property auction house jb

hi everybody! stefan molyneux from freedomainradio. hope you're doing well. this is the "truth about slavery". now, why are we evengoing to talk about such an ancient and evil institution? well... we really don't understandthe history of slavery, we cannot identify it's causes and we therefore have a very toughtime fighting it's echoes and remnants in the here and now; and i'd would really liketo make the case that we can put an end to human once and for all, but first of all wehave to understand what it is and where it came from. so, let's dive in, shall we? thankyou so much for your time. so, the history of slavery... slavery is anancient institution common to all cultures throughout history up until the 19th centuryand in many places into the 20th and 21st

century. how did you become a slave? well,you became an insolvent debtor, ran out of money, you were sold into slavery by yourparents, or you were born to slave parents a lot of times, or you were captured throughkidnapping by slave-raiders and pirates—particularly the barbary coast. slave dealing was an acceptedway of live throughout all of human history, fully established in all societies, unopposedby religion—in fact, almost always supported by religion: christians supported slaverythrough the old testament, muslims supported slavery explicitly, and jews supported slavery—rana lot of the slave trade. now, a lot of the slaves in the world throughout history werewhite people or europeans. in fact, the very word "slave" comes from "slav" or the peoplefrom eastern europe. now, the reason why "slav"

became "slave" was because for thousands ofyears they were subjected to every conqueror who swept through the region: celts, greeks,romans, barbarians or the conans, the ancient greeks who a lot of westerners get culture,art, music, and philosophy from... were utterly dependent on slavery. plato's "republic",one of the first blueprints for fascistic-totalitarianism in the history of the world, was firmly basedon slave labor. plato himself said that owning fifty or more slaves represented the possessionsof a wealthy man. under roman law, rebellions against your slave owners were kind of discouraged.so, if your slave owner was ever found killed, all of the slaves—all of you would be putto death. there was roman slave owner who was found murdered and 400 of his slaves wereput to death. so ...little tough to get out

of the institution. 0 a.d., or when christwas born, half the population of the roman empire were slaves. three quarters of thepopulation of athens were slaves. now, not really known, very often up to one-halfor more of the arrivals in the american colonies early on were white slaves—we'll get intothat a little bit later. they were slaves for life. generally, the slavery was hereditary.some of them were called "indentured servants". so they would sign up or be kidnapped andsold into bondage, and yet these contracts were generally extended at will. nobody wasreally there to enforce them. it was rare in america to own slaves. at the very peakof black slavery in america, only 6% of southern whites owned slaves—this, of course, wouldbe the richest 6%; and we'll get into how

they use the state to maintain slavery, injust a few minutes—so, if you include all the white people in the north at the veryheight of slavery, only 1.4% of white americans owned black slaves. monstrous, immoral...that was the truly evil 1% of the day. slavery, of course, was indigenous to african and arabcountries before it made its way to europe. slavery was largely practiced by the tribesof american indians, long before columbus came to the new world. ethiopia had slaveryuntil 1942, saudi arabia until 1962, peru until 1968, india until 1976, mauritania until1980. also, coming a tad late to the anti-slavery party, was the catholic church because certainpassages in the old testament sanctioned slavery, the new testament didn't give any clear teachingsto abolish it. in 1965, the second vatican

council declared that "without qualification"that slavery was "an infamy that dishonored the creator and was a poison in society".to be fair, christians, theologians mostly, followed saint augustine in arguing that slavesshould be treated well and they did discourage the owning of christian slaves. blacks ownedslaves even in america, according to the united states' census of 1830. in just the one townof charleston, south carolina, 407 black americans owned slaves themselves. one study has concludedthat 28% of free blacks owned slaves, which is far higher than the free whites who ownedslaves. it was a lot of a class thing. i mean, the rich whites would own slaves. the poorwhites hated slavery and hated the institution, for a variety of reasons we'll get into—notleast of which, was the fact that it drove

