Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘racist’

Are All White People Racist?

Posted by M. C. on April 11, 2022

“Yes and no”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Prospects for Soft Secession in America | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 23, 2021

Left progressives oppose the decentralization of political power for a very simple reason: they firmly believe they are winning. So why would they let anyone walk away? They will always portray breakaway movements as nativist or racist or nationalistic. They can’t help themselves. This is the white savior complex of today’s progressive West.

Jeff Deist

1930, Columbia professor Karl Llewellyn published The Bramble Bush, his famous tract on how to think about and study law. Llewellyn urged readers to consider both law and custom when seeking to understand a society, to recognize the difference between the black letter legal codes and the day to day practices of state officials and citizens. Where there was no sanction, the author instructed, there was no law. In other words, we should focus on the substance of things at least as much as we focus on the form. This is an important lesson for how we view the United States today, with an eye toward what is actually happening on the ground among people and institutions, rather than legal formalisms.

A few years ago, on a panel discussion at an event in Vienna, Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe made an offhand remark I found very interesting. Paraphrasing him, he said that nationalist movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were largely centralizing while the nationalist movements of the twenty-first century were largely decentralist in character—breakaway movements represented by Brexit, Taiwan, Scotland, Catalonia, and others. Donald Trump also represented a breakaway movement of sorts, away from DC, but of course this possibility went totally unfulfilled.

This strikes me as an important insight. What we know as today’s map of Europe is really countries cobbled together from principalities, city-states, kingdoms, dukedoms. And the EU seeks, but has not achieved, total dominion over them as a supranational government. What we think of as the US is really an incredibly disparate set of regions which became fifty states over which the US federal government asserts almost total control. And in both cases, cities became politically, economically, and culturally dominant.

So our topic today, in the context of the US, is this: What if the greatest political trend of the past two hundred years, namely the centralization of state power, reverses in the twenty-first century? What if this century is not about ideology, but about separation and location? And what if covid has dramatically laid bare this possibility?

Empires desperately fear losing control over their provinces, and exactly that appears to be happening in the US. Those of us on the anti-interventionist right sometimes forget that DC is very much an imperial power with respect to the fifty states, not just in the Middle East. So any discussion of soft secession and its prospects in the US begins with identifying domestic pushback against this empire. And contra the self-styled progressive saviors, any political arrangement which denies people the right to walk away peacefully is not liberal by definition.

What do we mean by soft secession versus hard secession? It is something more than de facto versus de jure, because everything about American laws and political norms already became blurred over the past century. De facto violations of constitutional provisions, for example, become de jure over time, by operation of federal regulations or the terrible Supreme Court. Garet Garrett’s 1944 essay “The Revolution Was” explains this as a “revolution within the form.” Everything ostensibly remained the same: a constitution, fifty states, three “branches” of government. The country was overthrown a hundred years ago—beginning with Woodrow Wilson and reaching full form in FDR’s New Deal. But America’s second revolution was managerial, a seizing of jurisdiction over every aspect of life by a centralized federal bureaucracy.

So by soft secession we mean a counterrevolution within the form: aggressive federalism, regionalism, localism, and an aggressive subsidiarity principle, operating in de facto opposition to the federal state—or at least sidestepping it. Sometimes it takes the form of direct nullification or flouting of federal edicts, which it turns out are fairly hard to enforce without the support of local populations. Biden’s vaccine mandates will be an instructive test of this; several governors already filed suits. Or it can take the form of legal grey areas, as we’ve seen with more “liberal” US states in their approach to immigration sanctuaries and marijuana laws.

Soft secession also sidesteps the thorniest issues: what to do about federal land, federal entitlements, debt, the dollar, military bases and personnel, nuclear weapons.

Hard secession, by contrast, means an outright division of the US into two or more new political entities, complete with their own boundaries and governments and a surviving rump state. This is far more difficult; among other obstacles there is a Reconstruction-era Supreme Court case which claims the various states must agree to let a particular state secede. Yet the possibility remains, and this scenario could be reasonably peaceful or quite violent. It could look like the former Soviet Union and the Baltics, or it could look like the former Yugoslavia. But this is far less likely absent an outright economic collapse.

Yet that’s just it. We need to understand that America is less a country than an economic arrangement. It’s an arrangement about land and jobs and capital. About subsidies like Social Security and Medicare. About cheap imports, a good distribution system, and a strong US dollar relative to other currencies. Calvin Coolidge famously said, “The chief business of the American people is business.” That’s not all bad, and it’s far better than nothing. But it is held together by an increasingly shaky political arrangement, America as a place has lost its sense of meaning or shared commonalities. I don’t know how long this economic arrangement can or will last, but the point is if it fails there is no social or cultural arrangement underpinning it. 

What are the prospects for soft secession in the US? It’s impossible to give odds, but surely the possibility is far higher today than any time in recent US history. Those prospects are higher now than two weeks ago, before Biden announced his vaccine mandates. They are higher now than when Biden was elected, despite his promises of bringing the country together. They are far higher now than before covid, as vaccines, masks, lockdowns, and travel restrictions have divided the American public in remarkable new ways over the last year and a half. They are higher now than when Trump was elected in a brutally divisive election, higher now than after the Bush versus Gore debacle in 2000 created the idea of red versus blue state. And they are higher now than in the turbulent sixties and seventies, when civil rights, feminism, Roe v. Wade, birth control, and radical social change roiled the country. Those prospects are probably the highest they have been since the terrible 1860s. 

The Great Sort

See the rest here


Contact Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; Twitter.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Watch “Oregon Gov Signs Bill Suspending Math and Reading Requirements Because RACISM #Shorts” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2021

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

All Gun Control is Racist | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2021

This whole argument by the ACLU shows the complete lack of principles that is fundamental to a “Living Constitution”—when a text can mean anything, it will always mean nothing.

It is a sad fact that when our government created this brilliant charter that is the Constitution, premised on limited government and individual liberty, we did not truly live those values right away. But the ACLU doesn’t really believe the Second Amendment is racist, they just don’t like the fact that the majority of Americans have not fully submitted to the government as their one and only protector. They need us to give up our guns for that to happen.

by Bob Fiedler

One could make a very good argument that our nation’s oldest and most successful gun control advocacy group was the Ku Klux Klan. Their earliest incarnation was largely a means of disarming newly freed blacks. For the last five years we have been hearing from much of the corporate media networks, such as CNN and MSNBC, that our nation is awash in Klansmen all across the country preaching their hateful belief in white supremacy.

This has seemed like an utterly baseless claim, built on the idea of “dog whistling racists” spreading their rhetoric with a wink and a nod. But over the last week I have come to realize they are absolutely right. They have cleverly taken off their hoods and white robes in exchange for a three-piece suit and a law degree as their distinguishing means of secret identification of their fellow bigots and appear to have gone through some serious rebranding. Changing the name of their organization from the KKK to the ACLU.

It was also about five years ago when the ACLU put out a public statement that their organization had decided to stop considering taking on any litigation that was predicated on defending the right to keep and bear arms as an essential civil liberty. But nothing could have prepared me for the more recently announced position from this organization which I once held in the highest regard. That the Second Amendment isn’t a right, it’s a manifestation of white supremacy and anti-blackness. Not only has the ACLU turned its back on the Bill of Rights they were founded to protect, they have collectively forgotten how to even read the Constitution.

The Constitution is not the law that governs us. The Constitution is the law that governs those who govern us. To act as though the Second Amendment is a grant to the people of a right to keep and bear arms is a legal absurdity. The right of every individual to defend themselves by force of arms is a natural right we had before our government was formed and it is a right we will have long after the American Empire collapses. As the preamble to the Bill of Rights states:

The States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with protecting our right to arms. It is a declaratory statement that reminds the government that because this right exists, independent of any document stating as much, that they have no business ever taking arms from any individual.

See the rest here

About Bob Fiedler

Bob Fiedler is a constitutional law scholar and legal commentator from the Twin Cities and host of the “Categorical Imperatives Podcast” where he discuss current events in law, politics & culture from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer and a libertarian moral philosophy. Find Bob at Substack, Odysee, Patreon and LBRY

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

ACLU Declares Second Amendment ‘Racist,’ Launches ‘War on Bill of Rights’ | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 28, 2021

In fact, racist gun control goes back further than the constitution. Perhaps the first known attempt at disarming citizens in the new world occurred in 1751 when the French Black code was enacted requiring colonists to “stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.”

This attempt to disarm blacks was repeated under United States’ rule 50 years later when the U.S. purchased the Louisiana territory. According to a paper published in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy:

by Matt Agorist

For years, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has chosen to stand against those who would attack our Constitutional rights. Even the Free Thought Project has been supported by the organization when a California sheriff attempted to force us to delete an article that was damning to his organization. Over the past several years, however, there has been a sort of rift happening inside the organization, with your right to self-defense right in the center of it.

While they have been vehemently fighting for the right of transgender athletes to compete in sports, the ACLU has largely chosen to remain silent on the Second Amendment. Though they have supported most every amendment in the bill of rights, their position on gun rights has remained ambiguous and nuanced—perhaps deliberately. But that all changed this week when they ran an article with an embedded podcast that claimed the Second Amendment is rooted in racism.

As Gleen Greenwald points out:

The ACLU is now waging war on the Bill of Rights.

ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment has always been nuanced: it’s an important constitutional protection, but one that’s collective, not individual.

Now they’re full on proclaiming parts of the Bill of Rights to be racist.

The ACLU is now waging war on the Bill of Rights.

ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment has always been nuanced: it’s an important constitutional protection, but one that’s collective, not individual.

Now they’re full on proclaiming parts of the Bill of Rights to be racist.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2021

Without a single fact to back up their claims, an article on the ACLU’s website claimed “Anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws.”

As those who have read history understand, this is not true at all. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Gun control—not gun rights—was pushed with the impetus of anti-Blackness behind it.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say anything about the color of one’s skin determining their ability to own a weapon. However, slave-owning and racist lawmakers throughout history have attempted to disarm black citizens which is the exact opposite of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude “free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms,” including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews.

The Ku Klux Klan often times attempted to enact similar “Black Codes” that barred the newly freed slaves from exercising their basic civil rights. One such example of these new laws was an act passed in the state of Mississippi that stated:

no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine

This law clearly flies in the face of the Second Amendment, yet the ACLU takes their stance anyway.

After the passage of these laws, numerous studies concluded that the newly freed slaves had essentially been rendered defenseless against groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Disarming them, essentially made them slave once again — after their Second Amendment rights were removed.

Contrary to the ACLU’s inaccurate assertion, it wasn’t the Second Amendment that sought to disarm black people, it was attacks on it—which were similar in kind to what the ACLU is doing right now.

When Republican congressmen passed the Freedman’s Bureau Bill attempting to secure the right to bear arms for Blacks in the south, the Supreme Court overturned it in what was known as The Cruikshank decision. This decision emboldened groups like the Klan, who in turn began gaining control over local governments to pass racist new laws. As Reason magazine noted:

In deference to the Fourteenth Amendment, some states did cloak their laws in neutral, non-racial terms. For example, the Tennessee legislature barred the sale of any handguns except the “Army and Navy model.” The ex-Confederate soldiers already had their high quality “Army and Navy” guns. But cash-poor freedmen could barely afford lower-cost, simpler firearms not of the “Army and Navy” quality. Arkansas enacted a nearly identical law in 1881, and other Southern states followed suit, including Alabama (1893), Texas (1907), and Virginia (1925).

As Jim Crow intensified, other Southern states enacted gun registration and handgun permit laws. Registration came to Mississippi (1906), Georgia (1913), and North Carolina (1917). Handgun permits were passed in North Carolina (1917), Missouri (1919), and Arkansas (1923).

Pro-Black groups have been advocating against these attacks and racist interpretations of the Second Amendment for decades.

In 1966, California law did not attack the Second Amendment like it does today and it actually allowed citizens to open carry firearms. The Black Panthers exercised this freedom by organizing armed patrols to follow police and ensure they performed their duties professionally. The following year, thirty panthers staged an armed protest in front of the California state house declaring, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”

The protest frightened former California Governor Ronald Reagan who, in response, worked with the NRA to support the 1967 Mulford Act. The act lead to California having arguably the strongest gun laws in the nation. As Adam Winkler, the author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms later noted:

“The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans.”

Again, it was not the gun rights that were racist, as the ACLU would lead you to believe, it was gun control.

Fortunately, the National African American Gun Association, NAAGA, does not hold the same opinion as the ACLU. This group, which was officially started and launched on February 28, 2015, in honor of Black History Month with a single chapter in Atlanta, has grown to more than 75 chapters nationwide with more than 30,000 members.

Thankfully, according to NAAGA, most Black folks don’t agree with the ACLU’s stance on the right to self-defense.

According to NAAGA, the perception and reality of African Americans owning guns is changing. In 2012, the Pew Research Center conducted a national survey and found that only 29% of African-American households viewed guns as positive. In 2015, that same survey showed a dramatic jump to 59% where now a majority of African-American families see guns as not only a positive thing but, in many cases, a necessity. In today’s society, every member of our community, if they want, can legally purchase a gun. African Americans in record numbers are now joining gun clubs, going to the gun range, participating in outdoor hunting, and even participating in competitive shooting events. Single Black women are now one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the African-American community who are purchasing guns for protection. The future is bright for active firearm ownership within our community now and for years to come.

If you would like to know how all gun control is racist, listen to our podcast with Maj Toure, who educates people in urban communities on their Second Amendment rights and responsibilities through firearms training, when he says, “Black Guns Matter.”

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems Change Mind On Border Wall After Realizing It Will Keep People From Leaving When We Switch To Socialism

Posted by M. C. on July 1, 2021

U.S.—The nation’s Democratic leaders announced Tuesday they are reversing course on Trump’s proposed border wall, since “it will keep people in once we switch to socialism.”

“We thought the border wall was a bad, racist idea,” said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “But then this light bulb turned on over my head. It was actually just a light bulb though, not an actual idea, which was disappointing. But that got me thinking about trying to have an idea. And I got an idea: when we switch to socialism, everyone’s gonna try to run away. But what if there’s a big, solid object along the border? Then they can’t run away. I mean, they could try to climb, but we could shoot them.”

Senator Bernie Sanders said in his experience, walls are “absolutely necessary” to keep a socialist country’s citizens from fleeing. “The Soviets had it right: big wall in Berlin, the symbolic Iron Curtain, shooting people who try to flee. It’s all necessary to a healthy socialist state.” Besides, Sanders added, politicians like him would be exempt from the “no running away” rule and he could fly out any time he wanted on a government plane.

Dems suggested maybe the border wall could use some upgrades such as landmines on the U.S. side, outposts with guards armed with AK-47s, and attack dogs. It will also need to be extended to surround the entire country and “maybe also a big dome around the top.”

Bee seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Now even classical music is racist – spiked

Posted by M. C. on February 17, 2021

A scandal involving an obscure music journal confirms that the crusade against whiteness is out of control.

Frank Furedi

In a world where, sooner or later, everything is racialised, it was only a matter of time before classical music became a target of the crusade against whiteness. So I wasn’t particularly shocked when I read this headline in the New York Times: ‘Obscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles over Race and Free Speech.’

The obscure musicology journal in question is the tiny Journal of Schenkerian Studies. The journal’s editor, Timothy Jackson, a music-theory professor at the University of North Texas, is under fire for his hard-hitting response to the claim that the interwar Austrian-Jewish composer and theorist Heinrich Schenker personified the white racist attitudes that dominate classical music. Jackson’s university has launched an investigation into his behaviour, barred him from editing the journal, and suspended funding for the Schenker Center, which he runs.

Jackson has been vilified by the Twittermob and ostracised by his colleagues. Graduates who have previously worked with him are now worried that their association with this fallen professor could harm their career prospects. How did this all happen?

The story of the demise of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies began in the autumn of 2019, when Philip Ewell, a black music-theory professor, gave a talk at the Society for Music Theory in Columbus, Ohio. Ewell takes the view that classical music is compromised by its whiteness.

For Ewell, white supremacy is evident in the teaching, playing and interpretation of classical music. From this perspective, where everything is seen to involve white racism, all the values celebrated in classical music are expressions of whiteness; they are all coded in a ‘white racial frame’, says Ewell. So, the reason Beethoven enjoys such high esteem among lovers of classical music is not because of his genius but because, as Ewell explains, he ‘has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for 200 years’.

Ewell’s obsession with the invisible power of whiteness is matched only by his philistinism – he describes Beethoven as an ‘above average composer’. Evidently, the academic members of the Society for Music Theory enjoy being guilt-tripped about their privilege because they responded to Ewell’s address with a standing ovation. The society – whose members are overwhelmingly white – loved what they heard. Later, its executive board declared that ‘we humbly acknowledge that we have much work to do to dismantle the whiteness and systemic racism that deeply shape our discipline’.

In his address, Ewell drew attention to virulent racist comments made by Schenker. Like many Germanophile artists and intellectuals of his time – the late 19th and early 20th centuries – Schenker regarded other people with contempt. He dismissed the ‘filthy’ French, English and Italians as ‘inferior races’, regarded Slavs as ‘half animals’, and claimed that Africans had a ‘cannibal spirit’.

If all that Ewell had said was that Schenker personified the cultural and racial hatreds of his society at the time he was alive, few would have disagreed. However, he went a step further and implied that Schenker’s musical theory was also infused with a racist tone. He claimed that Schenker carried his racist views into his work, as allegedly expressed in his belief in the ‘inequality of tones’. In other words, Ewell offered a racialised version of the argument that you cannot separate politics from art. Ewell’s attack on white art is the functional equivalent of previous denunciations of ‘bourgeois art’ or ‘decadent art’.

Jackson, who has devoted years of his academic life to the study of Schenker, reacted angrily to Ewell’s attack. He devoted an issue of his journal to addressing Ewell’s claim that Schenker’s racial views were connected to his musical theories. Five of the essays published in the issue defended Ewell, while 10 opposed him. Jackson’s response was hard-hitting and arguably intemperate. He accused Ewell of using Schenker as a proxy for Jews and suggested that his critique of Schenker may well have been an example of black anti-Semitism.

Jackson’s response was a passionate academic defence of Schenker’s reputation. He points out how ambiguous Schenker was in relation to his own Jewish identity, that he desired to be accepted into the fold of Germanic culture, and that he subsequently had a change of attitude, concluding later in life that ‘music is accessible to all races and creeds alike’.

Whether or not one agrees with Jackson’s reply to Ewell, or with his assessment of Schenker, there can be little doubt that the tone and content of his reply were consistent with the normal standards of academic debate. Nor can there be any doubt that the reaction of the University of North Texas, its sidelining of Jackson and his journal, plays into the hands of those who want to silence Jackson and defame his reputation.

In the eyes of his detractors, and no doubt in the eyes of the Society for Music Theory, Jackson’s real crime is that, unlike them, he refused to roll over, apologise and embrace the myth of whiteness that is being peddled by guilt-tripping moral entrepreneurs.

Moral entrepreneurs like Ewell have acquired a commanding influence over how racism is perceived and understood. Yet Ewell’s use of the concept of the ‘white racial frame’ to understand classical music has little to do with racism. He himself stated that he is not interested in ‘negative stereotypes of blacks’ and their application to classical music. ‘What I stress’, he said, ‘is not so much black stereotypes as positive white stereotypes’, which supposedly create a ‘pro-white subframe’. For Ewell, detaching positive connotations from whiteness, or spoiling whiteness by delegitimising the cultural authority of someone like Beethoven, is the precondition for turning classical music into an inclusive project. The aim is not to deracialise classical music, but to reframe it in a different colour.

