Slavery Did Not Benefit “Whites”BY HARRY BINSWANGER | DEC 5, 2022The truth is that, aside from the plantation owners (a tiny minority), the white population of the South was hurt by slavery—kept poor by it—rather than enriched.

The notion of “white privilege” is collectivist. It’s Marxism seen through a racial lens.

You don’t need Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy to know that crimes are not racially shared, that there is no collective guilt. The fact that a group of people with white skin enslaved a group of people with dark skin does not mean that everyone with a white skin bears guilt for the crime. The same applies to the “Jim Crow” laws that used to exist in the Southern states: guilt for this rights violation does not attach to skin color.

But it seems that you do need Rand’s Objectivism, or at least quite an advanced understanding of capitalism, to realize the error and the insult to blacks in the idea that whites gained financially from slavery, as the term “white privilege” implies.

The truth is that, aside from the plantation owners (a tiny minority), the white population of the South was hurt by slavery—kept poor by it—rather than enriched.

Only racists, who believe that African-Americans are sub-human, could imagine that treating them like beasts of burden would be the path to riches. If you recognize that the enslaved people were human beings, with the rational faculty, you understand that slavery and discrimination were not only viciously evil but also socially and economically destructive. The forcible suppression of blacks was deliberately directed toward thwarting and paralyzing their minds—their deepest essence and most economically valuable asset.

In the words of Spinoza, “Nothing is more valuable to man than [another] man who lives by reason.”

Not just basic human decency, not just the understanding of individual rights, but also the profit-motive demands that you treat every member of every race as the rational beings they are.

Slavery sets the slave’s mind against you. Respecting a man’s individual rights and paying him for his services puts a free man’s mind on your side.

Or do the pushers of the slogan “white privilege” secretly believe that only whites can think rationally?!

The same anti-black, racist premise is behind the idea that capitalism is consistent with racial bigotry. The vile insult to those suffering from the bigotry is the ugly assumption that the members of the victimized race could not, in fact, perform as well as the members of the “privileged” race.

In concrete terms, the charge of “white privilege” assumes that it made economic sense for Southern businesses to give preference to whites over blacks. This assumes the inferiority of the black race! Otherwise, not hiring blacks and not selling to them would spell economic suicide.

On a free, capitalist market, the price of a man’s labor (his wages), like the price of any other factors of production, is set by the man’s contribution to production, not by non-economic considerations like his shoe size, the number of syllables in his first name, or his skin color.

Sure, in backward areas, like the 19th century Deep South, there would initially have been, from rednecks, resistance to doing business with blacks and general resistance to dropping racial prejudice. The Archie Bunkers have always looked with horror at competition from members of other groups (Jews, Irish, Italians, women, etc.). But as individual members of a group perform well, as they advance in wealth and form friendships, and marriages, with the more reasonable individuals of other groups, the old collectivist prejudices become less and less tenable—because they are false.

Capitalism sets the profit motive against irrationality. And racism is the height—or lowest depth—of irrationality.

To see why racism is anti-capitalist, consider the analogy to a Luddite prejudice against machinery. What would happen, under capitalism, to business owners who discriminated against machinery? Suppose the vast majority of businessmen thought machines were instruments of the devil; suppose they would not buy machines at all. How would these superstitious businessmen compete against a lone rational businessman who was not prejudiced against machines and gladly used them to save time and money? They couldn’t compete. The price of prejudice against machines would be: inability to cut costs, thus cut prices, thus maintain sales, thus stay in business. The same is true for prejudice against men.

It’s simple. Irrationality doesn’t pay. Racism is grossly irrational. Therefore, racism doesn’t pay.

Do the chanters of “white privilege,” then, think that it is rational to view blacks as inferior?

Originally appeared on HBLetter.com (HBL)–a private email list for Objectivists for discussing philosophic and cultural issues. A free trial is available at HBLetter.com.

Pro-Trump Candidates Lost. So What?

