What is to be done?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 01 July 2006 08:36.

The question of Majority Rights is a question about ways and means to regain the rights we have lost. To that extent, instead of allowing Jewish, Arabic, and African Rights & Feelings to hypnotize our higher centers of rational thought, or to find a label for us like Conservatives, Patriots, Whites, Libertarians, Neo-conservatives, Nationalists, Separatists, Supremacists, anti-Semites, and so on, it behooves us to ask what is to be done.

There are many things that majorityites can do. Here are some.

1) Work within your community. Serve on boards and commissions. Write letters to the editor. Explore the web sites of the media you are able to access. Do not isolate yourself from your neighborhood. Join your neighborhood association. If you are a loner computer-jockey, you really don’t have any business making up elaborate theories and exploring nuances. You re just a waste of our time. Put down your bucket where you are.

2) Associate yourself with other like-minded majorityites. Don’t have officers. Electing a president will precipitate the destruction of any group. We majorityites have a long way to go in opposing the instinct for a cult of personality…it will be our long-lasting problem, and it’s a continuing “white” pathology. Don’t have membership cards…that way, when the provocateur is arrested, he won’t have one.

3) Select a part of the vicious, low-intensity war to fight against. There are so many possible choices, each with different requirements and different tools. We selected to combat defamation against majorityites, especially when expressed against young children. But there are so many other causes. For example, the cluster of issues around affirmative action, university admissions, employment access, race replacement-immigration, or middle school-high school-textbooks.

4) Be ruthless. Don’t measure your ways and means against some ideology, no matter how precious. Americanism, Patriotism, and Libertarianism are all as bad as Citizenism…they get in the way. We believe that this also applies to the First Amendment, shocking though that is. It is our fundamental belief that the Constitution is dead, and that we need to get over it. I have a direct ancestor who signed it, but it’s a dead letter. If you are going to support Majority Rights, you have to forge ahead without wimpy appeals to documents as dead as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the first constitution of America from March 1, 1781, until June 21, 1788).

OUR EXPERIENCES WITH OUR NARROW CAUSE: RESISTING DEFAMATION

1) Realize that preaching an ideological appeal about defamation, name-calling, and slurring is a non-starter. You really need to get in people’s faces to have an impact. Remember when you were first told in an entirely loud and snotty way that “oriental” was a bad word, or “tar-baby,” or “Hispanic,” or some such? It was a rude encounter, and you need that kind of ability to get in faces now to make your points. Expect ridicule and disparagement…it’s the first step toward acceptance and compliance. In short, act like a Jew hissing and spitting at you about your ignorance of Jewish holidays or the “pathology” of your argument. That’s a good role model…it works, not because the speaker is a Jew, but because he is hissing and spitting his loathing. You can do the same with “white-basher,” “you hate whitey,” and such. It’s the delivery that changes behavior, not the content of the argument, believe it or not.

2) Work on your script. One good fellow just bellows, “I’m a goy, a honky, a redneck, and a cracker.” Expressed at the top of his voice in a sing-song way, it sends the name-callers running. Another member accuses slurrers of being “white-bashers” at the top of his voice, same impact.

3) Reversing things can also help. We were so tired of “righteous gentiles” that we began correcting media writers that they really meant “a credit to your race” which has other implications. We did war on the insane and vicious term, “Judeo-Christian,” this way—we contacted media writers to viciously protest the absence of Islam in the name, that is, we argued for “Islamic-Judeo-Christian” as the correct label, and “Judeo-Christian” has really disappeared around here. The media power structure can neither stand the accusation nor comply with it.

When Asian-American writers use “Caucasian,” a police report term for us that lacks our continental-origin label as well as our Americanness, we would write to them with a scold in the text comparing it to “oriental,” and put this in the subject line: “Caucasian = Cock-Asian.” That brought a pretty good stop to that with Asian American writers, anyway. When we hear “white privilege” in writing by Asian Americans, we tell them it is equivalent to “model minority,” and to stop the racism.

4) An awfully lot of majorityites think they are above the resisting of slurs and negative stereotypes. Tell them they are stupid and are merely encouraging smearing our young children. To some extent, majorityites don’t want to embrace “victimology” and thus refuse to speak out. We have handled this problem by re-thinking what a slur is and we have a section on “Theory of Slurs” which posits that a name or label is not a slur because it “hurts feelings” and makes people cry…that’s much too subjective for us. Also too pussy.

Our theory (okay, hypothesis) posits that it is the needs and intentions of the slurrer that matter, not the needs and feelings of the slurred. We have turned the ordinary understanding of this notion on its head by defining slurs and negative stereotypes as those names and labels that do any one of three things:

(1) Does it smother the diversity of the group it names?

(2) Does it show contempt, especially with the name of an animal, insect, or food?

(3) Does it show a claim to supremacy by claiming the power to name members of a grouping of which the namer is not a member?

That’s pretty much it. It covers cracker, WASP, shabbos goy, gentile, honky, and every other kind of slur you can think of, and all without any appeal to hurt feelings, much less the crying game.

