The Logical Ends of "Gun Control"

Arguments against the private ownership of firearms are not really arguments for safety or reductions in crime as they are actually about pacifying the public and extending control of the government in(to) a nanny state. The goal being to subject the citizenry to the whims of those who control the levers of power. Since those in power are deathly afraid of being called xenophobes or racists, they do not look at who are committing gun crimes or since when things such as school shootings became a thing. Instead they look at inanimate objects as the cause of the phenomenon they observe much as the idolator believes the object they created is the direct cause of their good or mis fortune.

The general argument is that since school/work shootings happen then to solve the problem we should ban guns. Of course the fact that those with criminal intent do not care about laws and therefore any and all laws restricting gun ownership only applies and restricts the freedom of those without criminal intent doesn't even faze these people. Indeed for them, this fact doesn't matter. They want to restrict the freedom of the law abiding because, they would feel "more safe" with the law abiding being unarmed, except police....when they are not indiscriminately shooting black people for no reason whatsoever. So the question is, what happens if all the guns are gone? By the logic of those opposed to gun ownership, the killings stop. But we know this isn't the case. See England

A judge has called for a nationwide programme to round the points of kitchen knives, and for authorities to restrict the sale of chefs’ knives to professionals amidst surging youth violence in Britain.

For those unawares, the UK has had a long standing ban on private ownership of firearms. Thus it is a perfect example of what happens when guns are not available. Now recall that we recently had a retired Supreme Court justice say that it is time to repeal the Second Amendment. Now we have a judge in "no second amendment land" calling to now ban knives because well knives are killing people, don't you know?

See, the next ban is never far away because those in power are not really interested in dealing with the problem. They are entranced by their latest totem.

Long, sharp blades are deadly and unnecessary for ordinary food preparation at home, Judge Nic Madge told Luton Crown Court last week, stating that a ban on kitchen knives would save lives.

Remember that not too long ago, the novel argument was that no one "needs" an AR. No one needs, x, y or z weapon, as if need is a prerequisite for ownership. But how soon the "need" argument becomes extended to other inanimate objects.

“I would urge all those with any role in relation to knives — manufacturers, shops, the police, local authorities, the government — to consider preventing the sale of long pointed knives, except in rare, defined circumstances, and replacing such knives with rounded ends,” he said.

Seems it never occurred to this fellow, just as it doesn't occur to many "gun control" advocates that for many hundreds of years, long knives have been in kitchens across the UK without a rash of stabbings, slashing and decapitation. What could possibly have changed in the UK where such things are so common that measures such as banning kitchen knives are even considered?

The retiring judge lamented that current anti-knife crime measures such as preventing the sale of sharp implements to minors were having “almost no effect” in limiting availability because kitchen drawers in households across the nation contain “potential murder weapons” in the shape of ordinary knives.

"Current anti-knife". Again. These things are "current". What else is "current" that didn't exist in previously "knife crime free" UK?

In order to get a grip on knife violence, police should organise a nationwide programme at which “kitchen knives, which have been properly and lawfully bought for culinary purposes, could be taken somewhere to be modified, with the points being ground down into rounded ends”, according to the judge.

"Properly and lawfully bought for culinary purposes". You cannot make this kind of stuff up.

Look, I've said it before, The UK is occupied territory. It is a fallen country that oppresses it's own native population in order to protect foreigners, even when said foreigners rape their women and children without remorse. So I don't find it strange that such statements and sentiments would come from "authorities" in that country. However; it serves as a warning to those of us in the US. It isn't about the guns. It's about the control. After the gun ban, comes the knife ban (which actually exists in some states/cities). Just as bans on speech are proceeding with quickened pace. These are the logical ends of these arguments.

The Trump-Twitter Ruling

So reading through this decision I found the following interesting:

First, to potentially qualify as a forum, the space in question must be owned or controlled by the government.

