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

Our Changing Relationship As You Learn By Doing

Posted by Bob on December 21st, 2012 under Coaching Session

One writer said we shouldn’t use “white genocide” but rather “genocide of whites.”

He was writing in the area which I most respect, including my own articles, the WORK section, “Where have you put the mantra lately?”

As to that specific point, I was of the same mind, but then I found more and more that anyone who uses the term “white genocide,” the few we have gotten to so far, use it in OUR terms.

So you are now where I was as I developed the Mantra: I had to stop endlessly defining words, a process we are all familiar with in TOO.Photobucket

I started to give up theory and find out in action how each word or phrase WORKED.

So far, to my surprise, the term “white genocide” seems to have confused nobody.

In fact, it is “white genocide” those screaming, hate-filled anti-white You Tubes name.

A more precise term like genocide OF whites, in my experience, serves no function. You don’t mince words while the bullets are flying.

But our relationship has changed. I am asking a question of grad students, not teaching a subject.

To my infinite delight, my seniority in action is fast wearing out. I used to be only one who knew how an argument or a term actually worked.

Now I am no longer telling, I am asking. “White genocide,” even though it is literally questionable, is the most easily repeated and remembered name for the thing.

I am glad that, at least once, somebody bitched about the term “white genocide” instead of “genocide of whites.

I think we have claimed the term as our own, so we can keep it.

The Floor is open to INFORMED discussion.

  1. #1 by John White on 12/21/2012 - 7:13 am

    From my own experience, the expression “White Genocide” works just fine.

    Especially the anti-Whites – they do know what we are talking about. After all, it’s THEIR goal.

  2. #2 by dungeoneer on 12/21/2012 - 7:33 am

    Even if white genocide was`nt working fine enough for our needs, banning it`s use for genocide of whites would create even more problems.

    • #3 by dungeoneer on 12/21/2012 - 7:35 am

      Sorry, not enough morning coffee, post above should read

      White genocide is working fine enough for our needs, and banning it`s use for genocide of whites would create even more problems.

  3. #4 by Iceknight on 12/21/2012 - 8:47 am

    I worry sometimes that the use of the term White genocide allows our message to be too easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory invented by those evil paranoid, naziswhowwanttokillsixmillionjews? I’m not sure if this then creates a barrier to it penetrating fully into the minds of White and normal people?

    I do use the term, but feel more confident simply using the stripped down term ‘genocide; wherever possible with nothing added. I want to avoid any differentiation in peoples minds between supposed violent genocides such as Rwanda, Darfur, Native Indians, Holohoax etc and White genocide where the ultimate aim is exactly the same – elimination of a group, regardless of the methods used to achieve it.

    Not sure what other BUGSters think?

    • #5 by dungeoneer on 12/21/2012 - 4:41 pm

      It smells of surrender to not use the name of our race in the description of the epic crime being committed.

  4. #6 by Daniel Genseric on 12/21/2012 - 8:50 am

    Have you lost your flippin’ mind…? Has the writer ever bothered to post the Mantra? I have only had ONE anti-white try the, “Which white genocide are you talking about? The one where you wiped out the Native Americans or the Jews?” Needless to say, he failed miserably.

    We have SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS of man hours on this effort of seeding the White Genocide meme and it works good like a mantra should. That is literally worth millions of dollars, folks.

    No effin’ way in hell can we change it now. Not only that, this is already covered in The Mantra, “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.”

    The only way we can even begin to improve on ‘white genocide’ is if we can give it a ONE WORD NAME, i.e. Holocaust. I hear that one is already taken. So, we will have to think on that some more.
    (Bill from marketing & George from accounting in the break room) “Hey Bill. Corporate and I were discussing changing the slogan from ‘Just do it’ to ‘Just do it. I’m here. Do it now. I’m waiting!’ Whaddayathink?”

  5. #7 by Gar5 on 12/21/2012 - 11:37 am

    I was thinking about this a few days ago as well.

    The term “White genocide” sounds to an anti-White like Whites going around and committing genocide because THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE TOLD HAPPENS.

    We are a competing world view; that our people have a right not to be assimilation-genocided like every other people. So the more we talk to the public, the more they will understand our terminology.

    Throughout my years on the SWARM I have used, “White genocide”, “genocide of White people”, and various other phrases.

    Call it whatever you want, THE BOTTOM LINE IS: does it speak about the ongoing worldwide assimilation-genocide of our people?

    @ Iceknight

    A Mantra reply to the “it’s a conspiracy!” argument is: Peas in a pod don’t have to conspire.

    Meaning; if there are two anti-Whites in a room, both aren’t going to huddle up into a group and start saying “Hey, I’ve got an idea…let’s be anti-White!”

    Courtesy of Horus.

  6. #8 by markwn on 12/21/2012 - 11:42 am

    We may be quibbling and splitting hairs here.

    In addition to “White GENOCIDE”, I happen to think “a GENOCIDE of whites” has a nice ring to it.

    Depending on how a response is phrased, I sometimes like to add the word “insidious” before White GENOCIDE (or — It’s an insidious GENOCIDE of Whites).

    There is a word really irritates the anti-White vermin: “INDISPUTABLE” in CAPS.

    eg, …the INDISPUTABLE pattern of only White countries

    being flooded with 3rd world immigration & govt forced assimilation

    being pestered to end their so-called “racism” by intermarrying and becoming a “pretty” mocha color (this seems to really bother the anti-White vermin)

    …then asking them why this INDISPUTABLE pattern is not forced on any non-White countries

    …or asking why they won’t answer the question about the INDISPUTABLE pattern of only White countries…

    Another minor point, instead of saying the word –racism– I like to use the phrase
    –so called “racism”–

    It takes the sting out of the word and seems to ruffle feathers as well.

  7. #9 by Bob on 12/21/2012 - 12:54 pm

    I get too much the feel of TOO about this discussion.

    “if, it, if…”

    If it’s that theoretical it doesn’t exist..

    Specify how it works in your PRACTICE.

  8. #10 by Scythian on 12/21/2012 - 4:27 pm

    Most of my mini-Mantras now describe white GENOCIDE (quote “assimilation” unquote), call it white GENOCIDE and say at the end ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white’. Some of my mini-Mantras also describe how ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white’. Most are in question form, and I rarely struggle anymore making them less than 500 characters. So the implication of ‘white GENOCIDE’ is clear and perhaps it’s good to trip people’s circuits who have never heard the term before?

    Here’s a mini-Mantra I’ve used several times recently to ridicule anti-whites and their religion of political correctness, basically taking their own words, waving them in front of their faces, then shoving their own bullshit down their throats:

    If “RACE is just skin color”, then you CAN’T have a problem with the entire world being white, correct?
    If you “don’t see skin color”, then you won’t notice, correct?
    If “RACE doesn’t exist”, then GENOCIDE has never happened and can’t happen, correct?
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    For this particular mini-Mantra, where the implication of the term ‘white GENOCIDE’ is not clear, perhaps it would be best to supplant it with END the GENOCIDE of white people, NOW!

    Although I’ve been mostly planting the message and stepping back for the past several months (boxing term: not hanging around to admire my work), from what I’ve seen it’s mostly been silence or the typical mommy professor boiler plate bullshit like “we took the land from the Ingins!” Besides, anti-whites can’t touch us, going against our message is justifying the ongoing program of white GENOCIDE, period.

  9. #11 by timeforfreedom on 12/21/2012 - 5:48 pm

    I’m sticking with White Genocide…it’s the best term in my opinion. However Daniels’ idea of trying to invent a one word description of White Genocide might also be useful. How about
    “WHITE-OCIDE” or “WHITECIDE” or something along those lines??
    Quite frankly White Genocide I know will always work.

    • #12 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/21/2012 - 11:49 pm

      I’ve encountered no problems I know of with “white genocide.”

      But your “WHITE-OCIDE” made an impact on my mind (but “WHITECIDE,” no).

      Once “white genocide” has been used in a post, I can imagine occasional circumstance in which I might try out “WHITE-OCIDE” later in the post.

    • #13 by Daniel Genseric on 12/21/2012 - 10:56 pm


      Do I dare try these in a mini? I think I shall. Will report back later.

  10. #14 by Cleric Preston on 12/21/2012 - 6:20 pm

    I’m sticking with ‘White Genocide’ as opposed to ‘Genocide of Whites’
    (1) It uses 4 more characters on youtube where there is a character limit.
    (2) We are fighting against OUR OWN Genocide, ‘Genocide of Whites’ is easier to spin into a broader discussion of Genocide in general and is easier to get people to tailgate, into why our Genocide is more important then any other Genocide currently occuring
    (3) The Rythm. ‘White Genocide’ is 1 sylable followed by 2 sylables, the same rythm used in classical writings (Illiad etc) to finish sentences. That rythm was chosen for a reason, it seems to ‘flow’ easier then ‘Genocide of Whites’

  11. #15 by Tom Bowie on 12/21/2012 - 8:27 pm

    White GeNOcide works however; perhaps in time;
    “Extirpation” . (It’s not a word most people have heard; that”s a good and a bad thing.)

    1) To pull up by the roots.
    2) To destroy totally; exterminate.
    3) To remove by surgery.
    (Also, a somewhat used Synonym for Abolish)

  12. #16 by Conrad on 12/21/2012 - 10:12 pm

    I need the help of some of the English majors out there but here goes.

    The term “white genocide” as it is used, seems to be used as a descriptive term or perhaps I should say a normative. In other words we are trying to establish the definition of what is happening.
    (A normative: “reflecting the assumption of such a norm or favoring its establishment: a normative attitude.”)

    The phrase, genocide of whites might be used in a more involved conversation about the above action but lacks the power of a pointed conviction. The phrase “white genocide” is also better as an offensive weapon.

    I agree with – Cleric Preston.
    Jack’s War

  13. #17 by AnotherWhiteRabbit88 on 12/21/2012 - 10:52 pm

    If it ain’t broken why fix it?

    White GENOCIDE.

  14. #18 by CrazyIvan on 12/21/2012 - 10:56 pm

    White Genocide is our consistent message.

    Key word: consistent.

  15. #19 by c-bear on 12/21/2012 - 11:21 pm

    Stick with what WORKS.

  16. #20 by Karlfried on 12/22/2012 - 12:30 am

    I have made the following experience (in my land Germany): If I speak to other people, even the term “Völkermord” (=translation of genocide) is to high, to far away, to abstract for many of them. The term has the connotation of “war” or “open mass violence” in the mind of the hearers. That is not the case at this time in my country and therefore many people do not believe that a genocide is happening. —
    I have to catch the mind ot the people at a much lower level of conversation. I must consider the circumstances. I must be careful psychologically. Over the years I have learned some things that are useful in our situation. I give an example. In my home-town Frankfurt (600.000 inhabitants) we have many Non-Europeans. So when I am speaking with a person who lives 30km away in a rural area, I can tell him some stories about Frankfurt. So if our local youth-football-team (“soccer”) goes to other parts of Frankfurt, often within the other team and the visitors there are zero Germans. That is the situation in Frankfurt and I want to tell him this, because I know that he cannot imagine this. If you have not seen it, you cannot imagine it. – – –
    First, I have informed someone.
    Second, I did speak about Frankfurt, that is far away from him (mentally, the rural population does not like the city at all). So he does not feel: “I must do something”. If you try to convince people that they should do something, they will stop listening and go away. But if you give an interesting story, they listen and think: “Thank god, in my little village the situation is much better.” But none the less, a little bit of the sad truth will stick.
    – – –
    That is one of the very small steps that I do. Of course, everything depends on the circumstances. Sometimes a better and larger result is possible. But this extremely small result as described is a very good thing also.

  17. #21 by Harumphty Dumpty on 12/22/2012 - 1:39 am

    “White Genocide” is one of my google alerts, and I get quite a few alerts on that every day, with different items in them.

    I just got this link in one tonight,

    That’s some Danish site that copied our two White House petitions shortly after they went up on the White House site today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.