Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Gregory Taylor (
18 Nov 1996 14:06:34 -0600

cynthia gage wrote:
>If you re-read my post you'll
>see I'm only interested in why you choose to use "PC" so often but refuse
>to explain what that term means to you and why you are so bitterly opposed
>to those things.

A charitable interpretation of Bob's anaphora combined with some knowledge
of his background would suggest that it'll be difficult. Having had a look
now at Bob's last *real* book (which probably dates from his expulsion
from the academic world. Anyone have any more information on that, by
any chance?), it would appear that he's been evidentially challenged for
some time. Indeed, his "New Right Papers" is noteworthy for two reasons:
First, one would be hard-pressed to believe that the tiresome marionette
we know as Bob Whitaker bears even the slightest resemblance to the person
who did the earlier writing - that one seems able to marshall the occasional
coherent argument. In this regard, you're spectating on what remains of
the person who did the earlier writing - and by the way, Cynthia - I would
suggest that you hunt about for a copy of the book (your interlibrary loan
should turn one up). It may explain a lot. The other bit is that, even then,
Bob was remarkably short when it came to coming up with evidence for his
views. The pathetic "book" on his web page shares a similar fate (If you're
taking an elementary Logic course, I think it'd be a perfect text for
a paper on informal logical fallacy).

My own feeling on the matter is that what's left of Bob Whitaker is
probably incapable of understanding your question - namely, that the
guy's using a vaguely defined term to evade defining his own terms and
subjecting them to scrutiny - the very thing that he's so quick to
accuse others of doing (seems easy for him to recognize it in *that* form,
but tricky when applied to himself). He won't answer in any succinct
form because he *wants* to be unclear - he's hoping to appeal (recruit)
to folks on the basis of a hazily defined "shared" vocabulary. He also
isn't forced into any of the self-critical work that defining oneself
clearly requires as an exercise (he probably thinks he's had enought of
that in his "past"). And finally, he doesn't really *want* engagement
at all - he's after heat (which validates his sorry present state. One
imagines a great enemy as a way of imagining himself as powerful and
effective), not light. Whatever it was that happened rendered
him incapable of understanding the world in anything other than a few
paltry bits of phraseology that he slings about with abandon. If that
little grab-bag of invective is all he's got, things must be grim, indeed.

If, as I'm coming to believe, his delusions are necessary for maintaining
the parts of himself he *can* present in semi-coherent form, you can expect
that he will (if pressed) respond with increasingly shrill agitation,
interspersed with brief episodes of self-justification which might be
the most clearly articulated stuff you'll get. He need to both defend
*and* recruit. Your mileage (and that of your therapist, if you have one)
may vary.

Clinically your'n,

The arts are the field on which we place our own dreams, thoughts, and desires
alongside those of others, so that solitudes can meet, to their joy sometimes,
or to their surprise, and sometimes to their disgust.(R. Hughes) Gregory Taylor
WORT-FM 89.9 Madison, Wisconsin