>>1765
>That is not what I was saying and scandanavia if possible must be saved.
I know.
But even discussing racial superiority wins me nothing, so it's better to talk about how it is irrelevant to white genocide, since all whites need to go, even the ones that do not see themselves as racial superior.
> Now the question was never to allow yourself to be eaten because of meritorious others but to inhibit migration of reprehensible or worthless others and in best case scenario deport/black-bag the worthless/reprehensible respectively.
Might be true, might not be true, but way too complicated too sell.
I have been trying to understand the cause of the immigration insanity for years, and although I now know something of what happened, I have no way to get people to understand that I have understood it, so everybody should stop what they are doing, and listen to me.
The signal to noise ratio from the ones that want to explain it from their own agenda, like Christians wanting to restore the faith in Christ, progressives wanting to blame Capitalism, conservacucks blaming Marxism and the 1488, the kikes and the kike-alikes.
You can't get these people to adopt your explanation, since they more or less live from selling the narrative their donors, ideology or employer want to hear.
What you can do, is get(force) them to use your narrative, with the loaded words you created, by having your words becoming part of everyday language.
Those that want policies that will end in white genocide are anti-white, while those that want whites to survive are pro-whites.
With definitions like these, it is a major win, when these weaponized words slowly enters the language white people use to understand and communicate about the world.
I don't think it will be many years before politicians needs to be drilled on a answering questions on white genocide, even if they will be drilled to brush it off.