“Many pirates began life in the islands as indentured servants rather than seaman…In those times a man could survive in England on £3 a year and it is difficult to blame a young man facing a difficult life to take the opportunity to make as much in a year in piracy as he would in a lifetime of honest labour.” (p. 64)
Somebody always wants to get paid more and do less (as we can see from the aforementioned quote). Piracy was a shot at quick money, a lottery ticket on the open sea. Even though you were an indentured servant – a glorified slave – you still had the chance to make more than an English freeman.
The desire for easy money is timeless and universal. We still see it today…like the man that smuggles heroin instead of working at Burger King. Or the woman that prostitutes instead of working at Foot Locker. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
“In age the average pirate crewman was in his late teens or early twenties,”(p. 64).
These were not the old men with eye patches and white beards that we see in Hollywood. They were English youth, many without facial hair. A few years earlier, they were only children. But when they became teenagers, they were the pirates of the Caribbean (a band of roaming thieves, essentially). On some level, they were like an El Salvadorean street gang: only they lived on a boat instead of a Los Angeles street corner.
A considerable number of pirates and privateers were black…As an example, the English frigate Francis captured and burnt the 32-gun French La Trompeuse in Danish St. Thomas in 1673 and noted that of the crew captured on board, 33 were white and 16 black.
Interesting. In the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean, there were a few black pirates. But as with everything in Hollywood, you can never tell what’s real and what’s virtue signalling. Well, it appears they undershot the number. Black piracy was a common thing. Clearly, a black man could make more money as a pirate than as a slave.
Hubbard’s book is an excellent read. It’s entertaining, informative, and interesting. I’ve been learning more about the Caribbean than I ever did in school. It’s a tremendous history, laying the foundation for the history of the Americas.
But most importantly, I’m reminded of something important…
“Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that….” – Adam Smith
I’ve been reading Adam Smith’s epic The Wealth of Nations. It’s considered the bible of modern capitalism, and Smith has been coined the “father of economics.” I’ll write a full review of the book at a later date, because it’s worthy of a deeper look. However, for now I want to touch on a point that Smith makes in the book, as well as the reasons behind it.
The currency of a nation should always be tied to a gold/silver standard.
This is a concept that has confused me for years. Why should a country be tied to something that is intrinsically worthless? Food, clothing, shelter…those things have value. But what is gold? A shiny metal – nothing more. So why should the fortunes of an entire nation be linked to it? That discrepancy always clouded my mind.
But Smith helped me understand the concept. Societies began with barter systems. Then, they moved on coin money – the gold standard represents the reserve of this coined money. Paper money then came to represent the reserve of gold/silver. And printing more paper money than you have in reserve is a lie, since you’re stating you have something that you don’t.
The United States is no longer on the gold standard. Many people cite this as a principal cause for the financial problems of the nation, such as inflation.
On June 5, 1933, the United States went off the gold standard, a monetary system in which currency is backed by gold, when Congress enacted a joint resolution nullifying the right of creditors to demand payment in gold.
Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard to remedy the economic fallout from of Great Depression. Since then, inflation has rose considerably – note the 1933 prices of a home, for example, as opposed to the prices today.
But why was the US on the gold standard to start with? Smith reviews this in The Wealth of Nations, citing many reasons. To understand the concept fully, we have to go back to ancient times…
The Barter System is Flawed
Older civilizations worked on a barter (trade) system. You went to the central market and traded other people for the things you needed. This was efficient for a small town. However, as towns grew into cities, this system became inefficient.
Case in point: Imagine that you need a pair of shoes. But all you have to trade is a chicken. So you wander the streets, looking for person willing to trade you a pair of shoes for a chicken. You spend three hours trying to make the deal. Then, you finally find someone who likes the deal. But instead of one chicken, he wants two chickens. Frustration ensues. You can see the problem with the barter system.
In short, coined money is an improvement on the older system of “trade economy.”
Now you can save your coins. Then when you want a pair of shoes, you merely go to the shoe store and buy it. You save time, the society becomes better organized, and everybody is happier.
Smith believed that the coining of money was the marking of a superior culture. In short, countries that were able to coin money became more advanced that those who couldn’t. He uses the Spanish conquering of the Americas as an example:
The Peruvians, though most advanced of all these peoples, had no coined money and operated on a barter system (p. 162).
These Pre-Colombian cultures worked in the trade systems that had died thousands of years earlier in Europe. Smith believed that this was one of the reasons that marked Europeans as “superior” to these indigenous cultures, in the organizational sense. They were able to save people time, which the people could then allot to other pursuits.
Money Must Be “Made” of Something
So what can replace the barter system? Smith points out that precious metals work well because they do not break down (such as meat, vegetables, etc.) and they can be divided and multiplied. In this way, the coining of money is a brilliant thing. It allows for a symbol of wealth to be distributed. And it allows people to earn, save, and then distribute their wealth.
Seen through this lens, the coining of money is one of the most amazing developments in the history of human development. It allowed civilization to place their wealth in non-disposable objects, which could then be saved and used at later dates.
There are many critics of money – see the “money is the root of all evil” quote. However, if looked at comparatively against an inferior system (such as the barter system) we quickly see how valuable it is. And linking this coined money to a reserve supply, such as a gold standard, becomes a solid bedrock for the building of a great civilization.
Every action causes a subsequent action – the evolution of money is a good example of this. The inadequacy of the barter system led people to search for a solution, which they found in the coining of money. This coining then gave value to precious metals: gold, silver, etc.
The college campus is ground zero when it comes to the SJW narrative. Most of my readers already know this. Sadly, the deviants have recently been doubling down on their behavior: they’ve gone from carrying a “rape mattress” on campus to putting tampons in the men’s bathroom. The halls of academia are starting to resemble a freak show.
Sadly, the dysfunction is promoted by left-wing teachers. These teachers manipulate the students through a careful arrangement of activities and assignments. They corral the students to a “correct” answer—one that usually points a middle finger to conservative thought. If students try to disagree, many are punished with a lower grade. Subsequently, students are forced to shut up and watch the class become indoctrinated.
I taught at the college level for many years. My experience has shown me that a student should not protest in class, after class, or to the department chair. Remember that the far-left have control over all levels of higher education. If you challenge them, then you run the risk of having your GPA damaged. If you take your complaint to the department chair, you’ll find that she has a PHD in Women’s Studies and that she’s even worse than your teacher.
So you have to be smart. I recommend the following strategies for combatting the epidemic of left-wing teachers. I think these tactics can be effective on a small level. And if enough people do them, they can make a difference on a larger level.
Destroy the Teacher’s Reputation on Rate My Professor
Rate my Professor is an online site where students do what the title implies – they rate the performance of their professors. Many teachers rely on good feedback from this site to get future classes. Remember that most college instructors are part time, and that their jobs depend on future enrollment. If the teacher receives a flood of bad reviews on Rate My Professor, then the teacher’s class can be cancelled due to low enrollment. Years ago, a department chair informed me that I should be very mindful of my reviews on this site, since it correlated with his ability to assign me classes.
After your semester is over, I encourage you to go onto the site and post negative feedback about any SJW professors. If these teachers were particularly egregious in pushing their narrative, then you can post multiple comments. You’ll have to open a few burner accounts, but these can easily be deleted later. The point is that you’re hitting back, letting them know that you won’t tolerate an abuse of power.
Troll the Teacher’s YouTube Channel
Many instructors are now using YouTube to post informative videos. For example, it’s common for an English instructor to post information on how to write an essay, or a mathematics teacher to post some strategies on algebra. It’s almost become mandatory for instructors to have some sort of video component to their courses.
I recommend that students troll the YouTube channel of their left-wing instructors. Postings should make the viewers aware that the teacher is a politically biased individual to be avoided. Also, you can add any other information that you feel is relevant: the teacher is late in grading papers, is prone to favoritism, etc.
Again, you can make several comments if you have a few burner accounts. I recommend that you space the postings out so that they don’t look suspicious (avoid five negative comments in one day, for example). The best time to troll the page is at the end of a semester. This is when students are most likely to provide their input on the course. The teacher will see that students are on to the game, and other students will be aware of it as well.
Note: If you have a teacher that scrubs the comments clean, then I encourage you to troll the department’s YouTube page: English, History, etc.
Word of Mouth
Word of mouth can also damage a teacher’s reputation. Although your audience is smaller than my previous two suggestions, it can actually be effective. That’s because young students will talk to one another about what teachers to take. This is especially true of female students who are more gossip oriented.
Note that word of mouth can also translate into a cold approach. For example, you can locate an attractive girl in the student cafeteria. Open her by stating that you are trying to pick out classes for the next semester, and that you’d like her advice on a specific teacher or class. Mention that you’ve had a bad experience with a recent teacher (insert SJW professor’s name) and that you want to avoid that scenario again. You don’t have to be specific about why you didn’t like the teacher—she will remember the teacher’s name, which is the important thing.
The bonus of course is that now you’ve opened her up. You can end the conversation by telling her to meet you at a popular event on the weekend, or asking her number. This could lead to a date and…hopefully, a bang. So you’ve “killed two birds with one.”
There is an old saying in football: “The best defense is a good offense.” If we can learn anything from SJW’s, it’s about the advantage of attacking. You catch the opposition off guard, forcing them into a careless mistake.
It’s time to reverse the trend. If a left-wing instructor has a weakness (especially a woman) then it’s hubris. The modern college is a tenured oligarchy, where dissenting voices are systematically removed. After time, they start to believe that the opposition does not exist. Given this reality, one can take pleasure in rattling their cages.
Academics are sacred. The longer that we let these rabble rousers pollute the halls of our noble universities, the more damaged our countries will become. It’s time to let them know that we see them, and we won’t accept their subversive Weltanschauung.
Many for-profit colleges are sprouting up. And needless to say, with the recent bankruptcy of ITT, the for-profits are under fire. A growing number of students are upset, and they have every right to be – they’re holding diplomas from schools that no longer exist.
Unfortunately, the traditional college is no better. SJWs have taken over the system for half a century. They intimidate conservatives, stifle democracy, and destroy critical thinking. Indeed, going to a traditional college is now an Orwellian experience.
So what to do? All things considered, I recommend going to a traditional college – it’s the lesser of two evils. If you’re not sure what defines a for-profit school, then let me tell you what to look for…
1.) The College Should Have Entry Requirements
GPA, SAT scores…these are all critical. Does the enrollment counselor ask you about them? If not, then it’s a red flag. Now you might be thinking, “Yeah Styles, but I don’t have either of those in good standing. I screwed around in high school, so my record is shot.” My answer to that is simple – go to a community college, take some courses for two years, and improve your scores. It’s up to you to improve your game, not them.
Why does a college not have entry requirements? Well, the answer is simple: money. The more students they enroll, the more money they get. But this greed comes at a cost. They allow people in their hallways that lack professionalism. People that are loud, rude and semi-literate. This is a college – not a trailer park. If you spend enough time around these “students,” you realize why good bars want a cover charge – they’re protecting the valued customer.
Entry-level requirements are the safety net for a college; they ensure that a diploma is worth something in ten years. The requirements can be relatively simple as well. For example, requiring a 2.0 GPA can protect the college from thousands of problematic students.
2.) The College Should Have a Limited Number of Campuses
The college should have one principal campus (a few satellite campuses in nearby locations are ok). However, too many locations is a red flag. It indicates that the school is more concerned with “growing their brand” than educating their students.
Remember, this is a college – not Mcdonalds. Don’t be impressed when you hear that a college has 10 locations here, 15 locations there…that’s irrelevant. The important thing is the strength of a primary campus. When a college has multiple locations, it’s usually controlled by a board of investors. And these investors care about profit first, education second.
I’m normally a capitalist. I believe in the power of private ownership over state control. However, there are certain areas where privatization comes at a cost, and education is one of them. The greed of these for-profits has left thousands of students with egg on their face. If a stronger advisory board was controlling these matters, then the issue would not have occurred.
3.) The College Should Not Be Calling to Check in on You
For-profit schools like to call their students. They do this for a variety of reasons: to see why they were absent, to notify them about low grades, etc. Students will find this a bit strange at first. However, they quickly dismiss the thought and replace it with, “That was considerate of them.”
Of course, the reason they are calling students is simple; if the student drops out, it means less money for the school. It’s about cash, not concern. Many students stay on board for around eight classes, become overwhelmed, and then drop out. So the continual calls keep the student engaged beyond the point where they would normally give up. By the time students realize the mistake, they’re in the hole for a sizable debt (usually around $10,000).
You’re the only person that should care about your academic success. Anybody else, outside of your immediate family, should not be concerned. So if the college you’re attending is checking in with you, then you know it’s a scam. It’s time to right the ship before it’s too late. I suggest that you ask the enrollment counselor this question if you are touring the campus: “Does your school call the students to check in with them?” The enrollment counselor will answer yes, because he/she believes it to be a good answer. They’ll tip their hand, and you will know that you’re being duped.
Students today need to be very careful. The wrong college choice can lead to a loss of thousands of dollars; moreover, they can actually choose a college that won’t exist in five years.
When choosing between a for-profit school and a traditional college, I recommend the lesser of two evils: the traditional college. I wish we had another choice in America, but at the moment it’s slim pickings.