Whether mixed-race children are an abomination or not has nothing to do with whether White genocide is happening or not. They’re really two separate questions.

To think of the matter abstractly, in a chemistry course I took in college, the professor told us that, once we used a spoon to mix chemicals, we must never put the spoon back into a container of a pure chemical because that would contaminate the batch. He wasn’t saying that we couldn’t mix the chemicals; in fact, we were required to mix the chemicals. He was telling us not to contaminate the pure batches.

So saying that genocide is wrong is not the same as saying that a mixed-race child is an abomination. However, most people who oppose White genocide probably would find a mixed-race child an abomination.

So, if someone asks you whether you think their child is an abomination, you can answer, “That has nothing to do with it. We simply want to end White genocide,” and you would be perfectly correct, just as whether mixing the chemicals is an abomination has nothing to do with keeping the batches pure.

I haven’t read all the articles that Bob has written over the past 15 years, so I’m not exactly sure of what Bob’s position is on the subject. Here are a couple of responses that I thought of:

We don’t seek to eliminate all mixed-race countries. Why do you seek to eliminate all all-White countries?

All of Latin America is for mixed-race people. Why can’t we have any all-White countries?

I’m not sure whether these answers are BUGS correct, so criticism is welcome. I do know, however, that Beefcake has said that there could still be some mixed-race areas for people who wanted that. I assume that he meant in separate countries.

My personal opinion is that no non-White or mixed-race person, and no one with non-White/mixed-race children should be allowed in any White country, except as a tourist, diplomat, or a small number necessary to conduct international trade, and perhaps a few students and visiting athletes. I would not make any compromises or concessions on that point. Beyond that, I don’t believe that the United States will survive intact, so separate non-White/mixed-race countries North of the Rio Grande are a possibility. Europe should be 100% White.

The words “white nations,” “white countries,” “non-white nations,” and “non-white countries” appear throughout the article.

In every instance that he refers to White nations or White countries, either the word “white” appears within quotation marks, or it is preceded by the phrase “so-called.”

In every instance save one that he refers to non-White nations or countries, the words “non-white” do not appear within quotation marks and are not preceded by the phrase “so-called.”

Whom does he think he is fooling with this when he can’t even fool himself?

The purpose of what we are doing is not to convince the anti-Whites. The purpose is to present our memes, or repeaters, to the fence-sitters, and to provoke a response from the anti-Whites to make them look bad in front of the audience of fence-sitters. Contacting representatives in Congress or members of the media will not do that, because there is no “audience.” The mainstream media (MSM) is solidly anti-White. Most politicians are anti-White, although there are some pro-Whites or “undercover lovers.”

If you want to contact your representatives, http://www.numbersusa.com is a site you may be interested in. It sends you action alerts whenever there is a vote on an immigration issue. It then presents you with boilerplate faxes that you can edit and insert Mantra terminology if you wish. I’ve had an account with them for years.

The MSM is so solidly anti-White that contacting them is probably a waste of time. There may be exceptions, but trying to find them is probably not an efficient use of time.

Beefcakes Bootcamp is a good introduction on how to present the Mantra in front of an audience, and making the anti-Whites look bad in front of the audience.

Well, if he just said, “I’m not anti-racist,” and nothing more, I’d reply, “Good, I’m glad to hear that,” and leave it at that. But he still says that you’re making stuff up and that he’s not anti-White. Perhaps we could have a reliable study on hand to quote, just in case someone ask about that. But I think it’s better to say something like, “When non-Whites pour into White countries and mix with us, in time it will mean the end of our race. The exact year that it happens is not important. If you’re okay with that, then you’re certainly anti-White, regardless of whether you call yourself anti-racist or not.”

All in all, I think it’s good when someone denies that he’s anti-racist, because it means that we’ve put him on the defensive. If he also denies that he’s anti-White, that’s even better.

Cleric Preston, I read over your interracial mini-mantras yesterday, and I thought them over for one day before commenting, to make sure that I said exactly what I wanted to say.

There’s one that I think you got wrong, so let me explain my reasoning. The purpose of the mantra is to convince the audience, not insult the race-mixer. In the one where you use the term “fetish,” I have the following three issues:

1. I think that the use of that term may make some members of the audience tune out and not read any further. Not everyone gets raging mad when they see a mixed-race couple. I believe that there are many people who would not see anything wrong with an interracial couple who may still be concerned about White genocide.

2. It undercuts one of our other arguments. If we claim that when two races share the same living space then it is NATURAL that they should mix, how can we claim that people who race-mix are pursuing an UNNATURAL fetish? Those are two contrary positions. To use Beefcake’s example, if we put a lion and a tiger in the same cage and they mate, that is not a fetish; that is natural. There are many high-IQ White men with Asian wives, and they will point that out to us.

3. I’m not even sure that it’s true that interracial couples are pursuing a fetish. I’m no psychologist, but I can think of a number of reasons for it: fetish, sharing living space, alienation, brainwashing, lack of upbringing, simply being fed up with wimpy White males/feminist White females, or any combination of the above. So if a man says, “I don’t have a fetish, I just share my cubicle at work with a cute Asian woman, and we hit it off,” or “I’m sick of feminist White women,” are we going to argue with him? It’s just a distraction from the issue of White genocide.

On the other hand, the one about Yoko Ono and John Lennon you got just perfect. I like it for a number of reasons:

1. It doesn’t insult anyone, so you won’t loose the audience.

2. John Lennon and Yoko Ono are popular cultural icons who are respected across social classes and generations, so it doesn’t make us look like a bunch of rednecks.

3. I can actually imagine it starting discussions among people, since, for example, if White countries and Japan follow the path of genocide, there will be no more John Lennons and no more Yoko Onos.

My only reservation is that, although I am old enough to remember John Lennon, perhaps some younger people may not know who he is. I don’t follow popular culture, but it would have to be someone who is widely respected, not some degenerate wigger.

The one about Snow White and Pocahontas is okay, but it suggests that White people are better, which is a little bit off message. The one about the Australian Aborininal leader is also good.

The important thing in all of these is not whether we like them, but how the audience will react.