Message from Deleted User in Nice Respectable People Group #cyberstrike
I’m wondering if we should only post to r/t_D when it’s nighttime in Israel. @_AltRight_Anew -AZ
The sun never sets on the IDF empire
@Matthias from way too much reddit posting over the years, I found that the rightwing vs leftwing ratio is most favorable to posts made between 7 and 10am EST. The most hostile times are afternoon to 4am EST.
Hit everything on there
Will posting happy merchants get you a ban from twitter? Asking for a friend.
@Felden - CO probably not, but I don't see much of a benefit to doing so.
There’s no use in even engaging with the jew. Aside from the lawls.
I deleted the memes. It would be nice to keep an account longer than a month.
Listen for the term "This had been planned for a while"
SPLC admitting to displacement as a plan
@Deleted User So, I've come to something of a minor epiphany just over this past week, largely from reading the reactions to the SF banner drop. I'm not sure why it's taken me so long to figure it out, but these people use the term "white supremacy" to mean the desire to maintain the cultural and numerical dominance of whites in tradtionally white countries. Under this definition, we are, in fact, white supremacists. In fact, @Reinhard Wolff's interview with Brittany Pettibone, wherein he says we have an interest in maintaining a super-majority in the United States, counts as white supremacy. Under this definition, all of us, most normal people, most baby boomers, and all of our grandparents (and all of their grandparents), are white supremacists.
But... does it improve our image and chances of success if we adopt that name? People instantly think of violent skinheads.
@Joe-MN Well, I'm in the process of questioning that paradigm. The playbook says "deny being a white supremacist," which of course makes sense. But I was in a conversation yesterday where the term came up and I said "Well, the modern definition of white supremacy is whites wanting their culture and language to predominate in the United States, and that's something that our grandparents and everyone before them took for granted." The response to me was "Well that seems like a reasonable position."
This conversation was with a liberal white person.
This comes to the question of the viability of accepting the left’s terms, and the ability we may have as far as strength in narrative control to challenge those terms.
Aye. I know this topic to be one of older debate, but I don't think it's difficult, in response to "you're a white supremacist" to say "If you mean I want to maintain the European cultural character of the United States, I suppose I am."
Under this definition, the United States has always been white supremacist. Even the Kennedys and Linden Johnson were white supremacists, touting the Hart-Cellar Act as something that would "not change the demographics of the United States." (slight paraphrase there).
It also puts into context the black and Jewish criticisms of the United States. In the case of blacks, I'd say "Well, you're 13% of the country's population yet you want the entire country to bend to your culture and language."
Hm. Also if we get them to admit that white supremacy is super evil and that all of the founding fathers were white supremacists, then WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Like yeah I hate all of the founders of this country, but its nice there sooo.
Oosh, my old BUGS Swarm training wants me to push back on accepting enemy terminology, but you may have a point.
But Bob Whitaker is the reason everyone says "anti white" now.
Stick to the mantra!
refuse to use enemy terms
it's like fighting on terrain they've entrenched and prepared
make them fight on your terrain
Leftists think about these words all the time. They obsess over them. There's a reason they choose them so there's a reason we should avoid them.
Don't let them frame the narrative. Don't allow them to define the terms. Their use of the term is an attempt to present you in a negative light.
"Well, if being a Nazi just means X, then I guess I am a Nazi, by your definition. That seems reasonable." - This does not serve you well.
The term they are using has a negative and aggressive connotation, and is a "poison term", it's a negative denotation if supremacy is considered negatively.
Since you can't control how the external listener or reader approaches the term, you can't manage and frame the discussion properly.
Use a dialectic to dissect their ad hominem: "What do you mean by supremacist?" (they say you're ebil here) "Well, I've never said I wanted to do that, and our organization's charter doesn't say anything about doing that, and there's no reason I would want to do that, it doesn't make sense, you are smearing us without evidence."
Using the "If you say I'm X, then I proudly am X" is only used by provocetuers who want to sound witty.
In all honesty.
The narrative of a normie alligns with the narrative of the establishment we're against. It does us no good to affirm the narrative of the former because normies won't pick up on the irony we're implying.