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

Which is better: "White minority" or "blended out of existence"?

Home › Forums › BUGS SWARM › Which is better: "White minority" or "blended out of existence"?

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • 09/22/2015 at 7:02 am #104140
    -Gar5-
    Participant

    Henry Davenport brought up the idea that using “White minority” or “minority White” sounds apologetic when used with White Genocide terminology.

    Instead of “White minority”, he uses “blended out of existence”.

    The reason why I use “White minority” instead of “blended out of existence” is because I feel it resonates with people more. I think it sort of implies that future generations will have to live under really bad conditions.

    “Blended out of existence” seems less motivating to me. It seems like, in their heads, people would subconsciously respond to it with “well, we won’t be around anymore, so it won’t matter as much”.

    It just seems to me that White minority is more of a cliff-hanger, and blended out of existence is more of a definitive ending.

    What are you views on this Bugsters?

    09/22/2015 at 10:11 am #104141
    Ice Knight
    Participant

    I also use ‘less White people’ as in ”Diversity’ just means less White people, it’s GENOCIDE!’

    Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t have any strong preference as long as the core message of White GENOCIDE is there.

    09/22/2015 at 11:01 am #104142
    Secret Squirrel
    Participant

    They will be a “hated White minority”, until they are violently wiped out. The anti-Whites aren’t going to stop their incitements. They certainly haven’t stopped in South Africa.

    09/22/2015 at 5:18 pm #104143
    JPOutlook
    Participant

    “Gar 5”

    The “blended out of existence” one seems better, but I wouldn’t use the term existence since that sounds somewhat too distant, as in a theoretical concept or conversation. I use “force blended away” as a more direct way of addressing the deliberate eradication of the white genotype…

    Best regards,

    J.P.O.

    09/22/2015 at 7:26 pm #104146
    Henry Davenport
    Member

    I’m not much happier with my own choice which appears at the end of the first paragraph in this standard sequence that’s in a lot of our White House meme-messages:

    ALL White countries and ONLY White countries are being flooded with third world non-Whites, and Whites are forced by law to integrate with them so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

    Massive immigration and forced assimilation is genocide when it’s done in Tibet, and is genocide when it’s done in White countries, by UN Convention:

    “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

    Those carrying out White Genocide say they’re anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

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

    Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.

    In that first paragraph, I’m unhappy with both “integrate” and “blended out of existence,” because they seem too explicit…neither of them appear in the Mantra, and I think with good reason.

    “Integrate” I dislike because it seems to challenge a holy of holies, and “blended out of existence” (or Gar5’s choice of “minority” in some form) seem to me to lead the reader further than he needs to be led, and in the case of my choice, to lead him to something that may be off-puttingly extravagant to him (yes, “White Genocide” itself will seem extravagant, but we’ve chosen that as one of our phrases to repeat and repeat until it becomes non-extravagant), or in the case of Gar5’s choice, to lead him to something that may seem “so what?” to him.

    I feel that the ideal solution would be to leave out the three items I’ve mentioned (“integrate,” “blend out of existence,” and, in most but not all circumstances, “minority”) just as Bob does in the Mantra, but I haven’t seen how to satisfactorily do it in mini-mantras in the White House messages, or in news articles on WGP meant to spread Mantra. One needs to say something, it seems to me.

    I’m not terribly upset with any of the three phrases, but I sometimes wonder if I should be. I did suggest to Gar5 that he could use a little stronger phrasing when he used the “minority” choice, such as “reduced to an irrelevant minority” rather than something like “become a minority.”

    09/25/2015 at 2:17 pm #104215
    -cecilhenry-
    Participant

    I don;t like ‘blended out of existence’ as it is a euphemism for White Genocide.

    ITs hides the genocide, the destruction of the features of a people in a word.

    Use White minority, or hated White minority, or destroyed minority.

    I blend cream in my coffee. It sounds innocuous. The issue is what is destroyed.

    09/25/2015 at 9:37 pm #104216
    Electric
    Participant

    Anti-Whites are ALWAYS bragging about a “White minority” so I’d go with that.

    09/26/2015 at 4:50 am #104219
    Jason
    Participant

    I think emphasizing White children will be a minority is good. That doesn’t make it any less genocidal.

    Genocide does not equal extinction.

    But it needs to be stressed that Whites are being made a minority through policies, not due to some natural process.

    I increasingly think White parents need to be guilted for their silence. They are leaving a horrible world to their remaining White children.

    09/26/2015 at 11:44 am #104220
    Larry
    Participant

    I sometimes use “Whites will be a minority or worse” because it implies total extinction. No matter what you use, work in “White Genocide” somewhere.

    10/04/2015 at 1:09 am #104280
    Dennis K
    Participant

    You must focus on the intention, not the likely result.

    Do you let someone trying to kill you off the hook for attempted murder, because their plot maybe won’t have worked to completion?

    They tried, thats the point.

    The point is, there is deliberate policy to undermine a race or identifiable group of people by making them a minority and assimilating them out.

    Assimilation is the endgame. They will not accept a white minority who doesn’t assimilate.

    Will anti-white stop persecuting “racists” and whites (which to them is the same) when we are a minority? Well they then say “You know, we’ve gone too far, we can stop non-white immigration now?” Will they say to someone who is against interracial marriage “You know, given that you are a minority, thats OK to suggest that whites should marry other whites”.

    Will they ever say “You know, it’s gone far enough”

    No, they won’t. We know they won’t, a few will see its gone too far, and defect, but the hardcore anti-whites won’t. So why give them the benefit of the doubt?

    If whites are going to defect, then we must demand it now. No neutrality on this issue can be tolerated.

    Assimilation of white people out of existence is the logical conclusion of what they advocate. It is the logical conclusion of having mass immigration which cannot be opposed of even criticised or recommended against, and racial assimilation, which cannot be opposed, or criticised, or even recommended against.

    Play it to the end, its genocide, the eradication of an identifiable group of people. They know this is the endgame. They’ve talked about the coffee coloured new race. They’ve openly said whites must go.

    If they wan’t to push it, then call it for what it is.

    I know it can sound crazy to talk about “Genocide”, it sound fringe. But thats because of the insanity of what THEY are pushing.

    We don’t say Genocide because we are far our fringe dwellers. We say it because it is the brutal reality. It is they who are that crazy.

    Yes, they really are advocating blended out of existence, not just ‘minority’.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.