THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Yes, I have to say that whenever I get into the middle of an immigration debate, I end up having to go at it with those (anti-immigration people) who actually <b>complain</b> because the non-white immigrants are not assimilating. What? Complain? <i>They're not learning English. They should learn our language. They should adopt our cultural mores. They should watch College Football (Sorry, I couldn't resist). They should marry our women? (Oops, did I go too far.</i>.

The more alien they remain the better. Anyone who claims to support racial integrity and calls for assimilation clearly has a disconnected synapse problem.

I am not referring to anyone on this blog.

Not to be a suck up but I agree with Bob on this one, the pack of antiimmigration types got that covered. When dealing with the race traitors (this means white people) the words "DOUBLE STANDARD" are the first out of my mouth I do not let them get away with the usual assumptions and I tell them its their opinion and little else.

For 500 characters, you can say:

<blockquote>Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

http://whitakeronline.ORG

http://www.nationalsalvation.net/</blockquote>

This is a piece of the blog I was talking about; if spaces aren't counted, you can add a bit more. Adding the "100 million" figure is a transition for an anti-immigration context. The reason for adding a transition is really so that the post looks more on-topic. If a statement fits the context, people are more likely to think, "Yes, I see," than who is ineptly posting this goofy spam?

You have to make it seem to fit, or people will regard it just like you do when you see something you feel is off-topic on your own blog. At Hannity, for example, a person gets to post the blog once, then he is banned, his ISP is logged, and the thread is closed. That means we can go in there every once in a while with an ISP randomizer and post it.

The ten million anti-immigration sites are a perfect opportunity for posting the mantra. They also are usually moderated. You have to experiment to see if the whole thing will make it through, or if only a part will.

You do what works.

At YouTube, you can post anything, it will appear without moderation, but it can be removed later. There is the 500-character limit each comment.

When you know the Mantra will be deleted is when you start thinking. If you can see that people at the site are sympathetic, but the Mantra doesn't get through, then you have to ask yourself what other way can you get the message in.