Let's see how the court decides this. Last I checked Twitter Inc. was a private company. It produces a product "twitter.com" that is offered to the public at large. Twitter can, for any reason or no reason at all, ban any user from it's platform. And it has done so. Furthermore, Twitter acts to "verify" it's users and has gone so far as to only allow speech/content that it approves of on the platform. Recently a disgruntled employee took @realdonaldtrump offline. It seems clear to the average person that Twitter, including the @realdonaldtrump account is not owned by the government since both the platform and the account can be deleted without any prior notification or approval of the government. Furthermore, while the government is allowed the "exclusive" use of the @realdonaldtrump account, it must do so under the rules set by twitter. So if anything it's control of the account is limited and definitely non-exclusive. The court says:

This requirement of governmental control, rather than complete governmental ownership, is not only consistent with forum analysis’s focus on “the extent to which the Government can control access” to the space and whether that control comports with the First Amendment, Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 800, but also better reflects that a space can be “a forum more in a metaphysical than in a spatial or geographic sense,” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995), and may “lack[] a physical situs,” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 801, in which case traditional conceptions of “ownership” may fit less well.

So the court takes the or split from the first quote and bends ownership to further it's argument.

Here, the government-control prong of the analysis is met. Though Twitter is a private (though publicly traded) company that is not government-owned, the President and Scavino nonetheless exercise control over various aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account: they control the content of the tweets that are sent from the account and they hold the ability to prevent, through blocking, other Twitter users, including the individual plaintiffs here, from accessing the @realDonaldTrump timeline (while logged into the blocked account) and from participating in the interactive space associated with the tweets sent by the @realDonaldTrump account, Stip. ¶¶ 12, 28-32, 39, 54. Though Twitter also maintains control over the @realDonaldTrump account (and all other Twitter accounts), we nonetheless conclude that the extent to which the President and Scavino can, and do, exercise control over aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account are sufficient to establish the government-control element as to the content of the tweets sent by the @realDonaldTrump account, the timeline compiling those tweets, and the interactive space associated with each of those tweets.

Having determined that the govt. has control over Trump's twitter account the court moved to the First Amendment issue:

“[a] person’s right to speak is not infringed when government simply ignores that person while listening to others,” or when the government “amplifies” the voice of one speaker over those of others. Minn. State Bd., 465 U.S. at 288. Nonetheless, when the government goes beyond merely amplifying certain speakers’ voices and not engaging with others, and actively restricts “the right of an individual to speak freely [and] to advocate ideas,” it treads into territory proscribed by the First Amendment. Id. at 286 (quoting Smith, 441 U.S. at 464).

So the heart of the matter is whether the act of blocking a specific account is "actively restricting the right of an individual to speak freely [and] advocate ideas. I don't see how the block function does that. The plaintiffs in this case could still see Trump's tweets. They could still see responses. They could still "@" Trump until their hearts were content. Nothing that Trump did stopped the plaintiffs from speaking freely and advocating ideas. What did the court think? The court decided to look at the different options available to Trump. Mute or Block.

The elimination of the blocked user’s ability to reply directly is more than the blocking user merely ignoring the blocked user; it is the blocking user limiting the blocked user’s right to speak in a discrete, measurable way.

Muting equally vindicates the President’s right to ignore certain speakers and to selectively amplify the voices of certain others but -- unlike blocking -- does so without restricting the right of the ignored to speak.

I don't see how the right of the plaintiff to speak was restricted. Again. They could "@" Trump all day long. Blocking doesn't restrict what a user can type into their tweet. Blocking prevents that tweet from reaching the person or entity that is '@-ed". What the blocked user cannot do is read the material originating from the blocked account without going through extra steps. Does the plaintiff have the right to unfettered access to Trump's writings?

a reply is visible to others, Stip. ¶ 22, and may itself be replied to by other users, Stip. ¶¶ 57-58. The audience for a reply extends more broadly than the sender of the tweet being replied to, and blocking restricts the ability of a blocked user to speak to that audience. While the right to speak and the right to be heard may be functionally identical if the speech is directed at only one listener, they are not when there is more than one.

It may be the case that a reply reaches persons other than the original speaker. But the act of blocking does not prevent the plaintiff from speaking to those other persons. Since the plaintiff admits that they can see @realdonaldtrump's tweets by other means (logging out and secondary accounts), it is clear that they are able to see who is replying to said tweets and may respond to those from whatever account they choose. Again the question I have is whether having total unfettered access to Trump's writings a right.

All that said, the following has wide implications:

That i~teractive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum 1s proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's personal First Amendment interests.

This will not only apply to POTUS. Assuming this is upheld on appeal, any person holding public office (elected or otherwise) who has either a designated social media account or a personal social media account where they engage in speech reasonably seen as a part of their public duties would be unable to block any account for any reason short of criminal behavior (stalking, threats, etc.).

