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

Whether intermarriage is being forced….

Posted by Laura on August 20th, 2019 under Coaching Session

The below was written by Sunlit I. in a recent thread and I think this dicsussion is worth futhering on here….

Wuntz Moore raised an important question by starting this thread:
“Does the Mantra express opposition to intermarriage per se, and should we?”

WmWhite reminded the readers of that thread about this previous one:
“Anti-Whites Insist That Integration Must Be Enforced Everywhere Because Whites Don’t Want It”

And I have been thinking about it ever since… Has anyone ever paid attention to these articles?
(I am not sure, I could have missed someone else talking about them.)

White people prefer white people on dating apps — but that could be changed, study says

Dating applications can allow users to fall into their own racial biases while searching for a partner, a new study says.

But in their study, researchers from schools like Cornell University say the “sexual racism” that plagues apps like Grindr, Tinder and Bumble can be stamped out with a few simple changes. The end goal, the study says, is to promote more diverse pairings on the dating sites.

Another article about it:

Redesign dating apps to lessen racial bias, study recommends

Mobile dating apps that allow users to filter their searches by race – or rely on algorithms that pair up people of the same race – reinforce racial divisions and biases, according to a new paper by Cornell researchers.

As more and more relationships begin online, dating and hookup apps should discourage discrimination by offering users categories other than race and ethnicity to describe themselves, posting inclusive community messages, and writing algorithms that don’t discriminate, the authors said.

“A random bar in North Dakota with 10 customers a day is subject to more civil rights directives than a platform that has 9 million people visiting every day,” Hutson said. “That’s an imbalance that doesn’t make sense.”

Still, the authors said, courts and legislatures have shown reluctance to get involved in intimate relationships, and it’s unlikely these apps will be regulated anytime soon.

So there IS a desire to regulate intimate relationships? Those wishing to do it just cannot achieve it yet?

The so called study itself:

Debiasing Desire: Addressing Bias & Discrimination onIntimate Platforms

We consider bias and discriminationin the context of popular online dating and hookup platforms in the United States, which we call intimate platforms.

While individual intimate preferences are generally regarded as private matters that ought to be free from outside assessment and influence, systematic patterns in such preferences — and the structures that promote and preserve these patterns — hold serious implications for social equality. As others have shown, the intimate sphere has historically been a crucial locus of state control, as well as a key determinant of social and economic welfare [5,31,38].

It even seems to be aimed at white women:

At the extreme, preference in potential partners might very well rest on racial animus and overt prejudice — a belief that those of a different race are unworthy of affection or respect. Or, an individual might limit intimate encounters to others that belong to her own race, on the belief that her race is categorically superior to others. Such preferences might be rightly described as sexual racism in the sense that they reflect generally racist attitudes as expressed in choice of romantic partners.

So, is the Beefcake’s comment (“Saying that intermarriage isn’t being forced is trying to conceal the fact that the conditions which lead to it ARE being FORCED.” stil enough? Or do anti-whites actually openly want to control more?

In my opinion anti-whites do openly want to control what they themselves call the intimate sphere, and at least some of them are already trying to find a way to do it, because in the future, where whites become a minority in their own countries (and have harder time meeting each other in real life), having control over those dating applications can prove to be of growing importance.

  1. #1 by Laura on 08/20/2019 - 10:10 pm

    Because we are not meant to see race and everyone wants White, but white is racist and evil and whites wanting whites is of Hitler. In every aspect they must FORCE assimilation, promote intermarriage because whites don’t want it. As Sarkozy said if the assimilation doesnt happen naturally then they would use cocersive meausers to achieve it.

    “Diversity” must be forced, no place can be left white.

    Assimilation must be forced because it doesnt happened naturally.

  2. #2 by RobRoy on 08/21/2019 - 8:34 am

    If non-White immigration is purely economic what is integration and assimilation for?

  3. #3 by Wuntz Moore on 08/22/2019 - 8:08 am

    I just read the first of those three articles Sunlit found — unbelievable! (good work, Sunlit!)

    I’d think that article would penetrate some white minds that wouldn’t otherwise be penetrated, since it deals with the most intimate area of human activity — dating, mating, love, marriage — and shows clearly what anti-whites are up to.

    Surely we need to use these articles (I assume the other two are similar). My first thought is to start tweeting about them, being careful not to frame our attacks as attacks on intermarriage (I see that #intermarriage isn’t much used yet as a hashtag, and I recommend that as a general rule we don’t include it or include that word in our tweets at this point), but as attacks on anti-whites’ program of interfering (through dating apps, in this case, but also in other ways) with whites’ ability to keep producing whites by censoring our free ability to find white mates — something like that.

    It’ll take me awhile to get my mind around this. Good move putting this front and center, Laura!

  4. #4 by Wuntz Moore on 08/22/2019 - 5:12 pm

    I would retitle Sunlit’s excellent post: “Dating Apps attempt to block whites from reproducing”

    The word “intermarriage,” no matter how a pro-white uses it, triggers in most whites the reflex “individual freedom is sacred,” just as the word “jew” triggers the reflex “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Anti-whites have instilled those reflexes in whites and obscured further significances of the terms, and added moral certification that’s hard to overcome.

    The Mantra, being the basic pro-white document, has to include the word “intermarriage” for clarity. It sets the term in the context in which it’s a threat, today’s imposed conditions that increase the rate of intermarriage to a genocidal level. That’s done in the paragraphs that surround the term, and with the phrasing “…intermarry, with ALL THOSE non-whites.”

    And still, the only thing in the Mantra that some readers see is the word “intermarriage” (since everything else in the Mantra is a bit unfamiliar to most readers, no?) and judge the Mantra as just another nazi attempt to restrict individual freedom to intermarry — I’ve seen that response.

    Because of that trained reflex, “intermarriage” is a term that IMO we should avoid (at this stage of the fight — things seem to be changing rapidly) as much as possible. But to be clear, I still think the Mantra is our very strongest tool. With the Mantra on the table, any fool who picks “intermarriage” out of it and pounces on it can easily be demolished.

    Here’s two attempts on twitter to deal with the mass immigration/assimilation issue in a reply to someone who was missing the point — maybe both are passable? — the second one appears to be an attempt to improve on the first by not using the word “intermarriage” at all:

    We have to be alert and not be drawn into the corrals that anti-whites have built for us — I regard the word “intermarriage” as one of those corrals, because of the “individual freedom” reflex that anti-whites have attached to it. With the exception of the Mantra, I say let’s try to stay outside of that corral.

    I’m shortening Sunlit’s very fine post in my brain to just its discussion of dating apps and retitling it “Dating apps attempt to block whites from reproducing” — no mention of “intermarriage.”

    Pushing White Genocide by restricting white-on-white dating” is a title that comes to mind for an article on FWG — no mention of the trigger word there either.

    I vote for not including the term “intermarriage” in minis, etc. about the dating apps, but when addressing the mass immigration/assimilation issue, I’m not sure the second tweet above is an improvement on the first one. In any case, with very few exceptions I avoid the word “intermarriage” when posting about that issue or any other.

    Good grief, I just read Sunlit’s excerpts from the second two dating apps articles — this crap is way beyond 1984! Jeez!!

    Oops! Sorry so long! yikes.

  5. #5 by Sunlit I. on 08/22/2019 - 8:50 pm

    FORCED intermarriage. Put the word “forced” away, and you make yourself look as if it is you who is trying to police “the intimate sphere” while those are anti-whites who are openly suggesting it.

    I don’t insist that the word “intermarriage” should be used at all, but if it is, you have to expose the fact that those are anti-whites who are trying to impose something on whites.

    I missed this point myself until I read Wuntz Moore’s comments. This whole attempt of mine to bring something into attention was originally provoked by the thread he started. However, we have already established there that intermarriage per se is not what we should be concerned with.

    Does it amount to the article II (d): “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”? I need your help on this one.

