Like on Facebook


Minggu, 04 Juni 2017

Coloring Picture Of Martin Luther King Jr

Coloring Picture Of Martin Luther King Jr

hi everybody! my name is stefan molyneux andi am the host of freedomain radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world.i hope you're doing well. so, this is "the truth about abraham lincoln"; i've done aseries of these recently on martin luther king, on gandhi, on marx, and so on and thereis a purpose. there is a reason why i'm doing all of these. it is a tragedy how often ourheroes are found to have feet of clay, but in my experience, having spent a lot of mylife looking for heroes, looking for heroism is a great way of avoiding one's own capacityfor heroism; and so i hope that this series is of use to you. i certainly know that it'sbeen important to me throughout my intellectual development to come to a clear, historical,moral, and empirical assessment of the people

that our culture and our government calls"heroes", also that our intellectuals call "heroes" and i think it's worth examiningthis to some degree. this is not a history of the civil war. this is not a history evenof the lincoln presidency. these are very specific and salient facts—shocking facts,doubtless—about abraham lincoln and his goals in life as far as can be, we're going to start with his childhood. "the child is the father of the man", as thepoem says, and so it's well worth examining his childhood to see if can understand howhe came to be who he was as an adult and how that may have influenced his motives. so,his paternal grandfather and his namesake abraham originally had moved his family fromvirginia to kentucky, where tragically, he

was ambushed and killed by an indian raidin 1786 as abraham's father thomas looked on. so, seeing your own father murdered bythe indians was probably fairly formative in lincoln's father's life. he spent his—thomaslincoln, abraham's father—spent his childhood and teen years living with various relativesand as an adult he worked for a time as a slave catcher; and given abraham lincoln'ssubsequent relationship with his father, this may not be entirely unimportant. he was nota brilliant man, but he had kind of a targeted persistence to him and he actually accumulatedtwo farms of a couple hundred acres each before people found out that he hadn't filled outthe proper paperwork and therefore his farm was taken away from him after a legal battle;and he went out into the wilderness to start

again. thomas lincoln, abraham's father, waseven by the standards of the time a brutal father. he was reported to have beaten abrahamrepeatedly and mercilessly, and this was pretty brutal. abraham lincoln grew up, of course,in the log cabin with very little education and a school opened up nearby and his mothersaid, you know, you got to go to school, but it was so far away it took between two anda half and three hours to walk each way and the school did not last very long. later on,abraham lincoln pointed out that his education as a child had not exceeded 12 months theentire time. sort of reminds me of shakespeare who went to school for 12 weeks a year andstill managed to polish off a few decent iambic pentameter couplets. when abraham lincolnwas 9, his mother died of milk sickness. this

happens when a cow eats a poisonous plant.the poison then goes through the cow and if some people who ingest the milk get sick anddie. his mother died, i would assume in significant pain and perhaps lingering. this was prettyhorrendous. now, when abraham lincoln's mother died, his father left abraham and his sisternancy—abraham was 9 and his sister was 11—in the log cabin with some supplies, mostly driedberries that nancy had picked, and he went to go and find a new wife. and, this was justhorrendous. the children had very little to eat after their father left, just some driedberries that i mentioned that had been stored away by nancy. a neighbor who stopped by reportedthat the children were filthy, half-starved, and that the house was in a terrible condition.and, this abandonment by their father lasted

for six months. and, of course, the childrendidn't know it was going to be six months. they simply knew that their father had goneaway; and imagine—this is really out in the wilderness and you're frightened to goout. there are coyotes. there are bears and wolves and no neighbors for miles and milesaround, no help of course of any kind; and you don't know if your father is coming back.this went on for half a year. i can't conceive of how terrifying and frustrating this musthave been for the children. this is a truly terrifying amount childhood trauma that hewent through, and this was long before things like talk therapy and so on. so, this hadsignificant effects, i would argue, on his adult state of mind and his subsequent permanentseparation from his father. so, he never quite

