MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Slavery’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

How the haunting words of an escaped slave apply today

Posted by M. C. on August 27, 2020

To Douglass this arrangement was the worst of both worlds.

I was to be allowed all my time, make all contracts with those for whom I worked, and find my own employment; and, in return for this liberty, I was to pay him three dollars at the end of each week; find myself in calking tools, and in board and clothing. My board was two dollars and a half per week. This, with the wear and tear of clothing and calking tools, made my regular expenses about six dollars per week. This amount I was compelled to make up, or relinquish the privilege of hiring my time. Rain or shine, work or no work, at the end of each week the money must be forthcoming, or I must give up my privilege.

This arrangement, it will be perceived, was decidedly in my master’s favor. It relieved him of all need of looking after me. His money was sure. He received all the benefits of slaveholding without its evils; while I endured all the evils of a slave, and suffered all the care and anxiety of a freeman. 

According to how much of his wages and labor were taken by his master, Douglass was 100% a slave at times, at other times 99% a slave, and even at one point 50% a slave.

His master stole his wages. Sound familiar?

How the haunting words of an escaped slave apply today

By Joe Jarvis

Everyone knows that slavery is when someone else owns you.

Freedom is when you own yourself.

All individual rights stem from the concept of self-ownership.

For example, the reason why consent is required for sex, is that no one gets to decide what you do with your body.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a society that respects self-ownership.

And I don’t just mean random criminal acts.

Slavery is embedded in the structure of our society, right down to the relationship between government and citizens.

Born into slavery, Frederick Douglass was in a unique position to see the parallels between outright chattel slavery, which is owning another human being outright, and other “milder” forms of slavery, where only a portion of your time, labor, and money is stolen from you by force, without your consent.

At some points, Frederick Douglass was essentially rented out by his master to work a regular job, and then forced to pay all his income to his owner.

In his 1855 book My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass explained:

Besides, I was now getting—as I have said—a dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it, worked for it, earned it, collected it; it was paid to me, and it was rightfully my own; and yet, upon every returning Saturday night, this money—my own hard earnings, every cent of it—was demanded of me, and taken from me by Master Hugh.

He did not earn it; he had no hand in earning it; why, then, should he have it? I owed him nothing. He had given me no schooling, and I had received from him only my food and raiment; and for these, my services were supposed to pay, from the first.

The right to take my earnings, was the right of the robber. He had the power to compel me to give him the fruits of my labor, and this power was his only right in the case.

Douglass draws a distinction: his master had the power to make him a slave, but certainly not the right.

And certainly the fact that his master provided food and shelter did not justify his slavery. Whatever the master provided the slave with his own stolen money does not change the fact that Douglass did not consent to the arrangement.

Douglass then explains what allows masters to keep men enslaved.

To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. The man that takes his earnings, must be able to convince him that he has a perfect right to do so.

It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master’s will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate, to his mind, its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness. If there be one crevice through which a single drop can fall, it will certainly rust off the slave’s chain.

Douglass also recounted the advice he received from his master, on how to live happily as a slave.

He exhorted me to content myself, and be obedient. He told me, if I would be happy, I must lay out no plans for the future. He said, if I behaved myself properly, he would take care of me. Indeed, he advised me to complete thoughtlessness of the future, and taught me to depend solely upon him for happiness.

He seemed to see fully the pressing necessity of setting aside my intellectual nature, in order to contentment in slavery. But in spite of him, and even in spite of myself, I continued to think, and to think about the injustice of my enslavement, and the means of escape.

One arrangement in slavery was that a slave would be allowed to essentially go out and live his own life. But he would be forced to give a percentage of his income to his master. A slave was essentially renting ownership of himself.

Frederick Douglass found himself in this situation, and felt no better for it.

I could see no reason why I should, at the end of each week, pour the reward of my toil into the purse of my master…

He would, however, when I made him six dollars, sometimes give me six cents, to encourage me.

It had the opposite effect. I regarded it as a sort of admission of my right to the whole. The fact that he gave me any part of my wages was proof, to my mind, that he believed me entitled to the whole of them.

I always felt worse for having received any thing; for I feared that the giving me a few cents would ease his conscience, and make him feel himself to be a pretty honorable sort of robber.

To Douglass this arrangement was the worst of both worlds.

I was to be allowed all my time, make all contracts with those for whom I worked, and find my own employment; and, in return for this liberty, I was to pay him three dollars at the end of each week; find myself in calking tools, and in board and clothing. My board was two dollars and a half per week. This, with the wear and tear of clothing and calking tools, made my regular expenses about six dollars per week. This amount I was compelled to make up, or relinquish the privilege of hiring my time. Rain or shine, work or no work, at the end of each week the money must be forthcoming, or I must give up my privilege.

This arrangement, it will be perceived, was decidedly in my master’s favor. It relieved him of all need of looking after me. His money was sure. He received all the benefits of slaveholding without its evils; while I endured all the evils of a slave, and suffered all the care and anxiety of a freeman. 

According to how much of his wages and labor were taken by his master, Douglass was 100% a slave at times, at other times 99% a slave, and even at one point 50% a slave.

He was still a slave, because he did not own himself.

But in 1838, Douglass embarked on his second attempt to escape slavery.

Frederick Douglass disguised himself a free black sailor. He boarded a train in Maryland with a sailor’s protection pass, borrowed from a free black man he knew. After a few close calls, Douglass arrived in New York. With the help of abolitionists, he found safety in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and began his life as a free man.

Don’t let the masters keep you a thoughtless slave.

Never let a good crisis go to waste is the mantra of the elites.

Subscribe to THE DAILY BELL and immediately receive TWO FREE BLACKPAPERS:

1. Four Ways The Elite Control You in a Crisis

     And how to flip the script to seize their power now

2. The Trojan Horse: How (and Why) to Join the Ranks of the Elite

Be seeing you

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

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: When Reparations for Slavery Become Just Another Welfare Program

Posted by M. C. on August 22, 2020

This has now become the standard policy formula for reparations. It’s not about payments to specific victims. It’s about increasing funding for the usual package of social programs around housing, cash transfers, and healthcare. In other words, in its form and administration, the “reparations state” is now indistinguishable from the “welfare state.”
But this doesn’t mean the idea of cash payments to specific descendants of slaves has been completely abandoned.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/08/when-reparations-for-slavery-become.html

