In response to “Why the Only Answer to the Mantra is Labels and Insults,” some commenters brought up their problems with their families or friends.

I have the same problem. I can’t go through the whole Mantra daily with everybody I see every day.

So I use “anti-white.”

It very seldom comes up that one must describe anybody’s political viewpoint, but I use “anti-white” as often as I can. I drop it in routinely. By now very few people I know even try to deal with it.

I will often say, “Well, he’s as anti-white as you are, but he’s conservative on other issues…”

This is NOT the Mantra. When I tell you how to use the Mantra, we all know what the two standard responses will be.

But you have to develop “anti-white” for yourself, and the results will be fascinating to me. The first thing to remember is that it is a descriptive term, not an argument. More often than not, you will have the satisfaction of their swallowing it without comment.

That is quite a coup. You are dealing with family or friends to whom you have already described the Mantra, so “anti-white” is as good as a repeat. If someone is listening who has not heard the Mantra, you get to repeat your argument.

“An antiwhite is someone who wants the white race to disappear”

What I want to emphasize here is that there is no standard way to handle this, because, at long last, we have something for which no programmed response is available. You are now ready to go out on your own.

You’ll learn to handle the responses, and I get to sit here and see what you learn out in the field.

There is nothing wrong with losing. I certainly didn’t develop the Mantra over years without a LOT of embarrassments. Every word in the rigid full Mantra is the result of hundreds of incidents, most of them embarrassing.

Now it is time for our seminar members to use “anti-white” and learn their own rules.

Obviously, “anti-white” is not something you will use where it is costly or dangerous. But with family and friends, it reminds them of where you stand and what you said.

I keep pointing out that the media have found a way to make paycheck conservatives their greatest asset. There is the “Both Sides” myth, and after conservatives have raised money and been the opposition for a couple of decades, the media announces that some “noted conservative commentator” has switched sides on it; sides are agreed; and any dialogue on the subject is closed because the argument is now “extremist” or “divisive.”

So paid conservatism has become a stage of the leftist process.

But I always have to say that conservatives make their living by fanatically declaring that today is a disaster, but everything that led to the situation today is holy. I say “anything before January 1, 1971 is holy” because that was the month Roe versus Wade was decided.

My opinions on an issue except white genocide must be strictly my opinion. This is another area where mental DISCIPLINE is required of BUGS that few others could even understand. Conservatives are steadily backing away on every other social issue, but anti-abortion is the perfect loser’s stand. Conservatives will be anti-abortion for many decades.

Anyone on BUGS must understand that we are speaking of power here, not rambling along on hysterical issues. Abortion is the perfect loser’s issue, because it raises huge amounts of money and expends almost all the emotion that would be directed toward saving our race.

And, most important of all, all that energy and money has not the slightest effect on the issue itself.

Joe Sobran, who was a fanatical pro-lifer, mentioned to me that there is a definite anti-white strain in the pro-life movement. As experienced activists, he and I could FEEL that without having to explain it. In fact, an experienced professional often feels something first, then analyses it.

Another thing my experience tells me is that organizations are destroyed constantly by those who become a part of them and then tear the whole cause apart by getting fanatical on their group’s refusing to take their stand on an issue, one which very often is outside the group’s purview, and then wrecking the whole thing.

Abortion is the one thing that is likely to destroy our effort. And where you have walking, talking anti-abortion bombs walking around, you will also have those women whose first loyalty is to “women,” whateverthehell that is supposed to mean. Both loyalty to women and anti-abortion are perfect issues substitutes for the natural drive for racial survival.

To a membership organization a member is a member and a check is a check.

BUGS does not need any human time bombs. I have personally encouraged them to go elsewhere.

Mantra thinking seems simplistic because, instead of leading one on a flight of imagination or a showoff of one’s Intellectualism, it digs into the question at the ground level.

If “published” discussions always reach one conclusion, it is like all the gang members telling the same story.
Every single study on racial busing in schools yields precisely the same result: No matter whether it went smoothly or there was rioting, no matter where it occurs, the result is always that it helped minorities a little and did not harm whites.

Helped minorities, but only a little. When the Civil Rights Commission did a study which its Chairman Fleming told the staff, “It must show desegregation WORKS,” even some of the workers there leaked his orders and it was reported in Time Magazine, fanatically anti-white though Time was.

But studies cannot show that busing, which can put white kids on the school bus four hours a day, has any bad effects on whites. So all reports avoided Fleming’s mistake and reported modest improvement for minorities, and said white kids, no matter how exhausted, had no problem with it.

And everybody, including pro-whites, tend to accept that.

All accepted sources will tell you that IQ has been increasing steadily because more people have more practice with written tests in each generation. Genetics has absolutely no effect on IQ.

Naturally, as an interrogator, I assume all that is untrue. Anyone who concludes huge low IQ families and sterile smart people has been driving average IQ down is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. As usual, the Buckleys of the world led the way by firing a staffer who had concluded in a paper on schools that have lower IQ immigrants having a lower average IQ.

But for people who study News and Jews and do not think Mantra-style, this obvious conclusion is reached only when a news item, like that firing, brings it up.

Imagine how far they could have gotten in debates if they took each statement of “fact” by the other side and took it apart this way. No cop would get away with running into the station and shouting, “I just had some news that shows that Lefty tells me whatever he thinks will make him innocent.”

Yet no one, no one, dissects establishment arguments this way. Whenever Global Warming is mentioned, I discuss how many of the people who discuss it depend on it for a living and articles.

