41 votes

Alex Jones Show Video: Cliven Bundy Responds To New York Times Racism Report - 4/24/14

Alex Jones Show Video: Cliven Bundy Responds To New York Times Racism Report - 4/24/14


http://youtu.be/wCJ59tls0vc

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Words matter

So for my own enlightenment,I looked up the dictionary definition of Racism and Bigotry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

I don't think that Mr. Bundy falls under either of those two categories. But words do matter. Any group that has been historically persecuted, enslaved or attempted extermination is going to be sensitive to remarks made towards them about their history.

Mr. Bundy's comments were culturally insensitive which will unfortunately alienate people who would have otherwise supported his cause.

meekandmild's picture

Divide and conquer

Government using Media to try and divide and conquer, to try and reduce the support for The Bundy's so they can go in and get the land for Harry Reid and company without a lot of complications and reduced sympathy for the Bundy's.

find a new issue and person.

find a new issue and person. this is a dead issue now, try discussing it with anyone watching tv. dead issue already. unless you want to argue and be seen as defending this crap in anyway just by discussing it. media wins, liberty lost move on to something else.

live and learn.

waiting for the next side show when rand paul has to back paddle on "marijuana is dangerous" and various other pandering issues. Not even an option for me and tired of trying to defend/explain away rand paul or the bundys of the world to people. The gop is gonna die this election, no one worth trying to sell to folks unless rand paul reverses his pandering(Romney's-new term for flip flopping).

Ron Paul 2016

Hoof in mouth.

What an idiot!
I know Mr. Bundy is not racist. The fact that he mentioned issues in a racial context was dumb, especially when his opponents are looking for anything to crucify him.
Dumb move old timer.

Too bad we lost alot of ground.

Here is his statement that the media has picked pieces of

I wish the audio was better but it is nice to hear his entire speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agXns-W60MI

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

Successful diversion by MSM

MSM successfully diverted a very important property and liberty grabbing federal issue to a racial non-issue. Stay focused please.

Below Are the Customer Service Numbers ...

It is up to us to attack that rag paper, The NYT..

Make them retract their lies about Cliven Bundy..

The New York Times Company Customer service
1 (800) 698-4637

(Consumer)
1 (212) 556-7325
(Consumer)

Truth Is Treason In An Empire Of Lies ~ Ron Paul

There were more white slaves than black slaves ...

... in early America.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...

Americans did not invent slavery; it was inherited from the British. Slavery existed throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and most of the "civilized" world by the time any black person set foot on North America.

Of course, Bundy comes across as an old bafoon if he claims that slaves had it better somehow. Slavery is the worst possible condition (other than life imprisonment).

He should have been more savvy if he were going to let the NYT anywhere near him. Having said that, his statements have some degree of truth in that the federal government treats everyone as slaves.

The BLM are acting like thugs -- and slave masters -- in this saga. The fact that the statist Mockingbird Media would want to paint Rand Paul with the Bundy brush is not surprising. If not Bundy, it would be something else.

It will be a recurring theme, and he will need to find a good way to counter that.

You know, getting tied to a post, stripped and...

whipped with a bull-whip verses receiving a welfare check, I'd go with the welfare check every time.

I don't think Cliven is a racist per se but the man needs to think through everything when making statements about slavery. It wasn't a hard days work and coming home to your family.

Personally, I wouldn't have been a slave very long because the second they gave me an ax or some other sharp tool, I'd have used it on ol' Massa in 2 seconds.

If you haven't seen 12 Years a Slave or Amistad or Roots, go watch some of that first and then ask yourself whether you'd rather get a welfare check or be a slave.

RULE No. 1: White people should NEVER discuss slavery as a better alternative to anything, period.

And please, don't comment that some masters treated their slaves well and never whipped them. Often slave women were raped by their masters. There is no defending any of it. You'll look as silly as Cliven.

God bless him. I admire his courage for standing up to the government but c'mon man, what you said was off-the-hook crazy.

Considering that African

Considering that African slaves cost 25 sterling at the time, and Irish slaves cost 5 sterling, which slaves do you really think were beaten to death more frequently?

You have no idea about the real slavery, you only know what has been told to you by your government education system.

The rate at which African slaves were beaten to death was very rare, usually used as a teaching experience by other Slave owners which would usually pay to have their rebel slave(s) watch a slave get beaten to death. By doing it this way, all of the slave owners benefited from the situation: none of them had to be hindered by the entire cost of 25 sterling to replace an African slave, and yet all of their rebel slaves got an experience which was meant to scare them(the rebel slaves) into complying.

Think of it this way; if a slave was beaten to the point which he/she could not work, how does that benefit the slave owner? That is one worker not working. The likely-hood that severe beatings of African slaves happened frequently is so remote that it would be a statistical anomaly.

I have thought about this

You are correct, we have been told the worst things about the agrarian south, I am sure these things happened and it was abhorrent. I wonder what was daily life like for the majority of blacks on the plantations? If the white slave masters were that brutal, why would the blacks living on the plantation be allowed to watch the masters children? Why would he feel secure in turning his back? How could that slave master sleep at night with out chaining everyone up? I would burn the guys house down as he slept, first chance if I was treated like that..
I think we have been given a very different history than that which actually happened. Slavery was wrong, but it was an agrarian business where the slave and master worked together for the success of the farm. If they couldn't work together in harmony the farm would have failed.

The reason Africans cost more was because they were

resistant to malaria. The Mason-Dixon line is about the northern limit of the range of mosquito species that carry malaria. It's the same thing in South America and the reason Argentina is predominantly white, while Brazil is very multi-racial.

Regardless, what's your point? Is slavery less bad if you get beaten less? Slavery in any form is infinitely worse than any federal government policy today that impact minorities.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

"The reason Africans cost

"The reason Africans cost more was because they were resistant to malaria." No it wasn't. The reason Africans cost more was due to the fact that Africa was over a 6 month trip one-way, and not all of the slaves survived the trip.

Regardless, what's your point? Is slavery less bad if you get beaten less? Slavery in any form is infinitely worse than any federal government policy today that impact minorities.

Actually, Blacks have never stopped being slaves. All of the Progressive laws and actions were propagated to limit the growth of the Black and minority populations as well as White Trash. Slavery expanded the Black population, kept the family together -most of the time- and many were able to buy their freedom. I am not defending slavery, however, look at the Black community today due to welfare and progressive legislation: the majority of black males are in prison or were in prison, a large population of black females have children without fathers due to not only the drug laws, but due to the fact that one will get more welfare if there is no father as apposed to a father being present.

When a large population of Black males are in prison and a large population of Black females are dependent on the State handouts; how is this any better than the previous forms of Slavery?

then why bother going all the way to Africa?

Why not get the cheap white slaves? Price is set by demand.

As for your other arguments, I know many successful blacks that are doing great and have great families. To suggest that they would be better off under slavery is insulting, preposterous, and completely un-libertarian.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

As for your first question,

As for your first question, it was answered below by RonPaulWillNeverDie.

Do you think that you or your plethora of successful black friends are free? If not then what did Blacks actually gain? I find it interesting that when discussing slavery and race, that those who feel guilty will always invoke their plethora of minority friends. Who has suggested that they would be better-off under slavery? What was suggested is that the Blacks are still slaves, and in someways with worse systemic repercussions than under traditional slavery; but nobody has said that Blacks or anybody were entirely better-off under slavery.

Also, when are you going to answer the question which I posed to you?

From what I have read

"The reason Africans cost more was because they were resistant to malaria." No it wasn't. The reason Africans cost more was due to the fact that Africa was over a 6 month trip one-way, and not all of the slaves survived the trip."

Regarding why the Irish slaves were cheaper than African slaves, was because the Irish were prisoners of the English government. The Irish prisoners were made indentured servants and had to pay off their debt to the Crown by working for english goverment officials or business interests in America. The owners worked them to death because they did not cost them barely anything and they could just send a note requesting more.
The African slaves were expensive because of the middle men. An African tribe would capture another African tribe in a raid or battle and sell them to Arabs who would sell them to a slave bulk purchaser who would then ship them and then they would be put up for auction and go to the highest bidder. Since America was not the only place buying slaves, supply and demand would drive up the price as well.

I wrote a longer and more detailed reply but accidentally deleted it so if you want more information or explanation, just let me know.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn
http://youtu.be/eWVrdFrpXHE

Oh I see...well..

I guess if I had gone to private school I'd have learn that beating slaves lightly so they could still work is better than being on welfare. My bad.

And we complain how cops treat us now. It's all okay because there were once more white slaves that cost less than black slaves and the people that they beat can still work.

Am I missing something here?

Didn't you state,You know,

Didn't you state,

You know, getting tied to a post, stripped and wipped with a bull-wip
verses receiving a welfare check, I'd go with the welfare check every time.

