I have said many times that when a respectable conservative is called a racist, he goes into fetal position and pees on himself. What he NEVER does is ask “What is a racist?”
In fact if anyone DOES ask “What is a Racist?” it will be the guy earning his bread as a professional respectable NON-liberal who will lead the lynch mob against him. There is a commonsense point here. Liberals are not afraid of economic arguments, gun control arguments, or abortion arguments.
But the media is closed to anyone who mentions race. In fact, the word “racist” is used today in exactly the same way “Jew” was denounced in Nazi Germany and Stalin was praised in the Soviet Union.
If you wanted to survive.
When those top trusted “scientists” were sending each other emails about how they were going to withhold any data contradicting global warning, I thought about RACE. When a black reporter won a Pulitzer writing made-up articles for the New York Times, they had memos inside the New York Times making it perfectly clear that they knew he WAS making them up and they couldn’t figure out what to do about it, I thought about RACE.
When the Washington Post featured columns of made-up interviews that won ANOTHER Pulitzer Prize for another black, this one female, I thought about RACE.
And I want YOU to do that before I die.
No one but me ties this to RACE. Each person giggles over how the current craze that makes the current news like global warming hurts, but no one makes it a general question any more than the slavish little respectables do, thought commenters are endlessly beating their chests about how above that league they are.
It is time we went to the words “I don’t believe you.” Instead of ANSWERING what they say a BUGS person, a Mantra person, should ask why he should believe people who keep discrediting themselves.
On the Holocaust, I simply say that I don’t believe ANYTHING a government REQUIRES you to believe. On the subject of race, it is obvious that on a subject which is OUTLAWED, there is no objectivity in the SPIN given to reports.
This is not new wisdom:
Consider the source.
O’Reilly is right about one thing:
A Spin is a lie.
In fact a pathological liar tells the truth more than ninety percent of the time.
It takes a LOT to be credited as a source of information. It takes very little to be DIScredited.
William Rusher, publisher of National Review, wrote that he went to an independent convention and brought back his own observations. His staff did not believe it until it was in the New York Times.
When something comes up like the global warming scam, you can either use it to back conventional conservative policy or use it as a chance to repeat the other examples I gave above. You can say something everybody will forget next week or you can use it as one more nail in the coffin of our enemies, to DISCREDIT every single word they say.
Our radio warriors are finding out first hand that they need to keep up with the news to expand their audience. At this stage, that is critical. It is critical that some of us keep hammering at the basics, develop things like “I don’t believe you?” “What is a racist?” and the presentation of the Mantra.
We have to hammer it down to what WORKS before we can ask our White Rabbit or Trucker Roy to start to use them. They have their job, we have ours. USE it, APPLY it. I have done that with many, many things, and they are USED.
The Mantra was too long for Trucker Roy to use. But he got onto the first sentence:
AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY. Our broadcasters have to REALLY get hold of something. They have to be able to USE it, and that is an entirely different thing from just putting a piece in the comments about how you interpret it.
I can USE the whole Mantra in personal or public debate. But on the radio it’s different.
When people tried to change the Mantra, I warned them that the Mantra was not made up, it was practiced. You are learning that is very different from an intellectual debate about ”hitting those points.”
As The Trucker and the Rabbit will tell you, including our logic in a discussion people WANT to listen to is a lot trickier than preaching from my position here, just as “hitting the points” and expecting people to understand the implications is entirely different from what you learn in actual discussion and press conferences.
We are not trying to revive Traditional Values. We are not in the business of digging up corpses. Our job is to hurt them where they know it is fatal, on race. Our weapons differ so we must each direct his own fire.
Just keep your powder dry and your scope clean.
#1 by Simmons on 06/03/2010 - 11:56 am
It is thru the left that we will introduce Mantra thinking to “our side.”
Today at AmRen they post an article written by some black women about “racist” babies, 25 responses on AmRen’s board, not a one contains the word “anti-white”, mine should be about 26th if I beat the censors. The rest of them are posters regurgitating decades of learned studies dealing with minutae, and all perfectly respectable and a losing cause.
Anyway Bob is playing hardball here, with that phrase “I don’t believe you” because Mommy Prof’s windups have nothing, it is all a bluff, hidden behind the smoke of taboo. To force them to answer is to cross the boundry of respectability, that our side legitimizes by instantly going to their learned studies.
I believe I will synthesize Horus and Bob’s work here; I don’t believe you, I believe you write or say that because you are anti-white and nothing else.
#2 by Simmons on 06/03/2010 - 1:19 pm
Could our radio guys interview an anti-white? Preferably one with a fancy title.
I asked this of the AmRen folks, specifically to interview Ms. Kareem of racist children fame. I have no illusion that they will, but someday somehow we will take the step and send the Left into a tizzy and then put the respectables out in the open over the issue of “anti-white.”
#3 by Simmons on 06/03/2010 - 1:47 pm
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/06/02/no-one-white-is-responsible-for-anything/
I asked of this guy if it was his policy to be anti-white, and I asked him if he advocated what he did in Africa, Asia or Israel would it not be considered genocide.
I also asked OQ to interview him since they linked to his blog, but we will see.
If he does respond I will ask him if he believes in his anti-white nonsense and if genocide is the answer.
#4 by Truck Roy on 06/03/2010 - 2:41 pm
I was on Derek Black’s radio show this morning with an anti-White caller.
This fellow (David, the caller) is not interesting in debating anything, he is putting out talking points. In other words, when Derek or I am facing off with him it is not a conversation, it is a verbal boxing match.
I wacked him with a portion of the mantra a couple times in the last 5 or 10 minutes of the show. If any of you folks have the time to listen to it (The link to the show is on the top of every Stormfront page), I would appreciate some advice on how to hit harder.
#5 by Simmons on 06/04/2010 - 11:21 am
Nope didn’t make it thru the AmRen censor, their niche of covertly responding to an anti-white remains safe so posters can write back what AmRen has told them for decades, oh, and send money.
Truck you are not dealing with an intellectual or a free thinker in an anti-white you are dealing with a cultist, they are all cultists.
People join cults to avoid responsibility. Responsibility is their greatest fear, use that against them; “You’re advocating genocide of my race, the white race.” Follow with Mantra points.
But if you are from the AmRen school you will follow with some great info on IQ and crime studies, they will call you a white supremacist and nothing changes.
Jews lable everybody and anti-semite first this controls the debate, giving them the supposed moral authority.
#6 by Wandrin on 06/04/2010 - 2:40 pm
@Truck Roy
What i do is…
There’s different kinds of opponent so what i do at first is hang back a bit until i’m sure what “type” i’m dealing with.
Type 1: Blunt enemy.
They’re engaged in ethnic warfare and know it and aren’t interested in debate. They just call you names as a form of bullying – just call them names back but much louder, you’re a racist!, no you’re an anti-white racist!!!!! etc. When you’re arguing with a blunt enemy you’re never going to convince them so it’s all about the effect on the audience and them seeing one of their own not backing down is good for white rabbit morale.
Type 2: Subtle, sneaky enemy
They’re engaged in ethnic warfare and know it and aren’t interested in *fair* debate but they’re smart and think they can tie you in knots with verbal IQ. Most of them aren’t as smart as they think they are but some are. These can be very tricky so cheat. They want to fight a very fluid mobile battle like Rommel in the desert so Mantra is good with them as if you just mindlessly repeat mantra ideas at them it turns the argument into something like WWI trench warfare where their word-skill doesn’t help – plus they hate it which is funny.
The other thing i do with these is hang back and then jump on one piece of what they said, make a point about that one piece then back off again. It’s like fighting a guy you’re not sure you can beat so you just circle round and jab a little bit waiting for him to trip up then when he trips you jump in quick and go for the jugular.
Again with these they know we’re deadly enemies and so it’s all about the effect on the audience. It’s more important not to lose than to win.
Type 3: Enemy stooge.
Pod-person, often female, who’ve effectively been hypnotized by the multicult into carrying water for the enemy. In my experience they’re not that smart so they act the same as a blunt enemy and shout names. Shout back louder.
If you’re an ex-liberal and know how they think and you’re in a situation where they don’t know you’re a buck rabbit you can mess with them but otherwise it’s easier to just shout at them.
