Weak Versus Strong Language in Rhetoric and Debate - By Luftschiff



By Luftschiff

Debates are battles, particularly when it comes to existential issues. Non-Whites and White-hating leftists are not, and have never been, interested in fair and honest exchanges of ideas with their racial and ideological enemies, namely White nationalists. For anti-Whites, the “debate” is a solely platform to shout down and silence us before the public. If they cannot silence us, their fallback strategy is to deconstruct language and key points so that a debate cannot even take place.

The most common example of this strategy is when they play the Define Game:

White nationalist: We support a homeland for White people.
Anti-White: Define “White.”
White nationalist: Meaning anyone of European descent.
Anti-White: Define “European.”
White nationalist: Anyone whose ancestry goes back to Europe and whose ancestors built European civilization.
Anti-White: Sorry, your definitions of “White” and “European” don’t fulfill my conveniently-narrow definitions that just so happen to support my own viewpoint of White people not being real.

Of course, they never openly state the last point, they’ll just keep going on and on by asking you to define this and explain that. The point of the Define Game is not to discuss the topic, but to keep the White nationalist jumping through verbal hoops so the topic is never discussed. It is worth noting they never play the Define Game with any other race’s interests.

Anti-Whites are fundamentally dishonest because they see debating as part of a racial struggle against Whites, not a reasoned intellectual exchange. They will therefore utilize any strategy to win that battle. Denying that White people exist while simultaneously hating Whites, blaming their own failures on Whites, and attacking White identity is a psychological tactic they use to trip us up. This tactic is derived from the Jewish “chutzpah,” which is basically extreme shamelessness and dishonesty. This is not surprising, as Jews lead and fund all anti-White “intellectual” and political movements across the West.

In short, in any debate on racial issues, the goals of the anti-Whites are to never address White interests, or simply pretend they don’t exist. Conversely, our goal in any debate is to get anti-Whites to admit their anti-Whiteness and their blatant hostility to White interests.

Unfortunately, many Alt Right and White nationalist leaders don’t understand this. People like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer believe that answering, in a rational and reasoned manner, any and all questions our enemies lob at them will get people to our side.

It won’t. It never has.

People do not follow reason, they follow strength. When Jared Taylor appeared on the Phil Donahue show in 2003, Taylor managed to get a few good points in, but he let himself get bullied by Donahue’s ceaseless personal attacks and quips, which ultimately made Taylor look weak. Spencer does a bit better in the banter department, but he too is hamstrung by his lack of aggression and lack of understanding that a debate with an enemy is a battle, not a discussion.

So how do we win this battle? First, by always using strong, assertive, aggressive language as opposed to weak, neutral, or defensive language. One of the rules of warfare is that if you are always defending, you are losing.

Every attack on us must not only be met with a defense, but a counter-attack. Every anti-White argument should be turned against them so that they are the ones who are forced to defend their viewpoints. We don’t need to defend ours, as ours are natural and already adhered to by all other races.

Let’s apply this to the original exchange.

White nationalist: We support a homeland for White people.
Anti-White: Define “White.”
White nationalist: Don’t play stupid. You know who White people are because you openly support our dispossession and preach hatred of us.
Anti-White: No, I don’t White people—
White nationalist: No, you do hate us, and I’m not letting you get away with claiming you don’t while you support everything that harms us.

Never answer the anti-White’s question. Assume their dishonesty. Always reframe and keep your eye on the goal, which is hammering them until they admit their hostility to White people. Always keep the pressure on them and make their anti-Whiteness the central issue, not your pro-Whiteness, which, again, is natural and healthy.

Strong language also plays into the idea of “Agree and Amplify.” Remember that the audience has been indoctrinated into believing that not only are you an “evil Nazi,” but that you’re a dishonest evil Nazi who will deny being an evil Nazi. This is the expectation you have to go off of, so Agree and Amplify.

Anti-White: You’re filled with hate.
Weak response: I don’t hate anyone, I just want what’s best for my race just as you do for yours.
Strong response: Yes, we’re the hate that your hate produced. If you hate Whites, we’re going to hate you right back.

Anti-White: You’re a White supremacist.
Weak response: My ideology has nothing to do with wanting to rule over non-Whites, I just want separation and freedom for all.
Strong response: Yes, Whites should be supreme in our own lands. If you disagree it means you want our subjugation, which makes you an enemy.

Anti-White: You’re a White nationalist.
Weak response: I believe in identity and nationalism for all peoples.
Strong response: If you’re against White Nationalism, you hate White people, because a nation is its people.

Anti-White: You’re anti-Semitic.
Weak response: No, anti-Semitism is defined as an irrational fear of Jewish people. I just think some Jews unintentionally promote things which have harmful effects, etc.
Strong response: Yes, because Jews are anti-White foreigners who openly call for our genocide, which makes them our enemy.

Anti-White: So do you want to kill all non-Whites?
Weak response: Absolutely not. I believe in peaceful separation of all peoples.
Strong response: It is non-Whites who openly state their desire to kill all White people. If we’re attacked, we’ll defend ourselves until we’re safe from the genocidal goals of non-Whites.

The weak responses are defensive and rely on reason. Appealing to reason is a poor strategy when we are in a fight for our survival, and these arguments will convince relatively few people. The strong responses work because they are direct, honest, and show that you’re willing to fight. People naturally admire those who do not let themselves be pushed around. Also, the shorter and pithier the response, the better.

The second aspect to understand about debating anti-Whites is that we must start the debate as “far” into the debate as possible. This means beginning with the crux of the issue, or your strongest and most salient point, instead of arriving at it eventually.

Example of the ineffectual, “ground-up” approach:

Anti-White: Why do you oppose immigration?
Weak response: I believe that immigration results in a net negative for Whites.
Anti-White: Why do you believe that?
Weak response: Studies have shown it, etc.
Anti-White: Those are racist studies though. Plenty of other studies show it’s a positive.
Weak response: Those are biased studies.
Anti-White: No, your studies are biased.

And it goes like that because the White nationalist is starting at the level the anti-White wants him to, i.e. the lowest level. Thus, it will take that much longer to arrive at the point. By the time that happens, the White nationalist will have already had his points picked apart by rhetorical anti-White nonsense: exactly the kind of nonsense the audience has been indoctrinated into.

This is the better approach:

Anti-White: Why do you oppose immigration?
Strong response: Why do you oppose keeping America White?
Anti-White: It’s not about keeping America White–
Strong response: Yes it is. You’re promoting mass non-White immigration into our country. That means you want to turn America non-White.
Anti-White: But this was never a “White” (scare quotes of course) country–
Strong response: Of course it was a White country, that’s exactly why you’re promoting “diversity.” You want to turn it into a non-White country. Why?

The Anti-White is on the defensive, fighting on the White nationalist’s terms. Anti-Whites don’t expect this kind of rhetoric from us, which is why it’s so devastating. They have no defense against it. They can’t have any defense against it. They have to either admit their anti-Whiteness or shut down the debate. In both instances, we win.

Aggression wins debates. Always be on the attack and always be guiding the debate by being one step ahead of the enemy. The facts are on our side. Reality is on our side. The left needs verbosity and tricks to mystify people. All we need to do is state the blunt truth, and keep bludgeoning our enemies over the head with it.

Assume the dishonesty and hostility of the anti-Whites and make the audience see their dishonesty. When attacked, counter-attack. Never stray from the crux of the issue and never be nice to these people. In closing, remember the words of George S. Patton, someone who found out all too late that the wrong side won World War II: “Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”



Very good and important article. In the words of Dr. Duke: Please share this widely!


Great article; thanks for the ammunition


This was me :point_up:t6:


Jack_Neitzsche Good job this is me :arrow_down:


Miller Jack_Neitzsche I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

0_1496296643055_troll lennon.png


The shorter and pithier the better

This us my problem, I want to lecture.


A great article, with excellent points on what to do and not do in discussions with anti-whites. I am quite surprised to see how pervasive the anti white technique truly is, case in point the new inquisition or the holohoax. The ending comment by General Patton is germane, and seems to be missing from much anti white discourse. Indeed, it is a battle, our enemies are contemptuous liars, we must always attack and attack some more. The Reich Was Right!!!


The left has completely owned the domain of weakness, victimhood, and martyrdom. They are masters of passive-aggression, sniveling, and lowness, therefore, trying to out-victim them is completely counter-productive and assures totally failure. They can be most effectively conquered and owned by strong language delivered in a direct, unflinching and uncompromising position. Excellent article.


To quote Natt “we are not going to play democrat with you liberal pissants”. Aggression wins arguments, not being a little bitch who begs for the enemy’s understanding.
Good article, Luftschiff.


I reblogged with full attribution here: Weak Versus Strong Language In Debates – The Roper Report

By the way, if you guys ever need content, feel free to use anything you find on either The Roper Report or The ShieldWall Network websites, however you’d like, in whole or part.


Love this article.