Comments about varying words like “genocide” only disturb the Coach because he wonders what they have to do with winning the game.
If you use words like “extinction” is that for your convenience or do they actually HELP?
Anything that DEMONSTRABLY helps is something Ole Coach wants to hear about.
But at the convention, while White Rabbit was answering questions, he referred one to me A sincere guy was asking if we couldn’t use Indo-European or Caucasian as a variation on “white.”
I was tired, and, as you have seen me do here, I lost my temper. All I could do was shout “STAY ON MESSAGE!”
This was, as so often here, utterly uncalled for. The guy was there a the convention asking a question and I had no right to lose my temper.
This sort of thing does make the hear rise in me, because I have worked so hard on nailing down what WORKS, and when someone starts quibbling without reference to how something WORKS, it makes me, as we say down South, “Just tired all over.”
On the other hand, nothing is worse for free thinking than having a bad-tempered old bastard who is easily upset.
Keep in mind that the words “reasonable” and “Coach” do not belonging in the same sentence.
Players are aware that the same coach who comes down on them would tear the arm off of somebody ELSE who said exactly what the Coach did about you.
But what is far more important is that other commenters handled the suggestion “extinction” perfectly.
They criticized this variation from several points of view, all from being IN ON the fight.
One cannot appreciate the Mantra fully until one has USED it in disciplined way and watched the hyenas run for cover.
Besides, I think that hearing that same word, “genocide,” over and over and over and over is a fully appropriate punishment to those who have repeated the same Mommy Professor clichés to us over and over and over the decades.
And if it didn’t WORK, THEY wouldn’t do it.
You may be tired of using the same words, but remember that they are far, far tireder of HEARING them.
Serves the bastards right.
#1 by Gator61 on 10/11/2011 - 8:46 am
I imagine Alexander the Great’s soldiers bitching about drilling and marching in the same phalanx all the time. “Can’t we mix this up a bit. Every day the same thing; march in a phalanx. Can’t we mix it up a bit and use clubs. I used to club people to death al the time. It would be a nice change”
#2 by Coniglio Bianco on 10/11/2011 - 9:14 am
Every time I hear that someone wants to change one of the words we are using it is always to water it down, that is to make it more ‘politically correct’.
White genocide, White genocide, White genocide.
Because it works.
#3 by Edwin on 10/11/2011 - 10:39 am
I think some people want to get off the word ‘genocide’ because they are worried about appearing too ‘extreme’. It’s like they know they’re in a boxing match but they don’t want to throw any really hard punches because they might get hit back.
They are calling us evil for simply not wanting non-white immigration. That truly IS genocide! There’s no point in holding back – they demand our extermination and say we’re evil for not wanting it!
I can even hear some softies saying that they don’t want to use ‘genocide’ because they want to sound more ‘intellectual’. ‘Extinction’ has a nice scientific sound to it and it doesn’t focus on the actual process of exterminating us through immigration and ‘integration’. ‘Extinction’ only refers to the point after we’re gone.
#4 by Bob on 10/11/2011 - 1:35 pm
Edwin, immigration AND ASSIMILATION!!!
#5 by Edwin on 10/11/2011 - 3:53 pm
Why do you prefer to use ‘assimilation’? I tend to think of ‘assimilation’ and ‘integration’ as more or less the same in meaning and usefulness.
#6 by Simmons on 10/11/2011 - 2:02 pm
With anti-whites you are dealing with a cult and its cultists, you simply will not reach them with logic and reasoning, not gonna happen.
Its why respectables and semis have failed for decades, they see another mommy prof bot and see themselves not realizing those kids are severely traumatized.
Genocide has been their word since 1945, but now it is ours and it kills them, this is good.
#7 by Bob on 10/11/2011 - 4:13 pm
“Integration” is out of date, and it doesn’t WORK. You are likely to have them getting you discussing integration and desegregation and such crap.
Stick to our tried and true. If you make something WORK better, we’ll be delighted to hear about it.
#8 by Kat on 10/11/2011 - 4:43 pm
What if the anti-Whites just say, they want immigration, and not assimilation, but segregation. And its OK they come live in our nations in parallel-communities. And that would not be genocide?
But it would still be genocide( or not)? Cause they would still out-breed us?
#9 by meawhiterabbit on 10/11/2011 - 5:25 pm
Bob/Guys-Regarding assimilation and intermarry. Anti-whites will always say “you can’t stop two people falling in love”, “its not your right to tell someone who they can and can’t marry” or “people will marry who they want to. White women have been with black men way back in history” (my OWN MOTHER has said this.) Whats the best response? Simply “stop trying to justify genocide”?
#10 by Dick_Whitman on 10/11/2011 - 6:39 pm
Nobody was forcing anyone to smoke cigarettes but at some point someone figured out that cigarette advertisements were causing more people to smoke.
The godfather of public relations Edward Bernays (his uncle was Sigmund Freud). He had women walk at public events with cigarettes while he was working for the cigarette companies. Today people of his tribe do the same thing with miscegenation (see MTV, Dancing with the Stars, The E Network, etc).
#11 by H.Avenger on 10/11/2011 - 8:13 pm
Ole Bob answered this at the Conference:”IF Hitler took all the male Jews and sent them to one African Country. Then turned around and sent all the female Jews to different African Country. You are telling me that this would not considered Genocide? LOLZ …Well they can marry whoever they want? Right? They have free association …right?”
#12 by Genseric on 10/12/2011 - 12:12 am
MeanWhiteRabbit,
Here is something similar to what I have used for your aforementioned and HIGHLY typical bullshit justification.
“Yeah but……………………………
No one is flooding Africa with millions of non-Africans, ONLY advertising interracial marriage between Africans and non-Africans, and saying It’s Just Love (Love your genocide).
No one is flooding Asia with millions of non-Asians, ONLY advertising interracial marriage between Asians and non-Asians , and saying It’s Just Love (Love your genocide).
They only advertise, promote and covet this Morality for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries(children). These Politically Correct Crusaders say they are anti-racists fighting for all of Humanity. Yet, ONLY White children feel the effects of their Morality. What they really are is anti-White.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.”
Shorten and amend as needed.
#13 by shari on 10/11/2011 - 5:58 pm
It’s not possible to flood white countries with non-whites and say you want segregation. That’s oxymoronic.
As for “falling in love” misegenation is PUSHED, night and day. A parent cannot protect their own child. Only white parents have no rights. It’s the communist method of , “you aren’t forced to marry somebody you don’t want to, BUT we’ll get your kids.” And of course, what choice does a mixed child have? None, whatsoever. It’s a deliberate push for genocide.
#14 by shari on 10/11/2011 - 6:04 pm
I might add, I’m reminded of a song of Tina Turner’s What’s love got to do with it, do with it. Just a second hand emotion.
#15 by ioannes on 10/11/2011 - 9:52 pm
When someone uses the word “love” when discussing an interracial relationship, instead use the word “fetish” when describing interracial coupling.
No one is flooding China with non Chinese and when a interracial fetish occurs everyone calls it love.
No one is flooding Africa with non-blacks and when interracial fetishes occurs everyone calls it love.
Only in white countries and white communities are interracial fetishes promoted and when a interracial fetish occurs it is called two people falling in love. Actually it is white genocide.
I am sure that this could be cleaned up a little.
#16 by Genseric on 10/12/2011 - 12:00 am
“Extinction” and “Population Replacement” and “Displacement” are, simply put, Respectable and Scientific terms.
I once used “Displacement” in lieu of White genocide for an entire week. The funny thing is the anti-Whites let it pass without a peep. I mistook it for making progress in the debate. However, I think that was the high sign I needed to shit-can it. That and Bob pointed out how EVERYONE could see it wasn’t working. So, try it if you must. But, I can tell you it’s not effective.
I would NEVER accuse you of being reasonable on allowing ANY justification of White genocide. From what I have seen, you just don’t have it in you.
A swift kick in the ass is exactly what is needed from time to time. A good ole, bona fide curmudgeon is hard to find these days, Bob. The Mantra has legs. I think I will use it as it is. Thanks again.
