Majorityrights Central > Category: Activism

Here’s an interesting one, again from the Guardian - a recent thread on homosexual marriage.  Some bright spark objected to the appeal to Nature used by a supporter of traditional marriage.  He said:-

“Define Nature for me and I’ll cede your point.”

Define Nature?  Can’t be too difficult, surely.

In between doing other things, I’ve been debating for a couple of days with a Guardian liberal of a scientific bent here.  He came up with the following definitons of the dreaded r-thing, claiming that I qualify on both counts.

They are:-

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

Now, I answered this person in the least snappy way I could, putting both racial superiority and Man as individual and tribalist into their proper contexts.  But I can’t say that it worked any better than a well-chosen, sharp riposte could have.

So what should I have said?  Is there even such a thing as “evil racism”?  Or is it all just a handy exaggeration, a silencer and an ethnic smear?

By exPF

Refute (or counter) the following.

You have made a statement - it could be any statement - about non-whites generally, and the reply comes back:

That’s racist! Its fundamentally racist, what you’re saying.

One of the most common arguments used in real life. I’m curious to see what ideas you have for turning this one around with minimal argumentation.

I’ve noticed that the Guardianistas are clueing up on the availability of DNA testing, and are endeavouring to use it as a challenge to the argument that my succession of thread phenotypes at CiF are members of a genetically distinct European people.  As tactics go, it’s a smear really, the unspoken inference being that somewhere lurking in my ancestral history are a whole stack of Somalis and Afghans.  And it’s a variation on the old tactic of claiming that our people don’t exist or can’t be defined, and so there’s nothing to preserve.

Of course, it could just be that the folks who use this tactic are mixed-race self-haters.  Anyway, it goes like this:-

Go and take a DNA test then publish the result here so we can all see if you are as English as you think you are.

Another version concentrates on genealogy instead of the DNA test, but the inference is the same.  You are invited to snap back.

By the way, a couple of days ago I constructed a comment out of material in the second and third threads of this series, and it was bloody good.  Too bloody good for the CiF moderators, in fact.  It got deleted.  But it shows that this exercise is worth doing, and my thanks go to PF who thought of it.

By Ex-PF

Refute (or counter) the following:

(said in a discussion with another white in a coffee shop)

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

Statements will be evaluated for conciseness and overall “snappiness”.

A brief addendum

: It was suggested on the last Snappy thread that these posts be continued in the likely event of ex-PF being called away.  That seems like a worthwhile aim.  But since we all encounter the other side’s arguments, many of us on a daily basis, I’d like to invite offerings from any readers who come across a particularly well-engineered one.  Just mail me through the contact button under the banner.
Thanks very much, GW

By Ex-PF

Refute (or counter) the following, while maintaining conversational tone and diction and a minimum of verbiage (preferably several sentences length).

(said by an Indian student in a western University setting):

The British conquered us and ruled over us. They came to our lands. What goes around comes around.

Refutations are evaluated for conciseness and “snappiness” i.e. ease of wielding them.

By Ex-PF

Refute the following, while maintaining conversational tone and diction and a minimum of verbiage (preferably several sentences length).

(related in a dinner table discussion of miscegenation):

The Anglo-Saxon people are actually a mongrel nation anyway. All those Jutes, Angles, Normans and Celts, we’re all such mixed up mongrels.

Refutations will be evaluated for conciseness and overall “snappiness”, i.e. the ease of wielding them in everyday convos with average people.

Maybe, after all entries are submitted, we’ll take a vote as to whose was best.

By Stanley Womack

At Resisting Defamation, we have been mystified by the tendency in many awakening Euro-Americans to use hateful language about other demographics, to indulge in uniforms or dead dictators, or to become centered on other demographics without understanding that the development of a defensive white-centric political identity is our key need.

Some Euro-Americans have fallen into the trap of believing that their anger and their new understandings are an appropriate basis for their message.  That is, they believe that their anger at African-Americans is an appropriate emotional context to use to convey statements about African-Americans.  But only very rare is revealing your personal insights or emotional responses the best line to use to accomplish change in society or among the diverse white American peoples.

Examples From Other Demographics

Consider some examples. If you ask Jews how they justify violent ethnic cleansing in south-west Asia, they will usually quietly claim that they are merely reclaiming the territory God gave their ancestors.  It’s so breath-takingly dishonest that it stuns reality-based hearers and leaves little room for counter-response.  They win.

READ MORE...