Well here is the thing: what is humorous about genocide? If we truly believe this is genocide, if we truly believe our people are being wiped out through deliberate programs of social engineering, is it appropriate to throw in laughs while protesting it? Tone is important because it communicates how people should feel about the issue. It communicates how seriously WE take the issue. Is it the death of our people or the punch line to a joke?

Occasionally other groups will use humor for their causes, but in my opinion it almost always fails. The breast cancer people have “save the ta-ta’s” buttons, but it always struck me as juvenile.

It seems to me that if the issue in question is something like cancer, death, genocide, that making light of it runs the risk of almost being a bit ghoulish (that is, if we really believe we are talking about genocide, and not just using inflammatory language).

When I post, I will often get the “are you serious” reply, as if they can’t even take the concept of White Genocide seriously, and assume I am pulling a prank.

I’ll keep thinking about it.

Jason, I’ve never felt certain on this issue and I’ll think more about it too.

But the ta-ta’s thing (which is new to me) is VERY different from the “humor” in the petitions. Look at every “humorous” thing that’s been in any of the petitions, and none of those things are really a joke. They are dead serious statements of what OUGHT to be, even if in today’s world they can only stand as humor.

The next few days I’ll look through the petition archive thread at WGP and check if I really find that to be true.

So far, the media reaction has been to treat our early serious petition as a joke, and to take the humor in the later ones as deadly serious.

Possibly that was to show what fanatics we are, which raises a question about how that perception works for or against us.