Posts Tagged ‘Transatlantic Slave Trade’

Transatlantic Sadism

April 25, 2016

Transatlantic Secret Plot:

A transatlantic accord is negotiated in the greatest secrecy. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, or Transatlantic Tragedy and Irreversible Plutocracy. In the USA, TIPS are highly valued. TIPS represent the moment when the power of money, the mastery of the rich over the poor, and even of deciding if the poor served well enough to deserve to eat, comes into play. It is a sacred moment: the worth of American man is determined by tipping, both as a receiver, and a donor. Thus no doubt smart propagandists in the USA thought that “TTIP” the stumbling sound of the beggar who has served, was, no doubt, alluring.

What does TTIP’s secrecy mean? Well, remember my essay on corruption: “Plutocracy Causes Cancer“? I proposed to consider that the USA was 15 times more corrupt than the Congo, because the cancer rate in the USA was 15 times that of Congo. Certainly, a corrupt body is worse than a corrupt mind, at least in the matter of survival, if not that of the matter of the honor of the human spirit. One of the main reason for the high cancer rate is food and the environment are corrupted deliberately, by adding 80,000 untested additives which cause cancer (and probably autism).

Trade Yes, Slavery No. And The Hell With Secrecy. Gangrene Should Not Be Hidden

Trade Yes, Slavery No. And The Hell With Secrecy. Gangrene Should Not Be Hidden

Thus, Plutocracy Kills. The more global trade without global laws (passed by We The People!), the more plutocratization eschewing local legislation.

Adding disease causing additives in food augments the profits of those whose burning desire and highest value, is to own the world.

Such metaphysically driven by greed individuals guide the USA, including President and Congress. How do they guide? They guide through reasoning. Satanic reasoning, that is. It is the satanic nature of this reasons that has to remain hidden. This is why Pluto can make itself invisible, according to Greek mythology. If Pluto’s vicious ways were in plain sight, people would not vote for them.

(One of the engines of violent Jihadism is the confused feeling, among much of youth, that Satan (Shaitan in Arabic, is in power)

Viciousness can be useful, and even recommended, say, to defeat… evil.  But here what we have is viciousness in the service of the few, to make the few… even more vicious. Thus, instead of viciousness fighting a greater viciousness, we have viciousness to augment viciousness.

French laws on foods have served as a model for European Union laws on food. They forbid, among other things, the systematic use of antibiotics in food (even so-called organic vegetarian food in the USA can be treated by antibiotics; in the EU, that’s forbidden even on regular foods). Overall, they favor traditional ways of preparing food.

As Bloomberg puts it in “German Scorn Could Kill the Transatlantic Trade Deal”:

“Two years ago, when negotiations for a new transatlantic trade deal were announced (it was Germany that pushed for an agreement then, by the way), more than half of Germans favored the deal. A survey released last week showed only one in five Germans want it now. To Germans, TTIP reflects a capitalism that is too finance-driven, dominated by large multinationals, cavalier about privacy and not as serious about product standards.”

In this, as in most matters political, the Germans have been contaminated by the French (I watch TV of either countries, so I observe an increasing convergence).

TTIP focuses (it seems) on “non-conventional trade barriers” like cutting the regulations around fracking. Fracking is not regulated in the US states where it is massively practiced: nobody worries about destroying those states’ ecology, same as ever was. TTIP wants to open the floodgates of Genetic Modification and Unbounded Finance whilst tightening laws that harm innovation and culture like copyright (as has just happened under Obama in the USA). The agreement could also foster the ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement‘ (ISDS) making it harder for governments to protect the interests of citizens and legislate to protect environment, workers, and all what makes life worth living for those not obsessed by private jets. Alongside the harm of TTIP, the benefits seem much lower than suggested by the MSM.

Plutocracy flies from success to success. In the 2008 crisis, half the plutocrats stole the other half, and then they were all replenished by We The People of clueless turkeys led by their great turkey leaders, gloating the all way. How is this achieved? With brazen propaganda, which goes even further, in some important respects, than the Nazis ever dare to go: Nazis were for the “Fuerer Principle” (Obey the Leader , Qur’an Sura 4, verse 59); but they also conducted plebiscites. American university professors think that, having more than a few taking the decisions is obsolete. After all they teach in places made for the wealthiest:

***

“Philosophy” American Style, Another Word For Plutocracy & The Destruction Of Democracy:

The New York Times “philosophy” series, called “The Stone”, probably because it’s bone-headed, has an answer to the question: “Should Everybody Vote?” The same answer as usual: off with We The People, long live the oligarchy: …”we rarely question… or objectively consider whether everyone who can vote ought to vote,“ entunes professor Gory Gutting (OK, I modified just one letter). This is American philosophy at its most original same question which ever was: ‘we rarely, objectively consider whether everyone who can wear a scalp ough to wear one.’ The City Of Boston objectively considered scalps, found them worthy, and paid for them. (As this was too enlightening about the American condition, scalps have been removed from public view, including in the mother ship of correct American plutocratic thinking, Harvard).

It is astounding how gross, and blatant that “philosophical” series can be. It is, of course, much admired by the individuals who, as “philosophy” professors, are endowed with chairs at the most “prestigious” American universities. Most of what they know is to determine what those who pay them, want to hear.

The author proposes to replace the present universal vote by denying the right of vote to most, 99.999% of people. This would be going all the way down the absurdity of the present system, where very few decide of everything. It goes exactly against historical and logical examples in two ways: first the Direct Democracy system, as practiced in ancient Athens and contemporary Switzerland goes exactly the other way in spirit: it makes everybody vote on the laws.

In Direct Democracy all citizens are concerned, and mobilize their minds to learn what they need to take an informed decision.

Professor Gutting guts democracy by arguing that the American jury system should be imitated. However, the American judicial system is arguably the world’s worst judiciary. US “justice” has eight million people under supervision, making the US the state with the most police repression in the world (with the Seychelles, another plutocrat friendly redoubt). In a country such as France, a jury summons is extremely rare in a citizen’s lifetime , in the US, it’s common.

In ancient Athens, a direct democracy, juries could have 2,000 members, that is 2.5% of the citizenry. A quora of 6,000 (7.5% of citizens) had to be maintained for passing important laws.

With the Internet, it should be easy to make the citizens vote on all laws. Many countries have started to use the Internet for voting (including France, a country where 50 million people vote; France at this point uses the Internet for hard to reach voters… but it is obviously a trial run).

The myth is that our great leaders know everything, and they are best at taking decisions. The reality is the exact opposite: they know very little, and because they spend most of the day like savant dogs at a circus, showing off their tricks for all to admire, they actually don’t have much brain power, let alone time to cultivate it.

It is high time to replace this circus act with real thinking before passing laws.

The present secret decision making is shrouded by is a, thus far successful, strategy to hide the stupidity of those who decide and the cupidity of those who pull their strings. In the reign of Obama, Dark, Untraceable Money, which used to be neglectable, even under Bush II, has become the norm. Don’t expect Obama to explain you that: it’s probably a secret, dearly guarded… And something that TTIP wants to augment, just as the “Treaty to Promote Trade” with Panama fostered tax evasion towards US-UK controlled tax havens.

Remember the Transatlantic Slave Trade? It was justified by the best, and if you say this to American (pseudo) “philosophers, you will be banned, you, your transparency and your honesty, let alone intelligence, all together.

Patrice Ayme’

ENSLAVED, BUT SAVED?

May 12, 2015

The short of it: Regions of Africa in the Eighteenth Century produced more human beings than they could afford (something reminiscent of what is happening today, nearly everywhere…) The solution was traditional: deliberate mass death. However, slave traders made selling more profitable than killing… Nothing too shocking, I reckon… but quite enough to melt a million snowflakes.

***

An ex-African child brings to you a NEW, SHATTERING PERSPECTIVE ON THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE: it saved lives! (A friend from India told me to remove this essay, it would endanger my reputation permanently, she insisted… But really new truths often hurt, so here it is…)

No philosophy is new, if all it does, is to tenderly stroke the minds of the past, their pet theories, and the errors of their deepest, most obscurantist emotions. Really new wisdom breaks old minds, and it hurts, yes: in spiritual matters, no pain, no real gain.

