B. U. G. S.

Hey, can we get one more signature on that last one to reach the 5 sigs that make it visible?

I don’t know anything about that site. I did read somewhere that petitions stay up there for a year. I have no idea how many people see the petition or how they come to see it. I did read a complaint that they favor certain kinds of petitions (anti-white, I assume, but I couldn’t be sure) by giving them more display. But maybe they play straight for all I know. I did try to find out a little by googling, but I quickly got frustrated at not finding much.

I haven’t felt incentivized yet to spend 20 or 30 minutes finding out more. We’ll probably put up more petitions (ready-made from the White House effort) there, it can’t hurt. It might be a better site than the White House for all I know. It’s a lot less work to put one up there.

Here:
There seems to be a concern about getting spammed if you sign without ticking some box:
Why You Should Think Twice Before Signing A Change.org Petition

A Forbes article from 2012:
The Business Behind Change.org’s Activist Petitions

A 2014 HuffPo article:
Change.org President And COO Explains How To Write A Winning Petition

I guess I have to read and understand that first article soon, if I’m going to be posting comments urging people to sign it. Apparently there is some box I need to mention to them to check, to avoid spam.

Several of the petitions above have titles that would arouse the interest of civic nationalists. (A result of our being a little cautious under the apparently stricter Trump petition overlords). Maybe those should be duplicated as change.org petitions, which could then be posted to Breitbart, etc. articles as requests to sign them, thus spreading the memes double.

We could apparently do this for a whole year with any change.org petition.

One petition has been submitted as a change.org petition already…see the change.org swarm topic.

Submitted 11/23/18

Extend the right of free speech to white people

This one is one thoroughly stuffed turkey! But the White House Meme Team decided to leave WG out of the title, since we’re being a little cautious under the new regime.

It’s amazing what BUGS has accomplished! Just a few years ago, “anti-white” and “White Genocide” were unknown in the mainstream, and now we’re in an era where the son of the President of the United States is accused of talking about “White Genocide” when he tweets that a political candidate “wants to repopulate Maine with Syrian and Somalian refugees” (and without our work, would Don Jr. even be tweeting that?)

The White House Meme Team hopes to submit a new message every week or two, which would keep at least a couple of Stop White Genocide messages on the White House’s site consistently. In such an era as the present, with media hungering to associate Trump and all connected to him with “White Genocide,” it can’t hurt to keep a little White Genocide on the White House website.

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.

Beefcake’s podcasts are a treasure that should be preserved and listened to by BUGSers old and (especially) new, but I think that first sentence by him quoted by WmWhite is unfortunately worded:

“Anti-Whites insist Whites cannot be allowed anywhere exclusive for our race, and they enforce conditions which lead to interracial marriages intended to destroy our race.”

If that wording was on an early podcast that I helped edit, and it slipped by me, I goofed. This is the wording I would have recommended:

“Anti-Whites insist Whites cannot be allowed anywhere exclusive for our race, and they enforce conditions which lead to a rate of interracial marriage that’s intended to destroy our race.”