Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by GSTalbert1, Apr 5, 2013.
Who gives a shit if Stalin or Mao were racist? They killed tens of millions all the same.
http://exterminatus.net/lib/Jews/White Slavery in America by Michael A. Hoffman II.pdf
Israelis have a hand in the Easten European sex slavery apparently.
You believe in race, or tribes or ethnicity? You have used these terms before so we know you do on some level.
This is something you give a shit about even if you are too stupid to understand how.
Jews have a lot to do with the human sex slave industry.
You, of all people, shouldn't be engaging in ad hominem attacks.
If those owners were black...
And so began the Church's time-honored tradition of boy-fucking.
Jews were behind the African slave trade.
If you suffer a large setback in livelihood, and you see an opportunity to quickly reestablish livelihood, or vastly increase it in support of the tribe, then you take that opportunity. Judaism doesn't really object to the trading of slaves. Most of the Jews who participated in the triangle trade were Sephardi. I'm sure you know what increased the likelihood of them getting into the slave trade. That and they were already superb merchants back when they largely lived in Spain.
I suppose they could have somehow procured Irish and Scottish slaves and sold them in the trade, but the very idea of Jews owning and trading Christians would cause an uproar. Plus, the distance of procuring those slaves would make it impractical, when there are so many others nearby. So the traders of those types of slaves were mostly English or so. Therefore, the slaves they traded in were blacks. Seeing as black people were nearby - or at least accessible by land - and likely not Christians, it was the perfect formula to earn a good living trading the products of tribal disputes and warfare in Africa.
That has to do with superstitions surrounding ethnic characteristics that were not seen entirely seen in biological terms.
There's a story I'll add later, it's about a boy that get trolled in the early 1600s only to counter troll.
I'll see your Jewish slave savers and raise you a Jewish slave shipping trade. Enslave the blacks, free the goyems. Blame the goyems for the black slaves.
The word "slave" actually comes from the word "slav." People from the mountain tribes in Europe surrounding Rome were frequent slaves. Again, the concept of "ethnic" slavery is relatively modern. Slaves were usually either people who wracked up massive debt or were conquered in battle. Not very good methods for establishing race-specific slavery.
Actually, the church stomped out slavery largely in Europe, except among pagan communities where it didn't have a foothold. Racial slavery was an attempt to dehumanize people and therefore justify their enslavement. Where slavery before was a matter of circumstance (I kicked your country's ass so now you are mine, or You owe me a fuckton of money and you aren't paying so you're mine), it became a matter of superiority in the most superficial sense.
I wasn't talking about the racial slave issue you and talbert are prattling on about. I was pointing out the start of boy-rape in the Catholic Church, when Pope Gregory referred to the little, blue-eyed boys as angels.
Marcus Aurelius, the Philosopher King and the last of the five good emperors, proposed he was the follower of the slave Epictetus. That later emperors would start following an executed criminal shouldn't have been much of a shock.
Later I got this damn thing I can't google.
Also you guys are forgetting the non-jewish scourge of the Irish.
He sold 50,000 of them at once.
They never thought much of the Irish did they?
I've got shit to do and weed to buy. I'll bring up the relevant shit from this in regards to this thread laters.
@GSTalbert1 Tell me, why do certain Americans hate the the Confederacy on principle but not the Union? Is it because of slavery? If so then they must surely hate the Union more for the Union's founding fathers had a lot mores slaves (both in general and between them) than the Confederate's founding fathers. They also didn't have the excuse of cotton gin. Not to mention the manumission offered by the English was much more thorough and practical than the emancipation offered by Lincoln. Surely with all these things considered those who hate the Confederacy on some misguided moral level must adore and worship the English.
To answer your question: the winners write history.
Well that's fine because it's not an excuse.
The Brit's could afford it.
Because they waged a hopeless war that destroyed a generation and undid a century's worth of progress all for the sake of their pride as they were butthurt over losing a presidential election. That's why the Confederacy is not popular to this day.
This is what happens when people are taught to appreciate a painting and ignore the artist...
Sure it's a beautiful picture full of fluffy little clouds
but the asshole behind the canvas is giving your mom herpes
Ah, I see: They hate the Confederates for resisting. It's a form of victim blaming.
It makes me sad they don't make 'em that way any more, I would love to drive through Atlanta sippin' mimosas
rockin' a MK19.
American's hate losers, while the rest of the world hates winners. It explains much of the current world conflicts.
Well don't think about things you don't understand and never will.
No. Now go play in your hugbox and try not to shit yourself this time.
also this -
So the real question is why does @The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900 love losers?
Well don't think about things you don't understand and never will.
Now go play in your hugbox and try not to shit yourself, again.
Oh and the whole "abuse of authority" that propelled both the Confederates and Continentals means the Confederates have more of a leg to stand on than the Continentals. Considering all the shit that led up to the creation of the CSA (including the USA declaring war on South Carolina which is what created the CSA in the first place) it seems to strengthen the argument that victim blaming is an integral part of Unionist ambition. Not unlike the English mentality towards the non-English in the British Isles and rest of the world. Indeed, one could make the argument that the USA is the direct successor of the British Empire. In which case the north's treatment of the south makes a lot more sense in this context seeing as how the north was populated mostly by those of English descent while the south was populated mostly by those of non-English descent.
The eventual Confederate territories produced the most (and most apparent) leaders during the American War of Independence. Including the first President of the United States, one George Washington.
Goddamnit. I was about to post this in reply to this:
However, considering that the Unionists have had a monopoly on ideology for a hundred and fifty years it's quite striking that there should be any sympathies for the Confederates, let alone any attempt anyone pointing out the hypocrisies of the Unionists. (Both of which are the case.) My guess is that as much as we all try to deny it, the Americans are as bonded by Human ideals as the rest of us. Indeed, the American mentality of the underdog winning against all odds as an expression of this.
I love your denial here.
No, he's right. Some slave owners weren't bigots. They were the biggest assholes, however, since they saw their slaves as Humans.
Indeed fuck them
In fairness, all of us see one group of people or another as less than Human. Including the anti-bigots, who see bigots as less than Human. That's how shit like slavery gets started and is maintained. We must all try some introspection if we wish to stop embarrassing future generations.
I, personally, don't mind "evil" as long as those perpetrating it recognise it as such. Well, as long as that "evil" isn't perpetrated against my tribe, of course. I think everyone's like me, to some extent, they just don't want to admit it to themselves.