down the price of labor to the point wherethey found it almost impossible to compete. now, what are some of the myths? slavery isoften portrayed as a free market phenomenon that had to be ended by governments, but thereality is there were, in fact, only two countries in the history of the world that found itnecessary to end, or at least attempt to end, slavery through civil war. one was the unitedstates of america, and the other was haiti. of course, the civil war—as we'll get toin the next presentation, "the truth about abraham lincoln"—didn't have anything todo with slavery, but had more economic motives. so, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon thatexisted from pre-history until the 18th and 19th centuries when western powers—particularly,england—ended it as a moral crusade. now,

why was so many africans enslaved? well, oneof the reasons was because the african rulers, within africa—particularly, in southernmiddle africa—were endlessly warring against each other; civil wars and so on. they wouldcapture slaves and they would bring them to the seaports where europeans and the arabswould pick them up. some arabs went inland, but, you couldn't, as a white person, couldn'tgo into africa. i mean, the average life expectancy for a white person going to africa was elevenmonths. you just get downed by big and small animals—lions or bugs of various kinds—cholera,and so on. so, they had to get caught by the black rulers and then they would be shippedoff to the ports where they would be picked up by the arabs and the europeans. englandas a moral crusade—led by a man we'll meet

in a moment—was ended by attacking the slaveships agitating for the removal of government support for slavery—which is really essential—and,bribing slave owners to release their slaves, or buying their property. of course, you can't,under common law, retroactive law is not valid. i can't say something was illegal five yearsago and charge you for that. so, what was legitimate property had to be bought; andbritish government did spend a lot of blood and treasure trying to end slavery. so, imean, this is one of the great misconceptions of history. so, western europeans were verylate to the party. the muslim slave trade went on for fourteen hundred years. the christianslave trade went on for a few hundred years; they were late to the party, they took veryfew of the slaves—as we'll see— they treated

their slaves far better than what occurredin the muslim countries—as we'll also see. so, europeans ended up fighting against slavery.europeans ended slavery; and therefore, you only ever hear europeans being blamed forslavery. this is horribly unjust. look, if we want to move the moral standard of mankindfurther up, which i think we all want to do, let's stop attacking everyone who shows thefirst sign of conscience and better behavior in the world and only ascribe the blame tothem. let's not look at european guilt as a mineable resource which you can squeezewith state power to produce the diamonds of fiscal transfers. so, let's look at the eastern trade. so, youknow about the atlantic slave trade, i'm sure.

what is the eastern slave trade—which wasthe trans-sahara slave trade—going to the muslim countries? so, the death toll fromfourteen centuries of the muslim slave trade in africa is estimated at a little over ahundred and twelve million people; and remember, this was at a time when the world was quitea bit less populated—which had a lot to do with the muslim slave trade and its excellenceat depopulating and disassembling human beings. historian, robert davies, estimates northafrican muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than a million europeans between 1530and 1780. half a million black african slaves ended up in north america. twice that werekidnapped by north african muslim pirates. it's a power differential, it's not a racething, fundamentally, slavery. scraps of history

indicated the muslims enslaved over a hundredand fifty million african people—about fifty million from other parts of the world. that'snot good and i guess we can hold our breath waiting for the islamic culture to stop makingit's apologizes and for people to press islamics for reparations. now, one thing that's justhorrifying and tragic, i mean, all of slavery is horrifying and tragic, but there are thingsthat stick out even in this horror. why does the arab world not have a large black population?i mean, they took a lot of black slaves; they marched them across the sahara and sold themat slave auctions middle eastern world. why? i mean, america's got a big black population.south america has a big black population as a result of slavery. why aren't there any,really, in the middle east? well, historian,

bernard lewis, provides and answer, "one reasonis obviously the high population of eunuchs among black males entering the islamic lands,another is the high death rate and low birth rate among black slaves in north africa andthe middle east". in about 1810, louis franc observed in tunisia that "most black childrendied in infancy" and that "very few ever reach the age of manhood". a british observer inegypt, some thirty years later, found conditions even worse. he said, "i have it estimatedthat five or six years is sufficient to carry off or kill a generation of slaves at theend of which time the whole has to be replenished". you didn't really want to be a slave goingeast. if you had to choose, you'd want to be going west. north african muslim piratesraided european coastal towns and villages

from all the way down in sicily all the wayup to cornwall as well as european ships for about three hundred years, enslaved over amillion europeans including many american seamen, many say it is 1.5 million. christopherhitchens points out, "how many know that perhaps a million and a half europeans and americanswere enslaved in islamic north africa between 1530 and 1780. what of the people of the townof baltimore, ireland? ...all carried off by coarse-haired raiders in a single night.it doesn't fit the narrative. right? the narrative says that it's a race issue. it's a stateand power issue which i'm going to make the case for. these ghastly slave-raiding practicesof the muslim pirates had a huge effect, particularly on coastal regions of europe. france and englandand spain lost thousands of ships, devastated

their seaborne trade, retarded the growthof the economy, long stretches of the coast in spain and italy were almost completelyabandoned until the 19th century. the fishing industry was virtually devastated which, ofcourse, let to starvation throughout certain parts of western europe. well, christiansdid come, tragically, to the party. islam dominated the slave trade from the 7th tothe 15th century, but between 1519 and 1815 europe also joined in the trade in human flesh.interestingly enough, it was the european nations that had suffered the most at thehands of the muslim slave raiders, and under centuries of muslim military occupations suchas spain and portugal who dominated the european slave trade. it was the enemies of the reformationthat brought europe into the slave trade.

the reformation was a 16th century movementled by martin luther who tried to get the bible translated into the vernacular, intothe common tongue of the people and gave them copies of the bible and allowed them to cometo their own conclusions, shattered the unity of christendom under the catholic popes andthe catholic church into calvinists, lingaleans, anabaptists, lutherans, and so on, thus provokinga century or two of vicious religious civil war resulting in the separation of churchand state for their mere survival of european civilization. so, martin luther defied charlesv by saying, "my conscience is captive to the word of god here i stand i can do no other".so, the holy roman empire—which was, in reality, neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire—authorizedeurope's involvement in the slave trade in

1519. britain, who's involvement in slaverywas a first authorized in 1631 by the delightful king charles i who was executed by parliament,his son charles ii reintroduced it by royal charter in 1672. popes were very keen on slavery.one pope even rode around in giant boat rowed by slaves, so it was not a great bulwark againstreligion. the destinations are surprising because generally you hear black slavery inamerica. according to "the slave trade" by hugh thomas, four million slaves went to portuguesecontrolled brazil—that's over 35% of the atlantic slave trade--, two and a half millionto the nations of central and south america --which is 22%--, just under 18% to the britishwest indies, mostly jamaica, 14% of them went to french west indies, 4.4% to the dutch westindies, and half a million black slaves generally

went to north america—4.4% of the entireslave trade. i don't see a lot of people trying to give brazil a hard time; although, brazilended slavery in the 1880s, much later. so, here's a chart. you can just look at thisto see where the enslaved africans were sent from 1500 to 1870. it's a very small amount,went to british north america. so, how did this end? well, william wilberforce—theleast ghetto name in history—on sunday october 28, he wrote in his diary, "god almighty hasset before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation ofsociety." for the rest of his life, he dedicated his life as a member of parliament opposingthe slave trade and working for the abolition of slavery throughout the british empire.on february 22, 1807, twenty years after he

first began his crusade in the middle of britain'swar with france, wilberforce and his team's labors were awarded with victory by an overwhelming282 votes for to 16 against the motion to abolish slavery was carried in the house ofcommons. in 1809, the british government mobilized its navy to search for suspected slave ships,even foreign vessels on the high seas. at the height of the british empire covered athird of the globe. the british navy was the undisputed king of the waters. one of thetragic effects was that when a slave ship would see a british corsair coming up to itthey would generally kill the slaves and dump the bodies overboard, so that they wouldn'tbe found to be slavers. in 1810, the british parliament declared slave trading a felonypunishable by fourteen years hard labor. in

1814, the british representative at the congressin vienna insisted on the abolition of the slave trade being included in the internationaltreaty. the treaty was signed by all the european powers on june 9, 1815. in 1825, britain passeda law making slave trading punishable by death. three days before william wilberforce died,by an act of parliament in 1833, the british abolished slavery itself setting all sevenhundred thousand slaves in british overseas territories free. wilberforce's lifetime campaignof fifty-nine years was now fully successful. he said shortly before he died, "thank godthat i've lived to witness the day in which england is willing to give 20 million poundssterling for the abolition of slavery!" a moral hero of mankind, did you ever hear hisname? of course not; does not fit the narrative

and does not serve the powers that be whichwe will get to. now, one of the great tragedies of ending the atlantic slave trade was—itwasn't like the number of slaves captured in africa and other places diminished theytook more of the slaves from africa and sent them over the sahara. missionary explorer,david livingstone, wrote, graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the east african slavetrade to light. he wrote this, "two of the women had been shot the day before for attemptingto untie their thongs. one woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carryher load and it; and a man was dispatched (i.e. killed) with an ax because he had brokendown with fatigue. those taken out of the country are but a very small section of thesufferers. we never realized the atrocious

nature of the traffic until we saw it at thefountain head. 'there truly satan has his seat.' besides those actually captured, thousandsare killed and die of their wounds and famine, driven from their villages by the internecineware waged for slaves with their own clansmen and neighbors, slain by the lust of gain,which is stimulated, be it remembered always, by the slave purchases of cuba and elsewhere." the trans-sahara slave trade was truly appalling.so, boys from about eight to twelve, if they were captured, would be castrated. this wouldbe penis and testicles because arabs had superstitions about the sexual prowess of blacks and alsocastrated boys were more docile. and so, they would castrate the boys. the survival ratewas very low, which we'll get to. they went

to the homes of wealthy arab landlords andthey force marched young women across endless miles of scorching sand in the sahara desertto become sex concubines. most of the women died in transit. so, murderous castration,obviously without any anesthetic or any other kind of medical procedures for protectionagainst infection, and the force marching of women across the desert for the rape roomsof the eastern lands was unbelievably brutal and was far worse statistically than whathappened in the atlantic slave trade. so, eunuchs, again, got the penises and scrotumsof eight to ten year old african boys. the survival rate from this process of castrationranged from one in ten to one in thirty. so, it's impossible to estimate hundreds of thousands,probably millions, of young boys bled to death

during this ghastly procedure. and, in eliminatingor diminishing the atlantic slave trade, more boys went that direction instead of the relativelysafer lands in north and south america. so, the reason why i say if you are goingto be captured then you want to go west not east; look at this graph here. this is from1650 to 1750. the rise of the u.s. slave population is enormous. when you were a woman in themuslim countries, if you had a baby—the result, of course, of being raped in theseconcubines—if you had a baby, the baby would be murdered, generally. so, the men were castratedand the women's babies were murdered which is why there aren't a lot of blacks in islamiccountries these days despite such a rampant history of fourteen centuries of slavery.but early, you can see, that the u.s. slave

population was increasing. slaves could marryand were encouraged to have children and so on. and, although the u.s. congress outlawedthe african slave trade in 1808, the domestic trade flourished. the slave population inthe u.s. nearly tripled over the next fifty years. it doesn't make slavery moral—ofcourse, it's a completely evil institution—but it makes it much more survivable in the americas. now, the confusion of slavery with the freemarket is truly tragic because then we think that it was free trade that produced slavery,and it required six-hundred thousand odd dead americans in the civil war to end it. this,of course, is not the case. generally, all governments had to do was stop catching theslaves and returning them to their masters.

think about it. you've got a plantation, you'vegot a bunch of slaves; they just walk off. how you going to catch them? where are yougoing to find them? you can't possibly do that. the government has to go and catch themfor you, the taxes and labor of which are generally paid by others. so, there are twostate statues that reduce the private cost of slavery. they were largely ignored andthis made slavery look a lot more efficient. we'll get into them. so, slave patrols andbans on the freeing of slaves are manumission, which we will get to in a little more detail.it's worth understanding just so we can really get how little slavery was economically efficient.and of course, those who had bought slaves tended to resist the introduction of labor-savingdevices; and, this prevented industrialization.

this prevented farm machinery from cominginto being. and of course, the more productive slaves were—to the degree that they wereproductive—simply meant that you had to pay more to buy them, therefore eliminatinga lot of the gains. so also, states prevented immigration of free blacks and if you werefreed, through some miracle, you had to leave the state. they restricted movements and rightsand so on which meant that basically most of the blacks in a given state would be slaveswhich made them a lot easier to identify and to capture. so, forced slave patrols. so, the patrol statutesin the south required all white males to participate in slave patrol duty. so, the counties establishedthese regular patrols. the counties placed

the responsibility for organizing these patrolson local judges and constables; and they appointed these leaders—that rotated in and out—responsiblefor organizing and reporting on the activities of their patrols. now, if you didn't participatein these patrols, or carry out organizing responsibilities, you got a series of escalatingfines which would end up with you going to debtors' prison and possibly being sold offas a slave. so, to prevent slaves from escaping, these drafted poor whites were responsiblefor patrolling the roads at night, monitoring the movement of blacks, checking their passes,inspecting slave residences. pretty scary for the blacks. a lot of these guys who aren'tbig fans of this whole thing took it out on the blacks which was wretched and tragic andyou didn't even get paid. all you could get

paid was, maybe you would get a little bitof a reward, if you catch a runaway slave. so, this is a way in which—remember, it'sthe rich who use the power of the state to screw the middle class and the poor. i mean,we see this right now going on with the bank bailouts. i mean, how much money did you getand how much money did you have to pay? if you're not in the 1%, the top of the financialfood chain, you don't get crap. well, you get crap and debt. and, you know, can we reallybe said to ended forced in denature when children are born hundreds of thousands of dollarsin debt because of the spending of the state to buy votes. i would argue, no. so, it wastragic, the costs of patrolling for and capturing the slaves were born by the people that wereforced to do it, not the people who owned

the slaves. so, this is really important. if the trendof freeing slaves had been allowed to continue, slavery would have ended before the civilwar, peacefully. it's a strong claim to make. let me give you the numbers behind it. so,you couldn't free your slaves. originally, you could, but too many slaves were beingfreed which made it harder to catch the ones who ran away. so, you couldn't buy your freedomanymore, you couldn't be granted freedom, and you couldn't be given your freedom evenin a last will and testament; and therefore, there was not much freeing or manumissionof slaves, not because people didn't want to do it, but it became illegal. so, if thegovernment had not banned the freeing of slaves,

more slaves would have been freed, there wouldhave been more competition for labor, labor would begun to have replaced slavery in termsof efficiency and so on, and more slaves then would have been freed. so, as states enactedstatutes against manumission and immigration and required slave patrols, the growth ofthe black population decreased; and it fell below the slave population and was reducedto a trickle in the decade prior to the civil war. however, if the free black populationin the south atlantic states had grown at the same rate between 1800 and 1860, as itdid between 1790 and 1800, every slave in the south atlantic states would have beenfreed twice. by 1860, the equivalent of virtually every slave in the country. so, they werebeing freed. the government stepped in and

stopped it to serve the interest of the wealthyplantation owner, the couple of percent of people who had the ear of the government,as they do now, and use it to shaft everyone else. but even if you did the slower rateof growth, between 1790 and 1810—which was 88% growth in freeing of slaves—every slavein the region would have been freed only 1.5 times, which i guess is still pretty good. let's talk a little bit about white slavery.the irish slave trade. oh, my lovely ancestors from ireland who came across with williamthe conqueror in 1066 i'm sure were very, very effective in slaughtering and coveringthemselves with blue and red of disassembled local britains. very good ancient murders,my relatives, which were my ancestors, which

meant that they got lots of land as a resultfrom being very good at killing people, which is really the foundation of the aristocracy.all money with royalty on it is blood money. and, the irish slave trade began when jamesii sold 30,000 irish prisoners as slaves to the new world. his proclamation of 1625 requiredirish political prisoners to be sent overseas and sold to english settlers in the west indies.by the mid-1600s, the irish were the main slaves sold to antigua and montserrat. atthat time, 70% of the total population of montserrat were irish slaves. now, i'm halfirish and half german, and while the german part of me wants to invade poland, the irishpart of me, when exposed to sunlight, bursts into fiery flames and freckles, so not exactlythe blackest of the black slaves in the universe.

so, ireland quickly became the biggest sourceof human livestock for english merchants. the majority of the slaves to the new worldwere actually whites. in the 1600s, white slaves in america outnumbered the black slaves.so, reverend augie, who lived in the south for eleven years had both black and whitecongregations, told that preaching to slaves some with red hair and blue eyes a third ofwhom were just as white as he was. dr. alexander milton ross attended a slave auction in neworleans where many of the slaves were much whiter than the white people who were buyingthem. in lexington, kentucky, calvin fairbank—that's the least hood name you'll find—describeda woman who was going to be sold at slave auction as "one of the most beautiful andexquisite young girls one could expect to

find in freedom or slavery....being only onesixty-fourth african." in 1855, fredrick law olmsted, the landscape architect who designednew york's central park, was in alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton beingthrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold, the men tossing down, somewhatrecklessly into hold, were negros. the men in the hold were irish. he said, "what's goingon? why is it this way?" "oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be riskedhere. the patty's are knocked overboard or get their back broke, nobody loses anything." the economics of irish slavery were prettytragic. from 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 irish were killed by the english and another 300,000were sold as slaves. you see, half a million

blacks get to north america, 300,000 whitessold as slaves in a ten year period. ireland's population fell from about 1.5 million to600,000 in one single decade. this would be about the equivalent of america losing a hundredmillion people. families were ripped apart; the british did not even allow irish dadsto take their wives and children across the atlantic. this led to a helpless populationof homeless women and children. what would the english do with those helpless women andchildren? oh, let's auction them off as well as additional slaves. oh, the british... duringthe 1650s, over 100,000 irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from theirparents and sold as slaves in the west indies, virginia and new england. in this decade,52,000 irish (mostly women and children) were

sold to barbados and virginia, long beforethe spf 9 million that you need if you're an irish person out in the sun. another 30,000irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. in 1656, cromwellordered that 2,000 irish children be taken to jamaica and sold as slaves to english settlers.the british would routinely scoop up orphans and send them across as slaves. they wouldalso troll brothels, rip the women out of the brothels, and send them over as breedersto the new world. so, african slaves are very expensive duringthe late 1600s (50 sterling). irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 sterling), andthis is partly because you could just grab them. you didn't have to pay the african warlordsfor the slaves, and they were cheaper and

easier to transport. if a planter whippedor branded or beat an irish slave to death, it was never a crime. a death would be a monetarysetback, but much cheaper than killing a more expensive african. and, the english mastersquickly began breeding the irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greaterprofit. children of the slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the merchant'sworkforce. even if an irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her children would stillbe born as slaves to the master. so, they're not going to go and abandon their kids. theyjust generally hung around to take care of them. england continued to ship tens of thousandsof irish slaves for more than a century. records state that, after the 1798 irish rebellion—whywould they rebel? ...such a lovely environment—thousands

of irish slaves were sold to both americaand australia. there were horrible abuses in both africa and irish captives. so, white slaves, middle eastern slaves, africanslaves... it was all over the world. and, there are still some significant differencesto be noted between the atlantic slave trade and the trans-sahara slave trade. so, twoout of three slaves shipped across the atlantic were men, but two women for every man wereenslaved by the muslims, again, for sexual concubineage or institutional rape. the mortalityrate for slaves being transported across the atlantic was as high as 10%, but the percentageof slaves dying in transit on the trans-sahara and east african slave trade was between 80%and 90%. which is why i say if you're going

to get caught you want to go east not west.so, almost all the slaves shipped across the atlantic were for agricultural work, the onesthat went east were for sexual exploitation in harems and for military service. so, manychildren were born to slaves in the americas. your marriage wasn't legally recognized, butyou could get married and have kids. millions of their descendents are citizens in braziland the usa, but there are very few descendents of the slaves that ended up in the middleeast. one of the great genocidal murderous barbaric vicious tragedies of human history,generally unacknowledged. so, again as we mentioned. you can get married in the americas,in north and south america. in the middle east, you were generally castrated as a maleand your babies were murdered if you were

female. so, the atlantic slave trade was not the resultof market forces. it was not a free market. it was developed under the power of the state.we've already talked about how the state used the power of law to socialize or offset thecost of capturing and returning slaves. and, it did not allow slave owners to free theirslaves. so, of course, slavery exhisted in the tribal african societies which was thesource of slaves. europeans could not go into africa and catch slaves. they would just catchdisease and die. this was not a market force that was going on. it was not free trade andprivate ownership that was going on in the tribal african societies. the slave tradeas a whole was not founded by private firms,

but was established by the colonial powerswhich instituted monopolies to exploit the indigenous population. so, the dutch westindia company was chartered in 1621, and the royal company of adventurers for the importationof negroes was formed in 1662. these were not private corporations or companies of anykind. they were governmental military structures which gave a monopoly on the slave trade,subsidized it, in return for great profits. think of it as the military industrial complexof its time. so, they were very efficient in generating slaves, revenues, and domesticinfluence. so, there is a statement that said, "negroes therefore were stolen in africa towork lands stolen from the indians, " but this was always and forever a government involvement.when governments gave up the practice of catching

and returning slaves, slavery collapsed. so, let's understand what slavery is. slaveryis the 100% ownership of the product of somebody's labor in a non-voluntary environment. so,if i go to work at a restaurant, they'll take some portion of my salary. they built therestaurant, they do the advertising, they heat it, they... but i take some portion ofthe profits for my salary. it's voluntary. when you force someone to hand over 100% oftheir earnings that is pure slavery. what percent of your earnings are forced over atthe hand of the state? see, we really haven't fundamentally outgrown it as an institution.we've become free-range serfs or slaves. we can choose our own occupations, but we muststill remit property taxes, income taxes,

and all other forms of taxation to the statein order to secure our freedom. and, we really haven't understood what slavery was and whereit came from. we've been told to turn it into two things that are fundamentally incorrect.one, is it has become a race issue for obvious financial gain reasons and reasons of theprofitability of victimization in the face of a relatively empathetic culture. so, it'sbecome a race issue and it fundamentally wasn't. it was a power issue. where the british couldget away with enslaving the whites, they got away with enslaving the whites. when theycould get away with enslaving the africans, the enslaved the africans. when the muslimscould get away with enslaving everyone, they enslaved everyone. when the jews could profitfrom their participation in the slave trade,

they did and could. so, it is not a race issueat all fundamentally. we've been told to make it a race issue, so that we fight amongstourselves, rather than looking at the real source of the problem of slavery past, present,and future which is the powers that be who indoctrinate us to fight each other ratherthan look at the genuine power structures in the world which are around the viciousnessand violent exploitation of state power at the behest of the financial powers who lendto the state, so the state can bribe us with goodies, and have our children pay off thosegoodies. so, we've made the mistake of thinking that slavery is foundationally about race,so that we can fight each other as races rather than recognize that we are brothers and sistersin the tax farms called countries run by governments,

and we've also thought that it has somethingto do with the free market. so, we think that are enemies are racial and our enemy is thefree market. well, it is not a race-based institution and it was the complete oppositeof the free market. it was a central, fascistically controlled pseudo-market. it's called "crapitalism",crony capitalism, where you use the power of the state to benefit financial interests.this is not the free market at all. forcing people to go and catch slaves—that's notthe free market. forcing people to not do what they want with their own property. ifslaves are property, you should be able to set them free. right? but, banning peoplefrom setting their slaves free is not treated slaves even as property as it should havebeen at the time under the law; because that

would have been a way of peacefully endingslavery by making slavery diminish out of the guilty generosity of the slave owners—particularlyon their deathbeds when they would set slaves free. so, it is completely wretched for usto misunderstand what slavery was, who the cause was: financial interests, using thepower of state to exploit the resources. now, the resources are money, the resources arethe environment. in the past, the resources included human beings. but, the idea thatone race is guilty of slavery and owes reparations is like saying you and i owe reparations forthe bailouts that were handed to the bankers. of course not. we didn't like them, thosebailouts. we would have resisted them if we could, but the money is taken from us at gunpoint.well, the facilitation of slavery, the violence,

power of the state that made slavery possibleand sustained its continuance was imposed upon both whites and blacks and milatos andchinese and irish and you name it... it was imposed upon them against their will, justas the national debt is imposed upon your children against their will, just as bankbailouts are imposed on you against your will. all we should do is band together to recognizethe great owners of mankind are the political, financial, and military powers of the world.when we see that, when we see the slavery in a diminished way, that continues. wellthen, we have a chance at real freedom.