Some commenters were wondering why the other side can simply turn off an effective line of argument by saying “That’s the old hick line,” “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” or “Saving the white race.”
I have pointed out here literally dozens of times that the media choose to let conservatives into the media with whom they feel comfortable. In 1960 there would not be a single national TV discussion, it would consist entirely of liberal Republicans and liberal..
Opponents of the TV establishment were let in slowly as the conservative movement grew. Those with whom liberals were comfortable, Buckleys, Hannitys and Lowrys, became prominent. Those who refused to fit in and insisted on statements everybody knew were true but which made for a short and decisive debate were excluded.
Likewise, the anti-whites have chosen their opposition, and this paycheck opposition must concentrate on respectability, which leads to paychecks. I have pointed this out, literally, a hundred times. I’ve never seen it noted here.
Though I am a recognized pro, no one calls on me to debate the pro-white side. Fox asked SF for a spokesman, and I was the only one who would do it. They cut out my reciting the Mantra in the second one and no one asked me back, though I am a qualified professional spokesman.
If you THINK about it, you know why. But I have discussed it a hundred times and it hasn’t been noticed.
People are twiddling off far too much on whether we will win or lose instead of listening carefully to how you should play the game.
#1 by Jason on 02/25/2013 - 6:30 am
A couple of questions come up:
1. Why has the other side had such a commanding position? Why do they get to determine which conservatives or pro-Whites get interviewed. Why do they always own the assets?
2. What can we do with this knowledge of how the game is played? It would seem that until some major change comes along, no honest conservative or pro-White stands a chance in the media. He simply will be blacklisted. So what can we to do about it?
I suspect some of our silence on the matter was that we didn’t think anything could be done about it. I hope I was wrong. Maybe one thing we could do is make it clear to the public that it IS that way. The anti-White’s game relies on some cooperation by regular whites and conservatives. If more people would condemn Hannity and O’Reilly as paid pets, maybe that would force them to interview true pro-Whites.
Anyway, I am eager for Bob’s explanation.
#2 by Daniel Genseric on 02/25/2013 - 7:34 am
They had the BALLS to do what Reagan’s people didn’t when they won. That’s all.
Once again, “Chicken Bob”
“I [Robert Walker Whitaker] wanted to do what every other administration in history did: get our people into the permanent civil service, so when we went out of office we would still have lots of contacts.
I was forbidden to do that. I was forbidden to give anybody on our side information or contacts for getting into those thousands of positions that regularly opened up! I could have put in hundreds who had vet pref alone.”
Judging by the routine astonishment witnessed here when our team wins a battle, I think Bob’s fear of history repeating itself is deeply rooted in reality and justified.
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/10/20/chicken-bob/
#3 by Jason on 02/25/2013 - 5:36 pm
Good callback. We have been pushed aside as true Whites for so long, it is hard to imagine actually being in charge sometimes (speaking for myself).
#4 by Jmcaul on 02/26/2013 - 5:11 am
“I [Robert Walker Whitaker] wanted to do what every other administration in history did: get our people into the permanent civil service, so when we went out of office we would still have lots of contacts.”
Would I be correct in assuming that even though these people did not make it into the permanent civil service (closed system,) a number of them are still around and in contact with one another AND Ole Bob? Who’s to say they are still not assets on our side (open system?)
#5 by Dave on 02/25/2013 - 10:29 am
The anti-whites recognize any opposition that runs like a dog after the sticks that they throw. That is their tactic for banning real opposition. Accordingly they don’t want anything to do with the few in the opposition, like we BUGSERS, that don’t run after sticks.
Is it the Establishment’s fault so many of their opponents run after sticks?
The Establishment wants a public that is permanently confused. Given the plethora of the Establishment’s opponents’ moral, economic, and religious complaints, the Establishment doesn’t need to go to great lengths to get a public that is both permanently confused and greatly divided. It’s all wordism: wordist versus wordist.
What is new about this? A confused and divided public is a natural fact that has been used by every tyranny since the dawn of time.
#6 by Sentinel on 02/25/2013 - 10:36 am
Bob, are you saying that WE should, in turn, choose OUR anti-White opposition?
