Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!


Posted by Bob on February 18th, 2006 under Comment Responses

Discussig Bob’s Mantra * Mark says,

Bob, while your mantra is dead on target it is a tad cumbersome to get out. What would happen if you ccondensed your mantra and made it easier to recite in a shorter time frame — w/o losing any of it’s message? Perhaps more of the Stormfronters would begin using it then? Back in the 60’s the negroes were fond of repeating their mantra, “black is beautiful” and it instantly conveyed all the points they wanted conveyed.


“Black is beautiful” was not what liberals wanted to hear. Their aim was to get rid of Whitey. The idea that blacks had some sort of pride in being black was wht got a black president elected for the NAACP when all of its presidents had been black for sixty years after its founding in 1905.

I personally endorsed statements like “black is beautiful.” I see absolutely nothing wrong with blacks having some kind of pride instead of looking at themselves as a set of throwawy genes to make the white race brown, and I said so at the time. That’s why I found it so easy to get along with black militants like Stokely Carmichael.

But your basic point is about the length of Bob’s Mantra.

I do not think you can find a single short statement of the kind you are talking about that gives anybody a new view of a group they don’t already endorse.

I have found — and have tested this AGAIN on the antis on Stormfront — that those few paragraphs put the opposition, which has been carefully coached for YEARS in how “racists” are just evil people — totally on the defensive.

In his Essays, Montesquie pointed out that “If I had had more time I would have written less.”

When you really work at writing, when you rewrite, you find that you can make your ideas shorter and more obvious. I do that here all the time. I write a short piece that would fill tgwenty pages for anybody else. That’s because I did the work HERE, and I don’t large numbers of readers to go through twenty pages and then do the intellectual work themselves of trying to get what the point is.

Bob’s Mantra is, if anything, too short. That is its problem. People want to talk about huge tomes they have waded through. They simply cannot absorb the fact that people who have gotten paid lifetime salaries as Intellectuals and written acres of pages are just plain simply WRONG.

In Russia, Russians who reject Communism still think Lenin was a genius.


They hold their arms apart and say, “He wrote THIS many books!”

The average person wants a BOOK that says whatever it is.

If you nac boil Bob’s Mantra* down to an explanation three words long, I would welcome it.

I also cannot expand it to a book. A book gives the other side too many holes to crawl through. They can get off on any point in the book and avoid the fundamental, devastating, obvious point.

Bob’s Mantra has been tried.


Galen’s Humor Theory of medicine killed tens of milllions. But it was in Latin, it was a part of the rediscovery of Classical Learning in the Renaissance. I have yet to find one single good hting that came out of the Renaissance.

Galen’s Theory never WORKED, but the entire academic medical community swore by it for centuries.

Taking pints of blood out of a sick person is insane, but it was standard treatment.

Genocide against whites is genocide.

Almost everybody says that Political Correctness has gone too far. Here is a statement that gies an example of that. It also gives every person who advocates “assimilation,” the required buzzword they all use today, on the defensive. It also shows that whites concerned about survival are not only not Nazis, they are the only decent people around.

The problem is that people got PAID for Galen’s Theory. They had to learn Latin for it and they were looked upon as Intellectuals. NOBODY got anything GOOD from opposing Galen.

Does this sound familiar?

USE Bob’s Mantra or MAKE something better.

But I am using Bob’s Mantra all by myself. It is a LOT of work and has been for years.

So I really don’t have time for theoretical discussions about it too.

I have spent a lot of time being told that “everybody” is the wrong word long before Joe brought it up here. Everybody has a different version, but they spend no time at all on USING it, they just want to discuss the theory of it.

They have every right to do that.

But Bob has serious work to do.

” Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“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.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

  1. #1 by Twin Ruler on 02/19/2006 - 7:07 am

    I wonder why they want to breed Whites out of existence?

  2. #2 by Peter Gene Budarick on 02/19/2006 - 7:36 am

    I don’t aggree about shortening the mantra as Mark wishes.

    It can be perfected, but that is not the same thing as shortening it.

    I work in Advertising.

    MY job is to make people believe and want stuff they actually don’t need. And there are ways of doin that. But i think Bob’s Mantra works fine. Good enought to cause the Australian Atheist Society to ban me! So it must be workin fine. LOL. It can be improved with a few adjustments, but the basic rythm and time-scale is spot on.

    People do not listen to highly condensed slogans anymore.

    Sure we could come up with something that suits the Jooos.

    But we are NOT apealing to Jooos!

    Got that?

    Jooos have a limitation in that they need a message in a ceratin form. They are not as intelligent as so mant people think. I know cause i worked with a lot of Joooos all my life – only way you can find out bout them BTW.

    Bob’s message – although perhaps not perfected – is designed to appeal to a non-Joooisch mind.

    I think it is wrong and even evil to try and translate it to appeal to a Joooisch mind.

    Cos you are then as bad as the Jooos are.


  3. #3 by Bob on 02/19/2006 - 5:37 pm

    Tell us more about your experience with those Free-Thinking Atheists.

  4. #4 by TIM on 02/19/2006 - 6:36 pm

    The reason it is so effective is BECAUSE it is NOT short. If it were short no one would think about it. It forces folks to think about uncomfortable things. And dispossesion is very uncomfortable. If you start using the “BW lines”. You will find that people TRY to get off the subject. And that is the ultimate compliment! When a liberal tries to get off the subject —you have won. At first, I did not know what to do when someone immediately tries to get off the subject. Now it is like blood in the water for a shark. I just dig in and keep at them until I see fear and tears. I have seen it change people. You have to remember though. To go from reverse to drive —you first have to go throgh neutral. People always try to convince others. I have learned at a young age–that is a waste of my time. I am just a parot. We are pre revolution and Bob’s mantra is my revolutionary slogan. I just keep repeating it. In pre-revolution people look to those who are bold and show courage. Bob’s lines incorporates both these traits.

  5. #5 by Derek on 02/19/2006 - 7:44 pm

    When talking with others about this issue so many get upset and angry that they won’t let you get in a word edgewise. I usually have to break it up and address it in different sections when someone brings up a point.

    For instance: person A says to me “there is a race problem in America.”

    I say “and in Europe and all white countries. Notice how there are no race problems in Asian countries. The race problem is the ‘white problem’ and it won’t be solved until we are bred out of existance.”

    A:”But this means you are a racist. I am anti-racist.”

    Me: “Anti-racist is a code for anti-white.”, etc, etc.

    I guess my basic point is that if you can’t get it all out at once try and get as much out as you can, even in fragments. The more the better, but some is better than none. At least that is my opinion.

  6. #6 by Peter Gene Budarick on 02/20/2006 - 6:58 am

    About “Free-Thinking” Atheists.

    Well Bob, they are NOT free to think. Free-thinking is not easy at the best of times for any one of us humans. But my impression was that atheists – especially those that feel a need to be part of an organization [like “Racist’s” feel a need to be part of StrormFront etc.] have a very strong desire to find beliefs to replace the rejected Religious beliefs. I found them to be religious reactionaries. They are like people who have given up smoking and then lauch a campaighn to stop everyone else from the “evil of smoking”.

    I noticed most atheists worship at the shrine of the Holocaust. The Holocaust religion is the new secular religion for the atheist movement. Peadophile groups similarely worship this holocaust religion for obvious reasons i need not explain to you.

    It is not too difficult to determine all this on the internet. You just have to be able to put up with being clobbered, told you are evil and just plain wrong and then they ban you from their forum. You don’t have to be rude. It only requires a few intelligent questions and then no one will EVER wish to interact with you again! You know were i am coming from here Bob!

    And that pleases me of course, [smiling] because i consider my time valuable. Because of my age and not because i am good or special. I simply don’t have much time to waste on thse idiots including StormFront.

    Now i suppose i may be classified by others as an “atheist”. But i have never felt a need to be part of an atheist community. Obviously people become part of communities because they feel insecure and are looking for security – a sense of belonging. I am not saying that is wrong. This is partly why so many men who are actually not {homosexuals} become part of THAT culture. It ain’t something that intersts me. But it is worth stating because it is an in-our-face socially functional example of what i am trying to say here. To ram that home to you, i give you a Whitakerism from a friend in South Carolina: “Buck, it’s OK to get shit on your dick with your buddy, but if you kiss and cuddle a LG you are regarded worse than a muderer”.

    An interesting world you have created over the past 40 years i must say!

    I think this desire to seek the security of a group can be very corrupting for young men who are finding their identity. I am sure many “paedophiles”, “homosexuals” and “racists” [sorry i omitted the war heros and consevatives] have been self indentified and corrupted by this process [a process which the internet now facillitates as never before].

    The point here is, that these people have not really thought deeply about the whole of life and their place [and possible manouvering room] in it. They are driven by the desire to find security ASAP. Which is the desire to justify their lust and to be part of A heard.

    Now few realize that religious people are like that also, and the cultural process enables them to do horribly cruel deeds.

    Perhaps here, nurture IS as important as nature? If they had a decent supportive family then it may have turned out differently for them. What degree of bad nurture can turn the best nature bad? Is this the inverse of the proverbial boy raised by wolves and he became a wolf?

    Well i am just sharin notes and observations.


  7. #7 by Peter on 02/20/2006 - 12:51 pm

    Mark is right that in conversation face-to-face, by the time we get to the second line, the person has already tuned out and looks like a victim. We need to figure out a work around such as doling the mantra out in pieces at different times.

    Besides, when talking to people, many of them already agree with most of the mantra anyway, so there is no need to rattle through the whole spiel like a Jehovah’s Witness at the front door.

    But for forums, email and other things written online, it is very short. It takes only seconds to read through. It is absolutely perfect!

    Some of us like Mark prefer talking to people face to face: it’s the real world. Nothing beats real conversation: you can see what they are thinking. Of course more people, will likely be reached online in the virtual world and the Drumbeat — uhh mantra — is perfect for that.

You must be logged in to post a comment.