seemed to get along hugely well with his newstepmother, sarah. his father did come back with a wife. he provided for her after hisfather died, lincoln did, but he never introduced his stepmother to his wife and children. andwhen he married, mary todd his wife, neither thomas's father nor sarah his stepmother wereinvited to the wedding, so we can assume things were somewhat frosty, and this is, i think,important. so, he left home as a young man and now he did—he was farmed out by hisfather to go and work in other people's farms and he had to remit all of his income thathe got from working on other people's farms to his father, which was an accepted and legalpractice at the time, but probably did not endear him to his father much, if at, he had very little to no contact with

his father after abraham left home. sometimeshe would send him small sums of money, but he never invited his father to visit him orhis family. and, in the winter of 1850-1851, lincoln's father, thomas, became seriouslyill and as so often happens with people, the moral horror of history catches up with usin a fist of ash and we regret the wrongs that we have done in the past when we faceour own mortality. thomas wrote many letters to abraham lincoln, but abraham lincoln didnot answer them; and finally he wrote to a third-party. in a january 12, 1851 letter,he wrote, "say to him (my father) that if we could meet now, it is doubtful whetherit would not be more painful than pleasant, but that if it is to be his lot to go now,he will soon have a joyous meeting with many

loved-ones gone before." now, lincoln hadsome serious mental health issues, to put it a mildly as possible. this really translatedinto his marriage. there's a story by those who knew lincoln and his wife mary when theylived in illinois that says, the lincolns were at home one night. mary asked her husbandto add logs to the fire. he was reading and didn't do what she asked—maybe didn't hearher fast enough—she reportedly became angry enough to toss a piece of firewood at him,smashing him in the face, which led to him appearing in public the next day with a, she had a temper, i suppose. and, we will get to the politics and the war in a moment,but mary's instability was fairly well known. the lincoln's had four children, only oneof whom made it to adulthood, which was robert

todd lincoln. and to fast-forward, hopefullynot to disconcertingly, ten years after lincoln was assassinated, robert was very upset withhis mother for her embarrassing or eccentric behavior, so he charged—he arranged to havehis mother put on trial and charged with being insane. so, there was a very strange trialthat happened in chicago on may 19, 1875 just a little after 10 years after her husband'smurder. so, she was surprised at her home in the morning by two detectives and was yankedoff to court. she didn't have time to prepare any defense for what was coming up, and followingtestimony about her behavior from various witnesses, the jury concluded, "mary lincolnis insane and is a fit person to be in a hospital for the insane". now, of course, nineteenthcentury hospitals for the insane... not very

great places to be. now, i mean, to be fair,a few months afterwards—she was in for three months—and sometime afterwards she got theverdict overturned, but i think this tells you something about the dynamics within thefamily; that this is a lack of bond that abraham lincoln had with his father translated, iwould say, to the lack of a bond that robert todd lincoln had with his own mother to thepoint that this savage in-fighting was occurring. so, the effects of these intense childhoodterrors and privations did give—i think ,would argue, have significant impact on abrahamlincoln's mental state as an adult. he maintained suicidal thoughts, he had nervous breakdowns,was gripped in staggering levels of depression. a neighbor related that "lincoln told me thathe felt like committing suicide often". neighbors

and friends were compelled to keep watch andward over him. they were concerned that he was going to kill himself. when lincoln'sfirst love became ill and died in august 1835, they actually had to keep knives and sharpimplements away from him, everybody was so concerned about his desperate state of mind;and he suffered a first bout of major depression, had another one in 1841, and people kept gunsand knives away from him. according to one biographer, letters left by the president'sfriends referred to him as the most depressed person they've ever seen. in 1846, lincolnwrote—and look, when you have a childhood that is so random where your mother dies,your father abandons you for a month after month to starve in the wilderness, you don'tget a very strong sense of control over your

own life.—and in 1846, lincoln wrote, "whati understand is called the doctrine of necessity. that is that the human mind is impelled toaction or held in rest by some power over which the mind itself has no control." and,this lack of a sense of control, that the mind is moved by impulse—of course, if yousuffer from depression and suicidality, nervous breakdowns which you don't understand becauseself-knowledge has not really been a major focus of western philosophy. i mean, aristotle's"know thyself", socrates "know thyself", but until the post-freudian revolution of thelate 19th century, it really wasn't much of a focus in the western world. so, drillinginto and dwelling in the past is a way of unraveling the gordian knots of the future,unleashing one's potential into the future

was not really well understood at the time. so, let's turn a little bit towards—a spotlighton some of the events leading up to and including the civil war, so that we can get a sensemore of what was going on and why the decisions were made, as best we can unravel. of course,the american revolution was fundamentally a secessionist revolution. they seceded fromthe british empire and the constitution was a pact between the sovereign states with whichthe ultimate power lay; and these states devolved to the central government its limited power.the central government was supposed to be very limited. with this confederation of sovereignstates the founders intended to curb the overreach of a central government. and, my argumenthas been that america was an experiment in

the very smallest government known to has now grown into the very largest government with the most devastating military and politicalpower that the world has ever seen; and, it did not take long for the united states federalgovernment to overreach the bounds of the constitution and turn in to what has now becomejust another desperate and predatory center of empire. i mean, if you think of georgewashington riding down with his troops to collect the whiskey tax from the pennsylvaniafarmers, you can get a sense of how little respect there has been for the necessary restraintof political power. whether it's even possible, is a question i've been asking myself foryears. so, how did lincoln become president? obviously,a very intelligent man, a very witty man,

a good storyteller, and a great debater, buthis political career really had him firmly in the hands or, i guess rather, the pocketsto northern protectionists, especially the ones in pennsylvania and new jersey. so, anorthern protectionist is an industrialist who wants to shield products from foreignor even domestic competition. so, a protectionist is someone—they want to build a tariff wallaround their area of trade to keep foreign goods out or other goods out of the marketplace,which gives them the chance to raise their prices. so, if you're a sweater manufacturerand the chinese are sending sweaters over at ten bucks a sweater, and you can only manufactureyours for twelve bucks, then you sort of a 50% tariff on the chinese sweaters, so thatthey're fifteen bucks, and therefore you can

compete. rather than trying to figure outhow to compete with them in a free market scenario, you go to the government and askfor protection from foreign trade. so, one of the triggers for the significant conflictbetween the north and the south that many people have argued was really the catalystfor the civil war was something called the "moral tariff". so, lincoln, in his firstinaugural address promised a military invasion of the south if the new moral tariff was notcollected; and this was a tariff that disproportionately fell upon the south and disproportionatelybenefited the north, and we'll get into some of the numbers in a second. so, the u.s. houseof representatives passed the moral tariff in the 1859-60 session, and then the senatepassed it in 1861, two days before lincoln's

inauguration. president james buchanan, apennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to the pennsylvania protectionists,signed it into law. the bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to37.5%; and with a greatly expanded list of covered items, the tax burden would almosttriple, and soon thereafter, a second tariff increase increased the average rate to justover 47% tax on goods. this was catastrophic. and, just to sort of mention, the union betweenbusiness and the state is so inevitable, once the government has the power to benefit certaineconomic sectors at the expense—almost always—of the general consumer and through debt of theunborn, it's going to happen. the government's power to meddle in the economy is like chemicals'or drugs' power to enhance athletic performance.

once you allow this to happen in sports, thenanybody who doesn't take those performance enhancing drugs in sports is just going tolose—just going to lose. and, you can look at the government's role in benefiting certaineconomic sectors at the expense of others; you can look at that as a performance-enhancingdrug for the business world. if it's legal, it's going to be pursued. if it's legal andit allows you to win, it's going to be pursued. once that power is available—once you candonate to politicians and get them to provide you economic favors and protectionism in return—it'ssimply going to happen. there's simply no way to stop it. again, if you made performance-enhancingdrugs legal and then said, "well, it'd be nice if people didn't use them", you're dreaming.right? so, this is what happens—the argument

is that we need a separation between stateand economy in the same way we needed a separation of church and state, sort of for the samereasons. so, the federal government, of course, 75% of its income came from the southern ports,which is where they could collect the tariff. abraham lincoln's relationship to secessionwas kind of what you'd expect from a politician. he actually coaxed west virginia into secedingfrom virginia in order to gain two senators who were going to vote his way. his relationshipto slavery was quite complex; his wife's family in kentucky were large plantation owners andkept many slaves, which of course was the foundation of her wealth. lincoln had thetypical corruptions of politicians as a whole. he signed the rail act after ensuring thathis property in iowa would be the hub of the

rail system, thus massively increasing itsvalue. but, to return to the tariff... so, the northern states were very densely populatedrelative to the south, which had, you know, these big sprawling plantations and farms;so, the north had more seats in the legislative branch and the power therefore to tax thesouthern states unfairly. so, the import-dependent south was paying as much as 80% of the tariff.the south, of course, is complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spentin the north because they were doing all of these works projects and railroads for thetransportation of their goods and so on. so, the south felt that it was being plunderedby this tax system and wanted no more of it. why would we want to pay this massive amountof money which then gets shipped off to the

north and spent on political cronyism? andso, even before the tariff was tripled, the south was already complaining, and, of course,once it became tripled or once it was tripled, everybody said, "well, what's the point ofthis?" remember, america has succeeded over a tiny tax—a tiny tax, a few percentagepoints—and this was a massive tax. 47% on most things that were imported; and, of course,the south imported a lot of stuff because they didn't have a manufacturing base. so, what lincoln said in his inaugural—whatdid he say? he said, "the power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possessthe property and places belonging to the government and to collect the duties and imposts, butbeyond what may be necessary for these objects,

there will be no invasion. no using forceagainst or among the people anywhere." so, basically saying, "i'm going to invade anduse force to collect this tax, this tariff." so, as mentioned, the south paid the bulkof the taxes; the north enjoyed the benefits of pork-barrel spending. the north outnumberedthe south in congress and could actually pass whatever measures it wanted without a singlesouthern vote. so, the north could unilaterally impose its will on the south without a singlesouthern vote. lincoln himself was elected without a single southern vote, so it's notlike they felt any particular loyalty towards lincoln. and, given that there was still peoplealive who had been alive during the revolution, it was kind of hard to argue that you shouldnever succeed because taxes are being raised

unjustly, which really was the foundationof the entire american experiment. and... well, we'll get to the declaration and proclamationin a moment. so, to fast-forward—and we'll get into more of the details of the war, buti just want to go to the end. so, we're looking at sort of the events that led up to it. in1866, slavery was ended with the 13th amendment, but at the cost of 620,000 lives, and somepeople have argued that the cost of life was actually north of 800,000, and hundreds ofthousands more of those people were crippled for life. and, the civil war destroyed almosthalf of the entire wealth of america. just astounding. these wars are just so staggeringin cost. i mean, the first world war left over 10 million dead, destroyed almost allof the economic gains of the industrial revolution

almost down to the penny. it's astonishing;and was it necessary? well, as i argued in a recent video that i did "the truth aboutslavery", i mean, dozens of other countries: argentina, colombia, chile, all of centralamerica, mexico, bolivia, uruguay, the french and danish colonies, ecuador, peru, venezuela...they all ended slavery peacefully during the first sixteen years in the nineteenth century.why not the united states? well, if the war was not about slavery, then that would explainwhy not. if you really wanted to end slavery in america, you could have had the federalgovernment pay slave owners—it's what happened in england and throughout the empire—youcould pay the slave owners for their slaves and set them free, certainly would have beena lot cheaper than the war. so, what was the

