Search? Click Here
New to BUGS? Read Me
Join the BUGS Team by posting with us in the Working Thread

It is SUPPRESSION that leads to Violence

Written by Bob Whitaker. Originally posted July 28th, 2011

I haven’t been keeping up with it, but the Norwegian who did the Oslo killings seems to have been a Tea Party type.

That is to say, this extremist is allowed to denounce runaway immigration, and at the same time, as a Wordist “Christian,” he is pro-Israel.

The guy doing the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial was an 88-year-old white man.

There is going to be a lot of violence, because violence is ALWAYS the result when you forcibly shut off discussion of any important issue.

Naturally when an incident like Oklahoma City or Oslo comes up, the left says it is a result of not suppressing the other side enough. Even more naturally no respectable conservative EVER points out that violence comes from suppressing discussion of an issue.

I remember when Colmes told Hannity that the gun issue was not gone, because there would be another mass killing incident and gun control would be front and center again. He was practically salivating over the prospect. Anybody who did that on the right would lost his respectability pay check instantly.

After that there were incidents, but for decades every time a person shot down a group of unarmed, I repeat, unarmed, people, it caused an immediate cry for gun control. But since it finally filtered down even to the respectable conservatives that a mass killer can only operate when nobody has a gun, this clamor stopped.

I was doing stuff on that when I was on Capitol Hill in the 80s, and the National Rifle Association, being respectable, put forth the weakest conceivable arguments. Again and again the membership had to clear wimps out of the leadership.

Like Stormfront, the NRA always quit using an argument when the anti-gun forces said, “You have said that over and over.” The NRA did not require an ANSWER before it stopped making perfectly true points.

If what the NRA said made the anti-guns uncomfortable, they had a set of tactics to make these wimps abandon what they were saying because it wasn’t sophisticated.


No Comments

White Rage

Originally posted by Bob Whitaker September 4th, 2015

(Here’s Bob’s perfect response to the NZ mass Shootings. FWG has also recently receorded a podcast on this topic.)

The black rage is their defense

Now when the young guy in Charleston did his shootings, they instantly convicted me which gave us lots of publicity.

The guy who just did the Jewish Center killings has just been convicted. At the beginning of his closing argument he put up on the whiteboard that “Diversity is a code word for White Genocide”.

But oddly enough, nobody came after me.

One explanation for this is, the same reason they put it off with CNN, they can’t deal with me.

But all this has made me consider White Rage.

If a black man runs around killing white people, it’s because of oppression.

Now if we have white guys out killing, In The Name Of White Genocide, it may be a warning.

Isolated Black killings of whites are the result of a legitimate “Black Rage”.

So isolated killings In The Name Of Genocide, may mean that instead stopping all discussion of White Genocide, the White Rage may indicate that’s exactly what we need to discuss. Or are we going to just have people keep picking up guns?

At the moment we’ve had very isolated incidents, two of them, but should we not consider White Rage?

There is no excuse for anybody just shooting other people, on a basis like this, but it may signify that we are going to have to discuss the real issue. And that does not mean with in the current bounds.

So maybe we should start looking at these isolated two killings as White Rage.

And a warning.



Who We Are & What We Do!

Written By Bob whitaker as the press release for our Paltalk events.

Civil rights laws were not passed to apply to White men and do not protect them”

–Mary Francis Berry, former chair of the US Civil Rights Commission.

General Wesley Clark explained that American troops can be sent to fight and die anywhere because, “There is no room for any ethnically pure country in Europe.” Clark was a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency.

This kind of insanity is standard talk among anti-Whites, both liberal and conservative, when talking to each other.

Only when talking to someone who brings up White Genocide do these leftists, moderates, and neoconservatives deny that they seek the Final Solution to the White Problem.

They call this Final Solution “intermarriage,” but everyone understands that their program of massive third world immigration is only for WHITE countries, and every White country is to be forced to accept the third world overflow. ALL and ONLY White countries are to be condemned or boycotted or, if General Clark has his way, INVADED to force third world immigration.

In every single White country, massive immigration is to be followed by assimilation. The President of France stated that if France did not proceed with intermarriage quickly enough, force would have to be used to enforce it. General Wesley Clark is not the only anti-white demanding that military force be used for the Final Solution to the White Problem.

But this is only the PUBLIC face of White Genocide. When the discussion is only with other anti-whites, the evidence is that every single anti-white is a little Hitlerite, just with a different form of race hatred in mind.

You have heard this message before. Anti-whites demand to know where this rapidly spreading charge came from.

It came from Robert W. Whitaker.

He originated the Mantra, which states this program of White Genocide clearly.

The only way anti-whites can deal with this obviously true charge is to hide from it. They never contradict it. Like any other felons caught red-handed, all they can do is scream epithets and insults.

Anti-whites scream “racist’ and “White supremacist.”

They might as well be shouting, “Guilty!”

The oldest cliche in the legal profession is, “If you have no defense, attack like hell.”


1 Comment

MLA’s – Mexicans Living in America

Written by Bob Whitaker. Originally posted October 13th, 2011

Article suggestion by WmWhite. “Here is an old post by Bob on immigration in America and what it really means politically, which relates to what is happening in ALL White countries:”

I understand that the Chinese media often refer to Chinese-Americans or those living in other countries as “Chinese Living Abroad.”

What we call “Hispanics” vote as Mexicans Living Abroad. On this question neo-Marxism speaks perfect Double Think. When Republicans started denying illegal immigrants welfare and other public benefits, the media announced gleefully that Republicans had lost the Hispanic vote forever.

anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews. They were denounced first and loudest by National Review and the rest of the paycheck crowd.

One study showed that half of the Hispanics responding said they might consider voting Republican if the Party changed its immigration stance. Half of them specifying that issue would seem to show special interest in it on the part of Mexicans Living Abroad.

But, as those long years when conservatives banned anyone pointing out that every Communist country had to shoot escapees, saying what I said in the above paragraph is the first step to getting fired as a paycheck conservative.

Another Pubic Secret: There is no “Hispanic vote.” There are Mexicans Living Abroad, Central Americans Living Abroad, but no “Hispanics.”


No Comments

We HAVE to Get Off the Old Losers’ Message

Written by Bob Whitaker 11th March, 2011 –

Wandrin asks

“Could a Mantra-thinker please help with some tips to address the “only White countries” argument when the anti-Whites point out Singapore and UAE etc, as seen in this thread.”

There’s always detailed arguments you can make
– most of those small Arab states have lots of guest workers because of the oil money but they’re basically paid semi-slaves and aren’t allowed to become citizens
– Israel has an explicitly ethno-centric immigration policy and most of those immigrants are jews
– Hong Kong immigration was mostly other ethnic Chinese from the mainland after British rule ended in 1990-something
– Jordan’s “immigrants” are actually Palestinian refugees

There are a few exceptions like Singapore but once you’ve knocked down most of the list then it becomes obvious they are an exception and exceptions prove the rule.

However if i’m arguing with someone as slippery as the guy in the linked thread i usually just cheat by looking out for any little mistake they make and jumping on it and not letting go until they concede the point.

Psychological attrition.

In the thread you linked i’d have picked on his use of Israel in his list of examples and asked him if he supported their ethno-centric immigration

policy and i’d keep on it until he explicitly stated he didn’t believe Israel had the right to an ethno-centric immigration policy either. This would only work if he was jewish as he’d either wriggle around not wanting to say it or he would say it but be tetchy afterwards and easier to needle into

losing his temper.

Sometimes the truth works:

Nobody cares whether a non-white country opens its gates or blocks immigration. But the world would object if Iceland closed its borders. Every white country is supposed to be “a melting pot,” but nobody outside DEMANDS that of any non-white country, black, brown or yellow.

The “race problem” means a Final Solution to the White Problem.

Also do not spend time on any one determined anti-white unless you have an audience. You are speaking to the audience, not to the nut job who hates his own kind.

To be frank with you, Wandrin, you are still on the Stormfront wave-length. Mixing up our message with Israel shows this.

1) Aim at the AUDIENCE;

2) Stop letting them get off the subject. The point is not what non-whites do, the point is that there is a DEMAND on ALL white countries and ONLY on white countries for immigration and assimilation;

3) Don’t screw up the Mantra with some other agenda.


1 Comment