I just illustrated that your understanding of slavery was wrong, and that African slaves were less likely to be tied, stripped and whipped; you then get upset. Very mature.

You state

Personally, I wouldn't have been a slave very long because the second they gave me an ax or some other sharp tool, I'd have used it on ol' Massa in 2 seconds.

This directly contradicts your earlier statement which states that you would rather receive welfare than get whipped. So, getting whipped is bad, but getting killed is good? You are being inconsistent. If you are to take the path with less harsh treatment, then the likely-hood is that you would have been a very good slave, because you would have always avoided the possibility of receiving harsh treatment.

And we complain how cops treat us now. It's all okay because there were once more white slaves that cost less than black slaves and the people that they beat can still work.

Your emotions are getting the best of you. Please explain how anybody is less a slave today, then the Irish and Africans were in the past? The difference is now, 98% of the population are slaves. As you pointed-out the cops and other government agents beat and kill people each an everyday. The government uses violence, the threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation to keep everybody else inline. How is this different then what the Irish and Blacks endured under Slavery?

How sad...

Anyone that attempts to use some form of pseudo-logic that 17-1800's slavery wasn't all that bad is sad.

The beatings, the rape, families split apart, mother's children sold to another master, the constant threat of death, being treated as property. You do realize this is a liberty forum?

If you don't get it, there's nothing more to say.

you don't get it

No one is condoning slavery, but the mere mention of it seems to make you explode. Expressing poorly organized thoughts and holding misconceptions doesn't make that person racist. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bundy is racist. You seem unable to understand that.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Actually, it not the mention of slavery that makes me explode...

rather the suggestion that some people are better off with no liberties, as was the case of traditional slavery, than receiving a welfare check and keeping their liberties if they want to exercise them.

I don't understand why some people on a liberty forum don't get that.

Granted, I don't advocate public-funded welfare but it's better than traditional slavery.

In my original post, and you should go read it again, I clearly said, "I don't think Cliven is a racist per se but the man needs to think through everything when making statements about slavery."

By that statement I was saying Cliven wasn't a racist by expressing his poorly organized thoughts.

For the last time time and for the official record, I never said Bundy was a racist, never. Cut and paste the quote I made that said he was in your reply. Also, I don't care if a white man mentions slavery but if they state that people are better of with no liberties versus liberties while on welfare, that to me, is ridiculous.

When talking to the press white people should be smart enough to know that there is nothing positive you can say about slavery that will ever be accepted.

I do support Bundy's fight against the BLM but I wished he had not made such ridiculous statements.

You state...rather the

You state

...rather the suggestion that some people are better off with no liberties...

Please tell me what liberties people have? Your problem is that you don't want to admit that we're all slaves including Blacks, and therefore Blacks are no better off, and they are separated from their families at a greater concentration than under traditional slavery.

Read the constitution if you want to know what liberties...

we have. Are we losing our liberties? Absolutely, that's why you and I are here at this forum. We realize it and would like to organize a peaceful solution to getting what we've lost, back. Now, how we do that while wondering whether slavery is better for some seems contradicting to me.

I have no problem with dissolving public welfare but just can't go along with slavery.

I mean can't you see the headlines, "Liberty Advocates Ponder Bringing Back Slavery".

You are being hyperbolic.

You are being hyperbolic. Who is suggesting bringing back slavery? You refuse to admit that Blacks didn't gain anything -but an illusion of freedom- in the abolishing of slavery. Not only did Blacks not gain anything with the abolishing of slavery, but more people have been enslaved after slavery has been abolished, then while slavery was running rampant.

Talk about hyperbolic...

Your problem is that you don't want to admit that we're all slaves including Blacks...

When did we all become slaves? If we're all slaves already, then Bundy doesn't have to "often wonder" if they would be better off "as slaves, picking cotton."

It's hard to follow your circular logic.

I didn't say anyone was suggesting bringing back slavery, only pondering based on the fact that you and Cliven Bundy wonder whether welfare recipients would become closer family unit as slaves.

Not only did Blacks not gain anything with the abolishing of slavery, but more people have been enslaved after slavery has been abolished, then while slavery was running rampant

Huh? So what do you suggest? Should we bring back slavery so less people can be enslaved?

