If you want to see The Silence at work, look at Wikipedia’s piece on Ross Perot.
It is a long series of put-downs and awkward incidents in Perot’s life.
If you mention Perot to anyone today, he will either not recognize the name or repeat one of those put-downs.
You can tell it causes real pain for Wikipedia to repeat the one unique thing in Perot’s life that The Silence wants minimized.
They do not devote a sentence to it. It is part of the sentence: “In June of 1992, national polls showed Perot leading the sitting President and the Democratic nominee with 39 percent of the popular vote!” 
This never happened before or since.
But because of the cloud of crap everybody throws out when Perot’s name is mentioned, The Silence covers this critical history with drivel.
And everybody repeats it.
Perot came out of nowhere. In an interview on Larry King at CNN, King asked him why he himself did not run for president.
Larry King was not a popular show back then, but the mail this question generated was overwhelming, with demands for Perot to go on the ballot.
The idea did not come from Perot.
Wikipedia then makes up a figure of gigillions of his own dollars the power-mad Perot put into his campaign.
A man who had no idea he was going to be drafted is portrayed as power mad.
But others have spent more than Perot did without any effect at all.
To someone who is as familiar with MediaSpeak as I am, Wikipedia gave out the usual dirt to cover the one point The Silence must avoid:
In June of 1992, national polls showed Perot leading the sitting President and the Democratic nominee with 39 percent of the popular vote!
Nothing is as important as this is to a Party seeking to overthrow the establishment.
When Perot got up to 39 percent, the Almighty USSR had simply fallen apart.
“Not with a blast but with a whimper.”
In fact, not even a whimper!
Perot’s platform was Saying the Unsayable.
He refused to accept Business As Usual in politics.
He Said the Unsayable to both the left and the kept “opposition.”
In the national debate, both Perot and his vice presidential candidate were asked about abortion.
Instead of trying to get the “dissatisfied” vote of anti-abortionists, they said what most voters think: It’s not an issue with them.
At a time when the Internet was new, Perot proposed to do something that scared politicians half to death: Perot wanted issues to be subjected to a spontaneous poll online. He wanted the PEOPLE to get in on it!
Perot’s Lesson is hidden behind bits of dirt about him just as grassroots rebellion is hidden under Abortion and the chasing down of Whites is hidden behind details about Hitler’s mustache.
The only other real threat to the ruling parties was Wallace in 1968. He got less than 14 percent of the vote, but his American Party is still more active than other third parties.
Perot’s party was destroyed by Pat Buchanan. It gave him its nomination in 2000.
Buchanan had won the New Hampshire primary against Bush.
Then Buchanan turned into a harmless theocrat.
He accepted the Perot Party nomination and then spent all his time attacking abortion and evolution.
His polls started up at a respectable – for a third party – several percent of the vote and then dropped like a rock.
He ended with a vote down where the Prohibition Party gets today, and falling.
The American Freedom Party can become important only if its theme is: “We ain’t going to take it anymore!”
Perot was gotten out of the campaign by the thugs going after his daughter, something any BUGSER can clearly understand.
No Marxists. No theocrats.
Samizdat.
#1 by jo3w on 05/25/2015 - 8:15 am
Perot’s message here is anti DICTA anti complaining and all about DOING what works. Unfortunately people need some convincing that this is the way to prosperity. This message scares the living daylights out of mommy professor.
#2 by Simmons on 05/25/2015 - 9:51 am
As someone who remembers that era I’ll add some background info that should buttress Bob’s case
I knew many Perot supporters, above average IQ white men, and invariably they only had a sentence and a half of political rhetoric, repeated endlessly.
As for the abortion comments especially by Perot’s VP candidate that he made in the VP debate that was specifically planned as best I can tell. Admiral Stockdale sat on the board of the Rockford Foundation that publishes Chronicles, and he wouldn’t sit there if he was a pro-choicer.
Perot was very vague the other two parties were scrambling to protect their rackets via the usual scare monger.
FTR I voted for Bush and deserve a fulsome kick in the pants for my part in destroying our country.
#3 by Secret Squirrel on 05/25/2015 - 11:28 am
“At a time when the Internet was new, Perot proposed to do something that scared politicians half to death: Perot wanted issues to be subjected to a spontaneous poll online. He wanted the PEOPLE to get in on it!”
Its a racket we vote these creeps in, so they can do whatever they like for 4 years. If I remember my history right, the ancient Greeks had a say on EVERYTHING. It would certainly make life difficult for the big money lobbyists, mommy professors and their paid thugs.
#4 by Henry Davenport on 05/26/2015 - 3:29 pm
Isn’t institutional anti-whitism a public secret protected by The Silence?
I don’t know if we’ve ever had a discussion on the possibility of using the term “institutional anti-whitism.” It might not be a term very often useful in swarming, but possibly useful on occasions such as addressing college students about the behavior of their college, or addressing Whites anywhere about the state of their entire nation.
#5 by Denounce Genocidists on 05/27/2015 - 7:51 pm
“If you`re serious about this I wanna see you sweat, I wanna see you in the ring”
#6 by Jason on 05/28/2015 - 9:04 pm
Democrats (in the media) wanted Perot in the campaign and that was the secret of his initial boost. It was a way to get the Clinton elected. Have a third party take votes away from Bush Sr.
It wasn’t likely Clinton could get 50% of the vote. And indeed, he won with only 43% thanks to Perot.
That’s why he got so much attention in the beginning. It wasn’t his money. It wasn’t his unblinking bug-like stare.
The media got him spun up and he served the purpose of taking enough votes from Bush. This is just like conservatives who hope Ralph Nader runs to take votes away from the Dems.
However, his campaign took off and he threatened to become a viable frontrunner (not likely in my view, but the threat was there). So then they knocked him down.
The lesson is, sometimes the media and the Smart Operators end up outsmarting themselves.
Someday, a pro-White candidate may actually be puffed up by people on the Left as a way of defeating a GOP candidate. And that may provide entree for that pro-White candidate to go further than Anti-Whites ever imagined.
#7 by Tom Bowie on 05/29/2015 - 12:51 am
I recall when he lead the polls.
The reaction was a fervor of he can’t win, voting for Perot is just wasting your vote; etc.. This was blasted out by Liberals and Respectable Conservatives more than hourly.
It was a broken record that turned Perot’s coming victory into defeat. I also recall a pair of commentators a few years ago talking about the only time the two political parties became united against a candidate was in regards to David Duke. When I heard them begin talking about it, I recalled what Perot faced; David Duke faced nothing even close to the Relentless Assault Perot faced.
After the election was over; I asked many people who they voted for. The vast majority after telling me who they voted for said they’d have voted for Perot but, he didn’t have a chance to win. Some others simply didn’t vote because Perot didn’t have a chance to win. The smallest minority were those who voted for somebody other than Perot, as a first choice.
Going from the front runner to not having a chance to win; all by repetition of a silly little message.