Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with
Post on the internet Working Thread

Debate advice and style first 909 posts

Home Forums BUGS SWARM Debate advice and style first 909 posts


Viewing 20 posts - 861 through 880 (of 911 total)
  • Author
  • #37890
    Henry Davenport

    Oops! Lol! Mandela, I hate to do this to you, but you’re going to want to read this.

    “…the moment you introduce “Mixing THE races” you have put the argument on THEIR ground. This is language they are used to. This is wording they can WORK with.”

    I put in bold what I thought was Bob’s critical word. The other races interbreeding with us will still exist in their own homelands after we’re gone from ours.

    The term “race mixing” seems to me to imply “mixing THE races.”


    Good point again HD, but I am getting good results with this, it is using race mixing as a term to describe inter marriage. I will keep using it if it works. It is screwing up their terminology perhaps.

    Race mixers are parasites that kill White communities

    Massive non-White immigration kills White communities

    Forced integration kills White communities

    Anti-White GeNOcidal maniacs like you are guilty of all 3 crimes

    Ice Knight

    Mandela, I’d be very cautious about the term race mixing, it’s taking us off message and into the territory of the co called “White Supremacist”.

    A  White person choosing to have children with a non-White immigrant might be morally dubious but it is not a criminal offence under the current system.

    However supporting policies of mass immigration and FORCED ASSIMILATION in all White countries and ONLY White countries is a VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCE – GENOCIDE.

    I normally stick with FORCED assimilation.






    Keep in mind that I only use it as a reply to inter racial marriage arguements, I have posted this one below many times and it gets a lot of thumbs up and the anti-Whites cant beat me in arguements about it. It is a pre emptive strike against the inter racial marriage arguement. Points taken tho, I will keep a close eye in case it goes wrong

    Mass non-White immigration kills White communities
    Forced integration kills White communities
    Race mixers are parasites that kill White communities


    anti-White says–> “how is promoting racial segregation NOT racist?” anyone have a good flip the script for this one?


    “anti-White says–> “how is promoting racial segregation NOT racist?” anyone have a good flip the script for this one?”

    I would reply to this comment like.. “How is promoting White genocide NOT anti-White? (The follow off with a question) “Do you agree that White people have a right to a country or even a right to exist, if not which non-White country or racial group do you wish to wipe out?”


    I actually thought of this funny little tactic and pretty much JUST used it against an anti-white. We’ll see if it works. Basically I’m arguing with this one clever anti-white (clever in that he tries so hard to stay OFF the topic of white genocide and from using our terms) and well I’ll keep asking him why he’s anti-white or why he supports white genocide and stuff like that. He didn’t answer. Well I thought I would point that out. I said something along the lines of

    You’ve not answered any of my questions. You obviously don’t even recognize them as being bad enough to even ATTEMPT to DENY being or supporting these things. If you don’t recognize white genocide as bad enough to say that you don’t support it than you are anti-white. If you don’t recognize being anti-white as bad enough to say that you aren’t anti-white than you support white genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

    Playing the whole “silence is consent” thing I think Bob talked about a while ago.



    The White GENOCIDE mantra is a rebellion against the cruel assault on the posterity of White people.

    RACIST is a HATE word.



    Linux Lewis,

    Please don`t use:

    “…you ALWAYS resort to the “a trainride is not a holocaust” argument…”

    I know Lord Nelson mentioned it on BUGS radio awhile back but he was not advocating using it against anti-whites.

    Patrick WhiteRabbit

    Dungeoneer- I have to admit i tend to agree. I really like the point it’s making but i have used it a couple of time and IMMEDIATELY the anti-Whites set up a “holocaust denial” strawman. You can get out of it, but it can cause a mini tailgate if you’re not careful. It’s one for a certain audience.


    listen to the podcast again Dungeoneer – you’re wrong on the last two accounts… but you might be right that its not good to bring it up first – which was also mentioned in the podcast


    Bob or any experienced BUGSer will tell you to stay clear of the TheSixMillion when you can, excepting the very specific way it`s used in the mantra.


    Edit: Being a tired dumbass

    Patrick WhiteRabbit

    I have noticed that the anti-Whites now seem to be constantly pretending to misinterpret what we write in order to set up a strawman.

    For example, check out this from Anti-White Babs:

    “….his own mantra says it all. “The final solution to the black problem.” If that’s not calling for genocide against black people, I don’t know what is. And these Nazis ask me why I fight them. Um… Because you’re trying to exterminate my husband and my family, maybe? Um… that COULD be it. I’m not sure”

    Either that or they are truly cretins and have reading comprehension issues (in the case of Alfred i actually think this might be the case.)  Have you guys noticed an increase in this ‘tactic’ ? I usually just call them out on it and then swing back into a mantra point.


