The killings of Anders Breivik, although shocking by their sheer scale, are nothing new for Dutchmen: Holland is used to political killings since the murders of anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Islam-critic Theo van Gogh in 2004. It has long since lost its innocence after a period of self-preceived tolerance. The meteoric rise of Wilders since 2004 is another dimension in which the discussion of Breivik’s killings is taking place, because Breivik has mentioned Wilders 30 times in his manifesto. What has been said in the mainstream Dutch media sheds an interesting light on the impact of Breivik’s actions.
The moment it was clear that the Oslo attacks were the work of Breivik, Wilders sent out a twitter-message: “That the fight against islam is abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. This fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to PVV and me in his manifesto.” The self-proclaimed intellectual newspaper NRC Handelsblad was quick to link the attacks with the right-wing intellectual discourse in their commentary on Monday July 25th: “Anders Behring Breivik is no fool, but an extremist. He knows his classics. The same philosophies that right-wing politicians craft their programs together.” The next day NRC and The Press stepped up their attack on Wilders by accussing him of ‘war-rhetoric’. Wilders replied by a new statement proclaiming: “We struggle in a democratric and non-violent way against further Islamization of our society and will continue to do that. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal.”
On July 26th op-eds on the topic began being being published in Dutch newspapers. Dirk-Jan van Baar in de Volkskrant: “Breivik has succeeded where those who have prosecuted Wilders [Wilders was charged with hate speech and was acquitted, PS] have failed. Breivik has not silenced Wilders, but the PVV-leader should tone down his rethoric. The Left will remind us that the bomb and bullets came from the right this time.” A translated op-ed of Bruce Bawer, who lives in Norway and was mentioned 22 times in Breivik’s manifesto, was also published in de Volkskrant: “Just like other European countries, Norway has a big problem. Millions of European Muslims live within strictly patriarchal family ties in fast-expanding enclaves where women are second class citizens and where non-Muslims would rather not come. … It is this cause that has suffered serious damage by what Anders Breivik has done.” In Trouw Jan Dirk Snel was very eager to point out the similarities in thinking between PVV and Breivik: “The theories about the danger of ‘cultural marxism’ are also mentioned by PVV-ideologist Martin Bosma.”
The most interesting commentary on that day was that of the conservative-Christian commentator Bart-Jan Spruyt: “In the end Anders Breivik has rendered his greatest enemy, the ‘cultural Marxists’, a big service. He has given the ‘left’ … the ultimate weapon in this struggle against the right …: the argument that their rhetoric is not innocent, leads to hate and can instigate violence, and that they [i.e. the right] should tone down their voice. … Breivik is the demon caricature of a good and right vision. The vision of the ideal of a multicultural society has indeed failed. Diversity has been stretched to parallel communities, where there is not only the matter of social-economic backwardness but also of a set of values which is at odds with the values in our Constitution.”
The sending of Breivik’s manifesto caused some stirr in the Dutch media around the 29th of July, because he has sent it to at least three Dutchmen: Erik van Goor, Tom Zwitser and Marcel Bas. Erik van Goor and Tom Zwitser are chief editors of Catholica, a conservative Catholic monthly magazine. Marcel Bas is worth mentioning, because he has a website devotion to the Dutch heritage worldwide which focuses on the lamentable fate of the South-African Boers. The uproar resulting from the negative exposure of conservative and nationalist activists by the hostile media has led to the temporary stepdown of Erik van Goor as an editor.
In hindsight, this can be considered as the high tide of the attacks against the right as a result of Breivik’s actions. On the 28th of July Trouw already commented that the momentum of the attacks on Wilders is slacking among the political elite: “That Breivik referred to Wilders in his manifesto against Islamization and multiculturalism does not mean according to the MP’s that the PVV-leader is to be blamed. … Parliament is suffering from accustomization; MP’s let Wilders get away because they already know his rethoric. That is wrong. If the PVV speaks about Islamic voting-cattle, about the Party of the Arabs [referring to the Labour Party] or worse, he deserves to be countermanded every time.” In a speech to the Socialist Youth the Jewish former mayor of Amsterdam, Ed van Thijn argued that “The perpetrator derives his cause from the stale air, the hatred, which ascends from the midst [of Wilders]. The worst is his thesis that national-socialism and democratic socialism are branches from the same trunk.”
