For the person who does not understand that standard American History has been so redacted that it amounts to an aggregate lie by omission, perhaps the following exercise will help. One of the reasons why the redaction of history works so well is that the meaning of words have been changed, and that other words have been reassigned.
Bond-servant was the basic legal term for a slave for 5,000 years of Western History.
In the Middle Ages, when most people held in bondage were Eastern European, the term slave came into common use based on the Semitic and Turkic preference for trafficking in Slavic women as sex slaves.
Throughout the Plantation Period in America, Bond-man or bond-woman was the legal definition of a person held in bondage and forced to remain under the power of a master and subject to his every whim, including death. No master in American history was ever tried for the capital crime of murder for killing a bond-man or bond-woman.
For narrative social purposes the masters preferred to use the term servant and the bond-people preferred to use the term slave, except where Africans were held, in which case the agricultural laborers were referred to as slaves by both estates and the house staff were referred to as servants by both, more often than not.
In this way, due to Africans having inherited the sole burden of forced labor in the American south by about 1830, a date before which academics shy away from studying as a declared way of avoiding the loss of focus on the African American question in the larger question of bondage in Plantation America. As 10 Europeans were sold into bondage in English North America for every African, over the period from 1585 to 1804, limiting study in this way is a necessary distortion of reality for those who wish to place the African American condition in a unique light.
So, by 1830, Slave, a term brought into use in the 900s and exclusively used to describe Europeans held in bondage for at least 500 years, had now been reassigned exclusively to people of African descent.
So, in the modern mind, slave can only mean “black person held in bondage.”
But, in the period when the holding of bond-servants was legal, slavery was not the most common term. It was the term used by the ancients, back to Xerxes reminding the Lycian king Phyrrus that he was his “bond-servant.”
I do not know how it happened, but bondage has since been assigned a willing connotation, and represents a person who volunteers to be tied up and used sexually as part of an erotic agreement. This curiously mimics the forcing of illiterate bond-servants to sign a paper agreeing to their condition post facto.
Also, of interest is the fact that women who are abducted, sold and raped are termed “sex slaves” suggesting that if they had not been forced to have sex they would not qualify as slaves, and that their bound condition is not given full gravity.
The term “trafficked” is used instead of sold so that people who are bought and sold today cannot share the same high level of victim status as black people that were sold hundreds of years ago.
The English language usage concerning bondage has been grotesquely deconstructed in such a way as to prevent the simpleton modern mind, so much a slave to brief semantics, so much a creature of word-myth, from connecting bondage past to bondage present and to pave the way for bondage in the future.
A girl who was abducted and fucked for years by a couple of adults was denied the status of slave,for it is sacred and may only be applied to long-dead Africans.
The millions of humans held as prisoners, whose bodies and minds are milked for huge profits, representing the only place where the overseeing Government makes a profit, are denied slave status.
The lie is clearly embedded in the 14th Amendment to the constitution of the United States of America:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This evil document clearly reserves to the government the authority to “deprive any person of life, liberty or property.”
No mention of race is made in this document. Indeed, 170-odd white men would be enslaved by former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest to work unpaid on his property after the Civil War.
There is good reason to suspect that the reduction of the concept of slavery to its commonly understood form today, which is:
1. Bondage of a person of African origin
2. By an individual person of European origin
3. Under government sanction
4. For purposes other than just sexual use “implicit in the term sex slavery”
has evolved or been orchestrated into its current much reduced and non-sense state, to absolve the current and future slave holders of the world:
1. Government [prisons]
2. Corporations [prisons]
3. Medical facilities [Psychiatric enslavement has been constant down from the Plantation Era. Expect to see this spread to cold and flu suffers.]
4. Religions [An American faith founded by a science-fiction writer has held thousands of slaves in old medical facilities and have used law officers to retrieve runaways.]
I see international corporations being given American citizens who have been deprived of their liberty by due process of law, due to debt, unemployment, mask mandate violations, vaϲϲination status, political incorrectness, violation of medical warrants, etc. In Beyond Rainbow Bridge and Cube I explored two likely forms of future medical enslavement. In my novel Ditcher, I intend to explore a regional expression that I suspect very likely.
I speak of the future as a place where additional numbers and forms of bondage will be increasingly sanctified by government. Our minds have been conditioned to believe that we can only be enslaved by an individual, not an organization, which is counter to the historical record. I am not predicting any practice that is not generally in use to hold people against their will. These forms of bondage are set to expand, in part, on the platform of lies that America was built on—that only black people can be held in bondage and only by white people. This sounds ridiculous—but it is what we as a society believe slavery is, a form of racism. [1] If you look at the 4 points above, you will see that none of these forms of bondage, or bond-servitude, or bond-service—serving your time and repaying your debt to society—ever went away.
The holding of chattel is to hold people as disposable livestock, meaning that the master has a power of life and death over his living human property. I have spoken to three men who have been locked up in psychiatric youth prisons with the consent of parents and government—which was exactly how some million English boys were sold into America in the 1600s and 1700s. If these men are committed in the same way now, and they try to escape, the institution has the latitude to kill them under color of a guard “being in fear for her life.” [2]
My instinct is that the mania in Modern Media, Academia and even Religion, to misrepresent bondage as something other than being subjected to the arbitrary power of a master because of a financial, racial or criminal debt, represents a subconscious instinct on the part of an increasingly self-aware System of Control to excuse its future crimes against humanity [which is really all governments do] by warping our perception of bondage into such a narrow spectrum that we will bend our every knee.
Notes
1. Interestingly, the concept of racism was invented long after chattel slavery was abolished in the English-speaking world.
2. For this reason it is very important that historical bondage is only ever characterized as ownership of a group by an individual master, rather than the equally common historical reality of an individual being owned by a group. Legally, every child is owned by its two parents. In the future, children born to corporations will be owned by that entity. In the future super elite slave owners like Infotech moguls, will have slaves, but these will be persons held as debtors to the corporation that the CEO heads.
Confirmation that 'court' needs to be held in da 'street'.
Mr LaFond, I fear you are entirely correct. Clearly, what is being launched globally is an initiative to re-normalize the bond-servant system, as the technocratic elites and banksters cannot think of a way to make usurious system work in perpetuity without slavery. A system where the cattle can earn and save enough money to opt out of the system, or worse, behave as they choose in contradiction to the wishes of the administrators is a system which the oligarchs will always attempt to dismantle.
These people did not abandon the dream of Socialism when Lenin needed to resort to a system of concentration camps (thought up by fellow Jew Leon Trotsky) within a few years of their successful coup d'état against the Kerensky government; with a chief administration of camps (the acronym for which we get the name "GULAG") being in charge of determining firstly how much labor could be extracted from prisoners in a given day, and secondly, with preventing their escape (or communicating with the outside world), and concern with ensuring enough investment in their health and nutrition to allow for their survival being a distant third.
The fact that literal slavery was essential to the underpinning of Council ("Soviet" in Russian) Socialism has not broken the romance of Socialism for the modern Left any more than it did for the Left of the early to mid-20th century; quite to the contrary, it was not until after reformers like Nikita Khrushchev (who is ruthlessly demonized by Leftwing academics today) and a select few others sought to reduce the USSR's (more properly "UCSR") dependence on forced bondage that the lust began to cool slightly.
Slavery is not something these people oppose; it's something they fetishize. You cannot listen to an interview with a Leftwing academic, Jewish intellectual, or one of their Bantu pet psuedo-intellectuals for very long before they start verbally masturbating about committing White genocide and enslaving the ones who are left, i.e. keeping the White women, girls, and boys for sex slaves; a prospect many white women (especially ugly ones) seem to fetishize themselves. Like a man who was molested as a boy, he gleefully relives his childhood trauma with (literally hundreds of) other adult victims of childhood sexual abuse until the bright, golden day when he can identify a boy that he himself can rape without fear of being reported.
Well-meaning White Christians raised huge sums of money to buy slaves and hire ships to return them to Africa; they literally funded the creation of an new African nation called Liberia, and released their charges from bondage to work the land for themselves as Christian freemen, and what was the very first thing they did? They enslaved other Africans to work as field laborers for them. Liberia is now famously one of the worst shitholes in a vast continent that is covered edge-to-edge in every direction with shitholes. When you are the hammer, everything looks like a nail, and when you're a slavery fetishist, everything looks like unjust racial oppression, or an opportunity for total domination.