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

Adelhiem Versus the Paycheck Anti-Whites: The First Half Hour Blow By Blow

Posted by Bob on March 15th, 2013 under Coaching Session

At Adelhiem is debating a professional anti-racist. He asked me to critique it.

Before listening to a word, I said, and still mean:
“I will do it. But first let me congratulate you on having the courage to do it. With all the tens of thousands at Stormfront, I was the only one who would do the Fox network interviews here.”

Bob: I will look at it, but the point is that you DID it!
I am deeply impressed.
And no, I will not be less impressed when I look at it.
We need warriors with your courage. Technique can be learned, moral courage cannot.

Adelhiem: It is an hour and twenty minutes long. I simply can’t listen that long at a stretch, so I cut it down to fifteen minutes segments.
The first fifteen minutes, Adelheim is on top. The professional anti-racist is reduced to actually arguing that Europe is not becoming brown, which point would be racist if Adelheim made it. But Adelheim is doing fine at that point, even if he is not aggressive enough.

After listening to that fifteen minutes, I wrote:
 photo europe_zps86a854ea.jpg

Listening is hard for me. I have listened to fifteen minutes so far. You are EXCELLENT!
Your poor opponent is trying desperately to say Europe is staying white.
Please note this: This is the first time I have ever heard any pro-white stay right on genocide for fifteen straight minutes. As with me, the other guy is left rolling on and on; the only thing he has said so far is contradicted by his own side.
But it is your DISCIPLINE that leaves him rolling around aimlessly.
Good job, soldier.

I have now reached half an hour. The anti-white is making the usual point that nobody can define race, and Adelheim DID come back with the fact that the whole premise of anti-racism is based on identifying whites and non-whites.

Now at half an hour, I detect some natural flagging in Adelheim. Because he wants to be nice, Adelheim appears to be trying to introduce variation.

Bad move!

I will listen more and comment more.

  1. #1 by dungeoneer on 03/15/2013 - 6:45 am

    Half an hour was as far as I got into it a week or so ago.

    I will listen and take notes.

    What is well demonstrated so far is the fact that even with his paycheck the anti-white is just as sloppy and vulnerable as the average anti-white spewer.

    Of course without genuine trained opposition he does`nt need to be any better, and the anti-white script is always a pig no matter how much lipstick is applied.

  2. #2 by cecilhenry on 03/15/2013 - 11:20 am

    This is awesome!!

    IT is great that indeed someone has the courage to stand up and debate on the pro-white side.


    First they try to ignore you, then they try to ridicule you, then they try to argue with you.

    And then you win.

  3. #3 by Lord Nelson on 03/15/2013 - 1:42 pm

    You need to list to the last 20 or so minuets, when Adelhiem asks the ‘Paycheck’ Anti-White if he could also get government funding to open an office next door to his office, for his Pro-White, Anti Genocide cause!


  4. #4 by mandela on 03/15/2013 - 2:13 pm

    Adelheim, I think everything Bob says. Well done for having the debate, I listened to it carefully. I felt great empathy for you. unlike others tho, I liked your lack of aggression. It is easier to listen to a gentle speaker. That is a lesson for me

  5. #5 by steadiness on 03/15/2013 - 2:52 pm

    Amazing. For the first time in living memory, anti-Whites are openly losing debates. I think the anti-White system comes crashing down in ten years, tops.

  6. #6 by Conrad on 03/15/2013 - 6:28 pm

  7. #9 by Conrad on 03/15/2013 - 8:52 pm

    Yes Adelheim a very good job.
    We might also bring up the point that “racism”, that is to say the violence between the races, would not exist if each group stayed in their own territories.

    Yes, things are changing but things are changing because of the actions of the anti-whites. He thinks that we do not have the right to stop non-whites from moving into our countries but he is wrong, ALL living creatures have and keep the right to maintain their living space. He also likes to ignore the living conditions that white people find themselves in once they are surrounded by the non-whites.

    His argument forces or creates a negative gradient. The non-whites can come in but we cannot keep them out, so, in the end we lose. He says, “so what if whites become a minority.” I say ask the whites of S. Africa or any place where whites are surrounded by the non-whites. For people like him white minority status is a foregone conclusion that is of no importance.

    This anti-white states that the Conservatives brought in thee non-whites as cheep labor. This is false. The people that were responsible for this change in our immigration laws were the same ones that had been supporting the Communist & Socialist movements from the very beginning. See, Revolution From Above.

    • #10 by jo3w on 03/16/2013 - 6:48 am

      Conrad, it is intresting that you mention groups staying in thier own territories. Yesterday on my way home from work I put all of this stuff we do, ie Stormfront, AmRen, CofCC, BUGS, and everything else into a pot and boiled it down to it’s most basic elements. The only thing left was, “Unwanted Cohabitation”. For a fleeting second I actually thought, “This is such a simple concept, it should be simple to get the message through”. Then I came crashing back down to the reality that this concept was at the core of our current wordist doctrine and the only means to upheave that is REVOLUTION and by the time I got home I thought, “fuck, i’m right back where I started!!!!” This mess can be very frustrating for me and posting the mantra relieves some of that stress.

      • #11 by Conrad on 03/16/2013 - 12:13 pm


        Try to relax a bit, you can’t win this war alone. Don’t let the purveyors of genocide get YOUR guts into an uproar. Take your cue from Adelhiem, just stay cool and keep plugging away. The enemies of our race are facing the same problems that we are, so let them get THEIR guts into an uproar for a while. The creeps are actually on the defensive now.

        Try to remember that the guys at Stormfront & other such groups are on our side. They are fighting the fight in their way, and that’s okay, what they are doing causes the enemy grief too. Think of this as a war in which there are many parts all working together to beat an enemy. I’ve been at this for a long time and I can assure you that our side has made great advancements.

        By the way, if you’re trying to convert the guys at other organizations to change their methods, your efforts will be mostly wasted. Think of them as the Army and us as the Air Force. They must fight the fight in their way. If they get into a jam the AF can give them the air cover that they need. If the AF gets into a jam the Army can give the ground support that is needed.
        Jack’s War

        • #12 by Jason on 03/16/2013 - 3:46 pm

          “what they are doing causes the enemy grief too”

          I wish that was true but I can’t think of any examples. I want to like SF but most of it’s members seem to do more good for the Anti-Whites then our side.

          • #13 by OldBlighty on 03/16/2013 - 4:28 pm

            WN should never have piggy backed on the far right, nor should it have allowed the far right to piggy back on it. Stopping White Genocide is a moral issue, it is not a right vs left political issue.

            So if they won’t raise the issue of White Genocide and tell me to shut up about it, they do not get to slap me on the back and call me their “brother”.

  8. #14 by Scythian on 03/15/2013 - 10:34 pm

    “The professional anti-racist is reduced to actually arguing that Europe is not becoming brown, which point would be racist if Adelheim made it”

    While being reduced to an OBVIOUS lie, the anti-white shows his/her RACE-ISM while claiming the position of “anti-racism”.

    • #16 by Fred_Richthofen on 03/16/2013 - 12:23 pm

      The article has many great points and never mentions genocide. We know that some pro-Whites avoid the word for various reasons. The article keeps mentioning “dispossession” and “displacement.”

      The article finishes with: “there is no more grievous crime against a people than the crime being committed against White America.”

      How can there be a crime if there is no mention of genocide? I’m trying to understand why he would say it was a crime if he will not mention genocide.

      Is he using it as a figure of speech?

      I might call it a crime if I was unable to get my favorite cheese from Bavaria. I would call it a crime if someone were to break into my home and steal my cheese. Anyone can understand the first scenario is a figure of speech and the second one is an actual crime.

      Does International Law have any criminal statutes for “displacement” and “dispossession,” or does it have to be called genocide to be a crime? I would say that there is no more grievous a crime against a people than genocide.

      It’s strange to see an article stating that “displacement” and “dispossession” are “the most grievous crimes that can be committed against White America.”

      • #17 by Jason on 03/16/2013 - 3:26 pm

        Yes, the term ‘dispossession’ is inaccurate. The definition of dispossess is, “To deprive someone of the possession or something, such as real property”.

        That is not what is happening. This is a crime committed against Whites, not their property. They aren’t leaving us alone after they’ve taken our property. Genocide is not a property crime.

        No one says Tibetans are being dispossessed. No one says Jews were merely dispossessed under Hitler.

        • #18 by OldBlighty on 03/16/2013 - 3:44 pm

          “Genocide is not a property crime.”

          That is an excellent short answer for the AmRen types, that insist Genocide is “dispossession”.

          “Genocide is not a property crime.”

      • #19 by Conrad on 03/16/2013 - 3:57 pm

        Yes, I wish that Kevin MacDonald would use the term genocide more often, at least he could have stated that the displacement is a prelude to genocide. But for whatever reason he did it this way and that’s all right with me just so long as he’s shooting at the enemy. The article will help someone to way up.

  9. #20 by James C on 03/16/2013 - 1:25 am

    Adelhiem, that was a complete rout. You had him stammering all over himself like an idiot. I can’t imagine the enemy isn’t in panicked crisis mode hearing this.

  10. #21 by OldBlighty on 03/16/2013 - 3:43 am

    Adelhiem was ice cool talking to that anti-White idiot. I wish I could learn to be like that. What is your secret Adelhiem?

  11. #22 by Jason on 03/16/2013 - 3:45 am

    Excellent Adelhiem, you’ve given us all courage.

  12. #23 by Bob on 03/16/2013 - 10:36 am

    Conrad, when you’ve brought up genocide, talking about this other stuff sounds silly.

  13. #24 by Cleric Preston on 03/16/2013 - 4:03 pm

    I would like to point out that English is not Adelhiems native language
    That must add a difficulty factor of 20 !

    Last year an Anti-White group was doing filmed street interviews for an Anti-White cinema advertisment campaign about ‘Discrimination’, so I got interviewed and gave them the mantra. (Naturally I wasn’t featured in the adds)

    My point is that in front of the lights and camera and sound equipment all of a sudden it’s all differant and hard to think.

    One does not ‘rise to the occaision’ ones sinks to the level of training.

    The fact that Adelhiem didn’t go to pieces is impresive, the fact that he held his own against a paid spokesmen who is familiar with interviews is even more so.

    The fact Adelhiem DOMINATED whole portions is Amazing !

  14. #25 by FirstTube11100 on 03/16/2013 - 4:47 pm

    Adelheim won the debate. This becomes more apparent in the second part.

    What I recall from the first part is that the anti-White seems to aknowledge the Mantra while at the same time dismissing it as if famliarity with the Mantra’s points wasn’t enough to use for debate. Adelheim showed Mr. Privot that was wrong and gave a good deal of hope to PMPWs. Mr. Privot later tries to get Adelheim to agree that the geNOcide of his people is O. K. in the second part! I was flabbergasted! The anti-White has no concept of grey goo or the audience!

    Also, please, accept my gratitude for the people who set up this debate. You found a person who makes his living as a professional “anti-racist” and that is a good platform to bring up the score on the issue of White geNOcide…

  15. #26 by savethechildren on 03/21/2013 - 11:55 am

    Posted first under wrong discussion heading:

    We had a lot of fog of anti-white propaganda in the debate.
    Defining anti-white as anything that leads to a world with fewer White people and repeating and pointing out how this is happening might have been helpful.
    I think I would have accused this anti-white of labeling any White person who seeks the survival of his race as a racist.
    That anti-white loved to use the R word. His meaning regarding the R word could have been exposed and challenged. Same with the use of the word equality.

    Obviously this anti-white oppose basic principles of civilization such as “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and “Thou Shalt Not kill.” This could be exposed and He should be ridiculed for that.
    This anti-white used most of the standardized anti-white talking points.
    I would like to have seen him exposed as the genocidal murderer he is, but maybe another day.
    I don’t think we will run out of opportunities to do that to him or any of his ideological brothers anytime soon.

  16. #27 by Scythian on 03/25/2013 - 12:51 am

    Adelhiem, I reiterate what Bob said about having the cojones to debate a professional paycheck anti-white who has the luxury of at least more than half a century and the current anti-white system at his back. It’s a different world from writing; I didn’t do half as well as you simply trying to explain white genocide on a few occasions to strangers (after handing them Mantra fliers). It’s not easy talking about something (white genocide) that’s never before been talked about in human history – except for one man – Robert Whitaker. And there’s the pressure of wanting to completely smash the anti-white; by God, we’re trying to save our race!

    I can’t say I listened to the entire debate intently, but I heard the whole thing yesterday and jotted a few notes down. I think you did very well because you stayed on message practically the entire time, and you DID ANSWER his questions with your own questions, knocking him right back on his heels – a Swarming specialty. My favorite part was the end when you didn’t give in and let him know he’s an anti-white. And I also agree with Bob that more aggression is required when speaking to these paycheck anti-whites, such as cutting them off when they start to ramble off subject.

    Here’s my armchair general analysis of what the white GENOCIDE denier Michael Privot said:

    Privot said “it’s impossible for MINORITIES to be racist.”
    He also asks “who is white? the definition has changed.”
    First, he himself defines who is white – the non-MINORITIES.
    Second, he himself is saying that it’s impossible for the majority to be exploited.
    So then anti-apartheid was a fraud?
    of course that’s not what Privot and his anti-white brethren are saying, what they’re OBVIOUSLY saying is that it’s impossible for whites to be exploited. If that ain’t “white supremacy” and RACISM, than what is?
    And they claim “anti-racism”, anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. Their whole lives are built on a foundation of bullshit, because their goal is to genocide the white race, and of course they’re not going to openly admit it.
    Third, when Privot says that only white majorities can be racist, he’s openly saying the only way to get rid of “racism” is to get rid of whites or to make us a minority everywhere we exist on this planet; while claiming “anti-racism” and denying he’s an anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
    Privot is not just a hypocrite, he’s a genocidal criminal.

    Privot says “Whites were here the longest, but Europe doesn’t belong to whites”.
    He is advocating the theft of the inheritances of white people; and saying every nation on earth is open to invasion. How is this criminal allowed to live freely?

    Privot says “you base your analysis on race perspective, and if all human beings are equal in rights and dignity, doesn’t work, you see what I mean? and that is our anger”
    Privot bases HIS analysis on “race perspective” while claiming “anti-racism”. If all human beings are equal in rights and dignity, then why is it ONLY white people aren’t allowed to determine our own immigration policies and our own destinies without the “anti-racist” thugs and thought police acting against us?

    Privot says “as long as it’s not state policy to segregate”
    It’s state POLICIES that force ALL and ONLY white countries to “assimilate” with a flood of non-whites; and Privot and his anti-white brethren support these “state policies”.

    Lastly, and this is not of great importance as it’s a bit off subject, Privot says “we gain from not being in silos” in support of “migration”-as he put it. He also clearly intimated that if white countries don’t “assimilate”, we’ll “die out”.
    Is Japan “dieing out”?
    Isn’t it true it takes only one generation to reverse negative birth rates? Isn’t it also true that if the Japanese “assimilated” with Africans, that the Japanese race would “die out”?

You must be logged in to post a comment.