One writer said we shouldn’t use “white genocide” but rather “genocide of whites.”

He was writing in the area which I most respect, including my own articles, the WORK section, “Where have you put the mantra lately?”

As to that specific point, I was of the same mind, but then I found more and more that anyone who uses the term “white genocide,” the few we have gotten to so far, use it in OUR terms.

So you are now where I was as I developed the Mantra: I had to stop endlessly defining words, a process we are all familiar with in TOO.

I started to give up theory and find out in action how each word or phrase WORKED.

So far, to my surprise, the term “white genocide” seems to have confused nobody.

In fact, it is “white genocide” those screaming, hate-filled anti-white You Tubes name.

A more precise term like genocide OF whites, in my experience, serves no function. You don’t mince words while the bullets are flying.

But our relationship has changed. I am asking a question of grad students, not teaching a subject.

To my infinite delight, my seniority in action is fast wearing out. I used to be only one who knew how an argument or a term actually worked.

Now I am no longer telling, I am asking. “White genocide,” even though it is literally questionable, is the most easily repeated and remembered name for the thing.

I am glad that, at least once, somebody bitched about the term “white genocide” instead of “genocide of whites.

I think we have claimed the term as our own, so we can keep it.

The Floor is open to INFORMED discussion.

One lesson you can learn from this old man is to be learned from my endlessly going back over how I was right but now everybody says they knew it. A lot of comments reflect that the writers don’t yet realize how YESTERDAY yesterday is.

When it came to predicting the future, the segregationists were always right. Their calm predictions of today were dismissed with that constipated look self-righteous people get when they feel they are the Intellectuals.

“Integration is a step towards doing away with Whites.”

“Integration is about intermarriage.”

“Blacks won’t go up to white standards, whites will go down to black standards.”

Nobody even begins to remember that the sophisticated answers were ALWAYS wrong.

This helps to avoid Torchlight Parade thinking. The future has not been decided by massive waves of support, and it will not be. Like war, by the time the Great Movement arises, the battle is over.

I can see many ways the fight for our race will develop.

There is a coalition of self-styled “Christians” and the neo-Marxist establishment that is united in banning both Political Incorrectness and for “protecting the children” from porn and all else. The fundamentalists are drooling with joy when they can garner liberal approval.

Genetic advance threatens both these groups. Marxists are wildly opposed to anything that might produce the kind of beautiful, intelligent, creative children desired by a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Fundamentalists want dying for people to suffer as much agony as can be gotten out of them.

A priest assured me that every last second of agony in a patient suffering terminal spinal cancer was, by the official doctrine of the Church, something to thank God for.

Yes, I put it in THOSE words. And yes, he affirmed what I just said.

The simple fact is that smarter children with what is quote ”better genes” unquote are going to make the choice of a better future for your children fatal to their own obsessions.

Dumb and uglies so beloved of the left and the random Catholics and fundamentalists insist God wants, simply cannot compete.

This is not new. Parents who care about their children produce children who have all the advances denounced by Marxists and St. Paul.

But this is one of a hundred possible alternatives to the Torchlight Parade too many commenters count on.

We are on the side of the Golden Rule. Would you rather be smart or dumb? Would you rather be beautiful or ugly?

If you read predictions of the future, you will realize that neither this gene question nor the Torchlight Parade will be what actually happens.

The point is that the Golden Rule is an open solution. Both the Fundamentalists, Catholics and the Marxists are ultimately conservative. The fundamental change we are actually making, to my astonishment, is opening to the world a debate to allow one to want to preserve our race.

We are killing the naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews assault on the Golden Rule.

If we do what we are doing, the future determination, whatever it may be, is, like a war, over before it starts.

In one article, I pointed to a person to whom I had said that Zoroastrianism was originally limited to Aryans. He looked up the Z site on the web and told me it started with a loud declaration that all races were welcome.

I observed that that said that they HAD been so limited.

While every religion says it is open to all races, creeds and crocodiles, you do not find the Baptist Church heading up its page declaring that blacks can become Baptists.

Common as it is, this desperate declaration does not LEAD the description of a religion. It is a declaration that is made too early and too earnestly that shows you they are disclaiming a history people know about.

One commenter said that all the churches have this tiring declaration. I agree and I’m sick of it, too. But the whole article was about listening closely, and that depressive declaration showed he was NOT listening closely.

The whole point of the article was not that Z made the declaration, but that it desperately put it up front.

So the point, while I sympathize, showed that the commenter had not paid any attention to the message of the article.

