meawhiterabbit wrote:

@ Scrivener I have used the law line in the past but one time an antiwhite then turned round and said to me, well laws are just social constructs like race. Laws deal with social constructs.
I have to admit their comeback put me off using the law/tribunals line.

I’ve seen that one. It only works if you’re willing to be boxed in. Mantra thinking is about thinking outside the box; it’s about thinking around obstacles.

Most of the things anti-Whites say are designed to get us off message. Things like “I’m against racism against White people too,” and “the law is just a social construct, too” are rhetorical weapons in a war of words. And if we forget that we aren’t arguing against them, and really believe we’re debating them, it might just work.

But we aren’t arguing against whatever anti-White we happen to be speaking to. We are advocating against White genocide, and we are speaking/writing for an audience.

When the anti-White says something like “law is a social construct, too,” he is trying to stump you, or get you into a philosophical discussion, or a discussion of jurisprudence. ANYTHING but White genocide.

If you can give a short counterpoint that leads right back to our point (the Mantra), that’s great. This is my preferred mode of dealing with the enemy because it looks like a more organic back-and-forth. But if you can’t come up with a good short, mantra-related counterpoint right then, don’t worry about it. Just get back on message.

In your example, I’d go with something like “Of course the law is a social construct, but it is one created to deal with the real as well as the fictitious. The law says race is real, the law also says one ounce is less that two ounces. The law will punish you if you eliminate a racial group while arguing claim “race is a social construct,” just like the law will punish you for treating one ounce as if it were two while claiming “weight is a social construct.”

And now you have control again. You can continue with something like: “and you anti-Whites never hesitate to use the law to punish Whites whom you deem to be racist.” And tack on any mantra point you want after that. (Important note: Phrases like this are really good to use as a sledgehammer to get back on topic if you either can’t, or don’t want to offer a response to something the anti-White says.)

White genocide petition is getting a steady trickle. 390 now.

@Gator

I like it. Now to implement it. Will be back later to discuss and Swarm. Cya

@gar5

It’s a good policy to constantly label them, remember when Lord Nelson talked about in one of the recordings of them inventing the label, then using it on you.

So when speaking to them, never refer to them by name only Anti-White, use your mantra think to make sure they are nixe and boxed in while you constantly use ridicule against them.

So one of the things that you could open with is…

“Well, Anti-White, you are just calling me a racist because I’m objecting to the genocide of the white race, and you as an Anti-white will continue the genocide of white children in their own homes.”

It’s not a great example but its something you can use to label them and refer to the label, then affirm the label. (Kinda how they do to us)

anothergamutman said:

“Well, Anti-White, you are just calling me a racist because I’m objecting to the genocide of the white race, and you as an Anti-white will continue the genocide of white children in their own homes.” ~ HerrMajor

Yes, this is exactly right. Nothing wins a “debate” faster than well poisoning and straw-manning. I mean, when your argument is basically a fallacy of composition (like calling miscegenation genocide,) why resort to formulating an actual rebuttal, right? Genius!

Heh. Go over to AmRen or Stormfront if you want to appeal to the rules of proper debate. Over here, we’re interested in what works, and we’ve never seen any leftist, communist, democrat, or other anti-White ever fail to win his point because of “strawmanning.”

Besides, we already have a rebuttal. You’d never say that Tibetans or the American Indians were out of line for objecting to the miscegenation that is destroying their gene pool. You only say that to Whites in White countries, and call them “racist” for so objecting. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White, and anti-White is pro White genocide.

Deleted

@ Genseric:

I also should have said, despite my misgivings, you do a good job of keeping control of the conversation.

And it actually seems there is a lot of Jew-discussing going on in OWS threads that isn’t coming from us, which is about the only circumstance when I talk about the Jews. (well, that AND my segregation routine where I ask the anti-White why he thinks segregation is ok for Jews in Israel but not for Whites in the U.S.)

Never mind. They appeared after I submitted a post.