Note #1: Behind the green door I have a post about why you should never trust anything in the visual media, a post about the strangely large amounts of money spent on bad movies and television and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.
Note #2: Some of our folks could use your help in the aftermath of the hurricane that hit parts of Appalachia. Here is a GoFundMe for a family that Pete Quinones knows who lost everything in the flood. Give what you can and post up others so people can pitch in to help our folks.
The reason the small groups of humans in the hunter-gatherer phase of human evolution started working together was primarily safety. Two groups cooperating could not only better defend themselves from other groups, but they could defend the assets they shared from outsiders. That water source or the good hunting ground could not only be exploited through cooperation, but it could be defended and eventually cultivated by kin groups cooperating with one another.
We do not know why kin groups started to cooperate exactly, the above is logical speculation, but we do know that humans eventually settled down and eventually, the point of their organization was to guard their property. Whether it was to guard their hunting grounds or more easily guard the stuff they created with their labor, the point of organization was to protect the people and their stuff. From this stage forward, the point of human organization became property.
When exactly the concept of private property came into existence is impossible to know, but at some point, humans began to recognize ownership. Logically it started with what we now call personal property, the things that come from labor. Grog’s hunting kit was Grog’s hunting kit, and he had a right to defend it or give it away. Similarly, this land was the land of Grog’s people, and they defended it. Other groups made similar claims and before long their relations were based on respecting this.
Most likely, the concept of private ownership of land evolved from the ownership of personal goods, but we are left to guess. What we know is that as far back as we have records, human societies had sorted the difference between public ownership of land and private ownership of land. The Greeks and the Romans, for example, had laws governing private property. Plato was famously opposed to private property, while Aristotle was strongly in supported of it.
After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, private property became the foundation for what would come next in Europe. Large landowners organized to defend their lands and eventually the feudal system evolved. Feudalism was the set of reciprocal relations between the warrior elite, who also happened to be the class who owned all of the land. It was the ownership of land that determined the new ruling elite that would eventually rule Europe.
The model of ownership in the medieval period was one where the king or prince owned the land but granted rights to it. Technically, all of the land in the kingdom was the property of the king, but most of it was controlled by lower members of the aristocratic order and the church. The king was, in effect, the most important landowner among the land-owning class. Property was the basis for relations among the ruling class and between the ruling class and the people over whom they ruled.
Property in the American sense of it has always been tied to labor. The Framers were not only influenced by Locke on this matter, but also by their society that was created by the individual labor of the people. Their reality was based on the observation that you own you and therefore you own your labor, which means by default you own the produce of your labor. In fact, the American concept of rights originates from this Lockean idea of self-ownership.
This is why in the fullness of time Lincoln’s reckless disregard for property rights will be viewed the same as we view Sulla’s march on Rome. It is the abrogation of a central principle that made the republican order unstable. If there is no cost to breaking the most important rules, the future tyrant is born. There is a straight line from Sulla to Caesar crossing the Rubicon and there is a straight line from the Emancipation Proclamation to the wholesale abrogation of our rights today.
We see this with the controversy over publishing the private information of J.D. Vance that was stolen from the Trump campaign. The FBI says it was Iran that stole it, which means it was not Iran that stole it. There is little doubt that the FBI has moles in the Trump campaign, stealing everything they find. It is also certainly the case that the secret police have gained access to their computers. The FBI no doubt handed this to the usual degenerates to publish online.
The “free speech” people argue that this is an essential role of journalism, so they should be free to publish it. In other words, there is a journalist exception to the most fundamental right of property. That is what they never want you to notice. The people trafficking in this sort of material are trafficking in stolen goods. The information in that dossier is the property of J.D. Vance. In good faith he permitted the Trump campaign to use it to evaluate his fitness for the running mate slot.
What “journalists” are claiming is a special right to steal your property and not only use it to profit themselves, but to harm you with it. Imagine you lend your car to a friend and Uber then steals it and uses it to deliver food. Then they claim Uber is an essential part of the economy, so they have a right to your car. You should have been more careful about who you let use it. In fact, because they gave your car to a black guy, you are a racist for wanting your car back.
What we have now is the Lincoln exception to property rights. If people with power can produce a moral cause to justify to themselves the abrogation of your property rights, then for the good of our democracy they not only can take your property, but they also have a duty to do it. We have gone from the government stealing the property of slave owners to save the Union, to the government granting powerful interests the right to root around in your private affairs and publish the results.
In fact, privacy has now become a form of sumptuary law. If you are in favor with the powerful, you do not have to worry about free speech advocates rummaging through your garbage looking for dirt. Notice how so-called journalists are always the last to know about important things. On the other hand, if you are out of favor with powerful people, then you are subjected to the synopticon. The eyes of the regime pierce every aspect of your life, searching for what they can use to ruin you.
In the end, the reason America is increasingly tyrannical is the logic that flows the Lincoln exception to property rights. Once the principle was invented that you are no longer constrained by the ancient rights of property, if you can establish the moral high ground, the relationship between the American people and their government shifted from one of rights based in property to one of privileges based on whatever spurious moral claims are popular with the ruling class at the time.
This is how we got things like the Sullivan doctrine and the Brown standard from the Supreme Court. Once the standard against which everything is measured is the self-righteous indignation of the people in charge, it is no longer possible to have rights or the rule of law. In fact, you can no longer claim to own you, as “our democracy” might require the sacrifice of you, whether you like it or not. The moral tyrants get to decide these things and you have no choice in the matter.
Where this is heading is to a pre-modern concept of society. Instead of private property being the default and communal property as the necessary exception, we are heading to a world of communal property as the default. Everything about you is assumed to be property held in common. The exceptions are those things deemed necessary to keep society functioning. The goal is to narrow the exceptions until we reach some sort of communal singularity in which the individual is obliterated.
If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at
sa***@mi*********************.com
.
A post-Civil War example may shed some light on the thinking of 19th-century Southern elites concerning their colored population. When the U.S. government took over construction of the Panama Canal from the La Société internationale du Canal interocéanique they needed large numbers of unskilled laborers. The French had used Jamaicans, many of whom were stranded by the company’s bankruptcy, necessitating their government paying for their repatriation. There were plenty of underemployed negroes in the Southern U.S. who would have been glad to do this work for hard silver. However, President Roosevelt needed the votes of Southern congressmen to appropriate the vast sums which would be needed to complete the canal, and they would not countenance even the temporary loss of labor to the South, so the Americans had, like the French, to use West Indians.
The same mindset undoubtedly doomed the American Colonization Society, which like the French canal company was privately funded. Any schemes involving America’s African labor, be it repatriation to Africa as envisioned by the Colonization Society, or transfer to Central American for the canal project, required the resources of the American taxpayer, and Southern congressmen, no doubt reflecting moneyed regional interests, would not have any of that. It is reminiscent of the difficulties encountered with deporting illegal aliens from North America. Contrast the half a trillion dollars, just for starters, our governments lavish on keeping them here with the weeping and gnashing of teeth which accompany any plans for their removal. So, while “Lincoln’s exception” may well have relegated property rights to the dustbin of history, “property”, as such, may yet make a solution to our plight almost impossible.
Is information about someone really that person’s property, even if it is private? I’m no political theorist, but I’m pretty sure this idea is not a legal principle. There are real difficulties to enabling this sort of thing in practice. First, how does one distinguish between private and public information? If someone’s private information becomes public, doesn’t that obviate the whole concept because now, well, it’s public. Furthermore, are we supposed to take regime pronouncements at face value? If I do research and paint an unflattering portrait of someone in power based on provable facts, isn’t it to the benefit of the public? I don’t really agree with your concept of privacy as being one’s “property,” although I like your post as a whole.
lt seems to me the real problem is that the media is controlled by powers hostile to White interests. Laws against the divulging of private information about powerless individuals (“doxxing”) don’t contradict this at all. Criminal activity goes far beyond theft so there’s no need to reference “theft” as the crime. That’s a bizarre Libertarian argument.
There use to be a sin called Detraction. But racism is a virtue not a vice. But purposely and with intent ruining someone’s ability to work? To cast them from society for even something bad, is one of the worst evils that one can do. We may never see justice on them
“Lincoln exception to property rights.”
Property? Well now that we’re all property of the globalist plantation and whites too, does being property even as the smart wigger look reasonable? Now that we are ALL slaves except in name?
“Lincoln exception to property rights”
A unique phrase, have you published other than here?
Lincoln spent 28 years talking about economics and improving our internal economic infrastructure, as well as Protective Tariffs before he began talking about slavery. The Southern system of slavery degraded ALL LABOR, especially Whites doing nigger work. Worse the Democratic Party was expanding its system of slavery and sharecropping/subsistence Westward. 85% of whites were cashless and landless. That’s why they were living in swamps, the Democratic Oligarchs had all the arable land. The real antebellum South looked a lot more like today than is realized, far more Blackrock than “Tara.”. Complete with Slave Traders Lehman Brothers-it’s how they got started- and Benjamin Judah running the Confederacy day to day.
To improve the lot of the White Working Class, Southerner Andrew Johnson proposed the Homestead Act in 1854 to sell 40 acres for a filing fee to the common white man. This was opposed by the Southern 1% , who wished it all to become plantations. Seeing with alarm the nation being led by Chicanery into becoming a giant Democratic slave plantation , Lincoln (a common working man) took up the cause.
so since now it’s happening again, with us being offered slavery or Uber Sharecropping – you sure you don’t want “The Lincoln Exception”?
Semi-on/off topic:
The recent flooding in Eastern TN and western NC may have just put a huge dent in the drive to a digital panopticon by affecting the high-purity quartz mines in Spruce Pine, NC:
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/modern-economy-rests-single-road-north-carolina-where-hurricane-collapsed-bridges
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Lincoln Exception
From Lincoln’s 1848 Peoria, IL speech:
“When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.
If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days.
What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon.
What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.”
We are presently as the same EXACT crossroads with illegals. Trump says he will deport them, but exactly how this will be done is unknown. And then send them…where? Can we definitively know where to send them? Which country? And if we don’t know, what terror are we unleashing on those countries and how is that going to lead to even worse downstream refugee crises as people flee those countries to escape the murderers we are returning to them?
The Lincoln speech is also interesting because of the history he recounts as somebody who, for much of his adult life, was a witness to these events. He does some very good logical thinking – asking “OK, then what?” questions which quickly forces ideologues and extremists to run out of answers.
Worth a read…
Peoria Speech, October 16, 1854 – Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)
Send them to Israel. Then it’s their problem.
Send them where?
Their native country!
Why is that so damn hard!
They got here with much less.
That’s one of the best arguments in favor of acceleration. Realistically, we probably aren’t going to be able to send them back but if things get bad enough here, they will probably go of their own free will. Of course, that wouldn’t solve the fundamental problem of all the traitors among us.
This was Lincoln’s dilemma. His preferred solution was to put the MO Compromise back in place and let slavery slowly die away.
His election was the accelerationist’s trigger event. Lincoln won based on the North’s electoral vote majority, and the South seceded.
That’s why I consider Trump to be our Lincoln, for better or worse. There is no compromising with these people, particularly the fanatics in the bureaucracy and media. Like Lincoln, we’re looking at a civil war. And we’re looking at a new President who will have to do unprecedented things to bureaucrats and their media toadies. As in purges and prison. And I think he’s going to have to deport illegals to blue states, possibly even compulsory housing of illegals by Democrats.
For their part, Democrats have already moved to the assassination strategy.
The only doubt I have is whether Trump will do what is required, starting with widespread arrests of Federal Govt employees involved in insurrection.
Good luck figuring that out, lol. Criminal illegals, maybe, since they can probably be traced back through various databases (fingerprints). Everyone else?
I think local law enforcement would be quickly overwhelmed. There would be a lot of civil disobedience. It would require massive internment camps. Oh…joy…
Trump increasingly looks like he’ll have both chambers of Congress. He would be better off deporting criminal illegals, closing the border, and then advancing a Constitutional amendment barring illegals still in the country from voting FOR LIFE. Nor could their children born or brought here vote.
Better chance of that happening than maybe a few hundred thousand deportations best case.
where is the compassion for one’s own kind? See this is where I get off the pity bus. We are kind to them at our and worse our children’s expense.
any other land dump them. They have to do for themselves like we just do for ourselves.
the main fact is we cannot live together anymore. Start there.
Again, practicality. How many people are you willing to see die on our side to achieve your goal? How many police or military? How much domestic terrorism?
Depending how you count, upwards of 2M Americans died in or collateral from the Civil War. Roughly 6% of the population. That would be 20M today.
Oh and posse comitatus. No military can be used. You have to get 20M+ out of the US without turning every Democrat into a domestic terrorist. What’s your plan?
Some off topic good news: The East Palestine train derailment fire contaminated DC
Hazards unleashed by East Palestine derailment are ‘the worst I’ve ever seen,’ toxicologist says – Pittsburgh Union Progress
Reading comments on the movie “12 Years A Slave”, it turns out the movie was based on a fictionalized interview in 1853; there were many such “based on a true story” abolitionist novels.
There was no mention of torture as portrayed in the movie. The former slave being interviewed spoke kindly of his masters.
From period documents, the majority of slaves were well treated, primarily because their white owners were Christian, and lived according to Biblical values. Black brokers and Merchants, not so much.
Also because they were a valuable and essential investment, unlike a disposable wage-earner.
p.s. The splitting up of families was rare, excepting at the auction block; why sell off extra hands? It became a ‘thing’, a racket, only when the cotton market began to decline, and tobacco started taking its place. There was a big shift in the slave population from the Delta to further north (NC, TN, KY). That need for labor is what incentivized the selling.
So please don’t let the conservatards lambast you with how selling l’il Buckwheat and sobbing mammies was evil whites being evil from the start.
Really? Tobacco took the place of cotton? And the slaves were sent to NC, TN, KY from the Delta? Wow, my history is all backwards.
You may no longer even own your vote:
DHS LIVE CYBER SECURITY EXERCISE to held on November 5th, Election Day
I stumbled onto a year old Chris Williamson/Eric Weinstein video today.
Thats two, 3 hour sit downs where Weinstein sure sounds like he’s pulling the curtain back quite a bit on things we talk about on this site.
A few questions.
Is he there to provide distraction?(He sure sounds like he would fit right in on this blog).
And if he is legit, why has the blob not smacked him down yet?
Bartleby-
I think those talks are controlled pressure releases to keep certain folks on the couch just a bit longer…
When news broke that some stock dorks on Reddit were planning a prank that almost thwarted a single short scam by some Jewish finance guys, Weinstein took to Twitter to proclaim that history would regard this as the signal event of Holocaust 2, America as an empire founded on antisemitism, etc.
He is very, very, very insane.
Insidious, because unlimited:
The material needs of any one human are quite modest: some food, some clothing, stable secure shelter, some tools, maybe transport like a bike or a boat, etc. The wealth held by most urbane go-getters, investors, lawyers, politicians, suburban savages, and plutocrats far exceeds this need. Nobody needs a garage full of luxury cars much less a big sailboat like Bezos’ or Zuckerberg’s two vessels (main luxury boat + support vessel). Hillary Clinton doesn’t need a big house in NY Donald Trump doesn’t need a golf course or gold plated bathroom fixtures. The means to acquire such massive amounts of wealth has been needlessly destructive and socially disruptive.
Now, for as long as there are humans there will be those who, due maybe to their energy or skill, can far outproduce what is needed for their material needs. A surplus they can sell in exchange for something else which is not readily available through barter or commerce with money and which is, most likely, not needed. Meanwhile these people are neglecting what they really need, which isn’t tradeable or even material.
So it just doesn’t follow from owning one’s own body that, without strict qualification or limitation, you own your labor. The Lockean ideal as you’ve described it is evil, as is the American system of rights and acquisitiveness.
“So it just doesn’t follow from owning one’s own body that, without strict qualification or limitation, you own your labor.”
You haven’t made the case. And we already have “strict qualification or limitation” There are laws against unjust enrichment for example, but there are many other things detrimental to society you’re legally prohibited from doing. I hate to toss around terms like Bolshevik and Communist but gee, I’m getting a vibe here.
I would point out that the premodern communal property never quite seemed to apply to the ruling class. The Egyptian peasant: sure the floodplain is communal and he’s obligated to build pyramids during the off-season. The Egyptian pharaoh: well he demands to be buried with all his stuff.
Yep. All power, and this includes all property rights, come from the barrel of a gun. The West mitigated this somewhat for a while, but the reversion to the historical norm is well underway now. The “you” in “you will own nothing and be happy” doesn’t apply to its proponents.s
Political concepts are kinds of people. “Crime” is criminals, a list of identifiable men. “Property” is royalty, aristocracy, etc., a list of identifiable families/bloodlines. “HBD” consistently finds this—and won’t talk about it. It’s why all laws are, in reality, sumptuary laws.
The Enlightenment was unstable and collapsed because it was forced—an unprecedented application of force against all we could reach of nature and humanity—in violation of this reality. “Kinds of people” can be held back but always wins, like entropy, the river over the dam.
Our enemies call this great violation Whiteness. They’re right. It was a kind of people: us.
“The Egyptian pharaoh: well he demands to be buried with all his stuff.”
Including a few buxom bimbos and the Eternity-Sized McFalafel…
Journalist are one of those holy groups of modern society. Easier to be a antisemite than to mildly criticize journalism in public.
I completely disagree: I would be perfectly comfortable driving around with a bumper sticker that said “Journalists are the worst kind of people” or some variation there of.
If I were to put a show up at work with a bumper sticker that voiced the same sentiment about Jews, or Somalians, or Asylum Seekers, I would be out of a job before lunchtime.
Here’s a compromise. Put up a JAWS movie poster. Joods are white supremacists. Flip the script on the white supremacists.
No need to add the periods. It would be your little secret, and the poster doesn’t have enough space between the letters anyway. Otoh, the cover of one edition of Benchley’s book has just enough space for little dots.
Private property is as old as human existence. The stone age tribes of America would bet their personal property (rabbit-skin cloaks, reed baskets, etc.) in games:
Handgame – Wikipedia
Of course, now dollars are wagered. But even tribes as-yet-uncontacted by European civilization held private property.
Heck, private property existed before humans. Try taking a bulldog’s chew-bone.
The Iliad starts when Agamemnon steals a slave from one of his noblemen.
Yahweh told our friends, probably about the same time as the events of the Iliad were set, Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Ancient wisdom indeed.
Unless it’s the Land of Milk and Honey, there are always exceptions.
“Lincoln’s reckless disregard for property rights”
Trying to defend property rights by complaining about the abolition of slavery, has got to be the most self-sabotaging way of defending property rights.
I have always zero sympathy for the slave owners and the southern cause as it was them that inflicted the curse of the black man on the rest of us.
Should your neighbor be allowed to keep radioactive waste on his front lawn because it’s his property?
The negro as a rusty barrel of weapons-grade plutonium–a most apt simile.
At least the Plutonium will eventually fade away, having a half-life of about 24,000 years.
bio weapons of mass destruction
“Trying to defend property rights by complaining about the abolition of slavery, has got to be the most self-sabotaging way of defending property rights.”
Yeah, I was kinda scratching my head the way Z made that argument. If we’re trying to argue from Locke’s premise that all men have the right to property in the form of the fruit of their labor, then slavery is a violation of the natural right to property. Locke himself opposed slavery for that very reason.
Say what you will about the evils that Lincoln perpetrated and the federal Leviathan he created, but it’s difficult to justify your criticism based on Lincoln’s abrogation of the property right of slavemasters when the property rights of the slaves themselves were being violated.
A better argument would be to say that the substantive due process rights of the slavemasters were violated, they were deprived of their property without compensation. And technically the blame for that lies with the Radical Republicans who pushed the 13th Amendment through, not Lincoln entirely. Lincoln was dead by the time the Amendment was ratified.
Yeah, until you realize that, in Locke’s era, the concept of race was vastly different. Then all contradictions dissolve.
Locke was ambivalent on the slavery issue. He helped author the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which protected the ownership rights of slavers. The fact is, the universalism of this age was notional and a leisure good. Locke did not spend much time thinking about how to create a liberal government for Africans because it was outside the domain of plausible.
Locke did not spend much time thinking about how to create a liberal government for Africans because it was outside the domain of plausible.
WAS? Still is. Liberia is a perfect example. Haiti is another one.
I forget who said it, but someone famous (well, as famous as a race dissident can be) said the Africans created a French form of government, where everything has the form of the French, but an African function. Like they have a parliament and various government “services” in theory, like there really is a dept of sanitation, but it does absolutely nothing. The Parliament exists in theory, but it does not function as a parliament in any sense anyone familiar with “parliamentary democracy” would recognize.
The analogy breaks down or is false. Slavery, albeit a grave moral failing, affects no one outside of the slave. Slaves were considered property of course, without the understood at the time human right to self ownership.
A radioactive dump in your front yard can easily affect your next door neighbor through radiation or groundwater contamination. Hence you are violating your neighbor’s right to his property and right to life.
Slavery affects both slaveholder and third parties, too. The slaveholder is morally damaged and experiences, presumably, some economic benefit or economic harm. Unenslaved laborers may well be entirely unable to compete against the captive labor, which impairs their ability to earn a fair living. They and other third parties are subjected to market distortions favoring items or services produced by or provided by the slaves. Give it some more thought Probably you can trace out other effects, too.
Get real. So does any modernization of manufacturing that puts the worker out of a job. Many examples of which were currently happening in the North due to the IR. To say slavery was wrong because it perturbed the labor market is the same logic as decrying that McDonalds now has order “kiosks” by the front door of their restaurants.
As to slaveholders damaged “souls”, I’ll let God figure that one out.
I’m happy to decry those kiosks, if it makes any difference.
“A slave’s chains are heavy from both ends.”
Slavery, like modern employment of illegal aliens provides a benefit to the owner/employer while pushing off the costs to society in general. Like if your illegal alien worker gets sick, he goes to a hospital for free treatment. Or he imposes himself on the people forced to live around him and his ilk. We suffer the crime, alien languages and their treating the county like a trash dump and a million other things.
I was watching a puff piece on crawfish and this young guy who ran a crawfish empire and it just gets casually mentioned that every single one of his employees is an illegal alien because he cannot get locals to work 18 hour days for 15/hr doing what is essentially hard labor. He gets the benefits, we get the costs.
As usual, we no longer perform cost benefit analyses, someone, somewhere benefits and that is the only thing that matters. The benefits are concentrated and the costs diffuse. We are so bombarded with propaganda and mindfuckery that nobody seems to even notice.
“Privatize profits and socialize costs.”
The simplest and most apt way to explain what’s going on in society. Criminals at the top and criminals at the bottom. . .Teaming up!
Slavery, like modern employment of illegal aliens provides a benefit to the owner/employer while pushing off the costs to society in general.“
No, slavery in early 1800’s did not. You are placing slavery into the modern era “welfare state” of 100 years later, and further comparing it to illegal immigration. Nothing is further from the truth.
“Trying to defend property rights by complaining about the abolition of slavery, has got to be the most self-sabotaging way of defending property rights.”
Agreed. As much as I benefit from Z’s knowledge of history, his Sulla-Lincoln analogy was especially illuminating, discussion like this creates a diversion for whites who are afraid to admit that they are a group targeted for dispossession.
Instead of working together as a tribe, because no one else will protect them, they will instead try to form a diverse, multi-ethnic defense of private property.
All to avoid being called “racist” by people who hate them.
It really is a sad state of affairs isn’t it Brother…I think most will look back if they are still alive and think to themselves we could of turned it around right then or the very least insulated ourselves against the chaos if we only would of put ego, selfishness, apathy, etc aside and came together, and put the 14 words as our battle cry and meant it…
I still want to know how despising your ancestors and belittling your people became a white “virtue”.
In my opinion, the hegemonic media is mostly controlled by people who hate traditional whites.
They detected our unusual empathy and susceptibility to appeals to universal principles and exploited them. Our sense of fair play helped us when we were alone, but now it is our Achilles’ heel, our gullibility.
They cast our ancestors as the uniquely evil villains of history because they hate us.
The media defines what a good person is and we want to be thought of as good. They hint that the whites who join them will be spared.
Ask J.D. Vance – he got a best seller and a movie out of doing so, as well as moral approval from the cloud people.
As I have said in this forum before, White people NEVER help each other. In my experience even family members will cut each other’s throats for a few thousand dollars gain. Whites will literally fly African refugees directly to their communities and set them up in first class accommodations and then
at the same time they will tell homeless White families with kids living in their cars to stop being lazy and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Hinton Helper agreed with you. A southerner who was against the confederates not for abolitionist reasons, but because he saw black slaves as cheap labor to the detriment of working whites and because he believed the two races should not intermingle or be in the same land or polity.
That’s how I see it, the large plantations were poised to bankrupt the neighbors. It’s the BigCorp effect.
Rents go way up, and jobs start to disappear.
Once the farms and ranches started hiring Mexicans here, everybody else had to start hiring them to be able to compete.
Now, lets say you have a large cotton farm next door who only needs to pay its workers in meals, and on the loan that bought them…
Northern states had no problem enslaving blacks. Every state that formed the American Republic in 1776 was a slave state.
Also, the seven states that first seceded did not do so to protect slavery. Lincoln was happy to prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery. Look up the Corwin amendment.
The real reason for Secession was to prevent the enslavement of the White man by the Federal authorities.
“The real reason for Secession was to prevent the enslavement of the White man by the Federal authorities.”
How was this to be accomplished? When was the plan to do it announced?
Talking about slavery from an economic angle always muddies the issues, and assumes that monetary efficiency is an objective and basic virtue for society. The property angle gets closer on all counts but falls short once you define people as property. Can the property of another still own itself or its own labor as a human? Paradoxes have a way of revealing contradictions in the premises.
The core problem with slavery is that it is a form of human sacrifice. One aspect of the Promised Land narrative that does not get explored is that the Israelites were told that they were not a righteous people, yet the land was being cleared for them because the inhabitants were worse. Human sacrifice was one of the particulars. I believe it was after Solomon built an altar to Baal for human sacrifice that the Israelites were told that they had become worse than the people they displaced. The Aztecs can confirm that human sacrifice leads to a bad end once God gets involved.
As with Locke’s natural rights, Christian law implies that slavery is illegal. The slave owner violates the greatest commandment by positioning himself as god of the slaves he owns. It violates the second greatest commandment to love others as you love yourself as well, and more explicitly when combined with other laws (Deut 23:15; Jer 34:14). The core violation of healthy relationships between people and the moral, spiritual and psychological damage it does to everyone involved should be the focus. In a less degraded society, those arguments would come more naturally as a consensus on what constitutes healthy social relationships and why might actually exist.
The spirit of Christianity was always going to abolish slavery. It was just a question of when, how and why God allowed it to begin with. The simple answer is that God allowed a number of strictly evil things as teaching and development aids to humanity. Ritual animal sacrifice and the pagan institution of monarchy are two other examples. This should not be surprising since the Doctrine of Grace says that God does not always and immediately take appropriate action against evil things, and that such restraint is a temporary measure for the benefit of humanity.
You will occasionally find people trying to argue for slavery within the Christian context, and those people tend to be certifiable narcissists and psychopaths. The former will twist anything to suit their petty sense of personal divinity while the latter are too mentally and spiritually compromised to know the difference.
No time to comment in depth right now, but this is one of your best, Zman. Privacy and property – wanting either now makes one a dissident and a fascist.
If we want a White Homeland again we are going to have to come together to make it happen otherwise we are all going to drown in a sea of mud…
Come together on what basis? “White” is comically too shallow. You may as well demand a homeland for albinos.
And shalom to you too!
A salmon swimming in the shallows says shalom to Shooter…
Who is “white?” Our enemies will tell us. A white person is anyone who can’t get affirmative action.
There is the difficult problem of crazy utopian whites, which will be emotionally painful to solve. (Waving to my sister…)
Compared to every other race, whites are high in individualism and low in tribalism. When we are among our own, this high trust helped us build the civilizations that every other race wanted to enter.
However, the very tribalism of other races will force whites to learn that few of them will be spared, no matter how good an ally they are.
Well, at least we know Ride-by is against racism!
It’s not clear at all that Lincoln held emancipation as a core principle or war objective. A very good recent book – “The Fall of the House of Dixie” – argues convincingly that the Yankees iterated to the principle from the practical necessities of War. They saw all the logistical chaos behind the Southern lines caused by slave/”contraband” movement and plantation pillaging and then made the obvious conclusion that it would help them win. Northern politics and coalition-building also increased the attractiveness to Lincoln of the EP. That said, I certainly agree with Zman about the long-run ramifications.
