WATCH: Watch as much or as little as you want, any part of the clip is fine. INSTRUCTION: IGNORE EVERY WORD THE KID IS SAYING. Instead pay attention to body language and the MENTAL MECHANICS of how his brain is gathering and organizing ideas. Ignore that the kid looks autistic, he is a male low on the male hierarchy and appears far weaker than he is. META-ANALYSIS: The kid is actually a good kid. Like all white kids, he believes in doing the right thing and in self sacrifice. So much so that he is willing to sacrifice his own people for this idea. No other species on the planet has this genetic feature (pathological altruism). ALSO, please notice that he has not been so deeply indoctrinated that he is actually willing to have a conversation. This means this kid has a HUGE weakness in his theological armour and it also means that he probably doesn't truly believe what he thinks he believes. ANALYSIS: You will notice something interesting in this video if you follow the above instructions. This kid actually has access both sides of the argument. He has access to the full data set (though, clearly, he doesn't know history, philosophy, politics or how the world works). However, what he says has NOTHING to do with what he believes and EVERYTHING to do with his peer group approval. When you watch the video, you will notice he doesn't believe a single word of what he says he believes to be true because he has not actually gone through the process of rationalizing inconsistencies in his world view, while, you can clearly see that James has. Instead, his entire belief structure is based upon a single linchpin: group affiliation and the mythologies and belief systems they hold. This single linchpin is the basis of his entire belief structure, reason has nothing to do with it, evidence has nothing to do with it, conversation has nothing to do with it. QUESTION: We have had these conversations here at various levels of detail. A LOT of the conversation is surface level trite bullshit name calling and almost zero analysis. If we were to talk about strategy, I would submit this video as a piece of evidence that we have not been thinking about this at the right levels of analysis. If you are ever in a position talking to someone where your position is rationalized for what it probably right and what is probably wrong and their position is based on group alliegence, what strategy should you take? Do you keep on trying to reason with them? Do you keep quiet and listen to them? Other strategic approaches? I don't think any strategic option is off of the table. I say we use them all. However, what this post here is really about is getting you guys to become situationally aware and to start thinking tactically. James is doing this for the entertainment, he isn't trying to get to the kid exactly. However, knowing how their beliefs structure works gives you a strategic advantage and opens up the options away from yelling louder at the other person and provide you with a nuanced set of options of moving not only your oponent but the pieces around them into a favourable position. Also, this video is an excellent example of why communists don't debate. They don't debate NOT because their arguments are not based in reality and they will lose the argument. The DO NOT CARE ABOUT LOSING ARGUMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RATIONALIZING THEIR BELIEFS. The reason the ((( COMMUNISTS ))) don't allow THEIR GOY to argue with us is BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID THAT THEIR GOYS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM WILL EMPATHISE WITH US AND MAKE FRIENDS WITH US. This is what this whole thing is about and it is one of the key srategies the jews and communists use. @aou - Two USPolitics autocomplete up when creating a video post. Are there two USPolitics subs?