Tag Archives: Thomas DiLorenzo

Confederate Monuments to the Memory of Slavery or Defense of Liberty?—the Debate Rages on in New Orleans

Last Thursday, the New Orleans City Council Voted 6-1 to take down four Confederate Monuments. [And may God-Bless Councilwoman Stacy Head, the sole dissenter, an White Uptown New Orleanian I had the privilege of meeting once at a special event at the Prytania Theatre in 2013]. The monuments in question were namely,
(1)    an equestrian statue of Confederate General Pierre-Gustav Toutant Beauregard, a lifetime French Creole who was born and died in New Orleans;
(2)  a standing statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who died in New Orleans after presiding over the founding of the first museum to the memory of the nation over which he presided for four years, as statesman and orator;
(3)   a truly monumental column crowned by a bronze standing statue of General Robert Edward Lee (forever facing North, never turning his back on the enemy); Robert E. Lee was a close kinsman of George Washington from Virginia who was and still is widely revered as one of the great heroes of all American history; and
(4)    finally, a much smaller obelisk moment to the memory of those who dies in a much-too-little-known post-war Urban Battle seven years into Reconstruction, called “the Battle of Liberty Place”, where White citizens of Louisiana overthrew the hateful occupation government imposed on them after the surrender of the Confederacy.

Polls following this vote show that more than 90% of the actively interested public oppose the removal of these statues.  But the debate rages on.  Those on the side of removal, sponsored by Mayor Mitch Landrieu, call their opponents hateful racist reactionaries who support monuments to traitors.  They accuse us of  irrational adherence to a culture of hate and to the “Memory of the Lost Cause”…

Listening, at several meetings of the New Orleans City Council, and reading online, the only wildly irrational hatred and hateful speech I hear in this debate comes from people on Mitch Landrieu-pro-Removal side of the fence.  Just this morning, a fellow named Michael Dominici posted on “Save our Circle in New Orleans on Facebook: “Slavery was an American Holocaust.” Let’s start there.  I challenged him to explain what on earth he could possibly mean by that choice of words.

You think that slaves were destined to murder or sacrifice? Well, not in the USA or anywhere in the New World, but in Africa only, where slaves were kept like cattle as food reserves for cannibalism. Many slaves who told their stories later in life said that they expected to be eaten when they arrived at the end of their slave-ship journey. That was based on African experience and tradition, nothing else. So please check and restudy your history carefully.
The origins of the slave trade were that first Arab and European slave traders saw the slaughter of human beings on the “dark continent” and decided that Africa’s food reserves could be better used as labor reserves than chopped up and eaten.
So that’s point number one: slavery may not have been a great life, but it WAS life for slaves instead of death in the cannibal stew pots or having gotten too old to be eaten and just executed.
Second point: Africans sold the African slaves to Anglo-American white slavers up until 1808, but never to Confederates. By the time the Confederate States of America came into being, the international slave trade had been abolished everywhere in the world EXCEPT in Africa. And many, many African-Americans in the South actively supported the Confederate States of America both as soldiers and, in the state of Louisiana, as Planters who financially backed the CSA. Like it or not, that’s just reality: there WERE African American (Mulatto, Quadroon, Octaroon) southern planters who owned slaves and supported the Confederacy “as if their life depended on it” because in a sense, it did.
Third point: “Confederate” is a constitutional term whose definition reflects a constitutional argument. Many of us today (who do not and would never approve of slavery) still hold to the Confederate States side of the Constitutional argument. Look at the writings of Donnie Kennedy and his brother James, of Thomas DiLorenzo, Mike Maharrey and of a not specifically “Southern” but in fact Los Angeles-based group called “The Tenth Amendment Center”.
Fourth point: ironically, the reason many of us do favor Jefferson Davis’ constitutionalism is that we feel that all free people lost a great deal of Freedom in the War of 1861-5 AND IN THE 150 years since, so that we Americans and our society as a whole is more slave-like now than ever before.
Fifth point: want statistical proof? More black people, and many more white people, are now in prison or on probation today than were ever slaves in the South, and why? Maybe you think Alex Jones is a nut, maybe you like him, but the fact remains that nobody ever called the USA a “Prison Planet” in the early 19th century. Alexander de Tocqueville called slavery America’s “peculiar institution” precisely because this was the freest land on earth—back then, but now it’s more controlled and under constant state surveillance than any dictatorship in the world, prior to 1950, ever had the technological capacity to achieve. We are living in a slave society today, and we look back with some substantial envy on the States which were free enough, and technologically self-sufficient enough, to secede in 1860-1861.
Sixth point: the 13th Amendment at least indirectly inspired an explosion in American prison populations. Again, look carefully at the statistics. Prior to the 13th Amendment, which established that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude could exist EXCEPT as a punishment for crime, there was almost no such thing as a “prison population” in the USA…. now the prison population of the USA is more than twice what the original TOTAL population of the United States was at the time of the first census 1790, 14 years after independence.
Seventh: the other cause for the explosion of American prison populations is the criminalization of so much of the country’s commercial and general economic and scientific, even food producing and consuming, activity by Federal laws and policies spread to the states. There was hardly such a thing as “Economic Regulation” on the Federal level in 1860, unless you count Andrew Jackson abolishing the Bank of the United States in the early 1830s.
The centralized planning of agriculture, industry, and the social-economy generally which began during the “Civil War” in the North under Abraham Lincoln’s administration, and was brutally imposed on the South during Reconstruction and afterwards, was and remains exactly what people of a “Confederate” mindset hated and feared then and still hate and fear today: the loss of economic freedom (and thus all meaningful freedom) to a tyrannical Federal government.

