I have noticed one person in SF sometimes putting the question as: “Antis can find no solution to the race problem that does not involve the DISPLACEMENT of whites in white countries.”
This is one of those very subtle and fatal problems. It is not DISPLACEMENT; it is GENOCIDE we are worried about. You will find lots of people might charge in on your side, because now you are referring to immigration and not to the Holy of Holies, intermarriage. We just have to be sure they don’t take ALL our Lebensraum so we can all settle down and assimilate.
You don’t MEAN this, but you SAID this. It is the worst POSSIBLE conclusion, everybody joyfully decides it’s immigration, not race, and you float off into their balloon without even knowing it. That is why messing with the Mantra is so perilous. You HAVE to LEARN to get the WHOLE message in there, you have to learn to do it RIGHT.
#1 by Simmons on 06/16/2007 - 11:54 am
Honestly Bob, as an advanced student I think I can get away with massaging the mantra around various topics without actually going into a rote recital everytime. But from what accounts I have of the clientele of SF you are right they simply lack the mental dexterity to deviate from the script. You make people useful, I make people useful but we do it in different ways that are complimentary. The big obstacle that I have observed with people is that they actually refuse to ask the direct questions and instead go into rote recital of well known comfortable answers. Such as the clientele of AR and its ownership, but with dilligence I have now succeeded in at least getting them to question the lefty assumption of what “racism” is, that is a start.
#2 by Mark on 06/16/2007 - 2:07 pm
Forgive me Bob, but I’m gonna’ vent. My next door neighbor died and his kids held an estate sale, which attracted all the gutter trash too poor to live in my neighborhood. After watching this vermon (all white)tramp across my lawn even after I told them to get the hell off, I began to wonder why we should save the white race at all.
I believe, if serious about this, that in addition to saving the white race from extinction — the hard working white race, that is — we also have a duty to make extinct that portion of our race that is too lazy to work and leaches off our tax dollars and sweat.
I’m talking about white trash here, the welfare crowd, the social security disability whores who could work but won’t. The ones who race their kids to apply for welfare as soon as they hit 18. I don’t know about you but I’d much rather be surrounded by working blacks (few in number I’m sure) in leau of non-working good for nothing white trash.
Perhaps we should add a line to the Mantra about them. Or maybe wirte a whole new Mantra just for them.
Okay, I’m done venting. And yes, I feel better….
#3 by Al Parker on 06/16/2007 - 3:21 pm
I would like to roll the posts and commentary expressed here over the last few days into an SF thread. I may have to put it in Opposing Views if it questions Ron Paul, anti-immigration and other sacred cows.
I feel I finally have an adequate understanding of what’s going oin here. This blog is just about the only place that isn’t stuck in a bubble. Everyone else seems to be involved in hating Jews, anti-immigration, discussing crime, promoting Ron Paul, so on and so forth. Some people who are pursuing different strategies may well be on board with opposing white genocide, but I have a feeling that if you would demand that people reveal what they really stand for you would get an evasive answer or hear the stampeding away of the people who were being dishonest with themselves.
#4 by Pain on 06/16/2007 - 6:35 pm
Sysop:
Do we need “About” in the tagline?
#5 by shari on 06/16/2007 - 8:24 pm
I see what you mean and always use the word GENOCIDE and not something softer.
#6 by AFKAN on 06/16/2007 - 10:34 pm
Damn, but Mark hit on an excellent point, and one that just might effectively take care of itself in the times ahead, one way or another.
Mark wrote:
Forgive me Bob, but I’m gonna’ vent. My next door neighbor died and his kids held an estate sale, which attracted all the gutter trash too poor to live in my neighborhood. After watching this vermon (all white)tramp across my lawn even after I told them to get the hell off, I began to wonder why we should save the white race at all.
I believe, if serious about this, that in addition to saving the white race from extinction — the hard working white race, that is — we also have a duty to make extinct that portion of our race that is too lazy to work and leaches off our tax dollars and sweat.
I’m talking about white trash here, the welfare crowd, the social security disability whores who could work but won’t. The ones who race their kids to apply for welfare as soon as they hit 18. I don’t know about you but I’d much rather be surrounded by working blacks (few in number I’m sure) in leau of non-working good for nothing white trash.
Perhaps we should add a line to the Mantra about them. Or maybe wirte a whole new Mantra just for them.
Okay, I’m done venting. And yes, I feel better….
in reply:
I have hardly watched television at all in the last ten years; when I do, it’s because the damn thing is going in the background, and I can’t block it out entirely.
About a year or so ago I watched about twenty minutes of “Oprah,” and was simply dumbstruck at how Operah was treated as Goddess Incarnate by the audience, an audience of mostly obese, “middle-class,” thirty-plus nominally White women.
Oprah’s same-named magazine sells like Talismans from Goddess, at supermarkets across America, in virtually all income levels.
My focus, as of late, has been on trying to develop the foundation for the Meritocratic Elite as the foundation of the New Aristocracy on The Other Side of what is to come.
Mark has made a much stronger than many might like to realize; indeed, we must consciously work on the development of such an Elite, knowing that the overwhelming majority of our own nominally racial kinsmen would cheer our being placed in chains by our RACIAL Enemies.
Recalling that, in fairly recent times as cultural history goes, anyone accused of being a witch wad tied to a large stone, and thrown in the pond. If she drowned, it was proof that she was not a witch. If she did not drown, then it was proof that she WAS a witch, who then was executed. The “trial by fire” is a variation; if she dies at the burning stake, she was not a witch.
You get the idea – “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
VNN’s Alex Linder drew the best analogy:
Being accused of being a “RACIST” today is like being accused of being a witch, three hundred years ago. You are guilty until proven innocent, and you can never be proven innocent.
The same is true, incidentally, of being called “anti-Semitic,” a term the Jews scrupulously refuse to define, for obvious reasons.
Trust me on THIS: to the people who make Oprah their Goddess, and who see men, in general, and WHITE men, in particular, as useful fools, at best, and demons who block their Vision for the future, at worst, we might as well have cloven hooves, and horns coming out of our heads.
Mark made an important observation concerning our underclass brethren; they have no respect whatsoever for the property, and the property rights, and therefore the personal rights, of others…
Especially “racists.”
#7 by Lord Nelson on 06/17/2007 - 6:14 am
Coach, I do understand your point and of course it is GENOCIDE.
But the problem when debating the enemy is that their programming allows them to argue the definition of this word.
This came up in the Anti Challenge thread, and of course it was handled OK, but it gives the antis a way out.
However, their religion demands, “the out populating of ALL, White people, and ONLY White people, in their own countries” and asking an anti to argue against this, is like asking the Pope to spit on a crucifix.
I will look at the problem again and see if I can find a solution.
#8 by Prometheus on 06/17/2007 - 8:44 am
Point observed and taken. Such wording could have redefined the challenge.
The term ‘displacement’ can be used in a nondestructive context, and any terminology we use, must clearly and unambiguously indicate a racially destructive context.
Thinking along these lines makes it clearer on how to construct effective arguments that will not betray the mantra.
Am I correct with this line of thinking?
#9 by Prometheus on 06/17/2007 - 9:05 am
Lord Nelson says:
Coach, I do understand your point and of course it is GENOCIDE.
But the problem when debating the enemy is that their programming allows them to argue the definition of this word.
This came up in the Anti Challenge thread, and of course it was handled OK, but it gives the antis a way out.
However, their religion demands, “the out populating of ALL, White people, and ONLY White people, in their own countries” and asking an anti to argue against this, is like asking the Pope to spit on a crucifix.
I will look at the problem again and see if I can find a solution.
Prometheus says:
Lord Nelson, this is an issue I have come accross MANY times, again and again.
Recently, I have been putting the focus back on multiracialism, and how anti-racist thinking requires assimilation in all and only white nations. When you follow multiracial thinking to its logical conclusion, you end up with all and only white nations becoming a melting pot. That equates to the end of the white race, brought about by other peoples policies. Here you run into another problem, anti’s feigning ignorance. Something they tend to do more often now.
Rather than trying to explain the meaning of the term genocide, it might be better to draw the attention back on what their ideals will inevitably lead to.
Genocide, end of the white race through assimilation. Same thing. If they claim that genocide through assimlation which was brought about by the words and deeds of people is NOT genocide, then perhaps it is we who should be asking them, what it is then?
I’m just discussing strategies here, and don’t have anything concrete, but this seems like the place to do it.
#10 by Adelheim_ on 06/17/2007 - 10:50 am
It seems to me that:
“Anti-racists argue for everything that leads towards white genocide.
And they argue against everything that leads towards white survival.”
As simple as that!
The UN definition of genocide:
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
When I point out the definition I will say something like:
You have to agree to massive non-white immigration into all white countries, integration of all those non-whites and intermarriage and race mixing. If you don’t agree with that, you are allways accused racism.
Anti-racists say there is no room for racism.
This is deliberate and it is calculated to bring about its (the white race) physical destruction in whole or in part.
#11 by Bob on 06/17/2007 - 10:52 am
AFKAN has a bubble going.
#12 by Bob on 06/17/2007 - 10:52 am
Al, go for it!
#13 by Prometheus on 06/17/2007 - 7:44 pm
Adelheim says :
“Anti-racists argue for everything that leads towards white genocide.
And they argue against everything that leads towards white survival.”
Promethues says:
So true. Even to the point where race will exist when they promote ‘genetic diversity’, and then cease to exist when we talk abour racial survival.
This is the kind of thing we should be calling them up on, and making them explain their actions.