When I was on the Hill Massachusetts had a black senator.
He was a black REPUBLICAN.
He had pale blue eyes and a pale complexion.
When I went to the Hill at Union Station subway, I would walk in the Senate side and go across to the House on the trolley.
At that time, security had been tightened by our standards but couldn’t compare with today’s. A civilian without a Hill ID had to have his appointment checked on. Those of us with IDs had to show them and were subject to a briefcase search.
About six one morning only me and Brookes came in at the same time. Capitol Hill Police must recognize all congressman by face, so he just walked in with a greeting to the cop.
The cop, trying to be nice , said, “If you’re with him, we don’t need to check your briefcase.“
It was six a.m. and I had been working most of the night, but I wasn’t rude. I just said “NO” with an emphasis that took the guards a bit aback and put my briefcase on he guard desk pretty hard.
Good God, NO. I was NOT with a Massachusetts mulatto, but most of all, I was NOT with a LIBERAL Republican.
The policeman grinned.
There is a feeling far worse than being accused of racism. That is when someone smiles and says you have NO racist feelings.
Another reason that old respectable denial is so bad is because it is humiliating.
The person is saying that you could not be called by ANY of his definitions a racist.
It is hard for me to think of a more vicious insult than that, even being accused of working for a New England liberal Republican, and that is very, very far out there.
The charge of racist should be met with the exact words no respectable conservative ever dares to ask: “What is a racist?”
#1 by backbaygrouch on 01/06/2012 - 7:24 am
Within the party I had real problems with Ed Brookes.
Despised his politics.
Always voted for him
If you saw the alternatives, you would have too.
Politics and thin skins don’t go together.
It ain’t a game for virgins.
#2 by Bob on 01/06/2012 - 8:25 am
BBG, surely you can assume my sympathy for any political sane person, much less a BUGSER, in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
#3 by BGLass on 01/06/2012 - 8:35 am
To BE a liberal, progressive, anti-racist, whatever, is still to BE something.
They only get pissed if one says: you are nothing from nowhere… you are sort of one of those culture vultures who just sort of picks of parts of other people’s groups, like go to an ethnic restaurant or something… you parents didn’t bother with giving you an identity… they didn’t attend to that part of your upbringing… you aren’t really WITH anybody…
it’s deeply engrained, religiously, in some traditions, not to fill others with lack (b/c it produces their envy, and makes you a sinner, seducing into sin). but it does work.
maybe it makes them angry enough to try to affiliate with their own group.
the militarist-corporatist (fascist proper) progressivist animal is very funny. Walking contradictions bristling with morality. how do you do endless land grabs (whether through eminent domain, outlawing various crops, seizures for military bases, whatever) THEN bristle with righteousness discussing “private property,” or go on and on about “pro-life” while bombing the shit out of everything.
LOL. —why can’t we discuss what’s going on INSIDE an animal s/a that? That’s the interesting thing!
#4 by OldBlighty on 01/06/2012 - 10:07 am
“you are nothing from nowhere… you aren’t really WITH anybody… ”
You are so mean, BGLass. I’m stealing it.
#5 by BGLass on 01/06/2012 - 8:40 am
Liberal Republicans, progressivist militarists-corporatists, welfare-state-conservatives, whatever—
they truly are the real poster children for CD.
pro-life and pro-war! pro-multi-culti AND heritage! pro-private property AND pro use of law for land grab! pro-family but pro immigration that breaks up american families who keep moving!
but why can’t we discuss the internal workings of such people???— everybody has a t.v., and so everybody watches such folks in action, but some don’t even mention it, lol
#6 by BGLass on 01/06/2012 - 8:49 am
The scariest thing—
What happens over the long term In places where IDEA-based group formation has been in play (where anyone outside the idea or doctrine –like equality– is killed or ostracized as some form of “heretic”)?
Over many generations of genetically selecting those best suited to this—
Does CD become the dominant trait? Some people really are better at it than others (if you look around).
there really are whole FAMILIES of it.
