I just wrote a piece shouting that we are samizdat.
This poor argument about the Mantra that led to that piece relates intimately to another poor argument against the Mantra.
This argument says the Mantra had “already been addressed.” That is the signal that the liberals give respectable conservatives that it is time to back off something that is hitting too hard and they can’t deal with. Believe me, I have been there. THAT is the signal.
So respectable conservatives backed off from “If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns” by calling it “the old argument” that “If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.”
That is the signal for any good Buckley conservative to back off that argument if he wants to get fed.
I said that, as samizdat, we are under no obligation to deal with any proposals by the other side until we are allowed to discuss ours as free citizens.
Note the words, “under no obligation.”
What this means is that if they talk about slavery or Nazism, our position that they have no right to talk about what we mean to do until we are allowed to discuss issues freely This Nazi stuff is EXACTLY like the Soviets who declared all samizdat to be fronts for fascism.
Samizdat did NOT spend its time denying it was fascist.
This “That has already been answered gambit” relates to another gambit they try. They argue that some non-white countries have a lot of immigration, to our complaining about ALL and ONLY white countries being REQUIRED to allow immigration is invalid.
Our point is that we do not have to answer any POLICY questions until we are allowed to discuss the PROBLEM and thugs and Thought Police acting against our discussion ends.
Non-white countries have the RIGHT to determine their OWN immigration policy without the solid front banning any criticism that white countries face.
I have recommended the money approach to punishing those who enforced the Party Line. This is policy I CHOOSE to discuss. We have the right to discuss what we CHOOSE to discuss, because we are banned from it in public, just as colored countries may CHOOSE how many immigrants they want.
But when the only reason for talking about policy is to show we have no right to DISCUSS it, we have the right to ignore these Party demands.
#1 by Dick_Whitman on 04/09/2011 - 7:06 am
This post by Bob is simple but very important.
Think about it. All pro-Whites at BUGS are doing is asking that we have a conversation about where current policies will logically lead to. We want to bring it to the public’s attention that the current polices will lead to a world without White people. But we’re not allowed to do this without being penalized.
The reason the Mantra is even necessary is because this conversation is being suppressed. It’s actually very unfortunate that we have to use the Mantra. If we had a truly free society, the Mantra would not be necessary. The Mantra only exists do to lack of freedom of expression.
On TV there’s a show about leftists who try to save whales by disrupting Japanese fishing boats. I tend to be sympathetic to these leftists as I’m the type of person who gets teary-eyed when they play those sad abused animal commercials on TV.
But imagine if when these leftist tried to talk about their concerns for whales that people said “oh, so you want whales to take over the earth!” Or “so you support whale attacks on humans!” People would think this was crazy talk but this is exactly what pro-Whites face when describing our concerns.
Also, these whale saving liberals openly use violence to save whales. We at BUGS on the other hand, oppose the use of violence in our struggle. But somehow the whale saving liberals get their own TV show while pro-White groups are denied the right to freely assemble in public.
This is why I laugh hysterically when mommy professor talks about “White privilege” or “White supremacist America.” It’s actually possible for violent liberals to have TV shows for saving whales while non-violent pro-Whites are denied the right to freely assemble.
It’s possible for a man to become President of US after spending 20 years in a church that openly incited hatred against White people, but people who suggest that we talk about the future of White children will experience loses of reputation, economic opportunity, and even freedom.
Yep, that sure sounds like a country plagued with “White privilege.”
This is exactly why we at BUGS know that anti-racism is a code for anti-White.
#2 by Dick_Whitman on 04/09/2011 - 7:32 am
There’s a lot of logic in penalizing the anti-White financially instead of physically.
1) America will be able to pay of the national debt and foreign creditors.
2) Money can be used to encourage the creation of large White families.
3) Money can be channeled into innovative industries to help develop renewable energy.
But there’s also a more practical reason related to defeating the anti-Whites. Anyone who has studied international relations has probably read about the theory of democratic peace. This is the theory that claims that democracies don’t fight each other.
The point I’m getting at here relates to the transition period from non-democracy to democracy. Researchers discovered that the transition was faster and easier when the old (non-democratic) leaders were given a future in the new regime. IOW, the leaders who knew they were facing death were willing to fight it out to the end.
By relying on financial penalization, this will give many of the anti-White leaders an out and not push them to fight it out to the end. In fact, the earlier the anti-Whites come clean, the better it will be for them. Anti-Whites will be given opportunities to make deals if they agree to work for pro-Whites in bringing other anti-Whites to justice.
Of course, there are some anti-Whites who are in “too deep” and all the money in the world won’t be able to help them. Law and criminal justice is not my area of expertise so I won’t comment further on this.
To any anti-Whites reading this, I suggest you think (real hard) about how you can start impressing us. Becuase at some point it will be too late to come clean.