Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with
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 22 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  WmWhite 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 3 posts - 21 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
  • #110838

    Wuntz Moore

    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.


    Wuntz Moore

    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.



    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.

Viewing 3 posts - 21 through 23 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.