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

PLEASE Stop Using “Mixing THE Races”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Bob on June 17th, 2012 under Coaching Session

Some good soul was reporting a perfectly good argument he was using, but he started off by saying that they want “To mix the races” and then on to explain it was just in white countries.

Just repeating the words of he Big Lie, “Mixing THE races,” can do more harm than any posting might do good. This is phraseology that we are fighting desperately here to END.

No matter what you say after, the moment you introduce “Mixing THE races” you have put the argument on THEIR ground. This is language they are used to. This is wording they can WORK with.

I have said this before repeatedly.

Is there any way I can make it clearer to you?

NEVER, Never, never, never, Never, never, never , never, NEVER use “Mixing THE races.”

Am I being too subtle or something?

  1. #1 by six gun on 06/17/2012 - 7:46 am
    with race-mixing at 17 and 18.

    I suggest this is revised to correct this and the appropriate terminology clearly stated for all BUGsters and budding BUGsters.

  2. #2 by elcyCesreveR on 06/17/2012 - 8:32 am

    I often use;

    Massive 3rd world immigration & forced assimilation targeted at all and only white countries to create a “blended humanity” is white genocide

    is “blended humanity” also putting it on THEIR grounds?

  3. #3 by Genseric on 06/17/2012 - 10:05 am

    MASSIVE immigration, assimilation & INTERMARRIAGE in EVERY white country and ONLY in white countries constitutes genocide; white genocide. Nothing more, nothing less.

  4. #4 by zyzz on 06/17/2012 - 10:54 am

    does this include “blending of the races”?

    • #5 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/17/2012 - 3:30 pm

      “…blending whites out of existence,” does the job I think.

      The Mantra itself is simply noting that all that Love and Brotherhood and ”mixing of the races” has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate fate of any race but the white one.–Bob

      I love that quote…it flipped a switch in my brain and so much became clear.

      Note also: the races we would be interbred out of existence with would still have their homelands with their large populations there.

  5. #6 by BGLass on 06/17/2012 - 11:10 am

    Somewhere –maybe here– was posed the question: If Hitler had made a policy that sent all the girl youknowwhos to Asia and all the boy youknowwhos to Africa, and never the twain would meet— and otherwise lifted no finger whatsoever and certainly did not the least bit of violence—- would it be genocide?

  6. #7 by Southern Nationalist on 06/17/2012 - 12:31 pm

    I think I am the one who is guilty of this. However, I’m new to BUGS and am unsure of what terms would be better used in its place. Can someone point me to a post where the issue is discussed?

  7. #8 by Bob on 06/17/2012 - 12:31 pm

    syzz — Are you joking? OF COURSE!

  8. #9 by Roderick on 06/17/2012 - 12:35 pm

    Is the reason being that “the” “races” are not being mixed but rather only our race?
    Is it better to say “…mixing my race…” or is it better to avoid the words mixing and blending all together?

    • #10 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/17/2012 - 3:50 pm

      I avoid “mixing” in any context. It’s a word that whites used to use and anti-whites have succeeded in attaching a bad odor to any one who uses it.

  9. #11 by c-bear on 06/17/2012 - 1:10 pm

    …force blending OUR race out of existence…it’s GENOCIDE. Nobody is “mixing THE races”. All this “mixing” is only for my race.

  10. #12 by Dave on 06/17/2012 - 2:49 pm

    There is no race mixing going on. There is no race blending going on. There is no assimilation going on.

    There is race elimination going on. The white race is being eliminated. The white race is being annihilated.

    • #13 by runner on 06/17/2012 - 3:06 pm

      How can we define what the genocide consists of without the words blending or assimilation??

      • #14 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/17/2012 - 3:40 pm

        I use this a lot:

        Anti-whites are flooding ALL white countries and ONLY white countries with non-whites, and legally forcing whites to integrate with them so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

        I’m not sure about using the word “integrate,” though. That’s sort of enemy-occupied territory. If anyone (especially Bob) thinks the word should be omitted, I’d like to hear.

  11. #15 by zyzz on 06/17/2012 - 2:59 pm

    thanks Bob.

    ^good post dave. that clarifies it.

    The Mini-Mantras list need to be updated to correct this terminology.

  12. #16 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/17/2012 - 3:36 pm

    HD, why can’t you always be so brief? Please work on that!

  13. #17 by dungeoneer on 06/17/2012 - 5:09 pm

    It`s not happening and there`s no need to be using the concept.

    Mixing on it`s own gives a hint of choice but “assimilation” is mandatory for whites and only whites.

  14. #18 by Dissident on 06/17/2012 - 10:29 pm

    Why use absolutes like “elimination,” “out of existence,” or “annihilated”? It doesn’t make your argument more powerful and it’s not necessary.

    The definition of genocide:

    The deliberate destruction, in whole or IN PART, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group.

    It doesn’t have to be absolute and words like that just give your opponent an opening to use against you.

    If people survived past examples of genocide, does that mean it was not genocide?

    • #19 by dungeoneer on 06/20/2012 - 10:02 pm

      “Why use absolutes?”

      The anti-whites are being absolutist in demanding the total global elimination aka genocide of white people in the name of “anti-racism”.

  15. #20 by Fitzgerald on 06/17/2012 - 10:40 pm

    Got it. Elimination , extinction and destroyed.

    • #21 by Gavin on 06/20/2012 - 11:40 pm

      Don’t use extinction. That does not indicate that there is an active force doing it. Elimination, destruction etc… implying a causal agent (anti-Whites)

  16. #22 by Jason on 06/18/2012 - 7:04 am

    HD, I agree with you, there is something about the word “integrate” that doesn’t carry the same punch, even the term “forced integration”, although it might work in some arguments. Wasn’t there a big discussion of this earlier somewhere? I am relatively new and can’t remember where I saw it.

    By the way, was it you who wrote over on TOO or somewhere, “their goal is genocide, what is yours?”, or something like that? That is a good line to use on the AMPW crowd I think (maybe not a general audience). It took a while to sink in, but it makes a person realize we need to get serious.

    • #23 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/18/2012 - 11:28 am

      “their goal is genocide, what is yours?”

      That wasn’t me, but I like it for white sites.

      I would change it to,

      “their goal is genocide, what is OURS?”

  17. #24 by six gun on 06/18/2012 - 7:59 am

    The UK government have complained the immigrants are not integrating. That multiculturalism has failed as people are not taking on British identity.
    The term integrate is being used for Anglicise rather than implying interbreeding.
    The intermarry is almost getting old hat with the decline of marriage, a lot of the issue is there is no marriage.

    We should be absolutely clear what the problems are and then describe them clearly.
    1 Mass immigration. Bringing large numbers of non-Whites into the country.
    2 Low birth rate (not fertility – there is nothing wrong with White people’s reproductive capacity). The reasons for this are a volume in themselves.
    3 Forced Mixing – Yes mixing but not in terms of interbreeding, simply everyone mixed in together. Children go to mixed race school, communities have immigrants appearing in them. Media depicts racial mixing. This is not voluntary. Only the Whites with the money can avoid much of this. Bring the non-Whites into contact with Whites.
    4 Laws, authorities pusing the issue, media, political correctness – acting to soften up and pressure the Whites to 5.
    5 Interbreeding of non-Whites into White population.

    The combination of large numbers of non-Whites into a falling White population who are demoralised and have social pressures to be amenable to interbreeding will result in White people disappearing hence the projected dates for White minority status in White countries.

    The mixed race people result from interbreeding of the races.

    • #25 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/18/2012 - 12:01 pm

      “We should be absolutely clear what the problems are and then describe them clearly….Forced Mixing…everyone mixed in together…racial mixing…The mixed race people result from interbreeding of the races.”

      Six Gun, are you reading and thinking about the comments by Bob, as well as the comments by the rest of us?

      Anti-whites don’t care a fig about “racial mixing”! Where are they trying to force “racial mixing” anywhere in the world except in white countries? And what race involved in that “mixing” will be the ONLY race that is affected by it? Whites! Since the other races involved have homelands elsewhere with large populations! Those homelands preserve the biological integrity of all the races that are being used as instruments of white genocide in white countries!

      Here’s the point, Six Gun, as I see it: We don’t use the phrases “race mixing,” “mixing,” “blending of the races,” etc. because they convey the false understanding that the aim and the reality of the activity being referred to is the mixing or blending of races.

      That’s NOT the purpose nor the reality! The purpose and the reality is the genocide of the white race and nothing more!

      We don’t use language that conveys the lies of our enemies!

      Races are not being blended or mixed anywhere. Whites are being blended out of existence.

      Linguistically (but only linguistically), that’s maybe a subtle distinction, but therefore the distinction should be maintained all the more rigidly. But I’m beginning to wonder if the word “blending” shouldn’t be dispensed with altogether…any thoughts about that by anyone?

      • #26 by six gun on 06/18/2012 - 3:09 pm

        Yes I do read Bob’s posting and everyone else’s.

        When I described the stages, I used mixing of the races. Not in terms of interbreeding but like putting 50 white balls in a bucket with 50 black balls.
        So this is in terms of close proximity.
        IF the USA had 150 million non-White come in but they could only go to 30 of the states with the other 20 being all White, there would not be the same issue.

        To interbreed the races must be in close proximity.
        Mixed in terms of physically in close proximity.
        Same country, same community, same schools, colleges, work places and so on.

        I’m not prescribing the words, I’m describing what is happening.

        Now we need words for this.
        I look down the page and I see a good few people who are confused.

        You are saying blended is ok, Bob says not.
        People are using mixing in their posts or wanting to use mixing.
        I see extinction, – a word I have heard criticised.
        Destruction – I can see problems.

        So let’s be up front. I see BUGS who have not got the right words.

        By the way the anti-White are very concerned about having the immigrants mixed in with the Whites.

        • #27 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/19/2012 - 11:04 am

          “You are saying blended is ok, Bob says not.”

          IMO you haven’t understood at all Bob’s response, or my own post. I don’t think Bob was objecting to the word “blending,” but to the way it was used.

          I tried very hard to explain that I think there’s a HUGE difference between

          “blending of the races” (which Bob said no to)


          “blending whites out of existence”

          Do you see the two phrases as being equivalent? Please think about it a bit. I can’t think of more to say than my 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs in the post you’re responding to.

          And I did wonder if we should use “blending” at all…I’m going to continue to use it in the context I think is correct until/unless I’m talked out of it or Bob says no.

          “By the way the anti-White are very concerned about having the immigrants mixed in with the Whites.”

          That’s exactly my point! (and I believe is Bob’s point). Ask yourself, are they concerned about that because they desire “race mixing,” or because they desire white genocide?

          Which is it, Six Gun?

          Where but in white countries do the anti-whites care whether races mix or not?

          • #28 by six gun on 06/19/2012 - 4:21 pm

            “Blending of the races” describes a process.
            There is nothing wrong with the phrases as long as you state what the intention of the process is.
            So you say anti-White policies push for **blending of the races** in all White countries and only White countries in order to blend Whites out of existence as a distinct group of people.

            If you put blending of the races without defining purpose you leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.

            So the phrases in their raw states are not the same as you are comparing a “process” with a “process + purpose.”
            Tag a purpose to “blending of the races” (which you have done) and they are equivalent.

            ““By the way the anti-White are very concerned about having the immigrants mixed in with the Whites.”

            That’s exactly my point! (and I believe is Bob’s point). Ask yourself, are they concerned about that because they desire “race mixing,” or because they desire white genocide?”

            The issue with “race mixing” is the anti-Whites have attached their sanitised lie of a purpose to it.
            If you don’t use such a phrase in a very clearly defined way the reader will attached the lie of a purpose to it. They may well do that subconsciously even if you clarify the point.
            Certainly the anti-White will misquote you. How many times have we seen “code word” misdefined or just missed out?

            When I talked about mixing the races it was the physical approximation of immigrants to their reluctant hosts. This is a different process, but of course with the same ultimate purpose.

            • #29 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/20/2012 - 12:46 pm

              Once you write the phrase “blending of the races,” the anti-white meaning you do NOT want that phrase to have but which it DOES have is activated and strengthened in the reader’s mind, whatever explanation you follow up with.

              So use a phrase instead that means what you want it to mean.

            • #30 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/20/2012 - 2:06 pm

              Re Bob’s instruction to not use the phrase, “race mixing,” zyzz asked,

              does this include “blending of the races”?

              Bob responded,

              syzz — Are you joking? OF COURSE!

              Six Gun, you then wrote, further down the page,

              “Blending of the races” describes a process.
There is nothing wrong with the phrases as long as you state what the intention of the process is.

              Even though you disagree with Bob about this, are you willing to follow his judgment about it in your posts?

              • #31 by six gun on 06/20/2012 - 2:47 pm

                @HD I have started working through Bob’s blog – back to 2005. It is a ball aching job.

                I am pulling anything that looks relevant out.
                I will asimilate this so all this lingo words have their own profiles.
                Not sure how long it will take.
                I will report back.

                • #32 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/20/2012 - 3:12 pm

                  Six Gun, are you so sure of your own conclusion about “blending of the races” that you feel certain Bob must have agreed with you sometime in the past? Lol!

                  • #33 by six gun on 06/20/2012 - 3:27 pm

                    No mate.
                    I am not sure of anything.

  18. #34 by BGLass on 06/18/2012 - 9:06 am

    “…The reasons for this [low birth rate] are a volume in themselves….”

    It’s the prime reproductive years, especially young adulthood, college age, that are most targeted for education in “dating as exploration.” The drugging-drinking goes hand in hand (possibly to help them tolerate it— drunkeness not really being all that pleasant.) Should they question anything— the schools are full of rehabs, people warehousing on breaks and general shrinkdom—to ensure their angst is trained on mommy, daddy, and childhood traumas they can never remember (because they didn’t happen). Then, of course, there’s no money— unless maybe they sell themselves to the public sector (the thinking they’ve received being now ingrained, and the status quo a sure thing for their children.

  19. #35 by Bob on 06/19/2012 - 6:44 pm

    six gun, why don’t you write a tome on all that?

    • #36 by six gun on 06/19/2012 - 7:07 pm

      Bob – are you being serious?
      i’m happy to start a thread with a “tome” kicking it off.
      That would be interesting.
      Reading this thread I feel there are still things up in the air and I am not happy it is that way.

      If you were having a dig at the counter current elements of my posts; well I am counter current sometimes.

  20. #37 by Gavin on 06/19/2012 - 8:48 pm

    I would like some thoughts on this phrases

    Mix/blend us out of existence

    Mix/blend our race out of existence

    Any thoughts on if these get across the message that our race is the target and elimination is the goal?

    • #38 by (G)host on 06/20/2012 - 12:55 am

      We are not a cake or a shake. We do not get mixed or blended into anything.

      But, FORCE assimilate, i.e. intermarry, with all those non-whites is MUCH more preferable.

      Be sure to include white genocide and finish with our tag line and “you’ll be right, mate.”

    • #39 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/20/2012 - 1:06 pm

      I think “blend” is probably okay (I use it that way after having copied that usage from someone else here), but I wouldn’t use “mix” even in that context because I believe anti-whites succeeded in attaching a bad odor to anyone who used the word “mix” in a racial context, since like the N-word, it’s a term whose use was associated with “racists” of an earlier era.

      But maybe for younger readers the word carries little charge, I don’t know.

      • #40 by (G)host on 06/20/2012 - 11:56 pm

        Blend? Seriously?

        You do not put our race on Frappe.

        • #41 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/21/2012 - 12:16 am

          Genseric, seriously, the italicized paragraph in #14 doesn’t sound right to you? When I first came across that paragraph (I contributed only the phrase “so as to”), I thought whoopee, someone has come up with just the right word for that context, “blend.”

  21. #42 by The Old Man of the Mountain on 06/20/2012 - 12:11 am

    I avoid even using the phrase “the White Race” because we are not a “race” we are a separate species.

    I usually use the term White Folks, and sometimes White Human.

    No one would claim that a tiger is just a lion with stripes, but there is a lot more difference between a White Human and those creatures, than there is between a lion and a tiger.

  22. #43 by Scythian on 06/21/2012 - 12:19 am

    I saw an experiment whereby simply changing the labels on wine bottles got the guinea pigs to change their opinions on how the wine tasted. Since I can remember, it’s been constant anti-white pro-miscegenation “marketing” and ALL pro-white anti-miscegenation “marketing” BANNED; all while imposing a policy of integration and pouring hundreds of millions of non-whites into white countries and asking Eastern Europe and ONLY Eastern Europe when they will be “ready” for this mass foreign-race immigration.
    Annihilation by assimilation is as voluntary as the conformity and oppression of the people of the Republic of Oceania was voluntary.
    “They fight for our freedom” IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. Truth is THEY are shooting at the wrong people.
    Either pro-white becomes permanent, or we perish. That’s where we’re at.
    Anti-whites with their policies, suppression, “marketing” and their very own words tell us people who look like us, our families, our kin, our race, have no right to protect our kind, to preserve our kind, to have our own homelands. Anti-whites justify the elimination of my kin and my race from this planet. Anti-whites are working to eliminate my kin and my race from this planet. Don’t we NOW have the right to eliminate them? Isn’t that God’s law? Isn’t that natural law?
    This isn’t ethnic cleansing, it is GENOCIDE.

    Does true power lie with the ones who have the ABSOLUTE right to use violence but eschew violence?

Comments are closed.