The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Kersey Archive
BIRTH of A NATION–New “Nat Turner” Movie Will Inspire More Black Violence
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Scene from the new BIRTH OF A NATION---a bloodthirsty mob. Credit: VDare.com
Scene from the new BIRTH OF A NATION---a bloodthirsty mob. Credit: VDare.com

Anti-white snuff films are now practically their own genre. The newest movie following in the footsteps of Machete and Django Unchained is Birth of a Nation, a loving tribute to the 1831 Nat Turner slave rebellion which led to the death of more than fifty white men, women and children.

Not surprisingly, it received a rapturous reception at the Sundance Film Festival.

Less than 24 hours after its roaring arrival at the Sundance Film Festival, “The Birth of a Nation” has made history with the biggest deal in the festival’s history.

Fox Searchlight has acquired world-wide rights to the Nat Turner biopic for $17.5 million — a whopping amount that reflects the movie’s critical and commercial prospects and the crowded field of bidders hitting festivals now.

It was clear from the movie’s premiere that it would go for big money. The audience gave the movie an extended standing ovation through the closing credits, and Nate Parker, who directed, produced, wrote and stars in the film, left the auditorium as Sundance’s favorite son.

[Fox Searchlight Acquires ‘The Birth of a Nation’ for $17.5 Million, by Erich Swartzel,Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2016]

Here are some highlights from historian Stephen B. Oates’s October 1973American Heritage article, Children Of Darkness, detailing what the rebellion was like:

From the ORIGINAL "Confession of Nat Turner"As Turner’s column moved relentlessly toward Jerusalem one Levi Waller, having heard that the blacks had risen, summoned his children from a nearby schoolhouse (some of the other children came running too) and tried to load his guns. But before he could do so, Turner’s advance horsemen swept into his yard, a whirlwind of axes and swords, and chased Waller into some tall weeds. Waller managed to escape, but not before he saw the blacks cut down his wife and children. One small girl also escaped by crawling up a dirt chimney, scarcely daring to breathe as the insurgents decapitated the other children—ten in all—and threw then bodies in a pile.

And so it went throughout that malignant night, as the rebels took farm after farm by surprise. They used no firearms, in order not to arouse the countryside, instead stabbing and decapitating their victims. Although they confiscated horses, weapons, and brandy, they took only what was necessary to continue the struggle, and they committed no rapes. They even spared a few homesteads, one because Turner believed the poor white inhabitants “thought no better of themselves than they did of negroes.” By dawn on Monday there were fifteen insurgents —nine on horses—and they were aimed with a motley assortment of guns, clubs, swords, and axes. Turner himself now carried a light dress sword, but for some mysterious reason (a fatal irresolution? the dread again?) he had killed nobody yet.

At Elizabeth Turner’s place, which the slaves stormed at sunrise, the prophet tried once again to kill. They broke into the house, and there, in the middle of the room, too frightened to move or cry out. stood Mrs. Turner and a neighbor named Mrs. Newsome. Nat knew Elizabeth Turner very well, for she was the widow of his second master, Samuel Turner. While Will attacked her with his axe the prophet took Mrs. Newsome’s hand and hit her over the head with his sword. But evidently he could not bring himself to kill her. Finally Will moved him aside and chopped her to death as methodically as though he were cutting wood.

With the sun low in the east, Turner sent a group on foot to another farm while he and Will led the horsemen at a gallop to Caty Whitehead’s place. They surrounded the house in a rush, but not before several people fled into the garden. Turner chased after somebody, but it turned out to be a slave girl, as terrified as the whites, and he let her go. All around him, all over the Whitehead farm, there were scenes of unspeakable violence. He saw Will drag Mrs. Whitehead kicking and screaming out of the house and almost sever her head from her body. Running around the house, Turner came upon young Margaret Whitehead [age 18] hiding under a cellar cap between two chimneys. She ran crying for her life, and Turner set out after her—a wild chase against the hot August sun. He overtook the girl in a field and hit her again and again with his sword, but she would not die. In desperation he picked up a fence rail and beat her to death. Finally he had killed someone.

Naturally, this film is basically guaranteed to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay next year, killing three birds with one black stone named Nate Parker.

So what moved Parker to write his script? In between the standing ovation he received when he took the Eccles theater stage and the other “standing ovation that lasted through the credits, in what was arguably one of the longest standing Os in recent festival memory,” Parker had this to say:

“I made this film for one reason, with the hope of creating change agents. That people can watch this film and be affected. That you can watch this film and see that there were systems that were in place that were corrupt and corrupted people and the legacy of that still lives with us,” said Parker. “I just want you, if you are affected and you are so moved, to ask yourself, ‘Are there systems in my life that need attention whether it be racial, gender?’ There are a lot of injustices.”

Parker spoke about how he gave up acting for nearly two years to make the film, and the resistance he faced with getting it financed.

“It was very difficult, for so many reasons,” he said. “I think any time we’re dealing with our history, specifically with slavery, I find that it has been desperately sanitized. There’s a resistance to dealing with this material.”

[Sundance: ‘Birth of a Nation’ Receives Rapturous Standing Ovation at Premiere, By Rebecca Ford, Hollywood Reporter, January 25, 2016]

What kind of change do you think he has in mind?

The Road To Reunion 1865-1900Ironically, 100 years ago the real The Birth of a Nationwas released. This movie depicted white southerners banding together to protect their civilization against another program of “change,” radical Reconstruction.

That Nate Parker would select the same title used in D.W. Griffith’s immensely influential silent film is obviously intentional, but hardly necessary. Black-run Newark, New Jersey has already canonized Nat Turner with the Nat Turner Park (at its unveiling in 2009, President Obama sent a member of his administration to the ceremony) [Newark opens Nat Turner Park in Central Ward after 30 years, By Cullen Nutt, NJ.com, July 28, 2009]. Men like Turner are the heroes of the new anti-America.

And even the arch-leftists of Hollywood are having a hard time adjusting. Currently, the Oscars are under siege by spoiled black actors and directors who know they can count on the Main Stream Media to portray The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as racist. Indeed, the Academy has already caved, pledging “to double its membership of women and minorities by 2020 through an ambitious affirmative action plan that includes stripping some older members of voting privileges.” It will also add three new seats to the governing board exclusively for women and minorities [Oscars’ Film Academy pledges to diversify membership by 2020, CNBC, January 22, 2016].

A Los Angeles Times study in 2012 noted The Academy was 94 percent white and 77 percent male, publishing a follow-up piece in 2013 detailing the horror that The Academy had only dropped to being 93 percent white and 76 percent male. [Diversity efforts slow to change the face of Oscar voters, By John Horn and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2013].

(Of course, many of these whites do not identify as such. But that doesn’t seem to matter to blacks.)

And even this majority non-black Academy was eager to celebrate “diversity” at the 2014 Oscars. As the LA Times article stated:

John Ridley, an African American screenwriter who wrote the “12 Years a Slave”screenplay, took note of the irony: From all outward appearances, this is a banner year for diversity in Hollywood.

His film, directed by the black filmmaker Steve McQueen, received seven Golden Globe nominations, and other black-themed films including “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” and director Ryan Coogler‘s “Fruitvale Station” are getting awards-season buzz.

12 Years A Slave won Best Picture at the 2013 Academy Awards. Unfortunately,as with mayoral elections, many blacks seem to believe when “they” win something, it is racism if anyone else wins ever again. Considering the rapturous reception given to racism porn from The Butler to The Help, there will be plenty of similar films offered in the years to come. The government even subsidized the film Selma by buying free tickets for schoolchildren. And with each new film, there will be another controversy over alleged racism if it doesn’t win an Oscar.

But Parker’s The Birth of a Nation raises the stakes. It’s not just going to promote white guilt but black violence. There can be no doubt it will be celebrated by Black Lives Matter and its allies. One can only hope the movie doesn’t inspire those seeing the movie to duplicate Turner’s actions. Considering how blacks haveresponded to past anti-white incitement from both academia, the MSM, and the American Left, there’s little reason for optimism.

Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2 013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 171 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “New “Nat Turner” Movie Will Inspire More Black Violence”

    That’s the point of the whole “racism” dialogue, and media coverage.
    Incite them to violence, so we have an excuse to kill them off.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  2. @boogerbently

    Or , they increasingly, kill themselves off. Like the last few years. Since this renewed racism and white privilege talk has surfaced.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Exactly right. This movie is the motion picture equivalent of hate speech, a glorification of anti-white savagery, and a call for a surge in violence against beleaguered white Americans who have suffered from decades of Caucasophobic brutality.

    Whites should organize to prevent this filth from release and to sue the producers for each act of anti-white violence that coincides with any airing. This should be illegal.

  4. The idea that if you win once, you are good enough to win every year, is not unique to black Americans.

    England won the FIFA World Cup in 1966, and the Rugby Union World Cup in 2003. Ever since then the national belief has been that England are serious contenders to win each tournament. The team’s inevitably average performance is then perceived as a miserable failure. In the case of soccer, this attitude has prevailed for a full 50 years!

    • Replies: @martin_2
  5. KenH says:

    Anti-white snuff film indeed. It sounds like this one is the mother lode of them all. As with the previous cited films, the objective is to foster an “use vs. them” attitude among blacks as if they need any further encouragement and to romanticize violence committed against whites. A strong case can also be made that these films are incitements to commit violence against whites for perceived or imaginary injustices then and now.

    Wonder how easy it would be for white filmmakers to produce a movie about violently suppressing black slave revolts and depicting blacks as savage and violent and deserving of nothing but death?

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  6. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:

    all this white-hating and attacking of whites in america today can only take place because of decades of anti-white propaganda crammed into young and malleable white minds in school.

    More specifically, a slanted version of history is presented in school, a version that makes whites out to be demons.

    Unless white americans and in particular the white political activists realize why this has taken place, we cannot begin to fight back.

    You start fighting back by realize that those who control the past control the future. So many conservatives and/or paleoconservatives or alt-righters (or whatever) want to effect change. But unless you realize what you are fighting, you are helpless.

    You are fighting minds that were created and shaped and molded by years of propaganda.

    You have to go back and create an alternate version of history to combat the anti-white version that the Establishment has created. And the Establishment IS your enemy. Not the liberals, not the jews–the Establishment.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @gwynedd1
    , @Bill
  7. ‘Naturally, this film is basically guaranteed to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay next year, killing three birds with one black stone named Nate Parker.’

    Maybe.

    But if it isn’t then the defense would be that ‘Spartacus’ wasn’t nominated for any of those either.

  8. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:

    Wonder how easy it would be for white filmmakers to produce a movie about violently suppressing black slave revolts and depicting blacks as savage and violent and deserving of nothing but death?

    Would not be effective, in any event.

    Instead, why not make a historical film showing how only 1.5 percent of all white americans owned slaves in 1860 (per the census)? And how about 4 percent of all slaveowners were nonwhite, per the census? And how slaves were too expensive for all but the rich? And how in the 1600s property owners created laws to socially separate blacks from poor whites (both free and enslaved whites) in order to prevent another mixed race rebellion against the rich, in general?
    How about making a movie showing how it was the rich and not whites in general that were responsible for slavery?

    No, not gonna do that? No, I think you prefer your two-minute hate against liberals. You don’t really want the truth; you just want someone to hate. And the subculture of your particular political tribe frowns on hating the rich. Right?

  9. nickels says:
    @Leftist conservative

    Yes, exactly!

    If we could get a president who re-instates a positive Pro-American history curriculum (instead of today’s slanderous one) and then stamp critical theory out of the university (how?), in one generation we would be starting back on track.
    But government HAS to gets its hands out of everything at the same time, that’s where the overstep was enabled.

    Not an easy plan. It HAS to be legal.

    The media is a problem too, but schooling might force the media to stick it with their parroting of anti American lies.

    Not optimistic, but it is the only way that might still preserve Liberalism. It would be tricky to pull off. It would take a (perhaps impossible) consensus of the people to will it.

  10. Cracker says:

    I’ll be surprised if more than 5 blacks see this film.

    • Agree: mark miller
  11. Clyde says:

    The audience gave the movie an extended standing ovation through the closing credits, and Nate Parker, who directed, produced, wrote and stars in the film, left the auditorium as Sundance’s favorite son.

    Never heard of this director before but shocker! He has a white wife. https://goo.gl/Iq0xYE . So when it comes to anti-white racism and propaganda this dude is working both sides of the street.

  12. Wally says: • Website

    Kill the whites?

    Then who will pay the bills for the blacks & browns?

  13. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    We should welcome more such movies.

    Race War, yeah!!!! And may the Negroes burn down the Lib cities.

    Btw…

    Owens destroyed the myth of Aryan superiority in running but also established the fact of black superiority. So, he didn’t disprove the fact of racial differences. He merely revised it.
    Race matters.

    • Replies: @Wally
  14. JEC says:

    There’s no reason why black violence should ever cease while they cultivate their grievances within a society which has a white majority. They will alway feel inferior and short-changed.

    Thousands of years of separate histories has made them what they are, and us what we are. During those centuries they failed to develop civil societies and a scientific outlook,we succeeded. So there’s a developmental gap which can never be closed, even if it was desirable to do so.

  15. Terrorism is awful, and the description here is sickening, but I’m wondering how else you’d expect slaves to resist slavery. Form a slave cavalry and go attack the nearest army fort?

    When the enemy is civilians, whether slaveholders or settlers or whatever, the only way you can fight the enemy is to attack civilians.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @bomag
    , @AnAnon
  16. martin_2 says:
    @James N. Kennett

    In earlier years maybe. But in the last two World Cups I cannot remember any of the pundits or papers seriously expecting we would win, although obviously no one crowed about the likelihood of disappointment – but the same goes for any sporting team and any band of supporters. They are, after all, supporters.

    In the last WC especially everybody accepted that the side was not up to much and progressing past the group stages would be an achievement.

  17. I always considered myself more or less as a First Amendment absolutist. But I’m beginning to wonder. The power of visual media, especially movies and television, when coupled with a “keel de whites,” message may require censorship.

    I know that exactly the same mechanism could be used to shut down websites such as this one and shut people like me up. I’m open to other suggestions.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Olorin
  18. @Leftist conservative

    5-10% of southern whites owned slaves. But that doesn’t take into account white women and children deriving income from dad who owned slaves. If you count number of southern white households that owned slaves the percentage would go up multiple times. Then you have to count the poorer white land owners who couldn’t own slaves but maybe just lease them for one year contracts from the plantation owners. Then there are the whites who aren’t landowners but are the cousins of land owning whites who own slaves who work on the plantation and crack the whip. After that there are still the poor whites who although landless, slaveless, and without regular employment still felt smug about being white. The south was a total slave power. Learn some American history.

  19. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:
    @realhistory

    5-10% of southern whites owned slaves.

    if you walk outside of a large skyscraper during the lunch hour on a monday, you will find a line of people standing outside that skyscraper, and at least 90 percent of them are smoking. Therefore, 90 percent of all american workers smoke.

    Discuss.

    If you go to Hollywood Hills, CA and conduct a financial audit of the residents thereof, you will discover that over 50 percent of them are millionaires. Therefore, over 50% of all americans are millionaires.

