What if they oppose forced assimilation for whites outside Europe, or outside white homelands? What if they oppose the continuation of undemocratic mass immigration without a vote?

What if all they mean is they don’t believe in the deportation of non-whites outside Europe or whatever designated areas?

I’m actually tailgating you by even talking about solutions. My point was that we simply shouldn’t accuse people of being anti white or justifying white genocide for holding a position that acknowledges white genocide but also promotes compromise in terms of territory.

Also, saying that not ALL white countries can or should realistically be restored as white countries isn’t the same as defending the policies that led to these white countries becoming “diverse”.

Obviously America and Canada were founded as white countries, and built by whites and for whites, and anyone who denies this is denying reality.

I’m not even saying that I agree with the people who want Canada and America to stay “diverse”. I wish Canada and America could become white countries again, if I had my way they would be (with a small area set aside for native americans as their own homeland). I’m saying that we shouldn’t rush to call them “anti-white” or accuse them of promoting white genocide.

The bottom line is, once the idea of “white genocide” enters the mainstream, then we can have these debates with the public. But if we send the message that we’re not willing to have these debates ever at any point, we risk alienating potential followers.

Yes, I agree all the people on official levels involved in promoting white genocide in every country including Canada and the USA should be jailed, and if possible executed.

But that’s not what we’re debating here. What we are debating is whether or not someone should be accused of being “anti white” for holding the position that not all white lands can be reclaimed as white lands and/or that not all white lands should be reclaimed as white lands.