B. U. G. S.

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.

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.

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.

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.