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.