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

Soviet Free Speech

Posted by Bob on July 11th, 2014 under Coaching Session

The definition of freedom normally given is “the right to do anything that does not abridge the rights of others.”

According to this definition, there was not a single slave in the United States in 1850. Black slaves were free to do anything that did not abridge the rights of their masters.

Using that definition, free speech only allows you to say anything that doesn’t offend anybody.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936, issued by history’s greatest lover of freedom, Joseph Stalin, contained an absolute right to freedom of speech.

Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago about his nightmare years in Soviet Death Camps. He was sent to the Gulag for writing private letters that were critical of Stalin. It was one of tens of millions of cases where Soviet Freedom of Speech had an exception.

Those letters expressed Solzhenitsyn’s hatred of Stalin.

And, in the USSR then as in the US now, “Hate is not free speech.”

In America, one example of this Hate would be for a white man to say he wouldn’t want his daughter to marry a black man. Solzhenitsyn’s letters to a friend about Stalin made it pretty clear that the Soviet Leader would not be his ideal husband for any daughter he had.

During the 1960s Mommy Professors’ boys running around in hippie uniforms wanted to have something to call a Free Speech Movement. Their problem was finding something to say that anyone world dare object to. Not only was everything they said ALLOWED in the media and on campus, it was the ONLY thing allowed in the media and on campus.

So they started fearlessly yelling obscenities to each other on campus and calling themselves champions of free speech.

No one objected, but the  media announced that their shouting obscenities was courageous and daring, like everything else they did.

The purpose of freedom of speech was never the right to scream obscenities. Since the 1700s, the purpose of free speech in America was to EXPRESS AN OPINION.

In fact, freedom of speech DOES allow you to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

But only if, your honest opinion is that there IS a fire in a crowded theater.

In Britain, where Soviet Free Speech rules, “The Truth is no defense” for heresy.

Way back in 1734 America established that telling the truth as you see it IS the ultimate legal defense for free speech.
 photo hate_speech.jpg
John Peter Zenger was a German American printer in New York City.

In late 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal to voice  opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby.

In November 1734, Zenger was arrested for libel by the sheriff on the orders of Cosby.

Zenger was acquitted in a landmark case where the jury ruled that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

Two generations later “The truth IS a defense” was overwhelmingly reasserted in the 1798 congressional election. That election destroyed George Washington’s Federalist Party forever largely because that Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien and Sedition Acts reasserted the British and Stalinist assertions that “truth is not a defense.”

What Zenger said was true but Governor Cosby didn’t like it. The American jury said that was just too bad.

Soviet and now British “free speech” outlaw honest opinions and factual statements with slogans like “Hate is not Free Speech” and “Heresy is not free speech.”

That way lies enslavement.

Free speech means the right to state the facts and ANY honest opinion.

Audio Bob

Soviet Free Speech Part 1

Audio Bob Conversation – 1

Audio Conversations Bob – 2

  1. #1 by Dennis K on 07/12/2014 - 9:02 am

    “Hate Speech is not Free Speech” is perhaps one of the most asinine lines I’ve ever heard.

    It is completely childish.

    When I was about 6, we used to play in the school, and we played games where one could should “barleys!” to be excempt from something, whether it was being able to be tagged in a game of tag, caught out or what not. In this make believe world, we could just say something wasn’t what it was.

    I stopped doing that at about 10, as did my peers.

    But grown adults today, are shouting “barleys!”, as if by mere pronouncement, you can make something not what it is.

    An opinion is an opinion. Speech is speech.

    The idea of an “invalid” opinion is just as childish as a batter in baseball declaring that the ball was no good when he’s caught out. If this happened in a baseball game, we would KNOW the batter is just trying get one over everyone else. We would see the obvious scam.

  2. #2 by shari on 07/12/2014 - 4:18 pm

    ” The truth is no defense” is beyond ridiculous. Even lies need enough of something true, to hang together.

  3. #3 by JPOutlook on 07/13/2014 - 2:14 am

    It was hard listening to these two former Christians laughing their way into the fiery depths that last forever…

    • #4 by Denounce Genocidists on 07/13/2014 - 7:30 am

      Watch your temporal provincialism JPO.

      Treason still is, and always will be, the ultimate crime.

      Now where`s the redone Monty Python sketches with a modern day Stalin laughing and joking as he presses a big red button marked “spam”?

  4. #5 by Denounce Genocidists on 07/13/2014 - 8:02 am

    The study, Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045, contains fresh warnings about the effects of climate change, the growth of sprawling urban centres, and pressure on natural resources, notably water. It paints a picture of a world in which the authority of states diminishes in the face of powerful private multinational companies, and national loyalties are weakened by increasing migration.


    The authority of the anti-white state gets diminished, private companies who presumably are looking at not having to compete against other companies with well disciplined and hence more profitable homogenous ethnic groups abroad, will be continuing the disastrous tradition of mass non-white mass immigration into white countries.

    And contrary to the Party Line, an admission that us white serfs in the anti-white plantation have no loyalty towards the Diversity God?

    Pass me the saltpeter and tractor production figures comrade!

  5. #6 by -Gar5- on 07/13/2014 - 8:14 am

    BOB, this is comment is off-topic, but I would like to know what you think.

    For a while now I have been saying “Forced diversity” instead of “Forced assimilation”, because I find it is easier to explain to the audience.

    I have not noticed any response, but as you have written before, it is a “feel” for propaganda.

    “Forced assimilation” has always felt too complex to me.

    Of course I always say that “Diversity is a codeword for White genocide” – I use “Forced diversity” to add on to the message, like how we use “Chasing down Whites”.

    Anyway, I would like to know if you have any objections.

    • #7 by Daniel Genseric on 07/13/2014 - 9:09 am

      He will want to know if it works

    • #8 by Denounce Genocidists on 07/13/2014 - 11:05 am

      Mick Dodson: “Assimilation is genocide”

    • #9 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 1:11 pm

      Forced Diversity sounds good to me.

      “Integration” and “assimilation” have been the code words in the past, and we used Forced Assimilation. These days they use Diversity. Everything is Diversity Training (anti-White training) and Diversity Programs (anti-White programs).

      • #10 by Benjamin Newells on 07/13/2014 - 3:00 pm

        Why don’t they use “integration” and “assimilation” as much now?

        • #11 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 3:16 pm

          I’m not sure, maybe Bob can fill us in. It may be like any bad product, they keep changing the name because the actual thing itself gets such a bad reputation. I’ve heard of bad software programs that change their name every few years for this reason.

  6. #12 by Daniel Genseric on 07/13/2014 - 8:34 am

    Audio Conversation Bob – 2

    “Don’t try and translate what I’m saying.”

    While I was listening I was wondering how long it was going to take Bob to make a comment like this.

  7. #13 by Daniel Genseric on 07/13/2014 - 9:10 am


    Your incentive to fight white genocide is the eternal search and hope for seeing signs of yourself, your true spirit and righteousness, in someone else.

    It’s either that or you work for the SPLC. Every day I’m growing increasingly confident it’s not the latter.

    • #14 by Daniel Genseric on 07/13/2014 - 9:34 am

      By the way, Laura COULD have asked Bob, “SHOULD there be an incentive for doing the right thing? Isn’t there enough reward in knowing you did the right thing?”

      So, I did some basic thinking about that. Political correctness has REPLACED moral correctness.

      How can it be amoral to tell the truth?

      • #15 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 1:49 am

        “Political correctness has replaced moral correctness.”

        True, and it strikes me as a very good statement to use sometimes. I bet it would set anti-whites off like a rocket!

        A reply to the anti-whites’ response to it:

        “Moral correctness is to oppose White Genocide, and political correctness is to support it.”

        • #16 by Daniel Genseric on 07/15/2014 - 8:45 am

          Thanks for thinking about my comment and replying. I am trying:

          Political correctness has replaced moral correctness.

          Moral correctness opposes White Genocide. Political correctness worships it.

  8. #17 by shari on 07/13/2014 - 10:52 am

    I haven’t found much reward knowing I did the right thing. It’s more hanging on and hopeing. I get told, ” I’m sick of hearing it,” ” I don’t have time for that s…”, “No thanks”, ” Mom, the white race is not going to disappear.” I certainly hope so, but the threat is real and is the crux of all the lawlessness and sick stuff going on. We have to recognize that and stop sticking our heads where the sun don’t shine, is my reply.

  9. #18 by Denounce Genocidists on 07/13/2014 - 11:07 am

    No incentive?

    What about the cash for traitors / white genocide reparations industry?

    • #19 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 12:57 pm

      That money won’t go to you or me or anyone associated with BUGS.

      • #20 by Denounce Genocidists on 07/13/2014 - 2:32 pm

        I see, it`s “get your crystal ball predictions out” time is it Jason.

        I think we can all agree that monies so gained should at the very least go towards a self-funding prosecution and remembrance cycle, and I can very much live with that.

        I see no reason why BUGSers here could not play some part in that.

        • #21 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 2:47 pm

          If you become part of the litigation process decades from now, maybe so. You might want to get a law degree so you can participate.

  10. #22 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 1:57 pm

    I think it’s been noticed that Indian Gurus were coldly indifferent to the suffering of those around even as they spouted Pseudo-Intellectualism. It just became impolite (un-PC) to say so in recent decades.

    I’m not sure people have fully accepted stagnation. There are still improvements in technology (smartphones, fracking). But the big dreams of colonizing the moon are over. So hopes are diminished.

    I do think people realize on some level there is a problem with too many Browns in your country. I’ve heard several say they are afraid the US has permanently downshifted due to mass Brown immigration. But they only say it in private conversations.

  11. #23 by Jason on 07/13/2014 - 2:55 pm

    There are NO external incentives to being pro-White, in the normal sense (money, women, fame). Quite the contrary, there are obvious heavy disincentives. That’s why we are dissidents.

    I simply don’t like a world in which Whites disappear. And I don’t like seeing a program of genocide going on against my people. I hate the people that push it, especially the White Anti-White traitors, and want to see them defeated. And yes, the truth matters (to some of us).

    My only fantasy incentive, in the sense of a personal reward, is the hope that if Whites get to keep some countries and civilization advances, someone will figure out a way to resurrect me. 🙂

  12. #24 by Secret Squirrel on 07/13/2014 - 3:41 pm

    Anyone tried this?

    I found calling respectable anti-Whites, ‘Perverts’, as described in the podcast, makes them very uncomfortable. That’s the intended affect I assume.

  13. #25 by ElectricWhiteRabbit on 07/14/2014 - 12:34 am

    “And YOU, sir, forget that those words were written before this country become a welfare state. Immigrants had to make their own way or risk poverty and returning to their home country. The immigrants of that era were funneled through Ellis Island to be registered for citizenship and to be screened for infectious diseases – not allowed to trample unwarranted through our southern border. Point three – and this one is REALLY going to drive you nuts – only immigrants from Europe were accepted. Did that create balkanization? Yes, but not to the point that we are at now. We used to be a truly Western nation. Call me “racist” all you want, but it is fact.”

    This is a comment I found that got 41 likes and 0 dislikes

    Normal White people are getting one step closer to mentioning “it does have to do with RACE, and your names are not affecting me any more”

  14. #26 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 1:00 am

    Laura said on the third recording above that she and Bob had been discussing using, “What are we owed for what achievements we have given man.”

    Maybe have one of our messages that we display at the White House be, “Appoint a Federal Commission to determine what the White race is owed for the achievements we have given Man”, and I’ll list a lot of the achievements (which I love doing…I think I’ve done it in one White House message already), say that our thanks has been to be genocided (or connect it to genocide somehow), and that no race has to justify not being genocided anyhow (or some such thing).

    I like the idea A LOT, and will probably do it unless Bob or others of you offer a good reason not to that I’m overlooking. I think it’s perfect for a White House message, but if we develop it for swarming we have to be very clear on not tailgating with it. It’s already tailgating, so we should state it and then use the denials it provokes (which it will…I have experience with this one before I was a bugster) to return to genocide (“You’ll tell any lies if you think they will justify genocide”….that’s maybe not quite good enough a response, but something like that that transitions back to genocide).

    • #27 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 2:09 am

      Can someone fix the headline for that White House message? It sounded fine to me when Laura said it, but in print “achievements we have given man” reads a little awkwardly to me. If not to you, let me know.

      • #28 by seapea on 07/14/2014 - 9:23 am

        Maybe something like…
        Appoint a Federal Commission to determine what White people are owed for imparting their collective achievements to humanity.

        • #29 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 9:30 am

          Thanks…my second thought is that “achievements we have given Man” is informal but okay.

          I’m thinking maybe just:

          “Determine what Whites are owed for the achievements we have given Man”

    • #30 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 9:23 am

      Maybe this is better for a White House message:

      “Appoint a Federal Commission to determine what Whites are owed for the achievements we have given Man”

      Possibly that’s even the way Laura said it…I think it’s more personal than “the White race.” Same for “Man” rather than another contender, “Mankind,” although either one will ignite feminist language-watchers gratifyingly. But especially “Man.”

  15. #31 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 1:21 am

    Bob said this in another recent recording as well as at the end of the third one above:

    The Vatican has no morality for the future because the future isn’t supposed to be [Jesus is coming soon].

    It’s certainly a brand new thought for me that the religion that our people have held for 2000 years has instilled a morality that didn’t include concern for the future. What different creatures we would be if the morality we’ve all been trained to adhere to (or to at least feel guilty if we don’t) included a deep concern for the future.

    Something to think about, but I sure don’t have a clue at the outset what we could do with it.

    So White folk lack the incentive of morality to be concerned overly with the future beyond their own time, and having children and grandchildren seems to provoke their concern for the future inadequately. Or maybe that’s not fair, it’s just that they don’t know what to do.

    “I won’t back down,” says Don Black (that song at the beginning of his show always gives me something I need); “I just won’t quit,” says Bob in almost the same tone of voice Don uses, except more so. It’s also the way I feel…I can’t promise I’ll continue to feel that way, but so far after every slump of spirit I wake up a morning or two later wanting to fight back. That’s the extent of my motivation, as far as I can tell, except for, as when I was tutoring math, not being able to stand being confronted with so much error. That’s like Bob’s motivation, except that he sees the truth more deeply and clearly.

    I have a neighbor friend who just isn’t like us. He sees a lot of what’s happening, but is content to watch the whole shebang go down the tubes and enjoy himself as much as possible while it’s happening. None of us here are built like him.

    But if a lot of Whites really are, that’s a problem. Well not really, since revolutions are made by small minorities, right?

    • #32 by Jason on 07/14/2014 - 8:36 am

      “It’s certainly a brand new thought for me that the religion that our people have held for 2000 years has instilled a morality that didn’t include concern for the future.”

      Thanks for bringing that out. I listened to the podcast and still didn’t quite get that point. Obviously, most people who are Christian do care about the future of their children and grandchildren, but there is a strain within the religion, at least as practiced by many, which ignores the future, because The End is Near!

      • #33 by seapea on 07/14/2014 - 9:30 am

        heh, The End has been NEAR for 2000 years! It’s amazing so many haven’t noticed that point considering how much time they spend “thinking” about it.

  16. #34 by Henry Davenport on 07/14/2014 - 1:39 am

    So, thanks to all you guys who continue to shout “Fire!” in the crowded theater! 😀 It’s from what all of you are doing that I draw the oomph to keep doing my own little bit of work.

  17. #35 by Jason on 07/15/2014 - 1:28 am

    Science fiction is not what it used to be. Long ago, it was about our great future, awesome advances to be made through science and technology.

    There is even a name for that old view, known “retro future”, meaning how people in the past imagined the future.

    These days “science” fiction deals mainly with fantasy stuff, like magic dragons and wizards. And of course, when it does project a realistic future, it is usually dystopian.

    I believe that in order for Whites to truly act and live AS WHITES, they need to have their own communities and culture – that is, be allowed to freely associate with each other and let a certain critical mass happen. It is far too easy for an outnumbered minority of Whites to slip down to the kind of culture that prevails in Brown countries.

    • #36 by seapea on 07/15/2014 - 9:14 am

      That image reminds of the pictures featured at the Venus Project. That brighter future isn’t dead yet.

      • #37 by Jason on 07/15/2014 - 10:08 am

        Thanks, interesting site. As long as there are White men, the yearning for a better future won’t go away. Or I should say the desire to IMPROVE the future won’t go away. Other groups sit around and pray and hope I suppose. But only Whites have taken it upon themselves to actually make it happen.

  18. #38 by Polar Bear on 07/20/2014 - 7:58 pm


You must be logged in to post a comment.