How Do We Win – Verbally?
Posted by alex in terms, verbal warfare, WN speeches, WN strategy at 11:43 pm | 
Permanent Link
Pretty good response to our other thread. Now let’s try the same question, but applied to WORDS and words ONLY.
How do we argue, go at it, whatever you want to call it – verbally. How do we use words to triumph over the enemy?
How do we define “we”? What term do we use to refer to this defined “we”? How the enemy – define and refer to it? How refer to the end state we seek, how refer to the end state the enemy seeks for us? How to frame our struggle? Does the fact the enemy controls the ‘moral high ground’ / tv uplink satellites affect our choices? If political polarization is our goal, how will this affect our choice of terms – for ourselves, our opponents, our arguments? What do you see, verbally or terminologically, being done that shouldn’t be done, or not done that should be done?
31 December, 2009 at 12:03 am
Sites like Fark.com, Digg.com, and Newgrounds.com are excellent sites to spread white ideology.
I would suggest when you start posting comments to keep it factual, non rambling, too the point and most importantly don’t fling out insults like the rest of the morons on these sites do.
Keep in mind that these sites are a gift for WN’s. However, the main readership are young and indoctrinated.
31 December, 2009 at 12:37 am
Frank Roman has some good ideas on his site.
My personal favorite is to focus on the <b.GENOCIDE of the White Race.
Under the UN definition, we ARE being “genocided.”
That’s an excellent place to start.
It really is third, and very long.
Sky God Pierce isn’t coming back, and, if he did, Sky God Rockwell would ask him when he would be moving to some sort of above-ground political entity.
A common theme is an excellent place.
GENOCIDE
A YouTube video with the UN definition of genocide scrolling down, background of nice, upscale White family, shots of many people in the media discussing the destruction of the White Race – “minority in America by 2050” – then, shift to old pictures of your grandparents, through to today, and a final voiceover, “WHY are they so happy to see your Ancestors, and your grandchildren, wiped off the face of the Earth FOREVER?”
That’s one start.
If we ALL focus on GENOCIDE, we can make an inroad for Bob Whitaker’s Mantra.
The GENOCIDE of YOUR Family is unthinkable, and that’s why YOU don’t want to think about it.
Start with GENOCIDE, move to Whitaker’s Mantra – served in bite-sized chunks – and then move to the greatest expression of the best future for the White Race, Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic Analytical System.
How many came over with the first Pilgrims?
How many formed the first Company of Adventures at Jamestown?
Covington is so damn right that it just scares us.
Start with the deliberate, State-sanctioned GENOCIDE of the White RACE.
If they can’t accept that, they will dies on their knees, and their Ancestors will curse them, and rightfully so.
The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.
31 December, 2009 at 1:01 am
This is a huge subject, and an important one. I’ll save my own ideas for another time and place, but would make this suggestion: start an archive thread on this subject, or a sticky, whatever. Something that can be easily found and added to over an extended period of time. How long a period? Well, pretty much until the balloon goes up! It’s that important, and could add some real value to VNN.
Edit the hell out of it, deleting the weak posts. It should just be Bam! – good idea – Bam! – good idea – Bam! – good idea. No b.s., no trolls.
Since I’m not a registered user on the forum I won’t be participating, but those who wish could add useful phrases/definitions/paradigms/tidbits/whatever over time. Could evolve into an invaluable resource, especially if it is clearly visible and gets an occasional plug from the front page and elsewhere on the forum.
31 December, 2009 at 1:27 am
When speaking or arguing with brain-dead American dolts who let jews think for them, I try not to say statements but rather ask them questions. It makes them think because I am there waiting for their answer.
31 December, 2009 at 1:43 am
This is a huge subject, and an important one. I’ll save my own ideas for another time and place, but would make this suggestion: start an archive thread on this subject, or a sticky, whatever. Something that can be easily found and added to over an extended period of time. How long a period? Well, pretty much until the balloon goes up! It’s that important, and could add some real value to VNN.
We have the beginnings of this on the forum. This thread will be linked to the appropriate thread in “The Verbal War.”
http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=140
31 December, 2009 at 1:53 am
Point is there has never been a systematic study of the use of jew terms as part of the war to end whites. Conservatives hardly care, as they are passives who get sexual excitement out of losing.
