Do not let any anti-white get you bogged down on White Nationalism or any other specific policy.
And how do we keep the anti-whites from bogging us down?
We STAY ON MESSAGE!
Until we can freely discuss racial matters, we are not obligated to, nor should we, discuss our approach to the problem of white genocide.
Until we can freely discuss racial matters, we are not obligated to, nor should we, discuss our approach to the problem of white genocide.
Until we can freely discuss racial matters, we are not obligated to, nor should we, discuss our approach to the problem of white genocide.
If you MUST talk to these sewer dwellers, and they say they are for free discussion, you might just want to ask them WHAT THEY HAVE DONE to counter the censorship they are tacitly supporting.
I coach. I advise on how to play the game. A coach wants to know what tactics THEY are using.
We are dealing with a largely passive aggressive group. They just want to say, “Hey, man, be cool! I mean, I’m for free speech too, but why should I care about this racial stuff?”
One thing we will have to learn is to dig the bastards out of their hole.
That is why they are turning up the desbots. Like minorities, they take anything that digs them out of their passive aggressive hole, like “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” as an excuse to tell YouTube their feelings are hurt.
That is passive aggression.
You can embarrass some of them by pointing out that they are hiding behind mama’s skirt.
Maybe somebody wants to try it and report on his results.
#1 by Jason on 06/25/2012 - 7:26 am
I have known so many White people who claim to have nothing against anyone being pro-White, but then do all this passive-aggressive behavior to throw roadblocks in the way of any pro-White activity. They will always point out how crazy some Neo-nazi on TV looked, or act like voting for David Duke is beyond the pale, go all quiet if someone says something pro-White. Or they snigger at it, while not quite officially taking a side. We need to find a way to make them pick a side, to admit they are indeed anti-White. I think mocking them for their little fake neutral act is a good idea. They want to play Switzerland, yet we all know they are supporting one side over the other.
You also get the White libertarian types who claim to be for White people being free to live as they choose, but then support every anti-White social and cultural movement there is.
Yes, stop hiding behind your mama’s skirt. Be a man about it. I don’t understand the psychology behind it, and at this point I don’t care. I just want them publicly humiliated so they will shut up and get out of the way. There must be a variety of tactics to smoke out so-called neutral types that are really your enemy. Let’s brainstorm.
#2 by six gun on 06/25/2012 - 8:24 am
I put together a diagram which I posted on a new thread.
“How it all links together.”
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg583/photographsonline/boxes.png
I mentioned a few blogs ago about purposes and processes.
This led me to drawing the diagram. I have it as a photoshop so it can be altered. The more I thought the more the arrows became two-way. An arrow can me that process A leads to or stimulated process B.
Each process has lots of connections so each process has a multiple purposes which are also processes in their own rights, reinforcing and influencing the first process and at the same time leading to others.
Each box is a headline box – there will be lots of badies in the political correctness box for example. Demonising White pride, spouting about White privilege, only ever acting against Whites, creating pseudo-victim groups etc etc.
All the processes ultimately lead to the same purpose – White genocide.
I am open to ideas to modify this. You will notice I put White demoralisation at the centre. I think it is at the centre.
So when we see something going on we know the ultimate purpose is White genocide, but also we can see what the sub-purposes are and that one process becomes a sub-purpose for another process.
#3 by BGLass on 06/25/2012 - 9:55 am
The Public Sector Republicans (sounds nasty like something to avoid), (i.e. Respectables, Capital C’s, “right-winger pseudo-Trendies,” can be hard nuts. The Public Sector Republican playing Switzerland to protect themselves from admitting the public probably doesn’t want to be their personal cash cow. Idk—ask them if they can sing the words to the Internationale for you, since paying for them has broken your bank account and you can’t afford entertainment.
Seriously, because the Public Sector Respectables usually also pretend they are “Christians,” scripture would be helpful? – Their neutrality is supposedly “MORAL.” They are not dirty little working people, who are so stupid they haven’t been educated in the Rainbow Jesus Church– i.e., scripture as secretly meaning Marxist principles & terminology, (“victim,” public health care since we should ‘heal the sick,’ oppressions, suffering, Paul’s calls to poverty, to pay for others, we are equal like disciples, etc, etc.)
