ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE SAMIZDAT - THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE SAMIZDAT | 2013-02-06

One chance you might have to bomb again, if you have done your basic Mantra work, is when somebody bitches about our putting the Mantra on their fun site.

Once again, we are samizdat. We are not allowed to speak our piece anywhere, so we have to impose it on people. Give us our rightful access to the media and our right to present our side and we will not force our views on the public any way we can.

Until then, we will behave like any other group which is silenced by censorship.

Another subject:

I wrote a bitter article called "Dream Warriors." I was disappointed when a very important point, how to deal with the "Intermarriage is voluntary" bit, was not picked up. Once again, this goes back to my samizdat days. I shortened the long arguments about Communist theory down to: "If Communism is any good, why does EVERY Communist state and ONLY Communist states wall in their population and shoot them when they try to escape?"

So if diversity is so great, why do the media suppress even any MENTION of any all-white country or community? Why does EVERY white country and ONLY white countries have to become ALL diverse?

Like Communism, if you see the forest and don't turn tree-watcher, you should hit anti-whites with the fact that, for all their suppression of cheer leading for Diversity, they have to censor all opposition and all alternatives to keep it going.

Hitler could have used this method of genocide on the Jews. Just send all the male Jews to one African country and all the female Jews to another. Genocide accomplished and nobody killed. But the world would not sigh and say was all just True Love.

As the Genocide Convention says repeatedly, genocide can be accomplished by selective transportation with no killing. You can get rid of a race by selecting every community of that race for immigration and assimilation. All it requires is that you suppress anyone who points it out.

COMMENTS (35)

#1 markwn | 2013-02-06 07:00

If so-called "diversity" is such a "strength" -

Why is there massive "white flight" in every area that has become "diverse"?

Why are there countless government agencies and watchdog groups to manage the non-stop conflict and tension between the races?

Why do white politicians live in white neighborhoods, belong to white country clubs, and send their children to white private schools?

Why would the so-called "anti-racists" want a supposed "strength" imposed only on evil White countries?

An additional thought...anti-racists are absolute vermin. Just referring to them as (anti-racists) gives them credibility.

I have experimented using using the term (so-called) with quotes -

So-called "anti-racists" always demand...

Hey anti-White, what does (a point just made) have to do with so-called "racism"?

Hey anti-White, why is so-called "diversity" only pushed on White countries?

#2 dungeoneer | 2013-02-06 07:01

An anti-white said yesterday "Even if you put the mantra on every white person`s wall it would`nt make them pro-white"

I was tired, I should have said: "That is your worst nightmare anti-white"

#3 jo3w | 2013-02-06 07:09

I've had decent sucess with pointing out that it is integration which distroys diversity. The audience is important though. Many White people understand diversity as the way it's defined. This has a chance to be sucessful with them because you are pointing out the lack of logic. Anti-whites will not understand this argument because they define diversity as the elimination of white people. I like to point out the contradiction and then say something about how all cultures deserve to be maintained. I immediatly go into the mantra about how only my people will be lost by integration...EVERY, ONLY is used alot, usually say how anti-whites define diversity. If someone tries to attack that they will get humiliated.

#4 Jason | 2013-02-06 09:01

There is nothing I love more than going places we aren't supposed to be and disturbing the peace with the Mantra. It's like breaking out into song in a courtroom. Or taking a hot blonde in a short skirt to church. Everyone is annoyed but everyone HAS to react.

I enjoy it because I am sick of the moral cowardice of so many Whites who find places to hide. Their people are undergoing genocide RIGHT NOW, and on some level they know it, yet they spend all day listening to Beatles songs, or watching sports, or yapping about the latest Illuminati theories.

Screw that. I like disturbing the peace, because their peace is nothing but SILENCE and AVOIDANCE of the obvious ongoing genocide of Whites - of their people and their very own children. I don't want them to rest easy. I don't want them to have a safe haven to escape.

#5 Woadwarrior | 2013-02-06 19:15

I agree with jo3w. It always bugged me that the idea of diversity destroys said diversity. In school a teacher made the point of how boring would it be if we all looked the same. Along the path of multi-cultural"ism" and diversity wouldn't everyone be the same? Susceptible to the same diseases and be incapable of an original thought or idea. These are just words to hide/cover-up genocide and make it more palattible for the masses.

As far as going back and engaging with the enemy, I hadn't noticed any follow ups among other posts, especially trying to get 50 posts out a day, and assumed flooding the mantra was the main objective. I posted one yesterday and this anti-white spewed: "Your logic is flawed. If anti-racist is anti-white, then pro-white is pro-racist." I am gonna go back right now and hit him with some...Practical Politics. :)

#6 Jason | 2013-02-06 19:35

If you post a bunch of Mantas or Minis, it can be hard to handle all the replies. But I think it is more important to get it out there and do what we can on replies.

#7 Daniel Genseric | 2013-02-06 20:42

Anti-white says: "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white? Or maybe pro-white is just a code word for pro-racism..."

Pro-White: The anti-white shows its TRUE COLORS again. LOL! You so-called "anti-racists" are such idiots. bwahahah

Yes and 2+2 is STILL equal to 4 in a Politically Correct world that DEMANDS the answer is 3.

Why of course racist=White. Seething Liberal Progressives and their Conservative Respectable counterparts ALL agree that ONLY Whites are inherently EVIL.

ONLY Whites are capable of earning the RACIST label...

ONLY Whites are worthy of being slandered with the NAZI stamp.

Only Whites want to kill 6 million JEWS.

So, by the anti-Whites' VERY definition and depiction of what IS racist, ONLY Whites can fit the bill. So in YOUR eyes, White=Racist.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

#8 Dick_Whitman | 2013-02-06 20:10

"So if diversity is so great, why do the media suppress even any MENTION of any all-white country or community? Why does EVERY white country and ONLY white countries have to become ALL diverse?" (Bob)

This is a very strong talking point when in reply to "diversity is strength," but doesn't really address the "nobody is forcing intermarriage" argument.

"Hitler could have used this method of genocide on the Jews. Just send all the male Jews to one African country and all the female Jews to another. Genocide accomplished and nobody killed. But the world would not sigh and say was all just True Love." (Bob)

This one is good for pointing out that gencoide doesn't have to involve killing, but it's too easy for the anti-Whites to say "but nobody is separating White women and White men."

The best replies I've seen thus far are from Beefcake, here they are:

"BULLSHIT! Anti-Whites insist Whites cannot be allowed anywhere exclusive for our race, and they enforce conditions which lead to interracial marriages intended to destroy our race."

"Nobody is insisting that Blacks need to be prevented from having anything exclusive in order to inflict conditions which lead to intermarriages intended to destroy Blacks as a race and then telling them "nobody is forcing you to intermarry".

"Saying that intermarriage isn't being forced is trying to conceal the fact that the conditions which lead to it ARE being FORCED."

I recommend that everyone copy and paste these. I have an article in the BUGS queue that covers this subject more.

At some point the anti-Whites are going to try to publicly challenge the message. I strongly believe they are going to concentrate on the "nobody is forcing intermarriage" and the "love" arguments. They're going to try to make it about sex. Sex is one of the anti-White's favorite tools. Much of the Marxist-liberal attack strategy against the Right is sex based. They like to claim that sexual repression and sexual inadequacy is the reason for right wing politics.

It's an effective strategy because sex is generally a personal matter and people (especially men) don't want to be seen as sexually inadequate. So the anti-Whites will claim that our reason for fighting White genocide is really a deep insecurity over sexual prowess compared to non-White men.

Of course, it's a very simple to point out that nobody is flooding Asia, Israel, or Africa with non-Asians,non-Jews, or non-Africans and forcing them to "assimilate" while claiming that any objections are based on feelings of sexual insecurity.But nevertheless I do believe this is the avenue they will go.

Once some of our spokespeople start appearing on national TV and radio, the anti-Whites will try to dig up dirt on the spokespeople and try to discredit the message by presenting a negative narrative about the messenger. This is standard stuff.

And as I've pointed out in the past, the anti-Whites have what I call "circus monkeys" and "circus monkey units" which exist to present our message in the worst way possible. These are enemy operatives who exist to make our movement look bad and to discredit your message by acting like idiots.These are the people who will help push your message for years and then one day the news will have a big report on how this person(s) is a meth dealer or a sex offender. What happens in these cases is someone gets in trouble and are offered a deal by the Anti-Whites to play this role. They may be offered money or a lesser punishment for the crimes they committed but have to work for the anti-Whites.

I used to worry about circus monkey's, but Bob has pointed out that BUGS could be a den of satanists but that doesn't make our message any less true.

So again this is what I expect. Anti-Whites will:

1) Try to discredit the message with sexual arguments.

2) Try to discredit the message by presenting a negative narrative about the messengers.

3) Use enemy operatives to take part in circus monkey operations and then point to these circus monkeys as examples of the types of people who push our message. .

Of course, none of this will matter in the long run, because as long as White genocide occurs, all we have to do is point it out. And it's only going to become more obvious as time goes on. But they have to do something against the message. They can't ignore it any longer.

The anti-White will fail.Their system will be turned to dust.

#9 OldBlighty | 2013-02-06 21:28

Best one I've seen:

"Anti-Whites don't have to force intermarriage, because the conditions that lead to intermarriage are being forced."

#10 dungeoneer | 2013-02-07 07:51

Would these circus monkeys like to write essays about the "difficult task" of defending ourselves against the "Interbreeding for whites" white genocide justification , or would they use nice simple one liners like Old Blighty did above?

#11 Dick_Whitman | 2013-02-07 17:42

I'd have to see the essay. More likely these types would get defensive when somebody mentioned the circus monkeys and then try to insinuate that the exposer of the circus monkeys is in fact a circus monkey him/herself

Circus monkeys would also be inclined to try to steer us into using weak or/and ineffective arguments. They would get combative and petulant towards people who attempt to offer better solutions. After their initial attempt to steer us wrong and create a negative discussion atmosphere proves ineffective, they'll move to support the argument they originally came out strongly against in order to look like they're part of the team again.

These people are very smart you see, so they're hard to spot.

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/

#12 dungeoneer | 2013-02-08 00:14

I await your promised "Freedom to interbreed is the mantra`s Achilles Heel" article with baited breath.

I make no apologies for finding it hard to believe that after a couple of years of seeing proficient mantra users push that crap back down anti-white throats. you would feel it necessary to repeatedly say the mantra is "weak" against anti-whites using that interbreeding white genocide justification.

#13 Dick_Whitman | 2013-02-08 21:51

Feel free to link for me anywhere where I wrote "Freedom to interbreed is the mantra`s Achilles Heel" or where I claimed that the "Mantra is weak against anti-Whites using that interbreeding white genocide justification."

What I did write is that our replies to the "nobody is forcing interbreeding" and the "why are you against love" arguments were some of our weakest and most vulnerable replies. I then suggested some better replies and other posters (such as beefcake) provided some as well.

I like how you use "quotes" when you attempt to misrepresent my comments. You did this in the comment I am now addressing and above when you implied that I wrote it was a "difficult task" to defend ourselves against the interbreeding argument.

The problem with this tactic is that while it is annoying, it doesn't take into consideration that everything we write here is documented. So if I really wrote what you place in "quotes" you should be able to copy and paste it to show everyone. In using this tactic you rely on either me not calling you on this, and/or on people believing that what you represent (in quotes) is what I truly wrote.

The great thing about open internet activism is that everything we write is documented. So all people have to do is take the time to read your comments over the last two weeks regarding the "intermarriage" and "love" arguments to see what you are all about. Again, what you rely on is that people will forget your past comments so you can be free to engage in your dark craft in the future.

I understand that you're just doing your job. But keep in mind that claiming you were " just following orders" will not keep you shielded from the future hammer of judgement.

#14 dungeoneer | 2013-02-08 22:30

We`ll see Dick, we`ll see.

Meanwhile mantra needs pushing.

#15 dungeoneer | 2013-02-08 23:53

These are your words Dick:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/comment-page-1/#comments

#10 by mandela on 1/29/2013 - 2:19 pm

As well as Danials excellent list, there is also the case of Sarkozy saying Whites have no future and must interracially marry.

When anti-Whites tell me who am I to stand in the way of love I say they are justifying GeNOcide and have the morals of a Pedophile (as they think love justifies anything). Seems to work so far.

REPLY QUOTE

#11 by Dick_Whitman on 1/29/2013 - 10:30 pm

I don't think it's a good idea to tell people not to love who they wish. When they try the love argument I usually say something like:

"I wouldn't deny two adults the right to love and marry each other but I guarantee you would deny Whites the right to have our own countries, communities, or organizations."

The point I'm trying to get across is that people can chose to marry or breed with whoever they want, but are they in turn open minded enough to respect my right to free association with people who don't chose to marry or breed outside their race?

>>>>>This is a subject I think we should really spend more time discussing our approach to<<<<<<<>>>>> I have always thought that our responses to the so called "love" argument need to be razor sharp.<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>Based on the amount of replies this thread got after my comments, it appears we needed to have a discussion about this<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> It is our most vulnerable point<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>but please continue the conversation<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>It is our most vulnerable point<<<<<<<<

#16 Dick_Whitman | 2013-02-09 20:07

"We`ll see Dick, we`ll see." (dungeoneer)

No, I assure you that claiming you were "just following orders" will not get you out of this. There's historical legal precedence from WWII.

And thank you for posting my actual words this time. That was the most honest thing you've posted in this discussion. Perhaps you're trying to turn over a new leaf?

We'll see.

#17 Daniel Genseric | 2013-02-06 20:55

"So if diversity is so great, why do the media suppress even any MENTION of any all-white country or community? Why does EVERY white country and ONLY white countries have to become ALL diverse?" - Bob

A shorter variation I use is:

"If Diversity is so great, why can it only be achieved once there are NO MORE WHITES?"

Which, of course, launches into the talkers should they slam the bait:

Why don't we hear so-called "anti-racists" screaming for Diversity in Africa, Asia, Mexico, etc...

When are Political Correction Officers going to install Diversity Offices in the Detroilette or Memphis schools?

Answer: They don't have to because those places are already 100% Diverse.

A call for Diversity is incitement to commit white genocide.

ARIACWFAW

#18 Woadwarrior | 2013-02-06 21:28

I already replied before I saw these comments ^. This is what I said:

In your opinion it is: pro-white = pro-racist. Is it pro-racist for a black man to be pro-black? Is it Pro-racist for a muslim to be pro-muslim? Or is it racist for a gay to be pro-gay? White countries and only White countries are being flooded with non-Whites and it affects only White children.

Anti-racist IS a codeword for anti-White.

#19 kiwi | 2013-02-06 21:47

Lots of good replies here, thanks. Below is the English translation of the Sarkozy speech where he says the French will have to be coerced to intermarry with non-Whites if they do not do so voluntarily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFsmvDF6ytk&feature=player_embedded

#20 elcyCesreveR | 2013-02-07 02:19

White people committed historical atrocities, and that's why they must be punished with the wonderful GIFT of diversity, because it is our strength.

#21 Cody | 2013-02-07 04:35

<a href="#comment-60741" rel="nofollow">elcyCesreveR</a> :

White people committed historical atrocities, and that's why they must be punished with the wonderful GIFT of diversity, because it is our strength.

</blockquote>

Hahaha, yes. Whites are told simultaneously that we must have diversity because it's a great positive/benefit to our civilization, as well as a deserved punishment for the crimes our race has done.

The silly anti-whites argue/demand diversity is both benefit and punishment to our race.

Anti-whites always say that diversity is promoted because it's positive to our countries, yet whenever we speak out against it, they say it is a just punishment for what our race has done.

Anti-whites are that dumb.

#22 Cody | 2013-02-07 04:45

Anti-whites always claim diversity is our strength, until a white person speaks out against it, than they say it's a much deserved punishment for what our race has done.

#23 Jason | 2013-02-07 05:33

Bob says:

"So if diversity is so great, why do the media suppress even any MENTION of any all-white country or community? Why does EVERY white country and ONLY white countries have to become ALL diverse?"

This is great. I haven't really commented on it because I have nothing to add. On the answers we have about the accusation that intermarriages aren't forced. something still seems missing. They are good, I just wish they were pithier. A good, short, lethal, death blow.

I like the line about anti-Whites being upset that interracial breeding cannot YET be forced.

#24 Bob | 2013-02-07 09:36

Old Blighty is right, this sounds like A short answer we need on intermarriage is not being forced:

"Anti-Whites don't have to force intermarriage, because the conditions that lead to intermarriage are being forced."

#25 JustAWhiteMom | 2013-02-07 09:51

I got good feedback on this over at WGP:

"If I push you off a cliff, I don't have to force you to crash into the ground do I? No! Gravity will take care of that for me."

Basically saying the same thing.

#26 Jason | 2013-02-07 10:39

I missed Old Blighty's answer, it is excellent. Now, would it be wrong or right to shorten it even more like this:

""Anti-Whites don't need to force intermarriage; they force the conditions that lead to it."

It's just two words shorter. Does that help or make it worse? Trying to work on wordsmithing skills!

Now, the AW will respond, "well don't you have free will".

#27 JustAWhiteMom | 2013-02-07 10:59

Jason,

I've been thinking about something lately that could be developed into a responsive mini. "Free will" is often offered as a "superseding intervening cause" in legal tort cases. That is, the defendant says, "I'm not responsible for your damages because the chain of causation between my wrongful conduct and your damages was broken by your exercise of your own free will." The interesting thing about this is that the defendant is admitting two things when they offer the free will defense: (1) They are guilty of wrongdoing, and (2) the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result.

In other words, anytime an AW says, "nobody forced you to intermarry", they are admitting that intermarriage is decimating white populations. They are trying to deflect the blame onto White children, but they wouldn't have to do that unless they recognized the harm in the first place!

(P.S. good idea for a thread on how we found bugs, though I cannot remember that information myself. If there had been a thread, I might have posted on it when I first found the site).

#28 Jason | 2013-02-07 18:55

Very nice analogy from the world of law. That will be helpful in the future.

#29 Conrad | 2013-02-07 20:12

I imagine that the pro-white-genocide crowd will say - no damage is done by intermarriage. After all, they think that white genocide is a good thing.

.............

Jack's War

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=jack%27s+War

#30 Jason | 2013-02-07 10:48

I would love Bob to give us an outline of the general wordsmith principles needed for this kind of work. That is, building new Minis. He has an instinctive genius for it that may be hard to translate but might help us.

I assume shorter is better, if the meaning is kept. I assume certain key words need to be in all caps. The tone probably needs some shock value to get attention.

Advanced techniques seem to be things like actually giving an opening for an anti-White to use, to get the argument going. Maybe others already know this or it is written somewhere else, but if not, I think it could be useful in the long run

#31 Conrad | 2013-02-07 19:55

" If anti-racist is anti-white, then pro-white is pro-racist."

This person is just playing word games. They are anti-white because of their actions, but hide it by saying that they are anti-racist. Pro-white is anti-genocide.

.........

Jack's War

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=jack%27s+War

#32 Woadwarrior | 2013-02-09 14:54

Pro-white is anti-genocide.

Well said!

#33 Scythian | 2013-02-09 17:20

"If anti-racist is anti-white, then pro-white is pro-racist."

That's EXACTLY what YOU anti-Whites ALWAYS say: YOU call anybody who is pro-White a "racist"; hence, Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

YOU anti-Whites call anybody who is against the ongoing program of White GENOCIDE a "racist"; hence, Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

YOU anti-Whites NEVER say that Africa for the Africans or Asia for the Asians is "racist", YOU ALWAYS say that White countries for White people is "racist"; hence, Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

#34 patrickwhiterabbit | 2013-02-08 06:00

New Mantra video

White genocide-Intermarriage

http://youtu.be/yoZSriQHVGc

#35 Jmcaul | 2013-02-11 13:18

Dick_Whitman: "At some point the anti-Whites are going to try to publicly challenge the message. I strongly believe they are going to concentrate on the "nobody is forcing intermarriage" and the "love" arguments. "

Agreed. H. Avenger was just interviewed by a sympathetic White radio host who admitted to having a non-White wife and mixed race child. He challenged Horus "what about people like me?" It could have been a VERY awkward moment for someone less prepared. Horus handled it deftly and brilliantly. He simply stated the obvious without being emotional or missing a beat: "well on a large scale, it's OBVIOUSLY genocide" and then continued talking about White genocide. The host was mollified, he conceded that Horus was (of course) correct in his assessment and the situation was defused. I think we call ALL learn from that example.

Well perhaps not Bob. ;)