#17 by RobRoy on 10/12/2011 - 12:37 am
The REALITY is that whites aren’t allowed an all white anything. The REALITY is that there is no segregation. The REALITY is that EVERY white country must open its borders to massive numbers of third world, non-white immigrants and assimilate with them. There are no exceptions. It’s genocide.
As an anti-white, would you also support the genocide of black people via mass Asian immigration and assimilation for every black country in the name of “falling in love,” or do you just support white genocide?
#18 by BGLass on 10/12/2011 - 10:15 am
Somehow, makes me think of the changes made in the old Ten Little Indians poem, for the movies, conveniently in the 40s (to erase the idea of marriage being genocide).
In the original, it goes down how each little indian is offed, until the last line: “….One little Indian living all alone,
He got married and then there were none…”
In the movie version, the idea that once there is one of you, and then you get married—YOU DON’T EXIST was cut out, and the last indian just hangs himself, lol.
But in the orignal, indians cease to exist with marriage.
Displacement is totally different from REplacement, since in displacement you can go somewhere else. even in replacement you might, but the implication is that possible you have ceased.
If you are “assimilated” to a foreign culture, and there is one of you, and you marry foreign, then you have ceased to exist as a people, obviously.
Also, the enemy of my enemy is my friend might look attractive, but isn’t. Like how the irish hated the english so much they happily become roman in some cases—but where did that leave the real irish?
#19 by BGLass on 10/12/2011 - 10:23 am
@… “Anti-whites will always say “you can’t stop two people falling in love”, “its not your right to tell someone who they can and can’t marry” or “people will marry who they want to.
LOL. If it’s NOT ONE’S RIGHT to tell people who they can be with, why were/are trillions spent to produce ad campaigns, commercials, school programs, images, etc., that are obviously SO calculated in regards to showing who can be with whom? LOL!
Why is so much money spent on Selling “diversity” and “Difference” as “sophisticated”—- so that people will perceive “difference” as desirable?
Why are so many populations MOVED AROUND, demographically, and the previous ethnic community NOT upheld as a value? LOL! So, young people wind up in communities where THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN MEET people of their own background! LOL!
And then, if they say they feel “depressed” or “alienated,” they are pumped with drugs (anti-depressants) or told it’s b/c of capitalism, or communism, or social marxism, or greed, or whatever, LOL!
Maybe they’d just like to meet somebody with a similar background to date, lol!
All the State does is tell people who they can marry! lol!
(in fact, it sort of works when people are younger and focussed on “similar interests” or “making a living”—just building the foundations for a home life. But then, they seem to all get divorced–LOL! Just maybe this is b/c, once settled, and when reaching out to community, they suddenly realize they are from different worlds. It is hard enough if they realize they are from different religions, different languages, different trajectories to the countries, etc…and that these things are not really always reconcilable. But race—LOL!
and in the middle of all this race-baiting politics and ethnic-conflict models! Is that the direction YOU ENCOURAGE in your children? Do you really love them? Or do you want them to make you look good by “fitting in” to the current mainstream? Is having such a kid helpful in your crowd? At your job? What?
Very curious, would want to know all about them, and ask them to clarify.
#20 by BGLass on 10/12/2011 - 10:31 am
“…Two little whities foolin’ with a gun,
One shot t’other and then there was one;
One little whitey livin’ all alone,
He got married and then there were none…”
that’s the original, pre-hollywood version by septimus whatshisname
#21 by Bob on 10/12/2011 - 11:18 am
Kat, do you really want to waste my time and yours on this?
#22 by Kat on 10/12/2011 - 3:02 pm
Im very sorry if I have wasted your time Mr Whitaker, and no I don`t want to waste your time on this. Sorry.
I`m even more sorry to admit it was not a waste of time for me. SORRY!!!
(But thats life)
#23 by Dick_Whitman on 10/12/2011 - 6:05 pm
Kat,
don’t take Bob personally. He’s a coach. I once had a high school basketball coach scream at me so loud during a game (for not boxing out) that the whole gym went silent. When he screamed I felt spit hit me in the face. Coaches sometimes get nasty because they want to win and believe they can bring the best out of you.
