Of course the latter is more likely, given his inability to write a coherent blog post and his idiotic mantra.

It reinforces the basic tactics of white nationalists and their ilk: the supremacy of melanin content over actual learning.

The central idea Mr. Whitaker want to convey to his acolytes is this: even though his supporters dropped out of high school, have trouble with multi-syllabic words that are not coarse terms for copulation, cannot do any kind of math of science, are addicted to alcohol, methamphetamine, and violence, live in their parents’ basement at age 23, have never held a job, and have longer rap sheets than resumes, they are superior to a black woman who has gained a Ph.D. or MBA at a fully-accredited institution with Jewish professors, and earns more than $60,000 a year…by virtue of the melanin content of their skin.

I think it was Fatso Goering who said, “We Nazis think with our blood.”

But I know that Hitler said that propaganda had to be a series of large lies to appeal to the stupidity and emotionalism of its listeners, and the lowest level of appeal should be used. No great intellectualism, just low-level emotional appeals to the basest instincts.

That’s exactly what the “Mantra” is, and why it hasn’t got further than cynical manipulators, angry crackpots, and twisted fools spreading it on the Internet…because such is the outer limit of their abilities to comprehend and communicate.

and robert, your mantra is indefensible. the fact that you can’t even see that your mantra is based upon the presumption that white people are inheriently racist speaks volumes.

Not to mention the fact that you fail to realize that most of your so called “white” people today are actually mixed race – i mean, i’m white and the largest contributing ancestory for me is “unknown” – who knows what that means. and there is some pretty strong evidence that i likely have black and Native American ancestors. You also fail to account for the fact that living in the South i have met “black” people who skin tones were at times much lighter than my “white” skin – and some even had blonde hair and blue eyes.

I’ve also been following the attempts on your blog to defend your mantra and all I see is what amounts to rephrasing the original idiot’s creed. But by all means, I hope your attempts get through, because it’s just so entertaining showing the world what a clown you are.

Now that’s VERY interesting because 1. Semmelweis seems to be a Slavic Jew, judging from his name, and more importantly…. 2. This is EXACTLY how Bob thinks society should be run. Someone arbitrarily divides everyone into “races,” and then you are told where to live or what you can do based on that.

Well you said “self-identifying groups.” In any case, most white Americans don’t define themselves by race. They feel more comfortable around people of their own religion or political views. I don’t think that existing governments are going to be willing to hand over land to any “self-identified” group anyway.

” I would like to point out that my second statement is really made as an example only, it is simply speculation. As far as cohesive and sustainable economies, again, I believe in self determination. I believe that a theoretical analysis of having a feasible economy is no reason for me, or anyone else, to deny them the opportunity.”

Self-determination without economic sustainability isn’t self-determination. Even the USSR, and industrial power operating on a completely different economic system, was compelled to conform to capitalist norms of production to some extent. A small community within a modern capitalist nation wouldn’t stand a chance.

Face it, there’s no good reason to put self-determination on such a high pedestal. If we have a nation of one ethnic group, how is it in everyone’s “interest” when it is ruled by a small minority of property owners?

“Whitaker himself could be called a self-styled intellectual. But truthfully he never liked intellectuals because he apparently decided he knew everything he needed around the age of 18. Intellectuals have to do hard work because they actually care if their opinions are rooted in some kind of material reality. As Bobby’s mantra proves, this detail isn’t important to him.”

Indeed. As he admits, his knowledge of Semmelweis is based on a fictionalized biography that he read at the impressionable age of 12 – which he admits, presumably, because he thinks we’ll be impressed that he read such a grown-up book at such a tender age.

The Cry and the Covenant was published in 1949, so if Whitaker read it when it was new, he was entering his teens at the height of McCarthyism, the HUAC witch hunts, blacklisting and all the rest of the apparatus of anti-Communist hysteria. It seems likely that his assessment that Communism was “just plain silly” was based on his absorption of the popular and political culture of the time rather than, say, reading Marx – which I don’t think anyone would deny is hard work.

Speaking of which, thank you for surfing Whitaker’s blog and sharing the contents, and sparing the rest of us the unpleasantness of going there. The notion that he spent “years” polishing the so-called “mantra” really is appalling. His style consists mainly of throwing out short, disconnected declarative sentences (“Anti-racist is code for anti-white.” “Semmelweis and Occam say your Final Solution to the White Problem is evil.”) as if he were stating self-evident facts. I’m guessing that he expects his readers to accept them as such, thus relieving him of the burden of actually providing any shred of evidence to support his claims. It’s a fairly standard technique of demagoguery.