31 December, 2009 at 1:54 am
Also, create your own graphs, stats, and so forth. If you’re arguing about jewish control of the media, don’t link directly to Pierces “Who rules America”. This will imediately put them off and you will lose any argument. You’ll have to spend the rest of your time explaining how you’re not a “nazi”.
Instead, create your own “Who rules America” and put it in list form.
Example:
ABC, Pres. “jew”
Vice Pres. “jew”
CBS, Pres. “jew”
Vice Pres. “jew”
Viacom, Pres. “jew”
Vice Pres. “jew”
…and so forth
I’ve been meaning to do this myself and am hoping to create my own library to use for links.
31 December, 2009 at 2:02 am
Excellent idea Trainspotter.
31 December, 2009 at 2:17 am
Alex, I think you missed a big point in going after the CONservatives, as they are the first to stab us in the throat, while we sleep, and feel smugly superior, as they walk away.
The hidden issue behind CONservatism is not that it is a False Flag; it always has been.
It’s that CONservaives pull off of Burke, who was paid to criticize the French Revolution. He also criticized ALL revolutions, as his focus was on a stable – essentially, socially and economically stagnant – social order, where the Aristocracy today was the Aristocracy forever, and a man born to tug his forelock would die tugging his forelock.
Simple as that.
ALL CONservatives see themselves as Buckley with an English title of nobility, and the men on top in a system that was designed so they, and their Posterity, would ALWAYS be on top.
They were Conserving their place as Aristocrats.
This was the substance behind the CON of modern CONservatism, who remain very small in number, but very powerful in all realms of society.
They hate us, and will rejoice at our failures, as it further validates their belief that we are simply the lower orders of society.
Our track record to date does not refute them, because all too many of us want to BE them, not realizing this will NEVER happen.
Think of Sam Francis, hard-working, focused, intelligent, scholarly, and seen as easily disposed of jumped-up White Trash by the people he worked for, and with.
THAT group knows wines better than most of us know geography, and inviting Sam to dinner was simply a way for them to mock him with quiet praise.
AND HE KNEW IT, AND COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Sam could be a member of a meritocratic aristocracy, but he could NEVER be a member of the Real Aristocracy.
He didn’t fully realize this until it was too late.
Focus on the GENOCIDE of the White Race, and then on who’s behind it.
The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.
31 December, 2009 at 3:22 am
# Ken Hallowell Says:
31 December, 2009 at 1:27 am
When speaking or arguing with brain-dead American dolts who let jews think for them, I try not to say statements but rather ask them questions. It makes them think because I am there waiting for their answer.
That’s the Socratic technique, and it definitely can work. Depending on the type of interlocutor or the circumstances, it can be the best way to introduce an idea toward their minds – by phrasing it as a question. Or using the technique as a wife would, to make the “husband” think her idea is his idea. Many white men can be manipulated with this approach. Few think. All think they think.
31 December, 2009 at 3:27 am
ALL CONservatives see themselves as Buckley with an English title of nobility, and the men on top in a system that was designed so they, and their Posterity, would ALWAYS be on top.
From what I have seen, there are multiple classes of conservatives.
a) jews using conservatism as a facade, another sock puppet to manipulate a particular stratum of goy-dolts
b) non-jew opinion elites – Churchill is their ultimate hero. they get off on the idea of killing people, and also on the idea of themselves as civilized nobleman
c) Fox watchers – bourgeois bitchers (some real complaints, some fake or manipulated); people with excessive regard for order and authority. Those of instrumental rather than intellectual intelligence. They think, but only to a level. Their ego makes them think ideas they swallow are ideas they generated.
d) low-level religious idiots. Dumb, scared, more or less honest people trying hard, don’t really have any other option than following leaders. These are functional conservatives.
31 December, 2009 at 4:47 am
May I suggest that you hire me as your resident “Devil’s Advocate”? Having been raised around Jews and Northeastern Liberals for so long, I know exactly how they think and how they frame their arguments. Go ahead, try me. I believe I can provide you with the most deceptively clever and specious Jew/Establishment arguments they’ve got in their rhetorical arsenal. That way, you’ll be able to hone your own rhetorical skills against the Enemy by practicing on me…Example: (ahem)
All you angry white male racists do is cry about how everyone is ignoring you. You’re all a bunch of little goose-stepping Hitler wannabees with mastabatory fantasies of creating a Fourth Reich or a new Confederate States of America. Sorry to tell you this, but it ain’t gonna happen. We won’t let it happen.
