Jared has replied to us:
Jared says that his institution can’t sell this genocide stuff.
Which once again goes back to the nature of institutions.
Jared is running an institution. An institution has its own priorities. Jared has succeeded in building a pro-white organization that can run a sizable pro-white convention.
The problem we face is quite simply that with the present institutions we’re going nowhere.
Our talk show people cannot get an audience with only what we are putting out there.
Jared is telling us that his people just can’t get their minds around the idea that a concerted effort to get rid of the white race is genocide. We have seen the people he is talking about in the Stormfront debates about the Mantra.
I am beginning to suspect that, if we think about this rather than just reacting to it, we may deduce something interesting:
The people who are the backbone of an institution, those on whom an institution depends continually for existence, tend be precisely those who are most resistant to new concepts.
#1 by Daniel Genseric on 10/13/2012 - 7:29 am
“The problem we face is quite simply that with the present institutions we’re going nowhere.” – Bob
This is an integral part of the paradigm shift we are spearheading. Many feel it. Some people can even see it. Few understand the shift. Our nameless crew are doing it.
“I’m not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.” – Niccolò Machiavelli
#2 by OldBlighty on 10/13/2012 - 8:21 am
I noticed Jared and others like him brush White Genocide aside, with their mantra:
“More than one way to do it”
“More than one way to do it”
“More than one way to do it”
Yet Jared also complains, he has Failed to make any progress convincing whites in general, using these other methods…
That is a contradiction of the Institutional kind.
***
The other one I’ve noticed is intellectuals and SFers that repeat,
“We are waiting for the collapse”
“We are waiting for the collapse”
“We are waiting for the collapse”
With this mantra, they are saying they couldn’t get white support, unless it was a cold day in hell. They are saying, they don’t know how to convince anyone of anything.
After an admission of incompetence like that, why would anyone read their blogs, or send them money???
#3 by BGLass on 10/13/2012 - 9:39 am
What seems telling about Mr. Taylor is that he doesn’t bother to take the next step, based on his own assertion, that there are two reasons Genocide is a no go: 1) “genocide means active killing” and 2) whites are a majority and can change policies. That it’s a hard sell, is not a real reason, only the first two points he offers, since they explain WHY he finds it a “hard sell.”
If he really cared about this, he would take the next step: to EXPLAIN why “soft kill” (not only “hard kill”) is a part of Genocide (which is right there in the U.N. definition of it.) He would start explaining “soft kill” and propaganda, etc, like crazy, wouldn’t he?
In regard to being a “majority,” he would notice the Global Climate we are supposed to be in, in which case Whites are a TINY minority, and also, the incredible play between White Ethnic Sub-Groups in countries such as the U.S. (Eg: I am a Northern European Protestant, a majority by some counts, and yet HAVE NO REPRESENTATION on the Supreme Court or Presidential Ticket (none are even OFFERED.)
In fact, we may leave the country because there is no representation for us here, whatsoever! (right?)
If one cared, wouldn’t they take the next step, based on their own assumptions, to explaining “soft kill” and admit they are really a minority?
The left’s big thing since Gramsci seemed to be just to infiltrate the existing institutions. They are just buildings with money and their names change all the time. Their advice would be to become his chairman of the bored, (board or whatever)
#4 by Daniel Genseric on 10/13/2012 - 10:22 am
No no no….
Don’t let him fool you. This is not about what Mr. Taylor really thinks about white genocide. He is worried about securing a future for his REPUTATION.
Respectability and the paycheck that comes with it.
#5 by Dave on 10/13/2012 - 9:57 am
Jared has an under appreciation of real history. The Mantra leverages the distraction of the anti-white whites.
That distraction is a RELIGIOUS FAITH. It is a faith that conflates the idea that “all men are created equal” with the idea that white people to not have an exclusive right to their lands, heritage, and posterity.
Jared does not understand that he is fighting a religion.
In contrast, Robert Whitaker does understand that he is fighting a religion.
Jared is fighting skirmish battles with the enemy. A skirmish battle is where the timing and location of the fighting engagement is not deliberately chosen by either side.
In contrast, Robert Whitaker is teaching ambush fighting techniques. Engaging an enemy through ambush is FAR SUPERIOR than engaging an enemy in a skirmish battle. In an ambush, you kill the enemy before he knows what hit him.
Ambush is a winning strategy. Jared doesn’t get this it all. Jared loves skirmish battles. Jared loves to argue with anti-white whites and non-whites. In contrast, we BUGSERS don’t argue. We (figuratively) KILL the enemy.
Our strategy is completely different than Jared’s. We don’t care if what we do makes us feel good. We don’t have a vested interest in fighting. All we care about is winning.
#6 by Daniel Genseric on 10/13/2012 - 10:26 am
“A pitched battle is where the timing and location of the fighting engagement is not deliberately chosen by either side.”
Dave, I think you mean the exact opposite. The battleground and the time is known to both opposing forces in “pitched battle”.
#7 by Simmons on 10/13/2012 - 10:32 am
We ask the questions. Simply put ask Mr. Taylor if he takes “anti-racism” at face value. This is what RRS did at this link.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/euro-centric/the-gladiators/
#8 by Dave on 10/13/2012 - 11:51 am
Daniel,
You are right! I got it 180 degrees wrong.
I mean skirmish! I’ll go change it. I need to look up my terms before using them. Thanks for correcting me.
#9 by markwn on 10/13/2012 - 12:14 pm
When Jared says White genocide is a “tough sell”, he fails to see the irony in that very statement. The race realism and immigration issues he has focused on for the past twenty years are a “tough sell”.
But to play devil’s advocate, Jared’s softer stance has allowed him much access to the mainstream media which is a good thing as he is allowed to say politically incorrect things to at least wet the appetite.
He is excellent at articulating “his” topics and has awakened many Whites, not fully but at least partially.
The best scenario is millions of whites changing from being lemmings to Mantra thinking, but maybe, just maybe, we have to consider this process has a middle ground for many Whites. We may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
The Bootcamp refers to a “window” to the indisputable truth.
Maybe, for many whites, Jared is a temporary middle ground, i.e., a window to the Mantra.
#10 by steadiness on 10/13/2012 - 12:19 pm
Sometimes you can use the word genocide, sometimes you can’t. Baby steps first.
The first and last lines of the mantra are the most important. Has he said that anti-racist is a code word for anti-white, or is he still scared of being called racist and trying to accuse anti-whites of being racist?
Is he saying Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, white countries for everybody, or does he still labor under the illusion that mass immigration and affirmative action aren’t only happening in white countries?
Once you push the first and last lines of the Mantra on someone, then you don’t need to tell them about genocide because it’s blindingly obvious.
#11 by backbaygrouch on 10/13/2012 - 12:55 pm
An unbelievable attack of commonsense in a left wing county. What next, accepting the reality of White Genocide? Are you listening anti-Whites and anti-Mantra pro-Whites?
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/florida-passes-plan-for-racially-based-academic-goals/
#12 by Daniel Genseric on 10/13/2012 - 2:33 pm
They are not listening. The train has left the station. We are moving forward without them.
#13 by Conrad on 10/13/2012 - 1:20 pm
We need to continue to encourage other pro-whites to use the mantra & expose the genocide. But it is useless to think that other organizations will completely change their programs. We must all do what we can, according to our understanding & the skills that we have, that’s why I tried to write Jack’s War. Do your job & everything will work out.
#14 by Daniel Genseric on 10/13/2012 - 2:34 pm
When I can, I will be purchasing multiple copies of your book, Conrad.
#15 by timeforfreedom on 10/14/2012 - 4:45 am
We don’t need to encourage other pro-Whites to do any such thing. That is nothing more than a distraction. You can’t convince people that the Mantra is the right way to “argue” the anti-Whites. We simply need to use the ‘broken record’ strategy with the Mantra…As we use the Mantra that IS in itself an argument for the use of the Mantra. Using the Mantra is the best argument for it simply because we win every battle that we enter while using the Mantra. This is ALL that we need to do in regard to outreach, that is why the Mantra is sooo powerfully effective. Just stay on the consistent message contained in the Mantra and you will win converts because of the Mantra’s inherent logic and effectiveness at beating the anti-Whites.
I hope you folks have a look at my blog:
http://www.westtoday.blogspot.com
#16 by Harumphty Dumpty on 10/13/2012 - 2:53 pm
My “pro-Mantra” and few outright Mantra comments have been left up on Amren lately.
This elaborate preface worked for me yesterday:
I truly don’t want to draw this thread off-topic, but so that readers can understand what I’m referring to when I advise them (and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Heimbach!) to call anti-whites “anti-whites” and charge them with genocide, I hope the moderators will allow me to give just this one example of how to launch that attack: