I call the phenomenon of being controlled like this being in a state of moral subjugation. I recently had a written conversation with a friend who is morally subjugated. It took place around Caitlin Clarke and this friend had an article published was the problem was that the WNBA racists were Egalitarians. I pointed out that they are racial supremacists waging a territorial war, not trying to make everyone equal. He responded with something about racism. My response was:
" I think the term racist is a meaningless term. I think it is a term that is weaponized particularly against virtuous and well meaning Whites."
I also included the clip of Nelson Mandela singing, "Kill the Whites", in front of reporters in Swahili and then promoting love amongst South Africans in English to make the point that just because our enemies use virtuous language doesn't mean they are virtuous. They are hiding malicious intent - usually hiding it very poorly.
In his response he conceded that he agreed. This simple sentence was very effective. Granted, I was talking with an intellectually honest, though morally subjugated friend. Those are the only conversations worth having.
Later in the conversation as I suggested that we must unite as a race and face the reality that all of the other races are organizing in a race war against us and proposed solutions - namely sovereign, racially homogenous homelands, he pulled out the white supremacist trope, saying I was advocating for a white supremacist state. For that I said: "Democracies die horrible violent deaths. Multi-racial societies of any type suffer horrific violent episodes and are under constant tension. They also require massive constant repression to mask to the constantly emergent racial/ethnic tensions. I do not advocate for a white supremacist state. I advocate for separate ethno- states precisely so competing races do not have to assert supremacy over the other groups or be ruled over. Separation eliminates that problem and it also removes the need for the repressive tyranny which you rightfully so loathe."
It was an extremely effective argument. None of these are my ideas or arguments. I learned them from the early advocates and beacon lighters of White advocacy. The point is, being calm, assertive and refuting the false premises are very effective. Of course, this is in the context of a conversation with someone open to logic. Discourse with anti-Whites is futile. However, in the on-line world discourse that refutes the false and anti-White premises calmly and simply is important for it will show Whites the way out of the bondage of moral subjugation. This critical first step is desperately needed in order to mount an effective offensive and achieve permanent victory.
I call the phenomenon of being controlled like this being in a state of moral subjugation. I recently had a written conversation with a friend who is morally subjugated. It took place around Caitlin Clarke and this friend had an article published was the problem was that the WNBA racists were Egalitarians. I pointed out that they are racial supremacists waging a territorial war, not trying to make everyone equal. He responded with something about racism. My response was:
" I think the term racist is a meaningless term. I think it is a term that is weaponized particularly against virtuous and well meaning Whites."
I also included the clip of Nelson Mandela singing, "Kill the Whites", in front of reporters in Swahili and then promoting love amongst South Africans in English to make the point that just because our enemies use virtuous language doesn't mean they are virtuous. They are hiding malicious intent - usually hiding it very poorly.
In his response he conceded that he agreed. This simple sentence was very effective. Granted, I was talking with an intellectually honest, though morally subjugated friend. Those are the only conversations worth having.
Later in the conversation as I suggested that we must unite as a race and face the reality that all of the other races are organizing in a race war against us and proposed solutions - namely sovereign, racially homogenous homelands, he pulled out the white supremacist trope, saying I was advocating for a white supremacist state. For that I said: "Democracies die horrible violent deaths. Multi-racial societies of any type suffer horrific violent episodes and are under constant tension. They also require massive constant repression to mask to the constantly emergent racial/ethnic tensions. I do not advocate for a white supremacist state. I advocate for separate ethno- states precisely so competing races do not have to assert supremacy over the other groups or be ruled over. Separation eliminates that problem and it also removes the need for the repressive tyranny which you rightfully so loathe."
It was an extremely effective argument. None of these are my ideas or arguments. I learned them from the early advocates and beacon lighters of White advocacy. The point is, being calm, assertive and refuting the false premises are very effective. Of course, this is in the context of a conversation with someone open to logic. Discourse with anti-Whites is futile. However, in the on-line world discourse that refutes the false and anti-White premises calmly and simply is important for it will show Whites the way out of the bondage of moral subjugation. This critical first step is desperately needed in order to mount an effective offensive and achieve permanent victory.