THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 16, 2020 at 6:31 pm
Paul Plante says:
And before we go back to Poynter Institute FACT CHECKER “Tommy the tap-dancer”Kertscher of POLITIFACT and his claim that Black Lives Matter has grown into a national anti-racism movement broadly supported by Americans, few of whom would identify themselves as Marxist, this in the light of what recently transpired in Los Angeles, where after two white police officers were shot by a Black ambusher, a mob of savages descended on the hospital to block its entrances while chanting, “LET THEM DIE,” I would like to stand up in here as an American citizen who is totally disgusted with that exhibition of what our once civilized society is now devolving into, as the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement’s efforts to end white supremacy forever gain traction in this country with the attempted murder of white police officers, to say that I see a direct linkage between what transpired in Los Angeles starting with the ambush of the the police officers and then what happened at the hospital, none of which can be denied, given it was televised, and Black police chiefs like Eric Hawkins of the Democrat-controlled sanctuary city of Albany, New York making themselves a disgrace to the uniform and badge of authority that they wear, as well as making a joke of their oath to support the Constitution, by getting down on their knees like cowards to show their solidarity with the mobs intent on tearing down our civilized society and RULE OF LAW to replace it with rule of the jungle as we are seeing in Los Angeles, a primitive system or mode of action in which the strongest survive, presumably as animals in nature or as human beings whose activity is not regulated by the laws or ethics of civilization, which by getting on his knees in submission to BLACK LIVES MATTER and its agenda to wage war on people with white skin in this country, Eric Hawkins of Albany is putting his personal seal of approval on, with the blessing of Democrat mayor of Albany Kathy Sheehan, who I understand also took the knee in submission to BLACK LIVES MATTER, as she is telling all the rest of us to do, as well, which I am personally refusing to do because I will be damned if I will bend the knee and submit to a group of white-hating racists intent of getting hegemony over us by intimidation and violence and deceit and lies.
By taking the knee in submission to BLACK LIVES MATTER and their agenda to end white supremacy forever as he did while wearing his badge, Eric Hawkins, the police chief of Albany, New York has quite literally painted a bulls-eye on every white police officer in the City of Albany, thus inviting the same kind of violence against them, and by extension, civilized society, that we just witnessed in Los Angeles.
Lines have now been drawn by kneelers like Eric Hawkins, and sides have been taken, and what transpired in Los Angeles with the shooting of those police officers and the howling mob of savages at the hospital is the world these kneelers like Eric Hawkins of Albany are bequeathing us and ushering in.
As to the oath Albany police chief Eric Hawkins swore to support the United States Constitution, Section 4 of Article IV states in clear language that the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and with respect to that, in a letter in April, 1787, to Edmund Randolph, who formally presented the Virginia Plan to the Convention, James Madison had suggested that ”an article ought to be inserted expressly guaranteeing the tranquility of the states against internal as well as external danger. . . .” stating that “Unless the Union be organized efficiently on republican principles innovations of a much more objectionable form may be obtruded.”
With respect to republican principles, they are the guiding political philosophy of the United States that has been a major part of American civic thought since its founding.
Republican principles stress liberty and inalienable individual rights as central values; and recognize the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority in law; as well as rejecting monarchy, aristocracy, and hereditary political power.
Republican principles also expect citizens to be virtuous and faithful in their performance of civic duties; and vilify corruption.
Republican principles were based on Ancient Greco-Roman, Renaissance, and English models and ideas and formed the basis for the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution (1787), and the Bill of Rights, as well as the Gettysburg Address (1863).
Republican principles include guarantees of rights that cannot be repealed by a majority vote.
Thus, in a nation based on Republican principles, there can be no “white supremacy,” because in a Republic, we are all equal REGARDLESS OF SKIN COLOR!
When the kneeler Eric Hawkins swore his oath to support the United States Constitution, which in section 1 of the 14th Amendment states quite clearly that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, that is what he was swearing to support – the fact that despite what our skin color might be, in the eyes of the law, we are all supposed to be equal.
By taking the knee in submission to BLACK LIVES MATTER and the Marxist ideology it espouses, however, the kneeler Eric Hawkins made it quite clear to all of us with white skin that we are out of his protection as the police chief of Albany, New York, and what we see taking place in Los Angeles with the howling mob of savages blocking the entrances to a hospital to deny police officers the medical treatment they required after being ambushed by a hooligan is a glimpse at our own future, and if you are white, then there is a lot for you to worry about, and God protect the white police officers in Albany, New York who have to serve under his lead.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-282672
ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 17, 2020 at 9:07 pm
Paul Plante says:
As an older American, one who still has a memory of what came before BLACK LIVES MATTER, my first exposure to Marxism and “communism” was back in the 1950s, and it was nothing new in this country at that time, given that Marx, in the end an idiot and loser who couldn’t hold a job or support his own family and lived off of Engels, whatever their relationship in the end might have been, wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1847, nearly a hundred years before I was born, and the first anti-Communist alarm, or Red Scare, in the United States occurred between 1917 and 1920, precipitated by the events of World War I and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia of 1917 which saw the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, topple the Romanov dynasty, kicking off the rise of the communist party and inspiring international fear of Bolsheviks and anarchists, which fear, reminiscent of today, turned to violence with the 1919 anarchist bombings, a series of bombs targeting law enforcement and government officials with bombs going off in a wide number of cities including Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, D.C., and New York City.
Given that communism was, in theory, an expansionist ideology spread through revolution wherein according to Marx the working class would overthrow the middle class, once the United States no longer had to concentrate its efforts on winning World War I, many Americans became afraid that communism might spread to the United States and threaten the nation’s democratic values.
As to threatening “democratic values,” young Americans like myself got a first-hand exhibition of that on November 4, 1956 when a spontaneous national uprising that began 12 days before in Hungary when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding a more democratic political system and freedom from Soviet oppression was viciously crushed by Soviet tanks and troops with thousands being killed and wounded and nearly a quarter-million Hungarians fleeing the country.
On November 4, 1956, while the world and American children like myself watched, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush, once and for all, the national uprising with vicious street fighting breaking out, but the Soviets’ great power ensured victory.
The Soviet action stunned many people in the West, although given the Marxist ideology underlying it, it really shouldn’t have.
Inaction on the part of the United States angered and frustrated many Hungarians.
Voice of America radio broadcasts and speeches by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had recently suggested that the United States supported the “liberation” of “captive peoples” in communist nations.
Yet, as Soviet tanks bore down on the protesters, the United States did nothing beyond issuing public statements of sympathy for their plight.
To this day, I remember that quite well, just as I remember the Iron Curtain, which formed the imaginary boundary dividing Europe into two separate areas from the end of World War II in 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991, the term symbolizing efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and non-Soviet-controlled areas, descending.
On March 5, 1946, in one of the most famous orations of the Cold War period given at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri , former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill condemned the Soviet Union’s policies in Europe and declared, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”
In particular, he warned against the expansionistic policies of the Soviet Union.
In addition to the “iron curtain” that had descended across Eastern Europe, Churchill spoke of “communist fifth columns” that were operating throughout western and southern Europe.
Churchill’s “iron curtain” phrase immediately entered the official vocabulary of the Cold War, and in the Soviet Union, Russian leader Joseph Stalin denounced the speech, referring to Churchill’s comments about the “English-speaking world” as imperialist “racism.”
Stalin, in his turn, is remembered by people like myself and history as a butcher famous for the Ukrainian famine — known as the Holodomor, a combination of the Ukrainian words for “starvation” and “to inflict death” — by one estimate claiming the lives of 3.9 million people or about 13 percent of the population.
Unlike other famines in history, the Holodomor was caused when the dictator Stalin wanted both to replace Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives and to punish independence-minded Ukrainians who posed a threat to his totalitarian authority.
In the 2018 book, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine, the author, Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University, described it as “a hybrid…of a famine caused by calamitous social-economic policies and one aimed at a particular population for repression or punishment.”
In 1929, as part of Stalin’s plan to rapidly create a totally communist economy, Stalin had imposed collectivization, which replaced individually owned and operated farms with big state-run collectives, and Ukraine’s small, mostly subsistence farmers resisted giving up their land and livelihoods.
In response, the Soviet regime derided the resisters as kulaks — well-to-do peasants, who in Soviet ideology were considered enemies of the state and Soviet officials drove these peasants off their farms by force while Stalin’s secret police further made plans to deport 50,000 Ukrainian farm families to Siberia.
According to Trevor Erlacher, an historian and author specializing in modern Ukraine and an academic advisor at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies, “Stalin appears to have been motivated by the goal of transforming the Ukrainian nation into his idea of a modern, proletarian, socialist nation, even if this entailed the physical destruction of broad sections of its population,” which reminds me of the goal today of the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement to end “white supremacy” in the United States of America forever so as to transform the United States into their idea of a modern, proletarian, socialist nation, even if this entails the physical destruction of broad sections of our population.
As to Russia and Marxism, Marxism–Leninism was the official state ideology of the Soviet Union and other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc as well as the political parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation, and the butcher Joe Stalin, a real thug, considered the political and economic system under his rule to be Marxism–Leninism, which he considered the only legitimate successor of Marxism and Leninism.
So that is the backdrop to the world I grew up in, and as a result, as children, we studied Marxism so we could understand what was going on in the world around us, and more importantly, why that was, and to understand Marxism, it was then necessary to study Marx himself, and when one studies Marx as a free American, one can only surmise that the dude was a real loser, plain and simple, as Marx’s family lived from one crisis to the next, caused most often by lack of funds, since Marx had no steady employment, and Marx himself recognised that his devotion to communism had deprived his family and ‘shattered’ the life of his wife Jenny.
As to his legacy, it is best captured in the collapse of the Soviet Union in or about 1991.
With respect to Marxist economics, which are horse**** on a stale hard roll, by some measures, the Soviet economy was the world’s second largest in 1990, but shortages of consumer goods were routine and hoarding was commonplace and it was estimated that the Soviet black market economy was the equivalent of more than 10 percent of the country’s official GDP.
Economic stagnation had hobbled the country for years, and the perestroika reforms only served to exacerbate the problem.
Wage hikes were supported by printing money, fueling an inflationary spiral.
Mismanagement of fiscal policy made the country vulnerable to external factors, and a sharp drop in the price of oil sent the Soviet economy into a tailspin.
Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, the Soviet Union ranked as one of the world’s top producers of energy resources such as oil and natural gas, and exports of those commodities played a vital role in shoring up the world’s largest command economy.
When oil plunged from $120 a barrel in 1980 to $24 a barrel in March 1986, this vital lifeline to external capital dried up.
The price of oil temporarily spiked in the wake of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, but by that point the collapse of the Soviet Union was well under way.
So much for Karl Marx, so that today, if someone like this Patrisse Cullors or Alicia Garza or Opal Tometi, the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER were to tell me, “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists, we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” I would consider that I was in the presence of mindless idiots and morons – ideologues, meaning those unable to think for themselves who are given to fanciful ideas or theories – adherents of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
Given that, why would anyone who is sane and rational want to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283113
Paul Plante says:
As an older American, one who still has a memory of what came before BLACK LIVES MATTER, my first exposure to Marxism and “communism” was back in the 1950s, and it was nothing new in this country at that time, given that Marx, in the end an idiot and loser who couldn’t hold a job or support his own family and lived off of Engels, whatever their relationship in the end might have been, wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1847, nearly a hundred years before I was born, and the first anti-Communist alarm, or Red Scare, in the United States occurred between 1917 and 1920, precipitated by the events of World War I and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia of 1917 which saw the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, topple the Romanov dynasty, kicking off the rise of the communist party and inspiring international fear of Bolsheviks and anarchists, which fear, reminiscent of today, turned to violence with the 1919 anarchist bombings, a series of bombs targeting law enforcement and government officials with bombs going off in a wide number of cities including Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, D.C., and New York City.
Given that communism was, in theory, an expansionist ideology spread through revolution wherein according to Marx the working class would overthrow the middle class, once the United States no longer had to concentrate its efforts on winning World War I, many Americans became afraid that communism might spread to the United States and threaten the nation’s democratic values.
As to threatening “democratic values,” young Americans like myself got a first-hand exhibition of that on November 4, 1956 when a spontaneous national uprising that began 12 days before in Hungary when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding a more democratic political system and freedom from Soviet oppression was viciously crushed by Soviet tanks and troops with thousands being killed and wounded and nearly a quarter-million Hungarians fleeing the country.
On November 4, 1956, while the world and American children like myself watched, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush, once and for all, the national uprising with vicious street fighting breaking out, but the Soviets’ great power ensured victory.
The Soviet action stunned many people in the West, although given the Marxist ideology underlying it, it really shouldn’t have.
Inaction on the part of the United States angered and frustrated many Hungarians.
Voice of America radio broadcasts and speeches by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had recently suggested that the United States supported the “liberation” of “captive peoples” in communist nations.
Yet, as Soviet tanks bore down on the protesters, the United States did nothing beyond issuing public statements of sympathy for their plight.
To this day, I remember that quite well, just as I remember the Iron Curtain, which formed the imaginary boundary dividing Europe into two separate areas from the end of World War II in 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991, the term symbolizing efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and non-Soviet-controlled areas, descending.
On March 5, 1946, in one of the most famous orations of the Cold War period given at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri , former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill condemned the Soviet Union’s policies in Europe and declared, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”
In particular, he warned against the expansionistic policies of the Soviet Union.
In addition to the “iron curtain” that had descended across Eastern Europe, Churchill spoke of “communist fifth columns” that were operating throughout western and southern Europe.
Churchill’s “iron curtain” phrase immediately entered the official vocabulary of the Cold War, and in the Soviet Union, Russian leader Joseph Stalin denounced the speech, referring to Churchill’s comments about the “English-speaking world” as imperialist “racism.”
Stalin, in his turn, is remembered by people like myself and history as a butcher famous for the Ukrainian famine — known as the Holodomor, a combination of the Ukrainian words for “starvation” and “to inflict death” — by one estimate claiming the lives of 3.9 million people or about 13 percent of the population.
Unlike other famines in history, the Holodomor was caused when the dictator Stalin wanted both to replace Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives and to punish independence-minded Ukrainians who posed a threat to his totalitarian authority.
