Please critique this Mantra talker as a reply to “genocide isn’t happening. Violence and killings are needed to meet the genocide criteria and for people to take you serious they are going to want examples of this ‘genocide’ you speak of.” Are there legal concerns with implying certain powers that be are somewhat/openly engaged in genocide? Does that make one an enemy of the state? Is that a punishable offense some how?

“The anti-Whites who push these defacto programs do so while ignoring the immigration laws already ON THE BOOKS, suing & threatening the state of Arizona over SB1070, suing & threatening the state of Alabama over H.B. 56, imposing back door amnesty, ICE Director refuses to enforce the immigration laws, shouting down & silencing political dissidents, brainwashing White children and young people with “socially acceptable” programs on T.V. (i.e. multicultural/multiracial programming on everything from PBS cartoons to MTV reality sex shows to the ever-important, rite of passage Weinstein flicks), pushing abortion in majority-White communities, etc… “

Sorry,I meant Malcom Fraser quote.

I have a response that works well in response to “there are no mass killings of Whites” AND “well, it still has to be deliberate; immigration is just natural”

The political decision to open the floodgates to non-White immigration (w/ out a popular vote) WAS deliberate. The political decision to force integrate White neighborhoods was deliberate. The political decision to put out PSAs that encourage interracial coupling was deliberate.

Don’t kid yourself. It doesn’t have to be immediate killing to be genocide under the law. It only need be INTENT that there be fewer Whites coupled with an ACT

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

@Scriv Thanks for this. I like how your reply incorporates some of the DATA they claim to seek. AND it lays it all out there for the audience on the violent/non-violent front.

Remember, if someone hits you with a complicated question… ESPECIALLY if it has to do with semantics, there is a simple mantra answer. Sometimes, it takes a bit of ruminating to provide one that will look seamless to the audience.

For example, I used to have trouble when someone would say something like “Latino” isn’t a race, or “Asian” isn’t a race.

My old SF instinct is to stop and clarify my meaning. I suppress this instinct, because it’s not talking about genocide, and it’s probably an exercise in futility in that my audience understands exactly what I’m talking about. Either way, it’s a waste of time to address it.

But it was still frustrating. In the past, I’d either ignore the point and talk about another thing they’d said, or I’d restate my original point using more carefully tailored terminology.

Then I had a breakthrough that makes a mantra point, leads right back to the mantra, and puts some egg on the anti-White’s face.

Here is the response to “Latino isn’t a race” (if they’re saying something else, like “Asian” or something, just sub that term):

Hey, don’t look at me. I’m taking my cue from you anti-Whites. If I say anything bad about Latinos, I’m not called a “culturalist,” I’m called “racist.” Sorry if I take you at your word.

Then repeat your point…

“Race Realism is a code word for Real Racism.”

I can only see Real Racialism in that statement 🙂

@gatror,breaking up the mantra that way loses the cadence of the last segment,IMO.

I`ve always split the mantra up on the 2-sentence structure for the 1st 3 segments so that the last segment is intact:

4/4 But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

What they advocate is genocide.