It is a given, among the self-glorifying Politically Correct, and the fashionably liberal, that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a gigantic black eye for Western Civilization, an irremediable error we should all attune for the rest of times, and all times to come, even when our ancestors had nothing to do with it, or even when some of our own ancestors were slaves, and other ancestors, masters. (For example is Michelle Obama, a descendant of both master and slave, stained with mastery, or slavery? I say, neither, and this essay explains why…)

Does that received truth, that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was abominable, hold under global, thorough, hyper-critical relativistic, fully informed scrutiny? No. It’s not that simple. Granted that slavery was an atrocity, the US leadership was one with it, and this is having a huge, nefarious influence on the USA, to this day. However, just transporting Africans out of Africa was another matter: it saved lives. A few remarks:

1) It’s a subset of plutocrats who organized the slave trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery, and didn’t profit from it (although some towns did, indirectly). Indeed, slavery had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium, thanks to Queen Bathilde around 655 CE. Plutocrats organize a lot of lucrative horrors nowadays, far from prying eyes.

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful Inside Europe Since 660 CE

Bottom Line: Slavery Was Unlawful In Europe Since 660 CE. In Africa, as in all distant history, slavery flourished, and, much worse, so did mass human sacrifices. Yest, confronted to that choice, people would prefer slavery to summary execution.

2) It is better to (let) drown Africans by the thousands as they try to reach Europe, as is practiced nowadays? (Some days, hundreds drown in the Mediterranean, because conditions are so bad in Africa, and so good in Europe, they prefer to risk death than to continue with horror in today’s Africa…)

Is it worse to be put in chains, laying on one’s back like sardines, exercised one hour a day, as during the Transatlantic Slave Trade, rather than drowning in the Med, as endured by at least 50,000 in the last few years? And on this latter point, drowning in the Mediterranean because Africa has become such a terrible place, one can’t live there, we can’t say we never heard about it (whereas most of the European population had never heard of slavery during the colonization of the Americas, as slavery was unlawful in Europe: slaves were immediately liberated… except for those of (future) US president Jefferson (who, protected by diplomatic immunity, moreover lied to his slaves and French Ancient Regime authorities).

3) At least, indeed, differently from today across the Mediterranean, slave traders were keen not to drown their expensively purchased slaves (as they wanted to sell them, and in the best conditions).

4) Coach passengers in today’s airlines are in worse cardiovascular stress positions than slaves were (the latter could lay flat). Right, that should be unlawful (and many passengers die).

Let’s dig in the slave logic.

The claim is generally made that 11 million Africans were transported in slave ships, from Africa to the Americas. Once arrived there, they were used as living robots. They were moreover generally submitted to racism, the idea that they were not quite human. Accordingly they were treated inhumanly.

Between 650 CE and 1920 CE, 18 million Africans were transported to Muslim countries. Many were castrated, and suffered high death rates, so the slave population did not increase much. Islamist jurisprudence frowned upon enslaving born Muslims (and initially Jews and Christians, except if captured in war; however, that was rescinded soon).

The transatlantic slave trade was organized by pretty satanic individuals, right.

However, differently from slaves in Muslim countries, American slaves were not castrated, and however inhumanly treated, not only suffered much lower death rates than in Muslim countries, but grew and multiplied.

African slaves in the Americas were never treated so badly that they engaged in as a large scale rebellion such as the Zanj (= East African Great Lakes Bantus). 500,000 African slaves captured the large port of Basra in Iraq, and fought for 15 years. (The largest North American slave rebellion involved barely more than one plantation, and killed a few dozen people… Who all knew each other.)

The slave population in the Americas augmented rapidly… From doing what comes naturally, namely copulation, when conditions are not so bad.

But let’s reconsider the basic point. How did Euro-American plutocrats get their slaves? By buying them. (Europeans hunting Africans down was tried a bit by the Portuguese early on, but proved way too expensive and dangerous, past the first element of surprise.)

African states and empires were well armed (with native steel arrowheads). Starting in 1300 CE, in the empire of Senegambia and Mali, one third of the population was enslaved. Slavery does not have to do with riches: the emperor of Mali went to Mecca and blinded all the Arabs with his incredible wealth (Mali was full of gold and slaves to extract it). He was probably the Earth’s richest person.

In Madagascar, half of the population was enslaved. In Zanzibar, 90%. Slavery was all over Africa, and it had nothing to do with evil white men.

And the natural question is this: had these slaves not been sold, would they have lived?

Africa was crisscrossed by wars. Ever since the Carthaginians, white men had been unable to conquer it, because Africans were expert at war, and mastered steel technology. It’s only after 1850 CE that Europeans achieved military technology so advanced that they made local, African soldiers into conquering armies (or, at least, that’s the way the French did it; the British used their own soldiers and suffered two tremendous defeats, one in West Africa, the other at the hands of the Zulus).

So would have these prisoners of war and other criminals live, but for the slave trade?

The observation is the perennial one, the great enforcer of the Dark Side in the human species: the first thing humanity always had to kill, was overpopulation.

Bartolome’ de las Casas stopped all by himself the Conquista of the Americas by Spain (he did not like the genocide and persuaded Charles V). He also condemned the African slave trade, pointing out that it “incited Africans to sell their own children”.

A fine, very humanitarian, cute and cuddly argument, but is it really true? Could one cut and paste European ethical logic onto Black Africa?

In truth we know that mass human sacrifices as happened during the Grand Customs” in Dahomey were stopped, because the captives got sold as slaves instead of being chopped into bits. Instead of killing up to 10,000 captives, it was found smarter to sell them to white slave traders (Dahomey provided up to 20% of the transatlantic slave trade). The fact is, there were too many Africans to go around, considering the state of farming then.

Hence the wars, slavery, mayhems, to control the population in many African countries (and not just African): One can’t have a population without an ecology, but one can’t have an ecology with too much of a population. That old quandary of the genus Homo evolved all of us into all too many bits and pieces of Doctor Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde.

Dahomey was not bad intrinsically: it was just organized, considering its capabilities. After the French (and Senegalese) conquered it, more advanced farming was introduced, while slavery and human sacrifices were outlawed.

It is no accident that, shortly before its civil war, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in Africa. 20% of the population was killed. In three months. (And the story is more complicated, and troubling, than usually told, as some observe that a majority of the people killed were Hutu, not Tutsi, as supported by the evidence that the “genocide” happened during the invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi “Rwanda Patriotic Front”.)

Morocco closed its last slave market in 1920. It helped that Morocco was then under French supervision. Saudi Arabia made slavery unlawful in the 1960s. (Islam, by giving a precise legal framework to slavery, allowed it to fester forever.) Mauritania, a country of ineffable charm, which I have resided in, criminalized slavery in 2007. 600,000 people, 20% of the population, are currently enslaved there (the French had abolished slavery in Mauritania in 1920, but the country became independent in the 1960s, allowing to re-establish slavery).

A well-known reason brandished to justify the invasion and occupation of Africa by European powers was the presence of slavery in Africa (the source of the Transatlantic Slave Trade). That argument failed in Christian Ethiopia, which, although attacked by Italy, was never conquered… But also was never part of the slave trade.

Amusingly, as “passengers” are packed like cattle in planes nowadays, getting strokes by the thousands, as a result, nobody points out that slaves at least enjoyed flat beds. (I had still another friend who died, yesterday, from a stroke within days of flying; not a subject airlines and their sponsors are keen to examine.)

Once transported to the Americas, slaves were branded, and treated worse than 3,500 years prior in Mesopotamia. Well, that was a problem with the inhuman character of the laws in the Americas. And yes, it is unforgivable.

However, as far as the slaves were concerned, enslaving them may have saved their lives. I am not saying that this is sure, obvious, and proven.

Just, that it seems very likely. Reality is harder than fiction.

Think, but verify.

Nowadays, slaves can be discreetly purchased in several African countries for a few hundred dollars. Meanwhile, please consider the possibility that the situation with thousands drowning in the Mediterranean, as they try to flee to Europe, is actually worse than the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

For most people, in most circumstances, it is better to be chained than to be dead. The atrocious, uncivilized slavery organized in the Americas by European immigrants and their descendants may, paradoxically, have saved lives. And it surely enabled Africa to partly colonized the Americas in much greater numbers than it would have done otherwise, and thus contribute to civilization in more ways than simply music.

Patrice Ayme’