I’m also sorry to tell you that we live in a multiracial and multicultural world today. You want to take us back to the bad old days of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, when African-Americans were denied the right to vote and Womyn did not have the right to choose. Are you really that insecure in your masculinty? And why does the sight of an African-American male dating a white Womyn bother you? Do you feel intimidated by the African-American male’s natural superiority in attracting Womyn?
The world is laughing at you losers. You are part of the shameful racist, sexist past of our country. It was Womyn like Betsy Ross, Pocahontas and Harriet Tubman who built America while you white men were getting into drunk fistfights in saloons, betting on cockfights and raping your female African-American slaves.
At long last, society has moved past your despicable kind. We now have our first African-American President, Barack Barry Hussein Sotero Obama, in the White House. And I would do anything to see his smart, beautiful wife Michelle become our first female African-American president. There are millions of white American voters who feel the exact same way.
Even your right-wing heroes like Rush Limbaugh and convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy want nothing to do with anti-Semitic Holocaust and Global Warming deniers like you. You right-wing extremists are without friends or support of any kind, except maybe from terrorists like Al Qaeda. I’ll bet you cheered right along with Osama Bin Laden on September 11, when 3,000 of your fellow Americans were killed because of blind hatred and bigotry. How does it feel to be associated with terrorists who want to kill you and your family with their “dirty bombs” and hijacked planes? Is that how you interpret the Bible and the teachings of Christ? Jesus wouldn’t want anything to do with you, either…………………………………………
Well, I think you get the idea.
31 December, 2009 at 7:02 am
“Under the UN definition, we ARE being ‘genocided.'”
I wouldn’t pursue that line. I looked up the UN’s definition of genocide the other day after Fag the Bitcher lost his marbles and what’s being done to us doesn’t exactly qualify.
I’ve begun to refer to what’s being done to us as a “soft genocide.”
31 December, 2009 at 7:05 am
“The Soft Genocide of the White Race.” Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it? (Well, not “nice,” but you know what I mean.)
31 December, 2009 at 7:39 am
Hard genocide — rounding up and killing members of a group, forcibly sterilizing them, depriving them of food and water, etc.
Soft genocide — flooding a country with foreigners so as to displace the targeted host population, encouraging women not to have children, promoting sexual deviancy, using education and the mass media to instill a guilt complex in the host population, etc.
31 December, 2009 at 10:43 am
Good example of a self-righteous word-vortex, Tim McGreen.
31 December, 2009 at 12:01 pm
c/p from http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog
The Mantra
Everybody says 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 more crowded than 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.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
31 December, 2009 at 8:07 pm
One, frame all of our arguments in terms of “inalienable,” God-given, Constitutional “rights.”
The RIGHT and FREEDOM to associate with whom we choose, HOW we choose.
The RIGHT and FREEDOM of expression.
Two, the words “White Homeland” – better, to test their willingness to hear the Truth, “Some Safe Place. A PLACE For People Like US,” seems to work. The Idea of a “White Homeland” “Suburbia, Writ Large,” if you will – has a much stronger appeal than I might have thought.
Three, I am a great admirer of Robert Whitaker, who says more in a sentence than most of us do in paragraphs, but you have to build up to The Mantra in steps, starting with the obvious – “When They Say ‘Racist,’ They Mean ‘White And Only White.”
The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.
1 January, 2010 at 1:59 am
Why just one White Homeland? Why not half a dozen? North America, South Africa, Australia, NZ, Russia and Europe belong to US. The Muds can have the rest of Afrika, all of Latin America, all of non-Siberian Asia and the Pacific Islands. I think that’s being more than fair.
1 January, 2010 at 9:30 am
On the left, Jeffrey Blankford in his interview yesterday by super-lefty Dennis Bernstein on his program Flashpoints on super-lefty radio station KPFA in Berkeley, Ca., lays out Jewish power in government and media to an extent surprising on the left. May be useful in some settings.
Audio:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/57424
2 January, 2010 at 1:58 am
Fuck you, then.
2 January, 2010 at 3:26 pm
3 quick points on how to win:
“# Thom McQueen Says:
31 December, 2009 at 10:43 am
Good example of a self-righteous word-vortex, Tim McGreen.”
Get rid of fed trolls and socks puppets.
Another suggestion that all WNs should know by now: don’t be pathetic submissives like the CONservatives – choose to avoid using the enemy’s words and ideas. Conservatards whine about the left but accept such ideas as ‘equality’ and ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’ as much as some leftards.
Igor also proposes a good idea:
“Hard genocide — rounding up and killing members of a group, forcibly sterilizing them, depriving them of food and water, etc.
Soft genocide — flooding a country with foreigners so as to displace the targeted host population, encouraging women not to have children, promoting sexual deviancy, using education and the mass media to instill a guilt complex in the host population, etc.”
We should promote the idea of our ‘soft genocide’ to the white public primarily and hopefully in the long run it will permeate the culture and start to get reaction from the jewsmedia. Igor has defined the concept very well.
2 January, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I should mention that Nick Griffin has already started to bring the idea of White genocide to the public after his appearance on Question Time when he referred to London as being ‘ethnically cleansed’ and the BBC audience ‘not my people’.
That’s one thing we need to say more to shake the White lemmings out of their apathy. It also gets the point across ragarding our enemy’s true intentions. It’s like Alex said, start making these accusations instead of constantly defending ourselves like Conservatives.
2 January, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Oh yes, Question Time was the show where Griffin came across as nothing more than a timid, politically-correct eunuch, trying to curry favor with all the muds on the panel. Is that what you call effective, McReen?
And what exactly is a “self righteous word vortex”? Jerk.
2 January, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“Is that what you call effective, McReen?”
No, I called Griffin using the concept of White genocide in the MSM AFTER his Question Time appearance effective. I made no comment on his panel performance. Learn to read. While doing so, try catching up on the basics of 9/11 and OKC. You’re remedial level on those subjects.
2 January, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Ken Hallowell Said:
“When speaking or arguing with brain-dead American dolts who let jews think for them, I try not to say statements but rather ask them questions. It makes them think because I am there waiting for their answer.”
What are some good questions to ask?
5 January, 2010 at 12:55 pm
jasonc Says:
“Everybody says 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 more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by importing millions of third worlders.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
……………………………
Absolutely right, Jason!
Another thing that strikes me as significant is that — until quite recently — all those white, European countries loved to lecture us on OUR , uh … “race problem”. They weren’t considered to have any race problem of their own.
But now, in something like the last 20 years, it suddenly seems that ALL white countires in the world are suffering from a Race Problem. The “problem” is that they are too white. So that “problem” has to be fixed, they say.
I have to ask: WHO are “they”? WHO comes up with this stuff. WHO is telling us so? (These are just rhetorical questions for the uninitiated.)
5 January, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Question Time was the show where Griffin came across as nothing more than a timid, politically-correct eunuch, trying to curry favor with all the muds on the panel.” — Tim
I’m extremely reluctant to criticize a WN who is willing to brave the public’s wrath and is evidently trying to do his best. Few will even go that far. However, I must say that I was very disappointed in Griffin’s performance on that program. He was pathetic. There he was, grinning at his tormentors, laughing at their barbs, and actually APPLAUDING AND CLAPPING at his own humiliation.
It was pointless to try to be “nice” to them, when they plainly wanted nothing to do with him and they treated him like some contaminated, putrid object that they found repulsive even to be near. He should have ignored their hostile jibes, or returned the same. Instead, he groveled and grinned, seeking their approval (which he will never get). It was plain that he was not the person to handle that job. He stumbled and funbled. In future such public appearances, the BNP should send someone who can remain icily calm, answer them with facts, and shoot down their barbs with stronger barbs.
5 January, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Somehow, this went through before I was finished. I never hit “submit”.
What the bleep is going on here? This machine is developing a mind of its own.
Oh, well… it will do. I got my message ac ross.
5 January, 2010 at 4:51 pm
ein, with you back in the discussion, the level of discourse becomes intstantly elevated to a civilized level.
I think instead of Nick Griffin or other such White activists going on TV, Jew comedians like Howard Stern and Sacha Baron Cohen should be hired. They would do a much more convincing (and entertaining) job of making the case for White racism and anti-Semenism than any WN possibly can. If those guys were White they would be the Jews’ worst nightmare.
7 January, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Limey MrReen, you’re remedial level on everything, including your Chistarditis.
7 January, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Much as I hate to say it, Griffin’s pathetic performance on that show really made me nauseous. Not so much his own performance, really, but their treatment of him and his meek acceptance of it. He was a softie and a push-over. They treated him like a despicable piece of shit and he just took it. Instead of returning their hostility and contempt, giving them better than he got, he meekly accepted their abuse and grinned.
There he was, actually clapping at their insults, as if he enjoyed it, and giggling like a little girl at his own debasement.
He should have gotten tough and shown some backbone. Even the supposedly neutral “moderator” was in on the attack. He would ask Griffin a question. then when Griffin had three words out of his month, he would cut him off and ask him another, and then another one. He kept Griffin spinning like a top and stumbling for answers, looking like a dizzy fool.
Griffin should have stopped and nailed that “moderator” with his eyes and told him –very firmly — “Now LOOK! You ASKED me that question, and I expect you to have the minimal decency to let me answer it. Were you even interested in hearing the answer? Did you invite me here to interview me, or to gang up on me — half a dozen against one? Is this supposed to be an interview or an inquisition? If you’re unable to conduct this panel in a fair and objective manner, then this interview is OVER!” That would have put THEM on the defensive and left them stammering and denying what they were so obviously doing. The host (his neutrality under fire) would have been sputtering, “Oh, I never intended to cut you off. I thought you were finished. I’m terribly sorry. Go ahead and answer it then; you can have all the time you want.”
Griffin’s major, MAJOR mistake, his flaw, his weakness, was trying to be so damned NICE! You can’t be nice to a slavvering pack of jackals like that. Jackals who are attacking you and thirsting for your blood. You have to bear your fangs to drive them off. Let them see that you have sharper fangs than theirs. He also should have been better prepared with facts and statistics, which he plainly was not. He was too frequently caught stumbling helplessly for answers. And he didn’t seize the advantage when he did have it; he generously let his prey escape. Too nice again! And he was easily flustered and distracted, which was exactly what they wanted to do to him.
Instead of trying to answer their (carefully set up) questions, he should have taken the initiative and asked THEM questions. He should have hammered at them and demanded answers, and not let them get off the hook. He should have been prepared to take the lead, not the passive role, and put THEM on the defensive. He did not. For instance, when he made the very telling point that Jack Straw’s father had been in prison for refusing to fight in WW2, yet Straw calls Griffin a Nazi, Straw simply clammed up (which was all he really could do because Griffin was right), and Griffin failed to pursue the point. He had Straw by the throat at that moment and he didn’t press his advantage. Griiffin should have hammered that point home and demanded a response, instead of accepting Straw”s silence and letting him get away.
There were other very simple and obvious things that he could have caught. Take that pompous black American female who bragged of being a “historian” (and who pointedly asked him what HIS degree was); she tried to claim that Britain has ALWAYS been a multi-racial county from the very earliest times. She airily informed us that the Roman army was made up of soldiers from everywhere, including many Africans, and when the the Roman army was called back home because it was needed to defend Rome [in 410, against the Visigoths, I add], its soldiers were left behind to form the future British people.
What utter, illogical nonsense!
a) the British population was already there, for thousands of years, it was not created by Rome’s soldiers and descended from them, whether Africans or any other kind.
And b), those “African” soldiers — if there were any at all — would have been North African Berbers, not Negroes (like her); although most (or nearly all) of the Roman legions by that time were made up of German soldiers, not Africans — a fact which any real historian would know.
And c) above all, when the Roman army was called home and departed Britain, its soldiers did not remain behind! The soldiers WERE the army, idiot! This is so obvious, how could any fool not not notice the absurdity of it? The woman tripped on her own stupid tongue. (And this moron, a black American, is director of the British Museaum! Just think of that!)
I realize it was an extremely difficult position that Griffin was placed in, and not everyone could handle it. Most of us could not either. I can sympathize with him. But even so, he is clearly not the man to handle that sort of publicity event. Next time, I hope the BNP gets someone who’s a whole lot tougher; someone who narrows his eyes, clinches his teeth, raises his voice above theirs, and answers them back in a manner that puts them on the defensive. Either that, or not give any more TV interviews. Griffin just wasn’t up to the task. He was too goddam NICE! The British curse.