What do you think?
Rate this book
Hammer of the Patriot – A Handbook on Rhetorical Counter-Terrorism
The striking paradox which becomes apparent when we're exposed to liberals and their discourse, is that on one hand they seem to always repeat the same simple nonsensical arguments and attacks, while on the other hand they have overwhelming success while debating nationalists and other enemies of Marxist thought.
Why is it so hard for us to win debates against tape recorders stuck on “repeat"? Why can I turn on the television right now and see a liberal accusing a conservative of being “stuck in the 1950's", and be amazed that the conservative has no good answer to this tired cliche?
The meat of this book is a catalog of liberal arguments – or “sound bites" – and examples of effective rebuttals. But the rebuttals have been carefully crafted, not to be logically bullet proof, but to place you in a more dominant position.
The point is to punish their impertinence, not convince them of the error of their ways. Thus rebuttals will involve ridicule, scolding the liberal for the character flaws he is showing, showing how the liberal is the enemy of the public (peer pressure), pointing out how their ideas are fringe theories normal people don't subscribe to, and so on. And as much as possible, the rebuttals avoid complex explanations, use of statistics and studies, obscure examples the public is not familiar with, and of course apologies and justifications.
Why is it so hard for us to win debates against tape recorders stuck on “repeat"? Why can I turn on the television right now and see a liberal accusing a conservative of being “stuck in the 1950's", and be amazed that the conservative has no good answer to this tired cliche?
The meat of this book is a catalog of liberal arguments – or “sound bites" – and examples of effective rebuttals. But the rebuttals have been carefully crafted, not to be logically bullet proof, but to place you in a more dominant position.
The point is to punish their impertinence, not convince them of the error of their ways. Thus rebuttals will involve ridicule, scolding the liberal for the character flaws he is showing, showing how the liberal is the enemy of the public (peer pressure), pointing out how their ideas are fringe theories normal people don't subscribe to, and so on. And as much as possible, the rebuttals avoid complex explanations, use of statistics and studies, obscure examples the public is not familiar with, and of course apologies and justifications.
139 pages, ebook
Published January 1, 2014
3 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 28, 2017
Great book. Short, compact, and extremely pratical. Must read.
December 31, 2017
How to win arguments with liberals
September 22, 2022
A useful tool for debating leftards online.
I got my copy from claymorebooks.co.uk
I got my copy from claymorebooks.co.uk
September 22, 2022
Poorly written stuff by a convicted criminal and neo-nazi. If you have to use these arguments against liberals then there is no hope for you.
April 30, 2017
This is a solid reference guide for debating leftists. Ever notice how they've dominated the public discourse for as long as anyone can remember? The reason--aside from holding a virtual monopoly on the media, infiltrating academia, etc--is persuasion. Their arguments are not persuasive in the sense that they are factually true; rather, they use psychological tactics to bludgeon their opponents into submission.
For example, let's say Nationalist Nate is arguing against women in the workplace. His argument is that it depresses wages by increasing the labour pool, forces men and women to compete for the same jobs, and has a dysgenic effect on the overall gene pool (women trading their fertility for earning power). Bulldyke Bertha retorts that he's a sexist and mysogynist. Nate immediately begins blubbering about how he loves and respects women. The gathered crowd interprets this as weakness and begins to consider dyeing their hair purple.
The book neatly surmises nationalist views and provides many sample arguments, but the important this is to argue with brevity and conviction. As the author states, "Men of virtue who value truth and honor will instinctively gravitate towards arguments that are rational, objective and relevant. They will shirk things like personal attacks or mis-characterisation of the opponent's points, thinking these things dishonorable in a civil discussion."
Good luck, and happy triggering.
For example, let's say Nationalist Nate is arguing against women in the workplace. His argument is that it depresses wages by increasing the labour pool, forces men and women to compete for the same jobs, and has a dysgenic effect on the overall gene pool (women trading their fertility for earning power). Bulldyke Bertha retorts that he's a sexist and mysogynist. Nate immediately begins blubbering about how he loves and respects women. The gathered crowd interprets this as weakness and begins to consider dyeing their hair purple.
The book neatly surmises nationalist views and provides many sample arguments, but the important this is to argue with brevity and conviction. As the author states, "Men of virtue who value truth and honor will instinctively gravitate towards arguments that are rational, objective and relevant. They will shirk things like personal attacks or mis-characterisation of the opponent's points, thinking these things dishonorable in a civil discussion."
Good luck, and happy triggering.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews