While others go on from what we say to generalization, Adelheim looked up my old arguments against anti-whites on Stormfront. I will be putting them here, in parts.
It is certainly good to say what an article makes you think of, that’s good seminar practice. And commenters are getting better at relating their observations back to the basic point. One should always ask oneself, am I just using BUGS to drop in a point I could use some other forum for, or is this a seminar comment that BELONGS here?
Adelheim also has another bit of news. We have been leaning on the BNP to talk about white genocide. Naturally it was Adelheim who noticed some of us might have gotten through:
Adelheim_ on August 14th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
BNP: Europe Is Being Ethnically Cleansed – Andrew Brons MEP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd9xBIDtDJ0&playnext=1&videos=_ZTy3UQ44Rs&feature=recentlikmore
Somewhere after 3:00 he uses the term Ethnically Cleansed. I think it is a speech for the EU parliament or something.”
The Mantra and its promotion alone are literally worth the time and effort of a million blogs. Horus reports we, the White Rabbit and BUGS and your pushing, are yielding results:
“The information is GETTING out there. The old white nationalists and conservatives and being outgunned by the younger new comers. Fresh blood! The old guys refused to obey and get on a consistent message. They are too damn thick headed. They are now getting over run by the new young people who are starved to make changes.
Now the White Nationalists are being forced via peer pressure to mention genocide. And it is about damn time. All you have to do is surf whitenewsnow.com to see the young ones go to town. They are not posting on BUGS but they are reading it.”
One experience I have that is invaluable to you is that I have been this way before. I have always found the basic need and hammered at it, pushing, squeezing what later becomes obvious to a few dozen, on to a few hundred, on to thousands, on to mainstream thinking.
The USSR fell because ridiculed “Wallace Democrats” were brought in to vote for Reagan. I was the only writer in both camps, organizing thousands of working families for marches and writing for National Review, Conservative Digest and working on Capitol Hill.
After their stunning defeat in 1980, the dazed media renamed those “Wallace Democrats” “Reagan Democrats” and their whole attitude changed. But for two decades before conservatives had panicked at every accusation of appealing to “Wallace Democrats” and had to change their diapers each time it was mentioned the way they do today when called “racist.”
I have done this on other issues, but this is the most recognizable. I know the signs of a message going its geometric way better than anyone else alive.
Once again, it took decades to get to this point, but I recognize this point very well.
Adelheim and Horus are giving us reports from the front.
And I know how to read them.
#1 by backbaygrouch on 08/22/2010 - 7:43 am
Mommy Professor looks down his nose at us which is odd for someone who cannot see beyond his nose. He really does not see us. As the reports from the front indicate the notion of White genocide is taking hold.
But it will not be seen by Mommy P because White racial consciousness exists outside of the Marxist construct of man. The stirrings that Adelheim and Horus note will be forced by the media poobahs into their theology, aka economics a la Karl Marx. It will be attributed to unemployment, foreclosures, etc. They are trapped within the limited vocabulary of their Wordism.
Mommy P will pull anything of the shelf but racial consciousness, which in their theology does not exist. Charts and graphs will discover statistical proofs that bigotry correlates with hard times. Faux science will demonstrate that a thousand points on the Dow Jones will have a sedative effect that will allow the final hot shot to be administered to European Christianity.
This is a huge plus for our side because they will not see the whites of our eyes until our bayonet, the Mantra, has fatally gored their innards.
#2 by BGLass on 08/22/2010 - 10:59 am
Only a payoff can make whites keep their mouths shut, so in that way, bigotry does correlate with hard times. Leftists never ask WHY whites are more racial when more poor, lol. Their own conclusions should tell them the truth.
Obviously, with money, whites can move or find other non-community pursuits and keep their mouths shut about what they think of Mommy P. So Mommy P’s are right in their estimation of money-race, but ascribe incorrect motivations to whites. When there is no visible uprising, they assume “all is fine.” And it never was.
#3 by Dave on 08/22/2010 - 11:43 am
The Obama Presidency put paid to the idealistic trust America’s white population had in the tenets of Political Correctness.
Robert Whitaker predicted this long before anybody had even heard of Obama.
America’s political system is collapsing into a racial divide so deep that it is rendering everything unworkable. What remains is the Mantra.
#4 by seriouswon on 08/22/2010 - 12:44 pm
I’m sure Bob has seen a lot of Mantras take hold…
“We’re all mongrels.”
“Nation of immigrants”
The Mantra tell Whites the motive behind those talking points.
#5 by shari on 08/22/2010 - 1:55 pm
That the motive was and IS Genocide would not have easily seen or believed by many during the second half of the 20th century. Although in hind sight, it wasn’t that hidden. Those of us, who are “boomers” chronologicaly don’t have much time left. It’s wise-up NOW,or senility,and you know what are on you. Good insurance and retirement won’t help!
#6 by seriouswon on 08/22/2010 - 2:17 pm
Timing is everything.
#7 by Wandrin on 08/22/2010 - 6:34 pm
One of the problems with the BNP line so far is that what is most immediately obvious to the average person are things like housing and jobs so there’s a natural tendency to go with the flow however there is no natural segue from something so commonplace as “we’re full up” to something so dramatic as genocide. It feels like an unnatural jump.
Implicit in the genocide argument is the right of distinct peoples to exist as distinct peoples. For agitators who find it difficult to bring the mantra idea into face to face politics i’d say the first step is make the implicit explicit. Make the point that distinct peoples have the moral right to preserve their distinctions – most people will agree and those that don’t will if you then use a specific non-white example – then from that basis you segue into the genocide argument. That way the argument flows nicely.
The practical arguments about housing and jobs and all that should only come in afterwards once you’ve won that core moral argument.
#8 by Dave on 08/22/2010 - 9:11 pm
Wandrin,
Trying to “make the argument flow nicely” is precisely the mistake the respectable conservatives make.
I watched Nick Griffen stand in front of the cameras and say nothing when a black man plaintively exclaimed, “Britain is my home, were I am going to go?”
Nick Griffen should have immediately replied to that black man, “Britain is MY home, where I am going to go? And English is the indigenous tongue of MY people, not yours, why are you speaking it? And you are laying claim to the heritage my people, a people that are obviously not your own, why are you claiming it?”
Instead Nick Griffen just stood there trying to be polite.
I also watched Nick Griffen once speak of the plight of “our laddies” (working class Welsh youth) and how it was just plain unrealistic to expect that they could compete in the global high tech economy. What he was doing was making a case for affirmative action for white working class youth.
An American politician would be tarred and feathered by any group of whites if he suggested that they ‘just weren’t up to global competitive standards” and needed affirmative action. The very idea is a stinging insult.
The segue into the Mantra is “annihilation by assimilation” and the “invasion by nonwhites into white countries and only white countries” in violation of international law prohibiting genocide.
The real issue has to be confronted directly. Don’t worry about arguments flowing nicely. Worry about your personal bearing. We are not making arguments. The right of white people to their heritage and posterity is non-negotiable.
What is involved here is primal. Argument has nothing to do with it.
#9 by Wandrin on 08/22/2010 - 10:54 pm
“Trying to “make the argument flow nicely” is precisely the mistake the respectable conservatives make.”
There are people willing to spend 16 million on McCain’s re-election. Respectable conservatives aren’t making mistakes. They’re bought and paid for by the people that fund them and those people want unlimited mass immigration.
Regardless of that i’m making a technical point that if you’re on the doorstep and try and go from “housing and jobs” to genocide it sounds silly. The genocide argument has to be up front.
It’s not about being polite or nice it’s about chaining an argument.
“Nick Griffen should have immediately replied to that black man, “Britain is MY home, where I am going to go?”
No he shouldn’t. He should have asked if distinct peoples have the right to survive as distinct peoples. That is the implicit moral principle on which genocide as a crime is based. Make it explicit. Ask that question. Saying yes to that question is part of the multicult (if the distinct people are non-white). If they hesitate when you give them a white example then give them a non-white example. They can’t/won’t say no if you give them a non-white example. If they’re jewish use Israel as the example. Once that principle is accepted it leads directly into the genocide argument.
A lot of the multicult relies on not being explicit. For example it’s implicit in the multicult that only white people are racist but it’s rarely made explicit for the simple reason that when it is said *aloud* it shows up the multicult to be one huge anti-white racist double standard.
In the same way as soon as you ask the survival question *aloud* the rest follows naturally.
#10 by Dick_Whitman on 08/23/2010 - 2:36 am
Since I’ve been posting here a lot lately, I should probably mention that I used to post here (around two years ago) under a different screen name (the name was “Z”).
I have to admit that while I got a lot out of BUGS thinking, I really wasn’t that confident in the Mantra’s usefulness. Like many others I was sure that the best we could hope for was total systemic collapse followed by a massive civil war.
I now understand the error of my thinking. Two years ago I made an observation regarding Bob’s lack of attention from anti-White organizations(1). I pointed out that the anti-Whites didn’t dare speak about Bob because it was too dangerous. It was less dangerous to just ignore him.
Using similar logic I’ve come to realize something very important about the Mantra. This realization hit me while thinking about the Hal Turner situation.
I started thinking about the tactics used by agent provocateurs, trolls, and other anti-White operatives. These people generally encourage violence, or tough talk regarding Jews and other non-Whites. They scream for people to “do something,” while their websites are filled with racial epithets and celebrations of the misfortunes of non-whites.
But did you ever notice what the agent provocateurs don’t encourage? Never do they suggest people get on a consistent message pointing out the genocide of Whites through assimilation. They’ll “name the Jew” until they’re blue in the face, but they won’t encourage the Mantra.
I’ve had White Nationalists tell me that the Mantra doesn’t work, and that its a “waste of time.” If this was true you’d think the anti-White agent provocateurs would encourage Whites to “waste their time” with the mantra all day long? You’d think that resources would be used just for the purpose of trying to get Whites to spend their whole day trying to disseminate the Mantra?
They could post academic papers “proving” how effective talking points work on the masses (WN love academic studies). After all, this is all a “waste of time” and would keep White people from “doing something” that really works (like taking part in illegal activities or going to the border with overweight neo-Nazis armed with assault rifles).
Just as our enemies fear Bob Whitaker, they most definitely fear the fruit he produces(the Mantra). With that said, we know our enemies by the fruit they produce (encouraging violence, screaming about Jews). Its time the so called “movement” stop eating the enemy’s fruit and start living on a healthy diet based on the Mantra.
(1)http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2008/08/10/thank-you-z-damn-good-piece/
#11 by Wandrin on 08/23/2010 - 5:13 pm
“I’ve had White Nationalists tell me that the Mantra doesn’t work, and that its a “waste of time.””
The mantra as an idea works as a moral lever for over turning the multicult.
Functionally it works best when used
– as youtube TV
– recited as a kind of prayer in radio shows
– in written form where people can read it slowly
– used as a verbal hammer in conversations by people confident enough to use it as a hammer and beat people over the head with it
I’ve done the last but not everyone is confident or aggressive enough to do that in conversation and we need mousey people to be doing it too. So i think thoughts on how more timid people can segue into the genocide argument would be valuable.
My current thoughts are
1. It has to be the primary argument. You can’t go from talking about a housing shortage in a particular neighbourhood to talking about genocide because by definition if you’re talking about genocide it is more important than a housing shortage so it has to come first. It has to be the foundation.
2. Genocide is a huge thing and most people will have a hard time wrapping their head around seeing what is happening as genocide even though it’s obvious once you see it. One way of seguing into it is to make explicit the underlying moral principle upon which the crime of genocide is based.
Do Nigerians have a right to exist as a distinct people?
Do Indians have a right to exist as a distinct people?
Do Mexicans have a right to exist as a distinct people?
Do jews have a right to exist as a distinct people?
Do Germans/English/French/White people have a right to exist as a distinct people?
The multicult implicitly says “yes” to the first four and “no” to the last. As soon as it’s made explicit then it leads neatly into the genocide argument.
There are probably other good segues when using it in “conversation”.