north's attitude towards race? well, manynorthern states adopted laws like indiana which prohibited blacks and milatos from enteringthe state. they did not recognize contracts with blacks. they fined employers who encourageblack employees to enter the state. they prohibited blacks from voting or marrying white persons,which was punishable by imprisonment, or testifying in court against a white person. so, you couldaccuse a black and he or she would not even be allowed her day in court. illinois, "theland of lincoln", prohibited the immigration of black persons into the state, and lincolnis his long career never expressed any opposition to this and even supported a state programto colonize or deport free blacks out of illinois. so, his solution was to ship the blacks offcountry. there is a strong argument; whether

it's conclusive i will lead to your judgment.there was a strong argument that slavery was actually more secure in the union than outof it. in other words, if the south had seceded, slavery would have ended very quickly. and,both confederate vice president alexander stevens and the preeminent abolitionist williamlloyd garrison believed this, believed that slavery was "more secure in the union thanout of it". this is partly because of something called the fugitive slave act, which lincolnwholeheartedly supported. this act compelled the northern states to capture runaway, they were provided due process, but local magistrates were paid ten dollars for returninga slave to his owner and only five dollars for granting him freedom. hmm, let me strokemy beard and wonder which way these courts

would vote. so, this basically was a massivefederal subsidy to prop up the institution of slavery and would have had become defunctwith secession. in other words, if the south had succeeded, then there would be no financialincentive, no laws compelling the return of slaves to the south. as soon as they madeit across the border they would have been free. and, this is why garrison and othernorthern abolitionists, they wanted the south to secede from the northern states to getrid of these kinds subsidies, thus bringing about the economic therefore peaceful endto slavery. now, lincoln and his political views. so,people, of course, argue that lincoln was very pro-freedom, pro-individualism whichis why he didn't like slavery—really not

the case at all. running on protectionismis running to benefit very significant and powerful economic interests—large corporations,mining companies, railroad companies, and so on—at the expense of the general population.and, he first ran for the illinois legislature in 1832, and he said, "my politics are shortand sweet like the old woman's dance"—whatever that means—"i am in favor of a nationalbank". oooh, not good! " favor of the internal improvements system and a high protectivetariff"—probably what got him the protectionists. so, these three things—protectionism, governmentsubsidies to railroads and canal building companies, and central banking—were calledthe american system by henry clay. economists kind of have another word for it, "mercantilism",which is where the central bank gets to make

up money out of thin air, basically the nineteenthcentury equivalent of typing whatever they want into their own bank accounts and shieldingdomestic industries from foreign competition, and basically buying political donations byreturning voters money to very concentrated economic concerns. not a free-trader, notan individualist, certainly had nothing in common with the founding fathers as far asall that stuff went. now, the war starts and again the argumentthat was being made by many people, including me—remember, i'm just funneling informationforward. i have my opinions, but i'm trying to keep them, at least to some degree, tomyself. so, what happened during the war? well, you know there were six to eight hundredthousand deaths, hundreds of thousands of

maimings, the destruction of half the u.s.economy, and lincoln unconstitutionally conducted the war without the consent of congress. imean, there's been very few wars that congress has actually approved of in the hundred pluswars of the american empire. this would be one of them. he suspended habeas corpus forthe duration of the war. he conscripted railroads and censored telegraph lines—i guess, avery early nsa. he—that is lincoln—imprisoned without trial some 30,000 northern citizensfor merely voicing opposition to the war, at least that's the cover story. of course,if you don't get them a trial, you don't know if they're innocent or guilty of voicing oppositionto the war, but he imprisoned without trial 30,000 northern citizens, of course, in amuch smaller population than america has today.

he actually—lincoln deported a member ofcongress, clemet l. valendingin of ohio, for opposing lincoln's income tax proposal ata democratic party political rally. had the man deported... lincoln closed down hundredsof northern newspapers and imprisoned their editors for questioning his war policies.really shocking stuff, i mean, this is pure fascism, naked blade state power. he orderedfederal troops intimidate voters into voting republican and intentionally waged war againstcivilians; and even by the rules of war at the time, this was not even remotely good.according to mark e. neely of "fate and liberty", there were more than thirteen-thousand arrestsof northern civilians after lincoln had unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, includingdozens if not hundreds of newspaper editors

and owners who were critical of the lincolnadministration. neely gives an account in his book of how lincoln's military becamequite proficient at torturing northern civilians who had been arbitrarily arrested withouta warrant. on page 110 of "fate and liberty" he writes, "handcuffs and hanging by the wristswere rare, but in that summer of 1863 the army had developed a water torture that cameto be used routinely. upon learning of the use of torture, not one member of the lincolnadministration, including lincoln himself, expressed any personal outrage or personalfeeling at all over it including lincoln's secretary of state william seward. now, habeascorpus may be suspended in times of emergency, but the constitution is silent on who maysuspend the writ—sort of an important thing

to try and figure out. lincoln simply tookthat power on himself without constitutional authority. he imprisoned members of the marylandlegislature who opposed his war on the south. he used military tribunals to try civiliansfor disloyalty, even in the north where the civil courts were open and functioned. thereason, of course, was that a guilty verdict was assured; enemies of the war were effectivelysilenced. the supreme court ultimately ruled that this use of military tribunals was unconstitutionaland yet lincoln did it, just as lincoln threatened to imprison the chief justice of the supremecourt for disagreeing with him on the legality of secession. so, imagine this. george w.bush imprisoned the california legislature until they cease their opposition to a freemarket in electricity. george w. bush would

have shut down the wall street journal andlocked up its editors because the journal has at times been critical of bush. uh, thisis pretty shocking stuff even by the standards of the time. so, he did, of course, imposethe protectionist tariffs. the second part of mercantilism, the mercantilist platform,centralized banking was achieved by the national currency act of 1863 and 1864. and, of course,when the government gets the power to create its own currency, there's a virtual explosionof government subsidies to railroads and other businesses that bankrolled the republicanparty. the inevitable consequence was the notorious corruption of the grant administration.imagine, you can just print whatever money you want; you're going to go on a spendingbinge, particularly if those you spend money

on can help you get into or stay in power?—andthis, of course, continues to the current time. now, the emancipation proclamation wassupposed to have freed the slaves, but the reality is that it really should be more realisticallyviewed as a destabilizing tactic to disrupt the opposing states in the civil war, thesouthern states. the emancipation proclamation guaranteed that slaves were freed only inthe parts of the confederacy inaccessible to the union army. so, he freed the slaveshe had no control over and did not free the slaves he had control over. union soldierswere permitted to confiscate slaves in rebel territory and put them to work for the unionarmy. um, i don't know about you, but i'd rather be a slave than conscripted into theamerican civil war. so, in areas loyal to

the union, slaves were not emancipated andthat is—it was not a principle. it was a military tactic to disrupt the southern states.of course, after the war, lincoln offered little land to the freed men, for the freedslaves. most of the land was parceled off to his constituent power bases, the railroadand mining companies. it's just the same corruption that goes on and on. another little mentionof lincoln's nature, which was often not talked about in history books, in 1862 there wasa small, i guess you could call it, "war" between federal soldiers and the santee siouxindians of minnesota. at the end of the hostilities, over three hundred indians who were just around,not necessarily part of the fighting were arrested. they were imprisoned and they werescheduled to be executed after military "trials"

that lasted about ten minutes each. lincolnwas fearful that the european powers might encouraged to be more supportive of the confederacyif they learned of the mass execution of over three hundred men whose guilt had not beenproven beyond a reasonable doubt. so, he paired the number down to just thirty-nine—liedabout it. now, this was the largest mass execution in american history. have you ever heard aboutit? well, no. it happened under lincoln's watch and lincoln deliberately deflated figuresin order to avoid any condemnation from the european powers. i think that that standsfor itself. so, since secession, or the right of secession was at the root of the civilwar, what did lincoln think about the right of secession? so, this is what he said, whichis pro-declaration of independence. he said,

"the expression of that principle (politicalfreedom) in our declaration of independence was most happy and fortunate. without this,as well as with it, we could have declared our independence from great britain, but withoutit, we could not. i think it secured our free government and consequent prosperity." itwas a good thing. eh, you know, once he gets into power it's a little bit different. in1864, he issued the following order: "you will take possession by military force ofthe printing establishments of the new york world and journal of commerce and prohibitany further publication thereof. you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprisonthe editors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers." so, free government,independence, liberty from the arbitrary power

of the state—no. he said, "arrest and imprison";not "try", not "charge", "arrest and imprison". this is pure fascism. lincoln's belief inthe union went against the declaration's view that when people have the right to dissolvetheir government. in january 1848, he said, "any people anywhere being inclined and havingthe power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a newone that suits them better." well, unless they're in the south and aren't paying thekind of tariffs the north can use to buy off special interest groups in the economy inreturn for their support of political power. so, again, i mean, this is just what peoplesay; what they actually do is very, very different, particularly in politics. in lincoln's 1860inaugural address, he said, "i have no purpose,

whether directly or indirectly, to interferewith the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawfulright to do so and i have no inclination to do so."—1860. two years later, lincoln wrote,"my paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union and it is not either tosay or to destroy slavery. if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i woulddo it and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also dothat. what i do about slavery and the colored race i do because i believe it helps to savethe union." that was what he wrote in a letter. in 1858, lincoln had written, "i am not, norhave ever been, in favor of bringing about, in any way, the social and political equalityof the white and black races. i am not, nor

have ever been, in favor of making votersor jurors of negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with whitepeople. there is a physical difference between the white and the black races which i believewill forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."so, america had to destroy half the economy and between six hundred and eight hundredthousand people. well, what did britain do? parliament passed the slavery abolition actin 1833. it gave all the slaves in the british empire their freedom. the british governmentpaid compensation to the slave owner, and the amount that the plantation owners receiveddepended on the number of slaves they had. for example, the bishop of exeter had sixhundred and sixty-five slaves that were freed,

so he got twelve thousand seven hundred, of course whoever wins the war writes the history and turns themselves into heroes.i mean, if hitler had won the second world war, what would have been spoken of in thebattle of britain? well, churchill would be the new hitler. so, lincoln ruled the countryby presidential decree, exercised dictatorial powers over a free people, and waged war withouta declaration from congress. he blockaded southern shipping ports justifying his actionsby saying he would "enforce all laws and collect all revenues due to the north". the blockadeswere an act of war. he set his northern army upon the south at fort sumter and set in motionone of the most brutal attacks upon freedom by maneuvering the south into firing the firstshot at their northern aggressors. lincoln

signed more than ten tariff raising billsthroughout his administration. he manipulated the american public into the first incometax. he handed out huge land grants and monetary subsidies to transcontinental railroads, justanother example of the corporate welfare of mercantilism. he took the nation off the goldstandard turning the dollar into toilet paper, allowing the government to have absolute controlover the monetary system. and then, he virtually nationalized the banking system under thenational currency acts in order to establish a machine for printing new money at will andto provide cheap credit for the business elite. oh, it's a good thing that practice stopped,isn't it? this mercantilist tyrant, really could be called, ushered in central bankingwhich has really been the greatest economic

curse to this day. the total wars of the 20thcentury would have been virtually impossible without countries going off the gold standard,without central banking, and so on. by way of conscription, he assembled a vast armyat presidential decree, an act of flagrant misconduct which drafted individuals intoslavery in the federal government. how on earth do you oppose slavery using the draft?it's like opposing gangrene by blowing up a city. and, he started the acceleration offederal power significantly. northern newspapers ran editorials calling for the death of everyman, woman, and child in the south and the colonization of the then empty southern statesby northerners. and, as mentioned before, he wanted the slaves deported back to africaand thought that the white race was superior

and that blacks and whites could not livetogether at all peacefully. as an attorney—prior to becoming president—as an attorney, lincolntwo masters in the return of their runaway slaves. so, lincoln actually sent runawayslaves back to their masters. is that the story of abraham lincoln that you've heardin government-run schools? so, while the union army was struggling in the first few yearsof the war, the lincoln administration doled out millions of dollars to railroads to runrails to the west—during a time of war, never let the deaths of hundreds of thousandsinterfere with pork-barrel spending. and, you should read tom de lorenzo on this. we'llput links to the book in the notes. as the economist tom de lorenzo has contended, lincoln'sgoal in waging the war was to benefit northern

manufacturing interests and protect his ownpolitical career by preserving the union. it would have been far cheaper and far lessdestructive for lincoln simply to buy the slaves and free them. i mean, of all the nationsthat abolished slavery in the eighteen hundreds, only two required a civil war: america andhaiti—absolutely unnecessary. of course, it must be remembered that lincoln did notfree any slaves. the emancipation proclamation did not apply to the border states that lincolnneeded to keep in the union—maryland and kentucky, for example. slave labor was usedto build the u.s. capitol building while the war went on. these are just matters of fact.and, of course, there was nothing new about the south wanting to secede; this had comeup many times before. at the harford convention

in 1814, several northern states, among themmassachusetts, vowed to secede because of their opposition to the war of 1812. forty-eightyears later, massachusetts would not allow the south to secede. they wanted to secede,then the south is not allowed to do so. this obsession with the union is a bit confusing.what does it matter if a union disintegrates? what does it matter if the south secedes?since the north was ending slavery anyway, and i'm sure the slaves would rather not dieby being drafted involuntarily into the army. i mean, let's say that the european unionfragments tomorrow. is that worth waging war that kills millions of europeans over it?—ofcourse not. i mean, the very formation of the european union represented a change inthe relationships between the member states.

is that worth waging a war over?—no, politicalconfigurations come and go all the time. nine out of ten of the people of the north wereopposed to forcing south carolina to remain in the union, which is why you had to havea draft. they didn't care if the south seceded, not to the point where they're willing togo and die for that. i mean, this is literally forcing people into human shredding machinesat bayonet point, and it's all of course referred to as some sort of heroism. as of 1857, writesroy baster, the editor of lincoln's collected works, lincoln had rarely ever mentioned theissue of slavery and even then "when he spoke of respecting the negro as a human being,his words lacked effectiveness. what did preoccupy lincoln's mind throughout his twenty-eightyear political career prior to becoming president

was the political agenda of the wig partyand of the man he revered most in life, the kentucky slave owner henry clay whom lincolneulogized in 1852 as, "the great parent of wig principles" and "the fountain from whichmy own political views flowed". his great hero was a kentucky slave owner. so, it isimportant to understand the great moral crusades of history are usually the icing thrown overthe dead bodies of economic self-interest. human beings rarely fight for principle. theyfight because they're forced to go fight or die or be imprisoned in a place where you'llcatch typhus and die. the cattle prodding of individuals over the landscape of humanhistory is really just psychopathic shepherds. it's cockfighting. it's really all it is withthe intent, of course, of making massive amounts

of fake money, massive amounts of blood moneythrough taxation. this is the history of the species. i will argue very strongly—whichis why i am doing this whole series—i will argue very strongly that there is no suchthing a love of abstractions without a corresponding love of individuals. there's no love of mankindand hatred of most of the people in it. when we look to someone who proclaims himself asa moral savior, we look to that person's personal relationships first and foremost. the factthat the man defended slaves is significant. the fact that he was an underhanded racistis significant. the fact that he funneled money desperately needed for a war to hispolitical economic cronies and friends is significant. the fact that his family lifewas a complete disaster, that his wife was

abusive, and his son attempted to get hiswife ten years after his death succeeded in getting her thrown into an asylum—whichwas pure torture at the time—is significant. we cannot continue to live in the cloud-fogof bloody and victorious propaganda. we look at the people, we look at the facts, we understandthe economic drivers between the mass slaughters of mankind, and then we will no longer respondto the trumpet calls of war because we know they are merely the funeral dirges of ourfuture hopes. thank you.

Coloring Picture Of Martin Luther King Jr