Of Corporations, Communism, and Capitalism—where the boundaries blur…Should We Nationalize Oil and Banking Companies and distribute the proceeds to the people? Would this constitute Communism or a the first step towards the Restoration of Non-Corporate Individual Enterprise Capitalism?

My dearly departed grandmother Helen always said that the reason the United States of America would prevail over Soviet Russia in the Cold War was that the United States had perfected Communism whereas Russia had failed: the United States perfected Communism by inventing “McDonald’s”, “Walmart” (and/or its smaller predecessors), and Red Russia had nothing remotely comparable….  McDonalds in particular seemed the epitome of Communism to my grandparents who raised me and, as a consequence, to me: everyone equal, no tradition of anything, cheap food to sustain the human body available everywhere, distributed nationally, no local or regional development allowed in the franchise. I think it was this “Worker’s Paradise Worldwide Global Homogenizing” aspect of McDonald’s (and Walmart) that my grandparents, born respectively of French-Louisiana and English-Texas backgrounds in the 1890s, found most repulsive.  McDonald’s IS repulsive and the global uniformity it (and every other trans-national trademark, from Archers-Daniel-Midland, AT&T Avon to Ford to Hilton to Mitsubishi and Nissan and Beyond) imposes is particularly oppressive.

One of the great signs of the collapse of the Soviet Union was, of course, when McDonald’s opened its first Moscow franchise on Red Square—it was as if the American Flag had been planted on Lenin’s & Stalin’s graves…. I think many felt exactly the same way in Mexico when a sacrilegious Yankee Imperialist Walmart opened beside the ancient pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan, just north of Mexico City—a site whose name means “where the gods go.”  “La Reconquista de México aquí se llevó a cabo.”  In both cases, it seemed to some Americans: “We Won.”

Or did we?  1848 was the year of the publication of the Communist Manifesto.

In 1848, there was no such thing as a transnational corporation, pure and simple, much less international banks—the various members of the Rothschild Family who acted as predecessor-antecedents to international B  Even within the United States, the largest corporations were the interstate railroads, there were no such as interstate banks.