By Ryan McMaken
The idea that former slaves and their descendants ought to receive reparations for the wrongs committed against them is not new. Having grasped the fact that slavery is nothing less than kidnapping and theft committed against the enslaved, abolitionists long advocated for some form of redress for freed slaves.
The most famous early attempt to create a reparation program of sorts is likely General Sherman’s Field Order #15. Issued as a wartime measure, Sherman’s order—which never became widespread policy—divided plantations along the Atlantic Coast into forty-acre parcels to be distributed to forty thousand emancipated workers. Sherman’s motivation was likely military expediency rather than an attempt to compensate victims. Nonetheless, the idea that former slaves would receive “forty acres and a mule” became a symbol of an unfulfilled promise to provide compensation for lives of forced servitude. This variety of reparations, of course—as noted by Murray Rothbard—is morally and legally desirable:
On the libertarian homesteading principle, the plantations should have reverted to the ownership of the slaves, those who were forced to work them, and not have remained in the hands of their criminal masters. That is the fourth alternative. But there is a fifth alternative that is even more just: the punishment of the criminal masters for the benefit of their former slaves—in short, the imposition of reparations or damages upon the former criminal class, for the benefit of their victims. All this recalls the excellent statement of the Manchester Liberal, Benjamin Pearson, who, when he heard the argument that the masters should be compensated replied that “he had thought it was the slaves who should have been compensated.”
Demands for this this style of reparations—to be paid to specific victims by specific perpetrators—continued for a time. During Reconstruction, efforts to distribute former plantations lands to victims were proposed by the Freedmen’s Bureau but quashed by President Andrew Johnson.  The first organization devoted specifically to reparations was formed in 1896, when Callie House and Isaiah Dickerson founded the National Ex-Slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association. Other early efforts include a plan from Henry McNeal Turner, a prominent African Methodist Episcopal (AME) bishop, calling for $40 billion in reparations.
As time went on, however, it became increasingly clear that this was not going to happen soon enough for the former slaves themselves to enjoy any sort of compensation for labor and freedoms previously stolen.
Attempts to recover reparations became more geared toward general taxpayer-funded efforts and less reliant on one-time payments as a form of restitution.
For example, beginning during the 1940s, the Nation of Islam urged reparations for slavery and “called on the federal government to cede several southern states to become the territory of an African American nation” (Biondi, p. 7).
More elaborate plans followed. In 1969, James Forman presented his Black Manifesto to the National Black Economic Development Conference, in which he demanded $500 million in reparations, which would be used to finance the institutional and infrastructural elaboration of a “Black Socialist State”:
Foremost among the proposals of the Manifesto was the use of $200,000,000 to fund the creation of a “Southern land bank” to protect tenant farmers evicted from their homes in retaliation for political activism and to support the efforts of those wishing to establish cooperative farms. There were proposals for the establishment of publishing houses, television stations, and “a Black University in the South.”
By 1969, more than a century since emancipation, the idea of compensating specific former slaves (or their heirs) had clearly given way to what was to resemble what the National Urban League would call a domestic “Marshall plan for Negro Citizens” as early as 1963. In 1990, for instance, the Urban League again called for this “Marshall Plan” at the end of the Cold War, arguing that the end of the Soviet threat had freed the US up to engage in “rebuilding” its urban centers. In 2018, the the Congressional Black Caucus introduced new legislation deemed a “Marshall Plan for Black America.”
Today, the idea of reparations is geared toward the sorts of policy options that are now quite familiar: more spending on programs that resemble traditional welfare programs of recent decades. Kamala Harris, for example, supports more spending on health programs “as a form of reparations for slavery.”
This April 2020 report from the Brookings Institution suggests that reparations take the form of student loan forgiveness, free college tuition, and down payment grants for potential homeowners.
This has now become the standard policy formula for reparations. It’s not about payments to specific victims. It’s about increasing funding for the usual package of social programs around housing, cash transfers, and healthcare. In other words, in its form and administration, the “reparations state” is now indistinguishable from the “welfare state.”
But this doesn’t mean the idea of cash payments to specific descendants of slaves has been completely abandoned.
The idea has been revived in recent decades by new legal and legislative developments. This includes 1988 legislation adopted by Congress in which victims of Japanese internment during World War II received $20,000 each. And in 1994, the State of Florida agreed to pay reparations to the survivors of the 1923 Rosewood massacre.
These events revived interest in the old idea of direct reparation, but naturally complications were immediately apparent. The payments to victims of internment and the Rosewood massacre were to specific individuals. Moreover, their numbers were far smaller than the millions of descendants of formers slaves currently residing in the US today.
Nonetheless, the Brookings report implies that a grant of more than $100,000 to each household would be necessary to close the “wealth gap” between whites and blacks. Economist William Darity suggests that closing this wealth gap requires transfers of up to $12 trillion. Other proposals claim totals in excess of $16 trillion, a sum approaching the size of the entire US gross domestic product.
Needless to say, a reparations program of this magnitude is exceedingly unlikely to happen. Even in our current era of trillion-dollar bailouts, handing over $10 trillion dollars to satisfy a single interest group is unlikely. Not even New York bankers have managed that feat.
However, the reparations issue is unlikely to disappear any time soon, because it will remain useful to the debate over taxpayer funding of the welfare state. As such, calls for reparations remain part of a toolbox for demanding that ever greater sums be poured into social programs. That’s an important tool that no savvy fundraiser, politician, or lobbyist is likely to give up.
 
Ryan McMaken is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. 
 
The above originally appeared at mises.org.

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

Authorities Are Still Looking for Any Clear Motives for the Attack – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

Each year adults all over the “developed” world spend the first half of the year working without pay, in a form of slavery creatively called the income tax.

It’s slavery.

Clear motives for the attack? Is that really a serious question?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/allan-stevo/authorities-are-still-looking-for-any-clear-motives-for-the-attack/

By

What do you call a system in which a person is forced to work for someone else without pay?

Slavery.

Each year adults all over the “developed” world spend the first half of the year working without pay, in a form of slavery creatively called the income tax.

It’s slavery.

Doesn’t matter what foolish name they give it.

Each year, tens of thousands of people around the globe learn who really owns their home when they neglect to pay taxes on it and are forced out.

Property tax they call it. No matter whose name is on the deed, skip your property tax payments and be reminded that you’re just a tenant with no actual property rights.

It’s tenancy.

Doesn’t matter what foolish name they give it.

I make something. You like it. You offer to buy it from me. I say yes. We agree to a price, and you pull out the money. Some guy sticks his hand through the window and takes 13% of the money just as it’s passing between your hands and mine.

That’s stealing.

Doesn’t matter what foolish name they give it.

It doesn’t matter if it’s 1%, 13%, or 21%. It’s still stealing. There’s no nominal amount of stealing that’s appropriate. There’s no justifiable quantity. There’s no moral amount that can be stolen. It’s all bad.

I don’t care if the guy calls it sales tax, VAT, or protection money, the money is still stolen.

In Kozani, Greece on Thursday, July 16, 2020, a 45-year-old man walked into the government tax office on Aristotle Street with an ax and started swinging away at people working there.

The dramatic retelling of the story ends with the reporter saying “Authorities are still looking for any clear motives for the attack…”

Really?

Clear motives to want to do harm to thieves?

Clear motives to want to do harm to thieves who not only enslave you, threaten your home and steal from you, but also now use their ill gotten gains to lock you into your home, pump the airwaves with fear, refuse to let you visit the sick, divide families, close playgrounds, close beaches, make beloved childhood activities illegal, foment societal division, put the elderly in group homes to die neglected and alone, close stadiums, bring the recovered alcoholic back to the bottle, cancel lifesaving surgeries for those on the brink of death, push the depressive over the edge, stop therapy for those with cancer creeping through their body, make life so unnecessarily challenging for the marginalized who were just starting to get things together, deny families a funeral, close down the churches, and destroy the economizing human cooperation that we call our civilization?

And then if you don’t go along with their destructionism they say you are so dishonorable that you hate people and are anti-science.

Clear motives for the attack? Is that really a serious question?

The Greek man with the ax might be more sane than anyone I know. He’s one in a billion. The real question isn’t “What’s wrong with him?” The real question is “What’s wrong with the rest of us?”

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/

By Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.,

From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and to defend his home; the two great heroes of the war were Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee; and the South admitted that slavery was wrong but never conceded that it was cruel.

Around 1960, the Democratic Party—led by Lyndon B. Johnson—advanced the modern incarnation of identity politics. It worked very well for them. In the election of 1956, 75% of African-Americans voted Republican. By 1964, more than 90% of them voted Democrat, and they have been doing so until 2020. As part of their effort to control and manipulate the black vote, the Leftists and their myrmidons advanced the myth that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasn’t. It was, in my opinion, about money, more than anything else. Now, at this point, I know some of my liberal friends will bristle up and say: “It was too all about slavery!” Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this: What was slavery about?

ANSWER: It was about money.

The “it was all about slavery” argument is an oversimplified and infantile claim that has duped many people. Those who subscribe to this flawed theory ignore one undeniable fact: history is messy. It is almost never as simple as the modern Left would have you believe. Oh, sure, slavery was an issue, but it was certainly not the only issue and not even the dominant one. Listed below are eleven others:

1. The Question of What Kind of Government Would We Have? Would we follow the Alexander Hamilton’s big government/commercial state model, featuring a strong, centralized government, a chief executive with almost royal powers, a Senate elected for life, high tariffs to encourage manufacturing at the expense of agriculture, a strong National Bank to control the currency, and high public land prices to generate income for Washington, D.C., to finance internal improvements (especially canals and roads in the North), selling public lands at high prices would also have the advantage of keeping the new waves of immigrants from Europe in the cities. Because they could not afford to buy land and therefore could not farm, they would have to remain in the cities, providing a ready pool of cheap labor for big business.

The alternative was the small government, “governs best which governs least” philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. This viewpoint was adopted by his intellectual heirs, John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, among others. The Hamiltonian model was adopted by Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, who embraced Clay’s “America System” ideas as his political North Star.

One never hears about this nowadays because it is largely a dead issue. It was settled at Appomattox. Big government won. And it is still winning. This is why one can say that, when it comes to the Civil War, in a sense, both sides lost.

2. Northern corporate greed. Northern corporations liked high tariffs (taxes) on goods the South imported, because it reduced competition with European manufacturers and allowed them to charge higher prices for often substandard goods. The tax revenue went to Washington, which used it to subsidize Northern industries (both directly and indirectly) at the expense of Southern agriculture. Cotton was especially lucrative. In 1859, the value of exported cotton totaled $161,000,000. The value of all Northern exports combined was just over $70,000,000. By 1860, the Federal budget was $80,000,000. Seventy million of that was paid by the South. One section, which amounted to 29% of the population, was paying more than 82% of the taxes. Of that, four out of five dollars was being used for internal improvements in the North. This was not good enough for Abraham Lincoln. He backed an increase in the tariff from 24% to 47% (and 51% on items containing iron). He got his way. This tariff rate was in effect until 1913.

3. Northern hypocrisy. The North also had slaves. It is an actual fact that Massachusetts had slavery 78 years longer than Mississippi. They freed their slaves by a process called manumission, which was designed so that the Northern master didn’t lose any money. Wall Street continued to finance Southern plantations, and thus slavery, until the Civil War. The Northern bankers wanted slaves as collateral and preferred them to land. Very often, “Massa” used the money he borrowed from Northern banks to purchase more slaves. The Northern bankers thus financed slavery.

Also, it did not escape the attention of the Southern editors that the slave fleets did not headquarter in Southern ports. They operated out of Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, joined later by New York City. The Lincoln regime did nothing to restrict these Northern shipping interests. Nor did this stop with the war. It continued until 1885, 20 years after Lee surrendered, when Brazil became the last nation in the New World to outlaw the international slave trade. Southern editorial writers hammered home all these points in the 1840s and 1850s, when charges of Northern hypocrisy were quite common in Southern newspapers.

4. Abolitionist terrorism. The greatest fear most Southerners had before 1861 was the slave revolt along the lines of that experienced by Haiti in 1791. Many abolitionists called for them, and some of them financially supported John Brown’s terrorist attack on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. DuBois called the shots fired here and the first shots of the Civil War. They were probably right.

5. Republican willingness to protect terrorists. The John Brown terrorists who escaped to the North were incarcerated. The states with Republican governors refused to extradite them and let them go. The South looked upon this as a preview of what they could expect from a Republic president. When John Brown seized Harpers Ferry, Democratic President Buchanan sent in the Marines. The Southern leaders asked if they could expect the same from a Republican president? The answer was no.

6. The Federal budget grossly favored the North (see Number 2 above).

7. Cultural differences. These are too complex to innumerate here, but they still exist. Because of television, they are less pronounced than they were in 1860, but they are still there.

8. Political power. Because of immigration, the demographics caused a power shift in favor of the North. By 1860, the South felt (with considerable justification) that it was doomed to become an economic colony of the North if it remained in the Union, so it did not.

9. Constitutional Issues. After large sections of New England threatened to secede five times between 1803 and 1860, Lincoln and his cronies suddenly decided that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (somehow) did not apply to the South in 1861, and that the powers not delegated to the states or the people somehow did not count when it came to secession. But after the war, the Federal government refused to bring Jefferson Davis (or any other Southern leader) to trial, even though he demanded it, because as Senator Sumner (a radical Republican) wrote to Chief Justice Chase: “because by the Constitution, secession is not treason.”

10. Nineteenth-Century Fake News. In 1832, a motion to abolish slavery failed in the Virginia legislature by a vote of 58 to 65. Four years later, the legislature made it a crime even to advocate abolition. The difference? Northern abolitionist propaganda, which was often hateful, salacious, and untruth. It made the slavery issue sectional. In the 1830s, anti-slavery societies in the South outnumbered those in the North 106 to 24. By 1850, there were no anti-slavery societies in the South—zip, zero, nada.

11.Economic Issues After Secession. The Confederacy set its tariff rates at 10%. (If it was good enough for God, it was good enough for them.) There was no way Lincoln’s 47% tariff could compete with that for foreign trade. Lincoln legitimately feared the Northern economy would crash into a recession, if not a depression, and the Federal Government would lose 82% of its tax base, so Washington would be in desperate straits. Because Northern public opinion did not support a war (many Northerners said “Good riddance!” to the South), Lincoln had to walk a political tightrope. He had to instigate a war and make it appear that the South started it by maneuvering Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot. The slick corporate lawyer was up to this as well, but that is a story for another time.

When one has written an entire book about a subject like the causes of the Civil War, it is difficult to condense it into 1,500 words or so. Suffice it to say that the onset of the Civil War was much more complex than the average American today thinks it was. For those astonished by the facts I have mentioned above, I hope you are inspired to do further reading on the subject. To paraphrase Harry Truman: the only thing new is the history you don’t know.

Dr. Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., is the author of It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Regnery History: 2020) and is a retired professor with 40 books to his credit.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Delingpole: Slavery Is Still Rife in Britain. So Where Are the BLM Protests?

Posted by M. C. on July 14, 2020

Well, that’s putting it mildly. As with the Islamist rape gangs which for years acted with virtual impunity in cities and towns across Britain, so with the slave trade: it seems the local authorities and the police have largely turned a blind eye to the practice either because they are in on the game themselves or because they are scared of being called ‘racist’ or because, a bit like the Mafia, some ethnic minority communities consider themselves not to be bound by the rules that apply to the broader populace because ‘cultural reasons.’

Gota be…PC

Want to know who makes European slavers look like amateurs and have been doing so for 1500 years?

See postscript below

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/14/delingpole-slavery-is-still-rife-in-britain-so-where-are-the-blm-protests/

By James Delingpole

Britain still has a thriving slave trade – but for some mysterious reason, Black Lives Matter just don’t want to know.

Why could that be, I wonder?

How warped and ignorant and disgustingly hypocritical would you have to be to protest noisily and violently about the transatlantic slave trade which Britain began abolishing over 200 years ago in 1807, then spending decades fighting other kingdoms to make them give it up too, while completely ignoring the modern-day version happening right now on your doorstep?

Well, maybe there’s a clue buried somewhere in this report. It describes how, according to the anti-slavery charity Justice and Care, there are nearly 100,000 slaves working across Britain.

Perhaps one-tenth of these, we know from the courageous reporting of Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, are based in the city of Leicester — working in cramped, unsafe conditions in sweatshops with boarded-up windows and no natural light, producing cheap clothing for the fashion industry.

There are, I can absolutely guarantee you, many thousands of teenage girls all over Britain who decorated their Instagram pages with blacked out tributes to Black Lives Matter but who think absolutely nothing of buying cut-price fashions from the trendy online retailers who are able to charge such attractively low prices because the clothes are made, it turns out, by slave labour.

This ought to be a national scandal. Some of these modern slaves are brought over, Lilya 4-Ever-style, thinking they’re going to start an exciting new life in a booming economy only to find that actually the people who smuggled them are pimps who want them to work as prostitutes; others are forced to do hard labour, or work in domestic servitude or crime. Yet most of the time the ruthless criminal networks running this slave trade get away with it.

According to the anti-slavery charity Justice and Care:

“Human traffickers and Organised Crime Groups are running riot in too many communities. Very few face prosecution relative to the number of victims found and even fewer are convicted. As the number of victims discovered has skyrocketed in the last five years, convictions have barely increased.”

But how many newspaper column inches has Justice and Care received recently compared to Black Lives Matter?

How, for that matter, is it a nationwide scandal — demanding the virtue-signalling outrage of everyone from F1 driver Lewis Hamilton to Britain’s premier league football teams — when a convicted criminal is killed by a rogue policeman 4,000 miles away in Minneapolis? But not a nationwide scandal when nearly 100,000 people in Britain are exploited by gang slavemasters and forced to endure a miserable, intolerable existence for little or no money in deadly conditions?

Well the answer to all this, I suspect, is really quite simple.

Years of convictions and reports show time and time again many of those involved in running the modern slave trade belong to ethnic minorities and, therefore, appear to be beyond reproach by the left. See Operation Fort, the largest anti-slavery prosecution in modern history where eight Polish nationals are now serving time for abusing hundreds of victims. Or the most infamous case of exploitation in modern British history when 21 slaves drowned in Morecambe bay at the hands of their Chinese gangmasters.

Or the joint Anglo-Spanish police busts that saw 12 arrests made for using ‘voodoo’ magic to control women for sex slavery work. Even Britain’s National Crime Agency has cited the European Union’s freedom of movement rules for exacerbating the modern slavery problem.

A source close to Home Secretary Priti Patel has been quoted as saying:

“This scandal has been hiding in plain sight, and there are concerns cultural sensibilities could be in part to blame for why these appalling working practices haven’t been properly investigated.”

Well, that’s putting it mildly. As with the Islamist rape gangs which for years acted with virtual impunity in cities and towns across Britain, so with the slave trade: it seems the local authorities and the police have largely turned a blind eye to the practice either because they are in on the game themselves or because they are scared of being called ‘racist’ or because, a bit like the Mafia, some ethnic minority communities consider themselves not to be bound by the rules that apply to the broader populace because ‘cultural reasons.’

If anything good comes of this scandal – apart, with luck, the freeing of all these poor people so cruelly bound in servitude — it will be to expose the nauseating hypocrisy not just of the race-baiting Marxists behind Black Lives Matter, but also of the Wankerati generally.

It shows Black Lives Matters’ anger about the slave trade to be both selective and fraudulent: if BLM really cared about such things they’d be marching through Leicester right now in protest about all those exploited ethnic minorities being used as slaves there.

And it shows the Wankerati who have come out in support of Black Lives Matter to be nothing but a bunch of preening, shallow, virtue-signalling gimps. Anyone can be big and brave in condemning something that ended over two hundred years ago — and which everyone in the world agrees was a disgrace. But it takes courage, conviction and moral purpose to do, as Andrew Bridgen MP has done, and speak out against modern slavery.

Be seeing you

And then there is this…

Islamic State Keeps Price List for Selling Sex Slaves As Young as 1 ‘In the Name of Allah’

 

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/19/islamic-state-keeps-price-list-selling-spoils-name-allah-christians-yazidi-sex-slaves-young-1/

 

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

Love of Ancestors and American History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 9, 2020

This is exactly what the internal haters of America seek to bring about. By claiming that the key players in America’s history were racists, they try to portray our past as a tale of injustice. Needless to say, their charge of racism is as both misplaced and unjustified. Slavery, which they position at center of their narrative as America’s original sin, has existed throughout the world since the advent of society and probably even before that. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that this practice has been largely relinquished.

In fact, slavery exists in a number of places in the world to this day. Most of those places are in Africa and most of the enslavers as well as the enslaved are black. One wonders why today’s racism crusaders do not focus their attention where the real problem is.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/vasko-kohlmayer/love-of-ancestors-and-american-history/

By

In the past few weeks we have watched the widespread vandalization of statues and memorials dedicated to men who played a pivotal role in the story of our nation. Among the targets were such giants of American history as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

The purge was carried out on the charge of racism. Something, however, did not add up. A number of the men whose statues were desecrated were well ahead of their time in their views of race and they did much to further the cause of black people. But the vandals would hear none of it, which came as a surprise to many. There is, however, nothing surprising about their actions once we understand what they are truly after.

What the statue slayers really want has nothing to do with racism. Their goal is not to fight or remedy racial injustice, which in the US has been done decades ago. Their goal is to tear America apart. The way they attempt to achieve this is quite insidious: They seek to make us ashamed of our history which, they maintain, is one of continual racism that persists to this day.

Once we internalize this spurious narrative, we cannot but repudiate our past. The moment this happens we become doomed as a nation, since no people can survive as a national entity without the intuition of togetherness which a sense of shared history helps to foster. It is precisely for this reason that all sane and healthy countries preserve and honor the landmarks of their past, especially those dedicated to the men who shaped their history. It is this collective sense of history that binds a people together and gives them a feeling of belonging to a larger polity, which we call a nation. When the glue of a mutually shared history loses its binding power, a nation will, sooner or later, come apart.

This is exactly what the internal haters of America seek to bring about. By claiming that the key players in America’s history were racists, they try to portray our past as a tale of injustice. Needless to say, their charge of racism is as both misplaced and unjustified. Slavery, which they position at center of their narrative as America’s original sin, has existed throughout the world since the advent of society and probably even before that. It is only relatively recently, in historical terms, that this practice has been largely relinquished.

The United States has paid a greater price in blood and treasure than any other nation to stop this practice and eliminate racism from its institutions. It did it so well that in the second half of the 20th century America’s black population enjoyed more rights, opportunities and freedoms than black people in any other country at any point in history.

The claims of the statue topplers that America’s past is somehow uniquely egregious because of slavery betray a lack of historical perspective. If we should condemn American history because it has been marked by this practice, then we would have to condemn almost ALL of history. In nearly all great civilizations of the past – Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, etc. – slavery was commonly practiced. In fact, these civilizations were to a great extent built on slave labor.

Are we going to blanketly condemn them all? Are we going to say there was nothing good in them and discard their great contributions to the development of mankind? Are we going to tear down statues of Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius because all of them either owned slaves or directly benefited from their labor?  Are we going to condemn Jesus who lived at a time when slavery was a widespread practice and yet chose not to launch a crusade against it? When asked how people should behave toward their Roman overlords, he stated, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He said this even though slavery was endemic in Roman society.

Until relatively recently, nearly every society or historical figure was – by the logic of today’s crusaders –“tainted” by slavery in one way or another. In Europe, for instance, serfdom, which was essentially a soft form of slavery, lasted in many places well into the 18th century. In the rest of the world such practices lasted well beyond that time. In fact, slavery exists in a number of places in the world to this day. Most of those places are in Africa and most of the enslavers as well as the enslaved are black. One wonders why today’s racism crusaders do not focus their attention where the real problem is.

In any case, we cannot judge history through the lens of today’s political correctness which is a luxury that comes with our modern cushioned existence. Given slavery’s historical ubiquity, it is obvious that there existed very strong natural tendencies toward it as an institution. Neither was slavery seen as uniformly negative or injurious to those subjected to it. Sad though it may sound, for many in the past slavery was preferable to the alternatives they faced in life. Many people sold themselves or their children to slavery voluntarily, because they simply could not provide enough to survive. Furthermore, when in past wars armies were defeated and prisoners taken, there were often only two options for those on the losing side: death or servitude. Many a prisoner was glad of the availability of the latter.

  As far as American history goes, it is nothing like the haters try to portray it as. No person or country is perfect, and every person and country has committed their share of errors. America is no exception. This being said, America’s is an inspiring and magnificent history. It is a history of a people who made a perilous voyage across the ocean in search of a new home. It is a history of those who faced very difficult conditions and managed to survive despite the odds. It is a history of a people who from humble beginnings managed to build the most prosperous and free nation the world has ever seen. Ours is a history of a young nation which after many struggles, errors and setbacks managed to build a society which translated into reality the noblest aspirations of the human soul: equality and freedom for all, white, black, yellow and everything in between. The efforts of our forefathers eventually made America a shining city on the global hill, a magnet for people from all over the world regardless of the color of their skin. That’s the essence of the American story.

The miracle of America has come about because of the dedication, strength and ingenuity of our ancestors who overcame immense challenges to make their country a better place for those would come after them. All of us – including the ungrateful complainers of today – are the fortunate beneficiaries of their sweat and blood and we should be deeply grateful for their efforts. We should be thankful regardless of our race, for America is a fair, equitable and opportunity-rife place for all who live here.

But nothing is apparently good enough for the self-righteous critics who spit not only on the memory of our ancestors but also on everything that is good and noble. Blinded by ill-will born of their own misguided ways, they condemn America’s past generations who laid the foundation for the most affluent and racially accommodating country in history. And even while living in the fairest and most institutionally unprejudiced society in the world, the critics still claim that it is “systemically” racist. The fact that they fail to submit any good evidence for their allegations is of no consequence to them.

For brats like this nothing will ever be good enough. Put to shame by the nobility of the great men who came before them, they stand as boors next to the grand souls whose memorials they seek to desecrate. Spoiled, self-indulgent and crass, these people could never build or create a great nation, or anything worthy for that matter. All they can do is to scream, criticize, loot and destroy. Instead of trying to better themselves and make their own contribution to the great story of America, they tear down what the generations before them built with so much effort and sacrifice.

By any historical standard or measure, we Americans are very fortunate to have had great forefathers. We must not allow the ransackers and assorted malcontents to cast false aspersions on their memory. We must not let them besmirch our history by their distorted interpretations of it, because if we give up our past we will surely lose our nation. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to generations past, and we must not let anyone sever the bond of love that many of us feel towards them. Above all, to be the worthy heirs of our forefathers we must not become intimidated by the screeching of the agitators. Instead we need to strengthen our resolve to keep defending and fighting for what we know is right. Let those who come after us say that our generation rose to the challenge and that we did it well.

Be seeing you

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

A Disease in the Public Mind, Part II? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2020

The Southern slaves were used as pawns in a war that was not about freeing them but about destroying the voluntary union of the founders and replacing it with a coerced union more along the lines of the future Soviet Union.  Lincoln and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 (in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and the War Aims Resolution of the U.S Congress) that the war had nothing to do with slavery but was being fought to “save the union” (geographically and for tax-collecting purposes).  

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-dilorenzo/a-disease-in-the-public-mind-part-ii/

By

In 2013 historian and novelist Thomas Fleming, the author of more than fifty books including biographies of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and histories of the two world wars, made a contribution to American Civil War history with A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.  A kind of “disease in the public mind” that Fleming speaks of seems to have commenced a second wave that many fear may lead to a second civil war.

Fleming is perplexed that the United States was “the only nation in the world to fight a war to end slavery.”  All other countries (Great Britain, Spain, France, Netherlands, Denmark, the Northern states in the U.S.), ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century.  He also does not believe that the average Confederate soldier fought to defend slavery since “a mere 6 percent of the total white population” of the South in 1860 owned slaves and there was no stake in the system for the other 94 percent.

So why was there a war, according to Thomas Fleming?  First, there was an extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankees” who believed they were God’s chosen people entitled to rule over not only America but the world.  Today, such people would be called “neocons.”  Southerners did not agree, obviously.

Second, there were twenty-five or so wealthy and very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity, condemned Jesus Christ, and adopted the mentally deranged murderer of innocents, John Brown, a self-described communist, as their “savior,” funding his terroristic bloodbaths. Brown and his comrades murdered entire families in Kansas who did not own slaves, including the murder of Mr. James P. Doyle and his two sons in front of their wife and mother.  Brown said his purpose was “to strike terror into the hearts of proslavery people.”  The rationalization of mass murder such as this is the “disease in the public mind” that Fleming writes about.  It is also the ideology that fueled the Lincoln administration’s waging of total war on the entire civilian population of the South, with Sherman’s troops singing “John Brown’s Body” as they raped, pillaged, and plundered their way through Georgia and South Carolina.

The New England Yankees “were inclined to believe in the moral depravity of anyone who disagreed with them,” a trait that “permeated” New England, says Fleming.  Armed with such thoughts, such New England Yankees as William Lloyd Garrison waged a decades-long crusade of hatred against Southerners, saying they were “ruled by Satan,” calling the region “one great Sodom,” and other outrageous insults reminiscent of the Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials, remarks Fleming.  And some wonder why Southerners no longer wanted to be “united” with the New England Yankees.

Ralph Waldo Emerson “expressed awe and near-worship of John Brown,” Fleming writes.  Henry David Thoreau said “Brown was Jesus” and “the humanest man in the country.”  These leading literary lights of New England were clearly crazy.

There are similarities with today’s would-be revolutionaries who seem hell bent on instigating a second civil war.  The Leftists who have displayed an uncontrollable, violent hatred of President Trump over the past three-and-a-half years have done so because their real hatred is of the people who voted for Trump and put him in office.  They are not condemned as Satanists or sodomists, as with nineteenth-century Southerners, but have instead been branded as “deplorable” racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., etc.  Several years before the defeat of Queen Hillary, Clyde Wilson remarked in a LewRockwell.com article entitled “The Yankee Problem in America” that Hillary Clinton, raised in Illinois and educated in New England, was “a museum-quality specimen of a Yankee.”

These are the people whose dreams of destroying capitalism and replacing it with their own version of Soviet central planning under the guise of a “Green New Deal” have been soundly rejected if not ignored by the deplorables, a key reason for their intense, and often violent hatred.  They feel entitled to rule over the rest of America – if not the world – and many of them appear to be seething with a murderous hatred over not being granted such power.  They have given up on debate and argumentation and are now resorting to pervasive censorship, riots, vandalism, arson, and assaults.  Mass killing cannot be too far off if they are not stopped and soon.  They are essentially a combination of nineteenth-century New England Yankee and early twentieth-century Russian Bolshevik.  One thing these two movements had in common is their willingness to wage total wars of mass murder in pursuit of monopolistic political power.  Indeed, historian Richard Bensel remarked in his book, Yankee Leviathan, that the political monopoly enjoyed by the Republican Party from 1861-1913 was rivaled only by the Soviet Union itself.

Many of the violent, screaming, rioting youths displayed on television and the internet in recent weeks are most likely a part of the Bernie Brigade,” social justice snowflake followers of lifelong communist Bernie Sanders.  Unlike Bernie, however, they have chosen violence, vandalism, arson and criminality as their modus operandi as opposed to working within the system as an elected public official.

The Southern slaves were used as pawns in a war that was not about freeing them but about destroying the voluntary union of the founders and replacing it with a coerced union more along the lines of the future Soviet Union.  Lincoln and the U.S. Congress declared to the world in 1861 (in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and the War Aims Resolution of the U.S Congress) that the war had nothing to do with slavery but was being fought to “save the union” (geographically and for tax-collecting purposes).   This, too, is similar to today’s events, with what started out as riots supposedly over police brutality against black people turning into  “demands” for an exponentially bigger welfare state, abolition of police and prisons, the abolition of capitalism and in essence the adoption of socialism.  Toppling statues of Christopher Columbus, Ulysses S. Grant, Albert Pike, and even of Lincoln is not a protest against police brutality but part of an effort to destroy the institutions of Western civilization and replace them with communism at long last.  As one of the founders of Black Lives Matter proudly boasted, “We are trained Marxists.”  (“Trained” by Obama-style “community organizers,” no doubt).

In the tradition of John Brown, one Black Lives Matter spokesman named Hawk Newsome appeared on the Fox News Channel and threatened to “burn down the system” if his “demands are not met.”  “Civil rights activist” Shaun King recently echoed the nineteenth-century New England Yankee assault on Christianity when he went on Twitter to invite his followers to vandalize and destroy images of “White Jesus” and “his European wife” in churches throughout America.  Such people may not have a mental disease; they are just plain evil.

One final similarity between the Civil War years and today is that there were people in America who urged the peaceful abolition of slavery, just as all the rest of the world had done in recent years.  Slavery existed in New York City as late as 1853 according to the New York Historical Society.  Lysander Spooner was a renowned abolitionist who wrote a book on The Unconstitutionality of Slavery that was a roadmap of the peaceful abolition of the institution.  He and others like him were ignored, for the Republican party of the day was devoted to creating an American empire that would rival the British, Spanish, and French empires, and were not interested in practical plans for peaceful emancipation.

Recently, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina mistakenly believed that the rioting communists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter – the shock troops of the Democrat Party — were actually interested in reforming the criminal justice system and would support legislation that he introduced into the U.S. Senate that would address the problem of police brutality.  He was denounced by all the usual suspects and stonewalled by his own (Democrat and some Republican) colleagues in the senate.  These people are about revolution, not making life safer and more prosperous for black people – and everyone else.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Insults to Black History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 25, 2020

Self-destructive behavior that has become acceptable, particularly that in predominantly black schools, is nothing less than a gross betrayal of a struggle, paid with blood, sweat and tears by previous generations, to make possible today’s educational opportunities that are being routinely squandered.

Government should do its job of protecting constitutional rights. After that, black people should be simply left alone as opposed to being smothered by the paternalism inspired by white guilt. On that note, I just cannot resist the temptation to refer readers to my “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon,” which grants Americans of European ancestry amnesty and pardon for their own grievances and those of their forebears against my people so that they stop feeling guilty and stop acting like fools in their relationship with Americans of African ancestry.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/walter-e-williams/insults-to-black-history/

By

Many whites are ashamed, saddened and feel guilty about our history of slavery, Jim Crow and gross racial discrimination. Many black people remain angry over the injustices of the past and what they see as injustices of the present. Both blacks and whites can benefit from a better appreciation of black history.

Often overlooked or ignored is the fact that, as a group, black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles, and in a shorter span of time than any other racial group in history.

For example, if one totaled up the earnings and spending of black Americans and considered us as a separate nation with our own gross domestic product, we would rank well within the top 20 richest nations. A black American, Gen. Colin Powell, once headed the world’s mightiest military. Black Americans are among the world’s most famous personalities, and a few black Americans are among the world’s richest people such as investor Robert F. Smith, IT service provider David Steward, Oprah Winfrey, and basketball star Michael Jordan. Plus, there was a black U.S. president.

The significance of these achievements cannot be overstated. When the Civil War ended, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half — if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as important, it speaks to the greatness of a nation in which such gains were possible. Nowhere else on earth could such progress have been achieved except in the United States of America.

The issue that confronts us is how these gains can be extended to about one-quarter of the black population for whom they have proven elusive. The first step is to acknowledge that the civil rights struggle is over and won. At one time, black Americans did not enjoy the constitutional guarantees as everyone else. Now we do. While no one can deny the existence of residual racial discrimination, racial discrimination is not the major problem confronting a large segment of the black community.

A major problem is that some public and private policies reward dependency and irresponsibility. Chief among these policies is the welfare state that has fostered a 75% rate of out of wedlock births and decimated the black family that had survived Jim Crow and racism. Keep in mind that in 1940 the black illegitimacy rate was 11% and most black children were raised in two-parent families. Most poverty, about 25%, is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among husband-and-wife black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades.

Black people can be thankful that double standards and public and private policies rewarding inferiority and irresponsibility were not a part of the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s. If there were, then there would not have been the kind of intellectual excellence and spiritual courage that created the world’s most successful civil rights movement. From the late 1800s to 1950, some black schools were models of academic achievement. Black students at Washington’s Dunbar High School often outscored white students as early as 1899. Schools such as Frederick Douglass (Baltimore), Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), P.S. 91 (Brooklyn), McDonogh 35 (New Orleans) and others operated at a similar level of excellence.

Self-destructive behavior that has become acceptable, particularly that in predominantly black schools, is nothing less than a gross betrayal of a struggle, paid with blood, sweat and tears by previous generations, to make possible today’s educational opportunities that are being routinely squandered. I guarantee that blacks who lived through that struggle and are no longer with us would not have believed such a betrayal possible.

Government should do its job of protecting constitutional rights. After that, black people should be simply left alone as opposed to being smothered by the paternalism inspired by white guilt. On that note, I just cannot resist the temptation to refer readers to my “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon,” which grants Americans of European ancestry amnesty and pardon for their own grievances and those of their forebears against my people so that they stop feeling guilty and stop acting like fools in their relationship with Americans of African ancestry.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Now the Savages Are Trying To Take Down One of Our Own – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 23, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-woods/now-the-savages-are-trying-to-take-down-one-of-our-own/

By

From the Tom Woods Letter:

How about this:

By far the most prolific living libertarian is Walter Block, who has written countless books and close to 600 scholarly articles — an accomplishment I am uncertain if any academic in any discipline could match today, or ever.

Walter has also co-authored over 100 scholarly articles with students. That’s unheard of. What an extraordinary advantage that gives Walter’s students over their peers — how many students of other professors can say they published an article in an academic journal while they were undergraduates?

Loyola University, New Orleans, where Walter teaches, must be beaming with pride, right?

Well, a group of students are currently circulating a petition to get Walter fired on the grounds that — you’ll never guess — he is a “racist” and a “sexist.”

(In response, a counter-petition has been started, demanding that Walter be given a raise.)

This is because, like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, Walter Block does not believe that “discrimination” is the universal, no-analysis-necessary explanation for the various disparities between blacks and whites, or men and women. And of course he is quite correct to take that position, since the “discrimination” view is ridiculous on its face to anyone familiar with the data. (Sowell’s overlooked book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? dismantles the “discrimination” school.)

They are also unhappy about what they mistakenly believe Walter told the New York Times about slavery. They think he said slavery “wasn’t so bad.” What he actually said was: the problem with slavery was its coercive nature; it doesn’t matter what the slaves’ caloric intake or per-capita living space was if they were coerced into being there.

