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

African Genesis

Posted by Bob on December 6th, 2014 under Coaching Session, How Things Work

If you ever saw the movie of Arthur C. Clark’s 2001 AD you see it begins with two groups of monkeys battling at their border. An extraterrestrial thing comes down and inspires one troop of monkeys to grab the first weapon, the horns of a dead deer, and win the battle with it.

This is puzzling now, but at the time it was understood by the whole audience. It was based on a book called African Genesis by Robert Audrey.

It is important to realize that the point Audrey made with that book he soon declared to be absurd. The idea that some African apes who first used deer horns as weapons were the direct ancestors of man was incorrect.

No one but Audrey himself even noticed that error.

Before African Genesis became a runaway best seller among the literate – especially the science fiction nerds – Mommy Professor’s enforced doctrine on animal behavior was so clumsy and stupid that it I have now forgotten.


One Soviet newspaper in the 1950s had a picture of a workers’ riot in Chicago. All that Soviets noticed in the picture were the fine clothes mere workers in America were wearing.

Audrey’s book had a similar totally unexpected effect: It showed those trapped in the Intellectuals’ Paradise what serious thinking about animal behavior LOOKED LIKE.

Before African Genesis became popular, animal behavior was just a subtitle of Political Correctness. Political Correctness has the Innocent Animal to compare to the Evil Man, and the Evil White Man contrasted to the Innocent non-Whites who live WITH nature, not AGAINST nature.  photo iron_eyes.jpg

No one dare mention it, but there is really no difference whatsoever between Mommy Professor’s image of a Native American and his image of any other wild animal.

Audrey, who got rich as a Hollywood writer, populated his anthropology with fascinating animals, each of which had a personality and motivations no academic could have imagined. He was a trained anthropologist, but he had spent his time in the field.

Like the failed Soviet propaganda picture, what Audrey brought out had absolutely nothing to do with what it was intended for. The Soviets wanted to show American worker discontent. But in doing that they also showed the living standard of American workers.

In exactly the same way, the point Audrey was aiming at was absolutely forgotten as he took us through the world view of a real, honest-to-God anthropologist.

“Modern anthropology,” as only National Review still calls it, was the social anthropology of Franz Boas and company.

Social anthropology is not very interesting, but we all know it. Social anthropology says that animals and Indians are, though it is not stated that way, mindless innocents.

In Modern Anthropology, White supremacy is debunked by a declaration that all men are exactly alike. No race is unique.

At the same time a main theme of Modern Anthropology is that White people are UNIQUELY evil.

Everybody has been coached in these conclusions so often that they can repeat them in their sleep.

The result is that, since we all now the punch lines, Modern Anthropology is very boring. The history of life Audrey discussed was totally fascinating to those who had been bored sick by tome after tome of Official Anthropology.

That picture of an American labor riot was supposed to show Russians how angry American workers were. But what the Russians saw was that under Communism they were in rags that no American worker would be seen dead in.

Audrey wanted to put forward a new theory on the origin of man, but what his readers saw was the lost world of real anthropology, how fascinating the world of real evolution can be before the Marxists make it straight doctrine and, just incidentally, boring as hell.

  1. #1 by -backbaygrouch- on 12/06/2014 - 11:26 am

    The story behind the iconic picture of the Crying Indian. . By definition Political Correctness is an enforced fraud.

  2. #2 by shari on 12/06/2014 - 7:00 pm

    This is what whites who claim to be part Indian think they are related to, the “crying Indian”. Certainly not cruel savages. Whites have to survive as a race, otherwise I can’t imagine.

  3. #3 by Jason on 12/07/2014 - 2:57 am

    When anti-Whites say Beavers and Indians are good, but White Men are evil (for conquering nature, instead of submitting to it), they are really claiming White Superiority.

    Should we point that out?

    • #4 by jo3w on 12/07/2014 - 12:52 pm

      If I used that as an argument, I would expect to hear, “so you think destroying the environment is the act of a superior being?”, or something similar.

      It can be tricky to point out that an anti-White has a White supremacist mentality.

      • #5 by Denounce Genocidists on 12/07/2014 - 5:16 pm

        It is easy to point out that anti-whites only demand white nations be subjected to a program of genocide therefore they think only whites can be “promoted to glory” in their anti-white version of morality.

      • #6 by Denounce Genocidists on 12/08/2014 - 3:11 pm

        `Salvation Army funerals are typically more upbeat and are a celebration of the words “Servant of Christ, well done!”`

    • #7 by Daniel Genseric on 12/07/2014 - 2:01 pm

      Lately I have been getting:

      “Diversity is ONLY forced on EVERY white country because nobody wants to LIVE in non-white countries.”

      So, you’re saying that white genocide is “justified” because “whites are superior to non-whites and other innocent animals”? Really?

      And you “anti-racists” want me to believe that I am the supremacist?

      Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

      • #8 by -scythian- on 12/07/2014 - 11:48 pm

        It’s been a while since I’ve seen that justification, but I’ve seen it a lot. When an anti-white has used that reply to one of my mini-mantras pointing out white genocide, I’ve replied: ‘b/c White people create the best countries to live in, White countries have an obligation to become non-White?’ I think I’ve used the term ‘less & less & less White’ instead of ‘non-white’ as well. It’s nothing less than astonishing the capacity for doublethink that anti-whites possess.

        FYI since I’m talking to you, you paid me a compliment for a one liner I wrote under the recent article ‘Any Real Truth Can Handle Realty’; thanks, to be honest that was more of an outburst by me than anything else. Glad to see you turned it into something we can use in the field though. I keep seeing this commercial promoting a Revolutionary War movie on the ‘American Heroes channel’ (formerly the Military Channel) whereby a battle scene is shown with a voice over saying: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”. As though the Revolutionary War had anything at all to do with that wordism. Meanwhile when it came time to actually creating the nation, the founders discarded that line of horseshit like a bad habit. It’s funny how said horseshit is so prominently associated with “honest Abe”. Do I have to prove it’s horseshit, or is it self-evident?

        Lastly, I’ve used your modification of the chasing down meme (the problem with diversity is that you eventually run out White children to chase down) about 50 times already. What I really like about it is that it also points out the inherent doublethink and destructiveness of “diversity”. Furthermore, it basically makes the point that assimilation is genocide without saying it. It gets the reader to think a little bit, but doesn’t ask the reader to solve a complicated problem. And as you did, just follow it up with ‘Diversity is a codeword for White genocide’ and the point is made clear. I’ve had very good results with it; I’m going to write a field report in the WDYPTMT section within the next couple days regarding my experience w/ the ‘chasing down’ meme & others I’ve been using. Maybe it’ll help the swarm and/or help me swarm better if I get corrected for possible mistakes I made.

        • #9 by Daniel Genseric on 12/09/2014 - 1:54 am

          I see your comment just got released from timeout tonight. That happens to me when I curse too. I think you and I are on a scary wavelength together.

          I just finished self-editing a piece I have been working on for a while. I think you might enjoy it. Based on your comment and the points you hit, you might as well have written it. Either that or you are an effin mind-reader, or in my computer… heh. In either case you would be in the wrong business my friend.
          Out of respect to Bob, I have moved the other comments for you to the WDYPTMT thread on these pages.

  4. #10 by Simmons on 12/08/2014 - 9:28 am

    Clarke’s book was boring I did not finish it and that is rare for me. But the premise was that of a lonely band of humanoid types living in a cave being preyed upon by a fearsome Leopard that came and was slowly extinguishing man from Earth. Till one of the group stumbled into the obelisk touched it and became sentinent enough to grab a club and beat the Leopard to death one night as it came to prey. Kubrick certainly spiced it up for the movie.

    Anyway my addition to this is that people are naturally incurious especially the Left but even their supposed opposition on the Right. I’ve been booted from both camps for just asking questions and in my polite manner. Just asking some Contard to ask their Lefty overlords to provide proof of the validity of the Blank Slate Theory is cause for major upset for the Contard.

    If the editors and official professors of the NYTs put diapers on their heads and bottoms it would only be a matter of time before the Right followed

    • #11 by Jason on 12/09/2014 - 9:57 am

      In 20 years Conservatives will be great champions of gay marriage. The Respectable Conservatives are already there.

      • #12 by Denounce Genocidists on 12/09/2014 - 1:29 pm

        The white Conservatives are being brought into line today on the terms of the mantra, but in 20 years they`ll be even more anti-white.

        By what mechanism?

  5. #13 by Bob on 12/08/2014 - 9:44 am

    “If the editors and official professors of the NYTs put diapers on their heads and bottoms it would only be a matter of time before the Right followed”
    Dead right!
    Or, as we used to say,
    “Truer words wuz never spoke.”
    I would rather listen to the ADL than a respectable conservative!

You must be logged in to post a comment.