Look, I get your sentiment that government has taken too many freedoms and I understand that some welfare recipients lack education and parenting skills. It wouldn't matter if they hit the lottery, they are and always will be slaves in their own mind but I doubt the practice of slavery would do anything to help them become better people and care more for their children.

First you say:I have no

First you say:

I have no problem with dissolving public welfare but just can't go along with slavery.

The bold statement implies that someone suggested bringing back slavery.

Then you state:

I didn't say anyone was suggesting bringing back slavery

This contradicts what you implied previously.

Then you state:

Should we bring back slavery...

As if I am suggesting bringing back slavery.

Can you please stop contradicting yourself?

We are slaves, just not in the conventional sense; I though we had this established already? Apparently you need everything constantly reiterated with every comment.

Uhhhh...This whole thread was...

based on Cliven Bundy's statement that he "often wondered" whether welfare recipients would be better off "picking cotton, as slaves" so they could come home and spend time with their family.

So, that sounds like a suggestion that slavery may be preferable. I replied that I would take welfare over slavery.You replied that slavery wasn't as bad as everyone believes. My reply to that has been that slavery equals no liberty. You replied that we are already all slaves and also stated welfare recipients gained nothing after slavery and that they are worst off than when they were slaves. So I asked the question whether we should bring it back. Now you say I'm contradicting myself.

No contradiction, just a question. If some blacks gained nothing after slavery by becoming welfare recipients and slavery wasn't as bad as you say it was, even though it means they don't have any liberties, would you suggest we bring slavery back? If not, what do you suggest we do?

I never said it wasn't bad.

I never said it wasn't bad. All I did was pointed out that you have no idea what it was actually like. Why haven't you answered my question?

What I do get, is that you have no idea what you are talking about, and yet you persist to speak as if you do.

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been working.

All I did was pointed out that you have no idea what it was actually like. Why haven't you answered my question?

I'm not sure what there is to answer. No, I've never been abducted, shackled to a ship, taken to a foreign land, auctioned off as property, had my child sold to another master, my wife raped nor flogged with a bull whip. So, you are absolutely correct, I have no idea what slavery was like.

I don't think you have any idea what slavery is. It really doesn't matter whether a slave was beaten lightly enough to still work or whether he was never beaten. The bottom line was he had no liberties and was considered property of another man. He could not leave the plantation and seek an education. He wasn't allowed to own property. He faced the constant threat of death or physical abuse if he did not work. He could not tell his master "no" without the threat of death or physical abuse.

None of that applies to receiving a welfare check. You can still get an education. You can still improve your life. Some long-term welfare recipients are quite fine with the little they have. Obviously, they don't care to do anything. They are gaming the system. That to them is their job. Get paid for doing nothing. So, why wouldn't they be better off than being a slave? They don't care to do anything with their life anymore than what they're doing. They are not forced to work like a slave. They don't come home from a long day of picking cotton and have family time, they have family time all day. That's why Bundy's statement is so ridiculous.

Now, to answer your statement that I contradicted myself by saying I'd rather die than than be a slave versus receive a welfare check, there is no contradiction. I simply stated if I had a choice between the two, I'd take the welfare check. If I didn't have a choice and was forced to be a slave, I'd die fighting for my freedom. It's not that hard to understand if you value liberty.

The only emotion I have about the whole issue is one of frustration that some people just don't understand what liberty really is. All of Bundy's statements related to comparing welfare recipients being equal to traditional slavery. Actually, he suggested traditional slavery was preferable to what they have today.

Traditional slavery meant no matter how well slaves were treated, they had no liberties, period. You can't deny that, it is FACT. I'm open to an explanation on how not having any liberties is preferable to having liberties while on welfare whether you choose to exercise those liberties or not.

With well over half of black

With well over half of black families being split-up, either due to the War on Drugs or due to the requirement for Welfare, they(the Black People) still don't have family time, because they barely have families.

You say that they(black people) can own property, however in reality nobody can own property because if you do not pay the State, year after year, then they will take it from you; surely that cannot be considered owning property.

They(Black People) cannot get an education -at least not from the State, they(the Blacks) like the rest of us can pay to be indoctrinated; however, indoctrination is not education.

Surely, a Black person -like anybody else- can improve their lot in life; however, it is no different then the slave which helped the Master keep the other slaves in line, or like the Jew who would help the Nazi's at the Concentration camps. It doesn't actually mean that they are any better off then the rest of us, it is just that their place in line may be farther down then others.

You talk about valuing liberty; how is accepting a welfare check an act of liberty?