In the 2018 book, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine, the author, Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University, described it as “a hybrid…of a famine caused by calamitous social-economic policies and one aimed at a particular population for repression or punishment.”
In 1929, as part of Stalin’s plan to rapidly create a totally communist economy, Stalin had imposed collectivization, which replaced individually owned and operated farms with big state-run collectives, and Ukraine’s small, mostly subsistence farmers resisted giving up their land and livelihoods.
In response, the Soviet regime derided the resisters as kulaks — well-to-do peasants, who in Soviet ideology were considered enemies of the state and Soviet officials drove these peasants off their farms by force while Stalin’s secret police further made plans to deport 50,000 Ukrainian farm families to Siberia.
According to Trevor Erlacher, an historian and author specializing in modern Ukraine and an academic advisor at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies, “Stalin appears to have been motivated by the goal of transforming the Ukrainian nation into his idea of a modern, proletarian, socialist nation, even if this entailed the physical destruction of broad sections of its population,” which reminds me of the goal today of the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement to end “white supremacy” in the United States of America forever so as to transform the United States into their idea of a modern, proletarian, socialist nation, even if this entails the physical destruction of broad sections of our population.
As to Russia and Marxism, Marxism–Leninism was the official state ideology of the Soviet Union and other ruling parties making up the Eastern Bloc as well as the political parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation, and the butcher Joe Stalin, a real thug, considered the political and economic system under his rule to be Marxism–Leninism, which he considered the only legitimate successor of Marxism and Leninism.
So that is the backdrop to the world I grew up in, and as a result, as children, we studied Marxism so we could understand what was going on in the world around us, and more importantly, why that was, and to understand Marxism, it was then necessary to study Marx himself, and when one studies Marx as a free American, one can only surmise that the dude was a real loser, plain and simple, as Marx’s family lived from one crisis to the next, caused most often by lack of funds, since Marx had no steady employment, and Marx himself recognised that his devotion to communism had deprived his family and ‘shattered’ the life of his wife Jenny.
As to his legacy, it is best captured in the collapse of the Soviet Union in or about 1991.
With respect to Marxist economics, which are horse**** on a stale hard roll, by some measures, the Soviet economy was the world’s second largest in 1990, but shortages of consumer goods were routine and hoarding was commonplace and it was estimated that the Soviet black market economy was the equivalent of more than 10 percent of the country’s official GDP.
Economic stagnation had hobbled the country for years, and the perestroika reforms only served to exacerbate the problem.
Wage hikes were supported by printing money, fueling an inflationary spiral.
Mismanagement of fiscal policy made the country vulnerable to external factors, and a sharp drop in the price of oil sent the Soviet economy into a tailspin.
Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, the Soviet Union ranked as one of the world’s top producers of energy resources such as oil and natural gas, and exports of those commodities played a vital role in shoring up the world’s largest command economy.
When oil plunged from $120 a barrel in 1980 to $24 a barrel in March 1986, this vital lifeline to external capital dried up.
The price of oil temporarily spiked in the wake of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, but by that point the collapse of the Soviet Union was well under way.
So much for Karl Marx, so that today, if someone like this Patrisse Cullors or Alicia Garza or Opal Tometi, the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER were to tell me, “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists, we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” I would consider that I was in the presence of mindless idiots and morons – ideologues, meaning those unable to think for themselves who are given to fanciful ideas or theories – adherents of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
Given that, why would anyone who is sane and rational want to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283113
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 18, 2020 at 9:10 pm
Paul Plante says:
And as we consider the roots of conflict here in the United States of America today, those words above by Russell Berman, a professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow at its conservative Hoover Institution who has written critically about Marxism, noting the declaration of BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, by all appearances a confused young woman who told us “We know that if we can get the nation to see, say and understand the Black Lives Matter, then every life would stand a chance; Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human; which is not to erase any group’s harm to ongoing pain in particular the genocide carried out against the First Nations peoples; but it is to say that there is something quite basic that has to be addressed in the culture, in the hearts and minds of people who have benefited from, and were raised up on, the notion that Black people are not fully human,” of being Marxist trained, telling us that “one has to take that seriously: if the leadership says it is Marxist, then there’s a good chance they are,” take us to these words of an American citizen who was not a Marxist, to wit:
“My uniform federal attachments, and the interest I have in the protection of property, and a steady execution of the laws, will convince you, that, if I am under any bias at all, it is in favor of any general system which shall promise those advantages.”
end quotes
For the record, someone a citizen of the United States of America who has an interest in the protection of property, especially today when we see mobs of savages out there destroying property, as if it were theirs to destroy, would be considered by the Marxists as an “anti-Marxist,” defined as one who is opposed to or hostile toward Marxism, which category of United States citizens would include myself, although it does not include all people living in the country, which is one of the sources of the present conflict in this country leading us further and further towards another civil war, which will be deemed a “revolution” by the Marxists like BLACK LIVES MATTER founders Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi.
Moving right along, we have:
“The instability of our laws increases my wishes for firm and steady government; but then, I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community.”
end quotes
That, of course, would have to be considered an anti-BLACK LIVES MATTER statement because according to its stated purposes, one of which is to “end white supremacy forever,” BLACK LIVES MATTER, which declares itself “unapologetically Black” in their positioning, is for a government not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community, only theirs, which brings us next to this, to wit:
“Though I have long apprehended that fraudulent debtors, and embarrassed men, on the one hand, and men, on the other, unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men.”
end quotes
With respect to those unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men/women, that statement would very accurately describe those who take the knee in surrender and submission to the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement, and make no mistake about that, at all.
Now, while those words above are very relevant to the times that we find ourselves in today in this highly divided and very troubled nation descending into violence, chaos and anarchy, as civilized society devolves, and while they certainly could be attributed to myself as their author, or source, those words in fact come to us from our political past as a nation, being written as they were in the political essay “Federal Farmer I” by Federal Farmer, thought to be Richard Henry Lee, 233 years ago on October 8, 1787, eleven years after the first Fourth of July in 1776 and the Declaration of Independence wherein was stated “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” which statement about the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States in its turn takes us to these words from BLACK LIVES MATTER, whose founders tell us “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists, we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” to wit:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
end quotes
Which raises this relevant question, since words have meanings, and those meanings matter greatly in the political context, to wit:
What exactly is the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement?”
Where exactly is that prescribed, because it is not prescribed anywhere in OUR United States Constitution?
And who was it that prescribed it?
Does anyone besides BLACK LIVES MATTER have a clue?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283464
Paul Plante says:
And as we consider the roots of conflict here in the United States of America today, those words above by Russell Berman, a professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow at its conservative Hoover Institution who has written critically about Marxism, noting the declaration of BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, by all appearances a confused young woman who told us “We know that if we can get the nation to see, say and understand the Black Lives Matter, then every life would stand a chance; Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human; which is not to erase any group’s harm to ongoing pain in particular the genocide carried out against the First Nations peoples; but it is to say that there is something quite basic that has to be addressed in the culture, in the hearts and minds of people who have benefited from, and were raised up on, the notion that Black people are not fully human,” of being Marxist trained, telling us that “one has to take that seriously: if the leadership says it is Marxist, then there’s a good chance they are,” take us to these words of an American citizen who was not a Marxist, to wit:
“My uniform federal attachments, and the interest I have in the protection of property, and a steady execution of the laws, will convince you, that, if I am under any bias at all, it is in favor of any general system which shall promise those advantages.”
end quotes
For the record, someone a citizen of the United States of America who has an interest in the protection of property, especially today when we see mobs of savages out there destroying property, as if it were theirs to destroy, would be considered by the Marxists as an “anti-Marxist,” defined as one who is opposed to or hostile toward Marxism, which category of United States citizens would include myself, although it does not include all people living in the country, which is one of the sources of the present conflict in this country leading us further and further towards another civil war, which will be deemed a “revolution” by the Marxists like BLACK LIVES MATTER founders Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi.
Moving right along, we have:
“The instability of our laws increases my wishes for firm and steady government; but then, I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community.”
end quotes
That, of course, would have to be considered an anti-BLACK LIVES MATTER statement because according to its stated purposes, one of which is to “end white supremacy forever,” BLACK LIVES MATTER, which declares itself “unapologetically Black” in their positioning, is for a government not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community, only theirs, which brings us next to this, to wit:
“Though I have long apprehended that fraudulent debtors, and embarrassed men, on the one hand, and men, on the other, unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men.”
end quotes
With respect to those unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men/women, that statement would very accurately describe those who take the knee in surrender and submission to the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement, and make no mistake about that, at all.
Now, while those words above are very relevant to the times that we find ourselves in today in this highly divided and very troubled nation descending into violence, chaos and anarchy, as civilized society devolves, and while they certainly could be attributed to myself as their author, or source, those words in fact come to us from our political past as a nation, being written as they were in the political essay “Federal Farmer I” by Federal Farmer, thought to be Richard Henry Lee, 233 years ago on October 8, 1787, eleven years after the first Fourth of July in 1776 and the Declaration of Independence wherein was stated “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” which statement about the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States in its turn takes us to these words from BLACK LIVES MATTER, whose founders tell us “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists, we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” to wit:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
end quotes
Which raises this relevant question, since words have meanings, and those meanings matter greatly in the political context, to wit:
What exactly is the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement?”
Where exactly is that prescribed, because it is not prescribed anywhere in OUR United States Constitution?
And who was it that prescribed it?
Does anyone besides BLACK LIVES MATTER have a clue?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283464
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 19, 2020 at 10:55 pm
Paul Plante says:
As an American citizen who was born in this country right after WWII, which was a fight against fascism and totalitarian government and drone-like mindlessness, and accordingly, from the time I was young, had instilled in me those values expressed in the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of a despotic English king, holding, as opposed to merely mouthing as politicians do, these truths to be self-evident, that all men, including women, are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and having been introduced when young, as opposed to having been indoctrinated, i.e., teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, to Marxist thought, such as it could ever be called “thought,” or ideology, that system of ideas and ideals which form the basis of the economic and political theory and policy that underlie communism, I cannot escape from the idea that to be a “Marxist,” as the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER claim to be, you have to be in fact a moron or idiot incapable of rational thought or critical thinking for many reasons, starting with the fact that Marx himself cannot be looked at as anything other than a loser and a destroyer, not a builder or creator in any positive sense of the word, which makes interesting the idea that he is a hero to millions of people in the world like the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER.
In fact, Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.
Revolutionary socialist governments espousing Marxist concepts took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
Many labour unions and workers’ parties worldwide are influenced by Marxism, while various theoretical variants, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism, were developed from them.
Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science.
WHY?
AND FOR WHAT?
And who the hell is Karl Marx, anyway, that we as free people in the United States of America would want in any way to adopt any of his ideas, unless of course we hate being free and hate civilization and want to live in a dream world conjured up by Marx and Engels where everyone should contribute what they can, and everyone should get what they need, which is the exact conundrum we American children who were being taught to think for ourselves, unlike the bovine-like Germans who blindly followed the rug-chewing madman Adolph Hitler, and to question, as opposed to meekly accepting, and to watch politicians like a hawk, were presented with to work our way through, to see if any rational or logical sense could be made of it, at all.
If everyone should contribute what they can, what of those who either have nothing to contribute, or refuse to contribute?
What is to be done with them in Marxist society?
And if everyone should get what they need, where is that to come from?
And how?
And what about those who feel they need everything under the sun that there can possibly be?
Who is to provide them with all of that?
And where will they get it from?
A wish?
A hope?
A dream?
As to Marxism, above here, we have University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Richard Wolff, author of “Understanding Marxism,” telling PolitiFact that if people declare themselves Marxists, they are in effect Marxists, but “there really is no standard” of what Marxism is, so there’s no way to verify anything, which is perhaps true with respect to the ideology, given that Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that originates in the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Given that a method is merely a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one, we can clearly see that to begin with, there is nothing absolute at all with respect to their method of socioeconomic analysis, which dates from the early 1800s in Europe and later, England, where Marx moved after being exiled from France for his radical views.
To simplify this, because a lot of Marxism is simply hoo-doo and gobbledegook from someone who never held a real job in his life, and never produced anything but radical ideas, and got what he needed from his friend Engels, in a nutshell, Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics – collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed labouring class that provides the labour for production.
Now, notice the presence in there of the word “theories,” where a theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
As free American children, we were tasked with considering this essential question with respect to Marxist thought, to wit: does any society on the face of the earth conform with theories about society?
Does a theory of society in Europe in the 1800s put forth by a radical thinker govern the structure of society in the United States of America subsequent to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence?
Do the views and beliefs of the thinker affect the theories put forth by the thinker?
And of course they do, and how could it be otherwise?
Consider, for example, that in 1843, Marx befriended the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) in Paris, a hotbed of radical thought where Marx became a revolutionary communist and was writing for radical newspapers.
If someone becomes a radical communist, then logically and rationally, one would have to presume that that would affect how they saw life, as opposed to say, someone like myself, who is not and does not want or desire to be either a communist, or a member of communist society anywhere on earth, and especially here in the United States of America.
As to Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin, he was a Russian revolutionary anarchist, socialist and founder of collectivist anarchism, considered among the most influential figures of anarchism and a major founder of the revolutionary socialist and social anarchist tradition.
After moving to Dresden, Bakunin published his first revolutionary credo in a radical journal in 1842, ending with a now-famous aphorism: “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion.”
And 178 years later, in 2020, we see in this country people believing in that very same aphorism.
Getting back to Bakunin, the February Revolution of 1848 in Paris gave him his first taste of street fighting, and after a few days of eager participation he traveled eastward in the hope of fanning the flames of revolution in Germany and Poland.
In 1848, Bakunin wrote his first major manifesto, “An Appeal to the Slavs,” in which he denounced the bourgeoisie as a spent counterrevolutionary force, called for the overthrow of the Habsburg Empire and the creation in central Europe of a free federation of Slav peoples, and counted on the peasant — especially the Russian peasant — with his tradition of violent revolt, as the agent of the coming revolution.
That is the company Marx was keeping, and from that comes the philosophy and beliefs of the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER as to the use of political violence to get their way, which is not our way, at all, or at least mine.