    Discuss.

  20. Rehmat says:

    Rev. Paul Kersey, I do understand your fear of Black violence – but I cannot understand why FBI in its 2006 report blamed America’s Christian majority (mostly White) for carrying out 87% of terrorism in United States followed by Jews (7%) and Muslims (6%)?

    How many times Jewish-controlled Hollywood has released anti-Christian movies over Christmas time – why Hollywood has produced over 70 movies on Zionist narrative of Holocaust?

    Last year, Hollywood’s Christmas gift was Seth Rogen’s, “The Night Before”. The cast includes six Jewish (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Julian Bell, Lizy Kaplan, Aaron Hill and Michael Shannon), and one Black actor (Anthony Mackie), who make fun of Santa Clause. Decked out in an ugly Christmas sweater with the Star of Zion in the middle, Seth Rogen is the main character in the movie if you’re a follower of Jewish Holy Talmud. The movie has received excellent reviews from every corner of the Jewish-controlled media. Watch a trailer below.

    Michael Hoffman, Christian author of several books on Judaism, has called The Night Before, a cinematic toilet paper…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/11/23/jews-and-ho-ho-ho/

  21. @KenH

    Good take..

    “Wonder how easy it would be for white filmmakers to produce a movie about violently suppressing black slave revolts and depicting blacks as savage and violent and deserving of nothing but death?”

    Well, the film makers of Birth of a Nation certainly committed that sin in the last part of your sentence because this film is clear in “depicting blacks as savage and violent and deserving of nothing but death”. In the depiction of the butchering of women and children, this movie also depicts that there are no innocents, no civilians. I doubt there were no rapes. That’s a lie, I’d wager. Refusal to depict the reality of rape makes all this a little more palatable to liberals. Only Whites are to consider the women, the children, the civilians.

    Turnabout, turnabout. Context, context.

  22. @Leftist conservative

    while an affirmed capitalist I would not object in the least and have had the same thought myself not because i am jealous of the rich as you are but because this idea that all white people are responsible for ths is absurd at that time ost whites were some form of peasant little better sometimes worse off than black slaves. I would also like to see some more realistic representation of what slavery looked like slaves had days off fancy clothes to attend their churches and were a common nuisance on streetcorners, harsh owners were dealt harshly with by the white community.but hey it doesnt make as good a story

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
  23. Jay says:
    @realhistory

    Learn some history, eh? You need a dose of your own prescription. There was no homogeneous “South.” Large geographical swaths had very few slave owners: the Appalachians (central Alabama to West Virginia, which has a history you should acquaint yourself with), the Wiregrass (longleaf pine flatwoods in southern Mississippi, southeastern Alabama and northwestern Florida), the Ozarks. All of these areas contributed either Union regiments (1st Alabama, USA, mostly from Winston County) or anti-Confederate guerillas, or just plain draft-dodgers (in January, 1865, Confederate Captain Ezekiel Stuart died in a gunfight with draft-dodgers in the streets of Ashville, Alabama). Oh, and those antebellum poor whites without land, slaves or regular employment, did they get their subsistence from government welfare? Lastly, your nome de Guerra is enough to make me feel smug.

  24. @Aaron Gross

    When the enemy is civilians, whether slaveholders or settlers or whatever, the only way you can fight the enemy is to attack civilians.

    You truly don’t understand the moral component of war, do you?

    When a minority (in numbers) starts beheading children of the majority, the result is exactly what the Nat Turner raids produced. At least 4 blacks died for every white murdered. Look in India for what happened when Muslims murdered a couple scores of Hindu women and children; Hindus rioted and about 2000 Muslims were killed.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
  25. bomag says:
    @Aaron Gross

    I’m wondering how else you’d expect slaves to resist slavery.

    There are non-violent ways. Most of the world abolished slavery without an orgy of violence and recrimination.

    Our artistic and political class is made up of those with a BDSM fetish, so their policy suggestions and historical narrative caters to that taste.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @tbraton
  26. Big Bill says:

    Negros are odd. The “kill whites” message will not get through to them (much). But they WILL get the message to kill for self respect, kill for honor, kill for justice.

    Regrettably for them, the people who “diss” them (disrespect, dishonor) them in their daily lives are their wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends, class mates, teammates, fellow gang members, friends and enemies.

    In other words, the people they are going to kill more frequently are their fellow blacks. Sad, but there it is.

  27. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    The force behind the violent race war against The Historic Native Born White American Working Class are the Greedy Cheating White Liberal Male MEGA-CEOs. It is absolutely crucial to understand this point.

    The only viable option for The Historic Native Born White American Working Class is:

    1)hard-core racial xenophobia

    2)total intolerance of blacks

    3)mass expulsion of the Asian…Muslim…Hispanic Fifth Columns

    4)a highly racialized mass-revolt of the Native Born White American Working Class against The Greedy Cheating White Liberal Male-Female MEGA -CEO

    5)Our revolt must be economically progressive..we must strip every MEGA CORPORATION of all legal rights!!!!

    6) the Greedy Cheating White Liberal Male MEGA-CEO must be put on trial for TREASON!!!!….convicted….then punished with the most extreme depravity that the human mind can imagine…..

    7)And, we must become Noam Chomsky’s worst nightmare!!!!!

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  28. Douglas says:
    @realhistory

    Yes it would have been much better to leave the African in his native land. We would have much less trouble then we do now. As we have seen’ you really can’t take the jungle out of the savage.

    Whites were enslved in several fashions by various cultures including their own for centuries. Yet, they do not use that as an excuse for their behavior because at large their behavior is many levels higher than the black.

  29. I read of a Gallup poll that found Americans grossly overestimate the percentage of the population that is black. People seem to think 30% of America is black. (This same phenomenon applies to gays & lesbians, suggesting that the media propaganda wave promoting the war on straight whites has been a smashing success.)

    I’d wager that blacks, on average, overestimate their numbers vis-a-vis whites by several times. White-snuff-film propaganda like this one serve to move the threshold of radicalization among blacks, particularly those engaged in cultural withdrawal from America.

    If they understood, as a group, that they are between 10-13% of the population, and that the fastest-growing segment (Meso-Americans) largely detests blacks, I suspect blacks as a group would be more cautious about engaging in open violence against whites.

    Here’s reality: If blacks continue down this path of radicalization, and the last 50 years of social, financial and economic folly finally reverse, the proportion of America that is black will undergo an equally radical decline. The most culturally alien blacks in America are concentrated in places like Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood. It would be trivially simple, in a time of social unrest, to interdict travel outside of such places.

    If you want to see what happens if the Cold War on Whites goes hot, imagine Sarajevo’s shooting gallery where all travel had to occur under the crosshairs of rifle scopes, applied in 360 degrees around concentrations of the urban underclass, at the same time food shipments into those areas cease entirely.

    The way of the Tao is reversal. The last 50 years have featured numerous trends that conflict directly with observed reality, and the vehemence with which those trends are now defended is a strong indication that reversal is nigh.

  30. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:
    @Jay

    Learn some history, eh? You need a dose of your own prescription. There was no homogeneous “South.” Large geographical swaths had very few slave owners: the Appalachians (central Alabama to West Virginia, which has a history you should acquaint yourself with), the Wiregrass (longleaf pine flatwoods in southern Mississippi, southeastern Alabama and northwestern Florida), the Ozarks.

    Indeed…in fact, many of these areas of the south were “no-go zones” for slaveowners….if the whites residents of these southern areas caught a slaver, they would string him up, toot sweet.
    Why? For one, most of these anti-slavery southern whites were themselves descendants of white slaves who had been sold at auction in the 1600s and then escaped their chains to live in hills of appalachia.
    All this history has been shoved down the memory hole so that the rich/corporations could increase the supply of workers and consumers using nonwhites and mass immigration. Grow the GDP and increase corporate profits. The civil rights era was a corporate coup against the white majority, carried out via a decades-long propaganda campaign, primarily through the educational system.

    yes, we need movies to tell the white working class side of the story. But Hollywood will not do it. Controlled by corporations…

  31. @Jay

    Agreed, and for heaven’s sake can we stop attributing today’s social dysfunction to the f-ing 19th century?!

    BUY A CLUE, people. Today is a product of the last 50 years, not the period 200 to 150 years ago.

    Pay people for being poor, stupid and unmotivated and you get dependence.

    The “War on Poverty” turned people into pets. Or into perpetual, petulant, dangerous children. Every one of you who blames the sociopathy of blacks on white racism better pull your heads out of the sand. It is the very political policies you favor that amplify every social pathology demonstrated by the underclass.

    YOU clearly prefer human beings dehumanized and made into pets. Pets are dependent upon their masters for food, for shelter, for their very existence. Pets that escape their pens turn feral to survive.

    Egalitarians love slavery. They love turning people into dependent wretches. They bathe themselves in the dopamine surge just like a coke addict, only the egalitarian is addicted to a false sense of moral superiority. They stand there handing out emoluments feeling soooo superior. It never occurs to them that they’re doing the equivalent of feeding the bears candy bars in a National Park.

    This moral superiority is clearly false, because anyone with an IQ north of room temperature can predict what happens when you institutionalize “charity” and manufacture an entire industry (the welfare state) to cater to its clients.

    But we have to have movies like this one, dragging moral questions pertinent 160 years ago into the present to continue diverting attention from moral questions that are pertinent Right Now.

  32. bomag says:
    @realhistory

    Learn some American history.

    And it categorically supports your narrative?

    Was Black slavery even that profitable? I was on a thread where someone was posting links to economic analyses of pre-civil war cotton production and decrying the money to be made. Things went quiet when the numbers were crunched and not much money was left on the table. That era’s slavery looks more like a vanity venture, with the money to be found in plantation’s aggregating and marketing local production.

    “Amateurs think tactics; professionals thing logistics.”

  33. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:
    @Colleen Pater

    while an affirmed capitalist I would not object in the least and have had the same thought myself not because i am jealous of the rich as you are but because this idea that all white people are responsible for ths is absurd at that time ost whites were some form of peasant little better sometimes worse off than black slaves. I would also like to see some more realistic representation of what slavery looked like slaves had days off fancy clothes to attend their churches and were a common nuisance on streetcorners, harsh owners were dealt harshly with by the white community.but hey it doesnt make as good a story

    I think it would make a great story. We just need to tell it with character development, tension, suspense, drama, plotting, etc. Storytelling!

  34. bomag says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    …may require censorship

    Indeed. We’re already heavily censured; with many truths verboten, labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Yet the SJW left can freely slander and libel our side.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    African americans think that they are fighting for equal rights. What blacks don’t realize in their fight, is that the entire world is on the side of white americans. Everything that black lives matters and other modern civil rights movements has done, is to further erode their image. To the world, white america has produced things that they themselves aspire to. Elite schools, luxury brands, strong work ethic, etc. Black america produces rap music, broken families, and inner city gang violence. There is no true leadership within the black community. There is only knee jerking outrage at inequality. One more movie about black injustice only serves to doom the group by fueling their own violent urges towards extinction.

  36. Rehmat says:
    @bomag

    NONVIOLENT WAYS!!!

    Asked some Palestinian or Australian or a New Zealander.

    On June 26, 2015, Zionist-controlled Australian government of Tony Abbott commemorated country’s annual National Sorry Day in memory of over 50,000 of native children, who between 1890s to 1970s were taken by force from their indigenous parents and given to White settlers to be used as slaves.

    Since 1997, the European colonists occupying the continent have been using the National Sorry Day to whitewash their crimes against the native people, which were worse than their fellow European colonists committed in Americana and South Africa. The event takes place throughout Australia during which those stolen children and their children voice their anger at the continuing stolen generations.

    The Jewish elites, like the colonization of Americana and New Zealand, played a major role in the genocide of Australian aboriginal population. The first eleven ship which arrived at the shores of Sydney Harbor in 1788, carrying convicts and prostitutes from England were owned by Jewish Rothschild family.

    It’s documented that in 1788, over one million non-White Natives lived in the continent. It dropped to 10,000 after 100-year of the European invasion.

    To understand who leads the denial of Australian natives’ Holocaust is no other than Shermon Burges, a Zionist who runs the popular anti-Islam Facebook page the Great Aussie Patriot. He recently called Australian aboriginals being Dickheads.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/07/13/australias-national-sorry-day-2015/

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
  37. A few predictions (mostly stating the obvious):

    This film will be praised to infinity and beyond, regardless of how good it actually is. It will be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar but won’t win.

    Very few people will see it, especially black people. Too much history. Yawn. Oprah will pretend to love it, perhaps calling it the “black people’s Schindler’s List,” which will make Jews uncomfortable and generate a mini-crisis.

    Eventually, a “goatee in thumb and index finger” black intellectual like that Coates guy will pen a long, rambling piece about how Birth of a Nation 2.0 ultimately fails because it trivializes the deep and lasting impact of slavery into a blood bath (translation: Send us money, not just films which depict blacks killing whites, however good that make us feel).

  38. Flat Cat says:

    So, has anyone actually seen this movie? I understand the suspicion of the bent of content and the narrative, but to my knowledge it’s only been screened at one film festival so far.

    Point of view counts for a lot when it comes to what we get out of stories, and movies are no exception to this. The movie “American Sniper” could be seen as a moving tribute to a patriotic war hero, or a jingoistic war-porn glorifying the murder of men defending their homeland from foreign invaders.

    Is the murder of innocents ever justified in war or rebellion? Who defines an innocent? Were the German and Japanese civilians who died in Allied bombing raids less innocent than the people who were murdered in the concentration camps or the women who were raped to death in Nanking? Does the fact that violence and oppression has been directed against an individual or a people justify the same returned upon the defenseless families of their tormentors?

    Here is a fact. Slavery is morally indefensible if one believes in the sanctity of the individual. If we, each of us, own our selves than any system that justifies the subjugation of our God given right of self ownership must be condemned and resisted. May justifiable resistance include the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children simply because they have some connection to a slave owner?

    Again, if one holds to the idea that each person is endowed with the right to life and liberty than the answer to that last question must be a firm, uncompromising “No”. I would press even further and say that the murder of a slave owner cannot be justified if he is not actively trying to violate the rights of another person.

    So, a slave would be justified in using violence, even lethal violence, to resist actions that violate his individual right to self-ownership and free association, but would not be justified in using the same violence in the course of revenge for past wrongs. If he were to try to escape, and kill his “master” when said master attempts to stop him, I believe that is justifiable self defense. However, if he escapes, and then kills his master while the man sleeps in his bed, that is simply murder and a violation of the other man’s right to life.

    Given the actual facts of Nate Turner’s rebellion seem to indicate that this was an orgy of vindictive murder, rather than a genuine attempt at escape, it is impossible to view the event as morally justifiable. Understandable, sure, given the brutal reality of slavery and human nature, but not justifiable. Does that make him a hero, a villain, or just one more man acting terribly against his fellow man while believing his actions are justified?

    I haven’t yet seen this movie, and am interested to see if it may, impossibly, address some of these questions.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    , @dc.sunsets
  39. RudyM says:

    How dare slaves rebel! Think of the poor white folks!

    My god you lot are pathetic.

  40. Tiny Duck says:

    It is funny how you are ok with film after film of Christians done wrong, or Americans done wrong and they fight back. But films about black people done wrong (even if historically correct) make you upset. I think you are a bit ashamed of your past, as you should be.

    Haha. When black people are shown in submissive roles, unwilling to fight back, such as ’12 Years a Slave,’ “The Butler”, etc, no one is offended, but its ‘scary’ to show black people rightfully fighting back against the wicked, vicious,malicious, cannibalistic, slave owners/rapists? It’s funny that white people get shook when the tables get turned. This is history, and we need more movies showing the real side of history, not the whitewashed bs and generalized stereotypes that we usually get from Hollywood. Now we need to get the Marcus Garvey biopic going, and one of Ausar and Auset. Remember my white brethren: African/Black history did not begin on the plantation. The more our children ‘see’ those stories, the more they will begin to understand that they are more than ‘welfare’ queens, thugs, and whatever else that they have been brainwashed into believing about themselves from a functionally racist system. I love it!

    I hope white people are forced to watch this with there eye leads glued open…you want to see if racism is still alive view the comment section under any article that has to do with race…im not fooled but you racist cowards hiding behind keyboards but publicly playing it safe…I know you racists still hate us…and the feeling is mutual.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @tbraton
  41. @Rehmat

    Agreed, nonviolence doesn’t work for freemen, and it’s insane to recommend it as a strategy for slaves.

    You might be interested in this article by Michael Neumann, “Nonviolence, Its Histories and Myths.” Neumann argues,

    But non-violence, so often recommended to the Palestinians, has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.

    • Replies: @bomag
  42. @War for Blair Mountain

    8) and we should free the inventor of that rich, creamy ice cream that we can eat a ton of and not get fat from captivity.

    How about: turn off the TV, and stop subsidizing people who hate you? Don’t buy products advertised on network tv? Find a local group, a church, that support your individual dignity and doesn’t bow to the ruler of this world? You don’t need to fight most of this, you just need to stop working to enslave yourself. That’s a good message for any person oppressed by the plutocracy.

  43. RudyM says:

    White slaveholders dindu nuffin to bring on such violence, right?

    I get the value of analyzing Hollywood’s propaganda function, but this piece was not a serious contribution in that direction.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  44. @Tiny Duck

    My preference would be for you to be forced to watch a play-by-play movie of the Knoxville Horror or other similar modern atrocities.

    Skip the ancient history. Read about what’s going on right now. As for you, we know you hate us. We’re okay with that. You need us, we don’t need you.

    • Agree: TWS
  45. @Flat Cat

    Well, that’s one way to look at it. Of course your individualist, rights-based view applies just as much to a soldier in uniform on the battlefield. Which is absurd, but it hasn’t stopped some people from applying it just that way.

    The thing is that a slave revolt is war, not a collection of individual acts of self-defense. So the question is, what kind of violence is justified in that war? Most people agree that in war, normal individual rights do not apply; for instance, combatants have no right to life. Slaveholders would obviously be the enemy, and could be killed whether or not they pose an imminent threat. It’s questionable whether their families would also be included in that. Presumably that’s the kind of question the movie asks.

    • Replies: @Flat Cat
    , @Bill
  46. @dc.sunsets

    when did this happen in India?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  47. Fred Reed says: • Website

    Why do not slaves have a moral right to kill their owners? I would have no hesitation in killing anyone who attempted to enslave me and my family.

  48. @RudyM

    How many of the children beheaded by Turner’s revolt were slaveholders? I know, I know, guilt by association and collective guilt are practically bylaws of both leftist and semi-rightist collectivists.

    Humans haven’t changed at all in the last 10,000 years. We’re all exactly like our ancestors from then. The problem is, People of Northern European Descent are as different from people of African descent as the color blue is different from the color red. Both on the same visible light spectrum, but utterly different in ways that truly matter.

    Eventually, this 50 year foray into irrationality will have to be reconciled. Blank slate and magic dirt never had much to do with actual reality, but the progressivist dogma of the last couple centuries moved heaven and earth to believe otherwise.

    I seriously doubt the next 50 years will be a continuation of the last 50. The reversal will surely surprise those embedded in the old dogma.

  49. @Flat Cat

    If chattel slavery is evil, then too is not any form of political slavery?

    Taxation of property and income is very much identical to political extortion. I pay because resistance is futile (and self-destructive.) Am I not a slave in this system, where some part of my productive effort is siphoned off and delivered to others? Where but a small amount of what I pay contributes indirectly to my personal welfare?

    A man can be jailed in a de facto debtors’ prison for falling behind on payments ordered by a family court judge, payments that can be spent on trips to Las Vegas and pedicures while leaving the man’s child in poverty. Is this not a form of slavery?

    Today a person too young and naive to understand is encouraged to take on vast debts that cannot be discharged legally through bankruptcy. They become debt-slaves while ignorant of the error.

    There is no such thing as total freedom. All human existence occurs on a spectrum between total slavery and total liberty, and even chattel did not exist entirely at the former pole.

    One can no more resist any of this violently than one can breathe water. We exist in whatever system to which our neighbors consent. Since, as Sallust noted 2000 years ago, most men are born slaves, slavery of one form or another will always be mankind’s lot.

    Let’s face it. The whole point of the anti-racism industry is to enslave productive people for the benefit of that industry and its clients. Were this not the case, there would be no political motivation for it.

    • Replies: @Flat Cat
  50. Biff says:

    The racial crying on all sides is just tired, old, and boring.

  51. @Fred Reed

    Why do not slaves have a moral right to kill their owners? I would have no hesitation in killing anyone who attempted to enslave me and my family.

    So Fred, where do you draw the line?

    Sure, a couple guys ride up, pull guns and herd you and yours into a truck to be taken to a sweatshop where you’ll work 20 hours a day or be shot. You go to war on them, of course.

    But how about those same guys organize a political party, get into power by promising people who don’t like you much that they’ll simply take 50% of your productive value each year, or 15% of your existing wealth, year in and year out, via a tax system and hand it to their political supporters?

    You gonna’ go to war on them? Really? Good luck with that. You’re undoubtedly familiar with Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourses on Voluntary Servitude. If the society under which you live consents to widespread slavery, you’ll go along or you’ll die fighting the neighbors (actually, their agents of course.)

    So what your comment tells me is that you’ll attempt to kill anyone who overtly tries to dramatically increase the level of pervasive slavery to which you’re already conditioned.

    Hint: We’re all that way.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  52. Biff says:
    @Fred Reed

    “Rights” – Like the bible, and the constitution are made up, and when you make something up, anything goes.

  53. @Erik Sieven

    when did this happen in India?

    2002. As with all controversial events, the wikipedia article may not be particularly accurate.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
  54. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Yes…I am for a real pro-white counterculture….not that cesspool that took place in 1969 in Bethel NY which was a monument to social and cultural filth!!!!!

    Native Born White Americans already have a culture. Its just a question of re-engaging it. If you tune into hardcore leftists radio stations..such as WPKN Bridgeport….what music do the play?..Answer:Hillbilly Native Born White Americana music..specifically:celtic based music. Music created by socially and culturally conservative NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN Appalachian Whites..bluegrass…fiddle tunes…the songs of Appalachia. And this music was preserved by THE FEDERAL GOERMENT….without the FEDERAL GOVERMENT William Steep’s Bonaparte’s Retreat may have been lost forever. Another reason to violently hate across-the-board-Libertarians(I’m Libertarian on certain issues). Especially the one who brought Rand Paul into the world of HUMANS.

    My favorite online radio streaming station is HIGHLANDER RADIO …Celtic and Appalachian Hillbilly music 24 hours a day….$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ support it!!!

    Say no to Anarcho-Capitalism…say yes to Highly Racialized Native Born White American Anarcho-Syndicalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..It gave us the wonderfull Chinese Exclusion Act last time around…..

  55. Svigor says:

    “It was very difficult, for so many reasons,” he said. “I think any time we’re dealing with our history, specifically with slavery, I find that it has been desperately sanitized. There’s a resistance to dealing with this material.”

    LOL. Lefties consistently pull fantasies out of their heads and promote them as reality. Slavery has been whitewashed? Only in the sense that it has been a human institution (e.g., at least as black as it has been white or yellow) throughout recorded history, but presented to western audiences as something uniquely white and American.

    Instead, why not make a historical film showing how only 1.5 percent of all white americans owned slaves in 1860 (per the census)? And how about 4 percent of all slaveowners were nonwhite, per the census? And how slaves were too expensive for all but the rich? And how in the 1600s property owners created laws to socially separate blacks from poor whites (both free and enslaved whites) in order to prevent another mixed race rebellion against the rich, in general?
    How about making a movie showing how it was the rich and not whites in general that were responsible for slavery?

    The percentage of southern households that owned at least one slave was pretty high. Slave-owning wasn’t just for the rich.

    Terrorism is awful, and the description here is sickening, but I’m wondering how else you’d expect slaves to resist slavery. Form a slave cavalry and go attack the nearest army fort?

    Truth is, blacks’ efforts toward resisting slavery were essentially nil. Turner’s rebellion sticks out precisely because it was so exceptional.

    5-10% of southern whites owned slaves. But that doesn’t take into account white women and children deriving income from dad who owned slaves. If you count number of southern white households that owned slaves the percentage would go up multiple times. Then you have to count the poorer white land owners who couldn’t own slaves but maybe just lease them for one year contracts from the plantation owners. Then there are the whites who aren’t landowners but are the cousins of land owning whites who own slaves who work on the plantation and crack the whip. After that there are still the poor whites who although landless, slaveless, and without regular employment still felt smug about being white. The south was a total slave power. Learn some American history.

    This. Though whatshisface has a point, in that the south != America. I for one don’t mind, as a southerner, taking “responsibility” for slavery (insofar as one can ever be responsible for one’s ancestors). Slavery was the best thing to ever happen to blacks, in the long run. Wasn’t even bad, compared to their other options, at the time. Southerners know far better what blacks are than Americans do.

    For some more “real history,” I’d add that blacks are the world heavyweight champion slavers of all time. Up to and including the present day. Mauritania keeps outlawing slavery because the previous attempts haven’t stuck. Blacks, left to their own devices, know perfectly well that selling other blacks is probably the best way for blacks to turn a buck. Slaves are the black race’s primary historical export.

  56. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Fred Reed

    Fred

    They do…but you are leaving out the context and motives for these kill Whitey Movies….CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!!!!!

    Here is the context=THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY=THE EXTERMINATE FUCKING WHITEY PARTY!!!!…Democratic Party Theologian Noel Ignative(a Jewish Man) said to his class of black students:”WHITE MALES SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED!!!!!!!!!!!!..exact quote…

    Have I made myself clear to you Comrade Frederick?

    • Replies: @scoops
  57. Svigor says:

    Not to put to fine a point on it, but, practically all of the black slaves in the USA were either enslaved and sold by black slavers, or descended from black slaves enslaved and sold by black slavers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “This movie is the motion picture equivalent of hate speech, a glorification of anti-white savagery, and a call for a surge in violence against beleaguered white Americans who have suffered from decades of Caucasophobic brutality.”

    It never ceases to amaze how race baiters, whether it be white or black or brown or yellow, get all bent out of shape over something that is historical.

    “Whites should organize to prevent this filth from release and to sue the producers for each act of anti-white violence that coincides with any airing. This should be illegal.”

    So, I would imagine you are going to be front and center leading this movement, right? Looking forward to your mug being in all the papers and on the national news.

    As an aside…

    “But Parker’s The Birth of a Nation raises the stakes. It’s not just going to promote white guilt but black violence.”

    It only promotes “white guilt” if a white person allows themselves to be. Regarding “black violence”, the film is based on actual historical events. Slaves were being brutally treated. In response, Nat Turner organized a revolt that was bloody. It was a reaction to their conditions. That is the proper context of “black violence”.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @AndrewR
    , @scoops
  59. Vendetta says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m getting weary of the inverse-SJWism among white nationalists who wail over movies like Django Unchained. I’m not impresssed by PC libs who bitch about offensive movies, and it’s just as irritating coming from you guys.

    It’s a motion picture. You’re embarrassing yourselves. You’re validating progressive crybabies who throw fits over movies like American Sniper.

    And you’re drawing attention to the fucking thing and adding to its credibility. “Oh look, Birth of a Nation is making racists lose their shit!” Free advertising and promotion of its ‘social relevance.’ Thanks, assholes.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @AndrewR
  60. gwynedd1 says:
    @Leftist conservative

    White Europeans have bested the Jews. Most cultures would write glowing propaganda about themselves and in their victories. Jews curiously held themselves in a rather low regard in comparison, but did at least preserve for themselves a golden age of David and Solomon. I mean they were good once. We have taught them a lesson in self hatred. We don’t even have a golden age. We just suck all the time. There is absolutely nothing good about white people. This is remarkable and unprecedented.

    Even more tragically humorous is that Europeans by becoming Christian do most of the answering for the the old Jewish scriptures of genocide.

    The Africans were the smart ones. By having no literacy , they recorded none of their misdeeds to promote self hatred or to be used against them.

    However I think the Arabs have a good thing going by simply annihilating their victims so completely there are none left to complain. They do hate themselves by virtue of their current condition which is a sign they remain rational.

    Eastern Europe might be the only psychologically healthy Europeans left. Our highest hope is to keep encouraging Russians into self loathing and hope that it can spread. Come on you Poles, Romanians and especially Hungarians….You know you did some bad things …so fess up, stop breeding , and die out.

    Well, once it all falls apart “Europeans” will probably become as provincial as everyone else. All the self hating ones will be long gone. It will still be an amazing chapter in history.

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
  61. Flat Cat says:
    @Aaron Gross

    Aaron, you are right in that I would apply the notion of individual rights/responsibility to a soldier in uniform. Would you mind explaining why you believe this is an absurd idea? To my mind, we are either responsible for our actions, or we are not. Wearing a costume or badge does not absolve us of bearing responsibility for what we choose to do. Likewise, being the victim of wrongdoing cannot absolve us of our personal responsibility for our actions.

    The question of when violence is justified or morally acceptable is, of course, one of the oldest and most subjective questions ever put before man. Like most such questions the answer is going to vary greatly between individuals and peoples. My answer is not going to be the same as your answer, which in turn will be different from the answer an Amish man might give. It’s still an interesting question, and I hope your presumption is correct and this movie somehow addresses it, even if the to comes up with is different from mine (or yours).

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
  62. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:
    @gwynedd1

    Oh, look, another jew-obsessed alt-rightwinger…how unusual.

  63. iffen says:
    @Corvinus

    Maybe it’s just a presentation or naming problem. They should have called it American Spartacus or Spartacus II.

  64. @War for Blair Mountain

    You might enjoy the CD of David Russell, Message of the Sea, traditional Scottish and Irish songs played on guitar alone. A rich cultural heritage that needs to be taught to the next generation if it is to survive. It seems like you’re doing your part to preserve another valuable stream.

    Question: who is doing anything to preserve Western Art Music, like Wagner and Beethoven? Those have fallen into the hands of the Arts crew and are also declining.

