One of the fundamental things a Mantra Thinker must insist on is that he refuses to agree on anything where discussion is limited. Respectable conservatives get paid to do the opposite.

Respectable conservatives get paid to agree that all men are equal or all the other “common ground” they have with Mommy Professor, up front.

We all know that Stalin, Hitler and Lincoln simply used phrases that had been agreed on in their respective Constitutions to completely destroy those Constitutions. Actually, Lincoln used a phrase from the Declaration to replace the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but the principle was the same.

America was very specifically dedicated to one thing, “Ourselves and OUR Posterity,” so Lincoln just substituted “All men are created equal” for it. At least Stalin and Hitler used the actual Constitutions.

The point here is that what the Buckleys called “common ground” is simply handing the whole game over to the enemy.

Agreeing with ANY Mommy Professor “principle” is exactly the same as baring your soul to the police without a lawyer present. Everything respectable conservatives ever agree to is used against us when the trial begins.

We have as much in common with Mommy Professor’s so-called principles as a man accused of murder has with a cop who is out to convict him no matter what.

You NEVER have a DISCUSSION with an anti-white. He is trying to keep the talk about “common ground,” but the only common ground is territory that is presently populated by a white majority.

What is non-white belongs to non-whites. What is white also belongs to non-whites. That is the “common ground” on which respectable conservatives have to agree if they are get a pay check.

There is no discussion with anti-whites, liberals or conservatives, because they limit any such discussion. If I am stupid enough to agree that a fair fight consists of my having to have one hand behind my back, then I am a moron who will also agree to some kind of “common ground” with those who restrict what I say, by law if possible, but always by shouts, ruining careers, and siccing their pet apes on you.

The fight does not START until both boxers have agreed to the basic rules.

Anything you say can and WILL be used against you.

Make them LISTEN to the Mantra and agree to NOTHING.

When I was a boy out in the sand hills, I didn’t know about any denominations except Baptists, my mother’s family, and Methodists, my father’s family, and the general category of “holy rollers” that we could hear a mile away on Sunday night as we sat outside.

I guess I was about five when we went to a Lutheran wedding out in Lexington County, which was once German-speaking. About that time I realized that every Sunday, in the Apostle’s Creed, which all of us knew by heart by age three, in the list of things we declared we believed in was “The catholic church and the communion of saints.”

By that time I was truly aware that a Methodist is not a Catholic. But I didn’t understand what the Trinity was, either, nor did most people.

That was my fist lesson in the critical difference between a word that is capitalized and one which is not.

Through the years it became second nature to realize that while a Catholic priest will refer to ‘An Orthodox priest,” he is convinced that he is the one who is orthodox. That “Orthodox priest” will call him a Catholic priest, but he is absolutely convinced that the only truly catholic church is the Orthodox faith.

“Episcopal” just means a church has bishops, but the Methodist Episcopal Church had as permanent a rule by bishops as did the Anglicans, the Catholics, and the Orthodox.

The names of churches are a study in themselves. Most churches, and most political parties, bear names which they once fervently objected to. “Methodist” was originally an insult. “Mormon” was originally an insult. “Quaker” was originally an insult.

Especially in America, the time came when a Catholic got tired of being ridiculed for eating fish on Friday, stood there, crossed his arms, and said, “You’re damned right I’m a mackerel snapper and I’m proud of it.”

That happened so long ago in the Methodist Church that practically no Methodist is aware that it was once a term used only as ridicule by their enemies.

Vanishingly few of the Loyalists who proudly called themselves Tories were aware that the a “Tory” was originally the term for a highway robber in Ireland, and was used as an insult.

Vanishingly few of the proud “Whigs” in the same war were aware that Whig was a Scottish word for a highway robber, with exactly the same evolution.

Which may be an important lesson about those groups who stay the course.

There are so many churches and political and other groups who proudly bear the names their enemies hurled against them that it may be that a group simply does not survive for long if a label can make its adherents back down.

Respectable conservatives all whine and grovel when labels like racist or isolationist are used against them.

No group that can be cowed by a label should be in the vicious game of political power.

In a reply to a Catholic nun’s letter, CS Lewis pointed out that he was Anglican and not Catholic because the Catholic Church had divorced itself from the true Medieval Church. The fact that he never explained that statement has driven a couple of generations of his biographers nuts.

One of Lewis’ “Four Loves,” his intellectual and Christian soul mates, was J.R.R. Tolkien. After helping bring Lewis into the Christian fold, Tolkien was very upset that Lewis did not join Tolkien’s Catholic Church.

Lewis never really explained this. In fact, in his Mere Christianity, Lewis stated that one should pick a denomination, but he had very little interest in what that denomination was. In “Screwtape Proposes a Toast,” he ended by Screwtape’s pointing out that the most delicious souls in hell were those of those who hated other even in Hell because one group was entirely Puritan and one group all pilgrimages and ceremony.

So how DID Lewis define HIS denomination? If he had elaborated in that one letter, a lot of his fans and biographers would have been spared the funny farm.

Those souls were in Hell because they had a religious obsession. They were there because they held their religious obsession AGAINST EACH OTHER. The wine Screwtape was delighting in was made up of the pure hatred of one type of Christian for another., not of the doctrines themselves.

Neither Puritan nor Papist was in Hell because they were Puritan or Papist. In fact Lewis makes it very clear that he expected to see the Papist Tolkien and many of the people he had heard described as “Puritan” up there with him.

This, I think, is the boat a theologian will miss. It is easy to lose truth in a stack of books.

A stack of books produces a Truth, something supposedly provable and therefore enforceable.

The Truth is unchangeable, but the truth changes all the time.

You cannot serve two masters. Either you follow truth wherever it leads you to or you adopt a Truth which depends on the facts you have remaining immutable

And if there is one thing we know, it is that this world is not immutable.

That is why theologians have such a hard time with the different denominations, and Lewis had little or none.

No one knows whether the early martyrs of the Church were heretics or not. We don’t know the position of many of the saints on theological points that were later declared essential to salvation.

All we know is that they did what they thought was right and depended on Christ.

If that’s enough for sainthood, it is more than enough for me.

Mantra Thinking is painstaking analysis of rules we take for granted. Mommy Professor, from a Mantra point of view, is just a repeat of The Emperor’s New Clothes. So genocide is ignored because Truly Intellectual People refuse to ANSWER the Mantra and expect it to go away.

It drives them nuts that we simply won’t do like good respectable conservatives and stop repeating the question because they can’t deal with it and it makes them uncomfortable. The rule in this society is that Mommy Professor gives an answer if he can, but if he can’t, a person stops asking because he is too Sophisticated and too Reasonable to just stay there and keep demanding an ANSWER.

So those of the Politically Correct faith bitch about how they have heard all this before. In their world that is all it takes to make a point they can’t deal with go away. All they have had to do is tell the Buckley types that repeating a question is not Uppah Clahss, and not only will a Buckley never ask it again, he will lead the lynch party against anyone who does.

So, like the people in The Emperor’s New Clothes, conservatives drop anything that Political Correctness can’t deal with and, like the adults in The Emperor’s New Clothes, they join or even lead in denouncing anyone who states flatly that the old guy is naked.

A twin tactic is the “We already answered that” bit. For someone to point out that “Where Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Have Guns” puts Political Correctness is an impossible position.

Every hijacking and mass shooting spree would have been stopped if ONE of the good guys had had a weapon on him, and we all know it. But no conservative who pursues this point is going to keep a job as a professional conservative.

No, we all know that if guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns, so if you want to be a commentator, you ignore that reality, you never mention. Mommy Professor’s kids just tell you that point has been brought up and answered somewhere in all the discussion.

So a professional conservative condemns those who mention this common sense. It has been brought up so obviously it MUST have been answered.

Politically Correctness is not intellectually challenging, and anybody who MAKES it seem challenging, which is the job of every professional conservative, has to make a business of ignoring common sense.

This is a Whitakerism.

That is, this is in no way a new point, but a very careful look into an old one.

In everyday conversation, you always look at what a person says a bit cynically. You know what he wants out of the way his story comes out. Some guy’s stories will always end up showing that the speaker is a Real Man.

Some will go along to show that the person telling it is irresistible to the opposite sex, and so forth. We know that, we use that every day.

But when it comes to our world view, we forget a basic point like this. When we take it into account, it becomes a Whitakerism.

When a society stagnates, all information says what, by a staggering coincident, it HAS to say. Every test on busing shows that there is an improvement for blacks and whites remain the same.

Since everybody knows what has happened in schools since integration got started, you cannot sell a test result that says everybody is doing stunningly better. On the other hand, you cannot publish a test result that says what Senator Jenner of Indiana said in the 1950s, “Integration is like mixing sugar with sh… It ruins the sugar and it doesn’t help the sh..”

So all the published tests show that having all those screaming black kids in with them doesn’t hurt white performance — teachers are instructed to make the white kids get used to the high decibel level — but the whole program requires that somebody benefit from it, so the blacks always are reported as benefiting.

The rest of the examples of this kind of fact production are so obvious we don’t even mention them. Profiling blacks works wonderfully in reducing crime for the same reason any profiling does: It works.

In fact, everything we read today is a Just So Story that always comes out the way it should. We know why, but only Whitaker PURSUES this fact, only Bob STATES it in actual conversations.

Only a Mantra Thinker THINKS about it.

Everybody else wants to ignore how trite our Truths are and talk about The Latest News.

But anyone who is serious is going to listen to any information with this reality in mind. If you are questioning somebody you have to be aware every minute of WHAT he wants to be true. You have to be on alert for WHY it wants it to be true.

And if he is too consistent, your radar had better be on.

That’s when we’re serious about a crime or Intelligence information. Or for that matter, a person’s real preference in automobile’s height.

But when it comes to determining the world’s future, we trade the latest news and never even consider the perfectly wonderful consistency of the information that is manufactured for us.

ANY information that is too consistent is unsatisfactory to an adult of normal intelligence.

If I am interrogating somebody and his answers too consistently say exactly what he WANTS it to say, I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM, simply because it is a part of a pattern I have seen before in hundreds of earlier liars.

The whole Out of Africa bit seems to be collapsing, but I didn’t believe it when it was popular. It was too consistent. It was too loudly announced.

I had exactly the same doubts about how every climatic problem was being traced to Global Warming.

But being right about such things is no good if I cannot get you into the HABIT of seeing in public discussion exactly the same thing you naturally watch for in any personal talk you have.

Don’t just say you KNOW the story of the Emperor’s Clothes.

Get Whitaker on them. Stop going into neutral on common sense when it comes to Mommy Professor issues.