Monday, July 6, 2015

Article: Racism by Haniel Adhar

Article by Haniel Adbar

Racism part 1:
Scapegoat for White Guilt:  The Rebel Flag and the Civil War
The "Rebel Flag", or the "Confederate Battle Flag" had nothing to do with slavery, nothing to do with bigotry, the KKK, Neo-nazis, or anything of the sort.  It had nothing to do with a "constitution" that was contrary to our own. 
The Confederate "rebel" flag was the flag flown while the South went into battle with the North (Union), and it was supposed to be a symbol of rebellion against tyranny, which the south made it very clear they wanted nothing to do with.  In fact, the rebel flag embodies the American Revolution against the tyranny of the British Empire more so than our own flag.
But, let's get to the crux of what the flag supposedly represents:  the south, slavery, and the war against the Union. 
The Civil War was begun as a result of Secession, and the fact that the Union in the North could not survive without the south's production means.  But this was after the fact.  The south wanted out for a very specific reason that NO ONE *freaking* talks about. 
Tensions between the North and The South (fueled by Northern "Doughfaces" that manipulated and contrived the entire situation for their own financial gain) we running high for quite some time, but it was an incident in 1854 that was the game changer.  It was that year that the Ostend Manifesto was created.  This document, written by French Exile Pierre Soulé (who was kicked out of France for "revolutionary activities"), outlined a justification for the use of force in annexing Cuba if Spain would not sell Cuba to the US.  This was a heated topic between the states and the federal government.  The biggest issue surrounded this was a rather shadowy organization known as the "Slave Power", whom James Buchanan was said to have been a part of (accused by Lincoln, the ultimate politician).  The Slave Power sought a strong, centralized power structure *with the control of slavery being in the hands of this centralized power*, effectively nationalizing slavery.  EVERY single "supporter" of this was a Norther, "south sympathizing" Doughface who stood to gain tremendous power from such centralization.  The US at the time was falling down the same pitfall as the British Empire, with dreams of Imperialism and the use of force to expand its empire. 
The southern states wanted NO part of a war with Spain, and the northerners and "doughfaces" who were pushing for this war needed the south in order to have a chance to win the war quickly.  The push to go to war with Spain over Cuba also violated the Monroe Doctrine.  All of this was contrived by Northern Doughface manipulators in order to not free the slaves, but to *expand it and control it under the federal government*, while annexing Cuba and making it the biggest and most lucrative of all the slave states.   While there was a push for Abolition (the Free Soil party which eventually became the Republican party), the major reason for the Northern support of ending slavery in the south was not to free the slaves, but to put slavery under the control of the federal government, as per the Slave Power, and admitting Cuba as a slave state to further give pro-slavery proponents more power, especially northern Doughfaces.
The Movement to annex Cuba, the Osten Manifesto, and the Slave Power were said to have been instruments of Southern lust for power.  It is very important to note, however, that major role players in these things were almost exclusively Northerners who had Union interests in mind:  Franklin Pierce, Buchanan, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, and Senator Stephen Douglas, all northerners, and all had an objective of nationalizing slavery...
"In his celebrated "House Divided" speech of June 1858, Abraham Lincoln charged that Senator Stephen A. Douglas, President James Buchanan, his predecessor, Franklin Pierce, and Chief Justice Roger Taney were all part of a plot to nationalize slavery, as allegedly proven by the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857."
This is huge.  Why would 1 standing president, a future president, a prominent senator, and the Chief Justice,  all Northerners, be accused of trying to rig it so that Slavery was not "abolished" but in fact taken over by the federal government, if the North was emphatically against slavery and their ultimate goal was to abolish slavery?  If they wanted to abolish slavery for good, then why were TWO consecutive Northern Democrat presidents be involved in a plot to not only go to war over the annexation of Cuba as a slave state, but to also use the power of the federal government to take ownership of slavery itself!  This is a critical part of this story, because Lincoln based his entire election on this principle, that Buchanan was a part of the slave power, and supposedly was one of the key supporters of the "southern interest"! 
So, the south wanted OUT because of this crap!  Buchanan, Pierce, and the entourage should have been strung up for TREASON for their involvement in this, and for their actions in trying to get slavery nationalized, and for attempting to violate the Monroe Doctrine.  The North, or more accurately the Union/Federal Government, attacked the south and southerners repeatedly, in 1859 with the John Brown Raid (which from a historical sense made sense and had justification), and then again after Buchanan simply let the southern states secede with the attack on Fort Sumter, and after he himself said that Congress possessed NO right to use force to preserve the Union (State of the Union, 1960). 
After doing all of this research, it became clear to me that the North did not wage war over some egalitarian principle of abolishing slavery.  The abolition of slavery was primarily a grass roots effort, and the federal government had other plans for slavery.  The Civil War was really a war of Federal Aggression, and the south rebelling against that was the reason for secession.  And the North invaded the south for one reason and one reason only:  Money.  The North still had slaves several years after the Civil War.  Who do you think was the primary labor force for Reconstruction?  And what was one of Lincoln's first executive orders upon the conclusion of the war?  The creation of the Department of Agriculture to "regulate" the South's agricultural economy and to "help" with reconstruction, when in reality the DA (now called the USDA) was really a regulatory agency to put control of the south's agriculture in the hands of the federal government (so the Union got an even BETTER deal than controlling slavery:  instead, they just made the farms THEMSELVES slaves of the government!).  The Department of Agriculture was used to get the south to pay for reconstruction without the Union having to go through congress to get any sort of taxation passed.  The southern states never would have voted on it.  So, Lincoln just bypassed Congress.  The creation of a regulatory agency to enforce taxation on the south is a direct violation of the US Constitution.
Still think that the Civil War was about slavery, or even the preservation of states' rights?  Still think that Lincoln "freed" the slaves? (the Emancipation proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the South, NOT the North!  Slavery was still legal in the north until at least 1865)
So, all this fuss about a flag, and the truth is, that Rebel Flag probably stands for more of what America is supposed to be about than even our current flag.  The Union sure behaved a lot like King George in the mid 19th century, and when taking into consideration that the south was working on transitioning its economy to non-slave labor before the war, sometimes I wonder if the right side "won" the this point, I have no idea.

Racism Part 2: 
Did the North really go to war to free the slaves?
Vice President of the Confederacy, Andrew Stephens was a racist, or at least a "racial elitist", to coin a term. He was a pretty backwards guy in that regard, and Ben Franklin he was not.
However, so was everyone else. This is another dirty little secret of American history, is that the Northern "Abolitionists" really had no interest in "freeing" the slaves, because their economy depended on the slave labor from the south.
Here is a key passage from Mr. Stephens' speech in March of 1861. Apart from the "white vs black" thing, the speech was actually really well written and eloquent. I can't help but to think that if the Union let the south go, that the south would have transitioned to a different sort of labor economy at some point, peacefully, within 20 years or less. There were a lot of abolitionists in the south as well. But the fact remains that the North/Union needed the south economy, and they did not want to "part" with any of that "accursed soil":
"The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the Republican Party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave"
This is consistent with part 1 on the Civil War.
The part that is most telling is this: The Union did NOT want a peaceful separation; they wanted the south to stay part of the Union *by force*:
"Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?"
Much can be learned from this use of "force" to determine the fabric of a society. 150 years later, has anything really changed? The entire society is now under the gauntlet of an oligarchy, where self governance is non-existent. We think we are free people, but we are not. Every aspect of our lives is controlled by a non-legislative entity, and if you do not follow, then you are not accepted into such a society.
The American Civil War did not abolish slavery; it just made everyone else slaves too. Slaves to an ever expanding government, a beast that feeds without ever stopping.

Racism part 3:
Bigotry is innate, ethics are learned
"Racism, as it is defined, is taught. But kids, and by that I mean "future grownups" are fucking mean, nasty, and spiteful little buggers. I know, because I got my ass kicked by them since the second I started walking, because I was “different”.  Bigotry is an innate part of the human condition, while the bigotry directed at a specific group is taught
People are not born naturally good. They are born with self-preservation instincts, and instincts for domination over those perceived as "weaker". You can't have "mankind evolved from an animal" and assume that those instincts disappeared. They didn't, and the biology of the adrenal glands and hormone system proves that.
The problem is that the "Left" believes that people born "good", and it is that society has made them bad, so people are not responsible for their actions. There are tons of contradictions in that, but I won't get into it now. However, the people on the Right tend to believe that people are born with the *potential* for goodness, but have to be *taught* and trained in how to achieve goodness and righteousness, hence the Right's affinity for Christianity and Christ, etc...This is where "original sin" could come into play for the people on the "Right".
Based on what I learned of the human mind and condition, and the science of biology and biochemistry, human beings are like upright walking super intelligent animals who have the brains of something "divine" but the biochemistry, hormones, neurotransmitter systems, and instincts of a common animal in the wild. Their brains allow them the capacity to be taught how to quell these instincts and control their own chemistry, to a point. This is what the ancient teachers called "virtue", ie SELF-CONTROL; the ability to say "no!" to the instinctual response to stimuli. This is not innate, and not naturally part of the human condition. Modern evolutionary theory suggests that human beings are directly descendent from a primitive primate hominid, and there is no evidence of ethics, morality, or philosophy in any aspect of the primate ancestor's history. Ethics was not taught to mankind until around the 3rd millennium BCE, where Sargon the Great, aka "Sharru-kin" (righteous ruler) allegedly received a code of ethics from the goddess Astarte, in which he taught such knowledge to people. It is also said that the biblical Enoch brought down knowledge of ethics, morality, science, mathematics, etc...from the "heavens", and taught it to his sons, with the directive to teaching this to others. This is another example (whether allegorical or factual) that mankind must be taught and trained in order to be "good".
So, this idea that man is born "nice" is false. Mankind must be taught to resist natural (evolutionary) instincts of self-preservation and survival in order to achieve "goodness". While something like racism is absolutely taught, it is taught to take advantage of the primal, evolutionary and instinctual impulses of disliking anything that is not like "self". The way to end racism is through training the individual to control such animalistic impulses, and to transcend human consciousness past the state of being merely a mammal with oppose-able thumbs that has the primary need to survive above all else. The way to beat racism is though self control, and an understanding of the nature of such feelings, which will lead to not just the suppression of these feelings, but the complete eradication of them.”