The last time White people attacked the genocidal intensions of anti-Whites was in the 1950s when that program was backed by the full hatred of the North for the South, during that decade all attention could be diverted from intelligent criticism of their racial program by screaming about ignorant rednecks.

Southern turncoats were attracted by giving them the image of being educated Northerners.

A standard anti-white tactic was to point out briefly that most of the world was colored. But we pro-whites were the ones who really saw this. Anti-whites treated race as if it were altogether a matter of one black going to a white school.

We were not allowed to ask where this “solution to the race problem” would lead. Those who scream ignorant and Klansmen are harking back to a time when this worked, because the public in the 50s were totally provincial.

We asked where all this total “lack of prejudice” would lead. No one would listen. Everyone cheered for a policy of total white self-hatred. The country club whites hated the working class whites, Northerners hated the South, and that was all the anti-whites pushed.

I have talked about temporal provincialism a hundred times, but, as usual, it got almost no notice in comments. So the shouts of “ignorance” and so forth are not noticed as time provincialism, responses from the 1950s which today’s anti-whites thought had silenced all criticism of white genocide.

A commenter says that Rush Limbaugh, like O’Reilly, has discovered anti-whites.

One little poster from the BNP proclaims, “Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.”

All these years, how could I explain to people that I was the only one who could formulate a usable message?

All those years I felt like a plumber who is trying to stop a house from flooding, but every time I asked the owner for some practical help he would say, “Do you know what Aristotle said about that?”

No, I really don’t know what Aristotle or Solomon Greenbladt said about that and I think you’re an idiot if you bring it up. But I could never SAY that.

It has begun. No one could understand how listening to my methods can get you slow, hardly noticeable national exposure. It is quite probable that the revolution in thinking will occur and no one will be aware of it.

I have proved a basic point I couldn’t even theorize to most people on our side.

The truth is out there. Let’s keep it up.

I would give a hundred usual comments for one commenter who mentioned the similarity of the Mantra to Occam’s Razor. I appreciate the usual stuff, but it is once in a coon’s age that they have any relevance to the important points that only I make.

Occam’s Razor was dynamite in its day. Like wordism today, scholasticism went nuts and beyond during the so-called Renaissance. Scholars spent all their time quoting Latin and Greek and arguing over nonsense into which “How many angels can stand on the point of a pin?” would have fitted nicely.

The so-called Renaissance damned near crippled Western thought, which had already proceeded into Calculus while professional scholars gloried in the ancient invention of geometry.

To put it simply, the descendents of Germans and Vikings naturally concerned themselves with what WORKED, while scholars only worry was whether Aristotle agreed with them, or, better, to prove that that was what Aristotle actually meant in some obscure quote.

The history of Western medicine is the agonizingly slow transition from doing everything in Greek to learning to disinfect, which Medieval medicine was doing with wine before Great Educators got there.

Does it work or does it sound Educated? That is the real, undiscussed history of science.

The difference between old scholasticism and that with which Occam’s Razor sided is exactly the same as the simple distinction between science and magic: Is it glitter and show, or does it WORK.

The Mantra takes a straight look at the world and says what is really going on. The same shouts of ignorance and anti-intellectualism used against it met Occam’s Razor in earlier times.

Some commenters were wondering why the other side can simply turn off an effective line of argument by saying “That’s the old hick line,” “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” or “Saving the white race.”

I have pointed out here literally dozens of times that the media choose to let conservatives into the media with whom they feel comfortable. In 1960 there would not be a single national TV discussion, it would consist entirely of liberal Republicans and liberal..

Opponents of the TV establishment were let in slowly as the conservative movement grew. Those with whom liberals were comfortable, Buckleys, Hannitys and Lowrys, became prominent. Those who refused to fit in and insisted on statements everybody knew were true but which made for a short and decisive debate were excluded.

Likewise, the anti-whites have chosen their opposition, and this paycheck opposition must concentrate on respectability, which leads to paychecks. I have pointed this out, literally, a hundred times. I’ve never seen it noted here.

Though I am a recognized pro, no one calls on me to debate the pro-white side. Fox asked SF for a spokesman, and I was the only one who would do it. They cut out my reciting the Mantra in the second one and no one asked me back, though I am a qualified professional spokesman.

If you THINK about it, you know why. But I have discussed it a hundred times and it hasn’t been noticed.

People are twiddling off far too much on whether we will win or lose instead of listening carefully to how you should play the game.

I have had trouble explaining that the discipline you now adhere to made it hard for me to discuss the General Strategy points I make here.

You are supposed to stick strictly to the points that hit the enemy, not deviating at all from the Mantra if possible. Yet at the very same time you must be prepared to recognize the strategy you must follow as our discipline gets its results, how to make sure we get our revolution and that you get your part in it.

As is so often the case, when I am totally puzzled it turns out that I am just complicating a basic truth.

The fact is that this problem of discipline and strategy is as old as western warfare.

Before armies adopted personal discipline, there was very little strategy.

Before legions and formations, the only thing a general did was try to trick the enemy on a gross level. There was no strategy as we now use the words, moving a column here and holding units in reserve there. The whole Oriental host got as many warriors as it could and charged.

In other words there was no general fighting strategy until the individual soldiers became rigidly parts of a disciplined war machine.
In exactly the same way, the vague dreams of other pro-whites of a torchlight parade When The Enemy Is Exposed do not lend themselves to thought about what changes to look for and what to do when they happen. Everybody will suddenly join together and hang the bastards.

The idea is delicious but not practical. As with the Roman Legions, the development of real discipline in the ranks makes strategy more essential than ever.

As often happens, what has been so confusing to me all this time is actually embarrassingly simple. I do not need to keep reminding you to maintain discipline when you are at the front.

But I do need to discuss strategy. In fact, as I said, only disciplined soldiers can carry out a strategy. Unlike our News and Jews brethren, I need to discuss with you what changes to look for, how to respond. I have said many, any times that Mussolini almost missed the March on Rome he himself had caused. He had called for a March on Rome but was not prepared for it to happen.

When disciplined armies first began to rout their enemies, they often broke ranks and pillaged and were destroyed. Their officers had to be trained not only in how to win but what to do when they defeated the enemy.

Maintain discipline on the front and help me plan strategy here. This apparent contradiction is actually a historical basic.