In response to “Why the Only Answer to the Mantra is Labels and Insults,” some commenters brought up their problems with their families or friends.
I have the same problem. I can’t go through the whole Mantra daily with everybody I see every day.
So I use “anti-white.”
It very seldom comes up that one must describe anybody’s political viewpoint, but I use “anti-white” as often as I can. I drop it in routinely. By now very few people I know even try to deal with it.
I will often say, “Well, he’s as anti-white as you are, but he’s conservative on other issues…”
This is NOT the Mantra. When I tell you how to use the Mantra, we all know what the two standard responses will be.
But you have to develop “anti-white” for yourself, and the results will be fascinating to me. The first thing to remember is that it is a descriptive term, not an argument. More often than not, you will have the satisfaction of their swallowing it without comment.
That is quite a coup. You are dealing with family or friends to whom you have already described the Mantra, so “anti-white” is as good as a repeat. If someone is listening who has not heard the Mantra, you get to repeat your argument.
“An antiwhite is someone who wants the white race to disappear”
What I want to emphasize here is that there is no standard way to handle this, because, at long last, we have something for which no programmed response is available. You are now ready to go out on your own.
You’ll learn to handle the responses, and I get to sit here and see what you learn out in the field.
There is nothing wrong with losing. I certainly didn’t develop the Mantra over years without a LOT of embarrassments. Every word in the rigid full Mantra is the result of hundreds of incidents, most of them embarrassing.
Now it is time for our seminar members to use “anti-white” and learn their own rules.
Obviously, “anti-white” is not something you will use where it is costly or dangerous. But with family and friends, it reminds them of where you stand and what you said.
#1 by Asgardian117 on 05/22/2013 - 9:53 am
I consistently use, “you are anti white” “stop being anti white” “why are you anti white” at the end of my statements. They dont seem to refute it anymore, they accept the name. That is KEY to all the little white rabbit fence sitters watching the 200 plus round fight transpire. Usually when someone gets called a name they refute it these ppl no longer refute it fence sitters see this and say ” wait a second thy are NOT denying that they are anti white” PERCEPTION is EVERYTHING…1st impressions are CRUCIAL because the masses are what? ASSES. “yes we can” “drink coke” “just do it” “read my lips”………….”ANTI WHITE”
#2 by Simmons on 05/22/2013 - 12:06 pm
You actually might have to use it in a dangerous situation, such as the usual denunciation as “racist.”
I basically say, if you define you dominate. It certainly worked against the sissy rightwing.
#3 by Asgardian117 on 05/22/2013 - 12:14 pm
@Simmons you are right. In the “real” world i have used it. The term has done one of 2 things for me 1. It stunned the opposition 2.Things escalated quickly, some people get so appauled and shocked that you actually have the “gaul” to make that sort of statement.I prefer # 2 because all they do is name calling, they lose at that point.
#4 by Sentinel on 05/22/2013 - 12:52 pm
I, too, regularly refer to anti-Whites (”liberals,” neo-cons, hostile coloreds, etc, etc) as anti-Whites in conversation. But it takes Bob to isolate this strategy for us. It really is a handy way of making a big point very efficiently and lays down one of our bedrock terms without much of a tailgating trigger (in my experience). I prefer for the other person(s) not to ask about the term, and they usually don’t. This makes it easier to use it as often as possible.
Best of all, simply describing someone as anti-White usually qualify as 1% new information for one’s audience. 🙂
#5 by Jason on 05/22/2013 - 7:53 pm
I am going to have fun with this. Use discretion. No need to get fired by telling your boss he is anti-White.
I have used anti-White with some friends and family a while back, and usually I get blank stares. It takes time for them to process that such a category even exists.
The sad truth is, most Whites have never considered the idea that they owe some loyalty to other Whites.
#6 by Sentinel on 05/22/2013 - 8:25 pm
Jason – blank stares indeed. I think you nailed it. Racial loyalty is such an alien concept to most of our people under today’s circumstances.
