Amending the mantra: The question of defining "white countries"
Home › Forums › BUGS SWARM › Amending the mantra: The question of defining "white countries"
- This topic has 96 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by j p.
-
AuthorPosts
-
02/08/2015 at 11:59 am #100270j pParticipant
Is it supporting white genocide to think that it may not be feasible to make California white again?
I am asking all of you this question, and I want a straight answer.
02/08/2015 at 5:29 pm #100271Mike MParticipantIf you support the aftermath/consequences of a crime then you do support the crime itself.
PLus, who are you to say wether it’s possible or not ? You’re noone.
Like me, you have ZERO actual political power. The only thing you can do for the moment is spread the meme of White Genocide.Plus let’s have a look in history.
The indigenous algerians kicked out the european settlers after 130 years of white presence in Northern Africa. Guess what, it wouldn’t have happened if the guys responsible for it would have been losing their energy on silly questions.
The white settlers of Rhodesia were either killed or thrown out or saw their possession taken. Same in South Africa and Haïti.
The germans in the Sudetenland got sent back to Germany after WW II.That’s history. You never know what’s going to happen. Unless you’re Nostradamus.
So instead of worrying about what will be possible or not, focus on the now, and help us spread the Mantra.
Or don’t, but then leave Bugs, and let us bugsers do our monotonous not rewarding job, that might lead to our people being saved from destruction.
02/08/2015 at 5:38 pm #100272jo3wParticipantNo, that’s my straight answer.
As far as I know our only goal here is stopping White genocide. That’s it, that’s all I want. It is not my goal to make some area White again, or create a new nation…Its to stop White genocide, period.
If you are discussing how to make some area White again or what we will do when global White genocide ends (assuming it does), then you are off topic. Remind who you are talking to that your only goal is to stop White genocide and that it.
We do this by trying to sway popular opinion that White people, like everyone else on earth, should not be destroyed. Anything else is a distraction and hurts our concerted efforts.
Practical politics.
02/08/2015 at 11:00 pm #100274Secret SquirrelParticipant“Is it supporting white genocide to think that it may not be feasible to make California white again?”
We have told you what we do here. We spread the message of White Genocide, since that is all we have the power to do.
If you aren’t willing to do even that much, then go play your “WN SimCity” game elsewhere. There are plenty of websites that play your game endlessly, so what are you waiting for boy?
02/09/2015 at 5:51 am #100275-Gar5-ParticipantIt seems to me that this whole conversation is about telling other Bugsters what they should be fighting for.
This is the mistake that pro-Whites make time and time again, because we all want different things, and then end up with our time being consumed by trying to get other pro-Whites to want what we want
You may be fighting for an all White country or simply an end to forced assimilation. It really does not matter who wanted what in the grand schemes of things. It’s what is, that’s the important thing.
Bugs is the first step to ANY kind of pro-White political objective.
To put it in internet terms:
1: Bugs. Spread the message.
2: ???
3: ???
4: Profit.02/09/2015 at 7:44 am #100276j pParticipantOkay, so that all brings me back to my point.
If our goal is to SPREAD THE MESSAGE rather than to play “WN Sim City”, then we shouldn’t start calling people “anti white” for saying certain specific things that may contradict the “WN Sim City” vision that certain people have. Because if our goal is just to spread the message, then a person saying “California cannot or should not be made a white majority place again” has no bearing on what we consider pro white or anti white, because it implies that we’ve already made a decision on final borders and policies.
Obviously if someone says “there should be no white countries”, or if they want any sort of circumstance that will lead to no white people in the future, or some extremely tiny concession that may as well be nothing, in that case they are anti white. That goes without saying.
“If you support the aftermath/consequences of a crime then you do support the crime itself.”
That could be just as easily said for allowing Brazil or South Africa to remain predominantly non-white countries. Some crimes are harder to reverse than others.
02/09/2015 at 7:48 am #100277JasonParticipantThis is silly – this guy is obviously anti-White and has started time-wasting threads in the past. Can we lose him?
02/09/2015 at 11:43 am #100278White&NormalParticipantYou’re having a stormfront discussion. Stop. If you have an alternative, give it a try and report back.
02/09/2015 at 1:08 pm #100285jo3wParticipantJP, I read through your previous posts and had mixed feelings if you were anti-White or incredibly hard headed. Maybe both. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt even though I gave you a straight answer and you ignored it. However, if you are just having a hard time understanding what we are about I’ll humor you for just a little while longer.
First it is important that you understand that I can only say, IN MY OPINION.
IMO, your premise is correct, but your conclusion is wrong.
If our goal is to SPREAD THE MESSAGE rather than to play “WN Sim City”, then we shouldn’t start calling people “anti white” for saying certain specific things that may contradict the “WN Sim City” vision that certain people have.
IMO this is correct.
Because if our goal is just to spread the message, then a person saying “California cannot or should not be made a white majority place again” has no bearing on what we consider pro white or anti white, because it implies that we’ve already made a decision on final borders and policies.
IMO, this is incorrect. Here is my correction.
Because if BUGS goal is to end global White genocide, then determining if a person saying “California cannot or should not be made a white majority place again” is anti-White or not, has no bearing on our goal.
Please don’t make me regret continuing this thread.
02/09/2015 at 3:56 pm #100286j pParticipantMy point is, though, we would reach out to people better if we didn’t accuse people of being anti-white except when they obviously are. It’s kind of like the parable of the boy who cried wolf. If we call people anti-white when they agree with the mantra and accept the existence of white genocide, but their ideas for solutions differs somewhat from the “reconquer the entire western world” approach that many here believe in, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
We shouldn’t call people anti white for disagreeing with specifics on a solution that officially doesn’t even exist yet (because BUGS isn’t supposed to be about coming up with solutions, it’s supposed to be about spreading the message)
If we call people “anti white” when they’re not being anti white, we just come across as either schoolyard bullies or irrational fanatics. We should reserve the term “anti white” for the people who deserve it, or else it will lose all meaning.
Like I have been called anti white numerous times in this thread, but did I ever deny white genocide or support white genocide at any point? I challenge anyone to produce a statement where I did either of those things. You won’t find it, because I said no such thing. And I believe no such thing. I am against white genocide.
The way I see it, on this thread, certain members are defining “anti white” as anyone who disagrees with BUGS on anything. And that is not the definition of anti white. In fact in Beefcake’s Bootcamp, he even talks about “anti mantra pro whites” which implies that you can be pro white but still disagree with BUGS.
I agree with BUGS on the fundamentals, but I just disagree with many of the posters here when it comes to calling people “anti white” who do not meet the strict definition of anti white (supporting or denying white genocide)
02/09/2015 at 6:44 pm #100288Secret SquirrelParticipantHe’s saying once non-Whites invade White areas, the areas belong to non-Whites and don’t call him anti-White for saying so!
So California belongs to the Mexicans. If it was Moor occupied Spain, he would say Spain belongs to the Moors. And of course its OK for him to say these things, because “he is on our side”.
If he was in medieval Spain, the more simple Spanish would see his words for the treason that are they are. But of course we BUGSers are too “sophisticated” for that.
02/09/2015 at 9:40 pm #100290jo3wParticipantJP, I understand the point you are making. It is not the point of your OP. Why the change?
In so far as labeling someone anti-White because of the reasons you listed earlier, I agree, IMO it does not predicate them to being anti-White. More importantly it is irrelevant to our goal.
“If we call people “anti white” when they’re not being anti white, we just come across as either schoolyard bullies or irrational fanatics. We should reserve the term “anti white” for the people who deserve it, or else it will lose all meaning.”
That is your opinion. Here is my opinion. You are interrogating them, it does not matter if you are jumping to conclusions by calling them anti-White, now they half to justify their actions to you and not the other way around. If they start talking about what California will look like or the feasibility of deportations or anything else, just remind them that we are about White survival and that is it! There is no other discussion other than White survival.
Rational debate goes out the window. I have had a very hard time getting the hang of propaganda/politics vs. rational debate. I still don’t have the hang of it, but I’m a lot better then when I first came here. Our survival is not tied to rational debate any more than an elected officials career is. Nobody needs to make a rational argument that White people should not be destroyed…it’s ridiculous on its face. We need propaganda to change the OPINION that is is not OK to destroy White people.