Type 4: Lost sheep
continued…
#7 by Wandrin on 06/04/2010 - 4:33 pm
@Truck Roy (part 2)
Type 4: Lost rabbits
This is where i think you may have went wrong with that Dave on the radio show. I think you were expecting an enemy and were in that frame of mind but he was just a lost rabbit.
When i talk to people i hold back at first to see where they’re coming from and then adapt.
First there’s the enemy and their stooges. If you know it’s one of them then you want to get in an aggressive state of mind and use some mantra and name-calling and cheating.
Secondly there’s all the lost rabbits. They’re not the enemy. They exist on a range of different levels and for the sake of argument let’s call them
liberal
neutral
conservative
tea partier
nationalist
buck rabbit
People generally won’t move more than one rung at a time so i try and get into a more teacher type frame of mind, figure out which rung they’re on and then have different talking points aimed at trying to take them to the next level up from where they are.
It seemed to me Dave was a special type which is the lawful rabbit. They’re usually conservatives (but obviously a multicult conservative is pretty liberal). The clue was in the way he kept dropping keywords about the law and legality, like when he was talking about if someone was a legal citizen then of course he should be allowed to be President and later when he talked about being against illegal immigration.
People like him you really want to focus on the thing they have about the law.
continued…
#8 by Wandrin on 06/04/2010 - 4:41 pm
@Truck Roy (part 3)
So what i’d have done is spar with him a little more and let him talk a bit more (after doing this hundreds of times it becomes second nature) to figure out what kind he was. Then after letting him talk for a bit and picking up the key words about the law i’d have backed off on the law point straight away because you have to with law rabbits or you’ll be at loggerheads forever.
I’d have said something like “sure if it’s the law it’s law, obviously we accept he’s legally the President that’s why we say we either need to change the law back to what we want or secede.” Basically neutralize the law component straight away and leave the racist part.
So he says but that’s racist. If you’re talking to a lost rabbit (but not an enemy) and they get to any point where their only argument is “that’s racist” then you ask them “are only white people racist?”
The multicult implies and acts on the basis that only white people are racist but they mostly avoid saying it out in the open because they know if they did it could blow up in their faces. With lost rabbits we need to bring it right out in the open. There’s only two answers to the question. One is wrong and the second means…
From there you can start talking about becoming a minority, what happens if the other groups want revenge, south africa, ethnic studies that teach non-whites to hate whites etc. Make “racism” be about security and protection which is what it always has been about underneath.
They may not agree with you at the time but it doesn’t matter as you put that seed of fear in their head and every time they see something on the news that seed grows a little bit.
The second thing was when he mentioned he was totally opposed to illegal immigration. This is the way in with law rabbits imo. At that point i would have dropped everything else and immediately praised his opinion and agreed and talked fences for a bit etc. Then i’d ask him “why do you think the government refuses to enforce the law on illegal immigration?”
Keep asking till he gives an answer or gives up then from there you can segue into
– 1965
– immigration as a war on white americans
– the “left” ignoring the law because they want the votes if there’s an amnesty
– the “right” ignoring the law because of cheap labour
– the citizen’s duty to the government only applies if the government is keeping its side of the bargain
– etc
In a nutshell
1. Hold back a bit longer to find out what kind of rabbit you’re dealing with.
2. Enemies and stooges deserve an aggressive treatment.
3. Lost rabbits want more of a casual, chatty treatment like you’re talking over a beer after work. Find out what level they’re on and only aim to move them one level from where they currently are. Leave questions in their head.
4. Law rabbits are a special type and you need to pay special attention to their attitude to the law. This attitude can be used to swing them round against the government very fast.
(long. hope some was useful.)
#9 by Epiphany on 06/04/2010 - 8:07 pm
Stop believing their propaganda!
Stop watching television!
Stop watching movies!
If one believes what they say, then one would be controlled by them completely. Life, oftentimes, is not so much about what is actually true– mostly that is hard to know– but rather, what most people believe: at any rate, what they assume that everybody else believes. That is what Public Opinion is really all about.
#10 by Epiphany on 06/04/2010 - 8:41 pm
Eventually and inevitably,
people will stop watching television,
reading mainstream newspapers,
or going to see movies, anymore.
They will realize that what they
are consuming is Propaganda of the
very worst sort. None like to have
their own people vilified: that is
true even of White people.
They, the media, will eventually
realize that the public is bored of
the constant vilification of the
White Southerners and Germans, all
of the time. They would wish for
some other peoples to get to be vilified
and condemned, instead. How often can
the U.S. media smear the public’s noses
in Slavery and the Holocaust? I do wonder!
#11 by Truck Roy on 06/06/2010 - 3:44 pm
Thanks for the advice, Wandrin.
David is an anti-White and he is pretty sly at coming off like an average Joe. He as called in many times before and he has a set of talking points and he executes them. He has a different angle in each call.
In this case, he was trying sucker us into a “legal=accepting White genocide” v.s “illegal=opposing White genocide” paradigm and paint us as radicals.
I did not take the bait and redirected to the issue of White Genocide.
What I really want to get better at is transitioning into challenging the underlying assumptions behind the White Genocide position from any topic.
The underlying assumption of our opposition is that White folks are evil and deserve any bad things that happen to them.
This might seem like an easy assumption to debunk, but it seems that we are genetically prone to measuring ourselves against “perfection”, while we treat other races like animals.
For other races we don’t get angry when they rape and kill, because we assume that it is part of their nature, the same way that we don’t blame a grizzly bear for being violent. But, if a small portion of the White race bought Negro slaves 200 years ago, we all feel guilty about it.
In any case, I need to always bring the discussion back to the hypocrisy of the underlying assumptions of the anti-Whites… that White folks deserved genocide.
#12 by Wandrin on 06/07/2010 - 1:01 am
@Truck Roy
“David is an anti-White and he is pretty sly at coming off like an average Joe.”
Ah. My mistake then. I’ve come across a particular type of lost rabbit before who had a particular thing about law and legality and i jumped to conclusions.
“but it seems that we are genetically prone to measuring ourselves against “perfection””
Yeah we seem to naturally step back and self assess ourselves to see if they have a point and immediately we’re on the defensive. I assume they know this about us and that’s why they do the whole relentless attack thing. We need to copy the relentless attack tactic but i know in my own case i have to consciously force myself.
“What I really want to get better at is transitioning into challenging the underlying assumptions behind the White Genocide position from any topic.”
Practise is the main answer to that i guess.
I have a slightly different take on the mantra because of personal experiences and so my answer to someone like David once i know they’re an enemy follows from that.
Mass immigration is mostly unskilled young males and they tend to concentrate in the cheaper areas so what mass immigration actually means on the ground, at least in blue collar areas, is the creation of situations where the white population in those neighbourhoods are a majority of the total population but a minority of the young males.
The result of this is a huge amount of anti-white violence and intimidation as the invaders seek to dominate the terriotory. This violence is covered up by the media.
A lot of WN sites talk about crime stats but most don’t seem to understand that a lot of it represents ongoing violent ethnic cleansing of white people – literally – and that’s what the people who support mass immigration support whether they realise it or not.
Actual enemies i just hit with that because i know it’s 100% true but it might not work so well if people haven’t had the same direct experience.
#13 by Wandrin on 06/07/2010 - 8:25 am
@Truck Roy
(last comment)
This whole thing has been a good example of what i was saying in the first comment about the importance of knowing who you’re dealing with before you start. The subtle enemy types can present as lost rabbits and if you read them wrong like i did in this case then you can very easily get lost in argumentation.
They have a big advantage in argumentation through not believing in right and wrong so generally i avoid actually arguing with them unless i have a major IQ advantage over the individual. If they’re as smart or smarter and i realise they’re an enemy then i follow my version of the basics and have a talking point and just keep constantly going back to it like it’s a mixture of a wall and a weapon and hit them with it.
Yes, but the diversity you support is white genocide by another name.
Yes, but the immigration you support is white genocide by another name.
Yes, but “racism” is anything white people do to defend themselves against this attempted white genocide.
With the smart ones, not losing is more important than winning.
My big problem is you can use those mantra type tactics on lost rabbits too but i feel bad doing it in conversation because those tactics are basically verbal violence. With lost rabbits i feel obliged to have a fair, reasonable conversation. Trouble is when they’re a stealth anti-white and i get it wrong it bugs me for weeks.