I am not attacking the term “white nationalist” the way anti-Mantra pro-whites (AMPWs) attack the Mantra. If it describes your position, it is the term you are, in my opinion, welcome to use.
What I AM saying is that it is not the optimal germ for BUGS.
Someone in our seminar said that white nationalism is one of our subordinate themes.
This is the type of statement only a seminar, a real seminar, a group of pros who have outgrown any college education, could address.
The image of white nationalism is sort of Amish. Our racial survival will depend on a tiny community somewhere in the most inaccessible part of the cold northwest.
The image is tiny and recalls a string of two-trailer White Communities that have died out over the years.
One proposal I remember was for a real planned community, upper middle income, but it vanished without a trace or one brick laid on top of another.
A white community is also illegal.
Everywhere.
O’Reilly stated, “There is no room for an all-white community anywhere in America.” Even if there were a success, it would be brought down with respectable conservatives leading the charge.
Secondly, I warn you constantly that people who build the future on the past are not only always wrong, they look ridiculous in just a decade or two.
MOST IMPORTANT, every time you use white nationalist is an instance where you do NOT use “pro-white.”
Anti-whites have long since made white nationalist a polite synonym for anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, for racist, for white supremacist. More important, the opposite of a white nationalist is simply a universalist.
The opposite of pro-white is anti-white, and that, ladies and jerks, is the reality.
White nationalism simply has no reality. That may be the form our racial survival takes.
But when, not if, people begin to pick their children’s genes we can have an enormous percentage of white children. Throughout history, societies that have already gone brown and down for good WORSHIP the Aryans of the previous age.
In my opinion, anti-whites are preparing to outlaw any racial preference in children just as they have outlawed white communities EVERYWHERE.
Keeping race selection acceptable means keeping White Genocide front and center. This is critical. We must keep the pressure on them not to be anti-white.
BOTTOM LINE: Anti-white and White Genocide are the two terms anti-whites have not been able to tame.
It is not accidental that the SPLC banned all argument from all of us but me from commenting on its article. It is even less debatable that they WELCOMED a LONG comment from a “white nationalist” who denounced the Mantra.
No one but me seems to have noticed this, but it doesn’t take a genius to know what it MEANS.
White Nationalist is OK with the anti-whites.
So why should WE use it?
#1 by Jason on 07/20/2013 - 8:53 am
A video interview with Tim Wise shows him using the term “white nationalist” often, even in a respectful manner. That should give anyone pause.
More important, the opposite of a white nationalist is simply a universalist. The opposite of pro-white is anti-white …
THAT really hits it. BUGS terminology forces the real issue of White survival front and center.
In my opinion, a few “white nationalists” from the past have been borderline anti-social types. If you are truly anti-social you are not likely to be truly pro-White.
How could a person be pro-White yet anti-social? You couldn’t. I’m afraid charlatans in the past have taken advantage of lost souls, making them waste years of their lives on some pipe dream about an Aryan Compound. That is not reality.
#2 by Daniel Genseric on 07/20/2013 - 9:43 am
I would sooner use “RACIST!” to describe myself than I would “White Nationalist.” At least people can understand what the hell I am talking about.
Racist MEANS white.
Less than one hundred PRO-WHITE political prisoners are reporting their work to STOP white genocide worldwide
ARIACWFAW
#3 by Jason on 07/20/2013 - 10:31 am
Replying on yours, sorry … all my posts go to moderation and are never seen again if I post directly:
A video interview with Tim Wise shows him using the term “white nationalist” often, even in a respectful manner. That should give anyone pause.
Bob says,
More important, the opposite of a white nationalist is simply a universalist. The opposite of pro-white is anti-white …
THAT really hits it. BUGS terminology forces the real issue of White survival front and center. Whether we later reclaim countries, live in space colonies, or tame Antarctica for Whites only is another decision to be made in the future, based on what the situation is, what technology is available and how many people are on our side.
But under no circumstances do I see tiny Amish communities as a viable alternative. Let’s get real
#4 by tyrfing on 07/21/2013 - 12:34 pm
A video interview with Tim Wise shows him using the term “white nationalist” often, even in a respectful manner. That should give anyone pause.
The equations in the mind of Respectables are these:
Nationalism == Good Thing.
White Nationalism == Bad Thing.
Respectables are anti-white, so Nationalism is o.k. for everybody but whites.
The term “white nationalist” does not challenge Respectables’ anti-whiteness in any way, which is why Tim Wise is just fine with it.
If I am a white nationalist but also want to challenge the anti-white religion, I might try describing myself thusly:
“I am a nationalist who happens to be white.”
#5 by Linux Lewis on 07/20/2013 - 9:59 am
We have a mini mantra that says something along the lines of
Anti-Whites believe whites deserve genocide
Pro-Whites believe all races deserve a home.
This is white nationalist speak… should it be changed?
Ask the garden variety racially aware white person (non stormfronter) if they are pro-white, and they will back away from the term as quickly as they would the phrase “white nationalist”… they will respond with the typical claptrap about how they are pro-humanity not pro-white.
I understand the desire to get away from the phrase due to the negative stigma attached. I also understand that there is greater chance of success when you present it as a dichotomy of anti-white or pro-white. However, I would PERSONALLY feel disingenuous if somebody asked if i am a white nationalist and i said “NO”.
#6 by Gar5 on 07/20/2013 - 10:18 am
Conservatives are basically campaigning to keep their environments locked in whatever conservatives happen to agree is good this day.
But the thing is they looooose. I think they should really take a lesson from THE conservatives — the Amish.
If you think about it, the Amish are about the only successful modern day conservatives.
I think White nationalists have picked up on the Amish’s success and tried to copy them by creating intentional White communities…
The thing is White communities for the sake of preserving White people are illegal, but non-White communities for preserving non-Whites are not.
In my opinion most White nationalists, pro-Whites, and even people not involved in our racial struggle against genocide think that they are going to take over the system from bottom to top.
That’s not how it’s done. It’s taken over TOP to BOTTOM.
The bottom of power are all those little parties that weave dissent.
#7 by Gar5 on 07/20/2013 - 10:20 am
I look around my fellow pro-Whites and I see them fighting over scraps that fall off the master’s table.
Bugs does not want the scraps – Bugs wants the whole damn steak.
#8 by Jason on 07/20/2013 - 10:41 am
Exactly. There are still hundreds of millions of Whites on this planet and we have almost all the serious weaponry and technology. A tiny medieval village in the Northwest shouldn’t be our goal. That wouldn’t be living AS White men. We’d be living like Orientals or Browns, stuck in Tradition for centuries to come.
#9 by OldBlighty on 07/20/2013 - 10:23 am
I remember seeing a story in the last month, where a White man with an Asian partner said, he only wants to have White children with her.
So if I understand your idea, Whites will be appearing in non-White populations, all over the world. We will spread like a virus.
#10 by Jason on 07/20/2013 - 10:43 am
So, are you and Bob saying the technology to have White only babies will be coming soon, and that the anti-Whites are going to try to outlaw this? I am not up to date in this field.
#11 by OldBlighty on 07/20/2013 - 10:53 am
It has been available for some time. The White man’s Asian wife is infertile and he wants her to be implanted with ova from a White female. I didn’t read the story just saw the headline, but I imagine the anti-Whites were kicking up a stink about it.
#12 by Jason on 07/20/2013 - 11:02 am
Oh so the Asian woman would not even be biologically related to the child she carries in that case. But isn’t the real promise for tweaking the actual mother’s and father’s genes and “getting the brown out” so to speak, so that say an Indian couple could still have their own biological children, whose genes would be Aryanized in by some process?
#13 by Gar5 on 07/20/2013 - 11:32 am
@OldBlighty,
I can already predict the newest addition to the UN genocide conventions;
(F) Forcibly altering the genetic information of a group.
#14 by Simon on 07/20/2013 - 10:27 am
Bob is referring to the PLE strategy – Pioneer Little Europe, where pro-whites seek to settle in a white enclave and become in effect community organisers to influence ordinary white people.
I have no objection in principle with the PLE strategy especially for those pro-whites who want to make a conscious effort to create a settled pro-white community in the here and now, but in truth whether a PLE community is established or not it is not going to have much bearing on the outcome of our political struggle to ensure the survival of our race.
It’s ultimately not about where you choose to live, but whether you choose to get behind a consistent message or not.
Also Bob, you said only fools try to predict the future and yet you confidently predict a future situation where non-whites can genetically engineer their future offspring to be white and you can see this as a future battle. Have you just contradicted yourself?
I’m not so sure about that, the only thing one can consistently predict about the future is that one will be consistently surprised.
Like any pro-athlete one needs to focus on the game in front of them, not consume his energies worrying about the final. For us the game is about crashing the anti-white genocidal discourse.
Once that is well and truly destroyed beyond repair we can then take stock of the circumstances we find ourselves in and decide at that point which the best path to go down is.
#15 by Conrad on 07/20/2013 - 10:33 am
The term White Nationalist does take a political approach to a conversation, which opens a door for the anti-whites. I like to take a more personal approach by using terms like pro-white or my people, instead of using the word race. This way I can keep the conversation on a personal or individual level.
For example, the anti-whites like to say that we can have all of the white babies that we want to (only for now is the hint), that we can marry other whites if we want to (only for now is the hint). When they say such things I ask them, IF that is so, then why can’t I sell my house to whomever I want to, or have a white neighborhood if I / we want to? After all, if government agencies can dictate the matter of selling my house or integrate my neighborhood against my will, then when will they take control of the other parts of my life, or that of my children!? Of course they will say that this will never happen; they said this in the 1960’s as well. Here’s something that you should think about IDEATION is a powerful force. The anti-whites have used this for decades (think brainwashing). It is past time for those of us that are fighting against white genocide to do the same.
……………
Jack’s War: Through the Gates of Hell.
#16 by Simmons on 07/20/2013 - 11:26 am
Ists and Isms are representative of ideology, IMO all ideology is bunk, and has been since Plato sat around on his butt dreaming of utopia.
White nationalism is an incoherent set of ideas and proclamations sold more or less like its the answer as all ideologies.
We need ideas not cure alls, so I have no problem with men and women sitting around thinking but to shoehorn people into some ideological box I can do without.
“I know ‘pro-white’ is not allowable in politically factual debate, but its opposite number ‘anti-white’ is evil and probably in a technical manner criminal in many countries.”
#17 by Bob on 07/20/2013 - 11:36 am
Simon, I very carefully stated that genetic engineering was one of the possibilities.
I can’t believe a BUGS pro is such a sloppy reader.
#18 by Bob on 07/20/2013 - 11:40 am
Please note that the article is not about ultimate goals, it is about present wording.
#19 by Gar5 on 07/20/2013 - 11:57 am
WN is dated, and it will get less and less relevant as the world leaves the 1960’s behind.
Pro-Whites can be pro-White any decade or century. Same with anti-Whites.
As Horus the White Rabbit says, our message is dynamic…we should be too.
Our ONLY goal is White survival. We are facing White genocide that’s why we expose it.
#20 by dungeoneer on 07/20/2013 - 1:05 pm
I`m a white nationalist according to Stormfront membership definitions, although I mostly prefer to use pro-white ( for the contrast to anti-white ) there and exclusively outside which genuine Stormfronters don`t object to.
That said, my nose won`t wrinkle when a pro-white prefers to use white nationalist nor will I tailgate anti-whites into an argument about them calling me a white nationalist instead of pro-white when the discussion should be white genocide.
Pragmatism, the best ism there is.
#21 by Bob on 07/20/2013 - 2:19 pm
“tailgate anti-whites into an argument about them calling me a white nationalist instead of pro-white when the discussion should be white genocide.”
No one here would even think of doing that.
What’s your point?
#22 by dungeoneer on 07/20/2013 - 2:43 pm
Bob: “No one here would even think of doing that What’s your point?”
Our “BUGS helpers” use every dirty tactic in the book to go off message, and get us off message.
I though I was being totally clear in my post about the advantageous use of pro-white, which was the point of this whole discussion?
#23 by Daniel Genseric on 07/20/2013 - 8:24 pm
This [article] isn’t about that. Please stay on task.
#24 by Asgardian117 on 07/20/2013 - 4:06 pm
White Nationalist ALREADY has a stigma behind it, its passe. It is NOT taken seriously.
Pro White is NEW it is fluid and easy to use in any situation
Remember while we are pointing out the anti whites genocidal plans in front of normal white people we are also showing them that we to are normal JUST LIKE THEM, they are conditioned to believe at no fault of their own that white nationalist are living out in a bunker somewhere surrounded by trip wire and heavily armed, WE CANNOT AFFORD THAT LABEL, once that is imposed upon us we have already lost, because even though we have defeated the anti white publicly and shown whats really going on all the normal white person sees is a NAZITHATWANTSTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS. First impressions arent just important they are EVERYTHING when fighting to break the control that has been placed on our ppl.