I guess that’s why backdooring our message via terminology and repetition works so well.
#7 by Jason on 05/24/2013 - 8:13 am
On those blank stares, sometimes they can mean something else too. I once gave one.
Long ago, a friend who was a pro-union Democrat was talking about the issue of race. I assumed he was a liberal on that too. Suddenly he says, “look, Hitler was right”. He said it like a bottle that had suddenly been uncorked.
I was taken aback. I did not expect that. Now, to be clear, he was only talking about Hitler being right about the reality of race, nothing else. I was just surprised to hear him say it.
So, seeing my reaction, he immediately said “oh I know, Hitler was evil, I am just saying he was right about some racial stuff …”, and so I had to jump in and explain I was pro-White too, no need to worry.
So, some blank stares come from people who actually agree with us, but never expect to meet a living person who talks in an openly pro-White way. It can take time to process.
And for some it is the taboo breaking (it is forbidden to be pro-White!). They need time to make sure the roof isn’t going to cave in or the PC Gods don’t strike us dead.
#8 by Harumphty Dumpty on 05/24/2013 - 4:40 pm
Re your middle paragraph, I posted this on WGP and SF awhile ago:
When the word “anti-white” has been put into the minds and onto the tongues of every White person in this world by constant, determined, unceasing repetition (the same way the R-word was installed in those minds), A NEW CATEGORY WILL EXIST:
ACTIONS AND PERSONS WHO ARE INJURIOUS TO WHITES.
That category does not exist today. Think how absolutely necessary that category is.
#9 by Peter Cottontail on 05/22/2013 - 8:46 pm
Thanks for bringing back the basics Bob. I have posted the term anti-White hundreds of times by itself where the full mantra is banned. In my experience, the short sword word “Anti-White” ALWAYS passes through the censors.
#10 by Fred_Richthofen on 05/22/2013 - 9:25 pm
Call me reckless, but I’ve been slapping folks in person with the term “Anti-White” for a while now. Until I suffer some serious repercussions I’ll call myself “wreck-less.”
My reasoning falls in line with what Bob just laid out here so I’m pleased with that. I was facing situations where people had heard The Mantra or a situation where I could not use the Mantra. So I would run the conversation sort of like Bob suggested: “yea I kind of expected him to say that since he tends to be anti-White.”
It works.
The conversation will pause for a moment while the other person gives that momentarily confused look. Sometimes if you’re expecting it, you can see the muscles around their eyes move, and their eyes bulge for a moment before they regain their train of thought.
When asked why I used the term, my response: “how can someone who supports conditions that lead to a world without White children be anything but anti-White?”
#11 by Asgardian117 on 05/22/2013 - 9:44 pm
Another victim of DIEversity in woolwich england. Hacked to death with a machete in the middle of the street by two non whites, anti white terror in its purest form.
#12 by Bob on 05/23/2013 - 11:03 am
A big point here is to use “anti-white” CASUALLY.
Off-hand.
You will usually not get any reaction but it seeps in.
It is really effective when you simply use it as ifuit is not a big deal.
That puts all the work on THEM.
#13 by Jason on 05/23/2013 - 8:08 pm
To make an obvious point, the communication techniques we use depend on the audience and the forum. We don’t use the exact same tactics with friends in a personal setting that we do with strangers in an online forum.
Similar but not the same. The ultimate goal is the same but not the tactics.
#14 by Jason on 05/23/2013 - 8:11 pm
The term “anti-White” strikes me as a gateway drug.
It softens up the target and paves the way for the really hard stuff like White Genocide.
In this case, it really is a mind-expanding experience!
#15 by Iceknight on 05/24/2013 - 7:38 am
It’s a fantastic but very subtle interrogation tool.
Often when an anti-White posts a huge diatribe about being anti-racist or how we should all embrace humanity, I’ll often just ask a very simple question “Are you anti-White?” and just leave it at that.
They will then just dig their own grave. Nothing more needs to be said.