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

Institution is a Tricky Word

Posted by Bob on December 8th, 2012 under Coaching Session

Back around 1960, the words “car rental” and the name Hertz were as identical in the public mind as was “refrigerator” and Frigidaire” or “ soft drink” and “Coke.” Robert Townsend the guy who made Avis into a real competitor to Hertz was, therefore, a genius.

Like your genius, Bob, the man at Avis had a few simple guidelines, which he wrote down in a short bestseller called “Up the Organization.”

He warned of the what I call “institutionalization.” In industry it is known as “going a little bit public.”

A closed corporation will often put some of its stock on a stock exchange because the value of this openly sold stock sets a value on all of its stock that a bank can use as the basis of loans and the corporation can use as a basis for giving “fair value” when one of the owners has to be bought out. This can be useful.Photobucket

But Townsend warned against it. He said that people said they were issuing a few public shares to “set the value,” but it in the real world, it doesn’t stop at that.

Theoretically putting ten percent of the shares on the market would attract the highest bidders only: Less supply for the highest demand.

The problem is, says Townsend, PEOPLE mess this logic up. Very soon the only public evaluation of their stocks, the little bit out there in public, becomes the decision-maker. Previously the Board made its choices only in view of the long term goals the corporation was aiming for. Now, every time there is a decision, it is made in public and the shares react.

It doesn’t matter if it is one percent or ten percent of the shares, every meeting is now concerned with the public reaction rather than the goals only the company management knows it is pursuing. He could not have done what he needed to do at Avis if it had been “a little bit public.”

When I say “institution” one normally thinks of a Hudson Institute or the United States Senate. But an institution can be just “a little bit public.”

When Dave explained his problem with our White Genocide approach, he was speaking as someone who has built up an organization. That is a lifelong job which he and Don have done. Please note that Townsend would consider you a bit crazy if you interpreted him as saying, “Going a little public makes the Director into Evil, Greedy nutcases, probably JEWS.”

An institution simply forces one to have a different imperative from someone who has no institution.

This put Dave into a bad position. He and Don must decide what to do with their organizations. BUGS would not be here if it weren’t for Stormfront.

In fact, Dave’s personal fame is an institution in itself.

In other words, with a little bit of thinking one can figure out where people are coming from without deciding they are Evil or Jews or Traitors.

  1. #1 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 5:41 pm

    I’ve been thinking a lot about Matthew Heimbach’s interview by RT that we’ve been posting to,
    and trying to decide what I think of his using a non-Mantra approach. Whether to rest easy with it, or send him an email urging him to use more “anti-white” (I should do that in ANY case) and more “white genocide.”

    I could take the point of view that for the purpose of establishing what will hopefully be the first of many White student unions in this country, he’s selected the perfect (student) issues: affirmative action, etc. And since the establishment of white student unions would be a huge breach in the anti-white fortress, and would move racial dialogue more in our direction, any way he gets there is cool.

    (On other occasions he has mentioned White Genocide, and I could view him as taking incremental steps, of the sort that often worked so well for anti-whites: When I was at a Southern University in the early 1960s, TWO blacks were suddenly admitted one year. If felt a little odd to have them there, but what the heck, there were only two of them).

    But my very imperfect understanding of what Bob has been writing about institutions suddenly came to mind, and I had the thought that Matthew is building an institution, and if he’s not at the very least building it internally on a strong understanding of white genocide, how likely is that institution (how much more likely than SF, I could say) to go in the direction of vocally opposing white genocide in the future? Especially in the University setting, and with the ideas that will be in the minds of the students who will join it.

    My thought is that unless Matthew makes a HUGE deal of White Genocide right now in all internal discussion in his group, in fact makes an understanding of it a requirement for full membership (aint’ gonna’ happen, right?), his whole endeavor will be rather easily accommodated into the anti-whites’ program of white genocide. Giving the same rights to whites as to non-whites is not an impediment to white genocide.

    If Matthew could set up such an internal program as I just described, it would become a news item I feel sure, and would do a world of good for getting publicity for our message. When asked about it by reporters, he could say, oh yes, we insist upon that understanding for our members, but what our public efforts are involved around are (affirmative action and the other campus issues, etc.). Then his questioners would try to draw him out on the White Genocide issue!

    Thanks, any of you who’ve taken the trouble to read all of this. I guess I was really writing my email to Matthew, and if my mind isn’t changed by any discussion here, I’ll pare it down and send it to him.

    This fellow has so much ability. And although I’m not religious, I like that he seems so grounded spiritually. He feels very solid to me, an extraordinary person.

    Worth taking the trouble to try to influence, since he’s at least partially already onboard. Let’s be careful to treat him friendly, so that when he sees any communication from any of us, he’s happy to see it! I tend to sometimes forget to do that.

    • #2 by Daniel Genseric on 12/08/2012 - 7:20 pm


      I sent Matthew the link to your well-thought-out comment on FaceBuch.

      Merry Christmas to you and to all of BUGS!

  2. #3 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 5:43 pm

    I hope I didn’t make you sorry you said anything! 🙂

  3. #4 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 6:02 pm

    In other words, white student unions could become an institution just one short step beyond respectable conservatives.

    Even if that’s a good step, we can still try to influence that group to take a much bigger step, “White Genocide,” if others here agree that’s the thing to do. I think with Matthew we could conceivably have some small success.

    The management (not me) of White GeNOcide Project has asked him to write something there, but that hasn’t happened. My hope was that if he did, he could be drawn into discussion of particular points in his tactics.

    Maybe the management of BUGS would want to invite him to write a guest article here, about how he sees the role of discussing White Genocide in his student union effort, or some other topic. If so, I’d be happy to write the email if desired.

    • #5 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 6:05 pm

      Bob: please note the last paragraph in my comment.

    • #6 by Daniel Genseric on 12/08/2012 - 7:30 pm


      Like Bob barked at me quite some time ago, with a swift kick to the ass, being senior staff at BUGS isn’t about postulation or ideas; it’s about DOING and reporting.

      And we don’t require “may I’s” or a “popular vote” for any one BUGSter to act. At the same time, we do reserve the right to rip you a new one if you ‘screw the pooch’.

      • #7 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 8:15 pm

        Ha ha! You’re right! I’ll invite him. And a very Merry Christmas to you too, Daniel.

        For anyone interested, I’m continuing to scratch my head over Heimbach/Mantra on this very busy SF thread about his interview:

        • #8 by OldBlighty on 12/08/2012 - 8:50 pm

          I found that video painful to watch. He was on the defensive the whole time and was completely boxed in.

          That is what happens when you listen to Jared Taylor instead of Bob Whitaker – You don’t set the agenda, you follow their agenda and you lose.

          What does Bob always say? Don’t Tailgate!

          The worst part is the SF people think he did well. Were they watching the same video I was? DUH!

          Why are intellectuals always trying to prove to Mommy Professor how damned clever they are? When they do that, they always lose. They are nothing but silly asses, the lot of them!

          • #9 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/08/2012 - 9:53 pm

            I watched it again after reading your two comments, and I still don’t agree. His constituency is white college students, and his point is that affirmative action college admissions and preferential hiring and preferential whatever is discrimination against whites. And I thought he was very effective in making that point, very adept in his phrasing and timing to not be boxed in by that pushy interviewer. In fact (and this takes some very special ability, quality in a person), I thought he somehow managed to remain as dominant as the interviewer in spite of his not attacking a la Duke-with-Wolf Blitzer, or how we’d wish a bugster to attack.

            I usually find interviews of pro-whites painful, but not this one.

            But OB, I wouldn’t want to bet my life on my being right any your being wrong.

            And as I posted on the SF thread, “Are we really content to see our race disappear, as long as we have equal access to colleges and to jobs while we’re disappearing?”

