Amending the mantra: The question of defining "white countries"
Home › Forums › BUGS SWARM › Amending the mantra: The question of defining "white countries"
- This topic has 96 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by j p.
-
AuthorPosts
-
01/23/2015 at 8:55 am #100089j pParticipant
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)
01/23/2015 at 11:56 am #100099ElectricParticipantWhat are you talking about? US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe ARE ALL WHITE countries, built up by Whites who have lived in them for centuries and would never have been in existence in the first place without White people. Anti-Whites like to use history to justify genocide. What you’re doing is also justifying genocide. Haiti wasn’t always a Black country… the Black Haitians murdered all of the original White inhabitants. NOBODY tries to justify Black genocide for those same reasons.
01/23/2015 at 5:10 pm #100100j pParticipantI’m not justifying white genocide though. I am promoting a realistic strategy to save the white race and to save white civilization.
01/23/2015 at 7:20 pm #100101Secret SquirrelParticipantNice wall of text. My answer:
All nations are nations of immigrants.
All nations are created by immigration.
All nations are destroyed by immigration.People are not plants. No one grew out of the soil they are standing on, even the non-White “indigenous”.
No one is moving to the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc because they want to live in Teepees or grass huts. They are coming for what the White man built. The immigration is one way from non-White countries, into Whites countries.
You would have saved yourself a lot of time, if you had come to BUGS and asked how to deal with a question like that. We’ve seen it thousands of times and dealt with it.
01/24/2015 at 2:21 am #100104-Gar5-ParticipantWe’re not here to offer solutions or make deals. At this time we are here to spread and repeat a message until people “get it”.
First we get the consent of the people – then deals come later.
I agree that “White countries for everyone?” can sometimes create an argument about what makes a country White.
But how else are you going to say that only White people have been targeted in our own countries for genocide?
The only thing I can think of is if you say “Majority White countries for everyone?”
Rather than discuss what works better, go out there are see what works better.
01/24/2015 at 3:47 pm #100116j pParticipantI can just see some people in late 1980s South Africa having the exact same discussion:
Person A: “The situation is bad for white people in South Africa. Demographically and politically we are being overwhelmed. I think the best solution would be if we could consolidate the white population in one area. The Western Cape perhaps. We can become the majority there and make it our state. Realistically we cannot hold all of South Africa. It just isn’t viable right now, with the unfortunate way things are going. We don’t have the upper hand here, we need to find a viable solution”
Person B: “No. We built this country. We built everything of value in this country. No one wants to immigrate here because of the mud huts that the blacks built, they want to be a part of the advanced civilization we whites built. It is our right to keep a hold onto this country”
Person A: “While what you’re saying is technically true, I just don’t see any realistic way that we can hold onto all of South Africa. My solution is the only way our people can have a future here”
Person B: *stubbornness increases* “No. All of South Africa is our land and it always will remain that way!”
And then 1994 rolls around…..
01/24/2015 at 4:56 pm #100117polydorosParticipantAs -Gar5- said, at this stage it isn’t about finding solutions about territories etc. We’re only raising awareness about the White Genocide agenda.
We have excellent tools to do that.
The tools are being perfected though. So would folks please write their thoughts on the questions I asked under the article “Shepherds of the People”?…
01/24/2015 at 6:04 pm #100118Secret SquirrelParticipant“I can just see some people in late 1980s South Africa having the exact same discussion:”
Whites aren’t going to follow your grand plans, because the majority of Whites don’t see a problem and even if they did see it, they aren’t allowed to discuss it in public. BUGS is about forcing a discussion of White Genocide, because when whites are allowed to discuss it, they will come up with their own solutions.
So until that discussion is allowed to take place, your grand plans amount to nothing more than ‘SimCity White Nationalism’.
BTW Bob was in South Africa at the time, trying to talk sense into the locals, before they handed power to the blacks. You should ask him what the South Africans thought was more important. It certainly wasn’t their own survival!
01/24/2015 at 8:43 pm #100119Fred RParticipantThis all sounds strangely similar to this discussion starting at post #2:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=12605978&postcount=2He wants to define White countries as only in Europe and consider everything else a melting pot.
