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

How to speak to whites with mixed race spouses and children?

Home Forums BUGS SWARM How to speak to whites with mixed race spouses and children?

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 55 total)
  • Author
  • #95107
    Dennis K

    Think about what is happening. You are talking to someone who more than likely (as evidenced by their choice), thinks white Genocide is not a problem.

    You do.

    Don’t over analyze. Keep it simple.

    They are just like other anti-whites, with one difference. An anti-white teenager or adult with white children, or even a Black, Asian, or even their own mixed race children, can accept we have a point. There are black people who understand why we do this.

    But a mixed race couple, especially with Children, have invested against your race. That white person can’t just “presto-changeo” realize your point. He is tied to his treason.

    I agree with Silver Squirrel, if you discuss it, and they bring up their children, just say that they are hiding behind their children, and that their choice of who to have children with, in no way, justifies Genocide, or silencing a people in opposing their own Genocide (which is just another way of justifying Genocide)

    Leave it at that. We have no obligation to play “what if”, regarding a theoretical winning of power, precisely because we are NOT advocating any specific action (and frankly the SF’ers who assume the future will play out as they plan, are fools). Anything “we” might due is theoretical, highly speculative and likely fanciful and not reflective of what would likely happen.

    But THEIR Genocide isn’t theoretical, its REAL and happening Now. Never forget that and don’t let them get away with shifting to fanciful crimes they dream up, that may not happen, to justify a real Genocide, which is happening.

    Should they suggest that you might do naughty things, take offence at their opinion of what you would do, as you rightfully should. It is slander.

    But I just don’t bring it up, because they aren’t on my side, and unlike others, are least likely to end up being on my side.

    You have to accept that. You just have to accept that they’ll turn against you.


    Why not ask those with mixed race children, if they think that, those children will be better off, if there is no white race or white countries left? Will a non-white world really be better?


    @shari wrote:

    Why not ask those with mixed race children, if they think that, those children will be better off, if there is no white race or white countries left? Will a non-white world really be better?

    No, that is not the right response; at least, it is not the right BUGS response. Because White genocide has nothing to do with whether the world is better off with or without White people. We don’t have to prove our right to exist, and, besides, they probably believe that the world would be better off without us.

    If you speak to them at all (and I think the context was a group discussion with non-race-mixers present as well), you simply have to point out that White genocide is happening, and that their personal choice of action does not justify public policy effecting White genocide.


    I agree that a personal choice does not justify public policy. Children of mixed race, right now, probably have one white parent. I was appealing to the white parent, assuming they might care, about the children they have produced. We have the moral high ground, and can appeal to anyone that white genocide is wrong.

    Benjamin Newells

    shari, your proposed response sounds more like “The whole world will become a third world if White people die out – do you want your children living in a third world?”

    That doesn’t have much to do with pointing out White Genocide.


    @shari, have you listened to Beefcake’s Bootcamp? In it, Beefcake goes into what things to say and what not to say. Two things not to say are (1) how good White people are, and (2) how bad other races are. Beefcake’s lectures are based on Bob’s long experience. And Bob has learned through experience that, if you say either of those two things, people will turn off and not listen. Or, as Horus would say, true information has no meaning to them. This is especially true of a White person married to a non-White. He would probably be the least likely to want to hear that non-Whites aren’t as good as Whites.

    Here’s a good article that Bob wrote on the subject:

    If you want to be effective, only make points related to White genocide, and ignore the other targets around you, tempting though they may be.

    Secret Squirrel

    If Whites were not as good as other races, we would still have a right to exist. Begging the anti-White to value White people, is like a prisoner that attempts to bargain with their sadistic torturer. It is sick.

    Don’t beg. Point out White Genocide.


    Don’t be silly. It’s not begging to point out that there is no future, in an anti-white, non-white world. Yes, it’s obvious the whole world would sink. Multiculti don’t last.

    Benjamin Newells

    @ shari

    Yes, it’s obvious the whole world would sink. Multiculti don’t last.

    That’s irrelevant to pointing out the crime of White Genocide. You’re the one who’s being silly.

    Secret Squirrel

    “Yes, it’s obvious the whole world would sink. Multiculti don’t last.”

    “Anti-racism” is the idea, that a world without Whites, will be heaven on Earth.

    We aren’t trying to save her mixed race children, or the people in Africa. We are raising the issue of White Genocide, because no one else will. Stay on target.

    j p

    I think the best response is “why are you using your mixed race children to justify the genocide of all whites, in every white country and only white countries?”. Or, shorter version, “why are you using your mixed race children to justify white genocide?”

    Is there an official stance in BUGS on whether raceblending certain white countries, but not all white countries, constitutes white genocide? For instance if Europe was left for whites, but all other white countries were raceblended, would that be considered white genocide?

    John White

    @JP Yes, it would still be White Genocide because by definition it’s the deliberate elimination of a distinct human group in whole or in part.

    If that “limited” raceblending you mentioned is deliberate and forced, it is indeed Genocide anyway.

    j p

    True. It is genocide everywhere, because it is forced on every white country without any democratic process, and with restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of association. But my point is, would we be willing to accept some sort of compromise in terms of territory, as long as we have a large enough territory to ensure that our race can survive and thrive into the future?

    Realistically I don’t see California for instance ever being a “white land” ever again.


    As far as exactly what territories should be all-White, that is for our future leaders to decide, and we don’t need to take a position on it.

    My personal opinion is that Europe should be 100% White, and I would be willing to accept ANY means to accomplish that. With regard to North America, the United States is almost certain to collapse anyway, and, when that happens, the most practical solution would be for some of the resulting smaller states to be reserved for non-Whites, with Whites taking the lion’s share of the territory.

    But, in promoting our message, we don’t need to talk about this; we should only be talking about White genocide. We won’t be the ones to decide these matters, in any event.

    National territories change over time, anyway. Probably every country in the world has different borders today than it did one hundred years ago. Our goal is not to freeze the current borders of the world, but to point out that White genocide is taking place and to put an end to it.

    Tom Bowie

    I’ve never known any life that was an abomination but, using that life to justify White GeNOcide, Is an abomination.


    “But my point is, would we be willing to accept some sort of compromise in terms of territory, as long as we have a large enough territory to ensure that our race can survive and thrive into the future”

    Waste of time around here. Stormfront has all that crap. It makes no sense to “ponder” the future because we don’t even know what our position in the future will be.

    We want a public discussion of White Genocide. Period. Full stop.

    If someone has their boot on your throat, you fight to get that boot off. You don’t stop to ponder how you might negotiate with the guy 20 years from now.

    It sounds like you want to justify your right to exist. You want to know how to “argue” with some mixed raced person about our GENOCIDE. Why? Do you think Tibetans worry about that when they protest their genocide? They don’t twist themselves in pretzels worrying about how to talk to a half Africa half Chinese person. They just push for public discussion of their genocide.

    If you are uncertain about all of this, BUGS may not be for you. Stormfront has tons of guys named AryanWarHammer who would love to indulge this stuff.


    I didn’t mean to sound so snippy.

    j p

    I’ve been on SF, and I don’t want to go back to that cesspool of inaction and pointless bickering.

    But imagine if we succeed in putting the facts of white genocide in the public consciousness. Then after we’ve done that, we’ll have a whole other problem to grapple with. What to do and say next.

    Even if they’ve accepted that white genocide is happening, the public will start asking questions like “what are we supposed to do, remove all the non-whites and mixed race families from their homes, deport them all to other countries?”. They’ll ask if there is any humane way to stop it. They’ll turn the tables and make it sound like white genocide is an acceptable atrocity, because the alternative sounds too mean.

    I think after a while they’ll stop denying white genocide, they may even stop defending white genocide as being a good thing, but they’ll start saying “we can’t stop it without hurting people” or something like that. They’ll say it’s the lesser evil. You’ll have to convince them that we can stop white genocide without committing any sort of genocide against non-whites in white countries. Because the first thing they’ll think is “so you want to commit a violent genocide against non-whites to stop a non-violent genocide against whites”.

    We’ll have to convince them that there are non-violent solutions. Also they might keep insisting that North America and Australia have no moral basis for being “white countries”. My answer is that Europe should be entirely for whites, while North America and Australia can be partitioned.


    j p Our first step is getting a public discussion on White genocide. How are we supposed to speak about “solutions” when we’re not even allowed to speak about White genocide? Our first step is getting it into the public consciousness and having a public discussion on it.

    If someone is drowning you in water, the first thing you’re going to want to do is force yourself up and get that first breath of fresh air. You’re not going to be thinking of “strategies” and “who’s doing it” or not trying to convince the person to let you out.

    Lets me repeat again. The first step is pushing it into public consciousness and FORCING a public discussion on it. All that other stuff will come later.


    J.P., if you aren’t posting the Mantra regularly and backing it up, then you won’t understand a lot of the answers that other B.U.G.S.ers are giving you. Where, if anywhere, are you posting the Mantra?


Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 55 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.