Scroll down to read this post.


I am now running my annual July fund-raising campaign to celebrate the twelfth anniversary of the establishment of Behind the Black. For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. These companies practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.


Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Today’s blacklisted Americans: Whites and Asians at Washington & Lee U

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: repealed at Washington and Lee University in Virginia
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: repealed at
Washington and Lee University in Virginia

“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” A program to teach business practices to college students at Washington & Lee University in Virginia makes it very clear that whites and Asians are not welcome to apply, and will be shadow-banned should they do so.

The program is offered by the Williams Investment Society, or WIS, “a student organization that manages a portion of Washington and Lee University’s endowment in equity securities,” its website states.

“To promote equality of opportunity, the WIS has developed a successful diverse shadow program and we encourage you to apply if you self-identify with any of the following communities: Women, Black, Lantinx, Latin, Native American, LGBTQ+, Veterans, and Students with Disabilities,” the society states in advertising the program.

Despite repeated requests, the program refused to provide any statistics on the racial breakdown of who gets accepted, strongly suggesting that it specifically blacklists the races (whites and Asians) it does not like, and favors the races and genders it loves (blacks, women, sexual perverts, and Hispanics). Such a bigoted policy would not only violate the college’s non-discrimination policy, it would violate numerous civil rights laws. Thus, the program’s unwillingness to provide any information.

This business program is very similar to another blacklisting accounting program offered at many New York state public colleges, which initially had bluntly excluded whites, then made believe it is considering applications from them as well, though it is very clear that by demanding racial data from applicants it allows the program to shadow ban whites in advance, and do so in a manner that makes it difficult to detect.

Both programs are very typical for the modern academic culture, which is now strongly focused on the race and sex and ethnicity of each person, rather than their actual individual abilities or accomplishments. Academia today has become the equivalent of the bigoted South prior to the civil rights movement, a place where Jim Crow-type rules are used to exclude, discriminate, and harm those who happen to be of the wrong races (white and Asian) or sex (straight male).

With such bigotry and oppression as standard policy, it is astonishing that any state legislature or private donor continues to provide these racist colleges any support at all. It is time to turn the spigot off. Let them find funds instead from like-minded segregationists.

Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


  • Questioner


    Can you explain to me why the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be defended in the first place? Does this actually have a connection with the American constitution or is it not much the result of a communist infiltration of American society that began near 1945 or even before?

    Thank you.

  • Andi

    Easy way out: everyone born in the US should self-identify as “Native American”

  • James Street

    Today I’m self-identifying as a smokin hot black chick named Ja-Leenda

  • Alton

    Well lately I have listed myself as Native American, the woman taking the government form said I should change it.
    I said am 1/124th Cherokee….that’s 125 times more than US Senator Warren and I have the documentation to prove it.
    No change was made to the form…..

  • wayne

    That government woman sounds like a racist.
    ->Haven’t 124th of your People, suffered enough at the hands of the White Man?

    serendipitously, I ran across this video a few weeks ago. Lots of great factoids on Indian Reservations in general and the Navaho in particular. (No “private property,” but they have great Immigration policies.)
    (we have like’ a dozen Tribes in Michigan) ((and they stereotypically, all have Casino’s))

    “A Country Within a Country? How the Navajo Nation Works”
    (June, 2021)

  • Local tribes do the gambling thing, because if White People are going to throw money away, may as well get in on that action. Washington tribes do a decent business in fireworks. They used to do cigarettes, but not sure how that is these days, as taxes have gotten more aggressive. A tribe in central Oregon had a go at a lumber mill, but because trees are notably scarce in central Oregon, the shipping costs from where the trees were sank the operation.

    A lot of people were forced into some really, um, suboptimal places to live. Not a lot of resources; so self-support by any legal means is the order of the day.

    Fun fact: There is a gas station on the Warm Springs reservation along US 26. Oregon law does not allow self-fueling, but the Reservation isn’t entirely subject to Oregon law. You will have to pump your own gas, and I have watched residents watch drivers sit in their car for some time, waiting for the attendant that isn’t coming.

  • Questioner, while I look forward to Cotour’s take on your question, let me put in my take on it.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were justified under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as a remedy to de jure discrimination … such as the so-called “Jim Crow” laws that mandated discriminatory practices in government and business, that restricted the freedom of both people of color and whites who were inclined to respect people of color as equals.*

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The above Acts effectively got government out of the discrimination business … and therefore removed the “systemic” aspect of racism in this nation.

    But the 1964 (and 1968) Civil Rights Acts had a serious flaw … in an effort to also suppress the “cancel culture” of shunning people of color to the point that they were seriously limited in engaging in commerce, from shopping to banking to buying the home of their choice, these Acts directly prohibited private behaviors that were seen as de facto discrimination – to the point that one had to prove their innocence, when the individual customer was actually deficient in the content of their character, and you wouldn’t want to do business with them regardless of color. This undermined equal protection under the law, by inhibiting the color-blind application of the law.

    Not only did this breed resentment in whites, it exacerbated that resentment – by opening the door to the weaponizing of these laws by activists for moral outrage and profit … from the shakedown rackets of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to the “BAKE ME A CAKE!” / “OPEN UP THE GIRLS’ ROOM!” activism of the LGBT community.

    While admittedly it would have been much harder to do, the corrosive-to-liberty aspects of the 1964/1968 Civil Rights Acts could have been avoided while still assuring respect for the rights of people of color, by interdicting the “cancel culture” problem via collusion-in-restraint-of-trade/anti-trust law that would have penalized the behaviors without injecting race back into law enforcement.

    Had we taken this approach, I think that basic human decency and the profit motive would have eroded racism to the point of insignificance. By attempting to directly prohibit discrimination, it inhibited that erosion because race/color was kept as a criteria for enforcing the laws.

    * My father was in the USAF in the mid-50’s, stationed in Mississippi … and he got a taste of how Jim Crow attempts to coerce racist actions from even people with no inclination to be racist at all.

    He and a fellow airman – who was African-American – went into town (I think it was Biloxi) for some R&R, and tried to board a bus. The driver insisted that the black airman go to the back of the bus, so he and my dad did so. Then the driver INSISTED that my dad move to the front of the bus and leave his colleague in the back before the bus would move again. IIRC the driver may have threatened to call the cops if both men didn’t comply as directed. They got off the bus.

    Today, however, my father (were he still with us) would be told that he is racist and should “check his privilege” merely because of his skin color … in part because the element of coercing whites to do the bidding of Jim Crow has been forgotten in the racist broad-brushing of history by CRT supporters.

  • Questioner

    Jester Naybor:

    Thank you very much for the exact and detailed description of the problem actually addressed, which I, as a foreigner, would never have been able to formulate. With this we are of course touching on one of the most difficult problems of human coexistence. I mean, of course, the problem of the existence of the human races and what follows from it. And it is extremely difficult to argue otherwise than the prevailing mainstream suggests if one does not want to be damned and, for example, to be excluded from that blog. That’s why I’m very cautious in this regard.

    Without going into further detail on this topic, we can discuss important questions that at least touch the topic. In the discussion about the value and durability of the American constitution, the question arises to what extent, in accordance with the current political zeitgeist, essential additions and changes to the constitution are permissible without abandoning the original intentions of the authors of the US constitution or the Misinterpreting the Fathers of America.

    To give an extreme but important and significant example, we know that many of these Founding Fathers (and also some of the early Presidents of the United States – like the one on the $ 20 bill) were slave owners – that is, they owned blacks as personal property. We can therefore safely assume that the original American constitution was only intended for Americans of European descent. Blacks and Native Americans were not considered equal by the Founding Fathers – in the sense of the right – to be American citizens. Did the founding fathers have the right to do so? If there is a right to freedom of association (including states), doesn’t that automatically include the right to be excluded from participation? And if not always, where is the limit? And who determines it on what basis?

    Such sweeping changes have been made to the Constitution throughout history that are beyond the intentions of the Fathers of the American Constitution and the American state. How far can these changes go? Is there a defined limit here? How are these changes to be measured?

    Regardless of that questions, I have one other question: Shouldn’t the principle that someone is automatically an American citizen if born in the United States (which may be a fluke) be abandoned? It doesn’t make sense to define citizenship in this way.

  • Chris

    Andi – I agree!!! I regularly make this choice on forms if offered, I was born here!

  • Cotour


    That was some of Senator, Edward “Waitress sandwich” / “Help, Im drowning” Kennedy’s best work if I remember correctly.

    So ultimately its got to be a big pile of crap!

  • wayne

    good summary but I wish you would have included more on the right of association, which was severely eroded under the ’64 Act.

    “the principle that someone is automatically an American citizen if born in the United States (which may be a fluke) be abandoned?”
    –Actually, we have no, zero, none, birthright citizenship in the USA by Law. That is a made-up thing instituted by the State Department over the past 40 years.
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    –If you aren’t subject to the jurisdiction thereof, you are not an American citizen.

  • Questioner

    A little anecdote: When I was at a convention in Nashville for just under a week in 2009, I took the opportunity to visit the former estate of President Andrew Jackson, which is very close and which is now a national memorial. There I learned that President Jackson owned 89 slaves. His favorite (over) slave then found his grave not far from the grave of his former master. You can visit both there.

  • Andrew Jackson: The founder of the Democratic Party.

  • Alton


    A Female Racist?
    Yep………..Signing up for Medicare……..

  • wayne

    My brother just engaged in that exercise.
    –Are you going to concurrently collect social-security? If so, first thing you want to do is get that $148.50/ monthly Medicare premium subsidized, so it’s not automatically deducted from your SS check. (You can then take that amount and use it to pay for a Medicare Supplement Plan.)
    –Depending on which State you are in, sign up for Medicaid as well. (you qualify if your income is less that 150% of poverty level– again, depending on State.)
    If you qualify for Medicaid, chances are you qualify for SNAP (food stamps) as well, so apply for SNAP.

  • Wayne, while I agree that freedom of association has been eroded by these Acts, I wanted to emphasize the real-world implications of that concept, rather than deal with the basic, abstract principle. Mentioning “freedom of association” induces dismissive eye-rolls in the very people who need to be confronted with how counterproductive their approach has been.

    Questioner, the early history of this nation shows that the founding citizens were not in total support of slavery. It was a point of contention between the northern, industrialized states and the southern agrarian states from the get-go. Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution contained a time limit beyond which Congress could by legislation end the importation of slaves from overseas … which it did. The 3/5 compromise, often maligned because “it counted people of color as only 3/5 of a person” was in fact a way to curb the legislative power of slave states, who wanted to count their slaves as full citizens for determining Congressional seats while denying them the vote. The founding citizens were walking a tightrope to keep this nation together in its early days; hence the compromises of their stated ideals in the Declaration of Independence as we transitioned from rebellion to a real nation.

    Our founding citizens were not the first of the human species to live up to their idealistic rhetoric … but that doesn’t make the ideas they expressed in our Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights, which I consider rights beyond the reach of even a majority vote, and that the purpose of government is to secure those unalienable rights – invalid or irrelevant. In fact those ideals are the WHY behind the HOW of the Constitution.

    It took a while for We the People to form that more perfect union mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution, but we did. We were assisted in that effort by the process of amending our Constitution … a process that has been ignored more and more in the name of expedience. That lack of process has led to those sweeping changes you describe … to our detriment.

    Process matters.

  • Questioner

    Jester Naybor:

    Yes, exactly process is the right term. Thank you for your comment, but some questions about this process in particular have not been answered. Namely, had the creators of constitution already fixed or planned this change process for the constitution in the constitution itself? Such a change process needs process goals to which it aims (like any other process). Are these objectives to be found anywhere at all? And if so, are these goals fixed or also flexible again (and are therefore subject to a further process?)?

    Which political force is overseeing the implementation of the process? And where do these process owners get their legitimacy from?

    Is the process of changing the American constitution a linear process running in a certain direction (that would then be Marxist or progressive thinking) or a cyclical process that leads back to the starting point?

    You refer to certain, quasi-religious phrases in the constitution taken from natural law, like all human beings were created equal or given equal rights. The question that arises for me here is whether a constitution cannot do without such assumptions that have no relation to reality or are factually wrong (see following remarks)? What do you mean?

    [Additional remarks: Regarding point 1: In reality there are no rights for people in advance, without any prerequisites, but in reality the rights are granted from one to another group of people or negotiated between these groups in a process of power consolidation. So rights are contracts between groups of people, because dictation does not function at the long run. Regarding point 2: Man was created through a natural process (called evolution), with the result that people are not the same, but sometimes even very different. First of all, this is not a judgmental, but only a factual statement. Men and women are biological different. Children are different from adults. More capable individuals differ from not so much capable ones. More fruitful or stronger individuals from not so much fruitful or weak ones. People who spent their evolutionary development over decades in the cold regions of the planet have become different from those who stayed in the tropical zones, etc.]

  • Cotour


    1. The Founders were true Progressives and fashioned a unique manner of structuring government and governance that focused on empowering the individual in society and their freedom to live as they saw fit within the structure of the Constitution which describes the parameters within which this all takes place. And there are many different models that exist to structure society. The American Constitution is but one of those models.

    2. In order for this new concept in government and governance to operate the Founders had to recognize the existence of the individuals Rights aside and separate from government. Thus the peoples Rights are not a function of something that government grants. What you do not grant you can not take away. The peoples individual Rights are a function of something other than the concepts of man concerned with structuring a governance model. The peoples Right actually instruct government and governance and precede both.

    3. How did the Founders accomplish this separation between the peoples Rights and the governments ability to bestow Rights or with hold Rights? They identified that the peoples Rights emanated from the universe or a creator. And that structure supercede’s government and is not able to be perverted and usurped. This concept is foundational, this is bedrock, you can not get around it. This use of Rights coming from something other than government is a vehicle that was used by the Founders to cement the Rights of Americans in place. And they exist pre government. Government is in fact a function of it and not the other way around.

    4. This is what lies at the foundation of what was fashioned by these real Progressives in the form of the American Constitution. This is what makes it unique, this is what makes it brilliant and in fact Progressive. This is what most Europeans can not or have not yet been able to understand about why America is unique in all of history.

    *What is the Constitution? The Constitution is the counterbalance to the nature of man as it relates to government and the abuse of power. JGL

    What is the nature of power? IT WILL BE ABUSED! It is the nature of man.

    *Why do I always put the word “Progressive” in quotation marks as it relates to modern day politics and the Left / Democrat movement and make it subjective? Because it is the Lefts subjective interpretation of the word Progressive, and all they are promoting is in fact Marxism and the structured control of the masses for thier own purposes. They are NOT Progressive in the true sense of the word and its meaning, but the Founders were.

    a: Of, relating to, or characterized by progress
    b: Making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
    c: Of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

    EVERYTHING that the Left / Democrats propose has all been tried before and it is a fraud and is not in fact progressive. Its all just about the acquisition of and the retention of power. Their power. (And the right is no better, they just do it in different ways)

    Know the game, play the game, win the game.

    I hope this gives you a better perspective related to what America and its Constitution is actually about. You want to change it? The Constitution provides the rules for doing so. Have at it.

  • Questioner


    My answer will be a bit long in coming. I think I have an infection. I feel accordingly. Go to bed soon.

    Correction of my last comment: “replace “decades” by “40,000 years”.

  • Cotour

    I am trying to keep my answers as short and as concise as possible in order to not get bogged down in the minutia and complex details .

    You either get it or you don’t.

    If not then you will never understand what distinguishes America and its form of government / governance from all others.

    And once you fundamentally understand it no can shake the understanding that formulates your belief system. America as a concept is in fact very simple.

  • Edward

    You wrote: “We can therefore safely assume that the original American constitution was only intended for Americans of European descent. Blacks and Native Americans were not considered equal by the Founding Fathers – in the sense of the right – to be American citizens.

    Your assumption is not safe to make, as it is not true at all. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to prevent slavery from being part of the Declaration of Independence and to prevent the Constitution to prolong slavery. At the time, “life, liberty, and property” were the basic rights of man, but the slave owners could have taken the right to property as justifying slavery, so the Declaration of Independence substituted “liberty” for “property.” The equality and sovereignty of the American Indian nations (I am a native American*) was acknowledged and protected by the Constitution.

    The “three fifths rule” in Article I, Section 2 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 referred to the number of representatives for each state: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States …” so this limited the number of Congressmen that came from the slave states. Since these representatives would not have been representing the slaves but the owners, one would think that it should have been that the slaves didn’t count at all. If you think that this number should have been that each slave should have counted as a whole person necessarily means that you are pro-slavery.

    Shouldn’t the principle that someone is automatically an American citizen if born in the United States (which may be a fluke) be abandoned? It doesn’t make sense to define citizenship in this way.

    This is not what the Fourteenth Amendment says. The second part of the first sentence is currently being ignored, the part after the “and,” as quoted by Jester Naybor in his first comment, above. It is not one condition for natural citizenship but two. That the country has ignored the second condition for the past half century is a crime that was foisted upon us by those who would corrupt our nation and our sovereignty.

    There I learned that President Jackson owned 89 slaves.

    Andrew Jackson helped found the Democratic Party, which was formed specifically to defend the institution of slavery. As president, he ordered what is now known as the Trail of Tears. The Democrats have always been severely racist and are still. However, they now have had to hide their racism by being more subtle and by blaming all whites as racist by nature.

    The Democrats make it seem as though blacks cannot live without white intervention, such as the need for Affirmative Action so that blacks can get jobs, pretending that they are not qualified otherwise. With this attitude it is too easy to fall into the trap of thinking some people just aren’t as good as others and need a hand up or a handout. The trap is so easily sprung that many conservatives that I know will say that someone is an Affirmative Action choice. One conservative friend of mine likes to say this about Obama’s presidency. Thus, Democrats make sure that racism is subtly and carefully taught to those who otherwise would not be racist. The Democrats have implemented a soft racism of low expectations; it is not blatant but is subtle. Racism is not in the genes, as Obama said, but it is in the teaching — it is nurture, not nature. That is why Democrats are so eager to put critical racism training (CRT) in our schools.

    Rodgers and Hammerstein told us in their play and movie “South Pacific” that racism has to be carefully taught. They knew what the Democrats still don’t know. (4 minutes, medley: Rodgers & Hammerstein “South Pacific” and Sondheim “Into The Woods”)

    Such a change process needs process goals to which it aims (like any other process). Are these objectives to be found anywhere at all? And if so, are these goals fixed or also flexible again (and are therefore subject to a further process?)?

    The goals are right there in the Preamble: “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” This encompasses the three purposes of government: 1) protect from foreign and domestic enemies (“insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, secure the Blessings of Liberty“), 2. peaceable resolution of disputes through an indifferent third party (“establish Justice”), and 3) stay out of our way (“secure the Blessings of Liberty“)

    The Founding Fathers understood that they were not writing a perfect constitution and that the government that they were forming was not perfect, so they made it possible to make improvements — to make both more perfect — through amendments. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, which protect our rights (rights shall not be violated, infringed, or abridged), not grants rights.

    Which political force is overseeing the implementation of the process? And where do these process owners get their legitimacy from?

    The political force is our elected officials, who — in the United States — are falling down on their overall jobs. The owners are We the People, and our legitimacy, as well as the legitimacy of the political force, comes from the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Is the process of changing the American constitution a linear process running in a certain direction (that would then be Marxist or progressive thinking) or a cyclical process that leads back to the starting point?

    Read the Amendments and tell me. I’m not quite certain what you mean, and we have one Amendment that nullifies another, which may be what you mean.

    In reality there are no rights for people in advance, without any prerequisites, but in reality the rights are granted from one to another group of people or negotiated between these groups in a process of power consolidation.

    Ah! And thus is the trap that captures the rest of the world. It is the difference between the Declaration of Independence plus the Bill of Rights and the assumptions of the rest of the world’s governments. Even the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights falls into the trap of granting rights to people rather than acknowledging the natural nature of rights. Even the animals in nature have natural rights, such as speech (birds sing, lions roar), travel, association, self defense, property (e.g. territory and food), etc. The UDHR is written as granting rights, not as forbidding governments from violating inherent rights, as is made clear in Article 29, Clause 3, which allows for the violation of these “granted” rights.

    The difference is that those who are granted their rights only do things with the permission of their government (“everything which is not allowed is forbidden”), while those of us with natural rights do things unless government forbids it (“everything which is not forbidden is allowed”). The liberty** to do as we please is why de Tocqueville was so surprised and enamored by democracy in America. We make great things happen (e.g. Starship) while the rest of the world comes to America in order to make great things happen (e.g. Elon Musk). It is all a matter of attitude. Just as Affirmative Action changed the attitude of Americans, we are slowly being carefully taught to think like the rest of the world, losing our unique ingenuity and exceptionalism — American exceptionalism comes from our natural freedom, a concept not observed in the rest of the world, explaining why you, Questioner, deny the existence of natural freedom and natural rights.

    If rights are granted from one to another group of people, then who granted them to that first group so that they have the ability, or right, to grant them to the second group?

    * Definition of “native:” a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.

    ** Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

    Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

    These are similar but subtly different concepts. We are discovering that much of our social media is not allowing freedom, but we still have most of our basic liberties safe from government restrictions. (Or we did before the Wuhan flu.)

  • Max

    If a document asks for my race, I always write “human”.

    Many very good answers to questioner’s question… i’m not sure what I could add.

    The founding fathers inherited a 250 year old broken system from Spain, France and Britain. Slavery in the Americas was well-established. The “right of kings” only allowed “privileges” to its subjects that can be withheld on a whim. This flawed system of the powerful taking advantage of others is human nature and is acknowledged in every society for all of human existence. (even the culturally advanced Roman empire had a well-known slavery system that gave limited legal rights to the slave… But then parents in Rome also owned their children, who’s privileges were given to them by their parents until death)

    As British subjects, everyone in the colonies were slaves… surfs, “Subjects” of the king. Some of the liberties the royalty took with their subjects we’re legendary in the colonies. Things got so heated that it led to the declaration of independence… (The colonist were no longer going to allow British soldiers to quarter with their daughters as they traveled from town to town)
    Established laws prevented the slaves gifted, purchased, or inherited by the founding fathers from just releasing them or selling them… Different original colonies had different laws depending on their custom. The writing of the constitution after the war of independence changed everything, breaking contracts and traditions.
    Having the right to life, liberty, property was a privilege at the time. As Edward noted, property was removed and substituted for the pursuit of happiness because it was pointed out that humans were considered property at the time. This is inconsistent with the declaration of independence we’re “all are born equal”.

    The original colonies were religious people fleeing Europe for freedom to practice their beliefs, and believed strongly that slavery was a sin.
    Nevertheless, The south was populated by thousands of descendants of unwanted inconveniences that had money… Populated by the children of royalty. Surplus from europe’s concubines or exiled spoiled brats wishing their own lands and servants, which they were not allowed to have without restrictions in the “formal courts” of Europe!
    With seemingly endless room in the New World, particularly in the French south. (dixie is the nickname for Dix which is French for the $10 bill what was the strongest currency in the Americas for a long time)

    Slavery did not end with the civil war. It merely became more creative in its way of enslavement. People in Europe were told that the “streets in America were paved with gold”, to entice them to a life of “indentured servitude” for the price of passage to America.
    When they got here, they found out they were lied to… The streets were not made of gold but of mud and they were expected to “pave” them.
    The industrialized north had many white slaves as the farming south…

    With modern work agreements, you can enter into “enslaving” your intellectual property, non-competitive clause’s, or non-disclosure. Severely limiting your freedoms of what you can work, say, or do for fear of being sued.
    Unfortunately this is the result of the dissolution of constitutional government “by the people”, being watered down and dissolved by “corporate government”, managed by administrative law, not elected officials.
    Here is an example of “corporate” planning the destruction of the normal for their own benefit;
    (Picture the world as an ant farm, these are the ones who tip it upside down and are shaking it)

    Wayne has it right, being born here does not make you a citizen. In fact no one in America is a citizen until they become of age. In the old days, you must pass a civics test, then turning 21 (18 now) meant becoming an independent adult, getting a Social Security number, the right to vote. Becoming a citizen!

    “–If you aren’t subject to the jurisdiction there of, you are not an American citizen”
    If another country own’s you, moving to America does not absolve that, you’re still under the jurisdiction of that country. And your children as well. They have every right to come here and retrieve their property (every country is different) against your will.

    I witnessed this firsthand when French officers showed up at a garage I worked at in 1984 to enlist (draft) a French citizen into the foreign Legion against his will. (American servicemen stationed in France had a baby with a French girl, and later married and returned to America where the child grew up…) He had to give up his French citizenship to avoid mandatory service.

    As a final note, much of our political system was based upon a system never seen before in any European land… Used by the American Indians. The tribe would agree by the consent of the governed who their leaders were. (it was not done necessarily by birthright) The leaders could be taken down in the same way. Any member of the tribe who disagreed, had freedom to leave with no penalties. Many of our words in government come from native American language as there was no similar word in the English language. Chief, caucus, and others…

  • It seems to me that it would useful for everyone in this discussion of slavery in the British colonies to read my book, Conscious Choice. Though many of the statements defending the Founding Fathers are roughly right, the history of slavery in the southern colonies leading up their actions is important to know. Questioner above all needs this education, because he apparently comes at the problem thinking the South represented all of British America. It did not.

  • Andi

    When I see a form that asks for race, I am very tempted to put down something like “50-yard dash”

  • Questioner … you asked, which political force is overseeing the implementation of the process? And where do these process owners get their legitimacy from?

    As Edward described, the political forces that oversee the process derive their legitimacy from “the consent of the governed”, as the Declaration of Independence states as a fundamental principle underlying legitimate governance. But even then, that legitimacy is bounded by the principle immediately preceding that phrase: “deriving their JUST powers”. As in, powers that are consistent with the objective of legitimate governance stated in that same sentence: TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS … and not to be granted to government if they work against that objective, even if the majority desires their implementation.

    “Forces” being the operative term … for our government is configured as a set of multiple jurisdictions, each with limited scope and power, that our Constitution puts into a quasi-competitive relationship with each other.

    Our Federal government is divided into three co-equal branches – Executive, Legislative, Judicial – that often have conflicting ideas/interests. The Legislative Branch is further is divided into two distinct groups, both of whom must approve any new laws. The House of Representatives is designed to reflect the will of the people by its seats being apportioned on the basis of state population; the Senate was originally designed to give an equal voice to each state government (which the Seventeenth Amendment weakened to some degree, by mandating the direct election of senators by the citizens of their state).

    It is the states, however that have regained their importance in the last few years, with a resurgence of respect for the doctrine known as “federalism”, where the ability of the Federal government to override state decision-making is significantly limited (see the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution). In particular, federalism has respected the rights of states (Florida and South Dakota are prime examples) to not let themselves get stuck in the stupid of WuFlu panic-demic the way that, say, NY did. And the states have a large voice in changes to the Constitution – it takes 38 states to ratify an amendment.

    Another example: when properly applied, federalism is also what can bring the proper balance to the thorny issue of firearms ownership … if the Federal government is limited to enforcement of the Second Amendment as written, it can keep the states honest when it comes to dealing with the various safety/law-enforcement issues pertaining to gun ownership, while the states can keep the Federal from imposing its will upon all states – a “healthy tension” that protects our individual rights in this areas. But the key word is “IF” …. IF the Federal government respected those limits.

    Where the problems are occurring in our governance, however, is consistently the result of NOT following the separation of powers I just described, as well as bypassing the Constitutional processes through executive orders, judicial activism, and the Federal levels unilaterally intervening in areas where the states are the designated authorities …. and conversely, state officials outside their legislatures changing election procedures unilaterally in the name of WuFlu, without regard to the Constitutional delegation of that authority to the state legislatures and Congress.

  • wayne

    Rage Against The Machine
    Bullet in the Head

    “Believin’ all the lies that they’re tellin’ ya,
    Buyin’ all the products that they’re sellin’ ya.
    They say jump and ya say how high,
    Ya brain-dead.
    Ya gotta {Brandan}bullet in ya head.”

  • Just throwing this out:

    I know where the ‘Brandon’ meme originated.

    I know, and work with, a man named Brandon.

    I, personally, would not be real pleased if my name was a synonym for an epithet.

  • Questioner

    I’ve been sick for three days and preferred to go to bed to make it go faster. Unfortunately, I don’t have a Covid test in-house. Feels like a “normal” flu infection. Loss of appetite, mild nausea, headache and body aches.

  • Max

    Let’s go Brandon (LGB) is highly specific and shouldn’t be taken personally. There are many people with joke names that must live with them their entire lives. Mike Hunt for example. It’s a regular feature on the Simpsons to call up Mo’s Bar… Regardless the epithet is evolving, people are beginning to use the name of the person they’re talking to as in “let’s go Steve”, “let’s go Joe”.

    The ultimate in blacklisting/silencing.
    A specialist in the field of graphing oxide, upon hearing that the product was being used in the vaccinations, created a video warning people in Germany of the ramifications.

    Graphene oxide is a remarkable substance with more surface area than any other small molecule with the ability to deliver drugs directly into the cell, even bypassing the blood brain barrier. Now we know why and how. His video in the above post explains all… And was the reason for him being beaten to death while in custody.

  • Questioner

    Positive according to the self-test. I feel better on the third day. The appetite has returned. It was like a mild flu. Now I know Covid-19 from my own experience.

    Please understand, however, that it will take some time for me to reply to comments.

  • wayne

    An absolutely valid observation!

    Good luck with that.

    Heard something about that adjuvant over the weekend.
    (For what reason, are they not using killed virus?? What we need— ALL the internal development emails, and that includes their private gmail accounts)

    a musical interlude….

    Tom MacDonald
    “Fake Woke”
    January 2021

  • wayne

    “I Will Not Be Leaving Quietly”
    Five Times August (July 2021)

    “You can mute me, strike and dispute me.
    Dumb down the rest, yea, but I’ll keep refusin’.
    You can pretend like you’ve seen the last of me,
    But I will not be leaving quietly no.”

  • Cotour


    Feels like a “normal” flu infection. Loss of appetite, mild nausea, headache and body aches.

    Sounds like Omicron to me.

  • Cotour

    Two revealing headlines:

    What is the basis for a determination of either just plane old vanilla government incompetence, or international crimes against humanity?

    * “Boris Johnson Warns of a “Tidal Wave” of Omicron, Pushes Booster Shots as UK Raises Covid Alert to Level 4 ”

    * “Brazilian City Cuts Hospitalizations and Mortality Rates in Half After Implementing Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID”

    The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but you can bet that there is heaping of a significant of both IMO.

    WHY? Why will the governments of the “Civilized” west and their health agency officials NOT inform the general public, especially as this Omicron events rolls out world wide and is very infectious / transmissible about the benefits of Vitamin D, Vitamin K and zinc as a base health series of supplements that can help ensure that if and when they contract Covid that they will survive and having to overwhelm the health systems of patients?


    Maybe they see their vaccine push as being undercut? No one cares if your theory of what should happen in reality is not playing out for you! This entire world wide failure in healthcare and *NEW* technology is a cluster Brandon.

    A monumental failure and there are indications that governments have been coopted by big tech and big pharma in pushing this what can only be described as the Globalist / Socialist agenda.

    Willfully stupid at some point is just not acceptable. And when things become clearly injurious and irrational, then that becomes criminal IMO.

  • Cotour

    A Democrat that I actually agree with:

    Governor of Colorado:

    “Everybody had more than enough opportunity to get vaccinated,” Polis told the station on Friday. “Hopefully it’s been at your pharmacy, your grocery store, a bus near you, [or at] big events. At this point, if you haven’t been vaccinated, it’s really your own darn fault.”

    Do your own due diligence, take responsibility for your health and what helps to support it, and if you are in older and higher risk category? The still experimental vaccine may be a reasonable choice for you.

    BUT, the government and their health agencies have failed miserably in properly informing the population of most all western countries in favor of exclusively pushing this still experimental vaccine. And that failure is to my judgment is by agenda.

    Remember, Fauci himself has been revealed to take 6000 IU of vitamin D every day, but he will not tell you to do the same. WHY!?

    He refuses to speak about either the proper supplements or the off label use of other therapies that have been demonstrated to have a positive effect in keeping people from being taken out by Covid. They may not prevent you from getting Covid, but if you do you are much less likely to have to be hospitalized and you are more likely to survive.

    If the powers that be were concerned about peoples health and NOT overwhelming the hospitals with Covid patients, even if it gave them a 10 percent advantage these “OTHER” protocols and therapies should be being given and the people should be being informed as to how they can improve their health and in turn properly , naturally fight Covid. But none of them will indicate and properly promote either.

  • Questioner

    Thank you very much to everyone who has taken on the questions I raised. I’ve recovered a little now, can write a little, here to Edward.

    I want to stick to something further to the simplest and most obvious truth, namely that there are no natural, but only by men set (i.e. positive) rights. The talk of natural law comes from the one group that is involved in a power-sharing process that takes a seemingly morally higher point of view to appear superior to other groups.

    In the end, all rights comes from the barrel of a gun. An example: The fact that there is such a thing as an American constitution that was applied in reality is not due to any fictitious natural rights, but solely to the fact that the then English king was militarily defeated. He was then forced to accept the sovereignty of the young United States.

    (Just a side note: in the case of a more capable and energetic king, things could have turned out quite differently).

    The rights of states or countries among each other result from the respective existing possibilities to threaten the other countries/states and in extreme cases to destroy them (taking into account the costs for oneself). Therefore, the United States is today the country with the most enforceable rights, behind which stands alone the superior power of the US military (and not God).

    Internally, too, the law can only be enforced because, at the end of the day, the state has the power of arms. The applicable laws were previously negotiated in a power or negotiation process between those who participate in state authority.

  • Edward

    In the end, all rights comes from the barrel of a gun.

    This is the difference between the thinking of Americans and the rest of the world. Before that barrel of the gun can grant rights, they must come from somewhere else, after all, where did the rights come from before there were guns (or swords or rocks)? They were natural rights, just as natural animals have rights.

    I am continually amazed how so many people believe that only humans lack natural rights, even though all the rest of nature has their natural rights.

    The barrel of the gun does not grant rights, it can only take them away. Before that gun comes along, I have all my natural rights, but once that gun arrives, then the person behind that gun has the power to take away my rights, not to grant me additional rights. If I am the one with the gun, then I can only take away someone else’s rights, not give myself new rights or give my victim new rights.

    The barrel of the gun can protect my rights from a usurper, which is why we have armies and navies. On occasion, those armies and navies are used to remove the rights from others, but that is being a usurper.

    [The] English king was militarily defeated. He was then forced to accept the sovereignty of the young United States.

    King George was financially defeated and forced to allow the colonies that revolted their own freedom and rights. The Declaration of Independence lists the grievances of these colonies, often they were complaints of violated natural rights, the loss of liberty and the inability to pursue happiness.

    But who gave the King the right to grant rights to the American colonists? Was it nature or God? Was it the populace he ruled (consent of the governed)? Was it something else? According to many monarchs, they ruled by divine right, that God gave them the right to rule and bestow rights upon their people. It is why the religious cast crowned them. Americans didn’t have a king to grant them rights, therefore, they acknowledged that rights came from the actual source, nature or God.

    Even animals in nature have natural rights, such as communication (birds chirp, lions roar), travel, territory, life, self defense, liberty, reproduction, pursuit of happiness, etc.

    Those who believe that rights come from someone else have never yet managed to answer the question: “if rights are not natural, then who gives the rights to those who grant them to the rest of us?

    My new question is: “since animals have natural rights, then why don’t humans?

  • Edward

    (Misspelling note: in my previous comment, the proper spelling is “religious caste.”)

    There are several people here who have argued, as Questioner has done, that our rights are not natural but come from someone else, come from government, or come from the barrel of a gun. I want to make it clear that my two unanswered questions are open for any and all to answer. I do not intend for them to be rhetorical but to be practical:

    1) “If rights are not natural, then who gives the rights to those who grant them to the rest of us?”

    Put another way: if it isn’t nature (or God), then what is the root source of our rights?

    2) “Since animals have natural rights, then why don’t humans?”

    Put another way: why are the rights of we humans required to come from a different source than the rights of the rest of the Animal Kingdom?

    These cannot really be such difficult questions to answer.

    Questioner wrote: “The talk of natural law comes from the one group that is involved in a power-sharing process that takes a seemingly morally higher point of view to appear superior to other groups.

    This sounds like Questioner means the concept of American Exceptionalism (or ran out of arguments and tried to change the subject). This concept is not to say that Americans are superior to the rest of the world, as Americans come from the rest of the world; we’re a conglomeration of people from the rest of the world; we are the rest of the world. The difference is the freedoms that Americans take as natural rights and the liberty that we have from governmental interference. The exceptionalism is the freedom and liberty to be innovative without undue government limitation. For example, the French wine industry was required by its government to not change their wines, the best in the world, but California’s wine industry was free to improve their wines, and in 1976 California’s wines beat French wines in a competition held in France. Government interference may appear innocuous or even helpful, but it can be very harmful to improvement and exceptionalism.

    These freedoms and liberties have been reduced in recent decades and especially reduced in recent years, slowing down our ability to do as many ingenious things than in the past.

    As an example, Starship is being developed in Texas, a free state, not in California, where Falcon was developed back when that was also a free state. These days, California tells its people how to live their lives and how to run their businesses. California has become much more like the rest of the world, and its people are hampered in ways similar to the rest of the world. There was a time, just a few years ago, when Starship was going to be built in California, but apparently SpaceX came to its senses and realized that it is a bad place to do business. The people in California have less chance to be innovative than those in Texas. For the same reason, the people in the rest of the world have less chance to be innovative than those in Texas.

    Why do we have these freedoms in the United States? We understand that our rights belong to us through nature, not through the barrel of a gun, not granted by government, and not granted by another person. California is acting as though it has granted us our rights and is now removing them. The state has the gun barrels and uses those barrels to usurp our rights, not to grant them.

    That these rights are natural rights, not granted by man or gun, is why the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were intended for all, not just the white population. “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” It is why the Bill of Rights is not written to grant rights but to forbid government from denying us our natural rights and limits the rights of government to the minimum needed to support the Preamble.

    The communist that Questioner was paraphrasing in a previous comment, Mao Zedong, said that political power, not rights, comes from the barrel of a gun. Political power is the ability to usurp other people’s rights, as the communist wanted to do, or to protect rights, as government is supposed to do and as the Second Amendment intended.

    The Statue of Liberty was intended to be a beacon, shining a light onto the rest of the world, showing the world how to do things better, with more liberty and more freedom. Due to the poor choice of a poem for the base of the statue, most people think that it is supposed to be a beacon beckoning the rest of the world to come to America. It is a shame that American Exceptionalism failed to spread to other parts of the world.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.