Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

No More STATIC!

Posted by Bob on December 6th, 2011 under Coaching Session


“Anti-white” is a term only people who have been directly or indirectly exposed to us use.

This can be trivialized by pointing that Louis Farrakhan was regularly called “anti-white.”

So it is critically important that Farrakhan was NEVER called “anti-white.”

He was ALWAYS called “anti-white AND anti-Semitic.” You will play hell trying to find the few, if any, times that someone was ever called “anti-white,” and in every case, it was just sloppiness.

But here is the problem. We will be looking for terms like this that show our imprint, and somebody says “Nobody says just anti-white, it’s always anti-white AND anti-Semitic.” And the point will be entirely lost.

Why? Because all pro-whites except us will use this as an example of ABOUT JEWS.

Anti-whites will try to get the conversation over to anti-Semitism. As usual, our main leadership and the anti-whites end up talking about the same thing, and the real point is totally forgotten.

Which is why I am so touchy when a commenter makes a standard point here. What I am saying is VERY hard to get across. Once you get out in the field and start using the Mantra, it’s hard to believe that you ever saw that crazy old Whitaker using it over and over and over and over, smashing the anti-whites in Opposing Views, and saying, “DUHHH!”

Then, the most usual way of excusing themselves from the Mantra was people would say, “Well, I SAID more or less that in a couple of my statements.”

Not only is “more or less” no good, it is the single most deadly weapon I have run into. So “anti-white AND anti-Semitic” becomes a point in the ENEMY’S favor if you don’t grab onto the distinction HARD.

Like the Mantra, this absolute necessity that you get the SUBTLETY is critical and extremely hard to explain.

Someone wrote me that, the Occupy Wall Street Movement was dying out.

I took a deep, deep sigh and pointed out:

“My whole point was that there WAS no Occupy Wall Street Movement.”

I wasted a couple of articles TRYING to point out an important lesson about intellectual bankruptcy that is CRITICAL to US. It is, in fact, critical to our thinking.

This was the critical chance for me to point out that 1) They have enormous, titanic resources and NO MESSAGE; and 2) We have tiny resources but we have one hell of a message.

Can you imagine the feeling it gives me when someone brightly pops up with “I don’t like bankers, either,” or “This MOVEMENT is petering out.”

This is the kind of distinction I got PAID for.

If you are going to go to the mea culpa when I criticize something, PLEASE don’t say, “I guess it is my doing, I was responding to X who was responding to Y.”

That’s MORE goddamned STATIC.

If you want to talk about an error you made, talk about THE ERROR. I’m not a priest, I am a coach. The only response is to GET IT RIGHT. Explain what I said again.

No more STATIC!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Dave on 12/06/2011 - 6:18 am

    Power is within reach of your hand, to sweep the tempests of the world to your back, troubling you no more. And therein lay the promise of the Mantra as a tool. But you have to be properly suited up as a human being first.

  2. #2 by Simmons on 12/06/2011 - 10:23 am

    Power being the most feared concept, people are even trained from birth to fear it, and with most people that is the correct response.

    I have said for years the left is nothing, a big zero. Once its protective enforcement wing is gone it will last 15 minutes on the Planet Earth.

    We destroy the moral authority, the taboo system, and the enforcement wing is neutered, and no more will a child be taken from his/her mother because she would not bend a knee to the anti-whites.

    The tool for this is the Mantra.

  3. #3 by BGLass on 12/07/2011 - 11:35 am

    I don’t get the left-right thing. Militarist top-down corporatism –“the right”– seems to make good use of the “left” socialization to inform the public. The welfare recipients are “victims” and the militarist recipients are “heroes,” so the appropriation is rationalized by using a different propaganda narrative, but either way, you get a cut, so why does it matter whether you’re warfare (hero) or welfare (victim narrative)? If you don’t want to be a hero or a victim, or dispense to heroes or victims, then you’re in trouble, lol.

You must be logged in to post a comment.