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

savethechildren

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #40700
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Anti-whites like to jumble many different points and assumptions into their long and wordy challenge of the mantra.
    The way I would answer that is first to quote: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody” and say, “do you dispute this?” “Its a good statement of reality.”
    Treat him as crazy for challenging this statement of reality. Say the places he is talking about don’t apply to the Mantra statement.
    Then let him come back with proof that they do pertain. Have him prove they pertain. I’ve never found one that does. I just say he is being anti-white by pointing to something that clearly does not compare to the point being made by “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody”
    I keep bringing up the point that he is dishonest in bringing up cases that don’t pertain and that he is just basically dishonest, that is, being anti-white.

    in reply to: Promoting BUGS and Recruiting New Bugs #38108
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Having fun with an anti-white over at Jared Taylor’s facebook acct:

    https://www.facebook.com/JaredTaylorX/posts/443728239009126?comment_id=4730794

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #35789
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Agreed? Is an option.  I’ve found that if you want to prolong the debate “agreed” stirs up the hornets nest that exposes more anti-white attitudes and behavior. It angers them.

    When you don’t get enough responses from anti-whites, incitement might be useful.

    There’s a certain value in being able to incite anti-whites.  Another one that works is “answer me reasonably and rationally.”

    Maybe ideas for a tool box.

    Of course the core of the activism is the White Genocide message and the label anti-white.

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #35787
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Response to “its not forced” in any form:

    Instead of trying to define and debate “force” switch to free choice.

    “Mixing (or whatever) is not occurring by free choice but by force, fraud and manipulation, agreed or not so?”

    Who can disagree that our choices are not manipulated under thought control system erected around us?

    Then accuse.

    Then question.

    Feedback on this technique.

     

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #35156
    savethechildren
    Participant

    LOVE and FREE TO CHOOSE are such simple sound bites. Whereas we are trying to overcome so many falsehoods weaved into such simple terms.

    When I try to teach and unravel, the words over flow and I’ve tailgated.

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #35144
    savethechildren
    Participant

    “White genocide” drives the anti-whites crazy. and I think that is good.  It hits them like smelling salts and I think that is good.

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #35143
    savethechildren
    Participant

    We take them too serious and give them too much respect when they use the word love.  This is what I would like to say but would probably delete or re-word to try to be expressive and clear:

    Normal
    0

    So love justifies White genocide? So because there are mulatto by-products of LOVE, whites should just abdicate their right to exist?

     

    “Oh, Love? Is it love or just f*cking?  Does f*cking, the right to f*ck, justify White genocide? HOW ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIVE AS A WHITE PERSON?

     

    Have you clinically examined these couples to see if it was love or f*cking you want to defend at the expense of the genocide of the White race? I DOUBT IT.

     

    Or, are you using a White value and concept, LOVE, to justify anti-white value, F*CKING?

    I think you are just trying to justify White genocide.”

    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #31453
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Sir John A Macdonald wanted to preserve the “aryan character” of Canada. The FIRST law past by Australia was the white australia policy. The american constitution says “…For ourselves and our posterity…” How can they argue these are not white countries when the very people who MADE these countries defined them as such? Those same people admit Europe is for whites and still demand massive non-white immigration and “assimilation.” It sounds like they are trying to get rid of white people. It’s genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

     

    I like it, I’m going to use it from time to time when its appropriate.

    in reply to: Post here if you are actually posting the mantra #29143
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Had a long interchange with someone opposing the mantra and got down to this:

     

    Or I’m just not Anti-white? I don’t need to prove it to you, I know who I am and what I believe. I’ll let this debate stay at rest, I don’t want to interfere with you spreading your message. To be honest, that’s starting to seem like the most productive way we can stop it. I don’t agree with everything you say, but your logic makes a lot of sense. Props to you good sir.

    GriffinWelch in reply to SAVETHECHILDREN6592 1 week ago

    Thanks for the respect. That’s not anti-white. To agree that whites are at risk goes a long way to reversing the trends if enough people see that.

    SAVETHECHILDREN6592 in reply to GriffinWelch 1 week ago

    To be anti-racist, I must admit whites could potentially go extinct, otherwise, I would indeed be anti-white. In the next few years whites become a minority, and nothing is being to to prevent extinction, I will take action and spread the word. Thank you, you have redefined my definition of “anti-racist” and from now on I will practice what I preach.

    GriffinWelch in reply to SAVETHECHILDREN6592 1 week ago

    If I understand correctly, she sees the risk of white extinction and her view of anti-racist has been modified to see that white extinction/genocide is the result of anti-racism.

    So some progress was made with this person and bystanders perhaps.

    in reply to: Crazy Ideas For Spreading The Mantra #28376
    savethechildren
    Participant

    This should be a good one, an on going good one:

    Mississippi Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple
     

    http://news.yahoo.com/mississppi-church-refuses-marry-black-couple-205218322–abc-news-topstories.html

     

     

    in reply to: Crazy Ideas For Spreading The Mantra #28374
    savethechildren
    Participant

    They always understanding things in an anti-white way.

    in reply to: Crazy Ideas For Spreading The Mantra #28373
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Its always just such a pleasure to call them anti-white.

    in reply to: Crazy Ideas For Spreading The Mantra #28371
    savethechildren
    Participant

    Six guns, as you know the Mantra doesn’t say white countries are for whites only but that the anti-whites allow black countries to be black, asian countries to be asian, but white countries are forbidden to be or remain white.  anti-whites turn that as an accusation against the Mantra message, but they are misrepresenting what is actually said there.

    in reply to: Crazy Ideas For Spreading The Mantra #28366
    savethechildren
    Participant
    in reply to: Debate advice and style first 909 posts #8624
    savethechildren
    Participant

    #8483
    Gator61,
    I wonder if the sock puppet was an accusation that all the pro-whites were really the same person. Sort of lobbying for the right to cut off free speech. I was deactivated by it would seem one of the posters, which seems strange.
    Interesting on the capitalization of White.
    They did seem very professional and organized.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)