The NatSocratic Method (or: How to act confused about the Holocaust)

Our text for the day is from the Gospel of Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send ye forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”


SWPLs virtue-signal about the Holocaust. We counter-signal. Whether the Holocaust happened doesn’t matter. What “the Holocaust” means doesn’t matter. Even if the Holocaust happened and lots people died and it was really really sad, counter-signaling would still be the way to break the SWPLs of their habit of virtue-signaling.  But we should note three kinds of counter-signals. 1/We counter-signal in anonymous forums against cucks and Israel-firsters to communicate our contempt for them and their position, to demoralize our opponents, and to uncuck the right. 2/We counter-signal for one another, partly for fun, partly for practice, but largely because it’s a shibboleth of the alt-right. (And it’s a shibboleth for good reason. May say more some other day.) 3/We counter-signal in front of friends, family, and colleagues, because these are the people who put most stock in our positions.

Counter-signaling against opponents in anonymous forums is all well and good (although perhaps some people use poor judgment: there is a time for trolling and a time for planting seeds). Counter-signaling amongst ourselves is our greatest source of amusement (well, that and purges). It’s counter-signaling with people we know that presents problems.  These are people we have real ability to influence.  But we have this influence because of trust built up between us which we need for the ordinary business of life: parties, chess, tennis, babysitting each others’ children. Virtue-signals are not intrinsically bad.  Swapping virtue signals is an efficient way to build and maintain the high levels of trust that make a high-IQ society work.

Sowing doubts about the Holocaust is not so important you should invite your social circle to shun you over it. You need your community to flourish as a human being. (Is there anything we teach people on the alt-right, if not “no man is an island, entire of himself”?) And if you are going to use your social ties to save Western Civilization, there will be far more valuable opportunities to cash them in.  But if you just go around virtue-signaling like a cuck, you’re no better than a cuck. Therein lies a problem.

The solution is to throw sand in the gears.  Act dumb.  Be the confusion you want to see in the world. This disrupts the mechanism of the symbolic handshake by which the virtue-signal works; at the very least, the message that the virtue of their signal has not been recognized discourages your acquaintances from sending more signals on the same topic.


Even if you know nothing else about the Holocaust, the Holocaust industry, or research into the historical facts of the Holocaust, you can employ the NatSocratic method to raise doubts. The underlying logic of the NatSocratic method is that most people know nothing about anything; anything they have to say about any topic is a greasy film of blather on the surface of a deep sea of ignorance. If you ask them any questions about anything they have said, it makes them acutely uncomfortable, even nervous.  “What the devil is he driving at?”, they think. “Is he hinting that I said something wrong? Am I making a fool of myself?”


 It is very difficult to convince a fool he is dead wrong about something by directly contradicting him.  Once you contradict him, his silliness is laid bare to the jeers of a cruel world, and he has no better option than to stand firm and defend his honor. But if you ask a fool to clarify some point, to expand on some claim, or even just to repeat himself, watch how he wriggles! Watch him consider retreat, watch his statements get progressively vaguer…

The basic fact to recognize about your friends’ virtue-signals is that all virtue-signaling is chatter.  Chatter takes place within a realm of shared common assumptions where the precise meaning and truth of the statements matters very little, because the function of the statements is not to communicate facts, but something else (for example, establishing a shared mood or building trust).  As a result, it is very easy to disrupt people’s beliefs during a chatter-session simply by treating them as experts on the subject; discovering that the shared assumption wasn’t shared surprises them, and they get the impression they played a clumsy move in the chatter-game.  The more you elevate their position as the local expert, the more insecure they become on the topic you were discussing.

Just simple questions work fine. Pretend you’re a martian anthropologist who knows nothing about the fabulous misadventures of the jews. “Six million, you say?” Now he’s worried — what’s wrong? Is it too high or too low? “They were cremated? All of them?” It had never occurred to him that there was more than one symbolic jew pushed into one symbolic oven; he may not even know that there is a party line to remember, let alone which one it is.  Ask, ask, ask. Stay confused. Don’t be afraid to seem dumb! Seeming dumb terrifies most people, but improves the results immensely.  Confusion is like yawning: infectious.  It both makes your target more liable to confusion, as he tries to understand your impenetrable, confused thinking, and makes him less afraid to admit his own ignorance.


But if you know a few hate-facts about the Holocaust, you can dig the knife in much, much deeper.  This is the kind of stupidity that is truly inspired, and it takes both a decent amount of background knowledge and quick thinking to pull it off.  It will take a little bit of practice to get the hang of it.  But it is very, very fun.  It takes the basic form of Given that we know X, isn’t it also true that Y? Some examples:

Given that there were 1.1M Holocaust survivors alive in 2003, and given that the youngest person to be born in a German concentration camp would have been 58 in 2003, doesn’t that imply that historians are conspiring to conceal the absolutely enormous scale of these murder camps? If 1.1M survivors were still alive in 2003, there must have originally been hundreds of millions of people in the camps. Why are historians conspiring to minimize the extent of the Holocaust?

Given that the Germans were able to completely incinerate millions of bodies (including the teeth!) without coal or wood using a technique developed by a camp commandant in a previous posting at a Brandenburg insane asylum, shouldn’t we be researching his technique to use it for green energy purposes?  Doesn’t this mean the fat of a small mammal, when used correctly, contains as much energy as 100-200kg of firewood or 50-100kg of coal? (Item.)

Given that we would know nearly nothing about the planning of the Holocaust without the incentives provided by judicial torture, threat of summary execution, and other innovations of Soviet-style jurisprudence, what great historical crimes remain unresolved because we are too indifferent to justice to torture their perpetrators into revealing the truth? Which great criminals remain unpunished because our torture-free justice system has no respect for the lessons of the Shoah?

…and so on.  For every hate-fact, work out the implication if you accepted the available evidence against the Narrative but accepted the Narrative anyway.  Remember, when they appear skeptical or express doubts about the conclusions you are drawing, to accuse them of denying the Holocaust.


Jews are not that important in the grand scheme of things.  Sometimes trolling jews works bizarrely well; sometimes it is a terrible waste of time.  This little guide for how to switch between Holocaust-denial and Holocaust-confusion is only worth your time because it is a general template for how to start to introduce your friends to hate-facts.  You don’t need to choose between virtue-signaling like a cuck and raging like an Old Testament prophet.  Just dumb it down and spread confusion.  The NatSocratic method works for gender and race too.  Confusion is not, in itself, the red pill –– but it might just be your white rabbit.

One thought on “The NatSocratic Method (or: How to act confused about the Holocaust)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s