|
On the Effectiveness of Debate
by Dale Peterson
June 19, 2002
IT has been a familiar experience of mine to witness, if not to partake, in debates, particularly on the all-encompassing forum that is the Internet. Not surprisingly, these debates have tended to be on the subject of race. Whether I'm posting on a newsgroup, a message board, or in a chat room, at one stage or another these have all been the scene of debates between myself and/or my friends, and the opposition. Debates and discussions of this sort should be no unfamiliar territory to the White racist, as we tend to be somewhat opinionated and enjoy watching the Sally Soccermoms and Joe Sixpacks twitch with the symptoms of cognitive dissonance when confronted with a rational argument. And every now and then some independent-minded White person comes along who still uses reason and logic to analyse the world around him, and he snaps awake with a horrified expression on his face as he notices his companions are still locked in their sleepwalker's trance.
That type of thing is productive, and, as I explained last week, there's no sense in wasting your efforts on things that aren't. It's productive to present knowledge to like-minded individuals when those individuals are affected by it to a degree where they fight for and produce for our common cause: White revolution, a thing that I'm sure will be very productive for all of us.
Unfortunately, reason and logic are blades blunted easily on the stone of ignorance, lies, and self-censoring blindness. Especially with the revisionists, the debate turns into more of a contest about whose scientists, books, or references are superior, rather than just a contest of fundamental ideas. So usually these debates turn out something along the lines of: "Prof. Ershel Greenbaum, Ph.D., M.O., F.O., used on page 4564-b of Nuremberg Trial Transcript XXX69-R8D the words "Holly Crap" and not, as you claim, "Holly Caust," therefore there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz! Ah, but I believe Dr. Frank Judenstein said Adolf Hitler's mother's sister's friend's boyfriend's dog looked at him funny and told him that Hitler ordered 6,666 Juice be deported to Auschwitz in March 1941! Judenstein's been discredited! Has not! Finkelberg and Bernhard referenced him in their latest book! Finkelberg and Bernhard are closet Nazis!..." and so on.
Let's say Mr. Whiteman with a point to prove spent an hour a day looking up the references for a debate such as the above, which went on for, oh, let's say two weeks. In this debate forum, perhaps a Holocaust type of forum, let's be generous and say that it receives 1,000 visitors a day. From the demographic that we can assume visits Holocaust forums, I'd say 99.9% of the visitors are not of the same opinion as Mr. Whiteman regarding the hol-o-caust. At least seventy-five percent of them are going to be Jews, and most of the other 25% will be White lemmings. Probably less than one percent of the total number of persons viewing that site has an open mind in any regard - smart kids for example, doing their history assignments on the internet, people that already know that the Holocaust story has a lot of holes in it and have come to check some more of it out, and others like that. In other words, people who will be receptive to the message of Mr. Whiteman.
Over the fourteen days of his debate with the Jews at this particular forum, Mr. Whiteman spends fourteen hours proving his point, that Kosher bagels were not in fact served at Bergen-Belsen KZ. If Mr. Whiteman were working at an average sort of job in this time, he'd have made about $1200 after tax, though correct me if I'm wrong for I know precious little about the American minimum wage/tax system. Instead, though, Mr. Whiteman thought it prudent to cross keyboards with a handful of Jews at a holocaust forum that is visited predominantly by either his supporters or his diehard opponents, or lemmings which are going to ignore him no matter what he 'proves' to them. I say he got a raw deal. If he had that much spare time, he could have taken up a part time job and worked that hour a day, then spent that $1200 or so on stickers advertising VNN which he happened to paste on every bus stop, park bench and public men's room in the city. Or he could have spent half that $1200 on flyers, and used the other half to bribe the boys who do the local paper route to slip a flyer in with each paper on their journey one day. Not that I'm suggesting anyone do those things, because of course that could be breaking the laws, depending upon whether you live in a land that allows freer thought than I. In any case I dare say that would have been somewhat more productive than what he instead did.
Why do people like Mr. Whiteman do this sort of thing? They either assume their opponents are rational people who can be swayed by reason and logic, or that those spectators who view the debate are, when in fact neither are rational, and neither use logic. You can 'prove' things to them until you're blue in the face, all you're going to do is frustrate yourself because a brick wall would be easier to convince. When you are involved in this kind of conversation, there is no need to try and justify yourself to those who cannot comprehend any justification you give along with those who can comprehend it, yet subconsciously disregard it. Somebody says to me "Are you a racist or something?" I just nod and smile. If they don't walk away right then and there, the inevitable question will come "Why do you hate black people?" It's about this time that you realize you're not going to get anywhere with this person, and I tend to reply something along the lines of "I don't hate them.... (and then add a couple of seconds later) much!", "It's not them I hate, it's their smell!", or even "Hate them? Hell no, I love the cute, cuddly little Niggers, what's not to love about them?" Sometimes it's worth seeing the looks on their faces, but really, the moment you see that dull, mystified, blank expression is the moment when you know you were better off doing whatever you were doing before this person caused you to waste a few seconds of your life noticing him.
Other times, though, things can be quite different. Let's change situations from an internet messaage board to the letters page of a major newspaper read by 100,000 people a day, with more than 70% of those readers being White people who can read a newspaper. The only real problem here is getting your letters published, but if you're smart enough to coat your language in insinuations and implications, you can usually hang in there for a while. This gets your message out to a far wider audience, one which you are likely to find agreement amongst. Newspapers don't publish the kind of scientist-vs.-scientist debate that goes on between holocaust revisionists and Jews, because people don't read it. Note those last four words.
If you can effectively write a letter in that is not outright offensive, (that is, publishable) yet still imply enough to get your message across and hopefully, upset a few Jews while doing so, all the better. I don't know anyone who spends an hour writing a two-hundred-word letter, and I know most every reasonable White man reads the newspaper. If you're good, you can keep a little debate going over a couple of weeks in the letters page, and get the chance to really prove some points using plain, common-sense arguments (i.e. avoiding the numbered, referenced garbage). When you do, you'll be proving them to a much more receptive audience, and provoking angry replies from people who are inexperienced in with the topic, and therefore not likely to try to stem the debate by crying for references and the like. A much more efficient use of time, wouldn't you say?
If you're interested in proving points to people, if you're capable of doing it and if you want to make use of your ability in a productive way, ask yourself who you're going to be proving those points to before you start. Very rarely will I engage someone in argument when I intend to enlighten him to the fact that his view of the facts is wrong, more often than not it's to gain an audience of others who are receptive to such demonstrations. Compare the situation with inviting a Jew into your home and arguing him about the virtues of White racialism and anti-Semitism, as opposed to doing the same in front of a crowd of thousands.
Don't be drawn into defending yourself before people who can't harm you anyway. What does it matter to you if some Jew or Negro or White Lemming honestly believes that you're in the wrong? Don't matter to me, and it shouldn't to you or you'll end up banging your head against a brick wall trying to convince them that the sky's blue. It's the small, thinking minority that I'm out to reach, they're the ones whose opinions matter, whereas the opinions of lemmings and Jews don't. It matters because that minority is the same one that allowed our race to do great things, to explore continents, to navigate oceans, to scale mountains, to fly to the moon. It matters because this is the small minority of our people, the men of free thought and intransigent mind, the men like you and I, that is the source of the intellectual, moral and physical firepower we need to be able to clean all the genetic garbage off our streets and turn our shit-in-the-street, Nigger-lined cities into productive, futuristic Aryan metropoli. These are the only people who matter to our race right now.
DALE PETERSON
|
