How to Argue with Neocons

There are three kinds of people that an alt-righter will argue with: neoconservatives, blue-pills and leftists. Each kind requires a different argumentation style.

The first kind, the neoconservative, is probably the easiest kind to debate even though a typical neoconservative has by far the highest verbal IQ of the three. It is not difficult to argue with the neoconservative because the neoconservative already accepts that Jewish identity is real, important and worth preserving. All an alt-righter need do in an argument with a neoconservative is point out to him that it is hypocritical for him to support a Jewish identity and ethnostate but not a White identity or White ethnostate, at least in principle. Given the high verbal IQ of the neoconservative, a barrage of factoids and technicalities will be thrown at you in an attempt to wriggle out of the hypocrisy.

The first technicality the neocon is likely to throw at you is that Jewishness is not racial, so therefore a comparison between White identity and Jewish identity cannot be made. He is wrong. Judaism has three components: a theological component, a cultural component and a racial component. Given that roughly 40% of Israeli Jews are secular, the theological component is irrelevant. So now we are left with a cultural and racial component. According to the law of return, one need be of sufficient Jewish ancestry to qualify for preferential treatment in obtaining Israeli citizenship. The law makes no reference to culture. Race, then, is fundamental to Jewish identity, and hence the analogy proposed earlier is valid. By the way, a particularly high-verbal-IQ neocon might prod you further on this by stating that ancestry is not race. He is wrong. Ancestry and race are the same thing. If you don’t understand why ancestry and race are the same thing, then you need to read up on HBD. Read Sailer.

Once the validity of the analogy has been established, the neocon will likely go into “agree and amplify mode”. He will say that Israel’s law of return is no different to Germany’s law of return, which he argues gives preferential treatment to people whose ancestors are German. His reasoning is thus: “If Germany has a right-of-return law, why can’t we?” The problem with his argument is that Germany’s right of return is not based on race, whereas Israel’s is. Germany’s law of return states that someone whose ancestors lived in Germany may receive preferential treatment in obtaining German citizenship. There is no requirement for said ancestors to be of the German race. To drive the point home, point out that under Germany’s law of return, the Palestinians who lived within the borders of modern day Israel before 1948 would qualify for preferential treatment in obtaining Israeli citizenship.

The neocon is very likely to be enraged at this point. “Annuddah shoah” and “oy vey” are not uncommon utterances. Once his Semitic mutterings have ceased, he will assume one of two states. The first state will take the form of the neocon going on a tirade against “the goyim” and the atrocities committed by them in the Second World War. The basic point being made in his rant is that the Shoah entitles Jews to a state of their own. The stupid alt-righter will say, “well, the Shoah didn’t happen”. Please, there is no need to invoke Holocaust revisionism here. The neocon is raving mad. Most spectators to the argument will deem you the clear winner. At this point, either walk away the winner or go in for the kill-punch. Basically, the kill-punch is this: “I have clearly shown that Israel is a racialist state. That you deny White people the right to a racialist state is rank hypocrisy. The Shoah does not entitle you to a racialist state because racism is always wrong.”

The second state the neocon might assume is one of smugness and glibness. He will say, “Well, go ahead, White people. Have a state of your own. I won’t stop you. It’s not my fault that white women have few children or that white people support the mass immigration of non-whites.” There is no need to invoke KMAC here. Simply state this: “If you believe that Jewish identity and a Jewish ethnostate are good for the Jews, it implies that not having those things would be bad for Jews. Similarly, White people not having those (equivalently White) things would be bad for whites. Should it not be incumbent on us to prevent bad things? Should not the White governments of the world be doing everything they can to prevent the coming demographic collapse of the white race?” Clearly glibness and smugness are not appropriate reactions to bad things, unless you are psychopath or unless you don’t really think that the thing in question is bad, which would make you a hypocrite–and that takes us back to what we were initially trying to prove, that neocons are hypocrites.

For completeness and because walls are topical of late, I will mention Israel’s wall and the hypocrisy of neocons supporting it but not Trump’s. The typical neocon will say that Israel’s wall cannot be compared to Trump’s because Israel is in a war zone. This argument only applies to the wall that Israel built on its border with Gaza and on its border with the West Bank. It does not apply to the wall that Israel built on its Egyptian border. Israel is not at war with Egypt.

The argumentation style that is to be used against neocons is the easiest of the three because it requires little use or knowledge of HBD. It is primarily an argument based on making analogies and pointing out hypocrisy. The argumentation style for blue-pills is the hardest because it requires a strong knowledge of HBD. This is due to the fact that blue-pills do not accept racial identity or ethnostates in any form. Sarcuck of Akkhad is a typical example of a blue-pill. The leftist is similar to the neocon, only they support Black identity (and perhaps Black ethnostates).

In another article, I will describe the two other kinds of people an alt-righter will encounter.