By Bo Sears

We had an executive committee meeting yesterday to discuss the issue of teaching readers how to process these strange, defeatist, misleading essays that populate the mainstream media daily.  The concepts we have developed to that end have been scattered here and there.  This, actually, is the first time we have brought them together in what is, to be fair, a pretty cynical approach to discourse warfare. We hope you find it useful.

DEALING WITH VERBAL ATTACKS

One of the difficulties that we have in face-to-face encounters, when we find ourselves under verbal attack, is to be ready with a reasonable strategy. This essay is to address this situation and to provide tools to you to respond effectively.

REJECT MEMES & THEMES TELLING YOU HOW TO THINK

Watch out for the various memes and themes that float through the Internet intended to guide your thinking. One theme is quite famous, and it laments that “when you call me white boy, I can’t call you black boy, because then you’ll call me a racist.” Any time you read an essay that implicitly or explicitly tells you that you cannot answer back for any reason is a fraud, floated by our demographic adversaries to help silence us. You will see that meme frequently, and it can usually be summed up by saying, “I’ve been silenced, there is no way to break into the sphere of propaganda that surrounds me and drowns us.” It’s designed for you to incorporate it into your own thinking.

REJECT MODELING PROPAGANDA TELLING YOU HOW TO ACT

“Modeling” is a verbal or written phrase or sentence meant to be implanted into your mind to tell you how to conduct yourself in a variety of situations. You see a modeling exercise any time you read a news story about the white victim of a hate crime forgiving the perpetrator—it’s just to plant an idea in our minds about how to act in difficult situations. Same goes for many sit-com plots and characters. They’re played out the way they are in order to teach us how to act. Modeling is a very powerful tool that our adversaries have mastered and which the diverse white American peoples are mostly completely unaware of. Now that you know its name, you’ll notice modeling all over the Internet.

STUDYING TECHNIQUES

It is also important to realize that many of our adversaries, especially the ones who seem extremely skilled with the put-down, the short unanswerable phrase, and the cutting shut-up line, study their phrases and lines of argument in college club meetings, ethnic media conferences, consciousness-raising events, and a variety of other events that seem innocent on the surface, but are really nasty little schools for teaching our adversaries how to talk in rapid-fire face-to-face encounters to humiliate us.

DON’T DO NAME-CALLING YOURSELF

Never respond to name-calling with name-calling for two reasons. First, it is important that you never be quoted as using slurs or negative stereotypes in future events. Second, it is completely unnecessary and definitely not part of our diverse white American cultures to do so.

WINNING THE IMPLICIT CONTEST COUNTS

Distinguish in your own mind between winning a rapid-fire face-to-face encounter, on the one hand, and laying out all the facts and history you can, on the other hand, to defeat an attack. If Americans of European origins have a fault, it is to take the insults and derogatory statements on the level of an explicit serious public discourse. Not at all, they are all about winning and humiliating European Americans in the discussion. At Resisting Defamation, we have been frequently surprised by people failing to understand that our online syllabus is a toolbox, rather than a history of the world and the role of European Americans therein. This confusion is understandable because almost all commenters on the dire situation confronting our demographic respond with “global analyses” meaning lengthy web sites that really get into history, culture, who invented what, white contributions, etc. A global analysis is good and interesting, but it is not a toolbox of techniquesto win the implicit battle. European and American histories and cultures can be used as tools, however.

CHANGE THE TOPIC TO HIS NAMING YOU

When confronted by an adversary, the number one rule is to change the topic, and the best way is by talking about yourself or your kinfolks. Remember to start all sentences with “As a white American, I…” or “As a European American, I…” Oddly enough, speaking out of your demographic voice (rather than your national or regional voice) is very empowering and, at first, somewhat hard to do. The best way to change the topic is to attack one or more words that were offered by the attacker, and the best ones are those that name or describe you. Remember that these approaches are tools, not the way you were taught to think about yourself. They don’t take the overt and explicit attack seriously, rather they launch a counter-attack that focuses on the heart and mind of the attacker.

I’M NOT OFFENDED

Never use “I am offended” partly because it is silly even if commonplace these days, and partly because the nearest white slacker leaning against the wall in the corner will be heard to say, “It doesn’t bother me” which undermines the offensiveness gambit (playing the offence card). In addition, if you have a decent sense of self-respect (the phrase we use instead of “pride”), you’ll feel silly brandishing your weakness as a weapon. Plus it is too subjective and not subject to scientific analysis. It’s strength lies in its passive-aggressive nature, but there are better passive-aggressive tools.

