Wednesday, July 15, 2020

I just uploaded the most interesting audiobook chapter

I just finished my recording for section 1, chapter 8 of The Wrong of Slavery, by Robert Dale Owen. I wanted to share this with you, because its very pertinent to the things that are happening today. In s.1 c.8 Owen wrote the chapter in corresponding segments. The primary segment of note is named "A king the pillar of the slave-trade." In particular, the footnotes are among the more interesting parts of the chapter. After laying out some details about Virginia's protests against the King's slave trade, Owen wrote this:
In the Report of the Lords of Council, so often already referred to, there is but one table bearing on the subject.(1) It exhibits the exportation of negroes from the West Indies (then the principal place of their deposit and sale) for five years, namely, from 1783 to 1787, both inclusive, — showing that, in these five years, out of twenty thousand seven hundred and seventy- three negroes exported to all parts, thirteen hundred and ninety-two went to the "States of America;" that is, only about one-fifteenth of the whole, — or two hundred and seventy-eight annually. Since so small a proportion out of the whole export was directed to the United States, it is evident that the demand for slaves at that time could not have been great. (1) Lords of Council Report, Part IV. Table No. 4.

Now isn't that interesting? Slave demand being low, is quite the contrary to "the narrative" that is constantly fed to us. I have little doubt that for those wanting to counter "the narrative", you might want to get your hands on this Lords of Council Report. Moreover, the fact that the West Indies is primarily where the British Empire brought most of its slaves is not really that big of a secret. It gets glossed over, but its out there. Owen continues:

The public opinion, as well as the legislation, of the colonies had uniformly been against it.(2) (2) The agency of the British Government in fastening slavery upon the Continental colonies is well known. Bancroft has placed it distinctly on record: — "The inhabitants of Virginia were controlled by the central authority on a subject of vital importance to themselves and their posterity. Their halls of legislation had resounded with eloquence directed against the terrible plague of negro slavery. Again and again they had passed laws restraining the importation of negroes from Africa; but their laws were disallowed. How to prevent them from protecting themselves against the increase of the overwhelming evil was debated by the King in Council, and on the 10th day of December, 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor, 'under pain of the highest dis-pleasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be, in any respect, prohibited or obstructed.' In April, 1772, this rigorous order was solemnly debated in the Assembly of Virginia. They were very anxious for an Act to restrain the introduction of people the number of whom already in the colony gave them just cause to apprehend the most dangerous consequences. * * * Virginia resolved to address the King himself, who in Council had cruelly compelled the toleration of the nefarious traffic. They pleaded with him for leave to protect themselves against the nefarious traffic."

...

Laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation. The first Continental Congress which took to itself powers of legislation gave a legal expression to the well-formed opinion of the country by resolving (April 6, 1776) that 'no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies.'

...

Again and again it was pressed upon the attention of the Ministers. But the Government of that day was less liberal than the tribunals; and, while a question respecting a negro from Virginia led the courts of law to an axiom that as soon as any slave sets his foot on English ground he becomes free, the King of England stood in the path of humanity, and made himself the pillar of the slave-trade. Wherever in the colonies a disposition was shown for its restraint, his servants were peremptorily ordered to maintain it without abatement." — Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. vi. pp. 413, 414, 415.

The biggest challenge we face is knowing where to look for the answers. This helps resolve many of the parts of the challenge. You're going to want to read Dale's book. And I can't wait to deliver it to all of you in audiobook form, for added benefit and dissemination.

Monday, June 1, 2020

Why did Frederick Douglass believe the opposite of Charlamagne tha God?

On today's Rush show, he played a very interesting exchange he conducted with the hosts of the Breakfast Club. Its very interesting as well as very instructive. The one thing that stuck out to me more than anything else, was that during the exchange Charlamagne tha God used the phrase "the mechanism of white supremacy" four distinct times. He even elaborated on what exactly that meant to him:
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: Yeah, and, you know, I don’t disagree with you, and that’s why I’m not letting nobody politicize black pain and tell us this is one person’s fault just because they are trying to win an election in November. This is America’s fault — and the War on Drugs, mass incarceration, segregation, slavery, all of those things are and have been the proverbial knee on the back of black folks’ neck. And ’til somebody’s willing to dismantle the mechanism of white supremacy, nothin’ is gonna change.

Now this is interesting. Here's the item list, which I will number: (1) the War on Drugs, (2) mass incarceration, (3) segregation, (4) slavery. Contrast this with Frederick Douglass, who wrote that the constitution when "interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT".