Like: “If I tell the wicked man that he is going to die, and you do not make the effort to dissuade him from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you accountable for his death. But, if you warn the wicked man, trying to have him change his way, and he refuses to repent, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.” [Ezekiel 33:8-9] There are a lot of passages that clarify this issue: of the complicity of the neutral party. In laws, we have “Accomplice.”—- this is the one who doesn’t have the BALLS to do it (so they can outed as cowards, also).
A famous one from Leftist-who-at-least-KNOW-they-are-leftist is Silence Equals Death. Clarified by the visible action of tape over the mouth, usually with the supposedly banned word written on it—very catchy.
Taking the moral authority away from “neutrality” is helpful maybe. Exposing the self-interest in neutrality— like showing they make money on silence, or build their ego/ the deadly sin of arrogance (feeling better than stupid hicks), or have covetousness—via their actions, they support a system built on wanting other peoples’ stuff).
Silence=Death, the Accomplice is just as guilty.
Mostly—they are building their arrogance. Marx talked about “Greed” a lot, and so people will talk about that, seems like— but Covetousness is more the root of redistributive systems, imo, and it is much harder to get people to admit to it, because it exposes their lack— they want to another persons’ stuff MORE THAN they wished to concentrate on “getting their own.” They are the neighbor who is always pacing in front of the next house, talking about others (and thinking they have this attention because they are “nice,” when they are anything but. The GUTTED human being—whose own instincts are so erased, they can only stare at other people, imitate the “image” of what a “good person” should do.
Who is guiltier—-A Public Sector Republican Respectable who SILENTLY milks it for all its worth???—- or the Leftist-who-at-least-SAY-they-are-redistributionists?
#4 by BGLass on 06/25/2012 - 10:13 am
can’t edit—
maybe worse than behind their Mama’s skirts— they hide behind LITTLE TEENY KIDS. (They have to support them and there’s just no other option; they’ll “do anything” for them, make sacrifices!…) Back in Reality, this type likes his “lifestyle,” quite a bit and couldn’t care less (obviously) if kids are being raised in confusing lies, contradictions, the tacit approval of wrong. They’re like the slovenly stay-at-home-moms who use “having kids” as their endless excuse for why things are never clean or they don’t have any real friends, or they put on weight, or whatever.
The Public Sector Republican usually shares the Welfare Recipients’ disdain for the “public” since cutting down this “public” makes it seem more moral to take their money and support laws to take their money)—
Nobody hates the hick more than the (usually really, lower middle class) Public Sector Republican who’s “made it” in a tough climate!
Oh…he wishes it was different and there wasn’t this huge empire you had to join and all these civil services jobs –but what else was there really?— Bottom line: He’s a REALIST, (lol).
#5 by BGLass on 06/25/2012 - 10:28 am
sorry, can’t edit—
But faux MORALITY of the passive-aggressive is so awful— They say they believe in things such as “Freedom of Religion” (“theirs is usually the only “true God” but hey, stupid you has the right to believe whatever whacko God you wish!!!”, for instance). —-And yet how on earth could you have “Freedom of Religion” when you pay all the bills for the Public Sector Republican, including all their church tithes??? The bill for all their charity (their charity is always monetary, lol, and other peoples money.)
Now, can you really give “charity” (of a monetary sort)—- if all you have is other peoples money?
#6 by Daniel Genseric on 06/25/2012 - 1:44 pm
You can embarrass some of them by pointing out that they are hiding behind mama’s skirt.
Maybe somebody wants to try it and report on his results. – Bob
Dropped the following rebuke on the UNFAIR CAMPAIGN PSA, “Olly Olly Oxen Free. Anti-whites, Come out! Come out from wherever you are. I see, though try as they might, that EVEN the anti-whites can’t hide from the fact that anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
#7 by Simmons on 06/25/2012 - 3:36 pm
I wish I could edit this thread. Anyway this post will be buried under hundreds of rambling words, and attention deficit order Bob probably won’t see it, but I’ll post a brief description of an exchange with one of our favorite anti-whites glen8.
