B. U. G. S.

Okay, so that all brings me back to my point.

If our goal is to SPREAD THE MESSAGE rather than to play “WN Sim City”, then we shouldn’t start calling people “anti white” for saying certain specific things that may contradict the “WN Sim City” vision that certain people have. Because if our goal is just to spread the message, then a person saying “California cannot or should not be made a white majority place again” has no bearing on what we consider pro white or anti white, because it implies that we’ve already made a decision on final borders and policies.

Obviously if someone says “there should be no white countries”, or if they want any sort of circumstance that will lead to no white people in the future, or some extremely tiny concession that may as well be nothing, in that case they are anti white. That goes without saying.

“If you support the aftermath/consequences of a crime then you do support the crime itself.”

That could be just as easily said for allowing Brazil or South Africa to remain predominantly non-white countries. Some crimes are harder to reverse than others.

My point is, though, we would reach out to people better if we didn’t accuse people of being anti-white except when they obviously are. It’s kind of like the parable of the boy who cried wolf. If we call people anti-white when they agree with the mantra and accept the existence of white genocide, but their ideas for solutions differs somewhat from the “reconquer the entire western world” approach that many here believe in, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

We shouldn’t call people anti white for disagreeing with specifics on a solution that officially doesn’t even exist yet (because BUGS isn’t supposed to be about coming up with solutions, it’s supposed to be about spreading the message)

If we call people “anti white” when they’re not being anti white, we just come across as either schoolyard bullies or irrational fanatics. We should reserve the term “anti white” for the people who deserve it, or else it will lose all meaning.

Like I have been called anti white numerous times in this thread, but did I ever deny white genocide or support white genocide at any point? I challenge anyone to produce a statement where I did either of those things. You won’t find it, because I said no such thing. And I believe no such thing. I am against white genocide.

The way I see it, on this thread, certain members are defining “anti white” as anyone who disagrees with BUGS on anything. And that is not the definition of anti white. In fact in Beefcake’s Bootcamp, he even talks about “anti mantra pro whites” which implies that you can be pro white but still disagree with BUGS.

I agree with BUGS on the fundamentals, but I just disagree with many of the posters here when it comes to calling people “anti white” who do not meet the strict definition of anti white (supporting or denying white genocide)

jo3w I understand what you say here, and I agree that we probably shouldn’t be going too far into these debates with the public. The further we go, the more we get into murky territory where we could slip up or say something stupid. My point is that we shouldn’t call them anti white in these situations which I refer to, not that we should engage in lengthy dialogues with them. Show a willingness to engage in dialogue, abstain from simply shutting them down with “anti white” when they’ve accepted our basic premise, but that doesn’t mean we have to entertain their every point.

Anyway, to other posters here, I disagree with the premise here that accepting the present situation in California (or believing it is currently irreversible) means agreeing with the methods through which it came about. That’s the same logic as people who say “you condone genocide against the native americans because you’re pro United States”.

I would never deny that the current California is a much worse place than when California was a white place, but I would say the phrase “pick and choose your battles” has relevance here and I don’t think California can be saved. Nor can many other places like Brazil or South Africa. But that’s beside the point. The point is I don’t think we should call people anti white for believing this.

Also I find it funny how according to many people here, California is sacred white ground but Brazil for instance is totally expendable. Even though there are states of Brazil that are currently whiter than California. I feel like this board’s definition of white countries is often “white first world countries” so if the goal is really “restoring all formerly white lands” (which I don’t believe is, or should be the goal, because it’s unrealistic), then many people here are guilty of ignoring Latin American white nations as well as South Africa.

So by his own standards Secret Squirrel is treasonous because he’s not fighting to restore Brazil as a white nation.

And as a sidenote, while I do accept the premise that America and Canada are white countries, I do think we have to be prepared to address the issue of native americans. After all we would be hypocritical if we weren’t prepared to accept that they should have a homeland too (obviously not all or even most of north america but at least some of it)