Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with www.bugsswarm.com?
Post on the internet Working Thread

25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION.- A short guide on the Anti-whites playbook.

Home Forums BUGS SWARM 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION.- A short guide on the Anti-whites playbook.

This topic contains 19 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  C Bear 7 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13703

    herrMajor
    Participant

    -Ok guys, we have all seen of a lot of these people. This list I found on the internet will help us identify them and swarm their comment for humiliation directly.

    The 25 Rules of Disinformation

    1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

    2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

    3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

    4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

    7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

    8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

    12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
    which forbears any actual material fact.

    14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

    17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

    20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
    with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

    22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

    23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

    24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

    25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

    Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

    The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

    A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

    It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

    It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have
    NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

    For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known ‘liar’s’ testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance — the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

    Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution — very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role — the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of “higher standards” of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid — and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

    So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or — put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don’t apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html%5D

    Accusations should not be overused — reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

    Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

    The Eight Traits of a Disinformationist”

    1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

    2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

    3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

    4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

    5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

    7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

    I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

    8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

    1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

    2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

    3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

    I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

    Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

     

    -These will help you guys spot em, and crush em where they start! God speed all of you!

    #13718

    meawhiterabbit
    Participant

    Good post. I am sure we have all seen these tactics used time and time again. Does anyone know about these antifa movements? Judging from the down time at SF recently there are highly organised and there are a LOT of them. I assume they have “conferences” and so on. Has anyone ever went to one of these as an undercover lover? Do they “train” the anti-whites what to say………….other than the obvious brainwashing, i mean with misinformation tactics like the above.

    #13723

    Larry
    Participant

    @ mawhiterabbit:
    Anti-white networks are HUGE, well connected and even more well funded. One People’s Project, for example, is a subsidiary of the Brecht Forum. The Brecht Forum was founded in 1975 as The New York Marxist School. Taken from their website: “Our programs are funded in part by Manhattan Neighborhood Network, The Bardon Cole Foundation, The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, The Surdna Foundation, and by public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council.”
    http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/ http://brechtforum.org/about
    Of course, this is only one thread on a massive tapestry of White genocide.

    #13734

    Lord Nelson
    Participant

    Very interesting, thanks for posting.

    Below is a couple of examples of how your average everyday Anti-White uses some of the above techniques against Pro-Whites when pushing White Genocide:

    1. “Demand impossible Proof/Evidence” Example: ‘Prove the white race exists!’ and ‘Define White!’

    Standard BUGS Pro-White response: The White race is the only race that Anti-Whites demand must be replaced by millions of non-Whites.

    2. “This is also related to the Acting Dumb tactic” Example: ‘But I just don’t know what a White country is!’

    Standard BUGS Pro-White responses: A white country is a country where Anti-Whites demand mass non-White immigration.

    NOTE: You can think of better and more aggresive replies to the above. Agressive means staying on message and taking control by asking and repeating LOADED questions. I simply give standard answers. The golden rule is to NOT fall for the trick of being controlled by your opponent.

    Anti-Racist is a code word for Anti-White!

    #13735

    -Gar5-
    Participant

    Another anti-White tactic I’ve noticed is “Well I use to know a WN who did this” or “Well I use to work somewhere”.

    One anti-White on YT (NativeSupport), said he use to work at an immigration office and he apparently saw the statistics, and thats why according to him there is no White genocide.

    I called his BS and responded with “Yeah, and I used to be a flying spaghetti monster…but the hours were just draconian!”.

    I think in those kind of situations we should use humour to lighten the mood, whilst staying on message of course.

    #13736

    Secret Squirrel
    Participant

    I had an anti-White deliberately ignoring my point, that no where in the UN GeNOcide Law, does it say a genocide is not real, if it is not violent.

    He kept asking for statistics of people killed in White countries, over and over again.

    What I did was not answer and keep pointing out the inconsistency of what he was asking of me.

    China race replaces the Tibetans and Forces them to Integrate.

    “Anti-racists” call it GeNOcide.

    Israel race replaces the Palestinians and Demands the remainder Integrate.

    “Anti-racists” call it GeNOcide.

    “Anti-racists” Demand genocide only for white children.

    “Anti-racists” call White GeNOcide “Diversity”.

    Anti-racists are not asking Tibetans or Palestinians for statistics to prove their case of GeNOcide, they only ask this of White people.

    #13737

    meawhiterabbit
    Participant

    A VERY persistent little anti-white (at least hes good for using to spread the mantra) tried to use this tactic….

    “i’ve only vaguely understood that ‘immigration will lead to white ethnic cleansing’, but I do not see exactly how this will hurt me, or my children. That is all im trying to determine. Up to now, I do not see a mechanism for hurt at the individual level”

    They try to bring this down to an individual level. Its the old trick. Hey if its not affecting you right now then its all okay right, keep drinking the kool aid, don’t worry, you can’t see the effects so its not
    happening.

    My response?

    Anti-Whites like seanphurley will try to justify White genocide by claiming he fails to see “exactly how this will hurt me, or my children”

    The point is no one is flooding African with non Africans and telling any African who objects that they fail to see how it will hurt them or their children.

    No one is flooding Asian with non Asians and telling any Asians who objects that they fail to see how it will hurt them or their children.

    His other tactic is to try and say well we WANT IT because we voted in the government.

    My reply?

    You know FINE WELL populations in these nations DO NOT want this. They NEVER had a vote on it and NEVER will!! Why?! Because the anti-White governments know that the White populations will vote against it…..assuming they don’t get smeared as racist, nazi, bigots!
    There is NO VOTING. All anti-white leaders support this. The people do NOT. They have no party to vote for other wise they are SMEARED a racist and could lose their job. That is called INTIMIDATION. Its called FEAR. One more time. This is ONLY happening in ALL White countries. This is GENOCIDE. Africa or Asia does NOT have this problem
    Here in the UK if you vote for the BNP they try to make it so you lose your job, appear in leaked members list and get smeared a nazi. The POINT IS….this is ONLY happening in ALL White countries and ONLY White countries. NONE of the 50 plus countries in Africa of any Asian countries have this issue. Stop being anti-white you freak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBBdxns-Zc&lc=NhC-mf2WXcGqEQ946mjlz9pgowyaEfG2P9KY1mZG9hI&feature=inbox

    #13744

    Mark Muses
    Participant

    Racial solidarity also stands up on the individual level from a purely selfish perspective and perhaps especially for atheists and agnostics.

    The cardinal thing to do before you die is reproduce (so says evolution). If you fail then you will be dead in an even greater sense. Evolution takes no prisoners. A barren mother who fights for her race does the nearest thing to reproducing by protecting her racial group genes and so retains a part of her immortality still. No altruism required, although clearly altruism on top is where our pride comes in.

    I got this “selfish gene” in a racial context thinking from Frank Salter’s book On Genetic Interests.

    Using it in Mantra style exchanges might go something like:

    As an “individual” you must care nothing for your family then because race is simply your extended genetic family so if you don’t mind your race being genocided you wouldn’t mind the state sterilising your family either. After all, only your race is being mentally pressured to be “individual”. Nobody says Asians must be “individual” and have their ancestral lines killed off. Nobody says Africans must be “individual” and have their ancestral lines killed off.

    #13745

    meawhiterabbit
    Participant

    MarkMuses-Thats a nice post! I am having that one. Feel free to post that in response to seanphurley over at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBBdxns-Zc and watch him go off!

    Are you new here? Welcome aboard!

    #13746

    Mark Muses
    Participant

    @meawhiterabbit Hi, thanks! I just noticed the appeal to post and there he is. Okay, well I have dropped it in. Hope it pisses him off if nothing else.

    Yes I am new, but frankly I’ve been glued to the whole thing for months. I thought it about time I became a team player.

    #13747

    meawhiterabbit
    Participant

    MarkM-This is the fun part. It will get him going. Always remember we are not trying to convince them we are right we are using what they say to spread that Mantra!

    Cheers

    #13749

    Mark Muses
    Participant

    Yes, I know the danger. Red mist, tunnel vision, tear the anti-White apart, is dangerous. I’m supposed to play to the gallery and make the anti-White my idiot sidekick in a comedy of errors where I look cool, not enraged, or something like that. I did re-read the guidelines only yesterday LOL. Damn, I’m salivating now. Bob needs to invent a cyber-leash for Bugs to strain on 😀

    #13750

    Lord Nelson
    Participant

    Mark Muses

    Welcome to the SWARM!

    #13751

    meawhiterabbit
    Participant

    LN-It seems like we have a FINE new recruit!

    MarkM-Good to have you onboard. Lets tear this system apart!! You can show some rage. As long as it is targeted at the anti-White for being pro White genocide. Then they deserve all the rage they get!

    #13756

    Mark Muses
    Participant

    Thanks chaps. I hope to meet your expectations and take it on the chin if I annoy/disappoint anyone.

    Returning to the thread topic, one thing that personally tests my patience is number 9 Play Dumb.

    These obtuse bastards will ask me “What is a White Anti-White?” and perhaps quiz me over every term I use. I think 9. Play Dumb should be mentioned does a few things (written from the Anti-White point of view):
    1) Add workload onto the racist.
    2) Waste their time causing frustration.
    3) Create text ‘noise’ so their original “killer post” gets scrolled off the screen and buried onto page 2.

    Sometimes, I might just not reply if I can control myself and their question looks stupid enough to others, but failing that, it seems best to go straight for ridicule. eg:

    “A White Anti-White is the sort of White who would sell their own grandmother to a Black pimp. Tip: Carry a small mirror with you so you can use it as a memory jogger should you need to ask me again”

    or, if we don’t know that they are White themselves, maybe:

    “A White Anti-White is an agent of White GENOCIDE. Too spineless to stand and face down Mummy Professor’s anti-White propaganda, the White Anti-White chooses the multi-racial gravy train as a collaborator, a cowardly bully boastfully turning and informing on their own racial kin”.

    #13766

    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    MarkMuses, you hit this one way out of the park!

    “A White Anti-White is the sort of White who would sell their own grandmother to a Black pimp. Tip: Carry a small mirror with you so you can use it as a memory jogger should you need to ask me again”

    That is sooooo good!! 🙂

    #13769

    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    @ MarkMuses:

    I love your reply that I just quoted in bold, but now it comes to me that the old timers here always remind us to turn everything back to the Mantra when we can. So maybe a better reply is simply something like,

    “A White anti-White is a White who believes in African countries for Africans, Asian countries for Asians, and White countries for everyone.”

    Our first priority is to get the Mantra imprinted in White minds!

    But I think your reply I put in bold is SO good (it attacks on so many levels!) that it should be tossed into the mix….e.g. added as another comment by another username.

    All this is just my opinion as a newbie myself.

    #13770

    Daniel Genseric
    Participant

    I’ll be seeing you on YentileToob, Mark.

    Glad you signed on.

    #13771

    Mark Muses
    Participant

    Ah yes I was to trying to shoehorn in an example just to expand on “Playing dumb”. Took my eye off the ball there. Not Mantra style. Point made. Ta. Glad you enjoyed it all the same.

    #15480

    C Bear
    Participant

    I have been accused by anti-whites of using some of these tactics, without even knowing what they were. Obviously I WASN’T using them, but the fact that anti-whites would accuse me, and in the same terminology, tells me that they have at least read this. More likely, these tactics are written by and for anti-whites.
    But still,
    It reeks of shady politician, or is it just me. The skeptic in me tells me that there are also other possible sources. I know I wouldn’t use these tactics, because it is not my style, plus, I’m not a very good liar. I don’t see anyone white and normal using them either. Mossad? CIA? Is it from the old Soviet Union?
    The probability that it is not ours, or anyone on our side could make it useful in identifying the enemy.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.