#7 by Gavin on 01/06/2012 - 9:00 am
Once I met two ultra-libs. The girl had some buttons that said “end racism” pinned to her. I asked “what is racism?”
The guy piped up, “oh do you hate Black people?”
“| hate some Black people” I replied.
He went on say something along the lines of “you are not a racist because you just hate some Black people because they are jerks and not because of the color of their skin.”
He was right that the only Blacks I “hate” are the ones who do things I don’t like.
However I did NOT like being told “you are not a racist” by this effeminate little dork. As if he was granting me his approval for “not being racist.”
THAT is a real insult.
#8 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 10:23 am
This is intriguing and plays into what happened over at jillianelsegood channel on YT yesterday (Hate is Easy, Love takes Courage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9lG1_8cdfU&feature=channel_video_title). I was dropping Mantra-mini 500-pounders all over the place and was getting lots of flak. Then SHE got hit with “She’s not a racist. She’s a Human BEING!”
I said “Well, how nice of you to say that. I AM a pro-White. Check out my channel and my videos. Do I get the right to exist too?”
[crickets] then silence…..
Your guess and mine is that I do NOT get the right to exist in the anti-White’s world. But, there’s nothing more priceless than the endgame which concludes with the anti-White FLIPPING over the chessboard and storming out of the room.
Thanks Bob.
#9 by Gavin on 01/08/2012 - 5:20 am
I did some mantra thinking on what I wrote here and came to an obvious conclusion.
#10 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 11:14 am
“The charge of racist should be met with the exact words no respectable conservative ever dares to ask: ‘What is a racist?'”
Hm. When I first arrived here and started posting with all of you, the first gentle nudge I got was, “We don’t use the word “racist.”
I could see good reasons for not using the word, and since I couldn’t find anything written or said about its use or non-use by Bob or others of you (I did ask, in a post here), I ended up writing reams myself about reasons for not using the word “racist,” or “racism,” mostly in posts at OO which are now also on the first couple of pages of our own thread, “Are you new to BUGS Swarm?”
So Bob, your concluding statement in your post today surprised me a bit. I’ve tried to think through what the responses, counter-responses, etc. might be to the question, “What is a racist?”, and I can see that it could be a workable question. Gavin’s post gave me pause, but then Genseric showed how one could take the next step to take such an exchange to where we’d like it.
The possibilities still seem a bit tangled to me, when we lead off with a question (I understand the effect of using a question) that uses a term that anti-Whites have pre-loaded so strongly with accusations against us that I assume are strengthened in the audience’s mind whenever the audience hears or sees the word. It seems simpler to me to just respond with “anti-racist is a code word for anti-White,” or some of the more clever responses along that line that have been given that I can’t recall right now.
But Bob, I feel committed to always trying what you think is best on Mantra-related matters, so if you are suggesting as you seem to be that we use your question in our postings when we are called a “racist,” I’ll start doing that and see what happens.
I’m assuming that we should still avoid the term “racism” in most circumstances and instead use the term “r-word.”
Bob, if you feel like saying more, it could be helpful, and of course I look forward to hearing from others too.
I had thought that part of our methodology was to never attack directly or help keep in play the heavily fortified positions of the anti-Whites (“racism,” “racist,” “anti-semite,” “Jew,” etc.), but instead occupy and build up our own virgin territory of “anti-White” and “White Genocide.”
I thought that in general the only time we use the word “racist” is to say, “anti-racist is a code word for anti-White,” a statement which I think doesn’t elicit the automatic mental reflex that just the word “racism” does, for reasons I listed in an ill-written response to Genseric on p. 35 of “Debate advice and style.”
#11 by Simmons on 01/06/2012 - 11:33 am
HD let me help confuse the situation for you. When we started getting rolling here and my N&J was being purged, I used to rant against using the word “racist” since our use seemed to be taking the anti-Whites at face value.
All of our side seemed to use the word “racist” at the anti-Whites definition. If racist was used at AmRen it then provoked the follow up from them of reams of stats and facts (all true by the way).
