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

Why Information Was Produced

Posted by Bob on December 6th, 2012 under Coaching Session

When it comes to Karl Marx, most people have read some of the Communist Manifesto. Marx’s main work, Das Kapital, was completed after his death.

Kapital is very hard for a non-Marxist economist to read. It took me a long time to understand why.

Marxism is not economics.

Economic writings argue a point of view. Even Maynard Keynes compares and contrasts his theory to that of “classical economists,” a group of strawmen who actually did not exist. Almost everyone today takes it for granted that other economists in the 1930s actually said what Keynes described as a “classical economic position,” though not a single one existed in the real world.

Marx is an entirely different kettle of fish. He doesn’t even PRETEND to argue, even with mythical opponents. There is no comparing and contrasting in his writings with any other theory, be it economic or political. So for a young guy who is used to reading different theories, Marx is alien territory. There is nothing to grasp onto.

What I was not told before I embarked on reading Capital was that it is not a theory, it is a Statement of Faith. When he declares that a good is worth the amount of “objective labor time” in it, he ridicules the idea that a good is worth more in one place than another.

But that’s all he does, he ridicules it. He personally insults anyone who says that water in the middle of a desert is worth more than diamonds extracted at the cost of much labor time from inside the earth.

He never ARGUES at all. He say other ideas are ridiculous.

This is not an economic point of view. This is, to repeat, a pure statement of Faith.

The Gospels do not cite archeological evidence.

They state the Only True Faith. It takes an economist quite a while to realize that “Marxist Economics” has nothing to do with economics and to read it accordingly.

The Communist Manifesto is shorter. It begins with what sounds like an argument. It states flatly that all human history consists of class struggle. In 1848 this was easy to accept. In 1848, and for that matter in 1948 it was accepted that only the human animal held territory, it was accepted that all animals outside of man had perfect equality within the herd and the “pecking order” was confined entirely to the artificial human-made environment of the chicken yard.

Rousseau had said that animals were perfect and innocent, as were his “noble savages.” Only civilization made men evil by destroying their “natural state.” This was the assumption Marx started from. It was the assumption all of those who did not believe in Original Sin started from.

And the latter group was no saner, because they too believed animals were perfect..Photobucket

Marx applied the then popular Hegelian dialectic to this assumption. But the assumptions of Rousseau were universal outside of the Bible believers. The Rousseau assumptions about The Noble Savage were so universal then that nobody even noticed it in Marx.

Social scientists knew nothing about real animal behavior. No true animal behavior studies were ALLOWED because of what I keep, uselessly probably, pointing out, the question of “Where does this information come from?”

No animal behavior studies which contradicted the entire basis of social science for two centuries would be financed.

No animal behavior study that contradicted the whole weight of social science opinion in academe would be published even if it WERE financed.

The cover was blown on Rousseau and the whole basis of social science theory by a remarkable series of accidents. An animal behaviorist, Eugene Marais, in South Africa spent his life studying actual animal behavior. But he was an Afrikaner of French Huguenot extraction, and he was so upset with the loss of the Boer War that he refused, for the rest of his life, to write in English. This allowed his seminal work to be plagiarized by a Nobel Laureate, Maurice Maeterlinck.

His writings were read by an Oxford professor, J. S. Weiner, who as a child knew Marais to be a charming neighbor in Sunnyside, South Africa, and that professor became very popular lecturing on Marais’ findings, complete with animal sounds and other entertainment. Robert Ardrey, a hugely well paid screen writer who had taken his degree in anthropology, met the professor in Rome and wrote up the real findings in a block buster called African Genesis and later in The Territorial Imperative.

OUTSIDE academia, his heresy paid off in book sales.

That’s the only reason that Meerkat study and many, many others like them took place.

  1. #1 by Dave on 12/06/2012 - 9:50 am

    It is important to understand how everything connects.

    The British used voting rights as an excuse to make war on the Afrikaners in the Second Boer War after being defeated in the First Boer War. People like Eugene Marias (and the Nationalists) prevailed anyway despite the Boer defeat in the Second Boar War.

    Then eighty years later, the British used voting rights AGAIN as an excuse to screw the Boers and we got the travesty that is now South Africa.

    The coalition of forces organized around the British Aristocracy and the Kennedy Clan (racially aristocratic Anglo Nordics not Irish as the myth has it) used voting rights to screw white Americans in the 1960s in the same tradition of the Union Occupation screwing white people with black voting rights after the American Civil War.

    We whites get screwed time and again by the rich aristocratic “We Are All Mankind” crowd over the subject of voting rights.

    Now the SAME FORCES want to screw us again by gving voting rights to the (currentlly) 25 million Mexicans who have invaded America in recent years.

    How many times do we have to get screwed over voting rights before we realize we had better STOP obsessiong over voting rights?

    We need to realize that voting rights are an instrument of war, a war that is aimed at our genocidal annihilation.

    Anybody who thinks that the word “genocide” (of whites) can be eliminated from the fight we face doesn’t have a clue of the true nature of the conflict we are in and the war being prosecuted against us.

    The words “genocide of white people” MUST be there and be central to our cause if we have any hope of defeating the enemy and the enemy are anti-white whites allied with non-whites.

    • #2 by Conrad on 12/06/2012 - 8:48 pm

      “How many times do we have to get screwed over voting rights before we realize we had better STOP obsessiong over voting rights?”
      Read Wilderness Empire by Allen W. Eckert – then you’ll understand.
      Jack’s War

  2. #3 by Simmons on 12/06/2012 - 10:31 am

    I usually just ask, “any proof of that?”

    The usual, just about anyone could have asked a herdsman or huntsman or even woman who tended a chicken flock for the evidence of egalitarianism amongst the beasts.

    In short, the adacemia is usually just clowns.

  3. #4 by Simmons on 12/06/2012 - 11:00 am

    My last post, while I won’t argue with Bob because he is perfect I will say that I bet at the time that this fraud was being perped there were other intellectuals quibbling the details. Just like our intellectuals write 5000 word essays that quibble the details and are but a mish mash of academic political wish wash that first and foremost show deference to the establishment.

    RRS comments at alt-right. As a note we Bugsters are the intellectual vanguard. Consider that our intellectuals used the phrase “anti-racist” instead of anti-white up till a few years ago. And why did they use “anti-racist” because they were told to by Mommy Prof.

    My last bit of rant, I can guaran goddamn tee you we are going to make Jared Taylor outgrow his college education (and a whole host of others as well)

  4. #5 by BGLass on 12/06/2012 - 12:02 pm

    “DAS” Capital (you had to say it foreign to sound smart)– is, if not required reading, still highly recommended in all sorts of college departments, especially “humanities” (previously things such as History or Literature).

    When we were told in college to read it and asked why— Mommy Prof asked where we were FROM (clearly thinking Redneckia, as only that would explain why we didn’t grasp why something so grand as DAS Capital should be read outside economics, in industries as seemingly far removed as Psychology, Anthropology, Basket Weaving or Gym.)

    So, it’s funny to hear it was read in economics departments, at all. Who knew?

    Also nice to hear the Kennedys weren’t Irish. LOL. And aristocratic AND “Nordic.”

    Everybody knows all evil comes from Anglos, Dave. Why, there is simply no evil outside the “anglo,” in fact. (Especially in “wn,” lmao). Whole volumes could be dedicated merely to the programs available to convince the world of the great evil root of everything: the dreaded “anglo.”

    When it comes to the Kennedy’s however, (evil as they are)— “Nordic” is REALLY pushing it, Dave.

    Dave, if you, personally, happen to have nordic or anglo blood— please examine your self-hate, if you have it.

    These things mean something —“nordic” or “anglo”— they are NOT GENERIC TERMS for people you just hate, or feel are evil.

    Also— while I am not as convinced they have nordic or anglo blood— THEY PROFESS and have many followers who profess their intensive Irishness. And that should be respected— no? Do these people have no right to name themselves?

    Sorry to rise to bait— but this generacizing and trashing of storybook “Anglos” and “Nordics” has GOTTA GO!

    It’s GOTTA GO!

  5. #6 by BGLass on 12/06/2012 - 12:08 pm

    Isn’t that mantra thinking—

    Noting how nobody’s a “real” anything any more, lol? Like the bad people aren’t REAL catholics, or REAL protestants, or REAL leftists, or REAL democrats, or REAL republicans, etc, etc…

    And all the unreal people are REALLY “aristocratic-anglo-nordics.”

  6. #7 by Epiphany on 12/06/2012 - 2:42 pm

    It is the Liberals who are prejudiced in FAVOR of Blacks and other non–Whites. The rest of us who have met them perceive them for what they really are!

  7. #8 by dungeoneer on 12/06/2012 - 3:20 pm

    My first history book that was my own property was “The criminal history of mankind” by Colin Wilson.

    Looking back with my BUGS education it was the usual anti-white centric trash, but it had some nuggets.

    He said Marx was a fool because he was`nt recognising the widget maker who could do the the work faster and better, and that if Marx had the opportunity of dabbling in the stock market when he was younger like he did in later years he probably woul`d nt have written those tomes (Reminds me of Bob`s mentioning of the “drunk at the bar stool saying everything is about money” ).

    Another nugget was the animal and human thing, in which he totally retreated from the earlier Leftist position of non-hierarchy and went further by stating humans like animals had the dominant 5% ( He quoted an Artic expeditionary chap who said when asked “How many people could lead your expedition” got the reply “One in twenty”.

  8. #9 by Epiphany on 12/06/2012 - 3:27 pm

    Americanism is a Social Construct. After all, notice how U.S. Citizens, or at any rate some but not all U.S. Citizens get to be termed “Americans”. WHat is truly moronic is how others refer to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as “America.” Why not refer to it by its true title? The sooner we get used to having such terms as “America” and “American” removed from the lexicon the better.

    Besides, “America” no longer belongs to us anymore, if one has not already noticed.

  9. #10 by Scythian on 12/07/2012 - 3:44 am

    So our “all powerful establishment” is based on the glorification of animals and “noble savages”?

    Am I supposed to be afraid of these dipsticks?

    • #11 by Epiphany on 12/07/2012 - 8:17 pm

      Good point. They know nothing about either!

    • #12 by Jason on 12/08/2012 - 12:12 am

      The idea of the Noble Savage was stupid. The idea that Native Americans were peace loving nature worshipers was dumb. And we had oceans of White Americans who had recent experience with Indians and could tell you they were brutal.

      Yet this idea triumphed? Why? Well, because I think no one ever bothered to refute it in a formal way – or at least not enough did. A message unopposed, no matter how stupid and contrary to facts, tends to carry the day.

      This is actually good news, because I don’t see any real counterarguments to White Genocide being offered, just childish name calling. This is a good sign. Plus we have FACTS on our side. This message will prevail.

  10. #13 by Jason on 12/07/2012 - 5:56 am

    Oh Bob, don’t you know only Evil Man wants property and territory (by Man, I mean White Man, of course). Lions and lambs would lie down together if it wasn’t for patriarchal capitalism. My 8th grade social studies teacher taught me all about it.

    These are some pretty good quotes from Robert Ardrey:

You must be logged in to post a comment.