After a week the tide is turning. The commentator Ephimenco noted on July 30: “Attempts by some commentators or media to link the PVV-leader to the deeds of terrorist Breivik at all cost are not very noble. Thereby they are counterproductive. By attemepts to discredit Wilders by association with Breivik, one has contributed to the rise of polarization. And it is just by this creation and encouraging of contradictions that Wilders spins his success.”
This is unquestionably true. The continuous discrediting of Wilders by branding him as a racist or fascist, and try to prosecurte him for hate-speech, has made people weary to the point that even the association with Breivik’s actions will have no lasting impact on his popularity in the polls. The Oslo attacks just widens the divide between Wilders and the left.
On August 1 Wilders already felt confident enough to counter the accusations of the left concerning the Oslo attacks in an interview with Telegraaf: “If a Muslim is committing an act of terror, the left says it is not the fault of Islam. But if a deranged madman commits an attack in Norway, PVV is suddenly blamed.”
Great argument!
Facing the Future as a Minority
There’s a value even in negative publicity – it means people are talking about our politics. Good publicity is Stage 2 – the first thing is to get your name known!
@Lancashire lad:
Tell that to Pim Fortuyn
“Great argument!”
Indeed, but that is how they are. Always dishonest, deceitful and hypocritical. It is really unbelievable how the left behaves.
Yeah, they attack Wilders for his “prejudice” but their hatred is on full display. These people don’t seem to understand that supporting immigration swamping of native populations is racist in and of itself.
If a muslim commits a terrorist attack, the left scream that it is not the fault of islam, especially when rightists point out the very unpacifist nature of islamic political and religious doctrine (sharia law and the quran). Politics in europe are particularly violence/ pacifist based. To be associated with violence is to be condemned, to be pacifist or non violence is to be welcomed. However an unfair politically correct double standard prohibit anyone from criticizing violent muslims.
I also think that the attacks had conviemient timing for the leftists, after polls show PVV and other right parties were leading. Leftists don’t like it when the sheep figure oit their lies and rebel against them.
At this juncture do the multicultists really want to seen as contributing to “perpetuating the cycle of violence?”
“The most interesting commentary on that day was that of the conservative-Christian commentator Bart-Jan Spruyt: “In the end Anders Breivik has rendered his greatest enemy, the ‘cultural Marxists’, a big service. He has given the ‘left’ … the ultimate weapon in this struggle against the right …: the argument that their rhetoric is not innocent, leads to hate and can instigate violence, and that they [i.e. the right] should tone down their voice. … Breivik is the demon caricature of a good and right vision. The vision of the ideal of a multicultural society has indeed failed. Diversity has been stretched to parallel communities, where there is not only the matter of social-economic backwardness but also of a set of values which is at odds with the values in our Constitution.”
I also have a cynical and highly suspicious view of the ‘convenient timing’ of the Breivik massacres, as well as his 1,500 word ‘manifesto’ that immediately appeared out of nowhere and which smelled to me like it was written by the jewish Frankfurt School trained Cultural Marxists for the express purposes of being used after the tragedy to demonize and cast negative scorn upon White Nationalists, White racial realists and White European Nationalist movements which are rising up to fight against the Cultural Marxist’s white genocide agenda.
So, I’m not convinced that this Breivik shooter acted alone or whether this whole incident was part of a false flag event designed to try to defuse White resistance to their racial genocide and destruction of their nations. But, as with the case of 9-11: “The Who Benefits?” question must be asked and the answer to that question clearly points directly to the Cultural Marxist jews who seek to destroy Whites and White Western civilization and who would have the most to gain by discrediting growing white resistance to their own genocide.
Someday,
Assassination is taking things a bit far as a publicity strategy. I’m not sure how Pim’s list has done since then, but presumably Wilders has some benefit from it.
As a stickler for clarity and theory, if for no other reason than to demolish it, (theory, not clarity), would someone provide the best (and shortest) exegesis of Cultural Marxism?
I read this material decades ago and only recall that it was influenced by the failures of economism, the failures of communism in general, Psychoanalysis, and Third Worldism (de-colonization) and the general shift to race as opposed to economics.
Joe
@Joe Webb:
Joe,a good short description of Cultural Marxism can be found in The American Thinker,febr 15,2007.If you google “cultural marxism” it is the second choise after the Wikipedia article,which has also its merits.
Right. Thanks Franklin. I just read the wikipedia stuff. When a read this stuff decades ago as a leftish sort, i considered it junk. I knew it was junk, but I did not know why it was junk. Now, of course, I know.
I just reread KM’s chapter on the Frankfurt school in CofC. Kevin does not show why it is junk from an intellectual/analytical perspective, only that it was and is Jewish psy-war which is aimed at gentiles. He also has a fine analysis of Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality, about which he DOES analytically dispose of it.
Kevin also traces Frankfurt School influence into later developments like Deconstructionism, po-mo, and multi-culturalism. So, the influence into our own times has been “intellectual” as opposed to popular as in the 60s, when Wilhelm Reich, Erik Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse were relatively popular, at least amongst folks in college in the social sciences and humanitees. These folks also read people like Alan Watts, Nobbe Brown, and Paul Goodman (Growing up Absurd). I include myself in this somewhat popular cohort.
I recall a read about May 1968 in Paris. The writer stated that the Paris revolt was much less about politics and much more about personal freedom, especially sexual freedom. The writer said that at that time, French young women were very carefully monitored and often escorted. The sexual freedom movement of the 60s, of course intellectually promoted by the cultural marxists, was perhaps a disaster-waiting-to-happen anyway. Personally, my view of these writers like Reich and Marcuse, did not intend to deceive the goyim, rather they actually believed that orgasms would make you free. This sex obsession has a very long thread in Jewish history going back to Cabbala in the 17th C and forward into reprized Cabbala performances thru the 19th C., and culminating in Psychoanalysis and cultural marxism, and Hollywood today.’
I recall E. Michael Jones in his The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, has a motif of whenever there is revolution in the air, Sex shows up as the central Dionysian Devil. Then there is also Transgression. The ultimate transgression has been inter-racial sex, at least lately, besides Chas. Manson, and perhaps Breivik.
As I reread the wikipedia material, I was struck by how illogical, anti-scientific, and frankly partisan it was (we are going to change the world, not understand it…Karl Marx). It is philosophically junk, and as KM reveals thru many pages of citations, just Jewish intellectual and psychological warfare against Whites, and, rationality. Horkheimer says that their stuff is not relativistic, but it is.
p.198-199 of CofC: From Gless and Smith, (a discussion of po-mo, etc) the “pillars” of Frankfort are ethics drives research, “empirical science as oppressive {think our current antifas and their charge of “scientific racism] and an aspect of social domination…” and a rejection of the ossibility of shared values, national culture or universalism. (Over the last few years, of course, the left has contrived a new “universalism” of race-equality. This new Universalism also posits that there are actually no universal values, that all moral systems are equally compelling, and that White values are probably worse than Colored values, but what the hey, don’t hold them to logical rigor.)
The same authors also intriguingly suggest a “hermeneutics of suspicion” with regard to any attempt to construct a national culture or a universal set of values.
That all of this is a snake-pit from any normal point of view, if totally lost on these folks. Therefore, the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ is actually paranoia, ressentiment, envy, and a Protest about the World the way it actually exists. This is the familiar All or Nothing juvenile or adolescent mind-set.
This whole thing has been a matter of jewish pathology, which anyone can see by reading KM’s chapter.
Still, we need to understand how this pathology has developed into our at least academic hatreds of Whiteness, and so on.
The Race Equality theme was not large in early cultural marxism. The emotional themes were of jewish angst over fascism, anti-semitism, and then the holocaust (no more poetry…said one of these jews).
The Times, following WW2, and Hitler, and the communist advance into race in the US, really began the current ideological frenzies of the left and LIberalism. Capitalism’s running dogs also saw opportunity to exploit workers thru the new and fashionable anti-racism.
Other opportunities opened up in education, etc. Communism was dead, and the liberals needed another Cause. The universal howl of protest against the Unfairness of the World got another chance. There is nothing like the fundamental biological Difference in races to guarantee a never-ending rhetoric of Oppression.
That is where we are at right now. Of course, most Whites are now exhausted with the Black and Brown and LIberal hysteria, as well as their tax-burdens.
The Ideas of Equality are exhausted. Now the Liberal Order is either going to wilt away in the face of race reality, or, they are going for their guns.
Franklin, I found nothing in Feb 15, 2007 American Thinker. I did find this from later: July 28, 2011.
Cultural Determinism
The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity. In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences. This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible.
……
Joe: this is a terrible definition of Darwinism, utterly absurd.
Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. These are our “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty “are endowed by our Creator,” who made man in His image.
Joe: what is the American Thinker anyway?
AS philosophy or social science, which it claims to be,
cultural marxism is confused, and confusing. About the only thing that one I can say about it is that in the wreckage of classical marxism which was based on economics as the determiner of consciousness (means of production as leading to the social relations of production…capital v. labor, or master v. slave, more or less) the revolutionaries, mostly Jewish , but not all, cast about for another direction. First was psychoanalysis, and when that had run its course, the various post-modern hermeneutics (meaning a posited system that does not have to explain itself except in the vaguest of terms) which stressed Power, Domination, and master/slave relations.
Cultural marxism became an abandonment of reasoned arguments which is what Modernism was (Marxists had their science of History, LIberals had their Progress and unalienable Rights…which are logically untenable as they are based on nothing but assertion, and Capitalists had their Market, which at least was empirical and had real power of explanation.)
Because Post Modernism claimed to have deconstructed all of the logical or philosophical arguments for Modernist movements, they were left with only Assertions of their own. There is no Objectivity, no science of human relationships, just a latter-day form of Will.
Anyone with a complaint has standing. By reducing all to mere Power and Domination relationships, there is no morality or ethics left. The Powerless are permitted to do anything to gain Power. Since Whites historically have had the Power, there is no “reason” why Whites should not be forced to give up Power.
My sense of Marx is that he would be surprised at his great grand-children, since he was the first to consign the “lumpen” elements to the waste-basket of history, to embrace Darwinism as a companion materialism, and to dismiss the East as mere Oriental Despotism, and unfit for serious study or concern.
Socio-biology is essentially a materialist approach to human sociability. It seeks to understand the motor of human behavior, in the same way as Marx tried to understand Capitalism as part of the motor of history. The cultural marxists have totally abandoned any attempt to systematize and theorize and predict human behavior, except for their junk social science of the Authoritarian Personality and genetic anti-semitism (yet another contradiction in their logic, but not in their political agenda.)
What has happened over the last couple decades is that Equality as a Utopian goal, has been embodied in dozens of spectacular demands on the World and human nature, neither of which can help the useless, untalented, stupid, and racially unevolved.
The lumpen elements have shamed the well-endowed (Coloreds embarrassing Whites who Pity the useless, and have internalized a guilt for their being beautiful, smart, creative, and having invented everything. Not only have Whites been shamed, but they are physically afraid of the Coloreds, and thus, the Stockholm Syndrome has been added to the new White Man’s Burden of Whiteness.
So, the whole mess of cultural marxism is simply Nihilism with its only object: that of killing off what torments them and cannot be altered, White superiority. Of course, even that superiority is semi-consciously acknowledged in their claims that we Whites are White “Supremacists.” Which White group ever invented that term? Answer: none.
It is the slave’s ressentiment that invents such a term.
So here we are with millions of White race traitors, kow-towing to the Blacks and Browns and Jews. Astonishing but true. A Psychology is thus much needed to account for it. We socio-biologists have the rudiments of such a psychology in our understanding of the unique biocultural history of Whites in Europe. We developed traits (not principles) of Trust and Openness to Strangers. This is today our undoing inasmuch as we are quite willing to altruistically punish one-another based on Principles derived from our evolutionary past…our Trust and tendencies to Universalism. We can be, in the vernacular of today, guilt-tripped very easily.
