sam. Not unless you wanted to take a long nap in "Boot Hill". 

"Gun control" is just a euphemism for "victim disarmament". It's also the first priority all authoritarians and would-be dictators. That's the reason the Second Ammendment in the U.S. Constitution exists. It's never about 'safety'. Cities that have banned guns are amongst the least safe places. It's not about guns. Gun-control advocates love guns; as long as they're the only ones holding them. It's about control. 

When a government denies an individual the right and the means to defend themselves, they assume a moral responsibility for that person's defence. And we've all seen that when seconds count, the Cops are hours away. The blood of every person harmed because they were denied the right and the means to effectively defend themselves, is on the hands of those who disarmed them. 

Inflection Point?

 Well, my pessimistic prediction that the Democrat Party would cheat it's way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was inaccurate. I'm glad I was wrong. Of course, they're just as much sore-losers as they were sore-winners in 2020. So, predictably, they're behaving like deadbeat tennants who've been served an eviction notice and are busy trashing the house before they vacate. Or will they decide to burn it down?

We're living through events that will be discussed by historians two millenia from now, the same way contemporary historians discuss the Roman empire. We stand at an inflection-point in Human history. A few weeks where Industrial civilisation might self-terminate (with "extreme prejudice") or where it's decline, which began more than a century ago, continues for another century or so, before succumbing. 

Civilisations are just like any other living thing. They are born, grow, mature, age and die. Civilisations have a lifespan, roughly two thousand years, give-or-take. The intervals between them are called "dark-ages". But 'old-age' isn't the only way civilisations can die. They can also be wiped out by cataclysms. Recent archeological discoveries - such as the ruins at Gobekli Tepe - are revealing the existence of a previously unknown, globe-spanning civilisation which was at least as technologically advanced as ours was in the eighteenth century. It existed thirteen thousand years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age. It appears to have been destroyed by a massive impact from space. 

Our civilisation faces a similar catyclism, although this one could be entirely self-inflicted.

Make no mistake; World War Three is already underway. The United States and its allies are playing the part that Germany (and her allies) did, in WWII, and they will suffer the same fate. The historical parallels are there: As the agressor and the weaker industrial power, their war fighting strategy must necessarily revolve around the concept of 'Blitzkreig' (aka "shock-and-awe") and on advanced, high-tech, low-volume weapons. Germany used this strategy and lost both World Wars. But the victors appear to have learned all the wrong lessons. 

A victory born of Blitzkreig always pups an insurgency. Unlike a revolution, a 'do-or-die' proposition for the revolutionaries, an insurgency has only to persist to succeed. The invaders/occupiers can't declare victory as long as even one insurgent remains active. Only a head-on clash of armies resulting in a decisive victory can ensure a lasting peace afterwards, as the soldiers of the defeated side KNOW they can't prevail and are disinclined to engage in any further resistance. It's around the men who were ordered to surrender without ever 'testing their mettle' against the enemy, that an insurgency coalesces. 

The alternative to Blitzkreig is war of attrition. In such wars, victory has always gone to the opponent with the greater industrial capacity. This has been true for every war since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Russia, China and India now possess between them, most of the world's productive industrial capacity. And along with Iran, they control most of the world's hydrocarbon energy, especially oil. Iran can strangle a substantial portion of the West's oil supply by blockading the Straight of Hormuz and can drop missiles on all the oil production facilities on the Arabian Peninsular. The U.S. can't prevent this; the Houthis (a 'third-world', 'rag-tag' military) have already demonstrated they can force a U.S. Carrier Battle Group to withdraw. More on that, below.

There's no way, mathematically, that the West -  the U.S. and it's client-states - can win a war of attrition against the BRICS alliance. That's exactly the type of war that Russia is waging in Ukraine and the BRICS alliance is prepared to fight, globally. The (proxy) war in Ukraine is demonstrating that Blitzkreig is non-viable; Western "wonder-weapons" are proving to be less than 'wonderous'. Hardly surprising, considering they weren't meant to be used on an actual battlefield, against a peer or near-peer opponent. The F35 is the "poster-child". Their true purpose is to frighten/discourage potential enemies and to justify lucrative sales to defence contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and so-on. Where do you think the billion$ the U.S. 'sends' to Ukraine gets spent? (Apart from that which gets 'skimmed' by the corrupt officials in both countries, of course.) 

The more 'wonderous' the weaponry is, the more it requires competent humans to design it, build it, service it and use it. "Globalization" hasn't just left the West bereft of industrial productive capacity. It's 'woke', anti-white, misandrist pogrom has stripped it's militaries of the very personnel - white, hetrosexual males - that make it's most effective fighters. The armed forces of the West are all suffering from severe manpower shortages and lack of competence as D.E.I. hiring and promotion practices are based on 'quotas' instead of merit. The 'best-and-brightest' are turning their backs on military careers and those who do join up, lack the intelligence and motivation to effectively operate the complex military technology the western militaries have pinned their fate on. 

And, speaking of "wonder-weapons", the Ukraine conflict has revealed that Russia has developed effective countermeasures to almost all American combat systems and has demonstrated advanced weapons of it's own, that NATO has no effective defence against. 

Donald Trump's bloviating not withstanding, it will take DECADES for the West to rebuild its industrial base and an equal time to train up the vast army of competent civilian specialists needed to make it work. Decades the West doesn't have. To do this, they'll need to abandon all the "woke" policies that prevent competent people being employed in vital positions. (Think Boeing) The elites can't do this without destroying their credibility and that of the system they command.  

Dying empires routinely hire foreigners to fill roles their own citizens won't, because said citizens have come to the conclusion that, thanks to their leaders, their country is not worth defending. You'll want to hope that these foreign mercenaries lose, because if they win, they'll expect a (large) share of the spoils. That means the country they were recruited to defend, will become THEIR country. Look how well that worked for the Romans. 

The West - aka the U.S. and its satrapies - is collapsing, economically, socially and culturally. The BRICS alliance doesn't need to fight a war to defeat them. It has only to wait for the West to collapse under the weight of its own massive debt and socio-cultural contradictions and prevent them from creating any more mayhem. That's the strategy behind the Russian's "Special Military Operation" - the slow, grinding military campaign in the Donbass. Ukraine is America's "tar-baby". As long as Ukraine hasn't surrendered (or isn't allowed to), the U.S. must continue to support it or risk losing all credibility in the interantional arena. Failure to support Ukraine would mean the end of NATO and the collapse of the E.U. along with whatever residual political influence they have in Europe. Ukraine has, by all rational measures, already lost the war, so when she inevitably does collapse, despite all the 'help' from the U.S. and NATO, the same consequences will apply. The Russians are quite content to keep the conflict dragging on for as long as it takes to bleed the West dry - financially and militarily. Exactly the strategy the Allies used to defeat Germany in both world wars. 

The Houthis have demonstrated that you don't have to sink ships to win naval battles. You just have to drive the enemy fleet from the contested area. A sustained barrage of cheap, low-tech missiles can force a carrier battle group to use up all its defensive munitions and once consumed, they have no option but to withdraw. Missile-equiped ships can't be re-armed at sea. The U.S. Navy tried this and declared the evolution too dangerous. Reverting to the Nelsonic "hail-of-fire" only with missiles instead of roundshot, may prove to be the innovation that makes the Aircraft Carrier obsolete, the way the AC made the Battleship obsolete ninety years ago. So China, with its vastly larger arsenal of superior weapons can be quite confident they can deny the U.S. Navy the ability to operate anywhere near their sphere of influence. They can be content to wait for the U.S. to collapse, which will give them the freedom to walk into Taiwan without a struggle. Classic Sun-Tsu.

When (not 'if') the U.S. collapses, the tail that wags the dog - Israel - is 'toast'. Israel is an artificial creation who's primary function is to be a Western foothold in the Middle East and it's been a (political) festering sore there for the best part of a century. And when Israel is gone, it's likely the region will re-unify under a new "Pax". Something like the Ottoman Empire. The only question is whether the new imperial capital will be Ankara or Tehran.

Finally, there's the question; will WWIII go Nuclear? 

The Russians have stated repeatedly, they don't want a nuclear war. (no sane person would.) On the other hand, various U.S and European leaders have spoken openly about utilizing the "nuclear option". On that basis, I think the West is the most likely party to fire the first shot. 

But will they?

Possible, but not likely, in my opinion. 

Here's why: The West is ruled by parasitic psychopaths who have demonstrated, repeatedly, that their only interest is accumulating wealth and power. They regard the countries they rule as tax-farms and the people therein - you and me - as livestock. For decades, they have been sowing the seeds of revolution and these seeds are now germinating. Will their minions launch the missiles if ordered to do so? 

They're in a hole of their own making and their increasingly frantic, draconian and irrational efforts to maintain control are only serving to dig themselves in deeper. They have a window of opportunity in which to initiate a nuclear strike and that window is closing. In my opinion, the period of greatest danger is between now and January 20th 2025 as after that date, they'll have their clammy hands removed from the levers of power (including the nuclear launch codes) and they'll have a whole new set of challenges to contend with as the new regime reveals their crimes and commences prosecutions. Not for "revenge" but in accordance with long standing legal and constitutional precedents and demands. Donald Trump has no choice in this. It's his DUTY. Under the Constitution, he MUST prosecute the people who've commited "high-crimes and treason". And much of what the elites and their "deep-state" operatives have done in the last decade, belongs in this category. 

They have about six weeks to decide whether they want to face justice from a formal legal system and potentially spend the rest of their lives in a (relatively) comfortable prison, or end civilisation and be hunted down by the survivors to face the sort of justice meted out to criminals in the Middle Ages. They deserve the latter, in my opinion. 

 The next few weeks may be an inflection in Human history. The danger this time is far greater than the Cuban Missile Crisis. There were sane adults on both sides of that confrontation. Not so, this time. The next few weeks may see the end of Industrial Civilisation or a reprieve that would allow it to continue it's gradual decline for another century or so. 

Pray for the latter.

Upset of the Century?

'Though the language and rhetoric are quite mild (by Andrew Anglin's usual standards), this article is still a bit 'spicy' for Faceborg. Not to mention that AA is considered 'persona non gratia' on that platform. 

Most thinking people, myself included, conclude that, no matter how popular Donald Trump is, or how big a majority of the popular vote he wins, the Demoncrats will simply rig the election. They got away with it in 2020 and, seeing as there were absolutely no consequences then, they have zero reason to think they won't get away with it again in 2024. 

But AA argues that the vested interests the "Swamp" actually serves, as distinct from the American people, will be looking for the candidate that best suits their agenda, and given the utterly chaotic and psychotic performance of the Demoncrats over the last four years, and Trumps admission of support for Israel (the tail that wags the dog), the people who count the votes, as opposed to the votes that count, may just let the Donald back into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

But there's also a darker reason. The greatest and most constant fear of the ruling class, is revolution - the Tumbril and the Giloutine:

"In a modern liberal democracy, you don’t need public support for any policy. A democracy government is always just a puppet of private interest groups, and the population has no ability to influence state decisions. The only threat is domestic upheaval, which is generally extremely unlikely in a democracy, given that people will usually simply say “well, I’ll vote for the other guy next time” instead of going into the streets and creating chaos. However, if Biden is reinstalled as president in November, and the wars continue, the economy turns down, and the crime and immigrant situation keeps getting more extreme, you could end up in a situation where no matter how hard the media lies, his real level of support is below 15%. At that point, you are moving into a very precarious situation, where you could start seeing real political violence that threatens the country’s basic stability. There is a switch that can be flipped in the collective psyche of a human population where they, almost simultaneously, become violently enraged, and start acting on that. Right now, Biden’s Israel policy and his immigration invasion both threaten to trigger this collective psychological mechanism."

Read the whole article! https://dailystormer.in/a-total-reevaluation-of-the-2024-election/

Australia Day 2024

I went to an Australia Day event yesterday. 

