B. U. G. S.

THE EUROPE STRATEGY

THIS IS A LONG POST. READ THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TIME TO READ THE WHOLE THING:

The problem with The Mantra is that, while it is technically true, it may possibly be flawed. The key flaw lies in the categorization of “white countries”. Firstly, it begs the question—what about native americans and Australian aborigines and the Maori of New Zealand? Like whites, they also have no countries. Africa for the Africans and Asia for the Asians is a solid, indisputable premise. But the problem is, when it comes to white countries, only Europe is our indigenous homeland in the way that Africa is for the Africans, and Asia for the Asians.

However the fact remains that the process of white genocide is also taking place in the Americas and Australia/New Zealand (and also of course in South Africa where it takes on a much more violent form). So we can’t simply say “Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, Europe for everyone”. Such an approach would only focus on Europe as a place where white genocide is occurring, and it would be factually incorrect to imply that white genocide is strictly located in Europe.

However, in order to maintain the moral upper hand, we may need to show to the public that we are willing to make certain concessions.

Maybe we need to include in the full mantra that white genocide is taking place in Europe and the new world alike, but Europe is our indigenous homeland. Some people who are willing to accept the fact that white genocide is happening may say that it is only fair for Europe to be white land. They may say that North America and Australia are stolen land that belong to the native aboriginals instead, or in the absence of an aboriginal majority, to humanity as a whole. Or perhaps that it should be divided between aboriginal land and land for humanity as a whole, with maybe some portions left over for whites.

Here is a suggestion for a paragraph that could be added to the mantra to address this fact;
“Some people may argue that whites only have the right to maintain Europe as their ethnic homeland. That point is up for debate. But to advocate Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, and white lands including Europe for everyone is GENOCIDE. Fact is, anti-whites do not even recognise our right to Europe, let alone to North America or Australia. We can debate over how much of the world has a right to be a white homeland, but we can only have that debate once the right to a white homeland at all, of any size, is established. Until it is recognised that whites have the right to a homeland, we cannot start the debate over how large an area of land it is morally justified for that homeland to be.”

HERE I ELABORATE MORE ON WHAT I AM SAYING. IF YOU HAVE TIME, YOU CAN KEEP READING:
I know many of you are from outside Europe, and particularly, from America. I am from Canada myself. I understand this attachment you have to the land. But you must ask yourself, what is your mission? To save America or to save the white race? I was under the impression our goal is to save the white race and western civilization. I believe in order to maintain the moral upper hand, we may have to sacrifice all or the vast majority of our non-European nations, and put forth a strong message asserting Europe as the white homeland. I believe we must be open to the possibility that stopping white genocide may mean giving up SOME white countries. We cannot give up one single European country because every European country is ethnically unique. But if winning over the public means being open to giving up non-European white countries then that is a sacrifice I am willing to make.

I think the only way to maintain the moral upper hand, to really convince people that we are the “good guys” is to show that we are open for debate in terms of how much of the world the white race is entitled to. What we will NOT budge on is the fact that white people have the right to a homeland and to preserve our race. That is not up for question. That is an inalienable right that we as an ethnic group have, according to the United Nations and its definition of human rights. However, it does not necessarily count as white genocide if we were to give up certain territories. Particularly, territories that we are not indigenous to. Territories that were conquered by us over the centuries.

If lucky we may be able to bargain and maneuver our way to carving out a small portion of the United States and Canada to keep. I feel like the far northeast section may be viable. New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador. These regions are over 90% white and have a low population density. Perfect for a future white homeland. As for Australia and New Zealand, it is possible we could find a part of these areas to strategically carve out for our people. Maybe Tasmania and the South Island of New Zealand. Maybe a portion of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and South Brazil could be carved out as well, although I am not sure how strong the white identity movement is in that part of the world. Realistically it may not be possible to create a white state of any kind in Latin America, in which case emigration of racially aware whites should be encouraged. South Africa at this point is a lost cause, given that we do not possess majority status anywhere in that country, and the only solution for whites there is emigration or accepting minority status and all the persecution that comes with it.

The fact is whites have lost land before. It used to be that Turkey and much of the Levant, Iran and North Africa and even parts of Central Asia were white lands before Islam came in and a combination of conquest and race mixing turned non-whites into the majority. Large parts of Latin America used to be majority white and are no longer majority white. The same is now starting in the United States, with California, Texas and potentially a few other states having reached the white minority status (Hawaii actually never had a white majority).

We have lost plenty of land before. The idea of losing territory is nothing new. The idea of losing land should not come as something horrific and unacceptable to us. What is horrific and unacceptable is the idea of having no homeland whatsoever. Also the idea of losing land in Europe, our indigenous homeland, should come across as horrific and unacceptable.

Rather than preserving ALL white lands, which is a demographic impossibility, the goal should be 1. Assert our moral right to self preservation as a race, a culture, an ethnic group and a civilization 2. Show our willingness to negotiate in terms of the areas of our homeland and concessions to conquered aboriginal peoples in the “new world” including the possibility of their own homelands 3. Finalize borders and create our white homelands 4. Encourage emigration of non-whites from these homelands and encourage immigration of whites from outside our homelands into them (since non-whites probably won’t agree to return to third world countries it may be better to try and facilitate their emigration to former white lands like the former white regions of the United States and Canada for instance)

I think most of you are already willing to make certain concessions. Do any of you still have the idea in your heads that Southern California or Southern Florida can ever again be part of a white homeland? I doubt a single BUGSer honestly believes that there is any chance that whites can ever reclaim the United States in its entirety as a white homeland. Let’s be honest, guys, deep down inside, all of us have began accepting the inevitability that we are not going to reclaim all our white lands. At this point, we have realised certain lands are already on the bargaining table. It would give us the moral upper hand, and a better public image, if we made it part of the mantra that we are willing to negotiate and make concessions in this area.
The whole point of the mantra is that we are trying to appeal to the people who are on the fence. In order to do so, we must maintain moral superiority over the anti-whites. The current situation is, whites are around 10% of the world’s population, and it would be unrealistic for us to demand a huge portion of the world’s land. We would come across as greedy land grabbers, the exact sort of stereotypical image that anti-whites use to condemn our race with. Realistically it would be best for us to demand a homeland that is more-or-less proportional to our current percentage of the world’s population. The areas I have outlined here (all of Europe, the far northeast of Canada and the USA, Tasmania, south island of New Zealand) would be quite proportionally fair. This of course begs the question of Siberia and whether it constitutes a white land, but I don’t think the anti-whites pay Siberia much thought anyway. Either way you could argue that with or without Siberia, this would give whites a proportionally fair amount of the world’s habitable land. And after all, “fairness” is all the rage nowadays. The fact is that most people in the world today possess a liberal, left wing mentality, so you have to speak to them in liberal terms like fairness and equality. That is the mentality behind The Mantra as a whole after all, because it revolves around the concept of human rights and the UN definition of genocide.

So in conclusion I believe we must need to make clear the fact that we are willing to concede certain white lands, in order to create the borders of a white homeland. We can’t give an inch of Europe though. That is one thing we must refuse to budge on.

(Also fact is Europe has a much more active far right which will make success easier there)