THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

Well, I have no wish to derail the comments, but since my name was mentioned, I feel I need to respond and clear something up since this is a little misleading, dungeoneer:

You weren't talking about our genocide. You were talking about recording the names of anti-Whites.

The exact quote:

"Those people acting in the service of white genocide in the name of so-called "anti-racism" have been recorded."

It doesn't matter how YOU meant it - what matters is what will happen in the listener's mind (Bob just brought that up in the last blog I believe). You may say you only mean that the internet records what these anti-Whites are saying, but when I look at that, putting myself in the place of how the audience is going to think, what I see is:

"I'm going to note your channels and try and trace your IPs and come to your houses and kill you with my skinhead death gang."

It doesn't matter if it's a double-standard and the masses would cheer if some black guy were "recording" pro-Whites - it looks threatening.

We're told here not to talk about "genocide tribunals" because that makes us look threatening.

So I think the logic extends to not implying that you're taking down people's names if they disagree with you.

That post did nothing to further the mantra on that thread. It didn't talk about White genocide, it talked about making a record of names, and it also sounded threatening, so in one post, you got off the message and shut people's minds down by coming across as a "crazy skinhead killer-type."

I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm pointing out the mistake here. Our mission is a consistent message, White genocide. That post had nothing to do with White genocide. So at the least, can you see how it was an error from that perspective?

-Winterblade

Winterblade:

"The exact quote:

"Those people acting in the service of white genocide in the name of so-called "anti-racism" have been recorded."

"I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm pointing out the mistake here. Our mission is a consistent message, White genocide. That post had >nothing to do with White genocide<. So at the least, can you see how it was an error from that perspective?"

I did mention white genocide. You must be confused.

Back on topic, do you think the Heresy! and religion subjects are embarrassing and effective against anti-whitism?

Remember, we WANT Anti-Whites to respond to our posts. We WANT them to engage us in debate. We WANT them to talk about how much they hate White babies. That is a win for us, if they do it in a public forum.

Why would you want to intimidate them into not responding to our posts? This isn't a trash-talking contest, we are suckering them into exposing themselves.

I am not above losing my cool with them myself, so it is easier to give this advice than follow it - LOL. But that is the goal.

Jason don`t you think we`ve had enough theorizing from certain quarters?

Anti-whites will continue to justify white genocide as they`ve been programmed to do.

You can count on that as much as the sun rising in the East tomorrow.

So what good does telling them their posts have been recorded do? The issue then is purely how it looks to White Normals reading the exchange.

I have used some provocative tactics on twitter before to get a response from a Big Name. Things lke using their name and calling them an Anti-White. I got mixed results.

More theorizing this time about the effect on white and normal people of worrying about white genocide supporter activities being recorded Jason thank you so much.

No this is not "theorizing". If it gets the point through, Bob told us never to threaten anti-Whites with tribunals or reparations. This is very similar. Not theory.

And like you, I've posted the Mantra thousands of times, so this is not mere theory.

There was no threat in the original post in question, merely a statement of fact including use of the white genocide meme.

You have theorized that the words in said post were in fact

"a threat".

heh! Don't tempt them because they've already got to the power to do it. I've had my comments edited on AmRen to where they've completely lost their original meaning and no sign was given to the reader that the moderator edited it. Since AmRen relies on Disqus, I'm assuming every site using that system can probably do the same.

For example,

Before: Anti-Whitism the new anti-semetism

After: Bland the new spicy

In their defence, Jamie fox has been payed to make those comments, from what I can't understand on American television.

Similar to monsieur Solaar...

The problem is that those comments ARE PAID TO BE MADE were on national television this womans comments come from word of mouth. The reaction to one comment compared to another are just more proof

Yeah...because they're meant to be taken as a joke. Why don't you complain about Comedians making jokes about ANY group then?

There's a big difference between a member disenfranchised group making a joke that has no way to be carried out, compared by a celebrity of high moral standards using the N word and referring to black individuals as slaves AND referencing that the southern days were better...

Gosh, I sound like an Anti-White....but it's how I am feeling

Yeah, that DOES sound VERY anti-White.

Disenfranchised group - we are being subjected to GENOCIDE, so, CHECK.

No (immediate) way to carry out what was said - CHECK, there's no way she could restore the Confederacy.

High moral standards - In YOUR OPINION she has high moral standards.

Referring to blacks as slaves - So? They're not. So she was wrong.

The southern days were better - Are you denying this?

Yeah, you sound REALLY anti-White right now.

-Winterblade

You found a random White man who knew the term 'White genocide'? Very encouraging!

Yes it is very encouraging, we have reached ppl. The good thing is the other side is helping our cause the more they push the more our talking points make sense to them.

This is long, sorry. I have some facts but can't sum it up neatly.

If you send a tweet to a Big Name with lots of followers, occasionally they will retweet the message to all their followers, often to show the "crazy" tweets they get.

So with big name John Doe, you can send a tweet like:

"Anti-White John Doe supports WHITE GENOCIDE by mass immigration and forced assimilation into ALL and ONLY White countries"

Now, when I send that tweet, only the Big Name sees it for sure. But on 3 occasions, they have retweeted my message to all their followers (for whatever reason). A former economic adviser to Obama who is on Hannity did it. And two others whose names I forget.

Before coming to BUGS, I had sent a tweet to Breitbart about how he doesn't have the courage to discuss Jewish dominance in the media (pre-BUGS forgive me!), and he retweeted it to tens of thousands of his followers. Now, maybe he was saying "look how crazy this guy is", and/or maybe he agreed with it a little, who knows.

I find calling people out for a lack of courage by name can work. Most of these people are super sensitive and vain.

When you send a tweet, the only person who sees it for sure is whoever you send it to. But I once sent one to Ron Howard (of Happy Days) and while he didn't respond to me, Henry Winkler (the Fonz), who is one of his twitter followers replied to me, telling me that Ron opposed all forms of racism and wasn't anti-White. Funny that he felt the need to respond. I don't know who all sees a tweet besides the intended recipient, but apparently some of their followers do as well.

You can also tweet producers and writers of shows who may not have big followings but have a lot of influence, either to let them know we exist or to put ideas in their head.

Never put anything remotely threatening in a tweet. Just like an email, they can find you. I would like others to play around with it and see what happens. We could swarm-tweet sometime, hit one person with a ton of tweets.

I tweeted Chris Matthews a lot that he was selling out his own Irish people (who he says he is devoted to) by supporting all kinds of anti-White policies. I told him in his desire to get back at Southern Whites (who he seems to hate) he is pushing policies that will hurt his own people. I can't prove this, but it sure seems like he started saying that ethnic loyalties and loyalty to your own kind are understandable on his show afterward. I may be dreaming there, but I've heard pundits say that the things they read in tweets often stick in their mind whether they like it or not.

The 140 character limit forces us to be pithy and pithy sticks.