BASICS: YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT YOU IGNORE | nationalsalvation.net
Under the New Deal, a project was set up to employ writers. To find something to pay them for, young writers were sent South to talk to actual ex-slaves. This was actually useful, because almost all the real slaves had died out.
It is interesting to note that, with all the discussion of the Civil War and slavery, no one in the New York Union League Club or in New England had the slightest interest in how the SLAVES felt about it. This was strictly government make-work policy which could not possibly pay its way from any reader interest in it.
I haven't seen this study mentioned anywhere popular. The results were enormously frustrating for the earnest young liberals doing it. If you published it outside the United States right now, you would probably go to prison.
I can explain why the blacks were so kind to slavery and their slave holders. But a person whose reaction to a study that comes out the wrong way is to militantly ignore it, is very weak on the realities of the world.
That, in fact, is one the major advantages of Mantra thought.
Slavery had ended say 75 years before this study was made. There were very few blacks who were actually slaves by then, and I would bet good money that far more than half of those interviewed were lying. But every one of the hundreds of interviewees had known a lot of people who had been actual slaves, and they probably repeated what they had been told.
So I am using this to review slavery, as everybody else on both sides does, but also to examine why slave days were given such an embarrassing boost that frustrated the writers.
First of all, the old slaves were talking about a time when they were young. With 1930 medicine, even at its best, old age was MUCH worse than it is now.
Also, most of the children in that slave group probably didn't know what slavery WAS. I distinctly remember when my mother told me there had been a war between the North and the South. Slavery is not what they remembered, so what DID they remember?
A child remembers being energetic and healthy, but he also remembers HOME. In the 1850s, when abolitionist preachers were making huge salaries in New England, an Irish child of ten who was crippled in an accident, a very common thing, was left to starve or as a burden on his parents.
So why was this information produced? First, because the ex-slaves were no longer young. No one surveyed the old Irishmen who had worked as kids amidst the machinery that paid New England's abolitionists' handsome incomes.
Second, this survey was conducted during the Depression.
I explained why the ex-slaves interviewed in the 1930s WPA program had almost nothing bad to say about slavery.
My point has nothing to do with slavery. My point is that a side which controls communication grows ever more unrealistic.
That is why they cannot handle this WPA project. So they ignore it. As time passes the things one militantly ignores get to be a bigger and bigger stack insulating you from reality.
Reality, by its nature, has a lot of staying power.
I explained that this strange complimentary image of slavery in the only interviews with actual slaves, not by using it as an anti-slavery screed or as a neo-Confederate, but by simply addressing the reality. Why did these ex-slaves themselves produce this information?
First, because when they were interviewed they were old and ill.
My second point here is that this survey was conducted during the DEPRESSION.
There is a lot of truth in the joke the black comedian George Wallace made:
"Oh, yea, I know about slavery, that was the last time all the black folks had JOBS."
Anti-whites are so dedicated to the evils of the white world that they get utterly deaf to any inconvenient reality. I was explaining to a new Political Science PhD that one complaint against the apartheid regime in South Africa was that the government did not protect black labor against black immigration.
She had never heard that, but understood. Then she defended her Orthodoxy by replying, "Yes, but all those blacks only wanted to go to South Africa to work for food."
My reply, which caused a roomful of laughs, was to say, naively, "You know, when you're starving, food is pretty important." The rest of the room was laughing, but to her this was the kind of statement they report to the European Thought Police.
In the desperate 1930s, an old black man might not see his condition as better then it would have been under slavery. You could fire an old black man in the 1930s when it was hopeless for him to find any job. At that time, even for favored groups, a JOB, a LIVING, had a priority none of Mom Professor Acolytes, as I show above, can even imagine.
Black immigration under apartheid was almost entirely FROM the New Independent African Republics and INTO South Africa because of a priority no anti-white can actually SEE.
An old, old black man in the late 1930s had been YOUNG when he was a slave and, the ultimate priority in the 1930s, he was SAFE.
Notice that I am not defending slavery. I am explaining realities that anti-whites cannot deal with because their only strategy is militant denial.
Year by year, because of this denial, any simple mention of basic truth, like the Mantra, hits them in areas in which they have never learned to cope.