As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
Its a resource exhaustion tactic. It takes ten lines of real effort to substantially disprove one line of made up accusation, so they just hammer you at a 10:1 ratio until you're exhausted or have other things to do and bow out. Then they claim that means they won, and by extension whatever they were saying about you was true.
It goes back to my maths example, Nick Fuentes could say 1 + 1 = 2 and some social retard out there will claim he said 1 + 1 = 5 and...
No, no, the example here would be more like "1+1=2, that's completely out of context, and Nick and anyone connected to him are Nazis. I won't say 1+1=2 is wrong, but I'll make it sound like that's what I'm saying. And I certainly won't say that 1+1=2 is correct. By the way, did I mention Nick's a Nazi? Nazis are bad and wrong."
Guilt by association and character assassination are some of their favorite tactics.
Attack the person, or people you can draw some often vague connection to, instead of the argument.
Reminds me of one of their most disgusting smears; when they destroyed Milo as a "pedophile" because, in Milo's mind, he had consensual relations with an older man when he was underage. Any other context, Milo is 100% the victim (EDIT: Or 100% Stunning and Brave, I suppose, depending on which side of politics/reality you're on), but since he was a wrongthinker, instead he was totally advocating pedophilia. I couldn't believe that smear worked, it was so insane, even for their usual shit.
They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid?
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
You contradict yourself. Blacks in South Africa are at war with the Boer. The midnight raids on farms with murder and rapes, and the new Apartheid laws being passed giving blacks preference over whites are proof of that. It’s revenge right? That’s how they see it. Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections. I don’t recall the comments you’ve made about the ANC but it seems like you’re not being consistent here.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. That quote from Jesus is a lesson that needs no historical context. It’s saying we should give up violence. A wholesome lesson that would improve society today, yesterday, or tomorrow, if taken to heart.
My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context. People read or hear things and they seek to understand it within the context of their lives. If one reads that “the tribe murdered it’s enemies and it was just” doesn’t the reader take to heart the lesson that “killing your enemies (whites) is right?”
Nope, still didn't contradict myself. You want a race war. Blacks in South Africa are a mixed bag because while many are recruited into National Socialism like the EFF, during the riots of a few years back, many black store owners were having to shoot and kill large lynchmobs of black Leftists, because you are refusing to Leftism outside of your own personal false dichotomy around race.
new Apartheid
It can't be new Apartheid because blacks are the majority. You just don't want to condemn racialism because you like racialism when races you like do it.
Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections.
Nope, you're lying again. What was the first thing I pointed about someone else's excuses about the Talmud? Because remember, I'm not defending the Talmud, I'm defending OP from the claim that they never engaged in a detailed criticism of Fuentez. What I originally said, that the presenters said, was that you had a small, tribal, ethnically homogenous group. Literally: all the jews and only the jews fleeing Egypt at that moment. Specifically the ones apparently walking between two giant walls of water, and magically: there are no other jews in Egypt who were like "no I'm good". And within this shockingly convenient story about things that totally happened, is it okay to kill the specific soldiers who were attacking you since they weren't smited by God.
You wish I said "it's okay to kill your oppressor" because you want to have that argument with someone. I ain't him. The phrase itself has multiple problems: what oppression? Who is an oppressor? Why is killing acceptable and not alternatives? If killing is acceptable, then under what conditions, and for how long?
I am not a Leftist, and that phrase doesn't make sense because there is no legitimate moral rationalization for mass killing via abstraction.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. ... My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context.
The whole fucking point of context is to make sure Leftists CAN'T do exactly that. The fact that Leftists are intentionally going to make bad faith arguments to post-hoc rationalize positions on moral frameworks they don't even believe in is exactly why you limit quotations to their context. The whole point behind a malicious quote is to imbue that quote with the authority of it's source, while being fully aware that the context of that quote intentionally strips that authority away.
A Christian that says it's wrong to joint the military and defend your country because of "turn the other cheek" is a shit christian and should be told that they are such. Similarly, a jew that says, "I have the right to kill gentiles because Talmud" is similarly a shit jew. And just to be clear, in both cases they are normally going to be Leftist atheist socialists trying to make excuses for their own behaviors, living to the principles, standards, and morals of no one.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.
I don't know why that you think that resorting to name calling on this one topic is going to change any minds.
I'm not even taking sides here: you're perfectly reasonable even in disagreement on pretty much every other topic, but the second someone mentions Jews you go full-on shaming language. That might work in most places (to at least get people to shut up -- it's rarely going to change their minds though) but why the fuck would you think it would be effective here?
As is normal for stormfag behavior, he's insinuating that I'm secretly a jew, and that's the only reason I would ever tell a White Socialist that he's an idiot because only White Socialism can protect white people.
It's not like he's some person I've never met before, and never been called a kike by. This isn't new, and unlike Arch, I'm not going to posture to the crowd. No amount of facts can dissuade motivated reasoning. In order for him to come to his senses, he will have to come to his senses on his own time. He's not here to genuinely ask questions. He's here to posture, to forum slide, and to engage in rhetorical warfare.
If there were actual questions, then I'd be happy to answer them graciously. This was not. He might as well have asked me "how many shekels did your receive for this post?"
I will continue to use shaming language against leftists like him, because they should be fucking shamed, they should be fucking gate-kept, and they are an enemy within Schmidts distinction. No one, and I mean no one, has served the political Left more dutifully in this country to destroy populist anti-establishment movements than them. Not Antifa, not BLM, not the DNC. They are political suicide bombers hell-bent on killing the right. They create guilt by association with them. They support fed-ops. They push for violence. They push for accelerationism. They push for demoralization. They push for defeatism. They push for black-pilling. And, importantly, they are Progressive Racialists.
Also, neither side did great, but the debunkers are being pretty fucking cringe. They keep going on about how "out of context" it is when Jews (not all Jews, to be fair, specific rabbis and such but, yes, in the talmud) say gentiles aren't human, and also it's fine when they say gentiles should be killed, because rabbis don't have the power to issue death sentences. They just keep going along those lines.
Sounds like they have a point in that it's a debate, and not hard and fast laws...but they're also covering for all the insane shit some people are saying in the quotes. It's absurd. You could defend the work as a whole, while still calling out the actual awful quotes. Especially since it's a debate, and not viewed as the Word of God or anything, according to them. But they can't bring themselves to do that. Also, they lose some major credibility by calling Nick and his people Nazis, and other stuff.
As to Nick, it's kind of a mixed bag. It sounds like he did have some false quotes, and some that were out of context. But there also is an overarching trend of it being said that Jews should receive massive priority, and gentiles deserve at best basically nothing.
Also, from 28 minutes in (bold is my emphasis):
There's a lot of young men who've been disenfranchised in this country and they have flocked to Fuentes 'cause the pendulum sometimes swing too far to the other side...
I hate this shit. This is basically the 'men are suffering, they just need feminism' say the feminists spiel, but with a Jewish/"Christian" angle. Also, if merely talking about this shit is "the pendulum...swinging too far," I have zero fucking respect for you. I think the pendulum might end up swinging too far, but this isn't it. The pendulum has barely started to swing. It's still basically hovering via momentum at the farthest left, slowly starting to inch the other way. Bitching about Nick Fuentes going to far is extremely fucking cucked. I can't stand it.
The quote continues:
...and hopefully some of them realize they're being lied to and manipulated to become hateful anti-Christian folk that just go after people for their race and I want to stop that as much as possible. So yeah I'm very happy to out and to defend the Jewish people when this kind of stuff comes out because, as a Christian, I'm called to love all people, pray for my enemies, and help the weak, help those that are being attacked and hated, why of course I would go after this horrible kind of stuff, and this is actually very much in line with our Christian history...
You're anti-Christian if you want to be Christian, but not worship Israel or the Jews, apparently. Again, not even saying I agree with Nick or his take, but I hate this 'anti-Christian if you don't do everything we say' nonsense.
Also, gotta love Christians pulling out the "love all people...help the weak" stuff, when they'll never apply it in favor of Christians. By all means, defend your enemies if it fits your principles (I think there are issues there, but that's another topic), but also fucking defend yourself...preferably more than you do your enemies, even. Novel idea, I know. And they always go it "in line with our Christian history" or teachings, or however they want to spin it. We swear, there's nothing more Christian than not standing up for yourself, that's totally Jesus's message!
The pendulum ain't swung until some people are swinging. Don't ban me. This is elementary politics not a wish or a threat. Revolutions are violent, and I don't expect this gets solved any other way although I would rather be wrong because even though a fire burns in my heart, love is stronger than that . I have love for the mothers and fathers that are and will lose children in this.
The "Jews " in the OT Bible are Israelites. I agree that the people running shit now are not. The people in charge now are heirs to exactly the ones that killed Jesus.
The law is all they have, but God moved on to a new covenant. Yet Jews want to build a temple so they can burn bulls again.
