B. U. G. S.

Just looking them over quickly I had the following thoughts:

In the first one you write: “Every group today has taken land from others. The only difference is that White people were better at it.” Well, that second sentence could be taken as White supremacist. Besides, Genghis Khan was pretty good at taking land, too, wasn’t he? And so were the Arab Muslims and the Ottoman Turks. I’d take out the second sentence and perhaps replace it with examples of non-White conquests.

You also write “Oriental Asia is not being globally ‘diversified’.” Although the word “Oriental” was a perfectly respectable word when I was a kid, I think today it’s considered a hate word (unless it’s being applied to a restaurant run by an Oriental, er, I mean an Asian, in which case it’s cultural enrichment). I would replace it with “East Asia.”

Will the first e-Book have any references to BUGS or how to join us?

In the second one, you seem to be suggesting that White rabbits/people are better than the other species/races. It’s not that I disagree, but I’m not sure that that’s the best way to present the message. On the other hand, I don’t have any suggestions as to how to make it better.

I don’t know enough about genetics to say whether, from a purely genetic analysis, Jews are White or non-White, although I strongly suspect that they are genetically different from Whites, as there are often physical differences. But I do know that most Jews do not consider themselves White and have no loyalty to White people, so on that basis I consider them non-White. But since Benjamin agrees that they should not live in White countries, that’s good enough for me.

Benjamin, whoa there! I never said anything about the ADL! I even thought WmWhite’s comments were a bit over the top . . . at first. But the more I read your posts, the more I agree with WmWhite.

When you first came here, and I read your Google name “Levi Manns,” my initial assumption was that you were using that name because Jews have a lot of respect in our society, and people will listen to a message about White genocide from a Jew who would not listen to the same message from a White person. I find that distasteful, but reasonable.

When you started trying to convince us that Jews are White, I figured, okay, you’re a Jew, and you see the writing on the wall, so you want to sneak Jews in under the category White. Jews have done that before, so it wouldn’t be surprising. Even then I didn’t think you were trying to disrupt what we were doing, only to subvert the Mantra ever so slightly so that you and your tribe could sneak in under the door. I still figured you were sincere. But with your latest rantings, I’m not so sure.

I had hoped to stay out of this scuffle. After all, if a Jew, a Black, or even a White race-mixer wishes to post the Mantra, there’s nothing wrong with that, but they will still not be allowed to live in a White land. So I simply wanted to keep quiet and let this whole thing pass. After all, you were very helpful in critiquing many of our posts, including mine. I wanted that relationship to continue. In the end, if it turned out that you were a Jew, then we appreciate you help, here’s your hat, have a nice time in Israel.

But since your paranoid rantings continue unabated, I think I must ask you two direct questions:

1) ARE YOU A JEW?

2? WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS?

If you are a Jew and sincerely want to end White genocide, I have no problem cooperating with you here, but you and your tribe will not be permitted to live in a White country (except perhaps as a diplomat). If you’re not a Jew, then please clear up the issue by stating so right now.

To clarify my question, I was referring to the name “Levi,” not to the name “Benjamin.” There are many White people named Benjamin, but Levi is ONLY a Jewish name.

Our task isn’t primarily to convince race-mixers or non-Whites, but to convince unmixed Whites. If race-mixers or non-Whites agree with us, that’s a bonus, but it’s not essential.

It’s really weird to me when I post the Mantra, and most of the replies appear to come from non-Whites. A hundred and fifty years ago, when White people discussed politics, the discussion was only among White people. A Negro wouldn’t join in on the conversation any more than a horse or a cow would.

Yet today it is almost universally understood that a Negro’s opinion or a race-mixer’s opinion has the same relevance as ours. This even seems to prevail among BUGSers to a certain extent. Of course, we have to play the game, so to speak, and act as if they matter. But if we are dependent on their agreeing with us, that is a very weak position to be in. It is as if we need their permission to end White genocide.

That said, if we could get a lot of non-Whites and race-mixers to agree with us, that would make things a lot easier for us, but we can never consider it essential. Most of them should be written off as unreachable, as even if a few of them agree with us, they won’t be living in our society, anyway.

@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:

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/04/20/snipers/

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.

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.