In my exchange with Glen I basically asked him to support the right of Whites to a group defense. He of course said we whites did not need a group defense since there was no genocide. I mentioned ceaselessly that all groups have a right to group defense and that denying a group a right to group defense is part and parcel to genocide. Over and over and over I told him that preceding my asking him to support us.
Technically I might have been passive-aggressive, but I am a ceaseless Mantra Monster, and I never ever allow anyone a break or the notion that their position is morally superior NEVER.
#8 by six gun on 06/25/2012 - 6:40 pm
Good old n8glenn – What names he loves to call me, a mouth breathing hood wearer and lots more. He is such a jolly chap. Most of the time he refuses to publish my posts and he has warned me he will ban me next time, not sure why he didn’t ban me the first time.
Maybe he finds me active-aggressive.
What a dead soul he is.
I really do think he has a mental disorder, the poor chap.
#9 by Lord Nelson on 06/25/2012 - 6:53 pm
In the past I have found this to be a good question for digging the ‘passive aggressive’ anti-white b@stards out of their holes:
“So do you agree that EVERY racial/ethnic group be it Black in Africa, Asians in Asia, or White Europeans in Europe. Have an EQUAL right to ensure the survival of their own race and culture in their own countries?”
Don’t worry if you are an American pro-white. The American anti-whites can not answer the above question either.
I wonder why? 😉
Anti-Racist is a code word for Anti-White!
#10 by OldBlighty on 06/25/2012 - 7:42 pm
@LN
Anti-whites already agree to that for non-whites. It is white people they won’t allow it for. You have to narrow it down to your target.
@Bob:
I asked David Duke on Youtube, why he is campaigning for nationalism for all races, instead of raising the white genocide issue. I pointed out that only white people, are being targeted on a global scale. My question was not approved.
#11 by OldBlighty on 06/25/2012 - 7:27 pm
Passive aggressive, anti-white:
“I am neither anti-racist, nor racist” (That’s why I return only to white genocide videos, day after day, hour after hour, acting as opposition and then complain to get the video taken down) – MrViciousBiter
I saw this one used to great effect by Horus against MrViciousBiter:
“So you agree that white people have a right to exist AS A PEOPLE and should have their own homelands and rule their own countries?”
Evasion is the only answer you get from that question, so you keep asking variations of it, over and over and let the white audience, listen to their silence.
#12 by Dick_Whitman on 06/25/2012 - 10:31 pm
Could someone please fix the Mantra at “The Mantra” tab?
It still says:
“Asians for the Asians”
instead of
Asia for the Asians
Someone brought this up days ago.
FIX IT! please
#13 by RobRoy on 06/25/2012 - 11:53 pm
As a response to the Mantra, a common passive aggressive comment I see is, “I’m not anti-white or pro-white, I’m pro-human.”
I always ask: “Pro-humans don’t care about genocide?”
No one has ever answered that.
#14 by Jason on 06/27/2012 - 1:04 am
So, what is the proper response when they say things like, “so do you want all non-Whites to leave?” Should we just say we don’t discuss future policies? Or ignore it? Or just say I’m not hear to talk about that? What is the best answer to to avoid it,without looking like we are dodging?
#15 by Gavin on 06/27/2012 - 4:19 am
“All we want is a free and open public discussion on the issue of White genocide.”
#16 by Jason on 06/27/2012 - 5:09 am
OK very good …. so basically stick to our main talking point.
#17 by OldBlighty on 06/27/2012 - 6:22 am
Yes, you make the point they are not allowing discussion of the white genocide issue, and then return to the white genocide issue.
Intimidating whites by calling us names, when we want to discuss this issue, or censoring us, is not having a discussion, it is preventing the discussion.
Preventing a discussion is all they really have. Once a rational discussion of this issue commences in the general population, the anti-whites are finished and they know it.