Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Yesterday’s Ideas and Today’s Thought Police

Posted by Bob on September 7th, 2006 under General


When Karl Marx was a young man in the 1830s, the huge sensation of the time was Hegel’s Spiritual Dialectic. In the late

eighteenth century the big buzz had been about Rousseau’s Noble Savage. Marx combined the two aqnd came up with Dialectic

Materialism.

Rousseau, who never set foot outside Europe, declared that peoiple outside of civilization were kind, gentle and equal.

Civilization, said Rousseau, caused all the evils and inequalities we are heir to.

I won’t bother explaining dialectic. It’s almost as complicated as it is silly. I would also have to explain how people

in 1830 could have taken it seriously.

But Dialectic Materialism, called Communism, was enforced in the Soviet Empire until the 1980s. It collapsed the minute it

stopped being enforced.

Now look at the spread of time between the philosophies the USSR was based on and the time it fell. Rousseau had been dead

two centurfies and the Hegel craze had been over for a century and a half. In the USSR both were Progressive thought.

The point is this:

When I talk about what social scientists all enforced in the 1950s I am talking about RIGHT NOW. Today’s Political

Correctness is based entirely on the ideas of the first part of this century, not today.

In fact, they are not even based on the knowledge AVAILABLE in 1950.

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Rousseau all believed in a human behavior which, in the light of the slightest study of real natural

behavior, is beyond the laughable. We now have endless studies showing that every social animal has a heirarchy, which is

what Rousseau said only civilization produced.

In the 1950s you HAD to believe that only mankind has BORDERS. The only thing that prevented a World Government was

capitalism and failures in civilization. Why can’t we be like animals and savages (Political Correctness makes no

distinction) and be Virtuous and UNiversal?

Every social animal patrols its border. The gentle chimpanzee troop patrols regularly, and it will tear any outsider chimp

apart if it is caught in their territory.

What was the reaction of the USSR to these rather obvious findings?

They were suppressed, just as their SOCIAL implications are NEVER talked about in social science courses today. Every social

science professor has to admit that “There ARE genetic factors influencing man’s behavior.” But you will never hear one

single word about anyof them in any social science class, journal, or discussion.

But they find time to drag Marx out of his coffin regularly.

Every year we learn wholew new patterns of gene-based behavior.

But Political Correctness remains firmly rooted in thought that was discredited before 1950.

And Political Correctness reacts the only way outdated thought CAN react. It enforces its ideas like a totalitarian state.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Dave on 09/07/2006 - 2:50 pm

    NOT SPAM
    NOT SPAM

    We all know how the multicultural orthodoxy of academia, the media, and the political parties have bled into the “law”.

    Today law enforcement officers, licensing officials, and bank officers are knowingly aiding and abetting the illegal third world invasion of America under orders from their superiors.

    They seem to be quite secure in their belief that they will be immune from future prosecution for their collaboration under “Nuremburg Defense” principles.

    But orthodoxies can change and so can the bare knuckled theories under which legal prosecutions (both civil and criminal) can change.

    Also, professional and occupational groups can be punished as a class.

    Does anybody have any ideas about how this current collection of collaborators could be made to worry about the possibly that their collaboration might result in future legal liabilities to themselves personally irrespective of the defense “I was just following orders”?

  2. #2 by Twin Ruler on 09/07/2006 - 4:46 pm

    “Noble Savage” is a contradiction in terms: savages are by nature, ignoble.

  3. #3 by Al Parker on 09/07/2006 - 9:41 pm

    NOT SPAM

    Would you be a happier person if humans lowered themselves to the level of chimpanzees?

  4. #4 by Shari on 09/07/2006 - 10:07 pm

    Not Spam
    Not Spam

    Don’t you suppose that many who abett third world invasion under orders from their superiors is because they need an income, not because they like it? The generations born after WW2 did not establish the Federal Reserve, imcome tax or social security. But also “affirmative action” has put many in positions that they have no bussiness being in.

  5. #5 by Pain on 09/10/2006 - 12:56 am

    NOT SPAM

    NOT SPAM

    All these comments are right on the money.

You must be logged in to post a comment.