THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WE HAVE TO GET OFF THE OLD LOSERS' MESSAGE | 2011-03-11

Wandrin asks.

"Could a Mantra-thinker please help with some tips to address the "only White countries" argument when the anti-Whites point out Singapore and UAE etc, as seen in this thread."

There's always detailed arguments you can make

- most of those small Arab states have lots of guest workers because of the oil money but they're basically paid semi-slaves and aren't allowed to become citizens

- Israel has an explicitly ethno-centric immigration policy and most of those immigrants are jews

- Hong Kong immigration was mostly other ethnic Chinese from the mainland after British rule ended in 1990-something

- Jordan's "immigrants" are actually Palestinian refugees

etc

There are a few exceptions like Singapore but once you've knocked down most of the list then it becomes obvious they are an exception and exceptions prove the rule.

However if i'm arguing with someone as slippery as the guy in the linked thread i usually just cheat by looking out for any little mistake they make and jumping on it and not letting go until they concede the point.

Psychological attrition.

In the thread you linked i'd have picked on his use of Israel in his list of examples and asked him if he supported their ethno-centric immigration

policy and i'd keep on it until he explicitly stated he didn't believe Israel had the right to an ethno-centric immigration policy either. This would only work if he was jewish as he'd either wriggle around not wanting to say it or he would say it but be tetchy afterwards and easier to needle into

losing his temper.

Sometimes the truth works:

Nobody cares whether a non-white country opens its gates or blocks immigration. But the world would object if Iceland closed its borders. Every white country is supposed to be "a melting pot," but nobody outside DEMANDS that of any non-white country, black, brown or yellow.

The "race problem" means a Final Solution to the White Problem.

Also do not spend time on any one determined anti-white unless you have an audience. You are speaking to the audience, not to the nut job who hates his own kind.

To be frank with you, Wandrin, you are still on the Stormfront wave-length. Mixing up our message with Israel shows this.

1) Aim at the AUDIENCE;

2) Stop letting them get off the subject. The point is not what non-whites do, the point is that there is a DEMAND on ALL white countries and ONLY on white countries for immigration and assimilation;

3) Don't screw up the Mantra with some other agenda.

NOTE FROM TRUCK ROY | 2008-02-20

Hello Bob,

Thanks for recommending Lord Nelson. His appearance on my show went very well and the show will be airing next Wednesday.

I am looking for a couple debaters for Driven Sno's show that will be on live in a few weeks. The debate will be:

"Democracy is pointless, we should fly under the radar until the revolution V.S. We should use Democracy to win local office and spread the word."

Perhaps you can see if any of your people would be interested in debating this topic.

-Truck Roy

MARK | 2007-09-12

"They are too busy reading Pat Buchanan on Jews in Neoconservatism to realize what the phenomenon itself is."

I would like to see you quit hitting poor Pat over the head. He has changed, Bob. CHANGED. He's still respectable — but not as respectable as he once was, thank the non-existant god in the non-existant heavens! There's still time for his full conversion.

Check out Pat's August 21, 2007 article entitled "The Color of Crime" and you will see he is on a closer page to us than you give him credit for. Also, he's the only one of the respectables who had the courage to write two books about the destruction of the West via immigration. While it may not be the Mantra, Pat is at least reaching people WE cannot reach — and making them think.

People that read Pat and THINK will eventually turn to us for the advanced course in social engienering. I did and I'm sure there are others like me.

That should be worth someting.

ME:

I talked about Pat's place that way some time ago.

SEMINAR VERSUS AD HOMINEM | 2007-09-21

Mark recommended a South African site and said it was almost as thought-provoking as this one. I made the point that we are UNIQUE. Another commenter referred to the recomended site as "copy and paste" as opposed to our doing our own writing ourselves.

This seminar exchange made me think of the uniqueness of BUGS, and I used the term "copy and paste" there a lot. I joked about attacking Mark, but he knew it was in jest. But he COULD have taken the entire diatribe about copy-and-paste sites PERSONALLY.

Now Simmons said something harmlessly that got me to thinking about the whole problem of scattergun arguments. I will write the piece later, but it occurred to me that this would be a good time to remind you that this is a SEMINAR. I expound on what you REMIND me of. Not everythig I have to say about cut and paste sites versus our uniqueness has to do with Mark personally. Not everythng I say about ego making one turn to shotgun arguments instead of beating in the message is a personal criticism of Simmons.

I am NOT a subtle man. If I mean YOU, your name will be up front. But in a SEMINAR you have to let me expound on what you make me think of without taking it as a personal attack.

We have a job to do, a job NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO. Let's leave the personal crap over on SF.