they usually pull the old "source? SOURCE?"
I don't see this among normies. This is because even if you tell them something like, "Simone de Beauvoir's 'Second Sex', page 127, paragraph 4"; it's not actually going to mean anything. Most actual normies, already know ... that they don't know anything. They'll basically make an appeal to ignorance and say something like, "I don't know anything about that, I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't seem like what I've heard [hint: from their indoctrinated sociology professor], who told them that 'feminism is fully defined as thinking women are human'."
What you're talking about isn't really normies, but "center-leftists". They are the "default liberals" that are already hyper skeptical of anti-Leftist narratives or positions. These are the people that laughed at the idea of tampons going in girls bathrooms in elementary school because 'that isn't happening, you got that from some podcast'. No different than when Miriam Williamson went on Tim Pool's podcast and saw a CRT book that explained that whiteness was inherently evil. It shocked her so much she almost cried.
Most normies are going to understand their ignorance, so you have to basically appeal to common sense with follow-up questions early. "How can you have diversity and equality? Equality would require some kind of sameness, but diversity requires difference." Then as they are searching for an answer, give them one. They're actually not too bad at reasoning in abstraction if they simply have no knowledge to base off of, or are already intimately familiar with a topic. The calling card of leftist indoctrination is mid-wittery that only gives people enough knowledge to form a sense of over-confidence.
With the default Leftists, that is really their primary sphere. You can only get around that with probing follow-up questions. They've never actually introspected their own beliefs, so it's best to actually walk them through what they believe. Question them so that their answers give them some "left and right lateral limits" (basically the maximum extent where their beliefs on a subject lie), and then ask them follow-up questions to what they believe, and how to respond. They like hearing themselves talk, so play into that and allow them to explain themselves. Then show them where they start to clearly rationalize stuff they don't understand.
"Okay, so you think we live in a white supremacist country. Do you think we are ruled by the KKK or that we're a Nazi party ruled country?"
"Well, no, I mean we are white supremacist because the outcomes of society favor white people."
"Okay, so it's white supremacism because of outcome, not because of ideology. So you don't think that the explicit ideology of white supremacism is what's guiding policy makers."
"Well, maybe some republicans, but for the most part, no, it's just outcomes. It's the inequitable outcomes that stem from a legacy of white supremacy and slavery."
"Okay, well, why do you believe that these outcomes are are the result of the legacy of white supremacy and slavery? Couldn't those groups just be engaging in different behaviors? Like, say, for example: there are a lot of jews that work law. That's not because of a jewish conspiracy to put jews into law school, it's instead that jews tend to be from highly literate backgrounds and childhoods, and so pursue law disproportionately. Couldn't some of those outcomes simply be the result of people's choices, rather than some kind of institutional act?"
"Well, maybe, but okay, what if jews had to pursue law to get around white supremacy?"
"Okay, but is white supremacy so common and powerful today that jews are regularly oppressed for their religion?"
" ... "
"Wouldn't it make more sense that their kids just picked up law just like their fathers did? They could just carry on the family practice."
"Sure but the reason they were there was from the legacy of white supremacy."
"Yes, but not because there is white supremacy. Only that there was and you're looking at historical momentum."
"Sure, I guess."
"Which means it's not that the country is white supremacist, it's only that there was a time that it was."
"..."
I understand that argument, but I don't fully agree with it. The expansion of military debt certainly hurt the USSR, but it wouldn't cause a collapse. If that were true, the "Bomber Gap" issue in the 1950's should have destroyed them because they could never have competed with the US's insane 24/7 nuclear bomber patrol.
The real problem is that the food situation in the USSR was becoming totally unsustainable. If Gorbechev didn't liberalize agriculture from what it was, there'd be a famine and he didn't want what happened to China. He believed that he could manage liberalization in the Soviet Union to a degree that would keep it alive. Unfortunately, he couldn't. Nationalist movements in Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Checkslovakia, and Estonia seized the opportunity to basically publicly expose the corruption and incompetence of their local Communist parties, followed by the stupidity of the communist party generally.
After Poland's move to break-away and the revolution in Romania, the thing that fully undermined the confidence in the Soviet Union was the discovery of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by the Estonians. One of their nationalist leaders was in the US and discovered it's existence in a museum. They'd never actually heard that the USSR and NSDAP were allies, and were always told that the Soviet Union pushed into Estonia to save it from a Nazi invasion. He certainly never knew that this was simply common knowledge in the west, and that the entire justification of Estonia's membership in the USSR was a lie to support the Nazis.
