B. U. G. S.

Gator, that may be a good argument if you want to go down the scientific route, but it isn’t a mantra response so it doesn’t help. You are on the defensive by responding to their idiotic statement and you have no mantra points in there. Here are some responses I’ve seen:

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, nobody wants to live where people with brown or black skin live and millions annually risk their lives to live among the people with white skin. Race is real and it matters so much that our race is on the chopping block…mantra.

Nobody is flooding every black nation and ONLY black nations with non-blacks and saying, “Its OK, there is no such thing as race, so we are going to replace black people with a blended people.” This is happening in every white nation… ONLY white nations. They say they are antiracist. What they are is antiwhite. Antiracist is a code word for antiwhite. And what they want is genocide.

So far nobody but me (Bob) has pointed out how obvious this is: “to be a forensic pathologist, you have to do two things:
1) deduce the race of a victim from the tiniest rotting remains, and
2) Join all the other Recognized Experts in denying that race exists.”

Another point I used:
————–
“Anti-racists” say that we white people can not be proud of what our race has done because we as individuals did not do it.

But then again the same “anti-racists” say we are supposed to be guilty as a group for racism, slavery, colonization, discrimination and so on.

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

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

———–

Another point to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6uoYnCvnbE&feature=related

This guy assumes white superiority. For him it is a ridiculous idea that brown people can pose a threat to us white people.

Thanks meawhiterabbit!

I find points where I am pointing out a contradiction to be effective.

1a) Use the opportunity to make a mantra-point.
1b) Dont fall for their logic, dont tailgate. BUT you can take whatever they are talking about to make a mantra-point.

2) Point out a contradiction.

3) Use our attack word: anti-white

4) Keep it short

When I boil it down I think this is the essence of what I find to be effective. But I will try to improve on it.

Gator 61

Sometimes I feel I connect better as a start with the audience if I start by using “anti-racist” and then explain it, and ending up saying anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

That is why I am doing it. I could be wrong of course.

It is the same I did in this piece some time ago http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6671

Starting out by saying anti-racist. Then go through the explanations and ending up with anti-white.

Just something I found. Pointing out contradictions:
———–

Who is white? You clearly have no problems knowing who is white when it comes to “white privilege.”

White privilege? Why isn’t anyone talking about Chinees privilege in China? Or Japanese privilege in Japan? Could it be because your anti-white?

Everybody will blend together. Wasn’t diversity a strength??

You say you are not anti-white, yet you only talk about what white people have done wrong. If someone only talked about what jews did wrong you probably would recognize that as anti-semetism. But you are blind towards your anti-white mentality.

All of this is because you are as anti-white as the third reich where anti-semitic.

Nazis wanted a world without Jews. You keep justifying a world without whites – white genocide.

“Do you ever suspect that you’ve been brainwashed?”

Our media and politicians keep telling YOU, that people who talk about white survival are brainwashed. Then you just repeat that: “people who talk about white survival are brainwashed.”

Who is brainwashed?

A growing number see through people like you for what you are. You are not anti-racist, but anti-white. You are at the loosing end.

Have a nice day! 😉

meawhiterabbit,

Maybe you could use some of this?

If you are saying that it is genocide and evil to preserve the white race then logically you want to do the opposite. And the opposite to preserving thew white race is to genocide the white race.

And that is why you support non-white immigration, integration and assimilation for all white countries in order to achieve white genocide.

You say you are anti-racist. What you are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

meawhiterabbit: http://jenab6.livejournal.com/ has a good piece called ‘A Debate with a Leftist’ where he argues the point that “All proper moral systems put survival of the group and, the continuation of its existence, in first place of value.” Your adversary seems to be arguing that whites should accept and even participate in our own Genocide because NOT doing that will be detrimental to future generations of non-whites.

He is justifying white Genocide using a variety of anti-white tricks but mostly white guilt.

Deleted

Thanks Ad and Con! Nice suggestions. Sometimes the antiwhites twist so much they leave you dumbstruck shouting “how can someone be so twisted and awkward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I hit him with those.

This one is like a dog with a bone and incredibly full of his own self importance. Fascinating really. Adelheim you debated him 4 years ago on SF when he posted as DarkReaver13! He claims to be Russsian/Irish. I wonder if that is yiddish Russian 😉 Would make sense.

meawhiterabbit,

Yea, the anti-whites twists around. It is kind of funny to watch.

They all sound like they are saying: “Oh, I am not anti-white. I am just objectively interested in some kind of abstract principle and that abstract principle just happens to leave no future for white people. But that was not my intention at all. Hope you believe me.”

I got curious. How do you know I debated this anti-white?