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.

As usual.

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.

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.