1. “Self-styled intellectuals” laughed at Ignaz Semmelweis, but it turned out he was right.
2. “Self-styled intellectuals” approved of Communism, but it turned out they were wrong.
3. “Self-styled intellectuals” now deny Whitaker’s fantasy of white genocide.
Therefore, Whitaker’s fantasy of white genocide must be right.

This sequence of claims is so completely absurd that it appears to be more an instance of apophenia – seeing patterns in phenomena where no pattern actually exists – than a logical fallacy. Which one could say about Whitaker’s claims of “white genocide” in general.

The phrase “self-styled intellectuals” in itself places Whitaker in the grand tradition of such deep thinkers as George Wallace, who railed against “swaydo-intellectuals,” and Spiro Agnew, who decried (or actually, whose speechwriters decried) “an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.” Looks like a “no true Scotsman” argument to me: “No real intellectual would disagree with me.”

It’s ridiculous because a blonde guy like Roman Abramovich will be called “non-white” because he is “a Jew”(as opposed to Russian), yet a VERY dark, swarthy Serbian nationalists may be called “white” if he’s on Stormfront, for example.

In Europe, including Eastern Europe, “white” means very little. Of course the German or French understands “white” as a matter of appearance(though what he considers to be white would differ greatly from the opinion of an American or Canadian), but they’re concerned with nationality and culture more. That’s why I invite WNs to go to places like the Balkans or Baltics and tell the popular nationalist parties that Serbs or Russians are their “white brothers” to see what happens. Of course all these countries have little sub-cultures of “white” nationalists but the popular parties are ethnic nationalists first and foremost.

I’ll invite you again. Come to one of my pages for a debate, no mantra talking points. Let’s see if you have the guts. I’m calling you out.

Historically nationalism was usually about creating nation states based on ethnicity and breaking free of empires, not ruling over others. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires were hotbeds of nationalism.

That’s what’s very funny about poor old Bob- he hates Communism yet international migration(which happens everywhere, not just in “white countries) is a feature of capitalism. More importantly, he seems to praise the free market yet all of this “Jewish propaganda” that people like him complain about is really nothing more than the demands of the market.

But getting back to the topic, your question is also flawed because it implies that “white countries”(and please don’t pretend this isn’t what you’re talking about because I know every WN trick in the book) are 1. Not run by “white” people(or more accurate people of the dominant nationality, as “white” isn’t an ethno-cultural group), and 2. that “white” leaders were supposed to be running things in your interest. Capitalist states exist to serve capitalists, plain and simple.

And since I know some of those monkeys are watching this(though curiously none of them show up to defend the mantra), note that I have never responded to this mantra with “Not everybody says that…” I asked “WHO” says “we have a race problem…we’ll solve it when white countries are assimilated by non-white immigrants, etc.”

“They can’t deal with the Mantra. But they can deal with the Mantra one bite at a time.”

Now before I proceed let me explain that Bobby, being the courageous truth-teller that he is, doesn’t allow comments on his blog unless you register, unlike this site. WNs don’t engage in debates on forums they don’t control, which is why none of them are trying to engage in debates here. That being said, let me deal with that statement.

First off, the mantra is contrary to reality, ergo it technically doesn’t need to be dealt with. I have explained this before. I break it down line by line to highlight each level of stupidity, because the mantra falls under the term “fractal wrongness.” At every level it is flat out wrong, and usually the challenge is deciding where to start. I like to ask who “everybody” is. The whole thing falls apart because it alleges that people, presumably powerful people, are advocating policies which NOBODY is advocating.

Anyway, this is the part of that blog entry I really enjoyed:

“It took me years to develop the Mantra. It will do pro-whites more good than any person or group has done them in history. But they can counter the really blasting effect by answering it one sentence at a time.”

Did you catch that? It took him YEARS to write the mantra. Years to write a thing that is easily debunked, whether line by line or otherwise. Keep in mind Bob can’t even answer ONE question about his whole mantra.

In any case, I’m no fan of Christopher Hitchens but there was one good thing he said: “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

And it’s really a pity that Bob needed years to come up with his mantra. I’ll make my own wacky mantra, just as reality based as yours, in less than five minutes. Here it is:

Everybody says we’ve got a cheese problem. Everybody says this problem will be solved when all cheese and only cheese is replaced by non-lactose substitutes. They say they are anti-lactose, what they are is anti-cheese.
Anti-lactose is a code word for anti-cheese.
And they hate pizza.

There, probably LESS than a minute. I’m not sure I quite captured Whitaker’s inability to grasp the concept of paragraphs though.