YOU CAN DO THIS TYPE OF THING, TOO

Focus, focus, focus. You can’t do everything, but you can do something. So many majorityites devote themselves to exposing everything (which has long since been done) that they fail to change anything at all.

You are a warrior if you claim a voice in the war. And remember, let down your bucket where you stand….everywhere is a battle-ground.

Stanley Womack
ResistingDefamation.org

Tags: Activism

Comments:

Posted by john on Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:47 | #

A breath of fresh air compared to the sicko’s postings. Going to print it and study.

Posted by Voice on Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:05 | #

Nice Job Stanley,

there is nothing wrong with thinking big either. I hope to make a breakthrough on the alternate economy idea I have talked about sooner or later.

Every movement needs cash backers.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:58 | #

How do you feel about “Anglo”? I find it extremely offensive.

Posted by JJR Apologist on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:15 | #

It’s offensive in that its colloquial meaning is “outgroup”, and emphasizes a narrow strip of Western Europeans in referencing the entirety. Sort of like “Congoid”. In that sense, it’s a slur, though it’s difficult to perceive it as such coming from the mouths of “little brown stubbies”.

Posted by President Barbicane on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:49 | #

Interesting. I don’t quite agree with this man’s position. Being loud and obnoxious isn’t a way to win people over to your side long term—as I see it, the way to win people over long term is through rational argumentation, preferably in print.
By the way Svyatoslav Igorevich, I didn’t know you were an American! Because of your name, I thought you were Russian and were either an immigrant to America, or the child of immigrants. After a quick google search, I surmise you took your name from an old grand prince of Kiev.
By the way, could you explain what you mean by “having the scales fall from your eyes concerning the Irish”? I myself have some Irish blood in me.

Posted by Stanley Womack on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:25 | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich is correct that “credit to is your race” is not identical to “righteous gentile,” however in the give and take of public discourse, it’s close enough and an unusual enough rejoinder that it embarrasses the person who gloats over “righteous gentile.”

Ben Tillman is correct in pointing out the Spanish-language label “Anglo.” It smothers our diversity and it is a good example of Latin American claims to supremacy when they choose it as the name for us. Note that the Spanish-language label “Anglo” is completely different from the English-language label “Anglo” which is an entirely appropriate name, if chosen, for those with Anglo-Saxon roots. We Slavic-Americans condemn the Spanish-language label “Anglo” as an intentionally contemptuous reference to us.

When media use the Spanish-language label “Anglo” to describe us, please notice it as an example of the media’s insistence on giving majorityites the name preferred by the minorityites being interviewed or discussed. Majorityites become “white” when African Americans are discussed; we become “Caucasian” when Asian Americans are discussed; and we become “Anglos” when Latin Americans are discussed. This is a technique of left-wing racialists in media.

One of the things you will notice is that we have stripped the word “offensive” from our vocabularies. We don’t oppose certain names and labels because they are offensive, we oppose them because (a) they smother our diversity, (b) they show contempt especially with names of animals, insects, or foods, or (c) they demonstrate a claim of supremacy on the part of those choosing to label us. We don’t judge slurs by how we feel about them, we judge them by relatively objective criteria as demonstrated by the speaker’s remarks.

President Barbicane says, ” Being loud and obnoxious isn’t a way to win people over to your side long term—as I see it, the way to win people over long term is through rational argumentation, preferably in print.” He has effectively and concisely stated the dominant position among majorityites about changing other people’s behavior. And it may be the most effective way to change majorityites’ opinions, but it appears to us to be of little value in changing minorityites’ opinions, especially on the street, in the classroom, or on the playing field.

The problem is that this approach hasn’t worked really well partly because of the difficulty of securing an audience. We do use his preferred technique frequently, but in the give-and-take of public discourse at the scene of a Tim Wise speech or at a Jane Elliot rant, a more direct approach is called for.

In particular, when you are directly addressed by a Latin American with the Spanish-language label “Anglo,” you cannot hand the person a pamphlet…you must speak up quickly to correct his or her false belief that he or she has the right to name us and to smother our diversity. Loudness and sharpness, without reverse smearing, are effective tools for change.

We’re doing a piece that is thoughtful and literate at this time to rebuke the editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News for running an op-ed piece by a Mexican-origin writer who insists on calling us the Spanish-language label “Anglo.” I’ll ask Guessedworker if he’ll post it when it is finished.

Our technique for dissemination will include sending it to the editor for his education and post it around the Internet in at least four places. This will help to teach others when they read it, and it will prove an embarrassment to the editor when he seeks a new position and is subject to a Yahoo search.

President Barbicane makes an interesting point when he says “the way to win people over long term is through rational argumentation, preferably in print.” And I wonder if he would share some of his successes with us. I think it is a fair question, and it would be interesting to learn of some examples, how they were worded, how they were delivered to an audience, and any examples of changed behavior thereby. This is not meant as an attack, I’d just like to see some successful “rational argumention” to broaden our own armory of weapons in the war all around us.

Posted by Sally on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:49 | #

I applaud what Voice says above, “I hope to make a breakthrough on the alternate economy idea I have talked about sooner or later.”

May I respectfully suggest that he include reference to these concepts?

Examine the Islamic banking system that relies on equity shares rather than interest payments. This kind of system could free us from the overweening power of our contemporary national banking system.

Seek a steady-state theory of economics. The “creative destruction” theory has destroyed trillions of dollars of property in our society. We need an operational theory that allows for freedom, entrepreneurship, population constancy, and equitable land ownership without surrendering to an unstable economy built on destruction, globalism, inflation, undue corporatism, and immigration.

It might emphasize the values of production instead of the values of consumerism, and the benefits of being a creditor rather than a debtor.

And it would be good if it provides a model that emphasizes local, but scalable, opportunities so that it could begin to replace the national banking system without having to fight it legislatively.

Good luck!

Posted by Voice on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:56 | #

Sally,

Re the economic plan. Just plain old unfettered Free Markets and Capitalism is the way forward.

The corporate entities who outsourced manufacturing to China are just marketing fronts. Any web based corporate entity which targets the racially conscious European descent community as we move forward will potentially cash in as long as they give back to newly formed white AIPAC style organizations and racially conscious non-profits.

Lets see how fast the elites back NAFTA and free trade with China when that baby starts humming!

Also, there is low hanging fruit right now in what I would class the utility sector. I am keeping that one close to my chest as I don’t want to tip any snoopers from a regulatory perspective.

I think what you are talking about begins to take place after the initial funding is raised by legitimate and racially conscious corporate entities.

What is really interesting is one could incorporate in Nevada with a Nominee Directors, thereby concealing your identity(BTW it is misdemenor in Nevada to try and revel the identity of shareholders so the ADL/SPLC is screwed on that one) and have third party wholesalers deliver product after web based transaction is made. Under 15 employees and not subject to any affirmative action laws here in U.S.A! CHAAAACHING!

Someone is going to beat me to that idea, but I am looking at the utility one quite closely right now.

The Renaissance will commence once the money starts flowing and the white court jesters(see liberal and artsy white losers) will follow the money just like the useful idiots they are, but this time they will be on our side.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:11 | #

Sounds very encouraging, Voice. However beware of Nevada’s richest and most influential individuals pressing for a change in state law. The people to whom I refer include LV mayor, Oscar Goodman, LV Sands Corp’s Sheldon Adelson, Wynn Resorts’ Steve Wynn, Harrah’s CEO, Gary Loveman and the formidable Greenspun family who own, among other properties, the LV Sun newspaper.

Oh, I almost forgot, they are all Jews.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:18 | #

Al,

Can you find a press release or governmental records online that state that they are trying to change Nevada corporate privacy laws?

This is one area where I don’t expect a lot of Jewish interference. Every gentile politician, Jewish businessman and politician utilizes these Nevada corps(and offshore corps) for privacy protection and it would surprise me if businessmen would want nominee director and bearer shares(both conceal identity) changed.

I googled these names with Nevada corporate privacy laws but came up empty?

This is how the smart politicians fix the system and walk away rich without concealing there wrongdoings. It sounds like you know this too.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:40 | #

I dont know of any such changes, Voice, but the LV elite to which I alluded have China interests which are potentially enormous. They are at least twofold, viz., casino development in Macau (and later maybe in Hong Kong and possibly even mainland China) and a prospectively huge number of LV tourist arrivals from the ‘communist’ state.

You are no doubt correct in stating that existing secrecy laws are well-utilised, but the really big-hitters control publicly-listed companies (often incorporated in Delaware) and, in the wake of the Enron and Worldcom scandals, may exercise caution in this regard.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:41 | #

Zach,

Yes it will be possible to deceive but I think the proof will be in donations to European causes..i.e. Resisting Defamation, American Renaissance etc and whatever organizations sprout up. Also, we could create a European people seal of approval for any business to pass governed by a trusted board of directors-kinda a plumbers guild..lol

As I said before, the “Amren like” olive branch would have to extended to Jewish organizations that see hyprocrisy and damage the ADL, Simon Wesenthal, AJC etc do to their genetic interests and ours. We may be surprised if you had a little funding to throw a bone to an upstart Jewish organization like this. There are a few Jews at Amren that don’t seem to buy the ADL line. I know this viewpoint will piss a lot of people off here but political positioning will be key. The average person, in the new media age, will equate any anti-semitic rantings with Nazism. Jewish Media manipulation/dominance will have to be dismantled in the same way they helped decimate the mind of western man, through grassroots effort targetted at young people.

I think I would try to pump most of the early funds in Jared Taylor and see what campaigns he could put in place.

I think it would all just mushroom exponentially once it started going. Also, European Legal organizations could be funded to start the race replacement policies in Europe.

Sorry if I strayed off your original question, but I think this is the only way out this mess. There is no way to stop this train or even re-direct it without funding.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:59 | #

above should say “to stop race replacement policies in Europe”..

That was a serious typo..sorry