THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

There is no economics in Marxist economics. Soviet biographies described Karl Marx as, "The scientist who discovered Surplus Value." Many European scientific organizations, including in Britain, still insist on Retaining Marx among the scientists.

So if you were surprised at Climategate, don't be.

Subsistence is the amount of goods and services required to keep workers alive and working. All goods and services beyond subsistence is Surplus Value.

Please note that little dot right after the word "Value." It is called a period, and, as I have said before, it is very often the most important part of Bob Whitaker's writing. What I have said is the entirety of Marxist "economics." I count twenty-four words in the entire discussion of the economics in Marxist economics.

The reason Marx is said to have a Labor Theory of Value is because, according to his Great Scientific Discovery, since all value is produced by labor, all money that is needed to do anything but feed labor is Surplus. In the industrial society of his day, and far more in ours, this Surplus Value is huge.

So how is Marx's great scientific discovery to be distributed? "The distribution of income," says Marx "is a POLITICAL decision."

In Marxist terms, everything is a matter of class relationships and class relationships are entirely a matter of power. The only relationship which EXISTS in any society is the power relationship between classes, and that relationship is ENTIRELY a matter of distribution of goods and services.

Marx stated flatly that the family does not exist, the country does not exist. He advocated what was called Free Love because marriage was an economic relationship with a class purpose, and ONLY a class purpose.

Until you learn to understand this way of thinking, you cannot understand Political Correctness or anything else you hear from Mommy Professor's acolytes.

There is no such thing as race relations in Marxism. The race with the most power is ipso facto the racist one. Orwell used Marxist language, with which he was very familiar, in 1984. The State in his novel was developing language so that no one could have the words to SAY anything that was not Goodthink, what we call Political Correctness.

Orwell envisioned a society in which one could only speak in Marxist terms. Anything else was racist or Sexist or nationalist, though his words were different.

A lot of people think Orwell was prescient. He wasn't. He just understood Marxism.

As we follow the big trials, Lee Malvo, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, and the Robert Blake murder trial, we hear legal experts talking about the complicated and expensive procedures and other legal experts criticizing what the first set of legal experts said.

Everybody involved gets good money.

But does justice get anything out of this, or is real justice being starved by these Wise Sages the way children are starving in Tibet?

The important point about all those experts is that they don't matter. They do nothing for justice.

In court, the same silly-ass nonsense we saw in that Tibetan monastery is played out by white people. They are not called Wise Sages. They are called judges.

A judge can have fifty years on the bench, but none of it makes any real difference.

There is no evidence whatever that legal experience does any good for justice.

There is no evidence whatever that anything in American precedents or all the Latin or all the procedures mean a damned thing. There is a myth that if you have an endless number of lawyers saying an endless number of legal things, more justice results.

No way.

All that talk in the courtroom, all that experience, all those motions, none of them mean any more than that silly-ass shouting in the Tibetan Monastery.

But when white people in California sit around saying "OOOOM!" or shout crap to each other in the Oriental Mystical Way, it's just silly. Nobody really gets hurt.

But all that crap we pay for in court is covering up a desperate situation. We need real solutions, and all we get is more lawyers using bigger words.

The lawyer shouts, "Your Honor, Your Lordship, Your Majesty, what is the True Meaning of the Law?"

And the judge shouts, "The precedent in Wilkins versus Wiley shows defendant gets ten appeals instead of nine."

"Thank you Your Honor for your valuable information!" the lawyer shouts back.

No lawyer knows or cares whether another appeal will free the innocent or get one more innocent person killed on the streets. Lawyers and judges just get paid to talk to each other, and nothing is supposed to come our of it but more pointless "precedents" and technical objections.

Clinton has just come up with an Official Liberal Fact. He says that "ninety-nine point nine percent" (99.9%) of the genes of all human beings are exactly the same. Clinton could not have just said "ninety-nine percent." He had to say "ninety-nine POINT NINE" percent. The reason he has to say "ninety-nine point nine" is because human genes are ninety-nine point two percent (99.2%) the same as a CHIMPANZEE'S!

It HAD to be 99.9%. So, by gum, that's what it is.

The fact that a human and a chimpanzee share 99.2% of the same genes does not mean that the real difference between an animal and a human is very small. It simply means that a mere eight-tenths of one percent (0.8%) difference in genes means a tremendous lot. Since the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is just one gene out of one hundred and twenty-five, that one gene in one hundred and twenty-five is very important indeed.

Because it is so convenient, Clinton's "ninety-nine point nine" figure was probably just made up in his speechwriter's head. As I explain in the next article, making up convenient "facts" like this is standard procedure for liberals. But if it is true, what does it REALLY mean? It means that one gene in a thousand makes the difference between a genius and an idiot. That one gene in one thousand makes the difference between a seven-foot giant and a man who was born to be four feet tall. The fact that one gene in a thousand makes all this difference does not make these inherited differences any less important. It merely makes a slight genetic difference far more important.

And, as so often happens, what this actually turns out to mean is exactly the opposite of what Clinton intended it to mean. If only one in a thousand genes produces all the gigantic differences in human beings, then race is probably more important, not less. After all, we know that races have some very VISIBLE differences. We know that those differences that we can see are genetic. We know that each race has a few genes which are very different, because we can SEE them. And, according to Clinton, it takes almost no genes to make ALL the difference!

In other words, Clinton says that 1) only a minuscule, a tiny, a handful of genes makes ALL the difference in the gigantic range of human inheritance. You then note that 2) all the members of a particular race share a difference in genetic makeup that is VISIBLE to the naked eye. If you put these together, Clinton has as much as said that 3) racial differences are enormously important.

Clinton's new Official Liberal Fact has made a very strong case for racism!

On the SF Supporting Member's Thread, someone asked whether SF was growing or not.

I have explained the A-C Rule. It is time I explained the Force in Being Rule. Practical Men talk endlessly, but they never listen to themselves.

They keep saying that in the Real World, public enthusiasm waxes and wanes. They keep telling us that what is popular today will be nothing tomorrow. When someone says, "We are growing," the Practical Men say, "You are not REALLY growing." Right now.

The purpose of the Practical Man is to prove he is a Practical Man, the very embodiment of Wisdom and Realism.

So when Stormfront says, "We are growing," the Practical Man wants to prove that he represents Realism. He tries to prove that, while the Pollyannas want to say they are growing, he, the Master of Reality, knows the facts.

No one remembers that his Practical Fact Number One was that none of that matters. Public enthusiasm waxes and wanes.

In 1927, the National Socialist Party of Germany was at the bottom of the barrel. They hit a peak at the 1923 Pusch and went down from there. In 1927, no matter what argument they made for themselves, the Practical Man would have said their cause was hopeless.

By 1933, they were in power. Which confirmed the basic wisdom of the Practical Man's statement that political enthusiasm waxes and wanes. But the Practical Man always wants to appear macho and wise RIGHT NOW.

Godfather II has it exactly right.

On December 31, 1958, Fulgencio Batista was the Strong Man in absolute control of Cuba. Fidel Castro was a Force in Being. You could go and meet him in the hills. He was a minor celebrity. Only a true nutcase would have met with him. No Practical Man would. Sometime in the afternoon of December 31, 1958, Batista's forces began to desert to Castro.

Batista, an expert on power, immediately recognized that his position was, to use the word we inherited from the Norman Conquest and which is good Spanish, untenable. That was one hell of shock to all the Practical Men of the Mafia, of AT&T, of all of them. But for Batista it was not a matter of theory. It was life and death.

Once the power of Castro's Force in Being waxed, Batista had to get out to stay alive.

On December 31, 1958, the Practical Men would have laughed at the idea that the Batista Regime that had an iron grip on Cuba would be gone overnight.

In 1981 not a single professional Sovietologist could have imagine that the Soviet Union would be gone in ten years.

And these are the same people who always tell us that popular opinion waxes and wanes.

So the same Practical Man who wonders whether SF is waxing or waning at this moment pays no attention to the fact that SF is a Force in Being.

A Force is Being is ready to take power.