Search? Click Here
Did you know you can visit to the swarm with
Post on the internet Working Thread

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 ago by j p.
Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 97 total)
  • Author
  • #100133

    Our job is to INTERROGATE anti-Whites. We aren’t trying to have a “discussion” or trying to “negotiate” That stuff only comes later, when we can finally have the freedom of speech anti-Whites refuse to let us have.

    Keep on posting the Mantra as it is, keep on INTERROGATING anti-Whites.

    If you can’t get that basic consept, then please TTGH.

    Henry Davenport

    We’re propagandists, not essay writers.

    Daniel Genseric

    I imagine my reaction to the question of “amending” the Mantra is very similar to the founding fathers’ reaction to the question of “amending” the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

    Now, we have this beautiful disaster known as the ‘United States Constitution’, replete with its worship of centralized government. And ITS amendments.

    Thank god it includes a holdover from the real American McCoy, the preamble.

    Make sure you understand what you are doing PHONETICALLY.

    & whatever you do…

    Don’t gut it.

    Now, please excuse me while I go throw up.


    Secret Squirrel, this phrase of yours identifies what I’ve been looking for when it comes to the future-policy-discussion gang: they want to play ‘WN SimCity’. Thanks!


    I’ve thought about this too. I was looking at different words we could use instead of “countries.” I’ve looked at “white areas” “white communities” “white habitat.” None of them really add anything and actually remove the fact that we have a right to self governance as well as survival.


    I read somewhere on BUGS “Everywhere White People Have Made Their Homes”.

    Those seven words always work for me when faced with “America is not a white country”
    and other such B.S.


    We have had some discussion about that point. Some people decided to say White majority countries others liked White homeland etc. I started a thread recently discussing wording pertaining to this.

    Everyone develops their own style of presenting the mantra, what I learned on that thread is the more important question is, “does this wording stay on message?”

    I also got a really nice alternative from Benjamin Newels,”Denying White countries exist is also like denying White people exist – just another anti-white excuse to carry out #WhiteGenocide”

    Looking for permanent mantra changes on these boards is pointless, that sort of thing happens with a stone tablet, hammer and chisel in South Carolina.

    j p

    Okay, how about this.

    Fine, don’t alter the mantra. You have convinced me.

    BUT, in an argument with someone who’s willing to listen to us, if they make the concession “There should be white countries” or “there should be a white homeland” but they do not believe the white homeland should include ALL formerly white countries, I don’t think we should accuse them of supporting white genocide.

    If we keep accusing people of advocating white genocide when they are willing to listen to us, and willing to accept that a white homeland must exist, then we are being counter-productive and alienating potential followers.

    For instance if the anti-white or fence sitter comes around and says “okay, you are right, whites are a race and a culture like every other one, and they should have a homeland. But I don’t think it’s right that new world countries should be white homelands”. Or they say that maybe part of America could be a white homeland but not all of it.

    In that case, I don’t think we should still keep accusing them of advocating white genocide. I think we should try to build bridges with them, since they have acknowledged and agreed with our fundamental premise. That premise being that white people need a homeland.

    After all, if the statement “Europe should be a white homeland but America shouldn’t” is a statement advocating white genocide, then so are the statements “Europe should be a white homeland but South Africa shouldn’t” or “Europe should be a white homeland but Brazil shouldn’t”

    Personally I do support the establishment of a white homeland within America (not ALL and possibly not even most of America), but my point is, I don’t think we should accuse someone of advocating white genocide for taking the position that only Europe, or only Europe and a small portion of the new world, should be white homelands.


    JP, I’m late to all this, but I would say please remember: we aren’t really about “converting” anti-Whites to our side. We just want to expose them as the genocidal criminals that they are. It’s not like a Christian conversion moment where you bring them to the Light.

    Rather, the anti-White is mainly used as a prop to make our points.

    And this idea that there are supposedly people who accept that there is a White Genocide going on in Europe but not in America, Canada or Australia — well I never meet that person in real life. There are shysters who will say “oh yeah you can have your ‘homelands’ in Europe but certainly not in America” and they are without fail, anti-White. They are playing games.

    It maybe a subtle point but it is important to keep in mind: we aren’t fighting for what shape this-or-that country should be in the future; we are working to expose White Genocide. Period. White Genocide can happen ANYWHERE on earth.

    This is one reason I am a bit iffy on the use of the term ‘homeland’. It has a stale, backward quality to it. It sounds static. I’ve used it but I am getting more cautious about it, because the enemy uses it to restrict us to certain spaces (the ONLY Europe is a your homeland type of argument).

    As someone said, what we care about is anywhere Whites have made their homes. The Genocide laws weren’t written in 1492 or 1805. They were written in 1948. Countries that were White at that time were WHITE. Period.

    j p

    We aren’t out to convert the die hard anti-whites but we are out to convert fence sitters.

    I’ve met plenty of people who say whites have the right to a homeland, but not to all western countries. I’ve seen many people concede that Europe is our indigenous homeland but they believe America and Canada should be multiracial. Some believe that America should be partitioned, and that part of it can be a white nation, and other parts can be multiracial.

    I don’t think it’s necessarily stance in favor of white genocide. I think it’s a foolish stance to actively want a non-white America, because a non-white majority America will undoubtedly be a third world country like Brazil, but at the same time, I don’t think taking this stance is necessarily advocating white genocide. As long as you accept that there should be a sizeable white homeland, you are not advocating white genocide in the strict sense of the word. I would personally like America and Canada to become white nations again, but what I would like is beside the point.

    My point is, we should have a certain line where we concede “okay, this person is reasonable, they are willing to listen to reason, and they are not advocating white genocide”. If we do not concede that, then we are fanatics. If we start screaming about how anything short of a 100% white California or a 100% white South Africa is white genocide, then we are fanatics. It reminds me of how radical Zionists will accuse people of being anti-Semetic and wanting “another holocaust” just for advocating that the West Bank and Gaza should be Palestinian.

    “As someone said, what we care about is anywhere Whites have made their homes. ”

    So you’re advocating South Africa as a white country? Colombia? Venezuela? Brazil? Is it white genocide to deny these countries the right to be majority white? You gotta draw the line somewhere.

    White genocide is happening in South Africa in a very violent way, more violent than anywhere else on earth, and also in Brazil through forced assimilation measures that far surpass those that we are used to in first world western countries. You could say that white genocide in South Africa and Brazil is happening on a much worse level than what we in Europe and North America and Australia are used to. But just because white genocide is happening in those countries, does that make them white countries? Do they have the right to be white countries? More importantly, do we have any feasible way to make them into white majority countries?

    White genocide IS happening everywhere in which whites reside. I completely agree with that. But my point is, to take the stance “there should be white countries, but not ALL white countries should remain white countries” is not necessarily a statement promoting white genocide. Also, one crucial specification is that, as well as recognising the need for a white homeland, they should also have to admit that white minorities in other countries should not be subjected to forced assimilation.


    JP, you are always putting up these long thought experiments intended to make us doubt White Genocide. You always have these “special cases”. Like the mixed children thread you were on. Come on anti-White, Troll better!

    The ONLY people I’ve met online who say White Genocide is real in Europe but not in America are lying. They will say Europe and ONLY Europe is our “indigenous homeland” or some crap like that.

    It’s an obvious con.

    This is instructive for the rest of us: Anti-Whites will often play this game where they pretend to be partly persuaded but then claim a million little doubts.

    Like JP here, they say “but what’s a White person” or “what’s a White country really”, etc etc etc. People who are sincerely concerned with White Genocide wouldn’t talk this way.

    And there are no “fence sitters” when it comes to GENOCIDE. LOL! That is the first clue we are being conned.

    Benjamin Newells

    So you support the forced conditions intended to bring about the disappearance of White people in America yet you say that’s not #WhiteGenocide ?

    A positive answer to this question will reveal whether someone is an #antiwhite who supports #whitegenocide, or not.

    Benjamin Newells

    But my point is, to take the stance “there should be white countries, but not ALL white countries should remain white countries” is not necessarily a statement promoting white genocide.

    Yes it is.

    Turning just one White country non-White is an act of White Genocide.


    Guys, you are tailgating.

    White Genocide is the forced “diversity” of White areas by non-Whites.

    Massive non-White immigration into a White country is not something that can be argued as genocide. It is the old White Nationalist argument that has failed.

    Massive non-White immigration, and THEN targeting White counties, neighborhoods, etc for “diversity” is genocide.

    If there were no government policies in place to deliberately move non-Whites into White areas, suburbs, etc most non-Whites would move to the cities and most Whites would White flight to the suburbs.

    Individual non-White groups want to be the majority group in their area as much as White people do – many studies have found that races naturally separate to do this.

    What we’re against is the policy to force us to mix.

    I’m European, but it seems to me that if someone says America is not a White country, you need to ask them what they mean by that.

    Do they mean that White people in America are “free game” and can be chased down and “diversified”, “mixed”, etc? — Now that IS White genocide.

    j p

    I’m not an anti-white. I’m a realist. You guys are the people in South Africa who thought you could hold onto the entire country until Jesus comes again. I am the rational minded guy saying “what if we whites all moved to the Western Cape and made it Western Cape our nation”

    I never denied that white genocide is happening in America. I never condoned it. What I said it, we may need to downsize in order to survive as a race. And what that means is, we need to be willing to engage in dialogue with people who are willing to accept the premise of a white homeland but who are not willing to accept the deportation of non-whites everywhere.

    Because the ONLY way to create white majority countries is deportation. You can’t have a white majority France without deportation. You can’t have a white majority England without deportation. You sure as hell can’t have a white majority America without deportation.

    So the underlying assumption behind the mantra is that in order for there to be white countries, non-whites must be deported. I think the public will only be willing to go to a certain length in supporting this. Deporting non-whites from Europe could be justified under the grounds that Europe is the indigenous white homeland. But would people be willing to get behind the deportation of non-whites from the entire United States? I really doubt it.

    I don’t agree with the people in the 1960s who opened the floodgates of the USA and Canada to non-white hordes. But now that it’s been done, it is virtually impossible to reverse without deportation. The same is true in Europe. Because of higher non white birth rates and race mixing, whites would become a minority in a matter of decades even if immigration was stopped tomorrow. Deportation is a very touchy subject. In this day and age it would be hard to get away with it at all, but I think if we really push the fact that the powers that be are committing white genocide, we may be able to succeed in deporting non-whites from some areas, Europe in particular. But not from everywhere.

    If we are thinking ahead, if we really want to succeed, then we must accept that a stage will come when negotiations will happen as to how much land is justified in remaining white land. When the crime of deporting people from their homes will be weighed against the crime of white genocide if no one is deported. Compromises on both sides will need to be made. We must be willing to negotiate.

    The ideas I have could actually save the white race. Your stubbornness will only doom it. If you can’t accept the possibility of giving up certain peripheral areas of land in order to strengthen our core, then you are the ones dooming us to genocide.

    Also even in those peripheral areas where whites or will soon be a minority, I believe we should take a firm stance against forced assimilation. What I’m saying is, it is unrealistic to expect to maintain a white majority status EVERYWHERE that was a white majority country in the past 100 or 200 years.

    If you add up all areas that have been white countries at some point in the last 200 years (Europe, Siberia, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and all of the Americas) that is over half of the world’s landmass. Whites are now around 10% of the world’s population, maybe a bit more. To expect 10% of the population to hold on to half the landmass, especially while in the weakened and demoralized state we exist in today, is ludicrous.

    Also you guys come across as a bunch of paranoid tinfoil hat wearers if you call everyone “anti-white” who questions any aspects of your beliefs. I agree white genocide is happening. I agree it must be stopped. I believe in doing what is best for the survival of our race and culture and civilization. But you still call me anti-white. Why? Because you are a bunch of zealots unwilling to listen to reason.

    j p

    The TL; DR version:

    Screaming at people “you’re supporting white genocide! You’re an anti white!” when they have accepted the premise that white genocide is happening and that whites need a homeland, is counter productive. Even if someone disagrees with you on specifics, the fact that they accept the basic premise of white genocide and the need for a white homeland proves that they are not an anti-white.

    If we ever want to win over the sleeping white titan, we sometimes need to build bridges rather than burn them.

    Secret Squirrel

    Well go and put your grand plan into motion and make a Youtube video about it, so we can see what a genius you are. 😉

    j p

    The core of my argument is this:

    When someone acknowledges the premise of white genocide and the need for a white homeland, we should stop calling them “anti-white”.

    If they accept that white genocide is happening, and whites need a homeland, but they do not accept the idea that ALL areas that were once majority white must become majority white again, they aren’t promoting white genocide and we shouldn’t call them anti-white. Unless they’re saying something ridiculous like “you whites can have Iceland and that’s all”.

    But if they agree that whites should have a reasonably sized homeland but they do not believe that the white homeland should include ALL formerly white lands, I don’t think we should call them anti white or accuse them of promoting white genocide.

    If a bugser is having a debate with someone else, and that person brings up this topic, the bugser should say something like “we can only have the debate on where white homelands can be after the premise of white genocide has been acknowledged and accepted”, rather than continuing to accuse them of being an anti-white promoting white genocide.

    j p

    I’m not trying to be some Stormfronter with a grand plan.

    I am just outlining what situations we should call someone an anti-white and accuse them of promoting white genocide, and what situations we shouldn’t.

    That is all I am saying here.

    Fred R

    Condense your ideas down until you can communicate them in as short a space as possible.
    That is the only way your arguments will ever matter.

    We’re propagandists, not essay writers. -Henry Davenport

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 97 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.