fear of a black planet

Barack Obama Way Worse Slaveholder Than Actual Slaveholders, Obviously

"Propinquity"Oh hi there readers. Whatcha doing? Stuff? Work stuff? Fun stuff? Sexytime stuff? Are you in the Midwest and digging yourself out of a million inches of snow? Why not take a break and go read this delightful 2388-word (YES WE COUNTED THEM. ok, actually, we just cut and pasted them into Word, which counted them for us) article over at American Thinker? It starts out in a really promising fashion:

Thomas Jefferson owned about six hundred slaves over the course of his life. That is to say, he was involved in denying individual sovereignty to six hundred people. Barack Obama, by comparison, wishes to deny individual sovereignty to over three hundred million people. And yet according to the left, Jefferson should be dismissed as a hypocrite, and one of the noblest documents ever written reduced to the status of mere “politics,” whereas Obama, who seeks to destroy that document, ought to be seen as a champion of equality and fairness.

Hmmmm…sounds compelling and innovative. Obama is way more slaveholdery than actual slaveholders. Let’s see how this argument fleshes out, shall we? This being American Thinker, it is sure to be incredibly well-reasoned and coherent. There is no doubt that by the end of this article, we will totally understand how Obama is all slave-y and how owning actual people does NOT make you slave-y:

Property is a derivation from what Jefferson, following Locke and others, termed the right to life. A human being, as an animal, has a natural inclination to self-preservation; however, as a rational being, this inclination is not simply an instinct, but initiates a moral imperative, i.e., it becomes a matter of choosing to live in accordance with his nature, first and foremost by preserving himself.

Sponsored Video

Um, OK. So Locke and Jefferson invented property, and humans are animals (DO NOT TELL DENNIS PRAEGER THIS). We’re still not getting to the part where Obummer enslaves us all with healthcare or debt or something. Let’s keep going. (Readers, we’re doing you a solid here and skipping over the approximately one million paragraphs that wouldn’t be out of place in a sophomore philosophy class. Sample sentence: “Slavery is self-refuting, as it contradicts the foundation of property rights, namely that a human being owns himself.” Thank us later.) After the “reading Locke while high and then writing about it” portion of the article passes, we get to the super-duper well-reasoned conclusion:

Jefferson was a man who opposed slavery at its root — its incompatibility with the basis of private property, namely individual sovereignty — but who found himself unable to undo the societal wrong in his lifetime, or even to extricate his own life from its taint. His ideas and his words paved the way for many great developments, not least of which was the end of slavery in America. His principled hope was achieved, albeit belatedly.

Obama, on the contrary, is a man who embraces the core principle of slavery — the denial of individual sovereignty, i.e., self-ownership. His main difference on this score from the slave owners of the past is that, rather than pursuing the contradiction of defending private property while simultaneously defiling it, Obama merely wishes to undo property itself, thus rendering enslavement a universal principle of government.

Jefferson actually owned people, but later on some people read some Jefferson and thought that owning people might not be cool, so, ipso facto ergo, Jefferson freed all the slaves, including his own retroactively like magic. The Kenyan socialist pretender will take your monies and give them to other people via a scary thing called “taxes” so, also, too, Obama wants to own all the people in America. THAT IS AN AIRTIGHT SYLLOGISM GODDAMMIT.  To sum up: war is peace, ignorance is strength (which makes those motherfuckers at American Thinker incredibly strong) and freedom is slavery. The end.

[American Thinker]

Related

About the author

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

194 comments

  1. BaldarTFlagass

    Well, at least Obama hasn't come around and checked my teeth for soundness or said "Yes, that's a good strong buck that will do well in the fields."

      1. Guppy

        No, just vaccinations, some blood work, annual check-ups and the like. Only Betty Windsor is socialist enough to do that to her slaves.

    1. Nibbler of Niblonia

      what do you expect from somebody who resorts to use of the phrase "that is to say" in the second sentence?

      don't "that is to say" it, just "say it."

  2. snowpointsecret

    Obama is taking your money, so that's slavery! Money is people too!

    But wait, the person who wrote this article owns money.

    And so do we, I'm sure.

    OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL SLAVE OWNERS YOU GUYS!

    1. Toomush_Infer

      But I don't own any money – my wife only lets me hold onto some once in a while so I can remember what it feels like….

  3. Callyson

    Property is a derivation from what Jefferson, following Locke and others, termed the right to life.

    Then how on earth are all the poorz still among us?

    1. Nibbler of Niblonia

      the poor in America actually have it pretty good. many of them own cell phones, large-screen TVs, and themselves.

      1. malsperanza

        Themselves is a very valuable asset. If they only had the good sense to get a mortgage on themselves, or maybe a self-equity loan with a floating rate, they could pay off the house and the car and send their kids to college, without being dependent on the government for all that.

        Better yet, they could mortgage the kids. There's good collateral in a kid.

  4. Oblios_Cap

    Jefferson was a man … who found himself unable to … extricate his own life from its taint.

    What a deep and complex individual Jefferson was. Fascinating!

    1. Guppy

      Half the women here would probably like Barry to break out the whip, or at least a riding crop.

      (And no, not just in the "whip this out" sense either.)

  5. BaldarTFlagass

    "His principled hope was achieved, albeit belatedly."

    And with some resistance, if I recall my history.

    1. SorosBot

      I remember some of the biggest resistance to Thomas Jefferson's principal hope came from a hardcore supporter of slavery named Thomas Jefferson.

    2. glamourdammerung

      And with some resistance, if I recall my history.

      Damned Americans, stopping the Southern traitors from peacefully freeing their slaves.

  6. snowpointsecret

    I'm not sure calling a black man a slave owner is going to help race relations much. Just a thought.

  7. actor212

    So lemme get this straight: because Obama wants to….um, what, precisely?….somehow he's enslaving people who make money hand over fist compared to even the middle class of colonial times?

    Got it. Good to know. I for one welcome my benevolent Simon Legree.

    1. Nibbler of Niblonia

      it goes even deeper than that. there are buildings at the University that are total rip-offs of some dude's designs from ancient greece

  8. SorosBot

    Wait, I've missed something; what exactly has Obama done that they think shows he "wishes to undo property itself, thus rendering enslavement a universal principle of government"? I need some concrete examples here people.

    1. BerkeleyBear

      How dare you require empiricism to prove an article of faith. Have you learned nothing from Dok's weekend reviews of how Christian education works?

      1. SorosBot

        Yeah, I keep forgetting that faith and what you want to be true trumps actual facts and evidence; must be why I'm a filthy godless atheist.

    2. Tangled sin tax

      The fiend wants 3 dollars more of every 100 dollars you make beyond 250k of them…the mind reels in horror. And if that's not enough, he wants to use them for health care and roads and bridges and other unspeakable atrocities! Wake up, sheeple!%^&?>

    3. Guppy

      He wants to deny you your God-given write to self-sufficiently drive a Medicare-funded Hovaround, by giving free weight loss counseling.

  9. BaldarTFlagass

    I like that last paragraph of the blockquote. Apparently Obama is both a cruel cunning Czar AND a Stalinesque commie monster.

    1. glamourdammerung

      You would have to specify whether you meant the first or second part of their name (or both).

    1. Nibbler of Niblonia

      barring further clarification from the author, I'm going to assume this means he refused to eat Sally's famous hemp smoked parsnips during the winter months at the plantation.

  10. cousinitt

    But I WANT Obama to own me. There's something special about the relationship between a man and an itt. As long as progressive Marxists™ keep me in shampoo, creme rinse, and a decent brush, I'm good.

  11. Oblios_Cap

    Thomas Jefferson owned about six hundred slaves over the course of his life.

    599 of them worked while Jefferson was banging the 600th.

    His principled hope was achieved, albeit belatedly.

    Yes. The Founding Fathers' inability to address the issue resulted in his hope being achieved, albeit belatedly, after a particularly vicous war between the states. Bravo, Founders!

      1. Nibbler of Niblonia

        he may have lacked stamina but he was very inventive. on the special tours of monticello they describe in detail, how the original prototype of the Lazy Susan was actually a marital aide.

    1. Guppy

      599 of them worked while Jefferson was banging the 600th.

      You'd think all that time in Paris would inspire him to at least try two at once.

  12. chicken_thief

    Locke? Sandra Locke? Didn't Clint used to pork her back before the days he stood around talking to chairs?

  13. actor212

    “Slavery is self-refuting, as it contradicts the foundation of property rights, namely that a human being owns himself.”

    Really?

    Because, you know, in a monarchy, all property devolves to the king by Divine Right and all people swear fealty to the Crown, so slavery in colonial America was perfectly understood to mean that even people could be owned.

    You know, indentured servitude, also, too. Plus.

    1. weejee

      “Slavery is self-refuting, as it contradicts the foundation of property rights, namely that a human being owns himself.”

      So actor I guess slavery is a self-referential oxymaroon, according to the author who is reduced to just being a moran. With all that oxy & reduction it's turning into a chemistry class.

    2. BerkeleyBear

      Enlightenment thinkers actually largely took the idea that the problem with slavery and self-enslavement isn't some inconsistency with property generally (because of course you can sell anything) but the negation of self-determination it represented.

      1. actor212

        The whole justification for slavery was that these were sub-human beings, tho. Self-determination was reserved for human beings (e.g. white property owners).

        1. BerkeleyBear

          That was the out clause, sure, but one that only got put in after social contract thinkers first proclaimed all that bunk about self-evident truths and rights in the state of nature (that only applied to white property owning males somehow when push came to shove).

    3. HarryButtle

      Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

        1. sullivanst

          Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

  14. Chet Kincaid_

    What the fuck? In all that word salad, the idiot didn't even make a half-assed attempt to mention an Obama policy that even smelled like slavery. I expected the individual mandate, at least.

    1. cousinitt

      And that putrid air of smug self-satisfaction these geniuses produce is all over this piece. What is it with these folks? I'm becoming convinced they write these turds to see who among them is the more accomplished intellectual fapper.

  15. SorosBot

    You know what actually is "the denial of individual sovereignty"? Forcing women to undergo pregnancy against their will, forbidding some couples from marrying because of their genitals, or telling people what consensual sex acts and with whom they are allowed to engage in. And yet I recall the American "Thinker" supporting all these actual assaults on liberty.

  16. BaldarTFlagass

    So, if I'm to be Obama's slave, does that mean I have to learn spiritual songs to sing whilst I toil in the fields? Or can I be one of the house slaves?

          1. HistoriCat

            That's not racial transcendence! You're supposed to be lifting those white people up – civilizing them!

            Take up the Black Man's burden.

  17. snowpointsecret

    This is less circular logic and more logic that tries to circle around but just ends up wandering aimlessly and ending up far to the right of where it started. Drunk logic, if you will.

  18. noodlesalad

    I can never make up my mind what I hate more, the plain dumbfuckery of straight-up teabag scribblings with their capital letters and misspelled words and hate, or their thinly disguised pseudo-intellectual cousins which make all the same points but with more tortured grammar and thesaurus abuse.

    Then I remember–you can hate all of them, Katie. All of them.

  19. rickmaci

    Another example of how the American right wing Idiocracy lives in a world somewhere between bullshit and total nonsense.

  20. EatsBabyDingos

    Well, we are now all beholden to the olds like the Kochs and Adelson, so we are all suffering from dentured servitude.

  21. Chet Kincaid_

    This dope is apparently some Eastern European educated in Canada and teaching in South Korea, who nevertheless spends all his time writing goddamned stupid articles on American wingnut blogs:

    "Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea."
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/

    1. BerkeleyBear

      The Romanian name was a pretty big clue that this guy is a wing nut with Randian pretensions. They aren't all crazy, but Eastern Euros do tend to see property rights in absolutist terms, all historical evidence notwithstanding. Something about surviving Communism from what I can tell.

    2. pdiddycornchips

      He is also well known as the McMaster debater but that had nothing to do with his reasoning skills.

    3. vulpes82

      So he's Romanian? Well, that's practically Moldavian, and you know ELSE is from Moldavia? That's right, Orly Taitz!

    4. sullivanst

      He teaches philosophy?!! His students are doomed.

      ETA: So also, not only not a Thinker, but also not American. Oh and BTW? McMaster University is a public school. Changwon National University too, as its name would suggest. Jonescu is personally enslaving entire nations by causing them to be taxed so he can get paid.

    5. Negropolis

      A Romanian, eh? So, this is another case of "I lived behind the Iron Curtain so now I'm going to overcompensate by becoming a super capitalist"?

  22. chicken_thief

    That's a whole lot of horseshit and nonsense rolled into one article to essentially say "us poor middle aged white men are the real victims".

    1. el_donaldo

      Next American Thinker article: George Washington led the troops, starving and shoeless, out of Valley Forge into victory. But Obama is leading us right into the FEMA camps. THE CONNECTION IS UNMISTAKABLE.

  23. corthylio

    I'm so confused. Ignorance is strength? I thought it was bliss. So strength = bliss = ignorance? This philosophy stuff makes my head hurt.

  24. iburl

    Last time I checked, slaves were not allowed to vote, carry weapons, have their own radio and TV stations, marry who they want, wear what they want, go where they want, work for whoever they want, etc., etc., etc., .

    I'm beginning to suspect that right wingers might be a teensy bit out of touch with the Black experience in America.

    1. Negropolis

      Don't forget read. Reading was dangerous. The might get some kind of idea that they were equal, or something, if they read the nation's founding documents.

  25. Disassembly

    If slavery is merely the denial of individual sovereignty then stop lights, speed limits and gravity are all slave owners. In fact, because slave owners of yore were compelled to feed and house their slaves, the slave owners were themselves the slaves of the slaves. It seems that someone owes me some land and a mule.

  26. SayItWithWookies

    His main difference on this score from the slave owners of the past is that, rather than pursuing the contradiction of defending private property while simultaneously defiling it, Obama merely wishes to undo property itself, thus rendering enslavement a universal principle of government.

    Wow – Mr. Dumbass has really gotten himself turned around on this one. Where he correctly noted that slavery mixes the notions of humanity and private property, it's not the idea of private property that's defiled here, it's humanity. Slavery is in fact entirely in accordance with the idea of owning things. It's typical of the conservative money-is-everything mentality that they're sure President Obama is defiling something, and then naturally think our core value as a society is property rather than, say, our humanity. And I'm not really sure there's a way to overstate the moral failing of this argument — it's really quite appalling when you think about it.

    1. pdiddycornchips

      And just think, this man is educating bright young minds in South Korea. No wonder they want us out.

  27. jodyleek

    Property rights, huh? American Stinker, how about you talk to an American Indian and then get back to me about your high minded white man's notion of "property rights".

    1. BadKitty904

      It may have made more sense in the language in which it was originally written, which pretty obviously wasn't English…

  28. Abernathy

    If only there had been some way he could have refused to own slaves. But what could he do? He was stuck with those slaves. It's almost like TJ was slavery's first and most tragic victim.

  29. SuspectedDemocrat

    In other words, he's saying that by electing our first black President, we've taken a step backwards from the days of slavery.

    Is it too early to start talking about the Republican 2016 Presidential ticket?

  30. sullivanst

    Sigh. These idiots declare that property rights are self-evident, and consider that proof. It's perfectly consistent not to include property as a basic right, and wind up with Left-Libertarianism ("Anarchism") or Utopian Socialism. While these philosophies have not been successful in creating successful governments, neither has Right-Libertarianism as practiced at American "Thinker" (more like Verbose Waffler, amiright?). And their particular interpretation of property rights – especially inheritance rights and unlimited right of acquisition – really isn't self-evident.

  31. BlueStateLibel

    And yet…Mitt Rmoney still lost the election! …keep crying your bitter, bitter tears, American "Thinker" writers.

    1. sullivanst

      You'd think with all those words there'd be something in there you could use, but no.

      And I mean that in the most general sense possible.

  32. Mittens Howell, III

    Out of Obama's 300 million slaves approximately 212 million are exclusively dedicated to supporting the weight of his enormous pair of constitution-cutting scissors.

  33. Barrelhse

    You don't really need to say anything at all to be a right-wing propagandist. Anyone who can make sense out of this drivel is obviously a drooling mouth-breather with his hand in his pants- i.e., the Republican base.

  34. James Michael Curley

    Jefferson owned only five slaves. The rest were owned by his wife's family which she inherited and could not 'free' due to estate requirements.

    1. Negropolis

      He inherited both slaves from his father and his father-in-law. He eventually owned far more than five slaves. I bet you he surpassed that number very early in his adult life. He also ended up selling dozens of them because of the debt he incurred often.

      Slavery was not something Jefferson dabbled in, and he was master of his domain. This was not a man handcuffed. Monticello was a vertible Jefferson slave village, this much is not an opinion but a fact, let us not get it twisted.

      1. James Michael Curley

        Interesting, as I’m going on memory from years ago. But I should have been clearer in that he ‘owned’ hundreds of slaves and Monticello was a slave labor enterprise. But I seem to recall that, with or without his acquiescence, the process of ‘freeing’ his slaves was complicated by Virginia law and its law of inheritance. Even in NJ – Supposedly a non-slave state at the Revolution state records show the last of its slaves were not freed until the 1840s. There are always loopholes (and assholes) however well intentioned a law is.

        1. Negropolis

          George Washingotn, who also owned slaves in Virginia, freed his estate's slaves in his will. In VA, you could emancipate slaves in your will or in a deed, this law having come into effect long before either's death. Upon Jefferson's death, he only emancipated five of the 130 existing slaves – the five being Hemings, but surprisingly not Sally, herself. He willed all the rest to be sold off to help pay off his debts. Curiosly, along with not formally freeing Sally, he freed one of her nephews, but not the wife of the nephew nor their eight children who all ended up getting sold to four different people.

          No, there was nothing of any real legal/codified consequence to stop him from doing exactly what Washington did. Jefferson made a business decision. For all his supposed business acumen, Jefferson lived above his means for most of his life.

          Jefferson was brilliant when it came to ideas for starting and improving our fledgling democracy, but much the rest of his life is hype.

          1. Rebootably_Joe

            Honestly, it's even worse than that; the easy explanation is that Jefferson's financial mismanagement and debts pressured him to make the "business" choice to retain his slaves against principal is complicated by the fact that he opposed his friends' and collegues' decisions to free their own slaves, and furthermore, refused to execute another friends will, which called for his estate to be used to purchase slaves and free them en masse.

            Those weren't business decisions on his part.

          2. Negropolis

            You are right, I was trying to be magnanimous even in tearing down the veil. Truth is that Jefferson hadn't been abolition-minded since his youth.

          3. James Michael Curley

            My intent is not to defend or mitigate Jefferson or Washington but to promote the issue that slave ownership was such a securely protected part of too much of the US even after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution and that even in ‘non-slave’ states those who were privileged got to keep their slaves. Dred Scott and all that. And folks we’re only 175 some years from then with a growing belief by many that they have predestined status above others.

  35. GoodDogThor

    And yet according to the left, Jefferson should be dismissed as a hypocrite, and one of the noblest documents ever written reduced to the status of mere politics

    Hmmm… did I miss a memo?

    His principled hope was achieved, albeit belatedly.

    He means that whole 3/5's thing, right?

  36. christianmuslin

    The wingnuts spent the last '5 & 1/2 years Alan' trying to prove the President was not U.S. born but instead was from Indonesia off the coast of Kenya in Afreeka. Having failed, they will now attempt to convince us that because his mother's ancestors, and some of Michelle's ancestors owned slaves, so will he, and they are us. Is this before or after the UN invades and takes all of our guns?

  37. GeneralLerong

    Jesus – the crew at Jacobin is struggling for bucks, yet someone at American Stinker actually got paid to write crap worth less than stale gum on a shoe bottom.

    Where are the liberal, progressive sugar mommies and daddies that distribute author chow with the liberality of the Kochs et al?

  38. docterry6973

    Does the Sage cite any evidence of Obama's attempts to abolish private property? Didn't think so.

    Though I do think it was pretty nasty of Obama to invent this 'tax' thing.

  39. lulzmonger

    If genealogy & nomenclature are any clue, Thomas Jefferson was extricating himself from A LOT of taints in his day.

  40. Negropolis

    And yet according to the left, Jefferson should be dismissed as a hypocrite

    You know, everyone already knows this, but thinkers don't dismiss anyone outright. Jefferson was a multi-faceted individual…and that's how any thinking person views him. I know that nuance is hard for conservatives, but that doesn't mean it's a difficulty for us all. We can, in fact, walk and chew gum at the same time.

    BTW, they are right about Jefferson in that his words eventually paved the way for what his actions could never do. He was set all aflame earlier in his life against slavery, and that quickly turned when he found out how much money he could make off of it.

Comments are closed.