And interestingly, on that note, when asked by Politifact to comment on their position that “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” a spokesperson for Black Lives Matter, Kailee Scales, managing director at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and the three co-founders did not reply to their requests for information.
How come, ladies?
Cat got your tongues?
Getting back to Marx, he called capitalism the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism, arguing that class antagonisms under capitalism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would eventuate in the working class’ conquest of political power in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat and eventually establish a classless society, socialism or communism, a society governed by a free association of producers.
Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for their implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.
So when the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER say “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists; we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” the ideological theories they are superversed on, sort of, are expressed right there in the belief of Marx that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.
So what socio-economic change can we then expect from BLACK LIVES MATTER and the social theorists and underprivileged people alike who cleave to their standard and carry their banner in the street as they carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change?
Stay tuned, more is to come on that thought courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, a true grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants in this country, which brings me to these closing words from the Federal Farmer I political essay by Federal Farmer on October 8, 1787, to wit:
The fickle and ardent, in any community are the proper tools for establishing despotic government.
But it is deliberate and thinking men, who must establish and secure governments on free principles.
end quotes
So, which side will you be on then?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283850
Paul Plante says:
As an American citizen who was born in this country right after WWII, which was a fight against fascism and totalitarian government and drone-like mindlessness, and accordingly, from the time I was young, had instilled in me those values expressed in the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of a despotic English king, holding, as opposed to merely mouthing as politicians do, these truths to be self-evident, that all men, including women, are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and having been introduced when young, as opposed to having been indoctrinated, i.e., teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, to Marxist thought, such as it could ever be called “thought,” or ideology, that system of ideas and ideals which form the basis of the economic and political theory and policy that underlie communism, I cannot escape from the idea that to be a “Marxist,” as the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER claim to be, you have to be in fact a moron or idiot incapable of rational thought or critical thinking for many reasons, starting with the fact that Marx himself cannot be looked at as anything other than a loser and a destroyer, not a builder or creator in any positive sense of the word, which makes interesting the idea that he is a hero to millions of people in the world like the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER.
In fact, Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.
Revolutionary socialist governments espousing Marxist concepts took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
Many labour unions and workers’ parties worldwide are influenced by Marxism, while various theoretical variants, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism, were developed from them.
Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science.
WHY?
AND FOR WHAT?
And who the hell is Karl Marx, anyway, that we as free people in the United States of America would want in any way to adopt any of his ideas, unless of course we hate being free and hate civilization and want to live in a dream world conjured up by Marx and Engels where everyone should contribute what they can, and everyone should get what they need, which is the exact conundrum we American children who were being taught to think for ourselves, unlike the bovine-like Germans who blindly followed the rug-chewing madman Adolph Hitler, and to question, as opposed to meekly accepting, and to watch politicians like a hawk, were presented with to work our way through, to see if any rational or logical sense could be made of it, at all.
If everyone should contribute what they can, what of those who either have nothing to contribute, or refuse to contribute?
What is to be done with them in Marxist society?
And if everyone should get what they need, where is that to come from?
And how?
And what about those who feel they need everything under the sun that there can possibly be?
Who is to provide them with all of that?
And where will they get it from?
A wish?
A hope?
A dream?
As to Marxism, above here, we have University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Richard Wolff, author of “Understanding Marxism,” telling PolitiFact that if people declare themselves Marxists, they are in effect Marxists, but “there really is no standard” of what Marxism is, so there’s no way to verify anything, which is perhaps true with respect to the ideology, given that Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that originates in the works of 19th century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Given that a method is merely a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one, we can clearly see that to begin with, there is nothing absolute at all with respect to their method of socioeconomic analysis, which dates from the early 1800s in Europe and later, England, where Marx moved after being exiled from France for his radical views.
To simplify this, because a lot of Marxism is simply hoo-doo and gobbledegook from someone who never held a real job in his life, and never produced anything but radical ideas, and got what he needed from his friend Engels, in a nutshell, Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics – collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed labouring class that provides the labour for production.
Now, notice the presence in there of the word “theories,” where a theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
As free American children, we were tasked with considering this essential question with respect to Marxist thought, to wit: does any society on the face of the earth conform with theories about society?
Does a theory of society in Europe in the 1800s put forth by a radical thinker govern the structure of society in the United States of America subsequent to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence?
Do the views and beliefs of the thinker affect the theories put forth by the thinker?
And of course they do, and how could it be otherwise?
Consider, for example, that in 1843, Marx befriended the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876) in Paris, a hotbed of radical thought where Marx became a revolutionary communist and was writing for radical newspapers.
If someone becomes a radical communist, then logically and rationally, one would have to presume that that would affect how they saw life, as opposed to say, someone like myself, who is not and does not want or desire to be either a communist, or a member of communist society anywhere on earth, and especially here in the United States of America.
As to Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin, he was a Russian revolutionary anarchist, socialist and founder of collectivist anarchism, considered among the most influential figures of anarchism and a major founder of the revolutionary socialist and social anarchist tradition.
After moving to Dresden, Bakunin published his first revolutionary credo in a radical journal in 1842, ending with a now-famous aphorism: “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion.”
And 178 years later, in 2020, we see in this country people believing in that very same aphorism.
Getting back to Bakunin, the February Revolution of 1848 in Paris gave him his first taste of street fighting, and after a few days of eager participation he traveled eastward in the hope of fanning the flames of revolution in Germany and Poland.
In 1848, Bakunin wrote his first major manifesto, “An Appeal to the Slavs,” in which he denounced the bourgeoisie as a spent counterrevolutionary force, called for the overthrow of the Habsburg Empire and the creation in central Europe of a free federation of Slav peoples, and counted on the peasant — especially the Russian peasant — with his tradition of violent revolt, as the agent of the coming revolution.
That is the company Marx was keeping, and from that comes the philosophy and beliefs of the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER as to the use of political violence to get their way, which is not our way, at all, or at least mine.
And interestingly, on that note, when asked by Politifact to comment on their position that “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,” a spokesperson for Black Lives Matter, Kailee Scales, managing director at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and the three co-founders did not reply to their requests for information.
How come, ladies?
Cat got your tongues?
Getting back to Marx, he called capitalism the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism, arguing that class antagonisms under capitalism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would eventuate in the working class’ conquest of political power in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat and eventually establish a classless society, socialism or communism, a society governed by a free association of producers.
Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for their implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.
So when the founders of BLACK LIVES MATTER say “We do have an ideological frame, myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists; we are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories,” the ideological theories they are superversed on, sort of, are expressed right there in the belief of Marx that social theorists and underprivileged people alike should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.
So what socio-economic change can we then expect from BLACK LIVES MATTER and the social theorists and underprivileged people alike who cleave to their standard and carry their banner in the street as they carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change?
Stay tuned, more is to come on that thought courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, a true grand palladium of freedom, and scourge of tyrants in this country, which brings me to these closing words from the Federal Farmer I political essay by Federal Farmer on October 8, 1787, to wit:
The fickle and ardent, in any community are the proper tools for establishing despotic government.
But it is deliberate and thinking men, who must establish and secure governments on free principles.
end quotes
So, which side will you be on then?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-283850
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 20, 2020 at 8:51 pm
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of actions having consequences, the rise of Hitler as a dictator in Germany and WWII and the persecution of the Jews in Germany can be traced directly back to Karl Marx and his advocacy of communism.
Consider that on February 28, 1933, the day after the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson, President Hindenburg issued the Decree for the Protection of People and the Reich.
Though the origins of the fire are still unclear, in a propaganda maneuver, the coalition government (made up of Nazis and the Nationalists) blamed the Communists.
They exploited the Reichstag fire to secure President Hindenburg’s approval for an emergency decree, popularly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, that suspended individual rights and due process of law.
That is the one real tangible effect produced by Marxism in my estimation – the destruction of civilized society.
Because outside of that, Marxism really has nothing else to offer.
Getting back to the real-world consequences of Marxism, the Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications.
It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments.
The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.
Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police.
That is what Karl Marx and his Marxist ideology produced, which thought interestingly takes us back to America and an article in the “progressive” New York newspaper The Sun on September 6, 1880 by John Swinton, an American journalist and “social reformer” after an interview he conducted with Marx while in England, where Marx was then located after being kicked out of France, and in that article, we have as follows to consider, to wit:
One of the most remarkable men of the day, who has played an inscrutable but puissant part in the revolutionary politics of the past forty years, is Karl Marx.
end quotes
Focus on the term “revolutionary politics,” and consider that just 53 years later, the “revolutionary politics” of Marx literally set the world on fire, which outcome Marx, who died on March 14, 1883, and his coterie of communists and anarchists and general misfits would have loved to see had Marx lived long enough.
Getting back to the fawning puff piece on Marx in The Sun, we have:
A man without desire for show or fame, caring nothing for the fanfaronade of life or the pretence of power, without haste and without rest, a man of strong, broad, elevated mind, full of far-reaching projects, logical methods, and practical aims, he has stood and yet stands behind more of the earthquakes which have convulsed nations and destroyed thrones, and do now menace and appal crowned heads and established frauds, than any other man in Europe, not excepting Joseph Mazzini himself.
The student of Berlin, the critic of Hegelianism, the editor of papers, and the old-time correspondent of the New York Tribune, he showed his qualities and his spirit; the founder and master spirit of the once dreaded International and the author of “Capital”, he has been expelled from half the countries of Europe, proscribed in nearly all of them, and for thirty years past has found refuge in London.
end quotes
For all those today who hold Marx as their hero, and they are many in this nation, they should focus in on that historical fact that by 1880, Marx had been expelled from half the countries of Europe and proscribed in nearly all of them, and they should ask themselves why that was, and how that impacts or affects their own future as they embrace Marxist ideology as the wave of the future they want to embrace, just as Democrat mayor of Albany, New York is telling is to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, as if somehow, in some undefined and undefinable manner, BLACK LIVES MATTER holds the key to a glorious new future for all of us, including people with white skin.
Getting back to the fawning puff piece in The Sun, we have further as follows:
And is this massive-headed, generous-featured, courtly, kindly man of 60, with the bushy masses of long revelling gray hair, Karl Marx?
His dialogue reminded me of that of Socrates — so free, so sweeping, so creative, so incisive, so genuine — with its sardonic touches, its gleams of humor, and its sportive merriment.
He spoke of the political forces and popular movements of the various countries of Europe — the vast current of the spirit of Russia, the motions of the German mind, the action of France, the immobility of England.
He spoke hopefully of Russia, philosophically of Germany, cheerfully of France, and sombrely of England — referring contemptuously to the “atomistic reforms” over which the Liberals of the British Parliament spend their time.
Surveying the European world, country after country, indicating the features and the developments and the personages on the surface and under the surface, he showed that things were working toward ends which will assuredly be realized.
end quotes
And most assuredly, just 53 short years later, in 1933, when the Germans were stripped of their rights and rule of law, those ends were in fact realized, which takes us back to 1880 and The Sun fawning puff-piece, to wit:
I was often surprised as he spoke.
It was evident that this man, of whom so little is seen or heard, is deep in the times, and that, from the Neva to the Seine, from the Urals to the Pyrenees, his hand is at work preparing the way for the new advent.
end quotes
That “new advent” was called World War II, and the rise of communism in Russia, which takes us back to The Sun, as follows:
Nor is his work wasted now any more than it has been in the past, during which so many desirable changes have been brought about, so many heroic struggles have been seen, and the French republic has been set up on the heights.
As he spoke, the question I had put, “Why are you doing nothing now?” was seen to be a question of the unlearned, and one to which he could not make direct answer.
Inquiring why his great work “Capital”, the seed field of so many crops, had not been put into English as it has been put into Russian and French from the original German, he seemed unable to tell, but said that a proposition for an English translation had come to him from New York.
He said that that book was but a fragment, a single part of a work in three parts, two of the parts being yet unpublished, the full trilogy being “Land”, “Capital”, “Credit” , the last part, he said, being largely illustrated from the United States, where credit has had such an amazing development.
Mr. Marx is an observer of American action, and his remarks upon some of the formative and substantive forces of American life were full of suggestiveness.
By the way, in referring to his “Capital”, he said that any one who might desire to read it would find the French translation much superior in many ways to the German original.
Mr. Marx referred to Henri Rochefort the Frenchman, and in his talk of some of his dead disciples, the stormy Bakunin, the brilliant Lassalle, and others, I could see how his genius had taken hold of men who, under other circumstances, might have directed the course of history.
end quotes
The “stormy” Bakunin, the anarchist famous for the aphorism “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion,” we have already met above.
As to Victor Henri Rochefort, Marquis de Rochefort-Luçay (30 January 1831 – 30 June 1913) he was a French writer of vaudevilles, a type of comedy without psychological or moral intentions, based on a comical situation: a dramatic composition or light poetry, interspersed with songs or ballets, as well as a politician who in 1880 founded L’Intransigeant in the radical and socialist interest, and for a short time in 1885–86 he sat in the Chamber of Deputies, but found a great opportunity next year for his talent for inflaming public opinion in the Boulangist agitation, with Marxist historians viewing the Boulangist movement as a proto-fascist right-wing movement, while a number of scholars have presented boulangism as a precursor of fascism, including Zeev Sternhell and Stanley Payne.
According to French historian Jacques Néré, “Boulangism was first and foremost a popular movement of the extreme left”.
As to Boulanger, he gained the support of a number of former Communards from the Paris Commune and some supporters of Blanquism (a faction within the Central Revolutionary Committee) which included men such as Victor Jaclard, Ernest Granger and Henri Rochefort.
As to Ferdinand Lassalle (11 April 1825 – 31 August 1864), he was a Prussian-German jurist, philosopher, socialist and political activist best remembered as the initiator of the social democratic movement in Germany.
About Lassalle, Bertrand Russell said as follows:
“No one has ever understood the power of agitation and organisation better than Lassalle …”
“The secret of his influence lay in his overpowering and imperious will, in his impatience of the passive endurance of evil, and in his absolute confidence in his own power.”
“His whole character is that of an epicurean god, unwittingly become man, awakening suddenly to the existence of evil, and finding with amazement that his will is not omnipotent to set it right.”
Lassalle and Marx became friends during the Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Springtime of the Peoples or the Spring of Nations, which were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe in 1848 and it remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history.
Many of the revolutions were quickly suppressed; tens of thousands of people were killed, and many more were forced into exile, and when the protests were crushed, Lassalle was imprisoned and Marx fled Germany.
As to Swinton, he became involved in radical labor politics in the spring of 1874, when he addressed a mass meeting at Tompkins Square in New York City — a gathering which was violently dispersed by the police.
Following his stint as a freelancer, Swinton took a permanent position as an editorial writer for the New York Sun in 1875.
Before he left the Sun in 1883 to launch a newspaper of his own, he delivered at a press dinner the speech he is most famous for today:
“There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns.”
“You are all slaves.”
“You know it, and I know it.”
“There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion.”
” If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print.”
“I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with.”
“Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things.”
“If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone.”
“The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job.”
“The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary.”
“You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an ‘Independent Press!'”
“We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.”
“We are jumping-jacks.”
“They pull the string and we dance.”
“Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men.”
“We are intellectual prostitutes.”
end quotes
Words of truth in our times today and such is history and so much for the New York Times and the Washington Post which exist to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell our country for their daily bread, and thank god we have as a grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country the Cape Charles Mirror as an independent press because it is out in country town of Cape Charles.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284125
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of actions having consequences, the rise of Hitler as a dictator in Germany and WWII and the persecution of the Jews in Germany can be traced directly back to Karl Marx and his advocacy of communism.
Consider that on February 28, 1933, the day after the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson, President Hindenburg issued the Decree for the Protection of People and the Reich.
Though the origins of the fire are still unclear, in a propaganda maneuver, the coalition government (made up of Nazis and the Nationalists) blamed the Communists.
They exploited the Reichstag fire to secure President Hindenburg’s approval for an emergency decree, popularly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, that suspended individual rights and due process of law.
That is the one real tangible effect produced by Marxism in my estimation – the destruction of civilized society.
Because outside of that, Marxism really has nothing else to offer.
Getting back to the real-world consequences of Marxism, the Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications.
It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments.
The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.
Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police.
That is what Karl Marx and his Marxist ideology produced, which thought interestingly takes us back to America and an article in the “progressive” New York newspaper The Sun on September 6, 1880 by John Swinton, an American journalist and “social reformer” after an interview he conducted with Marx while in England, where Marx was then located after being kicked out of France, and in that article, we have as follows to consider, to wit:
One of the most remarkable men of the day, who has played an inscrutable but puissant part in the revolutionary politics of the past forty years, is Karl Marx.
end quotes
Focus on the term “revolutionary politics,” and consider that just 53 years later, the “revolutionary politics” of Marx literally set the world on fire, which outcome Marx, who died on March 14, 1883, and his coterie of communists and anarchists and general misfits would have loved to see had Marx lived long enough.
Getting back to the fawning puff piece on Marx in The Sun, we have:
A man without desire for show or fame, caring nothing for the fanfaronade of life or the pretence of power, without haste and without rest, a man of strong, broad, elevated mind, full of far-reaching projects, logical methods, and practical aims, he has stood and yet stands behind more of the earthquakes which have convulsed nations and destroyed thrones, and do now menace and appal crowned heads and established frauds, than any other man in Europe, not excepting Joseph Mazzini himself.
The student of Berlin, the critic of Hegelianism, the editor of papers, and the old-time correspondent of the New York Tribune, he showed his qualities and his spirit; the founder and master spirit of the once dreaded International and the author of “Capital”, he has been expelled from half the countries of Europe, proscribed in nearly all of them, and for thirty years past has found refuge in London.
end quotes
For all those today who hold Marx as their hero, and they are many in this nation, they should focus in on that historical fact that by 1880, Marx had been expelled from half the countries of Europe and proscribed in nearly all of them, and they should ask themselves why that was, and how that impacts or affects their own future as they embrace Marxist ideology as the wave of the future they want to embrace, just as Democrat mayor of Albany, New York is telling is to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, as if somehow, in some undefined and undefinable manner, BLACK LIVES MATTER holds the key to a glorious new future for all of us, including people with white skin.
Getting back to the fawning puff piece in The Sun, we have further as follows:
And is this massive-headed, generous-featured, courtly, kindly man of 60, with the bushy masses of long revelling gray hair, Karl Marx?
His dialogue reminded me of that of Socrates — so free, so sweeping, so creative, so incisive, so genuine — with its sardonic touches, its gleams of humor, and its sportive merriment.
He spoke of the political forces and popular movements of the various countries of Europe — the vast current of the spirit of Russia, the motions of the German mind, the action of France, the immobility of England.
He spoke hopefully of Russia, philosophically of Germany, cheerfully of France, and sombrely of England — referring contemptuously to the “atomistic reforms” over which the Liberals of the British Parliament spend their time.
Surveying the European world, country after country, indicating the features and the developments and the personages on the surface and under the surface, he showed that things were working toward ends which will assuredly be realized.
end quotes
And most assuredly, just 53 short years later, in 1933, when the Germans were stripped of their rights and rule of law, those ends were in fact realized, which takes us back to 1880 and The Sun fawning puff-piece, to wit:
I was often surprised as he spoke.
It was evident that this man, of whom so little is seen or heard, is deep in the times, and that, from the Neva to the Seine, from the Urals to the Pyrenees, his hand is at work preparing the way for the new advent.
end quotes
That “new advent” was called World War II, and the rise of communism in Russia, which takes us back to The Sun, as follows:
Nor is his work wasted now any more than it has been in the past, during which so many desirable changes have been brought about, so many heroic struggles have been seen, and the French republic has been set up on the heights.
As he spoke, the question I had put, “Why are you doing nothing now?” was seen to be a question of the unlearned, and one to which he could not make direct answer.
Inquiring why his great work “Capital”, the seed field of so many crops, had not been put into English as it has been put into Russian and French from the original German, he seemed unable to tell, but said that a proposition for an English translation had come to him from New York.
He said that that book was but a fragment, a single part of a work in three parts, two of the parts being yet unpublished, the full trilogy being “Land”, “Capital”, “Credit” , the last part, he said, being largely illustrated from the United States, where credit has had such an amazing development.
Mr. Marx is an observer of American action, and his remarks upon some of the formative and substantive forces of American life were full of suggestiveness.
By the way, in referring to his “Capital”, he said that any one who might desire to read it would find the French translation much superior in many ways to the German original.
Mr. Marx referred to Henri Rochefort the Frenchman, and in his talk of some of his dead disciples, the stormy Bakunin, the brilliant Lassalle, and others, I could see how his genius had taken hold of men who, under other circumstances, might have directed the course of history.
end quotes
The “stormy” Bakunin, the anarchist famous for the aphorism “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion,” we have already met above.
As to Victor Henri Rochefort, Marquis de Rochefort-Luçay (30 January 1831 – 30 June 1913) he was a French writer of vaudevilles, a type of comedy without psychological or moral intentions, based on a comical situation: a dramatic composition or light poetry, interspersed with songs or ballets, as well as a politician who in 1880 founded L’Intransigeant in the radical and socialist interest, and for a short time in 1885–86 he sat in the Chamber of Deputies, but found a great opportunity next year for his talent for inflaming public opinion in the Boulangist agitation, with Marxist historians viewing the Boulangist movement as a proto-fascist right-wing movement, while a number of scholars have presented boulangism as a precursor of fascism, including Zeev Sternhell and Stanley Payne.
According to French historian Jacques Néré, “Boulangism was first and foremost a popular movement of the extreme left”.
As to Boulanger, he gained the support of a number of former Communards from the Paris Commune and some supporters of Blanquism (a faction within the Central Revolutionary Committee) which included men such as Victor Jaclard, Ernest Granger and Henri Rochefort.
As to Ferdinand Lassalle (11 April 1825 – 31 August 1864), he was a Prussian-German jurist, philosopher, socialist and political activist best remembered as the initiator of the social democratic movement in Germany.
About Lassalle, Bertrand Russell said as follows:
“No one has ever understood the power of agitation and organisation better than Lassalle …”
“The secret of his influence lay in his overpowering and imperious will, in his impatience of the passive endurance of evil, and in his absolute confidence in his own power.”
“His whole character is that of an epicurean god, unwittingly become man, awakening suddenly to the existence of evil, and finding with amazement that his will is not omnipotent to set it right.”
Lassalle and Marx became friends during the Revolutions of 1848, known in some countries as the Springtime of the Peoples or the Spring of Nations, which were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe in 1848 and it remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history.
Many of the revolutions were quickly suppressed; tens of thousands of people were killed, and many more were forced into exile, and when the protests were crushed, Lassalle was imprisoned and Marx fled Germany.
As to Swinton, he became involved in radical labor politics in the spring of 1874, when he addressed a mass meeting at Tompkins Square in New York City — a gathering which was violently dispersed by the police.
Following his stint as a freelancer, Swinton took a permanent position as an editorial writer for the New York Sun in 1875.
Before he left the Sun in 1883 to launch a newspaper of his own, he delivered at a press dinner the speech he is most famous for today:
“There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns.”
“You are all slaves.”
“You know it, and I know it.”
“There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion.”
” If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print.”
“I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with.”
“Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things.”
“If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone.”
“The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job.”
“The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary.”
“You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an ‘Independent Press!'”
“We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.”
“We are jumping-jacks.”
“They pull the string and we dance.”
“Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men.”
“We are intellectual prostitutes.”
end quotes
Words of truth in our times today and such is history and so much for the New York Times and the Washington Post which exist to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell our country for their daily bread, and thank god we have as a grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country the Cape Charles Mirror as an independent press because it is out in country town of Cape Charles.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284125
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 21, 2020 at 6:36 pm
Paul Plante says:
And with it having been confirmed for us by no less an authority on the subject than John Swinton, an American journalist, “social reformer” and editorial writer for the New York Sun that far from being any kind of grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country, the business of a New York journalist, and this would include Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, Democrat governor Andy Cuomo’s personal print propaganda organ, is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, I am reminded of a communication I sent to Times Union “managing editor” Brendan Lyons on that very subject on 5 July 2020 in response to his whining about a post I had in the Cape Charles Mirror, as follows:
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 5, 2020 at 8:22 pm
Paul Plante says:
And getting back to the Fourth of July being considered a “racist” holiday because it celebrates “white supremacy,” we have more on that subject from Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York, a self-proclaimed expert on that subject of which she is entirely ignorant, in the Albany, Times Union article “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020, to wit:
ALBANY — The complicated legacy of Maj. Gen. Philip J. Schuyler, a Revolutionary War hero and former state senator whose family’s heritage is enmeshed in the history of Albany and the nation, was officially etched into the city’s landscape in 1925 when a statue in his honor was erected in front of City Hall.
end quotes
And that is bull**** media hype by Brendan J. Lyons because there really is nothing “complicated” at all about the legacy of Maj. Gen. Philip J. Schuyler if one is sane and rational and in control of one’s emotions as opposed to being overly emotional bordering on paranoiac hysteria.
end quotes
Apparently and not surprisingly to those of us who have been following the “reportage” of the Times Union since the 1980s, when the Times Union not only made clear its support of the use of mob violence against an honest public official in Rensselaer County in the state of New York, but further used its “freedom of the press” to literally destroy a man’s life and strip him of his livelihood, with impunity, because he was too honest for the Times Union’s taste, “managing editor” Lyons has a thin skin and can’t take criticism, which he never had to deal with from members of the public like myself before the grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants that is the Cape Charles Mirror came into our lives, which led to my response to him on 5 July 2020, to wit:
As you have probably gathered by now, I really don’t think much of you and your reportage or journalism, whatever name you want to put to it, and I consider you to be on the cowardly side, and the purpose of having you on my distribution list was to keep you appraised of that fact, as well as to give you the chance or opportunity to step up to the plate to defend yourself.
I think that if someone like myself is going to publicly mock someone like yourself in print, that the courteous thing to do is to let the one being so mocked know what is going on.
As you are declining the opportunity, I will be most happy in the future to let you remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that when it comes to reporting, you and the Times Union are no longer in charge.
Happy Independence Day, stay safe, and don’t forget to wear your mask when out in public.
end quotes
In reply, and again not at all surprisingly, given his thin skin, Mr. Lyons got quite huffy and told me to go **** myself, and truthfully, being comfortable in my own skin unlike Mr. Lyons who takes positions in print that he is unable to defend, never having had to before, I’m totally cool with that as a disabled combat veteran who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same, which I still do to this day, regardless of how quaint or out-dated such a concept might be in the era of BLACK LIVES MATTER, because the First Amendment to that Constitution states thusly with regard to the right of Brendan Lyons of the Times Union to tell me to go **** myself, as follows:
Congress shall make no law ….. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
So, people – freedom of the press.
That’s as American as apple pie, is it not?
But freedom to do what?
Destroy the lives of those it considers too honest?
And freedom to be what?
Isn’t it supposed to be freedom to be a grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country, as opposed to an organ for the dissemination of political propaganda, in this case, propagandizing for BLACK LIVES MATTER?
Consider that at the time of this nation’s beginning, which history is being written out of the history books because it is considered racist and “white supremacy,” James Madison, who also is being written out of history because he himself is considered a racist and white supremacist because he owned slaves, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789 his version of the speech and press clauses, wherein was provided, to wit: ”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
Ah!
Freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
But that is not what the First Amendment says, is it?
And why?
And that is because of politics – for whatever reasons, and they are unknown, the words “as one of the great bulwarks of liberty” disappeared as a result of a compromise between the Senate at that time and the House of Representatives, so that now, the press is free to do any damn thing it pleases, or as it is told to do as slaves and jumping-jacks and intellectual prostitutes, of which the Times Union has quite a stable who are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes who pull their string and make them dance, given that their time, their talents, especially their talents for lying and slinging horse**** and destroying people’s lives and livelihoods are all the property of other men like Andy Cuomo and women like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and now, BLACK LIVES MATTER.
Going in to those debates on the First Amendment, it was the common law view as expressed by Sir William Blackstone, (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780), an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England as follows:
”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published.”
“Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.”
“To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government.”
“But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty.”
“Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment.”
“Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”
end quotes
And with those words before us to consider, here for the moment I will rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284446
Paul Plante says:
And with it having been confirmed for us by no less an authority on the subject than John Swinton, an American journalist, “social reformer” and editorial writer for the New York Sun that far from being any kind of grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country, the business of a New York journalist, and this would include Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, Democrat governor Andy Cuomo’s personal print propaganda organ, is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, I am reminded of a communication I sent to Times Union “managing editor” Brendan Lyons on that very subject on 5 July 2020 in response to his whining about a post I had in the Cape Charles Mirror, as follows:
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 5, 2020 at 8:22 pm
Paul Plante says:
And getting back to the Fourth of July being considered a “racist” holiday because it celebrates “white supremacy,” we have more on that subject from Democrat mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York, a self-proclaimed expert on that subject of which she is entirely ignorant, in the Albany, Times Union article “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020, to wit:
ALBANY — The complicated legacy of Maj. Gen. Philip J. Schuyler, a Revolutionary War hero and former state senator whose family’s heritage is enmeshed in the history of Albany and the nation, was officially etched into the city’s landscape in 1925 when a statue in his honor was erected in front of City Hall.
end quotes
And that is bull**** media hype by Brendan J. Lyons because there really is nothing “complicated” at all about the legacy of Maj. Gen. Philip J. Schuyler if one is sane and rational and in control of one’s emotions as opposed to being overly emotional bordering on paranoiac hysteria.
end quotes
Apparently and not surprisingly to those of us who have been following the “reportage” of the Times Union since the 1980s, when the Times Union not only made clear its support of the use of mob violence against an honest public official in Rensselaer County in the state of New York, but further used its “freedom of the press” to literally destroy a man’s life and strip him of his livelihood, with impunity, because he was too honest for the Times Union’s taste, “managing editor” Lyons has a thin skin and can’t take criticism, which he never had to deal with from members of the public like myself before the grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants that is the Cape Charles Mirror came into our lives, which led to my response to him on 5 July 2020, to wit:
As you have probably gathered by now, I really don’t think much of you and your reportage or journalism, whatever name you want to put to it, and I consider you to be on the cowardly side, and the purpose of having you on my distribution list was to keep you appraised of that fact, as well as to give you the chance or opportunity to step up to the plate to defend yourself.
I think that if someone like myself is going to publicly mock someone like yourself in print, that the courteous thing to do is to let the one being so mocked know what is going on.
As you are declining the opportunity, I will be most happy in the future to let you remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that when it comes to reporting, you and the Times Union are no longer in charge.
Happy Independence Day, stay safe, and don’t forget to wear your mask when out in public.
end quotes
In reply, and again not at all surprisingly, given his thin skin, Mr. Lyons got quite huffy and told me to go **** myself, and truthfully, being comfortable in my own skin unlike Mr. Lyons who takes positions in print that he is unable to defend, never having had to before, I’m totally cool with that as a disabled combat veteran who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same, which I still do to this day, regardless of how quaint or out-dated such a concept might be in the era of BLACK LIVES MATTER, because the First Amendment to that Constitution states thusly with regard to the right of Brendan Lyons of the Times Union to tell me to go **** myself, as follows:
Congress shall make no law ….. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
So, people – freedom of the press.
That’s as American as apple pie, is it not?
But freedom to do what?
Destroy the lives of those it considers too honest?
And freedom to be what?
Isn’t it supposed to be freedom to be a grand palladium of freedom and scourge of tyrants in this country, as opposed to an organ for the dissemination of political propaganda, in this case, propagandizing for BLACK LIVES MATTER?
Consider that at the time of this nation’s beginning, which history is being written out of the history books because it is considered racist and “white supremacy,” James Madison, who also is being written out of history because he himself is considered a racist and white supremacist because he owned slaves, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789 his version of the speech and press clauses, wherein was provided, to wit: ”The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
Ah!
Freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
But that is not what the First Amendment says, is it?
And why?
And that is because of politics – for whatever reasons, and they are unknown, the words “as one of the great bulwarks of liberty” disappeared as a result of a compromise between the Senate at that time and the House of Representatives, so that now, the press is free to do any damn thing it pleases, or as it is told to do as slaves and jumping-jacks and intellectual prostitutes, of which the Times Union has quite a stable who are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes who pull their string and make them dance, given that their time, their talents, especially their talents for lying and slinging horse**** and destroying people’s lives and livelihoods are all the property of other men like Andy Cuomo and women like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and now, BLACK LIVES MATTER.
Going in to those debates on the First Amendment, it was the common law view as expressed by Sir William Blackstone, (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780), an English jurist, judge and Tory politician of the eighteenth century most noted for writing the Commentaries on the Laws of England as follows:
”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published.”
“Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.”
“To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government.”
“But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty.”
“Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment.”
“Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”
end quotes
And with those words before us to consider, here for the moment I will rest.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284446
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 22, 2020 at 8:33 pm
Paul Plante says:
And this confirmation by no less an authority on the subject than John Swinton, an American journalist, “social reformer” and editorial writer for the New York Sun that the business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, with those “journalists” being nothing more than slaves and jumping-jacks and intellectual prostitutes who are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes who pull their string and make them dance, given that their time, their talents, especially their talents for lying and slinging horse**** are all the property of other men like Andy Cuomo and women like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and now, BLACK LIVES MATTER, takes us back to June 22, 2020 at 3:58 PM and Amy Biancolli of the Albany, Times Union and her total BULL**** statement that “White people have controlled the conversation around race for too long.”
Oh do tell, Amy, because that statement is simply absurd and ignorant as the story of Elizabeth Freeman, known to history as Mum Bett more than amply illustrates, although I am quite certain that Amy Biancolli never even heard of Mum Bett along with the rest of American history she is so ignorant about.
So who was Mum Bett?
Well, first, we have to go back to July 4, 1776, and these words from the American Declaration of Independence as they are quite relevant to the story of Mum Bett, whose story was told way back in 1854 by Miss Electra F. Jones in her book entitled “STOCKBRIDGE, PAST AND PRESENT; OR, RECORDS OF AN OLD MISSION STATION,” to wit:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
end quotes
By way of background, and here we are talking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the close of the Revolutionary War, the Legislature of Massachusetts passed the Act which abolished slavery in the Commonwealth, and this Act was sent to the towns to receive the sanction of the people, which question excited much interest in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, if not elsewhere.
When the question of slavery, or no slavery, was to be put to the consciences and purses of the people of Stockbridge conscience triumphed; those who had just declared “all men of right free and equal,” and opened their purses and offered their life blood to maintain the heaven-born truth, made no effort to vote in exceptions on the ground of color, which blows clean out of the water the specious assertion of Amy Biancolli that slaves weren’t considered as human beings, which tripe and drivel she apparently got from consulting an academic as we see from the following from Ms. Biancolli on Monday, June 22, 2020 @ 01:39:30 PM EDT, to wit:
I am obviously not a historian, nor do pretend to be; that’s why I sought out an interview with UAlbany Prof. Jennifer Burns in my story.
end quotes
UAlbany Prof. Jennifer Burns is listed as a Lecturer in Africana Studies at the State University of Albany in New York state, and according to its website concerning that department, we have as follows:
The Department of Africana Studies at the University at Albany motivates students (majors, minors, and all who love knowledge) to learn and to enter the world to serve.
Our Department enrolls students from all over the world who drink deep from our course offerings.
In our nationally-ranked Department, students learn about Africa’s ways of life, about African Americans’ ways of life, about African languages, about black religion, about black arts, literature, psychology, black history, the law and the black community, public speaking, critical thinking, expository writing, race theory and social thought, geography of Africa, black popular culture, statistics, among many other areas concerning Africa and Black America.
end quotes
So why she would be ignorant of Mum Bett remains a mystery, and that drivel spewed by Amy Biancolli that Black people weren’t considered human mirrors the tripe put out by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, who told us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human.”
Getting back to Mum Bett, we have further as follows:
Mum Bett (Elizabeth Freeman) was among the first enslaved people in Massachusetts to successfully sue for her freedom, encouraging the state to abolish slavery.
end quotes
Now, it should stand to reason, if one were to actually engage in the critical thinking the Department of Africana Studies at the University at Albany says it encourages, one would be forced to have to come to the conclusion that if as BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors tells us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” that Mum Bett would never have been able to prevail in Brom and Betts v. Ashley to win her freedom, let alone bring the suit in the first place, since non-humans cannot sue for anything in a court of law.
Instead, she proved to be a driving force in ending the enslaved people trade in the new Commonwealth of Massachusetts when she successfully sued for freedom in 1781, becoming the first African American woman to win her way out of slavery.
So much then for “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human.”
Getting back to that history, we have:
In 1780, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts completed its constitution, the first state in the Union to do so, and in it was the guarantee that “all men are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights,” which mirrors the language in the Declaration of Independence, and through all the talk she’d heard around the Ashley home about the rights of the Colonies, Bett had come to believe she’d been guaranteed some rights of her own.
To her ears, the new Massachusetts Constitution extended its protection to all people in the Commonwealth, even enslaved people.
In Theodore Sedgwick (May 9, 1746 – January 24, 1813), an American attorney, politician and jurist, who served in elected state government and as a Delegate to the Continental Congress, a U.S. Representative, and a United States Senator from Massachusetts, serving as the fourth Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and appointed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1802, serving there the rest of his life, she found the perfect person to represent her as Sedgewick was looking to mount a legal attack against the practice of slavery, and through Bett and another enslaved person, Brom, attached to the cause, he’d discovered the perfect test case.
On August 21, 1781, Brom and Bett v. Ashley was first argued before the Court of Common Pleas.
It took only a day for the jury to find in the plaintiffs’ favor.
Bett and Brom were freed and awarded 30 shillings in damages.
Ashley appealed the decision but quickly dropped the case.
While he pleaded with Bett to return to his home as a paid servant, she refused, choosing instead to work for Sedgwick’s family.
Bett, who changed her name to Elizabeth Freeman, grew incredibly close to the Sedgwick family, working for them for several years as a domestic servant.
She saved enough money to eventually build her own house, where she raised her family.
She was buried in the Sedgwick family plot in Stockbridge with the following inscription on her tombstone:
ELIZABETH FREEMAN, also known by the name of MUMBET died Dec. 28th 1829. Her supposed age was 85 Years. She was born a slave and remained a slave for nearly thirty years; She could neither read nor write, yet in her own sphere she had no superior or equal. She neither wasted time nor property. She never violated a trust, nor failed to perform a duty. In every situation of domestic trial, she was the most efficient helper and the tenderest friend. Good mother, farewell.
Mum Bett is the only non-family member buried in the Sedgwick family plot.
end quote
As to Mum Bett, her usual employment was nursing, in which she was peculiarly skilled.
Her good sense, skill and energy, made her useful, and enabled her to become intelligent; and that faithfulness with which she discharged her duties inducing entire confidence, she was an object of respect and esteem.
Mum Bett made history because hers was one of the first cases tested in this way, and the Massachusetts Bill of Rights — “that all men are born free and equal” — prevailed.
Betty was made free, and thus a hope of success held out for those who, like her, were held in bondage contrary, not only to the laws of Nature and the rules of the Gospel, but to the accepted and recorded laws of the State.
So much for the Black folks not being considered human.
So why do we hear nothing about Mum Bett from the Albany Times Union?
Because it spoils their BLACK LIVES MATTER agenda that they are pushing?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284797
Paul Plante says:
And this confirmation by no less an authority on the subject than John Swinton, an American journalist, “social reformer” and editorial writer for the New York Sun that the business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, with those “journalists” being nothing more than slaves and jumping-jacks and intellectual prostitutes who are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes who pull their string and make them dance, given that their time, their talents, especially their talents for lying and slinging horse**** are all the property of other men like Andy Cuomo and women like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and now, BLACK LIVES MATTER, takes us back to June 22, 2020 at 3:58 PM and Amy Biancolli of the Albany, Times Union and her total BULL**** statement that “White people have controlled the conversation around race for too long.”
Oh do tell, Amy, because that statement is simply absurd and ignorant as the story of Elizabeth Freeman, known to history as Mum Bett more than amply illustrates, although I am quite certain that Amy Biancolli never even heard of Mum Bett along with the rest of American history she is so ignorant about.
So who was Mum Bett?
Well, first, we have to go back to July 4, 1776, and these words from the American Declaration of Independence as they are quite relevant to the story of Mum Bett, whose story was told way back in 1854 by Miss Electra F. Jones in her book entitled “STOCKBRIDGE, PAST AND PRESENT; OR, RECORDS OF AN OLD MISSION STATION,” to wit:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
end quotes
By way of background, and here we are talking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the close of the Revolutionary War, the Legislature of Massachusetts passed the Act which abolished slavery in the Commonwealth, and this Act was sent to the towns to receive the sanction of the people, which question excited much interest in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, if not elsewhere.
When the question of slavery, or no slavery, was to be put to the consciences and purses of the people of Stockbridge conscience triumphed; those who had just declared “all men of right free and equal,” and opened their purses and offered their life blood to maintain the heaven-born truth, made no effort to vote in exceptions on the ground of color, which blows clean out of the water the specious assertion of Amy Biancolli that slaves weren’t considered as human beings, which tripe and drivel she apparently got from consulting an academic as we see from the following from Ms. Biancolli on Monday, June 22, 2020 @ 01:39:30 PM EDT, to wit:
I am obviously not a historian, nor do pretend to be; that’s why I sought out an interview with UAlbany Prof. Jennifer Burns in my story.
end quotes
UAlbany Prof. Jennifer Burns is listed as a Lecturer in Africana Studies at the State University of Albany in New York state, and according to its website concerning that department, we have as follows:
The Department of Africana Studies at the University at Albany motivates students (majors, minors, and all who love knowledge) to learn and to enter the world to serve.
Our Department enrolls students from all over the world who drink deep from our course offerings.
In our nationally-ranked Department, students learn about Africa’s ways of life, about African Americans’ ways of life, about African languages, about black religion, about black arts, literature, psychology, black history, the law and the black community, public speaking, critical thinking, expository writing, race theory and social thought, geography of Africa, black popular culture, statistics, among many other areas concerning Africa and Black America.
end quotes
So why she would be ignorant of Mum Bett remains a mystery, and that drivel spewed by Amy Biancolli that Black people weren’t considered human mirrors the tripe put out by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors, who told us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human.”
Getting back to Mum Bett, we have further as follows:
Mum Bett (Elizabeth Freeman) was among the first enslaved people in Massachusetts to successfully sue for her freedom, encouraging the state to abolish slavery.
end quotes
Now, it should stand to reason, if one were to actually engage in the critical thinking the Department of Africana Studies at the University at Albany says it encourages, one would be forced to have to come to the conclusion that if as BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors tells us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” that Mum Bett would never have been able to prevail in Brom and Betts v. Ashley to win her freedom, let alone bring the suit in the first place, since non-humans cannot sue for anything in a court of law.
Instead, she proved to be a driving force in ending the enslaved people trade in the new Commonwealth of Massachusetts when she successfully sued for freedom in 1781, becoming the first African American woman to win her way out of slavery.
So much then for “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human.”
Getting back to that history, we have:
In 1780, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts completed its constitution, the first state in the Union to do so, and in it was the guarantee that “all men are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights,” which mirrors the language in the Declaration of Independence, and through all the talk she’d heard around the Ashley home about the rights of the Colonies, Bett had come to believe she’d been guaranteed some rights of her own.
To her ears, the new Massachusetts Constitution extended its protection to all people in the Commonwealth, even enslaved people.
In Theodore Sedgwick (May 9, 1746 – January 24, 1813), an American attorney, politician and jurist, who served in elected state government and as a Delegate to the Continental Congress, a U.S. Representative, and a United States Senator from Massachusetts, serving as the fourth Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and appointed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1802, serving there the rest of his life, she found the perfect person to represent her as Sedgewick was looking to mount a legal attack against the practice of slavery, and through Bett and another enslaved person, Brom, attached to the cause, he’d discovered the perfect test case.
On August 21, 1781, Brom and Bett v. Ashley was first argued before the Court of Common Pleas.
It took only a day for the jury to find in the plaintiffs’ favor.
Bett and Brom were freed and awarded 30 shillings in damages.
Ashley appealed the decision but quickly dropped the case.
While he pleaded with Bett to return to his home as a paid servant, she refused, choosing instead to work for Sedgwick’s family.
Bett, who changed her name to Elizabeth Freeman, grew incredibly close to the Sedgwick family, working for them for several years as a domestic servant.
She saved enough money to eventually build her own house, where she raised her family.
She was buried in the Sedgwick family plot in Stockbridge with the following inscription on her tombstone:
ELIZABETH FREEMAN, also known by the name of MUMBET died Dec. 28th 1829. Her supposed age was 85 Years. She was born a slave and remained a slave for nearly thirty years; She could neither read nor write, yet in her own sphere she had no superior or equal. She neither wasted time nor property. She never violated a trust, nor failed to perform a duty. In every situation of domestic trial, she was the most efficient helper and the tenderest friend. Good mother, farewell.
Mum Bett is the only non-family member buried in the Sedgwick family plot.
end quote
As to Mum Bett, her usual employment was nursing, in which she was peculiarly skilled.
Her good sense, skill and energy, made her useful, and enabled her to become intelligent; and that faithfulness with which she discharged her duties inducing entire confidence, she was an object of respect and esteem.
Mum Bett made history because hers was one of the first cases tested in this way, and the Massachusetts Bill of Rights — “that all men are born free and equal” — prevailed.
Betty was made free, and thus a hope of success held out for those who, like her, were held in bondage contrary, not only to the laws of Nature and the rules of the Gospel, but to the accepted and recorded laws of the State.
So much for the Black folks not being considered human.
So why do we hear nothing about Mum Bett from the Albany Times Union?
Because it spoils their BLACK LIVES MATTER agenda that they are pushing?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-284797
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 23, 2020 at 6:30 pm
Paul Plante says:
And staying with this BULL**** premise being spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors who tells us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” which drivel was then parroted by Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, let us go back to 1854, three years before the United States Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, to the book “STOCKBRIDGE, PAST AND PRESENT; OR, RECORDS OF AN OLD MISSION STATION” by Miss Electra F. Jones, and SECTION XLI, titled AFRICAN POPULATION, where we have as follows, to wit:
Another individual of the same race, who has been peculiarly distinguished in Stockbridge, is Agrippa Hull.
He was born in Northampton, in the days of slavery, but of free parents, who lived near Licking Water Bridge.
At the age of six, he was brought to Stockbridge by Joab, and lived here until 1777, when he enlisted as a soldier during the war.
end quotes
Now, if this BULL**** being spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” which drivel was then parroted by Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, were at all true, then it is highly unlikely that today, we would be reading about Agrippa Hull in a book written by a white woman in 1854, the same year that the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri on May 15, 1854 heard Dred Scott v. Sandford and ruled against Scott, holding him and his family in slavery, and it is even more unlikely that as a non-human, Agrippa Hull would have been able to enlist with the American patriots fighting for freedom from the tyranny of King George III of England.
Getting back to the story of Agrippa Hull, who in fact and contrary to the horse**** spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union was very much human, we have:
The first two years, which seem to have commenced during the winter of 1777, he was servant to Col. Patterson; but for four years he was in the service of Kosciusko, the Polish General.
He was discharged at West Point, having been engaged six years and two months.
He was afterwards in the service of Judge Sedgwick, while that gentleman was a member of Congress in New York.
end quotes
So for somebody who BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors would have us believe was legally designated as “not human,” I would say that Agrippa Hull acquitted himself quite well, because he was human and in fact was considered so by no less a personage than Judge Sedgewick, at that time a United States Congressman.
But his story doesn’t end there, as we see from the following:
In 1827, he became hopefully pious, and united with the church, evidently enlisting as he had done in the service of his country — for better or for worse, as long as life’s warfare lasted.
The character of Agrippa could scarcely be called eccentric, and yet it was unique.
He was witty, and his presence at weddings seemed almost a necessity.
There, as he wedged himself and his “good cheer” into every crowded corner, his impromptu rhymes, and his courteous jokes, were always welcome.
He had no cringing servility, and certainly never thought meanly of himself, or had opportunity to do so, yet he was perfectly free from all airs and show of consequence.
His language was so simple, and his petitions often so peculiarly adapted to the everyday needs of his hearers, or of those perishing around him, that a smile was sometimes provoked from the thoughtless; but the true worshiper could not fail to realize his dependence upon Divine Grace for every right action or emotion, as well as for every breath.
While he lived too, the church always had one at least, who possessed “a spirit of grace and of supplication.”
Thus he was ever ready with a patient, and often a witty answer; and he commended efforts for the good of his race still in bondage, by saying, “they will do good by helping them to keep down their bad feelings until deliverance comes.”
He felt deeply the wrongs of his nation, but his feelings rose on the wings of prayer, rather than burst from the muzzle of the musket.
Had he lived to the present day, he was not the man to have taken up arms against the laws of his country which he had fought so long to redeem; yet in principle he would have much preferred the fugitive statute of Moses — “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose, where it liketh him best.” Deut. 23: 15,16.
Agrippa was born March 7, 1759, and died, after a long illness, May 1, 1848, aged nearly eighty-nine.
end quotes
Had he lived to the present day, he was not the man to have taken up arms against the laws of his country which he had fought so long to redeem!
Those are words it would behoove BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors to consider and consider well, along with Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, although it is possible that they would simply dismiss him an another “Uncle Tom,” or an Oreo Cookie, black on the outside but white inside, precisely because he spoils their narrative about Black people in America being designated an non-human, which brings us in turn to the years 1781 to 1783, when in three related cases known today as “the Quock Walker case,” the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts applied the principle of judicial review to abolish slavery.
In doing so, the Court held that laws and customs that sanctioned slavery were incompatible with the new state constitution.
In the words of then-Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing: “(S)lavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges [in the constitution] wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.”
By way of background, which again is high school history as accessible to BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union as it is to you and me, we have thusly:
It is generally agreed that African slaves first arrived in Massachusetts in the 1630’s, and slavery was legally sanctioned in 1641.
As the rhetoric supporting independence of the colonists from Great Britain intensified in the colony of Massachusetts, some noted the glaring inconsistency of arguing for the rights of Englishmen while owning slaves.
For example, James Otis, a leading proponent of colonial independence, wrote in a highly regarded and influential 1764 pamphlet that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.”
Historian Joanne Pope Melish observed that “the onset of the Revolution both intensified the attack and weakened the structures and practices that supported the institution [of slavery in New England]. . . .”
“New England was not ultimately dependent on slave labor, and the war disrupted patterns of production and trade in the very areas in which slave labor was most heavily engaged; the coastal trade, the provisioning trade with the West Indies, fishing, and shipping in general.”
Slaves too were active in seeking the end of slavery in Massachusetts.
For example, in 1773, a group of slaves petitioned the General Court (legislature) to end slavery, and directly tied their search for liberty to the colonists’ struggles with Great Britain.
As discussed in the section of this website entitled John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution, the Constitution of 1780 was preceded by a constitution drafted by the legislature and rejected by the voters in 1778.
The constitution proposed in 1778 would have recognized slavery as a legal institution, and excluded free African Americans from voting.
The Constitution of 1780, in contrast, contained a declaration that “all men are born free and equal, and have . . . the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.”
In his charge to the jury in the Quock Walker case, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing announced that slavery was incompatible with the new Massachusetts Constitution:
. . . (T)hese sentiments [that are favorable to the natural rights of mankind] led the framers of our constitution of government – by which the people of this commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves to each other – to declare – that all men are born free and equal; and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws as well as his life and property.”
“In short, without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.”
“The court are therefore fully of the opinion that perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and that liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract.”
end quotes
So how come today we are being fed this rank BULL**** by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union that Black people who were slaves weren’t considered as being human?
How come we don’t hear about Mum Bett and Agrippa Hull and Quock Walker in the Albany, New York Times Union?
Because it spoils the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative they are pushing?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-285106
Paul Plante says:
And staying with this BULL**** premise being spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors who tells us in her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” which drivel was then parroted by Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, let us go back to 1854, three years before the United States Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, to the book “STOCKBRIDGE, PAST AND PRESENT; OR, RECORDS OF AN OLD MISSION STATION” by Miss Electra F. Jones, and SECTION XLI, titled AFRICAN POPULATION, where we have as follows, to wit:
Another individual of the same race, who has been peculiarly distinguished in Stockbridge, is Agrippa Hull.
He was born in Northampton, in the days of slavery, but of free parents, who lived near Licking Water Bridge.
At the age of six, he was brought to Stockbridge by Joab, and lived here until 1777, when he enlisted as a soldier during the war.
end quotes
Now, if this BULL**** being spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors that “Black people are the only humans in this nation ever legally designated, after all, as not human,” which drivel was then parroted by Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, were at all true, then it is highly unlikely that today, we would be reading about Agrippa Hull in a book written by a white woman in 1854, the same year that the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri on May 15, 1854 heard Dred Scott v. Sandford and ruled against Scott, holding him and his family in slavery, and it is even more unlikely that as a non-human, Agrippa Hull would have been able to enlist with the American patriots fighting for freedom from the tyranny of King George III of England.
Getting back to the story of Agrippa Hull, who in fact and contrary to the horse**** spewed by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union was very much human, we have:
The first two years, which seem to have commenced during the winter of 1777, he was servant to Col. Patterson; but for four years he was in the service of Kosciusko, the Polish General.
He was discharged at West Point, having been engaged six years and two months.
He was afterwards in the service of Judge Sedgwick, while that gentleman was a member of Congress in New York.
end quotes
So for somebody who BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors would have us believe was legally designated as “not human,” I would say that Agrippa Hull acquitted himself quite well, because he was human and in fact was considered so by no less a personage than Judge Sedgewick, at that time a United States Congressman.
But his story doesn’t end there, as we see from the following:
In 1827, he became hopefully pious, and united with the church, evidently enlisting as he had done in the service of his country — for better or for worse, as long as life’s warfare lasted.
The character of Agrippa could scarcely be called eccentric, and yet it was unique.
He was witty, and his presence at weddings seemed almost a necessity.
There, as he wedged himself and his “good cheer” into every crowded corner, his impromptu rhymes, and his courteous jokes, were always welcome.
He had no cringing servility, and certainly never thought meanly of himself, or had opportunity to do so, yet he was perfectly free from all airs and show of consequence.
His language was so simple, and his petitions often so peculiarly adapted to the everyday needs of his hearers, or of those perishing around him, that a smile was sometimes provoked from the thoughtless; but the true worshiper could not fail to realize his dependence upon Divine Grace for every right action or emotion, as well as for every breath.
While he lived too, the church always had one at least, who possessed “a spirit of grace and of supplication.”
Thus he was ever ready with a patient, and often a witty answer; and he commended efforts for the good of his race still in bondage, by saying, “they will do good by helping them to keep down their bad feelings until deliverance comes.”
He felt deeply the wrongs of his nation, but his feelings rose on the wings of prayer, rather than burst from the muzzle of the musket.
Had he lived to the present day, he was not the man to have taken up arms against the laws of his country which he had fought so long to redeem; yet in principle he would have much preferred the fugitive statute of Moses — “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose, where it liketh him best.” Deut. 23: 15,16.
Agrippa was born March 7, 1759, and died, after a long illness, May 1, 1848, aged nearly eighty-nine.
end quotes
Had he lived to the present day, he was not the man to have taken up arms against the laws of his country which he had fought so long to redeem!
Those are words it would behoove BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors to consider and consider well, along with Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union, although it is possible that they would simply dismiss him an another “Uncle Tom,” or an Oreo Cookie, black on the outside but white inside, precisely because he spoils their narrative about Black people in America being designated an non-human, which brings us in turn to the years 1781 to 1783, when in three related cases known today as “the Quock Walker case,” the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts applied the principle of judicial review to abolish slavery.
In doing so, the Court held that laws and customs that sanctioned slavery were incompatible with the new state constitution.
In the words of then-Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing: “(S)lavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges [in the constitution] wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.”