“Racist” a few years ago meant White and nothing but White.
A few years Anno Mantra we few Bugsters have destroyed that world wide myth. Yes I truly believe that we have changed this discourse.
So in true confusing fashion I have picked up their spit ball with rubber gloves and have begun to wing it back at them.
Though I still never ever vary off of, Anti-racism means nothing but anti-White.”
#12 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 11:47 am
Simmons, that IS helpful. Don Black mentioned in a recent broadcast that he thought the word “racism” is beginning to lose a slight bit of its sting. (This is reason to rejoice!)
Well I’m still just a beginning bugster…that’s the truth…and I feel inclined to stay on the safe side of that word by not using it at all (except in our signature statement you ended with, of course) until I feel much more fluent in the style that’s been developed here.
Unless of course our commander in chief is ordering a general change in tactic!
#13 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 11:53 am
“I have picked up their spit ball with rubber gloves and have begun to wing it back at them.”
By using Bob’s question, or in various other ways? My curiosity is much aroused.
#14 by Dave on 01/06/2012 - 12:00 pm
HD,
You get lost if lose sight of your assessment of your enemies.
The question in confrontations is are you dealing with a tame dog or feral dog? (A tame dog trades his freedom for slavery and a collar while a feral dog has insecurity for his feed.)
The accusation of “racist” is most likely to come from a tame dog and tame dogs often wear outrageous costumes. A tame dog is an enemy that has to be dealt with ruthlessly. Tame dogs are blind and the advantage is entirely yours. Any method that punks them down and evokes dread in them will do and the Mantra is very good for that.
But a feral dog is different. A feral dog is a potential ally, so don’t get lost in the confrontation. The question “What is a racist” is appropriately asked of a feral dog. He might actually understand what you are saying.
#15 by Simmons on 01/06/2012 - 12:05 pm
Bob’s question is a lead in to a Mantra or mini-Mantra.
#16 by Bob on 01/06/2012 - 12:34 pm
Please note that my comment on defining racism had nothing to do with us. I just repeated that RESPECTABLE CONSERVATIVES still cower and pee on themselves instead of even asking the meaning of the word that makes them cower and pee.
With us it is strictly pro-white and anti-white. The only time we refer to the r word is “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
So, HD, no change of orders from GHQ
#17 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 1:04 pm
Whew! 🙂
I was thinking that if the r-word continues to slowly lose some of its sting, or at least to slowly lose it’s exclusive use as a pejorative for Whites, that in 5 or 10 or 15 years the stricture against it’s use might be removed.
BUT then I remembered my deepest objection to the r-word: it conveys the fundamental falsehood that racial feeling is a learned pathology rather than an innate biological trait that evolved to protect the survival of racial groups.
So I’m guessing that we will always abjure the r-word, since it’s a gigantic lie at its core.
#18 by Gavin on 01/06/2012 - 2:12 pm
Bob,
I do a lot of mocking and pointing out double standards. Saying things like No one calls the Japanese government “racist” for maintaining themselves as an Asian country and giving preference to Japanese people but they will call the Britain government “racist” if they have the same policies in regards to the British. Of course I end by pointing out that anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.
I assumed this was fine but is there something I am missing?
#19 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 3:17 pm
(I’m fired up and want to throw in my two bits):
I like your response (as always, which you may have noticed!) but in this case wouldn’t it be better to write it as,
“No one screams the r-word at the Japanese government for maintaining themselves…etc.”
By writing “r-word,” instead of helping the anti-Whites repeat over and over their loaded word “racist,” we don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of that lying word and we don’t collaborate in hammering home all the lying messages that the anti-Whites’ have loaded onto their word. Those messages are still very real to the people we’re addressing.
Also, since in sound and form the term “r-word” is similar to the term “n-word,” it seems reasonable that the term “r-word” will subliminally implant in the minds of our audience the fact that “racist” is just another nasty pejorative, but is one used against Whites.
#20 by Gavin on 01/06/2012 - 4:02 pm
Makes sense.
