B. U. G. S.

I was reading a book that said in passing that George Washington couldn’t hve had any compasion because he was a fox hunter. The author said no person who saw what dogs did to a fox when they caught him could ever go fox-hunting again if he had any compassion.

After decades of arguing such points, an obvious piint hit me.

If that same compassionate person ever saw what a fox does to a rabbit every day of the week he would a fanatical fox-hunter.

I just pointed out that if someone says white people deserve to be overrun and miscegenated out of existence, one must nail them down on what they just said. They cannot argue that genocide against whites is not taking place AND that we deserve it as REVENGE.

Please note I made two crushing points here. First of all, I used the word REVENGE, which is indefensible. Secondly, I promised that I would not FORGET that they were JUSTIFYING genocide.

Pretty obvious points, once I come up with them. They show the anti is a vengeful retard.

But the average loser manages to lose the argument or, at best, come out with a draw. This requires the kind of talent that allows conservatives to lose constantly against people who have been proposing programs that led to catastrophes for generations.

The loser would respond to the argument that whites had gone to colored lands and colonized them by a display of his knowledge. He would argue that whites did more good than harm in the long run.

Or that they invaded other lands.

Or that THEY had slavery, too.

All of these statements are proper, but ONLY IN THEIR PLACE.

FIRST, you concentrate on genocide.

You KEEP coming back to GENOCIDE.

The loser never hits the other side where it HURTS. That is how one qualifies to be a RESPECTABLE conservative. A respectable always avoids points that would upset liberals, like reminding them that their last twentyproposals were disasters.

A respectable conservative has no memory at all.

Remember that the first thing I did was to warn the anti that I would not FORGET that he was for REVENGE as an excuse for genocide when he starts saying that he has no interest in genocide.

I back it up and repeat it every chance he gives me, and make my own chances. I am making POINTS, not showing him how bright I am.

Sometimes I make a mistake on purpose. I will bring up my Revenge versus “We don’t want genocide” argument” in the wrong place. They are so happy they get a point in! They says I am hitting them with that same old thing.

The purpose of htem is not to show them what a good arguer I am. The point is to make them REMEMBER that killing argument. As the conversation goes on, they know that that argument is onthe tip of my tongue.

When I throw it in where it doesn’t belong, I have told them I won’t forget it.

More important, THEY won’t forget it. They will be on guard about it from then on.

A lot of people who brag they would do anything to save their race are not willing to look a bit silly to save their race.

No matter what, I want the audience to REMEMBER the POINT.