Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Jeffrey G. Brown (
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:01:58 -0500

In article <575a5v$6v0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten
<> wrote:

> Bob Whitaker <> wrote:
> [...]
> > You can jargon yourself blue, but the simple fact is that in
every case
> >you always come down on the Poltiically Correct side in every
> >discussion. Your pattern is in perfect accord with your training.
> And in your mind, Bob, the "right" thing to do is to offer an opinion
> before you have any facts???

Facts aren't necessary in Whitaker's reality -- in fact, they're
counterproductive. Using facts makes one less dangerous than one might
otherwise aspire to be:

"...[E]very spoiled juvenile, every intellectually sterile
social activist, can be taken as an errant idealist only so
long as no one makes it clear that he is merely foolish,
that he is spoiled or sterile.

"The same sort of rule holds with the liberal establishment:
a man who dismisses policies which are stupid as merely
stupid is far more dangerous than one who is erudite and
verbose in opposition. A Buckley conservative, who uses long
words and complex moral questions, factual corrections and
respectful disagreement in his discussion with liberals
(with a few exceptions) is far less dangerous than the old
[George] Wallace, who called callousness callousness,
stupidity stupidity." ("A Plague on Both Your Houses" [1976:
Robert B. Luce, Inc.], pages 96-97)

Facts just get in Whitaker's way. He's believed that for at least twenty
years. Far better -- not to mention easier -- to just work up as much
vitriol as possible, calling your opponent every name in the book, than to
actually present a reasoned argument.

It is pitiful, as you say -- but that's what Whitaker is: a man who
believes himself dangerous _because_ he hasn't got any facts behind him.


Jeffrey G. Brown
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'