Also, I only write something like that in response to the use of that word. Bringing it up on it’s own is counter-productive for the reason you gave.
Thanks HD
p.s. I haven’t been encountering the r-word must lately except for when it was thrown at Ron Paul last week.
#21 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 4:26 pm
d00d,
that makes us sound like a bunch of Political Correctness Officers (PCO’s). When they write you a speeding ticket, SHRED their shit to pieces, right in front of their faces.
“BAM. Fuck off, anti-white bugger.”
HD,
I can count on one hand the number of times an anti-white has hit me back with something substantial after testing HIS pejorative against the Mantra machine of simple truth. Yep. Still waiting to unfold a finger.
#22 by c-bear on 01/06/2012 - 12:52 pm
Back in the early 90’s I frequented the coffee shop scene. There were a lot of liberal types, but I was there for the chess. I was playing an older Russian, and we were talking about heritage. He was especially interested in my Scottish/ English background. The next table over there was a young Jewish girl. I asked (knowing full well) what her heritage was. She absolutely flew off the handle. In her shrillest voice she exclaimed, “What the f**k difference does it make? You are a racist!” I of course remained calm. I asked her “How is discussing our heritage ‘racist’? I just asked you a simple question and you turned into a harpie.” The rest of the coffee shop agreed that she was making a scene, and she left.
She did not have an answer to my question. I have used this in the real world, and Bob, you are absolutely correct. We need to be asking them “What is a racist?”
#23 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 1:34 pm
c-bear, I love such tales (and nice response to the young harpie!) I should get out more and see if I can’t acquire some tales like this of my own.
Be sure though to read Bob’s statement just above.
In the circumstance you were in, I can think of no better response nor even one as good as the one you gave, but I still might be upset to see that response made by one of us online, since to some degree the response implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy (although at the same time it delivers that legitimacy a glancing blow!) of the r-word except in an extreme usage!
#24 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 4:01 pm
“What is a racist?”/ “R-Word”
While this seems to be a [tool] GREAT way of delving into theories and the hypothetical, which “Intellectuals” so lustfully debate, I fail to understand HOW it helps us destroy them at the break-neck speed we are so accustomed to?
Pretend I were putting on a two minute presentation in which I invited you to sit down while I cut an object you were frighteningly familiar with to ribbons. Remember, I only have 2 minutes. Would it behoove me to introduce this abstraction with this NEW label which I now have to EXPLAIN; for which everyone already recognizes and associates with a already-DEFINED value (E-V-I-L)?? Does this make any sense?
Or, do I pull back the cloth draped over it and introduce it to you as “Yes. Here it is. The label. The crutch you all know and LOVE. “racisssssst.” Snip snip. Neutered. I give you caritssssss. I C RATSSSSSS.
I, for one, never shy away from it because what we are doing is taking their phrases and terms and LAUGHING at them. The audience sees us doing this. All the while we are IMPOSING our new terminology alongside of that. To me, that is the WOW factor.
“Nazi-Racist-Bigot-Supremacist.” Shall we shy away from those as well? Or do we grab them right by the horns, attach them to the Mantra machine of simple truth and flush them down the crapper once and for all by testing them against reality; One. By. One.
In my humble opinion, getting bogged down in the details of whether or not this word “racist” EXISTS is just another avenue for tailgating.
Let’s make them REGRET they ever used it to begin with. Let’s DEMORALIZE them. Kick that crutch right out from underneath them.
Usage:
#25 by Simmons on 01/06/2012 - 1:06 pm
Bottom line we are effective. Why? Because with the Mantra we destroy the myths of anti-White and the left’s moral superiority. As Bob has said many time it is the respectables job to patronize these myths, but we destroy them.
The myths are also why Jared Taylor is innefective, his first statements in any debate must be to destroy these myths not go into a tic tac toe game of “facts.”