            Of course not.

            Anyway, I’ve invited him to write one of our daily blogs (I was recently appointed senior staff, in case you didn’t hear). Lol, there suddenly pops into my mind a picture of red-eyed wolves staring hungrily at a single man tending a campfire.

            • #10 by Daniel Genseric on 12/09/2012 - 2:38 am

            • #11 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 4:35 am

              And did he not grin at that anti-White and shake his hand at the end?

              Is that Stockholm Syndrome I was seeing?

              We have nothing to learn from that interview, except what not to do.

            • #12 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 6:01 am

              Allow me to reacquaint you with the definition of GENOCIDE.

              “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups”


              Allowing every other group a group defense, while denying it to White people is GENOCIDE. The fact they are doing this in all White countries and only White countries makes it GENOCIDE.

              If this guy’s constituency is ONLY the 30 people he hangs out with at University, then he is wasting his time and should go and do other things.

              • #13 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 6:02 am

                Denying Whites a Student Union is GENOCIDE. Talking about White Privilege as an excuse to deny Whites a Student Union, is Them justifying GENOCIDE.

  4. #14 by OldBlighty on 12/08/2012 - 8:56 pm

    What was the take home message of that video???

    The kid got on there and argued some pointless dates and stats, I now have no memory of.

    If he had mentioned White Genocide just once, it would have upset the interviewer and it would be remembered and discussed by the audience.

    So he completely wasted his time. He may as well have spent the afternoon doing something else.

  5. #15 by Peter Cottontail on 12/08/2012 - 10:03 pm

    Matt has some great potential. Let’s face it, he has some serious courage to do this in front of mommy professor’s face. He was on message in earlier interviews so he knows our stuff. He seemed to handle the interview well in that he was calm on the outside.

    But he was seriously tailgating, something that we can help him with. I am not sure how genocide could have been brought up withing the context of the interview (or bully session). I believe Matt’s consistent message when it comes to the White Student Union is that, the only people who oppose the White Student Union are anti-White. Establish that talking point and go from there.

    • #16 by OldBlighty on 12/08/2012 - 10:30 pm

      White Privilege was raised and all he had to do is say, the Nazis said exactly the same about the Jews.

      He would have blown the lid off that interview if he said that.

      The anti-Whites should be terrified of uttering White Privilege, but thanks to the silliness of our tailgating intellectuals, they run riot with it.

      What really angers me about intellectuals, is their Vanity and Naivety. They are going up against people that do this for a living, and they all think they are too clever, to seek Basic Political Coaching.

      I have come to hate so called intellectuals on the left and the right. They are all Retards.

      • #17 by OldBlighty on 12/08/2012 - 10:47 pm

        Here’s some basic political coaching, for the kittens, that like to chase the anti-White’s laser pointers.

        “I am not here to discuss that, I am here to discuss White GENOCIDE.”

        • #18 by OldBlighty on 12/08/2012 - 10:48 pm

          “What does that have to do with White GENOCIDE?”

  6. #19 by Peter Cottontail on 12/08/2012 - 11:41 pm

    OldBlighty :
    “What does that have to do with White GENOCIDE?”

    OB, I disagree. He wouldn’t be invited back if he did that. I think dropping our talking points within an interview would both get our points in while still being asked to come back. In this case, it was 100% intellectual, 0% mantra. Need a better ratio next time.

    • #20 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 4:30 am

      They only invite you back, if you are useful to Them.

      That is why they don’t invite Bob back.

    • #21 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 6:05 am

      If you get on these TV shows, you take your shot. It is just like the Internet, it doesn’t matter if you go softly or hit them hard, they are going to ban you anyway.

      If you are going to get banned anyway, the logical course of action is to go in as hard as you can.

      Worrying if you are going to get asked back, is Institutional thinking. Our goal is not to get asked back, it is to raise the issue of White Genocide.