As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
Its a resource exhaustion tactic. It takes ten lines of real effort to substantially disprove one line of made up accusation, so they just hammer you at a 10:1 ratio until you're exhausted or have other things to do and bow out. Then they claim that means they won, and by extension whatever they were saying about you was true.
Ah yes, the chess playing seagull approach, swoop in, knock the pieces over, make a racket, shit all over the board and strut off like it's a victory
No, no, the example here would be more like "1+1=2, that's completely out of context, and Nick and anyone connected to him are Nazis. I won't say 1+1=2 is wrong, but I'll make it sound like that's what I'm saying. And I certainly won't say that 1+1=2 is correct. By the way, did I mention Nick's a Nazi? Nazis are bad and wrong."
That sounds like yourmoviesucks talking about the critical drinker.
Also nick Fuentes hanged out furry cat boi, every thing he said is gay, nazi, and gay nazi
Guilt by association and character assassination are some of their favorite tactics.
Attack the person, or people you can draw some often vague connection to, instead of the argument.
Reminds me of one of their most disgusting smears; when they destroyed Milo as a "pedophile" because, in Milo's mind, he had consensual relations with an older man when he was underage. Any other context, Milo is 100% the victim (EDIT: Or 100% Stunning and Brave, I suppose, depending on which side of politics/reality you're on), but since he was a wrongthinker, instead he was totally advocating pedophilia. I couldn't believe that smear worked, it was so insane, even for their usual shit.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
Reminds me of that song “Kill the Boer”
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
Historical context is relevant.
You contradict yourself. Blacks in South Africa are at war with the Boer. The midnight raids on farms with murder and rapes, and the new Apartheid laws being passed giving blacks preference over whites are proof of that. It’s revenge right? That’s how they see it. Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections. I don’t recall the comments you’ve made about the ANC but it seems like you’re not being consistent here.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. That quote from Jesus is a lesson that needs no historical context. It’s saying we should give up violence. A wholesome lesson that would improve society today, yesterday, or tomorrow, if taken to heart.
My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context. People read or hear things and they seek to understand it within the context of their lives. If one reads that “the tribe murdered it’s enemies and it was just” doesn’t the reader take to heart the lesson that “killing your enemies (whites) is right?”
Nope, still didn't contradict myself. You want a race war. Blacks in South Africa are a mixed bag because while many are recruited into National Socialism like the EFF, during the riots of a few years back, many black store owners were having to shoot and kill large lynchmobs of black Leftists, because you are refusing to Leftism outside of your own personal false dichotomy around race.
It can't be new Apartheid because blacks are the majority. You just don't want to condemn racialism because you like racialism when races you like do it.
Nope, you're lying again. What was the first thing I pointed about someone else's excuses about the Talmud? Because remember, I'm not defending the Talmud, I'm defending OP from the claim that they never engaged in a detailed criticism of Fuentez. What I originally said, that the presenters said, was that you had a small, tribal, ethnically homogenous group. Literally: all the jews and only the jews fleeing Egypt at that moment. Specifically the ones apparently walking between two giant walls of water, and magically: there are no other jews in Egypt who were like "no I'm good". And within this shockingly convenient story about things that totally happened, is it okay to kill the specific soldiers who were attacking you since they weren't smited by God.
You wish I said "it's okay to kill your oppressor" because you want to have that argument with someone. I ain't him. The phrase itself has multiple problems: what oppression? Who is an oppressor? Why is killing acceptable and not alternatives? If killing is acceptable, then under what conditions, and for how long?
I am not a Leftist, and that phrase doesn't make sense because there is no legitimate moral rationalization for mass killing via abstraction.
The whole fucking point of context is to make sure Leftists CAN'T do exactly that. The fact that Leftists are intentionally going to make bad faith arguments to post-hoc rationalize positions on moral frameworks they don't even believe in is exactly why you limit quotations to their context. The whole point behind a malicious quote is to imbue that quote with the authority of it's source, while being fully aware that the context of that quote intentionally strips that authority away.
A Christian that says it's wrong to joint the military and defend your country because of "turn the other cheek" is a shit christian and should be told that they are such. Similarly, a jew that says, "I have the right to kill gentiles because Talmud" is similarly a shit jew. And just to be clear, in both cases they are normally going to be Leftist atheist socialists trying to make excuses for their own behaviors, living to the principles, standards, and morals of no one.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.
Pick one.
The Nazis were the true Zionists all along.
F
Zionism is a progressive nationalism that wanted to found a Leftist, Secular, Jewish state.
