THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

BUGS AND THE THREE OR MORE RULE | 2012-02-23

A historian could write a huge, detailed book about three way elections, in extreme detail backed by years of research and thousands of footnotes, and not get the point.

At least three presidential elections were altered completely by having three strong candidates instead of two: the election of John Quincy Adams in 1825, that of Lincoln in 1860, and that of Wilson in 1912. There are hundreds of examples when you throw in all he states, and that is just in America.

It could be a New York Times Best Seller, only three or four people decide that, but this well-researched book would almost certainly miss the point.

It took the public decades to realize that running for the nomination INSIDE the Party is a very different animal from the General Election, so the entire implications of this three or more way election business will probably never be understood, least of all by the trained and obedient historian who writes it.

One of our most basic hopes lies in understanding this three or more way rule:

As long as the white race obeys the anti-whites and looks upon itself as a colonial power which sets the rules for ALL the world, we have a two-way race: Whites versus everybody.

In such a race, when most of the white race itself is anti-white, we cannot win.

But once the realization sets in that not only are we not the colonizers, but ONLY our lands are being colonized, that we are ONE power unit, the entire landscape will change. Instead of competing with the whole world for power, we will be transformed into the overwhelmingly powerful racial group in a world where EVERY race and religious group is fighting for ITS share.

I have visualized this as a political professional. No one else has even LOOKED at it, much less SEEN it.

I wrote a piece about picking the leadership in a group which has subconsciously accepted its role as a permanent extremist organization is very different from picking the leadership in one or two groups that are competing for actual power.

Ulysses S. Grant voted Democratic in 1856 because, like so many others, he saw the Republicans as so extreme that electing Fremont would cause the South to secede. But by 1860 the Democrats were divided into three strong groups, and his conviction was that we might as well go ahead and deal with the expansion of slavery.

Lincoln won with forty percent of the popular vote.

Neither John Quincy Adams nor Woodrow Wilson could have won at all in a two-way race. There are HUNDREDS of examples of this, but a historian would be likely to note that, but miss the basic point.

Applying this BASIC point to our present circumstances is exactly what Mantra Thinking does.

COMMENTS (38)

#1 Dave | 2012-02-23 09:25

This is just another way of saying that you don't get power unless you simply step up and take power, walking away from the "institution" all together.

When do white people wake up to the reality of the many (becoming countless) long decades they have been roped into dictatorship through its ridiculous ploys and endless propaganda?

To hell with this electoral nonsense, the multitudes of nonwhites have the franchise. The substantive element of elections, if it ever existed, long ago disappeared. Now it is all ploys and posturing. The posturing of electoral legitimacy needs to be penetrated.

We have a black President. What other evidence do you need to realize that you have lost your country?

The Mantra is a move to substance and the cubic centimeter of a chance for survival.

To hell with dictatorship and the ploy of elections.

#2 BGLass | 2012-02-23 09:46

immigration IS colonization

(idk--Whites were discouraged from voting for generations, until opposition could change demographics, in which case they can have a "real" candidate, but who numerically can never ever win. Whites never vote, haven't for generations. Either they get 'lesser of evils,' OR a "real" candidate but only after colonization assures they have no voice. imo, Whites should have voted when they could; even now, if they could be engaged to vote, it can send a message that they are watching, engaged and that is not nothing!)

#3 Gavin | 2012-02-23 10:02

In the anti-White mind:

It's evil "colonization" when Whites go to non-White countries and non-Whites have every right to resist.

It's wonderful "diversity" when non-Whites pour into White countries and Whites have no right to resist.

#4 Gavin | 2012-02-23 09:57

The first step is to get our race to realize their real position in the world and start calling non-Whites exactly that and not this ridiculous "minorities" term.

This is a graphic I created to get this point across online: http://i.imgur.com/aTNO2.jpg

#5 Gavin | 2012-02-23 10:05

Get Whites to see non-Whites as competitors.

Pictures of highly developed non-White cities in Asia and the Middle East are effective. Also rich non-Whites.