In the 1850s the railroads were growing, and with them the demand for steel and coal (and eventually…oil).   In 1860, Abraham Lincoln (lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad, one of the largest corporations of the day) was elected President as the First (successful) Communist Revolution was about to take place as one half of the American Population, out of envy and spite, destroyed the other half over the question of slavery, which was resolved peacefully in every other country in the world except the seemingly eternally accursed island of French Haiti.

Thomas DiLorenzo and Donald Kennedy have, over the past 10 or more years, written brilliantly concerning the nascent alliance of communist ideology and corporate-government in the America of the 1860s and forward.   It was ultimately the corporate economy of the North which triumphed over the individual agrarian (Marx and other disparagingly, and inaccurately, called in “Feudal”) socio-economic organization of the South.   The Corporate Union over the Confederacy of Individuals (“Individual” or in Greek “Ho Idios“, giving us the word “idiot”—a person who is “off by himself” or wants to have it “his way”, or in the ancient Greek papyri of Hellenized Egypt “idiotiki ge” the phrase denominating “private property”—the Marxists and Corporate Statists  still use accusations of mental illness and anti-social behavior to describe advocates of individual autonomy or capitalism).

The period of 1860-1920 is often taught in our schools as the heyday of Capitalism—but was it?  No—it was the time when individuals were increasingly subjected to the power or faceless, nameless, organizations called “corporations”—except in the early days the “names” of many of these corporations were in fact individual or family names, or else they were associated with their founders/majority shareholders, who became known as the “Robber Barons”.   Was this process antithetical to communism or was this the true birth of true communism?

The largest “companies” of the past (prior to 1860) had mainly been colonial enterprises from Hudson’s Bay, Louisiana, and Massachusetts Bay, to India.  The British South Africa Company was one of the last of these, founded in the late 19th Century by Cecil Rhodes—but it was the one of the two last significant private imperialist enterprises that was contemporaneous with the development of large national corporations in North America and Europe (the other being King Leopold’s private “plantation” known as “the Belgian Congo.”)

When I think of real solutions to the modern American crisis, I think of how to restore individual private property and individual enterprise, and the enemies I see are the corporate-governmental complexes (what Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the “Military-Industrial” Complex—not quite recognizing how subversive of democracy and communistic this complex really was, and has increasingly become).

I propose that the renaissance of the individual can only come when we recognize the enemy and name the Mega-Corporate-Mega-Governmental synergy by its earliest formal name: Communism.  To destroy communism, then, we must destroy the mega-corporations and the gigantic government together.

Nationalizing the Oil and Banking Industries would be a disaster if these industries were left in the governmental hands which effectively maintain the “private corporate” fiction at the present time, but if the purpose of nationalization were to restore the wealth to the people, and the ways and means we used were the technologies and common law procedures of trust formation and fiduciary duties to achieve nationalization, these nationalizations would ultimately serve to restore both wealth and power to the people.

One year ago I wrote several pieces about the massive fraud of the Social Security Trust Fund—which was never a trust and was never funded by Social Security taxes, which were stolen and embezzled from the American People by the government’s false pretenses and fraud of creating something CALLED the Social Security Trust Fund.   Regular political “panics” are created when politicians announce that the Social Security Trust Fund is about to go bankrupt—but how can a Trust go bankrupt which was never actually funded?   The ONLY “corpus” of the Social Security Trust fund are “non-negotiable securities” which translates into English as “the hermeneutically concealed true source of the government’s inflated fiat currency.”

I propose that we should indeed nationalize the oil companies and the banks, but with the purpose of abolishing both.  The world’s dependence on oil technology and “means of production” should be radically reduced and ultimately eliminated.  No industry is more destructive of world health and the environment than the petroleum products industries.  But the wealth of the oil companies should be carefully collected, accounted for, and then invested and  administered as a true trust, operated by the government as fiduciary with FULL fiduciary liability and supervised by Congress under the debt clause of the 14th Amendment.  Likewise, the banks should be nationalized and abolished.  The real estate now held by the banks should be distributed to the people in fee simple absolute, restoring “allodial” title to all true U.S. Citizens—and yes, there needs to be a finite definition of that category, and immigration probably needs to stop, especially immigration by and through foreign investors buying up U.S. property.

Much to my pleasure and surprise I see that these ideas are not unique or individual “ho idios” to me, although I am resigned to the notion that many of my peers already think I’m crazy.  But nationalizing the banks and the oil companies is obviously, already, a concept with some support….  I am merely adding that we must not maintain them as part of the government, which is what the government is effectively doing right now—especially the banks since 2008.  What we MUST DO NOW is to nationalize the massive wealth represented and administer it as one or more fully responsible trusts to repair the damage done to the people by the lies of the past 80 years since Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the past 99 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the past 132 years since the election of Lincoln and America’s First Communist Revolution, erected by Republicans as the supporters of Corporate-Government Plutocracy against Individual land ownership and Democracy.

See:  http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11388172#page:showThread,11388172

 Population to US: Nationalize the Oil CompaniesDo it now!

by: Anonymous replies 126 03/10/2012 @ 12:41PM
Reply 1 – 20 of 126 first | prev | 1234567 | next | last
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

If any candidate proposed that (and won), they’d end up like the guy in Iran in the 1950s. Democratically-elected president, overthrown by the CIA to put in a puppet regime.

by: Anonymous reply 1 03/10/2012 @ 12:47PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Do it anyway.

by: Anonymous reply 2 03/11/2012 @ 12:11PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

I don’t necessarily want to say nationalize but take away the subsidies and tax the fuck out of them.

And then nationalize higher education and health care and you’ve got a deal.

by: LuciferTheLightBringer(authenticated) reply 3 03/11/2012 @ 12:37PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Oil Companies own Congress. You would have to first ban all Corporate Political Contributions.

by: Anonymous reply 4 03/11/2012 @ 02:38PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The top 0.1 percent are way too powerful to let any of this happen.

I think we should nationalize the banks as well, personally.

Disolve the Fed and bring the currency back into the hands of the people instead of keeping it in the hands of private bankers.

But none of this will ever happen, so wishing for it is completely unproductive.

by: Anonymous reply 5 03/11/2012 @ 02:42PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Last person who tried to end the Fed was JFK. We all saw what happened to him.

by: Anonymous reply 6 03/11/2012 @ 02:45PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]


Nationalize higher education?

Think what that would accomplish for wealth distribution (over time) and class mobility.

Make every college serve a geographical area — you live here, you go to that college. That would eliminate the rich buying their way into Harvard at five million a pop, which was the going rate a couple years ago.

Then you could also make all education free starting with forgiving student loans. That would amount to confiscating a significant chunk of the banking system which now finances college education.

Think of how much it would help ordinary people and the economy of main street if we took student loan payments out of bank vaults and put it into the pockets of consumers.

by: Anonymous reply 7 03/11/2012 @ 04:40PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

That’s true…since the oil companies own our CIA, if oil companies were nationalized as they should be…our president would be slaughtered.

by: Anonymous reply 8 03/11/2012 @ 04:56PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We should tax the hell out of them…instead the working people have to pay all the taxes and the oil companies keep all the profits. Why doesn’t our congress protect us against them?

I think every CEO of every American owned oil company should be put in prison, until things change.

by: Anonymous reply 9 03/11/2012 @ 04:59PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We have done it here in Norway, and it works out well for us.. we get tons of money in, which some of it we spend now, but most of it we save for future generation, after the oil is gone.. it ultimately goes to the people, not to greedy oil companies, Statoil was made for the Norwegian people first and foremost. Statoil is the reason we have free higher education, free health care, paid maternity leave for a year etc… I doubt we would have had all of that without our oil, and I don’t think we would have had all that without Statoil.

by: Anonymous reply 10 03/11/2012 @ 05:05PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The thing about oil companies is that most of them worldwide are nationalized already, so private companies are inherently at a disadvantage.

by: Anonymous reply 11 03/11/2012 @ 05:11PM