Yes, I used your ending when I sent it to Western Voices World News.

Thanks for the info.

I cannot think of anything more to add to make it better. Just modify that ending (per my example above) and remember what we said about OUR RACE.

That was very informative post.

Your point about what we say about anti-whites being “CORRECT”:

It is critical for us “racists” to understand from the very beginning we were making an argument that we could not lose.

It is not that we have won, or need to win an argument. Our argument is correct in the same sense that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is correct. Accordingly, our argument is one we CANNOT LOSE and is IMPOSSBILE TO LOSE.

There is only one race in this world that is capable and has an authentic culture, OUR RACE. The proof of this lies in the fact that the English language (one of our indigenous tongues) is the world’s lingua franca.

Now this point will be dismissed outright. The objection will be made that language is just an “overlay” that says nothing about race. You can count on it. Don’t worry about it. You cannot get rid of the fact of race no more than you can get rid of the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

We cannot change anyone’s minds on this issue. That does not matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter has to do with power. Knowing and acknowledging what is real puts you in power. That is the way the world works.

Just as people reject opportunity all the time, they reject power all the time. It’s ordinary.

In contrast, our audiences are those who want power. We need to write for those people.

The anti-white whites and anti-white nonwhites have no answer to their absurdity. Accordingly, they have no choice but to run up against it. Rest assured, Political Correctness is done. It is over. It never had a chance.

It is critically important to keep that in mind when we are making our arguments.

Is there anyone here how has had any contact with The political cesspool or David Duke? Where is Bob?

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6671

What other sites should we go for?

You make some good points.

Would you like to post your version like Dave did?

I took what i liked from Dave and Tim and adjusted it. Posted it here on SF, although I did not intend it for anti-whites.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6553458#post6553458

MOST IMPORTANTLY
Never use phrases like “Whites wanting to preserve their heritage”, use “Whites wanting to preserve our heritage”. Never make it appear that white racialists are acting only for white racilists.

I think there is an important point to be made. A lot of anti-racists who aren’t rabid acvitists don’t realise that they are essentially following anti-white dogma.

I think it’s better, not to start with trying to deconstruct anti’s arguments. Beginning to deconstruct an argument gives it validity. The point that must be unmistakably clear, is that they have NO arguments, ONLY excuses. So rather than starting out saying “These are the arguments they use”, you want to start out saying “Anti-racism as a movement exists as a movement against white people and white nations. The actions and speech of anti-racists reveal an anti-white agenda which isn’t incidental or a side effect of ‘fighting racism’, but rather the prime motivation for anti-racists, with ‘fighting racism’ being the cover to make the movement palatable to whites. Anti-racists are anti-WHITE. When we look at the arguments that anti-whites often throw at white people, we realise that their support of native americans, their condemnation of colonialism and their multitude of reasons why nations such as Germany, Italy and Iceland should accept mass immigration and assimilation have no consistency aside from the fact that these arguments can be used against whites expressing a desire to preserve our racial and cultural heritage…..”

Maybe not those exact words, but I think you want, from the get go, before you even start to counter arguments, to expose them.

This then would set the tone for the rest of the article, having already impressed on the readers mind that the only commonality between anti-whites ‘arguments’ is that their arguments support mass immigration for ALL and ONLY white nations.

So by the time you get to the secion “The white race is a social construct, but not when someone is to be blamed.” you can state…
“Notice than when anti-whites extoll the virtues of diversity and multiracialism in our nations, they have no difficultly in identifying race, but when confronted with competing points of view, they begin to pretend that they cannot see race, and use all manner of methods to try and make the concept of race seem so undefined that the concept cannot be used by the ideological opponent. The existance of race depends solely on whether the notion of the existance of race can be used to support their anti-white agenda or not”.

A lot of people are also familiar with PC/Liberal arguments, so I think it’s worthwhile to call upon peoples own experiences.

Rememeber, what we say about anti-whites is CORRECT, so don’t be afraid to assume that the reader has noticed and be confident that they will be able to observe the phenomenon we state.

You are right. I confused Iceland and Greenland. I think you are probably right also about whites being first in Iceland. There is no need for the aborignals segment I wrote as a revision in the Iceland paragraph. Your original version was right.

I appreciate your comment very much. Very nice that you are spreading it!

The readability is probably better in your version. And we can do the changes Tim talked about. What do others here think?

But to what you said about Greenland… I was talking about Iceland not Greenland. What you say about Greenland is correct. But I have never heard that there has been any native non-whites on Iceland before whites arrived.

I did not know this was written by a Norwegian! For some reason, I thought Bob wrote this. I do not know if it would be best to use folks or people in Northern Europe. I have never been there and know very little about how they express themselves. My mother side goes back Norman. However we have been in America since before the Mayflower. So whatever my blood could remember —it can’t anymore! You will have to experiment yourself.

I made the changes to our race from THE WHITE RACE simply because it was becoming redundant. I do this stuff verbally everyday. By now it just pops out of me. There is no specific reason other than it is personal and puts you on the offensive instead of the defensive.

If you say THE WHITE RACE–blah blah blah. You will get hit with all kinds of stupid questions. Like what is the white race etc? However, if you say MY RACE, OUR RACE, you are totally in control. Then when someones asks a stupid question like: “What is your race”? You can hammer them with my phrase:”white folks dumbass”. And then make fun of them. Or say european or whatever. Everyone knows were white.

I do not know anything about the linguistic barrier between us. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to articulate.

This weekend I will tweak the whole thing and post my version. It won’t be any different but I will do what did above to the whole thing. However, remember, I am in America. So there may be a better tweak for Northern Europe??

None of my changes had a profound reason other than to improve readability. We are just presenting a picture. No need to turn it into an intellectualism and a theory (which people usually suspect).

The one substantive change I did make was on Greenland. Greenland was inhabited by the same aboriginals (basically the same people) who live there today (very small numbers) long before the brief Viking inhabitation and later the Danes.

Although, I admit my knowledge of Greenland’s history is very limited. But it wasn’t an uninhabited place before whites arrived there, to my knowledge.

Tim’s point about using “our race” is great, regardless of the “audience”.