#26 by shari on 01/06/2012 - 1:48 pm
Racist is a very deceptive word. First it was presented as “hating somebody for the color of their skin,” an unreasonable ill will. Now it just means anyone who is white. But I don’t think it has entirely lost it’s subtlety
Yesterday, at a grocery store, was a very polite, pretty young black woman. Just like the TV ads. Of course she is not FROM here. More likely, a recent newcomer. There is more and more of that.
Today, I looked at a newspaper which featured a picture of the states representative in the Miss America pagent. I knew right away she wasn’t from here either, although I don’t know what her racial background is. It’s just not apparent. Now that’s subtle. The article did reveal that she is not from this state, but was very subtle about that as well
My point is, that there are a lot of whites, who, if asked “What is a racist?” will look at you and say. YOU ARE for even bringing the subject up. If you say” All brown countries are poor” they just act as if that’s there, but this is here. Of no concern. I feel like I’m the one who is never WITH anybody.
#27 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 2:35 pm
EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE Bob’s correction of the misunderstanding many of us drew from the last line of his original post.
Bob’s correction states:
“The only time we refer to the r word is ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.’”
As he explains in the rest of his correction, his last line in his original post, “The charge of racist should be met with the exact words no respectable conservative ever dares to ask: ‘What is a racist?'”, most definitely DOES NOT mean that we in our activities here should use the r-word in that way or in any other way. In fact, Bob says most definitely that OUR ONLY USE of the r-word should be in our statement, “anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.”
#28 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 4:15 pm
I do NOT agree with this assessment. I would like a link where Bob says NOT to use the word in combat? I read what he just wrote in these comments, but I do not recognize that as an order to refrain from humiliating an anti-White should he be stupid enough to use it himself.
Anti-white calls me a racist. And I cannot use it and throw it back in his face? I fail to understand Bob’s orders as such. If so, belay my last.
Please feel free to correct me, anybody.
#29 by Simmons on 01/06/2012 - 2:39 pm
anyway the swarm is hittin em hard
#30 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 3:52 pm
I’ve got to cut myself loose from these fascinating threads we develop and get back to the swarm! I’ve started feeling terribly guilty the last few days!
Otoh, I’m beginning to get the strong feeling that Bob hasn’t laid down anywhere a lot of explanation of why we do exactly some of the things we do (maybe Horus has, but I still haven’t made time to get to his site), and I’m getting the feeling we all need to have a deeper understanding of why we say some things but not others, etc. E.g., not only understand the truth of the Mantra, but understand why the way Bob has worded it makes it so effective in the long run (even if people say “duh” or “huh?” at their first encounter). I’m alarmed for our stability in the future whenever the notion crops up today that the Mantra should be improved.
But launching discussion of all that would mean starting more threads here, and just for my own sake I certainly don’t want to do that!
#31 by BGLass on 01/06/2012 - 5:57 pm
I feel like I’m the one who is never WITH anybody….
around 2004, landed on a website for processing S. Americans, complete with “expected conversations.” One of the things they were adamant about was “not having to answer the question, ‘where are you from?'”
to be anything other than a materialist labor unit is rude. quite a price tag for admission to the “with others” club.
Also, the site told the “newcomers” that “Americans just LIKED to work, and that they worked all the time, because they preferred it to family life and leisure,” and the women preferred their careers. no joke.
now that was insulting.
anyway— WHAT do you ‘get to know’ if “where are you FROM?” is not allowed as a question?
Exactly what are you left “connecting” over? (taste in shopping products, weight loss and gain, wanting to be “healthier,” things you could eat, some shared “hobby,” gym stats, um…)
and that’s what one becomes when there is actually no answer for it. when they say, “what do you mean? from…?”
Meantime nothing could be more important in the Bible they usually profess to adhere to than all those “begats.” Where you were from was EVERYTHING in the whole west religion.
#32 by Gunn on 01/06/2012 - 6:49 pm
If they use “racist/racism” in a discussion on internet, I ask them why they use Jewish/communist hate-terminology for prosecution of Whites. And why they are so anti-White.