#25 by Lord Nelson on 07/20/2013 - 5:08 pm
“If we are Pro-White, then anyone who stands against us is by default, Anti-white”
Gee!
I wonder what kind of good looking, really tall and handsome, super intelligent genius man, could have figured out something so simple and so obvious?
😉
Anti-Racist is a CODEWORD for Anti-White!
#26 by richard on 07/20/2013 - 6:19 pm
Lord Nelson, sorry to post off-topic, but I’ve been trying to get in touch with you. What’s the best way?
#27 by Lord Nelson on 07/21/2013 - 7:09 am
Just PM me on SF
#28 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/20/2013 - 5:32 pm
I think the only time I ever used “pro-White” when swarming was to ask, “Are you pro-White, or are you pro White-Genocide.”
And I did that infrequently, because I think that even in that context, and much more so when it stands alone, “pro-White” is a term that triggers resistance in most White minds.
I would much rather some day get back to my experiment of gently and matter-of-factly on occasion appropriating the term “White” to mean “pro-White” in swarm posts. The one time another bugster and I tried that, it drove the anti-whites nuts. They suddenly got very defensive about their own Whiteness…lol! IMO we were able to use it as a tool to strengthen our hammering White genocide:
“Call yourself White all you want. Whites do not support White Genocide.”
Bob first gave approval to the experiment, and later seemed to say no, but I thought he might not have realized that he was seeming to say no to what he’d previously said yes to. People who were here at the time may recall that there was similar confusion about Bob’s instructions during the period before the experiment.
He invited me to discuss it with him on skype, but I haven’t gotten skype until recently.
Bob, I’d still very much like to have that discussion with you sometime. I’m hoping to get permission from you to resume the experiment when I find time, or if not, to have a definite no. I’ve made the best effort I know how to make to contact you on skype.
In non-swarming settings, I feel free to follow my own instincts more, and posting at SF for example, I always speak of “the White movement,” never the “pro-White movement,” unless the context makes the latter necessary for clarity.
#29 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/20/2013 - 5:59 pm
…gently and matter-of-factly on occasion appropriating the term “White” to mean “pro-White”
Nuts, I didn’t copy any of those initial statements, and I’m not going to try to make up some in the abstract now.
But here’s a couple of exchanges that ensued from the initial statements:
“I’m whiter than you are. I didn’t get a tan this summer because of a lack of sunny days.”
You think your white skin makes you “white”? I guess you really do believe that race is only skin deep.
You are an anti-white who supports white genocide, and that’s all you are.
And:
“You can only speak for YOURSELF.”
Why? You speak on behalf of ALL anti-Whites when you support the GENOCIDE of White CHILDREN.
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/teaching-whites-to-say-whites/page/4/#post-46424
#30 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/21/2013 - 10:17 am
To address an objection that may be raised:
Addressing anti-whites who are vigorously defending their own whiteness (which is their strong response to seeing the word “White” used matter-of-factly to mean “pro-White”) as “anti-white” is NOT going to convey the impression that “anti-white” means “non-white”!
All of the excerpts above and at the link are from contexts in which the anti-whites being engaged responded by protesting their own whiteness.
Using “White” to mean “pro-White” in contexts where that would seem to imply that “anti-white” means “non-white” should of course be avoided.
#31 by Daniel Genseric on 07/20/2013 - 8:29 pm
I have, and this is a no sh!tter here, used the term ‘pro-white’ THOUSANDS of times.
You can’t bypass this evolution and get there from here without hitting the requisite stepping stones in between. RACIST MEANS WHITE. White does NOT = pro-white in the current and Politically Factual paradigm. Sorry, but that’s all they “know”.
Step it up.
#32 by tyrfing on 07/21/2013 - 12:12 pm
“Call yourself White all you want. Whites do not support White Genocide.”
I think this is correct. Race isn’t genes. Races HAVE genes.
Race is SURVIVAL.
