The thread is here:
http://hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=247174
Almost 3,000 views aleady.
It was a riot, and we have to do more.
I have some ideas to make it REALLY, entertaining next time, but will write about them later.
Why not someone register and post in this thread pretending to be an anti.
This will bump the thread back up.
Lets find MORE forums like this.
AGAIN, this was fantastic FUN!
And we had supporters, read the thread and dont be fooled, the pages were moving so fast it was hard to keep up with the replies.
Then just has me and Adelheim were getting into our stride we got banned.
Coach, I would like to tell my plans for the next forum, I will lay out my plans later to see what people think.
Comment by Lord Nelson
#1 by Kyle on 04/12/2007 - 2:23 pm
Thank you Lord Nelson!
This is a treasure trove of typical anti responces. As croupier101 apperars fairly reasonable his post #46 stuck out at me.
“But even by stopping non-white immigration, the birth rates of non whites is higher then whites. What do we have to do here in the US to keep the white race in the majority even if we stop anti-white immigration?”
I know we have addressed this in the past, I cant find it, but this can absolutely be a major fumbling point for us.
#2 by Ian Santiago on 04/12/2007 - 4:42 pm
This issue is not a major fumbling point. Of course, if you tell the truth you will quickly get banned from any “recpectable” forum. The truth is that the racial struggle will be a bloody one and their are no peaceful, political solutions.
Everyone should take to heart the following:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7431
Viva La Raza Blanca!!
#3 by mderpelding on 04/12/2007 - 7:09 pm
“…”But even by stopping non-white immigration, the birth rates of non whites is higher then whites. What do we have to do here in the US to keep the white race in the majority even if we stop anti-white immigration?”…”
The above cannot be easily dealt with. You may win on point, but your victory would be pyrrhic at best.
Ignore this. The mantra is concerned with the white race.
The above is concerned with non-whites.
This poster is trying to reframe the debate.
But the mantra must be fact. Not a debatable assumption.
Learn from the Left. Never debate your facts. Only your enemies’ facts are debatable.
#4 by Robbie Burns on 04/12/2007 - 7:10 pm
“If you can’t debate the issue.. I guess it’s best to try and shut someone else up..I never did see any of you really address the issues.”
Unfortunately, neither did I. Why didn’t one of you answer the guy who kept wanting to know a non-white country? Jesus, it would only have took a minute. Nigeria, Algeria, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, etc. Damn, it was a Jew who stood up for us the best on there. And the idiot who wanted proof there are not more Canadians coming over than Mexicans? Is that difficult to respond to?
And it would seem that the Mantra need some corrections, as Taiwan is more crowded. That was a point that made us look stupid. Also, the scuffle between the Jew and the idiot was a good place to mention that matters of race transcend religion and politics. I am talking about when he ask her how Muslims could have been fighting with Jews thousandes of years before Islam.
LOL, how are we to respond to the questions asking about what to do with the nonwhites already here and with the half breeds? I say run them out.These kind of questions will have to be answered. I know Bob will say I’m a defeatist or something, haha, but some of these kinds of things seem to me to be stumbling blocks for us, and surely we have to at least appear reasonably inteeligent sometimes.
Take the quotation marks out from the Mantra. Let them think it is spontaneous.
And can I “revise” the Mantra and make some changes to iy to “bring it up to date” and perhaps hone its effectiveness? I got some Ideas I think are good.It only need a few words changed. And no,I don’t mean to make it PC.
And, haha, I do post on forums and everywhere else I can. So I am not just waiting for someone else to do the work. I wish I had been aware of this Hannity thread.
I think we should probably get a few more things like the Mantra and just “hit” these sites with a few hard hitting posts and leave and not attempt to answer every little dumbass question that is asked. That is a tactical mistake.
#5 by Lord Nelson on 04/12/2007 - 7:56 pm
There is a point I want to make about croupier101.
First thing is it would appear that he was Black.
And I don’t think his apparent support was genuine on this occasion, but I am too surprised if it was.
We know the propaganda we are exposed to is NOT, targeted at non Whites so in a room full of rabid White antis (either unwittingly or otherwise) non Whites are ALLWAYS, an asset.
I have worked alongside non Whites who are openly amazed at the STUPIDETY, of us White folks giving our lands away and they are NOT, too intimidated to say it.
Most Caribbean Blacks and Sikhs in the UK are angry at seeing the White country their grandparents came to, being turned into an Islamic Asian country.
For this reason some non Whites actually vote BNP.
They are not fooled by the antis, Utopian one race melting pot crap.
But even if the non White is on the antis side, they, unwittingly, gives us a golden opportunity to attack the them.
This can backfire if you are not careful, but just keep taking all the antis arguments about, the social construct, only one race the human race, etc. and project them back onto the non White in relation to their particular race.
The one golden rule when doing this is, (NEVER, use the White race as an example) Always play one NON, White race against another.
For example, keep pressing a Black about Africa being over run by Asians.
Keep pressing an Asian about Asia being over run by Blacks, and I promise you they will snap.
Use the antis own arguments to do this.
I am not saying this is invincible, but I have done this many times myself and it is very useful.
Only problem is, now I have said all this, I am afraid that the next forum we hit, I will use this technique and it will blow up in my face. lol.
#6 by Lord Nelson on 04/12/2007 - 9:37 pm
“post #46 stuck out at me.
“But even by stopping non-white immigration, the birth rates of non whites is higher then whites. What do we have to do here in the US to keep the white race in the majority even if we stop anti-white immigration?”
I know we have addressed this in the past, I cant find it, but this can absolutely be a major fumbling point for us.”
Apart from how to deal with this question in a live debate, this is a very real dilemma for us.
In a live debate the only reply I could think of is:
“Well you antis caused that mess how would you deal with it”
But I hope someone else can think of something better, because first we need to win the war before we can think about winning the peace.
So right now, how to reply to these types of questions in a live debate is all that matters.
We must win the war first.
#7 by Al Parker on 04/12/2007 - 10:07 pm
I just read the first 26 pages, one or two pages after our activists got banned. Sure gets one back to basics doesn’t it? You get to see all the old counterarguments. Unfortunately I find some of these responses tough to deal with. Some of them are just hate and intolerance directed AT US, which we can spot and filter out, but some of them tell us that:
1. We cannot define ‘white.’
2. When we define white, the definition is arbitrary. Take this example:
“White racial heritage shall be defined as being able to trace seven of one’s eight great parent’s ethnic origins to the Aryan peoples of the land now occupied by the following nations: England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Andorra, France, Monaco, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Lativa, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, or Croatia.”
Also, if you go by physical characteristics then scientifically speaking there isn’t one such characteristic that can be used to classify someone as a white racial member — even though all the characteristics combined give us an IMPRESSION of race. As one anti said, “The taxonomy on race doesn’t stand up to the most cursory examination …”
Bob defines it by saying a ‘white country’ is a country that must accept massive immigration. Sure it’s witty but how would that work to define who is white within these white countries?
Maybe we should just talk about how pretty white designer babies would be.
#8 by Mark on 04/12/2007 - 10:54 pm
This is the type of verbal warfare that makes me proud! This skirmish may not have been a slam dunk vitory, but it certainly was not a defeat either — and eyes were opened! The antis are doing what antis do best: call you names. I must commend all who participated in this attack. The verbal artillery blew holes in their poorly made trenches and our infantry routed much of the enemy out of the dark, safe, PC corners. Keep it up!!
#9 by Adelheim_ on 04/13/2007 - 6:53 am
Al Parker,
The countries that are white are the countries that will be called racist if they will not allow massive immigration.
Maybe we could say that the ones who are white within white countries is the ones who will be called racist if they are being pro their own people?