B. U. G. S.

I realize this is a new idea, and so it’s possible it’s a bad one for some reason I’m unable to see.

Coniglio, why won’t it work in Europe?

As to capitalization of “White,” I’d just decided recently to stop doing that, thinking that lower case might make it easier to slip our message (including the message that they are “white”, if we decide to do that) under the radar of whites for whom “White” may feel a bit too tall and proud at this moment; it may feel like a sort of a shorthand for “white supremacist.”

But I WILL keep in mind your comment, and keep alert and keep thinking about it.

btw, when you and others use that grayed out format, the eyestrain makes me not read it.

Today I was happily surprised to see that Kayden had changed the name of the thread!

Peaceful White meeting attacked in Chicago suburb

That’s an improvement on my own suggestion!

I posted this
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888258-10/

In support of the change Kayden made in the thread name:

Referring to ourselves simply as “whites,” and to our meetings as “white meetings,” and to our movement as “the white movement,” subliminally or overtly suggests to mainstream white readers that we are whites who are just like them and they are whites who are just like us.

That removes a barrier. Those who feel some attraction to the understandings and aims of the white movement will no longer have to make the psychic leap involved in becoming a “white nationalist” or a “pro-white.” All they have to be is what they already are, white. They can gradually slip into a new suit of clothes without having to consciously remove the old. In fact, we slap the new suit on them right from the git-go, and hope they will feel like they should act in a way that lives up to the clothes! Lol!

So I propose that we appropriate for ourselves the name “white,” and use that name as if it’s the most natural thing in the world to do.

Calling ourselves merely “white” (rather than “white nationalist,” or “pro-white”) implies without our saying so that if other whites wish to be white also then they have to begin to act like it.

(Kayden, I hope I didn’t say anything that convinces you it’s all a mistake! Lol! )
__________________
White GeNOcide Project

Here’s a much too long comment I just put up at SF, which I wrote really to get most of my present thoughts laid our here on this thread, since beefcake has asked Bob what he thinks of this idea.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t888258-11/#post10302167Quote:
Originally Posted by kayden
Of course, for them to become like us (at least awakened anyway) is always the goal…all we’re discussing is how to get there.

Right.

Here’s some thoughts on what reactions we might get if we begin to refer to ourselves simply as “white(s),” and refer to our meetings simply as “white meetings” (as your new title for this thread does), and refer to our movement as simply “the white movement.”

That should subconsciously or consciously remove a barrier that exists between us and the mass white audience we want to reach. That audience still feels white, so let’s let them feel what being white really is.

White anti-whites will probably be very provoked by our appropriating the term “white” for ourselves. They claim to have shucked off their whiteness, but IMO their feeling of being privileged whites still lurks underneath all their bs, even in their noblesse oblige custom of ceding leadership to non-whites in some of their anti-white groups.*

White anti-whites betray that they still experience themselves as “white” when they regularly object to us at BUGS calling them “anti-whites” by saying, “How can I be anti-white when I’m white myself?”

If anti-whites truly consider “whiteness” just a social construct, and an evil one, then they won’t object to the most evil of the evil, ourselves, reconstructing “white” as meaning being like ourselves (white-and-normal)! Lol!

But I predict that white anti-whites will shriek objections to our simply calling ourselves “white(s),” since I believe their claim to have abjured whiteness themselves is bs.

In the “arguments” that ensue (we at BUGS don’t really “argue”), we will make the white anti-whites FEEL their loss of white identity.

But vastly more importantly, that “debate” will make our actual target, the much larger white audience that’s observing, feel their own loss of white identity!

Calling ourselves simply “white” will make other whites unable to just leave the fact of their own whiteness sleeping fitfully below the level of their consciousness!
————-
*Most of us who are older still carry within us a feeling that whites are still in control and are secure, even if our brains tell us otherwise. I see that feeling in myself, and studies have shown that all of us tend to feel that our present world is the world of our childhood, however astutely we actually perceive the true nature of our present world.

These young kids I assume absorbed some of that same feeling from their parents or grandparents who have the feeling, but they’ve also absorbed a lot of negative feelings about being white from their schooling, etc. (So their ceding leadership to non-whites in at least some of their organizations is a contradictory mixture of white noblesse oblige and white self-loathing, I assume)

So their innards have to be a roiling confusion of feelings about the FACT that they are white! I expect those feelings to erupt if we name ourselves as “whites”!
__________________
White GeNOcide Project

beefcake, I’ve never heard him “insist” on it or even mention it before today. Which by no means means he hasn’t.

I’m not sure if his response today was based on his having looked at this thread (I doubt it, because I simply doubt he often goes to links that are given. But again, I could be wrong), or simply on your description of our discussion.

Lol! Here’s my guesses…I don’t mind looking like a fool if they all prove wrong! I’ll guess Bob has never touted the word pro-white, but just used it today as the best choice that came to mind. I’ll guess that he understood from your description something different than is actually being proposed (this guess I’m less confident of). I’ll guess that unless I or someone pushes the matter, he will not read this thread or have any further comment on the issue!

My intention at the moment is to say nothing for a couple of days, and then if Bob has said nothing more (I did ask him to say more), I will ask him on his daily blog if his response today was to what he read on this thread, or just to your description of it.

I think I begin to understand how the Greeks felt when they tried to use the oracle at Delphi as their commanding officer!

That last sentence should not be regarded as a defection, but just as an expression of extreme and recurrent frustration!

@ Coniglio: People may think you and I are a cabal, but I agree absolutely with everything you just wrote. More than that, it’s a superb piece of writing in my opinion, and expresses much better than I have what I’ve been trying to say, and more. If we end up with Bob on our side in this, I plan to post it a lot!

Hopefully Bob was going just by what Beefcake wrote and misunderstood what’s really being attempted. I’ll wait a few days and then ask him in some sort of way, if he hasn’t responded.

Hey! What will be MOST exciting is if he HAS read what we’ve written here, sees a flaw in it that we don’t and points it out to us and we understand it!

That has happened to me before here…more than once I’ve thought I had written something really hot and someone came along and showed me how to do it right! I have as much ego as anyone, and part of me feels bad when that happens, but a bigger part of me loves it for the intellectual excitement! In fact that’s one of the major attractions here for me. Like the post you just wrote. Even if it turns out to have a flaw in it, it’s such a lovely piece of work!

Note: where I said I’d like to post coniglio’s post a lot, I mean on white sites of course, like SF.