— Belaboring the Obvious

You may wonder why I put Dave’s discussion of economics up front. Dave and I both know that economic theory is of little interest to real people. But he and I both have separate and original points to make here.

Like German rocket scientists, Albert Speer and Leni Riefenstahl were German geniuses. But since Germany lost the war credit goes elsewhere.

I taught basic economics, so I am puzzled as to why people waste money on Ambien, Lunesta, or even Sleep Aid. I also wonder why people are so impressed by hypnotists. I was able to put everybody in the room to sleep in half an hour.

Including me.

But that is real economics. Marxism killed, conservatively speaking, a hundred million people in the last century. It is an ECONOMIC fanaticism.

Dave’s discussion of Albert Speer brings up a point about history no one has stated but me, so I want to put it on record. Speer was far, far ahead of the Nobel Laureates who taught me, but that is for later, if ever.

Let me get onto politics and history and the silly masturbation generation obsession with economics.

Hitler was a hell of a politician. He said in Mein Kampf that he had not the slightest interest in economics, but all the parties he was competing with were based on economic theories, communists, socialists, and the old Nationalist Party whose real aim was to use nationalism to keep the Krupps types in power.

So, Hitler said, he needed SOME economic theory, so he grabbed one. I doubt the economist whose ideas he adopted ever actually READ Mein Kampf, and Hitler obviously never expected him to, so his ego was never deflated.

That was raw politics, stated so flatly that it fascinated me.

Nothing is more forgettable than another economic theory, so I forget what it was. It is hard to imagine anything sillier than the whole twentieth century obsession with economic dogma.

So much of what I say is so simple it sounds like a joke. But the fact is that when he took power Hitler regarded the Depression as a bother, so he got rid of it. John Maynard Keynes published his groundbreaking theories about how to deal with the Depression in 1937. By 1937 Hitler has already ended the German Depression using the obvious methods Galbraith proposed.

Hitler invented the Volkswagen. The “bug” shape is on a sketch with his name on it. He built the Autobahn to run the VW on, what we now call the Interstate Highway System.

In 1936, Hitler was the most popular head of state of state on earth.

As I have said, in 1619 the present Virginia state legislature began with the election of the first Virginia House of Burgesses. In 1619 the first boatload of white women came to Jamestown. In 1619 the first boatload of what John Smith called “twenty niggurs” came to Virginia as indentured servants, to help with the tobacco type John Rolphe had developed that was selling like hot cakes in England.

Spaniards had been here for over a century but they never developed a palatable tobacco before. The year 1619 saw Jamestown prosper. After all the starvation before, it was never again to be as poor as the Englishmen who stayed home.

So 1619 was a banner year.

Then in November 1620 the Pilgrim got to Massachusetts and founded America.

So in 1936 Hitler had used public works to end the German Depression. In 1937 John Maynard Keynes wrote the book that founded the whole idea of ending a Depression with public works.

America was founded by the Pilgrims because the South lost the Civil War. Keyes founded Modern Economics because Hitler lost World War II.

The most effective attack on regulation I ever ran across was recounted by Albert Speer in explaining how he went about expanding German war production in the face of relentless Allied bombing.

He redefined the meaning of the word “transaction” from its financial meaning to a social meaning: “Any thing two or more humans must meet or communicate with each other to resolve”.

He then ordered senior management to count the “transactions” involved in the production chains and organizational structures they oversaw. He then ordered them to reduce the “transactions” in their operations by 50% within a period of three weeks, putting on a specially missioned audit team to measure compliance.

This forced his senior management to get rid of the bullshit. After satisfying compliance, Speer ordered further reductions in “transactions” forcing ever-greater efficiency in achieving results.

It is well known with enduring amazement Germany’s ability to maintain output in the face of such heavy damage to its infrastructure during the latter phase of WWII. Albert’s Speer’s management genius played a major part.

Of course, for reasons of political correctness, Albert Speer is never taught in business schools. But in learning of Albert Speer’s methods, I came to realize that there isn’t a politician in existence who has the slightness clue as to how to actually reduce regulation, yet with the right method, it can be done in a heartbeat.

It’s like what BW says, “There are times when the adults must take over” and the very notion of accountable government is that elected representatives must control public money, how much is spent and what it is spent for. Yet without control of “transactions” in the Albert Speer sense, this cannot be accomplished.

Instead our government relies on mandated financial and performance audits, forever measuring what is irrelevant and supporting yet another industry (e.g. the audit industry) with pork of no social value. Regularly state legislatures and Congress are informed of gigantic unauthorized expenditures, and regularly state legislatures and Congress levy no sanctions whatsoever for the violation of contracts the very essence of which constitutes their power as elected officials.

When anybody says America is a “democracy” I know they are clueless as to what they are talking about. To be a democracy elected officials must have effective control over public expenditure. Nowhere does this exist in America.

Shakazulu gave me the usual song and dance about how the minority vote was increasing. I explained to him that that the growing diversity of the electorate is the reason the courts are taking over real decisions from a public which can no longer form a concensus.

But the courts are just stepping in. Something else will replace them as the old representative democracy dies.

There never has been and never will be a multiracial democracy.

I say “the same old song and dance” because Republicans have been talking about this for fifty years as a reason to go after “The Negro vote” and then the black votes and now the African-American vote.

No one but me ever MENTIONS that the history of the last decades has been exactly the opposite. I worked on Capitol Hill when Republicans kept trying to placate the minority vote and never got it. They were a minority and expected to STAY that way.

In 1980 Reagan went after the old Wallace vote and won a landslide and took the SENATE for the first time since 1955. In 1994, as the minority vote grew steadily and could be seen, Republicans won control of BOTH Houses of Congress in 1995 by rejecting moderation.

YES, minorities are growing. But why is it that Republicans TODAY still more House seats than they did from 1959 to 1995?

While the old song-and-dance about growing minorities is true, the real trend has been the other way around. NO ONE NOTICED.

Now Bush is an old style moderate, i.e., neoconservative.

As Paul Harvey says, HERE is the REST of the story:

In 1848, the Whig Party won the presidency for the last time. SERIOUS opponents of slavery expansion like Lincoln were Whigs. By 1855 the Whigs disappeared without a trace. They could not address slavery. The existence of a huge black population made civil war inevitable.

Even Grant voted Democratic in1856 because he knew a Republican victory would mean a war.

Republicans are a shadow of the old Whigs,

Do the ARITHMETIC. HOW could Republicans WIN more and ore as the solidly Democratic minority vote GREW? Only if the voter gap no one DARES discuss was growing steadily. WHITES went Republican FASTER than the minority vote grew.

Nobody wants to look at the elephant in the living room. So it’s Iraq and right to life. The Whigs were mostly about tariffs. They were a stopgap as the slavery issue grew. That’s OK to elect the Bushes and keep respectable conservatives in jobs, but it has a definite time limit.

The lesson shakazulu is teaching is correct, but he does not THINK about what he is saying. Recent history gives us the OPPOSITE lesson of the facts that he and compassionate conservatives are trying to draw from it.

In 1860 Lincoln won with forty percent of the popular vote. The South rebelled and lost. So Republicans ruled American politics until 1933. Every Southern nightmare about Republican rule came true.

Back to the present. My point is that the very statistics shakazulu and respectable conservatives keep quoting, if you grasp HISTORY, is that the present system is unstable, to say the LEAST.

There never has been and will never be a representative democracy which is multiracial. The minority vote has been a “Yes, Massah” vote, first for the Radical Republicans and then of liberal Democrats. There was nothing multiracial about it.

The whole shooting match has been white rule.

But the old left is beginning to split, as the Democrats did in 1860. The liberals’ Faithful Colored Companions have been overridden by brown Hispanics, who are beginning to demand their OWN voice, unlike blacks. The gay vote bloc and the feminists are not so slave-like as blacks are.

White antis are going to be shocked that their nice safe boat, with brown folks obediently rowing it, will stop being safe. This is happening now, but no one wants to talk about that, either.

When the Republicans in 1854 and took over the House of Representatives in 1855, the Whig Party was simply FORGOTTEN.

Then the Supreme Court stepped in in 1857 with the Dred Scot Decision. A divided electorate could not find a consensus on the question of the expansion of slavery, so the Court stepped in and opened ALL territories to slavery

That was the last straw.

Those who opposed the expansion of slavery openly were still a minority, but they won in 1860 because they were a UNITED minority. Within ten years, every nightmare of the old Democrats became a reality.

Antis, your nightmare may be closer than you think, but you, like the old Southern Slavocracy, will be BLINDSIDED by where it REALLY comes from.
Historical comparisons are useless if they are followed too literally. ALL I am saying is that no anti can imagine his comfortable brown-rowed boat being unstable.

Let me REPEAT:

HISTORICAL COMPARISONS ARE USELESS IF THEY ARE TAKEN TOO LITERALLY.

But my point is that this system is cracking apart. It’s just that no one wants to see it, least o all those who want to ignore race or who think the present system is doing something inevitable.

Which is the anti theme.

In concentrating on his big ears and his nuthood everybody today ignores THE PEROT LESSON. Perot announced he would be willing to be president on the least-watched mainline cable show in America, and was soon leading BOTH major candidates in the polls. The Soviet Empire had collapsed with a whimper in 1990.

We had Clinton and a Republican Congress and the Bush stopgap, so it is easy to overlook the reality if your attention is riveted on Perot’s ears or the latest headlines.

The Perot showed that he was a nut, dropped out, and everybody in the media forgot him with a sigh of relief.

Mir was sent into space by the Soviet Empire. While it was up there, the entire seemingly terrific power that sent it up ceased to exist. Things happen THAT fast, as they did in 1855.

If he would THINK about his own numbers, Shakazulu has shown that this system is on its way OUT. If he would THINK about what he said, and if white nationalists would stop whining abut immigration and look at REALITY, they would see the same thing.

If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn’t bump its butt every time it jumps,

Get some WINGS!

Don’t just QUOTE.

THINK!

You seemed to enjoy my lawyer qoutes, and they had a PURPOSE. I want you to REALIZE just how dumb professionals ARE,once they have their credentials to keep from being judged on making sense.

I helped make a lot of laws, rules and regulations. In one case, we were discussing some adjustment of labor law for the Reagan program — I was still on Capitol Hill then. They were quoting Administration policy, which said, “Regulations should be limited to the number one has the resources and power to keep track of and enforce.”

To me, this was like saying, “You have the freedom to do anything that does not injure others.” Like so much Wisdom, it sounds profound but is actually meaningless. Every tyranny in history said the same thing: if you dispute Communism, you are hurting others, if you discourage people in the True Faith, said the Inqusition and the Puritans, you are sending people to Hell.

No one EVER said you should have regulations you can’t enforce. But in early 1981 this was Ultimate Wisdom from the New Administratin, Holy Writ, so only one persn sitting there would do anything but ooh ad ahh over its profundity.

My comment was, “You say that ‘Regulations should be limited to the number one has the resources and power to keep track of and enforce.’ May I pont out that God Almighty is STILL trying to enforce TEN?”