On one major point anti-whites are perfectly correct: As white genocide becomes more and more familiar, other questions will be raised.

It is forgotten now, but the hard line Soviets were right in the 1980s: Once discussion was allowed to start, the whole system would collapse.

As usual, no one but me noticed the pivotal moment in history. Gorbachev was visiting Estonia, and began to talk with the crowd on the street. He looked at one of the complainants and said, with a smile, “Would you like Estonia to SECEDE?”

I knew the look on his face very well. It was the look Northerners always had when they mentioned secession. It was the confidence that nobody wanted to seceded from the USSR.

“You complain about integration? Well, we COULD just kick you out of the Union!”

The American press had had a heyday on exactly the same theme. There were endless numbers of cartoons showing men in Confederate uniforms labeled “Ukraine” and Estonia” and so forth.

Secessions? It was a JOKE!

Only I seemed to remember that the Soviet Constitution, like the Canadian Constitution of 1867, specifically allowed secession!

What I saw that no one else seemed to notice was the look on Gorby’s face when the Estonian said, “YES!”

He looked exactly the way a Yankee would look if a Southerner relied “YES” to secession and then showed we could DO it.

It was a pivotal moment, and only I saw it.

Anti-whites shout that if we are allowed to question White Genocide, people will start questioning everything else the public has been forced to accept over two generations.

They are perfectly correct.

Like the Soviet Establishment before it, our present neo-Marxists rulers are in a balloon they think is a monolith.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, The French leader Sarkozy made a speech, which is on White Rabbit’s YouTube, in which he threatens to use force if the French do not intermarry soon!

No one mentions it!

Here, in “We will use force for interracial marriage,” is the kind of statement anti-whites would never let people forget.

And our side? Down the Memory Hole, where the anti-whites desperately want it.

In talking about other pro-whites, I TRY to make suggestions rather than criticisms. But a 73-year-old man may go over that line after sixty years of bare-knuckle political battle.

I have made it clear that people who have built up organizations and raised money have to have the emphasis they learned that does that.

But I did all this as a paid professional, and in thousands of hours of nose-to-nose debate, I learned to find points that took NO time to throw in.

“Chasing down white flight” is one of those phrases I would work into any discussion I was having. I have learned a feel for what works.

I get ticked at David and Jared and James when they have a twenty minute interview and doesn’t use any of my powerful stuff, which takes ten seconds or less. The stuff I came up with was USED by people who were elected and who raised funds.

Anti-whites keep saying that we say that immigration is only for white countries, “but it isn’t so.” But just to mention that fact is poison to their side.

I work very hard at this, for free. I am used to my products being ignored, but I RESENT it.

Meanwhile keep thinking about “Chasing Down White Flight” and keep commenting on it and reading any new comments there.

OK, gang, the seminar is over. It’s time for some postgrad work on YOUR PART.

I want comments on the title of this article: You may explain what it is, or what it makes you think of.

Brevity is the soul of wit, the more you write the less you say.

THIS TOPIC WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR COMMENTS PERMANENTLY. Please refer back to it regularly to read what is added.

Some time ago a big advertising magazine had a lead article, “Objections to intermarriage in 2014?”

Like any magazine editor, it expressed shock that mere consumers would dare object to a Quaker Oats (?) ad featuring a mulatto child going from his white mother to his black dad.

The first irony here is what ADVERTISING is all about.

Advertising is supposed to be the science of KNOWING public opinion, not of JUDGING it.

Like any other big magazine, this publication hired an editor from the pool of carbon copies produced by the magazine bureaucracy.

But in advertising, astonishment at real public attitudes is not a mistake of the public, but of the advertising industry.

Advertisers are hired to KNOW public opinion, not to be astonished by it.

Let me explain this further: The magazine editor bureaucracy produces editors who tell the public what it SHOULD think.

Advertising is about what the public DOES think.

So the carbon copy editor did not come up through the advertising industry.

In real advertising, the question is “What do people prefer?” not “In the Year 2014 on the Magic Clock, this is what the public SHOULD think.”

No editor, least of all in advertising, would hire ugly models. Models for ads are not representative of the public. No matter how often you repeat, “Real people don’t look like that,” there is no way this side of Hell that advertisers are going to hire fat, ugly models.

To most White people, the kid looks like every other mulatto.

In real world advertising, you don’t tell people that ugly is lovely. That is fine for mainline magazines.

But in the real world real consumers don’t LIKE ugly. Period.

I pointed out that we need to avoid terms, like “save the white race,” that allow anti-whites to remind people of the Old Days.

There was surprise at that.

I was there, I was drafting speeches, when the Great Educated Spokesmen of the South screwed up the truth so completely that we can’t be associated with them now.

Southerners knew: 1) that the world was overwhelmingly non-white, 2) that only a racist mentality kept the third world from overwhelming the white world.

To change our racial attitudes would be suicide.

But not one single spokesman the dombasses paid to represent them would accept a speech with the simple truth in it.

When I drafted a speech that put those two simple facts into plain English, they would tell me that it was the integrationists who called attention to the world’s non-white majority. So we couldn’t say that.

They were too Educated, too Sophisticated, too Subtle to bring it up.

Like so many of today’s AMPWs — anti-Mantra pro-whites — their entire dialogue was devoted to REACTING to what the anti-whites said.

They never told the truths everyone sees now and a lot of people would have seen then.

What those Great Spokesmen said then what such a mishmash of reactions and idiotic “Shrewdness” that they are STILL a laughing stock.

And today’s Jews and News AMPW reactors are following the exact same path.