#33 by jo3w on 07/20/2013 - 5:52 pm
I am no more a White nationalist than I am an advocate of ethnic nationalism in general. I believe that when any self identified group is not allowed to govern themselves, it is oppression. I went to school in the north (90’s) and I had more than one history teacher explain that slavery was ended more by the economics of immigrant labor than the opposition to slavery. The minute I heard this in high school it meant to me that the civil war was about oppression of southern sovereignty and southern self determination. I made an “ethnic” nationalism point on the SPLC Bugs article comments section posting as Isamel. The only opposition I got there was from a guy who ultimately said that self determination should not be so important! I assumed he was insane and ended the dialogue. I make no association with BUGS during those types of comments, it is not what we are about. When I put on my BUGS hat, I post only about White genocide. We avoid reactionary terms, and White nationalist is one of them. I was inspired by the bugs radio podcast that suggested that liberals may become some of the most vehement pro-white advocates if popular opinion changes. I have been experimenting with some posts that attempt to demonstrate “ethnic” nationalism can be a positive thing. My direct goal is not to set up ethnic nations, but to destroy the mentality that it is morally correct to prevent it.
#34 by Larry on 07/20/2013 - 6:08 pm
When I’m out posting the mantra, I don’t label myself. I just say that I’m against genocide.
#35 by Wandrin on 07/20/2013 - 6:53 pm
One of the advantages of the Mantra is it doen’t have an explicit “them” or “why.” This makes it both easier to swallow and harder to deflect.
One way they can attempt to deflect it is by labelling the Mantra speaker as something: WN, Nazi or whatever and then riffing on the label they have assigned. I think it’s better to simply ignore those attempts and refuse any label. Be null. Being null gives them nothing to attack or deflect with.
Having said that if you are going to accept a label then “pro-white” is probably better than WN as it gives them less to use to deflect the conversation.
Obviously you can still be WN underneath. This is just the label you use for yourself when you’re in mantra mode.
#36 by AtlosTeutā on 07/20/2013 - 6:56 pm
That’s the strength of mantra think, isn’t it? If it isn’t the most ordinary and perfectly sane thing to oppose the hatefull crazies that want to genocide our people, then i don’t know what is!
Other than that, our “ideology” is simply ourselves you could say, because it’s what and who we are, our identity, our blood.
Our “ideal” is our race and people, our holy book the aryan genepool. Horus says it quite well “you a white rabbit, me a white rabbit”.
#37 by Cleric Preston on 07/20/2013 - 8:01 pm
I’m with Larry and Wandrin on this one.
Why is it necessary to label ourselves ‘pro-White’ ?
What we are is normal and are attempting to shift things so that ‘pro-White’ is the new ‘normal’.
Or in KGB speak, we are in the process of ‘normalizing’ the situation.
I remember one article which Bob talked about the ‘Women’s movement’ and how he tried in vain to get a Christian women’s group (?) to rebrand themselves as ‘the REAL Women’s movement’ because they represented the real views of everyday woman.
I am certain we represent the real views of normal White people.
I am certain that apart from the 1% of Whites who are Diversity-ism Commissars that nobody actively wishes to be around 3rd Worlders.
People don’t need to open their eyes and be ‘awakened’ to the situation, they just need to open their mouths. We’re not that special, all we’ve done is open our mouths a little earlier then others.
Instead of going down the path of pretending this a titanic Manichean struggle of light and darkness, where White people are ‘asleep’ Matrix style and must be ‘awakened’ to reality and then choose to be consciously Anti-White or Pro-White, why not accept that we do speak for normal White people and tell people that we are just ‘White and normal’ ?
I respectfully submit ‘White and normal’
While ‘White nationalists are stupid’ or even ‘pro-Whites are stupid’ might get some chuckles from the crowd ‘White and normal’ gives Anti-Whites nowhere to go, what are they going to say ‘Normal White people are (insert insult here)’ ?
There is nothing bad an Anti-White can say about ‘Normal White people’ that isn’t shooting themselves in the foot.
#38 by OldBlighty on 07/20/2013 - 8:23 pm
Lord Nelson said it best:
It is necessary to call ourselves pro white, because the opposite of pro white is anti-white. Anyone that is against whites, loses the moral high ground by default.
#39 by Jmcaul on 07/21/2013 - 2:58 am
I agree. Claiming the label of pro-White for ourselves forces our opposition into the uncomfortable position of having to argue that they are not anti-White.
#40 by Linux Lewis on 07/20/2013 - 9:06 pm
In the context that you guys have put it that “white nationalism” is almost self defeatism, I would agree with you and to be honest i’ve never really looked at it that way.
The All or Nothing attitude can be a bit more dangerous than the respectably conservative approach 😉
#41 by Asgardian117 on 07/20/2013 - 10:14 pm
In the eyes of normal white people this is how the two terms sound.
White Nationalist-A fleeting desperate niche group made up of nazis with a different name pasted onto them….Normal whites run in terror from them for two reasons 1. NAZIS DUH 2. They are LOSING, no one likes a loser.
Pro White- Something different but not reminiscent of the reich, in the current political and racial envrioment MANY whites are frustrated but do NOT KNOW HOW TO ARTICULATE THEIR FRUSTRATIONS without losing everything,pro whites know how to do this. Pro white doesnt “sound” like “white nationalist” we all remember how important SOUND is right?
While White nationalists discuss the atrocities of amnesty pro whites fight for the survival of our race.
#42 by Bob on 07/21/2013 - 12:10 pm
EXCELLENT pro-level discussion!
#43 by Asgardian117 on 07/21/2013 - 12:56 pm
I UNDERSTAND some of us here came from WN organizations/websites, but is it not some of the AMPWs that fight us tooth and nail? That is my sneaking suspicion as to why the anti whites embrace the term WN that and it is subversive to the WN cause because the Anti Whites have successfully labeled them nazisthatwanttokillsixmillionjews, they havent and CANT make that stick to the term PRO WHITE. These bastards have made it easy for us, lets not return the favor.
#44 by Jason on 07/21/2013 - 11:56 pm
I think you are right.
Anti-Whites can see the future coming. They know Whites will have spokesman soon, they can’t stop it much longer. They want to control who these spokesmen are as much as possible. They would like thm to be as alienating as possible to the majority of Whites.
White Nationalism is a narrow “ism” (at least the actual versions that are out there now). And we all notice the same thing: White Nationalist, Traditionalists, and ThingaMaJiggerists all avoid talking about genocide. They don’t point fingers at Anti-Whites. And that is why the anti-Whites prefer them over BUGS trained pro-Whites.
#45 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/21/2013 - 1:06 pm
Until Bob and I have a discussion about it (or until he flatly tells me “no” here, in which case I’ll of course follow his instruction but also ask him if we can have a talk on skype about it), I’m going to speak up here for what I think is the approach we should further experiment with.
While “pro-white” is way better than “White Nationalist,” both terms suck (and for the same reason) when compared to just using “White” to mean “pro-White” when your meaning is clear.
When context does not make the meaning clear, “pro-White” has to suffice, but as I mentioned above, I rarely found it necessary to use either that term or any substitute for it in swarm comments.
I explain more in my two posts above.
When I have time, if my partner in crime is still interested, I’d like to resume the experiment with this we’d started many months ago, and keep it all to the thread separate from the working thread that we were reporting early results on. See link above.
#46 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/21/2013 - 1:26 pm
“…just using ‘White’ to mean “pro-White” when your meaning is clear.”
In the first experiment with this many months ago, it was very upsetting to white anti-whites. Their thin veneer of “races don’t exist” peeled away, and they stood there nakedly and savagely declaiming their own whiteness.
There’s other possible interpretations of their reaction, and I understand that it was only one experiment.
I imagine all of us here are familiar with some ways in which white anti-whites who claim that race doesn’t exist nevertheless evince their own identification with their whiteness.
Virtually ALL Whites feel White IMO, and the technique I’m arguing for challenges them to feel that and recognize it.
In the exchanges with white anti-whites that are at my link, I hadn’t thought to throw back in their faces the fact that they were so vehemently declaring themselves to be White, and what that signified about their true attitude about the existence of races, but that could be done. And as always, in a way that transitions back to White GeNOcide.
#47 by Daniel Genseric on 07/21/2013 - 2:46 pm
You’re Right.
While we’re visiting re-writing everything, let’s take a look at ‘pro-life’. I hate that. Let’s just choose life, shall we.
‘Pro-choice’ should mean choosing LIFE. All pro’s choose life.
Good work, but it’s not that simple and you will have lost your audience.
#48 by Bob on 07/21/2013 - 2:11 pm
HD, I have no way of reaching you through skype without your skype address. I sent one to an address someone gave me. See if you get it.
#49 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/21/2013 - 3:05 pm
Got it, Bob, thanks. I’d sent my own invitation to what must have been your old address.
#50 by Conrad on 07/21/2013 - 5:37 pm
Hour 3
Guest: Sam Dickson, Esq. Guest: Kyle Rogers (Council of Conservative Citizens)
Sam defines racism as I hate white people.
……
Jack’s War
http://www.amazon.com/Jacks-War-Through-Gates-Hell/dp/1475032927/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356219774&sr=1-1&keywords=jack%27s+War
#51 by Wandrin on 07/21/2013 - 6:22 pm
“Pro-White” sounds viable as an active tactic i.e. you explicitly label yourself as a way to label them (as anti-white) but as a defence to being labelled “Nazi”, “WN” or whatever i still think being null is better.
Genocide is against the law. You shouldn’t need to *be* any particular thing to point that out.
I’m just a witness to a crime.
#52 by Bob on 07/22/2013 - 9:42 am
A new version of “How Whites Took Over America.” I think a lot of it is new.
I wish they would cut the first couple of minutes.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/how-whites-took-over-america-1.html#entry34048307
#53 by Bob on 07/22/2013 - 10:57 am
One thing no one has mentioned is the deadly effect of routinely calling THEM “anti-white.”
It is VERY hard to ignore or argue against.
I get the impression that most of the repliers here, while good, are not TRYING these out.
No one but me has MENTIONED the effect of using “anti-white,” so you must not have used it.
#54 by Jason on 07/22/2013 - 11:07 am
You mean in person? I have used the term Anti-White a few times in real world conversations.
In person, most Normal Whites seem stunned by the word at first. As if such a concept never occurred to them, or is metaphysically impossible. That’s if I say it in a serious tone. If I make more of an offhand remark, like “I’m not gonna see that anti-White movie”, they tend to smile and accept it more easily.
One person I referred to as anti-White got very defensive. He said he was White, his family was White, they were from the South, etc. I pointed out in a non-confrontational way that he was always taking the side which did harm to Whites. We left it like that (he is someone I have to be around occasionally, so I didn’t want a full fledged right).
At least in that case, even delivered in an offhand manner to an actual anti-White, he reacted like I had tossed him a live hornets nest.
#55 by jo3w on 07/22/2013 - 12:56 pm
People have a hard time grasping that a person could be against thier own, especially when it is them! Traitors are universally viewed as more evil than your enemy, and you just told him he was a traitor. People deny thier recognition of race but it is malarkey. When I have an in person conversation I like to explain that anyone can yell,”heretic”, but only white people hold the power to burn you at the stake. It has been very effective for me.
#56 by Iceknight on 07/22/2013 - 4:42 pm
I had a similar experience Jason, talking to a close friend of many years that is also a head teacher. I know for a fact that they received an industrial strength dose of White guilt from Mommy Professor, but to their credit they are still a fence sitter.
I was explaining the Mantra to them and when they came out with the classic line “America has always been a melting-pot” I hit them with anti-White! To say they became defensive would be a huge understatement! LOL
BUGSters spend most of their days arguing with the real hardcore anti-Whites, so we don’t always realise the potency of the weaponry we are using.
Anti-White deployed against just your average White person is DEVASTATING!
#57 by Wandrin on 07/22/2013 - 1:24 pm
I dunno. Personally i use “anti-white” so often it’s not even a tactic any more. It’s more of a habit.
#58 by OldBlighty on 07/22/2013 - 9:32 pm
One anti-White said recently, they felt intimidated by me calling them anti-White so much. I told them to stop being anti-White and I’d call them something else.
I have never heard that before.
#59 by Daniel Genseric on 07/22/2013 - 5:56 pm
I have used pro-white, anti-white AND white genocide in person.
They are dynamite not just on the web, but “In Real Life” too!
While destroying an anti-white I know:
“Why do you anti-whites expect me to sit by silently while you go around advocating for the genocide of my children? And I am supposed to accept you and your Diversity as Morally Superior?
You might say you’re anti-racist while you champion Multiculturalism & Tolerance in EVERY white country and ONLY white countries. But, I know better. What you ARE is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”