“Hate,” like “gay,” is no longer a word. Those words have been appropriated by Political Correctness.
“Hatred” is more correct, anyway.
To my world view, the ravening hatred of Jews is puzzling. In fact, rabid anti-Semitism puzzles me because, in today’s parlance, my outlook is so anti-Semitic it keeps me from being rabid about it.
I take it for granted that a person who calls himself a Jew will try to undermine every other identity.
Likewise, every kind of Wordist will try to destroy anything I am loyal to.
These are my “Givens.”
To Political Correctness my routine “Givens” are so roaringly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and all the rest that what confuses attackers is that I am so calm about it.
But if there is such a thing as a Traditional Western Value, it is my point of view. Long before Christianity brought in sterility, starving oneself, whipping oneself and burning dissenters alive as post-pagan morality, songs were sung of men who died around their leader rather than surrender.
In our gut is still the concept that loyalty is the highest virtue, and treason, the greatest sin.
It is not just that Dante assigned the Tenth and worst part of Hell to Traitors, it is also that no one in his time QUESTIONED it. Of all the sins you and I have heard denounced from the pulpit, sex, Intolerance, the death penalty, greed, perversion, treason is simply not one of them.
Yet when Dante RESERVED the worst eternal punishment for traitors, and only traitors, it was so deep a value that no one questioned it.
No, I am simply incapable of hating a Jew or a non-white the way I hate a white traitor.
That is in my blood.
#1 by Asgardian117 on 07/24/2013 - 8:58 am
This entry explains WHY some of us have so much trouble with family and friends that we care greatly about. My father in law has many great qualities but none of them compensate for his willingness to let his posterity suffer for things that no one alive today is responsible for and things EVERY other race has done.
My wife argues with him constantly explaining how the policies that he supports are are hurting the ppl that he cares about. With all that being said, I guess it is more disappointment than anger. I always wonder how did his generation let it get this bad, why was there no resistance? I guess it was just greed, follow the script you get what you want and dont worry about your great grandchildren. Men of his age, stature and experience are SUPPOSED to lead the charge, instead they broke rank and sold their ppl out.
Traitors, Cowards, Cuckolds, Sissies.
P.S. Speaking of traitors Bill O’reilly used two of our talking points last night
1.Stop blaming white ppl today for slavery.
2.”The Race Problem” he not only said it but it was on the txt of the show in big bold letters.
#2 by Wm White on 07/24/2013 - 10:01 am
You have illustrated what Bob calls, one of the hardest questions to deal with on race:
“Why should I care about my race’s survival?”
He labels it the: “The Sociopath’s Question,” and continues by saying a sociopath has no loyalties, just as a psychopath is incapable of guilt.
No one can explain to a sociopath why he should care about his own kind, or any other kind. And more frightening, if given power as our ‘anti-white’ leaders have today –they will do anything (e.g. White Genocide) against their own people … and think nothing of it.
#3 by Simmons on 07/24/2013 - 10:09 am
IMO it comes down to concept of moral superiority, once that is stripped from him he will collapse. You might even need to tell him that in exact words; “You are in no sense morally superior for holding those views” or like Bob has written, “In your opinion you are morally superior, and only in your opinion.”
Since we all come from the Contard school of Essays for Egos we often refuse to be direct.
#4 by shari on 07/24/2013 - 9:03 am
Exactly! Treason is worse than any direct hatred. It’s like poisonous slop.
#5 by OldBlighty on 07/24/2013 - 9:05 am
Lots of selfish Whites out there. I don’t know which do the most damage, the selfish ones or the brainwashed idealists. Our enemies would be nothing without these traitors.
#6 by OldBlighty on 07/24/2013 - 9:15 am
What would our enemies be without all the t.r.e.a.s.o.n. in White ranks?
#7 by Wm White on 07/24/2013 - 9:29 am
Bob’s sense of race reminds me of how Oswald Spengler wrote about the subject. Neither seemed concerned about the biological definition, defined by mtDNA or allele sequencing. For them it is something in the blood that can’t be described so much as it must be felt.
This feeling of race is difficult to explain to others, (in the 500-character space provided by YouTube), arguing that race is just a social construct. So we use the Mantra to illustrate what race is by giving evidence of white genocide.
#8 by OldBlighty on 07/24/2013 - 9:49 am
Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to scoop up all the loyal ones and take them somewhere good and leave all the bad ones in the world they have ruined? That would wipe the smarmy grins off their faces.
#9 by Asgardian117 on 07/24/2013 - 10:10 am
There is nothing more than I would like to see than all normal whites conducting mass exoduses and leaving the white anti whites to stir in their own pot with the mess THEY created. But unfortunately thats not an option so we gotta get this discussion out in the open and pummel these bastards.
#10 by Jason on 07/24/2013 - 10:07 am
Love this article! Our age tried to erase the concept of the traitor. Disloyalty to country, family, religion, and race are all applauded. As Bob noted, treason is always done in the name of something higher. And it is never openly called ‘treason’.
That’s why calling someone an “anti-White” stings so much. Even in this age it is dangerous to be known as a traitor.
I mean no disrespect to religion and certainly not to God, but, I daresay loyalty to living human beings is harder than loyalty to God (as we usually conceive it). People will let you know when you’ve let them down. Most religions these days are so abstract; it is hard to know what disloyalty would even look like.
And it is the LIVING I am talking about. People will honor their dead for centuries. We almost deify Robert E Lee. I certainly honor our heroes from the past too. But what about the living! What about those who won’t be born until after we leave this earth?
I imagine a White boy born 100 years from now; he will never know our names. I want him to be born into the world he deserves. Not to be cheated out of the things we were, but rather to have the science and technology to live for centuries, have perfect health, be free of neurosis and be free to conquer all of space. And most of all, to enjoy the company of other loyal White men and beautiful, ageless White women.
That’s reward enough for me, and it is loyalty. I have no proof, but I hold out hope that we’ll all be watching it from Valhalla over the finest brew ever made. Time to go before I get mushy. But I think we are resurrecting the true meaning of that great word …. PATRIOT.
#11 by Asgardian117 on 07/24/2013 - 10:16 am
I sometimes think like that jason, 100 years from now :). This is one spot where I disagree with coach, I think they will know when the tide turned all of this is recorded even this message im leaving here now, they may not know the specifics but they will get the jist. We will be remembered collectively.
#12 by Jason on 07/24/2013 - 10:30 am
Actually I agree. And I know the name Bob Whitaker will be well remembered.
#13 by Asgardian117 on 07/24/2013 - 11:56 am
That would be nice.
#14 by BGLass on 07/24/2013 - 11:21 am
@ Not to be cheated out of the things we were…
There’s a line in psalm 69 (“save me oh God for the waters come up to my neck…those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head…) that says, “I’m forced to restore what I DID NOT steal…”
To restore what you did not steal— just made me think of it.
RR seems very right. People go on about greed as the reason for sellout, but Mr. Whitaker seems more on the mark with cowardice. And RR with the totally false morality, they profess to have. But they have no morality, whatsoever.
None.
“snitch” seems about the ugliest word associated with traitors, even though it’s used in crime context. maybe it can be used somehow.
#15 by jimmy blue eyes on 07/24/2013 - 11:30 am
Then maybe we need to come up with a word specific for white traitors to their own people…..we could either break out a thesaurus and look for negative sounding words, lol….or
Just refer to a white anti-white, as a quisling…..quisling is the french general who betrayed france to become a leader by not putting up a fight to the germans…..I think using a quisling for our terminology would be a good fit.
#16 by seapea on 07/24/2013 - 12:44 pm
We have Benedict Arnold and Judas too.
“The Psychology of a Turncoat” on Counter Currents touches on this subject: “We know that if Black were a Jew he’d be called a self-hating Jew, if Negro an Oreo (black on the outside, white on the inside), if Amerindian an apple (red on the outside, white on the inside), if Mestizo a coconut, and so on. How instructive it is that no parallel epithet exists for whites—the race in greatest danger of extinction, and which suffers the brunt of ruling class enmity.”
I like the idea of coming up with something catchy to describe our class of traitors.
#17 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 12:05 am
Michelle Palin said to Marco Rubio:
“Hope it was worth the 30 pieces of silver”
I passed that on to a respectable conservative I know and it visibly affected him. I’ve been telling him for a couple of years, the Republicans are finished, because of their racial treason, but he wouldn’t accept it.
As Tim Wise says,
Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick. Tock.
#18 by Bob on 07/24/2013 - 12:28 pm
Someone said snitch was a word associated with treason, and another says Quisling.
There is no name ASSOCIATED with treason.
To Dante it was a word entirely by itself.
I repeat, with all the mortal sins declared by the Church, no one in Dante’s time seemed to question that Treason stood by itself.
A society which does not see Treason as standing alone has become, like ours, one whose moral basis is self-hatred.
Anything based on self-hatred stinks and dies.
#19 by jimmy blue eyes on 07/24/2013 - 12:40 pm
Self hating traitor?
#20 by daedalus on 07/24/2013 - 5:28 pm
A cupcake company once made a gooey thing
called a ‘Snowball’ – prickly white on the outside,
dead black on the inside.
Other than that, I’m thinking ‘traitor’ doesn’t rile people up for similar reasons that ‘White Nationalist’ does not work. The Anti-Whites have been smearing the positive notion of ‘nation’ for decades. Even before the pink rabbit Kissinger was puffing of nationhood being obsolete. And so, ‘White Nationalist’ is easily associated with old simple moron, etc. So, ‘Traitor’ ? College kids babble that they are in service to ‘humanity’ not nation. Their way out of ‘self’ hatred is to adopt definitions of goodness as defined by enemies of the White race.
The treason is real.
#21 by Jason on 07/24/2013 - 6:08 pm
And every traitor claims he is serving “mankind”. The Communists did.
#22 by seapea on 07/24/2013 - 9:24 pm
sno balls – white on the outside, anti-white on the inside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sno_Balls
#23 by jo3w on 07/24/2013 - 11:06 pm
Thats a good nickname for a white anti-white.
Ex. My father in law supports amnesty, he is a real sno ball.
It’s fitting because those things were disgusting.
#24 by Frank on 07/25/2013 - 9:32 pm
seapea, “Sno-Ball” fits in very nicely when replying to someone who says they can’t be anti-White because they’re white. I like it.
“You say you’re white, but what you really are is just a Sno-Ball.
A Sno-Ball is white on the outside, but with a sick anti-White inside.
If you are anti-White on the inside, you are a TRAITOR to your own people, and every word you are uttering is TREASON.”
Or some such…
#25 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:18 pm
“I’m thinking ‘traitor’ doesn’t rile people up for similar reasons that ‘White Nationalist’ does not work. The Anti-Whites have been smearing the positive notion of ‘nation’ for decades.”
Good point, but I think the word “traitor” still has considerable power in it. When an anti-white has posted, “I’m white, so how could I be anti-white?” and I’ve replied, “There’s a word for that that’s as old as human life on earth: TRAITOR”, no response came back in the few opportunities I had to do that.
I think the word pricks the feeling of guilt that so many Whites carry. That such a core word could seem almost antiquarian maybe touches the part of them that knows the present world they live in is degenerate. As you say, it doesn’t appear to exactly rile them, but I got the feeling that it does something to them.
I’m pretty much over the recent defection of a prominent young pro-white, and I seem to have reverted to the affectionate attitude toward him I’ve always had, especially once I had spent some time in conversation with him (mostly about country music) on a nature hike following the 2011 seminar.
I do NOT think that’s the right attitude, and I’m very glad there are many others who don’t feel that way. But I guess I’m still to a great degree a product of my degenerate time and place, in addition to just the way I’m genetically built.
In the present circumstances, the majority of Whites are TRAITORS, and part of our job is to point it out to them.
That relates to my desire to gently and matter-of-factly appropriate the word “White” to mean “White and normal” (i.e., “pro-White”). TRAITORS have given up the right to call themselves “White.”
And we Whites who are NOT traitors should not be designating ourselves as some kind of sub-category of Whites, “pro-Whites.”
WE are the ones who are WHITE.
Sometimes for clarity we still need to use “pro-White,” but IMO that’s unfortunate.
IMO we should be challenging White TRAITORS at least on some occasions by appropriating the word White for ourselves and denying it to them.
That seemed very effective in helping to hammer Mantra the one time that another bugster and I experimented with it.
#26 by Epiphany on 07/24/2013 - 7:23 pm
And it is really intriguing that none speak of the Communists anymore!
#27 by timeforfreedom on 07/24/2013 - 8:27 pm
Anti-nationalism is just a codeword for anti-White Treason
#28 by shari on 07/24/2013 - 10:58 pm
I don’t think of traitors as self hating. More like self worshiping, with no qualms. Although some can effect being very humble. Oh and courteous as well. You know them by their works.
#29 by dungeoneer on 07/24/2013 - 11:21 pm
It`s wrong to enjoy the suffering of others even anti-whites and we should love these enemies.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
#30 by Nordoxen on 07/25/2013 - 7:34 am
Anti-white traitor wrote an article for a major swedish newspaper about the “movement” and “genocide against whites”.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/article17190083.ab
#31 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 8:00 am
A pro white that turns anti-white campaigner. Yuck! There is nothing worse.
#32 by Jason on 07/25/2013 - 8:16 am
I have watched three episodes of an old TV show called Daniel Boone that comes on Classic TV channel. All three have been about Daniel having to oppose a bunch of bigoted, hateful Whites.
One time it was to hold off a lynch mob against a Black man. And twice it was prejudice against Indians. The same pattern holds when you see old episodes of Bonanza and Gunsmoke.
The point is, never think you shouldn’t insert Mantra material into whatever venue you can. Anti-Whites have been playing this game for generations.
#33 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 4:06 pm
Horus explained they’ve been doing it since the 1950s, on “traditional values” TV shows. The technique works best, when no one knows they are doing it, so they can slip it past your defenses.
His free podcast opens your eyes to how the anti-White system brainwashes the masses. It is compulsory listening for any BUGSer.
#34 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 4:12 pm
White Rabbit (HA) explained that BW technique on his free podcast. It worked best on those “traditional vakues” TV shows you mention.
#35 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 4:24 pm
Those shows you named created all the respectable conservative, baby boomer weirdos.
#36 by Bob on 07/25/2013 - 11:35 am
Jason, PLEASE keep hammering that in among pro-whites!
Anti-whites got their present power precisely by shoving their “message” down everybody’s throat.
#37 by Jason on 07/26/2013 - 5:20 am
Will do. I know everyone thinks it is worse now, because we see commercials with black guys marrying white women, but I honestly think it may have been worse in previous decades.
Even Ted Nugent, the gun-loving conservative rocker, could write a song called “Great White Buffalo” in the 70s that was all about how the evil White man ruined North America. No one batted an eye as far as I know.
#38 by Wm White on 07/25/2013 - 1:25 pm
@Jason
We have an Oldies TV station that plays these same shows that must have been shoved down everybody’s throats when there were ONLY (4) four stations people could watch (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS).
I have watched (out of curiosity) several shows: Patty Duke, Daniel Boone, MASH, and Heat of the Night etc. And you are very correct.
Their messages are based (more-often-than-not) on ‘white guilt’ and anti-white propaganda.
It is also interesting to note that the producers for ALL these shows were from the ‘Self-Chosen Tribe,’ with an occasional white person thrown in for expediency’s sake.
***
Bob has seen this ‘all encompassing’ anti-white propaganda forced down the throats of white children and young people since the heydays of television; starting in the 1950’s. These white genocidal corrupters have had free rein for over 60-yrs.
Turnarounds are fair play –Raid everywhere!!!
#39 by Jason on 07/26/2013 - 5:25 am
Absolutely right, and after all, we are defending our people, not fighting to genocide a group like they did.
#40 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:25 pm
Once again, this smoothly functioning website will not allow me to post.
Bob, some day when it can be done, we need a website that doesn’t randomly reject our comments.
Of course it’s just my opinion that I had something worthwhile to say! 🙂
#41 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:36 pm
Screw it. I’ve tried three times, I give up.
#42 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 3:57 pm
It is not random, it is the spam blocker. Traitor is a popular word at the moment, so the spam blocker is picking up on that. Just change the word traitor a little using dots or spaces.
#43 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 4:07 pm
There goes that theory. the SB is getting me now and I am not using traitor.
#44 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 10:13 am
The filter admitted my paragraph that had “traitor” in it, and blocked the paragraph after it that didn’t.
#45 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:39 pm
“I’m thinking ‘traitor’ doesn’t rile people up for similar reasons that ‘White Nationalist’ does not work. The Anti-Whites have been smearing the positive notion of ‘nation’ for decades.”
(continued next comment)
#46 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:43 pm
(continued from preceding comment)
Good point, but I think the word “traitor” still has considerable power in it. When an anti-white has posted, “I’m white, so how could I be anti-white?” and I’ve replied, “There’s a word for that that’s as old as human life on earth: TRAITOR”, no response came back in the few opportunities I had to do that.
(continued next comment)
#47 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 3:47 pm
Nope, that didn’t work either. It seems to be completely random what goes up and what does not. My next paragraph was to be one much like the previous one.
Of course the site is more rickety now than it was, but it’s NEVER been right.
I allow myself to go on about it a little here, because, Bob, I’m not at all sure that you know that the site has been a problem in the past as well as now.
#48 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 4:04 pm
I got carried away. Looking back on the history of this site, even before I came, it seems we never have had quite the technical help we needed, and there was no way to get it. A situation not easily remedied.
Sorry.
#49 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 4:27 pm
Well pro-Whites who don’t DO anything aren’t traitors, but what exactly ARE they?? Giant slugs disguised as humans?
As I unceasingly try to enlist 150 pro-Whites mostly from SF to be Stalwarts and spend a few moments on the first of each month helping get our STOP WHITE GENOCIDE petitions on public display at the White House, I occasionally get this bewildering reply:
“Thank you very much for your hard work. You are a good example for all of us.”
…and not a word from the poster about my endlessly repeated request to them to become Stalwarts and help with the petitions!
Lol!
Meanwhile, Chinese, Malaysians, Venezuelans recognize the opportunity for international publicity for their agendas and 150,000 of them pick up that megaphone over just a few days and use it!
While I struggle for 3 months now to get 150 pro-Whites to pick up the megaphone.
The Darwinian struggle is not currently going our way. But I don’t seem to feel anywhere close to turning away in frustration and disgust. I think of Bob’s years of frustration…UNIMAGINABLE.
#50 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 4:36 pm
(continued from a post above)
I think the word [traitor] p r i c k s the feeling of guilt that so many Whites carry. That such a core word could seem almost antiquarian maybe touches the part of them that knows the present world they live in is degenerate. As you say, it doesn’t appear to exactly rile them, but I got the feeling that it does something to them.
(continued in following post)
#51 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 4:42 pm
Perhaps there is a better way of going about it. You only want to remind people to sign it every month. Is there a mass messaging system integrated into SF? You should ask Don Black.
#52 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 5:20 pm
The way I get Stalwarts has mostly been sending out “mass” PM’ed invitations at SF. Up until recently at least, persons have responded more to those personal invitations.
I can send each invitation to 10 SF’ers at once, and a few days ago I sent out 80 invitations, and got one new Stalwart from them. (generally, the return has been a little higher than that. We do have over 90 Stalwarts now, about 75 of whom will actually sign, judging from last month’s performance).
That’s the only mass messaging system I know of. It’s a bit more work than it sounds like, checking the names to not repeat them, etc., and I”ve been remiss in not sending out more invitations this month. I’m planning to send a lot over the next few days. I foolishly expected a higher return on the 80 I sent, and the poor returns deflated me.
After the petitions go up at midnight the last day of the month, I send grouped PM reminders and individual emailed reminders to all Stalwarts I have that information for.
I try to take some small care in who I send invitations to (I gather names from threads I post on), since I did get some harassment from an uninformed mod who told me to not be a jerk and spam people. (In my first “spam” ever, I included Don Black and Jack Boot, so I’m not too concerned), and I don’t want to risk just sending PMs to thousands of unknown SF’ers right after the petitions go up. Hm. I should write that last to Don (after the recent upset has passed a bit) and ask him if he has any ideas. You’re right. Thanks, OB. He may know something that could be done that I have absolutely no idea about. I caught Jack Boot writing either “antifa” or “anti” and courteously corrected him, so maybe I won’t consult with him!
#53 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 6:08 pm
My ego needs to add (for anyone who’s bothered to read this), if you’re having the thought that surely I must be incompetent to be getting such poor results, I invite you to take a petition to SF (or any other site) to get it up and see how it goes! Lol. I’ve seen what happened to a couple of well-written petitions there on subjects a lot easier to promote than White Genocide.
I need to ask Don what his ideas are on why the secession petitions went up so rapidly (just a few hours) and all the rest of us are having such a struggle.
#54 by OldBlighty on 07/25/2013 - 9:03 pm
HD,
Have you thought about looking outside of SF for Stalwarts? For instance on YT?
Mirror the ARH and HWTOA videos and make a short reminder video to sign the petitions each month. Anyone that subscribes to your channel, will get an alert when a reminder video goes up.
I will post links to your YT channel, each time I post the mantra if you want.
#55 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 11:08 pm
That’s probably a great idea. I don’t have the slightest idea how to do that kind of stuff. I’ll put it on my list of things to learn…twitter, then mirroring yt vids. Thanks…I’ll get back to you for advice when I’m able to get there. I imagine it’s not really hard, I just have to manage my time and do it. Thanks again.
#56 by Iceknight on 07/26/2013 - 4:00 am
Yes Old Blighty, great idea!
We could really do with a WhitegenocideprojectTV branded channel on youtube like we already have for whiterabbitradioTV. It could then be used as a platform for more serious news and campaigning type issues, with the White House petitions being a central part of that.
HD I have a week of vacation next week, I’ll try and put together a very quick video for you about the petitions. Give me a summary of maybe 4-5 one line bullet points to include (…no rambling! 🙂 ) and I’ll see what I can come up with.
#57 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 10:18 am
Iceknight, thanks! I’ll be in touch.
#58 by seapea on 07/26/2013 - 8:03 am
HD, those secession petitions probably did so well because they played into peoples White Flight escape fantasies like PLE, etc. Our petitions are doing the exact opposite… RAID!
#59 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/25/2013 - 5:26 pm
Maybe I can get just the last part up of the comment I tried to post:
In the present circumstances, the majority of Whites are TRAITORS, and part of our job is to point it out to them.
That relates to my desire to gently and matter-of-factly appropriate the word “White” to mean “White and normal” (i.e., “pro-White”).
TRAITORS have given up the right to call themselves “White.”
And we Whites who are NOT traitors should not be designating ourselves as some kind of sub-category of Whites, “pro-Whites.”
WE are the ones who are WHITE.
Sometimes for clarity we still need to use “pro-White,” but IMO that’s unfortunate.
I think we should be challenging White TRAITORS at least on some occasions by appropriating the word White for ourselves and denying it to them.
That seemed very effective in helping to hammer Mantra the one time that another bugster and I experimented with it.
#60 by Sunlit Iceberg on 07/26/2013 - 3:44 pm
White is a term describing a racial group. The convention on genocide deals with racial groups among other things, but they are not defined as loyal whites or white traitors, it’s all purely physical, isn’t it? From this point of view I would not attempt to claim the term white only for a pro-white and deny it to an anti-white. I would claim psychological health.
The way a pro-white feels about genocide of his people is healthy. Only some kind of negative, unpleasant reason can drive someone to want to make his people disappear. One can be self hating, frustrated, brainwashed or at least misguided that the only moral high ground is where everything anti-white is. And with all the anti-whitism imposed on whites 24/7 it is easy to see how this unhealthy psychological state has become epidemic among them.
So how about a term psychologically healthy white?
And in non-mantra terms: It is a healthy state of mind to simply like oneself. If one doesn’t like oneself the reason for it can only be negative. And on a bigger scale it is a healthy state of mind to like one’s own people. Especially when compared to trying to wipe them out.
#61 by Scythian on 07/25/2013 - 11:48 pm
Nobody would bat an eye at a non-white who wanted to get rid of whites, yet we hold Jews to a higher standard than TRAITORS?
Non-whites have nothing to do with it.
Can you hear the SILENCE about communism? Where’s the controlled opposition?
The anti-whites dangled Hitler and Nazism as the forbidden fruit. This may be hard even for us to believe, but our enemies never imagined just pro-whites – which is THEE reason most of us are here I believe.
Anti-white whites are complete MORONS.
#62 by Bob on 07/26/2013 - 3:52 pm
HD, it is no concern of ours that we have to remind people to be pro-white. That is the kind of pompous theorizing I expect from Hadding, so I hope I misread you.
‘Pro-white” is a tactic, not a philosophy.
#63 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 4:43 pm
I have NEVER recommended not using ANTI-WHITE!
I CONSTANTLY encourage people to use it…I PM’ed Jack Boot on SF recently when he used “anti” or “antifa,” and I courteously urged him to use “Anti-white.” One of my main lines trolling for Stalwarts on SF is, “Don’t you think it will be a better world when everyone is saying ‘anti-white’ instead of ‘racist’?” I write ARTICLES on White GeNOcide Project about using “anti-white”!
http://whitegenocideproject.com/anti-white-vs-the-r-word/
Since you’ve leveled this OUTRAGEOUS charge against me…lol!…of committing BLASPHEMY against one of our tenets that I HOLD MOST DEAR, I feel it’s fair to ask you to please read that very short article by me, and then please DO let me know if you don’t like what I have to say about “anti-white” 🙂
How the devil did you ever get that out of what I posted, Bob? What I’m suggesting fit perfectly well with all the ways we use “anti-white,” on the one day that another bugster and I tried it long ago after getting your permission.
I just went to skype and I see I have a short typed message from you. I left the other day not because I didn’t want to type, but because after awhile I assumed you wouldn’t be returning, and I had chores outside…I haven’t thought to check skype except once since then. I’ll go there now and type a message.
#64 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 4:47 pm
Bob, now you’ve changed your comment to me completely, and readers will wonder what the devil I’m replying to.
And yes, you are still COMPLETELY misreading me, as you suggest.
I’m describing something that was tested for one day with apparent rip-roaring success. It’s not a “theory” about anything, it’s a possible tactic in spreading Mantra.
#65 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 4:51 pm
And damned if I feel like even typing to you right now after being accused of “pompous theorizing.” Hopefully some other day we can understand each other on skype.
#66 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 5:05 pm
Here’s your original comment to me that I responded to:
“HD, I can’t believe that bit of silly theorizing came from YOU!
Anti-white is a tactic, and this theoretical dismissal of using it sounds like a AMPW!”
#67 by OldBlighty on 07/26/2013 - 5:13 pm
“I have NEVER recommended not using ANTI-WHITE! ”
But you have recommended using White Movement, instead of Pro White, because you think White Movement is an easier sell.
If its easy, you aren’t pushing anything new. If you aren’t taking flack, you aren’t over the target.
#68 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 5:32 pm
“easier sell.”
Absolute horsepoop, OB.
If you ever try gently and matter-of-factly appropriating the word “White” to mean “pro-White,” you’ll find out real quick which term is easiest, and which one draws more flak.
And let’s keep separate Mantra posts and other posts. I would never use “white movement” in Mantra posts. I use it when I need to refer to pro-Whites collectively on SF.
You do remember what happened the last time several of you guys…I can’t recall for sure if you were one, but I think so…started beating up on me because you thought I was doing something Bob had said not to (it was this same issue, in fact), right? And it turned out I was correct in thinking he hadn’t really been responding to what I’d been suggesting? And he then gave his explicit permission to launch the experiment?
Well don’t set sail and start tacking with the apparent prevailing wind too quickly again this time…Bob has not yet understood what I’m talking about. Apparently no one else here has either, but it’s a very simple suggestion.
#69 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 5:46 pm
“Bob has not yet understood what I’m talking about,” even though he once gave permission to try it. But that was a long time ago, and later he seemed to withdraw permission. I was pretty sure that then as now he had misconstrued what was being referring to, but I didn’t have enough spirit left then to press it further.
#70 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 5:55 pm
No amount of frustration…at “home” or away from home…will ever deter me from spreading MANTRA…lol! 🙂
#71 by OldBlighty on 07/26/2013 - 6:09 pm
“started beating up on me because you thought I was doing something Bob had said not to (it was this same issue, in fact), right?”
Could be, but I have no memory of it right now.
What I do know is you have a thing for White Movement and I think Bob misremembered and later changed it from anti-White, because of that.
IMO a White Movement would be well behaved and fit in nicely with Black Movement, Hispanic Movement, Asian Movement, etc. A neat collection of well behaved, respectable ethnic minorities, that are easy to rule.
IMO Tim Wise and co, if they had a choice, would prefer to deal with White Movement, instead of Pro White Movement, because White Movement says nothing about THEM at all.
Pro White puts them on the back foot right from the start. White Movement, like White Nationalist, says nothing about our enemies at all.
Bob says it in one sentence:
‘Pro-white” is a tactic, not a philosophy.
#72 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 7:23 pm
“‘Pro-white’ is a tactic, not a philosophy.”
I understand, and when I wrote the following, I wasn’t propounding a philosophy either, despite the form I expressed myself in:
“TRAITORS have given up the right to call themselves ‘White.’
And we Whites who are NOT traitors should not be designating ourselves as some kind of sub-category of Whites, ‘pro-Whites.’”
WE are the ones who are WHITE.”
I was describing the effect I felt “White” achieved when I used it as I suggest, and the effect I feel “pro-White” must have, just going by the way it sounds to my vestigial racial-liberal ears…it sounds like naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews to me, and I assume that’s the way it will sound to the audiences we’re performing for.
I have a couple of neighbors that are like our target audiences, and I’ll try to get their reaction to “pro-white.”
“IMO Tim Wise and co, if they had a choice, would prefer to deal with White Movement, instead of Pro White Movement, because White Movement says nothing about THEM at all.”
I doubt that “pro-White” carries to anyone except pro-whites any implication that some people are “anti-white.” I think that at the present time “pro-white” will just sound like “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews” to most whites.
What I like about using “White” for “pro-White” when possible is that it doesn’t trigger that, and yet at the same time is MORE forceful than “pro-white,” because it appropriates whiteness to those who are pro-white, and the white anti-whites we engaged hated that!
I think the only time I ever used “pro-White” while swarming was to ask, “Are you pro-White, or pro White-Genocide?”, and didn’t like using it even then (where do you put the dash, for one thing. There’s no good place for it). I would never ask, “Are you anti-White or pro-White?” Is that what Bob recommends? If so, then I have some thinking and catching up to do.
Has Bob written about “pro-White” at all that you know of? It’s past time for me to google and try to find that…I’ll do it now.
#73 by OldBlighty on 07/26/2013 - 7:32 pm
I don’t ask them if they are anti-White. I start out by telling them, we both know they are anti-White.
No one in the real world gives us any argument, unless they are anti-White. Anti-White is assumed.
#74 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 7:39 pm
If we’re building for a future time when “anti-white” and “pro-white” will be a part of everyday discourse and will function contrapuntally, and in order to arrive at that time we’re accepting what I see as the disadvantages of “pro-white” presently compared to “white,” then not ever using “White” to mean “pro-White” because we want to hammer “pro-white” would make sense to me,
Is that Bob’s idea, or at least the idea of everyone else here except myself, of what we’re doing? I hadn’t thought about it that way, and that idea does make some sense to me.
#75 by OldBlighty on 07/26/2013 - 8:05 pm
We want anti-Whites to &*^% their pants, when called anti-White, just like Whites &^%$ their pants, when called “racist”.
We want Whites to be pro-White, to advocate in their interests without apology.
#76 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 7:55 pm
“MOST IMPORTANT, every time you use white nationalist is an instance where you do NOT use ‘pro-white.’”
Bob wrote that just a few days ago, so clearly he thinks “pro-white” is a good term.
That’s as far as I can get with it.
#77 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/26/2013 - 8:30 pm
I’ve spent all day on this, and I don’t have all day to spend.
If anyone sees me posting anywhere on BUGs except the working thread (except when announcing petitions are up) before 2014, please remind me that I vowed not to. Seriously. Thanks.
I hope I never again get the notion to suggest a new idea here that involves anything except a new delivery of the ideas we already have. Like the petitions. Anything else is way too hard.
Everyone who’s not a Stalwart should become a Stalwart:
http://whitegenocideproject.com/hey-buddy-can-you-spare-5-minutes-at-the-beginning-of-each-month-to-help-stop-white-genocide/
#78 by Asgardian117 on 07/26/2013 - 11:51 pm
Thank you for the lessons HD and OB I learned alot.
#79 by Bob on 07/27/2013 - 8:50 am
HD, anything you have to say is more than worth hearing, so don’t restrict yourself.
I have to state my misunderstandings to have them corrected. Often it makes me look pretty stupid.
But you can’t survive in politics for half a century if looking stupid really bothers you.
#80 by Bob on 07/27/2013 - 9:32 am
HD said, just incidentally:
“I assume that’s the way it will sound to the audiences we’re performing for.”
That REALLY stuck with me, one of those comments that a pro makes just in passing and I discover/
Yes, we ARE performing for an audience! That is precisely what other pro-whites do not see!
Thanks, HD!
#81 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 12:47 pm
Bob, thanks so much for your comments.
I’m about to go back to sleep, and may not have my brain back until tomorrow. OB has made me think there may be other considerations that trump my own, which has increased even further my interest in the issue!
Below are excerpts from our one experiment with gently and matter-of-factly appropriating “white” to mean “pro-white” in engagements with white anti-whites, who of course are the only suitable targets for the tactic.
I didn’t copy our all-important initial statements (gentle, matter-of-fact, and hopefully even subtle) that introduce our term “white” as a stand in for “pro-white”…it’s VERY important to not make a big deal of it, but to let THEM make a big deal of it). The following may be a fair example of an initial statement that slips it in (and remember, it’s already plain to the audience that these anti-whites are white):
“Whites world-wide are opposing our own genocide, while anti-whites like yourself carry out our genocide while screaming that you’re only anti-racists.”
The responses below followed after maybe one more comment that repeated the tactic of the first one:
“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.
Deny them their Whiteness that they suddenly so vigorously defend, since they no longer deserve it (and they deny it themselves in other contexts!), is the feeling I’m trying to impart with this. And challenging the white anti-whites in this way, I think, will make our audience also feel challenged to consider their own Whiteness, which I think is a fundamental aim implicit in the Mantra.
Another example:
“You can only speak for YOURSELF.”
Why? You speak on behalf of ALL anti-Whites when you support the GENOCIDE of White CHILDREN.
A few more examples:
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/teaching-whites-to-say-whites/page/4/#post-46424
It seems powerful…and if in some cases it DOES capture the focus of the anti-white and the audience, well, then White Genocide should slip in under all the radars that are momentarily pointed away from it, since the tactic I’m suggesting is only placed in transitions back to White Genocide (see examples above). It is NEVER belabored! NEVER EVER! Because it is NOT the point!
Be back probably tomorrow. Bob, you and everyone have a great Saturday!
#82 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 12:51 pm
Oops, I forgot and included a link in what I just posted.
#83 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 12:54 pm
Bob, thanks so much for your comments.
#84 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 1:04 pm
My comment won’t go up. Bob, I’ll send it to you in a skype type.
#85 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 1:16 pm
Below are excerpts from our one experiment with gently and matter-of-factly appropriating “white” to mean “pro-white” in engagements with white anti-whites, who of course are the only suitable targets for the tactic.
I didn’t copy our all-important initial statements (gentle, matter-of-fact, and hopefully even subtle) that introduce our term “white” as a stand in for “pro-white”…it’s VERY important to not make a big deal of it, but to let THEM make a big deal of it). The following may be a fair example of an initial statement that slips it in (and remember, it’s already plain to the audience that these anti-whites are white):
“Whites world-wide are opposing our own genocide, while anti-whites like yourself carry out our genocide while screaming that you’re only anti-racists.”
The responses below followed after maybe one more comment that repeated the tactic of the first one:
“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.
Deny them their Whiteness that they suddenly so vigorously defend, since they no longer deserve it (and they deny it themselves in other contexts!), is the feeling I’m trying to impart with this. And challenging the white anti-whites in this way, I think, will make our audience also feel challenged to consider their own Whiteness, which I think is a fundamental aim implicit in the Mantra.
Another example:
“You can only speak for YOURSELF.”
Why? You speak on behalf of ALL anti-Whites when you support the GENOCIDE of White CHILDREN.
#86 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 1:19 pm
(continued from preceding)
It seems to work powerfully…and if in some cases it DOES capture the focus of the anti-white and the audience (momentarily taking their attention off of White Genocide), well, then White Genocide should slip in under all their radars that are momentarily pointed away from it, since the tactic I’m suggesting is only placed in transitions that lead right back to White Genocide (see examples above). It is NEVER belabored! NEVER EVER! Because it is NOT the point!
#87 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 1:33 pm
That got it all! I may need to go back to sleep. Glad I got that out!
#88 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 2:13 pm
Bob and everyone, have a great Saturday!
#89 by Sunlit Iceberg on 07/27/2013 - 5:13 pm
No-one wants traitors. Not even anti-whites want them. And the concept of loyalty has not been forgotten. It is still being kept alive. What they really do is trying to dictate WHERE your loyalty should lie. One is supposed to be loyal to the mankind, the flag, the anthem, the president, court, democracy (in some countries to Marxism or religion) but NOT to race, nonono. So I only want to define myself where my loyalty will lie. Anti-whites are not satisfied with it, they want to dictate to the others where their loyalty should lie. And they base their opinion on the false assumption that the moral high ground is only where everything anti-white is.
#90 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 9:49 pm
(continuing my topic above)
A thread on SF about the Tinley Park attack had this title:
White Nationalist meeting attacked in Chicago suburb
At my suggestion, the mod changed it to:
Peaceful White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb
Would this have been better:
Peaceful pro-White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb
Compare the effects of those last two choices on a casual White visitor to SF. In my racial-liberal days, my reaction to the last one would have been, yeah, they were peaceful, but what were they planning. After all, they’re “pro-Whites.”
But the middle title would have made me go, huh, a peaceful meeting of whites was attacked? What is this? And I would have checked it out without having my mind set in a certain way before beginning.
The white movement should recapture the term “white” to mean “white and normal.”
As a bugster long departed said,
It is what we had before the genocide began and we need to get it back.
#91 by OldBlighty on 07/27/2013 - 9:52 pm
“Peaceful White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb”
What were the Whites meeting about? They could have been a knitting club, they could have been a church group. Then people would ask, why use White in the title at all?
#92 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/27/2013 - 10:29 pm
“What were the Whites meeting about? They could have been a knitting club, they could have been a church group.”
Exactly! That’s my point! We want to NORMALIZE White activism, normalize being “white and normal,” not slap a name on it that makes White minds regard it as a thing apart from just being White! Especially a name that translates as “naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.”
Neither of the other titles is very specific either. I have no idea what the meeting was about. It COULD have been about knitting, for all I know.
I admit that “pro-White” tells me more about the meeting (or at least about those who met) than just “White” does. But what it tells casual White visitors to SF who aren’t pro-White is that the group are naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews! Let’s not tell them that!
#93 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 12:59 am
We already have an answer to that – In yer opinion Pro Whites are naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews… You are just saying that because we are White. 🙂
Here, I will give you an example of why Pro White is so important.
I was making the anti-Whites lives a living hell today on FB. They were soundly beaten and were losing control of their mouths.
One of them boasted, “It doesn’t matter! There are hardly any of you left and we are winning!”
I told them, “Anti-White, I’m glad you pointed out you have been waging war on us. We are Pro White and we represent White interests. The fact you are waging war on us, makes you against White people.”
Check mate.
#94 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:04 am
We already have an answer for killed6million. Where have you been HD?
#95 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:06 am
I was making the anti-Whites lives a living hell today on FB. They were beaten and were running their mouths.
One of them boasted, “It doesn’t matter! There are hardly any of you left, we are winning!”
I told him, “Anti-White, I’m glad you pointed out you are waging war on us, because we are Pro White and we represent White interests. The fact you are waging war on US, makes you against White people.”
#96 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:08 am
You really want to trade a power response like that, for a false sense of respectability?
#97 by Harumphty Dumpty on 07/28/2013 - 1:20 am
“Anti-White, I’m glad you pointed out you are waging war on us, because we are Pro White and we represent White interests. The fact you are waging war on US, makes you against White people.”
If your anti-white was obviously white, I’d probably prefer,
“Anti-White, I’m glad you pointed out you are waging war on us. Real White people represent White interests. The fact you are waging war on US, makes you against White people and just another anti-white.”
#98 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:26 am
What is a “Real White people” vs a “Fake White people”?
He is either against White interests or he is not.
#99 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:31 am
The English language already has two words for ‘for’ and ‘against’.
Pro and Anti.
No where does the dictionary say, your physical reality is called into question, if you are against something.
#100 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 1:36 am
If I was an anti-White HD, you would have just been smoked.
#101 by Scythian on 07/27/2013 - 11:26 pm
Nobody “escaped” Nazi Germany, they just left if they wanted to. The liberals in a hurry and their controlled opposition, the self styled “intellectuals” who insist on running EVERYTHING! shot dead and still shoot dead anybody who wanted to/wants to escape any of their “workers paradises” – this makes them feel “powerful”.
“The internet has been taken over by racists” is quite an admission.
#102 by Bob on 07/28/2013 - 6:26 am
OB, as I understand it, our silly game of translating big words into Greek and Latin has one rigid rule: If the first is Latin, the opposite must be Latin, if the first is Greek, then the rest and the opposite must be Greek-derived.
OK stated this rule when he said there is pro and there is anti.
Except one.
The Politically Correct term for the opposite of anti-Semitism is now PHILO-Semitism. The former is Latin, the latter is Greek.
If I have this right, the same respectable conservatives and AMPWs who would be LOL!ing us if we made this mixup consider this hybrid to be Gospel.
#103 by OldBlighty on 07/28/2013 - 7:05 am
“The Politically Correct term for the opposite of anti-Semitism is now PHILO-Semitism.”
Thanks Bob. That speaks volumes.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Philo-Semitism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pro-White&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
#104 by Sunlit Iceberg on 07/28/2013 - 2:09 pm
How about “Psychologically healthy white” whenever it comes to explaining what “White and normal” is?
Because it’s obvious that only some kind of negative, unpleasant reason can drive someone to want to make his people disappear. And with all the anti-whitism imposed on whites 24/7 it is easy to see how this unhealthy psychological state has become epidemic among them.
I know that it is too long. But it is also true.
White is a racial term. Physical.
Pro-white makes think about some kind of activism. Can a non-white be pro-white active?
The way pro-white whites react to the genocide of their people is psychologically healthy.
Any reaction is appreciated.
#105 by jimmy blue eyes on 07/30/2013 - 2:21 pm
Harumpty dumpty….
Please forgive inserting myself…..but the whole purpose of using the term “pro-white” is because, those who reject that term expose themselves as anti-white….they just got grey goo on em….they either believe that whites have a right to exist as whites in the future history of the planet, or they support white genocide….for the white observer of the debate…it draws a line, and they mentally take a side automatically…if theyconsider themselves pro-white…they suddenly become more reseptive…if they don’t…well, to hell with em.