@Benjamin: I’ve been going over in my mind whether we should say that White countries ought to have White Privilege, or reject the whole concept, just as we reject the concept “racism.” On the one hand, the word “privilege” is a perfectly valid concept, unlike “racism,” which was specifically invented to demonize White people. Under the law, citizens have certain privileges and immunities. In Japan, only the Japanese have those privileges and immunities. In a White country, only White people should have them. So I see nothing wrong with the concept as such. But if you think that is too much to explain to people, that it is too much of a distraction, then perhaps we shouldn’t use the term, even though, from a legal perspective, it is correct.

So do you think I should stop saying, “No one complains about Japanese privilege in Japan,” etc.? That has always been one of my favorite comebacks. You are better at getting a feel for what works than I am.

What do you think about, “It’s not a privilege; it’s our birthright”? I’ve used it a few times, but I can’t see what effect it has had.

I like “Fighting White Privilege is a code word for White Genocide,” and also “Even if there is White privilege . . .”

@AnotherOne: “White people are genocidal” is, I suppose, a meme that anti-Whites use. But genocide is both real and something we want to stop, so we utilize White people’s tendency to universalize everything to turn it around and say, “But now White genocide is happening, and it is wrong, too.”

White Privilege, back when it existed, was real, and was, I suppose, a conspiracy, but it was a good thing, and we want to bring it back in White countries. Anti-Whites are crackpots to the extent that they claim that it still exists, but the idea of White Privilege itself is not a crackpot idea; it was a desirable and natural thing in a White country. We want to pave the way for its return; not dismiss it as a crackpot idea.

The meme “Affirmative Action is racist” is also circulating, it is very popular, and probably more people have heard it and agree with it than the meme “Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.” But it is a meme that leads to egalitarianism, so it is not useful to us in the long run. It only brings short-term satisfaction.

@Benjamin: Thank you for your feedback. I hadn’t tested my theory in practice, but you have confirmed my thinking on this matter.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a bad idea to deny that White Privilege exists. Any of our memes can be turned around and used against us. For example, if we call them “White Genocide deniers,” they can call us “White Privilege deniers.” It reminds me of a couple of month ago when Benjamin told me not to argue that South Africa was a White country. He said that it was irrelevant to the issue of White Genocide, and he was right. If I say that South Africa is a White country, someone else will say that South Africa is not a White country, and then we are arguing about it instead of discussing White genocide. So if you say that White Privilege doesn’t exist, someone will say that White Privilege does exist, and will point out some country club or whatever that is all White, and now you are arguing about whether White Privilege exists rather than discussing White Genocide.

So I would recommend either using the Japanese example above, or saying something like “Even if White Privilege did exist, would that justify White Genocide?” as Bob said in the last coaching session. But, as above, if you do find that denying White Privilege works, then please report it, and maybe I’ll try it, too.

Just looking them over quickly I had the following thoughts:

In the first one you write: “Every group today has taken land from others. The only difference is that White people were better at it.” Well, that second sentence could be taken as White supremacist. Besides, Genghis Khan was pretty good at taking land, too, wasn’t he? And so were the Arab Muslims and the Ottoman Turks. I’d take out the second sentence and perhaps replace it with examples of non-White conquests.

You also write “Oriental Asia is not being globally ‘diversified’.” Although the word “Oriental” was a perfectly respectable word when I was a kid, I think today it’s considered a hate word (unless it’s being applied to a restaurant run by an Oriental, er, I mean an Asian, in which case it’s cultural enrichment). I would replace it with “East Asia.”

Will the first e-Book have any references to BUGS or how to join us?

In the second one, you seem to be suggesting that White rabbits/people are better than the other species/races. It’s not that I disagree, but I’m not sure that that’s the best way to present the message. On the other hand, I don’t have any suggestions as to how to make it better.

I don’t know enough about genetics to say whether, from a purely genetic analysis, Jews are White or non-White, although I strongly suspect that they are genetically different from Whites, as there are often physical differences. But I do know that most Jews do not consider themselves White and have no loyalty to White people, so on that basis I consider them non-White. But since Benjamin agrees that they should not live in White countries, that’s good enough for me.

Benjamin, whoa there! I never said anything about the ADL! I even thought WmWhite’s comments were a bit over the top . . . at first. But the more I read your posts, the more I agree with WmWhite.

When you first came here, and I read your Google name “Levi Manns,” my initial assumption was that you were using that name because Jews have a lot of respect in our society, and people will listen to a message about White genocide from a Jew who would not listen to the same message from a White person. I find that distasteful, but reasonable.

When you started trying to convince us that Jews are White, I figured, okay, you’re a Jew, and you see the writing on the wall, so you want to sneak Jews in under the category White. Jews have done that before, so it wouldn’t be surprising. Even then I didn’t think you were trying to disrupt what we were doing, only to subvert the Mantra ever so slightly so that you and your tribe could sneak in under the door. I still figured you were sincere. But with your latest rantings, I’m not so sure.

I had hoped to stay out of this scuffle. After all, if a Jew, a Black, or even a White race-mixer wishes to post the Mantra, there’s nothing wrong with that, but they will still not be allowed to live in a White land. So I simply wanted to keep quiet and let this whole thing pass. After all, you were very helpful in critiquing many of our posts, including mine. I wanted that relationship to continue. In the end, if it turned out that you were a Jew, then we appreciate you help, here’s your hat, have a nice time in Israel.

But since your paranoid rantings continue unabated, I think I must ask you two direct questions:

1) ARE YOU A JEW?

2? WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS?

If you are a Jew and sincerely want to end White genocide, I have no problem cooperating with you here, but you and your tribe will not be permitted to live in a White country (except perhaps as a diplomat). If you’re not a Jew, then please clear up the issue by stating so right now.

To clarify my question, I was referring to the name “Levi,” not to the name “Benjamin.” There are many White people named Benjamin, but Levi is ONLY a Jewish name.

Our task isn’t primarily to convince race-mixers or non-Whites, but to convince unmixed Whites. If race-mixers or non-Whites agree with us, that’s a bonus, but it’s not essential.

It’s really weird to me when I post the Mantra, and most of the replies appear to come from non-Whites. A hundred and fifty years ago, when White people discussed politics, the discussion was only among White people. A Negro wouldn’t join in on the conversation any more than a horse or a cow would.

Yet today it is almost universally understood that a Negro’s opinion or a race-mixer’s opinion has the same relevance as ours. This even seems to prevail among BUGSers to a certain extent. Of course, we have to play the game, so to speak, and act as if they matter. But if we are dependent on their agreeing with us, that is a very weak position to be in. It is as if we need their permission to end White genocide.

That said, if we could get a lot of non-Whites and race-mixers to agree with us, that would make things a lot easier for us, but we can never consider it essential. Most of them should be written off as unreachable, as even if a few of them agree with us, they won’t be living in our society, anyway.

@shari, have you listened to Beefcake’s Bootcamp? In it, Beefcake goes into what things to say and what not to say. Two things not to say are (1) how good White people are, and (2) how bad other races are. Beefcake’s lectures are based on Bob’s long experience. And Bob has learned through experience that, if you say either of those two things, people will turn off and not listen. Or, as Horus would say, true information has no meaning to them. This is especially true of a White person married to a non-White. He would probably be the least likely to want to hear that non-Whites aren’t as good as Whites.

Here’s a good article that Bob wrote on the subject:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/04/20/snipers/

If you want to be effective, only make points related to White genocide, and ignore the other targets around you, tempting though they may be.