And, as usual, the "Aboriginal Industry" was there to start the event with a "Welcome to Country" speech by an Aboriginal "Auntie", who proceeded to shame everyone with a diatribe about how horrible the "invasion" and "occupation" of the continent was, along with the "massacres" and other crimes-against-humanity puportedly commited against her ancestors. No to mention, the on-going oppression of her people. I guess this woman was using a different definition of "welcome" than the one I'm familiar with.

I wonder if she was paid to give that speech. And if so, by whom?

I don't know how "welcome" everyone else felt after this but I felt rather insulted at being "welcomed" to my own country. One I was born in and one which at least four generations of my ancestors have called Home. A country that didn't exist until Europeans arrived and built it, literally from the ground, up. A country that lifted this woman's people from the Stone Age to the Industrial Age in a mere three generations. Arguably, the greatest and most rapid "leg-up" in all Human history. 

You know what else I found insulting? Their flag, being given the same prominence in display, as our National Flag. And I'm not just talking about the ceremony. Their flag flies on almost all public buildings and monuments. I'm not even sure if that's legal! Apart from the fact that it demonstrates that they consider themselves a separate nation, it makes nonsense of their claim, that they're an oppressed people. 

I had to chuckle to myself, when she bragged about being a part of the "oldest continuous culture on Earth" (up from forty to sixty thousand years now). Sixty thousand years and still in the Stone-Age when Europeans arrived? Channeling Mick "Crocodile" Dundee here: That's not an achievement. That's an embarrasment. 

I thought that, perhaps, a little gratitude might have been in order: Gratitude for the fifty thousand year* leg-up her people received. Gratitude for the good fortune of having the English settle this continent, rather than the French, the Dutch, the Portugese or, Heaven forbid, the Spanish! Gratitude for the six BILLION Dollars of taxpayers' money spent on Aboriginal "welfare" every single year! Gratitude that no one with the authority to do so, is game to demand an audit.    

When I got home and started penning this essay, I realised that while I still feel insulted, I also feel sorry for this woman and all the other Aboriginal activists performing their Welcome to Country speeches. Because she's being used and she can't see it. She's what Lennin and Stalin described as a "useful fool"; someone who rallys to a cause (or a grift) without understanding what it is or what the true motivations of it's enablers are. 

Does having your nose rubbed in a (mostly false and non-sensical) accusation that you, as a non-Aboriginal, are responsible for all the ills (real and imagined) that besets them, induce you to feel respect or sympathy? Or shame? Or something else? The audience was polite, but I'm guessing that the only reason someone didn't stand up and call "Bullshit!" is that, at this time, Aboriginies enjoy Protected-Species status and there are serious negative consequences for doing so. 

But that's not going to last. The Aboriginal Industry's enablers - the globalists - will discard them like a used tissue the moment they're no longer considered useful. And their usefulness to that cabal is rapidly running out. Then what?

All their activism has achieved, is to alienate the non-Aboriginal community and generate disgust and distrust. Their Protected-Species status reminds me of Orwell's "Animal Farm"; "All animals are equal. But some are more-equal than others". We all know what happened to the Pigs. The overwhelming "No" vote in the Referendum should have been a wake-up call that they've reached the limits of everyone's tolerance. But when your snout's in the trough, that's all that matters, apparently.

And that goes for all the other activist groups** busy dividing our communities, demolishing our institutions and white-anting our society. The day someone calls "Enough!" to all of them isn't too far off. 

Don't get me wrong. These activists deserve everything they get when their enablers throw them under the bus. My sympathy, such as it is, is reserved for the majority of innocents who have nothing to do with this, but who will suffer the backlash resulting from the activists' behaviour, simply because they belong to these minorities. 

*I'm subtracting the ten thousand years it took the European settlers to make the same journey from the Stone Age to the Industrial Age.

**The environmentalists, the LGBTQ+ movement, Femminists, Climate Alarmists and all the other "minorities" that have allowed themselves to be weaponised by the globalists, in pursuit of that group's goals.