THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

AMERICAN WORDING HAS AN INTERESTING SUBTEXT | 2012-05-31

One or two commenters have remarked that the Mantra is too American. Both said that the term "respectable conservative" is an AMERICAN term.

The reality is much more interesting -- and important -- to us BUGSERS.

The term "respectable conservative" was entirely alien to political discussion until I started using it in Whitaker Online at the turn of the century! Hard rightists would refer to the Buckley types as cowards or ignorant, but putting them into a professional category, people who get paid to be a kept opposition, was introduced in my first book and never used again until I re-introduced the term "respectable conservative" and it got taken up around 2000.

Like "the melting pot": translated into "multiculturalism," almost every concept that Europe lives by is American. World War II is trying to become "The European Civil War."

The Latins used to say anyone of any color was "French" regardless of their skin color if they were CULTURALLY French.

Until New York and Harvard and Hollywood explained to them that they had a multiculture.

I have never seen any other person mention this.

There are respectable conservatives in Europe doing exactly the same job respectable conservatives do in America.

The subtext is that there IS NO European political dialogue. It is ALL hand-me-down American. I have to use "respectable conservative" in Europe because Europe needs it.

COMMENTS (24)

#1 beefcake | 2012-05-31 12:26

Well, its off topic, but I got a Question for the Coach.

Bob,

We are having some discussion about the term for whites to use to describe any who oppose white-GeNocide.

For a long time I have been using "pro-white", "white and normal" has also been phased in, but there are also some ideas suggesting we not use anything to define ourselves other than "white".

They all have their merits, and they are being discussed here:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/teaching-whites-to-say-whites/

Have you personally experimented with these terms and found any one way to define whites who oppose white genocide to be most effective? Or ineffective for that matter?

Those of us actively threading these memes in the Swarm often call ourselves Bugsers, but we are looking for the most effective way to define people who are white and oppose white genocide, as a meme for us to also spread along with the Mantra.

The same way we refer to Anti-whites as Anti-white, we are simply looking for the best way to refer to those whites who resist white genocide, even inculding those who are not yet in the Swarm.

#2 dungeoneer | 2012-05-31 13:22

Disputing the use of the words while ignoring the concept,and also demeaning the subject of white genocide in the process.

Thankfully,practical experience has shown the English and all non-American whites around the world are not such sticklers.

#3 Bob | 2012-05-31 15:12

Beefcake, with all due respect, this is bullshit.

We are pro-white, all others are anti-white.

Enough, already.

#4 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-05-31 15:35

Bob, with all respect, I could use a little explanation as to why it's bullshit. The original suggestion was from another bugser, but the development of it has been completely my doing. I give my various reasons for it at the thread beefcake linked:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/teaching-whites-to-say-whites/#post-24457

Calling all of us in the white movement simply "whites," calling our meetings simply "white meetings," and calling our movement simply "the white movement" seems to me to capture the word "white" for ourselves instead of separating ourselves from our target audience by calling ourselves "white nationalists," "pro-whites," etc.

I have other thoughts about it on that thread unless you've already seen enough to know that it's a mistake. But please, I need to know WHY it's a mistake!

The title of the thread is in the form of a question. But if the answer to the question is "no," I'm hoping for a little more than just "no"!

#5 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-05-31 15:41

Beefcake, my suggestion was that we use "white(s)" as the name for all who are in the white movement.

#6 Genseric | 2012-06-01 00:33

Too often you are confused by the simplest of things. Hell, if I can get it, so should you. Stop making it into something that it isn't.

+/- = -

+/+= +

-/- = +

anti=against

anti anti=pro

We will not allow ourselves to be subverted by ignorance nor those who wish to derail us. I'm watching you, turd.

#7 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-06-01 02:44

Still crazy, eh, Genseric? It's marvelous that you've found a place where your abilities and dedication make you so useful in spite of that.

I do notice a contradiction (it's only an apparent one, since I know you're a sincere bugser) between your last sentence and the sentence preceding it. I wonder if you can spot it?

#8 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-06-01 02:58

@ Bob: it might be appropriate to let Genseric know that calling each other a "turd" isn't helpful.

Visitors may not be aware of the rough collegial spirit that I'm sure inspired it.

#9 six gun | 2012-05-31 15:25

I was one of the people who flagged Liberals and respectable Conservatives.

You say "Liberals and respectable Conservatives" in the UK and the listener will immediately think two political parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I would say 99% will instantly do this.

The current Government is a coalition of the Conservative Party and the Social Democrats (which many people still see as the Liberals as this is where the SDP evolved from.)

So "Liberals and respectable Conservatives" means members of the UK Government or at least members of those parties.

I just asked someone who does not know the Mantra. They were a bit confused and thought I was talking about members of political parties. I asked another person, who has definitely never heard the Mantra and they immediately said it was something to do with members of political parties.

This is how it is in the UK.

There are many phrases in British English that do not translate into American English and vice versa.

I wrote in a forum posting that someone had jumped off a lorry. I put [truck] after this as I knew to the American readers it might not mean anything.

I just read about something going down a bomb. To me that means it went really, really well. Someone is the bomb, they are the B's and E's. It seems in American English the reader gets the very opposite impression.

So when I flagged "Liberals and respectable Conservatives" there was very good reason.

The problem may be very specific to Britain but there is a problem for the ordinary White British folk I want to connect with.

If a set of words do not translate then some other words must be used.

It is self evident. The only thing that matters is the meaning of the message. If the words do not transmit the meaning then words that do transmit the meaning and message MUST be substituted in the circumstances where the issue arises.

If I were posting on a UK website I would consider another form of words.

I really don't quite know what words to put. If I did I would have said.

If there are any other people from the UK I would appreciate their input.

#10 beefcake | 2012-05-31 16:00

Harumphty, I think it may be a case of keeping the meme simple.

Naturally people are going to want to have some term to describe whites who advocate on the behalf of whites about white genocide, and simply using the term "white" may not be enough for them, they need a more specific definition for those of us speaking up.

Pro-white has been working so far. In practice it is effective, and it does give us an opporotunity to when they ask "what is a Pro-white?"

We can answer; "pro-white is anyone who is opposed to white Genocide".

Then we can ask; "are you pro-white or anti-white?"

#11 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-05-31 16:34

Well beefcake, I would be more attentive to your response if you had made it before Bob called the idea bullshit!

Sorry I'm feeling a bit irritated. But your post seems also to not address any of the points I made about this on the thread I started about it.

I need to hear Bob's response. I think it's one of my best ideas (of course as I said on the thread, that doesn't mean that it can't be a bad idea!), and so I need to hear why it's a bad idea, not just a pronouncement that it's bullshit and then people falling in line and agreeing without telling me why my reasons that I've laid out for doing it don't make the grade.

I asked on the thread what people here thought about the idea.

I would at least like to know that Bob has read something of what I wrote on that thread, and why HE finds my reasons don't make the grade.

#12 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-05-31 16:53

Also: this is a change I'm advocating that white sites use in their own language. As for use in the mainstream, I haven't thought that far yet. I think it would be useful, on the rare occasions we need to refer to ourselves in the mainstream, to matter of factly say, "we whites...." rather than "we pro-whites..." Capture that unoccupied ground! Don't focus attention on it, because our attention is focused on Mantra stuff, but just do it matter of factly in passing!

#13 dungeoneer | 2012-05-31 16:00

"You say "Liberals and respectable Conservatives" in the UK and the listener will immediately think two political parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I would say 99% will instantly do this."

Right,they see/hear the mantra and conveniently forget all about that white genocide and "ant-racist is a codeword for anti-white" stuff.

#14 six gun | 2012-05-31 16:39

Since this is being directed at me, I am going to exceed my one post per day per thread to answer.

I would sincerely hope the British listener will not go on to ignore the parts of the Mantra they understand but surely to God it would be better they understood it all.

The Mantra has got to be understood by the target audience. If it is not understood then it fails.

The message is more important than a few words.

There are plenty of people out in the wild, pushing the Mantra message using different words and different arrangements. I am quite surprised by the variety. They don't come here to ask permission, they JFDI.

I am going to take this onto the UK thread at SF.

I have not even proposed any replacement for a British scenario, I have only flagged a potential difficulty. It would be wrong for me not to have said something when I have local knowledge.

It is only the British scenario I am talking about. I know next to nothing about continental Europe.

When the Mantra gets translated into German or Italian, I would expect it to be translated so the audience can fully relate to the words and hopefully the message. This is a translation issue from one English into another. It has got to feel right. As it is it has a definite American feel, that does not help. If it feels foreign then some people will just dismiss it, 'theres now't queerer than folk'

#15 dungeoneer | 2012-05-31 17:31

"I have only flagged a potential difficulty."

You`ve offered your OPINION that the mantra as currently stands "does`nt work",just like you did with "Everybody says" and I think I`m right in saying with using Japan/Taiwan as examples as well.

Why should we be debating your opinions,when we`ve got solid experience of using the mantra?

#16 six gun | 2012-05-31 18:05

Yes you got them all.

1. Of the 4 countries mentioned, the published population density of Taiwan comes out tops. I have seen attacks on the message because some anti-White has a go over this nitpicking issue. If it were replaced with Korea that problem evaporates completely. There is nothing to distract attention from the message.

We all must have seen these nitpicking debates.

The population issue is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of published population data. If I were attacking the Mantra I would be straight in there picking at this seam.

2. "Everybody says" - have you forgotten Bob created a thread on this same issue? Perhaps my input in part precipitated this. Bob suggested BUGsters proceeded on a suck it and see basis with their proposed alternative - all of which fitted with the message. So this is not a done deal by any means.

3. The issue of Liberals and respectable conservatives... Bob felt it was a point of sufficient merit to produce a thread on the matter. I will continue to market research this as far as the UK scene applies. I will come back when I have more information.

"Why should we be debating your opinions,when we`ve got solid experience of using the mantra?"

Don't if it upset you.

If I am talking nonsense, people soon catch on.

If the issues I bring up have merit they will get discussed.

Something might be gained by it.

#17 dungeoneer | 2012-05-31 19:30

"3. The issue of Liberals and respectable conservatives... Bob felt it was a point of sufficient merit to produce a thread on the matter?"

Bob is showing us how the objection to Lib/Respectable Conservatives on anti-Americanism grounds carries the seed of it`s own downfall.

#18 six gun | 2012-06-01 09:11

I will be straight - Without looking it up I could not tell you clearly what Liberals and conservative means in US terms.

But what I do know is they don't mean political parties.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus will think political parties. If he asked me what does Liberal and respectable conservative mean and I say oh it's American its doesn't mean the Liberal and Conservative Parties, what impression is that going to make?

So you are using a term which means something different, but sticking to the American term because???

Well they don't want to adapt the Mantra.

But it doesn't mean the same thing in England, why use words that have different meanings if your weapons are the words.

If a new Mantra came out of France but after translation its form and words did not quite suit the North American situation what kind of psycho American wouldn't tweak it to suit the US environment?

I have made my point. In this war of words tanks work well on the plains but they don't perform well in the mountains.

You still use tanks on the plains but you need to adapt for mountain terrain.

#19 Harumphty Dumpty | 2012-05-31 16:59

Ooops! Well, that's an advantage of being old...one has an excuse for not remembering. Sorry about my more-than-one-per-day-per-thread posts on this thread. But damn it, this conversation should have been on the thread I started!! IMO.

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/teaching-whites-to-say-whites/

I'm going to copy all these post to there, if anyone wants to comment there.

#20 steadiness | 2012-05-31 18:23

This is a good question. What would work in the UK? Cultural Marxists and respectable Tories?

#21 Genseric | 2012-06-01 00:21

There is not ONE Respectable bone in my body. I am a pro-white dissident. There, I said it.

Meanwhile, wordists keep on 'wording.'

#22 Jason | 2012-06-01 03:38

That's a revelation to me that Europe doesn't really have it's own discourse - thank you. Does this mean it is likely that the heart of the pro-White movement will be here in America? Some have thought Europe would lead it, but I'm not so sure.

#23 BGLass | 2012-06-01 08:23

"Paid controlled opposition" really says it.

"there's less money to be made in controlled opposition now than before the internet, but you can still make some dough. Frankly, though, it's looking like it won't really be the future, definitely not cutting edge."

Three generations have been raised on ideas about "controlling narratives and discourse, art as propaganda and demoralization tactic, etc."

It would have been silly ---myopic, magical thinking-- to believe these ideas ---principles about how history works, how theories of it can be used politically to get "the masses" to do what one wants, etc--- would ALSO mean that those taught such ideas (like in colleges in america and elsewhere, also) would naturally parrot the party-line. More likely, they would apply the trotskyite principles to their own situation.

It's just silly from those colleges that hammered home "form IS a content." Well... it's clear "they want what they want," but wanting can be like wearing blinders. People overtaken by a state of desire/wanting can believe anything, just like people in fear, or in anger, which is really usually just fear, anyway. When he was tempted, Jesus had his hardest time with that... with Hunger... the gnawing craving that blinds.

Only lately have we had this sick, (perhaps imported) foreign saying, "You THINK TOO MUCH."

How many times have you heard THAT old crappy canard? (well, lmao, maybe some people NEVER have that said to them, of course.) AA --sorry Mr. Whitaker-- but indoctrinates (since the psychology industry made inroads into what the Oxford Group had done) phrases to this point--- s/a "stinking thinking," and "think, think, think." Point being, in many public discourses thinking is produced as BAD... as dangerous, etc.

If you have had it said to you, you know the translation: "quit saying these things we don't like you to say---or else!"

I had one teacher who would always rave "Make differences productive." She was a hardcore leftist, but it was good advice, and must be made applicable to the sub-groups of whites, who do not share --necessarily-- the same 'discourse or historical narratives, exactly.' ---Like between the european and american situations--- It will be better to acknowledge that and work it through, 'make differences productive' than to "unify" by endless dumbing down, imo. To get people who have felt silenced to "unify by dumbing down" can just make people angrier, (feel more silenced)--the opposite of the goal.

That's really the one contradiction in "wn"--- equality does not exist, and yet "we're all white here" when White is such a big word. In reality, there are different subgroups, sometimes with the vulnerability of, not just different, but competing narratives (this is a vulnerability to unity to be sure). If it's not fixed, it's exploitable by an enemy. But differences can be productive, and without dumbing down "hey, forget about reality, we're just whites here---" but White is also a big word, with lots going on in it.

The left really has produced some interesting thinkers, phrases, etc., but they seem to have exhausted themselves, just my opinion. Nothing really new out of it since the 60s--- marketing phrases, yes, but no real philosophical moves.

#24 BGLass | 2012-06-01 08:56

Harumpty--- I thought we shifted to a one comment deal and were trying to consider article.

I like that one thing above, anyway: "White is a Big Word and it's ours." better than "we're all white." It makes us Big, diverse, and the differences productive.