Chris Hedges, former Middle East bureau chief of the New York Times, writing in The Nation:
I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. Not to mention a felony.
But an attack on Iran--which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election--will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. Mr. Hedges knows full well that his civil liberties haven't been abolished. The secret police will not be rounding him up along with the other "brave" "dissenters"--but it's fun to pretend otherwise.
It will solidify the slow-motion coup d'état that has been under way since the 9/11 attacks. "Inside job . . . controlled demolition . . . fire doesn't melt steel . . . "
It could mean the death of the Republic.
Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution into a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims--to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, I'm cool with that.
to create permanent instability If by "stability" you mean leaving tyrants (Kim Jong Il, Saddam, Arafat, the Taliban, the Burmese thugocracy, and so forth) alone to pursue their oppression in peace, or even propping them up, then I'd say "stability" is highly overrated.
and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional rights. . . .
George W. Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, I hate to keep having to point this out, but Presidents don't ratify treaties, the Senate does. President William Jefferson Clinton declined to present Kyoto for ratification after the Senate voted 98-0 on a resolution which basically said, "Don't bother submitting the treaty, we're not gonna ratify it."
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, Chris.
backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, as specifically permitted by the treaty itself
tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregious, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to do the same in Iran.
This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the "crime of aggression." And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for this crime, if we do not actively defy this government, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. . . . We must as citizens make sacrifices to defend a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are respected. If we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will destroy the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies. . . .
. . . Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There are ways to resist without being jailed. What the hell? Are you afraid of a little jail time? The long row of candles is being snuffed out! We may soon be in darkness! We must as citizens make sacrifices--but only if it doesn't involve any, you know, actual sacrifice. Is that it?
If you owe money on your federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush attack Iran. "Don't you dare start a war before April 15!"
If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form--and write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the details and their legal ramifications are available on the War Resisters League's website.
I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. . . . Okay, hold it, wait a minute, Chris, let me get this straight. The Bushitler Haliburton NeoKKKon Zionazi regime has been shredding the Constitution, spitting on Kyoto, staging 9/11, committing the "crime of aggression"--and all this time, you've been cheerily paying your taxes--yes, financing the Bush Death Machine--as if nothing happened. Now, you're saying if, and only if, Iran is attacked, you're gonna stiff the IRS for the 3% phone tax--but only if you don't personally have to go to jail for it.
Know what you are, Chris? A wimp. A wuss. A weenie. A poseur. A sissy. A pantywaist. A hypocrite. A chicken.
Buck-buck-braaaawk!
Posted by: Mike ||
11/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
The IRS prosecutes 100% of tax cheats, and they almost all go to jail. And they seize and sell personal assets to recover duties. Lots of luck.
#3
By this rationale, millions of other Americans would be within our rights not paying taxes because we refuse to support affirmative action, or fund multi-culti pomo hatespeech and indoctrination at publicly funded universities, or to name yet another highway overpass after Kleagle Byrd.
That OK with you, Mr Hedges?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/23/2007 6:46 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture.
Not to mention a felony.
And premeditated.
Like the Envirowennies who talk but fly their personnel jets around the world, when you walk the walk, talk to me. May I recommend that you follow the model of literally 10s of millions of illegals in this country. If you can't stand the situation where you're at, get up and leave. No one is stopping you. It's only you, in your parasitic narcissism that seems to actually want to wallow in the 'corrupt and unjust' society that you seem to think is America. Less talk. More action.
#5
Hey Hedges---far as I'm concerned, you and all your friends are just as implicated in the death of my countrymen at the hands of the Paleos as the Saudis who send them money per Jew killed. And you know, Christopher, we Jews have very long memories.
#6
What kind of a "tax rebel" puts money owed to the guvmint into an escrow account? Be a real man, Chris.....blow it on a Prius or something. Stick it to The Man and get a car that will help you score with hippie chicks!
Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know....
Why do I think he never got over hearing the truth about Santa?
#7
So Chris is it preferable to have Iran attack Israel or the US? Why are these guys always so myopic? Why do they always think they know what is best for the rest of us?
#8
From NRO's The Corner: Who is Chris Hedges? Not only was he a New York Times reporter for 15 years, he was its Middle East bureau chief in the 1990's. Yikes.
Figures...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/23/2007 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
And he's evidently a damn loon.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
11/23/2007 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No, he's not smart enough to be a loon.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/23/2007 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#11
unless HIllary gets elected and she wants to go to war with Iran. Then he will be behind it 110% and anyone who isn't for it is an evil, racist, oil grubbing, woman hating, genocide loving nazi.
#13
I guess Mr. Hedges has forgotten the taking of US Embassy hostages and holding them for 444 days, something that would have been declared an act of war by any other nation. I guess he doesn't understand that half the terrorist attacks against the United States in the last 30 years have been carried out or funded by Iran. He refuses to acknowledge that Iranian arms supplies and training are being used to increase the death toll of American servicemen and women in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Mr. Hedges should move to Europe - maybe Brussels - where his ideas about "honor" and "security" are considered important.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/23/2007 22:00 Comments ||
Top||
#14
But an attack on Iran ... will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions.
And standing idly by whilst Iran acquires nuclear weapons will not? Hell, I've met more than a few parrots who were incapable of producing anything like Hedge's prolonged screech.
#15
I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran Iraq, Goerge Bush wins the election.
But an attack on Iran Afghnistan, Iraq ... will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions.
This war, and especially Iranian Terrorist, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties.
And if that crap above wasn't enough, this next line would tell us everything we need to know about the author.
But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution....
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/23/2007 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
Adaptability, self-critique, and persistence will prevail.
by Victor Davis Hanson
The war in Iraq as all wars is fraught with savage ironies.
In the build-up to the invasion, anti-Americanism in Europe reached a near frenzy. It was whipped up by French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and evoked warnings of an eternal split in the Atlantic Alliance. If Iraq had proved a catalyst for this expression of near hatred fueled by long-standing angers and envies it soon, however, proved to be a catharsis as well.
Both leaders overplayed their hands when the U.S. had already begun downsizing its NATO deployments in Germany. Elsewhere, Europeans started to have second thoughts about alienating America at a time of rising Russian belligerency, and suffered from increased worry over radical Islamic terrorists at home and abroad.
The result is that their successors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, are staunchly pro-American in ways their previous governments were not, even well before the Iraq War. And given the increased jihadist threats to Europe, worries about Iran, and the consistency of the U.S. effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, these governments may well have learned in a way they did not anticipate in 2003 that there really is no other ally like a steadfast United States, in these unstable times.
European youth can print all the anti-war leaflets they wish with splashy photos from Abu Ghraib but their leaders quietly understand not only that the United States did not quit Iraq in defeat, but that it also may be winning an unforeseen victory there. Moreover, they see that this victory has repercussions for the security of their own countries and this will require readjustments to the easy anti-Americanism of the past.
The post-war occupation was supposed to be difficult, but few envisioned a bloody four-year struggle. Instead, after the fall of Saddam, al Qaeda chose to escalate its war against the West by sending thousands of jihadists into the new battleground of Iraq in part, to aid the Sunni and ex-Baathist insurgencies in their wars against the U.S., and the Shiites. The violence that ensued left tens of thousands dead, and resulted in nearly 4,000 American battle fatalities. We spent nearly a trillion dollars, as public support dropped from a 70-percent approval of the war to less than 40-percent.
Yet it was not the American military that was ruined fighting an unpopular war in the heart of the ancient caliphate, but most likely al Qaeda who has lost thousands, (and, far more importantly, completely destroyed its Pan-Arabic mystique of religious purity).
The more the jihadists fought, the more they were killed by the U.S. military while kidnapping, murdering, stealing, mutilating, raping, and outraging Iraqi civilians. Nothing is worse in the Arab world than to be seen as weak and cruel, and al Qaeda proved, eventually, to be both on Al-Jazeera.
After Iraq, the al Qaedists reputation has become more akin to the Cosa Nostra, than to romantic Holy Warriors. It was not our intention in going to Iraq to cripple and discredit al Qaeda per se, in some third-party theater; but once the jihadists upped the ante, they also raised the stakes of being defeated with global implications to follow. Polls in the Arab world show a decline in support for suicide bombing, and a radical change of heart about bin Laden.
We made all sorts of mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the war. Pundits still bicker over whether we should have disbanded the Baathist army or whether there was anything much left to disband. And by openly allying ourselves with the once-despised Shiites, we alienated the powerful Sunni elite minority that not only had run the country, but alone in Iraq, knew how to administer the infrastructure of a modern state.
All that being said, it is difficult to see how we could have immediately reconciled with the Sunnis, given their past alliances with Saddam, and their furor at the results of our one-man/one-vote policy of democratization. It was as if the British had landed at Mobile in 1859, declared slavery over, and expected the Southern white population to join in such a foreign-inspired multi-racial reconstruction.
Yet four years later, the Sunni insurgency is largely over but largely over only because it has been defeated by the U.S. military. Tribal sheiks feel that they have restored the honor that was lost in Saddams three-week rout, by fighting the Americans tooth-and-nail for four years. That said, they now have learned that resistance brought them nothing but defeat and, if it continues, abject humiliation.
So there is a sort of tragic irony here too. It may well be that the Sunni tribes have learned, only through their failed insurgency, that they cannot defeat the U.S. military; that their Sunni al Qaeda allies were far worse than we are; that the Shiite government is not going away; and that the United States is an honest broker of sorts that is advancing their interests with the Shiite majority.
The unexpected result of all this is that it is only now after the Sunnis have fought, lost, and learned the futility of continued resistance that there is a better chance for a lasting stability. It is impossible to imagine that the Southern Plantationists in 1860 would have been willing to reconcile with the North, or that Germans would have come to their senses and rejected Hitler in 1939. If the old dictum remains valid, that a wars reconstruction and reconciliation come after, not before, the defeat of an enemy, then it may well be that the Sunnis had to learn the hard truth, the hard way, about the perversity of al Qaeda, the military superiority of the United States, and the permanence of the Iraqi constitutional government.
It is sometimes said that someone must be culpable for not finding a David Petraeus and his team of brilliant colonels earlier in the conflict. I wish it were that easy.
But such a conjecture is like saying Lincoln should have known of a Grant or Sherman at the wars outset; or that earlier Union generals, even in error and blunder, did not attrite the enemy and provide both experience (even if by negative example), and some military advantage when Grant and Sherman finally emerged to positions of real influence; or that a Grant and Sherman did not themselves learn the necessary, prerequisite skills for their prominent command in 1864-5, while in obscurity during 1861-2.
The emergence of a Patton, LeMay, or Ridgway is usually through a process of distillation, where a military learns only from its mistakes, and only slowly sorts out the right people for the right job at the right moment. We should also remember that we did not suddenly discover the proper strategy for Iraq. We learned it only through the heroic sacrifices of thousands of lost Americans who took a heavy toll on the enemy all through 2003-6, and, in four years of trial and error, provided the lethal experience of what would and what would not work.
The wars savage irony even extends to the reconstruction. Iraq by now was supposed to be pumping over 3 million barrels a day during the post-Saddam reconstruction. But due to vandalism, insurgent attacks, corruption, and neglect, the oil industry rarely currently sustains over 2.2. million barrels produced per day despite a capacity to pump 3 million, and a potential some day to produce perhaps over six million per day.
Yet, because oil prices, in unforeseen fashion, have more than quadrupled since the war, Iraq finds itself with more petroleum revenues than ever before. Its total oil annual worth may reach $70 billion at the present price in the upcoming year, even without much of a change in production levels.
Electricity production has hit 5,000 megawatts per day and is climbing steadily, but consumption has skyrocketed from prewar levels. If Iraqis would consume electricity at prewar levels, they would probably now have power almost 24-hours per day. What the coalition and the Iraqi ministries are trying to do, then, is, at a time of war, protect and restore electrical service, but at the same time increase it threefold to meet increased demand brought on by millions of imported electrical appliances.
Nothing is for certain in any war as the savage ironies of Iraq have shown the last four years. Few envisioned the initial brilliant three-week war, and the utter and rapid defeat of Saddam. Fewer foresaw the ensuing bloody four-year occupation. And the fewest of all anticipated that out of that mess, the present chance at stability and a real reconciliation under a constitutional framework could come.
The lessons are only the eternal ones: that wars wont be fought as believed and wont end as planned, but that adaptability, self-critique, and persistence, in an effort believed to be both right and necessary, will eventually prevail.
A ruthless two to three month campaign that would have brought a tear to o'Ganghis Khan's eye would have brought screaming condemnation from the world community [of course doing what we did also brought screaming condemnation from the world community]. Which would have only heartened the usual transnational progressives, but unlikely anyone else who'd forgotten and moved on in life four years later. It would have pulled the rug from underneath those despicable pols who've used, abused, and exposed our troops to greater danger and encouraged the enemy to make just one more big headline to send the weakling Americans packing. It would have removed the internal political pressure that the republic is under because those same pols who seek to gain short term political advantages for a 'couple more Senate seats' wouldn't have had the issue in the first place. This has all wretched up the pressure and removed rational discourse from the political climate within the republic. Lines are being drawn from which neither side is going to back down.
Yes, we finally figured it out and are cleaning up aisle 3, but before we pat ourselves on the back, there may yet be a bigger price to pay back home. Once, we're distracted what mischief and dangers will take root, before we can attend the garden again?
#2
Polls in the Arab world show a decline in support for suicide bombing, and a radical change of heart about bin Laden.
Don't like it much when they're the ones gettin' kilt by the 'splodeydopes, do they? Nor are they happy with having their preferred methods of savagery served up to them in equal measure. Still, please note the absence of death fatwas upon bin Laden or Qaradawithe principal sanctioner of vest bombersbecause this is the bottom line. Nowhere is there a wholesale rejection of terrorism, only a hue and cry over it being used against Muslims. All we're getting is lip service and none of us should be fooled by it.
Tribal sheiks feel that they have restored the honor that was lost in Saddams three-week rout, by fighting the Americans tooth-and-nail for four years. That said, they now have learned that resistance brought them nothing but defeat and, if it continues, abject humiliation.
Which tells me that we'd have probably been more wise to simply off these gangsters from the outset. None of them are tired of killing us, they're tired of us killing them. That does not represent a satisfactory resolution of this conflict. All it promises is a swift reversion back to their usual barbarity the moment we turn our backs.
It may well be that the Sunni tribes have learned, only through their failed insurgency, that they cannot defeat the U.S. military; that their Sunni al Qaeda allies were far worse than we are; that the Shiite government is not going away; and that the United States is an honest broker of sorts that is advancing their interests with the Shiite majority.
I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on such a notion. Hatred of America and all things Western runs far too deep for any such swift turnaround. Islam's top echelons of hatemongering clerics and politicians need to be scraped away with brutal force to serve notice that continued aggression against the West carries a lethal price tag.
#4
Nowhere is there a wholesale rejection of terrorism, only a hue and cry over it being used against Muslims. All we're getting is lip service and none of us should be fooled by it.
Unforunately, all you have to do is change Muslims to nutroots and you could just as well be talking about our country.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
11/23/2007 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Unfortunately, all you have to do is change Muslims to nutroots and you could just as well be talking about our country.
Except that the nutroots are cowards, and pussies. There aren't as many of them as all their noise and fury would lead one to believe.
The mood is dark in the IDF's General Staff ahead of next week's "peace" conference in Annapolis. As one senior officer directly involved in the negotiations with the Palestinians and the Americans said, "As bad as it might look from the outside, the truth is 10 times worse. This is a nightmare. The Americans have never been so hostile." That's why I favor Bibi for PM. Cause he understands how the US system works (briefly US officialdom is---and always was---implacably hostile to the Jewish state. However, they have to bow to the will of the People on the subject. To assure that they do is the second most important job---until the Gulf oil runs out---an Israeli PM has.)
On Thursday a draft of the joint statement that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing ahead of the conference was leaked to the media. A reading of the document bears out the IDF's concerns.
The draft document shows that the Palestinians and the Israelis differ not only on every issue, but differ on the purpose of the document. It also shows that the US firmly backs the Palestinians against Israel. Two remarks.
(a) Caroline tends to over-dramatize---if Olmert gives in to Condi, Olmert will go. We'll have reelections, and by the time the dust settles, George will be back on the farm, and Condi will be a nobody again.
(b) I used to think US pro Paleo stance was a result of covert anti-Semitism, until I've seen how Afghanistan & Iraq are being mishandled.
#2
LUCIANNE > GUARDIAN - WE FRET ABOUT EUROPE BUT THE REAL THREAT TO SOVEREIGNTY IS THE USA. America to take over Buckingham?Whitehall??? ION, MADONNA'S DAUGHTER LOURDES OFFERED FILM ROLE IN "POTTER" + COMET TUTTLE.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
11/23/2007 3:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Cortisman 's scenarios largely indicate a retaliatory Israel with seemingly task asserted Arab responses. Measured restraint is very possible with some of these nations fearing the 'unforced' all out options. I'm convinced Israel has already mapped the 'triggering line' of preemption, green lighted this above top secret with it's doomsday council, and would prefer the proverbial cup spilled to ¼ to ½ in defensive damage than a society crippling fallout subjection. Mutual Assured Destruction is not in Israel's best interest, Iran's mullahs may consider it's destruction fate-accompli if it also ridded the Zionist nation of it's world presence and influence, the "we did it to ourselves to do it for our brothers" would become the survivors ethnic and spiritual cry. Backing down by the Iranians with IAEA verified nuclear disassembly, or preemption by the Israelis and/or the US is the only remaining option. Iran is destined to 'Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Parsin' again!
#6
Anybody who expects Israel not to go "Samson in the Temple" with both nukes and biologicals, is an idiot. Unfortunately, currently the World is run by idiots.
#7
It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes.
Unfortunately, Iran's lust for genocide exceeds its own will to survive. More remarkable is how Egypt and Syria do not understand that they, too, will most likely perish at the behest of Iran's obsession. None of them demonstrate the least inclination to forcefully intervene against the Iranian bomb. The greater glory of a nuclear armed Islam sings a lethal siren song to such purblind fools. Hatred of the Jews is so all-consuming for these Islamic Neanderthals that it obstructs even the most basic will to survive. One begins to wonder if it doesn't justify simple pre-emption on those grounds alone. If these morons cannot rally to the cause of their own survival perhaps they do not deserve it.
#9
So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age.
Clear, concise, chillingly forensic and blindingly obvious. I could give a rat's ass about Persian civilization, Egyptian civilization was destroyed by Arabs in the 7th century and we have plenty of oil away from the Gulf. With a little ingenuity, the Oil Age should be coming to an end some time soon without or without the continued existence of islam.
Cordesman concludes his chilling but dismayingly logical survey with the warning: "The only way to win is not to play."
No, the only way to win is to smash them before they acquire nuclear weapons.
#10
If you look at it realistically, us bombing the hell out of Iran vice Israel counterstriking them with nukes... our bombing is probably even a humanitarian gesture for the Iranian people as well as the region and the world.
Actually the best thing we could do for Iran is kill every radical fundamentalist mullah from the top down to the local Mosque, and kill the government structures (indluding the IRG) that support them.
#1
Half the English language is becoming the "N-word" as far as liberals are concerned. Words are always bad for liberals. Words allow people to understand what liberals are saying.
Politically Correct Speech marches on to a final convergence with Newspeak.
The source of poverty in Africa is adherence to socialism/marxism/communism.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/23/2007 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
....had no written language, no concept of science or math, no multistory buildings, no calendar, nothing that would remind one of any modern society.
But they've got Beignets, Copelands and the best Cajun Fried chicken.
#4
The problem with colonization are three-fold. (1) The colonies divided tribes and lumped others together creating fictitious nations. (2) Colonization gave African leaders an external excuse rather than facing their own failed policies. (3) Colonization didn't last long enough to truly impart the rule of law and other factors required for a successful nationstate.
The best thing that could happen to Africa is to divolve into smaller nations along ethnic lines. That way if they have an incompetant leader the damage is less, and other tribes cannot be blamed.
Guy White -
According to the politically correct theory that the Darker the Berry, the Sweeter the Juice, minorities are never to blame for any of their troubles, and whites are the source of all things that are wrong with the world.
One of most common myths that people are forced to repeat in the Lefts never-ending quest to humiliate whites at the altar of egalitarianism and multiculturalism is the idea that whites should feel guilty about their legacy of slavery.
Many people correctly cite that all the world's nations, and especially the Africans, owned slaves. What most people forget is that whites not only abolished slavery in their own societies, but then went around the world forcing everyone else to abandon the practice.
Arabs, who kidnapped and enslaved blacks long before Europeans did, had legalized slavery until the 1980s in two countries Sudan and Mauritania. Even Egypt had lawful slavery until the 1960s. To this day, the Arabic word for blacks and for slaves is the same 'abd'.
Blacks themselves engaged in slavery and slave trade. The vast majority of blacks taken to Europe and the New World were not enslaved by whites, but rather by their fellow blacks. Nor can whites be held responsible for black-on-black enslavement, as it began long before whites began buying slaves. Blacks were selling slaves to each other, as well as to the Arabs. Even the hero of Amistad, upon winning his freedom, went back to Africa and became a slave-trader.
Today, Africans claim that slave trade devastated the continent. Were it true, they themselves would be to blame. But the claim is false. Indeed, it was slave trade that built an empire in West Africa.
The only reason slavery ended is the realization by whites that slavery is immoral. If the slave market existed today, we can be sure that blacks participate in slave-ownership and slave trade, as they do when they can - such as forced labor in African gold mines and the kidnapping of children who are turned into child-soldiers for African militias.
Back in the United States, the Human Rights Watch published No Escape that described slavery, including rape and other severe abuse, in prisons. The majority of slaves are white and the vast majority of slave-owners are black. See Stop Prisoner Rape, very revealing, though this website doesn't dwell on the race issue.
Blacks and others do not feel guilty enslaving people, especially those who belong to other races. Only whites do.
For white people, the legacy of slavery is not starting the practice, but ending it. It should be the source of pride, not guilt.
#1
Speaking for myself, this white boy doesn't feel guilt about slavery. My great grandfather didn't own any slaves in Germany and didn't get to the USA until the later 1890's.
On the contrary, rather than feel guilt about slavery in the USA I have what may be deemed a perverse take on that "peculiar institution". But for slavery in the USA my life would not have been enriched by the music made at Stax Records and Motown. But for slavery I doubt I'd have never heard from the following people: Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Ray Charles, Wilson Pickett, Albert King, Marvinn Gaye, Smokey Robinson, Aretha Franklin, Stevie wonder, Lionel Ritchie, Nat King Cole, Martha Reeves, Diana Ross, Al Green, Tina Turner, Issac Hayes...I could go on but you get the point.
If there exists outside the USA anywhere in the world a larger upper and middle class black ethinic group, then someone needs to point it out to me.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/23/2007 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Most Americans can tune in to American sports on the weekend and watch more wealthy blacks than are in the entire continent of Africa.
The white guilt program is something the neo-socialist/marxist dreamed up to take power, ignoring that it was the Western world after 4,000 years of human history and experience with slavery that lead the fight to end it. Notice how easily they gloss over those who do continue to engage in the practice.
Its a scam much like the Medieval church to extort power and wealth by laying sin upon the masses and then saying only they could release you from it, for a price.
#3
Actually I think that if the US never had slavery we probably would have had a wave of immigration from Africa the way we had Europeans, Southern Europeans and Asians. I don't know if that would have changed the music or the number of athletes though.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
