If I understand the purpose of the Mantra correctly, the Mantra is to point out to people the ongoing program of genocide against the White race. Reading the UN definition of genocide, I don’t think that individual cases of race-mixing constitute genocide, but only inflicting conditions that lead to race-mixing. I suppose one might say that individual cases of race-mixing “contribute” to genocide, but, according to the definition that we are using, I’m not even sure that that is the case. So, as important as it is to discourage individual cases of race-mixing, I don’t see how it has anything to do with the Mantra.

So suppose that you post the Mantra on an article or video, and someone replies, “I’m White, my boyfriend is Black, and we love each other! Are you trying to make our relationship illegal? How dare you!” The only way that I can see that you can reply within the terms of the Mantra is to relate it to a White homeland. For example, “Asians have their own exlcusive homelands, Africans have their own exclusive homelands, . . .” If the couple lives in, say, Brazil, then their relationship may be deviant, but I don’t see how it relates to White genocide. So I don’t think that you should address the individual relationship, but rather the need for all races to have their own exclusive homelands.

If someone you know personally tells you about an interracial realtionship, then it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss crime stats, genetic heritage, etc., privately with that person, or in front of other people who may be interested. But in front of a public audience these topics cause people to tune out, so only genocide and the need for a homeland should be discussed.