France keep saying it’s multicultural.
So what if an American said that there is no such thing as French culture.?
Don’t hold your breath. Bill Buckley, who spent his whole life making it clear that he spoke French — a Miss Piggy Complex — and used untranslated French phrases whenever possible, would NEVER take a leftist Frenchman up on the implications of “French multiculturalism.”
That would be as bad as responding to a charge of racism with “Define racism” instead of peeing in his pants, the required respectable conservative response to that word.
So Political Correctness ends up insisting that is a mixture of cultures, but cultures don’t exist.
The “multiracial” societies they want to make every white majority country into declares that there’s no such thing as race.
Multiculturalism without cultures.
Multiracialism without race.
The only response respectable conservatives are allowed is to pee in their britches.
#1 by The Old Man of the Mountain on 01/07/2012 - 8:44 am
The United States of America is not a nation, it is a federal union!
Like the Soviet Union, the Federal Union is held together, not by consent, but by force of arms.
That does not describe a nation, it describes a gulag.
#2 by Simmons on 01/07/2012 - 10:08 am
Somewhat related story about conservatives. In this month’s edition of AmRen (and the last dead tree version) they wrote a news blurb about one of their non-white contributors, David Yeagley.
It seems Mr. Yeagley does not take insult kindly and he sued and won against those that prevented him from speaking at AmRen’s conference. But the big part of the story is how he is using the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide in a potential case against the UN itself.
Jared and Co. wrote that without comment and then proceeded to go directly to other news about non-white stupidity and crime.
#3 by OldBlighty on 01/07/2012 - 10:50 am
Here is the story:
http://amren.com/news/2011/12/dr_yeagley_mark/
#4 by dungeoneer on 01/07/2012 - 10:49 am
A phrase I like from The Untrained Eye audios:
“I`m as loyal to your country as you are to my race”
#5 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/07/2012 - 12:22 pm
“Bill Buckley, who spent his whole life making it clear that he spoke French…”
Ha ha! Bob, quips like this by you can keep me happy for a whole morning! 🙂
————
Simmons and OB, I wish I’d caught that extremely interesting Amren article when it was being commented on a month ago.
“Dr. Yeagley has long been involved in the struggle to keep Indian mascots and logos for sports teams. He has always argued that giving Indian names to a team—or to an attack helicopter like the Apache—is a sign of respect for the Indian warrior’s prowess and by no means an insult.
According to Dr. Yeagley’s reading of the 1948 UN mandate and the 2007 Declaration of Human Rights, the removal of American Indian images and symbols from public view is one of the acts that constitute genocide. Dr. Yeagley has pointed out these provisions of basic UN documents to that organization’s Special Advisors on the Prevention of Genocide. He has called on the UN to warn the United States Commission on Civil Rights and the National Collegiate Athletic Association that their actions against Indian mascots are a potential crime against humanity. An Oklahoma lawyer has vowed to sue the UN on Dr. Yeagley’s behalf if it ignores his appeals.”
The statement I put in bold is one I’ve used concerning White cultural symbols being removed and replaced…a recent news article at whitegenocideproject.com stated of a black “civil rights” activist,
“Kennedy has a long history of fighting racial injustice. He protested when a South Carolina county refused to observe the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and he helped lobby to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse dome.”
I changed the first sentence to, “Kennedy has a long history of fighting for White Genocide.”
#6 by Scrivener on 01/07/2012 - 12:23 pm
I was always told that MY culture (American culture, or Southern culture) doesn’t exist. By contrast, every “cultural” event that they pushed on us in school and offered extra credit for attendance at involved a non-White culture. ANY non-White culture would do.
EVERY “multicultural” event involved Whites stepping aside and embracing non-Whites, non-White cultures, non-White perspectives, and non-White interests.
“Multiculturalism” MEANS “multiracialism,” and “multiracialism” or “diversity” means White genocide, because it is ONLY pushed in White countries.
#7 by BGLass on 01/07/2012 - 12:23 pm
an aside– in some distance past, worried over the trauma I’d caused indians, —like when I was reading wpa slave narratives to see what real blacks –not current academics– really thought about us white devil slavers– I ran across Mr. Yeagley, and so wrote him (don’t think I’d heard of amen). Anyway, he was very kind to whites concerned over their almost-impossible levels of evil on the planet, and he took the time to write a very nice, encouraging letter back. He seemed a standup guy, of just the sort who might do something smart like a law suit. –I wish him the best!
(Obviously, in such a marvelous “multi-cult” country as our own– NO ONE could have any conversation without “defining your terms.”
there are just so many of us, and a wonderful thing that classical liberalism really did bring us, is the idea that we aren’t the only people in the universe.
To not give a progressivist-conservative respectable the opportunity to define racism (if he or she introduces that topic by name calling) would just be totally xenophobic and rude.)
#8 by Harumphty Dumpty on 01/07/2012 - 1:52 pm
Here’s a little blast from our “multicultural past” that I used to use to break the mainstream ice at knoxnews.com:
“…when the U.S. government forced Indian tribes to walk from the Southeast U.S. to Oklahoma in 1831, in what the Indians described as the ‘Trail of Tears’, some of them brought their African-American slaves with them.
“They brought them because the Cherokee owned plantations in the U.S. South. When the tribe was ejected from the land they were allowed to take their possessions with them, including the slaves.
“After the Civil War, those slaves were freed and an 1866 treaty with the U.S. required the Cherokee to admit to the tribe the slaves and their descendants, some with Cherokee blood because plantation owners had fathered children with slave women, and some with no Indian blood.
“A Cherokee Nation tribal court ruled on Friday that the nation cannot exclude the so-called ‘Freedmen’ from tribal membership even though some of them are not blood descendants of the Indians.”
“Vann said some in the Cherokee tribe did not want to allow the descendants of slaves to vote on issues such as distributing the millions of dollars of tribal income from gambling casinos.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/15/us-indians-slaves-idUSTRE70E1YW20110115
“Some 4,000 Indians died during the forced march, which became known as the ‘Trail of Tears.’
“‘And our ancestors carried the baggage,’ said Marilyn Vann, the Freedman leader who is a plaintiff in the legal battle.
“…on Monday, the Cherokee nation Supreme Court ruled that a 2007 tribal decision to kick the so-called ‘Freedmen’ out of the tribe was proper.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/us-oklahoma-cherokee-idUSTRE77N08F20110824
I wonder if the Cherokees have a holiday comparable to our MLK, Jr. Day in which they celebrate the freeing of their own Black slaves, or if Cherokees just participate in our MLK, Jr. Day to celebrate the freeing of their black slaves.
——–
I think I got the info for that wry post from Amren articles. Amren definitely has its uses.
——–
Since I’m bugstering today, I can post on this thread with a clear conscience, as long as I don’t stay too long! 🙂
#9 by Scrivener on 01/07/2012 - 3:59 pm
I can BUGSter up your comment, here, HD. 😉
The Trail of Tears SAVED the Cherokee. Many tribes assimilated and intermarried with Whites in other parts of the US and Canada. Those tribes no longer exist.
The anti-Whites who want our White grandchildren to never exist due to assimilation and intermarriage larger and growing population of young non-Whites are ALSO against the Trail of Tears.
Just like they argue for our genocide, in holding us responsible for any evils associated with the Trail of Tears, they are arguing for a situation in which the Cherokee may have all but disappeared–in effect they are arguing for genocide.
I imagine it would make them stammer and stutter explaining why they aren’t for the genocide of a non-White group. 😀
#10 by dannyaprilmay on 01/07/2012 - 4:43 pm
Dear Bob
I am writing to you because I believe that the mantra has the potential to be very successful in our battle. It has the potential to undermine our enemy’s position and expose their fraudulent ideology in a new and revolutionary way for our movement.
Whilst it has enormous potential for us in our battle, I believe that we can do much better as a movement to employ the manta more successfully in a way that utterly defeats our enemies. I see a few problems though with the mantra as it is for our movement, that could be very easily overcome, and would utterly shake up our enemies and force them into retreat. This without even changing the manta at all. Allow me to explain.