DENOUNCE THE NAME YOU ARE GIVEN

A good tool to counterattack is always to denounce the noun or label used to name you and your demographic in the attack, and by denouncing the attacker’s mind and heart as full of pathology, hatred, and bigotry for his speech. It’s weird, but true, that even the diverse white American peoples are empowered by this naming technique. A name can vary from Ross Perot’s use of “you people” at an NAACP convention (yes, he was naming his audience) to the most embarrassing kinds of labels and slanders. Remember: naming someone gives them power over you. And it works in reverse…when you are named, you acquire power in the situation.

WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO NAME ME? ARE YOU A SUPREMACIST?

So the first thing is to change the subject, no matter what the topic stated by the adversary, to his right to name you, no matter what he named you. If he calls you “white,” denounce him for claiming the right to name you. You really don’t need to say what name you want and it’s a pitfall if you do. If he calls you “European American,” denounce him. This is what our adversaries call the name-game (playing the name card), and it’s a simple rejection of the name someone in one demographic gives to someone in a different demographic group or by a self-hater in the same demographic. Challenging your attacker’s decision to name you opens the door to another level of attack and that is his claim to have the right to name you is always based on his claim to supremacy. By now, the original attack will have faltered and the issue will be the degree of the attacker’s claim to supremacy in his effort to claim the power to name you. It’s amazing how well this works.

WE HAVE NO RIGHT OF SELF-DESIGNATION?

Generally, any name, noun, or label used by your attacker can be attacked on other grounds as well. A good one is to denounce the attacker for using the name as a way to deny your right of self-designation. This is so embedded in contemporary PC-think that there is literally no rebuttal possible. If one is tried, “There you go again” usually handles it. You are not required to pick a name, either.

WE HAVE NO DIVERSITY?

In addition, any name used against European Americans is always used in such a way as to suggest we lack all diversity within our demographic, and of course that is simply not true. The diverse white American peoples have diversity on some issues in the real world, and have unity on other issues, but denouncing your attacker for smothering your diversity is very effective because, once again, this concept is embedded in contemporary PC-think. You may have noticed in our online syllabus that our slogan is “Diversity Within Diversity” which is literally true on a global or continental scale if it helps you to think of it that way.

WE HAVE NO NATIONALITY?

Most names given to us also strip us of nationality. When the list is given of African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans, we are usually tacked on as “whites” or, worse, as “non-Hispanic whites.” But in almost all cases, the names given to us are stripped of our nationality. This can be pointed out as additional evidence of the hateful state of mind of the attacker.

PREJUDICIAL DISGUST = SOCIALLY DIVISIVE

Another thing that can be brought up is that the attack is nothing but an expression of prejudicial disgust and is, therefore, a divisive and hateful reflection of the mind and heart of the attacker. This is a good one, but hard for the newbie to do. It’s weaker than some of the others because it has to be delivered by your American or national voice, not your white or European American voice.

DEHUMANIZATION

The final tool that comes in very handy is the charge of dehumanization. It is amazing how many labels we receive on an ordinary day are also the names of foods, animals, insects, and plants. Serious minded people will not like this tool, but it is great fun if you can keep a straight face. Foods, for example, include white bread, Wonder Bread, cracker, goober, and so on. Too many white Americans have a hard time denouncing “cracker” as a food name because it might have a different etymological history, but it is fun. (We’re not about etymology.) Animals can include “yankee dog,” the name of a famous play by an Asian American playwrite. Insects can include “gadfly” or “wasp,” which will also upset the narrow minded because “wasp” has a different meaning, but this is still fun. Plants include “lily white.” Probably only the experienced should attempt a counterattack along these lines.

WINNING THE IMPLICIT BATTLE MATTERS

You have to pick your battles, but these are just some of the tools that you may readily use if you are willing to broaden your concept of public discourse to include a variety of counterattacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the explicit nature of the attack. It’s winning the implicit battle that counts, and you can win only by being on the offensive. Defenders lose every time.

Bo is a leading spirit of ResistingDefamation.org