#33 by Peter Whiterabbit on 01/06/2012 - 7:10 pm
To summarize – We should use the term racist provided we finish the thought with anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
#34 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 7:43 pm
I agree completely with what Bob says:
“The only time we refer to the r word is ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.’”
Doesn’t your statement go beyond that?
—–
Genseric, certainly the terminology we use or don’t use isn’t just a “detail;” certainly it’s of primary importance. A chief thing we’re trying to do is replace the anti-Whites’ terminology with our own, no?
You’re mistaken if you think I’m hammering at this out of my fondness for fine analysis.
—–
Bob, either I don’t understand, or Peter and Genseric don’t.
I think it’s important that we all have the same understanding, whatever that understanding should be. Or, if it’s not a matter that’s as important as I seem to be trying to make it, then I and probably some others should be clear on that.
Bob, can you help us out?
#35 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 8:12 pm
No. I gotchya buddy. I am not certain I am correct. I am just stating my opinion on the topic. I always appreciate your take on everything.
I meant getting bogged down in the details in front of our audience. Not in here.
I am all for ironing out any/all wrinkles.
#36 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 8:28 pm
Lol! Genseric, I think I better stop writing! I just read your first line as jokingly saying,
“Now I gotchya, buddy. I am certain I am correct” Ha!!
I can get a bit cranky in situations like this, and am sorry if it showed! 🙂
#37 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 8:23 pm
Genseric, you write:
“‘Nazi-Racist-Bigot-Supremacist.’ Shall we shy away from those as well? Or do we grab them right by the horns, attach them to the Mantra machine of simple truth and flush them down the crapper once and for all by testing them against reality; One. By. One.”
I definitely think we should “shy away from them,” and shy away from the word “racist,” and I think it’s important. If Bob tells me it’s not important, then I’ll certainly shut up about it. But based on what Bob has said so far, and has said on our working thread when words of that nature (IMO) have been used, I think presently that my view is the same as his.
You speak of “truth,” and “reality,” saying that we should “attach [the anti-White terms] to the Mantra machine of simple truth” and “test them against reality.”
I think reality and truth count for very little with people. I think what counts is what goes into their ears over and over and over.
Reality and truth count for SOMEthing, and that is an advantage for us, but if reality and truth were big winners, we might not need to even do this. All the debates pro-Whites have won in the past, all the reality and truth that’s been presented, would count for a lot more than they have.
We’re presenting a new truth, White Genocide, but we’re doing it in a new fashion, and it’s my understanding that part of that fashion is to not aid anti-Whites to get their messages into the brains of our audience by using ourselves terminology that anti-Whites have already loaded with their own messages.
I’m going to wait now for what Bob says.
#38 by Genseric on 01/06/2012 - 8:50 pm
So, in essence, what you are saying is that “sound trumps truth” while working with a consistent message. Interesting. Is this correct?
If so, then why do so many BUGSters use “Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for EVERYBODY?” Is this NOT the mantra of anti-whites? If so, then why would we repeat that. Because we are framing the debate. Poking at the underbelly, no?
Words don’t scare me like they used to. Perhaps this is my hangup. I have no problem showing the audience how ridiculous THEIR terminology is. Then, as an alternative, I always show them OUR terminology. Well, almost always. 🙂
I have seen so many BUGSters do what I have advertised that I took it as a forgone conclusion that humiliating them with a quote of theirs (which sometimes includes “racist”) is HUGE. Perhaps that’s an assumption I shouldn’t have made.
I think I am saying that if an anti-white points one of those words at me, then I grab it mid-air and fire it right back in his direction. Then, I end with and shroud it within our terminology.
#39 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 10:10 pm
“So, in essence, what you are saying is that ‘sound trumps truth’”
I’m saying that repetition trumps truth, and does so most effectively if the same sounds are used over and over to repeat the same ideas over and over. And don’t use sounds that have already been loaded with ideas that contradict the ideas you’re trying to transmit.
“Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for EVERYBODY,” is NOT the Mantra of the anti-Whites!
The Mantra of the anti-Whites is, “You are racist”!