Whilst many in our movement talk of a culture war, what many fail to comprehend it that our opponents in the culture war, have one major advantage over us that has made our movement so unsuccessful. They have taken control of the vocabulary. The culture war has for our enemies, only one strength, and that is their control of the vocabulary. By calling all opposition racists, they shut most of us up and most don’t speak out. As we know anti-racist is a code word for anti-white, but most people don’t get this at all and go on the defensive in a futile way: “I’m not racist, I have many black friends, but…”. The vast majority of whites know that the anti-racist position is wrong, in the same way that the majority knew that Communism was wrong; they just did not know exactly why and just went off their inkling. We were only successful in that war for that reason. This war is different in that the word racist is not used in the way the dictionary describes it, but in that it comes as a veiled threat. This may mean loss of job, social exclusion, or in Europe and Canada, prison. Unlike in the past, against Communism, people don’t speak out in this new war, out of fear that they have so much to loose. We are not in a minority in the culture war, but are loosing because the culture war has taken control of the vocabulary. We are in a war of vocabulary.
The first problem in employing the mantra is that it is 16 lines long, and by human nature, most people, even many in our movement will never take the time to memorize it, or be able to recite it to any effect. Even those that try will first be called a racist. This is a big psychological challenge, because in most situations the word comes with the connotation of being a veiled threat for people to shut up, especially in Europe or Canada where thought crime can mean imprisonment. It is an opportunity for our enemies to point the finger and cry racism in front of a crowd etc. especially if they want someone’s job or have a grudge. This can make one who employs the manta nervous, red faced and weak. One who employs the mantra will often find themselves struggling to recite it in the face of the heat of the moment, will splutter, or get it wrong. The mantra needs to be spread to the masses, but if many of our people will struggle with it, then there is no hope of it spreading at all. As will be explained below, I believe that there is a solution for this. Secondly the problem for the mantra is that within a discourse, there is not always a prefect opportunity to employ it in a way which makes the conversation flow, and a sneer joke such as: “where did that come from, hold on answer my question that you are not a racist” can really stop the flow and force someone who is not always as verbally articulate as ourselves, to stop whilst the subject is changed. As said above, the charge of being a racist can be psychologically draining for the average person, which is why they never challenge the status quo. We need a way of spreading the mantra to the masses and a way for the common person to defeat the charge of being a racist. I believe that I have the solution for this which can kill two Cultural-Marxist birds with one stone:
The solution for us is really simple, alleviating psychological stress, and turning a conversation around rapidly onto the opponent, at the same time giving us perfect opportunity to employ the mantra. We need to employ the same trick of using and creating a word to defeat our opponents in the same way that Lenin created and used the word racist. That word is, I believe ‘COMMUSPEAK’. This needs to be spread so much that it ends up in the dictionary. Think about the word, commuspeak, sounds like Communist-speak, but not the same meaning as the two words hyphenated.
Commuspeak definition:
-the act of being fundamentally dishonest about the political label or position one ascribes to oneself.
-unjustly slandering a person by name calling, and ascribing to them a label or position which is wholly inaccurate.
(Any revision on this which would make it better would be greatly appreciated.)
By charging an opponent as being guilty of commuspeak, when called a racist, we can say, ‘Now that’s just commuspeak…’. We have deflated and deflected the charge of racism, and now it is our turn to put our opponents on the spot having the psychological edge. Now it comes to the mantra. Psychological stress alleviated, we now have the upper hand. They may even think twice before calling us racists in the first place. This is how we will, if you agree with me, aid the masses who agree with up but are too scared to get involved or challenge the Cultural-Marxist’s domination of the vocabulary. When they say “I am an Anti-racist”, we can cut them off…”Commuspeak, this is why…Anti-racist means Anti-white”. When calling themselves ‘Liberals’ we have the same response…”Commuspeak, what about all the political prisoners in Europe, what about the totalitarian government that you are forming…” etc. We hit them back in a vocabulary war. There are many people in our movement who think that using the mantra is not a good idea. We don’t agree with them, but could aid them immensely if we engage in a battle of vocabulary. We aid ourselves in getting across the mantra in a much better way before all else.
