People on BUGS keep saying “the goal is to make white genocide something that is being discussed”. I firmly agree.

But in order for white genocide to be discussed, we must first show that we are willing to DISCUSS it. Not that we are gonna just scream “anti white!!” at people for holding the slightest dissenting opinion. That is not a discussion..

I’m not even talking about people with anti white opinions, just opinions that slightly differ from the BUGS orthodoxy. Opinions that accept the premise of white genocide, but differ on specifics.

“So no one wants to “debate” whether a person should be considered anti-white because of this-or-that policy position about some speculative future. Quit worrying about getting “followers”. We are spreading memes, this is not a political party and we are not looking for members.”

Finally an actual discussion.

Okay, so if we’re not looking for members, what are we looking for? Isn’t the point of spreading ideas to get people to agree with us?

As for the mantra, I agree with bombarding people with it. Pushing it in their faces. Spreading the message. Absolutely. All I’m saying is we shouldn’t call people anti white if they agree with the fundamental message that white genocide is happening and that it is wrong, but if they disagree on certain specifics in regards to what the solution should be.

In fact, if BUGS is against the idea of talking about solutions right now, then defining people as “anti white” for being against the hypothetical deportations of non whites from say, California, would be implying that we’ve agreed on a solution (that non whites should be deported from California).

So therefore it’s against the principles of BUGS to call someone an anti white for being against such hypothetical solutions. Because it implies that we’ve agreed on these solutions in the first place.

What makes someone anti white is if they support the policies that have come into existence (mass immigration and forced assimilation into all white countries). It doesn’t make them anti white if their solution differs from the “BUGS acceptable solution” because really there should be no such thing as a BUGS acceptable solution right now because that shouldn’t even be on the table as BUGS policy. It should just be about spreading the message, not about condemning people as anti white for disagreeing with a hypothetical solution that BUGS members may or may not end up supporting if it ever comes to that.

I’m not an anti-white. And I’m not referring to people who say “white genocide isn’t happening in North America”. It obviously is. I’m not referring to people who say “America was never a white country”, because it obviously was. I’m not referring to people defending the policies of mass immigration and forced assimilation in North America either.

I’m referring people who say that restoring ALL formerly white countries on earth to white countries through mass deportation of non whites would be either a. unfeasible and/or b. morally wrong.

Also as I said, Brazil used to be a white country, so did South Africa, and white genocide has obviously taken place in both of these countries, so by this definition you guys would all be anti-white if you don’t support making Brazil and South Africa white countries again.

Either way I fail see how calling people “anti white” when they are willing to agree with us on our basic premise, rather than engaging in dialogue with them, is a constructive angle.