    Take ten minutes to read this page.   Some wonderful things to quote to our communist friends.




    Don`t you mean anti-whites supporting our genocide?


    This video is brilliant. The only problem is that the white gum balls remain white. One has only to read between the lines to realize that he is talking about the genocide of the White race.

    How can we use this to our advantage?


    Looking for some advice on this anti-white reply:

    ‘Ever been to Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Mumbai, Singapore, all “non-white” cities with massive immigrant populations. Also do you genuinely think that the governments of these countries, who are almost entirely white, are pursuing a policy of genocide against THEMSELVES? Finally, immigration must have serious controls imposed upon it but it is an economic issue not a racial one. I’m not going to call you a nazi, I just want a reasoned debate here.’

    This is typical of the anti-white fact fallacy that alleges debunks the AFRICA for the Africans, Asia for the asians etc mantra. In this case a handfull of non-white cities with large immigrant populations. How does one respond to this without tailgating?

    This is my suggestion (open to criticism), ‘these handfull of exceptions proves the rule that it is white countries and only white countries being targeted for mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation. Even with these immigrant cities Arabia is still going to be 99% Arabian, China is still going to be 99% chinese, india is still going to be indian.

    Its only white countries where whites are going to be reduced to a minority and force assimilated to blend them out of existence. Its genocide.


    Anti-whites like to jumble many different points and assumptions into their long and wordy challenge of the mantra.
    The way I would answer that is first to quote: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody” and say, “do you dispute this?” “Its a good statement of reality.”
    Treat him as crazy for challenging this statement of reality. Say the places he is talking about don’t apply to the Mantra statement.
    Then let him come back with proof that they do pertain. Have him prove they pertain. I’ve never found one that does. I just say he is being anti-white by pointing to something that clearly does not compare to the point being made by “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody”
    I keep bringing up the point that he is dishonest in bringing up cases that don’t pertain and that he is just basically dishonest, that is, being anti-white.

    J M C

    @Hudson Valley Rabbit Been awhile since I’ve been on here so I’m just now catching up. Your question above on 4/9 caught my eye: anti-White says–> “how is promoting racial segregation NOT racist?” anyone have a good flip the script for this one?

    I always feel so clumsy at this but here’s my 2 cents (only because I’d like to be able to handle this situation myself.) Here, the BUGSer is asserting their right to SURVIVE. The anti-White responds (as usual, but in a SNEAKY way) by calling them the usual name. As I look at this it just really drives home the point that they REALLY HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

    So first of all they are NOT really asking a sincere question, they are laying a trap and MAKING AN ACCUSATION. If we try and ‘answer the question’ we have walked right into their trap.

    Here’s some possible responses I might give (I am not saying they are effective, it’s just how I might answer if I’ve got my wits about me – which isn’t always the case.)

    Sometimes I will preface my response with something like “come on, anti-White. This is really not rocket science here.”
    Response 1) Separation of the races is survival of the races. Why do you insist on labeling my desire to see my race survive as something evil?

    Response 2) “Racist is a hate word. How is your using it when I advocate for the survival of my race not supporting genocide? Do you deny that that you support White genocide?”

    Or simply this response (repeat as needed until anti-White responds) “Anti-White, do you deny that you support White genocide?” (again) “Do you deny that you support White genocide?” (again) “Do you deny that you support White genocide?”

    Nothing makes me angrier than White genocide. Fighting it has become my life’s purpose. That anger gives me the courage to go out there every day both online and even in my own home. My challenge is to be able to contain and control that anger in a way that is effective and not allow myself to be provoked to speak or behave rashly. That’s been a lifelong struggle.

    Ok. As I write this the light of the mantra FINALLY comes on, (this is why this stuff has been so difficult for me. My thought processes in the heat of the battle can be very jumbled.) It took me writing out this ENTIRE post to finally make the simple connection that the original statement made by the anti-White was a JUSTIFICATION of White genocide (ie. “genocide via assimilation and denial of separation is justifiable because you are a racist.”)

    So FINALLY after a painful thought process I arrive at what I believe to be the ONLY true Mantra response and that is:

    “Now you are justifying genocide. Separation is survival. You tell ME how calling me racist for wanting my race to survive is not justifying genocide.”

    *I seem to be able to connect the dots when I am sitting in front of my computer, coffee cup in hand, with plenty of time to edit, muse, write, re-write and re-write again. When I am in a live ongoing back and forth, in the middle of a firefight, the ammo doesn’t flow so freely.

Viewing 20 posts - 861 through 880 (of 911 total)
  • The topic ‘Debate advice and style first 909 posts’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed.