Freedomain

Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was abandoned by his father and was suicidal for many years? Do you know the hidden story behind how Lincoln became preside...

Here's a page for a Freedomain Radio meet-up we're setting up outside of the conference itself.https://www.facebook.com/events/840922185933883/ If anybody has any good venue suggestions, I'd love to hear them!

Great question... As far as having an impact on me, the Aiming at the Headstone podcast about living from the deathbed back had the biggest effect on my day to day life. Overall, maybe On Truth, Real Time Relationships and The Bomb In The Brain stuff. Really tough to say...

I'll be there!

No. We were around 70,000 at this time last year, so we've actually doubled in the last 365 days.

Stefan Molyneux uncovers the obscured and barbaric history of Slavery to unearth important lessons that can and will change the future. What is the truth about slavery? Sources https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076 http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery http://www.fsd157c.org/Documents/TeacherFiles/SouthernColonies_10_6_2013_5_06_59_PM.pdf http://8-1chains.wikispaces.com/The+Growth+of+Slavery+in+the+1800's http://secularafrican.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/european-slaves-in-the-islamic-empire/ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=44940 http://www.salon.com/2000/06/15/white_slaves/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664862/The-forgotten-history-of-Britains-white-slaves.html http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-forgotten-white-slaves-part-ii-nehesy/ http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimslavery.htm http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-arab-slave-trade-and-200-million-non-muslim-slaves-of-all-skin-colors/ http://takimag.com/article/islams_role_in_slavery_jim_goad/print#axzz2tQCV3evW Transcript Hi everybody! Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio. Hope you're doing well. This is the "Truth About Slavery". Now, why are we even going to talk about such an ancient and evil institution? Well… We really don't understand the history of slavery, we cannot identify it's causes and we therefore have a very tough time fighting it's echoes and remnants in the here and now; and I'd would really like to make the case that we can put an end to human once and for all, but first of all we have to understand what it is and where it came from. So, let's dive in, shall we? Thank you so much for your time. So, the history of slavery… Slavery is an ancient institution common to all cultures throughout history up until the 19th century and in many places into the 20th and 21st century. How did you become a slave? Well, you became an insolvent debtor, ran out of money, you were sold into slavery by your parents, or you were born to slave parents a lot of times, or you were captured through kidnapping by slave-raiders and pirates—particularly the Barbary Coast. Slave dealing was an accepted way of live throughout all of human history, fully established in all societies, unopposed by religion—in fact, almost always supported by religion: Christians supported slavery through the Old Testament, Muslims supported slavery explicitly, and Jews supported slavery—ran a lot of the slave trade. Now, a lot of the slaves in the world throughout history were white people or Europeans. In fact, the very word "slave" comes from "Slav" or the people from Eastern Europe. Now, the reason why "Slav" became "slave" was because for thousands of years they were subjected to every conqueror who swept through the region: Celts, Greeks, Romans, Barbarians or the Conans, the ancient Greeks who a lot of Westerners get culture, art, music, and philosophy from… were utterly dependent on slavery. Plato's "Republic", one of the first blueprints for fascistic-totalitarianism in the history of the world, was firmly based on slave labor. Plato himself said that owning fifty or more slaves represented the possessions of a wealthy man. Under Roman law, rebellions against your slave owners were kind of discouraged. So, if your slave owner was ever found killed, all of the slaves—all of you would be put to death. There was Roman slave owner who was found murdered and 400 of his slaves were put to death. So …little tough to get out of the institution. 0 A.D., or when Christ was born, half the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves. Now, not really known, very often up to one-half or more of the arrivals in the American colonies early on were white slaves—we'll get into that a little bit later. They were slaves for life. Generally, the slavery was hereditary. Some of them were called "indentured servants". So they would sign up or be kidnapped and sold into bondage, and yet these contracts were generally extended at will. Nobody was really there to enforce them. It was rare in America to own slaves. At the very peak of black slavery in America, only 6% of southern whites owned slaves—this, of course, would be the richest 6%; and we'll get into how they use the State to maintain slavery, in just a few minutes—so, if you include all the white people in the North at the very height of slavery, only 1.4% of white Americans owned black slaves. Monstrous, immoral… that was the truly evil 1% of the day. Slavery, of course, was indigenous to African and Arab countries before it made its way to Europe. Slavery was largely practiced by the tribes of American Indians, long before Columbus came to the New World. Ethiopia had slavery until 1942, Saudi Arabia until 1962, Peru until 1968, India until 1976, Mauritania until 1980. Also, coming a tad late to the anti-slavery party, was the Catholic Church because certain passages in the Old Testament sanctioned slavery, the New Testament didn't give any clear teachings to abolish it. In 1965, the second Vatican council declared that "without qualification" that slavery was "an infamy that dishonored the Creator and was a poison in society". To be fair, Christians, theologians mostly, followed Saint Augustine in arguing that slaves should be treated well and they did discourage the owning of Christian slaves. Blacks owned slaves even in America, according to the United States' census of 1830. In just the one town of Charleston, South Carolina, 407 black Americans owned slaves themselves. One study has concluded that 28% of free blacks owned slaves, which is far higher than the free whites who owned slaves. It was a lot of a class thing. I mean, the rich whites would own slaves. The poor whites hated slavery and hated the institution, for a variety of reasons we'll get into—not least of which, was the fact that it drove down the price of labor to the point where they found it almost impossible to compete. Now, what are some of the myths? Slavery is often portrayed as a free market phenomenon that had to be ended by governments, but the reality is there were, in fact, only two countries in the history of the world that found it necessary to end, or at least attempt to end, slavery through civil war. One was the United States of America, and the other was Haiti. Of course, the Civil War—as we'll get to in the next presentation, "The Truth About Abraham Lincoln"—didn't have anything to do with slavery, but had more economic motives. So, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon that existed from pre-history until the 18th and 19th centuries when Western powers—particularly, England—ended it as a moral crusade. Now, why was so many Africans enslaved? Well, one of the reasons was because the African rulers, within Africa—particularly, in southern middle Africa—were endlessly warring against each other; civil wars and so on. They would capture slaves and they would bring them to the seaports where Europeans and the Arabs would pick them up. Some Arabs went inland, but, you couldn't, as a white person, couldn't go into Africa. I mean, the average life expectancy for a white person going to Africa was eleven months. You just get downed by big and small animals—lions or bugs of various kinds—cholera, and so on. So, they had to get caught by the black rulers and then they would be shipped off to the ports where they would be picked up by the Arabs and the Europeans. England as a moral crusade—led by a man we'll meet in a moment—was ended by attacking the slave ships agitating for the removal of government support for slavery—which is really essential—and, bribing slave owners to release their slaves, or buying their property. Of course, you can't, under common law, retroactive law is not valid. I can't say something was illegal five years ago and charge you for that. So, what was legitimate property had to be bought; and British government did spend a lot of blood and treasure trying to end slavery. So, I mean, this is one of the great misconceptions of history. So, western Europeans were very late to the party. The Muslim slave trade went on for fourteen hundred years. The Christian slave trade went on for a few hundred years; they were late to the party, they took very few of the slaves—as we'll see— they treated their slaves far better than what occurred in the Muslim countries—as we'll also see. So, Europeans ended up fighting against slavery. Europeans ended slavery; and therefore, you only ever hear Europeans being blamed for slavery. This is horribly unjust. Look, if we want to move the moral standard of mankind further up, which I think we all want to do, let's stop attacking everyone who shows the first sign of conscience and better behavior in the world and only ascribe the blame to them. Let's not look at European guilt as a mineable resource which you can squeeze with state power to produce the diamonds of fiscal transfers. So, let's look at the Eastern trade. So, you know about the Atlantic slave trade, I'm sure. What is the Eastern slave trade—which was the Trans-Sahara slave trade—going to the Muslim countries? So, the death toll from fourteen centuries of the Muslim slave trade in Africa is estimated at a little over a hundred and twelve million people; and remember, this was at a time when the world was quite a bit less populated—which had a lot to do with the Muslim slave trade and its excellence at depopulating and disassembling human beings. Historian, Robert Davies, estimates North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than a million Europeans between 1530 and 1780. Half a million black African slaves ended up in North America. Twice that were kidnapped by North African Muslim pirates. It's a power differential, it's not a race thing, fundamentally, slavery. Scraps of history indicated the Muslims enslaved over a hundred and fifty million African people—about fifty million from other parts of the world. That's not good and I guess we can hold our breath waiting for the Islamic culture to stop making it's apologizes and for people to press Islamics for reparations. Now, one thing that's just horrifying and tragic, I mean, all of slavery is horrifying and tragic, but there are things that stick out even in this horror. Why does the Arab world not have a large black population? I mean, they took a lot of black slaves; they marched them across the Sahara and sold them at slave auctions Middle Eastern world. Why? I mean, America's got a big black population. South America has a big black population as a result of slavery. Why aren't there any, really, in the Middle East? Well, historian, Bernard Lewis, provides and answer, "one reason is obviously the high population of eunuchs among black males entering the Islamic lands, another is the high death rate and low birth rate among black slaves in North Africa and the Middle East". In about 1810, Louis Franc observed in Tunisia that "most black children died in infancy" and that "very few ever reach the age of manhood". A British observer in Egypt, some thirty years later, found conditions even worse. He said, "I have it estimated that five or six years is sufficient to carry off or kill a generation of slaves at the end of which time the whole has to be replenished". You didn't really want to be a slave going east. If you had to choose, you'd want to be going west. North African Muslim pirates raided European coastal towns and villages from all the way down in Sicily all the way up to Cornwall as well as European ships for about three hundred years, enslaved over a million Europeans including many American seamen, many say it is 1.5 million. Christopher Hitchens points out, "how many know that perhaps a million and a half Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780. What of the people of the town of Baltimore, Ireland? …all carried off by coarse-haired raiders in a single night. It doesn't fit the narrative. Right? The narrative says that it's a race issue. It's a state and power issue which I'm going to make the case for. These ghastly slave-raiding practices of the Muslim pirates had a huge effect, particularly on coastal regions of Europe. France and England and Spain lost thousands of ships, devastated their seaborne trade, retarded the growth of the economy, long stretches of the coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned until the 19th century. The fishing industry was virtually devastated which, of course, let to starvation throughout certain parts of Western Europe. Well, Christians did come, tragically, to the party. Islam dominated the slave trade from the 7th to the 15th century, but between 1519 and 1815 Europe also joined in the trade in human flesh. Interestingly enough, it was the European nations that had suffered the most at the hands of the Muslim slave raiders, and under centuries of Muslim military occupations such as Spain and Portugal who dominated the European slave trade. It was the enemies of the reformation that brought Europe into the slave trade. The Reformation was a 16th century movement led by Martin Luther who tried to get the bible translated into the vernacular, into the common tongue of the people and gave them copies of the bible and allowed them to come to their own conclusions, shattered the unity of Christendom under the Catholic popes and the Catholic Church into Calvinists, Lingaleans, Anabaptists, Lutherans, and so on, thus provoking a century or two of vicious religious civil war resulting in the separation of church and state for their mere survival of European civilization. So, Martin Luther defied Charles V by saying, "my conscience is captive to the word of God here I stand I can do no other". So, the holy Roman Empire—which was, in reality, neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire—authorized Europe's involvement in the slave trade in 1519. Britain, who's involvement in slavery was a first authorized in 1631 by the delightful king Charles I who was executed by Parliament, his son Charles II reintroduced it by Royal Charter in 1672. Popes were very keen on slavery. One pope even rode around in giant boat rowed by slaves, so it was not a great bulwark against religion. The destinations are surprising because generally you hear black slavery in America. According to "The Slave Trade" by Hugh Thomas, four million slaves went to Portuguese controlled Brazil—that's over 35% of the Atlantic slave trade--, two and a half million to the nations of central and south America –which is 22%--, just under 18% to the British West Indies, mostly Jamaica, 14% of them went to French West Indies, 4.4% to the Dutch West Indies, and half a million black slaves generally went to North America—4.4% of the entire slave trade. I don't see a lot of people trying to give Brazil a hard time; although, Brazil ended slavery in the 1880s, much later. So, here's a chart. You can just look at this to see where the enslaved Africans were sent from 1500 to 1870. It's a very small amount, went to British North America. So, how did this end? Well, William Wilberforce—the least ghetto name in history—on Sunday October 28, he wrote in his diary, "God almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society." For the rest of his life, he dedicated his life as a member of Parliament opposing the slave trade and working for the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. On February 22, 1807, twenty years after he first began his crusade in the middle of Britain's war with France, Wilberforce and his team's labors were awarded with victory by an overwhelming 282 votes for to 16 against the motion to abolish slavery was carried in the House of Commons. In 1809, the British government mobilized its navy to search for suspected slave ships, even foreign vessels on the high seas. At the height of the British Empire covered a third of the globe. The British navy was the undisputed king of the waters. One of the tragic effects was that when a slave ship would see a British corsair coming up to it they would generally kill the slaves and dump the bodies overboard, so that they wouldn't be found to be slavers. In 1810, the British Parliament declared slave trading a felony punishable by fourteen years hard labor. In 1814, the British representative at the congress in Vienna insisted on the abolition of the slave trade being included in the international treaty. The treaty was signed by all the European powers on June 9, 1815. In 1825, Britain passed a law making slave trading punishable by death. Three days before William Wilberforce died, by an act of Parliament in 1833, the British abolished slavery itself setting all seven hundred thousand slaves in British overseas territories free. Wilberforce's lifetime campaign of fifty-nine years was now fully successful. He said shortly before he died, "Thank God that I've lived to witness the day in which England is willing to give 20 million pounds sterling for the abolition of slavery!" A moral hero of mankind, did you ever hear his name? Of course not; does not fit the narrative and does not serve the powers that be which we will get to. Now, one of the great tragedies of ending the Atlantic slave trade was—it wasn't like the number of slaves captured in Africa and other places diminished they took more of the slaves from Africa and sent them over the Sahara. Missionary explorer, David Livingstone, wrote, graphic descriptions brought the ravages of the East African slave trade to light. He wrote this, "Two of the women had been shot the day before for attempting to untie their thongs. One woman had her infants brains knocked out because she could not carry her load and it; and a man was dispatched (i.e. killed) with an ax because he had broken down with fatigue. Those taken out of the country are but a very small section of the sufferers. We never realized the atrocious nature of the traffic until we saw it at the fountain head. 'There truly Satan has his seat.' Besides those actually captured, thousands are killed and die of their wounds and famine, driven from their villages by the internecine ware waged for slaves with their own clansmen and neighbors, slain by the lust of gain, which is stimulated, be it remembered always, by the slave purchases of Cuba and elsewhere." The Trans-Sahara slave trade was truly appalling. So, boys from about eight to twelve, if they were captured, would be castrated. This would be penis and testicles because Arabs had superstitions about the sexual prowess of blacks and also castrated boys were more docile. And so, they would castrate the boys. The survival rate was very low, which we'll get to. They went to the homes of wealthy Arab landlords and they force marched young women across endless miles of scorching sand in the Sahara Desert to become sex concubines. Most of the women died in transit. So, murderous castration, obviously without any anesthetic or any other kind of medical procedures for protection against infection, and the force marching of women across the desert for the rape rooms of the eastern lands was unbelievably brutal and was far worse statistically than what happened in the Atlantic slave trade. So, eunuchs, again, got the penises and scrotums of eight to ten year old African boys. The survival rate from this process of castration ranged from one in ten to one in thirty. So, it's impossible to estimate hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of young boys bled to death during this ghastly procedure. And, in eliminating or diminishing the Atlantic slave trade, more boys went that direction instead of the relatively safer lands in North and South America. So, the reason why I say if you are going to be captured then you want to go west not east; look at this graph here. This is from 1650 to 1750. The rise of the U.S. slave population is enormous. When you were a woman in the Muslim countries, if you had a baby—the result, of course, of being raped in these concubines—if you had a baby, the baby would be murdered, generally. So, the men were castrated and the women's babies were murdered which is why there aren't a lot of blacks in Islamic countries these days despite such a rampant history of fourteen centuries of slavery. But early, you can see, that the U.S. slave population was increasing. Slaves could marry and were encouraged to have children and so on. And, although the U.S. Congress outlawed the African slave trade in 1808, the domestic trade flourished. The slave population in the U.S. nearly tripled over the next fifty years. It doesn't make slavery moral—of course, it's a completely evil institution—but it makes it much more survivable in the Americas. Now, the confusion of slavery with the free market is truly tragic because then we think that it was free trade that produced slavery, and it required six-hundred thousand odd dead Americans in the civil war to end it. This, of course, is not the case. Generally, all governments had to do was stop catching the slaves and returning them to their masters. Think about it. You've got a plantation, you've got a bunch of slaves; they just walk off. How you going to catch them? Where are you going to find them? You can't possibly do that. The government has to go and catch them for you, the taxes and labor of which are generally paid by others. So, there are two state statues that reduce the private cost of slavery. They were largely ignored and this made slavery look a lot more efficient. We'll get into them. So, slave patrols and bans on the freeing of slaves are manumission, which we will get to in a little more detail. It's worth understanding just so we can really get how little slavery was economically efficient. And of course, those who had bought slaves tended to resist the introduction of labor-saving devices; and, this prevented industrialization. This prevented farm machinery from coming into being. And of course, the more productive slaves were—to the degree that they were productive—simply meant that you had to pay more to buy them, therefore eliminating a lot of the gains. So also, states prevented immigration of free blacks and if you were freed, through some miracle, you had to leave the state. They restricted movements and rights and so on which meant that basically most of the blacks in a given state would be slaves which made them a lot easier to identify and to capture. So, forced slave patrols. So, the patrol statutes in the South required all white males to participate in slave patrol duty. So, the counties established these regular patrols. The counties placed the responsibility for organizing these patrols on local judges and constables; and they appointed these leaders—that rotated in and out—responsible for organizing and reporting on the activities of their patrols. Now, if you didn't participate in these patrols, or carry out organizing responsibilities, you got a series of escalating fines which would end up with you going to debtors' prison and possibly being sold off as a slave. So, to prevent slaves from escaping, these drafted poor whites were responsible for patrolling the roads at night, monitoring the movement of blacks, checking their passes, inspecting slave residences. Pretty scary for the blacks. A lot of these guys who aren't big fans of this whole thing took it out on the blacks which was wretched and tragic and you didn't even get paid. All you could get paid was, maybe you would get a little bit of a reward, if you catch a runaway slave. So, this is a way in which—remember, it's the rich who use the power of the state to screw the middle class and the poor. I mean, we see this right now going on with the bank bailouts. I mean, how much money did you get and how much money did you have to pay? If you're not in the 1%, the top of the financial food chain, you don't get crap. Well, you get crap and debt. And, you know, can we really be said to ended forced in denature when children are born hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt because of the spending of the state to buy votes. I would argue, no. So, it was tragic, the costs of patrolling for and capturing the slaves were born by the people that were forced to do it, not the people who owned the slaves. So, this is really important. If the trend of freeing slaves had been allowed to continue, slavery would have ended before the Civil War, peacefully. It's a strong claim to make. Let me give you the numbers behind it. So, you couldn't free your slaves. Originally, you could, but too many slaves were being freed which made it harder to catch the ones who ran away. So, you couldn't buy your freedom anymore, you couldn't be granted freedom, and you couldn't be given your freedom even in a last will and testament; and therefore, there was not much freeing or manumission of slaves, not because people didn't want to do it, but it became illegal. So, if the government had not banned the freeing of slaves, more slaves would have been freed, there would have been more competition for labor, labor would begun to have replaced slavery in terms of efficiency and so on, and more slaves then would have been freed. So, as states enacted statutes against manumission and immigration and required slave patrols, the growth of the black population decreased; and it fell below the slave population and was reduced to a trickle in the decade prior to the Civil War. However, if the free black population in the South Atlantic states had grown at the same rate between 1800 and 1860, as it did between 1790 and 1800, every slave in the South Atlantic states would have been freed twice. By 1860, the equivalent of virtually every slave in the country. So, they were being freed. The government stepped in and stopped it to serve the interest of the wealthy plantation owner, the couple of percent of people who had the ear of the government, as they do now, and use it to shaft everyone else. But even if you did the slower rate of growth, between 1790 and 1810—which was 88% growth in freeing of slaves—every slave in the region would have been freed only 1.5 times, which I guess is still pretty good. Let's talk a little bit about white slavery. The Irish slave trade. Oh, my lovely ancestors from Ireland who came across with William the Conqueror in 1066 I'm sure were very, very effective in slaughtering and covering themselves with blue and red of disassembled local Britains. Very good ancient murders, my relatives, which were my ancestors, which meant that they got lots of land as a result from being very good at killing people, which is really the foundation of the aristocracy. All money with royalty on it is blood money. And, the Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid-1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Now, I'm half Irish and half German, and while the German part of me wants to invade Poland, the Irish part of me, when exposed to sunlight, bursts into fiery flames and freckles, so not exactly the blackest of the black slaves in the universe. So, Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the slaves to the New World were actually whites. In the 1600s, white slaves in America outnumbered the black slaves. So, Reverend Augie, who lived in the South for eleven years had both black and white congregations, told that preaching to slaves some with red hair and blue eyes a third of whom were just as white as he was. Dr. Alexander Milton Ross attended a slave auction in New Orleans where many of the slaves were much whiter than the white people who were buying them. In Lexington, Kentucky, Calvin Fairbank—that's the least hood name you'll find—described a woman who was going to be sold at slave auction as "one of the most beautiful and exquisite young girls one could expect to find in freedom or slavery….being only one sixty-fourth African." In 1855, Fredrick Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold, The men tossing down, somewhat recklessly into hold, were Negros. The men in the hold were Irish. He said, "What's going on? Why is it this way?" "Oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be risked here. The Patty's are knocked overboard or get their back broke, nobody loses anything." The economics of Irish slavery were pretty tragic. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. You see, half a million blacks get to North America, 300,000 whites sold as slaves in a ten year period. Ireland's population fell from about 1.5 million to 600,000 in one single decade. This would be about the equivalent of America losing a hundred million people. Families were ripped apart; the British did not even allow Irish dads to take their wives and children across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. What would the English do with those helpless women and children? Oh, let's auction them off as well as additional slaves. Oh, the British… During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia, long before the SPF 9 million that you need if you're an Irish person out in the sun. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2,000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. The British would routinely scoop up orphans and send them across as slaves. They would also troll brothels, rip the women out of the brothels, and send them over as breeders to the New World. So, African slaves are very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling), and this is partly because you could just grab them. You didn't have to pay the African warlords for the slaves, and they were cheaper and easier to transport. If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death would be a monetary setback, but much cheaper than killing a more expensive African. And, the English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of the slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the merchant's workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her children would still be born as slaves to the master. So, they're not going to go and abandon their kids. They just generally hung around to take care of them. England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion—why would they rebel? …such a lovely environment—thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses in both Africa and Irish captives. So, white slaves, Middle Eastern slaves, African slaves… it was all over the world. And, there are still some significant differences to be noted between the Atlantic slave trade and the Trans-Sahara slave trade. So, two out of three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, but two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims, again, for sexual concubineage or institutional rape. The mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, but the percentage of slaves dying in transit on the Trans-Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80% and 90%. Which is why I say if you're going to get caught you want to go East not West. So, almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, the ones that went east were for sexual exploitation in harems and for military service. So, many children were born to slaves in the Americas. Your marriage wasn't legally recognized, but you could get married and have kids. Millions of their descendents are citizens in Brazil and the USA, but there are very few descendents of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East. One of the great genocidal murderous barbaric vicious tragedies of human history, generally unacknowledged. So, again as we mentioned. You can get married in the Americas, in North and South America. In the Middle East, you were generally castrated as a male and your babies were murdered if you were female. So, the Atlantic slave trade was not the result of market forces. It was not a free market. It was developed under the power of the state. We've already talked about how the state used the power of law to socialize or offset the cost of capturing and returning slaves. And, it did not allow slave owners to free their slaves. So, of course, slavery exhisted in the tribal African societies which was the source of slaves. Europeans could not go into Africa and catch slaves. They would just catch disease and die. This was not a market force that was going on. It was not free trade and private ownership that was going on in the tribal African societies. The slave trade as a whole was not founded by private firms, but was established by the colonial powers which instituted monopolies to exploit the indigenous population. So, the Dutch West India Company was chartered in 1621, and the Royal Company of Adventurers for the importation of Negroes was formed in 1662. These were not private corporations or companies of any kind. They were governmental military structures which gave a monopoly on the slave trade, subsidized it, in return for great profits. Think of it as the Military Industrial Complex of its time. So, they were very efficient in generating slaves, revenues, and domestic influence. So, there is a statement that said, "Negroes therefore were stolen in Africa to work lands stolen from the Indians, " but this was always and forever a government involvement. When governments gave up the practice of catching and returning slaves, slavery collapsed. So, let's understand what slavery is. Slavery is the 100% ownership of the product of somebody's labor in a non-voluntary environment. So, if I go to work at a restaurant, they'll take some portion of my salary. They built the restaurant, they do the advertising, they heat it, they… but I take some portion of the profits for my salary. It's voluntary. When you force someone to hand over 100% of their earnings that is pure slavery. What percent of your earnings are forced over at the hand of the state? See, we really haven't fundamentally outgrown it as an institution. We've become free-range serfs or slaves. We can choose our own occupations, but we must still remit property taxes, income taxes, and all other forms of taxation to the state in order to secure our freedom. And, we really haven't understood what slavery was and where it came from. We've been told to turn it into two things that are fundamentally incorrect. One, is it has become a race issue for obvious financial gain reasons and reasons of the profitability of victimization in the face of a relatively empathetic culture. So, it's become a race issue and it fundamentally wasn't. It was a power issue. Where the British could get away with enslaving the whites, they got away with enslaving the whites. When they could get away with enslaving the Africans, the enslaved the Africans. When the Muslims could get away with enslaving everyone, they enslaved everyone. When the Jews could profit from their participation in the slave trade, they did and could. So, it is not a race issue at all fundamentally. We've been told to make it a race issue, so that we fight amongst ourselves, rather than looking at the real source of the problem of slavery past, present, and future which is the powers that be who indoctrinate us to fight each other rather than look at the genuine power structures in the world which are around the viciousness and violent exploitation of state power at the behest of the financial powers who lend to the state, so the state can bribe us with goodies, and have our children pay off those goodies. So, we've made the mistake of thinking that slavery is foundationally about race, so that we can fight each other as races rather than recognize that we are brothers and sisters in the tax farms called countries run by governments, and we've also thought that it has something to do with the free market. So, we think that are enemies are racial and our enemy is the free market. Well, it is not a race-based institution and it was the complete opposite of the free market. It was a central, fascistically controlled pseudo-market. It's called "crapitalism", crony capitalism, where you use the power of the state to benefit financial interests. This is not the free market at all. Forcing people to go and catch slaves—that's not the free market. Forcing people to not do what they want with their own property. If slaves are property, you should be able to set them free. Right? But, banning people from setting their slaves free is not treated slaves even as property as it should have been at the time under the law; because that would have been a way of peacefully ending slavery by making slavery diminish out of the guilty generosity of the slave owners—particularly on their deathbeds when they would set slaves free. So, it is completely wretched for us to misunderstand what slavery was, who the cause was: financial interests, using the power of state to exploit the resources. Now, the resources are money, the resources are the environment. In the past, the resources included human beings. But, the idea that one race is guilty of slavery and owes reparations is like saying you and I owe reparations for the bailouts that were handed to the bankers. Of course not. We didn't like them, those bailouts. We would have resisted them if we could, but the money is taken from us at gunpoint. Well, the facilitation of slavery, the violence, power of the state that made slavery possible and sustained its continuance was imposed upon both whites and blacks and milatos and Chinese and Irish and you name it… it was imposed upon them against their will, just as the national debt is imposed upon your children against their will, just as bank bailouts are imposed on you against your will. All we should do is band together to recognize the great owners of mankind are the political, financial, and military powers of the world. When we see that, when we see the slavery in a diminished way, that continues. Well then, we have a chance at real freedom.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pastor, activist and leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. What is the truth about Martin Luther King, Jr? Sour...

The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pastor, activist and leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement. What is the truth about Martin Luther King, Jr?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgqz3CaAWC0“One day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's market place. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?” You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two thirds water?” These are questions that must be asked.” - Speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1967 Affirmative Action, Quotas and Forced Transfer of Wealth"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." - Why We Can't Wait"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates). “If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.” – MLK (Black Visions: The Roots of Contemporary African-American Political Ideologies by Michael C. Dawson There is also the violence of having to live in a community and pay higher consumer prices for good or higher rent for equivalent housing than are charged in the white areas of the city. Do you know that a can of beans almost always costs a few cents more in grocery chain stores located in the Negro ghetto than in a store of that same chain located in the upper middle class suburbs, where the median income is five times as high? “ - Martin Luther King Jr. A Testament of Hope (1969) Plagiarism and The Culture War : The Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr, and Other Prominent Americans Paperback by Theodore Pappas - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873190459/http://www.scribd.com/doc/184971711/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-A-Testament-of-Hope-1969http://www.scribd.com/doc/101874013/fairclough-was-martin-luther-king-a-marxist http://rajpatel.org/2010/01/18/martin-luther-king-we-are-not-interested-in-being-integrated-into-this-value-structure/http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2449/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-plagiaristhttp://archive.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-91.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/01/marcus-epstein/myths-of-martin-luther-king/http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.phphttp://www.salon.com/2013/01/21/8_things_you_probably_didnt_know_about_martin_luther_king_jr/http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_martin_luther_king.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._authorship_issueshttp://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.htmlhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2430999/postshttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/01/martin-luther-king-jr-facts/http://mentalfloss.com/article/19358/2-surprising-facts-about-mlk-assassinationhttp://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-martin-luther-king-jrhttp://www.latintimes.com/martin-luther-king-jr-day-2014-7-facts-might-surprise-you-about-mlk-jr-145840http://www.salon.com/2013/01/21/8_things_you_probably_didnt_know_about_martin_luther_king_jr/

Most of the titles are the same, sometimes they get tweaked slightly... You can also follow the dates on the videos and podcast titles too.

The Call In Shows are uploaded in podcast form days after they take place, while we're presently about two weeks behind in publishing the videos. This is because we experimented with releasing each call as a seperate video and built up quite a backlog over time. You can only release so many videos per day/week without canabalizing the view counts. Now we're only two weeks behind and are releasing the call in show videos quicker so we'll be caught up in a few weeks. All of the shows that you mention are in the iTunes feed... but we released earlier than the videos were published.

We actually have a really amazing podcast/video about Friendship just waiting to be released... look for that soon.

Karl Heinrich Marx is known as a German philosopher, economist and revolutionary socialist. How did the man who railed against economic and sexual exploitation treat those around him? What...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

Great suggestion!

I may be coming over for this one too... not sure yet. I have a bunch of international airline miles to use up and this sounds like a perfect opportunity.

Sounds like a good idea... I've been meaning to invite Doug back on for awhiie.

He was getting lots of hate directed at him as soon as he became popular as a young kid, so the hate was present long before he started acting out publicly. Lazy people HATE seeing other people create things and be successful because of hard work and determination. They need to create a story that it's all just "luck" to excuse the fact that they don't actually do anything productive that others will find value in. He's an asshole because he's successful is just a cover for... I'm really jealous of what that person has and I don't want to take personal responsibility for my own inaction.

Free Troll Tip: Maybe your posts get downvotes because you're kinda being a dick.

We've had Doug on quite a few times... we've already done a few shows on investing, what else would you like them to discuss?

Yep. Total Jealously.

Feel free to upload it wherever you like...

Video: Call Recorder on Mac. Everything else is terribly unreliable... Audio: Pamela Call Recorder

Whoops, my mistake! Thanks again Carter!

There is a way to ignore people in the chat room. My Profile, Edit Profile, Ignore Preferences.

Mahatma Gandhi is celebrated as a peaceful freedom fighter who led India to independence and inspired civil rights movements and freedom across the world. But what is the truth about Mahatma Gandhi? Source Material The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie "Gandhi" for the portrayal of Gandhi as "an absolute pacifist." The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism? Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India - slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with "natives" in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label "N" born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. "Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal." "It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony." The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The "apostle of peace" urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in 1930, he said, " One of his reasons for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries." In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West. It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body! The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India. The "apostle of peace," who counseled a Jewish delegation" to oppose the evil of Nazism by "soul force" - by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression. He told his Sikh followers a that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India - a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the "absolute pacifist" and the nation that calls him "father." After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata "Victory is truth." Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States. On September 26, 1896, Gandhi wrote, “Ours is one continued struggle sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” Then in September of 1903, Gandhi said, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do …. by advocating the purity of all races.” In fact he felt so strongly that the Indians should be classed with the whites not the Kaffirs, he organized a brigade of Indians to help put down a Zulu uprising. In 1931, he fasted as protest to a British proposal to grant rights to Untouchables, the lowest of the castes, also known as Dalits. No, Gandhi was no friend to the lower classes. He once told a Dalit who had graduated to not “take up” a white collar job. Gandhi was also not anti-colonialist, nor was he devoted to non-violence. An imperialist; his loyalty was to the British Crown, for the majority of his life. Sergeant Major Gandhi even won the War Medal for the Zulu campaign. In fact, he supported the Crown in no less than three major wars. When war broke out in 1914, he immediately contacted the War Office, swore his unshakable loyalty to the crown and organized the Indian Volunteer Corps. He wrote to the Viceroy, “I would make India offer all her able bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at this critical moment.” He justified this by citing the Bhagavad Gita and saying Indians have always been warlike. Gandhi's inconsistency seems a bit self-motivated as later when the idea of home rule has set in; he is much more anti-British and seemingly non-violent. If you can picture this, in December 1941, as Hitler rules from the Channel to the Volga, Gandhi urges the Jews to commit collective suicide. His advice to the British was as bad, “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with all your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls nor your minds.” His treatment of his family was horrible. His son, Harilal had wanted to go on to college. He was interested in being a lawyer, as his father was. Gandhi would not allow it as he believed a western style education would not help in the struggle for Indian independence. “Dear Bapu, Harilal wrote, "In your laboratory of experiments, unfortunately, I am the one truth that has gone wrong….” Harilal also wrote of his father, “He is the greatest father you have…but he is the one father I wish I did not have.” Gandhi said his son, Harilal, was one of the greatest regrets of his life. Gandhi had banished his second son just for giving money to Harilal. The boy was so uncared for no one came to his bedside as he lay dying. He once wrote of his wife, “I simply cannot bear to look at Ba's face. The expression is often like that on the face of a meek cow and gives one the feeling, as a cow occasionally does, that in her own dumb manner she is saying something.” When she got pneumonia, Gandhi refused her penicillin and simply allowed her to die. He once wrote of them, “What I expect from the Gandhi family is that all members should devote themselves exclusively to service work, observe the utmost self-control and have no desire for wealth. They should not marry and those who are married should observe brahmacharya. They should live on whatever they get from service work.” He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of the white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans. On the surface it may seem Gandhi had great respect for women but this is not so. He says things like, “If you women would only realize your dignity and privilege, and make full use of it for mankind, you will make it much better than it is. But man has delighted in enslaving you and you have proved willing slaves till the slaves and the slave-holders have become one in the crime of degrading humanity. My special function from childhood, you might say, has been to make women realize her dignity.” The problem is, he continues to “make women realize their dignity” by denying them basic necessities such as birth control and pain relief in childbirth. He also never understands that women are sexual creatures, too. He was a big opponent of sex for pleasure. Some of Gandhi's detractors are women who fought for equal rights for Indians and women. Annie Besant, for instance had a falling out with Gandhi, as did Margaret Sanger. For a short period Gandhi accepted the use of birth control, but this quickly changed. Once, Gandhi was asked whether he would advocate birth control in cases where the health of the mother might is at risk. “No,” he replied, “one exception will lead to another till it finally becomes general.” Did he at least help in the struggle for independence? Well, no. In fact, Gandhi is thought by some Indians to have delayed Indian independence by twenty five years due to his erratic beliefs. So, for all this effort to turn Gandhi into a saint has it been worth it? Well, no. There is little to show that the India today has followed Gandhi's teachings. He is revered as a holy man, but the principles he supposedly stood for are not applied. Colonialism by others has been supported or sanctioned by the Indian government since Gandhi. The violence against Dalits continues. Rapes, murders, beatings, all aimed at India's lowest class and carried out by other Indians http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131025235741AA7CQcx Gandhi was prejudice against blacks in South Africa. He was accused many times of sleeping with young teenage girls but never held accountable. He believed in the CAST SYSTEM. He called women who used contraception "Whores." He justified honor killings. He preached that sexual intercourse was bad for the health and he had a lot negative to say about women's menstruation. In his writings he asserts that women should be held responsible for sexual assaults committed upon them. http://www.skepticink.com/avant-garde/2013/02/14/gandhi/ Gandhi rejected essential human ideals that all are created equal with right to life and liberty. He spread racial hatred in South Africa. He told an Indian audience black Africans are “raw Kaffir whose sole ambition is to… pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” He pioneered racial segregation at the Durban Post Office by demanding a third door to spare upper-caste Indians the “indignity” of sharing a door with blacks. He pushed for war against Zulus and volunteered in the British Army to kill blacks. He insulted human dignity in India. He raped his underage grandnieces, Manu and Abha, for years. He defended the caste system, praising its “fundamental divisions.” He spread violence against non-Hindus. America, say no to Gandhi, a five-time Nobel Peace Prize reject! http://books.google.ca/books?id=tquxD6dk914C&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=gandhi+skeptic&source=bl&ots=vmHGaWqqHM&sig=g-nb0u7pGArP0680rDc_Y-7l7VQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hti1Uu1DzJrJAdyOgNAL&ved=0CG8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=gandhi%20skeptic&f=false http://ofmi.org/gandhis-sexual-abuse-of-grandnieces/ http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/nothindu.htm No other religion in the world sanctions slavery and untouchability, making both a religious obligation. http://www.firstpost.com/living/the-other-side-of-the-naked-fakir-remembering-gandhijis-grand-niece-1149535.html Gandhi was born in the Indian