#7 by Jmcaul on 02/25/2013 - 12:03 pm
They want us to grace them with our presence on their programs? They will have to adhere to OUR terms and allow us to use OUR terminology. They get ONE chance. If they blow it, it’s back to the sterile echo chamber for them. It’s our way or the highway. Truth is, we do not need them as much as they need us anyways.
#8 by jo3w on 02/25/2013 - 1:08 pm
This is not related but I have been encouraged to share. I’ve always pondered, why is the left so hard on small business? Duh…they want lots of workers, not lots of businessmen. I am embarrassed how simple this is, yet it took me this long to see it! Thanks
#9 by Jmcaul on 02/25/2013 - 1:29 pm
Small business people depend upon themselves, NOT on ‘the system.’ Big Brother does not LIKE independent, self-sufficient people who are providing for their own selves and their own families and who therefore do not NEED Big Brother. Big Brother NEEDS to be NEEDED in order to exist.
Big Brother needs, no CRAVES to be loved and he will BEAT the love into us if he needs to.
#10 by premiseblog on 02/25/2013 - 4:56 pm
Hi Bob and BUGS, I’ve been away awhile. I am a busy musician, and therefore avoid the internet and all posting for long stretches.
I have this to say in reaction to this statement of Bob:
“I have pointed out here literally dozens of times that the media choose to let conservatives into the media with whom they feel comfortable. ”
“People are twiddling off far too much on whether we will win or lose instead of listening carefully to how you should play the game.”
Might we not need to be play the game a bit? Is there not a way for one of us to become a respectable conservative (deep cover BUGS agent), and then blow the lid on White Genocide when we reach the top?
Do you think some of the respectable conservatives intended when they were young to “blow the lid”, but didn’t because they liked the cocktail parties (Rush Limbaugh) and wanted to stay in the game?
Surely we could begin thinking about secret long-term implantation for those of us considering political activism.
#11 by Conrad on 02/25/2013 - 6:59 pm
In order for any of us to get into useful positions that will expose the anti-white system for what it is, we must be in positions of CONTROL.
Our enemies did this during the “long march through the institutions”. More over they have been & are financed by all of the big foundations, banks and international corporations. Big business has long been in bed with the Communist forces.
We have made great progress in our efforts but we need to increase our efforts if we are to win this existential game. A mass movement will be needed.
……….
Jack’s War
#12 by Jason on 02/25/2013 - 7:11 pm
By the way, is that book “Spoiled Rotten” by Jay Cost one you recommend Bob? The preview looks interesting as insight into real politics.
#13 by Tom Bowie on 02/25/2013 - 8:50 pm
I’m not much of a wordsmith and I tend to remain silent but that’s not why I was silent on this topic. It was so self evident I didn’t say it and then it and it dawned on me that’s what I’m supposed to be doing; stating the obvious. The Mantra is nothing more than stating the obvious on a topic and Mantra Thinking is stating the obvious on related topics as well as everything else.
While I’m posting I may as well try to say something else I was thinking today after I read the Blog this morning.
Most people have heard of “Capital Crimes and Misdemeanors” and they think they have a good idea what that means. Under the religion of political correctness there is something referred to by Anti-Whites as “Hate Crimes” and by White and Normal as “Thought Crimes”.
You can get quite a bit more punishment added if a White Person harms or kills a non-White if it can be labeled a “Hate Crime” but, that’s only viewed as a major crime by most people when in fact it’s a Misdemeanor. Such laws came first with much ta-do and fan-fare not because it was important but, so that High Crimes could be added on later. The Thought Crime most feared is not so much what you think, as it is saying it out loud and perhaps getting somebody else to think as well.
Speech Laws (AKA: Thought Crime) is the Capital Crime in an Anti-White system not for the reasons stated but for the reasons never talked about. Some Nations have not managed to get “Capital Crimes” enacted yet even after getting the laws against Misdemeanors passed.
When it comes to what we want to do, we’re not looking to commit a Misdemeanor.
#14 by Conrad on 02/25/2013 - 10:17 pm
You might call this a reminder, or just some encouragement. Take it how ever you like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmQpknA0EKo
…………..
Jack’s War
https://www.createspace.com/3820778/
#15 by Tom Bowie on 02/26/2013 - 9:48 pm
“Respectable Liberal”.
If you control the message they will come.
#16 by dungeoneer on 02/27/2013 - 12:40 am
There are no disrespectable Liberals in the anti-white scheme of things are there?