According to the UN in 1946

According to the UN in 1946,
>Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups.
Tell a Liberal, "White people have the right to exist as a group."
Wait for them to deny your statement.
Then tell them that they're literally, by definition, advocating genocide.

They just twist it to say that whiteness is culture and is a system of racist oppression so it needs to be destroyed. It's also why they don't allow us here in Europe to identify as ethnic Europeans and that anyone can be European. The mental gymnastics behind this are because of colonialism. we genocided native Americans, aboriginal Australians etc etc. They'll start getting to the point where it's justified that we should be genocided.

Isn't a culture***

...

They will, but a logical rebuttal would be that the UN defines what they mean by "group" elsewhere as an ethnic, racial, national, or religious group (other commentators include political groups).
White people are a race of people; as such they have the right to exist as a group.
Indeed, there are ethnically (biologically) distinguishable groups among native Europeans, and each such group has the right to exist as a group.

They'll just say it's our own governments doing it anyways. And if you try to go into the Jewish question you'll just be branded a Nazi.

If they don't agree that white people are a race of people, or that there are any ethnic groups of native Europeans, ask them to list some races and ethnic groups.
If they cannot, then they are too ignorant to understand the relatively common language being used by the UN, and informing them of this fact and redirecting them to some literature describing races and ethnicities of people would be appropriate.
If they can, you can try to develop some rule for describing races and ethnicities with them and show that the rule applies to the European groups in question.

The identity entities denying the right of the group to exist is immaterial to whether or not their actions constitute genocide.
Genocide must be stopped regardless of who the perpetrator is.

The identity of* the* entities

You have to understand. There are VERY STRONG forces in this world that want to see us destroyed. I have no doubt in my mind that the white south Africans will be facing a violent genocide. We will see the worlds true feelings about us as they are being slaughtered. And you'll see what I'm talking about.

liberals DO NOT CARE about hypocrisy.
you will not beat liberalism by being logical and pointing out what hypocrites they are, they DON'T CARE. they believe it's ok for them specifically to be racist sometimes for the greater good.
you have to break their narrative not play into it

oh, my sweet, summer child... do you really think liberals care about logic or the definition of words?

I don't disbelieve you, but spreading this affirmation of our right to exist to more white people is a powerful message.
Having an explicit philosophical reasoning behind our views will help us gain support.

Many Liberals have completely fallen into the stereotypical extreme that you're purveying here, but there are also many intelligent people who have fallen prey to propaganda yet are still thoughtful individuals.
Spreading such a message - that the denial of the right of the existence of a group is genocide - to these people may sew the seeds of doubt in their mind.
Don't give up on your misled countrymen. Read Mein Kampf for more about this.

Yeah man. Also if you see someone with a biracial child just ask them are they baby sitting. When they it's their's just look at them in shock and say 'oh sorry'. Nothing hits them harder than the fact that their kid looks nothing like them and is in fact completely alien.

Ever read the UN's Declaration on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination?
Clause 1: Racial discrimination is never justified.
Clauses 2, 3, and 4: Here's when it's justified

Interesting, thank you.

We can only win if we force them to follow their own rules. We have to use words like racist and bigot and expose their hypocrisy against white people.

>Nothing hits them harder than the fact that their kid looks nothing like them

I doubt it unless you live in racist america.

its a fact

This is babbys first reaction and has proven fruitless. Liberals will counter with:
>"What if it is voluntary? muh democracy proves this"
>"Who cares what color we are after all? Muh tabula rasa and I can rest assured that this conjecture is solid as granite"
So you don't attack it from what may seem like the most obvious angle
>"Muh genocide!!!"
What is interesting though is that they don't really want to deny that the absence of white people as a bad thing, even though they probably wouldn't like it themselves. This means they fully understand the implications. Since they do understand the implications, i.e. if it truly was the case that absence of white people is bad (muh tabula rasa is false sugar), they already understand that multiculturalist policies are bad.
The second attack against their view is to attack the muh democracy so it's voluntary. You do this by subtly explaining, maybe as a point in an unrelated discussion, that the most effective warfare would probably be to convince a people that their replacing is a good thing, and this would work as evidenced by current immigration policies in the west. Maybe as a subtle critique on US intervention; remark that it is pretty stupid compared to your suggestion. Drive home the point that if they actually are convince about the replacement as being benign, why shouldn't we do it?

No, we use their policies as effective warfare on the world outside of our boundaries. We simply call it multiculturalism with reversed direction. In the end the direction is arbitrary bar the muh guilt argument. The direction is arbitrary because of muh tabula rasa (it doesn't actually matter that we replace them if it doesn't matter that they replace us). I would say this as the most obvious way going forward. You could get a lot of "liberals" on this train because they wouldn't really have been wrong about multiculturalism then, only about the direction. They wouldn't need to lose face. It's sort of an ideal compromise.

Don't argue with liberals or useful idiots. They won't realize the hypocrisy of their system until the marxist boot comes to their necks.

>They just twist it to say that whiteness is culture

Yet at the same time say Whites have no culture