B. U. G. S.

Okay, here is my argument condensed:

If someone accepts the premise that white genocide is happening in all white countries, and agrees that whites need a homeland, but they do not believe that ALL white countries should remain white countries, the proper response is not to call them anti-white or accuse them of promoting white genocide. The proper response is to say; “in order for us to have the debate on where white homelands can be, first the premise of white genocide has to be acknowledged and accepted”

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, 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.”

I’m not justifying white genocide though. I am promoting a realistic strategy to save the white race and to save white civilization.

I am not trolling. I support this cause genuinely. Being paranoid that everyone who asks a question is a troll doesn’t help our cause. This kind of mentality will hurt us, because imagine if more racially aware whites came to support our cause, but we start turning them all away on the hunch that everyone could be a troll.

Also I don’t really believe we can win over race mixers in any significant number. But there will often be situations where we are in a conversation with a race mixer and there are other whites present as an audience. Those audience members are the people we are trying to win over, hence why I bring this topic up.

Not all discussions about white genocide will take place in the anonymous confines of the internet. Some will involve friends and family members too, and we need to be prepared for fighting these battles in real life as well as online. And many of us probably have friends or family who are race mixers. Unfortunately in this day and age it is pretty much an inevitability, no matter where you live. After all, whites aren’t allowed any exclusive lands of our own, and non-white immigrants are pouring in to literally every corner of the western world, so I doubt hardly anyone has an extended family or circle of friends without any race mixers in the loop nowadays.

I’ve been on SF, and I don’t want to go back to that cesspool of inaction and pointless bickering.

But imagine if we succeed in putting the facts of white genocide in the public consciousness. Then after we’ve done that, we’ll have a whole other problem to grapple with. What to do and say next.

Even if they’ve accepted that white genocide is happening, the public will start asking questions like “what are we supposed to do, remove all the non-whites and mixed race families from their homes, deport them all to other countries?”. They’ll ask if there is any humane way to stop it. They’ll turn the tables and make it sound like white genocide is an acceptable atrocity, because the alternative sounds too mean.

I think after a while they’ll stop denying white genocide, they may even stop defending white genocide as being a good thing, but they’ll start saying “we can’t stop it without hurting people” or something like that. They’ll say it’s the lesser evil. You’ll have to convince them that we can stop white genocide without committing any sort of genocide against non-whites in white countries. Because the first thing they’ll think is “so you want to commit a violent genocide against non-whites to stop a non-violent genocide against whites”.

We’ll have to convince them that there are non-violent solutions. Also they might keep insisting that North America and Australia have no moral basis for being “white countries”. My answer is that Europe should be entirely for whites, while North America and Australia can be partitioned.

I think the best response is “why are you using your mixed race children to justify the genocide of all whites, in every white country and only white countries?”. Or, shorter version, “why are you using your mixed race children to justify white genocide?”

Is there an official stance in BUGS on whether raceblending certain white countries, but not all white countries, constitutes white genocide? For instance if Europe was left for whites, but all other white countries were raceblended, would that be considered white genocide?