Normally, when phrases of this sort are used you don't even get a meaning of what the person using it is talking about. Here, you do, and it's a very interesting thing to note the disconnect. Does that mean that Charlamagne tha God is guilty of misinterpreting the constitution? Maybe. But the use of that specific phrase "the mechanism of white supremacy" four times, tells us a lot about the role of historical revisionism by academics in what people think of history. I actually have more to say about this, but that will have to wait for a future date. Sorry to leave anybody hanging.

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Walter Lippmann explains why journalists apply the label of protesters to rioters

Journalism today likes to provoke us, do you feel provoked? In the blueprint for modern journalism, "Public Opinion", Lippmann wrote on Page 355 the following:

It is a problem of provoking feeling in the reader, of inducing him to feel a sense of personal identification with the stories he is reading. News which does not offer this opportunity to introduce oneself into the struggle which it depicts cannot appeal to a wide audience. The audience must participate in the news, much as it participates in the drama, by personal identification. Just as everyone holds his breath when the heroine is in danger, as he helps Babe Ruth swing his bat, so in subtler form the reader enters into the news. In order that he shall enter he must find a familiar foothold in the story, and this is supplied to him by the use of stereotypes. They tell him that if an association of plumbers is called a "combine" it is appropriate to develop his hostility; if it is called a "group of leading business men" the cue is for a favorable reaction.

It is in a combination of these elements that the power to create opinion resides. Editorials reinforce.

Feeling provoked? You should feel that way, provoking you is the point. But to what end?

Walter Lippmann, the Father of Modern Journalism, is informing the reader that the journalist has leisure here to pick and choose whatever key word they prefer, based on whatever group that they the journalist prefers. Since the problem that needs to be resolved is that you are unprovoked, key words will be employed in the news to provoke you. In this instance, let's compare two different nationwide movements and compare the provocative keywords.

1) Movement #1 is entirely peaceful, and is seeking an end to coronavirus lockdowns so that they can get back to living their lives and feeding their children. Oh, and many times they show up to their protest with their guns. Really big guns.

2) Movement #2 is burning down Autozones, looting Target stores, and vandalizing and destroying private property.

So, which one are the protesters or not? According to most journalists, the answer would be that the first group are violent racists and nazis, even if they haven't actually hurt anybody, and even if the only nazi symbols present are those being used to describe other people, well there was a nazi symbol at one of the rallies anyways so that proves that they were nazis.

In Lippmann's day, these people burning down whatever stores would be called a "group of leading businessmen", because the journalist wants to cue you to have a favorable reaction. The journalists support this movement, and will do anything to make sure you support it too.

Meanwhile Lippmann would call the peaceful conservative protesters a combine, because the journalists really hate guns, and so therefore the media wants everybody to hate you as much as the media hates you. But because this is 2020 and the word "combine" does not have the power it would have had during the trust-busting days, the constitutional word of "protesters" is given to the looters in group #2, and the hostility word of "racists" is weaponized toward peaceful group #1. Now everybody is provoked. Thus, the problem has been solved. You have been provoked, and you have now been forced to have an opinion(forced by the journalists) about the two groups whether you like it or not.

That's the blueprint. That's how the machine works. It's been this way now for about 100 years.

Monday, May 4, 2020

Commit historical malpractice, win a Pulitzer.

Today is a shameful, shameful day.

I'm not even a credentialed historian, I'm just a citizen historian. I chose to be an outsider on purpose because these people in the historical field are dirty and it makes me proud to not be associated with them. But today, we learned just how deep in the mud they are. Even pigs are looking at historians today and shaking their heads.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, chief propagandist for The New York Times' 1619 Project, has been awarded a Pulitzer for her disreputable work.

You want to know just how corrupt history departments are? Nationwide, look at the silence. You see historians rushing into the streets to protest? Nope. You see historians(former winners of any prize) mailing their recognition back? Nope. Do you even see any walk outs? Nope. Even some online petitions? Nope. Nothing. Nada.

The silence is deafening. That's because they're in on it and they ALL need to be exposed.

Sunday, May 3, 2020

Is a "constitutionalist" only a constitutionalist over 1 constitution? Or over all 51 constitutions?

In the past few weeks, I have heard two or perhaps three interviews with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and I think the most impressive thing I have heard her say(she has said many impressive things) repeatedly is not just that she swore an oath to defend and uphold the United States Constitution, but also her State constitution.

I find this to be extremely impressive, since I find that far too often some people are willing to let themselves forget that America has more than one Constitution. As an example, here is a past article from something Noem said: ""I took an oath to uphold our state Constitution," she said,"

This is, I think, an important thing worth discussing. The Founding Fathers didn't repeal the state Constitutions - and in fact went full throttle just the opposite direction. Where some specific power is not expressly delegated, it's the 10th amendment. Uphold the State Constitutions, these are great things! Where there is an entry in the enumerated powers list, well, ok in that instance the U.S. Constitution is supreme. The point is even directly made at the Constitutional Convention by Roger Sherman:

Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient. There are many cases where juries are proper which can not be discriminated. The Legislature may be safely trusted.

If the State Declarations of Rights are not repealed, then the whole documents aren't repealed either. There's no Bill of Rights out there that just floats without being attached to a Constitutional document. It doesn't work that way.

Now, I do think that 51 constitutions may be too big of a net, but every American who claims to be a constitutionalist should in fact be just as equally of a protector and advocate of their State as of the U.S. constitution. So at a minimum, every constitutionalist should claim 2. What exactly is the intent of the 10th amendment then?

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Protesting never solved anything - except defeated the ERA

Have you ever explained to a friend of yours how fun protesting is, about how important it is, how its right in the constitution because the Founders wanted us to be protesters - only to be met with irritation or a belief that protesting is somehow a "left wing thing"? Or, the worst one of all is this one: "Yeah well protesting never solved anything". Honestly, I think this one could be just as bad: "I have a job", as if somehow being active and involved is beneath you and apathy is virtuous.

I have news for you, because you may think that marching in the streets with signs you made with a sharpie is a waste of time, but if you thought that you would be wrong.

You ever heard of the ERA - Equal Rights Amendment? Yeah. The establishment thought they had that in the bag. The media called it a fait accompli in their news coverage. The Democrats led the charge. The republicans were on board. Then, out of nowhere, she showed up:

And what did she do? Well, she did a lot to move mountains and get people involved but otherwise? Look at that picture. She's out in front of the White House. Yes, that's right. Phyllis Schlafly was not only a successful protester, but she was a winner. Here's another, this time not in front of the White House:

So the next time someone scoffs at the notion of the importance of protests, remind them that one of the most important conservative leaders of the 20th century was a protester. And remind them that she beat them all. If they want to tell you protests don't work? Tell them to piss off. Facts are stubborn things. Protesting was in fact a part of the formula that halted the ERA.

Yes, protesting is in the Constitution. Yes, protesting is loads of fun. Yes, protesting makes you more powerful than the media - their words, not mine.. Yes, for these reasons protesting is important but above all: protesting is necessary because protesting is a successful formula to achieve desired goals. Make sure you bring your kids, so they can see you doing it. This part cannot be overstated. Teaching our kids that apathy is acceptable is a recipe for failure.

Protesting only fails for two reasons. One is small crowd size and two is failure to keep the pressure up. If you're only going to show up once and then five years from now wonder why that didn't work, well what exactly did you expect?

And for those of you who "have jobs", you're probably the worst of all. Ask any small business owner you like what would happen if they only showed up to(or called) their small business once every two years. The answer is that said small business owner would reasonably expect for their small business to be out of control. Well, Mr. I have a job, if you only show up to vote but then you're silent for the next 729 days, then you should expect an out of control government.

That is a reasonable expectation.

As for me I'll continue to protest because protesting works and has a track record of working.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

The media's playbook for creating a culture of fear during coronavirus

In chapter 1 of the book "Public Opinion", Walter Lippmann writes the following: (page 40)
The wireless constantly used the statistics of the intelligence bureau at Verdun, whose chief, Major Cointet, had invented a method of calculating German losses which obviously produced marvelous results. Every fortnight the figures increased a hundred thousand or so. These 300,000, 400,000, 500,000 casualties put out, divided into daily, weekly, monthly losses, repeated in all sorts of ways, produced a striking effect. Our formulae varied little: 'according to prisoners the German losses in the course of the attack have been considerable' ... 'it is proved that the losses' ... 'the enemy exhausted by his losses has not renewed the attack' ... Certain formulae, later abandoned because they had been overworked, were used each day: 'under our artillery and machine gun fire' ... 'mowed down by our artillery and machine gun fire' ... Constant repetition impressed the neutrals and Germany itself, and helped to create a bloody background in spite of the denials from Nauen (the German wireless) which tried vainly to destroy the bad effect of this perpetual repetition."

Every day in the news, look at what is seen. Just as they used losses to keep the enemy from renewing their attack, so the media uses losses to prevent people from wanting to get out of their homes and get their lives back to normal. In many instances, its even worse. People's lives and families are being destroyed.

I don't need to say much here, Lippmann's blueprint speaks for itself. This is exactly what they are doing on a day to day basis with the death count. Lippmann wrote about the use of stereotypes, and this is the stereotype they want you to have. "3 more people dead." "one more person dead." "a nursing home....." "Named celebrity best known for their named movie....." "six more people dead." "3 more people dead." "3 more people dead." "4 more people dead."

They keep doing it. They're not going to stop doing it. They learned it from the Father of Modern Journalism - Walter Lippmann.

This is the playbook where modern media began. (link)