01/24/2015 at 9:25 pm #100120j pParticipantYeah, that wasn’t me on that SF thread. I don’t buy the idea that America was “always a melting pot of different races”. That is a load of crap.
But I think white people need to get serious. Understand that having white countries, in practice, means deporting a lot of people. Are we going to be able to push the deportation agenda in places like California or Florida? Or is it more feasible to instead relocate?
I also never suggested abandoning America altogether, I believe the northern part of New England has a strong chance of being maintained as a white homeland.
As I said, all I’m suggesting is to either modify the mantra or have the pre-prepared mini-mantra as a response to those who offer debates toward the mantra; ““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.”
01/24/2015 at 9:49 pm #100121Fred RParticipantWhat I do is name two non-White countries one from Asia and Africa that are allowed to be racially homogeneous.
Liberia only allows blacks to have citizenship and South Korea calls itself the Single Race Society.I then demand that the anti-White name just one White country that is allowed to have similar policies.
They can’t do this, because you can demonstrate that any White country they name must accept immigration.You don’t have to define a White country.
Anti-Whites do this for you.“Diverse” means formerly White.
“Needs Diversity” means the country is White.01/24/2015 at 10:55 pm #100123Secret SquirrelParticipantOh great. Hit by the spam blocker.
Fred R is correct. Anti-Whites define “White countries”. White countries are the countries they target.
01/25/2015 at 6:56 am #100124j pParticipantI’m not arguing over what are “white countries”. I agree Australia, America, Canada etc have always been white countries and were built by whites. I agree whites should have the moral right to claim these countries as their own in an ideal world (with sparsely populated areas set aside for the indigenous populations where they could form their own countries too).
But we don’t live in an ideal world and I firmly believe that in the long run victory will require sacrifice.
Lately I’ve seen some people respond to the mantra by saying that only Europe has the right to remain white. This actually means we’re making progress. It means they are starting to accept that whites should have a homeland.
I’m saying that if they make the argument that North America, Australia etc shouldn’t be “white countries”, this would be a good response;
“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.””
01/25/2015 at 7:30 am #100125polydorosParticipantI’ve seen people argue such things before.
It is long-winded, overly defensive, and usually initiates ENDLESS tailgaiting on geography, history/pre(!)-history, culture, etc.
Anyway, that’s the last I’m saying on this. This thread is an example of what happens, and we’re all on the same side!
01/25/2015 at 10:36 am #100126TheSeeker OfTruthParticipantA White country has been defined by the anti-Whites as one that MUST accept millions of third world immigrants. Bob said that. I don’t think anything should be added to that.
01/25/2015 at 11:16 am #100127Fred RParticipantLiberia was founded by black colonists.
They were former slaves from America who proceeded to enslave the local black population shortly after their arrival.
Their constitution even to this day states that only blacks can be citizens.No one wants to debate whether Liberia needs “Diversity”
No one mentions their history of slavery and other bad things
…because they’re not White.You’re making this too complicated.
We point out the obvious in as little time as possible and get out.“Needs diversity” means the country is White.
“Diverse” means formerly White.http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/03/24/tailgating-gets-you-shot-down/
01/25/2015 at 11:24 am #100128Fred RParticipanthttp://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2011/02/10/is-loyalty-a-sin/
The question comes up regularly over here: “Is Eastern Europe ready for immigration yet?” It is demanded of every country in Europe and America that it literally change its complexion, that they bring in tens of millions of third world immigrants.
This question is never asked of Japan or Taiwan, but it is demanded of equally crowded European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium.
No one mentions the reason because we all know it: Europe and America are a majority white.
01/25/2015 at 5:06 pm #100129Secret SquirrelParticipantThis is one of Bob’s I believe:
“Our issue is not demonstrating that Jews are all-powerful… it’s White survival. Our issue is not proving a conspiracy by an elite… it’s White survival. Our issue is not explaining how rotten Israel is… it’s White survival. Our issue is not liberals vs. conservatives… it’s White survival. Our issue is not electing Ron Paul… it’s White survival. Our issue is not opposing amnesty for illegal aliens… it’s White survival. Our issue is not about moving to one place or another… it’s White survival”01/25/2015 at 8:46 pm #100130jo3wParticipantIntellectual conversations will not save our people. Appealing to peoples sense of justice and fairness to promote an opinion that our people should not be destroyed is exponentially more powerful than a logically flawless position.
01/25/2015 at 9:06 pm #100122Secret SquirrelParticipant@jp
“But I think white people need to get serious. Understand that having white countries, in practice, means deporting a lot of people. Are we going to be able to push the deportation agenda in places like California or Florida? Or is it more feasible to instead relocate?”Again, you have to first get recognition that White Genocide is occurring. Yours is the kind of thing they have been discussing endlessly at SF and every other Pro White website forever and its just time down the sink. They don’t want to do the hard work of raising awareness, they just want to play ‘WN SimCity’.
No awareness = no followers = no parades.
@Fred
“You don’t have to define a White country.
Anti-Whites do this for you.”Correct.
“Every White country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY White country is expected to end its own RACE and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-White country. All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY White country and ONLY White countries.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Comments are closed.
Bob’s Corner
Why Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5Login
Copyright Policies
Robert Whitaker grants full and free use of his ideas and writings as they pertain to aiding others in stating the facts about white race genocide and its agenda of forced non-white immigration and integration into ALL white countries and ONLY white countries.
Recent Swarms
- Xenonian on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- time for freedom on test
- Xenonian on MINI MANTRAS PRO
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
- -scythian- on Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- Xenonian on Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- JPOutlook on Where did you post the Mantra today?
Swarm Topics
- This is another test
- test
- Anti-Whites are ripe for conditioning
- Something Interesting
- Whether intermarriage is being forced
- Diversity is a code word for White Genocide – should we hit that extra hard now?
- Swarming at foreign sites
- Genocide Awareness Webinars
- There is a new White House Petition for You to Sign
- White Genocide Resources
- White Genocide Pics
- New Podcasts
- Cuckservatives
- Postage Paid envelopes
- Our Change.org petitions
Recent Posts
- Personal Loyalty Is No Excuse for Stupidity
- THE ONLY INEVITABLE LEFT FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
- Anti-Whitism
- BASICS: Black Vandalism With A Diploma
- Robert W. Whitaker Archive Site
- The Practical Wisdom of Robert Whitaker
- First Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Whether intermarriage is being forced….
- Soviet Free Speech
- Is the Only Purpose of a Gun To Kill?
Immigration
Categories
- About Bob (13)
- Activism (10)
- Blasts from the Past (46)
- Bob (416)
- Bob's Book (20)
- Bob's Meanderings (21)
- BUGS Radio (19)
- Coaching Session (2,846)
- Comment Responses (1,001)
- General (716)
- Grouch Growls (2)
- History (681)
- How Things Work (606)
- Insider Letter Archive (54)
- Law and Order (35)
- Links (2)
- Mantra (82)
- Musings about Life (123)
- Political Correctness (105)
- Politics (80)
- Race Matters (24)
- Radio Shows (5)
- Religion (42)
- SF Townhall (2)
- Truck Roy Radio (2)
- We Do What Works (13)
- WOL Weekly Articles (28)
Topic Tags
8 traits of a disinformationist 25 rules of disinformation activism America anti-white anti-white mantra April Gaede diversity fight white geNOcide Genocide german help How to Deal with Anti--Whites Mantra Mantra videos Martin Luther King MLK Medvedev mini-mantras minis Montana Motivations Multiculturalism Feminism occupy wall street OWS rally Paltalk petition Pink rabbit Pioneer Little Europe pro-white Propaganda Putin Russia Spanish Stop Genocide subversion Swedish To Give New Members Info Tactics & Advice To Intellectually Destroy Our Enemies training Twitter videos White Genocide White genocide flyers white privilege youtube Youtube MantrasOctober 2024 S M T W T F S « Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Archives
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
In A Few Words
Bob Whitaker has "been there and done that" in the world of politics. His unique perspective is insightful and vital. You may not agree with everything he says, but I guarantee that he will make you think.
Robert W. Whitaker, 1941—2017, was born and raised in South Carolina and attended the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia Graduate School. He has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill senior staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and three books. Bob lived in Columbia, SC, coaching B.U.G.S. He had asked the staff to inform female readers that he was "divorced and 'wildly attractive.'" I agree that he was divorced. But actually, he always did and always will love his one and only wife.
Recent Comments