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.