Another important point, KEEP IT PERSONAL!

Don’t argue as if you are discussing whether dropping interest rates further is going to ease the Global Financial Crisis or some other detached activity. You are NOT discussing political issues, you are discussing your OWN race and demanding self preservation. your opponent is saying your race must go, do not make it a political issue or an economic one.

Don’t divorce yourself from your race and don’t be ‘objective’. Anti-whites in my experience have trouble arguing when its PERSONAL, because every argument they have against whites is detached and impersonal. It relates to the ‘white race’ in general, but never specifically to you, or to the young white child.

I read Sterling’s article, and though he gets the Mantra, I can’t help but be disappointed.

Specific proposals shouldn’t be made or argued. Sterling suffers just as Tancredo does of not understanding the real underlying issue, and that is resistance to the climate of bullying that is has been and is forever our dominating political condition.

Simmons and Pain got it right that most of our anti-white white opponents (the talking doll variety) do not understand their own arguments. For the most part, the hordes of useful idiots are people with low street smarts. They are victims of a climate of bullying they do not understand, turnips on the back of a truck, having no options and without the intelligence to assess a means of escape.

But ironically, that is Sterling’s problem also. If he really understood the street, he would not bother with making specific proposals about “what ought to be done”. “What ought to be done” isn’t the issue. The issue is bullying.

Our opponents need to be convinced of this attitude, an attitude long on memory and long on commitment to severely punishing each and every offense offered.

This sweeps argument off the table and replaces it with a fist committed to being painted by blood.

The bullies get set to rights and suddenly they know they are no longer dealing with fools, flummoxing the anti-white whites (who suddenly apprehend a probable price for their treason), and forcing a requirement of respect from the anti-white nonwhites immediately.

Tim, nice, but you are making two big mistakes:

(1) You are arguing defensively, which means that the idiot you are arguing with might have a point;
(2) You are wrong that the idiot actually believes what she is saying is true.

In other words, you are not dealing with a serious or sincere argument; it is just something she was told to say in a summer camp she enrolled in that was run by neomarxists.

So instead:

(1) Keep your reply very brief;
(2) Rather than defend yourself (”No, race is real”), come after them;
(3) Call them a genocider.

You might say something like this:

Is that something you are parroting from a Marxist book you read? Don’t you know that Marxism is long dead and long out of date? If you spend your life parroting things you don’t even believe yourself, aren’t you just an artificial construct?

The fact is, all that this old Marxist stuff means is that all whites should be genocided.

Why do you want to exterminate an entire race of humanity?

What would your mom and dad say about you?

Then follow up with the Mantra.