    How about putting it in the convention on genocide’s terms instead of using the word “reproducing”:

    Anti-whites attempt to force dating apps to impose measures intended to prevent births among whites?
    Or something like that…

    Article #1 can actually be thrown away. It is the headline that is priceless, because if “White people prefer white people on dating apps — but that could be changed, study says” is not about forcing something, then I don’t know what is.

    Wuntz, those are two articles (#1 and #2) about the same “study” (#3).

    Thank you Laura, Wuntz, RobRoy and everyone who is participating!

  6. #6 by Wuntz Moore on 08/25/2019 - 12:14 am

    Sunlit’s last two paragraphs are excellent, and I’d reply that yes, anti-whites do want to control the intimate sphere.

    My long post (rewritten) is just my opinion that the tactics we develop against that shouldn’t be framed in terms of “intermarriage,” but in terms that are similar to the two boldfaced statements in my long post.

    Wow, there’s some treasures in the comments to the 2013 blog that Sunlit posted!

  7. #7 by WmWhite on 08/30/2019 - 2:28 pm

    A very good article and several well thought out comments with responses.

    I’m sure many here have hear about the Michigan council woman (Jean Cramer) who stated before a community meeting she would like to keep her town predominantly white, .
    Every news agency and television fake newscaster has come down on her like a ton of bricks. I take my hat off to her but it shows we all have a long way to go before the horror of (White Genocide) is finally taken seriously by our people.

  8. #8 by Sunlit I. on 09/03/2019 - 8:40 pm

    Does it amount to the Article II (d) – “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”?

    Wuntz, how about putting it in the Genocide Convention’s terms – Anti-white attempt to prevent births among whites by restricting white-on-white dating?

    “Pushing White Genocide by restricting white-on-white dating” seems to be a correct and relatively short title.

    P. S. There is a much longer comment from 08/22 still awaiting moderation which I would rather delete now.

  9. #9 by Sunlit I. on 09/03/2019 - 9:30 pm

    Committing a crime of genocide by attempting to prevent births among whites?

    These are just ideas for discussion…

  10. #10 by Laura on 09/07/2019 - 12:14 pm

    “The word “intermarriage,” no matter how a pro-white uses it, triggers in most whites the reflex “individual freedom is sacred,”

    This sounds a lot like what the AMPW’s say about using the word genocide.

    If using that word “intermarriage” triggers something, wouldn’t that be the word we want to use?? It IS the word Bob used in the mantra for a reason.

    You cant have assimialtion without intermarriage. Period.

    I think the problem with this conversation is that it is going in to defining why it IS genocide. I dont think we’re there yet. And discussing it may be a tailgate?? Our main focus still needs to be on diversity is chasing down white people. It is this thinking we need to get across.

    I changed the title of the article to match what Sunlit had on the thread. Sunlit, if you would like it changed to something else let me know.

  11. #11 by Laura on 09/07/2019 - 1:16 pm

    Sunlit, “Does it amount to the Article II (d) – “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”?”

    Totally, there are so many aspects of what is taking place that we can point to how this IS Genocide. White guilt would fall under mental harm. But maybe this is getting to far ahead, we’ve talked on here before about how we aren’t concerned at the moment with the who and the how, we are focused on the fact that it IS happening and pointing that out. Getting our terminology out there. What we are doing is WORKING. What Bob unleashed on the world has saved our race. We just have to keep going and stick to the BASICS!!

  12. #12 by Wuntz Moore on 09/07/2019 - 6:09 pm

    Maybe this is the right title for an article:
    Anti-white dating apps restrict white-on-white dating to speed White Genocide
    I assume some good quotes from dating app companies can be found that are clear support for WG.

  13. #13 by Wuntz Moore on 09/07/2019 - 7:38 pm

    “It IS the word Bob used in the mantra for a reason.”

    I don’t think he intended for us to take it out of the Mantra and use it in isolation from the genocidal conditions the Mantra describes.

    This wonderful short reply Bob gave us doesn’t use the word “intermarriage” but incorporates those genocidal conditions to the max:

    “You are saying that this whole program of immigration and assimilation and chasing down every white on earth who wants to live in a white community is just for True Love?”

    (Did Bob give us any short replies that had the word “intermarriage” or “intermarry” in them? I’m thinking maybe I remember being surprised by one.)

    We try to avoid words that anti-whites have made holy in order to use them as weapons against whites. “White Genocide” is also a loaded word, but it’s OUR loaded word.

    Intermarriage and White Genocide aren’t equivalent. Without the genocidal conditions of flooding white countries with non-whites and impelling white integration with non-whites by law and propaganda, we wouldn’t have White Genocide, we’d just have the 1940s and 1950s and infrequent and racially inconsequential intermarriage.

    Except when displaying the Mantra, I use the term “intermarriage” rarely, and usually set it in some phrase like “high rate of intermarriage.” I think that accomplishes the same thing as the Mantra’s phrase “with all those non-whites” that follows the word “intermarry.”

  14. #14 by Laura on 09/08/2019 - 12:06 pm

    “Opposition to intermarriage is the ultimate sin in the eyes of our enemies. If they can get us to accept it without mentioning it as part of the general program of immigration AND assimilation, White Genocide is assured.

    It is ALL white countries and ONLY white countries. It is immigration AND assimilation.

    Don’t let them get you off the critical points.” – RWW

  15. #15 by Laura on 09/08/2019 - 12:22 pm

    Assimilation/intermarriage with millions of non-whites in EVERY white country IS White Genocide. We are faced with these genocidal condtitions it isn’t the 40’s or 50’s.

    “If non-White immigration is purely economic what is integration and assimilation for?” As Merkle said, Multiculturialism has failed. Integration/assimilation must be the focus.

    When anti-whites use the “love” reason when we point out that assimilation/intermarriage is Genocide, our resposnse shld be that they are using “love” to jusifty white genocide. Yeah?

    Shying away from using the word intermarriage is taking the easy road IMO. Bob always warned about taking the easy road.

  16. #16 by Laura on 09/08/2019 - 12:30 pm

    “LOVE” and Genocide – By Bob Whitaker

    “A Levis ad has a mass of words and pictures and at the end it has “LOVE” with a final picture of a very white girl sloppily kissing a very black male.

    For any normal white male, that is a threatening picture. All races have an unlimited supply of male sperm, but the risk and use of the female uterus for nine months and the rearing of a child is a limited commodity.

    This difference between men and women existed along time before Women’s Lib invented the myth that it was just Male Prejudice that made society look frowningly on white men who had sex with black females but lynch black males who had sex with white women.

    It is the black men with white women which is the whole program of Politically Correct genocide.”

  17. #17 by Laura on 09/08/2019 - 12:35 pm

    “They call this Final Solution “intermarriage,” but everyone understands that their program of massive third world immigration is only for WHITE countries, and every White country is to be forced to accept the third world overflow. ALL and ONLY White countries are to be condemned or boycotted or, if General Clark has his way, INVADED to force third world immigration.

    In every single White country, massive immigration is to be followed by assimilation. The President of France stated that if France did not proceed with intermarriage quickly enough, force would have to be used to enforce it.” – RWW

  18. #18 by Wuntz Moore on 09/08/2019 - 4:38 pm

    Thanks for the great replies, Laura.

    “Opposition to intermarriage is the ultimate sin in the eyes of our enemies. If they can get us to accept it without mentioning it as part of the general program of immigration AND assimilation, White Genocide is assured.” – RWW

    Okay, I’ll post the Mantra more and post a bit less the short statements that don’t include “intermarriage” or “intermarry” or — my preference — terms like Bob’s “True Love” that imply intermarriage. And let’s try to develop some short statements that include those terms in the context Bob puts “intermarry” in in the Mantra.

    But I think that the important thing is that overall we make it clear that intermarriage is involved (and always put it in context), not that we cram our opposition to it into every single post.

    Even in the statement you posted by Bob that I quote, the word “intermarriage” is in that same context, which I boldfaced. I’m still opposed to attacking intermarriage outside of that context. I don’t see that that opposes anything you’ve posted from Bob. (Also, everything he wrote in articles wasn’t intended for us to repeat in mainstream posts of course. It’s easy to think of examples of that!)

    But clearly (from his statement I quoted from you) he thought inclusion of explicit reference to intermarriage more important (it should be included more often?) than I’ve been thinking (I always thought it important that it be implicitly understood, and I feared it might not be, but other than using the Mantra or Bob’s “True Love” reply I couldn’t see a way to explicitly include it without its blanking out the genocidal conditions that make it important – I still don’t, but I’ll work on it).

    That quote is helpful. Thanks for the work spent in collecting the quotes.

  19. #19 by Wuntz Moore on 09/08/2019 - 5:26 pm

    Now that I’m looking at it from the point of view of Bob’s quote, I’m thinking that if we do mention intermarriage more (but in context!), and anti-whites are provoked into replies, that will give us the opening to hammer with even more effect the genocidal conditions, since we’ll have an engagement going.

    Maybe it’s time for that. I’ve been bothered that other pro-white groups don’t even imply intermarriage in their presentations of White Genocide (as “replacement” or whatever) — I’ve assumed because they haven’t thought through how to reply to charges that intermarriage is voluntary. (People forced to live together make babies — you must be a white supremacist if you think that wouldn’t apply to whites — and we didn’t vote for mass third world immigration or for law and propaganda that force integration/assimilation.)

    So maybe getting intermarriage out there is the next good step.

    Laura, I really didn’t think you’d turn out to be right on this one, but maybe you are. But we need to guard against being drawn into appearing that we’re opposed to intermarriage for no other reason than simple distaste.

    Of course simple distaste is what guarded the fort back before the present genocidal era. But at the moment the distaste around intermarriage is against those who oppose it, since anti-whites have succeeded in making such opposition an “ultimate sin,” to use Bob’s term that you quote.

  20. #21 by Cat on 10/26/2019 - 7:38 pm

    I saw a nice YT video today, maybe some here know the contributors:

    anyway at the end in the credits, was someone associated with this website,

    which is also inspiring and wholesome, the anti-tinder.

    • #22 by WmWhite on 10/29/2019 - 1:09 pm

      Two good finds Cat.
      I have tried to post on several YouTube videos (including the above) for several months now but have been ‘shadow blocked.’ I hope you have better luck.

  21. #23 by Wuntz Moore on 12/06/2019 - 10:48 am

    This issue has arisen again in a chat, so I want to make another comment.

    “Opposition to intermarriage is the ultimate sin in the eyes of our enemies. If they can get us to accept it without mentioning it as part of the general program of immigration AND assimilation, White Genocide is assured.” – RWW

    I don’t believe that in that quote, or in the other quotes from Bob that are presented above, he says that we should attack intermarriage per se or that we should mention the word “intermarriage” outside of the context he mentions it in in the Mantra.

    After all, his quote states, “mentioning it as part of the general program of immigration AND assimilation

    THAT is the way he recommends mentioning it, the same way he mentioned it in the Mantra!

    Discussion of this has been extensive now, but I wanted to state that clearly since earlier just above I discussed only another point in response to Bob’s quote.

  22. #24 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:28 pm

    Wuntz Moore, I wanted to address “Then there is the “Nobody forces you to intermarry” bit. ” here

  23. #25 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:29 pm

    “Then there is the “Nobody forces you to intermarry” bit.

    This leads us to an interesting insight into their views they never mention. I leave it to you how to use it AFTER you have made the Mantra clear.”

  24. #26 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:36 pm

    The way I see it, intermarriage is rather a point of weakness for pro whites, but anti-whites can no longer claim that nobody forces whites to intermarry. They do.

  25. #27 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:41 pm

    And the way I see it, Bob did not separate intermarriage from assimilation: “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.” (The Mantra).

  26. #28 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:48 pm

    The Mantra should go first, but that piece of anti-white thought should not go unnoticed

  27. #29 by Sunlit I. on 12/25/2019 - 8:51 pm

    Four other my messages are awaiting moderation

You must be logged in to post a comment.