state of Gujarat and married at 13 in 1883; his wife Kasturba was 14, not early by the standards of Gujarat at that time. The young couple had a normal sex life, sharing a bed in a separate room in his family home, and Kasturba was soon pregnant. Two years later, as his father lay dying, Gandhi left his bedside to have sex with Kasturba. Meanwhile, his father drew his last breath. The young man compounded his grief with guilt that he had not been present, and represented his subsequent revulsion towards "lustful love" as being related to his father's death. he told readers of his newspaper Indian Opinion: "It is the duty of every thoughtful Indian not to marry. In case he is helpless in regard to marriage, he should abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife." Meanwhile, Gandhi was challenging that abstinence in his own way. He set up ashrams in which he began his first "experiments" with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk. Men and women were segregated, and Gandhi's advice was that husbands should not be alone with their wives, and, when they felt passion, should take a cold bath. The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi's secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. "While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut," he said, "I do not know ... whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap." As he grew older (and following Kasturba's death) he was to have more women around him and would oblige women to sleep with him whom – according to his segregated ashram rules – were forbidden to sleep with their own husbands. Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his "experiments" which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi's letters remain such as: "Vina's sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me." One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him. Sushila, who in 1947 was 33, was now due to be supplanted in the bed of the 77-year-old Gandhi by a woman almost half her age. While in Bengal to see what comfort he could offer in times of inter-communal violence in the run-up to independence, Gandhi called for his 18-year-old grandniece Manu to join him – and sleep with him. "We both may be killed by the Muslims," he told her, "and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping naked." Eighteen-year-old Abha, the wife of Gandhi's grandnephew Kanu Gandhi, rejoined Gandhi's entourage in the run-up to independence in 1947 and by the end of August he was sleeping with both Manu and Abha at the same time. “Tonight, when Bapu, Sushilaben and I were sleeping on the same cot, he embraced me and patted me. He put me to sleep with great love. He embraced me after a very long time. Then Bapu praised me for remaining innocent (of sexual urges) despite sleeping with him. But this isn't the case with the other girls. Veena, Kanchan and Lilavati (other associates of Gandhi) told me that they won't be able to sleep with him.” Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/living/the-other-side-of-the-naked-fakir-remembering-gandhijis-grand-niece-1149535.html?utm_source=ref_article There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the maiming and mutilation of victims. The catalogue of horrors includes the disemboweling of pregnant women, the slamming of babies' heads against brick walls, the cutting off of victims limbs and genitalia and the display of heads and corpses. While previous communal riots had been deadly, the scale and level of brutality was unprecedented. Although some scholars question the use of the term 'genocide' with respect to the Partition massacres, much of the violence manifested as having genocidal tendencies. It was designed to cleanse an existing generation as well as prevent its future reproduction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India After World War II, India’s long independence campaign finally paid off. The British decided the cost of maintaining colonial rule was too high. They agreed to grant independence to the subcontinent. India’s people had put aside their religious differences to fight the British, but with victory in sight, problems began surfacing between Hindus and Muslims. Many Muslims felt the Hindu majority would treat them unfairly once the subcontinent achieved independence. The struggle became violent. British and Indian leaders decided that the only solution to the conflict was a partition, that separated the continent into Hindu and Muslim states. In 1947, the Indian subcontinent became the independent nations of India and Pakistan. Pakistan was made up of two regions: West Pakistan on the Indus River plain, and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), more than 1,100 away. Important parts of what was once considered India were now in other nations. The Indus River, for which the subcontinent is named, became part of Pakistan after the partition. Twelve million people were forced to move—Hindus to India, Muslims to Pakistan—in one of the greatest migrations of refugees in history. Both groups moved because they feared being ruled by leaders of the other faith. The journey was long and torturous. Many people were forced to leave their possession or trade them for water. Hunger, thirst and exhaustion killed others. Additionally, an estimated one million people were killed in religious warfare. http://www.mrdowling.com/612-partition.html In the 1990s India has been one of the fastest growing economies in the world. At the growth pace of the 1990s, Indian average productivity levels double every sixteen years. If the current pace of growth can be maintained, sixty-six years will bring India to the real GDP per capita level of the United States today. The contrast between the pace of growth in the 1990s and the pace of growth before 1980--with a doubling time of fifty years, and an expected approach to America's current GDP per capita level not in 2066 but in 2250--is extraordinary. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/econ_articles/India/India_Rodrik_DeLong.html …in July 1991… with the announcement of sweeping liberalization by the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao… opened the economy… dismantled import controls, lowered customs duties, and devalued the currency… virtually abolished licensing controls on private investment, dropped tax rates, and broke public sector monopolies…. [W]e felt as though our second independence had arrived: we were going to be free from a rapacious and domineering state…" there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats. As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1298569/Britain-need-make-apology-India-Empire-.html Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals - Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey. Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants. Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed. The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the 'Hindu Slaughter') is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia. In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive. When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things. In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves - up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions. British exported to India the modern methods of fighting contagious diseases. The result was a tremendous increase in the Indian population and a corresponding increase in the country’s troubles. Mises Mr. Nehru said: “Of course, we want to socialize. But we are not opposed to private enterprise. We want to encourage in every way private enterprise. We want to promise the entrepreneurs who invest in our country, that we will not expropriate them nor socialize them for ten years, perhaps even for a longer time.” “If one compares the rate of growth during the nineteenth century it appears that non-colonial countries had, as a rule, a more rapid economic development than colonial ones. There is an almost perfect correlation. Thus colonial countries like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain have been characterized by a slower rate of economic growth and industrialization than Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. The ‘rule’ is, to a certain extent, also valid for the twentieth century. Thus Belgium, by joining the colonial ‘club’ in the first years of the twentieth century, also became a member of the group characterized by slow growth. It is obvious that this correlation is far from being proof that all colonial ventures had been economically counterproductive. However, nothing excludes such a possibility. However, this correlation can at least be a partial proof that colonialism has not been such a powerful force for development and industrialization.”

It's still a work in progress. We're not estimating any kind of release date right now because after having to push it back a few times, that just seems like a pointless exercise. Thanks for the interest!