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

Teaching whites to say “white(s)”?

Home Forums BUGS SWARM Teaching whites to say “white(s)”?

This topic contains 80 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Henry Davenport 2 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 81 total)
  • Author
  • #24388

    Henry Davenport

    Several of us had a discussion about what would be the most effective term to refer to all of us who are in the white movement. I started off suggesting our phrase, “white and normal,” which is a lovely phrase but rather unwieldy to be a general term. One bugser finally suggested merely, “white,” which I thought was a great suggestion.

    I think just “white” will encourage a sense among mainstream white readers that we are whites who are just like them and they are whites who are just like us.

    Whites who feel some attraction to the understandings of the white movement will no longer have to make the psychic leap involved in becoming a “white nationalist” or a “pro-white.” All they have to be is what they already are, white. 

    Hopefully, they will all feel vaguely like they are already identified as part of “the white” movement by its very name, and will vaguely feel like they haven’t quite lived up to the honor! Seriously! Lol!

    What do you all think of the idea?

    The last half of the SF post below is where I describe the idea, and the first half is where I practiced the idea in the context of that thread’s topic.

    Re: White Nationalist meeting attacked in Chicago suburb [I would rename the thread, “White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb”]

    I edited out the errors from Anti-WHITE-Action’s statement of purpose. “Item #5” required no editing!


    1.We go where whites go. Whenever whites are organizing or active in public, we’re there. We don’t believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let whites have the street!

    2.We don’t rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us. We must rely on ourselves to stop whites.

    3.Non-sectarian defense of other anti-white fascists. In Anti-WHITE-Action, we have a lot of different groups and individuals. We don’t agree about everything but we stand behind each other.

    4.We support White Genocide! We intend to win!

    5. [unimportant]

    Fellow SF’ers: some of us at BUGS had a discussion about what would be the most effective term for all of us who post on these white sites to call ourselves in this war of words.

    I thought the best suggestion for an effective term was to simply call ourselves “WHITE(S)”.

    It may lead to some confusions (at first), but think of the long term effect. We no longer would be using terms that imply separation of ourselves from the rest of whites, but using a term that implies the inclusion of all whites among us! 

    If all who post on white sites were to adopt this usage, both on these sites and off, think of what the effect would be on the whites we are trying to reach!! :)

    WE have the moral high ground, but it’s necessary to FEEL that IN OUR BONES!

    WE have the Moral Highground (Beefcake’s Bootcamp audio)


    White GeNOcide Project


    Henry Davenport

    I put the idea into practice in how I wrote the title of another thread I started on BUGS recently, “Teaching whites to say ‘anti-white.'”

    A week ago I would have written, “Teaching pro-whites to say ‘anti-white.'”

    We don’t want our language to separate ourselves from our ultimate audience.


    Henry Davenport

    I realize this is a new idea, and so it’s possible it’s a bad one for some reason I’m unable to see.


    Undercover Lover

    I actually like that HD. I’ll give it a try. See how well it works.



    When the enemy is almost avowedly anti-white, we just need to say, we are white. When the enemy demands that the concerns of other races be addressed, we just need to ask, why can’t we talk about the concerns of the white community?


    Coniglio Bianco



    Henry Davenport

    Coniglio, why won’t it work in Europe?

    As to capitalization of “White,” I’d just decided recently to stop doing that, thinking that lower case might make it easier to slip our message (including the message that they are “white”, if we decide to do that) under the radar of whites for whom “White” may feel a bit too tall and proud at this moment; it may feel like a sort of a shorthand for “white supremacist.”

    But I WILL keep in mind your comment, and keep alert and keep thinking about it.

    btw, when you and others use that grayed out format, the eyestrain makes me not read it.


    Henry Davenport

    I had this exchange with Kayden yesterday on SF.

    Originally Posted by kayden
    Nowadays, you are either pro-White or anti-White. There is no in between. Using the term WN shows that we are pro-White.

    I will continue to make the distinction between myself and my enemies within my own race in this matter.

    Whte Rabbits, pink rabbits, etc….another good conversation to have on this issue as well.

    Thanks for your reply.

    In a certain sense I agree with what you say in your first paragraph, but that’s not my point! (Though I recognize that it’s your point!)

    Here’s the title of this thread:

    White Nationalist meeting attacked in Chicago suburb

    Here’s my idea of a more effective title for this thread:

    White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb

    Now, please consider the case of curious whites who may show up here at SF and read this thread (or at least read its title).

    What I ask you and every other SF’er to consider is this question:

    What is the difference in effect of these two titles on that curious white?

    (Of course my own answer or anyone else’s at this point is far from being a certainty).
    White GeNOcide Project


    Henry Davenport

    Today I was happily surprised to see that Kayden had changed the name of the thread!

    Peaceful White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb

    That’s an improvement on my own suggestion!

    I posted this

    In support of the change Kayden made in the thread name:

    Referring to ourselves simply as “whites,” and to our meetings as “white meetings,” and to our movement as “the white movement,” subliminally or overtly suggests to mainstream white readers that we are whites who are just like them and they are whites who are just like us.

    That removes a barrier. Those who feel some attraction to the understandings and aims of the white movement will no longer have to make the psychic leap involved in becoming a “white nationalist” or a “pro-white.” All they have to be is what they already are, white. They can gradually slip into a new suit of clothes without having to consciously remove the old. In fact, we slap the new suit on them right from the git-go, and hope they will feel like they should act in a way that lives up to the clothes! Lol!

    So I propose that we appropriate for ourselves the name “white,” and use that name as if it’s the most natural thing in the world to do.

    Calling ourselves merely “white” (rather than “white nationalist,” or “pro-white”) implies without our saying so that if other whites wish to be white also then they have to begin to act like it.

    (Kayden, I hope I didn’t say anything that convinces you it’s all a mistake! Lol! )
    White GeNOcide Project


    Coniglio Bianco



    Henry Davenport

    Here’s a much too long comment I just put up at SF, which I wrote really to get most of my present thoughts laid our here on this thread, since beefcake has asked Bob what he thinks of this idea.
    Originally Posted by kayden
    Of course, for them to become like us (at least awakened anyway) is always the goal…all we’re discussing is how to get there.


    Here’s some thoughts on what reactions we might get if we begin to refer to ourselves simply as “white(s),” and refer to our meetings simply as “white meetings” (as your new title for this thread does), and refer to our movement as simply “the white movement.”

    That should subconsciously or consciously remove a barrier that exists between us and the mass white audience we want to reach. That audience still feels white, so let’s let them feel what being white really is.

    White anti-whites will probably be very provoked by our appropriating the term “white” for ourselves. They claim to have shucked off their whiteness, but IMO their feeling of being privileged whites still lurks underneath all their bs, even in their noblesse oblige custom of ceding leadership to non-whites in some of their anti-white groups.*

    White anti-whites betray that they still experience themselves as “white” when they regularly object to us at BUGS calling them “anti-whites” by saying, “How can I be anti-white when I’m white myself?”

    If anti-whites truly consider “whiteness” just a social construct, and an evil one, then they won’t object to the most evil of the evil, ourselves, reconstructing “white” as meaning being like ourselves (white-and-normal)! Lol!

    But I predict that white anti-whites will shriek objections to our simply calling ourselves “white(s),” since I believe their claim to have abjured whiteness themselves is bs.

    In the “arguments” that ensue (we at BUGS don’t really “argue”), we will make the white anti-whites FEEL their loss of white identity.

    But vastly more importantly, that “debate” will make our actual target, the much larger white audience that’s observing, feel their own loss of white identity!

    Calling ourselves simply “white” will make other whites unable to just leave the fact of their own whiteness sleeping fitfully below the level of their consciousness!
    *Most of us who are older still carry within us a feeling that whites are still in control and are secure, even if our brains tell us otherwise. I see that feeling in myself, and studies have shown that all of us tend to feel that our present world is the world of our childhood, however astutely we actually perceive the true nature of our present world.

    These young kids I assume absorbed some of that same feeling from their parents or grandparents who have the feeling, but they’ve also absorbed a lot of negative feelings about being white from their schooling, etc. (So their ceding leadership to non-whites in at least some of their organizations is a contradictory mixture of white noblesse oblige and white self-loathing, I assume)

    So their innards have to be a roiling confusion of feelings about the FACT that they are white! I expect those feelings to erupt if we name ourselves as “whites”!
    White GeNOcide Project


    Henry Davenport

    Things aren’t looking too good for this idea I like so much! From the thread to today’s blog by Bob:

    #1 by beefcake on 5/31/2012 – 12:26 pm
    Well, its off topic, but I got a Question for the Coach.


    We are having some discussion about the term for whites to use to describe any who oppose white-GeNocide.

    For a long time I have been using “pro-white”, “white and normal” has also been phased in, but there are also some ideas suggesting we not use anything to define ourselves other than “white”.

    They all have their merits, and they are being discussed here:

    Have you personally experimented with these terms and found any one way to define whites who oppose white genocide to be most effective? Or ineffective for that matter?

    Those of us actively threading these memes in the Swarm often call ourselves Bugsers, but we are looking for the most effective way to define people who are white and oppose white genocide, as a meme for us to also spread along with the Mantra.

    The same way we refer to Anti-whites as Anti-white, we are simply looking for the best way to refer to those whites who resist white genocide, even inculding those who are not yet in the Swarm.

    #3 by Bob on 5/31/2012 – 3:12 pm
    Beefcake, with all due respect, this is bullshit.
    We are pro-white, all others are anti-white.
    Enough, already.

    #4 by Harumphty Dumpty on 5/31/2012 – 3:35 pm
    Bob, with all respect, I could use a little explanation as to why it’s bullshit. The original suggestion was from another bugser, but the development of it has been completely my doing. I give my various reasons for it at the thread beefcake linked:
    Calling all of us in the white movement simply “whites,” calling our meetings simply “white meetings,” and calling our movement simply “the white movement” seems to me to capture the word “white” for ourselves instead of separating ourselves from our target audience by calling ourselves “white nationalists,” “pro-whites,” etc.

    I have other thoughts about it on that thread unless you’ve already seen enough to know that it’s a mistake. But please, I need to know WHY it’s a mistake!

    The title of the thread is in the form of a question. But if the answer to the question is “no,” I’m hoping for a little more than just “no”!

    #5 by Harumphty Dumpty on 5/31/2012 – 3:41 pm
    Beefcake, my suggestion was that we use “white(s)” as the name for all who are in the white movement.

    #7 by beefcake on 5/31/2012 – 4:00 pm
    Harumphty, I think it may be a case of keeping the meme simple.

    Naturally people are going to want to have some term to describe whites who advocate on the behalf of whites about white genocide, and simply using the term “white” may not be enough for them, they need a more specific definition for those of us speaking up.

    Pro-white has been working so far. In practice it is effective, and it does give us an opporotunity to when they ask “what is a Pro-white?”

    We can answer; “pro-white is anyone who is opposed to white Genocide”.

    Then we can ask; “are you pro-white or anti-white?”

    #8 by Harumphty Dumpty on 5/31/2012 – 4:34 pm
    Well beefcake, I would be more attentive to your response if you had made it before Bob called the idea bullshit!

    Sorry I’m feeling a bit irritated. But your post seems also to not address any of the points I made about this on the thread I started about it.

    I need to hear Bob’s response. I think it’s one of my best ideas (of course as I said on the thread, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be a bad idea!), and so I need to hear why it’s a bad idea, not just a pronouncement that it’s bullshit and then people falling in line and agreeing without telling me why my reasons that I’ve laid out for doing it don’t make the grade.

    I asked on the thread what people here thought about the idea.

    I would at least like to know that Bob has read something of what I wrote on that thread, and why HE finds my reasons don’t make the grade.

    #9 by Harumphty Dumpty on 5/31/2012 – 4:53 pm
    Also: this is a change I’m advocating that white sites use in their own language. As for use in the mainstream, I haven’t thought that far yet. I think it would be useful, on the rare occasions we need to refer to ourselves in the mainstream, to matter of factly say, “we whites….” rather than “we pro-whites…” Capture that unoccupied ground! Don’t focus attention on it, because our attention is focused on Mantra stuff, but just do it matter of factly in passing!



    I use the term pro-White sometimes.
    Bob feels there are pro-Whites and the rest who default into anti-Whites.
    I do not agree.
    There are pro-Whites, sleeping pro-Whites, passive anti-Whites and active anti-Whites.

    I think most Whites are sleeping pro-Whites.
    Give them enough of a nudge and the sleeping White Titan will awaken.
    The active anti-Whites, the hardcore devils like Barbara Spectre are easy.

    Then there are these passive anti-Whites

    I would rather deal with active ones, this mob leaves me cold.

    I call the sleep pro-Whites, normal decent right mind – well all the adjective I hope they are.


    The Beef

    The reason I wanted to know WHY we use “pro-white” and not any other term, is because I want to be able to convince others to use it as well, without having to resort to “because Bob said so”.

    Its helps to have his underlying reason for insisting on it.


    Henry Davenport

    beefcake, I’ve never heard him “insist” on it or even mention it before today. Which by no means means he hasn’t.

    I’m not sure if his response today was based on his having looked at this thread (I doubt it, because I simply doubt he often goes to links that are given. But again, I could be wrong), or simply on your description of our discussion.

    Lol! Here’s my guesses…I don’t mind looking like a fool if they all prove wrong! I’ll guess Bob has never touted the word pro-white, but just used it today as the best choice that came to mind. I’ll guess that he understood from your description something different than is actually being proposed (this guess I’m less confident of). I’ll guess that unless I or someone pushes the matter, he will not read this thread or have any further comment on the issue!

    My intention at the moment is to say nothing for a couple of days, and then if Bob has said nothing more (I did ask him to say more), I will ask him on his daily blog if his response today was to what he read on this thread, or just to your description of it.

    I think I begin to understand how the Greeks felt when they tried to use the oracle at Delphi as their commanding officer!

    That last sentence should not be regarded as a defection, but just as an expression of extreme and recurrent frustration!


    Coniglio Bianco



    Henry Davenport

    @ Coniglio: People may think you and I are a cabal, but I agree absolutely with everything you just wrote. More than that, it’s a superb piece of writing in my opinion, and expresses much better than I have what I’ve been trying to say, and more. If we end up with Bob on our side in this, I plan to post it a lot!

    Hopefully Bob was going just by what Beefcake wrote and misunderstood what’s really being attempted. I’ll wait a few days and then ask him in some sort of way, if he hasn’t responded.

    Hey! What will be MOST exciting is if he HAS read what we’ve written here, sees a flaw in it that we don’t and points it out to us and we understand it!

    That has happened to me before here…more than once I’ve thought I had written something really hot and someone came along and showed me how to do it right! I have as much ego as anyone, and part of me feels bad when that happens, but a bigger part of me loves it for the intellectual excitement! In fact that’s one of the major attractions here for me. Like the post you just wrote. Even if it turns out to have a flaw in it, it’s such a lovely piece of work!


    Henry Davenport

    @ Coniglio: Man, that is such a beautiful post. When I get back to Bob, I think I will ask him just to read that single post.


    Henry Davenport

    Note: where I said I’d like to post coniglio’s post a lot, I mean on white sites of course, like SF.


    Ice Knight

    Personally I can see a lot of merit in this idea, so it would be great to get a more in-depth explanation from Bob as to why he doesn’t feel it will work.

    I guess one of the flaws might be found in where we currently ask the White anti-Whites “…are you pro-White or anti-White?” Change this to “…are you White or anti-White?” and the anti-White is off the hook, because yes of course they are White…even though we’d prefer they weren’t!

    I like the idea though of breaking down the barrier between the WN community and the White and NORMAL community at large, something which must happen one day if there is to be a future for White children.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 81 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.