I thought one of our best BUGSERS was engaging in blatant tailgating. He was explaining how he had answered somebody who called him an extremist.
But reading what he said, I saw he was doing what we should do: Instead of denying the charge, he used it to make his own point. Tailgating means letting yourself be thrown off track by anti-whites labels and charges.
But what our BUGS commenter did was point out that allowing us free speech is the best way of AVOIDING an extremist result. I used this point back when I was respectable and was being interviewed about my 1982 book, The New Right Papers.
And I got that many years before from the anti-whites. One of their standard arguments was that the world is mostly colored, so if we wanted to counter Communism we had to integrate.
One of the articles in the New Right Papers was “Lid on a Boiling Pot,” which pointed out specifically how ignoring working class whites could lead to extremism.
Membership organizations cannot use this warning because any criticism of Hitler, for example, will cause some soreheads to stop joining or contributing.
And pro-whites who are pure theorists won’t develop concepts like this which work out in the real world. There is no substitute for getting out there and seeing for yourself what actually works.
Social science is all lecture because any test of its theories always discredits them.
BUGS develops by your insights being tested out in the field.
BUGS is a lab course.
#1 by Dave on 04/04/2013 - 10:25 am
A note on membership organizations and BUGS:
There are valuable things I know that I would never reveal unless I was well compensated. But maybe not.
What keeps the “members” of my membership organization from disloyalty?
The money transaction substitutes loyalty, the opposite lobbying organizations have it.
So you run into a personality like Robert Whitaker who recklessly gives away real knowledge for free. Most are too stupid to realize the value. For the small minority that is smart enough to recognize the extraordinary value, the rest is up to them.
That’s BUGS.
#2 by Jason on 04/04/2013 - 11:02 am
I am very aware of what we get from Bob for free and like any greedy person, I just want more!
#3 by Daniel Genseric on 04/05/2013 - 8:28 am
The problem is Bob is just too damn loyal.
Nowadays, at least.
#4 by Simmons on 04/04/2013 - 10:43 am
BUGs is the White Liberation Front.
We aim to liberate millions of whites from the taboo against whites thinking and speaking for the interests of whites.
The membership orgs can GENTLY be broken of their insularity by asking them how many whites have they liberated from this taboo. If they answer negatively they will be shown for the insular cult clown show they are and therefore lose the membership roll battle.
#5 by Jason on 04/04/2013 - 11:07 am
“Membership organizations cannot use this warning because any criticism of Hitler, for example, will cause some soreheads to stop joining or contributing.”
So, that explains why I’ve run into sites that have a seemingly bizarre reverence for Hitler and never any criticism of him. I mean, otherwise decent sites, who then claim they are “brave” enough to talk about Hitler in a way that just does damage.
Funny old world.
#6 by Gar5 on 04/04/2013 - 12:41 pm
An “extremist” is one who is against White genocide.
A “moderate” is one who is for White genocide.
A “racist” is one who is against White genocide.
An “anti-racist” is one who is for White genocide.
They may tell you they want the world to hold hands under a rainbow, but we know better…
#7 by Daniel Genseric on 04/05/2013 - 8:31 am
You know you have struck gold when you run into “just another moderate anti-racist”.
#8 by RobRoy on 04/04/2013 - 2:26 pm
Bugsers don’t theorise, we try it and see if it actually works in the real world. Like the bug that moves around the chair leg.
#9 by jo3w on 04/04/2013 - 7:20 pm
BUGS is the lab course to a different kind of Social Science. It’s no different than Semmelweis’ kind of medicine. We have the correct science, but were on the wrong side of the power structure. The lab course will help correct that.
#10 by FirstTube11100 on 04/05/2013 - 12:35 am
I hope so! If anything, it will catalyze the re-moralization that the internet is giving.
#11 by Jason on 04/06/2013 - 2:55 am
We are doing one of the few forms of legitimate social SCIENCE around. Actually doing field work and reporting back on it.
Although, when we say try something to “see if it works”, I am not sure what the standards are of “what works”. I have a sense, but I don’t know of an objective way to see if one Mini does better than another.
Feedback from Anti-Whites is one measure. But does complete silence really mean it was a dud? People may have been affected by it without responding.
What does a failed Mini look like? If the answers to these questions haven’t been discovered, it’s probably something we need to work on.
#12 by jo3w on 04/06/2013 - 6:41 pm
If you want to get a handle on how to quantify how effective messages are on an audience, pursue an MBA, or do it the free way, iTunes U. MBA’s study the effectiveness of advertising, which is about the most comparable thing to what were doing here. Apply those concepts to mantra posting. Recently I have questioned the effectiveness of responding to anti-white posts after I posted the mantra. Many times I just post without having any intensions of completing any debate…I simply haven’t got the time. I’m no expert of samizdat, but it seems to me that it was a publication sent out into the world to do its job alone. As far as I have evidence, its just as effective to drop the mantra with no follow up, as it is to have a long drawn out debate on the subject. I do the debate part because it helps me in real life debates that I find myself in at every cocktail party I attend.