THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

WHITAKERISM: MANTRA THINKING: A DEFINITION? | nationalsalvation.net

I am going to try a definition of Mantra Thinking out on you. This what seminars are for.

Mantra Thinking is focusing on what everybody KNOWS but nobody SEES.

The Mantra itself consists of pointing out a fact that absolutely everyone knows: Immigration and assimilation are only demanded for white countries, and for all white countries.

Likewise "Why was this information produced?" is at the same time what everyone knows but at the same time what everybody forgets.

For example, I recently read a This Week editorial in which it was said that there have been many tests made which compared low-calorie diets with more protein with equally low calorie diets with high protein, and all the tests showed that low carbohydrates diets mean nothing.

The fact is that we expect an editorial to begin by citing as facts whatever it needs to be true. I don't just mean BUGERS, I mean everybody. People routinely cite the tests they want to be true.

Everybody KNOWS that just plain lying in an editorial statement is routine, but they don't SEE it anywhere else.

When Hitler declared war on the United States, there was a giant split on racial theory. Experts almost universally agreed that, while Nordicism was overblown, Boas' idea that the races were basically equal in innate intelligence was not only unproven, but laughable.

Boas' theories were seen as extreme, as were Nordicists. So expert opinion declared that, surprise, surprise, the truth was In THE Middle of Road.

As of May 8, 1945, when Nazi Germany surrendered, Boas became Gospel. The road had been blown up, there was no middle.

Everybody is aware, all the time, that winners write the history books. But even in a grossly obvious case like this, no ever SEES that obvious point.

But if you cannot SEE he difference between "facts" that are determined by force, to such an extent that everybody is HYPNOTISED into believing them, and facts used in a rational debate, you are absolutely in LALA Land.

Non-Mantra thinking is not only "incorrect," it is actually insane.

National Renaissance talks endlessly about IQ. But don't hold your breath until someone mentions this obvious Mantra Fact about it.

Comment by Simmons:

Intellectuals do not ask questions, their cult members then exist to put group punishment upon those that do, and this is just our side. Imagine the mental and emotional pain that the cult kiddy anti-whites must feel? I have been in situations where I asked the right series of questions and the cult present went thru physical pain the emotional stress was so much.

Here is a safety tip if you are in the presence of blacks and you start asking the right questions, when they take to slurring their words, violence is sure to follow.

It is called interrogation folks.

Comment by BGLass:

Before "English" became "humanities, it was common to teach novels about "first person narration," and it was taught that the only reason to write (or read) such a work was to explore the unreliability of first person narration. It was a way of teaching cui bono and other life lessons, since you used the book to pick apart the person who was talking, the speaker of the book, the person you assumed (and your teacher told you) had an agenda.

In humanities, the opposite is true, and there's nothing more reliable than the first person-now we have these short memoirs of one's own personal pain, even presidents write these confessional accounts; this genre was arrived at through a religious backdoor, too, co-opting the idea of "bearing witness." But in reality, these are not religious accounts, (applying God to the life) but just more cases of "first person narration," with "unreliable narration," with an agenda, etc. Who is speaking?- used to be a main question.

In English, people lied and it was always studied. It was about the silent divulgences, conscious or unconscious, in the narrative. But in humanities, only a "rich elite" lies, and everyone else is "oppressed," and that's that. Intelligent people would probably get bored with it.

So English studies were more complicated and variable than humanities, without a doubt, same with history.

Humanities is just about feeling sorry for people, or like you owe people, or whatever, to back up welfare states and so on. In humanities, the goal is just one more sad sack tale- and the audience is supposed to eat it up, all gooey eyed.

THE REFORM OF OUR ESTABLISHED RELIGION OF LEFTISM IS A REPLAY OF HISTORY | 2001-07-07

In the sixteenth century, there were two huge reform movements in Western Christianity. One was the Protestant Reformation and the other was the Catholic Counter Reformation. One created new churches, the other reformed the old.

For a thousand years, good Christians had been protesting extreme abuses in the old church, but they only multiplied. Finally the Reformation and the Counter Reformation took them on frontally.

Why did this happen? It happened because of the invention of the printing press.

With the invention of printing, the Bible and real history became accessible to the population at large. As a result, the ancient and crying church abuses like Indulgences being sold on the street became intolerable to the Roman Church itself.

Good Catholics like Saint Thomas More had been denouncing these extreme abuses, such as pope's children being given the rank of cardinal, for ages.

In exactly the same way, good and intelligent people -- including honest liberals -- have denounced the silliness of our Liberal Seminaries for generations.

Before the scream "anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews" became the battle cry of our Liberal Seminaries, socialists and almost all of the intellectual left recognized the achievements of our Indo-European ancestors.

Much of the seventeenth century reform came from Catholics after the Reformation made the grassroots revolt too great for their Scholastics to ignore. By the same token, today's anti-liberal Reformation and Counter Reformation will partially be achieved by honest people with liberal attitudes.

The obvious blathering absurdities of today's academic bureaucracy are being exposed by our new technology and information.

In time even honest but left-leaning people will admit that today's liberal orthodoxy is nonsense, just as truly devout Catholics were happy to repudiate the excesses of the Medieval Church.

THE BRITISH THOUGHT POLICE TAKE ACTION | 2005-07-02

The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) secretly filmed tape for a documentary about the British National Party (BNP) early last year. Since then the British police have been arresting BNP members and party leaders for what they said on that show.

You see, there is law in Britain against saying anything that might incite racial violence.

Please note that word "might."

There are laws in America against inciting violence. The classic example is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But that law has a very important exception. You may shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if there IS a fire in a crowded theater.

When it comes to being convicted of inciting to violence, British law has no such exception. A man was sent to prison for inciting to violence when every word he said was true. In the case of The Crown versus Pierce (1986) the court ruled that, under the racial laws, "The truth is no excuse."

There is one more little difference between law in a free country and the British race laws against free speech. In order to be convicted for inciting violence in a free country you have to actually incite somebody.

The BBC documentary was made a year ago and there is no evidence that what the BNP members said during their private meeting incited anybody.

Oh, and one other little difference. If a TV station puts on a program that incites violence in a free country, the TV Company is as liable as the person who said the words. The question of condemning the BBC has not come up, and will never come up. They are being praised as apparatchniks of the British section of the World Politically Correct Thought Police.

BASICS: THE DISCIPLINE OF WRITING TO WRITERS | nationalsalvation.net

One of my favorite true stories is about a famous writer who got crabby and got his comeupance. It happens to me here all the time.

He replied to a letter where a reader had a question by saying, "I am sick and tired of letters like this that are written just to get my signature."

The recipient of this nasty note cut his signature out of the letter and sent it back to him.

Served the bastard right!

But answering letters does cost a writer his stock in trade: writing time and effort. It costs him money, but correspondence is also his life's blood. He needs that feedback. It is worth money to him.

I talked below about discipline. People always ask a writer how to get published, but, like the centurion who has troops who forget to recite, "Throw the pilum first," you know that the person who comes up to you to ask this is not listening.

You could do endless good by hitting your favorite writers with the Mantra. Take it from me, writers DO look at what you write to them, IF YOU DO IT RIGHT.

Once again, what I have to say is common sense, but few will really hear me.

First of all, writers -- or the assistants who are paid to cull out the obvious spam before it reaches the writer - take about five seconds to dismiss it. If it is long and preachy, out it goes. If it says what has been said, it goes into the "This is another letter about X." This is not useless, because it goes into the X file, like congressional correspondence. But the writer or congressman is interested in your missive on a purely statistical basis, "One more letter protesting X."

Enough of those and he will change his stance on X or not write a one-sided piece later. But he will not really READ what you say. You are an important statistic, but a statistic only.

A writer or an editor or the culler instantly recognizes whether your letter is written TO HIM. This is a DISCIPLINE. You have to have read and show interest in the writer's WRITING or the editor's MAGAZINE.

Once again, I have explained this obvious point to lots of people, and they promptly forget it when they do the writing. They send out a note about what they are thinking that could be written to anybody. That won't make it past the culler.

You have to remember that you are writing to a person who PRACTICES writing discipline.

I see my concepts showing up in writers I have written to. More important, it joins the conversation among writers if you make it interesting. Publications remain politically correct, but most writers hate at least some of it. Make what you say interesting IN THEIR WORLD.

What I do is make a SHORT point about something HE wrote, quoting it. Then I might add, "I wish you wouldn't be so politically correct on the racial stuff. I know it sounds paranoid, but all this "anti-racism seems to me to come down to "Asia for Asians, Africa for the Africans, and white countries for everybody."

No, don't explain WHY you said that. The most obvious sign of spam is hammering on how innocent it is.

It is point that bothers you, not spam. Keep it there.

After that short digression, I try to make another point ABOUT HIS WRITING, one that will interest him. This is professional level work. This is WORK and DISCIPLINE. It doesn't look like spam because it ISN'T.

Don't try to fool a pro. Any writer you are really INTERESTED in and THINK about can be reached with our message. If all you are really interested in is making that point, he will smell it. That why I specified, "your favorite writers" above.

No, it won't lead to his getting on his knees and converting. But it has a HUGE effect torchlight parade types cannot see.