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

If the Exceptions to Free Speech Happen to Match an Ongoing Program, it is Censorship, Still Open For Comments

Posted by Bob on June 23rd, 2013 under Coaching Session

I have repeated this theme many, many times, and I have gotten replies about how “heresy” is too theoretical.

This means you can either go back to sleep or make it less theoretical for yourself.

So far you have chosen a nice mental nap.  photo hatespeech2_zps4efdf49b.jpg
So on the Working Page there  are a couple of complaints about being told that You Tube allows “Free speech” but not “Hate speech.”

Replied to, presumably, by a dumb silence.

Every tyranny in history claimed free speech. The Stalinist Constitution of 1936 beat our first amendment in wording.


There is no difference between slavery and freedom EXCEPT….

Then I have said, over and over and over, “Why was this information produced?”    That you have gotten fairly well.

Put them together.

If the exceptions to free speech happen to match an ongoing program, it is censorship.

If the exceptions to free speech happen to match an ongoing program, it is censorship.

If the exceptions to free speech happen to match an ongoing program, it is censorship.

Hitler called it Communism; Stalin  called it fascism; today’s rulers call it Hate Speech.


  1. #1 by dungeoneer on 06/23/2013 - 10:56 am

    Winterblade and Jason criticized one of my youtube mantric filler posts for being said in threatening way.

    My youtube reply to that concern:

    In the novel 1984, the people were forbidden to speak against IngSoc under pain of torture and death.

    In 2013 white people are forbidden to discuss our GENOCIDE via mass immigration and “assimilation” imposed only on white countries under pain of demonization, loss of job, and death.

    • #2 by Winterblade on 06/23/2013 - 1:33 pm

      Well, I have no wish to derail the comments, but since my name was mentioned, I feel I need to respond and clear something up since this is a little misleading, dungeoneer:

      You weren’t talking about our genocide. You were talking about recording the names of anti-Whites.

      The exact quote:

      “Those people acting in the service of white genocide in the name of so-called “anti-racism” have been recorded.”

      It doesn’t matter how YOU meant it – what matters is what will happen in the listener’s mind (Bob just brought that up in the last blog I believe). You may say you only mean that the internet records what these anti-Whites are saying, but when I look at that, putting myself in the place of how the audience is going to think, what I see is:

      “I’m going to note your channels and try and trace your IPs and come to your houses and kill you with my skinhead death gang.”

      It doesn’t matter if it’s a double-standard and the masses would cheer if some black guy were “recording” pro-Whites – it looks threatening.

      We’re told here not to talk about “genocide tribunals” because that makes us look threatening.

      So I think the logic extends to not implying that you’re taking down people’s names if they disagree with you.

      That post did nothing to further the mantra on that thread. It didn’t talk about White genocide, it talked about making a record of names, and it also sounded threatening, so in one post, you got off the message and shut people’s minds down by coming across as a “crazy skinhead killer-type.”

      I’m not trying to provoke you or anything, I’m pointing out the mistake here. Our mission is a consistent message, White genocide. That post had nothing to do with White genocide. So at the least, can you see how it was an error from that perspective?


      • #3 by dungeoneer on 06/23/2013 - 2:08 pm


        “The exact quote:

        “Those people acting in the service of white genocide in the name of so-called “anti-racism” have been recorded.”

        “I’m not trying to provoke you or anything, I’m pointing out the mistake here. Our mission is a consistent message, White genocide. That post had >nothing to do with White genocide<. So at the least, can you see how it was an error from that perspective?"

        I did mention white genocide. You must be confused.

        Back on topic, do you think the Heresy! and religion subjects are embarrassing and effective against anti-whitism?

        • #4 by Jason on 06/23/2013 - 6:39 pm

          Remember, we WANT Anti-Whites to respond to our posts. We WANT them to engage us in debate. We WANT them to talk about how much they hate White babies. That is a win for us, if they do it in a public forum.

          Why would you want to intimidate them into not responding to our posts? This isn’t a trash-talking contest, we are suckering them into exposing themselves.

          I am not above losing my cool with them myself, so it is easier to give this advice than follow it – LOL. But that is the goal.

          • #5 by dungeoneer on 06/23/2013 - 7:52 pm

            Jason don`t you think we`ve had enough theorizing from certain quarters?

            Anti-whites will continue to justify white genocide as they`ve been programmed to do.

            You can count on that as much as the sun rising in the East tomorrow.

            • #6 by Jason on 06/23/2013 - 8:16 pm

              So what good does telling them their posts have been recorded do? The issue then is purely how it looks to White Normals reading the exchange.

              I have used some provocative tactics on twitter before to get a response from a Big Name. Things lke using their name and calling them an Anti-White. I got mixed results.

              • #7 by dungeoneer on 06/23/2013 - 9:32 pm

                More theorizing this time about the effect on white and normal people of worrying about white genocide supporter activities being recorded Jason thank you so much.

                • #8 by Jason on 06/23/2013 - 10:09 pm

                  No this is not “theorizing”. If it gets the point through, Bob told us never to threaten anti-Whites with tribunals or reparations. This is very similar. Not theory.

                  And like you, I’ve posted the Mantra thousands of times, so this is not mere theory.

                  • #9 by dungeoneer on 06/23/2013 - 10:22 pm

                    There was no threat in the original post in question, merely a statement of fact including use of the white genocide meme.

                    You have theorized that the words in said post were in fact
                    “a threat”.

  2. #10 by Simmons on 06/23/2013 - 10:58 am

    “Anti-Whitism the new anti-semetism”

    Censor that you tyrants

    • #11 by seapea on 06/23/2013 - 2:13 pm

      heh! Don’t tempt them because they’ve already got to the power to do it. I’ve had my comments edited on AmRen to where they’ve completely lost their original meaning and no sign was given to the reader that the moderator edited it. Since AmRen relies on Disqus, I’m assuming every site using that system can probably do the same.

      For example,
      Before: Anti-Whitism the new anti-semetism
      After: Bland the new spicy

  3. #12 by jo3w on 06/23/2013 - 12:32 pm

    In your opinion this is hate speech, your only cencoring me because im white.

    Whoever came up with this wording made a nuclear bomb set to distroy anti-Whitisim.

    Our people need to be empowered by language like this. It needs to be spread to White people like a self improvment course designed combat political correctness. Our people will no longer fear speaking thier minds when you can chop down the insuing accusation with ease.

  4. #13 by Asgardian117 on 06/23/2013 - 2:25 pm

    Look at the lady from the food network. How many years ago did she say what she said? She has now been black balled and lost her show. Jamie Fox jokes about killing white ppl on snl what were the repercussions? NONE there was no repercussions SURE some ppl spoke out about it but what happned to him personally and professionally? Did he beg for forgiveness? Did the media demonize him? No, there isnt even physical conformation outside of word of mouth as to what the cook said, jamie fox’s comments were seen on national television. This is the type of situation that everyday white ppl can relate to.

    • #14 by Blanchevictoire on 06/23/2013 - 3:09 pm

      In their defence, Jamie fox has been payed to make those comments, from what I can’t understand on American television.
      Similar to monsieur Solaar…

  5. #15 by Asgardian117 on 06/23/2013 - 2:36 pm

    I took my family to the movies today, during the commercials before the movie there was one that aired totally in spanish, the white family sitting next to us looked about as uncomfortable as a hooker in church. I politely asked him why this is happening and he shook his head and said “this has to stop” I responded with “you are right, but heres a word of advice stop white” and he said “genocide” he finished my sentence a NORMAL 9-5 white man finished MY sentence. The word REALLY is getting out there my wife saw the look on my face cause I was in shock, and she quitely told me “see its not over yet”. We need to keep showing our ppl that its ok to speak up MOST of them are just scared, if we continue to hammer away this WILL become common place. We are the tip of the spear so to speak and men like the ones I meant today will drive us through their hearts, raid.12

    • #16 by Asgardian117 on 06/23/2013 - 3:53 pm

      The problem is that those comments ARE PAID TO BE MADE were on national television this womans comments come from word of mouth. The reaction to one comment compared to another are just more proof

      • #17 by Blanchevictoire on 06/23/2013 - 4:05 pm

        Yeah…because they’re meant to be taken as a joke. Why don’t you complain about Comedians making jokes about ANY group then?
        There’s a big difference between a member disenfranchised group making a joke that has no way to be carried out, compared by a celebrity of high moral standards using the N word and referring to black individuals as slaves AND referencing that the southern days were better…

        Gosh, I sound like an Anti-White….but it’s how I am feeling

        • #18 by Winterblade on 06/23/2013 - 4:36 pm

          Yeah, that DOES sound VERY anti-White.

          Disenfranchised group – we are being subjected to GENOCIDE, so, CHECK.

          No (immediate) way to carry out what was said – CHECK, there’s no way she could restore the Confederacy.

          High moral standards – In YOUR OPINION she has high moral standards.

          Referring to blacks as slaves – So? They’re not. So she was wrong.

          The southern days were better – Are you denying this?

          Yeah, you sound REALLY anti-White right now.


    • #19 by Jason on 06/23/2013 - 6:43 pm

      You found a random White man who knew the term ‘White genocide’? Very encouraging!

      • #20 by Asgardian117 on 06/24/2013 - 5:31 am

        Yes it is very encouraging, we have reached ppl. The good thing is the other side is helping our cause the more they push the more our talking points make sense to them.

  6. #21 by Asgardian117 on 06/23/2013 - 4:32 pm

    Im white I dont find it funny, im concerned about my race the white race. Why would it be a joke? Chris rock is a sustaining member to the chrurch of anti whitism.

  7. #22 by Asgardian117 on 06/23/2013 - 4:34 pm

    You are an Anti White dirtbag. This will not stand.

  8. #23 by Jason on 06/23/2013 - 6:52 pm

    Great lines, but I can’t use it in response in this case because they sent it to me in PRIVATE, not in a public forum. I mean, I can respond, but it isn’t going to be seen by anyone.

    Hitler called it Communism; Stalin called it fascism; today’s rulers call it Hate Speech.

    Love it and will use it. I keep waiting for White Normals to realize the people who told them the USSR would be around another century and that Communism was the wave of the future are the EXACT same people telling them “race doesn’t exist” and “multiculturalism is the wave of the future”.

  9. #24 by Bob on 06/24/2013 - 9:09 am

    Jason said:
    “I have used some provocative tactics on twitter before to get a response from a Big Name. Things like using their name and calling them an Anti-White. I got mixed results.”
    THAT is the kind of WORK report we can USE!
    More detail, PLEASE!

    • #25 by Jason on 06/24/2013 - 8:50 pm

      This is long, sorry. I have some facts but can’t sum it up neatly.

      If you send a tweet to a Big Name with lots of followers, occasionally they will retweet the message to all their followers, often to show the “crazy” tweets they get.

      So with big name John Doe, you can send a tweet like:

      “Anti-White John Doe supports WHITE GENOCIDE by mass immigration and forced assimilation into ALL and ONLY White countries”

      Now, when I send that tweet, only the Big Name sees it for sure. But on 3 occasions, they have retweeted my message to all their followers (for whatever reason). A former economic adviser to Obama who is on Hannity did it. And two others whose names I forget.

      Before coming to BUGS, I had sent a tweet to Breitbart about how he doesn’t have the courage to discuss Jewish dominance in the media (pre-BUGS forgive me!), and he retweeted it to tens of thousands of his followers. Now, maybe he was saying “look how crazy this guy is”, and/or maybe he agreed with it a little, who knows.

      I find calling people out for a lack of courage by name can work. Most of these people are super sensitive and vain.

      When you send a tweet, the only person who sees it for sure is whoever you send it to. But I once sent one to Ron Howard (of Happy Days) and while he didn’t respond to me, Henry Winkler (the Fonz), who is one of his twitter followers replied to me, telling me that Ron opposed all forms of racism and wasn’t anti-White. Funny that he felt the need to respond. I don’t know who all sees a tweet besides the intended recipient, but apparently some of their followers do as well.

      You can also tweet producers and writers of shows who may not have big followings but have a lot of influence, either to let them know we exist or to put ideas in their head.

      Never put anything remotely threatening in a tweet. Just like an email, they can find you. I would like others to play around with it and see what happens. We could swarm-tweet sometime, hit one person with a ton of tweets.

      I tweeted Chris Matthews a lot that he was selling out his own Irish people (who he says he is devoted to) by supporting all kinds of anti-White policies. I told him in his desire to get back at Southern Whites (who he seems to hate) he is pushing policies that will hurt his own people. I can’t prove this, but it sure seems like he started saying that ethnic loyalties and loyalty to your own kind are understandable on his show afterward. I may be dreaming there, but I’ve heard pundits say that the things they read in tweets often stick in their mind whether they like it or not.

      The 140 character limit forces us to be pithy and pithy sticks.

  10. #26 by Simmons on 06/24/2013 - 4:52 pm

    The membership orgs and respecticons are the censors. Think of them as the POW camp snitches.

    Well folks we at BUGs are going to somehow, someway be instrumental in removing the PC mental mindblocks from nearly a billion whites and the snitches are going to be shanked in the shower.

    AMPWs you cannot stop us, one day it will be seen by millions upon millions of whites that “anti-racism is nothing but a code word for anti-white and nothing more” and you will be forgotten if not outright castigated for being stupid.

  11. #27 by jimmy blue eyes on 06/24/2013 - 5:47 pm

    *Applauds simmons’s inspirational oratory*

  12. #28 by Peter Cottontail on 06/24/2013 - 8:57 pm

    Religious version: Inquisitors called it Heresy. Puritans called it witchcraft. Anti-Whites call it Hate (or racism).

You must be logged in to post a comment.