      • #22 by dungeoneer on 12/09/2012 - 8:12 am

        I agree it was a sucky interview from our point of view, but he`s not going in as a straight-up white genocide campaigner, he`s going in as a white student union organizer.

        As for the SF N+J`ers, why are you worrying about their amateur opinions?

        • #23 by OldBlighty on 12/09/2012 - 9:30 am

          “he`s going in as a white student union organizer.”

          He wouldn’t have made a ripple, if he didn’t start out using the White Genocide message. As soon as he got attention, he transformed into the man without a message. Next step, Respectable Conservative job on TV!

          “As for the SF N+J`ers, why are you worrying about their amateur opinions?”

          They are the intellectuals’ cheer squad. Without them, who would encourage our intellectuals to keep doing such a fine and dandy job?

          I’ve posted way too much on this article, so I’m going to stop.

          Sorry Bob.

          • #24 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/09/2012 - 1:21 pm

            “I’ve posted way too much on this article”

            Absolutely NOT! VERY important comments, yours! You’ve given a very clear picture (I disagree with a couple of the particulars, but no matter) of how he OUGHT to be, how he ideally SHOULD act, and that’s an extremely useful picture to keep in mind! Otherwise we lose our way!

            I just posted the below on a thread we had about him at White GeNOcide Project, on which some portions of his interview with Greg Johnson are transcribed:

            Here’s a little more of that remark that Matthew made at 18:08 in that Greg Johnson interview:

            “Once you see…that there’s a legitimate genocide going on, both culturally and demographically, not only in this country but globally, it really just changes the way you see everything…there are people who are…enemies of…the white race….that really actually want our extinction…it allows you to see things in a much different way.”


            I’m writing this comment many weeks later*, but I don’t recall any other time in the interview that he mentions the genocide of whites that is underway.

            Although he states that his own racial view has at its core his understanding that white genocide is being carried out, and he occasionally refers to the fact of white genocide in some interviews (but in any mainstream interviews?), he isn’t organizing his student union activism around white genocide, nor apparently thinking that waking whites up to white genocide is the most important thing he can do.

            We at Bugs should urge him in that direction!

            I would so much like to bring him at least to the point of seeing in his mind what he could be, an activist who charges his anti-white questioners with being anti-whites who support white genocide, and who presses that home relentlessly, implanting our message and our terminology and our moral dominance in the minds of the white audience!

            I wish his website allowed comments, where we could give him more exposure to our method.

            • #25 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/09/2012 - 2:09 pm

              I keep wondering what Bob thinks about all this. I’m wondering if he would say to me, “Forget about Matthew Heimbach and post the Mantra.”

              I think it’s useful if Matthew will accept our invitation to write a blog for us…accept our invitation to nudge up against the grey goo a bit closer…but I obsess on each “project” and spend so much time. I feel a need to apologize to everyone that I don’t swarm more. It’s my firm intention to.

          • #26 by dungeoneer on 12/09/2012 - 2:15 pm

            “He wouldn’t have made a ripple, if he didn’t start out using the White Genocide message. As soon as he got attention, he transformed into the man without a message. Next step, Respectable Conservative job on TV!”

            Worst case scenario, he piggybacked the mantra earlier to get institutionalized with a Respectable meal ticket.

            The other wannabe Respectables being the ever-watchful flocking crows they are will try to follow his example, and what a tectonic change has taken place to bring about this new state of affairs!

  7. #27 by elcyCesreveR on 12/09/2012 - 5:32 am

    Regarding Matthew’s recent interview.

    You don’t need to necessarily change every topic into WHITE GENOCIDE.

    Using Mantra-Thinking you can take ANY racial issue and make the Anti-White IMMEDIATELY take the defensive rather than you having to justify the existence or interests of whites.

    It’s very simple – Focus on the GLOBAL situation for whites – point out that NONE of these “discussions” are taking place anywhere but white countries. They’ll have no choice but to either IGNORE everything you just said OR defend why they are singling out white children.

You must be logged in to post a comment.