Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Stormfront Exchange

Posted by Bob on October 26th, 2007 under Coaching Session

I put Tolerance and Namble on SF Opposing Views.

An anti said he agreed with me about my condemantion of NAMBLA but not on my attacks on interracial datingand on my attack on alcoholics.

I replied that my stataement about alcoholics was the official position of Alcoholics Anonymous. He replied that he hadn’t moticed that for a reason.

The exchange follows:

Originally Posted by Unregistered1234
Sorry, it was hard to discern from the other stuff. love and tolerence is a creed.


Please don’t think I’m just being rude by talking to others here about you. You bring up a vital point.

Unregistered here could never know it, but he has made my point. I discussed the fact that we all know that neither Tiger Woods nor OJ Simpson would have anything to do with women who looked like the mulatto daughters they produce with their blond wives. But a white man who thinks that way is anaziwhowatnstokillsixmillionjews.

No anti can SEE what I am saying. And it takes a LOT of mental perversion to be able to overlook this completely.

As this anti says, he was looking for buzz words like love and tolerance. These people imprisoning us for disagreeing with us really do believe they represent love and tolerance.

I was discussing this “tolerance” and NAMBLA and like perversions and just how warped one’s thinking have to be to actually not notice the children a blond and a black will have.

“Tolerance and love” in the anti creed is, of course, the exact opposite of tolerance and love in the real world. The Inquisition talked about Love and Mercy all the time. If you are bnr4ainwaashed enough, you can honestly believe that you are screaming people down for Love or jailing disagreement in the name of Tolerance.

Unregistered here is incapable of seeing that. He can see the Inquisition misused Christianity, he can see NAMBLA is pushing perversion in the name of tolerance. But he is incapable of seeing himself as doing the same thing in the case of forbidding whites to see what Tiger Woods and OJ.

Which happens to be my exact point.


” It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say 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 as crowded as 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.”

  1. #1 by mderpelding on 10/30/2007 - 8:45 pm

    Love and Tolerance were to be applied to how we were led.
    Not how we lived.
    There is a difference.
    Christ taught that God showed love and tolerance to His creation as our Father. As God led.
    That we as leaders should act as our creator.
    Love and Tolerance were related to hierarchy.
    We should tolerate the failures of our inferiors as God tolerates our actions.
    This is a relational condition.
    Not a behavioral condition.

    The left says that Love and Tolerance should be applied to behavior.
    Can anyone explain why this is wrong?

Comments are closed.