02/09/2015 at 10:45 pm #100292Cleric_PrestonParticipant“The problem with The Mantra is that, while it is technically true, it may possibly be flawed. The key flaw lies in the categorization of “white countries”. Firstly, it begs the question—what about native americans and Australian aborigines and the Maori of New Zealand? Like whites, they also have no countries. Africa for the Africans and Asia for the Asians is a solid, indisputable premise. But the problem is, when it comes to white countries, only Europe is our indigenous homeland in the way that Africa is for the Africans, and Asia for the Asians.”
The question of whether Australia, USA etc, etc are White countries or not is SILLY !In all my years I have never seen even the most inept Stormfronter attempt to tell Anti-Whites in Opposing Views that “The ‘holocaust’ was permissible because Nazi Germany was never a Jewish country”
That’s the reasoning Anti-Whites are using when they argue White Genocide is Ok in CERTAIN locations because it’s ‘not a White country’.
How would an Anti-White respond if confronted with the statement “The holocaust was permissible because Nazi Germany was never a Jewish country”
That’s a clue on what our response should be like when Anti-Whites try to justify our Genocide in certain locations because “it wasn’t a White country”.
Do you guys see how SILLY this all is ?
If you’re a Jew-aholic maybe say “The USA was never a Black country would that make Genocide of Blacks in USA permissible ?”How about this,
“Australia was never an African country does that mean Genocide of Africans in Australia is Ok ?”New Zealand was never an Asian country, does that mean Genocide of Asians in New Zealand is Ok ?”
I’m heading back to the field.
02/10/2015 at 6:45 am #100294j pParticipantjo3w I understand what you say here, and I agree that we probably shouldn’t be going too far into these debates with the public. The further we go, the more we get into murky territory where we could slip up or say something stupid. My point is that we shouldn’t call them anti white in these situations which I refer to, not that we should engage in lengthy dialogues with them. Show a willingness to engage in dialogue, abstain from simply shutting them down with “anti white” when they’ve accepted our basic premise, but that doesn’t mean we have to entertain their every point.
Anyway, to other posters here, I disagree with the premise here that accepting the present situation in California (or believing it is currently irreversible) means agreeing with the methods through which it came about. That’s the same logic as people who say “you condone genocide against the native americans because you’re pro United States”.
I would never deny that the current California is a much worse place than when California was a white place, but I would say the phrase “pick and choose your battles” has relevance here and I don’t think California can be saved. Nor can many other places like Brazil or South Africa. But that’s beside the point. The point is I don’t think we should call people anti white for believing this.
Also I find it funny how according to many people here, California is sacred white ground but Brazil for instance is totally expendable. Even though there are states of Brazil that are currently whiter than California. I feel like this board’s definition of white countries is often “white first world countries” so if the goal is really “restoring all formerly white lands” (which I don’t believe is, or should be the goal, because it’s unrealistic), then many people here are guilty of ignoring Latin American white nations as well as South Africa.
So by his own standards Secret Squirrel is treasonous because he’s not fighting to restore Brazil as a white nation.
And as a sidenote, while I do accept the premise that America and Canada are white countries, I do think we have to be prepared to address the issue of native americans. After all we would be hypocritical if we weren’t prepared to accept that they should have a homeland too (obviously not all or even most of north america but at least some of it)
02/10/2015 at 11:33 am #100295jo3wParticipantExcellent, I look forward to discussing this with you further after global White genocide has ended.
02/11/2015 at 11:05 pm #100307Benjamin NewellsParticipantNo person who has thousands or even hundreds of hours of experience in using the mantra will agree with you j p.
You have very little experience in using the mantra out in the battlefield. You haven’t debated anti-whites. You haven’t got the feeling for what works and what doesn’t. You probably don’t even understand or appreciate the underlying method and aspects of how to interrogate and break an anti-white in the field.
Continuing this topic is a waste of time. Go post the mantra and mini-mantras and report back the logs of your interrogations of the anti-whites.
04/06/2015 at 9:27 pm #102090j pParticipantThinking back to this, I had some ideas as a response when someone says “America (or Canada or Australia) has no right to be a white country”;
1. White genocide is happening in Europe too. So when you say America has no right to be a white country, you must understand that the anti-whites promoting white genocide make no distinction between America and Europe. They promote white genocide EVERYWHERE, the result of which is no more white people anywhere on earth.
2. Right now white genocide is happening everywhere, so you saying that “certain white countries have the right to remain white and others don’t” doesn’t change the fact that white genocide is a global phenomenon happening in ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
Also if they bring up native americans, you could say;
“White genocide in America does nothing to help the native americans. In fact it decreases their percentage of the population by flooding these countries with even more non-native american people”
Are those acceptable responses in your opinions?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Comments are closed.
Bob’s Corner
Why Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5Login
Copyright Policies
Robert Whitaker grants full and free use of his ideas and writings as they pertain to aiding others in stating the facts about white race genocide and its agenda of forced non-white immigration and integration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
Recent Swarms
- Xenonian on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- time for freedom on test
- Xenonian on MINI MANTRAS PRO
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- -scythian- on Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- Xenonian on Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
Swarm Topics
- This is another test
- test
- Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- Something Interesting
- Whether intermarriage is being forced
- Diversity is a code word for White Genocide – should we hit that extra hard now?
- Swarming at foreign sites
- Genocide Awareness Webinars
- There is a new White House Petition for You to Sign
- White Genocide Resources
- White Genocide Pics
- New Podcasts
- Cuckservatives
- Postage Paid envelopes
- Our Change.org petitions
Recent Posts
- Personal Loyalty Is No Excuse for Stupidity
- THE ONLY INEVITABLE LEFT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
- Anti-Whitism
- BASICS: Black Vandalism With A Diploma
- Robert W. Whitaker Archive Site
- The Practical Wisdom of Robert Whitaker
- First Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Whether intermarriage is being forced….
- Soviet Free Speech
- Is the Only Purpose of a Gun To Kill?
Immigration
Categories
- About Bob (13)
- Activism (10)
- Blasts from the Past (46)
- Bob (416)
- Bob's Book (20)
- Bob's Meanderings (21)
- BUGS Radio (19)
- Coaching Session (2,846)
- Comment Responses (1,001)
- General (716)
- Grouch Growls (2)
- History (681)
- How Things Work (606)
- Insider Letter Archive (54)
- Law and Order (35)
- Links (2)
- Mantra (82)
- Musings about Life (123)
- Political Correctness (105)
- Politics (80)
- Race Matters (24)
- Radio Shows (5)
- Religion (42)
- SF Townhall (2)
- Truck Roy Radio (2)
- We Do What Works (13)
- WOL Weekly Articles (28)
Topic Tags
8 traits of a disinformationist 25 rules of disinformation activism America anti-white anti-white mantra April Gaede diversity fight white geNOcide Genocide german help How to Deal with Anti--Whites Mantra Mantra videos Martin Luther King MLK Medvedev mini-mantras minis Montana Motivations Multiculturalism Feminism occupy wall street OWS rally Paltalk petition Pink rabbit Pioneer Little Europe pro-white Propaganda Putin Russia Spanish Stop Genocide subversion Swedish To Give New Members Info Tactics & Advice To Intellectually Destroy Our Enemies training Twitter videos White Genocide White genocide flyers white privilege youtube Youtube MantrasSeptember 2024 S M T W T F S « Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Archives
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
In A Few Words
Bob Whitaker has "been there and done that" in the world of politics. His unique perspective is insightful and vital. You may not agree with everything he says, but I guarantee that he will make you think.
Robert W. Whitaker, 1941—2017, was born and raised in South Carolina and attended the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia Graduate School. He has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill senior staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and three books. Bob lived in Columbia, SC, coaching B.U.G.S. He had asked the staff to inform female readers that he was "divorced and 'wildly attractive.'" I agree that he was divorced. But actually, he always did and always will love his one and only wife.
Recent Comments