Which indicates to me that no real research on it will ever be done.

I do the same thing with the Holocaust. I talk about the Holocaust Industry. I talk about the giant investment Wordists have in it.

All my stuff is legal in Europe.

I’ve even said, “As an American, I was raised to believe that anything any government requires you to believe has something wrong with it.”

Even that is legal.

Mantra Thinking and Mantra Logic can tear down walls nothing else can even reach.

BUGSERS are now in a position to understand why I claim so much credit.

To start with, you were startled when you discovered that the Mantra was damned near magic.

Next you ran into an endless stream of people on your own side who denounce it.

You can easily empathize with what my life has been like. I ran into fallacy after fallacy, and each time I also ran into its paid pushers and its paid opponents.

I soon realized that the same mentality chooses both the pros and the antis.

After all that work in Intelligence, including combat, I found that what mattered was destroying the enemy by embarrassment. The collapse of the Soviet Empire was accomplished not by nukes, but by faxes.

But anybody who got ahead as a professional opponent of the system could only do so if the other side was comfortable with him.

This is what I call The Buckley Rule. So in our system, all Big Time opponents avoid anything like the Mantra like the Plague. Nobody has noticed this simple Rule but me.

And I make the system very, very uncomfortable. So I spent my life pushing memes that the Buckleys hated worse than the outright enemy.

National Review never mentioned that every Workers’ Paradise had to shoot escapees. Why?

The Buckley Rule. That is an Outlaw Point, one which destroys the enemy in one sentence.

I have made this point here a hundred times: This was the kind of logic that destroyed the USSR. This was the logic that violated The Buckley Rule so blatantly that President Reagan found that his paycheck appointees took out, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!” THREE TIMES behind his back in preparing his speech!

I endangered my life, but I finally discovered that most people who win heroic fame will not risk their paychecks. I was a constant, vital factor in bringing down the Soviet Empire in an endless number of quiet battles with the paychecks.

And I am tired.

I have said a hundred times that both Communists and professional anti-Communists hated the argument that Communism is totally discredited by the simple fact that it had to shoot escapees.

I have waited for years for somebody to say exactly the same thing about multiracialism.

A simple, deadly mime: Everybody loves multiracialism, and any escape is illegal.

No one has made this simple point. Comments on the No-Escape Communist policy always consist of discussions of Communism.

I want some of you to learn this TYPE OF THINKING, not just to agree with me.
You now have the field experience to really understand The Buckley Rule. You have been mauled by those who have learned to succeed by never using a Judo Punch on our mortal enemies.

You are now in a position to understand my THINKING, not just my opinions.

No critic of Bob’s Mantra has ever replied with anything but insults and labels.

The above sentence should read, “No critic of Bob’s Mantra has ever replied with anything but insults and labels.”

The difference is the quotes.

I wish I were quoting a BUGSER who isn’t Bob.

I have gotten paid, and punished, for coming up with stuff all my life.   Today I literally live for you doing this yourself using Mantra Thinking.

I love it when YOU come up with Mantra Thinking.  It beats the hell out of Christmas.

I have written endlessly about Reagan had to put, “Mr.  Gorbachev, tear down this wall” back in his own speech THREE TIMES because his staff kept cutting it out behind his back.   Imagine how much trouble I had insisting that the fact that every Communist state shot anyone who tried to escape was fatal to them was attacked.

So instead of just reacting to my mention of Communism to talk about Communism, why hasn’t any BUGSER said, “If diversity  is so great, why do we have white flight?   Why must diversity be enforced?”

You need to think of WHY I say these things!

When someone praises his “working outside the box,” a BUGSER will wonder, “What in the HELL are we doing in a BOX?”

Look at our comments and see how often they talk about the box.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media talks about the hundreds of thousands who have been on Stormfront or watched White Rabbit videos versus the barely 400 on the White House petition.

But no BUGSER has pointed out the OBVIOUS difference.   People who agree with the petition are AFRAID to sign the petition.   The only answer they will  get is labels and insults.

USE the points I make!

This is a seminar, not a stream of thought vacation.

I have mentioned here many times how often a writer hears people say wistfully, “I can SAY it, why can’t I WRITE it?”

My reply would be, “Can you fix a television set?”

They would say no and I would go: “If you can’t just go and fix a TV set from natural talent, why do you think you can write without learning how?”

But, as has happened so often in my life, maybe my perfect reply was wrong, or at least incomplete.

Most who say they can say it really can’t say it. What I mean is that what they know is what would pass on an exam. But saying something so that someone, who doesn’t already know it, can understand it is a whole different ball game.

Expertise gets you a job, but explanation rules the world.

I have also talked a number of times about the creation of the Federal Senior Executive Service, which put all grades above GS-15, army colonel level, into a single category. It abolished the old “supergrades”, GS-16 to GS-18. Formerly one began as a specialist down on the bottom rungs and then got promoted, inside the same specialty, all the way to GS-18.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, real businesses would hire a successful big bakery executive to run a publishing firm. At a certain point the point is not how many kinds of bread you can name, but how you can manage a large group of people.

So in the real world executives cease to be specialists.

Which brings us back to explanations.

In the big leagues you are dealing with a congressman who has stuff going on in two committees and on the Floor at the same time. You cannot deal with somebody on that level by delivering a lecture.

The moment Ron Paul found out I had been a senior staffer, his whole attitude changed. The whole talk took about three clock minutes.

We talked about John Ashbrook’s murder, his own prospects and a couple of other things.

Until you learn explanation, you stay way down in the chain of command.