#24 by Kat on 10/12/2011 - 3:29 pm
Thanks Mr. Roy and Miss Shari:
I have to admit I had to think two times, since there is segregation some places and there has been other places. But the obvious in it is off course. that no matter for how long there has been/was/will be segregation, end result is always the demand for assimilation in white peoples homes.
#25 by Kingsnake on 10/13/2011 - 12:10 am
What I usually say about race-mixers is this: 90% of the white race-mixers would not live in a country where most of the population looks like their partner. (Or “looks like their children”, depending on my mood.)
It seems to put the anti-whites in a real bind.
For one thing, it’s true, and they know it’s true. The number of white mudsharks who would be willing to move to Zimbabwe to be with their “true love” is minuscule. The anti-whites will never admit this though, because it destroys their whole doctrine.
The anti-whites can deny it, but this is also problematic. If they say “nuh-uh, they’d be fine living in Somalia!”, then you can just say “okay, they should go do that then”. If they protest, then they’re proving you right. If they agree, well, problem solved anyways.
If they say “but that’s just because those countries are poor!”, you ask them if ALL of those countries are poor. If they say yes, all dark-skinned countries are poor, then they’re digging themselves an even deeper hole. If they say no, then you just suggest the race-mixers go to one of the rich countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
If there’s a way around this, I haven’t seen it yet; some more testing may be needed, however.
#26 by OldBlighty on 10/13/2011 - 4:19 am
@Kat
Here’s three I copy and paste when anti-whites start talking about “Freedom”.
*******************
Anti-whites like to say Diversity is “freedom” for non-whites to enter white living space and “mix in” with whomever they wish.
However Whites are not allowed to refuse this freedom, so it is your diversity we are FORCED to accept.
*******************
Anti-whites are always spouting about how massive immigration and assimilation demanded of ALL white countries and ONLY white countries is just Freedom.
As Bill O’Reilly said, “There should be no all-white ANYTHING in America.”
For all their “diversity” talk, all-white areas are forbidden because people will MOVE there. If we had real freedom of choice, integration would be doomed.
That is the justification for our entire set of laws, the ones Bill O’Reilly is all for and states so clearly.
*****************
Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for everyone.
What is non-white belongs to non-whites. What is white also belongs to non-whites. That is the common ground on which Anti-whites say we must agree.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
#27 by Kat on 10/14/2011 - 9:56 am
No worries,Mr. Whitman. I`m fine :).
Thank you very much, Oldblighty, for the copy/paste-lines, they are copied and pasted to my list.
#28 by BGLass on 10/13/2011 - 9:16 am
“…The anti-whites can deny it, but this is also problematic. If they say “nuh-uh, they’d be fine living in Somalia!”, then you can just say “okay, they should go do that then”. If they protest, then they’re proving you right. If they agree, well, problem solved anyways….”
Not really, b/c they just say it, don’t really go, and it costs them nothing. So, probably real proofs are needed. If they wish to go there, where is their ticket? Have they done trips so far that begin to move in that direction? Check back with them weekly.
And if it’s Japan, the answer probably is yes. Mr. Whitaker is right about that. Many would rather live in “monolithic” “homogenous” Japan than some ex-colonist areas as they are now, (whether in canada, s. africa, australia, us., whatever). Monolithic Intelligence area trumps radical incohesion and constant violence and bickering. Some even just go to the third world (reasoning that they have to live in it anyway) and in the real third world, they can live well on their money, at least, and when the natives really are the majority, and not backed by big money to hate the population, they are actually treated better than at “home,” (or what was left of it). Intelligent people (in throws of being short-sighted and wanting relief) may consider Asia , then chose Japan over China, and especially if they are younger than asia wars s/a Vietnam, Korea.
it would be interesting to know the extent to which heritage org memberships are up in the past years, as indicator of extent to which people feel under seige.
#29 by killykitmour on 10/14/2011 - 7:57 am
I can even hear some softies saying that they don’t want to use ‘genocide’ because they want to sound more ‘intellectual’. ‘Extinction’ has a nice scientific sound to it and it doesn’t focus on the actual process of exterminating us through immigration and ‘integration’.