    Let me know when you again have the demographics to take over the Federal Government. My guess: ne’er. At this point, better to limit the damage it can do to organic communities. It is the same organization that killed 650,000 mostly white citizens in the War for Southern Independence. If I were an advocate for “whites,” I wouldn’t trust it.

  65. Mark F. says:
    @Svigor

    Slavery was the best thing to ever happen to blacks, in the long run

    Good Lord. This is obscene.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @nickels
    , @Bill
    , @dcite
  66. @Vendetta

    Spare us the attitude. When true crime shows have to edit their stories because too many of the REAL criminals are black, perhaps those of us in groups that commit far fewer violent crimes can be forgiven for getting tired of the Narrative. While that’s the whine of PC Libs, the converse is not equivalent. When blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than whites are of blacks, don’t even begin to draw equivalencies in PC-pop culture.

    Let’s face it, less intelligent people are more easily swayed by pop culture anyway. It’s a lot easier to rationalize vicious behavior when you marinate in a Narrative that blames every one of your problems on a particular color & class.

  67. guest says:
    @Leftist conservative

    I saw a commercial for a Matthew McConaughey movie about poor white Confederate soldiers in rebellion apparently because they didn’t want to be cannon fodder for the wealthy slave power anymore.

  68. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Tom

    David Russell is my favorite classical guitarist. He is a favorite of the Sacred Heart University Classical Music DJs. I have “Message of the Sea”.

    I don’t want to give the impression that I am in luv with the Federal Government. The fundamental question for Anarchists is how to transition away from Leviathan. And I think organic communities is the answer. I was just making a point against Anarcho-Capitalism.

    John Williams is a great classical guitarist also. I really like his CD “Music Box”..guitar music inspired by African melodies..mostly South African and Zaire-Zimbabwe.

    Leo Kottke is my favorite American Guitarist. Michael Hedges was a great guitarist….but he was a very strange man. Michael Gulezian is a great composer of guitar music also.

    You should check Armenian Church Music.

    Adrian Legg composes guitar tunes almost exclusively in the English traditional folk tune- Celtic-Irish-American Hillbilly style with some Bach riffs thrown in for good measure. Check his tune Midwest Winter Sunday…Both Steve Vai and Joe Satrianni said that when they first heard this tune live on tour with Adrian Legg, it brought tears to their eyes backstage

  69. @Anonymous

    There may have been occasional mistreatment, but from a logic standpoint, harming slaves made no economic sense.
    Do farmers “beat” their horses, mules, plows, or tractors ?

  70. guest says:
    @realhistory

    Poor whites felt smug and therefore were part of the slave power? One group got paid in land, money, and political influence, and another got self-esteem. Same difference.

    That’s the sort of nonsense that allows people to talk about “systematic” racism because a white person once beat their grandfather to death and yesterday they think a white person looked askance at them for a split second.

  71. @realhistory

    ” Learn some American history.”

    REAL American history, or the revisionist variety you have been brainwashed with ?THEY want reparations……but want to stay here. How bad could it be.
    How about we give reparation$$$$ to those who agree to give up their citizenship and move back to Africa.
    Compare the lifestyle of their direct cousins who stayed in Africa compared to their own, here.

  72. @Anonymous

    “Whites should organize to prevent this filth from release and to sue the producers for each act of anti-white violence that coincides with any airing. This should be illegal.”

    KKK.

    The “problem” is, we have ALL been indoctrinated to dislike/disavow them.

    But they ARE the “white” version of what’s going on today with the PC endorsed black victim movement today.

    This is all black/liberal/academic/media/administation promoted, white-hate.

  73. anon • Disclaimer says:

    So how come holocaust movies don’t inspire Jewish violence against Germans? I suspect blacks are just looking for a rationalization for their hostility and animus towards whites. Look at black violence against whites in Canada and England where there never was any slavery or blacks either for that matter.

  74. AnAnon says:
    @Aaron Gross

    Escape is their one and only goal in that situation. killing children both wastes time and greatly reduces the chances that anyone on the other side will be even remotely sympathetic.

  75. AndrewR says:

    I no longer view Dylan Roof as evil. He was simply misguided.

  76. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    Historical facts:

    Jesse Owens after winning the long jump at the 1936 Summer Olympics:
    “When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.”
    Owens also said:
    “Hitler didn’t snub me—it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn’t even send me a telegram.”

    Hitler was forbidden by Olympic officials from visiting any athletes after their events. Hence the lie that Hitler deliberately avoided Owens is exposed.

    Jesse Owens was never invited to the White House nor bestowed any honors by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) or Harry S. Truman during their terms.

    And guess what athlete was the most pictured in Die Olympischen Spiele 1936, the Nazi semi-official picture book commemorating the 1936 Olympic Games…Jesse Owens, pictured 7 times in that book.
    “Jesse Owens is very prominently featured in Olympia, the official German documentary of the Games. Leni Riefenstahl’s film masterwork also devotes great attention to many other non-Whites, including outstanding Japanese athletes. The same holds true in the deluxe, semi-official German picture book commemorating the Games, Die Olympischen Spiele 1936, released by the Cigaretten-Bilderdienst. Jesse Owens is pictured seven times in this book – more than any other athlete – and is admiringly referred to as “the fastest in the world.” A large picture in the book records the chiseling of the victors’ names in granite at the stadium – and singled out in this picture is: “Owens U.S.A.”
    - http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v5n1p123.html

    see:
    ‘Jesse Owens: Myth and Reality’:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v5n1p123.html

    ‘Adolf Hitler, Jesse Owens and the Olympics Myth of 1936′:
    http://ironlight.wordpress.com/2010/03/ … h-of-1936/

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  77. Svigor says:

    White slaveholders dindu nuffin to bring on such violence, right?

    I get the value of analyzing Hollywood’s propaganda function, but this piece was not a serious contribution in that direction.

    Spare us. 1) Slavery (in the USA) was the best thing to ever happen to blacks. 2) There will be no (accurate) movies about, say, the oppressive nature of Reconstruction, until after there’s a right-wing revolution in America.

    How many blacks got free, and then started a movement to hunt down and kill the blacks in Africa who are still running the slave trade today? How many blacks even utter a peep about modern day, black-on-black slavery in Africa?

    I think “zero” about sums it up.

    Shows how full of shit blacks are.

    Why do not slaves have a moral right to kill their owners? I would have no hesitation in killing anyone who attempted to enslave me and my family.

    Point us to your calls to bomb Mauritania, Fred.

    I won’t say slaves aren’t justified in killing their masters. Perhaps not particularly bright, but that’s a different kettle. I will point out that slaves killing their masters justifies masters killing slaves.

    I hope white people are forced to watch this with there eye leads glued open…

    Of course you do. But you give the blacks running the black-on-black slave trade in Africa a pass. And you call someone else racist, it is to laff.

    Good Lord. This is obscene.

    But true. I’ll leave you to reconcile with the fact on your own.

    There may have been occasional mistreatment, but from a logic standpoint, harming slaves made no economic sense.
    Do farmers “beat” their horses, mules, plows, or tractors ?

    This stings the negro’s pride, of course. 1) work is not the black man’s thing. 2) the stupid-but-romantic vision of slaves suffering constantly is far more entertaining, plays to their idiotic sense of grievance (how dare you pluck me from the paradise of sub-Saharan Africa!?)

  78. AndrewR says:
    @Svigor

    I believe the slaveowners in Mauritania are mostly if not all Berbers.

  79. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Svigor

    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let’s us know who the prime owners of slaves really were.

    see:
    Suppressing Jewry’s Role in Slavery / Familiar Tactics

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7909

    and:
    Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  80. Svigor says:

    Basically, the idea that black slaves would be justified in rising up and killing YT is a gigantic retcon. I.e., it’s an attempt to shoehorn an anachronistic worldview. Blacks came from a culture of slavery. They were enslaved by blacks steeped in a culture of slavery. They were sold to whites from a culture of slavery. The vast majority of the people involved, black and white, thought it was an acceptable practice. And a legal one, of course. In this context, no, it’s not really okay for black slaves to go ’round killing whites, especially not willy-nilly.

    On the other hand, obviously no people should be expected to just accept their bondage, but again, this is an anachronistic view.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  81. Svigor says:

    I believe the slaveowners in Mauritania are mostly if not all Berbers.

    True. I should’ve been clearer in my presentation. Still, there’s plenty of black-on-black slavery in Africa today. Mauritania just makes for a great headline because they keep outlawing it.

  82. Svigor says:

    It never ceases to amaze how race baiters, whether it be white or black or brown or yellow, get all bent out of shape over something that is historical.

    Moron, the problem is the selective presentation of history, and how it’s presented. The oppression of “Reconstruction,” commies slaughtering millions in the name of egalitarianism, Jews shelling Palestinian neighborhoods, Mongol butchery, these are all historical events. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the (honest) movies.

  83. AndrewR says:
    @Fred Reed

    You’re being dishonest.

    Why do slaves have the right to murder their owners’ children?

  84. vinteuil says:
    @Svigor

    “Slaves are the black race’s primary historical export.”

    Or, as King Gezo of Dahomey put it:

    “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…”

  85. AndrewR says:
    @Corvinus

    Yes we understand the context. But why HONOR someone who MURDERED CHILDREN?

    This goes far beyond understanding why he did it. He had a public park named after him and the Obama regime sent a representative to help honor him.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  86. AndrewR says:
    @Vendetta

    Did you read the article? Turner was HONORED by naming a park after him. And the Obama regime sent a representative to help honor a child murderer.

  87. nickels says:

    Black will continue to be slaves until they quit blaming whitey for their poverty, violence and other community issues.
    That’s basic morality 101.

  88. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Incidentally, there were prominent American anthropologists in the 1920s such as Hooton and Hrdlicka who were eugenicists and wanted to exterminate people from Appalachia. They wanted to sterilize hillbillies, because they had been in the US for a long time but failed to show evolutionary improvement, such as increasing cranial size, in the way they thought the Boston and other US whites were. Criminals and hillbillies were seen as biologically degenerate by the leading anthropologists of the time, because they did not demonstrate improvement over generations in the favorable US environment.

    In contrast to the healthy old American stock, Dr. Hrdlicka described another of seven racial strains influencing America’s growing racial type. The Appalachian mountaineers, ranging from New York State to Alabama and numbering as many as 8,000,000, are the “sore on the American Continent,” in an anthropological sense, he said.

    “There is something that needs the hearty attention of the biological and anthropological part of America.”

  89. vinteuil says:
    @Mark F.

    Not obscene – just imperfectly expressed.

    Would it be obscene to say: making it to the U.S.A. was the best thing that every happened to those Africans unfortunate enough to be enslaved by other Africans?

    Was it obscene for Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali to say “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!”

  90. scoops says:
    @realhistory

    so what do you propose to even this out after all these years?

    • Replies: @realhistory
  91. scoops says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    chill out! unless you don’t know how to arm yourself! trust no one!

  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    That’s true, but I think you’d agree that nationalists don’t regard actions or crimes by in-group members and out-group members to be equivalent.

  93. scoops says:
    @Corvinus

    so what is the reason today?!! historical events?!

  94. bomag says:
    @Aaron Gross

    nonviolence doesn’t work for freemen, and it’s insane to recommend it as a strategy for slaves

    Violence doesn’t always work.

    Non-violence is not always the best strategy, but it has defused far more conflicts than otherwise.

  95. Bill says:
    @Leftist conservative

    Definitely. What we need to do is to direct our energies in the exact same way we have been directing our energies for the last 50 years. Vote for Republicans, especially anti-Establishment Republicans like Cruz. Get elected to school boards. Give money to Washington think tanks fighting the good fight for traditional American values. Make sure the right people, people like Ken Mehlman and Dan Senor and Ralph Reed and Bill Bennett and that super-Negro from Oklahoma . . . JC Watts, get into power. That way we can really turn things around.

    It’s been working well for fifty years. Another fifty years and we will have won. The war we are in, it’s a war of ideas. We just need to say true ideas out loud a lot. We need to remind people that they live in America the idea and that if they don’t believe in America the idea then they’re not good Americans. We need to read more essays in National Review, like the right posts on Facebook, and be sure to buy the products we see on the TV during NASCAR races. Oh, and Tea Party rallies. Lots and lots of Tea Party rallies.

    And all those rightists and leftists calling us stupid all the time? Well, they’re wrong. Or jealous. Or un-American. Or something.

    • Replies: @nickels
  96. Bill says:
    @Leftist conservative

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    Neocon talking points are the only way! Deflection! Minimization! Apologetics! We’re not so bad! Only 1.458219% of our ancestors were evil! Can’t you see the rallies:

    What are we? Not nearly as bad as some people say we are!!!

    What are we? Not nearly as bad as some people say we are!!!

    What are we? Not nearly as bad as some people say we are!!!

    And we could have separate rallies for German-Americans:

    What are we? Opposed to slavery from the beginning except for 0.003427% of us!!

    What are we? Opposed to slavery from the beginning except for 0.003427% of us!!

    What are we? Opposed to slavery from the beginning except for 0.003427% of us!!

    They only get two exclamation points. Don’t want to get the Germans too excited or it will be Munich 1938 all over again. Actually, scrap the whole German rallies idea. It would probably upset Bill Kristol. Ken Mehlman, too.

  97. tbraton says:
    @bomag

    “There are non-violent ways. Most of the world abolished slavery without an orgy of violence and recrimination.”

    Good point. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, 23 years after the end of our Civil War which resulted in the deaths upward of 750,000 Americans under the brilliant leadership of Abraham Lincoln. Brazil was the last state in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, and it accomplished that result by legislation. The fact of the matter that economics would have resulted in the end of slavery by the end of the 19th century since slavery had become uneconomical.

  98. tbraton says:
    @Tiny Duck

    You realize that Nat Turner’s rebellion occurred nearly 200 years ago, don’t you? I guess you are in favor of tearing down that monument on the Mall of Dr. Martin Luther King because it sends the wrong message.

  99. tbraton says:
    @Fred Reed

    Slavery was widespread in the ancient Greek world. But there was a big difference between being a slave condemned to work in the silver mines or the equivalent and a slave who worked in a personal family situation. We have the famous example of the great Athenian politician Themistocles who entrusted his slave to deliver a secret message to the invading Persian forces for purposes of deceiving the Persians in order to set up the decisive battle of Salamis. That slave had the power of life and death over his master, since he could have easily informed other Athenians of his master’s questionable action, but he obediently fulfilled his task. The degree of trust on both sides of that deal speaks volumes about the nature of the relationship between Themistocles and his slave. It does not indicate that the slave was mistreated or abused in any way. I believe the same situation existed in the case of those slaves in the U.S. South who worked in the “house” and naturally developed close human ties with their masters.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  100. nickels says:
    @Mark F.

    Adam Smith points out that it is more expensive to keep a slave than to hire a worker.

  101. nickels says:
    @Bill

    Trump is the only anti-common core.
    There is a youtube with a creator of cc talking about how it was designed to combat white privilege.
    Check it out.

  102. @realhistory

    Thank you for taking the effort and replying to all of these posts. Not everybody who reads the posts/comments agrees with them.

  103. Corvinus says:
    @AndrewR

    “Yes we understand the context. But why HONOR someone who MURDERED CHILDREN?”

    You mean like Anders Breivik?

    You don’t understand the context at all. There was and is no honor in slavery. Nat Turner was conditioned to feel absolute hatred for whites, despite acknowledging that his current master had treated him kindly. Apparently, Turner had “visions” of murdering, leading some to believe that he would be clinically labelled as mentally ill. Unfortunately, white kids were collateral damage. Some would say one reaps what they sow.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  104. Corvinus says:
    @tbraton

    “Slavery was widespread in the ancient Greek world.”

    It was considered an occupation, one in which a male slave had legal rights–Athens had a law forbidding the striking of slaves.

    “I believe the same situation existed in the case of those slaves in the U.S. South who worked in the “house” and naturally developed close human ties with their masters.”

    There was a slave hierarchy. At the top were artisan slaves–those with specific skills. Next, came the house slaves, who would tend to the children. At the bottom were the field hands. I would imagine in SOME cases there was a “better” relationship between house slaves and their masters, but regardless of their “friendlier” interactions the institution of slavery was brutal.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  105. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “Blacks came from a culture of slavery. They were enslaved by blacks steeped in a culture of slavery.”

    That form of slavery was decidedly different than European slavery. Do you even read history?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Forms_of_slavery

  106. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Wow, Fred Reed is right for once.

    “Taxation of property and income is very much identical to political extortion. I pay because resistance is futile (and self-destructive.)”

    It’s not extortion. Citizens have agreed through their representatives that part of their income will be used to pay for services.

    “Am I not a slave in this system, where some part of my productive effort is siphoned off and delivered to others? Where but a small amount of what I pay contributes indirectly to my personal welfare?”

    That is the price for living among residents of a city who are citizens of a country.

    “A man can be jailed in a de facto debtors’ prison for falling behind on payments ordered by a family court judge, payments that can be spent on trips to Las Vegas and pedicures while leaving the man’s child in poverty. Is this not a form of slavery?”

    No, it is not slavery. You have the liberty to contest that status in a court of law. Whether or not the judgment is rendered in your favor is another matter.

    “Today a person too young and naive to understand is encouraged to take on vast debts that cannot be discharged legally through bankruptcy.”

    Assuming that the person is naive.

    “But how about those same guys organize a political party, get into power by promising people who don’t like you much that they’ll simply take 50% of your productive value each year, or 15% of your existing wealth, year in and year out, via a tax system and hand it to their political supporters?”

    First, as you just stated, there is no such thing as total freedom. But, you are not a slave to it, for you can make a choice. Second, are you that impotent to not become involved in working to change things? Third, when Trump is elected president, are you still going to be complaining about his political supporters receiving financial support from the government that promote his agenda?

    “You gonna’ go to war on them? Really? Good luck with that. You’re undoubtedly familiar with Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourses on Voluntary Servitude.”

    Boëtie’s explanations for voluntary servitude are not entirely adequate or convincing; he attributes it to a kind of denaturing, whereby free men become effeminate and cowardly, thus allowing another to dominate them.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  107. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    We need more movies like this.

    MLK was just a Trojan Horse.

    Blacks don’t understand forgiveness, reconciliation, and justice.

    MLK’s non-violence shtick was just an act to fool whitey.

    Well, the Crazy Negro is out of the Brojan Horse.

    And Jews wanna make blacks hate whites to distract them from the fact that the real threat to Negroes is from massive immigration.

    If blacks were to drop their anti-white hatred for a sec, they’d realize that whites have the most to offer them. And white-run society is better than brown or yellow or Jew run society. Also, blacks are fewer prospects cuz of competition from immigrants.
    So, Jews try to hoodwink Negroes by making them hate whites and side with immigrants.
    Dumbass Negroes.

    Anyway, it’s good that the black cat is out of the bag.

    Negro is wild. Rap music, 12 yrs a slave, Django, and this one. Black assault on the white race.

    Let the Negroes burn down all the cities.

    NEVER EVER SIDE WITH LIBERAL URBANITES AGAINST BLACKS. Since Lib whites and Jews hate good decent conservative Americans and try to use blacks against them, it’s about time white cons used blacks against white Libs.
    Encourage the Negroes to turn every city into Detroit or Baltimore.

  108. @Flat Cat

    I noticed that others here are taking your same approach to this slave revolt, denying that it’s any kind of armed conflict and instead viewing it as a lot of acts of personal self-defense.

    First of all, your point about personal responsibility has nothing to do with this question. A participant in hostilities is personally responsible either way, whether under traditional international humanitarian law or under the individual rights approach you suggest.

    Your approach is absurd for several reasons, but maybe most importantly because it erases the centuries-old division between just case for war and just conduct in war, between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. That is, it erases the principle that the good guys have to fight by the same rules as the bad guys.

    For just one instance, a captured enemy soldier, in your framework, is just a murderer, and can be treated as such. (The assumption of course is that your enemies are the bad guys—something that every side believes.) No protection for POWs, other than the human rights protections due all murderers.

    Your individual rights approach would of course overturn more than a century’s worth of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention—all of that gets thrown out the window. In effect, because every side believes that it’s fighting a just war, your individual rights approach would make war much more savage and bloody.

  109. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus

    Thanks for adding nothing worthwhile to my comment, which made the simple point that not all master-slave relationships were brutal. The actions of Themistocles that I cited indicated what a great man he was, able to secure the absolute loyalty of the man who looked after his children. Themistocles repaid the man’s loyalty by afterwards making him a citizen of Thespia and making him wealthy. I appreciate your report from the front lines of the antebellum South that such relationships developed in SOME cases. I would think that such situations were standard, for, after all, these particular slaves were entrusted to raise and care for the children of the slave owners. So, what exactly does your brilliant comment add?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  110. @dc.sunsets

    very interesting. I had the vague impression that something like that happended, it was several times brought up in the media in the context of the inauguration of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, but I never really knew what it was about.
    India is really a special place. For example in China there was never a real backlash against muslims who killed civilians, also not in Russia, not to speak of western countries. Even in subsaharan Africa the reaction to that is mostly modest

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  111. AndrewR says:
    @Corvinus

    Why are you on this site?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  112. Rehmat says:

    Hollywood movies have played a major role in demonizing America’s perceived “enemies” by CIA, military Establishment and the Organized Jewry, which dominates Hollywood. Their victims have include Blacks, Arabs, Vietnamese, Communists, Korean, Iranians, etc. However, the best way to collect Oscars have been marketing Holocaust movies. Who would know that better than Steven Spielberg . He even launched a TV channel to market Zionists’ narrative of Holocaust to German youngers.

    In 2011, Steven Spielberg’s whining about people not knowing about Holocaust really pissed off French Jewish historian Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce. He wrote an open letter to Spielberg, saying: “I feel it my duty as a Jew and after 20 years study of the historical problem of the holocaust, to call your attention to the facts. Facts are very stubborn and as no one can gainsay them, our congeners have been compelled to make disgusting politicians enact stalino-orwellian laws which forbid to mention anything concerning the dogma of the ‘six-million-gas-chambers,’ definitively reduced to perpetual worship of this alchemy…..”

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/09/24/french-jew-see-my-shoah-sherlockholmised%E2%80%99/

  113. @Corvinus

    he attributes it to a kind of denaturing, whereby free men become effeminate and cowardly, thus allowing another to dominate them.

    Thank you for making my case for me. I submit in the same way I’d (out of self-preservation) submit to the mafia if moving away was not an option (and since every part of the world is under the control of one state or another, this is the case.) You submit because, like most people today who live lives of unprecedented comfort, you’re effeminate and cowardly, and rationalize it not as self-preservation but as perfectly normal and meritorious.

    The rest of your comment shows a decided lack of understanding of Discourses. There is no choice when the masses of your neighbors prefer servitude. If everyone goes and jumps in the lake, they’ll insist on dragging you in with them. No man is an island.

    This doesn’t mean I can’t call a spade a spade. You, however, simply can’t see it past the blinders you wear. That simply means you are well-suited to mass-mindedness, a conditioning you share with the masses of men. This renders the chains you wear much less chafing.

    As to Trump, I see politics as one of mankind’s vices. There are no political solutions to the problems of politics (including Trump.) Trump’s popularity is a signal, nothing more, of where we are collectively in a pattern of advance and consolidation that dates to the beginning of history. I’m but an ant, riding on a leaf, carried by the current of a mighty river. The most I can hope to do is paddle a bit to what seems like a slightly less bumpy or dangerous part of the rapids, but neither I nor you nor any group of our fellows can alter the course of the river ahead.

    Unlike you, however, I see the river ahead and recognize my place on it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  114. Bill says:
    @Aaron Gross

    It’s not remotely questionable whether pre-pubescent, captive, unresisting, female children may be specifically and intentionally killed in the course of war. You are a sick and evil individual.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
  115. Flat Cat says:
    @dc.sunsets

    To clarify, I did not say that chattel slavery is evil. I just said that it is morally indefensible if one claims to believe in the sanctity of the individual right to self ownership. IF you don’t hold to that absolute, than slavery in some form or another could easily be justified and defended by any number of arguments. History is full of societies built on slavery of some kind or another, and each of those societies had reams of arguments justifying the practice.

    Regarding the political slavery/chattel slavery comparison, I mostly agree with you. The modern State practices a form of institutionalized coercion and extortion that can be compared to chattel slavery in that both relied on A) the threat of/use of violence to enforce obedience to the demands of the owners/rulers, and B) the acceptance of the majority of the enslaved/ruled population of the legitimacy of the system under which they live.

    Total freedom may very well be impossible for whole societies. In fact, societies exist because populations of individuals agree, either implicitly or explicitly, to certain rules governing behavior in regards to association. However, individuals may operate in that condition if they choose. For example, I could choose to walk into a fast food joint buck naked, wave a pistol and demand ALL of the hamburgers. I’m free to do that in the sense that I could make that choice and act upon it.

    Of course, actions have consequences and I, like all the rest of us, would be subject to the consequences of my actions. In that particular scenario I imagine those consequences would range from internet fame/humiliation to severe and embarrassing grease burns. Oh, and probably jail time…

    I feel like I started out tying to make a point here, but ended up rambling. Sorry about that. I’ve enjoyed reading the more thoughtful comments on this article though. I liked your point about political action being driven by potential benefits to certain favored groups.

    If there is no profit for someone (at cost to someone else, naturally), why bother putting it to a vote?

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  116. Corvinus says:
    @AndrewR

    “Why are you on this site?”

    To learn more about how and why people think the way they do.

    • Replies: @iffen
  117. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    “Thank you for making my case for me.”

    You submitting to the mafia because of a perceived inability to “fight them” on their turf only demonstrates impotence.

    “You submit because, like most people today who live lives of unprecedented comfort, you’re effeminate and cowardly, and rationalize it not as self-preservation but as perfectly normal and meritorious.”

    I preserve what I have every single day and submit to a system agreed upon by my fellow citizens, comprehending that there are and are not forces beyond my control/ I am willing to fight against the system if I believed the system no longer worked. That’s your issue—you think it is beyond repair. The system may be buggy, and it may break down, but that’s ALL systems.

    “There is no choice when the masses of your neighbors prefer servitude.”

    You are assuming that their conduct and choices equates to “being held in chains”.

    “This doesn’t mean I can’t call a spade a spade.”

    Little does words do in this case. Action is required.

    “There are no political solutions to the problems of politics (including Trump.)”
    “I’m but an ant, riding on a leaf, carried by the current of a mighty river…”

    
Ah, the sweet smell of fatalism.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  118. Corvinus says:
    @tbraton

    “Thanks for adding nothing worthwhile to my comment, which made the simple point that not all master-slave relationships were brutal.”

    Obviously there was value in my comment since you took time to respond.

    The point is that regardless of how you describe a master-slave relationship, the manner by which it has developed historically overall through violence and force led to acquiescence and compliance, a spirit inevitably broken.

    “The actions of Themistocles that I cited indicated what a great man he was, able to secure the absolute loyalty of the man who looked after his children.”

    A relationship based in part because the man had WILLING undertaken the role of slave and entrusted to make important political and military decisions. Would Antebellum slave owners in general grant their slaves such powers? Would Antebellum slave owners in general free their slaves as a “thank you”?

    “I would think that such situations were standard, for, after all, these particular slaves were entrusted to raise and care for the children of the slave owners.”

    Female slaves were given this primary role due to the motherly instincts. It was a job that had severe consequences should the kids not be properly cared for. In addition, they also warmed the sheets for their master, much to the chagrin of the woman of the house. In a number of instances, the slaves that cared for the children were actually the offspring of the master, so this job was considered a “perk”.

  119. iffen says:
    @Corvinus

    To learn more about how and why people think the way they do.

    Do you plan to share any of what you learn?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  120. @Erik Sieven

    Do you have a conjecture about why people and places (and times?) differ with regards to backlash?

    Given the history of Muslim countries, it appears that the only proven way to keep their young males in check is to build in a brutal backlash against the surviving family members of anyone who crosses whatever line is chosen. This is the official means.

    As for unofficial means (public, spontaneous backlash), I strongly suspect that it’s a time-and-place thing. The Socionomic Hypothesis holds that populations of people harbor a shared, below-conscious-level mood, and when that mood is rising and high people are relatively peaceful and when it is declining and low people are inclined to rage and violence.

    Maybe we struggle to understand the behavior of populations because we fail to take into consideration some such variable.

  121. @Corvinus

    Your acquiescence to current conditions simply reflects the gradual track they took getting here. Can you honestly suggest that people living in the USA 100 years ago would accept the level of taxation, regulation and invasion you deem normal now? What does that mean about the future, or do you think we’ve reached some sort of stasis?

    This informs me that you, like Fred, are simply indulging in “well, this is okay but not a large increment more.” I find that hilarious.

    At least I recognize a democratic despotism when I live in one. And for you to suggest that my preferring to live under this system than 1) spend my life trying to force an idea whose time has not yet come, or 2) die under a hail of bullets when I confront the agents enforcing my neighbors’ servitude on me is some sort of impotence is difficult for me to understand, unless impotence in your world means self-preservation in the face of overwhelming force.

    I take it that your view is that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. If so, then my next question must be, is the quantity and/or quality of civilization directly related to the level of taxation? Is it more like a Laffer Curve? Or is it threshold based, and if so, I’d be interested to see you arrive at an objectively determined level where that threshold inflects.

    All rhetorical, mind you. I think our dialogue has reached the threshold of boredom for me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  122. @Flat Cat

    If there is no profit for someone (at cost to someone else, naturally), why bother putting it to a vote?

    Democracy in a nutshell. Concentrated benefit, diffuse cost is the central organizing feature of political democracy, which is why I find it the most reprehensible form of organizing a polity. It simply teaches people that theft is right while encouraging the most sociopathic people available to seek positions in the apparatus that administers the theft and distributes the loot.

    It is quite clear that not 1 in 500 people would wish to live in a society entirely organized without monopoly. The other 499 would fear that, in the absence of a benevolent overmind (overseer, king, president, etc.) he or she would be left to starve, so profound is their self-doubt.

    Also, probably not 1 in 5000 people has the abstract mental pathways to grasp how order emerges from chaos spontaneously, and that the institutionalized use of force actually produces chaos, not order. But….that’s the way it is.

    We are surrounded by people who WANT a monopoly organization to order society, and so we’ll GET that monopoly organization (a state.) The only relevant question then becomes, how will that state be run? Monarchy? Oligarchy? Corporatism? Democracy? All of these systems have rulers and have some sort of way to choose those rulers. All of them have ways to determine the range of powers wielded by the rulers, and what powers over the citizens are prohibited to them.

    Hans Hermann Hoppe does a nice job stripping away a lot of the facade of our modern systems here: https://mises.org/library/democratic-leviathan

    We live in fascinating times.

  123. Corvinus says:
    @iffen

    “Do you plan to share any of what you learn?”

    Well, I have learned about concern trolling.

    • Replies: @iffen
  124. iffen says:
    @Corvinus

    Now, why would you tell me that?

  125. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    “Your acquiescence to current conditions simply reflects the gradual track they took getting here.”

    Corrected for accuracy —> I acknowledge current conditions reflect the gradual track of how they materialized.

    “Can you honestly suggest that people living in the USA 100 years ago would accept the level of taxation, regulation and invasion you deem normal now? What does that mean about the future, or do you think we’ve reached some sort of stasis?”


    Think about those conditions that existed prior to the TR Administration. **Rampant political corruption. Monopolistic practices. Consumer fraud.** Citizens clamored for federal intervention in matters previously believed to be under the jurisdiction of states. Laws were passed and taxes were collected at their request. Now, one could certain muster an argument that these issues** exist in large part today, along with its accompanying too much government overreach/too much spending. However, the mechanisms are in place compared to the early 1900’s to address those problems. It just takes citizens to make concerted efforts to remain involved in the political process, rather than throw in the proverbial towel and claim the system is toxic.

    “This informs me that you, like Fred, are simply indulging in “well, this is okay but not a large increment more.” I find that hilarious.”

    Fred’s original point was that black slaves had the moral liberty to murder their masters considering they were forced into submission.

    “At least I recognize a democratic despotism when I live in one.”

    Oxymoron lately?

    ANY and ALL governments have their forms of despotism. Its citizens have a duty to minimize its effects.

    “or 2) die under a hail of bullets when I confront the agents enforcing my neighbors’ servitude”

    Confrontation need not involve a hail of bullets when seeking to redress grievances. As I explained before, your neighbor is not enslaved. They have the choice to participate in our society under the rules set forth by its citizens. They willingly agree that freedom has caveats.

    “I take it that your view is that taxes are the price we pay for civilization.”

    Taxes are the price citizens of a designated area agree to pay to create a society they prefer to live in, understanding along the way that there will be corruption and mismanagement. In those circumstances, it is up to said citizens to thoroughly address those issues. The quality of a society depends on the citizens of that society using tax money for the general welfare. The quantity of a society is??? Not sure what you mean here.


    “All rhetorical, mind you. I think our dialogue has reached the threshold of boredom for me.”

Threshold of fatalism, mind you.

    “and that the institutionalized use of force actually produces chaos, not order…”

    Not force, but people willing to give up some of their liberty to ensure order and controlled chaos; they realize that institutions are stable in nature and chaotic in action. Freedom has never been free nor unfettered.

    “It simply teaches people that theft is right while encouraging the most sociopathic people available to seek positions in the apparatus that administers the theft and distributes the loot.”



    Predicated upon a supposition that those people seeking positions are, indeed, sociopathic.

    “Hans Hermann Hoppe does a nice job stripping away a lot of the facade of our modern systems here…”

    His theory fails to take into account the human condition, individual greed, and group control. These variables have a multitude of variables in and of themselves.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  126. @Wally

    Know what would be helpful? Could you, like, supply a list of the ills of humankind for which Jews aren’t responsible? That would narrow things down significantly. Thanks in advance!

  127. @Wally

    Cut to the chase, Jonnie: just how awesome were the Nazis?

  128. @scoops

    There’s only one solution. For much of American history treatment of black s was motivated out of fear that harmonious race relations would result in total race mixing with whites. The only way forward then is to eradicate the fear by promoting race mixing. Instead of reparations there should be tax credits for mixed race marriage. This sounds like a loony idea I admit but in Sweden there may be in the coming years be such a policy and then other countries will consider it.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @Jay
    , @nickels
  129. Rehmat says:

    Pity, Israel’s award winning film-maker Shimon Dotan’s new film “The Settlers” didn’t receive award at the Sundance Film Festival on January 28, 2016.

    The film is based on the official report of Talia Sasson, former head of Israeli state prosecution criminal department that covered illegal Jewish settlements established in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between 1995 and March 2005. His report was based on his investigation of 105 settlements built during that time period.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/02/03/the-settlers-a-jewish-film/

  130. @Corvinus

    Oxymoron lately?

    Really? Really? You are unfamiliar with Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America?

    (facepalm.) Debate requires some degree of common premise & common knowledge.

    My mistake.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  131. @realhistory

    You go right ahead and pay for it, pal.

    Count the rest of us out.

    Forcefully.

    For you to ignore the other way out, that people who don’t mix all that well stop…mixing…well, it speaks to the breadth of your vision, does it not?

  132. Jay says:
    @realhistory

    For the second time in this thread you demonstrate that you do not know any history. The policy toward free and freed blacks, North as well as South, was not based on fear of blacks being too harmonious but on their being too dangerous. Data from Philadelphia going back as far as 1830 documents that even free blacks early in that city’s history were many times more likely than their white fellow citizens to commit violent crime and that differential has continued uninterrupted until the present. realhistory’s pseudonym is to actual history as the Ministry of Truth in “1984″ was to factual analysis. He has no credibility with anyone knowledgeable.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @realhistory
    , @Corvinus
  133. Rehmat says:
    @Jay

    The so-called “abolishing Black slavery” had nothing to do with White Christian conscience – it was based on economic smartness. With the industrial revolution, slaves became more expensive than machine.

    Most of Blacks are still living like slaves in America, but under different names, such as, very low representation in government, Congress, economic and social sectors – though there have always been some “House Niger”, as Malcolm X used to call them.

    “A new political reality is opening up in the United States today. A new generation of youth, of all nationalities, is radicalizing and mobilizing from Ferguson, Missouri to Staten Island, New York and across the US. This has been sparked by a wave of police killings of unarmed, mostly Black and Latino, civilians and subsequent Grand Jury exonerations in clearly manipulated settings. This reality now confronts the US ruling Establishment. The framework for this new consciousness and struggle is the grotesque obscenities that now mark the so-called criminal justice system in the US with its mass incarceration of youth, especially Black and Latino youth, the virtual impossibility of seeing any kind of justice in case after case of police killings and brutality, and more broadly the mounting impact of the permanent capitalist economic crisis, growing impoverishment, and increased working-class struggles for decent jobs and wages, against obscene inequality in education, health care, and so on. Those coming into the fight will find no greater champion and inspiration in the fight for their better future than Malcolm X. For those who take the time to search, discover, and study this towering human being, beautiful vistas will open up before you, says Ike Nahem, an American Jewish writer and member of the National Network on Cuba.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/02/23/malcolm-x-50-years-after-martyrdom/

  134. nickels says:
    @realhistory

    Your solution is essentially a part of multiculturalism, although those that push it are worse than the KKK about their own racial purity.

    Also, is that really desirable? Really, just flatten culture?

    All beautiful vivid colors, when mixed, create flat and dull grey.

    Now.

    I thought for a time Christianity could be a solution, but watching the behavior of the victim and grievance mongers, I no longer believe that.

    Here are the possible directions:

    1) Whites get family back and start having children.
    2) they die.

  135. @Jay

    There is a homogeneous antebellum south unless you don’t believe generalizations about a large group of people is possible just because of exceptions to the rule. You do believe in generalizations right?

    You cited isolated communities of mountain people to claim the antebellum south wasn’t homogeneous. That shows how marginal anything other than the old bourbon south is to that time and place.

    • Replies: @Jay
  136. @Jay

    In the major currents of black and white race relations by thinkers throughout American history, higher rates of crime by blacks compare to whites doesn’t get much attention. You can see it as a critical idea behind southern support for prohibition but black crime never merited much fascination in line with outlaws, immigrant street gangs, anarchists, bank robbers, etc.

    However, miscegenation as loathsome is a central idea. The worst anti-black race riots in American history, Atlanta, Tulsa, etc. weren’t started by murders committed by blacks against whites but the suspicion, even fleeting suspicion, of assault against a white woman by a black man.

    • Replies: @Jay
  137. Corvinus says:
    @dc.sunsets

    “Really? Really? You are unfamiliar with Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy in America?…(facepalm.) Debate requires some degree of common premise & common knowledge.”

    de Tocqueville’s sentiments were EXACTLY why I used the term “oxymoron”. Its those in charge of democratic institutions, not the institutions themselves, that lead to tyranny. Yes, I am acutelt aware that America’s democracy is rife with corruption and influence peddling, but what government has not experienced similar machinations by its actors? Exactly why citizens, through the social contract, have the authority to remove such threats. Just as majority might imply unanimity, tyranny could be too labeled too strong a word when describing the malaise of citizens in a democratic society who, for whatever reason, fail to vigorously conduct serious housecleaning. As de Tocqueville noted, “the opinions, interests, and prejudices of Americans are hindered by no permanent obstacles, [since those obstacles can be removed by the consent of those governed], the majority governs in the name of the people, and the people are supreme.” Remember, too, he had a soft spot with regard to rule by the few, believing that an aristocracy checked absolute power. Yet, as history has clearly demonstrated, the aristocracy have their own inner political demons.

  138. Corvinus says:
    @Jay

    “For the second time in this thread you demonstrate that you do not know any history. The policy toward free and freed blacks, North as well as South, was not based on fear of blacks being too harmonious but on their being too dangerous.”

    You’re going to have to take remedial American history.

    https://hsp.org/sites/default/files/winch_excerpt.pdf

    In a nutshell, this source undercuts your notion as blacks being “too dangerous”.

    “Data from Philadelphia going back as far as 1830 documents that even free blacks early in that city’s history were many times more likely than their white fellow citizens to commit violent crime and that differential has continued uninterrupted until the present…”

    Let’s explore your claim here. Tis true that after 1816, the crime rate among blacks was increasing faster than their population in the City of Brotherly love and its nearby environs. A study done in 1849 of the inmate population of the Eastern State Penitentiary and Philadelphia County Prison showed that, from 1829 to 1848, the length of sentence of white prisoners averaged 2 years, 8 months and 2 days; while that of blacks averaged 3 years, 3 months and 14 days. Some 15 percent of white inmates were pardoned before the end of their terms, but only 3 percent of blacks were.

    Not raciss mind you, but justice, right? Merely a sign of their times.

    Yet that study acknowledged that escaped slaves who moved into the southern tier of Pennsylvania counties were notoriously criminal. One report statewide showed the black population ratio at 1:33 and the black crime rate at 1:3. Furthermore, of black criminals, some 66.3 percent had come from slave states. Apologists cited the want of education and work opportunities, as well as the temptations of liquor, all of which certainly contributed to these deplorable statistics. In other words, social conditions led to increased crime rates among a certain segment of the black population.

    Moreover, certain whites in that city, as well as urban areas along the Eastern seaboard, were also miscreants and thugs. After 1830, the number of violent crimes shot upward, including armed robbery and murder, especially among the urban white poor. In Philadelphia, the number of homicides reached 67 from 1839- 1845, rose 75 over the next seven years, increased 126 over the following seven years. Declared a New York City council report in 1842:

    “The property of the citizen is pilfered, almost before his eyes. Dwellings and warehouses are entered with an ease and apparent coolness and carelessness of detection which shows none are safe…Thousands that are arrested go unpunished, and the defenseless and the beautiful are ravished and murdered in the day time, and no trace of the criminals is found.”

    It would be interesting to find out the specific ethnicity were those perpetrators and compare which European group, based on overall numbers and population percentages, was most violent.

    • Replies: @Jay
  139. Jay says:
    @realhistory

    According to your fanciful account, post-bellum black-on-white crime consisted of stealing an occasional apple pie that was cooling on a window sill. Then pray tell us how the situation deteriorated so that black-on-white violent crime is nowadays 35 times the per capita rate of white-on-black violent crime. In reality, black-on-white crime was of intense interest in every post-bellum neighborhood where it occurred, which was all with any appreciable black population, and that was the reason for the imposition of Jim Crow laws, i.e., as measures to curtail such crime.

  140. Jay says:
    @realhistory

    No, I cited large regions where slave-holding was rare. You seem unaware that West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War. That is not an isolated community. Even in the slave-holding regions of the Piedmont, the Coastal Plain and the river valleys, yeomen farmers eventually voted with their feet and deserted from the Confederate armies. The Confederacy failed to gain independence exactly because it was not homogeneous.

  141. Jay says:
    @Corvinus

    Your words: “One report statewide showed the black population ratio at 1:33 and the black crime rate at 1:3.”

    My math: 1 of 33 in the population, but 1 of 3 among the criminals = black criminality at ten times the rate of white criminality.

    You supported my assertion with data. Thanks.

  142. dcite says:
    @Mark F.

    well, there was the black American journalist who lived for some years in Africa 1980s-90s I think, and wrote a book about it. Basically he was surprised to discover he was very glad his ancestors were taken away from Africa.

  143. Corvinus says:

    “One report statewide showed the black population ratio at 1:33 and the black crime rate at 1:3.”

    Statewide, not Philadelphia and its surrounding areas, which was the gist of my response. Furthermore, 2/3 of blacks statewide were NOT criminals. Moreover, out of that 1/3, you fail to account for repeat offenders -and- non-residents of the state, which would actually lower the numbers. You had also failed to consider the social factors for crimes committed, which is common for ANY underclass regardless of race or ethnicity.

    But, if you insist, another 1/3 of crime was committed by the Irish in that same time period in the city, and the other 1/3 was committed by various European ethnics–the Welsh, Scots, Germans, and Dutch. So, if one could find specific population numbers for the Scots, for example, in Philadelphia in 1830, and procure crime records for that ethnic group, one could also make the claim that this particular group, if the numbers bore out, were x times the number of European criminality.

    Furthermore, in the 1830′s and 1840′s, there were gang turf wars between Irish Catholics and Protestant Orangemen (nativists of various European ethnic groups) in that city. One could make the argument that these groups were more likely to commit acts of violence compared to blacks.

    • Replies: @Jay
  144. Jay says:
    @Corvinus

    “Statewide” data are clearly more extensive and therefore more conclusive in showing that blacks were much more inclined to criminality. The issue was and is differences between Negro and Caucasian races. Your discussion of ethnic differences, e.g., Quaker versus Ulstermen, within the Caucasian race is a pathetic attempt to create a red herring. Yet even there you derive hypothetical conclusions from non-existent data. You clearly have no respect for scientific standards of evidence. The only value one might gain from your posts is practice in recognizing invalid arguments.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  145. Corvinus says:
    @Jay

    ““Statewide” data are clearly more extensive and therefore more conclusive in showing that blacks were much more inclined to criminality.”

Depending how that data was collected and verified. For the statistic I provided—black population ratio at 1:33 and the black crime rate at 1:3—there was no source behind it. We assume that this information is accurate.

    “The issue was and is differences between Negro and Caucasian races.”

    Which I had thoroughly addressed in my posts. Carefully re-read them.

    “Your discussion of ethnic differences, e.g., Quaker versus Ulstermen, within the Caucasian race is a pathetic attempt to create a red herring.”

    

You opened the door talking about the rates of criminality. Therefore, investigating crime rates within white ethnic groups is legitimate.

    “Yet even there you derive hypothetical conclusions from non-existent data.”

    First, If 1/3 of all criminals in Philly/surrounding environs were black, then one can easily deduce that the rest (2/3) were non-black. Second, I conducted research and cited facts—1/3 of crime there was attributed to the Irish and 1/3 to other Europeans. So your assertion that this data is “non-existent” is baseless. Now, if you have a quibble with my conclusion, then it is incumbent that YOU offer counter arguments to refute it.

    “You clearly have no respect for scientific standards of evidence. The only value one might gain from your posts is practice in recognizing invalid arguments.”


    I found information from the Internet and crafted an argument. You are going to have demonstrate how and why I have shown “no respect for scientific standards of evidence”. That is how discourse works—you have to be able to submit evidence rather than make a generalization.

    In other words, this conversation now requires dialectic not rhetoric.

    • Replies: @Jay
    , @Corvinus
  146. Svigor says:

    It just occurred to me that the title of this movie is a cultural appropriation of the real Birth of a Nation, the masterpiece by white pioneer Griffith. And that this is probably an attempt to whitewash black history. As I noted above, blacks did practically nothing to win their freedom. Instead, whites gave it to them. The title of this film seems to embody a wish that blacks had in fact won their freedom.

    No nation was born of Turner’s rebellion.

  147. Svigor says:

    Here’s some history for you:
    Benin

    The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery;[19] otherwise the captives would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs.

    Sounds very enlightened. More evidence for the fact that the (northern) transatlantic trade was a reprieve.

    Pop Quiz: how and when was slavery ended in Ethiopia?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  148. Svigor says:

    Muslims castrated their black slaves, of which they had a great many.

    “Slavery’s so much nicer when blacks do it to blacks!”

    LOL.

    Feel the black love:

    Slavery in Somalia

    Bantu adult and children slaves (referred to collectively as jareer by their Somali masters[13]) were purchased in the slave market exclusively to do undesirable work on plantation grounds.[13] They were made to work in plantations owned by Somalis along the southern Shebelle and Jubba rivers, harvesting lucrative cash crops such as grain and cotton.[14] Bantu slaves toiled under the control of and separately from their Somali patrons.[13]

    In terms of legal considerations, Bantu slaves were devalued. Somali social mores strongly discouraged, censured and looked down upon any kind of sexual contact with Bantu slaves. Freedom for these plantation slaves was also often acquired through escape.[13]

    As part of a broader practice then common among slave owners in Northeast Africa, some Somali masters in the hinterland near Mogadishu reportedly used to circumcise their female slaves so as to increase the latter’s perceived value in the slave market. In 1609, the Portuguese missionary João dos Santos reported that one such group had a “custome to sew up their females, especially their slaves being young to make them unable for conception, which makes these slaves sell dearer, both for their chastitie, and for better confidence which their masters put in them.”[15]

    In the 1840s, the first fugitive slaves from the Shebelle valley began to settle in the Jubba valley. By the early 1900s, an estimated 35,000 former Bantu slaves had settled there.[citation needed]

    The Italian colonial administration abolished slavery in Somalia at the turn of the 20th century. Some Bantu groups, however, remained enslaved well until the 1930s, and continued to be despised and discriminated against by large parts of Somali society.[16]

    In addition to Bantu plantation slaves, Somalis sometimes enslaved peoples of Oromo pastoral background that were captured during wars and raids on Oromo settlements.[3][4] However, there were marked differences in terms of the perception, capture, treatment and duties of the Oromo pastoral slaves versus the Bantu plantation slaves.[4]

    On an individual basis, Oromo subjects were not viewed as racially jareer by their Somali captors.[4] The Oromo captives also mostly consisted of young children and women, both of whom were taken into the families of their abductors; men were usually killed during the raids. Oromo boys and girls were adopted by their Somali patrons as their own children. Prized for their beauty and viewed as legitimate sexual partners, many Oromo women became either wives or concubines of their Somali captors, while others became domestic servants.[3][19] In some cases, entire Oromo clans were assimilated on a client basis into the Somali clan system.[3]

    (Emphasis added)

    Feel that enlightened black love.

    Jews do the same thing. Somehow, dead Jews mean more than dead non-Jews. Genocide vs. Jews is worse than genocide vs. non-Jews. Anti-Semitism is worse than prejudice against non-Jews. Etc.

  149. Svigor says:

    The so-called “abolishing Black slavery” had nothing to do with White Christian conscience – it was based on economic smartness. With the industrial revolution, slaves became more expensive than machine.

    Okay genius, what are some other things that have been abolished because more efficient methods were found? Don’t play any word games with me, either, you’re not intelligent enough for that.

  150. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “More evidence for the fact that the (northern) transatlantic trade was a reprieve.”

    [Laughs] listen to yourself, trying to moralize one form of slavery over another form of slavery. Slavery is brutal regardless of the perpetrator–black on black, white on black, white on white.

    “As I noted above, blacks did practically nothing to win their freedom. Instead, whites gave it to them.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Northern freedmen, along with their white brethren North and South, diligently worked to destroy the southern institution of slavery. In particular, Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman took the reins of black leadership to continually put pressure on northern politicians prior to and during the Civil War to instill a sense of duty and morality to eradicate the “peculiar institution” once and for all.

    Now, these “whites that gave it to them” in reference to abolishing slavery, are they not “anti-white” for foolishly granting them their freedom?

  151. Jay says:
    @Corvinus

    The argument that you crafted is fallacious because it does not contain data on the relative frequency of the “Irish” and “other Europeans” in the population. Without that data (which for blacks you had, i.e., 1:33), you cannot calculate per capita rates of criminality. Your speculating on rates of criminality among various white ethnicities is either a red herring to divert attention from the easily documented disproportionate criminality among blacks, or it is reflection of your innumeracy. Thus I have illustrated “how” if not “why” you show no respect for a scientific approach to evidence.

    In regard to the characterization of an American of the early nineteenth century as Irish, cultural background is not clearly determined by that term. Scots-Irish (who were Ulstermen derived from intermarriage of Lowland Scots, Border English, and Huguenots in the Ulster Plantation) were called Irish in the U.S. through much of the nineteenth century, even though they were at war with the true Catholic Irish for many years in northern Ireland. So the 1/3 of criminals that were “Irish” in nineteenth century Pennsylvania would have included both Scots-Irish and true Irish in unknown proportions.

  152. Svigor says:

    Corvinus says:
    February 2, 2016 at 4:05 am GMT

    “Blacks came from a culture of slavery. They were enslaved by blacks steeped in a culture of slavery.”

    That form of slavery was decidedly different than European slavery. Do you even read history?

    Corvinus says:
    February 5, 2016 at 4:53 am GMT • 200 Words

    “More evidence for the fact that the (northern) transatlantic trade was a reprieve.”

    [Laughs] listen to yourself, trying to moralize one form of slavery over another form of slavery. Slavery is brutal regardless of the perpetrator–black on black, white on black, white on white.

    If you idiots are going to share an internet connection, you should each use separate handles.

    “Slavery is slavery is slavery” is the same form of idiocy as “rape is rape is rape.” No, there are degrees, as with most anything else involving humans. No, morning-after he-said she-said “date rape” is not the same as violent, injurious gang-rape by strangers. No, Romans making their slaves fight to the death in arenas for their amusement wasn’t the same as the way white southerners treated their black slaves (and no, Romans don’t get any brownie points for being multicultural in their practice of slavery). No, Muslims castrating and mutilating their black slaves wasn’t the same as the way white southerners treated their black slaves. No, the Dahomey practice of putting to death all the blacks they captured and couldn’t sell was not the same as the way white southerners treated their blacks slaves. And no, buying a slave is not the same as capturing, enslaving, and selling someone. And no, inter-racial slavery is not inherently worse, especially when it was someone of your own race who enslaved and sold you in the first place.

    If these things were all the same, white southerners would have taken a page out of the Dahomey book and put all of their slaves to death in 1864 as the defeat and forced emancipation loomed imminent.

    “As I noted above, blacks did practically nothing to win their freedom. Instead, whites gave it to them.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Northern freedmen, along with their white brethren North and South, diligently worked to destroy the southern institution of slavery. In particular, Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman took the reins of black leadership to continually put pressure on northern politicians prior to and during the Civil War to instill a sense of duty and morality to eradicate the “peculiar institution” once and for all.

    Corrected for accuracy:

    Black slaves did practically nothing to win their freedom. Instead, whites gave it to them (e.g., gave it to Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Northern freedmen, etc.)

    Now, these “whites that gave it to them” in reference to abolishing slavery, are they not “anti-white” for foolishly granting them their freedom?

    They aren’t particularly pro-black or “anti-racist,” I know that much. Yankeeland is still more segregated today than the South. Or most anywhere this side of Capetown, really.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  153. Corvinus says:
    @Corvinus

    “The argument that you crafted is fallacious because it does not contain data on the relative frequency of the “Irish” and “other Europeans” in the population.”

    For Christ’s sake, 2/3 of the population in Philadelphia in 1830 was non-white, with me listing of those groups. I offered the caveat in my analysis, recognizing that while I do not have the specific data, one could speculate based on the available data.

    “Without that data (which for blacks you had, i.e., 1:33), you cannot calculate per capita rates of criminality.”

    Actually I can. You are relying on a statistic I supplied, one that has to be verified. True, it is a rudimentary calculation, one that needs scrutiny, but one that has to be proven meritless.

    “Your speculating on rates of criminality among various white ethnicities is either a red herring to divert attention from the easily documented disproportionate criminality among blacks, or it is reflection of your innumeracy.”

    It’s actually called looking inside the numbers. Your characterization of this **“easily documented disproportionate criminality among blacks”** lacks context. 1/3 was criminal, 2/3 was non-criminal. Why? The 1/3 represented the underclass—like ANY other class, social conditions play a major role in how and why people commit crimes. I provided a link that offers specific background as to why a certain segment of the black population was criminal, which is no different for a non-black population.

    The point I provided regarding 1/3 of black crime/1/33 of the population did not contain a source, i.e, a footnote or endnote. That means that 1/3 data point may or may not be accurate. You would have to find out more about that population and offer additional evidence in order to strengthen your claim.**

    “Scots-Irish (who were Ulstermen derived from intermarriage of Lowland Scots, Border English, and Huguenots in the Ulster Plantation) were called Irish in the U.S. through much of the nineteenth century, even though they were at war with the true Catholic Irish for many years in northern Ireland. So the 1/3 of criminals that were “Irish” in nineteenth century Pennsylvania would have included both Scots-Irish and true Irish in unknown proportions.”

    Even better. Should those numbers be culled, one could break down crime rates from the “true” and “non-true” Irish, compare their rates of criminality, and speculate to what extent which whites were more prone to crime compared to the overall numbers in Philly.

  154. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “Slavery is slavery is slavery” is the same form of idiocy as “rape is rape is rape.” No, there are degrees, as with most anything else involving humans.”

    Evil is evil.

    “Slavery was the best thing to ever happen to blacks, in the long run. Wasn’t even bad, compared to their other options, at the time.”

    You are going to have qualify this statement. How was it “not bad at the time”? What other “options” were there?

    “No, there are degrees, as with most anything else involving humans.”

    Moral relativism at its finest. Slavery is barbaric, not “most barbaric” or “least barbaric”, just simply barbaric. It’s too easy for race baiters to rationalize or make excuses for clearly uncivilized behavior.

    “Muslims castrating and mutilating their black slaves wasn’t the same as the way white southerners treated their black slaves.”

If one is going to talk about degrees of slavery, then one must have definitively objective standards regarding what is “better” and “worse” on a continuum. Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves. How would a person qualify southern whites who engage in the is practice as “better” and Muslims who engage in this practice as “worse”?

    “If these things were all the same, white southerners would have taken a page out of the Dahomey book and put all of their slaves to death in 1864 as the defeat and forced emancipation loomed imminent.”

    And eradicate an entire labor force they could exploit in the future? No, white southerners would not have done anything of the sort if slavery practices was “different in cruelty”.

    “Black slaves did practically nothing to win their freedom.”

    The Underground Railroad clearly derails your statement.

    “They aren’t particularly pro-black or “anti-racist,” I know that much.”

    That’s not the question I asked. Now, these “whites that gave it to them” in reference to abolishing slavery, are they not “anti-white” for foolishly granting them their freedom?

    “Yankeeland is still more segregated today than the South.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Certain regions of the North are more segregated than certain regions of the South.

  155. Svigor says:

    “Slavery is slavery is slavery” is the same form of idiocy as “rape is rape is rape.” No, there are degrees, as with most anything else involving humans.”

    Evil is evil.

    That’s just as stupid as “slavery is slavery is slavery” and “rape is rape is rape.” Lots of stuff falls under the (ever-changing) definition of evil, varying widely in the degree.

    “Slavery was the best thing to ever happen to blacks, in the long run. Wasn’t even bad, compared to their other options, at the time.”

    You are going to have qualify this statement. How was it “not bad at the time”? What other “options” were there?

    Being slaughtered en masse by black slavers who had no use for them, for example.

    Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves.

    Evidence please.

    How would a person qualify southern whites who engage in the is practice as “better” and Muslims who engage in this practice as “worse”?

    You’re not very bright. My argument was that southern whites didn’t practice castration, that the Muslim practice of castration was widespread, and that this made Muslim slavery worse.

    And eradicate an entire labor force they could exploit in the future? No, white southerners would not have done anything of the sort if slavery practices was “different in cruelty”.

    Dahomey could have exploited their enslaved black captives, too. Instead they slaughtered them en masse.

    That’s not the question I asked.

    Yeah but I don’t really give a shit what questions you ask.

    Corrected for accuracy –> Certain regions of the North are more segregated than certain regions of the South.

    Yankee land is more segregated than the South, even today. That is a true statement. Even the first page of a web search would show you this. I have a folder overflowing with articles on the subject.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  156. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “That’s just as stupid as “slavery is slavery is slavery” and “rape is rape is rape.” Lots of stuff falls under the (ever-changing) definition of evil, varying widely in the degree.”

    Except what is “white”, what is “anti-white”, and what problems that Joos cause. Those things remain constant—no “changing” definition or “weasel words” there, right?

    “Being slaughtered en masse by black slavers who had no use for them, for example.”

    So, what is “better” for blacks was for whites to enslave them compared to being enslaved by fellow blacks. Plantation owners were “slaughtering” the souls of blacks by demanding their total and complete labor compliance. That, however, is somehow more palatable than the “African” alternative? Nigga, please.

    “Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=5FDqCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=southern+whites+castrated+black+slaves&source=bl&ots=1qtMFT83uq&sig=Ac_H4Yd6_YdJGlSiOxEVeZKenCk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcxofPyuLKAhVM1CYKHRZ6Bm4Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=southern%20whites%20castrated%20black%20slaves&f=false

    “ My argument was that southern whites didn’t practice castration…”

    
The source I provided proves otherwise, as does this material.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=tVeh3C8XGP4C&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=southern+whites+castrated+black+slaves&source=bl&ots=DG6m7xl8c0&sig=leIbfRXywjNe29H3wA62IUstcKc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcxofPyuLKAhVM1CYKHRZ6Bm4Q6AEILzAF#v=onepage&q=southern%20whites%20castrated%20black%20slaves&f=false

    “Yeah but I don’t really give a shit what questions you ask.”

    

Especially when you get exposed as a fraud.

    “Yankee land is more segregated than the South, even today. That is a true statement. Even the first page of a web search would show you this. I have a folder overflowing with articles on the subject.”

    Evidence please.

  157. Svigor says:

    Except what is “white”, what is “anti-white”, and what problems that Joos cause. Those things remain constant—no “changing” definition or “weasel words” there, right?

    Nice (semi-literate) non-sequitur. I suppose this is your attempt to slither away from the argument, which you’re losing. Why not just point over there and shout “look! A squirrel!”?

    So, what is “better” for blacks was for whites to enslave them compared to being enslaved by fellow blacks. Plantation owners were “slaughtering” the souls of blacks by demanding their total and complete labor compliance. That, however, is somehow more palatable than the “African” alternative? Nigga, please.

    Dodge the issue, shuck and jive edition.

    “Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves.”

    I can’t use that site, far too slow. Castration of slaves was not a widespread practice in the British colonies, or the USA. In fact, the only references I could find in my searches was to the fact that it was a legal punishment for slaves in some places and times, and forbidden by law in others. I found no evidence that it was actually practiced. In contrast, the castration of black slaves was widespread as a practice, a “product feature” if you will, throughout the Muslim world. Unsurprisingly, it is references to this Muslim practice that overwhelmingly dominates the search results for “slavery castration.” I admit to not knowing if you’re intelligent enough to understand the distinction I’m making here.

    “ My argument was that southern whites didn’t practice castration…”

    The source I provided proves otherwise, as does this material.

    So quote it.

    “Yankee land is more segregated than the South, even today. That is a true statement. Even the first page of a web search would show you this. I have a folder overflowing with articles on the subject.”

    Evidence please.

    Sure.

    Chicago is famous for being the most segregated city in America, for starters. I’ll let you handle the searches for that one.

    The most segregated schools may not be in the states you’d expect

    Progress has been made, but the nation has been slipping, according to a new report analyzing government data from UCLA’s Civil Rights Project. And the states where segregation is most prevalent today are not the ones where it reached its boiling point in the 1950s and 1960s.
    Black students are most segregated in the Northeast

    The Northeast was the only region where, on average, the share of black students in almost completely minority schools has risen since 1968, according to the report titled “Brown at 60: Great Progress, a Long Retreat and an Uncertain Future.” More than half — 51.4 percent — of black students in those states in 2011 were in schools whose student populations were 90 percent to 100 percent minorities. In every other region of the country — the Midwest, West, South and “border” states — black students today are less likely to be in heavily minority schools.

    New York is one of the most segregated states for black students. It has the highest rate of black students in high-minority schools and the lowest rate of black exposure to white students. Illinois is second on both measures. Maryland is third when it comes to the share of black students in high-minority schools and fourth-lowest when it comes to black exposure to white students. California, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas also rank highly among the indicators suggesting high rates of segregation among blacks.

    The nation is backsliding

    The South had a long way to go. Even nine years after the Brown decision, 99 percent of blacks in the South were still in all-black schools. Segregation was effectively still in place. But in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that states where segregation was worst had to desegregate completely and quickly. By 1970, Southern schools were the nation’s most integrated.

    Note how you won’t find any articles from the New York Times in this comment. This isn’t because I had one and didn’t want to use it.

    More:

    The states with the most segregated public schools are epicenters of liberalism

    America’s Most Segregated Cities

    1 Cleveland
    2 Detroit
    3 Milwaukee
    4 Louisville (you know, that city in the Appalachian mountains, the region that fought against the Confederacy)
    5 Cincinnati
    6 Nashville (you know, that city in the Appalachian mountains, the region that fought against the Confederacy)
    7 Boston

    50 years later, de facto desegregation
    NJ.com
    Sunday, May 16, 2004
    By LARRY HANOVER

    A report this year by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University listed New Jersey as high as fifth in rankings of the most segregated states for black students.

    [Sorry, cowards at NJ.com have taken this one down and G**gle didn't find it]

    I had a bunch of other articles but most of them are similarly memory-holed. I think I’ve done enough of your homework for you.

    Especially when you get exposed as a fraud.

    Hard to expose something that isn’t there. Which is why you’ve yet to do so.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  158. Svigor says:

    More:

    northeast is more segregated housing neighborhoods

    Least Segregated U.S. Metros Concentrated in Fast-Growing South and West

    These Maps Show Just How Segregated New York City Really Is

    New York City may be one of the most diverse cities in the world, but it’s also one of the most segregated cities in the United States.

    Take a look at these maps from Daniel Kay Hertz, a masters student at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Hertz used data from the 2012 Census American Community Survey to show how segregated New York City really is.

  159. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “Nice (semi-literate) non-sequitur. I suppose this is your attempt to slither away from the argument, which you’re losing.”

    You are crafting the narrative that there are gradations when it comes to the brutality of slavery, while insisting there is no gradations when it comes to “white”, “anti-white”, and the problems Joos cause–those are set in stone. Talk about hypocrisy.

    “Chicago is famous for being the most segregated city in America, for starters. I’ll let you handle the searches for that one.”

    That means that whites are increasingly able to live amongst whites, preserving white culture and values. Is that not a worthy goal?

    Listen, I get it…liberal states have segregated urban areas, of which there are a myriad of factors. But your sources also showed that certain regions of the North are more segregated than certain regions of the South.

    Now, it does also state in one of your sources, “The study also noted that black and Latino students tend to perform better academically when they attend public schools which are integrated in terms of both skin color and income levels.”

    Interesting…

    “So quote it.”

    I had a bunch of other articles but most of them are similarly memory-holed. I think I’ve done enough of your homework for you.

    “I can’t use that site, far too slow.”

    Dodge the issue, shuck and jive edition.

    “Castration of slaves was not a widespread practice in the British colonies, or the USA.”

    Changing of the goalposts. I stated specifically “Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves” and offered a source, which you refused to read up on.

    So, what is “better” for blacks being enslaved by whites compared to being enslaved by fellow blacks?

    “Least Segregated U.S. Metros Concentrated in Fast-Growing South and West”

    Imagine that, different racial and ethnic groups working and living together.

  160. Svigor says:

    P.S., the the number of slaves freed by the underground railroad is dwarfed by the number of slaves freed by whites emancipating them. There’s no comparison to be made there.

    You are crafting the narrative that there are gradations when it comes to the brutality of slavery, while insisting there is no gradations when it comes to “white”, “anti-white”, and the problems Joos cause–those are set in stone. Talk about hypocrisy.

    Nitwit, I’m doing no such thing. I’m ignoring your non-sequitur.

    That means that whites are increasingly able to live amongst whites, preserving white culture and values. Is that not a worthy goal?

    You’re so dumb that now you’ve changed the subject to asking me if I think segregation is a good thing.

    Changing of the goalposts. I stated specifically “Southern whites and Muslims who owned black slaves were just as likely to castrate their own slaves” and offered a source, which you refused to read up on.

    And I told you I can’t utilize your source. Inaccessible sources aren’t much use in an online conversation. Do try and keep up.

    Muslims practiced castration of their (largely black) slaves the same way car salesmen offer cars in various colors, with sunroofs, etc; as a feature. Castration of slaves was widespread in the Muslim world. This “feature” (hey, don’t blame me, I’m not a Muslim or an Arab) was so popular among the buyers that slavers kept castrating their slaves, even though huge numbers of them died (I’ve seen estimates around 30% or more, IIRC) as a result, because the price for castrated slaves more than made up for the loss. Think on that for a bit.

    The practice of castrating slaves wasn’t even on the radar in British colonies or the USA. You know this, and I know this (that’s why you can’t quote a source).

    It’s laughable to watch blacks defend the people who castrated and genitally mutilated their black slaves in vast numbers, simply because they can’t get beyond their own parochial mindset.

    Imagine that, different racial and ethnic groups working and living together.

    You’re welcome. *drops mike*

  161. Svigor says:

    Underground Railroad

    Estimates of the number of slaves assisted vary widely, but only a minuscule fraction of those held in bondage ever escaped. Few, particularly from the Lower South, even attempted the arduous journey north. But the idea of organized “outsiders” undermining the institution of slavery angered white southerners, leading to their demands in the 1840s that the Fugitive Slave Laws be strengthened.

    Myths of the Underground Railroad

    Myth:
    A significant percentage of enslaved African Americans escaped on the Underground Railroad.

    Truth:
    While the number is often debated, some believe that as many as 100,000 slaves escaped on the Underground Railroad between 1800 and 1865. However, this is only a tiny percentage of the slaves living in the South during this period. For example, in 1860, there were nearly four million slaves in the South.

    Trainspotting

    Bordewich writes of a “hemorrhaging of fugitive slaves.” Yet these slaves were more a trickle than a flood, their origins geographically limited, their numbers a tiny fraction in comparison to those who remained captive or never succeeded in their efforts to claim freedom. Bordewich generously estimates that the Railroad transported approximately 100,000 “passengers” in the course of the nineteenth century. Even if Bordewich’s figure is right, it is a small fraction of the slave population. In 1860 there were 4 mil lion slaves living in the United States, and we can only estimate the total number of those caught in bondage from 1800 to 1860, which is of course the population from which Bordewich’s figure of 100,000 came.

    The article goes on to document Bordewich’s poor scholarship; Bordewich is the source for the (very popular) high estimate of 100,000 slaves escaping via the Underground Railroad.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  162. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “I’m ignoring your non-sequitur.”

    
It’s not a non-sequitar, it’s called a blatant effort on your part to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

    “P.S., the the number of slaves freed by the underground railroad is dwarfed by the number of slaves freed by whites emancipating them.”

    Wow, tell me something I don’t know, given the fact I never made this comparison.

    “You’re so dumb that now you’ve changed the subject to asking me if I think segregation is a good thing.”

    I’m merely echoing sentiments repeatedly on this blog regarding who are and who are not “white” and how whites ought to be able to live among their fellow whites. Do you think segregation is a “good thing”?

    “And I told you I can’t utilize your source.”

    It’s called a link. Merely click on it and read.

    “It’s laughable to watch blacks defend the people who castrated and genitally mutilated their black slaves in vast numbers.”

    I’m taking umbrage to your perverted notion that there are gradations of evil. Evil is evil. There is not “more evil” or “less evil”. Do you seemingly enjoy moral relativism?

    Again, what is “better” for blacks was for whites to enslave them compared to being enslaved by fellow blacks?

    You—“Black slaves did practically nothing to win their freedom.”
    Me—The Underground Railroad clearly derails your statement.

    The point of fact is that thousands of slaves escaped to freedom, which makes your assertion “practically nothing”. Your links would offer evidence countering the UR’s level of success HAD I made that argument.

    You have a knack for strawmen.

  163. Svigor says:

    As someone who vacillates between Trump and Cruz, but is increasingly leaning toward Cruz, I’d like an explanation of how Trump intends to achieve the three goals you elaborated above.

    Well, see, first you start with intent…

    “And I told you I can’t utilize your source.”

    It’s called a link. Merely click on it and read.

    You’re pretty dense.

    I’m taking umbrage to your perverted notion that there are gradations of evil.

    Okay, you’re really dense.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  164. Corvinus says:
    @Svigor

    “As someone who vacillates between Trump and Cruz, but is increasingly leaning toward Cruz, I’d like an explanation of how Trump intends to achieve the three goals you elaborated above.”

    Are you attributing this quotation to me? I would like to know when and where I made this statement.

    “Okay, you’re really dense.”

    The train is fine, Svigor. The train is fine.

  165. Olorin says:

    Racial snuff porn. Nothing more or less.

    I think it might be more interesting with Marlin Perkins narrating.

  166. Olorin says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    I dunno, DH. Seems to me there’s already a whole S-load of censorship.

    Of certain opinions.

    On the racial snuff porn thing, it strikes me as a prime example of (((Hollywood))) projecting its anti-white animus by riling up blacks.

    You know that there aren’t enough blacks to make this movie the blockbuster it’s intended to be.

    So who’s going to watch it, talk about it, go to it, buy copies of it, stream it?

    SJWs for sure.

    But also many MANY racial realists, wanting something tangible to push back against.

    And there’s the rub.

    Already we’re to the wonderfully hopeful point in history where CNN has bled so many viewers that it has to resort to trolling the alt-right, so it gets its clickbait ad revenues that way.

    Doesn’t everybody realize that these media organizations have great huge research divisions staffed by people trained like Olorin was…who figure out how to claim attention/clicks/forwarded links and therefore ad revenue?

    They don’t care that you’re there because you disagree or hate them. They get money either way. Like politicians.

    The real way to defeat it is to simply tune out and stop clicking. Turn off the “entertainment” industry entirely. That includes all forms of MSM, including sports.

    Just disengage from it all. Understand how they make their money. Don’t go there. Teach your children to disengage.

    Where possible, disengage from all consumer products that advertise on these Mental Superfund Sites as well.

    Save your attention for what is worthy of your all-too-short mortality.

  167. Olorin says:
    @Anonymous

    The first death(s) resulting from it should be prosecuted under RICO.

  168. Olorin says:
    @Fred Reed

    No you wouldn’t.

    You’d pack up and move to Mexico.

    • Agree: Kyle McKenna
  169. Gemjunior says:
    @Svigor

    You’re wrong about most households owning at least one slave. It’s documented in many places, but the best work on how many slaves were owned by certain households, the size, etc. was done by the late Dr. Tony Martin of Wellesley College. It was less than 5%, some figure it was less than 2%. Look his books up on Amazon, and he has some lectures videotaped on youtube. Also, in the book “The secret history between blacks and Jews” by Louis Farrakhan, for which he was skewered by the Jewish groups and media, talks a lot about how much more numerous Jewish families in the south and high ownership of black slaves, due to probable increased wealth. Both Farrakhan and Martin focus on the large unknown role that was played in the slave trade by Portuguese and other Sephardic Jews who either owned, sponsored, or fitted out slaveships as well as staffed them. They provide bills of lading and bills of sale where nearly all the traders were Jews. The first synagogue in America was built with slave trade money in Rhode Island, and slave auctions were never held on Saturdays because it was the Sabbath. Read the books, watch the videos. And remember Jews are “white” when it’s convenient, like the terribly numerous “white men” in Hollywood funding, directing, etc., production of movies. The media is conveniently made of “white men,” but when it’s something like “most serial killers are white men,” all of a sudden they are non-white Jews. It’s interesting stuff.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.