By way of background, which again is high school history as accessible to BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union as it is to you and me, we have thusly:
It is generally agreed that African slaves first arrived in Massachusetts in the 1630’s, and slavery was legally sanctioned in 1641.
As the rhetoric supporting independence of the colonists from Great Britain intensified in the colony of Massachusetts, some noted the glaring inconsistency of arguing for the rights of Englishmen while owning slaves.
For example, James Otis, a leading proponent of colonial independence, wrote in a highly regarded and influential 1764 pamphlet that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.”
Historian Joanne Pope Melish observed that “the onset of the Revolution both intensified the attack and weakened the structures and practices that supported the institution [of slavery in New England]. . . .”
“New England was not ultimately dependent on slave labor, and the war disrupted patterns of production and trade in the very areas in which slave labor was most heavily engaged; the coastal trade, the provisioning trade with the West Indies, fishing, and shipping in general.”
Slaves too were active in seeking the end of slavery in Massachusetts.
For example, in 1773, a group of slaves petitioned the General Court (legislature) to end slavery, and directly tied their search for liberty to the colonists’ struggles with Great Britain.
As discussed in the section of this website entitled John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution, the Constitution of 1780 was preceded by a constitution drafted by the legislature and rejected by the voters in 1778.
The constitution proposed in 1778 would have recognized slavery as a legal institution, and excluded free African Americans from voting.
The Constitution of 1780, in contrast, contained a declaration that “all men are born free and equal, and have . . . the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.”
In his charge to the jury in the Quock Walker case, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing announced that slavery was incompatible with the new Massachusetts Constitution:
. . . (T)hese sentiments [that are favorable to the natural rights of mankind] led the framers of our constitution of government – by which the people of this commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves to each other – to declare – that all men are born free and equal; and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws as well as his life and property.”
“In short, without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.”
“The court are therefore fully of the opinion that perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and that liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract.”
end quotes
So how come today we are being fed this rank BULL**** by BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Amy Biancolli of the Hearst Publication’s Albany, New York Times Union that Black people who were slaves weren’t considered as being human?
How come we don’t hear about Mum Bett and Agrippa Hull and Quock Walker in the Albany, New York Times Union?
Because it spoils the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative they are pushing?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-285106
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 25, 2020 at 9:05 pm
Paul Plante says:
“The great object of a free people must be so to form their government and laws and so to administer them as to create a confidence in, and respect for the laws; and thereby induce the sensible and virtuous part of the community to declare in favor of the laws, and to support them without an expensive military force.”
Those are words from the “Federal Farmer III” political essay by the Federal Farmer on October 10, 1787, eleven years after the first Fourth of July, now considered to be a “racist” holiday celebrating “white supremacy,” even though there were Black people like Agrippa Hull and James Armistead Lafayette fighting alongside those deemed today as “racists,” simply because their skin was white, which is a sign of how far over into gross ignorance and stupidity this nation has descended in the intervening 233 years since the publication of the “Federal Farmer III” political essay, where people today are totally ignorant and pitifully so, with this mindless blather by people such as Amy Biancolli and BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors that back then, Black people weren’t considered as human beings.
In point of fact, around five-thousand Blacks served in the Revolutionary War as soldiers on the patriot side against the British, which country was responsible for their enslavement in this nation before the first Fourth of July and the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of English King George III, and a vast unknown number provided a myriad of support services.
So much for them being considered as non-humans.
With respect to the Declaration of Independence, what exactly did that accomplish, besides nothing?
To the British, the Declaration of Independence meant exactly nothing as far as they were concerned, so the colonists who declared independence and the Black folks who fought for their cause were hardly free just because of the Declaration of Independence, and in fact, that freedom would not come until seven long bloody years later on September 3, 1783, with the major American victory at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781 marking the end of hostilities, although some fighting took place through the fall of 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed by representatives of King George III including David Hartley and Richard Oswald and the United States including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, officially ending the conflict.
The treaty was ratified by the US Congress of the Confederation on January 14th, 1784.
As to the War of Revolution, there were 165 principal engagements from 1775-1783, and the Smithsonian tome, “The American Revolutionary War: A Visual History,” quotes a Hessian officer in 1777, as saying, “No regiment is to be seen in which there are not Negroes in abundance and among them are able-bodied and strong fellows.”
In the Battle of Bunker Hill, Peter Salem, a slave, served with courage under fire, as varying accounts reported and he was introduced to George Washington as “the man who shot Pitcairn,” the British Royal Marine Major who shouted to his men before Salem shot him down, “The day is ours.”
Col. John Thomas wrote John Adams on October 24, 1775 to say as follows: “We have negroes, but I look upon them as equally serviceable with other men, for fatigue (labor); and, in action many of them have proven themselves brave.”
So much for them not being considered as being human, which brings us to 1783 and Chapter III of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia entitled “An act directing the emancipation of certain slaves who have served as soldiers in this state, and for the emancipation of the slave Aberdeen,” wherein was stated thusly:
I. WHEREAS it hath been represented to the present general assembly, that during the course of the war, many persons i this state had caused their slaves to enlist in certain regiments or corps raised within the same, having tendered such slaves to the officers appointed to recruit forces within the state, as substitutes for free persons, whose duty or lot it was to serve in such regiment or corps, at the same time representing to such recruiting officers that the slaves so enlisted by their direction and at their concurrence were freemen; and it appearing further to this assembly, that on the expiration of the term of enlistment of such slaves that the former owners have attempted again to force them to return to a state of servitude, contrary to the principles of justice, and to their own solemn promise.
II. And whereas it appears just and reasonable that all persons enlisted as aforesaid, who have faithfully served agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby of course contributed towards the establishment of American liberty and independence, should enjoy the blessings of freedom as a reward for their toils and labors; Be it therefore enacted, That each and every slave, who by the appointment and direction of his owner, hath enlisted in any regiment or corps raised within this state, either on continental or state establishment, and hath been received as a substitute for many free person whose duty or lot it was to serve in such regiment or corps, and hath served faithfully during the term of such enlistment, or hath been discharged from such service by some officer duly authorized to grant such discharge, shall from and after the passing of this act, be fully and completely emancipated, and shall be held and deemed free in as full and ample a manner as if each and every one of them were specially named in this act; and the attorney-general for the commonwealth, is hereby required to commence an action, in forma pauperis, in behalf of any of the persons above described who shall after the passing of this act be detained in servitude by any person whatsoever; and if upon such prosecution it shall appear that the pauper is entitled to his freedom in consequence of this act, a jury shall be empannelled to assess the damages for his detention.
III. And whereas it has been represented to this general assembly, that Aberdeen, a negro man slave, hath labored a number of years in the public service at the lead mines, and for his meritorious services is entitled to freedom; Be it therefore enacted, That the said slave Aberdeen shall be, and he is hereby emancipated and declared free in as full and ample a manner as if he had been born free
end quotes
That, people, is American history as it actually happened, not as the Albany, New York Times Union and Democrat mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan and BLACK LIVES MATTER would have it be, with this tripe and drivel of theirs that Black people weren’t considered as being human, when the evidence is that they clearly were considered human.
So why in 2020 are we being force fed that drivel and just plain BULL**** while at the same time being told by mayor Kathy that because of our history, of which that is a part, we have to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, which is equivalent to telling us we have to embrace ignorance and just plain stupidity and a Marxist-inspired agenda to disrupt our stable, law-abiding nuclear families?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-285791
Paul Plante says:
“The great object of a free people must be so to form their government and laws and so to administer them as to create a confidence in, and respect for the laws; and thereby induce the sensible and virtuous part of the community to declare in favor of the laws, and to support them without an expensive military force.”
Those are words from the “Federal Farmer III” political essay by the Federal Farmer on October 10, 1787, eleven years after the first Fourth of July, now considered to be a “racist” holiday celebrating “white supremacy,” even though there were Black people like Agrippa Hull and James Armistead Lafayette fighting alongside those deemed today as “racists,” simply because their skin was white, which is a sign of how far over into gross ignorance and stupidity this nation has descended in the intervening 233 years since the publication of the “Federal Farmer III” political essay, where people today are totally ignorant and pitifully so, with this mindless blather by people such as Amy Biancolli and BLACK LIVES MATTER founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors that back then, Black people weren’t considered as human beings.
In point of fact, around five-thousand Blacks served in the Revolutionary War as soldiers on the patriot side against the British, which country was responsible for their enslavement in this nation before the first Fourth of July and the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of English King George III, and a vast unknown number provided a myriad of support services.
So much for them being considered as non-humans.
With respect to the Declaration of Independence, what exactly did that accomplish, besides nothing?
To the British, the Declaration of Independence meant exactly nothing as far as they were concerned, so the colonists who declared independence and the Black folks who fought for their cause were hardly free just because of the Declaration of Independence, and in fact, that freedom would not come until seven long bloody years later on September 3, 1783, with the major American victory at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781 marking the end of hostilities, although some fighting took place through the fall of 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed by representatives of King George III including David Hartley and Richard Oswald and the United States including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, officially ending the conflict.
The treaty was ratified by the US Congress of the Confederation on January 14th, 1784.
As to the War of Revolution, there were 165 principal engagements from 1775-1783, and the Smithsonian tome, “The American Revolutionary War: A Visual History,” quotes a Hessian officer in 1777, as saying, “No regiment is to be seen in which there are not Negroes in abundance and among them are able-bodied and strong fellows.”
In the Battle of Bunker Hill, Peter Salem, a slave, served with courage under fire, as varying accounts reported and he was introduced to George Washington as “the man who shot Pitcairn,” the British Royal Marine Major who shouted to his men before Salem shot him down, “The day is ours.”
Col. John Thomas wrote John Adams on October 24, 1775 to say as follows: “We have negroes, but I look upon them as equally serviceable with other men, for fatigue (labor); and, in action many of them have proven themselves brave.”
So much for them not being considered as being human, which brings us to 1783 and Chapter III of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia entitled “An act directing the emancipation of certain slaves who have served as soldiers in this state, and for the emancipation of the slave Aberdeen,” wherein was stated thusly:
I. WHEREAS it hath been represented to the present general assembly, that during the course of the war, many persons i this state had caused their slaves to enlist in certain regiments or corps raised within the same, having tendered such slaves to the officers appointed to recruit forces within the state, as substitutes for free persons, whose duty or lot it was to serve in such regiment or corps, at the same time representing to such recruiting officers that the slaves so enlisted by their direction and at their concurrence were freemen; and it appearing further to this assembly, that on the expiration of the term of enlistment of such slaves that the former owners have attempted again to force them to return to a state of servitude, contrary to the principles of justice, and to their own solemn promise.
II. And whereas it appears just and reasonable that all persons enlisted as aforesaid, who have faithfully served agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby of course contributed towards the establishment of American liberty and independence, should enjoy the blessings of freedom as a reward for their toils and labors; Be it therefore enacted, That each and every slave, who by the appointment and direction of his owner, hath enlisted in any regiment or corps raised within this state, either on continental or state establishment, and hath been received as a substitute for many free person whose duty or lot it was to serve in such regiment or corps, and hath served faithfully during the term of such enlistment, or hath been discharged from such service by some officer duly authorized to grant such discharge, shall from and after the passing of this act, be fully and completely emancipated, and shall be held and deemed free in as full and ample a manner as if each and every one of them were specially named in this act; and the attorney-general for the commonwealth, is hereby required to commence an action, in forma pauperis, in behalf of any of the persons above described who shall after the passing of this act be detained in servitude by any person whatsoever; and if upon such prosecution it shall appear that the pauper is entitled to his freedom in consequence of this act, a jury shall be empannelled to assess the damages for his detention.
III. And whereas it has been represented to this general assembly, that Aberdeen, a negro man slave, hath labored a number of years in the public service at the lead mines, and for his meritorious services is entitled to freedom; Be it therefore enacted, That the said slave Aberdeen shall be, and he is hereby emancipated and declared free in as full and ample a manner as if he had been born free
end quotes
That, people, is American history as it actually happened, not as the Albany, New York Times Union and Democrat mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan and BLACK LIVES MATTER would have it be, with this tripe and drivel of theirs that Black people weren’t considered as being human, when the evidence is that they clearly were considered human.
So why in 2020 are we being force fed that drivel and just plain BULL**** while at the same time being told by mayor Kathy that because of our history, of which that is a part, we have to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, which is equivalent to telling us we have to embrace ignorance and just plain stupidity and a Marxist-inspired agenda to disrupt our stable, law-abiding nuclear families?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-285791
Re: ON THE FOURTH OF JULY
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 26, 2020 at 9:56 pm
Paul Plante says:
So, squinting at history through that single, narrow lens, as Amy Biancolli of the Albany, New York Times Union called it in the Times Union story entitled “Biancolli: As we get rid of Schuyler statue, we need to own his history” by Amy Biancolli on July 8, 2020, in the context of the more limited narrative Amy says was first absorbed in my youth, it is crystal clear that in every battle of the Revolutionary War from Lexington to Yorktown; black men, slave and free, picked up the musket and defended America; and in the course of that struggle, earned their freedom and paved the way for other Black folks to be free as well, so why is it then, that so many Black historians as well as “sensitive” white folks like Amy Biancolli have omitted their contributions in their warped and twisted and perverted view of history?
In my opinion as an American citizen, this need for these Black historians to “overlook,” “underestimate,” and or “erase,” these sacrifices is a gross negligence on their part for political reasons that intentionally distorts and misrepresents American history; and furthermore, it continues to disenfranchise the patriotic heroes of the past and malign the self-image of millions of Americans today simply because of the color of their skin, all to maintain the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative being pushed by the Albany Times Union and Democrats like Kathy Sheehan, again for political reasons, that depicts all Black people as downtrodden losers who they depict as not even being human, which is nothing more than tripe.
In her polemic in the Times Union on July 8, 2020, Amy Biancolli, a polished political commentator for the Hearst Publishing’s Albany, New York Times Union who was born in Queens and grew up in Connecticut and holds degrees from Hamilton College and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former movie critic for the Houston Chronicle who first wrote for the TU from 1991-2000 and then bounced back into the local-arts beat in 2012 stated with respect to myself that “I was baffled by his refusal to acknowledge the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights,” which is a BULL**** statement all the way around, because although members of the so-called “servile class,” the Black folks were hardly denied “all human rights,” as we clearly see in the case of the Virginia law in 1783 mentioned above making freemen out of former Black slaves who either fought in the Revolution, or like Aberdeen, a negro man slave, labored for a number of years in the public service at the lead mines, and for his meritorious services was entitled to freedom and emancipated and declared free in as full and ample a manner as if he had been born free.
As to Massachusetts, and this is schoolboy history we never hear about from these Black historians pushing the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative of Black people being considered as non-humans, although slaves were indeed considered as “property,” at the same time, they were also considered as persons before the law, so that slaves could institute and prosecute lawsuits in the courts against their master as the defendant, which is a human right ignorant people like Amy Biancolli says they did not have.
As to acknowledging the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights, though my “lens of history” that I squint through, I go back to 135–132 BC, and the First Servile War, which was a slave rebellion against the Roman Republic led by Eunus, a former slave, and Cleon, a Cilician slave, who became Eunus’s military commander.
With respect to the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights, following the final expulsion of the Carthaginians from Sicily during the Second Punic War, there were great changes in land ownership in Sicily with speculators from Italy rushing onto the island and buying up large tracts of land at low prices, or occupying estates which had belonged to Sicilians of the Carthaginian party, which estates were forfeited to Rome after the execution or flight of their owners.
According to the school-boy history that I learned when young, back in a time when ignorance was not tolerated as it is today, these newly arrived Roman Sicilians exploited their slaves more brutally than their predecessors, and those slaves weren’t Black, they were white, so how about that!
According to Diodorus Siculus, or Diodorus of Sicily, who was an ancient Greek historian known for writing the monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica, in forty books, fifteen of which survive intact, between 60 and 30 BC, politically influential slave-owners, often Roman equites who constituted the second of the property-based classes of ancient Rome, ranking below the senatorial class, did not provide enough food and clothing for their slaves.
The Roman conquest of Macedonia, in which thousands of the conquered were sold into slavery, the slave-dealing of the Cretan and Cilician pirates whose activity was practically unchecked at this time, as well as the oppression of corrupt Roman provincial governors, who were known to organize man-hunts after lower-class country provincials to be sold as slaves — all contributed to a constant supply of new slaves at very cheap price, which made it more profitable for their masters to wear them out by unremitting labor, harshness, exposure and malnutrition, to be cheaply replaced, than to take proper care for their nourishment, health, and accommodation.
Talk about people being treated as if they were non-human, there is a case of it right there before our eyes, so how come we never hear of this from these Black historians and ignorant people like Amy Biancolli who would have us believe that the only people ever oppressed by the institution of slavery were Black?
Getting back to the history as it happened, the plantation system which took shape in Sicily led to thousands of slaves dying every year of toil in the fields from dawn to dusk with chains around their legs, and being locked up in suffocating subterranean pits by night.
For food, the slaves had to turn to banditry to survive while the Roman Senate failed to take measures to curb this dangerous tendency, which converted one of the most beautiful and fertile provinces of the Republic into a horrible den of misery, brigandage, atrocity and death.
Because of that treatment, which I certainly acknowledge, given it cannot be denied other than by ignorant fools, of which we have many in this nation, either serving as historians or writers for rags like the Times Union, in 135 BC, the plantation slaves in Sicily finally rose in revolt, with Eunus of Syrian origin as their head.
The spark which would end up starting the revolt came when a group of slaves, who were suffering under the severe cruelty of their owner Damophilus, sought out Eunus for advice on what to do about their situation, and in response, Eunus organized about 400 slaves into a band and stormed the prominent city of Enna located in the interior of the island and the home of Damophilus.
The unprepared town was captured and savagely sacked by the insurgents, who executed every inhabitant but the iron-forgers, who were chained to their smithies and put to manufacturing arms for their captors.
Damophilus was butchered after being insultingly paraded through the local theater, abjectly begging for his life while his wife was tortured to death by her servants.
Their daughter, who had once attempted to alleviate the suffering of her family’s slaves, was spared by the mob and given an honorable escort which was to deliver her to the Roman garrison at Catana.
After the capture of Enna, the revolt quickly spread.
Achaeus, a Greek slave (Greeks aren’t Black), was named commander-in-chief by Eunus, who simultaneously proclaimed himself king Antiochus, of Syria.
A group of 5,000 slaves on the south side of the island under Cleon rose up and managed to capture Agrigentum, after which they joined Eunus and his forces.
The numbers of the slave army swelled rapidly from 10,000 to 70,000 by the lowest estimate (Livy and Orosius following him), or as many as 200,000 according to Diodorus Siculus, including men and women, possibly counting children as well.
The Praetor Lucius Hypsaeus marched with a body of Sicilian militia to quash the revolt but the slaves managed to rout his army, they then defeated three other praetors in succession and occupied almost the whole island by the end of the year.
In 134 the Roman Senate sent Flaccus, the consul for the year, to put an end to the revolt.
However, his campaign, the details of which are few and obscure, seems to have ended without a conclusive result.
A year later, in 133 the new consul Lucius Calpurnius Piso was given the same task as Flaccus but this time the effort actually gave results.
He recaptured Messana, putting 8,000 surrendered slaves to death before laying siege to the important town of Tauromenium on the north-east coast, though he was in the end unable to take it.
The revolt was finally snuffed out in its entirety the following year by Publius Rupilius who laid siege to Tauromenium and managed to capture it with relative ease thanks to the help of traitors from within the slave army defending the town.
Talk about not having any basic human rights like the Black slaves in Massachusetts did, being able to sue their masters in court as they were able to do, all the prisoners taken when the town fell were first tortured, and then thrown from a cliff.
Next Publius Rupilius marched on Enna, which had become the center of the entire revolt, where one of the slave leaders, Cleon, had taken refuge.
Cleon died of wounds sustained during a desperate sally out of the gates to try and break the Roman siege lines.
Enna then fell not long after, again helped by traitors inside the walls, and the remnants of the slave army on the rest of the island was quickly stamped out, with around 20,000 prisoners being crucified by Rupilius in retribution.
And there is my acknowledgement of the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights.
So why don’t these Black historians today and progressives like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and Amy Biancolli acknowledge it as well?
A question for our times, indeed.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-286060
Paul Plante says:
So, squinting at history through that single, narrow lens, as Amy Biancolli of the Albany, New York Times Union called it in the Times Union story entitled “Biancolli: As we get rid of Schuyler statue, we need to own his history” by Amy Biancolli on July 8, 2020, in the context of the more limited narrative Amy says was first absorbed in my youth, it is crystal clear that in every battle of the Revolutionary War from Lexington to Yorktown; black men, slave and free, picked up the musket and defended America; and in the course of that struggle, earned their freedom and paved the way for other Black folks to be free as well, so why is it then, that so many Black historians as well as “sensitive” white folks like Amy Biancolli have omitted their contributions in their warped and twisted and perverted view of history?
In my opinion as an American citizen, this need for these Black historians to “overlook,” “underestimate,” and or “erase,” these sacrifices is a gross negligence on their part for political reasons that intentionally distorts and misrepresents American history; and furthermore, it continues to disenfranchise the patriotic heroes of the past and malign the self-image of millions of Americans today simply because of the color of their skin, all to maintain the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative being pushed by the Albany Times Union and Democrats like Kathy Sheehan, again for political reasons, that depicts all Black people as downtrodden losers who they depict as not even being human, which is nothing more than tripe.
In her polemic in the Times Union on July 8, 2020, Amy Biancolli, a polished political commentator for the Hearst Publishing’s Albany, New York Times Union who was born in Queens and grew up in Connecticut and holds degrees from Hamilton College and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former movie critic for the Houston Chronicle who first wrote for the TU from 1991-2000 and then bounced back into the local-arts beat in 2012 stated with respect to myself that “I was baffled by his refusal to acknowledge the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights,” which is a BULL**** statement all the way around, because although members of the so-called “servile class,” the Black folks were hardly denied “all human rights,” as we clearly see in the case of the Virginia law in 1783 mentioned above making freemen out of former Black slaves who either fought in the Revolution, or like Aberdeen, a negro man slave, labored for a number of years in the public service at the lead mines, and for his meritorious services was entitled to freedom and emancipated and declared free in as full and ample a manner as if he had been born free.
As to Massachusetts, and this is schoolboy history we never hear about from these Black historians pushing the BLACK LIVES MATTER narrative of Black people being considered as non-humans, although slaves were indeed considered as “property,” at the same time, they were also considered as persons before the law, so that slaves could institute and prosecute lawsuits in the courts against their master as the defendant, which is a human right ignorant people like Amy Biancolli says they did not have.
As to acknowledging the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights, though my “lens of history” that I squint through, I go back to 135–132 BC, and the First Servile War, which was a slave rebellion against the Roman Republic led by Eunus, a former slave, and Cleon, a Cilician slave, who became Eunus’s military commander.
With respect to the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights, following the final expulsion of the Carthaginians from Sicily during the Second Punic War, there were great changes in land ownership in Sicily with speculators from Italy rushing onto the island and buying up large tracts of land at low prices, or occupying estates which had belonged to Sicilians of the Carthaginian party, which estates were forfeited to Rome after the execution or flight of their owners.
According to the school-boy history that I learned when young, back in a time when ignorance was not tolerated as it is today, these newly arrived Roman Sicilians exploited their slaves more brutally than their predecessors, and those slaves weren’t Black, they were white, so how about that!
According to Diodorus Siculus, or Diodorus of Sicily, who was an ancient Greek historian known for writing the monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica, in forty books, fifteen of which survive intact, between 60 and 30 BC, politically influential slave-owners, often Roman equites who constituted the second of the property-based classes of ancient Rome, ranking below the senatorial class, did not provide enough food and clothing for their slaves.
The Roman conquest of Macedonia, in which thousands of the conquered were sold into slavery, the slave-dealing of the Cretan and Cilician pirates whose activity was practically unchecked at this time, as well as the oppression of corrupt Roman provincial governors, who were known to organize man-hunts after lower-class country provincials to be sold as slaves — all contributed to a constant supply of new slaves at very cheap price, which made it more profitable for their masters to wear them out by unremitting labor, harshness, exposure and malnutrition, to be cheaply replaced, than to take proper care for their nourishment, health, and accommodation.
Talk about people being treated as if they were non-human, there is a case of it right there before our eyes, so how come we never hear of this from these Black historians and ignorant people like Amy Biancolli who would have us believe that the only people ever oppressed by the institution of slavery were Black?
Getting back to the history as it happened, the plantation system which took shape in Sicily led to thousands of slaves dying every year of toil in the fields from dawn to dusk with chains around their legs, and being locked up in suffocating subterranean pits by night.
For food, the slaves had to turn to banditry to survive while the Roman Senate failed to take measures to curb this dangerous tendency, which converted one of the most beautiful and fertile provinces of the Republic into a horrible den of misery, brigandage, atrocity and death.
Because of that treatment, which I certainly acknowledge, given it cannot be denied other than by ignorant fools, of which we have many in this nation, either serving as historians or writers for rags like the Times Union, in 135 BC, the plantation slaves in Sicily finally rose in revolt, with Eunus of Syrian origin as their head.
The spark which would end up starting the revolt came when a group of slaves, who were suffering under the severe cruelty of their owner Damophilus, sought out Eunus for advice on what to do about their situation, and in response, Eunus organized about 400 slaves into a band and stormed the prominent city of Enna located in the interior of the island and the home of Damophilus.
The unprepared town was captured and savagely sacked by the insurgents, who executed every inhabitant but the iron-forgers, who were chained to their smithies and put to manufacturing arms for their captors.
Damophilus was butchered after being insultingly paraded through the local theater, abjectly begging for his life while his wife was tortured to death by her servants.
Their daughter, who had once attempted to alleviate the suffering of her family’s slaves, was spared by the mob and given an honorable escort which was to deliver her to the Roman garrison at Catana.
After the capture of Enna, the revolt quickly spread.
Achaeus, a Greek slave (Greeks aren’t Black), was named commander-in-chief by Eunus, who simultaneously proclaimed himself king Antiochus, of Syria.
A group of 5,000 slaves on the south side of the island under Cleon rose up and managed to capture Agrigentum, after which they joined Eunus and his forces.
The numbers of the slave army swelled rapidly from 10,000 to 70,000 by the lowest estimate (Livy and Orosius following him), or as many as 200,000 according to Diodorus Siculus, including men and women, possibly counting children as well.
The Praetor Lucius Hypsaeus marched with a body of Sicilian militia to quash the revolt but the slaves managed to rout his army, they then defeated three other praetors in succession and occupied almost the whole island by the end of the year.
In 134 the Roman Senate sent Flaccus, the consul for the year, to put an end to the revolt.
However, his campaign, the details of which are few and obscure, seems to have ended without a conclusive result.
A year later, in 133 the new consul Lucius Calpurnius Piso was given the same task as Flaccus but this time the effort actually gave results.
He recaptured Messana, putting 8,000 surrendered slaves to death before laying siege to the important town of Tauromenium on the north-east coast, though he was in the end unable to take it.
The revolt was finally snuffed out in its entirety the following year by Publius Rupilius who laid siege to Tauromenium and managed to capture it with relative ease thanks to the help of traitors from within the slave army defending the town.
Talk about not having any basic human rights like the Black slaves in Massachusetts did, being able to sue their masters in court as they were able to do, all the prisoners taken when the town fell were first tortured, and then thrown from a cliff.
Next Publius Rupilius marched on Enna, which had become the center of the entire revolt, where one of the slave leaders, Cleon, had taken refuge.
Cleon died of wounds sustained during a desperate sally out of the gates to try and break the Roman siege lines.
Enna then fell not long after, again helped by traitors inside the walls, and the remnants of the slave army on the rest of the island was quickly stamped out, with around 20,000 prisoners being crucified by Rupilius in retribution.
And there is my acknowledgement of the crushing, enduring evils of an institution built on the denial of all human rights.
So why don’t these Black historians today and progressives like Kathy Sheehan of Albany and Amy Biancolli acknowledge it as well?
A question for our times, indeed.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-286060