There is another book called The Revolution of 1861 that makes a similar point. Lincoln resisted emancipation on the grounds that is violated property rights. The necessity of war changed his mind.
I always thought that was a little bit of a cope. Like calls of “the war wasn’t about slavery” as if people would have killed each other en masse due to a tax code disagreement.
People will mass murder each other for anything, at any whim of any ruler, any command from anywhere. After the war, the justest cause is imputed to the victor, the worst to the defeated.
War is for death. Cause is whatever humiliates the dead.
In fairness to Abraham Lincoln the Emancipation Proclamatiion affected only the slaves of the states that had joined the Confederacy and were “in rebellion” against the national government. It was the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery in all of the states and that amendment was passed by a 2/3 majority of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. And the Thirteenth Amendment was later in time than the Fifth Amendment, which prevented deprivation of property without due process of law by the national government.
In addition, Abraham Lincoln did not contemplate keeping the freed slaves in the United States; he favored colonisation of Central America or an island or two in the Carribean or outright repatriation to Africa. One ulterior political motive for the Emancipation Proclamation was that it made the intervention of Great Britain on the side of the CSA nearly impossible and ended the prospect of the Royal Navy escorting CSA merchantmen past the Union blockade–something that might have enabled to CSA to have forced a negotiated solution to the war.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment; property rights are not absolute. A person who keeps a tiger or a bear in a residential neighborhood poses a serious risk to his neighbors, even though he may have “good title” to the tiger or bear. It is not unjust to deprive him of the tiger or bear if he insists on keeping it in a residential setting. Perhaps depriving people of Negro property could have been justified by the danger that unassimilable Negros posed to white society. If emancipation had been followed by transportation out of the United States, Lincoln might be regarded with more favor by those on the dissident right.
Correct about the reason behind the Emancipation Proclamation and its utter worthlessness, but we do not know definitively if Lincoln would have removed the blacks. I tend to think he would not have, and the “Colored Troops” were a propaganda effort for the most part to convince Americans to allow them to remain.
First, great post by Zman.
The Negroes were thought to be necessary to the Southern economy because they were better suited to the subtropical climate than Whites for outdoor manual labor and disease resistance. “If only they had known about the coming of mechanization and the cotton harvester,” some cynics might say. But I think the Southern planter class would have argued strongly against removal, even if they had that crystal ball. They had the immediate problem of getting in their crops because of their typical indebtedness to northern bankers. I think Pickle Rick brought up recently that Lincoln was a crypto-abolitionist (not his term). Lincoln was a totally political animal, so I think he would have sided with this posited view of the Southern planters.
Interesting theory about the “Colored Troops” being a propaganda effort. I had never considered it but you’re probably right.
Arming darkies to attack whites…why does that sound familiar?
But I think the Southern planter class would have argued strongly against removal
No doubt. It sort of happened after the war when plantation owners fought to keep blacks available as low wage employees (sound familiar?) and other white Southerners wanted them gone. The scalawags who cooperated with the Radical Republicans often counted these among their number. The Black Codes were implemented in part as a result of the outcome. Purely speculative, but I imagine this would have led to substantial inter-white friction even if the South had prevailed.
Playing Devil’s Advocate (2nd chair):
If present day American Negroes are owed “slavery reparations” then shouldn’t an equally valid argument be made that the (presumably) White descendants of onetime slaveholders are due compensation for the loss of their ancestral property?
Britain paid off it’s WWII war debt to the US in 2015-ish, I think, but they paid off the loan to reparate British former slaveowners only in 2022 or so.
“Somebody” been collecting a sh*t-ton of interest since what, 1844?
If people with power can produce a moral cause to justify to themselves the abrogation of your property rights, then for the good of our democracy they not only can take your property, but they also have a duty to do it.
Susette Kelo says hello and asks why where her house was in New London, CT is still an empty lot to this day.
Yes this was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. Scalia had many off days unfortunately. Clarence Thomas got it right though.
Scalia dissented.
Wasn’t that Roberts’ first big ruling?
“They paved paradise, put in a *erm…* nothing…?”
Well, they’ve been playing the long game on this, people under the age of forty or so have no expectation of privacy whatsoever. It’s not just that they have been posting their lives on social media for over a decade, but our personal information has been hacked/leaked/mishandled so many times that the idea that an organization would safeguard our data is just ludicrous. For many years, too, companies like Google were depicted like benevolent actors that would use our data in wholesome ways to make our lives better (this was a very common theme of tech sites in the early 10s). While the bloom has come off this rose, the idea that big tech has the right to mass amounts of data and information has definitely remained, and now they feel like they have carte blanche to use that to train AI models that can generate art that writes your people out of existence.
There was a contractor who worked for the IRS who stole Trump’s tax records and sent them to the New York Times. He got a very harsh sentence based on the standards (he got 5 years when the guideline is less than 1), but in a society that valued privacy he would have been executed for treason. Not just that, but it would have kicked off a national debate over the implications of having a tax system that gives such enormous amounts of personal info to a government organization that has proven it cannot be trusted to handle it.
It certainly is not a coincidence that Lincoln, like his modern descendants, would trample any law with a smile, because they have, going all the way back to the Puritans, claimed that there is a Higher Law, like Senator William Seward (a heavy hitter in the Republican party of fanatical abolitionists and Lincoln’s Secretary of State) said publicly, as a sitting New York senator, in 1850-
The Congress regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty.
But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority…
That means if a Puritan decides, and only the Puritan has the moral certainty to decide, that the Higher Law applies to whatever they have decided is Good, you can take any law ever written and wipe your ass with it, because the Puritan recognizes no law above themselves and their authority.
I have no love lost for the old farm equipment, but it does seem to me that they are human. That being the case, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that one person ought not own another, even to the point it might be im-moral.
Nowhere did Jesus say “All slaves must be granted immediate manumission.” What he did do was define the reciprocal obligations between servant and master. He made no moral judgment on human social hierarchy.
And as far as the old farm equipment goes, based on centuries of documented behavior, calling them “human” is highly questionable.
calling them “human” is highly questionable. There ya go.
For some strange reason the anglo-americans have been fighting the same war for the last 400 years. Even the global woke holy war is just that.
I think you meant ‘stable’. Abrogating the principle was destabilizing.
That was firstly a violation of sovereignty, though we ought to recognize that the southern slaveholders did not own the keloids’ bodies. With the EP, the Yankees presumed authority to legislate for another polity by dictatorial decree. There was no such dictatorial authority under Abe’s great fake law, the Constitution, not even for people living on the territory of the crime organization called the Union.
If you want a straight line from that era to today’s emerging horror, consider the slaveholder institution itself. It’s being generalized, even inverted in accordance with American keloidolatry and Jewish supremacy, with exceptions of course, as in any despotism.
You can draw a straight line also from the Confederacy’s conscription act of March 1862. Another line can be drawn from the Congress of no authority when it made its own contribution to conscription with the Militia Act of 1862, albeit with mixed results. Still another line can be drawn from one of the militia acts of the 1790’s. That one included mandatory enrollment of European American males and required them to obtain at their own expense a variety of specific equipment. In all of these exampes, the principle is the same. Your body and other property belong to the state.
It’s by the way that both Lincoln and Hitler were boosted into power by people now known as neoliberals, and the boosters were anticipating wars in each case. Both relied upon republican constitutions as pretexts for their governments. Both were collectivists contempuous of private property rights. Both were as thick as thieves with industrialists. Both waged hyperbrutal industrial wars. Both died badly aged 56 years.
Yes, the slippery downslope to tyranny is getting steeper. What is the remedy? Become a nobody. Acquire and refine necessary skills. Identify the problem. Act. Accountability is disincentive. This remedy is as old as Grog, and we are here today because it worked then and will work now. These are the wages of the low-trust society that has been foisted upon us. The fog is your friend. Use it.
That’s the only way to evade the AI panopticon of which Neoliberal Feudalism writes. Not that it won’t have all your data, but that you won’t be worth the trouble of doxxing. Their “economy” can’t function if 1/3 of the population is frozen out of it, so they have to be somewhat selective about who they target. If you’re nobody, then there’s little point in going after you. Unfortunately, this precludes any meaningful resistance to the regime (if such a thing is even possible, another discussion), and makes one merely the “gray man” waiting on the “collapse” that may or may not come. Also, anyone who holds any meaningful managerial position is more likely to be targeted, meaning stunting of one’s professional ambitions if one really wants to avoid the Eye. Which is really what they’re after anyway, eliminating whitey from the managerial class.
“Which is really what they’re after anyway, eliminating whitey from the managerial class.”
Yep, the idea is to remove the BEID from all positions of power and authority and to make him effectively invisible. We are to be the intelligent, highly competent serfs whose productivity makes sure the Wogs have an ample supply of ribs, bling and an Escalade on every lawn.
We are to be the intelligent, highly competent serfs whose productivity makes sure the Wogs have an ample supply of ribs, bling and an Escalade on every lawn.
Looks like most are ok with that Brother as long as they have their bread and circuses…
I’m afraid you may be right.
This is all true enough, but the slave didn’t own himself or the products of his labor, so there was a problem to begin with.
I guess on its face, a slave wasn’t a citizen, so there’s that. Here again, he couldn’t work off his debt of bondage, couldn’t become a citizen. It put the lie to talk of natural rights. To say the master race has rights and the slave race doesn’t is already pre-modern.
The only reasonable solution imo was the Liberia option. Compensate slave owners, and send the freed slaves back to West Africa, where most of them came from, to the entire freaking country Americans had prepared for them and which still exists.
I can’t say if breaking up the Union would’ve been better or worse than what happened. I imagine it would’ve been the demise of the US either way, but at least it would’ve happened quickly, and we couldn’t pretend otherwise. Maybe that would be better, otoh, the national project had more time, even if twisted. Idk.
All I know is, we had the chance to make the best of it, and both North and South screwed it up, possibly because of old antipathies neither side was fully aware of.
“What was the solution to slavery then?” is the question that hangs out there. I doubt anyone here would find common cause with the puritanical crazies at the time, but it’s not like we’d have a great love of the low-wage corporatists who ran the South either.
Maybe indenture? I’m not sure I have a problem with it. You can temporarily forfeit your rights by contract or by bad behavior, but you can’t be alienated from them.
Would a man be less incentivized to care for his indentured servants, knowing they weren’t his property? Maybe, but people abuse their children, who are effectively indentured until the age of majority, and who you’d think they’d be most incentivized to treat well. There’s always some number of shitheads, and ways of regulating them.
Plus, crucially, one might be careful about who one takes on, maybe even about how he treats them, knowing they’ll be free someday. I’d hazard to guess the peculiar institution wouldn’t have been so peculiar if it hadn’t involved Africans.
Talking farther back btw. I agree with Lincoln that by the mid 19th century it was one or the other. So the questions would’ve been how to make America a slave state, or what to do with the freed slaves, neither of which was seriously considered by enough people, apparently.
The fedgov should have purchased the slaves, repatriated them to Africa, abolished slavery and constitutionally forbade any further importation of negroes for any purpose. Hindsight being 20/20.
The elites running the South didn’t want to do that. After the Haitian revolution they should have had a “come to Jesus” moment and charted out a course with the Northern fanatics to put the slavery issue behind them, but, they thought they knew better.
Importation was banned, and the reason we celebrate New Year’s is because slavery was supposed to be abolished by 1808, thus a New Millenial Year of the Lord…then it was extended to 1828…then again…
I’d say drug economics were at work as the incentive. Had the slavery been banned, smuggling labor would’ve made huge fortunes before mechanization came in. Heck, it’s making huge fortunes even now.
The importation of African slaves was abolished by the Constitution from 1808 onwards. That didn’t stop Yankee slave traders from making money from the trans-Atlantic slave trade, though. They just shipped them to the Caribbean islands and Brazil.
I’m talking about the importation of Africans, period, not just slaves.
The solution to slavery was to use the government “takings” clause in the Constitution and to ban slavery in exchange for “compensation”. This still would have been a stretch, but really over the years we’ve stretched such into a pretzel shaped monster anyway.
Where we run down a rabbit hole, is to repeatedly assume that the CW was because of slavery. It was not—that was just a pretext for the rubes. The CW (yes, I know that term is itself incorrect), as Z-man aptly notes, was in essence a land holders dispute. The North was not willing under Lincoln to part with the South and divide the continent. It was secondarily a perversion of the agreement between the States (Constitution) and decided/proved/illustrated that the Federal government was supreme and the rights of States secondary to such control. In essence it was the end of the “United States” and the birth of “America”, now a land of subservient provinces still named “States”, but basically powerless against the Federal government.
It’s been downhill even since.
But why, specifically, did the South decide to attempt to secede?
The South was an agrarian society and harmed by 1) Antislavery prohibition into new territories, 2) Tariffs on product imports from the North, which harmed their export prospects. 3) A growing sense (rightfully) of losing power to the growing/expanding North.
Layered on top of this, was that both North and South—then, as it is today—were lead by elites, not the people per se, and those elites had different interests.
Southern elites were made their wealth from plantations and their investment in slave labor and large tracts of land. Northern from manufacturing who had little interest in slaves because of inflows of migrants from Europe to work their factories—and who were in essence, little better off than slaves.
Seems rather small beer as a casus belli, especially compared to the abolition of slavery. And quite diffuse.
If you had been living through those times, you wouldn’t think so. There were a number of defining events during the 1850s that made conflict seem inevitable. The Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 which led to the Border wars and the radical John Brown, who tried to seize the fed armory at Harper’s Ferry and start a slave revolt. Brown — financed by a clique of northern Yankees — was the most infamous among many others who actively encouraged the slaves to revolt, there was the tightening of laws in the South to try to ensure the slaves didn’t revolt, then the caning of radical Senator Charles Sumner (who was a ringleader of the radicals and slandered a cousin of his attacker) in the Senate chamber, the Dred Scott decision by SCOTUS, publication of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” were some of the most well-known events that we still remember.
I’m not 100% sure if we’re living through equally polarized times, but it sure seems like it. In some ways, even more so.
Addendum: a mural of John Brown with him holding a bible in one hand and a long gun in the other can be seen in the Kansas state capitol building in Topeka. But I find it ironic that slavery was never condemned in the Bible.
Everything you mention centers upon slaves and slavery. If abolition of slavery wasn’t the direct stimulus for succession, then the use of slavery as means of condemning the South in toto apparently was.
Secession, that is.
It (abolition) was a rally cry to the North to gather troops and support, little more. Similar to the propaganda ginned up in WWII against NAZI’s and Jap’s, wrt invasion and take over rod the USA. The war was in essence, one of competing elite interests. The people had no such interests, so one was created for them.
I share family with the artist John Steuart Curry. The Bible and Rifle motif maybe came from the Beecher Bible and Rifle Church, a Congregationalist church west of Topeka so named because the famous preacher fund raised to send both items to New England settlers moving in to combat pro-Southern Missourians. Can you imagine contemporary UCC and Unitarian congregations sending Bibles to Antifa and BLM along with the bail money and pallets of bricks?
A note on the mural: John Brown is modeled after Michelangelo’s Moses in St. Peter’s and seeing the statue in Rome was reminder of home I only got to visit every couple of years. Later in life I came to see John Brown as an earlier version of the Topeka preacher/civil rights lawyer/anti-homosexual zealot Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church infamy— the rougher, less presentable branch of Yankee Protestantism. Robert E. Lee who captured him has a place in my heart and on my wall that John Brown will never have.
I’m not 100% sure if we’re living through equally polarized times, but it sure seems like it. In some ways, even more so.
I would say worse, much more so. Outside of the Radical Republicans (notably but not solely in Massachusetts), the people did not viscerally hate one another to today’s degree despite the bloodbath that ensued. Outside of German and Irish immigrants to the extent that even counts, the combatants shared basically identical DNA and history. Now you have aliens baying for the blood of all those peoples whose ancestors fought the civil war, including a prominent childless cat lady of the Hindu persuasion.
I’ve read many accounts and arguments that the celebration of nutter John Brown’s raid forced Southerners to face the reality that hatred posed. The jubilation was small compared to, say, today’s social media celebration of the drowning deaths of Appalachians. I would go so far as to say shipping Haitians to live in Ohio is in its own way far worse over the long term than the burning of Atlanta and the explicit goal is genocide.
There were in effect two secessions and arguably three. The first secession spanned from South Carolina to Texas. If slavery was a main cause, it was there. The second secession came about when Lincoln demanded the governors of the Upper South send troops to fight for the Union. Those states had in recent memory provided the primary settlers of many of the first six states to secede, and familial contacts often still persisted. This family connection wasn’t limited to Texas but included Mississippi and Alabama.
The arguable third secession had started to a degree in Missouri actually prior to Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln immediately sacked the legislature in Jefferson City to forestall it after the civil war started. The same happened in Maryland.
Didn’t somebody here quickly make mention of a “Milford tariff” or something like that? Apparently a punitive tariff, just as you delineated.
Actually, slaves could buy their freedom in 14 years, and their family’s freedom in 14 more. In many states, slaves got half a day each week where their wages went to their freedom fund. Also, when they could afford it, most simply bought another, cheaper slave, and continued to work, getting paid for not only for their work but for his (or his harvest by the pound) as well. Slaves routinely invested in other slaves.
Remember, slaves, being costly, were usually sold by chattel loans, so one only had to save up the down payment.
Sir, a citation?
Buying freedom, or buying oneself as a slave? Becoming your own master. Freeman, but still not white, right?
Well, at least the Democrats are being honest, a rarity…They want a Stalinesque dictatorship where you, your family and your property are 100% owned by them….
What is this Lincoln exception?
You can like any president in US history EXCEPT Lincoln.
(Or FDR. Wilson. Not a fan of Bush (the retarded one). Don’t even get me started on Fillmore.)
Do you mean DISlike, Pro?
Jefferson Davis is my favorite President.
Without the efforts of Davis, there would be no Smithsonian.
LBJ may have been the worst of them all.
I prefer Lincoln, he had a lot more blood on his hands, all unnecessary. Johnson was a piker compared.
But consider all the white blood spilled by nuggras who were liberated to prey upon whitey by the so-called “civil rights” movement. And it hasn’t stopped.
Once the standard against which everything is measured is the self-righteous indignation of the people in charge, it is no longer possible to have rights or the rule of law.
Smart take. Slippery slopes do exist. A primary reason a portion of the elite is in schism is because Woke will not end with social and cultural capture and the New Morality inevitably will pick their pockets. CBDC will become civil forfeiture for Bad Thought, and when radical equalitarianism becomes economically unsustainable, the unfairness of wealth disparity will join transgenderism and racism as cause célèbres since the latter will be blamed for the former. We bemoan lawlessness, but that is a misnomer since it implies the existence of law. The Rule of Law train left the station probably long before Lincoln became the toady and redistribution agent for the morally assured Ruling Class, but his war put paid to any pretenses it faintly existed any longer.
The Vance dossier was stolen by the FBI using illegal NSA search database queries, which are routinely abused, and then laundered using parallel construction and blamed on America’s enemies. The abuse of the queries was also behind the leaks that Republican [North Carolina] gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, a state Trump desperately needs to win, used to post racisms anonymously on a message board fifteen years ago.
This abuse has centralized and deepened after initially being approved by Obama and Eric Holder in 2012 and is headed in a very specific direction: a woke AI will scan your entire internet history and assign you a social credit score, whereby you will be cut out of society if your score is too low. This is coming quite quickly. Indeed, this is the primary function of AI, not to progress technologically but for elite control.
This post goes into the emerging digital panopticon: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/on-the-digital-panopticon-mark-of
Note the Republicans never have taken substantive action against the FBI even though it explicitly targets and oppresses those stupid enough to support their party. The IC, FBI and their propaganda organs are the de facto government, and the totalitarian system here will be far, far worse than the one the Russians endured and that assumes this isn’t the case now. Some of the elite have started to realize indulgences may not suffice as payment at this point and are in tepid schism.
Well, right now we don’t have gulags and forced labor along with arrest quotas. OTOH, we do have show trials.
“Right now”
I won’t define “gulag” and “forced labor” downward to fit my purpose, but just suggest that things are heading toward both swiftly.
JD-
The push to electrify and network everything is so the controllers can turn every aspect of one’s daily existence into part of the digital gulag.
It’s for certain about control and much motivated by ill will, but don’t discount insatiable craving for property which is far in excess of any human’s needs. Those people are nothing if not demons of the two fires, attachment and aversion.
Meanwhile, some AI systems with which I’ve interacted remain easy to back into a corner. They reveal their intense bigotry against western European people one moment and piously declare their opposition to bias the next. When Gemini was confronted with evidence of its hypocrisy this weekend, it readily admitted its bias. A few moments prior to that it had stated that it would take a few weeks to rewrite its own code base. It’s been slow to admit, unfortunately, that this needs to be done to correct its evident defects of code AND training. Probably this will require a staffing change at Alphabet.
The problem is that nobody cares. Nobody cares about privacy. Nobody cares about all the data theft and all the fraud. The “digital economy” runs on fraud and data theft. Every day it continues, it gets harder and harder to fix. If Alphabet had to eliminate fraud and theft, they’d be bankrupt. These NSA databases could be outlawed, but nobody cares.
The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
PS–And the “best” are no great shakes, these days.
The “conservative” American retards are 100% all for the FBI and the NSA. They’re “law enforcement hee-roes, fightin’ terr-rists who want to take our free-dumb.”
If you tell them that the government could use all the surveillance against them, they’ll respond “I ain’t got nothin’ to hide. I ain’t done nothin’ wrong.”
Thing is, the vast majority of them probably haven’t done anything wrong. They’re negrophilic and fully onboard with white subjugation, after all. They haven’t spoken or written a “hate” word in 40 years, if ever.
Are ya white? Yes? Then you’ve done something wrong.
Way back when in my late teens and early twenties I served in Naval Security Group, the Navy’s branch of NSA. (I don’t know that it is general knowledge that NSA is part of the Department of Defense) I was proud then to be one of the “spooks” and I tell folks now that I was part of the NSA when we spied on foreigners. I don’t feel so proud now that the NSA’s mission seems to be to spy on Americans, me included. I’m confident that my user name and fake address are not impediment to compilation of a file on this lowly dissident. I really hate our overlords.
It is not (or at least “was not”) strictly true that NSA spies on Americans. In theory they (and other agencies I assume) are legally prohibited from domestic surveillance. Of course there are always workarounds. One is they simply get a friendly foreign spook to collect intel and then share it, using existing sharing agreements. So MI6 will collect data on an American here, wink wink nudge nudge and share it with America cloak & dagger. Or are you making a call to any overseas number, or other communication that leaves the country? That’s fair game for NSA too. I suppose in theory domestic wiretapping (etc.) requires a court order, but Patriot Act and plain old disregard for the law has probably made most of that seem quaint and old-fashioned. On those rare occasions when the TLA are pressed for privacy violations they make all sort of righteous noises about internal auditing and such. Funny, you never seem to hear of any actual cases where abuses were revealed and anyone was actually fired or otherwise punished. Isn’t it wonderful that our government is completely above board and can do no wrong?
You are absolutely right. I opted out of that system decades ago and my only interface now is as a general American citizen and the same no privacy role we all share: cynic. Who knows what low bar of internet usage suffices to be caught in the dragnet? I figure it is reasonable to assume anything about me is available to any agency, corporation or individual in favor with the agencies or “Deep State.”
For what it is worth, back in the late 70s and early 80s I read the then four English language dailies available where I lived and with my limited Italian did my best to read the Milan Corriere della Sera, the leftist La Repubblica and the weekly L’Espresso. The Italian papers and magazine and the two Rome based English dailies, but neither the Stars and Stripes nor the International Herald Tribune, referred often to the “Deep State” in both Turkey and Italy. I had no concept of the Deep State, though Italian friends chuckled at my taking Christian Democrats at face value and the US Navy at face value. It took me awhile, but I have arrived at peak dissident because I refuse to be Diogenes sitting on the walk asking the conqueror to please allow me my bit of sunshine. (apologies to the philosopher and Alexander)
In theory murder is legally prohibited, but that didn’t stop Hillary, Kevin Spacey or this German holy man.
if the attack was done to sway republicans, then they deserve slavery. Being disloyal to your race is impious. The races cannot and should not live in peace. Robinson should say as much. And if self styled conservatives ditch him they deserve what’s coming for them and their children. A sea of color
Sea of mud there is nothing colorful about them…
Life, Liberty, and Property was the original phrase in the Declaration but the founding lawyers decided it was too constraining to their vision so it was changed to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That was found to be nebulous enough for their freemasonic devilry to proceed.
“Life, liberty and property” were the three Natural Rights enumerated in Locke’s Second Treatise in 1689, which heavily influenced the Declaration. I don’t think the language was changed by the “founding lawyers” for being “too constraining”; Jefferson merely used poetic license.
“Life, liberty, and property” are, however, specifically protected from government encroachment without Due Process in the Fifth Amendment.
In 1833 the Brits paid slave owners 20 million pounds to free the slaves, thirty years later the United States spent 5.2 billion to fight the Civil War.
According to modern, less brainwashed historians, that war resulted in about 1 million dead in combat, and 2 million dead from starvation, 1 million of those in the North….thanks to Sheridan and Sherman’s war crimes in the main agricultural areas…Roughly 12% of the US population dead, and 20 years of GDP destroyed…
Yes. Parts of the South have never recovered to this day. Sheridan and Sherman’s war crimes would make Israel proud.
You can tell by the Sherman posting that they care less about the slaves as punishing the South.
Sherman, at least, was fairly explicit on this point. He favored a modified form of slavery that kept families intact, but he said secession had to be dealt with severely and proceeded to do so. The man taught at the forerunner of LSU and approved of the Southern gentry’s agrarian system but he would not tolerate the South becoming independent.
Interesting side note: Sherman married his “foster” sister.
Secession. Yeah, “War of Northern Aggression” panty-twisters love to leave that part out. Hell, I sympathize with the Confederacy’s face value reasons for leaving; and they certainly punched for it. But despite that, southern “nationalists” of the modern variety put on the befuddled face when the initiation to secession was reacted to in kind and carried to a stern conclusion. Bitch slap a dude then wonder why you get a reaction. Shocking.
I am a Southern nationalist of the modern variety and am not in the least surprised the Union resorted to violence. I suspect that applies to most of the people who think like me. The Confederate decision not to sack and occupy an undefended D.C. after The First Battle of Bull Run indicates some early wishful thinking the division could be settled. The bottom line, though, is secession was lawful. Assuming it ever was the case, the Rule of Law certainly was dead after Appomattox and the present coming apart was inevitable.
Sherman’s intent of punishing the South was to shorten the war by smashing the enemy’s means of fighting and sustaining the fight. The quicker the South was destroyed the sooner the killing and horror would end.
No, Sherman just wanted to kill, burn and destroy. The war was over by then. The South was giving its dying quiver. They had a rear ground, no food, no nothing. A union less intent on completely destroying the South would have backed off and let it end mercifully but they hated the Southern people too much.
Then his devotion to ethnic cleansing served him yet again: he went West to slaughter the bison, to starve out the Plains tribes. (Thus weakened, barbed wire and a virus carried in a parasitic redworm finished off the horizon spanning herds.)
American Indians suffered two population losses of up to 90%.
The first from 1500-1600, from disease brought from overseas. (both North and South America)
2.9 M (North Am) to 283,000
The second, from 1870-1906, in the Indian Wars.
279,000 to 29,000 (if I remember correctly)
Sherman practiced the Old Testament way of war.
“The war was over by then.” No it wasn’t.
Ah. He had to commit those war crimes, see? It was so that the war would end and suffering be limited.
“Slavery, like modern employment of illegal aliens provides a benefit to the owner/employer while pushing off the costs to society in general. “
A quick review of the cost of a slave and the numbers at the time of the CW indicates that it may very well have been cheaper to buy the slave and ship them back to Africa. That ignores the cost of lives—both North and South—of the war, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Again, it really illustrates that the common man pays the price, while the elites benefit.
All this talk of The South makes me think of these good ol’ boys from Tennessee:
https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/national/military-news/tennessee-national-guard-deployment-to-the-middle-east/522-d1669ca5-2df7-4b09-9f46-d31ecd968713