We are told many pro-Trump candidates lost. So what? In order to win, Republicans needed candidates who did not agree with Trump. In other words: candidates who agree with DemComs. If that’s what it takes to win, then what’s the point of winning?

It’s the RINOs making the case that we need more RINO candidates. But it’s Trump who advocates the typical Republican positions — not the RINOs.

These RINOs are the biggest threat to America. Without them, the Republican Party would have a chance at heading off the one-party Communism and fascism now enveloping our once great country. RINOs — who sadly do, once again, control the Republicans — and the Democrats are the Uniparty. America, RIP.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Loathsome “Teacher” Says Good Grammar is “White Supremacist”

A California English teacher with tenure says grammar and essay writing standards are part of “white supremacy culture.”

This loathsome “educator” is no less a racist than the most fearsome Klansman. Why? Because she’s clearly implying that nonwhite people are incapable of learning proper grammar. And she’s using grammar in expressing her denial of grammar’s moral legitimacy.

The evil of our era is not that there are people depraved enough to say such things. The evil is that the majority of us who KNOW it’s depraved are too scared to say so. If we let dimwit twits like this government-subsidized “teacher” intimidate us into silence, we truly are doomed.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Ayn Rand on the Mind

“The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.”

Ayn Rand

How Corrupt is the Media ?

The media has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the media suppresses and as false whatever the media covers.

The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt.

They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda.

The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful.

This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.

Suppression

Once a story is deemed antithetical to left-wing agendas, there arises a collective effort to smother it. Suppression is achieved both by neglect, and by demonizing others who report an inconvenient truth as racists, conspiracist “right-wingers,” and otherwise irredeemable.

The Hunter Biden laptop story is the locus classicus. Social media branded the authentic laptop as Russian disinformation. That was a lie. But the deception did not stop them from censoring and squashing those who reported the truth.

Instead of carefully examining the contents of the laptop or interrogating Biden-company players such as Tony Bobulinksi, the media hyped the ridiculous disinformation hoax as a mechanism for suppressing the damaging pre-election story altogether.

Victor Davis Hanson

Ayn Rand: Quote of the Day

There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man’s feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism—the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant’s system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncrasies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.

Later philosophers accepted Kant’s fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind’s structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained—as Kant had said—then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.

The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class.

The Ominous Parallels

Leonard Peikoff,

People Are Getting the Government — and Culture — They Deserve

My response to someone online who said people are innocent victims and in no way responsible for the decline of culture, civilization and freedom:

Wrong!

There is a WEALTH of information and there are better ideas (Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Freidman, on and on) available than ever before on politics, government, individualism, economics, culture and philosophy. People — most people — are simply not interested.

We are in a state similar to the culture of Germany just before Hitler’s rise to power. On our present course, what’s coming will NOT be pretty. If you think Nazi Germany was bad, consider the possibilities of a WORLD totalitarian regime based on medical and green fascism combined with neo-Marxist ideology. We will see the suffering, and possibly deaths, of billions this time, not merely millions. Most simply yawn and look for their freebie school tuition or their latest Netflix series.

People (most of them) are clamoring for dictatorship, and wallowing in their own ignorance. The COVID era showed us all that the vast majority will knuckle under for just about anything, just so they can fit in. You can’t blame this on a school system alone. There is enough freedom to question what we’re indoctrinated with, but the fact remains that 70-80 percent of us will not question, and will not THINK.

Sure, they are victims and honestly ignorant in some respects. The government and the wider culture are dominated by sociopaths who victimize people; it’s what they do. But we also permit and even encourage ALL of it. By “we” I mean the vast majority of us, including those of us who remain silent out of fear of upsetting our leftist cohorts or neighbors.

Victims? Sometimes. But in more respects, this is inexcusable. If any rational historians exist in the future, they will be horrified by what most of us squandered. I am sick of excuses for the masses. To paraphrase George Carlin, the masses are idiots.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason