Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with www.bugsswarm.com?
Post on the internet Working Thread

Does the Mantra express opposition to intermarriage per se, and should we?

Home Forums BUGS SWARM Does the Mantra express opposition to intermarriage per se, and should we?

This topic contains 27 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Sunlit I. 1 week, 6 days ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #110838

    Wuntz Moore
    Keymaster

    Reading over this thread, I’m honestly a little alarmed. I think that one feature of the Mantra that’s not sufficiently appreciated by many of us is the extent to which the Mantra sidesteps to the greatest degree possible all the triggers that anti-whites have planted in whites’ minds, despite the Mantra’s succeeding in illuminating in the very deepest and most effective way the true nature of whites’ present situation!

    To illuminate such a truth while at the same time stepping so lightly near all the anti-white mines that have been planted is of course an exquisite achievement.

    But now some here appear to think that we should step on the mine of interracial marriage and step on it hard, by God!

    Expressing opposition to intermarriage per se is a corruption of the Mantra. Any mention of intermarriage should be in the same context the Mantra puts it in, mass non-white immigration and assimilation, AND should be clear that it’s the AMOUNT of intermarriage resulting from the immigration and assimilation that is the problem, as the Mantra itself makes clear by the phrase in bold:

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    Again, this suggested reply by Bob is great:
    “You are saying that this whole program of immigration and assimilation and chasing down every white on earth who wants to live in a white community is just for True Love?”

    That reply also has the virtue that it doesn’t even include the word “intermarriage.” I’m in partial agreement with Laura’s statement above that discussion of intermarriage is tailgating and so should generally be avoided.

    But not always. There needs to be one article where the matter is explicitly laid out, and the article pasted into the OP on this thread is that article.

    #110839

    Wuntz Moore
    Keymaster

    The article (the one pasted into the OP) needs to be read as the average white person will read it, not as an average pro-white (lord help us) might read it.

    The average white person is not going to read that article and say, “Oh, this author is just trying to be respectable.”

    The unavoidable conditioning of ourselves (unavoidable because we’re human) to the outlooks and feelings of the pro-whites that surround us is the greatest threat to BUGS’ longevity.

    ~~~

    1-28-19 Hopefully my last word on this wretched topic — please, no one send me PMs or emails on this topic.

    Part of the genius of the Mantra is the extent to which it steps lightly around all the mines that anti-whites have planted in whites’ brains. To attack intermarriage in isolation, instead of in the context the Mantra puts it in, is to just march right up and stomp on one of those mines.

    That’s not the Mantra way.

    ~~~

    1-30-19 The article posted in the OP of this thread was originally posted at White Genocide Project, where its beginning had a few more words: “That’s worth a moment’s diversion, since intermarriage per se is not the problem for us.”

    I’ve made that change in the article as it appears in the OP of this thread.

    I was happy to discover that the article can still be linked to (as just above) at the archive of WGP created by the wayback machine. The wayback machine doesn’t capture everything, I’ve sadly discovered.

    #110847

    WmWhite
    Participant

    @WM
    Your post does make sense in that a direct attack against interracial marriage ALONE does leave out the WHY this nasty problem exists today. All states had anti miscegenation laws up until the 50’s and 60’s (I believe) but that changed when the GREATEST generation of wimpy cowards helped destroy this country with Forced integration/bussing laws and the 1965 Immigration Act sponsored by “Emanuel Celler’s” of NYC.

    So here we (white people) are today, almost a minority in the very country our white forefathers founded, battling genocide caused by our own grandparents. So, yes, lets also mention immigration and assimilation when we speak of interracial marriage with the same good arguments given by Bob and Beefcake and you.

    I only hope for two things now: that the tide of history is not against us and that this post gets past the censorship of sysop.

    #110967

    Sunlit I.
    Participant

    I think that the ongoing program of white genocide is described by these two sentences from the mantra:
    “Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
    “Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

    The mantra refers to genocide of a racial group (whites), which, according to the definition in Article II of the Genocide Convention, means “acts comitted with intent to destroy” it “in whole or in part”.

    I don’t think that intermarriage per se amounts to genocide. But the combination mentioned in the mantra does.

    #110970

    Sunlit I.
    Participant

    The mantra refers to genocide of a racial group (whites), which, according to the definition in Article II of the Genocide Convention, means “acts comitted with intent to destroy” it “in whole or in part”.

    Does intermarriage per se amount to genocide? I think it’s the combination mentioned in the mantra that does

    #111054

    Xenonian
    Participant

    I’m going to add on to this.

    When you look at search results for interracial marriage having to do with White Genocide. There is hardly anything but they will talk about it being genocide on Black people. But not Genocide when done to Whites. Denial is a integral part of each stage of every genocide in history. Diversity means chasing down the last White person. That’s White Genocide.

    Should mantra replies to anti-Whites be like: Under international law, imposing any condition on a protected group of people leading to it’s physical destruction (disappearance) in whole or in part is Genocide. Massive 3rd world immigration and forced assimilation (forcing conditions that leads to interracial marrying) resulting in making whites non-existent is White Genocide.

    Is there was was to combine the two sentences together and shorten it? and I usually add a repeater phrase at the end.

    #111106

    Laura
    Keymaster

    Genocide: Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

    This deliberate attack on Whites is happening via massive non-white immigration into EVERY White country and ONLY into White countries. It is being led by the anti-white leaders in power. And this attack is set to destroy Our race in whole via assimilation i.e intermarry with all those non-whites.

    #111108

    Sunlit I.
    Participant

    Xenonian, just don’t forget to note that it is being done in ALL white countries and ONLY in white countries. Your suggested replies lack it.

    If you have to keep it short, how about something like this:
    Forced non-white immigration and integration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries constitute genocide under international law as acts comitted with intent to destroy whites as a group.

    Anyone is welcome to correct it

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.