Resisting Defamation Suggestions #7

White Authenticity = White Voice + White-Centricity

This message is our final one in this series of seven. Resisting Defamation believes that, without mastering our white voice and engaging it openly and frequently on white-centric issues, we lose our authenticity as members of a demographic group in hyper-tribalized America. White authenticity requires that we rediscover ourselves notwithstanding all the deception and propaganda heaped on our heads for the last 60 years, and then that we exhibit clarity in how we communicate. White authenticity requires that we discuss ourselves as a demographic group, and the Other as an individual.

The White Voice

The white voice starts sentences openly or silently, “As a white American…” or “As a diverse white European American…” Resisting Defamation has found no barrier to the white voice when exercised with white-centric issues, and when it focuses on us as a demographic group and on the Other as an individual.


It’s not enough to have just a white voice. What do you say with that voice that is attractive to unawakened diverse white Americans? And will let you stay focused like a laser on our welfare? Don’t forget that we are the only ones who care about us. It’s a cold world out there, and there is no one in other demographic groups who will send vaccines or medicine or food to us in the event of social calamity.

In general, when we are speaking in a white-centric way, we discuss individuals from other demographic groups on the one hand, and the diverse white European Americans as a demographic group on the other hand.

It’s all about where your heart and mind are. If your goal is the well-being, safety, and health of the diverse white European Americans, our prime target will be to protect ourselves and our children from the insanity and viciousness of the Other which is very different from concentrating on the Other’s negative aspects as a group.

It’s easy to tell whether you are white-centric or not. If you discuss white American issues all the time, you are exhibiting your white-centricity. If you focus on white well-being in your politics, you are exhibiting your white-centricity. You are white-centric if you ask, “Is it good for the diverse white people?”

NOTE: Focusing on white well-being in your politics does not mean at this juncture of our history automatically voting for the white candidate. We are plagued with anti-white bigots, scalawags, and carpet-baggers.

We Are The Center Of Our Discourse

A white-centric issue, we have learned, is an issue that we discuss solely as it affects the diverse white American peoples as a demographic group. This is a toughie for many white activists because they see the only problems as those arising from blacks, Latinos, Jews, and Asians as whole demographics. It behooves us to flip the issue so that it is expressed about us as a demographic group, and the Others as individuals.

A low level example might be to consider how to address the Jewish label of “goyim” that some Jews have affixed to us. Should our public remarks be directed against Jews for this supremacist act? Or should our public remarks be directed at reinforcing our group’s unconditional right to name ourselves? The first idea would be expressed thusly, “Jews display their claim to supremacy by calling us goyim,” while the second idea could be expressed, “The diverse white American peoples explicitly reject ‘goy’ as a name for us on the grounds that it is based on a supremacy claim, that it smothers our diversity, and that it denies our right to name ourselves.” The second way is vastly more helpful than the first way.

Personalize The Target

The key to understanding white-centricity is to understand that all our remarks are about us as a group, and any remarks about the Other are about an individual. Saul Alinsky would agree — “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” You saw it done this week to Rush Limbaugh very adroitly.

Naming = Defaming

We began by opposing defamation, and then learned that it was also a way to educate other white Americans to stop hiding behind disordered categories of discourse, and to speak in their white voice.

In this regard, remember if they’re naming you, they’re defaming you. That sums up Resisting Defamation’s attitude toward our being named, labeled, described, and defined by anyone besides us. It is defamation because it is an expression of supremacy on that person’s part, and because it always smothers our diversity, nationality, continental origin, and national origins. Any one of those acts justifies our intense and hostile examination of the malformed mind of the person who is naming, labeling, describing, and defining us.

More White-Centric Issues

Another white-centric example is the over-representation of young white children in three distinct areas of public health — binge drinking, tobacco smoking, and meth use. There is nothing like openly denouncing a mayor and city council for neglecting to assist white parents’ efforts to rescue white kids who have gone off the rails. And why not organize a “100 White Men’s Association” to help these kids?

Another white-centric example is text books. Today’s text books are sinkholes of anti-white rhetoric, and white parents are totally at liberty to denounce these texts in a white-centric way, thus educating other white parents about how to talk in public in a white voice about white-centric issues.

There are hundreds of other white-centric issues for us to exercise our intellectual and political muscles on. The number one concern for every use of the white voice has to be, will it attract other diverse white Americans to our causes?

