Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with www.bugsswarm.com?
Post on the internet Working Thread

Debate advice and style first 909 posts

Home Forums BUGS SWARM Debate advice and style first 909 posts

Tagged: 

  • This topic has 0 replies, 77 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 20 posts - 601 through 620 (of 911 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23154
    John White
    Participant

    I agree with the idea that we should stick to what is useful.

    In that respect, the Mantra seems to become useless when we mix it with the topics that the unawaken white person has been brainwashed to dismiss. What topics are those? Well, everything not included in the Mantra.

    I think we had better keep in mind that the Mantra is designed as a propaganda tool with the specific goal of awakening the average white person to the ugly truth of the ongoing program of genocide against our people.

    All the other things we do, everything else non-Mantra, is education. The problem is, the average white person has been programed to dismiss every single piece of education if it is pro-white, no matter how true that information might be.

    Education is good for those of us who are already racially awaken.

    Therefore, in my opinion we should separate propaganda and education. When addressing the unawaken white people, we should use the Mantra to awaken them. Only after that will they accept pro-white education.

    To sum up:

    1) Separate propaganda and education
    2) Use propaganda first
    3) THEN use education

    Which translates into this:

    1) Use the Mantra and only the Mantra
    2) THEN use everything else

    Just my opinion.

    #23158
    J Locke
    Participant

    Try telling Jews and other non-Whites you love their people. They will sometimes warm up to you and agree with you that massive immigration and assimilation is bad.

    #23164
    TheSeeker OfTruth
    Participant

    If I am not mistaken the whole point of our struggle is to open a dialog between us and those that are on the fence. The end result of course to hopefully convince them that Whites DO have a right to exist.
    Then we can talk about homelands and exclusive countries and whatnot.
    If that is the case I fail to see how NOT mentioning the ONLY country on Earth that openly proclaims that its’ existence is for ONE group of people and one group of people only will be helpful.

    Now, I have been getting conflicting comments, one guy says that Israel is unpopular another says that as soon as anyone mentions Israel they are seen as anti-semitic. I do not see how both can be true.

    #23167
    The Beef
    Participant

    @ Seeker, some will see it one way, some the other.

    Sort of like how many Anti-Whites will say we don’t exist, some will say we lost the right to preserve our race due to history, in which case we do exist to be blamed for everything that justifies our Genocide.

    Either way, if they think we are siding with the unpopular Israel, that will get us dismissed, OR if they think we are Anti-Semites, the RESULT is same thing, dismiss the message.

    If we want to give examples of other races having the right to exclusive countries there is nothing wrong with being repetitive by using Asians and Blacks for the examples.

    I know being so repetitive can get boring, you want to mix it up by using Jews & Israel as an example, but it opens a subject that can result in us getting dismissed, for TWO different reason you just pointed out.

    Remember no truthful message will work if it is contaminated with stuff that gets it dismissed.

    #23169
    TheSeeker OfTruth
    Participant

    As I said before it is the ONLY country to openly proclaim that it exists for ONE people and ONE people only.

    #23174
    The Beef
    Participant

    Then are you saying we need to use the Jews as an example?

    That every country everywhere is being blended, as Anti-Whites say, except for just Israel?

    So that is really not a clear and consistent targeting of our Race, its happening everywhere, and that really we should be pointing out that ONLY Jews are safe from being blended out?

    Should these lines:

    [I]What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?[/I]

    Be taken out of the Mantra and replaced with:

    [I]How come ONLY the Jews get to have their own country?[/I]

    #23177
    TheSeeker OfTruth
    Participant

    No and now you are grasping at straws. I have never once said to replace or re-write any of the mantra. I am merely pointing out that we are now being told to never ever mention jews but stay on a mantra that specifically mentions jews.

    #23178
    Jason
    Participant

    Seeker, I think the ultimate answer as to why this or that is left out of the Mantra, is that the actual Mantra has been ROADTESTED and found to work. We may have abstract arguments and technical points, but the practical results are pretty clear. I’ve posted the Mantra hundreds of times and never gotten bogged down in Jew-talk. So, apparently people read the naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews and don’t get distracted by it. They get that I’m not demonizing Jews – they seem to get that I am mocking the knee jerk response against anyone that defends Whites.

    #23182
    Jason
    Participant

    The other problem with mentioning Israel or the Jews in the Mantra is that most people are unclear as to what Jews ARE – a race, a religion, an ethnic group, a subculture, etc. Most people have simply never thought it out, or they are very confused on the issue. For example, most White Christians think that by conversion, Jews could become “non-Jews” in some manner. I’ve heard Christian White Nationalists say they would HAVE to accept converted Jews in their homeland (meaning they think of them as Whites but just with another religion). They are wrong, but the confusion runs deep. And since Israel does accept “Jews” from Africa I believe (here I mean followers of Judaism, not genetic Jews), it makes it difficult to be clea in a sound bite.

    But everybody gets that Africans are a race and ditto for Asians. By the way, this may be a good reason to leave “Latino” out of the Mantra as well, since that can mean anything from Carmen Diaz to a deep brown Indigenous person in Peru.

    #23185
    Gavin
    Participant

    TSOT the USA proclaims in the constitution that it is for “ourselves and our posterity”

    #23209
    The Beef
    Participant

    To put it simple”

    It is NOT necessary for us to use Jews/Isreal as an example in the Mini-Mantras, and it brings in potential problems with the Audience.

    If you don’t need to do something, and it can cause potential problems that out weigh any possible benefit, then AVOID IT.

    #23329
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    I’m thinking of dropping the term “pro-White” and always using instead the term “White-and-normal.”

    My thoughts on it are in the second post below (the posts are from a thread on White GeNOcide Project), and I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the idea. At this moment, I’m very fired up at the thought of spreading the term “White-and-normal” as the single antonym of the single term “anti-White”!

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a pro-White in possession of the moral high ground.

    Anti-Whites think their worship in the church of PC gives them automatic title to the moral high ground!

    Of course actually, it places them in humanity’s sewer along with all who are traitors to their own people.

    White GeNOcide!
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    REPLY

    This term “pro-White” has bothered me ever since some of us adopted it. I think to visitors who aren’t already “pro-White,” it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, who might even want race war, etc., all the things that are not what we are about at all.

    Even though it’s a bit unwieldy, I’m going to try for awhile using the term “White-and-normal” instead and see how that sounds. So,

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White-and-normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    I like it! It’s sort of a double whammy!

    Feedback is appreciated.

    Hm, maybe better would be, “White who is normal,” and “Whites who are normal”? At least until those phrases become well known? Yes, it’s a bit of writing, but…

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White who is normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    No, I think “White-and-normal” works better.

    #23330
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    I’m thinking of dropping the term “pro-White” and always using instead the term “White-and-normal.”

    My thoughts on it are in the second post below (the posts are from a thread on White GeNOcide Project), and I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the idea. At this moment, I’m very fired up at the thought of spreading the term “White-and-normal” as the single antonym of the single term “anti-White”!

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a pro-White in possession of the moral high ground.

    Anti-Whites think their worship in the church of PC gives them automatic title to the moral high ground!

    Of course actually, it places them in humanity’s sewer along with all who are traitors to their own people.

    White GeNOcide!
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    (To be continued…my whole post isn’t going up)

    #23331
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    I’m thinking of dropping the term “pro-White” and always using instead the term “White-and-normal.”

    My thoughts on it are in the second post below (the posts are from a thread on White GeNOcide Project), and I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the idea. At this moment, I’m very fired up at the thought of spreading the term “White-and-normal” as the single antonym of the single term “anti-White”!

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a pro-White in possession of the moral high ground.

    Anti-Whites think their worship in the church of PC gives them automatic title to the moral high ground!

    Of course actually, it places them in humanity’s sewer along with all who are traitors to their own people.

    White GeNOcide!
    
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    REPLY

    This term “pro-White” has bothered me ever since some of us adopted it. I think to visitors who aren’t already “pro-White,” it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, who might even want race war, etc., all the things that are not what we are about at all.

    Even though it’s a bit unwieldy, I’m going to try for awhile using the term “White-and-normal” instead and see how that sounds. So,

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White-and-normal in possession of the moral high ground.”

    I like it! It’s sort of a double whammy!

    Feedback is appreciated.

    Hm, maybe better would be, “White who is normal,” and “Whites who are normal”? At least until those phrases become well known? Yes, it’s a bit of writing, but…

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White who is normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    No, I think “White-and-normal” works better.

    #23334
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    I’m thinking of dropping the term “pro-White” and always using instead the term “White-and-normal.” 

    My thoughts on it are in the second post below (the posts are from a thread on White GeNOcide Project), and I would appreciate any of your thoughts on the idea. At this moment, I’m very fired up at the thought of spreading the term “White-and-normal” as the single antonym of the single term “anti-White”! 

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a pro-White in possession of the moral high ground.

    Anti-Whites think their worship in the church of PC gives them automatic title to the moral high ground!

    Of course actually, it places them in humanity’s sewer along with all who are traitors to their own people.

    White GeNOcide!
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White!

    REPLY

    This term “pro-White” has bothered me ever since some of us adopted it. I think to visitors who aren’t already “pro-White,” it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, who might even want race war, etc., all the things that are not what we are about at all.

    Even though it’s a bit unwieldy, I’m going to try for awhile using the term “White-and-normal” instead and see how that sounds. So,

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White-and-normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    I like it! It’s sort of a double whammy!

    Feedback is appreciated.

    Hm, maybe better would be, “White who is normal,” and “Whites who are normal”? At least until those phrases become well known? Yes, it’s a bit of writing, but…

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White who is normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    No, I think “White-and-normal” works better.

    #23335
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    I’m very fired up at the thought of spreading the term “White-and-normal” as the single antonym of the term “anti-White“!

    Any thoughts?

    #23337
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    (I’m sorry I’m having to break this into several posts…my single post wouldn’t go up)

    The term “pro-White” has bothered me ever since some of us adopted it. I think to visitors who aren’t already “pro-White,” it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, who might even want race war, etc., all the things that are not what we are about at all.

    #23338
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    The term “pro-White”…I think to visitors who aren’t in the tent already, it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, etc…all the things that are not what we are about.

    #23341
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    (I’m having to put this up in sections for some reason…apologies)

    The term “pro-White”…I think to visitors who aren’t already in the tent, it conjures up all the usual associations of Whites who would run roughshod over all other races, etc.; all the things that are not what we are about.

    #23343
    Henry Davenport
    Participant

    So for example, in a comment to one of Beefcake’s podcasts on White GeNOcide Project, I was thinking of replacing this first statement with the second statement:

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a pro-White in possession of the moral high ground.

    Nothing evokes the hatred that fills anti-White hearts so much as seeing a White-and-normal in possession of the moral high ground.

    Any thoughts? I’m thinking of what works best in mainstream posts, but whatever term we adopt for the mainstream we should use everywhere.

Viewing 20 posts - 601 through 620 (of 911 total)
  • The topic ‘Debate advice and style first 909 posts’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed.