Archive for July, 2010
Years ago, an interracial couple started writing a book on slavery. It was called “Time on the Cross.”
Like the WPA interviewers who talked to actual slaves in the 1930’s, the couple ran into a problem. They were doing a study to show how hard the system was on blacks as a losing economic institution.
Just as those WPA interviewers couldn’t find the hatred they were looking for because they were dealing with reality, the studies in that book destroyed the most potent myth about slavery: that it was not only evil and cruel, it was inefficient.
This is sort of like adding the outrage one gets when he says that someone was killed, AND all the killer got was $20. Somehow that makes the murder secondary.
But the actual econometric studies, the first ever done on plantations of the Old South, showed slavery was not only efficient, but that most of the product went to the slaves.
It is as the black comedian George Wallace says:
“Oh, yea, I know about slavery. That’s the last time all the black folks had JOBS.”
China is now making heavy investments in Africa. They are likely to make a lot off of them, as the West could not.
Other do not invest in Africa because it is unstable. The Chinese will not allow any instability that affects THEIR investments.
Black working habits in Africa tend to be childlike. They leave the job before they can be fully trained, so you can’t invest in training. I doubt seriously that that will be a problem for the Chinese.
To boil it down to Whitakerese, the Chinese have bought Africans from their chiefs, the way we did our own slaves. The Chinese make Simon Legree look like a wimp.
It is likely to WORK and be announced as a Great Victory for Socialism and African Genius. Everything is either ignored or announced as a Great Victory for Mommy Professor by the media.
For two generations, China was the North Korea of the world. It was the one place where people died of hunger and it was not getting better. China is still very low in per capita productivity, but that is not what QUOTED statistics show. QUOTED statistics show that since they abandoned the Great Leap Forward and so forth and started selling Chinese labor abroad, they are not starving now.
In fact, the Chinese are eating almost as well as the slaves in the Old South did.
From actual starvation to meat once a week shows up on the graphs as a giant jump.
And China has the most effective Fugitive Slave provisions on earth.
Why didn’t WE think of that?
After Churchill’s War Churchill was crushed in the British election of 1945. The democratic socialists went in. They set wages and prices and made the whole economy, already on its ass from the War, worse.
One particular piece of genius was an act trying to be sure that all post-War building would be planned by Mommy Professors who owned the Labor Party. With a major part of the country in ruins, anyone who rebuilt anything was charged a flat thirty percent tax on the total value of that construction. Payable up front.
It is never mentioned, for some reason, that the German inflation of the 1920s was the result of a similar act. The ruling social democratic coalition set out, purposely, to destroy the price system. So, though no one mentions it today, the inflation was a piece of Mommy Professor strategy.
Did I say that no one mentions it today?
This thirty percent up front tax on all rebuilding made in post-War Britain as much sense as the German inflation did. Did I mention it is not mentioned today?
In the 1950s, when all of Europe was flatter on its face than Britain was, the Labour Party of Britain was Mommy Professor’s ideal. That was the Future.
But during the 1960s even the media began to notice that Britain was replacing Turkey as the Poor Man of Europe. I met British workers who had flooded into Germany, where wages were twice as high. Britain was a stagnant wreck.
Did I say that no one mentions that today?
Another things that is not talked about is that the Labor Party was defeated in the elections of 1950 and 1951. The Conservative Party took over and ruled almost continuously all through the ruin of the next twenty years.
But it was a RESPECTABLE Conservative Party. Almost all the Labor Party’s program was left intact. They did what the Contract With America conservatives did in congress after 1995.
Respectable conservatism is not new. Nor are its results.
In fact, respectable conservatives have always been an integral part of the strategy that leads to collapse. Leftists make policy, then respectable conservatives endorse it in a couple of decades. National Review has become a worshipper of everything it opposed in the 1960s.
This is the reason the left finds respectable conservatives so respectable. It is like the King signing legislation in London. It isn’t necessary, but it makes the stuff more untouchable, traditional, you know,
And above all, one can say that “both sides in America” agree with what has been done. That makes anyone who opposes our national direction an extremist. You can’t have “both sides” without respectable conservatives.
The far left is seen as wanting the same future liberals and respectable conservatives eventually agree to. As they used to say, “A Communist is a liberal in a hurry.” He is a radical but not an extremist. He is pointed in the direction the Nation and National Review agree on.
Only those who challenge this whole direction are extremists. Respectable conservatives are essential to endorsing this whole national direction.
No one SAYS it, but this National Direction is based on the proven fact that respectable conservatives, therefore “both sides,” will always end up denouncing their earlier delays in the National Direction, as the British Tories did while Britain collapsed economically from 1950 to 1980, and as conservatives can be counted on to do today.