Yes, you could be a Christian Zionist, but only because you wanted jews to live under communism because you're a bad person.
Because you guys being annoying and retarded is worse than being occasionally retarded.
I don't know why that you think that resorting to name calling on this one topic is going to change any minds.
I'm not even taking sides here: you're perfectly reasonable even in disagreement on pretty much every other topic, but the second someone mentions Jews you go full-on shaming language. That might work in most places (to at least get people to shut up -- it's rarely going to change their minds though) but why the fuck would you think it would be effective here?
I'm not going to change his mind.
As is normal for stormfag behavior, he's insinuating that I'm secretly a jew, and that's the only reason I would ever tell a White Socialist that he's an idiot because only White Socialism can protect white people.
It's not like he's some person I've never met before, and never been called a kike by. This isn't new, and unlike Arch, I'm not going to posture to the crowd. No amount of facts can dissuade motivated reasoning. In order for him to come to his senses, he will have to come to his senses on his own time. He's not here to genuinely ask questions. He's here to posture, to forum slide, and to engage in rhetorical warfare.
If there were actual questions, then I'd be happy to answer them graciously. This was not. He might as well have asked me "how many shekels did your receive for this post?"
I will continue to use shaming language against leftists like him, because they should be fucking shamed, they should be fucking gate-kept, and they are an enemy within Schmidts distinction. No one, and I mean no one, has served the political Left more dutifully in this country to destroy populist anti-establishment movements than them. Not Antifa, not BLM, not the DNC. They are political suicide bombers hell-bent on killing the right. They create guilt by association with them. They support fed-ops. They push for violence. They push for accelerationism. They push for demoralization. They push for defeatism. They push for black-pilling. And, importantly, they are Progressive Racialists.
So far this is just kind of boring.
Also, neither side did great, but the debunkers are being pretty fucking cringe. They keep going on about how "out of context" it is when Jews (not all Jews, to be fair, specific rabbis and such but, yes, in the talmud) say gentiles aren't human, and also it's fine when they say gentiles should be killed, because rabbis don't have the power to issue death sentences. They just keep going along those lines.
Sounds like they have a point in that it's a debate, and not hard and fast laws...but they're also covering for all the insane shit some people are saying in the quotes. It's absurd. You could defend the work as a whole, while still calling out the actual awful quotes. Especially since it's a debate, and not viewed as the Word of God or anything, according to them. But they can't bring themselves to do that. Also, they lose some major credibility by calling Nick and his people Nazis, and other stuff.
As to Nick, it's kind of a mixed bag. It sounds like he did have some false quotes, and some that were out of context. But there also is an overarching trend of it being said that Jews should receive massive priority, and gentiles deserve at best basically nothing.
Also, from 28 minutes in (bold is my emphasis):
I hate this shit. This is basically the 'men are suffering, they just need feminism' say the feminists spiel, but with a Jewish/"Christian" angle. Also, if merely talking about this shit is "the pendulum...swinging too far," I have zero fucking respect for you. I think the pendulum might end up swinging too far, but this isn't it. The pendulum has barely started to swing. It's still basically hovering via momentum at the farthest left, slowly starting to inch the other way. Bitching about Nick Fuentes going to far is extremely fucking cucked. I can't stand it.
The quote continues:
You're anti-Christian if you want to be Christian, but not worship Israel or the Jews, apparently. Again, not even saying I agree with Nick or his take, but I hate this 'anti-Christian if you don't do everything we say' nonsense.
Also, gotta love Christians pulling out the "love all people...help the weak" stuff, when they'll never apply it in favor of Christians. By all means, defend your enemies if it fits your principles (I think there are issues there, but that's another topic), but also fucking defend yourself...preferably more than you do your enemies, even. Novel idea, I know. And they always go it "in line with our Christian history" or teachings, or however they want to spin it. We swear, there's nothing more Christian than not standing up for yourself, that's totally Jesus's message!
Gah. It's just so obnoxious and whiny.
The pendulum ain't swung until some people are swinging. Don't ban me. This is elementary politics not a wish or a threat. Revolutions are violent, and I don't expect this gets solved any other way although I would rather be wrong because even though a fire burns in my heart, love is stronger than that . I have love for the mothers and fathers that are and will lose children in this.
The "Jews " in the OT Bible are Israelites. I agree that the people running shit now are not. The people in charge now are heirs to exactly the ones that killed Jesus.
The law is all they have, but God moved on to a new covenant. Yet Jews want to build a temple so they can burn bulls again.