Anti-Whites have repeated that mantra over and over until now both the idea it conveys and the sound it uses to convey the idea spring automatically into the consciousness and onto the tongue of most Whites whenever they hear anything about race that’s non-liturgical.
“Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for EVERYBODY” is us lifting the veil off of the most important part of their lying mantra!
I’m slightly diffident about being absolutely ironclad about non-use of the term “racist” or “racism”…I haven’t been out there posting enough, and maybe I would see instances where I would think that going out of bounds with this was a good idea. But I would think such instances would be very rare exceptions, and out of fear of “drift,” and out of respect for what I read Bob’s view to be, I wouldn’t even do those!
Note that nowhere in the Mantra does Bob include the term “racism” or “racist.” Bob doesn’t say in the Mantra, “They say we are racist. What we are is pro-White.”
Bob says, “They say they are anti-racist.* What they are is anti-White.”
The term “racist,” because of the way it’s been loaded, always to some degree draws attention away from the anti-Whites and back to us in a very unfavorable way.
Genseric, you are WORKING me! Lol! 🙂
*I responded on a thread I referenced above re your earlier objection that “anti-racist” contains the word “racist.”
#40 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 8:35 pm
Peter, my apologies to you too if my crankiness showed through. But I had thought you and I were in agreement about this! Yow! 🙂
#41 by Peter Whiterabbit on 01/06/2012 - 9:21 pm
HD, I like this mini-mantra and get positive feedback about it all the time: “Nobody is flooding and forcibly “integrating” every black nations and ONLY black nations with non-blacks and calling native blacks evil racists for opposing their replacement. This is happening in every white nation and ONLY in white nations. It is genocide. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. ”
It allows me to use the scare word and introduce the audience to our terminology. When anti-whites read it, they generally go on the defensive and try to swear they aren’t anti-white. It also is a quick and easy meme that others can use to defend themselves against being called racist. This is the only case where I can see us using the word racist. I think we agree…and no need to apologize.
#42 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 10:34 pm
“Nobody is flooding and forcibly ‘integrating’ every black nations and ONLY black nations with non-blacks and calling native blacks evil racists for opposing their replacement. This is happening in every white nation and ONLY in white nations. It is genocide. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Peter, that is so perfect (I’m too tired to try to say why) that I couldn’t possibly naysay it. But you know I regard you as a master…most of what I read by you knocks me out with it’s terse perfection, as I’ve told you probably to the point of embarrassment to both of us.
I like this one so much that I will use it myself (unless Bob shows up and vetoes it), but I will not trust myself to write anything with the word “racism” in it!
Okay, I need to post more, and see more of what’s actually being done. I think I’m finally recuperated and READY!
Boy, I like you guys! This group really rocks!
#43 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/06/2012 - 10:55 pm
Peter, you’ve practically constructed a compound term (like “anti-racist”) with your phrase “evil racist.”
And it IS your own constructed term; no one actually says to us the words, “you are evil racists”! (since the word “evil” would be considered superfluous in that context).
I think that post works so well because you say “evil racists” instead of just “racists.” (Try reading the post with just “racists” and see what you think). You’ve constructed your own new, un-preloaded (except a little bit) term that carries principally your own loading, mockery!
You do this sort of thing without even thinking about it, I suspect. You are better than you know!
I think that using a loaded word as part of a compound term in itself reduces the word’s load. Something there about how the human mind works IMO.
#44 by Simmons on 01/07/2012 - 2:29 pm
“Racist” is a word coined and used to terrorize whites. It works. Take the roughest toughest national security conservative who can talk about hardware and spec ops and how “we” are gonna kick butt, put that idiot up on a stage and send out something resembling an authority figure to call that phony tough a “racist” and watch that puke piddle his pants.
Anti-Whites are terrorists, BUGsers are ultra-elite counter terrorist operatives.
#45 by meawhiterabbit on 01/08/2012 - 4:39 pm
i usually use the phrase “your little marxist control word” when i refer to the R word