B. U. G. S.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

(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.

(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.