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

It’s SILLY and It Is Important That It’s Silly

Posted by Bob on April 16th, 2011 under Coaching Session

If two people are arguing over the true nature of the Holy Trinity, you know each one identifies himself as a Christian. If someone is TALKING about the Holy Trinity, you know he is somewhat familiar with, specifically, CHRISTIAN theology.

Political Correctness is as identifiable with Marxism as the Holy Trinity is with Christianity. One Yugoslavian-born interviewer was astonished when I mentioned that, and then remembered that in Communist Yugoslavia the Serbian term was “political rectitude.”

Oddly enough, this simple truth has been missed by the only people on earth who still take Marxist theology seriously. As Communism slid into the grave yard in the Soviet Empire, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn pointed out that, “No one in the USSR takes Marxist theory seriously.”

He added, “The only people who take Marxist theory seriously today are Western professors.” And that, boys and girls is the “mysterious origin” of the term Politically Correct.

Communism is unique in that it died, not from outside pressure, but from its own silliness.

You can’t run an economy that way.

But Marxist theory still dominates our thinking. The Class Struggle, everything being determined by money, these are the products of a Marxist outlook. You find people seriously saying that a billionaire Vice President is doing what he is doing for money.

In the Marxist system, money is everything, power is nothing. This is because those who hope to be the dictatorship of the proletariat are after power. Money is everything, Marxism says, and the distribution of money is governed entirely by political power.

Economics becomes the proper distribution of money, so that while a Christian might talk about True Religion, a Marxist talks about political correctness. If you read the letters to Stalin from Party underlings, you will see the term many times.

Marxist sources are the ONLY places you will see the term Political Correctness before the 1970s. It went onto the faculties with the 60s Radicals.

Once again let us remember that Marxism is an ideology that, with all the totalitarian force that could be levied to hold it in power, finally just disappeared because it is so SILLY.

It is important not to use Respectable Conservative terms like “not viable.” Marxism was SILLY. The conservatives who seriously debated other philosophers against Marx were SILLY, not Well Meaning Great Minds who Saw Errors in Historical Interpretation, but Silly Asses who used Latin phrases but couldn’t see that a system that requires land mines and machine guns to keep its people IN is a failure.

When you concede that a bunch of idiots are Intellectuals, you legitimize them to a large extent. Only an insane person tries to reason with a snake.

Don’t try to make friends of our opponents. If you want to make a living as a respectable conservative, you treat a PhD who talks drool as an intellectual.

But if you want to destroy them, rather than make a living by catering to them, you NEVER treat them as the adults they never were.

  1. #1 by Epiphany on 04/16/2011 - 6:05 am

    And, Political Correctness comes from Marxism.

  2. #2 by BGLass on 04/16/2011 - 8:45 am

    “…In the Marxist system, money is everything, power is nothing. This is because those who hope to be the dictatorship of the proletariat are after power. Money is everything and the distribution of money is governed entirely by political power.

    So Economics becomes the proper distribution of money,…”

    This gets creepy when it comes to old people. Like, on t.v., the nightly convo of “how much boomers cost.” They go on and on about how much elderly humans COST. (And how much old people don’t want to pay for mexicans, which of course is implied that, since mexicans are brought in by 10,000 per day, that they will never later want to pay for the dying white old people. Why would they? Nobody wanted to pay for their programs, so they won’t pay for your death. Tit for tat.”

    And it’s transparent. The “right” would rather fight a war for power PAHR, the “left” wants to get rich processing the money and tossing enough bones to the poor with the leftovers that they will be quiet about it all, so the threat is to the boomers, “ok, so you pay for our mexicans, that we want to process for a buck, and then we’ll shut up about paying for you dying, etc.

    This is the level.

    How such a system can reduce the t.v. talking heads to this kind of conversation (that becomes unthinkable in other systems), is interesting. Humans are merely processing plant meat, obviously, (in this way of thinking).

    Before, the older people were revered. They have lived, like Mr. Whitaker, and can tell their interesting experiences and stories, porch talk. We learn about how eternal law stuck to the bones of one more generation, learn wisdom, learn the lies and also how things really work, and so on.

    Old people are essential to the well-being of all humans, since they might have seen, or heard, or learned something in the hundred years they lived.

    But on t.v., they go on and on about the COST of the human flesh. HOW MUCH IT WILL COST when they die, or if they die when…and if they live much longer, we’ll go broke, so on.

    It’s sad to see their kids degrading older people, having picked it up from their parents or t.v. Ten year old people degrading older people who used to be revered b/c wisdom was more important than how much people cost, and the way of making a living, was not processing humans.

    That’s more a problem with Marxism, maybe, than the direct economic level (people becoming impoverished by the system)— the DEHUMANIZING thought processes that emerge in what could have been otherwise decent people.

    Talked to an anti-communist the other day. BUT the man could only see “money” as the problem with communism. He talked about the “choice of products” in the u.s. as evidence of “capitalism,” and he likes being a consumer able to get more.

    He sees entirely in Marxism thought categories, but doesn’t know it, and it was his kids, most recently, talking about how much old people COST. They say snide things about old people—but have absolutely no idea this is connected to daddy’s public paycheck (although his self-concept is of himself as a “capitalist.”— he does not want his public pay to be used for dying anybody; he wants it going back into the government agency where he gets his money— and hey, he has a say!— it’s his money, right?

  3. #3 by BGLass on 04/16/2011 - 8:57 am

    The “right” seems more upset about how much elderly human people-units COST than the “left” right now. But both say they want the money that the people COST and to keep it for themselves and their part of the machine–for the minority industries or overseas wars and then the many tangential businesses attached to those two industry groups.

    The only solution to hopefully not paying for the human boomers, is to bring cheap labor from abroad–

    We know this b/c the COST of humans here is always discussed in tandem with “immigration.”

    This means: “If we just axe the older white Americans, and simultaneously bring in cheaper third world labor, THEN we can get the money for the “right” or the “left” (for the minority processing industry (from programs, to education, to welfare, to etc., etc.) OR for the “right” (overseas adventures, corporate tax cuts, etc, etc., )

    If we can just get the “boomers” (they are not called HUMANS), out of the way, THEN we can fight between ourselves over the “scarce resources.”

    This is a very normalized naturalized way of talking.

  4. #4 by BGLass on 04/16/2011 - 9:03 am


    And this system (as seen on t.v.) IS THOUGHT TO BE capitalist.

    The “left” says that in “capitalism,” everything is about money. They are NOT about money, of course, they are about “self-determination,” or “carrying democracy” or whatever.

    So, when they hear the t.v. talking about the cost of human flesh— this is interpreted as “capitalist greed.”

    In fact, all economic theories are about money, lol. But only Marx made PEOPLE only about money, so the human subject is an economic unit (labor) in his flesh, and nothing more, within that theory, (and way of talking we largely have today).

    People think of communism or Marxism as an economic system, but after Trotsky, especially, it became about “identity” politics— forming the human as a money unit.

    why don’t people think that’s yucky?

    the left says it’s “identity politics”—- how many u.s. citizens even have an explanation of what that means?

    They should do a “man on the street” interview about that!

  5. #5 by Simmons on 04/16/2011 - 3:21 pm

    They are about vanity, something the News&Jewsers and IQ people never have figured out.

    Ask the right question and they fold as quick as a wet paper sack, every time, debate them with “facts” and they end up sounding like granny, “ssssh we don’t talk about that, that is not nice.”

You must be logged in to post a comment.