Simple enough for a normal person to grasp, which means the New York Times pretended to misunderstand Walter, or at least make his views seem suspect and opaque.

So ridiculous was the Times‘ portrayal, in fact, that Walter sued them for libel. The Times settled out of court, so although we can’t know the terms of the settlement, it’s rather curious that columns by Walter — of all people — suddenly began appearing in its pages.

I’m taking that as being as close to an admission of guilt as most people are likely to get from the Times.

Let’s add to all this that Walter has repeatedly made clear that he believes that the descendants of slaves do have a right to reparations, though not indiscriminately from all Americans (he explained his position in an interview with me).

It seems virtually certain that the savages are unaware of this, particularly since knowing it would require them to read scholarly journals, which we may legitimately doubt they tend to do.

In light of all this, I think you’ll take mischievous delight in the letter I wrote to Loyola’s president in 2014, when the initial attack on Walter occurred:

Dear Dr. Wildes:

No doubt you have received quite a bit of correspondence by now about Walter Block. I won’t rehash the main points. You are familiar with them already.

I will say that I find it impossible to believe that you, an intelligent man, believe your own interpretation of Walter’s remarks to the New York Times. You note that Walter’s comment about slavery seems to run counter to libertarian principles. You don’t say! Might that be an indication that the Times, which despises what Walter stands for, has distorted his views?

A university president ought to support his faculty in a case like this, in which he knows full well that a professor has been grotesquely mischaracterized. If this were an accurate rendering of Walter’s views, why was he considering a libel suit?

Had Walter been a left-wing professor accused of Stalinism, would you have been so quick to denounce him? The question answers itself.

This is why it is impossible to believe that any of this has to do with Walter’s remarks. You are not a fool. You know Walter, and you know where he stands. He has never kept his views a secret. You owed him better, and you failed him.

Now it’s true, you did communicate to the university community that your views are the conventional and respectable ones, and that you are not to be confused with Walter Block. We got that.

Some of your faculty, whom you should have rebuked rather than implicitly congratulated, treated Walter with a similar lack of charity.

Since the substance of your (and their) claims have been dealt with elsewhere, let me raise some relevant considerations:

(1) How many professors at Loyola University can say students have enrolled for the express purpose of studying with them?

(2) How many professors at Loyola University can say they have co-authored scholarly articles with their students – not once or twice, but dozens of times?

(3) How many professors at Loyola University have a big enough audience that it would even matter if they urged students to attend Loyola, as Walter constantly does?

(4) How many professors at Loyola University have over 400 peer-reviewed articles?

(5) How many professors at Loyola University would anyone anywhere in the country lift a single finger for?

(6) Oh, and how many professors at Loyola University, who preposterously accused Walter of “sexism” for denying that “discrimination” could explain the male-female wage gap, dared to face Walter in open debate? (Their decision not to try to debate Walter is a fleeting sign of intelligence among them.)

Yes, yes, I got the message: your faculty is against slavery. What courage they must have had to summon in 2014 to unbosom to the world their opposition to slavery!

But I wonder: would people who ostentatiously announce their opposition to slavery in 2014 have had the courage to oppose it when it counted – say, in 1850? I have my doubts that people so desperate to assure the world of their conventional opinions and how appalled and offended they are by heretics, would have been the sort of people to buck conventional opinion at a time when two percent of the American electorate supported an abolitionist political party.

What I know for a fact is that Walter Block would have opposed it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That you simply repeated the New York Times’ characterization of Walter Block, without even conceding, as the Times did, that Walter believed slavery was wrong because it was involuntary – so your behavior was worse than that of the Times, which is no mean feat – is bewildering and appalling in a university president, or indeed in a human being.

Long after every name on that list of Walter’s faculty critics is gone and forgotten, the work of Walter Block will continue to educate new generations in the principles of liberty. No one will recall the pygmies who attacked him out of spite or envy.

Sincerely,
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., PhD

Be seeing you

 

 

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

MSM SILENCE: Elitists Gather In Swiss Town To Finalize Our Enslavement, “The Great Reset,” & NWO

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2020

https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/msm-silence-elitists-gather-in-swiss-town-to-finalize-our-enslavement-the-great-reset-nwo_06152020

Mac Slavo

Make no mistake, this will be absolute tyranny on a global scale. The mainstream media is silent as the elitists who want power over every human on Earth plan to meet in a Swiss town to discuss “the Great Reset,” a push to a one-world currency – one in which they have ultimate control.

The plan is to make sure a “post-COVID” world is built the way they want it. Slavery and totalitarian control. If you haven’t figured out now that the system was put there to protect them, not you, line up for the Bill Gates sponsored vaccine.  Things are going to get much uglier, and quick. The objective of this meeting is the “rebuilding” of the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.”

It sounds good, right? But, by more sustainable, they mean more enslaveable.

“Nothing will ever be the same again.” It was the mantra that we heard in many countries at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It came with a warning that a “new normal” would replace the existing order. Easy travel, interpersonal relations, large gatherings, even things like shaking hands would have to give way to long-term social distancing, drastic rules, and surveillance. But these changes on the personal level are only a part of the picture. The World Economic Forum, together with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has launched an initiative revealingly dubbed “The Great Reset,” with the objective of “rebuilding” the world’s economic and social system in order to make it more “sustainable.” –Life Site News

The Great Reset Is Here: Prepare For The NWO & Enslavement

If you cannot be bothered to understand that the best way to protect yourself is to remove yourself from the system of slavery that was already set up, that they are desperately trying to keep you in, then you’re going to likely get caught up in this mess.

The idea of a “Great Reset” has received the full support of the United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, former president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005. Is anyone surprised? The reset has been planned for a long time:

The End Game Has Arrived: ‘All Signs and Evidence Point to the Great Global Economic Reset’

It was already being talked about before the Chinese coronavirus was moving out of Wuhan. On December 30, 2019, for instance, the Financial Times published a YouTube presentation under the title “Why capitalism needs to be reset in 2020.” (As if any country has capitalism anymore.  Most, and yes, even the United States, are now at the very least, corporatocracies – the merging of governments and corporations, masquerading as crony corporatism.) But the globalists are pushing a theme that capitalism (which means no interference in the market/economy) is the problem, even though literally everything is centralized.  The recurring theme is “stakeholder capitalism,” by which “a company’s approach to people, the planet, and innovation — including how it protects and applies the value-added of its data — must figure more prominently in capital-allocation decisions” (as the WEForum site explains).

Prepare by refusing to accept their new one-world currency.  Stock up on precious metals, gold, silver, and lead.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »