Some Tips On Debating Jews

Every so often I get asked about why I tend to debate so aggressively with jews and seem to be overly intellectually brutal; to the point of cruelty, with them. I think it is a matter I need to clear up with a short post on the matter.FIRSTLY let us get one thing absolutely clear: jews are not some abstract opponent; like say the "'Illuminati'", who you can pretend to argue with and "'expose'" but are rather a very real entity with quite real influence and apologists counted not by the dozen, but by the thousand. As such the kook who argues the reality of satanic ritual abuse by mythical secret cults has at worst to deal with a highly-educated debunker who argues with them for fun or ideological/intellectual reasons. However with jews one is facing this "'worst case'" scenario as standard and also the strong possibility of repercussions on one's self from explicitly jewish pressure groups who eagerly decry all things critical of jewry and pressure the unaware into placing critics in personal and social hot water.As the jew is a real opponent who does in fact have their own state which will protect them and also plenty of fellow members of the tribe with deep pockets and deeper influence; which they can use if they perceive it to be to their benefit to do so. Then it is hardly surprising that serious critics of the jews rarely use their real names in this day and age of jewry rampant.SECONDLY my aggressive style is a highly-calculated tactic and based on a lot of experience talking with and debating jews on numerous different subjects: often unrelated to jewry. From this experience and my own research I have gleaned the knowledge that jews specialise in wriggling around in undefined terms, nit-picking and aggressive accusation when in an argument. The purpose of this; of course, is to force their opponent on the defensive and to justify their arguments to the jew as opposed to vice versa.Thus in order to counter act this I use a very aggressive and polemical style that maintains; I hope, its intellectual value, entertains the reader and also forces the jew or philo-Semite concerned into an intellectual corner from which there is little chance of escape. Thus when the proverbial jew slaps me I tend to give him an intellectual broken nose in return.THIRDLY the jewish habit of nit-picking and aggressive accusation is so effective as a debating strategy; as a rule of thumb, because it allows the jew to attack the "'lack of knowledge'" and "'ignorance'" of their opponents by finding gaps in their knowledge and understanding then using that as a rhetorical and propagandistic device to discredit them.Aggressively attacking straight back by highlighting gaps in their knowledge and understanding renders this jewish debating strategy at least null and void if not counter-productive for the jew concerned. This counter-attacking is particularly potent when you can easily demonstrate that the jew's attack on you is actually made from a position of ignorance on their part. This is the way to attack them if you can, but even if you know little about the jewish question: picking up the average jew and philo-Semite's mistakes is fairly easily done by simply taking their claims to their logical conclusions.FOURTHLY following this I should highlight that reading a few" standard" books on jewry either from the academic or popular literature will help you immensely in debating jews as you will have a better grasp of the assumptions and ideas that underlies the jew's argument and as such are in a far superior position to eviscerate his claims six-ways-to-Sunday.FIFTHLY don't get side-tracked onto irrelevant issues from the original points/theses under consideration as this is a common debate tactic; used by both jews and non-jews, to turn their inferior debating position into an improved and/or superior one. Keep bringing the jew back to the original contention under debate and refuse to get dragged into say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a debate originally on the so-called" 'holocaust'". No matter how interesting the diversion might be: don't be fooled. It is a tactic to put you at a disadvantage and their attempting to do so this indicates that their position on your original topic was weakly defended and they are trying to force you to attack them where they are intellectually much stronger.FINALLY never go on the defensive when a jew attacks you. When he screams you are a "'Nazi'" don't simply "'deny'" it: chastise him for resorting to name-calling when he knows he is in the wrong and point out that such tactics are the typical resort of jews in general and point to prominent examples of jews using this kind of name-calling to get out of point-on-point debate like Alan Dershowitz and Deborah Lipstadt.In short when debating jews: give no quarter and expect none in return.