So we have changed nothing in the mantra, which still stands as an excellent aid for our people, and by just spreading around one word into popular discourse, we have aided our people and ourselves in the battle enormously.
I hope very much that you can review this and give your thoughts? I hope that you will agree with me, that by applying Lenin’s own tricks against the Cultural Marxists, we can utterly defeat them in the arena verbal discourse, in a way which brings the masses out of the shadows as an aid for them to speak up, and helps them and our cause. We can spread the mantra in a more fluid way when in debate.
Yours truly,
Daniel
P.S. I wish for you every success and good health.
#11 by dungeoneer on 01/08/2012 - 2:32 am
Welcome to BUGS danny.
“The first problem in employing the mantra is that it is 16 lines long, and by human nature, most people, even many in our movement will never take the time to memorize it”
The mantra is not intended to be memorized by every pro-white dissident or every white citizen.It is a political weapon designed for daily use by practioners who have studied it,understand it,and use it.
“One who employs the mantra will often find themselves struggling to recite it in the face of the heat of the moment, will splutter, or get it wrong.”
Everyone makes mistakes learning any new thing or employing any new technique.Watch our pros in action against the anti-whites,there are no red faces or spluttering on our side.
“Commuspeak” does not accurately describe our anti-white enemies and their anti-white agenda.
They are anti-white first and foremost,communism,liberalism,or any other wordism always comes second place to their anti-white agenda and is just a cover for their anti-whiteness.
I`m not saying there`s anything wrong with using the word commuspeak as such,but using it as a 1st line counter to their “racist” as opposed to our tried and true “You`re only saying that because I`m white,anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white.” lessens the all-important anti-white focus.
#12 by dungeoneer on 01/08/2012 - 2:44 am
“Commuspeak definition:
-the act of being fundamentally dishonest about the political label or position one ascribes to oneself.
-unjustly slandering a person by name calling, and ascribing to them a label or position which is wholly inaccurate.”
This is S.O.P in garden-variety politics.
#13 by Gavin on 01/07/2012 - 11:20 pm
I’m your opinion I am a “racist.” You’re just saying that because I’m White. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. (in certain situations you can cut off the first sentence)
or more recetly I have just been responding to their garbage with:
“Says the anti-White”
#14 by c-bear on 01/08/2012 - 12:00 am
dannyaprilmay,
The best way to impose our own terminology is to use it. Great idea! Get out there and use it. Try it out, see how it works, make any adjustments, WHATEVER WORKS.
#15 by Peter Whiterabbit on 01/08/2012 - 10:12 am
“dannyaprilmay,
The best way to impose our own terminology is to use it. Great idea! Get out there and use it. Try it out, see how it works, make any adjustments, WHATEVER WORKS.”
It took an old pro like Bob decades to find us. Forget about reinventing the wheel, go to BUGS Swarm and see how we are imposing terminology everyday.
#16 by Bob on 01/14/2012 - 11:18 am
WHATEVER WORKS
Exactly WR
#17 by Genseric on 01/14/2012 - 6:50 pm
“The ‘multiracial’ societies they want to make every white majority country into declares that there’s no such thing as race.” -Bob
From my personal experience:
The craftier anti-whites will, in a subversive tone, ask such idiotic questions as “What is American?” Or sometimes they pose similar rhetorical questions, “What is French?” They try to BAIT us into debating the definition of “racism” by intimating that we Don’t Even Exist!
Of course, as Bob writes, “The ONLY response Conservative Respectables are allowed is to pee in their britches.”
But, you and I both know that NOBODY asks these questions about/of the Chinese or Africans or Mestizos. When they ask these Questions, they have one purpose and ONLY one purpose in mind. To subvert our people and destroy our culture (what’s left of it) from within. White geNOcide.
But, we strike a chord other than the sound of trickling water by pointing out that this isn’t anti-racist as they claim. It is, simply put, anti-white.
anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white