Dear Mr. *****,
Please allow this letter to serve as the attempt to resolve a right to a Free Speech for Whites complaint at the lowest level that it obviously is.
In your email letter from December 8, you refused to allow us to use the slogan “Diversity Means Chasing Down Whites” as well as our website, fightwhitegenocide.com. Your staff rejected the slogan as “non-factual” and our website address as “offensive.” Having been a congressional staffer myself I am hoping your people will have the pride to actually ANSWER the question we keep putting to those who denounce us, but which is NEVER answered:
When has anybody ever mentioned that liberal “diversity” has been proposed as a solution to the problem of, literally, “too many whites”? 
The SPLC did a fund-raising letter some time ago signed by former senator George McGovern, asking for funds to move non-whites into Northern Idaho! Recently, the claim has been remade that the University of Minnesota in Duluth has a “Diversity Problem.” The solution proposed for solving this problem was, you guessed it, to remove Whites and create more seats for NON-whites, students and faculty alike.
In the real world “diversity” is NEVER used for anything except making White areas less White. If the entire establishment freely uses the term “diversity,” why can we not declare that diversity is a code word and/or that “Diversity” means “chasing down whites”?
We all know the danger to our rights of the “slippery slope.”
In 2012, Lamar Advertising allowed Unfair Campaign to proudly display “It’s hard to see Racism when you’re White.”
Is it really Lamar’s position that this opinion is any more factual or less offensive?
In the interest of “fairness,” it would seem especially important for those in the advertising industry to beware of accepting such obvious and false limitations on language.
No explanation to us today may well mean a ruinous lack of explanation to you in future.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Whitaker
This letter was sent December 17th, 2014.
#1 by Jason on 12/29/2014 - 3:36 am
SILENCE is their most powerful weapon.
That was a very powerful letter. The last line really drove an important point home: “No explanation to us today may well mean a ruinous lack of explanation to you in future.”
There once was a time when that would have made people in their position stop and think. I’m afraid that is no longer true.
#2 by Daniel Genseric on 12/29/2014 - 4:45 pm
So, we’ve been SNUBBED. How “original”.
The ancient law of escalation says eventually anti-whites MUST take the charge and sentence seriously or perish.
So be it.
#3 by -Gar5- on 12/29/2014 - 4:22 am
One that I have been using lately is:
Silencing so-called “extremism” does not stop it – it creates it.
No response to it so far.
#4 by shari on 12/29/2014 - 9:05 am
I don’t know if they will answer. Do they even dare? This letter will be effective one way or another though. It’s time on the calendar.
#5 by -Sentinel- on 12/29/2014 - 11:48 am
Tore the commandeered anti-White term “Diversity” to shreds.
#6 by Daniel Genseric on 12/29/2014 - 4:32 pm
Bob’s a vicious man when it comes to the defense of our race.
No PC, anti-white term is safe while he still draws breath.
And I see a couple of propaganda monsters on here who he might pass the baton to.
#7 by time for freedom on 12/29/2014 - 4:55 pm
I love this line:
“No explanation to us today may well mean a ruinous lack of explanation to you in future.”
What they are all beginning to see now is that their future–if they even have one–will be articulated and administered by US white people who WILL survive the system of White Genocide…And we have long memories.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white
#8 by Scott on 12/30/2014 - 3:48 am
Time for freedom – +1
#9 by Jason on 12/30/2014 - 5:48 am
Sorry for the off topic post. There is something called the “Whiteness Project” that appears to be an attempt to co-opt or direct the energy of any future White movement.
I saw the guy who runs it on MSNBC. He looks like a standard issue liberal.
The “Whiteness Project” says it is a site devoted to letting Whites speak openly about their feelings on race. Whitney Dow, the guy who runs it, said Whites have to be allowed to speak their mind without fear of being attacked. However, it looks like an attempt to bring Whites into accepting Multiculturalism under the guise of “giving them a seat at the table”.
Looks like it has Establishment support. Here are links to the site (with testimonials from White people) as well as an article describing the site.
http://www.whitenessproject.org
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/whitney-dow-the-whiteness-project.html
#10 by Henry Davenport on 12/30/2014 - 9:59 am
I only listened to the middle guy in the first one…interesting that he tried to impersonate a white guy by appearing diffident and tongue tied. 😉
Your comment may not be completely off-topic, since that web site could be a reply to what we and others have been doing.
#11 by wretched Whiterabbit on 12/30/2014 - 1:32 pm
sure, controlled opposition, like the “honest national discussion on race” that Ben Swann is supposedly trying to organize.
If it’s being hung out on MSNBC, I’m sure it will have NOTHING to do with giving normal White people a voice, except to promote “reasonable antiWhitism”…like “reasonable gun control”.
“Progressives” and “respectable” conservatives will be given a voice to make it appear as if they have a mandate to White genocide, while those with legitimate pro-White opinions will be marginalized or depicted as fanatics and heretics.
#12 by ElectricWhiteRabbit on 12/30/2014 - 12:42 pm
Sounds like to me, a desperate attempt to distract the already waking up sleeping White giant. Are we starting to enter a time where anti-Whites are pretending to be pro-White, in a ever increasing pro-white atmosphere? If this is the case, its good and bad at the same time. Bad because anti-white “pro-whites” will attempt to distract and disrupt, good because we’re making progress.
#13 by wretched Whiterabbit on 12/30/2014 - 1:35 pm
We are definitely making progress on many fronts.
I see it every day in more and more people who are not only nodding in agreement, but speaking out on their own. They don’t always know what to say, but with only a bit of encouragement, they lose their fear of the bullies.
#14 by Laura on 12/30/2014 - 1:40 pm
Here’s the response we received:
“We are in receipt of your email, and standby our response to your request dated December 8, 2014.”
December 8th response:
“Lamar will not accept your latest design for the following reasons:
1) It is not factual. “chasing down whites” is not the meaning of the word “diversity”.
2) Your website address, if included in the design, would cause the design to be rejected as we would consider it offensive as defined in our Copy Acceptance Policy that we have previously provided.”
In the letter we sent to Lamar on December 17th, Bob addressed both points that were raised but it appears they are not willing to actually ANSWER the questions WE have asked.
#15 by WmWhite on 12/30/2014 - 3:48 pm
Interesting that a web site opposed to GENOCIDE is looked upon as offensive to this Billboard companies staff and CEO.
Bob has often said psychopaths/sociopaths seem to be at the helm of most ‘ships of state’ and Corporations/systems these days.
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2006/06/19/a-secret-of-real-power-is-not-getting-credit/
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/09/28/the-sociopaths-question/
#16 by Henry Davenport on 12/30/2014 - 6:42 pm
“chasing down whites” is not the meaning of the word “diversity”.
He’s asking you and Bob for one of our best mini-mantras, right? I’m thinking of the one that has check marks, “No country allowed to be white (check),” and so on….someone (everyone!) here will know which one I’m talking about, or will know a better one.
It’s sometimes useful in ways that can’t be foreseen to stay engaged with persons like this correspondent. Maybe a letter back that has the mini as an explanation that the disputed statement IS true, and then a suggestion that since apparently the truth of the statement is not immediately understood, would he accept a billboard message that also included all or part of the mini as an explanation? 😀
#17 by Laura on 12/30/2014 - 11:13 pm
Bob came up with another good one yesterday; “Diverse” = formerly white.
#18 by Henry Davenport on 12/31/2014 - 2:26 am
Fantastic!
Anti-white: “…blah blah…..diversity….blah blah…”
Bugster: “‘Diverse’ just means ‘formerly white,’ right?”
Game over, no matter what comes next, as far as I can see.
Possible headline for one of our White House Meme Bombs:
Replace “diverse” with “formerly white” in all government documents
#19 by Henry Davenport on 12/31/2014 - 4:37 am
Replace “diverse” with its synonym “formerly white” in all government documents
#20 by WmWhite on 12/30/2014 - 3:47 pm
Offensive to whom exactly?
Answer: offensive to those trying to chase down whites!!!
#21 by time for freedom on 12/31/2014 - 3:18 pm
‘Diverse country” is a codeword for a previously White country
#22 by -backbaygrouch- on 01/01/2015 - 1:30 pm
Don’t get angry, get even.
http://www.lamar.com/InventoryBrowser
Do they have a billboard near you? Is that real estate being taxed equitably? Are they carrying their fair share?
I doubt it. You should doubt it too.
Many sites have been upgraded to include digital messages. Has the local Assessor picked up on that?
The Lamar online site conveniently provides rates that allow you to project the revenues generated by the billboard site.
Contact the local Assessor if Lamar has a billboard location near you or in your community. Share your information. Don’t forget to copy all the appropriate elected officials.
Gathering other signatories to a message helps.
Times are tough and most cities and towns are scrambling for revenue. It is your duty to the community to help them.
Rest assured you are helping Lamar meet their civic obligations and that they will appreciate your kindly efforts.