My advice is especially useless if you don’t listen carefully and expand on it by yourself.

The things I think about are usually boiled down to a sentence. For example I get a chuckle out of the fact that every discussion of a growing problem begins with the opinions of experts.

What, exactly, is required to be an expert?

Experience in the field, of course.

So the one sentence: The people consulted to deal with a problem qualify by being the people who made the mistake in the first place.

If you hear that and then go on to dribble along with a comment you wanted to make anyway, you can easily bury that one sentence in a couple of paragraphs.

Which is what almost everybody does with what I work out.

If your only interest is that the expert is a Jew or you want to sell a book-length proof of how he is mistaken, the observation “The people consulted to deal with a problem qualify by being the people who made the mistake in the first place.” will not be of the slightest use for you.

But if you pay attention, that simple statement used correctly, put the person you are debating in a hell of a position.

Not least because HE’S never thought of it.

And if you don’t listen closely, neither will you.

Dave comments,

“You have to focus peoples’ hearing by giving them cues to listen, and then say it concisely and quickly.

“If you do not do this, they haven’t heard. In our Internet age, it is just as important to do in written words as in said words.

“Nobody is going to understand if it isn’t simple. You only have a small chance of them hearing you regardless.

“The widespread ignorance of this principle is astounding. DD and JT are so ORDINARY. They work their pie holes entirely too much and don’t come to grips with the fact that nobody is listening.

“They are like the Austrian Economists who think people are going to understand when they talk about ‘heterogeneous capital.’ I remember looking it up realizing that I had descended into madness. Joining a nutbar cult is the easiest thing to do in our Mommy Professor world. That’s ‘The Cave.’

“The wonderful thing about Robert Whitaker is he is one of the few people alive that isn’t crazy.”

Thanks, Dave, I guess. Being declared sane in THIS world makes me a bit uneasy, but I get your point.

Actually, this particular observation has some very practical ramifications.

I made my living in Intelligence, in interrogation, in negotiation, on Capitol Hill committees and the like.

One of the greatest compliments I ever received was a staffer who quoted one of the witnesses who had just appeared before the Education and Labor Committee. The guy said, “Well, thank God WHITAKER wasn’t here.”

My special ability was the practical advice I give you here.

One of the things I keep preaching is Listen to the Silence. Don’t just jump on what they SAY. If you listen you can hear what they are avoiding, and that creeps the hell out of them.

A really good researcher, a really good questioner, a top debater has one characteristic you don’t notice until you get in here and PRACTICE.

It creeps them out:

You hear every single word they DON’T say.

Years ago, Lord Nelson made a very fortunate error. In the course of his debates on Stormfront, LN began to rely more and more on whites “being overwhelmed” by immigration.

It turned out to be the path of least resistance. Many, many people could go along with a criticism of immigration while being absolutely blind to the ongoing genocide. So LN didn’t realize that he was increasingly emphasizing the standard immigration angle, which even respectable conservatives can talk about.

But the problem is not just immigration. It is GENOCIDE.

LN got my point the moment I made it to him. It was an important example of what can happen with the subtlest from of tailgating. And what is more important, the moment I mentioned this to LN he got it.

Unless you are IN the fight, you will wonder what the big deal is, but LN got it instantly. THAT, not the error, was the point.

But I still had to suffer through it three or four times when Lord Nelson Admitted of the Error of His Way.

Hey, gang, this is not a confessional. I like to point out this error because LN GOT it immediately, proving that only those who get out there and USE the Mantra understand the approach. Hearing repeated apologies was a pain in the keester.

So I was delighted with OldMan’s little error, but only because it led to such an ACCURATE criticism from practicing BUGSERS. All OldMan did was add an extra word to “anti-whites.” He said Anti-White Racists.” Hardly a mortal sin.

All that matters is not what OldMan did, but how our few really active BUGSERS reacted to it.

After all their EXPERIENCE, they instantly realized that one extra word, “racist,” gave the enemy an out.

Here we are, bearing down on the enemy’s tail in a dogfight, and the enemy is presented with that lovely word “racist” to dive into like a cloud.

You could instantly tell who had been in the fight and who hadn’t. No matter how many philosophical pieces you write for comments, you don’t instantly get the importance of a point like that until you have seen it in action.

Keeping on the enemy’s tail, not allowing him any escape from YOUR point, GENOCIDE, is critical in a way only EXPERIENCE shows you.

No problem, OldMan.

Way to go, TROOPS!