The Estonians absolutely lost their shit. And the next Comintern, they made an issue out of it, and basically lambasted the Communist party, wanted to argue that they should leave the union, and stop using the Ruble. At that point, there was very clearly blood in the water and the Communists, really for the first time since the Nazis, started really panicking.
The USSR was never going to be defeated by economics alone, see North Korea. In fact, it's hard to argue the USSR ever recovered from WW1. But the combination of pressures from strong nationalist movements, potential famines from mismanagement, and political illegitimacy is what really did the whole project in.
I have friends that basically take their politics from Jim Cornette. As such, you can guess how well that translates to our political conversations.
Cornette is a full blown, raving, lunatic, TDS, Leftist.
It is probably only because Mark is one of the most well respected people in all of Wrestling, that Jim didn't tell Mark to kill himself. The optics would probably hurt him.
I'll take your word on the passport bros, but you're dead wrong about women not being worth it.
You're not going to find a unicorn woman, you're going to have to cultivate a relationship and build out a better wife than the single woman you find. You're never going to find a perfect match.
Yeah, this is similar to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity that promotes a slave morality which invites the parasitism of Leftism to infest it.
You're fundamentally right, Socialism requires prosperity to start because it is, really, a bourgeois luxury belief system of the upper-class, striving to become the new elite.
However, Socialism doesn't die when the society becomes poorer, because it embeds itself with dependency and tribalism; so poverty no longer because a revolutionary force against a socialist state.
I'm with everybody else here. Pointing out anti-white racial discrimination is a point against the hypocrisy of the Left, but who is going to actually gain from this?
Non-white minorities are not going to do anything regarding anti-white discrimination. The normal ones will go: "Uh... what do you want me to do about that?", and the Leftists will go: "Good."
Whites will respond in one of 4 ways. "Yes, that's evil, I know, I'm already voting for you." which are our guys. "I didn't know that! That doesn't sound true." which is the typical normie response which actually requires shoving a huge amount of information in their face. "This isn't discrimination, it's equity!" which is the ideologically captured response. "Good." which is the racialist response.
The entirety of the white political left are the Last 3.
The entirety of the white undecided is the 2nd one.
Yes, anti-white racialism is institutionally supported and systemic. However, for a campaign argument, it's not actually going to do much.
Remember, we are spending most of our time right now proving that a) crime went up, b) the economy is not good, and c) Kamala Harris was the Border Czar.
Most people don't really even know anything about anti-white racialism at the moment, and most white Democrats are for it. This is an issue we need to claw at for a while to get into people's consciousness.
Remember how we pointed this shit out with CRT a few years ago. The first thing the Left did is push confusion and obfuscation: "CRT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!" "CRT IS A LEGAL THEORY" "NO ONE EVEN KNOWS WHAT CRT EVEN IS!" said the people who literally invented it.
We take for granted that young people will ALWAYS be left, but if the young male vote ends up even close to what some polling is saying, it will be years of electoral disaster for Democrats. These voters are reachable
I've been trying to say this for years. People don't get more left-wing with age, they get more right-wing and conservative.
A few years ago, political and ideological affiliation were being studied, and something huge showed up in the data. Normally, each generation is significantly more left-wing than the previous, and only because as leftist as the previous generation at it's peak. I made up the numbers because I've forgotten them at this point, but it's something like this:
- 10% of the Silent Generation was Leftist at 18, 0% Leftist at 75
- 20% of the Greatest Generation was Leftist at 18, 10% at 75
- 30% of the Baby Boomers were Leftist at 18, 20% at 75
- 40% of Gen X were Leftist at 18, will likely be 30% at 75
- 50% of Millennials were Leftist at 18
But then a major shift occurred and it looked like:
- 45% of Gen Z were leftist at 18
People mistakenly thought Gen Z and Gen Alpha are conservative. They're not, they are just the first generation to clearly reverse this trend of leftist youths in almost 100 years.
And no, those voters are actually unreachable for the Left. As you've seen from former communist states, Reagan voters, and Thatcher voters, they don't actually ever go back because the magic wore off. The Left is actually playing hard defense. Even in our current polling, the Democrats basically lost the majority of the white vote in the 70's, and it never came back. It still hasn't. The only hold outs are the people who are legacy voters. People who vote Democrat because they've always voted Democrat and so did their parents.
Trump winning over young people, without even privatizing the public school system, is probably the greatest electoral accomplishment of our lifetime, because it's setting the stage for an anti-Leftist century going forwards.
the other is not ceding all cultural masculinity to the GOP. Sports aren't inherently conservative.
Because your party's intelligentsia already declared masculinity to be fascist.
Not only would the government improve, the economy would fucking explode with wealth.