No doubt Ewell would find it difficult to grasp the attitude towards classical music displayed by the radical black activist and writer, WEB Du Bois. Du Bois admired the music of Richard Wagner, the notorious racist and anti-Semitic composer. For Du Bois what mattered was Wagner’s music. He said: ‘The musical dramas of Wagner tell of human life as he lived it, and no human being, white or black, can afford not to know them, if he would know life.’

Advocates of the idea that white supremacy infects classical music would no doubt like to deprive millions of people of the joy of being exposed to the kind of music that helped Du Bois to better understand the human condition. Ewell and the Society for Music Theory should be ashamed of their newfound roles as the academic police of music and culture.

Frank Furedi’s latest book Democracy Under Siege: Don’t let Them Lock It Down is published by Zer0 Books.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Last Time the D.C. Establishment Labeled Its Political Opposition as ‘Insurrectionists’ (and How It Taught Them About ‘National Unity’) – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2021

In words that are eerily reminiscent of what senile old Joe Biden has chosen as his post-campaign theme, Stokes quotes one U.S. Army officer as saying:  “In the year of 1865 this great rebellion would be crushed out, and peace and harmony & good will would be restored between the North & South.”  The man who points a carbine at your head demanding your jewelry, steals or destroys all of your furniture, and sets your house on fire, supposedly did it to save the union, “this glorious union,” says Stokes.  And yes, to restore peace, harmony, and good will.  Only a moron could believe such a thing, and only a moron could believe that the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cabal is interested in “national unity” and not coerced conformity to their neo-Marxist agendas.

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The Washington establishment, led by a senile 78-year-old man who can barely speak in complete sentences and seems permanently fighting mad, is hell- bent on labeling virtually all Americans who voted for President Trump –Republicans, Independents, and Democrats — as “insurrectionists.”  They have invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify placing thousands of heavily-armed National Guard (and other) troops in Washington, D.C., who appear to be stationed there indefinitely.  Comrade Pelosi, who turns 81 next month and also seems demented, always angry as hell, and extremely frustrated that she is not a dictator, has called for the placement of manned machine gun nests atop the Capitol building.  She is apparently worried that Trump voters might try to create their own version of one of those mass anti-Trump rallies in D.C. that she orchestrated in early 2017, way back when peaceful assembly and freedom of association were still legal and not acts of “insurrection.”  All of this is supposedly being done in the name of warm-and-fuzzy “national unity.”

This political spectacle reminds your author of how the D.C. establishment dealt with “insurrectionists” in the Southern states in the 1860s, particularly in South Carolina.  The “crime” that these “insurrectionists” were said to be guilty of was agreeing with the founding fathers that the American union was a voluntary union of the free and independent states and not a coerced union held together by violence — like the Soviet Union of the twentieth century.

Many Americans know a little something – very little — about General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “march to the sea” through Georgia, an orgy of rape, pillage, plunder, and murder of civilians and the bombing and burning of entire cities occupied only by old men, women, and children.  We are all taught to know as little as possible about it because as Sherman famously said, “war is hell.”  “Move along, nothing to see here” is the meaning of Sherman’s famous quip.  Of course such a nonchalant attitude made it more likely that there would be more orgies of rape, pillage, plunder and murder by the U.S. government, and there were, all over the world, over the past 150 years.

After his march through Georgia Sherman set his sights on South Carolina, something that few Americans seem to know much of anything about.  They have an opportunity to rectify their ignorance, however, by reading A Legion of Devils: Sherman in South Carolina (2017) by Karen Stokes.

Karen Stokes is an archivist at the South Carolina Historical Society and the author of numerous non-fiction and fiction books. A Legion of Devils is a compilation of first-hand, eye-witness accounts of how Sherman’s “bummers,” as they were called, exploded with hate and revenge against the “insurrectionists” of South Carolina, the first state to secede in December of 1860.

Sherman’s army was not noble, heroic, and on the moral side of history, as you were no doubt taught in public school (and in most private schools).  This is because in war, the victors always get to write the history, erect statues to themselves, whitewash their war crimes, and endlessly demonize their defeated enemies, all as a giant smokescreen for their own crimes.

For example, you probably never heard of a December 7, 1861 article in the New York Tribune, the Republican party’s paper of record, quoted by Stokes, about how “one enterprising and unscrupulous [U.S. Army] officer was caught in the act of assembling a cargo of Negroes for transportation and sale in Cuba.”  Or that “no colored woman was safe from the brutal lusts of the [U.S. Army] soldiers” who were “not punished for their offenses.”

Sherman himself was a notorious racist and white supremacist who would spend twenty-five years after the war orchestrating the mass murder of the Plains Indians to prevent America, in his words, from becoming “a nation of mongrels like Mexico” through inter-racial marriage between whites, blacks, and Indians.  His “soldiers” were mostly of the same mind.  “Sherman’s soldiers stole from [Southern black people], destroyed their property, and taunted them with racial slurs,” writes Stokes.  She quotes Union Army General Oliver O. Howard, Sherman’s second in command, as remarking how the “soldiers” were routinely “abusing [black] women,” something he apparently did not lift a finger to stop.

Sherman’s expedition through South Carolina was defined by “arson and pillage” and “also murder,” writes Stokes.  The worst war crimes were committed during the burning of Columbia, South Carolina.  Most of the city was destroyed by fire, with nothing left but the “smokeless chimney’s” from burned down houses; all private homes were plundered; women of both races were gang raped; all livestock was either stolen or killed; and slaves were tortured with hangman’s nooses to force them to reveal where the family had hidden any valuables, with many of them being murdered in that way.  As one eye witness account described what happened to a slave named Frank:  “Each of the three times that this man [a U.S. Army “soldier”] suspended poor Frank in the air he would let him down and try to make him confess.  Not knowing anything, of course he could not give the coveted information.  Frank’s neck remains twisted to this day.”  This Savior of the Southern Black People then said to the woman:  “Madame, if you do not tell me in five minutes where your silver is buried I will set fire to your home.”  No wonder Southerners no longer wanted to be in a union with people like that.

North Carolina was not spared, either.  Stokes quotes a North Carolina man as saying:  “When Sherman’s army passed through my place in North Carolina, some of his camp followers, in their greedy search for treasure, entered the graveyard, dug up my dead children, opened their coffins, and left their bodies exposed to birds and beast, lest vile than they.”  Stokes writes of how grave robbing seems to have been rampant among Lincoln’s “army of liberation” that was primarily concerned with liberating Southerners from their silverware.

The Library of Congress possesses a manuscript collection of first-hand accounts of Sherman’s “marches.”  One of them, known as the “McCarter Journal,” was written by James Jefferson McCarter, a native of Columbia.  In it he wrote that in the aftermath of the burning down of his city, “the bodies of several females were found in the morning of Saturday stripped naked & with only such marks of violence upon them as would indicate the most detestable of crimes . . . the town seemed abandoned to the unrestrained license of the half drunken soldiery to gratify their base passions on the unprotected females of both colors.”  As was his custom, Sherman blamed this on the residents of Columbia, lecturing them that “there was too much liquor in your town.”

Sherman surely knew of these gang rapes and murders by his bummers, and may even have explicitly condoned it, thinking that once word got out there would be more desertions of Confederate soldiers heading home to protect their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from Lincoln’s army of rapists and murderers.

Churches were not exempted from Sherman’s army of pyromaniacs.  “Sherman’s forces put the torch to the Episcopal church in Prince William Parish, commonly known as Sheldon Church.”  The entire town of Hardeeville in the low country was “demolished by Sherman’s soldiers” and “the town’s Baptist church [was] also dismantled.”

In words that are eerily reminiscent of what senile old Joe Biden has chosen as his post-campaign theme, Stokes quotes one U.S. Army officer as saying:  “In the year of 1865 this great rebellion would be crushed out, and peace and harmony & good will would be restored between the North & South.”  The man who points a carbine at your head demanding your jewelry, steals or destroys all of your furniture, and sets your house on fire, supposedly did it to save the union, “this glorious union,” says Stokes.  And yes, to restore peace, harmony, and good will.  Only a moron could believe such a thing, and only a moron could believe that the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cabal is interested in “national unity” and not coerced conformity to their neo-Marxist agendas.

Readers who would like to learn more of Sherman and Lincoln’s destruction of South Carolina might consult Karen Stokes’s other book, South Carolina Civilians in Sherman’s Path; Cole Blease, Destruction of Property in Columbia, S.C. by Sherman’s Army; Tom Elmore, A Carnival of Destruction: Sherman’s Invasion of South Carolina; William Gilmore Simms, Sack and Destruction of the City of Columbia; and John Bennett Walters, Merchant of Terror: General  Sherman and Total War. 

On the alleged virtues of coerced “national unity” I recommend The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels; Hitler’s Mein Kampf; and The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Myths Behind the “Capitalism Is Racist” Claim | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 23, 2021

Gary Becker pointed this out years ago in his frequently cited book The Economics of Discrimination. Becker posited that competition in the free market made it costly for companies to discriminate against individuals due to group identity. By refusing to hire qualified applicants because of race or sex, businesses would lose market share.

Lipton Matthews

Though numerous studies prove the contrary, it is still widely assumed that capitalism perpetuates racism. Celebrities and academics incessantly broadcast the message that capitalism engenders racism. For example, recently on Twitter, superstar athlete Andre Iguodala informed his followers that capitalism cannot be divorced from racism: “Capitalism and racism go hand in hand. And you can’t have one without the other.” Equally scathing is the blistering declaration of sociologist Edna Bonacich in an academic review: “Capitalism and racism are closely connected….The huge wealth of America’s white-owned corporations rests on the backs of the hard labor of workers, many of whom are people of color.”

Despite the popularity of anticapitalist rhetoric, it is woefully mistaken. Some entrepreneurs will express racist tendencies, but if they are determined to succeed in business, they have no alternative but to jettison such beliefs. Gary Becker pointed this out years ago in his frequently cited book The Economics of Discrimination. Becker posited that competition in the free market made it costly for companies to discriminate against individuals due to group identity. By refusing to hire qualified applicants because of race or sex, businesses would lose market share. Racists may object to employing people outside of their race, however, the crux of the matter is that self-interest trumps the collectivism of racism. Although racists may abhor minorities, the urge to accumulate wealth is far more potent than the desire to discriminate.

Similarly, recent research corroborates Becker’s thesis that firms engaging in discrimination are less likely to remain competitive. Devah Pager in an innovative 2016 study testing the relationship between observed discrimination and firm longevity concludes that these firms show a greater propensity to fail:

This study builds on the findings of an experimental audit study of racial discrimination in employment conducted in New York City in 2004….We see that 17 percent of nondiscriminatory establishments had failed by 2010, relative to 36 percent of those that did discriminate. The likelihood of going out of business for an employer who discriminated thus appears more than twice that of its nondiscriminating counterpart.

Under capitalism the allure of profit serves as a deterrent to discrimination. For instance, the strident resistance of streetcar companies in the Jim Crow South to laws mandating them to segregate black customers poignantly demonstrates the market’s hostility to unjust discrimination. Economist Jennifer Roback in an article titled “Racism as Rent-Seeking” lucidly illustrates that these laws were a result of political entrepreneurship:

Race relations in the U.S. South were in a state of flux in the period immediately after the Civil War and remained so until the turn of the century, when the “Jim Crow” system of rigid segregation was put into place….Municipal streetcars were segregated by law in many Southern cities….Prior to legislation, streetcar passengers in many cities sat wherever they wished, and next to anyone they wished. There is little to indicate that segregation was introduced in response to the demands of passengers, and in some cases, passengers of both races were dissatisfied with the new rule. Moreover, some of the streetcar companies themselves actively resisted segregation, on the grounds that segregation would be too expensive….White passengers seemed to be indifferent about segregation; streetcar companies resisted segregation; certainly, black passengers resisted segregation. Who then wanted it badly enough to work for its introduction? The most likely candidates are politicians who believed that there existed latent sentiment in favor of segregation among whites. Political entrepreneurs could offer white voters something they valued enough to vote for, but not enough to bear the costs privately. Through collective action, the costs of segregation could be imposed on the (disenfranchised) black passengers and the (regulated) streetcar companies.

Roback refers to such tactics as “psychic rent seeking,’’ indicating that people leverage the force of government to acquire psychological benefits for themselves, despite incurring expenses for others.

Notwithstanding the propaganda of leftists, rhetoric is no substitute for facts. History reveals that discrimination is primarily inspired by the corrupt agenda of rent seekers in cahoots with the government. South African leading economist Thomas Hazlett notes that this is usually the case:

The South African gold rush made the natural synergy between white-owned capital and abundant black labor overpowering….White workers feared the large supply of African labor as the low-priced competition that it was. Hence, white tradesmen and government officials, including police, regularly harassed African workers to discourage them from traveling to the mines and competing for permanent positions. Beginning in the 1890s, the Chamber of Mines, a group of employers, complained regularly of this systematic discrimination and attempted to secure better treatment of black workers. Their gesture was not altruistic, nor founded on liberal beliefs….But here they had a clear economic incentive: labor costs were minimized where rules were color-blind. This self-interest was so powerful that it led the chamber to finance the first lawsuits and political campaigns against segregationist legislation.

Likewise, South Africa during Apartheid is an excellent case study of the power of the market to eviscerate racism. To protect whites from competition, blacks were prevented by law from taking white-collar jobs. This not only limited their productivity, but also reduced the number of black employees able to take industrial jobs, thus creating artificial manpower shortages. As such the South African Employers Consultative Committee on Labour Affairs in 1977 lobbied for the elimination of discrimination based on race or color from all aspects of employment practices. Therefore, motivated by the goal to gain wealth, even vile racists will eschew racist policies.

Certainly, some owners and entrepreneurs will find niches in which they can cater to racist clients. But for those who wish to attain high levels of growth and success, the data is clear that serving all customers and workers indiscriminately is the way to wealth. Essentially, the power of the free market is the best antidote to racism. Entrepreneurs seek to win in business, and engaging in discrimination hinged on race is the surest way to lose. Of note is also the fact that people who migrate from other countries irrespective of race become wealthier after relocating to America. Yet, ironically, many who lament the racist nature of American capitalism also insist that immigrants improve their lives by immigrating to the United States.

Both theory and the empirical research show that a truly competitive marketplace is incongruous with racism, but, clearly, saying otherwise confers leftists with the benefits of expressing the “luxury beliefs” of elites. Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to, The Federalist, and the Jamaica Gleaner. He may be contacted at or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

First Duty of the Press: Make it About Race – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2021

An unarmed Trump supporter crawling through a window at the Capitol was shot dead. Please name the black protester killed by the police throughout 2020’s incessant BLM riots, lootings and arsons. He’d already be on a postage stamp.

It must be awkward to have to work up a high dudgeon about the Capitol protest after spending half of 2020 saying “mostly peaceful” protests were OK, even if beyond the “mostly” there was a lot of arson and looting.

SOLUTION: A riot is not bad unless it can be denounced as “racist.”

Ann Coulter

Why can’t liberals ever just let Trump hang himself? Isn’t what he’s actually done bad enough? No, the media always have to punch up the story, layering lie upon lie, until normal people are forced to say, I don’t want to defend the guy, but that didn’t happen.

This was the whole point of my book Resistance Is Futile, written at the outset of the Trump administration:

“[M]y advice to the Resistance is: Get Trump on the worst thing he’s actually done, and stop running off with Wouldn’t it be great if he raped and murdered a nun? You’re right: If Trump had done that, he would be finished, done, put a fork in him. Unfortunately, he hasn’t committed that particular crime.”

Even after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, the media felt the need to pile up the false accusations. “Liberals have got to learn that their neuroses are not proof of their opponents’ perfidy.”

Their first order of business was to turn it into a story about race.

The Trump riot has as little to do with race as any story in 21st-century America. COVID, immigration, tax cuts, the stimulus — I could come up with a racial angle for any of those.

Your assignment: Make the siege at the Capitol a story primarily about race relations.

You, a normal person, one week later: I’m stumped.

But to our media, the main point to be made about the riot was: Can you imagine what would have happened if black people had done that?

An unarmed Trump supporter crawling through a window at the Capitol was shot dead. Please name the black protester killed by the police throughout 2020’s incessant BLM riots, lootings and arsons. He’d already be on a postage stamp.

During the 2015 BLM riots in Baltimore after a heroin dealer, Freddie Gray, died in the back of a police van, the mayor announced that she was giving “those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

If you look at a mob storming the Capitol to protest Biden’s certification as president and immediately think, This is a story about black people!, you’ve got racism on the brain.

— Renee Zellweger Wins Oscar for Best Actress

Oh like she would have gotten it if she were black. I don’t think so!

— Nobel Prize for Physics Awarded to Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez for “Discovery of a Supermassive Compact Object at the Center Of Our Galaxy”

Does anyone seriously believe that the prize would have been awarded if the discovery had been made by Black Lives Matter?

— Denver beat the Knicks 114-89

Can you imagine Denver intentionally running up the score like that on a white team?

I’m beginning to suspect that conservatives are the only people who were genuinely appalled by Trump supporters storming the Capitol. The left’s consistent reaction has been: OK, what do we have to do to make it look bad?

It must be awkward to have to work up a high dudgeon about the Capitol protest after spending half of 2020 saying “mostly peaceful” protests were OK, even if beyond the “mostly” there was a lot of arson and looting.

SOLUTION: A riot is not bad unless it can be denounced as “racist.”

Liberals were indignant with Sen. Tom Cotton for saying Trump should send in troops to restore order during the George Floyd riots. His New York Times op-ed making this point was slapped with a disclaimer from the editors that’s nearly as long as the original column.

Today, there are more troops on patrol in D.C. than in actual war zones.

But, this time, instead of calling the militarization of our nation’s capital “fascist” — as the Times‘ Michelle Goldberg dubbed Cotton’s proposal — the very presence of troops is cited as proof of how awful the Jan. 6 riot was.

Liberals have got to learn that their neuroses are not proof of their opponents’ perfidy. The hysterical deployment of more than 20,000 troops to Biden’s inauguration says something about them, not the rioters.

Similarly, cable news has been featuring Democrats giving long, emotional TV interviews describing their fears during the storming of the Capitol. I was afraid they’d kill us all! What if they’d started lynching senators? They could have taken hostages! I fully expected a mass shooting. I thought the building would collapse on top of us! What if they’d had a nuke?

Oh my gosh! What did they actually do?

They broke four windows, took selfies and threw papers on the ground.

How many people died?

Four — all Trump supporters.

The “Your Neurosis Proves My Malfeasance” argument is a specialty of the feminists. If I wasn’t sexually harassed, then please explain why I gained 30 pounds? You want proof that Trump is a monster? I can’t sleep at night! Do you want to see my psychiatrist’s bill?

No, no! We believe you! But it’s not evidence that anyone did something bad to you. Your mental anguish comes in during the penalty phase, not during the guilt-finding phase.

The winner of the “You want proof? My skin has broken out!” argument was this NBC headline last week: “Some Democrats in Congress are worried their colleagues might kill them.”

The raid was disgusting, appalling, sickening, but it’s not a license for concocting imaginary accusations. Trump is bad. The thugs who stormed the Capitol are bad. You don’t need to manufacture evidence against them, media.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »