Kingston Group Mbrs Plead Guilty to Massive Fraud Case

[Robert F. Smith]

Gregory Katz (AP), “Police break up huge 'modern day slavery' ring in UK,” Yahoo News, Jul 5, 2019, online at https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-break-huge-modern-day-124156064.html .

Danielle Fowler, “Princess Eugenie is set to make royal history,” Harper’s Bazaar, Aug 3, 2019, online at https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/princess-eugenie-set-royal-history-073400336.html ,

Quote

"There are an estimated 40.3 million slaves in the world today," Julia De Boinville reveals in the clip. "We witnessed first-hand how many amazing charities there are in the UK and beyond, doing phenomenal work, so we wondered how we could highlight the work they are doing and raise awareness."

"And with that we launched the Anti-Slavery Collective," she continued. "The Anti-Slavery Collective's mission is to bring people together, because together we are so much more powerful and impact serious change."

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

On 8/2/2019 at 12:23 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I am analyzing what happened alongside what should have happened (in a perfect world), which we can now clearly see with 20/20 hindsight.  We cannot rewrite history, just as we cannot right all wrongs.  But it is obvious from our current vantage point that negro slavery was fundamentally wrong, and should never have been allowed in the 19th century -- just as it was not in England and Canada.

Your oversimplication is not borne out by facts.  And why the emphasis on negro slavery?  Is negro slavery somehow worse than any other kind? Or the only kind that there was?  As for England and Canada, slavery was not illegal and not nonexistent, just not widespread, and was not banned until 1833.

The Indian tribes of North America practiced slavery long before whites arrived. The Indian civilizations of Central and South America practiced it, too.

Try this: Slavery in Canada.

On 8/2/2019 at 12:23 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

  Why did they get it right while we got it wrong?

As I said they did not get it right. In the first place, who is "they" and who is "we"?  I take it that you mean the Brits and the Canucks are "they".  Ok then, except, "they" were "us" at the time, and as I said above, they had slaves, both Indian and negro.  The first African slaves in the British colonies were brought in 1619 to Virginia by a Dutch ship that had captured them from a Spanish ship.  And may I point out that "we" were "they" at that time?  

Try this: Slavery in the colonial United States.  

In short, "we" inherited the situation that developed from what "they" (whoever "they" is) foisted upon "us".  Our ancestors, I guess.  Do you not recall the Declaration of Independence?  Where Jefferson railed against slavery and the role of the Monarchy in establishing and perpetuating it?  Of course not, as Jefferson was forced to remove it, as he said, at the behest of some delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

He wrote:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

In short, the British had been profiting from it and were hardly "getting it right."

On 8/2/2019 at 12:23 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, I can easily understand the heavy presence of slavery in ancient Athens or Rome.  I cannot fault those civilizations.  They simply had not come as far as our 19th century forebears.  We could not expect them to see the light.

There is literally no place upon the earth where slavery in some form has not been practiced.  There's plenty of places in the world where slavery is still being practiced.  Against Africans, against Filipinos, against everyone.  And you are aware, are you not, that at times Muslim raiders were capturing Europeans and taking them to the Middle East and Africa as slaves?  Slavery was not banned in many Muslim countries until the early 20th century, and still later in Saudi Arabia, among others.  And banning it has not led to it not being practiced, as open-air slave markets have been observed in Libya in the present day.

[longview]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is literally no place upon the earth where slavery in some form has not been practiced.

As well as some degree of indentured servitude.  It was a means of bringing debtors and criminals from Europe to the Americas and to Australia.

This was also practised in Ancient Israel.  The Lord mercifully provided guidelines for putting a limit on the duration of servitude.  See Leviticus 25:39-55.

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

As well as some degree of indentured servitude.  It was a means of bringing debtors and criminals from Europe to the Americas and to Australia.

This was also practised in Ancient Israel.  The Lord mercifully provided guidelines for putting a limit on the duration of servitude.  See Leviticus 25:39-55.

Yep.  The first slaves brought to Virginia in 1613ish or so were actually subject to some sort of limitation on the duration, as well as having actual rights.  Later that got severely cut down to the chattel slavery extending into generations.

It's still an evil system, as prevalent as it has been.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Your oversimplication is not borne out by facts.  And why the emphasis on negro slavery?  Is negro slavery somehow worse than any other kind? Or the only kind that there was?  As for England and Canada, slavery was not illegal and not nonexistent, just not widespread, and was not banned until 1833.

The Indian tribes of North America practiced slavery long before whites arrived. The Indian civilizations of Central and South America practiced it, too.

Try this: Slavery in Canada.

As I said they did not get it right. In the first place, who is "they" and who is "we"?  I take it that you mean the Brits and the Canucks are "they".  Ok then, except, "they" were "us" at the time, and as I said above, they had slaves, both Indian and negro.  The first African slaves in the British colonies were brought in 1619 to Virginia by a Dutch ship that had captured them from a Spanish ship.  And may I point out that "we" were "they" at that time?  

Try this: Slavery in the colonial United States.  

In short, "we" inherited the situation that developed from what "they" (whoever "they" is) foisted upon "us".  Our ancestors, I guess.  Do you not recall the Declaration of Independence?  Where Jefferson railed against slavery and the role of the Monarchy in establishing and perpetuating it?  Of course not, as Jefferson was forced to remove it, as he said, at the behest of some delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

He wrote:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

In short, the British had been profiting from it and were hardly "getting it right."

There is literally no place upon the earth where slavery in some form has not been practiced.  There's plenty of places in the world where slavery is still being practiced.  Against Africans, against Filipinos, against everyone.  And you are aware, are you not, that at times Muslim raiders were capturing Europeans and taking them to the Middle East and Africa as slaves?  Slavery was not banned in many Muslim countries until the early 20th century, and still later in Saudi Arabia, among others.  And banning it has not led to it not being practiced, as open-air slave markets have been observed in Libya in the present day.

A lot of preaching to the choir here, Stargazer, and you completely missed my point about the Brits and Canucks outlawing slavery.  I am well aware of the historical background, and I fully understand that they outlawed slavery in 1833 -- when we should have joined in with that same legal move.  Why?  Because the time was right, and it was surely the way to avoid further problems down the road in America.  Heck, we very nearly had Civil War in America in the 1830s and barely avoided it.  Despite your abject failure in the above diatribe to recognize the distinction, we in the West had come to the point of civilization in which we needed to cease our acceptance of slavery -- or else basically give up on any sense of decency as a culture.

The result of continuing the damnable practice led to men like Robert E. Lee personally whipping his slaves, and to splitting up every slave family under his control, and selling them off to distant owners, so that the families would have no contact whatsoever.  The degradation was purposeful, and it degraded the masters to the level of fiends.  We are not talking about the nature of slavery in bestial areas of the world in which such horror was normal, but here in America, which led to the most horrific war the country has ever seen, followed by another century of de facto slavery.  Your diatribe misses the implications completely, and even muddies the waters by speaking to slavery of other races.  I was speaking solely and only about America.  You went off the rails in your reply.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of preaching to the choir here, Stargazer, and you completely missed my point about the Brits and Canucks outlawing slavery.  I am well aware of the historical background, and I fully understand that they outlawed slavery in 1833 -- when we should have joined in with that same legal move.  Why?  Because the time was right, and it was surely the way to avoid further problems down the road in America. 

Given the political climate, it was impossible to outlaw slavery in 1833.  You can talk "coulda shoulda" all you want.  And I didn't miss your point.  The only reason it was feasible to do what they did is because slavery was not impossibly intertwined with their economy.  Hooray for them, but they don't get that much credit, because it was easy for them to do it.  There was no way in hell that we were going to get out of slavery except at the point of a gun, especially after Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, which gave slavery a shot in the arm economically.  Blood was the only way out of it.  And so we paid.

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Heck, we very nearly had Civil War in America in the 1830s and barely avoided it.  Despite your abject failure in the above diatribe to recognize the distinction, we in the West had come to the point of civilization in which we needed to cease our acceptance of slavery -- or else basically give up on any sense of decency as a culture.

I didn't fail to appreciate any point, Robert.  We needed to do it, but we couldn't do it.  And there were plenty of people, both North and South, who knew we needed to do it.  But needing something and having something are two separate things.

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The result of continuing the damnable practice led to men like Robert E. Lee personally whipping his slaves, and to splitting up every slave family under his control, and selling them off to distant owners, so that the families would have no contact whatsoever.  The degradation was purposeful, and it degraded the masters to the level of fiends. 

So why do you bring up Robert E. Lee?  Do you have some notion that I am in love with him or anybody like him who did what he did?  Now look who's preaching to the choir.  I am very much aware of the damnable results of the chattel slavery practiced in the US, on both masters and slaves, and even on those who owned no slaves but merely lived in that culture.

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We are not talking about the nature of slavery in bestial areas of the world in which such horror was normal, but here in America, which led to the most horrific war the country has ever seen, followed by another century of de facto slavery.  Your diatribe misses the implications completely, and even muddies the waters by speaking to slavery of other races.  I was speaking solely and only about America.  You went off the rails in your reply.

To your bold, maybe so.  But I get angry when people try to ascribe guilt to the United States as if they were the only ones with guilt to bear, as if America were somehow some kind of perfect nation, while others who may have had just as much blame to share get off like white knights.  I hate slavery and mourn that the United States was founded with that hellish system still in place.  But an attempt to abolish slavery during the Constitutional Convention would have resulted in two nations, one forever slave and the other forever free.  As you suggest, the Civil War could have occurred a lot earlier, but would that have been better than 1861?  The point is, the USA inherited the disease and had to shed blood to end it.  But it was ended, even if that was still not the end of the matter with regard to civil rights. Those who insist on carrying or asserting guilt despite the eventually successful attempts to get rid of it are as off base as someone who rejects apologies and will not forgive slights.  And those who insist on a continuation of the Civil War into these days, even after the USA elected a black man President twice, insisting that the country remains just as racist as it was a 100 years ago (not you, necessarily), are muddying the waters far more than you think I have.  Can't we just proclaim victory and move on?  Or do you really think we need to continue to convulse ourselves over something that NONE of us are guilty of, because the matter was concluded 150 years ago?

As for my muddying the waters, I reject the characterization.  The whole world wallows in guilt; America is not perfect, and you can think to yourself that our version of slavery was worse than any other, but if that's what you think you are wrong.  

Something I am trying to point out that you don't seem to get is this: the USA did not institute slavery; slavery was foisted on the USA.  And like all men, the men of the USA were fallible, and some could not give up what they inherited.  And thus blood had to be shed.

We may be arguing past each other. I don't think we're as far apart as it might seem. At least I hope so.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Given the political climate, it was impossible to outlaw slavery in 1833.  You can talk "coulda shoulda" all you want.  And I didn't miss your point.  The only reason it was feasible to do what they did is because slavery was not impossibly intertwined with their economy.  Hooray for them, but they don't get that much credit, because it was easy for them to do it.  There was no way in hell that we were going to get out of slavery except at the point of a gun, especially after Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, which gave slavery a shot in the arm economically.  Blood was the only way out of it.  And so we paid.

I didn't fail to appreciate any point, Robert.  We needed to do it, but we couldn't do it.  And there were plenty of people, both North and South, who knew we needed to do it.  But needing something and having something are two separate things.

So why do you bring up Robert E. Lee?  Do you have some notion that I am in love with him or anybody like him who did what he did?  Now look who's preaching to the choir.  I am very much aware of the damnable results of the chattel slavery practiced in the US, on both masters and slaves, and even on those who owned no slaves but merely lived in that culture.

To your bold, maybe so.  But I get angry when people try to ascribe guilt to the United States as if they were the only ones with guilt to bear, as if America were somehow some kind of perfect nation, while others who may have had just as much blame to share get off like white knights.  I hate slavery and mourn that the United States was founded with that hellish system still in place.  But an attempt to abolish slavery during the Constitutional Convention would have resulted in two nations, one forever slave and the other forever free.  As you suggest, the Civil War could have occurred a lot earlier, but would that have been better than 1861?  The point is, the USA inherited the disease and had to shed blood to end it.  But it was ended, even if that was still not the end of the matter with regard to civil rights. Those who insist on carrying or asserting guilt despite the eventually successful attempts to get rid of it are as off base as someone who rejects apologies and will not forgive slights.  And those who insist on a continuation of the Civil War into these days, even after the USA elected a black man President twice, insisting that the country remains just as racist as it was a 100 years ago (not you, necessarily), are muddying the waters far more than you think I have.  Can't we just proclaim victory and move on?  Or do you really think we need to continue to convulse ourselves over something that NONE of us are guilty of, because the matter was concluded 150 years ago?

As for my muddying the waters, I reject the characterization.  The whole world wallows in guilt; America is not perfect, and you can think to yourself that our version of slavery was worse than any other, but if that's what you think you are wrong.  

Something I am trying to point out that you don't seem to get is this: the USA did not institute slavery; slavery was foisted on the USA.  And like all men, the men of the USA were fallible, and some could not give up what they inherited.  And thus blood had to be shed.

We may be arguing past each other. I don't think we're as far apart as it might seem. At least I hope so.

Well, you did throw in every possible irrelevancy, including the kitchen sink, I'll give you that, and it did  help you go completely off the rails again -- along with a fallacious call to perfection. Yet your discussion was not with me at all, but rather with some bete noir of your own make.  At least you are correct to say that we are talking past each other, and thus I might just as well not have made any comment whatever.  So, go on in your self assurance that blood had to be shed, no matter what, and that none of us are guilty.  No point in me saying anything at all.  By your leave, sir.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, you did throw in every possible irrelevancy, including the kitchen sink, I'll give you that, and it did  help you go completely off the rails again -- along with a fallacious call to perfection.

Well, I thought the call to perfection was what you were making.  Like the USA should have been perfect enough to simply drop slavery, but didn't.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet your discussion was not with me at all, but rather with some bete noir of your own make. 

You are a brilliant thinker and writer; I've read a number of your articles elsewhere and I've gotten a lot out of them.  I dislike disagreeing with you, because I have the vague feeling I'm disagreeing in error, at least sometimes.  Perhaps you are correct that I am tilting at a windmill here, and not you at all.  Perhaps I should just drop it.  I may not even be reading you correctly, and so perhaps I am missing much of what you have written.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At least you are correct to say that we are talking past each other, and thus I might just as well not have made any comment whatever.  So, go on in your self assurance that blood had to be shed, no matter what, and that none of us are guilty.  No point in me saying anything at all.  By your leave, sir.

Not entirely sure what you mean here.  "[N]one of us are guilty"?  We are all guilty of something.  But I reject the notion that I share any guilt for slavery.  If that's what you're saying, which seems unlikely.  You've really confused me with this one.  Perhaps my small mind has had its breaking point on this point.  Was the country guilty of slavery, though?  Of course it was.

But in all the talk about reparations going on at the moment, the shedding of blood during the Civil War seems to me have been just punishment for the sin of slavery.  Or so it might be construed.  Or alternatively, drop the philosophy and symbology and just say that it wasn't going away without an actual war.  Some southerners have claimed that slavery was going to die out anyway, so the war wasn't at all necessary.  But I feel that is not at all true, and my conviction in that regard was recently confirmed in my reading of "The Myth of the Lost Cause" by Bonekemper.  He presents evidence that far from being in decline, the economics indicate that it was as strong as ever, though in some danger due to not being allowed to spread to new territories.  If such was the case, there was no way that it was going to go away except by the shedding of blood.

Please don't feel there's any need to answer me on this.  If I'm being as irrelevant as you say, perhaps you're better off letting me wander alone in my own wilderness. I'm tired, annoyed with myself anyway, and I have a talk to give on Sunday.  I'm annoyed with myself because instead of preparing my talk, I'm wasting precious time here, apparently being irrelevant.

By your leave, sir.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

.............................................

Please don't feel there's any need to answer me on this.  If I'm being as irrelevant as you say, perhaps you're better off letting me wander alone in my own wilderness. I'm tired, annoyed with myself anyway, and I have a talk to give on Sunday.  I'm annoyed with myself because instead of preparing my talk, I'm wasting precious time here, apparently being irrelevant.

By your leave, sir.

 i had a response, but you left me laughing, so to hell with it.  

[USU78]

How can a country, let alone a person, bear guilt for something that's perfectly legal?  I seem to remember somebody once writing something about there is no guilt without law.  Some hack, probably.

The 30-ish years between the end of the Civil War in 1864 and the earlier, 1830s, illegalization of slavery in the British Empire is nothing to be ashamed of.  And we American types granted home rule to the Philippines long before the Brits did to Kenya.  We're well ahead of the game on the [alleged] imperialism scale.  Now, I'm as much a Britophile as the next nerd, but when it comes to public and private virtue, I would rate us ahead of the Brits even today in these wretched times of Suits and AOC.

[randy]

On 7/31/2019 at 10:44 PM, Valentinus said:

Richard and Pamela Price would argue that JS fought polygamy.

I lived for 15 yrs about 3 blocks away from their bookstore on 23rd st in Independence, Mo.  I have had the pleasure to visit with them on many occasions.   I must say...I really found them to be honorable  and understood and respected their passion regarding this particular subject.

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, randy said:

I lived for 15 yrs about 3 blocks away from their bookstore on 23rd st in Independence, Mo.  I have had the pleasure to visit with them on many occasions.   I must say...I really found them to be honorable  and understood and respected their passion regarding this particular subject.

I've glossed over their work. I see their honorable passion.

[Stargazer]

On 8/1/2019 at 4:44 AM, Valentinus said:

Richard and Pamela Price would argue that JS fought polygamy.

Having never heard of them I thought I would Bing them (that's Google but better).  Found their bookstore website quickly and the first thing that turns up is their 1981 article about Joseph Smith designating his son JS III as his successor on 4 separate occasions.  Interesting theory.

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Having never heard of them I thought I would Bing them (that's Google but better).  Found their bookstore website quickly and the first thing that turns up is their 1981 article about Joseph Smith designating his son JS III as his successor on 4 separate occasions.  Interesting theory.

They are hardcore conservative RLDS.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

They are hardcore conservative RLDS.

I gathered that, yes.  I imagine they are having some issues with the current path of the CoC.

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/8/2019 at 4:33 PM, Stargazer said:

I gathered that, yes.  I imagine they are having some issues with the current path of the CoC.

That is putting it lightly. They are even peeved that there are churches that choose to move on and not wait around for the Lord to restore His reorganization.