So, the Jewish cultural marxists have discovered our achilles’ heel. Luckily, not all Whites are equally vulnerable to the Jewish arrow, especially when we see the Jews as in total contradiction to everything they demand of us…they are racist, fascist, and insular. The people indeed that wants to live alone, but attacks others who might want to do the same. j
I have an example to offer that I think helps demonstrate how diabolically successful the Frankfurt School jews have been with their indoctrination and brainwashing and clever ability to tap into the #1 weakness of the white race.
Michael Collins Piper, who writes for American Free Press and who has done Web radio for a number of years is my example. Piper has an incredible amount of combat experience in this decades long war between jews and white gentiles, and Piper has called himself a ‘Nationalist’ – but, only in a general sense. It’s never a ‘white Nationalist’, although I have heard him make a few grudgingly supportive comments about the right of White Europeans to preserve themselves and their nations. He doesn’t focus on pro-white topics, however. Lately, he has been on a constant negative rant about ‘White Nationalists’ – which, if they are sucking up to Israel and the jews who despise them, deserve all the negativity that Piper can hurl at them. But, in this case – Piper seems to be especially angry over White Nationalist opposition to Muslim invasions of White European nations and he claims that they are only being manipulated to oppose Muslims in Europe by jews in the shadows who are secretly pulling the strings on all the major Nationalist parties in Europe. Piper’s point, or his opinion, is that WN’s should join forces with Muslims and together fight against the jew – who sees them both as enemies, anyway.
The second observation that I want to make about Piper is that he routinely dedicates considerable time on his radio shows to the injustices that Israel is bestowing upon the Palestinians. Granted, I do agree that the jews are treating the Palestinians horribly – torturing them, murdering them, harvesting their organs, destroying their homes and crops and generally making their lives miserable. And, I also agree with Piper that these are outrageous conditions and in a perfect world, or in a world where the USA and Europe was still controlled by WHITE MEN who were racially healthy and racially strong – it might be appropriate for a strong White nation to issue an ultimatum to Israel to cease their mistreatment of the Palestinians or get ready for a good arse-whipping. At a minimum, a strong White nation such as the USA could cut these Israeli welfare bums off and zero out their foreign aid.
So, to conclude – in both the Piper concern for the Muslims and for the Palestinians, we see a white guy who can manage to find enormous levels of energy to express his concerns for the welfare of two groups of non-European ethnic groups. MacDonald has dubbed that ‘out-group altruism’; this irrational and clearly destructive tendency on the part of so many people in the White race to ignore the interests and even the existential threats to the survival of their own race, and devote the overwhelming majority of their time and energy fighting battles where the welfare of other races is their primary concern.
It is this weakness, it is this ‘Achilles Heel’ of the White race that the jews have managed to recognize and exploit – and it is literally sealing our eventual extinction, if our people don’t wise up to it and change our behavior. Oh, and Piper has never done even one show where he expresses a similar degree of anger or concern for the incredible damage that jews have been specifically inflicting upon his fellow White European kinsmen and kinswomen.
@Joe Webb:
Joe,the title of the article in The American Thinker,feb 15,2007 is “Cultural Marxism”,by Linda Kimball.It is in the upper left corner of the page and indeed can be easily overlooked.The article begins with the sentence: “There are two misconceptions held by many Americans”,more to the right of the title.Try again and you will find it.( for direct access to the article,google: cultural marxism and choose the second entry: Archived Articles: cultural marxism).The article is useful.The American Thinker in my opinion is a kind of “stealth neo-con ” operation by Jews posing as American conservatives,all for the sake of Israel.Still some of their articles against the Left are valuable (for example in the same article see on the right under the head Recent Articles: The Myth of White Privilege).
As you will see from the article the Jews passed on to cultural marxism when they realized that the masses in Europe wouldn’t choose for communist revolution and they blamed that on their cultural and moral values,especially those derived from Christianity.Thus they embarked on a demoralization campaign,which is what cultural marxism essentially is.After classical or social-economical marxism, cultural marxism is its second form.
Its third form ,which torments us presently, is what I call “racial marxism”,in which the White race as a whole plays the role of “oppressor”.The solution to this “oppression” is not the rectifying of racial injustice (real or imaginary) but the disappearing of the White race itself.It is essential that the “guilty” party is instilled with guilt to such a degree that it wilfully cooperates wth its own destruction.That is what we are seeing today.Mass immigration of non-Whites, miscegenation and sub-replacement birth rate ( by the promotion of feminism,abortion,homosexuality etc.) are its means,all passionately propagated by the Jews,and – sadly – accepted by many Whites.Jews see the gifted White race as their major competitor in their aspiration to world domination,therefore it has to disappear.This is the real purpose of Jewish marxism in its three forms:the destruction of competitors.They will have succeeded when the world is only inhabitated by a non-White,demoralized proletarian mass over which they can rule.That is the ultimate aim of the Jews which they euphemistically call “repairing the world” (tikkun olam). Marxism is a deceptive tool in this endeavour.
Franklin, ok, i will look again at that Fed 15, 2007 piece.
Meanwhile, I agree with your summation. Still, at the intellectual level, I was trying to get at what exactly they were saying. The apparent dynamics that they were ostensibly trying to describe are pretty much mush.
The abandonment of a somewhat comprehensible economic argument (and its attendant psychology of alienation, and discussions of ideology masking economic interests, etc. (which still to me have a little reality to them) for a Psychology of Oppression and Domination, etc. just has so little objective and empirical data that I can only conclude that it was and is just ideology itself masking Jewish hatreds and Third World hatreds of Whites.
Try to come up with a coherent description of something that lacks coherence…it is tough going.
In a few words, the Left lost the economic arguments basically, they lost the putative psychology argument of workers, and then the Left tried psychoanalysis, which was another dud, and with that failure, they went on to develop, one could say a reaction formation, to deny the obvious: biology, inequality and so on. This formation is amazing. It is anti-Darwin (recall the Scopes Monkey Trial with which the Left has loved to bash Christians , and now the Left is doing what the creationists did about 90 years ago, deny Evolution.) It is anti-science (“Scientific racism” they howl). And it is driven by hatred. All of this is the opposite of science, which Marx by the way, championed.
So the new psychology for the left is the psychology of Franz Fanon, the Algerian psychologist of the Algerian War who basically said, kill your oppressor. That is all it is. So because all races are equal, the only reason I, a black man, cannot pass tests is the racism of the Whites. Neat logic.
It all turns on the absurd claim of equality, especially racial equality. There is no consistent argument in all the verbiage of Deconstructionists, the latest and hopefully the last, of the cultural marxists, except that Equality exists, there is no human nature, and the only thing that explains Exploitation is Domination and raw Power. And that is ruling class Whites .
It is a complete emotionalism devoid of any argument that can stand on empirical data, and historical data.
So, it is pure “‘Revolution” as Abby Hoffman said, for the hell of it. Some Transgression, some ressentiment, some religion (to replace God), some narcissism (I demand the world be x,y, and z), and some species of mental illness, and now, with the White liberals..some careerist posturing, and with the blacks and browns….hatred and parasitism. For the Jews…revenge plus, as Earl Raab said, Jews will never feel secure until Whites are a minority in their own countries.
Finally, Marx would never countenance a term like “cultural marxism”. For Marx, it was all material forces. Culture was mere superstructure. He was correct if we substitute biology for economics. Culture then becomes superstructure, and the base in biology.
Biology can therefore explain our current conflicts. The untermenschen want to kill and replace Whites, naturally enough (even if they would die without us), the Jews want what they have always wanted, total domination, and Whites, because of our biology/trait of Surplus Trust, don’t know how to recognize Enemies unless we are being shot at, and have allowed subversion, and guilt to overpower us as a result. Finally, Stockholm Syndrome also figures in….another biological-psychological dynamic of submission to overwhelming threat. In this case, it is psychological threat to our Very Being….We are no good, and deserve to die, along with Whiteness itself. Altruistic Suicide. Whites as cancer of the planet.
This is the psy-war of cultural marxism. When you hear the word “culture”…take out your Genetics. Joe
It’s nothing but pathetic that we put up with these eristical tactics, especially when they are deflected so easily. When a male pulls the “You’re just like….” I retort, “……wears pants in public just like you. Are you going to start wearing dresses?” When a female pulls this crap it’s easily deflected by retorting, “…..has two eyes just like you. Are you going to poke one of yours out?”
We must use logical refutations of these errors that can be clearly understood by everybody.