Whenever National Review announces, once again, that it was wrong in the past, the word “again” is always missing. Everybody knows it, but even their worst critics on the left will never mention it.
Everybody knows the old restaurant joke: “the three things you need for a successful restaurant are location, location, and location, in that order.”
Everybody has HEARD of it, but nobody THINKS about it.
When I was coming up the most obvious thing that affected wages was location. In 1960 the per capita income in India was $70 per year. It was well over 2000 in the United States, and double that in the big cities.
The one thing that was precious to workers was their largest piece of actual property, which everyone knows so well the restaurant joke is old hat: Location.
So the labor movement joined the “America is a Land of Immigrants” Movement. In terms of straight economics, it is hard to imagine a stupider move. But Labor Leaders were joining Mommy Professor and his fellow Intellectuals and Idealists in a solid front against those capitalists who had all that money and a few degrees.
In Whitakerese, labor sold out its location.
In fact the first national legislation that represented a major victory for the new lobbying forces of labor unions were the Naturalization and Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1923. That kept the immigration flood from pouring in for over forty years, and American labor unions and their members have never thrived the way they did during that period before or after.
But Labor joined Mommy Professor proudly, in its leftists solidarity with civil rights groups and the laboring masses of the world — the ones who wanted to get into those locations — in tearing up the 1921 Act and opening the floodgates.
Then the industrial labor movement died and its former members are out of work in their fifties.
Couldn’t happen to nicer guys. When Wallace offered them an alternative, most of them stayed loyal to their beloved union bosses. If you read my first book you will see that I showed the choice labor had then. They took a choice, and they will and their families will never cease to pay for it.
Union workers, who know the importance of unanimity, split between Mommy Professor Labor Leaders and Wallace. The coalition they joined got rid of those racist acts which had protected them.
People have heard that location, location, location joke a hundred times, but when you apply it to politics, they are totally clueless.
Knowing my interest in Temporal Provincialism a commenter sent me a link showing predictions about 1950 from the view of 1925:
The predictions of 1925 were largely still current in 1950. Even when I was in grad school, the ruling Mommy Professor phrase was “Modern Industrial Society.”
Marx had predicted socialism as class differences grew and the peasants left the land to become part of the proletariat. The Future was already laid out, the farm was the past, the city was the future.
As in the 1925 layout, as people left the only place they knew of at the time as an alternative to city life, people would cram together in the city. I believe it was in the 1950s that Frank Lloyd Wright became Mommy Professor and designed a mile-tall building in which people could live their entire lives.
You see this in the 1925 model of 1950. It is one enormous city center, with everything from grocery stores to shops stacked on top of each other.
When I got to college in 1957 this was still the view of Mommy Professor and Frank Lloyd Wright was his Prophet. I was sixteen and I saw the cities were failing fast, their crime rates increasing geometrically, Social Progress was already devastating city centers.
But that 1925/1950 model was still firmly entrenched on campuses. It had been Marx, Wright, and Progressive Theory for a generation and it was held truest, like most predictions, right when it was visibly failing.
Visibly, but only if you LOOKED.
This is the usual conservatism of Progressivism. From the Marxists down to the democratic socialists and the openly liberal voices, it takes a long time for a given Inevitable Future to spread through the entire giant complex.
Nobody seemed to notice this inertia but me. The Sun Belt was growing by leaps and bounds, but nobody on campus noticed it in 1950. The Future was The Modern Industrial Society, as Marx and the Webbs and the Intellectuals and Idealists, i.e., Mommy Professors, had said for over a generation.
That 1925 model could have been presented to a class in 1960 and been endorsed.
Every single trend was going on in places Mommy Professor simply didn’t look at.
It really cripples you if you have an Inevitable Future firmly in mind, because an Inevitable Future must proceed from an Unchangeable Past. The word “progressive” means that thing can only go one way.
And if you think that things can only go one way, you’re always wrong. You regularly get hit in the back by the historical equivalent of a Mack Truck.
I suppose we have all been through the agonizing process of explaining a joke we wish we hadn’t told to a person who doesn’t GET it. There is no possibility it will be funny after an explanation.
The last sentence is important. A joke must be gotten quickly or not at all. We don’t know exactly what humor is, but we do know the connection has to be immediate.
If you are doing political analysis, there are an endless numbers of endless clues which make an instant chain. If a person refers to “THE National Review” he is not a regular conservative, if a person refers to “a socialist country” he is a Marxist.
When I hear a speech, I don’t hear what other people hear. This is one of the reasons. If a person can hear “politically correct” and not understand its Marxist nature, he is as out of it as a person who hears a Communist country referred to as “a socialist state” and doesn’t INSTANTLY understand the person is speaking in Marxese.
I am bad at giving examples, but these appear all the time. I can very often tell you what a person’s political views are by his language. We all know where a person who uses “undocumented aliens” stands.
It can be amusing. I saw a discussion the other day about race relationships and “the South African Americans.”
No one should get away with saying “mixing the races,” but we will have to push the Mantra until it is understood that “THE races” only refers to getting rid of one race. “Mixing THE races” is as instant an identification of an anti-white as “socialist country” is of a Marxist or “undocumented workers” is of an open border advocate.
Note that you will hear as many conservatives using the term “mixing THE races” as you will leftists.
Knowing all these cues is part of being a professional political analyst. But it also makes it very hard to talk to people outside the field. It is like one having to explain one joke after another, after another and on and on.
When an economist reads a speech by the Pope about how “the land produces abundant food in the world” he simply stops reading. If an economist wrote that The Immaculate Conception had to do with Children’s’ Hospital, I doubt His Holiness would read any farther.
“The land,” by itself, would produced food for a few hundred thousand hunter-gatherers, like it used to.
The Curia knows that. They are saying something they know to be untrue.
In laymen’s terms, they’re lying. I seldom use that word, because liars use it all the time. In fact, you can tell how much a liar a person is by how often he uses that word, as you can tell who regards hatred alone as a motive for human action by counting the number of times they use the word “hate.”
“Hate” is not a special word for a hater and “liar” is not a special word to a habitual liar. Others use such words only when they mean it.
But simply using the word “the land produces” is a lie. One may assumed that everything else in the document based on that is an INTENTIONAL untruth, or else the Curia has the average IQ of a thermometer reading when one is freezing water.
You may want to give some examples of how a person’s words identify him this way in the Comments.
Jesuits referred to Buddhism as very strange, “a religion without God.”
Buddha believed in what we call a state of Afterlife. But the word “believed” is not accurate. Buddha and his fellows took it for granted that the Self, which cannot be explained in any physical terms, was independent of the body.
We take our idea of death from our times of unconsciousness. When we awaken from anesthesia we awake from nothingness. Our ancestors took this same idea from their form of anesthesia, which was usually some blunt instrument.
Both these are assumptions, not beliefs.
Buddhism was a late development of Hinduism, just as the death wish in Christianity is a development of late Zoroastrianism.
But Buddhism aimed at the same thing that Zoroastrianism, produced by his Indo-European kin, aimed at: ending life. Buddhism is not a Way of LIFE, it is a Way to get OFF of the Wheel of Life. The Buddhist idea of Hell was simply being reborn again and again, which is what we mistakenly think of as the reward of Hinduism.
To Buddha, unending life was a given, a HORRIBLE given, and he was trying to END it.
When Buddha spoke of something bad, he would say, “It leads to rebirth.”
China’s titanic population is the direct result of the INDIAN development of aquatic rice. “Arabic” numerals are entirely Indian, but no one is anxious to correct that particular error.
Buddhists say that the Buddha had “eyes the color of blue lotus.” The Indian who brought Kung Fu to China was said by his followers to drill a hole in wall with his BLUE eyes.
Historians and documentaries repeat everything about Egyptian or Chinese history to the point where it is tiring. But they NEVER mention White India. There is certainly never a close-up on it, because that might bring up the point that, like all societies, it went down when it went brown.
The History Channel presents Egyptians as black. They portray Hannibal as black.
I understand Tutankhamen, who was portrayed as solidly black on the History Channel, has recently been discovered to be of “Northern European,” which probably means Indo-European, stock.
The Hittites were a whole Indo-European nation that settled in the Middle East and brought iron with them.
I don’t expect to see a lot of discussion of Tutankhamen’s origins from documentary makers who want money from today’s media. I expect all Egyptian Pharaohs to remain black on the History Channel.
History is a series of northern invasions. Whites enslave non-whites, get rich, then eventually the racial barriers break down.
Then the new brown population is enslaved in its turn.
Every time this happens somebody tries to explain it “as a breakdown of traditional values.”
BGlass used this term, and it is a humdinger.
Put it in your arsenal.
A few years back I would have been the only person on BUGS who would have leapt on this point.
But now Ole Coach is dealing with a college team instead of high school. Let’s get some good GC 4 feedback on how “genocide by assimilation” works.
From now on nobody will be able to used the term “assimilation” around me without my saying, “genocide by assimilation.”
“Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country.”
When most people begin to write about politics they are talking to themselves. They think of a chain of logic and then follow it. But they assume the person reading it has a mind like theirs and, once they read a sentence in the logical chain the new writer is building, each point will weld itself into their minds.
A new writer produces a set of quick statements that the reader cannot follow and is mystified that the reader gets lost fast. Young people tend to be impatient, which makes slow writing even more alien to them.
I finally got the fact that people wouldn’t understand point two until I had slowed down and repeated point one. My writing at that point was actually funny. I said the same thing over, then said it and the next point over, and then three, and then four.
The point is, of course, that you have to repeat your original point, but not make it too clear you are repeating it. Repeating your basic point also gives the reader different possibilities of understanding it.
You use examples to repeat a theme. You make it as entertaining as possible. I had done all that on thousands of pages before I finally understood the teacher’s constant use of the word “theme.”
So if you see a church sign about the week’s Bible quotation you do not expect to hear it repeated verbatim for half an hour. Every kid saw those all the time but the teacher, trained by Mommy Professor, would never connect THOSE dots. That would have explained to me what a “theme” was long before I ever started my own writing.
Teaching the word “theme“ is what school teachers do. Making a theme part of your writing or speaking is what a professional does.
Then you get to our level. After working your dingus off learning to say things in long form, our political specialty requires us to get BACK to short punches to get their attention.
This is VERY hard work. This is ADVANCED work. It is like learning to use a left jab in boxing.
In a professional bout, you’ll get killed if you don’t know how to jab.
And in our political arguments, we watch our side getting killed. They have a knockout blow, a book that if memorized might put the enemy down, but they have no jabs.
BUGS includes complete explanations, but it is also studying jabs. The other side is WINNING on jabs, using the word “racist” as soon as they see every conservative wet his pants when they use it, talking about “mixing the races” as if it were an equal opportunity morality for all peoples while aiming it ONLY at white countries.
We know what we are talking about. But we won’t be able to deal with their jabs until we learn to use our own.
The national debt is not a debt. It is a rented commodity.
For the time it faced the crushing debts accumulated during the revolution, the United States has always been in debt. The only exception to this rule is so surprising it is excitedly discussed by people who run across it.
The biggest way for the United States Government to take money from the South and give it to New England was by tariffs. Tariffs allowed New England to sell industrial goods to Southerners at a much higher price than they could have bought them abroad.
It was also true that tariffs brought money in to the United States Treasury. During the Jackson Administration the Tariff of Abominations was passed. It was total robbery from the South by New England to such an extent that Southern “Leaders” actually objected to it.
What is not mentioned is that a BY-PRODUCT of this robbery was a flow of money into the Treasury. For a couple of years, unique in our history, there was no national debt.
This is not 1834. We no longer misbelieve that animals have no territory or property or class system, although every single ideology today takes that assumption as its basic
The national debt is no longer a promise of “real money.”
We all know what a bankrupt man means when he says, “My signature is worthless.” It means we expect a person in ordinary circumstances to have a signature, a mere scratch of the pen, which is worth money. You pay for something with goods, money or a signature.
The national debt is similar to the tariff example. From 1789 on the Great Southern Leaders allowed the federal government to be financed almost entirely out of their own DIRECT taxes, tariffs actually paid, and at the same time they let New England rob them by charging higher prices for its untaxed goods.
By the time the South became a conquered province in 1865, New Englanders quite reasonably thought that was the natural way of things.
Since 1939 the United States has made it clear that it has the right to defend Europe while Europe has little military, to give foreign aid, to impose democracy on anybody it feels like, and to have some lawyers in robes tell every branch of government what it can do.
It is a little late for the country to realize that the government has taken the powers the Greatest Generation was too weak to deny them.
And no one would ask the Greatest Generation to pay for its own war, its own decision, much less for its own benefits.
So the national debt is not a debt, and it is not a separate issue.
By the way, until very recently most of our debt was the result of World War II. Each good year until the late 80s the deficit was about ten percent of the budget, and the interest on the national debt was abut ten percent of the budgets.
Interest rates on the national debt were higher than ten percent in the Carter Administration’s inflation, but on the average a dollar debt in 1940 is ten to twenty dollars now. Selling that debt anew each year or two also drives other interest rates up.
No one has mentioned this, because no one has noticed it.
The problem is not “the debt.” The problem is that the vote is either bought, that is, the owners, the chiefs, of the non-white tribes are bought off, and the white voters are cowards.
Even respectable conservatives are allowed to shout Zowee at the sheer numbers of the so-called national debt. But the problem is special only in that respectables are allowed to talk about it.