One point here though. I've seen people say that this decision means that the twitter platform itself is a public space. This decision doesn't make such a claim. It is claiming that the accounts created or run by agents of the government and thereby controlled by the government are public spaces, if made available to the public (a private page/account may not be so construed).

Achievement Gaps and IT Workers

So the Urban League has jumped on the "where are the black IT workers" train. Specifically they are doing what I call the "Demographics Dance". This is where you point out that so and so makes up x amount of the general population and therefore should make up x amount of your employees, or prisoners, or whatever else. What these people don't like having discussed are the actual relevant statistics on why so and so population is overwhelmingly white, black, male or female. In the case of IT, even though there are relatively few black people with advanced computer science degrees, the rent seekers continue to blather on about the lack of "representation" at IT firms, as if these firms exist to do "representation".

In total disregard to the fact that these IT firms are doing quite well with the numbers of male and non-black employees, particularly the programmers, the rent seekers continue to make the unfounded assertion that somehow these companies could be doing better if they just put more black/female faces in the programming room. But this is not a post about that. What this post is about is the continued lack of achievement on the part of black students as the explainer of the lack of numbers. From the LA Times:

Under the previous test, last given to public school students two years ago, the gap separating Asian and black students was 35 percentage points in English. The gap increased to 44 percentage points under the new test. Asian students' results dropped the least on the new tests, which widened the gap between them and those who are white, black or Latino, the analysis showed.

English. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Trap music is not helping.

A similar pattern occurred with students from low-income families. Their scores in math, for example, declined at a steeper rate (51%) than those of students from more affluent backgrounds (16%). In the last decade, all ethnic groups made significant academic gains compared to where their scores started. But the gap separating the scores of blacks and Latinos from whites and Asians changed little.

So a "similar pattern" occurs for upper and lower income families. Black students, regardless of family income do worse than their Asian and white counterparts. What are we to do about this Asian Supremacy?

And now the relevant kicker:

. "There is something going on here when you talk about the difference in the size of the gap, particularly in math."

In that subject, 69% of Asian students achieved the state targets compared to 49% of whites, 21% of Latinos and 16% of blacks.

69% of Asian students achieved state targets in math vs. 16% of black students. There's your IT gap right there. Lets be clear. If you suck at logical thinking (which is what math develops and depends upon) you will not be doing any high level programming. Not happening. Swift doesn't care who you are. If you code incorrectly, the program will fail and no amount of cries of racism will change that.

In math, the percentage of Asians who met state targets declined 12%. White students went down 21%, Latinos 50%, black students 54%.

54% decline?

And now the excuses:

Schools that did worse may have "relied on narrow forms of test preparation, so they spent less time on critical thinking activities" which are emphasized on the test, said Maria Brenes, executive director of InnerCity Struggle, a nonprofit that works with schools east of downtown, which have mostly Latino students.

So they are saying that the black students are not performing well on critical thinking tasks. You cannot program well unless you have very good critical thinking skills. So if a majority of black students lack the math proficiency and critical thinking skills, how do you expect to see them in any large numbers in fields that demand these things?

To narrow the achievement gap, she said L.A. Unified should invest more in technology, teacher training and parent education about the new learning goals.

Technology is not the solution. Seriously. People have been developing math skills long before the advent of the computer. Critical thinking skills were developed long before the iPhone. Technology in teaching is NOT the issue at all.

"Students in lower-wealth schools that did not have extensive technology access and who do not have technology at home had another challenge in taking these tests,"

Amazingly I did well in both math and English without the use of a computer (other than a Casio calculator). Technology is not the problem.

There is a lot of fascination with technology and the internet for teaching. But the fact of the matter is that these things are not necessary in the least bit to develop math skills or critical thinking. We need to get off the tech bandwagon and get back to basics. And so long as black students fail at such high rates, we will continue to see low numbers in Tech businesses.

That Yale Student

So reading and watching the reports about the Yale student that had the Yale police called on her, I thought it was "strange" that the complaining student was so adamant about the fact that the offending student was sleeping in the common area. It seemed to me that there must be some rule that she knew about that the offending student was breaking rather than some random "you can't sleep here because I don't like it." Of course there were no reporters asking about what the rules are in regards to common areas in the dorms so I looked them up. Here's Yale's official dorm policies as it regards common areas:

Common Rooms There are common rooms in each building for social and academic gather- ings. Every resident has access to these spaces and equipment. Residents must respect the established community standards regarding the use of the space.

I'll stop here briefly. If it were just this comment, then we could say that there was a social conflict in that the "established" order was that there is no sleeping in common areas. But that "rule" not being "official" could be subject to change if the "community" decided that it was OK. But then we have this:

You may have a guest stay with you for a 3-day, 2-night period occasionally. All guests are to sleep in student rooms, not in common rooms or any other space outside of the student’s room. Keys are not issued to guests.

So here's the kicker. While the offending student is not a guest, it is still the case that sleeping in common areas is prohibited. I see no reason why the sleeping rule would apply ONLY to guests, as if resident students are expected to just lay about whenever the feeling hits them. Imagine a student with a guest who allows the guest to sleep in their room while they, the resident, sleeps in the common room. That certainly would not fly.

So it seems that in reality the complaining student was enforcing the rules as written by Yale and the offending student was at fault. Now we can argue as to whether it was a "call the police" event, but the offending student was at fault. Furthermore, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it may be the case that this was not the first time the offending student was seen sleeping in the common area. It certainly would explain the escalation by the complaining student this far into the semester.

But this is another example of an institution, in this case Yale, throwing someone under the bus for enforcing its own rules. And shame on reporters for not asking whether there was an actual rule against sleeping in common areas.

Newest Member of The Slapaho Tribe: Eric Schneiderman

As usual, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That said:

“Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did,” Selvaratnam said.

50 shades of hypocrite?

“He started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’”

I suppose she should be glad she wasn't his black slave. There may have been chains and whips involved.

Selvaratnam said, “The slaps started after we’d gotten to know each other

That's usually how it starts. No abuser worth his title starts the slapping at the first meet.

“It was at first as if he were testing me. Then it got stronger and harder. It wasn’t consensual. This wasn’t sexual playacting. This was abusive, demeaning, threatening behavior.”

Yes. Yes he was testing you. I've read memoirs of pimps and they always do something "out of place" to see how a woman reacts. If she doesn't object to the "out of place' behavior, he knows he's got his next ho.

This leads to the issue of consent. See, normal, self-respecting women would have ended the relationship after the first slap (assuming even that they accept the "your my brown slave" shit). So I can accept that the first slap was non-consensual, however...

She said that as the violence grew, so did his sexual demands.

“He was obsessed with having a threesome and said it was my job to find a woman,” Selvaratnam said. “He said he’d have nothing to look forward to if I didn’t and would hit me until I agreed.”

Wayyyyyyyyyyminute. So after the first hand to the face, I assume it was to the face. She stayed in the relationship? REALLY? See this is where I stop being sympathetic to the "victim". Nobody has to accept being slapped around. This chick is a Harvard educated woman. There's no financial reason to keep getting smacked around. This reeks of desperate chick trying to land Mr. Rich and White. So she put up with bullshit. Doesn't excuse his behavior but really though:

What self-respecting woman allows herself to be called some white man's "brown slave" and to be slapped around?

The abuse increased until Schneiderman was not only slapping her but spitting on her and choking her, she said.

And choked.

And spat upon.

Is there a peeing event we haven't been told about yet?

“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

Translation: Yes I smacked, choked and spat on the bitch but she was good with getting the D.

And those women Cosby gave downers to thought they had it bad.

The one thing that I hope comes out of this is the lesson that many of these "feminist" dudes who make a show of how much they support women are really low lives.

Voluntary Indebtedness

An article currently headlining UNZ entitled Donald Trump and the Next Crash has an interesting paragraph:

At a time when inequality, economic hardship, and household and personal debt levels are escalating and wages are not, why should any of this matter to the rest of us? The answer is simple enough: because the Fed sets the level of interest rates and so the cost of money. This, in turn, indirectly impacts the value of the dollar, which means everything you buy.

I'm going to guess that this writer is one of the left leaning of the writers found on the site due to the "inequality" commentary but what I really have issues with is "personal debt levels are escalating and wages are not" part. To be clear, I completely agree with the issue of wage stagnation. Real wages have basically stalled at 1990s levels or thereabouts. It's not all the Fed's fault either. Automation has done a lot to reshape the labour market, particularly in manufacturing. AI threatens to demolish other jobs, particularly those in the middle income areas. For example those self-checkout lines in supermarkets. The use of "scan-it" items in conjunction with self-checkout lines which, for those unfamiliar, allows the customer to scan their items as they shop and then just pay without going through the "scan each item at the register and then bag it" thing.

