THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

There is an interesting advertisement on page C-11 of the July 13, 1999 "New York Times." It shows a happy, nice looking young white couple. The header says, "WE WANT YOU TO MEET THE RIGHT WOMAN AS MUCH AS YOU DO."

Below this, the lead sentence is, "Our goal is Jewish continuity."

At the end the article announces that this is part of , "A Not-For-Profit Program of the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services. A Recipient Agency of UJA-Federation."

The UJA, the United Jewish Appeal, is a tax-deductible organization.

In a sane world, there would be nothing strange about this advertisement. In a sane world, it is routine for people to be concerned about the survival of their own kind. After all, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, there is nothing more natural than for a person to want to see people who look like he does survive and multiply.(See "Benjamin Franklin Was Anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews!!", June 5)

But one wonders what would happen to a tax-deductible group that sponsored "white continuity."

Ronald Reagan's movie, "Bedtime for Bonzo" was based on a real incident.

In the comedy, Reagan played a psychology professor who was trying to prove that environment or nurture was everything and that heredity, nature, genes, was nothing. He adopted a chimpanzee and tried to raise it as a child to prove this.

In the real incident, a professor decided to raise his newborn child along with a chimpanzee to prove the same thing. The experiment ended when his child failed to learn to talk. The child was becoming chimpanzee-like; the chimpanzee remained totally a chimp.

This evidence was NOT introduced in the case of Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed segregation in schools. But if you look at integrated schools today, its relevance is hard to miss

The Shrewd conservatives, no matter how wrong they have always been, continue to say what they always said. They insist that everything liberals did until recently was right. If liberals will just point out an Evil Racist to a respectable conservative, he will loyally kill the Evil One.

Black people get profiled because so many black people commit crimes. But no black will ever blame the black criminal.

By the same token, no respectable conservative will tell a black man that profiling is the fault of black criminals. Vice President Cheney almost cried talking to a black man about the evil, evil, EVIL police who treat a man with black skin as if he were more likely to commit crime than people with white skins.

That performance would have made me sick to my stomach, but by now I've seen it a thousand times. Whining about the Noble Red Man, the Noble Black Man, the Noble Anybody Not White is the standard age-old response of Shrewd conservatives to any challenge by the left on the race issue.

The heroes of the Shrewd right are conservatives who helped get us in the situation we face today. Charlton Heston brags that he was a loyal follower of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and finally Ronald Reagan. Teddy Kennedy's worshipper Orrin Hatch was out there fighting to make the world what it is today in the civil rights movement of the 'Sixties.

Simmons Responds to CL's Caution

I'll disagree. Mantra is a school of logic not a precise recital of words (Wordism). It's about the why of PC and the results of such a religion. For example a Cultist shrieks "racist" at me. Being a Mantra-trained thinker I do not respond with my own shriek, but instead dissect the cultist's line of thought.

ME:

I think CL is right in that the Mantra MUST be stated and repeated in all cases. Repeated.

And repeated, the Mantra totally changes he whole grounds of discussion, the whole worldview.

But, as Simmons implies, the Mantra itself requires that YOU adapt to this new line of thought. The article below that CL was replying to makes this very clear. You have to have the mental DISCIPLINE to PREVENT HIS meandering off.

You have just shown how the anti is EVIL, no matter how much he mewls about his good intentions. It is the time to show why he could have gotten so ridiculous, why it is so common.

Once again, this is simple but definitely not EASY.

And as Simmons says you are trained here, you are not programmed. No red uniforms here. You have to get out there with your squirrel rifle and do it yourself. I gave you the rifle and the ammunition and taught you how to begin using them.

Simmons's "Mantra is a school of logic" is absolute genius. But every second you have to keep CL's warning in mind and STAY ON TARGET. REPEAT the Mantra itself until the other guy starts finishing it for you, and then repeat it some more.

If I were a redcoat officer, I could march you through every step. I would also leave you out there getting your butt shot off.

Personal discipline and personal initiative, there is nothing EASY about that simple combination.

Excellent Disciplinary Reminder from CL

In response to the article below, Flanking Arguments, CL brings me up short:

The corollary to this is when you abandon what works.

One of the great banes of baseball managers everywhere is the pitcher who is throwing one pitch the opposing player/line-up can't hit, but who inexplicably decides to "diversify" to his less stellar stuff. He's often seen looking over his shoulder 2 to 3 seconds after making the change.

It's called being "cute," and it invariably kills the perpetrator in sports, business, and war.

The mantra is the un-hittable fastball. Your curveball is crap. Don't be cute.

Flanking Arguments

The last battle fought between Americans and Englishmen was at New Orleans. After Braddock got cut to pieces by Indians in 1755, after the eight years of revolutionary war, two an a half years into the War of 1812, which, as everybody knows, was actually over when the Battle of New Orleans, the British got cut to pieces by the same old thing.

The redcoats marched up and the Americans stayed down and shot them to pieces from cover. The same thing happened after Lexington and Concord in 1775.

So I am very familiar with the fact that people simply WILL NOT change tactics.

In 1870 the French Army was bigger than the Prussian one. The Prussians moved fast, outflanked the French, and won.

In 1914 the available French Army was bigger than the German one, which had a two-front war. The Germans moved faster, outflanked the French, and the rest of the war was fought deep in French territory.

In 1940 the French depended on the immobile Maginot Line and the French Army was comparable in size to the Wehrmacht. The Germans used the Blitzkrieg, a brand new thing where they moved faster and outflanked the French.

So when I find the Mantra and it WORKS, it is no surprise at all that the response is a loud yawn.

Anther approach that has no tradition or recommendation except that it works is talking about WHY something is said. It hits the other side from the rear. It outflanks them. Instead of going into the usual routine about black-white IQ, I simply point out that any professor who does NOT come to that conclusion is likely 1) to be mobbed and 2) to lose his job, and he certainly will get no promotion.

Everybody KNOWS this, but our folks are so thickheaded he or she NEVER BRING IT UP. From up from Africa stuff to every single Politically Correct idea, if you let them talk about how Mommy Professor X has discovered a new "fact" that proves Political Correctness and then point out that that is what they get PAID to do, Mommy Professors products are caught completely off guard.

Everybody KNOWS this, but we aren't supposed to be bright enough to bring it up.

And we usually AREN'T.

For defense we have our Maginot Line. For attack, we have our red uniforms to march in.

Simmons wrote:

"I agree. But this thinking is already out there people are asking what exactly is "racism?"

The Oxford English Dictionary is quite helpful in this regard. It admits that the term was coined for propaganda by the Jewish mass-murderer Leon Trotsky.

For reasons I think most of us here know, that won't be mentioned on AR.

"Racism," like every other pejorative, is nothing. It has no substance. If you cave to it, you're throwing the sorry curveball. If you give it the slightest bit of credence, you're throwing the sorry curveball.

The way you handle it is by observing that genociders to justify genocide use "racism". Then you loop back into the Mantra, even stronger than before.

This is the much-ignored step #2 of the Mantra program, as outlined above. The beauty of the Mantra is that it allows you to take the highest caliber ammunition of the opposition and throw it right back at them. "Racism," and its brother "anti-Semitism" ('Most people today understand that an anti-Semite is a person some Jew hates.') are the big guns of the opposition. See how easy they are to turn around? And every time you turn it around at them, your argument gets stronger.

Step #2: Follow through!