I think it would be good to have a list of techniques we use so that people who have spent enough time SWARMING will have a resource for when they are composing mini-Mantras, articles, etc.
Here’s a sample of techniques we use:
Start with obvious reality, such as a well-known fact, and give it a particular spin. E.g.: “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, ”… etc. People agree with it, so it starts up a chain of “yes” responses, and this will make people more likely to agree with you further down.
Images, such as the wonderful illustrations by BBG; and vivid wording, to draw on the visual sense. E.g.: “Picture this. A Witchdoctor and his followers are jumping up and down in a field. They believe that the crops will grow better by following the dancers’ example…” (Psychological research indicates that the visual sense is most commonly the dominant one, so we at BUGS draw on this one the most.) 
Metaphors, such as White rabbits, buzzards, Mommy Professor, Screamers, Thugs and Thought Police. (Metaphors are easy for people to grasp, because they work on a more solid, visual level, rather than abstract concepts.) Even “codeword” is a metaphor, and so is “means chasing down”. A lot of the time this is literal too!
Specific grammar to create a specific effect, such as the use of incomplete sentences (HD has commented on Bob’s use of these before). Another technique is to use participles to compact a narrative (instead of using conjunctions); for example: “Their prescriptions having turned out badly, they ALWAYS blame the disbelievers”.
Colliding points of reference, such as linking White Flight with Orwell and people fleeing the Soviet Union.
If others would add to this list of techniques used at BUGS, then we can have a more complete resource, and hopefully something we can all learn from. And just to jump the gun on this, the following quote by Secret Squirrel is so insightful that I’ll add it here:
‘By attacking, he [Bob] points out the contradictions, assigns responsibility and labels the enemy.
Their weakest points are where they contradict themselves and since anti-whites are natural toadies, they don’t like to be exposed and made responsible for the harm they cause.’
#1 by Electric on 09/28/2015 - 1:36 am
If I can, I always use “self hating anti-White” instead of just “anti-White” alone. That way we can drill into our audiences heads that Whites can be anti-White & are the main drivers of White genocide.
#2 by Rose on 09/28/2015 - 3:08 am
Similarly use “White anti-White cuck” followed by the “self-hatred is sick” meme.
#3 by Denounce Genocidists on 09/28/2015 - 1:35 pm
Before Lord Nelson get`s a chance:
“Treat the sick fools with the contempt they deserve”
#4 by polydoros on 10/02/2015 - 11:42 am
More techniques:
“Sameness of the enemy.”
E.g., about an anti-White: ‘I challenge you to find a single phrase in her whole dialogue that hasn’t been used and is not being used by every oppressive regime of which we have a record.” And from Bob’s CNN interview: “this is like any OTHER group of people who suppress free speech; they don’t say: ‘we’re suppressing free speech’; they just call you names, and threaten you”…
“Incomplete sentences, bold type, and double spacing, to create emphasis and suspense.”
E.g.:
‘After our experience with developing other memes, WHITE SELF-HATRED IS SICK!!! seems to leave anti-whites in the sort of vacuum our successful memes have produced.
But MORE.
Now our opponents must find some way to argue in favor of self-hatred.
Not guilt, not “facing our responsibilities”, but HATRED.’
#5 by polydoros on 10/02/2015 - 11:43 am
“Unexpectedness”, to make the audience laugh or pay more attention at certain points. E.g.: ‘Mommy Professor agrees that all races are equal, or his thugs will “Whup yo’ ass!”’
“Ad absurdum.”
E.g.: ‘The definition of freedom normally given is “the right to do anything that does not abridge the rights of others.”
According to this definition, there was not a single slave in the United States in 1850. Black slaves were free to do anything that did not abridge the rights of their masters.’
“Imply we will win,” such as when replying to White geNOcide memes on the front: answer others’ mini-Mantras by stating that many people are saying such things/that the “Diversity”/White Genocide system will fail.
“End emphatically.”
E.g. Bob to an anti-White: “No explanation to us today may well mean a ruinous lack of explanation to you in future.” Or end with a meme, a question, or use “PERIOD”.
#6 by Dennis K on 10/03/2015 - 8:50 pm
What do people think about, IN ADDITION TO RACE and NOT REPLACEMENT FOR, the term ‘identifiable group’?
Some say that “race” doesn’t exist, and they pretend they don’t see it. I also throw in the term “identfiable group”, as in “you realise you are advocating for a program which will eliminate an identifiable group of people, what most would consider, Genocide?”
I’ve never had any issue with it, but I’m unsure whether it is ‘tailgating’ or hammering the idea that they ARE advocating Genocide, regardless of whether they think ‘race’ is technically real or not, because whites are an identifiable group.
I find think gets around the ‘technicalities’ of whether race is real or not and focuses on what is happening. They can’t argue that whites aren’t identifiable.
#7 by Dennis K on 10/03/2015 - 9:03 pm
In conversation (not in print), the ‘faux pas’ is cheeky and makes a point.
You shouldn’t do it with any sense of irony or sarcasm.
Example,
“OK, so end the end, what you say will happen is the eradication of a race of people, oops, sorry, I mean “race mxing”.
or
“So this problem you have with white people, oh, I meant problem with homogeneity, oops…”
or
“I wouldn’t consider genocide of, uh, diversification of, um, ‘society’ to be desirable”
It kind of indicates that anti-racism is anti-white, but that you honestly ‘slipped up’ keeping that intention a secret.