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

Ole Bob Bitches

Posted by Bob on June 20th, 2012 under Coaching Session


I wrote a very subtle article demanding that this “race mixing” term should NEVER be used by a BUGSER. It ended with a dozen exclamation points.

Comments ranged from a unbelievably naïve suggestion of a synonym for race mixing to on-target explanations of what I am saying.

“Race mixing” does not bring you to what is being done: WHITE genocide.

Integration has been the term used by the Dutch to replace multiculturalism because they correctly guessed that the idiots and clowns on our side would not even notice what that MEANS.

I was crushed by the idiocy of the discussion on integration.

In the Netherlands, multiculturalism has been displaced by “integration.” NO ONE but me even noticed that the subtext of that is that this multiculturalism the Dutch are abandoning after decades of its enforcement was an expression of segregation.

Does ANYBODY get it? Integration Committees? SEGREGATION?

I simply cannot pass on my heritage to people who can’t tell the difference between uncapitalized conservative and Conservative. I have read a number of British books using the term “liberal” and “conservative” and I have lived over there, so I know the population is not THAT illiterate.

OK. We have so far a BUGS population which cannot understand the subtext of the word “integration” and doesn’t know how to make an ignorant fool who can’t see the difference between a party name and a political position LOOK like a fool.

So you mixed up integration as used in the Mantra with “race mixing.”

Paul Fromm never points out the real meaning of Integration Committees to REPLACE multi-culturalism. I expected he would be able to do that.

But that no BUGSER is able to put Holy Integration in its place I needed more exclamation points.

Yes, we are saying that the whole Integration program of Saint Martin Luther the King led straight to the total destruction of our race.

Paul has the right to be unable to see that Integration is the Politically Correct line in abandoning “multiculturalism.”

Paul is fighting for his CULTURE. We are fighting for our RACE.

But you can’t fight for our race if you can’t even read the subtext of “integration.”

In fact, the Dutch don’t know that their anti-white religion has abandoned the word “integration.” The term is “desegregation,” and they take it VERY seriously because “desegregation” means getting rid of an artificial separation, and if you are not aware of how anti-whites react to the term “integration,” you might NEVER be a pro.

You’re damned right I’ll keep “integration” in the Mantra.

And frankly I get the impression that people who quibble about it or don’t understand the above have not outgrown their college education.

You HAVE to learn to THINK.

I know it hurts at first, but it gets easier.

Share it now. Like it while you're at it.
  1. #1 by RobRoy on 06/20/2012 - 7:05 am

    Many “white leaders” have spoken of the need to get rid of this imaginary, artificial separation of multi-culturalism via “integration.”

    Non-white immigration has ONLY and ALWAYS been about white genocide.

  2. #2 by BGLass on 06/20/2012 - 9:41 am

    just a curiosity— the shift in terminology is tricky: integrate to multiculturalism to desegregate.

    We live in a fairly top-down hierarchical militarist-corporatist climate, just as it is leftist— The point being most people don’t try to think. They get a memo, or a boss corrects them, like when they use “multi-cult” thinking they are being “correct,” and they get a look of censure in their cubicle and somebody corrects, “desegregation” or says “we’re calling it de-segregation now,” don’t’ write the other thing, or you’ll look like you’re out of the loo, or somebody puts a red pen to it.

    S0 it’s a curiosity to ask about the recent numbers on t.v.— like whites being minority. Does a person feels the same way about neo-de-segregation (past integration) (genocide)—- in the current climate? What do they, in real terms, see themselves “de-segregating” into, and what will their future world look like, etc, since already they are minority, not only in their countries, but in the world?

    Idk– “desegregation” of a clear minority seems much more clearly extinction. In a sense the term that has changed most lately is “minority”—for who is it really? Europeans are 7% in the world. As with so many words —a lot of money is invested in them. So, as terms change, people who paid for them try to keep them, even if they no longer serve. —The why of “minority-majority.” Wanting to have it “both ways.” (Sure we’re a “majority,” but we’re still “minorities.” And anyway, “minority” means oppressed…. and it isn’t really about how many people we are, anyway. Minority has nothing to do with numbers.”)— a pretty odd argument, really, exposing “minority” as a code word for meaning a not-white-anti-white.

    “Will Whites feel the same about “integration programs” (programs clarifies the policy-oriented nature)— “Will Whites, now a clear minority, feel the same about the new “desegregation policy programs” (genocide) as they did about “multicultural policy programs” and “integration policy programs” (genocide) when the programs were national and they were –at that time— a national majority which they are not now?

    Realizing minority status— will change how they will respond.

    Even subtle toying with words can cause confusion. Even “non-white” cost a lot of money. To hear “not-white” is one letter, but subtextually says you “define terminology” (frame debates, select the issues, and so on) and have decided to take control of a word.

    Word-wise— pointing out the genealogy of terms— “integration policies” to “multicultural policies” to “desegregation policies” —would show long-term commitment to genocide.

    Why—if the programs and policies are so necessary have they needed endlessly new names to “market” them, which suggests an unwilling public?

  3. #3 by BGLass on 06/20/2012 - 9:47 am

    meant “out of the loop” As usual, no one says, “What do you mean by that?” What is the real effect of the implemented policy? Short term? Long term? Many people say it is just another genocide policy, why do you think otherwise? (ensuring defensive position– making them defend genocide)

  4. #4 by The Seeker of Truth on 06/20/2012 - 9:52 am

    “Integration” is not in the mantra, “assimilation” is. They, and “desegregation” mean the exact same thing GENOCIDE!

  5. #5 by Gavin on 06/20/2012 - 11:55 am

    You must learn to immediately recognize anti-White terminology and stop treating their terminology as if it has any legitimacy whatsoever, let alone using it yourself (as I have seen some Stockholm Syndrome pro-Whites do)

    A BUGSTER must be able to look at an article like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Cesspool

    …and immediately be able to pick out the loaded anti-White buzzwords peppered throughout. Not only that but you must be able to replace the anti-White terminology with terminology that is not anti-White. As seen in this article: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Cesspool

    Most of the major media venues that masquerade as “neutral” are controlled by anti-Whites, including venues like Wikipedia. I once saw Jimmy Wales (founder of wikipedia) give a talk where he bragged about preventing pro-Whites from removing anti-White phrasing and bias. Keep this in mind and always be on the lookout for anti-White buzzwords that immediately indicate the person or venue is a supporter of the ruling anti-White religion of Political Correctness.

    We are dealing with an established religion that uses loaded anti-White terminology to enforce it’s doctrine. We pro-White dissidents must be immediately able to detect and disarm anti-White terminology.

  6. #6 by six gun on 06/20/2012 - 3:03 pm

    Bob says BUGsers do not understand some of the words.

    My concern is if my people understand the words.

    “..he said the average reading age of people in the UK was equivalent to an educated nine-year-old.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3641634.stm

    There are not that many words.
    So why don’t people understand the words.
    Where and why is it going wrong?

  7. #7 by Simmons on 06/20/2012 - 3:16 pm

    We still show respect for their taboos, perhaps out of some respect for their phoney claims to moral superiority, but more than likely our bad training from our wordists intellectuals.

    You can ask them directly what they enforce for taboo, its that easy.

  8. #8 by c-bear on 06/20/2012 - 9:53 pm

    “You HAVE to learn to THINK.
    I know it hurts at first, but it gets easier.” Bob.
    How hard it must be to admit that nearly everything you’ve been taught about race is a lie, especially for the intellectual snobs! I graduated high school 2 years early, and within a year I was in honors classes in college. I’m obviously not a dumbass. But I am NOT an intellectual. These self-proclaimed intellectuals are some of the dumbest people I have met. Here’s a dead give away: they are incapable of admitting when they are wrong. For these types it DOES hurt to think.

  9. #9 by (G)host on 06/20/2012 - 11:41 pm

    You’re damned right I’ll keep “integration” in the Mantra. – Bob

    “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.”

    You do NOT put the white race on Frappe. mmmkay…?

    Do you newer guys – now pay CLOSE attention – GET what Bob is saying when he says quote “integration” in the Mantra? unquote Can you identify it (“integration”) IN the Mantra? I think this is his point. And he has every right to be worried.

    -G

  10. #10 by (G)host on 06/20/2012 - 11:51 pm

    You’re damned right I’ll keep “integration” in the Mantra. – Bob

    “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.”

    You do NOT put the white race on Frappe. mmmkay…?

    Do you newer guys – now pay CLOSE attention – GET what Bob is saying when he says quote “integration” in the Mantra? unquote Can you identify it (“integration”) IN the Mantra? I think this is his point. And he has every right to be worried.

    And Bob is right, anti-whites want EVERYONE to agree that it is Perfectly Natural to bust your load in a blackie and shack up with a Pimp. Just so long as the end result is NO MORE WHITE CHILDREN.

    -G

  11. #11 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/21/2012 - 12:47 am

    I’ve read this blog several times now and can understand little of it except the first few paragraphs.

    E.g. this:

    “if you are not aware of how anti-whites react to the term ‘integration,’ you might NEVER be a pro.”

    Will someone please explain to me (not only because I would like to understand it, but also because I’m growing curious if all the others here who appear to understand it actually do. Anyone who understands it should be able to explain it to me)…will someone please explain to me what Bob has in mind in the phrase “how anti-whites react to the term ‘integration.'”

    I know how the anti-whites who manage knoxnews.com reacted to MY use of that word when I first arrived there several years ago and wrote as my first post that the Christian/Newsom murders would not have occurred except for integration. The anti-whites in charge at knoxnews reacted as if they thought integration was a very, very fine thing indeed.

    That reaction I understand. I have no idea what reaction Bob is thinking of. I don’t know beans about Europe, might be part of it.

    Frustration.

    • #12 by Gavin on 06/21/2012 - 4:34 pm

      American anti-Whites INSIST that the program of forced integration of our race by bayonet point that they implemented in the 1960’s was NOT integration, they always insist it be called “desegregation.”

      They will react angrily if you call it integration and insist that is WAS NOT integration…integration is bad but “desegregation” is fine.

      Then in Europe anti-Whites demand the integration of our race, the very same thing the American anti-Whites insisted was not being done and would be angry if you pointed out was what they were doing.

  12. #13 by RobRoy on 06/21/2012 - 4:57 am

    Harumphty Dumpty.

    Despite their abandonment of the term multiculturalism because it was an expression of segregation they pretend that integration has nothing to do with intermarriage. They react the same way to assimilation. We see it all the time.

    • #14 by Harumphty Dumpty on 06/21/2012 - 2:04 pm

      Thanks for responding.

      So you are saying that the phrase Bob uses in this blog, “how anti-whites react to the term ‘integration,’” refers to the anti-white insistence that “integration has nothing to do with intermarriage.”?

      I want to be very clear on that, because although I read this blog over with that interpretation in mind, and could still find no indications that that or any other thing is what Bob had in mind, I will read the blog over again several times later today and try to see it, if you feel very sure that that is what his phrase refers to and you aren’t just making a guess.

      I feel like I shouldn’t be having to do this to understand exactly what it is that I possibly don’t understand that might cause me to “NEVER be a pro.”

      Having had my IQ in this struggle raised 10 or 15 points by Bob makes up for not being able to understand much of what Bob writes, but it’s still EXTREMELY frustrating.

      I wish someone would do for me with this blog what I tried to do for Six Gun with the preceding blog (although I see from Six Gun’s post with his mini today that he was apparently pointed in a right direction all along).

  13. #15 by Bob on 06/21/2012 - 2:50 pm

    HD, allow me to repeat that the term integration is no longer PC, as I did in the article.
    So I UNIQUELY caught the Europeans out.
    The Americans Europeans worship abandoned integration THEN because it showed that it was a positive act, integrating WHITE, not just THE races mixing.
    You can reread it a hundred times, but you will never understand without seeing the subtext.

    • #16 by (G)host on 06/21/2012 - 2:57 pm

      It’s “wide sky,” big guy.

      They need to pull back and view it from the top down.

      “Wordism is a horror.

      But it is a horror that those who spend all their time describing the dam will never see.” – Bob

      Refresher course(s):
      http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2011/11/08/the-view-from-atop-the-dam/
      http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2011/11/09/looking-at-the-dam/

    • #17 by Gavin on 06/21/2012 - 3:50 pm

      An American anti-White would never use the term integration to describe the forced integration of our race that they did in the 20th century.

      They claim that forcing White children at bayonet point into schools with non-Whites was not “integrating” them, it was merely removing some barrier to the completely natural racially mixed society that was the natural state of human affairs. The subtext of them never calling this “integration” was them admitting that integrating our race would be immoral but “desegregating” was completely moral.

      Now we have Europeans openly claiming that they want to integrate our race, which was what the American anti-Whites admitted would be immoral in the 1960’s by always insisting that this was not integration but merely “desegregation.”

      I understand this logic…but how do I use this understanding as a weapon in the fight against the genocide of our race?

Comments are closed.