In the banking industry, tellers are replaced by ATMs and the increasing use of debit card transactions such that there is little reason for a customer to enter a bank, much less talk to anyone in one. AI's will be doing the loan thing in the near future, so the loan officer's job is about done.

I could go on about this topic but that's not the focus here. The focus here is on the idea that personal debt by Americans is some unavoidable phenomenon. As David Ramsey has shown, Americans are volunteering to be in debt by dint of their behavior. With the exception of medical emergencies and involuntary unemployment, debt is avoidable. When debt is taken on, it should be with a clear income producingend.

One of the biggest debts Americans have outside of their mortgages, is auto debt. It is so bad that the industry is gearing up for 84 month car notes.

In the third quarter of 2015, the average monthly car payment surged to $482, up $12 per month from the year before. But, brace yourself, it gets worse. The average term of a new car loan is now 67 months – or five-and-a-half years.

hen there’s the 84-month car loan. Consumer Affairs wrote about this awful idea last year, noting the many reasons why a seven-year car loan is the worst of all worlds. Only a few lenders have rolled out this product, the piece notes, but not because they’re worried about consumers getting in over their heads; it’s mostly because car companies want you to buy a new car more often than every seven years.

I won't sign for a 5 year note, I know for damn sure I'm not paying for a car for 7 years. Why would anyone pay for a car for 7 years? Why would you allow a company to put their hands into your bank account and take nearly $500 for 7 years? That's $42,000. On a car that averages $28,000? Really? Why would anyone do that when they can get a used car for far less? The fact is that Americans have been volunteering to be in debt. They take out home equity loans. They run up credit card debt that they cannot pay off at the end of the month and charge far more than they should. They buy clothes when they have clothes they haven't worn in years. They take vacations to places they cannot afford to go, and while there they spend money they don't have.

Americans don't have a personal debt problem. Americans have an impulse control problem.

Mind Control Media

Late last week Steve Sailer posted an item in regards to media headlines. In this case the New Yorker:

When did we start seeing this kind of headline in magazines? I can imagine a 1940 Methodist publication using the same “How Should We Think About …” formula. The Daily Worker, too. I can even imagine the 1930 New Yorker running a Robert Benchley parody of a Sunday sermon with this kind of headline.

My response to this question is that it's been going on for quite a bit of time. I can't vouch for print media but this kind of headline is common in places like The Guardian, The Independent and various other left toppled over media. Once I see a headline that starts with "how should you" or "You should be terrified" or "You'll be horrified" or "So and So's response to Such and Such was perfect..", I know that the publication is trying to prime me into an emotional state. A lot of people don't believe that repeated and suggestive statements actually affect people. There are even research that discredits things like NLP But there are billions spent on advertising that says otherwise. These repeated bold headlines are not accidental in the least bit. If you've ever had a jingle or a phrase stick in your head or be spontaneously "recalled" upon seeing a certain product or behavior, you have just proven that repeated honed messages work.

Here's how these headlines work. You see a "You'll be horrified when..." headline and the vast majority of people will go further expecting some kind of "traumatic" story to be relayed. Then when going in, the details are laid out and one has to either accept that the events relayed are "horrifying" or they are not. Here's the thing though, in order to decide that something is not "horrifying" one has to be willing to question the headline. Usually, the stories behind the headline will have framed the story (the narrative) in such a way that contradictory information is omitted or so far towards the end that the average reader will not reach it. For example it's easy to trigger African-Americans and liberal whites by producing a headline that says:

Unarmed Black Man Shot By Police.

If the story contains such a point as:

police were called after neighbors saw the suspect breaking into vehicles.

It will be near the end of the story and will make the rounds. Those who point out the "suspect was..." part, will be in violation of the "you should be horrified" narrative.

Personally, my bullshit alarm goes off every time I see a "you should" or "you'll be" headline. I know that there is an attempt to condition my mind and I immediately put up mental barriers. In fact, I generally avoid articles that have these headlines. True journalism does not tell me how I should emotionally react to information being given to me. Journalism is supposed to give me the information. I decide what I feel about it during or after.

Slavery Is A Choice. Fear A Great Motivator

So apparently there is some controversy surrounding the fact that one's state of existence is, generally speaking, dependent upon the choices one makes. This apparently has come to a shock to people who also collectively spent millions on a movie called The Matrix, particularly The Matrix Reloaded, which explained this concept in great detail. Yet here we are in 2018 and various talking heads are lambasting Kanye West (who has his issues) on his factual statement that being a slave is a choice.

The historical truth of this statement can be seen in the Republic of Haiti. For all it's poverty, that nation was created in the wake of a massive uprising of African slaves. They chose to be free rather than to be slaves. They risked life and limb to do it. Slavery was a choice. They chose not to have it.

In Brazil we have the example of Zumbi de Palmares. These Africans set up their own communities in the mountains of Brazil instead of being slaves.

In Jamaica we have the Maroons. Who escaped slavery and set up their own communities. As a matter of fact, the living descendants of these Maroons still speak a language closely related to their origins. And by the way, these Maroons were once lead by a woman who is referred to as "Granny or Nanny, depending on who you speak with"

I offer these examples of large scale decisions by communities of Africans to NOT BE SLAVES. Which stands in direct contradiction to the talking heads trying to discredit Kanye. And in this I include those who have tried to defend Kanye by saying he wasn't referring to "actual" slavery. When I did a documentary on Denmark Vesey, another Black man who refused to be a slave and laid down his life to free many Africans in South Carolina, I found many records of individual men and women who decided that they were NOT GOING TO BE SLAVES. These bold men and woman took their lives into their own hands and braved the swamps to get free. I've visited those swamps and I can tell you from personal experience that most of these know it all negroes wouldn't have the fortitude to spend one night in one of those swamps, much less navigate them while having slave catchers on their tails and rewards on their heads.

This brings us to why so many Africans did not try to escape slavery: Fear. I don't say this to denigrate the memory of those who were enslaved. Fear is a great motivator. We humans are hard wired for self-preservation. And for many the very real and high probability of death vs. staying put made for an "easy" decision. This brings to mind a skit by Eddie Murphy (I could be wrong_ that is on a mix I have:

I ain't no mutha fuckin' slave.
Ain't like those mutha fuckas wanted to do that shit.
I'm quite sure the first dude that got off the boat said "suck my dick".
Then like 10 motha fuckas with whips said
Whoppishhh!
The one behind him said
We'll bail the shit, just keep the fuck back with the whips.
Modern day soul brothers we act like we coulda never been slaves and shit.
I be hearing brothers say
Shit man if I was a motha fuckin slave

This routine encapsulates why so many stayed on plantations and whatnot. The most rebellious were executed in front of the rest as an example of what happens to "trouble". Most people fall in line when this happens. There's no shame in that. I think a lot of the anger at Kanye is because there is a lot of shame in the African-American community as it regards slavery. And therefore if anyone says anything that calls into question the motives of those who did not rebel it is taken as a personal affront.

The fact is that other than when you're born and when you die, there are no situations in your life that are not a product of some decision. Sure we can say that the African that was caught up by the slave raiders and sold off to the Europeans and shipped overseas didn't have a choice in that situation. Indeed. However nothing stopped that person from leaving or die trying than his own fear of the consequences of getting caught.

This fear is the same fear that has people staying in abusive relationships. Keeps them in gangs. Keeps them in jobs that are going nowhere. It's the same fear. On a different level to be sure, but it is the same fear: It might not work out.

So it is clear that being enslaved is a choice. Not the easiest choice but a choice none the less. There is a reason for the phrase "Freedom or Death". If those aren't the bottom line considerations, then one may well find oneself a slave. Kanye is right. The know nothing naysayers are wrong. History shows that. End of argument.

[edit: 5-3- 1PM] There is also the issue of those persons who were comfortable being slaves. To the professionally offended this concept is hard to swallow but there were a good number of Africans who were OK with their status. This was particularly the case where the owner was not "cruel" (I put that in quotes to separate that out from the inherently cruel state that is person ownership). Since a slave, like any other piece of livestock, requires shelter and food. If an owner was particularly "kind" in his providing for the material needs of his property, then, just as we see in Stockholm syndrome, a person can identify with or see himself as a part of the family of their owner. In such cases the fact that the owner has title on them is but a minor issue.

Again I'll point to research I did during my documentary of Denmark Vesey. There were many persons who were quite satisfied with their station in life. Indeed it was one of those persons who sold out Vesey (do not even THINK that it is only the so called "house negroes" who would rat out a rebellion. Some rebellions were lead and organized by "house negroes".