Comments on: Six Rules for White Advocacy

By: Don

Don — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:03:15 +0000

A good basic list of fundamentals. Very useful advice.

White advocacy has never been very good and this article serves a useful purpose.

By: Frank Toliver

Frank Toliver — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:10:13 +0000

I think we should start use the phrase ‘a people’ more. It is different from race as it denotes a purity of ethnicity and a special set of vaues. The jews call themselves ‘God’s chosen people’ (which really makes me have little faith in God’s judgement) and they speak of genocide, where you cannot genocide a religion, so they are linked as a people by blood and by belief. It is my contention that their ‘religious’ belief is in themselves and their genetic connectivity, as evidenced as their belief that their people are supernaturally better than everyone else, and that to be a full ‘jew’ and be one of God’s chosen, you have to authentically carry jewish blood which is only a certainty if your mother was a jew.

We are a people and we are a great people, our people made the modern world and our people should be the primary enjoyers of this current era and the one we create in the future.

By: Anon preferred

Anon preferred — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:18:16 +0000

Maybe “genocide” is too strong a word for an initial conversation, but the questions asked of the person can certainly be phrased to lead them in that direction. A suggestion: "'Soft' genocide, to be sure, but what it amounts to is genocide nonetheless: a people here today and gone tomorrow, vanished from the face of the earth. And for what? What do we benefit do we get out of it? If none, then why on earth is it wrong to oppose it, to resist it?"

By: Steven E. Romer

Steven E. Romer — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:36:15 +0000

Lakoff ought to know about words… I studied his stuff on metaphor while I was in graduate school. I was trying to build a theory about how brain science might explain (or not explain) our ability to use metaphor and analogy. Our perceptions of meaning seemed to be paradoxical given what I knew and was learning about brain science at the time. I met him while I was in graduate school @ Emory University in the early 90′s when he ws giving a visiting lecture. I still have several of his books.

Jews have a special skill in words, and use them to emotionally manipulate people better than any other group on Earth. Much of their higher average IQ is concentrated in verbal ability. People should read Lakoff, helps you understand the emotional attachments to words and phrases we use every day (a primary Jewish forte). His stuff is just plain interesting too. He definitely has the “everything is arbitrary” in morality (he also says this about science –and maybe even mathematics too!) liberal / subversive attitudes of the Jewish mindset though.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:46:22 +0000

With respect to Rule #1 – might I suggest the little book, by a most hated liberal, George Lakoff, entitled Don’t Think of an Elephant. In it he explains the debate tactic called “framing.” It is a valuable read for anyone interested in word manipulation and misdirection.

By: Phil T.

Phil T. — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:10:38 +0000

Excellent overview Wikitopian. Might I suggest adding a few more examples employing these tactics.

By: RF

RF — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:24:00 +0000

“If the persuadable brings up slavery, ask how many centuries have to pass before we move on. ”

this particular point merits three rejoinders:
1. Slavery in USA was good for Negroes as their numbers multiplied from 650,000 something to 4 millions during 1 century from mid-18th to abolishment, while in Africa their numbers remained stable apr. 100 millions. Since numbers is the most universal of well-being of population, then the slavery was REALLY good. Plus they got 20% of white blood.
2. There was white slavery, much less beneficial for the slaves
3. Peculiarities of the trade. Involvement of chiefs, jews etc.

By: Michael Bell

Michael Bell — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:15:28 +0000

“If he brings up academic terms like “White Privilege,” “institutional discrimination,” or “historical oppression,” then you’re not dealing with a persuadable.”

Could it not be fruitful to bring up the numerous White ethnic groups that came to the U.S. and faced oppression, i.e. Irish, Italians, Slavs, and numerous Catholic types, and how they had to start out in wretched poverty and work their way up the ladder? Could it also be constructive to then compare this picture with that of Blacks? Even comparing the Blacks with the Chinese as an additional fact might be persuasive.

Just a suggestion.

By: Simmons

Simmons — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:06:41 +0000

The issue is genocide. We are peddled a line about “anti-racism”, but it amounts to nothing more than anti-white agitation leading to genocide because its only white countries and white people who are to be displaced. Maybe “genocide” is too strong a word for an initial conversation, but the questions asked of the person can certainly be phrased to lead them in that direction.