B. U. G. S.

By the way, on this topic, I thought of a good mantra talking point;

“If race doesn’t matter, then why are there Native American reservations?”

Also, a similar one; “If race/skin color doesn’t matter, then we should get rid of all the Native American reservations”

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)

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.

I’m not an anti-white. And I’m not referring to people who say “white genocide isn’t happening in North America”. It obviously is. I’m not referring to people who say “America was never a white country”, because it obviously was. I’m not referring to people defending the policies of mass immigration and forced assimilation in North America either.

I’m referring people who say that restoring ALL formerly white countries on earth to white countries through mass deportation of non whites would be either a. unfeasible and/or b. morally wrong.

Also as I said, Brazil used to be a white country, so did South Africa, and white genocide has obviously taken place in both of these countries, so by this definition you guys would all be anti-white if you don’t support making Brazil and South Africa white countries again.

Either way I fail see how calling people “anti white” when they are willing to agree with us on our basic premise, rather than engaging in dialogue with them, is a constructive angle.

As for the mantra, I agree with bombarding people with it. Pushing it in their faces. Spreading the message. Absolutely. All I’m saying is we shouldn’t call people anti white if they agree with the fundamental message that white genocide is happening and that it is wrong, but if they disagree on certain specifics in regards to what the solution should be.

In fact, if BUGS is against the idea of talking about solutions right now, then defining people as “anti white” for being against the hypothetical deportations of non whites from say, California, would be implying that we’ve agreed on a solution (that non whites should be deported from California).

So therefore it’s against the principles of BUGS to call someone an anti white for being against such hypothetical solutions. Because it implies that we’ve agreed on these solutions in the first place.

What makes someone anti white is if they support the policies that have come into existence (mass immigration and forced assimilation into all white countries). It doesn’t make them anti white if their solution differs from the “BUGS acceptable solution” because really there should be no such thing as a BUGS acceptable solution right now because that shouldn’t even be on the table as BUGS policy. It should just be about spreading the message, not about condemning people as anti white for disagreeing with a hypothetical solution that BUGS members may or may not end up supporting if it ever comes to that.

Who here said anything about white people being morally obligated to leave Canada and the USA? You are putting words in my mouth and attacking a strawman.

You are a troll, Secret Squirrel, pure and simple.

Jason: I’ve posted the mantra on a bunch of youtube comments threads, and news article comments sections and on facebook. I’ve posted it at least a few dozen times.

I never told whites to leave Canada or the USA. I never said whites should morally be obligated to leave Canada or the USA. I never said that a “diverse” Canada or USA is a good thing nor that the policies that led to this “diverse’ Canada and USA were morally right.

You are twisting my words.

I don’t know when or if I will make a video, alright?

It is anti white to push for more undemocratic non white immigration and forced assimilation in America.

What is not anti white is to say “I support white homelands but realistically I don’t think we can just deport all the non whites from every formerly white country. Realistically I don’t think it would be moral or feasible to try to reclaim all formerly white countries as white countries today”.

You can say that while still believing that the process through which America and Canada became “diverse” was morally wrong.

I’m actually tailgating you by even talking about solutions. My point was that we simply shouldn’t accuse people of being anti white or justifying white genocide for holding a position that acknowledges white genocide but also promotes compromise in terms of territory.

Also, saying that not ALL white countries can or should realistically be restored as white countries isn’t the same as defending the policies that led to these white countries becoming “diverse”.