#6 timeforfreedom | 2012-02-23 13:09

Why?? Actually, because the evil anglo-elites have so damaged non-White countries as well, why not get the non-Whites to see that and enlist them as allies of sorts. If we could get them on side by talking about White Genocide as well, we could magnify our message. If we concentrate on them as opponents, then I think our people will lose sight of who is the real enemy. As I understand it the White anglo-elites are the ones that have conducted the biggest attempted Genocide in the history of the world, that being against my race, the White race. We thus need to get our people to see them as the enemies. What do you think??

#7 Gavin | 2012-02-23 13:26

Obviously the anti-White establishment is our enemy and they are our target. However a lot of White people are caught in this trance that they are the "top dogs" in the world and non-Whites are poor little pets that we have a duty to take care of. The anti-Whites use this worldview to implement White genocide. Showing them pictures of giant Chinese cities breaks the worldview they have.

A picture is worth a thousand words: http://imgur.com/419Im

#8 timeforfreedom | 2012-02-23 14:12

Ok, I see what you are saying with this. It makes some sense. I have a proposal here. I have long wanted to get a message like this into the minds of our military. You know the men and women who actually think that they are fighting for a White America or Canada or Britain, when in actual fact they are simply being used as tools of this anti-White New World Order where their White countries are being destroyed by these horrid anti-White multiracial policies. Those pictures that you have there are powerful and would serve to demoralize(in a positive way) those in the military that are Caucasian and perhaps help convince them that they shouldn't be involved in these military conflicts. At any rate, I believe that we need to outreach to the people in the military, but I don't know how exactly. Do you have any ideas??

#9 Gavin | 2012-02-23 14:23

I believe it's already occuring. White men are beginning to question just what "their country" means.

Here is a comment posted on the Toronto Sun yesterday:

"I know one thing for sure i would never fight for this Country.THe immigrants own it now along with the minorities ,wait a minute here ,we white people are the minority now .so how come the government will not hire White people does any one out there have the answer to that .I thought not."

It got 16 likes.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/22/staffing-company-defends-feds-race-based-hiring

I would tell the military that the anti-White establishment sends them to far off lands to fight wars that do nothing good for their people and while they are gone, the same anti-Whites give their country away to foreigners.

Many military guys are just interested in the paycheck but the more "patriotic" ones who actually think they are "fighting for America" or whatever, would be good ones to talk to.

#10 Dick_Whitman | 2012-02-23 17:36

I've been saying this for a long time.

Pro-Whites should look to form coalitions with non-Whites. There is potential for a grand, anti-globalist coalition with pro-Whites in the West, and "indigenous people" of the 3rd world.

The White working and middle classes of the West are sent to fight wars in the 3rd world for anti-White, globalist interests. Non-Whites from the third world are sent to the West to be forced integrated with White nations. Both Whites in the West and non-Whites in the 3rd world are used against each other for the interests of the globalist elites.

Both the West and the 3rd world face the same enemy. The same people pushing constant war in the 3rd world are the same people pushing White genocide by forced assimilation and integration in the West.

Non-Whites don't want to see their homes blown up and resources stolen. Whites don't want to see their communities, nations, and peoples forced integrated and assimilated with non-Whites.

NON-WHITES ARE NOT THE ENEMY. ANTI-WHITES ARE THE ENEMY.

#11 timeforfreedom | 2012-02-23 12:28

Well, I think that all we really have to do is to stay on the consistent message contained in the Mantra. In my opinion it works. I just keep on making jabs with the mini-Mantras and I like to post a version(either the shortened or full version) as my opener on any forum. It works. The 5 or 6 anti-Whites that rule over these forums come out swinging but end up just doing pathetic name-calling because even their anti-White arguments which they open with fail in the face of even the smallest Mantra point. I just keep on repeating and repeating the basic points. Have a look at this excellent forum, I'm posting as formulaone

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-rubber-room/209195-anti-racists-want-white-genocide-by-assimilation.html

#12 timeforfreedom | 2012-02-23 12:46

There's something else here that I feel like I need to point out and it is something that I always have to remind myself of all the time. I don't waste time arguing with or bothering over non-Whites if I can help it. I'm not concerned with them. They, as I understand it, are not the real enemies of my race, and in reality they have no real power over my race. The White elites and their complicitous White anti-White front-groups are the ones who are anti-White. These White anti-Whites are responsible for trying to genocide an ancient race of people, their own race. That is a vile agenda and they are some truly sick puppies. They are my enemy, the rest are just 'details.' Pointing out to them and those around them that they are in fact advocating and assisting White Genocide is all that I can ever do to overcome this evil System of Genocide. The Mantra and all of it's brilliant mini versions let me do that over and over again, and it drives the anti-White absolutely into a frenzy, and I know that the silent but healthy White people watching the discussion are beginning to understand and agree with this perspective. That to me is what this fight is about. I'm not interested in discussing non-Whites in any capacity unless it is in the context of one of the useful Mantra points that are becoming ever more numerous.

#13 backbaygrouch | 2012-02-23 13:27

A classic strategy of a minority party candidate to beat a majority party candidate is to run a straw candidate, that is, one who is in the race to draw votes from the normal winner. The best straw is one who does not know he is a straw.

When Tip O'Neill first ran for Congress the Democratic primary could have gone to an Italian, so Tip put up one against his opponent. Much of the campaign was dominated by each of them accusing the other of being the straw.

This raises the question as to what issues can pro-Whites promote in addition to Genocide to inveigle others into supporting their cause. Are there ideological straws? Opposition to Affirmative Action is an easy one.

The problem of reawakening White consciousness and pride is a difficult one in that the media and the Academy are in hands of those who have a tenacious hatred of the White race spanning two thousand years. The Internet is the opening wedge. Perhaps the best hope is that youth has always eschewed the excesses of their elders. Hatred of their own is surely the loathsome hallmark of today's "adults."

#14 BGLass | 2012-02-23 16:30

@ Why?? Actually, because the evil anglo-elites have so damaged non-White countries as well, why not get the non-Whites to see that and enlist them as allies of sorts. If we could get them on side by talking about White Genocide as well, we could magnify our message. If we concentrate on them as opponents, then I think our people will lose sight of who is the real enemy. As I understand it the White anglo-elites are the ones that have conducted the biggest attempted Genocide in the history of the world...."

A faction of "wn" seems simply anti-anglo, just the way another faction of "wn" seems simply anti-jews.

Anglos are white. While disparaging the "anglo-elite" (whatever that is, lol)--- NO ONE EVER notices that it's the poor anglos that are getting hit, right and left. Um...they are White, aren't they?

It cracks me up: wasp is THE ONLY ethnicity that is --by definition-- (lol again) a put-down word. It would be like looking up Asian Orthodox (or any group in the world) and the statement of the ethnicity, in itself, would be a "derogatory term," how dictionaries define it.

Anglos WHO ARE WHITE do not need anymore hate mail. There are non-anglo "elites" out there, btw--- believe you me.

Many "anglos" (code word for group to be most genocided) are not as convinced that their Whiteness is always necessarily in history the worst Whiteness.

Anglos are people too. (And many working people in the u.s. count themselves as anglos.) The accepted repeater "anglo-elite" hardly tells the whole story.

It's also often a code word for people who hate protestants, in my experience. Just btw.

And that's not off-topic, b/c imo, this is part of the white genocide repeater, said so often bad anglo, bad anglo, bad anglo.

#15 Dick_Whitman | 2012-02-23 19:30

BGLass,

you seem to have misunderstood what the White Rabbit (or others) means when he says "Anglo-elite." He's talking about the people who have been running America, UK, Australia, and Canada. These people tend to be known as the "Eastern Establishment" in America. In Europe (greater Anglo-sphere in particular) they tend to be connected with the aristocracy and high finance.

He's not talking about ethnic Anglo's in general, such as Bob, or David Duke, or Jonathan Bowden, or perhaps yourself. This term "Anglo-elite" is used to differentiate the gentile leadership from Jewry, who is of course intertwined through the Western world.

I just thought I'd clear this up for you.

:)

#16 H.Avenger | 2012-02-24 23:39

There is a simple reason for this BGLass. The Whites at the top of Anglosphere (Jew and Gentile alike) are the ones that cooked up White Genocide. I don't split hairs. I call'em all "team pink rabbit". I also define them as precisely as anyone out there. Of course, you know all that.

I do all this as a courtesy to my listeners. The rest of the planet just calls them all "Anlgo bankers" "Anglo Elite" so on so forth. But always Anglo. ALWAYS. Because they are at the top of the English Speaking World. Everyone on earth knows that. And every major news agency calls them "Anglo Elite".

If you are going to be so uptight and upset every time someone says:"Anglo Elite". You are going to have a rough life.

#17 Gavin | 2012-02-25 03:08

I'm of English descent and I don't feel attacked when I hear the term. I am well aware that the hostility is towards the anti-White establishment running Anglosphere and not the English descended people ourselves.

#18 BGLass | 2012-02-23 16:36

Hatred of their own is surely the loathsome hallmark of today's "adults."..."

That seems, only now, to be remarked on by younger whites. The 70s people seemed more shell-shocked--- they were hated but did not know why. Why would elders hate them? prefer others to their own children?

The lacked a framework for understanding the WHY of it all, which is what the mantra provides.

The idea that others are in power who hate you is an impossible thought--- if you the one in power, or if you are white privilege.

#19 Gavin | 2012-02-23 18:00

I really couldn't care less about the old White race traitors. They completely betrayed me. I have no obligation to them. Never before has a race so completely sold out it's own younger generation.

Neither the young betrayed Whites or the young non-Whites are going to want to work to provide for a bunch of "old White people."

The old anti-Whites like John Tory (respecticon in Canada, thinks White people who care about their race are "immoral") can fend for themselves when they are old and feeble.

#20 Epiphany | 2012-02-23 17:24

White Privilege does not exist, at least not any more!

#21 Simmons | 2012-02-23 18:06

For years I bored people with my comparisons of America to Yugoslavia, a basic three way competetition. When it was a going concern its basic ruling function was to disenfranchise the Serbs to make the "other" equal. Once Slobadan Milosevich muffed a speech it became a real three way donnybrook.

Hat tip to Bob for finally telling the folks the end game. And hat tip to a PTSS Vietnam vet who wrote "CWII", Thomas Chittum.

#22 Dick_Whitman | 2012-02-23 20:02

For a long time I've been trying to figure out Epiphany's purpose on this site? Since he never cares to explain him/herself, I'll give it a try.

A lot of people read this site for its insight into the struggle against White genocide. The level of thought and discussion going on here is light years ahead of everyone when it comes to the pro-White struggle. It takes people years to truly understand what BUGS is really about.

Epiphany's purpose appears to be to lower the general level of discussion occurring at BUGS. At some point in the future, anti-Whites will be forced to admit and address BUGS as a force in the universe. At that point Epiphany's posts will be used to show how "simplistic" and "juvenile" BUGS is.

I may be wrong? Perhaps Epiphany is sincere but just slow in his/her mental faculties? He can't see that his posts add nothing to the discussion but to lower the level of discourse occurring here. But we tolerate him for the same reason that retarded people are tolerated when working as cart collectors at the local grocery store.

So maybe Epiphany can help us out and explain to us in what way Epiphany thinks he/she is adding to the discussion at BUGS?

IOW, how does BUGS benefit from having Epiphany post at BUGS?

Thank you in advance Epiphany for your explanation.

#23 Genseric | 2012-02-24 01:52

This is perhaps the most hilarious post I have read on BUGS. And it is hilarious because it is spot on honest and truthful.

On the bright side, Epiphany makes me look halfway SMART!

#24 exerces | 2012-02-23 20:40

Post the mantra ten times more often than you post at BUGS. Or more than that, even. :-)

#25 Dick_Whitman | 2012-02-23 23:56

I think that's a good rule.

#26 Genseric | 2012-02-24 02:01

Epiphany,

What you just wrote can be summed up or shortened by saying "I have a belly button."

Yeah. Ok. Me too. What's your point and how does its umbilical tie into Mantra thinking and practical politics? Loosely even?

#27 Genseric | 2012-02-24 02:21

"But once the realization sets in that not only are we not the colonizers, but ONLY our lands are being colonized, that we are ONE power unit, the entire landscape will change. Instead of competing with the whole world for power, we will be transformed into the overwhelmingly powerful racial group in a world where EVERY race and religious group is fighting for ITS share." - Bob

And - as you are most certainly aware Bob - we see this in the prison system. When we peel back all the niceties and the onion-like layers of protection from the non-whites and everything is made Equal, what happens? What is left? Nothing but race; our tribe. If you don't soldier up, then you are fresh meat, ripe for the pounding.

Race is real and it matters. Just ask a person who has lost everything at least once. Add in the realization of white genocide and the sleeping giant some of us frequently reference becomes a revolutionary behemoth. When that boot drops, watch out World!

#28 BGLass | 2012-02-24 08:35

He's not talking about ethnic Anglo's in general, such as Bob, or David Duke, or Jonathan Bowden, or perhaps yourself. This term "Anglo-elite" is used to differentiate the gentile leadership from Jewry, who is of course intertwined through the Western world.

I just thought I'd clear this up for you...."

Thanks. But I do get it. I get it every time I hear it.

The only other people I know who go on and on and on about the dreaded "Anglos" are hispanics, and when I read it, I feel like I'm at a local La Raza meeting.

Do you mean English people? Are you really talking about Angles?

My point is there must be some other word you could come up with that would not also backsplash on "anglos" and reinforce all the La Raza terminology and add fuel to that fire of the white genocide--- stoking the anti-anglo hate.

Do you really think people on the street differentiate between "anglo elites" and plain old everyday working anglos (excuse me, since I'm english-speaking, I'll just say English People).

By definition, some say "anglo" is just a Latin word that has come to mean anyone from anywhere in Britain, which complicates this, for many reasons.

Does that make better sense. Why target your own white groups? Can you not think of terminology to describe those you oppose outside of that box? Or is La Raza writing all your scripts, lol?

Due to this, would not subscribe to Horus, no offense to him, and like his pods immensely. But the way Whites just adopt any La Raza lingo they hear is strange. Surely there is some other Terminology they could brainstorm on, so as not to backsplash "anglos" (I prefer English people) and do La Razas work for them.

Why not just say all rich "elite" English people are the colonizing scum of the earth? Why not say the English elite? Why does it sound better and ok in La Raza lingo, but not your own language, (lol).

All this, when I think Mr. Whitaker was talking about moving the White mind away from the White-as-Evil-Colonial meme. Why be indistinguishable from your opposition in how you talk and think?

Hope that clarifies it a little.

#29 BGLass | 2012-02-24 08:50

A funny aspect occurred with "De-colonization"--- a repeater word in any academic environment.

It really means colonization of White areas. No one in the academic environments gets into nitty-gritty about how the colonists are people, and how exactly one is to "De-populate" them, and how one's own acts are part of "de-populating them" and the implications of how to be rid of people (de-populating a group).

The only available discourse positions Whites as Colonizers, but really not "any" whites, but mostly ---as with "wn"--- the "anglo elite."

Why won't wn just come out and say it wishes to be rid of English people? Why do they always talk in Latinese?

#30 BGLass | 2012-02-24 08:54

I will have to keep thinking of this phrase "The Evil Anglo Elite."

It seems to mean jews, at times. Then it is only the Rothschild family. Then it is the Queen and the Rothschilds, but debated whether the queen tells them what to do, or if they tell the queen. Why does the pope never take heat, lol--- he's as rich as they are, and the leader of the third world, and so on?

Also--- there are a lot of rich players out there. Can only Anglos be in the "Anglo Elite." Is everybody in on this evil really English? Words matter. Does it mean the anti-English are our friends? The phrase just does not work

#31 shari | 2012-02-24 10:25

Frankly, I haven't heard to term "Anglo-Elite" much lately from Horus. It's been more "Our enemy at the top", Black Nobility, Jews at the Top.

I agree that words matter, but this doesn't bother me because it's not used to deceive. I have a large amount of English ancestry too by the way.

#32 Gavin | 2012-02-24 11:06

I just call them the anti-White establishment.

#33 Genseric | 2012-02-24 18:29

This^

#34 Epiphany | 2012-02-24 19:21

As Joseph Sobran so aptly put it, "the vilification of The Third Reich is a veiled attack on Western Civilization in general."

Nothing could be more true! Both the Theory of Evolution AND The Holy Bible are blamed for the Holocaust. The whole debate, between the Creationists and the Darwinists is getting rather sick, because both blame each other for Hitler.

And those who hate Germans do hate Whites in general. Notice, they whine about how the British attempted to appease Hitler!

As if, as if it was not just as bad for Roosevelt and his Democrats to appease Joseph Stalin. The Soviet Communists, after all, committed much of the same types of military attrocities and crimes against humanity that we usually associate with the Nazis. Still, the Soviet Communists won the war, so it is not spoken of as much.

A key goal is to discredit the overall anti--Germanism and anti---Britishism of present discourse.

I am glad I can contribute to the discussion here. We really have to wake up to the fact that the Germans and British have been played against each other for too long. Self Hating Whites, the Antis as they are called, usually target Germans and German Americans for abuse. These same people would not dare speak out against the Red Chinese, no matter what kind of Nazi like behavior the Red Chinese or any other East Asian Communist ever commits. And, we all know why!

They would be termed RACISTS if they did.

The British and the Germans, the Anglo Saxons and the Teutonics alike, are targets for much of the vilification from the U.S. Media. The cruelest stereotypes, in Hollywood, of all, are of the British and the Germans. The British and the Germans are routinely portrayed as Red Coats and Nazi SS officers respectively.

The sad fact is that the British falsely assume that they can suck up to the anti--Racists by whining about how they had fought the Nazis during the Second World War. Why do they not take pride in how they conquered Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent? I do wonder.

Wait, they are not allowed to anymore. Colonialism is considered bad nowadays. Still, if it were not for Colonialism, British Colonialism in particular, there would be no United States of America either. After all, the 13 Original Colonies were set up by the British Empire, on the North American Continent all those years ago.

#35 Epiphany | 2012-02-24 19:25

My whole theory stems from countering the claim that the Holocaust was "Uniquely Evil." It was not, as any who know of the Horrors of the Soviet Gulag, and what happened therein realize. Again, they do not speak of Soviet sins that much. Many of the Great Powers had Concentration Camps of some sort or other!

#36 Epiphany | 2012-02-24 19:33

Besides, the Mantra is quite brilliant. There is no more succint way to put it.

#37 Epiphany | 2012-02-24 20:04

One time, one of my professors babbled about "the browning of the races", which really got me thinking. Why do they wish to breed White people out of existence? They do wish to breed us out of existence.

The starting point for me, was to learn about The Gulag. Knowing what happened there certainly dispels the "Uniquely Evil" claim.

#38 BGLass | 2012-02-25 09:39

In real life, I'm not even English, LOL. I have some English ancestry, but other groups as well.

But I don't like it, and never succinctly explain why, though I keep trying, no matter how sloppy it seems, or how stupid it seems.

I do like "Anti-White Establishment." Enemy at the Top. Those moreso than even 'pink,' since that implies the 'left' and those that call themselves "right" are half the problem.

Anti-White Establishment really calls it, and is inclusive of genetic attributes of any doers.

Think the main reason the other bothers me, is that such a phrase, while maybe hitting a target, does add fuel to the fire against a white group---- adds to the simple "anglo is BAD, BAD, BAD" that one hears in many contexts by opposition (like I mentioned La Raza's use).

The people who pay for that are usually the poor whites. As a friend of mine used to say, (sarcastically) "the wrong kind of wasps."

one should wish to protect them in every possible way.

'Bad Anglo' is just such a truly normalized, naturalized opposition phrase to me. Like "white guilt" when people (from the white point of view) are really experiencing concern, fear, betrayal, etc.

They might ALSO feel guilt. But then you will hear, "MADE TO FEEL guilty" (and usually with some fat check attached), and this is a shift to the White point of view. (the "guilt" only occurs if one takes on the non-white narrative in which the White is a monster and should feel guilty).

Of course, if they really are the monsters they are said to be, they would probably be too sociopathic to feel guilt, lol, which makes the whole thing kind of silly