I think any anti-white response (to your icebreaker) containing anything about interracial relationships is the anti-white’s attempt to a) Draw attention from the real issue (White Genocide), and b) Make you look like an “intolerant” creep.

When they do that, you have to bring attention back to the fact that ONLY White countries are being targeted with the genocidal policy of mass-immigration and forced assimilation, ONLY White people are intimidated (HATER!) into complying with this policy, and so on.

DG, great point. There is no “race mixing” going on. There is only the genocide of Whites. Black Africa will stay the same. Asia isn’t changing racially.

We shouldn’t talk about future policies. Until we get a public discussion of White Genocide and we get true free speech, it makes no sense. Anti-Whites love getting us in long, drawn out tailgating discussions about what future we are for or against.

I wouldn’t even talk about homelands at this point. Just push the fact of White Genocide. Period.

Avoid getting sucked into long discussions with someone who claims they have found “true love” with someone of a different race. They are almost always lying and it leads to tailgating.

Carolman: “I’m White, my boyfriend is Black, and we love each other! Are you trying to make our relationship illegal?

————

“Are you forcing your genocidal “assimilation” on every white person, or will you allow some of us to refuse and survive as a group somewhere on Earth?”

“White survival depends on some of us being able to refuse “assimilation”, why are you forcing genocide on all white children?”

“Individual choice is important,which is why anti-whites deny whites the choice to live in an all-white community everywhere on Earth, you support this genocide?”

“Edward”

Re: Beefcake’s Bootcamp, this is the one to study. Listen, and also see the “minis” that he has posted.

“Is Intermarriage Forced?”
http://whitegenocideproject.com/beefcakes-bootcamp-27-is-intermarriage-forced/

Also, you should attack the anti-white if time permits… D.G. has the right idea, and I would use something similar.:

“How arrogant you must be to presume your particular situation outweights the right to existence of an entire group of people, white people!! We aren’t talking about one couple of a white person and a non-white person; we are talking about a never-ending flood of tens of millions of non-whites being brought into every white country, then being FORCE assimilated, ie. intermarried. That’s White Genocide. Get over yourself, anti-white!”

So attack the situation and then the anti-white…

Best regards,

J.P.O.

“You think all-white communities and white survival should continue to be illegal?”

Edward, if I’m posting that mini-mantra on a news site I change “RACE-MIXING” to “MELTING-POT.” I’m not sure if it’s the best replacement but it certainly does the job better than “race-mixing.”

Cleric Preston, I read over your interracial mini-mantras yesterday, and I thought them over for one day before commenting, to make sure that I said exactly what I wanted to say.

There’s one that I think you got wrong, so let me explain my reasoning. The purpose of the mantra is to convince the audience, not insult the race-mixer. In the one where you use the term “fetish,” I have the following three issues:

1. I think that the use of that term may make some members of the audience tune out and not read any further. Not everyone gets raging mad when they see a mixed-race couple. I believe that there are many people who would not see anything wrong with an interracial couple who may still be concerned about White genocide.

2. It undercuts one of our other arguments. If we claim that when two races share the same living space then it is NATURAL that they should mix, how can we claim that people who race-mix are pursuing an UNNATURAL fetish? Those are two contrary positions. To use Beefcake’s example, if we put a lion and a tiger in the same cage and they mate, that is not a fetish; that is natural. There are many high-IQ White men with Asian wives, and they will point that out to us.

3. I’m not even sure that it’s true that interracial couples are pursuing a fetish. I’m no psychologist, but I can think of a number of reasons for it: fetish, sharing living space, alienation, brainwashing, lack of upbringing, simply being fed up with wimpy White males/feminist White females, or any combination of the above. So if a man says, “I don’t have a fetish, I just share my cubicle at work with a cute Asian woman, and we hit it off,” or “I’m sick of feminist White women,” are we going to argue with him? It’s just a distraction from the issue of White genocide.

On the other hand, the one about Yoko Ono and John Lennon you got just perfect. I like it for a number of reasons:

1. It doesn’t insult anyone, so you won’t loose the audience.

2. John Lennon and Yoko Ono are popular cultural icons who are respected across social classes and generations, so it doesn’t make us look like a bunch of rednecks.

3. I can actually imagine it starting discussions among people, since, for example, if White countries and Japan follow the path of genocide, there will be no more John Lennons and no more Yoko Onos.

My only reservation is that, although I am old enough to remember John Lennon, perhaps some younger people may not know who he is. I don’t follow popular culture, but it would have to be someone who is widely respected, not some degenerate wigger.

The one about Snow White and Pocahontas is okay, but it suggests that White people are better, which is a little bit off message. The one about the Australian Aborininal leader is also good.

The important thing in all of these is not whether we like them, but how the audience will react.