The Future

An exclusive vertical white political organizational structure follows the establishment of an exclusive horizontal white political organizational structure. The American republic (vertical) took 136 years (horizontal) from the Mayflower to establish; the Jewish nation in Israel (vertical) took 55 years from Zionism’s beginning in 1890 to establish, and that was hundreds of years after an exclusive horizontal Jewish political organizational structure (horizontal) was in existence. Think about it.

Bo Sears

PS: For an example of a public newspaper article by a member of one group about the work products of members of the same group totally focused on exploring and celebrating fictitious representatives of the same group, go to:

It’s a perfect example of centricity expressed in one voice. It will be free for the next six days.


  1. Bo Sears, I’ve read your essays here and at other places, and I want to commend you on a good pragmatic strategy and a great focus on immediate goals. I hope that others will follow your example.

    “white parents are totally at liberty to denounce these texts in a white-centric way”

    Absolutely true, White people have no reason to be silent about this hatred against them. These ham-handed, juvenile, name-calling attacks against White people should be challenged immediately. Congrats on your work with, I completely support you.

  2. I absolutely agree with you that Whites should be speaking out as Whites and asserting their FULL rights. I’ve read over half a dozen of your articles promoting the same rhetoric and strategy, but I’ve always felt uneasy about aspects your particular approach.

    Here are some of my concerns.

    You say we must speak of other groups only as individuals? Why? Almost never in group reasoning are we literally referring to to every single member of a group because almost every group has a spectrum of beliefs, opinions, values, etc. But the point is that most of these groups are represented by various activists who sometimes wield great resources and power. They are not acting as atomized individuals. Frequently these group leaders have widespread support from the group masses. This seems like an arbitrary constraint on our thinking, rhetoric and action. Why limit our freedom of thought and action?

    The proposed rhetoric seems artificial and formulaic. Why use awkward phrases like “diverse White Americans”? Real authenticity is not sounding like agitprop from the diversity industry.

    Let’s not imprison our thinking and rhetoric with groveling submission to alien shibboleths like “diversity”. Instead we should be defying, subverting, ridiculing and breaking these peculiar, anti-White shackles. Let’s give no respect or obeisance to our oppressors. Instead let’s defy them like the Celtic army mooning Long Shank’s forces in Braveheart.

    Respecting our enemies’ pieties is begging to lose the war. Whites need to stop playing by rules that ONLY we follow and being perfect gentleman when our opponents are fighting dirty and have been for decades. The last thing we need is to play the “defamation game” by encouraging and supporting the destruction of freedom of speech and inquiry and perpetuating the politically correct system that dominates our “civil society”. We need to bring that entire system down through thousands of cuts from all directions.

    Different groups should have complete liberty to think and speak as they wish, like the multi-thousand year old derogatory Hebrew word “Goyim”. What business is it of ours how Jews want to think of us? Likewise, it’s none of their business to try controlling what we think and say. Of course other parties can observe, criticize and draw inferences from the use of such terms and ideas, just as others can reasonably make judgments about Whites who use terms like “kike” or “nigger”.

    So let everyone be free to speak, including defamatory speech and reactions and critiques to such speech.

    The REAL defamation by various Jews isn’t the term “Goyim”, which probably isn’t well-known by the majority of non-Jews because its an internal Jewish term, but the elaborate propaganda campaign to construct labels like “white supremacist”, “Nazi”, “fascist”, “racist”, “Ku Klux Klan”, “hater”, “bigot” with a highly distorted rewriting of history using all the tools of Jewish control and influence, including Hollywood, MSM, advertising, education, academia, book and textbook publishing. Nearly everyone has seen THOUSANDS (or even TENS OF THOUSANDS) of references and subtexts on TV, movies, reports and stories about how terrible such people are using various sophisticated psychological techniques. These labels have been carefully constructed for well over fifty years to represent the most horrible, vile totems of evil, backwardness, low-status, stupidity and hatred so that “our” reigning “civil society” can use them to smear any Whites who only want the same rights as non-Whites for our identity, esteem, history, advocacy and peoplehood. They have also attempted and have mostly succeeded in destroying White identity and esteem in unaware Whites through this continual, omnipresent anti-White defamation campaign.

    White consciousness is only acceptable to these anti-White bigots when it is self-hatred and death-oriented. How dare White people want the White race to continue to exist in the future!!! Only Nazis think like that!!! How dare White students try to create a non-guilt-drenched White organization at a university!!! They are hateful bigots that want to exclude Others!!! Look at the official opprobrium and condemnation the merely implicitly White organization Youth for Western Civilization has received. Yet these same non-White supremacists are just fine with every non-White group having a strong identity, pride in its heritage, organizing and advocating for their interests, receiving public and civic money for their activism and organizations, etc.

    We also vitally need for both average and elite Whites to recognize that anti-White Jewish activists, journalists, politicians, academics and organizations are NOT White. They are Jews with a different identity, history, values, beliefs, loyalties, psychology and interests. They are NOT selflessly critiquing their own group, but aggressively attacking a separate people. No more free passes. Time for those suckers to pay retail.

  3. Scotchfiend makes some excellent points above. I’ve asked him to provide some examples of his on-the-ground work so he & I can engage in a discussion about each of the separate points he raises. I think this kind of discussion that he & I can have would advance the cause a great deal.

  4. I apologize, Mr. Sears, if I’m coming across as too critical of your real-world efforts in working through the shitty anti-White system with its built-in anti-White double standards. Obviously it takes a lot of courage to engage in this direct activism in the current environment and I salute you for your brave leadership.

    We need to let ten thousand flowers bloom in our efforts subvert the current anti-White system, including working within and infiltrating its institutions in many ways. I’m just concerned that when we do this, we don’t strengthen it by submitting to its core ideology. For example, in getting Whites (and non-Whites) accustomed to hearing other Whites give a White-centric perspective, we can also point out the hypocrisies and double standards of the current system and use natural authentic language instead of kowtowing to diversispeak. I think many people are contemptuous of corporate press release phoniness so we don’t want to sound like that. Explicitly sticking up for free speech would be nice too, even in the presence of anti-White defamation, to make it crystal clear we’re not supporting any laws restricting free speech.

    My concern is that we strongly resist the efforts led by Jewish organizations like the Anti-White Defamation League and $PLC to continue eroding our freedom of speech and inquiry through their very active propaganda and legal campaigns to create a variety of “hate speech” laws that destroy what’s left of the first amendment and Constitution.

    If they manage to get this atrocity legalized and enforced Whites need to begin a whole new level of civil disobedience and patiently hollowing out support for the legitimacy of the entire system.

    They’ve already succeeded in most other White countries and we’ve had hundreds of free-speech martyrs in prison because they’ve dared question the supposedly perfect official story of the Holoco$t. The US branch of ZOG has participated in this by refusing asylum to the Heretical Two, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, two genuine political prisoners from the UK, and they deported Ernst Zundel to Canada even though his wife was living in Tennessee. They certainly can’t be bothered deporting even a tiny fraction of the tens of millions of illegal aliens though.

    These are direct attacks of one of central parts of Western Civilization, the ability to investigate, reason and discuss openly in the quest for truth. Our speech martyrs are true principled and courageous heroes of Western Civilization unlike the degenerate sports’ “heroes” and various anti-White “heroes” and anti-heroes promoted by ZOG.

    Frankly it looks like the motive for punishing dissent with prison terms is their inability to defend their orthodoxy based on facts, logic and reasoned dialogue, so they resort to threats, intimidation and repression.

  5. SF:”Frankly it looks like the motive for punishing dissent with prison terms is their inability to defend their orthodoxy based on facts, logic and reasoned dialogue, so they resort to threats, intimidation and repression.”

    Yup, the USA is becoming more and more like the USSR every single day. This is little surprise considering what you write above is exactly what happens when the Judeoplutocracy and the supporting Judeobureaucracy and Judeomassmedia comes to dominate a nation.

  6. #3 ScotchFiend raises some interesting points. Here are some preliminary points.

    1) A general problem with online dialog is the difficulty in tracking what phrase or remark is being addressed. Our technique for making dialog easy is to use small headlines. We believe that dialog is extremely important in the early stages of organizing, so it’s good to make it easy to respond to points individually.

    2) Another general problem is that there is a big difference between bringing information, tactics, and vocabulary back from neighborhood, city, and state level activities on the one hand, and outlining a creedal position on the other. Naturally, the report back from actual efforts on the ground will be more nuanced than the purity of an intellectually-derived creed about what to believe. We believe our movement need reports back on effectiveness or ineffectiveness on the ground more than we need exercises in purity. And because we have been in the field in Northern California since 1989, with wins and losses, we have a natural bias toward action and fighting in the civic arena, rather than creedal purity.

    3) A third and final general problem in this matter is how we decide to whom we are appealing. If we are writing to basically like-minded readers, then anything goes. If we are writing to newbies, who can be easily repelled, then a careful presentation is called for. Resisting Defamation tries to use a vocabulary, not always successfully, that can be easily understood by a newbie.

    My points #2 and #3 above are often mocked by purists on the ground that they represent “moderation” as if that’s a bad thing, but in fact newbies need small doses of ideas as they free themselves from a real horror-story of propaganda from the dominant media culture, the corporate entertainment culture, and the urban-coastal class. We’ve all been marinated in a vicious and malicious campaign of defamation which needs exposure, explanation, denunciation, and refutation. It’s no small thing we are each attempting to do, and we try to provide tools that will advance the cause.


    Onward to three of the many points raised by ScotchFiend.

    A) “…Whites should be speaking out as Whites and asserting their FULL rights….” This is an interesting point, and raises the question: As we construct our ideas for a future society that reflects our ideals and values more than the one we live in today, just how rights-centric should it be and what would be the hierarchy of rights to be asserted. For example, Resisting Defamation believes that the principal right, the one without which there would be no rights of speech, property, or contract, is the right of freedom of association and, when the time comes, we will argue that freedom of association should be at the apex of our social & political rights in the future.

    B) Not speaking about other demographic groups is a tactical propaganda point and a psychological point. The tactical point is that speaking about Others as entire groups is what hands the dominant media culture an easy propaganda victory. Whether it is true or not that peoples fall into easily defined boundaries & labels, it behooves us to go (at this stage of development) with Saul Alinsky who told his radicals to “personalize” the political debate. One “personalizes” the political debate by attacking Al Sharpton or Abe Foxman, for example, rather than all blacks or all Jews. We just saw this done very adroitly with Rush Limbaugh, and it didn’t take long to make it stick. There are enormous benefits to attacking this or that individual to make our points, rather than make claims that we probably cannot prove about attributes shared evenly throughout another group. In fact, consider the impact of “typical white person” which we continue to talk about in the context of evaluating Obama’s mind and heart. We are able to counter almost everything that guy says bad about us by exposing his lumping all “white persons” into one “typical” person. His careless but authentic language turned us all into a cluster clone. Not very smart for a president or an agitator.

    The psychological point is that you reveal what you really believe by your language. If you are white-centric, then you will address social & political problems as a white person and in behalf of all white peoples. If you are judeo-centric, you will address social & political problems as a pro- or con-Jewish person, but there is a huge difference between judeo-centrism and white-centrism. So, when you start every sentence, openly or silently, “As a white American, I think….” you get yourself focused psychologically on the welfare of white Americans.

    C) Using “diverse white Americans” as a phrase is just one way out of many to name us. We have not set up shop to decide or promote a name for us — that’ll come out of the wash in the future. But the advantage of that phrase is, again, tactical and psychological. The tactical side of it is that it is true and therefore can be turned into a way to attack writers and editors who ignore our internal diversity in discussing us. If you’ve ever noticed, we’ve been pretty successfully labeled “the whites” while the contemporary mandates of writing and speaking demand recognition of a group’s diversity. One time our local newspaper did a big article on Mixtec peoples from Mexico of whom there were about 40 in the area — they’re a tribe in Mexico so separated from that country’s culture that they don’t even speak Spanish. Our paper in a hilarious display of its doctrines proceeded to teach us that the Mixtec peoples are diverse within themselves, so it’s a contemporary value that we are banned from having. Thus making an attractive target when it is ignored.

    The psychological side of it is that every white person in America is aware of the differences and distinctions we make within our demographic group. Some Italian Americans are still irritated at questions that were aimed at their grandparents! And the English & the Germans have issues, ditto the Polish & the Russians. We have more diversity within our demographic group than any other demographic group in America, and it behooves us to recognize that because it is true and honest, and will enable us as we develop in the future to recognize these points of discontinuity and to accommodate them in new structures.


    Well that got us through the first four paragraphs in the remarks of ScotchFiend’s posting #3. And now you can see why discourse like this requires some organization so each point is answered well and clearly. It’s hard to answer a shotgun blast with dozens of pellets here and there. Let’s discuss these things calmly and in an organized fashion. We’re white, after all.

  7. I disagree with ScotchFiend.

    “Diverse White Americans” is a great phrase, and describes the reality. There are many different types of Whites and White Americans, and that is a good phrase that immediately neutralizes all sorts of racist propaganda against White people.

    >You say we must speak of other groups only as individuals?

    Responding to that whole paragraph, SF is making some sort of ideological appeal that this sort of rhetoric must be “fair and balanced” or perhaps ideologically consistent. Why? We’re just blunting anti-White attacks from non-White with sharp rhetoric, sloganeering, and biting humor. What’s wrong with that? Is some black race-baiter or some Latino activist going to care about ideological consistency in their anti-White publications?

    On a practical level, it’s a good tactic to single out some specific activist than to attack a whole community. We’re not trying to make an air-tight case about the specific deficiencies of some specific race, we’re just defending White people from defamation.

    Bo Sears has the right idea.

  8. Mr Sears,
    Thanks for your follow-up comments. They helped me but understand your goals, techniques, reasoning and the constraints you’re working under in using enemy media to try to get our perspective across.

    I’d say this approach is one very important component of our broader media and public relations strategy. For example, as we build up our own alternative media that reach wider audiences, we would usually cast off self-censorship and bowing down to the political correctness of the reigning MSM, including analyzing and discussing other groups as groups. In general, criticizing other groups can be done with dignity and fairness without slander or slurs.

    White Non-Conservative,

    The phrase that I really consider to be a bit unwieldy is “diverse white European American”. It just seems more natural to me say something like “as a White” or “as a White person/man/guy/American” but whatever works in whatever context.

    I thought it was clear in my multiple posts but my main concern is NOT “fair and balanced” or any sort of ideological consistency. I’m not really sure where that came from. Actually I believe nearly the opposite in that I think we need an extremely varied strategy that relies on hundreds or thousands of organizations, websites and other alternative institutions spanning a full range of beliefs, approaches, audiences, subject domains, rhetoric, degree-of-full-ugly-truth, etc.

    My MAIN concern was that we NOT reinforce the existing dominant PC system and the current all-too-real efforts to further erode freedom of speech. I was trying to articulate that even when we use enemy media channels, we not worship their diversity idols or the “hate speech” fraud but use more subtle rhetoric that points to dishonesty, double standards, hypocrisy and anti-White bias and hatred built-in to their system. Essentially that we communicate our points with dignity and justice but without self-abasement.

    I better understand Mr Sears point about trying to stay focused on relatively narrow goals to make a little bit of progress in getting our message out to a wider audience that would otherwise hear nothing from us through establishment channels.

    I would be particularly interested in Mr Sears take on the PC/freedom-of-speech points I’ve raised.

  9. I am obviously not Mr. Sears, however I may have an answer for you, Mr. Scotch. I suggest that you read Niccolo Machiavelli’s book – The Prince. It is a book that many world leaders have read. Here are a few quotes that have relevance.
    “A prudent man should always follow in the path trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent. Ch. 6”

  10. I accidentally hit send on my new keyboard….cont….
    “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Ch. 6”
    This is one reason it is good to be moderate. You have to meet people where they are at for them to follow you.
    “You must know, then, that there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second”

    .” A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from snares, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognise snares, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those that wish to be only lions do not understand this.”

    You are a mighty lion my friend…but we need to be cunning as well.
    This is the most important/applicable
    “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation. – Niccolò Machiavellie quote today…”

  11. Sorry for three posts in a row. I thought about one last thing from personal experience. I went to school once to learn a trade and I was the only white person out of 25 students. The teacher was all about being PC. He encouraged everyone to be as PC as possible for client relations….When he would say something to me in front of the class about “Caucasians”, BELIEVE ME when I tell you that nobody in that class thought it was politically correct for me to tell the teacher, “I don’t know any of my people from the Caucasus region in Europe, sir.” When I would be asked what my preferential label was I would tell the class that I am a “Scots-Irish, Prussian American.” Then go out of your way to avoid calling anyone black or anything denoting color…use the word African American…but insist that they call you what you want to be called, otherwise they are bigots. It makes many people from different races angry because you are fighting fire with fire so to speak.
    Anytime someone would say Caucasian I came back with that standard line…When they would call me white boy I would just look at my skin and look back at them and say…I look a lot more red than white don’t you think?…then if they called me Red man I would ask them were they racist against Native Americans and “What are you trying to say??? I am a European American” Oh man…it really messes people up when you act that way.

Comments are closed.