The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Anthony Bryan Archive
The 1865 Project
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The movement resembled a Crusade, but a crusade which stands alone in history. It was not a union of different countries and different races under a religious inspiration against a common foe; it was conducted by men of one race against others of the same race, within a common country, and yet for the benefit of a different race. — Peter Joseph Hamilton, History of North America, Vol. 16; The Reconstruction Period, p. 12.

In 2019, the New York Times Magazine published a series of articles with the theme that the true date of America’s birth was 1619. The anchor piece of this 1619 Project series, called “The Idea of America,” asserts that the arrival of African slaves to the Virginia Bay Colony was the start of everything that was, and is, essential to the United States. The author further claims that blacks deserve credit for nearly all of America’s accomplishments and positive attributes. “The United States would simply not exist without us,” she declared. A number of articles by other black writers follow in the same vein, finding links between slavery and all sorts of modern practices including the use of Excel spreadsheets.

The 1619 Project is a more detailed version of the “we built this country” claim, and it is rooted in the same solipsism and indignation that motivates most black political and cultural commentary. Giving blacks credit for America’s achievements is like giving a hospital’s janitors credit for a successful heart transplant. In a sane age, the 1619 Project would be something handed out as a pamphlet on street corners. But we don’t live in a sane age, thanks to white liberals. It is their policy of credulity and indulgence regarding black grievances that gave the 1619 Project prominence in elite circles and mainstream media, and makes it an addition to school curricula.

Some academic historians, including some on the Left, gamely took up the cause of challenging the 1619 Project’s assertions and did the fact checking that the editors at the New York Times Magazine didn’t. But the 1619ers mostly shrugged off factual errors. Their mission was to push an agenda of white guilt, and they were not going to be deterred by details. Although the fact checkers were in the right historically, they missed the forest for the trees in assuming that the 1619 Project was about historical scholarship instead of racial revanchism.

A number of other efforts were undertaken to counter the claims that slavery is the essence of America. The 1620 Project, for example, argued that it was the Mayflower Compact that set the stage for the American form of government, but most of the others dated America from the year 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. President Donald Trump set up a 1776 Advisory Commission; a 1776 Project Political Action Committee raised more than \$2 million; black conservatives created the 1776 Unites project; and Hillsdale College offered a 1776 curriculum. The premise was generally that the principles of liberty and self-government are what really define America.

There are three consistent rhetorical patterns to the 1776 approach. The first is to denounce slavery and racism. The second is to cite the words “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence. Although Thomas Jefferson would surely delete that line if he could see what it has wrought, and although it is demonstrably untrue, it is repeated over and over as evidence that America is of good will and noble heart. The third is to quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: “We should judge people by the content of their character.” Mainstream conservatives, especially white ones, love this sentence, and often invoke MLK’s “dream” to claim that liberals are the “real racists” because of their woke refrains and support of affirmative action, quotas, etc.

Video Link

The Republican appeal to color-blind civic nationalism is no match for the vengeful emotionalism of the 1619 Project. But this asymmetry is typical of racial discussions in America — blacks, with the backing of liberal whites, aggressively push whatever argument or policy benefits them, while the “MLK-Cons” respond with feeble appeals to the Constitution and universal principles.

The 1619ers have a point that the importation of Africans into North America and the resulting population of millions of blacks is a defining aspect of American history. And in many ways, 1619 is indeed more formative than 1776. When Americans ride public transit, attend public schools, and go to the state fair, they feel the legacy of slavery more deeply than the legacy of the Constitutional Convention.

But more than the mere presence of blacks, what affects white Americans in 2022 is their collective relationship with blacks. And today’s black-white relations started, in a legal sense, after the Civil War. In 1865, after the bloody conflict ended, a “political cold war” began, in which whites tried to determine what to do with the newly freed black population. The 13th Amendment, formally outlawing slavery, was ratified at the end of 1865. Over the next five years, Congressional Republicans proceeded to further amend the Constitution to give blacks citizenship and the right to vote, effectively creating a new arrangement of American life. Ever since, white elites in Washington D.C. have claimed for themselves the legal and moral authority to dictate the relations between the states and their citizens in the name of protecting blacks and their post-1865 rights.

Freedmen voting in New Orleans, 1867.
Freedmen voting in New Orleans, 1867.

During Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans used their dominant post-war position to force their desired political and social arrangements on Southerners, prevented them from governing themselves, turned away their elected Congressional representatives, and used the army to ensure they obeyed. It was a period of rule more in the tradition of European monarchs than classical republicanism. It also marked the end of “1776 America,” and the beginning of what could be called “the 1865 Project.”

Jefferson once said slavery in America was like holding a wolf by the ears. Many early Americans opposed outright abolition precisely for fear of the wolf unleashed. But after the Civil War, the zeal for “equality” and the zeal for punishing the South overtook practical considerations about racial harmony and social cohesion. The political elites of the 1860s and 1870s did almost nothing to mitigate the possibility of conflict between whites and blacks. Or as W.E.B. DuBois himself said, “Thus Negro suffrage ended a civil war by beginning a race feud.”

The 1865 Project created predictable backlash and animosity over the subsequent decades in the South, and many blacks eventually headed north. Even then, “equality” remained elusive. So by the 1950s and 1960s, a very white and very prosperous American elite decided once again to reconstruct America in the pursuit of racial equality. This time, it would dictate not just the relationship between government and citizen but between businesses and customers and between individual whites and blacks.

Through more legislation and a series of Supreme Court rulings, these new radicals, now operating through the Democrat Party, supercharged the 1865 Project. Voter registration, hiring decisions, education, and housing all came under the purview of the federal government in order to protect blacks from discrimination. And, as in the 1860s, men with guns were brought in when white citizens showed too much defiance in resisting these changes. Just as with the first, the second wave of the 1865 Project did not bring about racial harmony or equality. In fact, in the years following the “Civil Rights movement,” race relations became worse, with riots and increases in violent crime.

The 1865 Project is the product of a certain kind of white mind. Whether called Radicals or bleeding-heart liberals or social justice warriors, the mentality is the same. These people see themselves as the hero in a fairy tale of good versus evil. They relish the opportunity to intervene on behalf of supposedly downtrodden black people. They never view the concerns of white dissenters as legitimate or worthy of consideration, and this justifies any manner of restrictions or punishment. Some even seem to get a thrill from humiliating less enlightened whites. Their intraracial spitefulness fuels an appetite for “poetic justice,” whether it be converting Jefferson Davis’ plantation into a Freedmen’s Farm after the war or melting down a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2021 and giving the metal to a black museum for it to build an “anti-racist” sculpture.

The 1865 Project is a set of legal constraints put on white people by other white people in order to bind them into an unhappy civic marriage with black people. When the multiracial utopia doesn’t arrive, the 1619ers blame the persistence of racism while the 1776ers and MLK-Cons say it’s due to “big government.” What almost no one will say is that the project is fundamentally flawed. It hasn’t worked and it’s not going to work. And the inability to acknowledge this makes everything worse.

In recent decades, the 1865 Project has gotten even worse. It has been expanded from legislative action to a cultural madness that insists on dictating personal behavior and speech in every facet of American life. From celebrating the first black person to do just about anything, to fat black women working as underwear models, to white people literally kneeling in the streets, this third phase of the 1865 Project has produced a constant carnival of absurdities and punishments. And as the proportion of whites in America keeps declining, the implications of this way of life grow more potent and more dire. The New York Times Magazine’s editor had the nerve to add this note to the 1619 Project: “Perhaps we can prepare ourselves for a more just future.” But it is whites who need to prepare themselves for a future that will not be just to them or to their children — and act accordingly.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 184 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. How many Yankee abolitionists were secret Tories who instigated the War between the States as way of avenging their defeat in the Revolutionary War and demonstrating their loyalty to the Queen of England?

  2. These people see themselves as the hero in a fairy tale of good versus evil. They relish the opportunity to intervene on behalf of supposedly downtrodden black people.

    Funnily, doing something at all, such as that, is itself racist – White Saviour.
    Doing nothing at all, on the other hand, is also racist – “White silence is violence”.

    • Replies: @Charflodles
    , @PetrOldSack
  3. The negro/black person should be in Africa period. Top 5 biggest mistakes in human history is bringing them to this continent.

    Lesson for all of time.

    Pick your own cotton. Pay a fair wage.

    Don’t import Africans!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Anon[263] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘The second is to cite the words “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence. Although Thomas Jefferson would surely delete that line if he could see what it has wrought, and although it is demonstrably untrue …’

    It’s sad and alarming how many of you simply don’t get it. The men that wrote and agreed on the words “all men are created equal” meant just that. But these same men did not view male negros as men, no more than any sane person today views male chimpanazees as men.

    Put the brain of a male Caucasian, a male negro and a male chimpanzee sitting in a row on a table. The male negro brain will to an enormous degree more closely resemble the chimp’s brain than the Caucasian brain.

    In the full-blood negro the prognatic jaw requires larger and stronger muscles to operate it — this jaw has evolved to crunch tough raw vegetation and raw meat. The muscles that power this jaw run up along the side of the head, over the temple area, and are attached to the skull above the temple.

    To make room for these larger jaw muscles on a negro, the front of the skull is narrower (note the term slope-head as applied to negros). In White men the parts of the brain that computes forward planning, estimates the future consequences of actions, and endows the ability for abstract thought are located in the frontal area between the temples and just behind the forehead.

    This is why lobotomies are performed in this area of the White brain, damage this part of a Caucasian brain and you turn the person into a dullified animal.

    The full-blood negro skull is too small in the frontal area to allow the brain to have these centres that process forward planning and abstract thought. Tell a typical negro it is 10 km from A to B and even though he was born and educated in a country that uses kilometres he will not be able to form a mental image of this distance in his head.

    So, if a negro asks the distance to some place, he’ll only lean towards understanding if you tell him how long it will take him to drive or walk there.

    Biologically, Whites and negros are two different species. There are lesser biological differences used as criteria to distinguish between different species of birds. The people that drew up the Declaration of Independence knew this. Thus, “all men created equal” dosen’t involve the negros in any way, shape or form.

    But then, we live in a crazy world where Right-wing pundits (quite rightly) rail against Lia Thomas and insist he is not a woman. But while these pundits rail against Thomas, many of them continuously refer to him as a “she”. They actually refer to him as a “she” in the very articles in which they assert he is not a she. Cognitive dissonance in overdrive, I assume.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre
    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
  5. anarchyst says:
    @Anon

    There’s more…
    Negros are unable to understand proportion. They may be aware of left, right, up, and down, but are unable to rationalize “how much” and “distance” (how near or how far).
    In addition, the gene for exploration and wondering “what else is out there?” is missing in negroes. They never wonder what lies beyond the next hill, stream, river, mountain or ocean.
    Negroes are only concerned about finding food, deciding what to eat, who to fornicate with, where to sh!t and also awareness of the animals that are above them in the food chain coming after them.
    Of course, their intensive libido, misguided ignorant sense of disrespect and uncontrollable impulses, reacting negatively without thinking of the consequences comes into play.
    Negroes are a separate species and should be recognized as such.
    Put a suit on a chimp or gorilla and it is still a chimp or a gorilla. The same goes for negroes. Put a suit on a negro and it is still a negro.

    • Replies: @Guest87
    , @Fluesterwitz
  6. Anonymous[970] • Disclaimer says:
    @kerdasi amaq

    How many Yankee abolitionists were secret Tories who instigated the War between the States as way of avenging their defeat in the Revolutionary War and demonstrating their loyalty to the Queen of England?

    Eighty or ninety years later? Don’t say things a stupid idiot would say.

  7. Guest87 says:
    @anarchyst

    So it is your contention that they do in fact give thought to where they sh!t?

    • LOL: Adam Smith
  8. @Vergissmeinnicht

    Exactly as boys my age would imagine themselves as fighter pilots or other WW2 heroes, in recent decades boys like to imagine themselves defending their Black Best Friend. Many of those Negrophilac boys are now grown men, with the same fantasies.

    • Replies: @Truth
  9. @Vergissmeinnicht

    “White silence is violence”

    Passive aggression is the tool that got Covid to succeed: stand in line, two meters apart, cover your face. Islam did similar to women in public. Today: inflation (hallelujah), thus accept high gas prices, ignore Marc Rutte and Biden, as the passive aggressors. Silence of rational thought is violence!

    White identity is not what it stands for as forced upon the world through passive aggression by the Holohoaxers mode and methodology. Social pressure based on opportunistic elite experiments is violence.

    Feel free to steal some of our suggestions, this is a public place where anything is owned by unz, unz does not mind, his writers feed on the commenting.

  10. JLS says:

    Why be so nasty, your comment is actually more stupid than helpful. You seem to be the idiot. Those who instigated the Civil War may have had significant ties to England.

  11. @anarchyst

    Negros […] are unable to rationalize “how much” and “distance” (how near or how far).

    Which is why they are notoriously unable to kick or throw balls or run fast or far. Science!

    • LOL: Truth
    • Troll: P. Cleburne
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  12. anarchyst says:
    @Fluesterwitz

    It doesn’t take knowledge of proportion to throw a ball or run fast.
    Ask a negro to estimate distance and he will have that slow, dullard, confused expression on his face and will not be able to give a rational answer.

    • Agree: P. Cleburne
  13. @kerdasi amaq

    Well you know the southern aristocracy made its fortune largely by selling its cotton to Britain. They had close economic ties to the great banking and commercial houses of London and Paris. In 1848 the capitals of Europe were convulsed by bloody pro-democracy rebellions, with revolutionaries waving the Stars and Stripes while they demanded an end to monarchy everywhere. Clearly, sabotaging the hated “great republic” by any means necessary must now be a priority. It’s hard to picture how the south would have gone to war with a much stronger north without clandestine assurances of support from their powerful overseas trading partners. Support promised but not delivered, just as London betrayed Poland in 1939, to use her to justify a war of annihilation against the real adversary.

    • Replies: @flyingtiger
  14. More than any other single factor, the cowardly murder of the President by a southern sympathizer galvanized public opinion to punish the region as harshly as possible. General Sherman, for one example, kept the news of the assassination from his army for two weeks, for fear the men would slaughter Johnston’s surrendered rebels in their custody in revenge. It is also hugely and tragically ironic that Lincoln himself had by no means abandoned the idea of colonization to solve the national race problem. Remember the war itself began not over the abolition of slavery but to prevent its expansion into the new Midwestern territories, from which the American people demanded blacks be excluded whether slave or free. Lincoln was a pragmatic Midwestern politician himself, with a fine ear for the wishes of the electorate. He was not a prim Yankee Pilgrim descendant intoxicated with a wokeish sense of superiority and self-righteousness. He advocated for practical, effective solutions to the voters’ grievances. And like many other Americans, Lincoln was seriously troubled about the rise of the radical antidemocratic faction in the south, that dominated Congress and the Supreme Court and within a decade stripped away every legal safeguard that had confined slavery to only those places where it was allowed by state law. In fact radical abolitionist elements were furious when he received the nomination over popular New York Governor Seward; but leaders of the new party knew it would be political suicide to run an antislavery candidate.

    In Lincoln’s final speech, the one that so enraged one man in the audience, John Wilkes Booth, he floated the idea of giving the vote “to intelligent colored men” who had served in the U.S. Army, saying it was their due for their devotion to the union. But the political general Ben Butler had met with Lincoln in the White House that very morning and claimed that the President was then open to a colonization scheme that would involve resettling black veterans in Panama, with the rest of the population to join them over time. Given Butler’s oily character, the veracity of this account remains controversial, yet recent investigative scholarship strongly suggests that Butler’s story appears more likely than not to be accurate.

    Relatively few in the antislavery movement were as concerned with the human rights of mere slaves as much as they feared the African presence in America, which they saw as dangerous and degrading to white people, corrupting their morals as well as diminishing their wages. Only the unpopular extremist faction thought blacks worthy of political and social equality. You can’t help but wonder how Lincoln would be remembered today if he hadn’t been cut down by an assassin’s bullet and had lived to battle the uncompromising congressional radicals over the race issue. His successor Andrew Johnson tried to continue what he believed Lincoln’s policies to be and was savagely vilified by them, and nearly impeached, for his trouble.

    • Disagree: P. Cleburne
    • Replies: @Bo Bo
    , @bwuce wee
    , @jsigur
  15. Observator: “In Lincoln’s final speech, the one that so enraged one man in the audience, John Wilkes Booth, he floated the idea of giving the vote “to intelligent colored men” who had served in the U.S. Army, saying it was their due for their devotion to the union.”

    Lincoln said any negro who had served in the Union army should be made a citizen and given the vote, including even the stupidest ones. Perhaps not a surprising suggestion coming from a man who said, before the war had even started:

    “My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man – this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position – discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and united as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
    – Lincoln “the racist”, Speech at Chicago, July 10, 1858

    Observator: “… [Lincoln] was then open to a colonization scheme that would involve resettling black veterans in Panama”

    LOL. Sure, that’s obviously why he advocated they should be made citizens and given the vote. He expected them all to leave and be in Panama! I guess they were supposed to vote by mail.

    Let’s note also that there isn’t a shred of evidence that Lincoln ever planned or even desired the FORCIBLE REMOVAL of negroes from these shores, which is the only thing that would have worked. Lincoln wasn’t foolish enough to believe that all the negroes would volunteer to leave, which is why he came out for them to be given citizenship and the vote.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
  16. Bo Bo says:
    @Observator

    Repatriation of blacks to anywhere but the USA WAS Lincoln’s plan. He was discussing that up to the week before his murder. He wanted to send all except those who fought for the Union to either Africa or the Americas. He had worked on that with the British. It is all in a book. But conveniently he was murdered. The book: “Colonization After Emancipation” “Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement” Published 2011

  17. The 1865 Project is a set of legal constraints put on white people by other white people in order to bind them into an unhappy civic marriage with black people. When the multiracial utopia doesn’t arrive, the 1619ers blame the persistence of racism while the 1776ers and MLK-Cons say it’s due to “big government.” What almost no one will say is that the project is fundamentally flawed.

    On the contrary, a great many people are willing to point to both its fundamental flaws and to the power of international Jewry, which has been the moving force behind the transformation of the United States into a writ-large version of a Roman imperial spectacle in the Colosseum, where white people as a whole stand in for Christians, feral blacks and Muslim immigrants are the wild beasts, and the members of the Imperial party—who recline luxuriously on velvet upholstery as they gleefully watch the slaughter while indulging their carnal appetites at the expense of young children of both sexes—have names like Schumer, Kushner, Garland, Mayorkas, and others too numerous and familiar to mention.

    Yes, indeed, as one day flows into the next, ever more people see what is happening and see (((who))) is in charge. The problem is that awareness no longer matters, no matter how many people possess it. It is power alone that matters. In the West and in much of the rest of the world, the overwhelming preponderance of power is in the hands of the Jews.

    In short, barring a miracle, the solution to the Jewish problem and thence to the black problem will come only with the shedding of a great deal of blood.

    • Agree: P. Cleburne
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @ariadna
  18. Bo Bo: “[Lincoln] wanted to send all except those who fought for the Union to either Africa or the Americas. ”

    Yes, he ASKED them to volunteer to leave. LOL. I bet he was even willing to say “pretty please”. Then it woulda worked for sure! He definitely didn’t want them to stay and vote Republican.

    • Replies: @Bo Bo
  19. Bo Bo says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Actually, it was the intent of the radical Republicans to acquire political domination of the South after the war by limiting voting rights of former Southern leaders and to depend on the vote of the former slaves. See “The Life of Lincoln as President”, a personal account by Lincoln’s bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon.

    • Agree: P. Cleburne
  20. Bo Bo: “Actually, it was the intent of the radical Republicans to acquire political domination of the South after the war by limiting voting rights of former Southern leaders and to depend on the vote of the former slaves.”

    Exactly so, it was all a plot by those dastardly Radical Republicans. It was only his highly developed sense of fair play that led Lincoln to endorse citizenship and the vote be given to negroes who had served in the army. He didn’t advocate this for all negroes (at least, unless they were “very intelligent”), and in any case, his clever plan of politely asking them all to leave would doubtless have succeeded marvelously except for the tragedy of his assassination. The negro veterans could still have voted by mail from their new locations. What an incalculable loss to the white race to have lost such a great man! LOL.

    • Agree: Bo Bo
  21. British agents might have helped instigate the Civil War, but Britain didn’t
    get away scot-free when the Confederacy lost the war. The US filed claims for
    compensation from Britain “for property seized and destroyed by the Alabama
    and other Confederate vessels during the Civil War. Britain was charged with
    violating its neutrality by allowing the Confederate warships to be built or
    equipped in its shipyards. In 1871 the dispute was submitted to an international
    tribunal, which found Britain liable and awarded the US \$15,500,000 in gold.”
    (Quote from “Alabama Claims,” in The New American Desk Encyclopedia, pub. 1989)

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  22. Rebel Roy says:

    You say in the 1950’s and 60’s a very White elite pushed the races together.No,it was the Jewish elite and their White traitor underlings.Look it up pal.From the Brown v Board of Ed of 1954 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Immigration Act of 1965 it was the Jews 100% who wanted this.Jewish money and media and Jewish lawyers and Congressman did it all.Throw in a few comprised and White-hating politicos like Ted Kennedy and there you go.

  23. Anon[365] • Disclaimer says:

    “The United States would simply not exist without us,” she declared.

    It barely exists with you, sista. And it only exists despite you.

    Care to put your EBT where your sassy mouf’ is, Queen La’Queefa? Round up all your homeboys and -girls and twerk your blackety-black supersized booties back to africa. That will show us who needs who!

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  24. @anarchyst

    Hey they know distance.

    A block-o-mo- hoe.

  25. @Anon

    I am against government and for self-assortment.

    Man’s decivilizing world operates in opposition to that and it shows in every way.

  26. Chris Moore says: • Website

    I wonder why the ((New York Times)) and the ((1619 Project)) don’t go into the integral role that ((Jews)) have played in the slave trade since… forever?
    https://wolffgeisler.com/en/jewish-slave-traders/

    The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says that the Jewish persons were “especially adapted” to the slave trade because of their knowledge of languages[47].

    or how about this:

    Jews and Slavery: Three Books by the Nation of Islam
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/04/jews-and-slavery-three-books-by-the-nation-of-islam/

    This now-famous book, relying primarily upon the works of mainstream Jewish scholars, demonstrates in meticulous detail and with formidable documentation that Jews were at the very center of the trans-Atlantic slave trade as merchants, financiers, shippers, and insurers. They also sold the products of slave labor on international markets.

    The ((New York Times)) will systematically censor “chosen” ((Jewish)) dirty laundry in the slave trade for the same reason it censors “chosen” ((Jewish)) dirty laundry in “Israel” — because it’s ideologically Zionist.

    All intellectuals, politicians, scholars, wealthy activists etc who are ideologically Zionist are ideologically corrupt. That’s pretty much all members of the American ruling class.

    Do you now understand why America is swirling down the toilet, and headed for the cesspool of history?

    • Thanks: GMC
    • Replies: @anon
  27. Truth says:
    @White refugee in USA

    Top 5 biggest mistakes in human history is bringing them to this continent.

    All 5 of them?

    I mean, Hitler invading Russia had to be at least #4?

    • Replies: @Malla
  28. Truth says:
    @Charflodles

    Exactly as boys my age would imagine themselves as fighter pilots or other WW2 heroes,

    You imagined yourself being Audie Murphy?

    Wow, you’re an old Fuqq, Methuselah; he’s been dead since 1971.

    • Replies: @Anon
  29. @Observator

    The US navy blocked the support the South was expecting. BTW Britain betrayed Poland in 1864.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  30. Anon[263]: “The men that wrote and agreed on the words “all men are created equal” meant just that. But these same men did not view male negros as men, no more than any sane person today views male chimpanazees as men.”

    Would that it were true! But, unfortunately, it is not. That negroes were regarded as men in those days is shown irrefutably by the fact that of the thirteen original states, five had already granted citizenship and the vote to negro freemen. As Supreme Court Justice Curtis wrote in his dissent to the Dred Scott decision, it is even likely that some of these negroes voted on whether or not to ratify the Constitution.

    If it had been common at all to regard full-blooded negroes as non-human, then instead of a Civil War being fought over the question of their slavery, they could simply have been disposed of like a herd of infected cattle. But, perhaps fatally for the white race, it was the Christian religion and not science that shaped its conception of what was or was not human, and from Christianity’s earliest days negroes had been included in that category.

    In modern times, as belief in miracles and the supernatural has given way to science, and nobody really takes Jesus seriously anymore, I think people have difficulty conceiving of how sincerely white people believed such religious nonsense back then. The above article’s author begins by quoting an historian who characterizes the Civil War as a Crusade, and that’s entirely correct. It was a religious dispute between two factions of white people, each considering the other a kind of heretic. The North’s attitude was summed up perfectly in their theme song, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, the original version of which contained the lines:

    In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
    With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
    As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
    While God is marching on.

    This religious motive of the North is confirmed, on the part of the South, by Confederate General Henry Louis Benning, who in his speech to the Virginia Convention said:

    The North entertains the opinion that slavery is a sin and a crime. I mean, when I say the North, the Republican party, and that is the North; and they say that any stipulation in the Constitution or laws in favor of slavery, is an agreement with death and a covenant with hell; and that it is absolutely a religious merit to violate it.

    http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm

    I notice that in his latest column, Paul Craig Roberts continues to push the canard that the Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons. But this makes as much sense as saying that the original Crusades of medieval times were fought for economic reasons, and that the Christian religion had nothing to do with it. One can find economic reasons for anything, but when all of the participants are claiming that their motives are religious, it seems to me that it’s foolish not to give that side of it proper weight.

  31. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “One can find economic reasons for anything, but when all of the participants are claiming that their motives are religious, it seems to me that it’s foolish not to give that side of it proper weight.”

    This take on the Civil War rings painfully true. Even if there are other valid positions it seem obvious the racist one should be the most relevant to the racist perspective – and yet, astonishingly, you are the only one in the “Dissident Right” I’ve ever seen or heard give it the emphasis it deserves. Have you ever considered jumping on Ethan Ralph’s show sometime to debate the issue with (crypto) Christians using an anonymous voice changer? LOL.

  32. If the Yankees really wanted to help the black man; why didn’t they also invade every other nation where black men were in servitude, such as Brazil? Too expensive?

    You would think that their Christian ethics would have compelled them to do that; if they really had any.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  33. C.T. says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I have copied and pasted your above comment to the new incarnation of my site:

    http://www.westsdarkesthour.com/2022/06/14/morgan-vs-anon/

    If I reproduce more of your posts here, which avatar or image could I use every time I re-post on The West’s Darkest Hour your entries here?

  34. What almost no one will say is that the project is fundamentally flawed. It hasn’t worked and it’s not going to work. And the inability to acknowledge this makes everything worse.

    And never has. The level of civilization in a territory is in an almost completely inverse relationship to the percentage of those who live in it who are African. This was as true in 1619, 1776, 1861, or 1865 as it is in 2022.

    Somebody has to do the work. Or it doesn’t get done.

    We need a 1618 project.

    • Replies: @turtle
  35. @kerdasi amaq

    If the Yankees really wanted to help the black man; why didn’t they also invade every other nation where black men were in servitude, such as Brazil? Too expensive?

    Why didn’t the Confederacy invade Upper Canada and the Maritimes to retrieve their rightful property from the Imperials who stole it? Or at the very least sue the Crown for its return? Fugitives are fugitives wherever they are in the world.

    The Brits and the Southrons were at the opposite extremes of racial and slavery issues. That makes their off-and-on collaboration the apex of hypocrisy for both. Total cynicism. “Yankees” were somewhere in the middle.

    The only faction in the mid-19th century that was close to being right was the American Colonization Society.

  36. At a time when the criminal psycho elites are trying to turn all of the HUMAN RACE into transhumans, we are all still getting into a snit over skin color? Cut the crap! So some white dude who wants to turn us all into transhumans is “superior” to a black person who just wants to stay human? But oay okay…let’s all follow that Nuval Harari satanic piece of trash into giving up on the HUMAN RACE, the only race that matters! But since Harari is Jewish…and not white, right?…how’se about Bill Gates?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  37. The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?

    When Mr. Unz published this gem, at least he had the decency to make a remark in the very first post for the essay:

    Ron Unz says:
    April 1, 2019 at 3:46 am GMT • 900 Words

    Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago, and my initial impression was that they seemed totally ridiculous. Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.

    Why this even worse piece of crap didn’t justify a similar comment is a genuine puzzle. This Author is simply re-writing US history, and in the process making stuff up on the fly.

  38. KDE1711 says:

    I’m all for preserving Confederate monuments. Let people have their heritage and mythology. It was indeed a war of Northern aggression, same as every war from Mexico to Iraq. That being said, no intelligent, dry-eyed rightist should hesitate to state the obvious: the Southern gentry were effete, decadent cucks who inflicted savage African occupation on future generations through their jewlike veneration of profit. Don’t be fooled by their clash with Northern capitalists – the slave-owners were far closer in spirit to modern techno-oligarchs than to the traditional European aristocracy.
    Why couldn’t they buy Russian serfs to pick their cotton? Imagine how much more prosperous and stable a country we’d be, and with a choicer female gene pool to boot. Instead we’re the Western country with the most blacks AND the ugliest whites.

    • Replies: @KDE1711
  39. KDE1711 says:
    @KDE1711

    Anglo women are on average far homelier than Slavs, Latins, and fellow Germanics (with the possible exception of Germans). I’ve known dozens of Russians, and every one of them who’s been to the US would concur.
    Still, our country isn’t quite yet ugly enough for the (((corporations))) indoctrinating white women into jungle fever.

  40. C.T.: “I have copied and pasted your above comment to the new incarnation of my site”

    Your new site looks good, although for me it loads very slowly, and often not at all.

    C.T.: “If I reproduce more of your posts here, which avatar or image could I use every time I re-post on The West’s Darkest Hour your entries here?”

  41. GMC says:

    Russia is alot smarter than the US – that lesbian basketball star from the States ,that got caught with dope is still in jail. I’m sure she thought that she would get a pass because she is black and a star basketball player but she thought wrong. Also, Russia is sending a message to the West – your athelete got legitimately caught with dope on her , whereas our athletes got sidelined on a bought off Russophobic doping test that is as corrupt as Ukraine is. I doubt if anybody in the West is smart enough to see what the Russians are saying tho.

    It all revolves around a corrupted USG and their embedded sleazy judicial system.

  42. turtle says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    nobody really takes Jesus seriously anymore

    Would that were so. Rev. Hagee and his CUFI crazies are a plague upon the land, without whom Jewish Zionists would quite likely have significantly less influence.

  43. turtle says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    We need a 1618 project.

    We already have a 1610 project.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe,_New_Mexico
    La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís was founded in 1610, which makes it the oldest state capital in the United States.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  44. padre says:
    @White refugee in USA

    But you have no objection on Asians and Latinos?

  45. SafeNow says:

    Fairly recently I had occasion to deal with a smallish white company in a small white city in Alabama. As a (stuck- here) Californian, I was astonished by the politeness, patience, and proficiency with which they answered my stupid worries and questions. In the 1860s, there were three wars of intra-nation conflict (Italy, Germany, and the U.S.), and in each the more traditional and decent part got squashed by the more “dynamic” part. The U.S. is now in that situation. The kind of decent people who answered my stupid questions with concern and politeness are now being squashed by people for whom aggressive apathy and outright nastiness are a habit of thought, a pattern of speech.

    p.s. Commenters on Unz are almost uniformly very decent. A very nice family. It’s too bad this website will be squashed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  46. Along with Africans, the other two races who engaged in drastic servitude to Whites were Indians and Chinese but without the compensatory model worked out for them in the post colonial period. Yes, Indians and Chinese did get residencies in South Africa and the Caribbean Islands but no massive sums of monies were spent on them as it was done for the blacks in America. Britain, France et al were not held responsible for their ill treatment of peoples of India and China, yet those nations don’t hold Europeans responsible for it and have moved on and are prospering in their own way with the help of the West. Yet, the negro notwithstanding hundreds trillions of dollars expended to bring him out of his state since 1865, continues to be a big problem for the society. One major reason is that the Indians and Chinese aren’t incredulous enough to buy into the Jewish propaganda vis a vis the West (of course, there are exceptions to the rule) but are still willing to believe that they have learnt from the White Christians, at least in the fields of science and technology, whereas the gullible Negro has been led down the path of his own destruction from falsehoods. And the biggest lie that has been foisted upon blacks is that the Jews are his best friends but the Whites are his worst enemies, whereas, it’s the Whites who have done much for them.

    • Replies: @American Bulwark
  47. @anarchyst

    Don’t forget, they can’t shoot worth a damn either. If they open point blank fire in a crowded place, you always know it’s a negro shooting because of the ratio of killed to wounded. It’ll always be 1-5 as in three killed and fifteen wounded. Look at the young White kid up in Buffalo. He killed 10 and wounded 3 I think (one victim being an armed ex-cop). See the difference? Negroes spray rounds. You know it because you hear stories of a woman doing dishes getting killed by a stray round. Lastly, at any distance, negroes can’t shoot worth a damned either and that’s because they can’t figure out how to use rear sights (windage and elevation).

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  48. Despite all the talk of “civic-minded” and all the “civics” classes American students take in high schools, the US and Americans are not a civic-minded nation. To be civic-minded (a word related to civilization) means you are concerned about your civis and the people who live in it. Americans are almost never concerned about other Americans, or the most basic prerequisites to becoming and being a good citizen. The most important prerequisite is a proper education. Americans are simply not willing to pay for decent public schools for all Americans–good, qualified, well-paid teachers and well-maintained classrooms and facilities. Personally, I favor the abolition of private schools. If private schools were banned, and all Americans received quality public school education, we would take a giant step to abolishing racial divide (and wealth divide). US should also, as is the case in almost all “democracies,” provide free university educations or vocational training to all Americans who want to enroll in these schools. These two measures–creation of high quality public school systems throughout the country and free university educations–would result in giant leap forward in overcoming the resentments, anger, and frustration most Americans (except the very richest) feel about the country and “where it is headed” at present.

  49. Anon[989] • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth

    Murphy was no real hero just a little white boy pumped up for the Crackers. Put a few cheap medals on a white dwarf and YT will believe he is Conan. The White Man always needs some mascot to prop up their flailing and failing courage.

    They are going to need more than Audie to save them. I got news for the Vanilla muffins on UR. We aint going nowhere ! More and more Brothers are coming here and with the Marshmallows hiding under their beds, we are going to take over this country.

    Plans are already underway. The Negro will rule and YT and their ladies will have to serve us. Make no mistake YT, we are in control. We’ll see then who lacks distance perception, who can run and more importantly who can throw those balls, and catch them.

    • Replies: @Druid55
    , @Bombercommand
  50. Agent76 says:

    May 28, 2019 Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow

    In Stony the Road, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., offers a new rendering of the struggle by African Americans for equality after the Civil War and the violent counter-revolution that subjugated them. Journalist A’Lelia Bundles will moderate the discussion.

    Ten Facts About Washington & Slavery

    Despite having been an active slave holder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice. At the end of this life Washington made the bold step to free his slaves in his 1799 will – the only slave-holding Founding Father to do so.

    http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/#.VmOeKSQL82A

  51. Patricus says:
    @kerdasi amaq

    How many Yankee abolitionist were there? John Brown and his financial supporters were certainly abolitionists. All the supporters left the US after Brown was hung. What was left was a miniscule number and there might have been more abolitionists in the south. If one reads the correspondence of soldiers there is almost no comment on the issue of slavery. If soldiers were fighting for or against slavery none seemed to be aware of that crusade, or at least they never mentioned it. The anti-slavery narrative was made up after the war.

  52. Diouldé says:
    @Anon

    Thank you Mr. Arthur de Gaubineau. You certainly have a guilty mind?!
    was America a white continent before 1492? Was Australia a white land? You Caucasians were dwellers of ancient Mongolia where the only activity was waging war and destruction. Your violent genes led to genocides and destruction of countless age old civilizations across the Globe. Considering the ancient Greece and Rome were not entirely Caucasian, but mostly Mediterranean (cosmopolitan), what can you cite as Caucasian achievements before the last 6 hundreds years? You are right: your brain cells are genius, but calibrated to wrought wanton destruction and greed.

    You have modest beginnings if you only knew despite your proven falsification of History which continues today through your academia, MSM, cinema…

    As for “negroes” resembling monkeys, for your bright brain, monkeys are cousins to Humans. Anyway, as per science, everybody on Earth today, including your exceeding-proud self have African origins. 30,000 years ago there was barely a “white” person on earth (Cro-Magnon man-20,000 ya). Be modest and human despite your guilty mind.

    the “negroes” were doing fairly well in comparison to 12-century Europe (except the Iberic peninsula thanks to the Maurice civilization). They were not asking to come to Europe as immigrants to say nothing about America!!! Your greedy and criminal ancestors forced them to come, in chains! Europe was until then a veritable “sh!thole” where people died in hundreds of thousands of the notorious PLAGUE. No race on Earth bears the badge of illegal immigrant than the greedy, selfish, plunderer, falsifier Caucasian breed. Know who you are before you judge.
    Hotep & Seneb.

  53. @goeshittheragman

    “Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon, windage and elevation.” The words of Col. John Henry Thomas.

  54. Malla says:
    @Truth

    Hitler invading Russia had to be at least #4?

    If Hitler had not invaded, most probably Stalin would have invaded in the other direction, later. And Uncle Joe would be celebrated by the American press as the great leader who crushed evul Nazism except that nearly all of Europe would be Bolshevised.

    • Agree: HT
  55. Dystopian says:

    I find it strange that on this site, where most should know better, that so many comments include quotes from politicians to make their point. By the time of the civil war I seriously doubt that there were any men of character left in government. Washington DC then as now, was populated by self serving lying sociopaths who would do or say anything to advance their wealth and power. The civil war was provoked so the federal government could consolidate power over the states and build a post constitutional America. No one, including Lincoln, gave a crap about slavery or the Negro. If that were true they wouldn’t built our modern system of soft slavery where the earnings of the productive are confiscated by force and distributed to the constituencies of the politically powerful. Like other wars that are fought when one king wants to steal the possessions of another king, there is a rallying cry to fire up the useful idiots. Whether the cries are God, king, country, or free the Negros, they are no than subterfuge to hide the true agenda.

  56. @flyingtiger

    What could Britain have done for Poland in 1964? The Royal Navy couldn’t have done much and the British army was small and a long way from the Czar’s Polish territory.

  57. “The 1865 Project is the product of a certain kind of white mind… These people see themselves as the hero in a fairy tale of good versus evil.”

    Bingo.

    As someone said, the re-founding of America is taking place now. The savage barbarians are the White European stock, who must be conquered to make the land safe for Khazarian settler colonists and their brown hordes.

    Europe is also being re-founded, for the same reasons. It all comes back to the Protocols of Spector (Barbara Lerner Spector).

  58. Dystopian says:
    @Diouldé

    Actually, fossil evidence points to Africa as the birthplace of the human race. Maybe early humans with curiosity, intelligence or ambition, traveled to other parts of the world and evolved over several millennia to suit the conditions of their new homes. Maybe the less curious stayed in Africa. We don’t really know. But we do know that no one today was alive when most of the events that drew the borders of modern nations occurred so “we” are not responsible. Illegal alien is a the legal description of an individual who resides in nation in violation of it’s laws. It’s just legal vs. illegal, not right vs. wrong. You might want to try terms like occupiers or land grabbing bastards for more effect.

    • LOL: Thim
    • Replies: @Diouldé
    , @Francis Miville
  59. HT says:

    The idea that people built or even seriously contributed to America, whose only discernible skill was picking cotton, is beyond laughable.

  60. ariadna says:
    @Pierre de Craon

    How about a Project 1913– undoing Woodrow Wilson vile act?

    • Thanks: Pierre de Craon
  61. Me and my family are beneficiaries of White Supremacy as are all other Americans – especially blacks who, had they been born in Africa, would be much poorer and sicker and would have much shorter lived lives.

    We can trace the history of the Anglo-American empire in the white groups that migrated to what became England – the Anglos, the Saxons, the William the Conqueror French – and how those people kept moving west and eventually conquered England and then they moved to the white colonies along the east coast of America before spreading West all over the continent.

    I know the cultural marxists (Jews) want me to hate myself and mine but I don’t and I won’t.

  62. @HT

    That’s not fair. Look at the great progress made by the blacks who remained in Africa.

  63. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rebel Roy

    The Kennedy’s were Catholic, so they would have hated the Protestants, people who use/used the King James Version of the Bible. Catholics are notoriously on the left as well as Jewish, Atheists and Muslims etc. They use their combined multitude to attack the majority with greater numbers and help with their replacement. Today more Protestant groups have moved to the left with their admittance of a new sort of religion and decided they would tell God what God will believe for God’s own sake 🙂

    • LOL: SolontoCroesus
  64. @Dystopian

    No one, including Lincoln, gave a crap about slavery or the Negro. If that were true they wouldn’t built our modern system of soft slavery where the earnings of the productive are confiscated by force and distributed to the constituencies of the politically powerful. Like other wars that are fought when one king wants to steal the possessions of another king, there is a rallying cry to fire up the useful idiots.

    Gamble Plantation, near Bradenton, FL, is testimony to the fact that slavery was the propaganda meme but not the cause of the war.
    Maintaining the South’s — as well as East Coast financiers’s — lucrative roles in The Empire of Cotton was the 1860s equivalent to British industrial dominance as a key agenda in WWII and US dollar-dominance as a major factor in the Ukraine-Russia debacle.

    Gamble WAS built and run by slave labor.
    So how is it that it remains an open and functioning museum and tourist location?
    The signboards at its entry offer a hint —
    The Judah Benjamin Confederate Memorial.

    Benjamin was the first Jewish member of the Senate, a close advisor to Jefferson Davis, and a major participant in the “war capitalism” industry of cotton and slavery.

    When hostilities ceased, Davis and Benjamin and others of Davis’s Cabinet fled Richmond. Davis was captured and imprisoned in leg-irons, but Benjamin escaped, using various disguises. After sheltering at Gamble plantation for some time, with the aid of residents of Sarasota, FL, he ultimately made his way to London where he prospered as a lawyer and died in his bed.

    All this is to say that Jews played a major role in the slave trade as in the cotton-based war-capitalism..
    And in the US War between the States, where white European men killed other White European men.

  65. @White refugee in USA

    Possibly THE biggest mistake of all time.

  66. Some good news

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  67. Diouldé says:
    @Dystopian

    I was not looking for more effect. I was just trying to let people like him know that America was for native Indian tribes with far advanced civilizations in some domains of life. You can twist the truth the way you want, but it remains a fact that Africa was much better in some domains than poor and starving Europe of the Dark Ages before your ancestors started plundering the whole World. The white man has to falsify history to show any big achievement before the last 6 hundred years or you show me what you did that the others had not done.

    As for the thinking Africans going out the continent, and the unthinking negro to remain there, you have to scientifically (not ideologically) prove that. Can you assume that the “thinking French left France, and the unthinking remains as France in real decline?! In history, all races have achieved civilization, but arrogant Europe think there was nothing before it late coming. You are probably among the few who still believe that America (the Best Achievement of Caucasus) is not going to be the next Shithole of the world soon to be. Would we then assume that the “thinking ” American has left or is leaving the US to make the place for the ‘unthinking”? Is that what happened to the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans or lately to the Soviet Union?!

    The Ancient Egyptians (Kamits) told the Greeks that they were children in science and civilization.

    The writing is on the wall that the Caucasian breed will have tough times ahead. It will get replaced by the Chronos. there will be many good things to be told about its contribution to the Grande Marche, but also many nasty, ugly, and moral turpitudes to be told about Him.

    I am an African who have stayed, studied, and worked on this beautiful, paradisiac, resourceful continent that Europe and its kisslings have rendered poor and destitute. But at least we do not shoot at each other as often as you do in your murderous schools and streets. I wish English were my native language to have more effect in saying this.
    Hotep and Seneb.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @CelestiaQuesta
  68. @Diouldé

    “They were not asking to come to Europe as immigrants to say nothing about America!!!”

    It was indeed foolish and greedy for white people to buy slaves from Africa. But, there would have been no slaves to buy if Africans hadn’t sold each other into slavery.

    Blacks in America need to be taught the truth. They think whites went into the interior of Africa and captured blacks and then sold them to other whites. Africans created the market for black slaves. Foolish whites only purchased them because Africans made them available.

    There are no good guys in this story.

    • Replies: @RegretLeft
    , @Diouldé
    , @Fufu
  69. @Sidewalk Meanderings

    The continual reference to the “Civil War” continues to inhibit the thought processes of Americans. A civil war, by definition, is competing factors warring over control of the government. Given the Confederate States had voted to secede and form their own government, it was not a civil war. A second revolutionary war would be a better description. The US, when convenient to its own (((interests))) supports “spreading democracy”. Serbia, when secessionist movements began breaking up Yugoslavia, was bombed so that the country could be partitioned. The overwhelming majority of Americans would never see that Serbia`s actions were little different than those imposing war on the Confederacy. More recent examples of “spreading democracy” not counting is that regions in Ukraine voted to secede, and the Ukrainian government has done just what Lincoln`s junta did – attack the secessionists. At least Britain had old political ties to the Confederacy and significant trade. What ties does the US have to Ukraine to warrant its support?

  70. Patricus: “The anti-slavery narrative was made up after the war. ”

    LOL. Lincoln names slavery as the cause of the war in BOTH of his inaugurals. An attempt to retcon history like this just makes you look stupid.

    • Agree: C.T.
    • Replies: @GenFranco
  71. Slavery was a Jewish trade from the start to current times it still goes on…

    The center of the American slave trade was Newport, RI. Slave auction houses up and down the east coast only closed on Jewish holidays.

    “The ships were not only owned by Jews but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.” (New World Jewry 1492-1825)

    Support reparations. Jews ran the slave trade so they could afford to pay reparations.

  72. @kerdasi amaq

    Interesting query; the war was a very welcome development to the British crown; but only because they fully assumed southern succession would succeed. That was the wrong bet and the outcome – a stronger, more assertive, centralized federal state – created a huge challenge to the empire.

  73. @Dr. Robert Morgan (((troll)))

    “Lincoln names slavery as the cause of the war in BOTH of his inaugurals.”

    Really? No war was being fought on March 4th 1861.

    Here opening paragraphs of Lincoln’first inaugural:

    “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.””

    [B]”I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with institution of slavery in the States where it exists.”[/B]

    Later on in his speech, Lincoln makes what is tantamount to a declaration of war on the South.

    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

  74. @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    Definitely with you: you shouldn’t study history to find “good guys” – you won’t!

    Everyone had their hands in the slave trade – it was Arab traders from N Africa who were the principle middlemen. Tribal warfare among black Africans formed the start of the supply chain. The losers ended up in the western hemisphere the luckier ones – judging from life span and reproductive opportunities – in N America.

    “Greedy” perhaps; probably not “foolish”; in the prevailing labor conditions and in exploiting virgin territory for agricultural purposes, enslaved laborers were probably economically rational. After that stage, less so; that’s why the majority of slaves born in VA were exported to MS and Alabama, and LA, etc by the 1830s.

  75. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    You Caucasians were dwellers of ancient Mongolia where the only activity was waging war and destruction.

    You are smoking some high quality crack.

    Your violent genes led to genocides and destruction of countless age old civilizations across the Globe.

    Blacks on average are more violent than Whites but being primitive they could only do limited damage. Tanks and fighter jets do more damage then arrows and spears. Whites are more intelligible and inventive.

    Considering the ancient Greece and Rome were not entirely Caucasian, but mostly Mediterranean (cosmopolitan), what can you cite as Caucasian achievements before the last 6 hundreds years?

    More crack.

    Anyway, as per science, everybody on Earth today, including your exceeding-proud self have African origins.

    The people who left Africa have nothing to do with African black people who were a different branch.

    30,000 years ago there was barely a “white” person on earth (Cro-Magnon man-20,000 ya).

    The Caucasian race is older than the negroid race. The Hoffmeyr Skull found in South Africa, a skull older the oldest negroid skull is similar to Upper paleolithic European skulls. But the Negroid race is more primitive because their ancestors mixed with primitive homo erectus ghost populations.

    the “negroes” were doing fairly well in comparison to 12-century Europe (except the Iberic peninsula thanks to the Maurice civilization).

    Bullshit. By the 12th century, Europe had a per capital income 90% of Soong Dynasty China which was the most prosperous place on Earth.

    Iberic peninsula thanks to the Maurice civilization)

    The Moors were not blacks, but there were blacks among them. And pre Moorish Visigothic Spain was extremely advanced.

    Your greedy and criminal ancestors forced them to come, in chains!

    Slavery was common throughout the World and was extremely common in Africa. Black Africans enslaved and sold other black Africans.

    Europe was until then a veritable “sh!thole” where people died in hundreds of thousands of the notorious PLAGUE.

    Bullshit, Europe by the 1500 AD was far more advanced than the rest of the World. Medieval Europe was one of the most inventive societies on Earth.

    No race on Earth bears the badge of illegal immigrant

    People have been invading and migrating around all the time. Like most of Africa was not bantu and belonged to the Khoi San and Pygmy. There was the great Bantu expansion. What would make blacks illegal immigrants in most of Southern Africa.

    • Replies: @Diouldé
  76. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    I am an African who have stayed, studied, and worked on this beautiful, paradisiac, resourceful continent that Europe and its kisslings have rendered poor and destitute.

    False, Europe did not impoverish Africa.

  77. Malla says:

    Since we talk about Slavery and the South, Douglas Reed’s book ‘Far and Wide’ will illuminate us on some facts on this matter.

    “I landed in the Deep South and, therewith, in the middle of ‘the colour problem’, and was glad Southern Africa had taught me some rudiments of the matter. The question has four distinct aspects. The first, what the black man truly wants, is ignored by all parties to the great debate. The second and third are the conflicting opinions, between white men who live among black men, about what is good for him within the limits of what is good for them. The division is in my experience not very wide, but is broadened by the parties of the fourth aspect, the political groups far from negro-populated areas who use it to set white man against white man as a means of achieving votes and power. This is the chief aspect. The past hundred years have shown that white folk in New England and Old England may be violently incited against each other and against white folk in warmer latitudes by this means, to the point of civil wars. The American Civil War was the first of these.

    The contemplation of sin in others is an ancient human enjoyment, particularly when the beholder is remote from temptation. It is a pleasure much enjoyed by unoccupied ladies at lace-curtained windows in suburban streets. Seated at her New England casement Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe grew wrathful about the goings-on of Simon Legree and the plight of Topsy, far, far away, to such effect that she similarly infuriated millions of other window-sitters and became (as President Lincoln said) ‘the little lady who started the big war’. Later, when she saw the ruined South and Uncle Tom, free but bewildered, she wrote in alarm: ‘Corrupt politicians are already beginning to speculate on the negroes as possible capital for their schemes and to fill their poor souls with all sorts of vagaries … It is unwise and impolitic to endeavour to force negro suffrage on the South at the point of the bayonet.’
    However, the thing was so enforced, with dire results; Mrs. Beecher Stowe, had she but known, was herself used by corrupt politicians for the furtherance of schemes; and Uncle Tom could not be unwritten when she saw the light. At this mid-century the book is used for new incitement in a land where pale-skinned folk, if not white ones in the true sense, endure a harsher slavery than her characters knew; time, the jester, dances on. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, as a play, is a favourite medium of the present rulers in Moscow for teaching their herded masses to hate the Western white man.
    Moreover, Mrs. Stowe founded a school of writers, now innumerable. Her success led one Anna E. Dickinson to delight New York, in 1868, with a novel, What Answer? depicting the marriage of a rich young white man with a negress and since that day the theme has never been let drop. Its true importance seems to be fractional.

    Because of this I found life and talk in the South much like those of South Africa; the same note of unease about the future ran through them. The clamour from outside paid little heed to people who were actually worse off than the negroes, namely, the original inhabitants, the Red Indians (so called by Columbus because he thought America was India, reached by a new route; they appear to be of Asiatic origin and to have reached America in remote ages by some icy trek from Siberia, across frozen seas, to Alaska). Mrs. Stowe never wrote the story of Sitting Bull’s wigwam, though her own house may have stood on its site. The surviving American Indians are too few for the ‘corrupt politicians’ elsewhere to bother with.
    The tale of mock-trials before a black altar, of brutal beatings and confessions extorted in the pretence that sentence of death was already passed, was told by an American Army board of inquiry, headed by a justice, but was not allowed to reach the conscious mind of the American masses. More was revealed in Mr. Montgomery Belgion’s Victors’ Justice, a book to which reviewers in America turned a strangely blind eye. The close resemblance between the torture of the South in the years after 1865 and that of Europe in those after 1945 proved, to me, the existence of a permanent revolutionary organization, trained to intervene at such junctures in human affairs and give them a satanic twist. The day after Lincoln’s death Ben Butler was appointed Secretary of State. That was a clear omen; he was the Northern general who ordered his troops at New Orleans in 1862 to treat as common prostitutes any white woman there who ‘by word, gesture or movement insulted or showed contempt’ for them. Outside the government, real power in the Republican Party passed to Thaddeus Stevens, a dying and malignant man.”

    • Replies: @Malla
  78. I’m waiting for a negro gangsta rap version of ‘We Built This City’.

    That’s like saying you built that house by being a painter, framer, roofer, plumber bla bla bla, when it was the Architect who was the master builder and designer.

    Obama: You didn’t make, govmint made that.

    Nigga Pleez, Give me a break,

  79. @Rebel Roy

    Yes! (((Esther Brown)))

    https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/esther-brown/11991

    I noticed that very same dishonest phrase “elite white” people.

  80. @Diouldé

    Nigga Pleez, if I was a monkey 30 thousand years ago, I was a white monkey with white skin.

    You sound like rainbow shades of GlobalHomo who claim everyone’s gay, or Magic Negro Obama, a career political pimp who believed “You didn’t make that, govmint made that for you”.

    Get off the government plantation and see how the other half live.

    • Replies: @Truth
  81. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    How does it go? “Burn the coal… ”

    From the pics, she was overweight and tattooed, so that’s another stereotype. Poor girl and poor baby (it’s not clear if the murderer is the father, maybe he didn’t want to pay child support?), but bad choices are bad choices. :-/

    https://www.ibtimes.sg/liese-dodd-pregnant-illinois-womans-decapitated-head-found-dumpster-after-ex-boyfriend-kills-her-65236

  82. Treg says:

    WHO?…As in Who shipped in the first slaves? Who indeed. From the Netherlands no doubt. The first slave ship might have been leased, but then, leased by who? Insured by who? Sailed and chartered by who? There must be a long list of records. When the slaves deported, who auctioned them? Who indeed. Who would have religious beliefs that would tell you that its okay to take slaves and trade slaves? Who would set up an auctioning slaves business? Heres another question, … would not devout Protestant Christians have a moral objection to this practice? I wonder what religion would not have any moral objection. Hmm, I wonder.

  83. Plantation slavery was invented in the 4th century BC in Sicily by the Carthaginians. Carthage was a mercantile empire. It was not concerned to found or populate or control colonies. It planted fortified trading post enclaves around the western Mediterranean, controlled key natural resources (notably the Spanish silver mines) and used its navy to “rule the waves” in order to prevent other nations from competing with its dominion over international trade.

    Plantation slavery fit this economy exactly. It is always and by definition devoted to mass production of a cash crop (not subsistence) and is always from inception a project of capital and for capital, whether in Sicily, Carthaginian Africa, Brazil, the Caribbean or Alabama. It does not evolve from small farming. This is what Jefferson is talking about when he answers a French correspondent’s question about a passage in his Notes on the State of Virginia by describing Southern plantations as “a species of property annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.” He explains “Virginia certainly owed two millions sterling to Great Britain at the conclusion of the [Revolutionary] war…. This is to be ascribed to peculiarities in the tobacco trade. The advantages [profits] made by the British merchants on the tobaccos consigned to them were so enormous that they spared no means of increasing those consignments. A powerful engine for this purpose was the giving good prices and credit to the planter, till they got him more immersed in debt than he could pay without selling his lands or slaves. They then reduced the prices given for his tobacco so that let his shipments be ever so great, and his demand of necessaries ever so economical, they never permitted him to clear off his debt. These debts had become hereditary from father to son for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.”

    From the start and throughout its history the Southern slave economy was always in the hands of absentee capital, first in London and Amsterdam, and throughout the 19th century in New York City (substantially with European funds channeled through Wall Street). Wall Street controlled the cotton market, controlled the cotton export market, controlled the South’s imports of staple goods, controlled transportation and nautical insurance. Wall Street banks financed its operations and wrote mortgages with slaves as collateral; not infrequently it came into ownership of plantations by foreclosure. The profits of cotton plantation slavery were at least as substantial for absentee investors headquartered in Manhattan as for Southern plantation owners.

    And after the Civil War ended slavery, the succeeding economy of sharecropping and the predatory crop lien system, in which “furnishing merchants” lent farmers supplies and provisions against their next year’s crops at usurious interest and grossly inflated prices (and kept the books which most farmers could not read), was funded by exactly these same interests and operated for their primary benefit.

    In a 1942 article in the Journal of Southern History B.B. Kendrick, then president of the Southern Historical Association, demonstrates that the South’s status vis-a-vis New England and New York City was, from before the Revolution up until the present day, colonial, subject, exploited: “At present finance capitalism and imperialism hold the region in so firm a grip that no escape from the colonial status appears possible short of some catastrophic collapse of the whole imperialistic system.” A more recent scholarly investigation, Harold D. Woodman, King Cotton & His Retainers: Financing & Marketing the Cotton Crop of the South, 1800-1925, traces this history in detail. He quotes George K. Holmes, “The Peons of the South,” (Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1893): “The merchants, who advance plantation supplies, have replaced the former masters and have made peons of them and of their former slaves.”

  84. @Diouldé

    Stop blaming whitey for your feral tribe of burn loot murder and rape gangsta rapping hoodrats destroying cities everywhere the go, and breeding fatherless thugs who should have been euthanized at birth.
    The next Civil War soon to arrive will eliminate a large portion of blacks, and it will be celebrated by all.

    • Replies: @drencro
  85. @Dystopian

    The Black race as they are now a majority in Africa is of rather recent appearance on that continent : it is a relatively recent “invention” made by nature so to speak and many cues seem to point to the fact that it could well have been a majority first in the sunnier part of the Mediterranean and of the ME before migrating to Africa. The Out of Africa theory, strictly theoretical though it is, doesn’t point at all to a Negro origin of all humanity, nor to an originally Black continent of Africa. Older humans (though only maybe) might have more probably looked like the few South African Capoids that remain, who look far closer to Asians by many traits. Black people became present in South Africa proper only after the Boers, which points to a long-term Southwards movement of the black peoples that is rather recent. On the other hands there were more Blacks in ancient Italy, especially among the Etruscans, before the Romans and these Blacks though quite similar in appearance to Africans were not from Africa.

  86. The south ruined herself. She started and fought a needless conflict.

    By responding with a 1865 project, one only highlights the claims regarding the use of skin color to disenfranchise african americans.

    The claim that republicans are advocates of a color blind society is reflected in “our” narrative. But is hardly accurate if one scratches beneath the surface. And that is very unfortunate.

    ——————-

    “Later, when she saw the ruined South and Uncle Tom, free but bewildered, she wrote in alarm: ‘Corrupt politicians are already beginning to speculate on the negroes as possible capital for their schemes and to fill their poor souls with all sorts of vagaries … It is unwise and impolitic to endeavour to force negro suffrage on the South at the point of the bayonet.’”

    You do realize that negro suffrage is suffrage for all citizens. And of course “negroes” are going to be part and parcel to the political agendas as all citizens are. It is built into the system. 3/5 counting of slaves as persons. The only difference is that the “negroes” will have some say ion the matter.

    ———–
    from the article

    “There are three consistent rhetorical patterns to the 1776 approach. The first is to denounce slavery and racism. The second is to cite the words “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence. Although Thomas Jefferson would surely delete that line if he could see what it has wrought, and although it is demonstrably untrue, it is repeated over and over as evidence that America is of good will and noble heart. ”

    1. except that the ideal was not what was in practice
    2. no I think Pres Jefferson knew exactly what he was saying — even i he himself feared the consequence

    3.jn the sight of a creator accurate and as it should have been in regards to the constitution and wasn’t

  87. kerdasi amaq: “Really? No war was being fought on March 4th 1861.”

    In his first inaugural, Lincoln says slavery is the cause of the impending war, and more, says it is the ONLY important cause:

    One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

    Naturally, you omit that part, while quoting a lot of irrelevant blather.

    He repeats this idea again in his meeting with negroes at the White House on August 14, 1862, when he implements his brilliant plan to “colonize” them by politely asking them to leave. (LOL!) However, this time, the claim is even stronger. Lincoln now admits that slavery is the ONLY cause of the war.

    But for your race among us there could not be war … I repeat, without the institution of slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war would not have an existence.

    Clear enough?

    • Agree: C.T.
  88. Abbybwood says:
    @Anon

    According to Ancestry I am 99% white with a dash of Gypsy from southern Spain. Straight up from England/Wales.

    And I think in terms of “how many minutes to get from here to there” not in terms of “miles”.

    Of course I am in Los Angeles and even WAZE computes in terms of minutes.

    It could be 20 miles from Westwood to the Valley, but on a Friday at 5pm that translates into an hour and a half and a migraine.

    Of course, besides being white, I am a woman too…..

  89. @American Bulwark

    “hundreds trillions of dollars”

    It should be read: hundreds of billions of dollars… fast typing.

  90. Evidently USPS is still delivering mail postmarked Delphi:

    I notice that in his latest column, Paul Craig Roberts continues to push the canard that the Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons.

    The oracle’s jury of one may have spoken to his own satisfaction on the unimpeachability of the (((conventional narrative))), but a few mere mortals still question whether Morgan should be considered the oracle of choice when it comes to deciding who precisely is pushing a canard.

    HornetHole has no doubts, however:

    This take on the Civil War rings painfully true … and yet, astonishingly, you are the only one in the “Dissident Right” I’ve ever seen or heard give it the emphasis it deserves.

    Oh, my. But will he still respect the object of his affection in the morning?

    Let this sad example of self-abasement be a lesson to you, boys and girls.

    • Replies: @HornetHole
  91. @Dystopian

    I find it strange that on this site, where most should know better, that so many comments include quotes from politicians to make their point.

    Well observed. Indeed, most should know better, but those whom the shoe fits typically know little more than what they’ve quoted—and much of that has been misunderstood!

  92. “In his first inaugural, Lincoln says slavery is the cause of the impending war, and more, says it is the ONLY important cause:”

    Cause for war, but not the cause for the union\s defense of the union. Pres Lincoln did not attack the south i response to the attack on Ft Sumter to free slaves.

    What the president is acknowledging is the south’s cause for attack – to ensure the maintenance of slavery — which was under no threat from President Lincoln. Trying to defense southern impetuousness here does not make your case. No one from the federal government was going to be ordered to attack southern states to free slaves. Pres. Lincoln, did everything but get on bended knee imploring the south to sty their hand on cessation.

    and keeping slaves to that end was fine with Pres Lincoln and most of the country, as well.

    To this day I remain ever perplexed at why the south chose war.

  93. GenFranco says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You forgot those times Lincoln got stoned and said if he could save the Union (force the South to stay) and not free a single slave, he’d do it in a New York minute. You also forgot all the economic issues, but then again, when have people ever been motivated by economic issues, right?

    But if a politician said something in a speech, it must be true, right? But yeah, anyone who questions the simplistic narrative is just shtupid.

  94. drencro says:
    @CelestiaQuesta

    BLM was great for the Malibu mansion market.

    BLM aka Buy Large Mansions

  95. Pierre de Craon: “Let this sad example of self-abasement be a lesson to you, boys and girls. ”

    And believe it, little Petey of the Crayons knows about self-abasement! After all, he’s a Christian, and if Christianity is about anything, it’s self-abasement. It’s clear he spends a lot of time on his knees.

    • Agree: C.T.
  96. @Dr. Robert Morgan(((troll)))

    Actually, I would consider every word of that speech to be self-serving blarney.

    Anyway, how many slaves did Lincoln free whilst he was president?

    Were there any slave states on the Union side in the War to Prevent Southern Independence?

    When the Union captured New Orleans; how many slaves did these champions of enslaved humanity actually free?

    These crusaders against slavery did many strange things about slavery in the course of their War of Northern Aggression.

    • Replies: @Zachary Smith
  97. Nonsense. Plenty of money is spent on the school systems. The issue is the cities, which get the highest amounts of funding, lag behind, first due to the students, and secondly, the amount wasted on administration. Just check out the cars that those administrators drive: BMW, Lexus, Mercedes, Infiniti, and yet they educate no one, administer little in the way of punishments.

  98. Malla: “Later, when she saw the ruined South and Uncle Tom, free but bewildered, [Harriet Beecher Stowe] wrote in alarm …”

    Not to be captious, but your quote is manufactured, spliced together from two different letters, as is shown here:

    https://www.online-literature.com/stowe/life-of-stowe/17/

    The second part of the quote should read “Henry takes the ground that it is unwise and impolitic to endeavor to force negro suffrage on the South at the point of the bayonet.” Instead Reed presents it as her own opinion. Perhaps she agreed with her brother Henry Ward Beecher (a famous abolitionist in his own right), but in any case, the context makes clear that her objection wasn’t to negro suffrage, which both she and her brother favored, but rather the manner in which it was to be brought about.

  99. bwuce wee says:
    @Observator

    lincoln was murdered. history is written by the winners. those are facts, everything else here is one-sided conjecture. one might equally suppose booth was operating as an agent of the british government. no one seems to have pursued this line of inquiry since booth was conveniently dead. no one can ever prove it was even him that fired the shot. he could be an early oswald for all we know. he very well could have been operating as an official, or unoffical, british agent. and why was lincoln murdered? was not that the goal of the british empire to remove licoln and weaken the union? could it be that his illegal war* cost more american lives than all other US wars comnined? that alone made him deserving of the ignomious death he received. good riddance to bad rubbish. he was a lousy president.
    *each state that joined the union joined under the provision that they could have their own rights, as well as return to the status of an independent state if they so choose. the southern states did in fact choose to dissolve their status in the union. that was their legal right. so lincoln was truly a tyrant when HE decided that according to his dictates, they could no longer be allowed to leave the union as per their agreement. so it looks like lincoln the fucktard GOT EXACTLY WHAT HE DESERVED. and the civil war was not fought about slavery, that has long been debunked. the civil war was fought over states rights, and the fact that because their population was lower than the yankee states, they were getting royally screwed by legislation passed by congress which favored the industrialists, over the agrarians. and exactly the same situation is going on now in the US over 2nd amendment rights, and abortion rights. these issues are for the state to decide, not the federal government. and let’s not forget the fact that the biden administration is secretly shipping illegal aliens to every state in the union without their consent, using taxpayer dollars, as well as breaking the laws his branch of goverment is funded to enforce. the fox is guarding the henhouse. that is a major violation of state rights, and it is a good reason to go to war against the tyrants in DC.

  100. @Truth

    Yep, that’s him, my great great great granddaddy. Look at that face, don’t it make you wanna smile?

    Thanks Troof

  101. GenFranco: “You forgot those times Lincoln got stoned and said if he could save the Union (force the South to stay) and not free a single slave, he’d do it in a New York minute.”

    And you’ve forgotten that the war DID free the slaves. So what’s more important here? What Lincoln said, or what he did?

    GenFranco: “You also forgot all the economic issues, but then again, when have people ever been motivated by economic issues, right?”

    People are motivated by economic issues, but not exclusively so. This is so obvious proving it seems superfluous. For example, what’s your economic motivation for posting such ridiculous remarks? Are you fighting the capitalist oppressor? Or are you just trying to state a point for the sheer satisfaction of having done so? More to the point of what we are discussing, what was the economic motivation for giving citizenship and the vote to the negro after the Civil War to abolish slavery? In light of how it’s turned out, and the destruction these pestilential humanoids have caused, wouldn’t it have made more economic sense to simply shoot them all?

    GenFranco: “But if a politician said something in a speech, it must be true, right?”

    You look at what they say, but more important is what they do.

    GenFranco: “But yeah, anyone who questions the simplistic narrative is just shtupid. ”

    Question the narrative all you like, but try to be a little more sophisticated in your criticisms than to make a statement like Patricus did. The idea that the Civil War was about the abolition of slavery isn’t propaganda that came after the war. There are hundreds of quotes made before and during the war that prove otherwise.

    • Agree: C.T.
    • Replies: @Catiline
  102. Druid55 says:
    @Anon

    You sound just like the talmoodist jews! Now you’re chosen!

  103. The new political party that will replace the treasonous, donor-controlled Republican Party — White Core America — welcomes the anti-White propaganda slop that the Democrat Party and the New York Times are producing — 1619: Black Slave Race Rising.

    The Virginia Company in 1607 is the start of continuous settlement and colonizing of the English White Race in colonial America. North Carolina had a settlement or something or other previously but it went away somehow.

    The Massachusetts Colony 1620 interlopers were English Puritans intent on horning in on the business opportunities provided by the Virginia Company. When the English Puritans arrogantly and primly sauntered down the gangplank of the Mayflower with a gin and tonic in one hand and a shrimp salad sandwich in the other, they were latecomers to a business venture started by the Virginia Company.

    I guess some sub-Saharan Black Africans were brought in in 1619, but large numbers of them didn’t start being used as African Slave Race Cheap Labor for fifty or more years past 1619.

    Thank you New York Times and the Democrat Party for talking about VIRGINIA and the VIRGINIA COMPANY!

    Nathan Philbrick, the partisan hack writer promoter for all things Massachusetts Colony, will be boiling with envy at all the Virginia Company talk with this anti-White 1619 crap the ruling class is propagandizing about.

    1607 and the Virginia Company are the start of English enterprise in the land that would become the USA.

    1620 and the Mayflower gangplankers is after the 1619 Black Slave Race Arrival.

  104. @Anon

    Shlomo pretending to be a Negro.

  105. Don’t hate southerners

    Don’t hate General Robert E Lee

    Don’t hate the south

    the matter of skin color has national indictment

  106. In recent decades, the 1865 Project has gotten even worse…this third phase of the 1865 Project has produced a constant carnival of absurdities and punishments. And as the proportion of whites in America keeps declining, the implications of this way of life grow more potent and more dire.

    I say:

    The 1865 Project is sour grapes from the Saxons and Angles about what went down on Senlac Hill in 1066.

    Normans vs Saxons

    The 1619 Blacks got here before the snot-nosed Mayflower twats drunkenly ambled down the gangplank in 1620.

    The 1619 Project was a great thing in that it brought history and identity and racial reality to the fore and it lovingly popped the Puritan Upper Middle Class Snot Brats by suggesting that sub-Saharan African Negroid slaves arrived here earlier than 1620 and that rock.

    That scampy New England prick named Philbrick actually wrote a book on the Mayflower around 2007 to steal thunder from the Virginia Company and 1607. Cheeky bastard! I like his books and recommend them. Beaver pelts and the like ultimately producing the dreaded and destructive and civilizationally calamitous Finance and Insurance and Real Estate(FIRE) sector currently running amok with the aid of the privately-controlled Fed.

    The anti-White attacks emanating from the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire and the power centers they control are waking up White Core Americans to the demographic dangers they are in.

    White Core Americans must automatically see themselves as the European Christian ancestral core of the people and the colonizers and the settlers and the pioneers who arrived and conquered and made the land in the North American continent a bastion of British Protestantism and then European Christendom.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING!

    POLITICALLY DECAPITATE THE TREASONOUS AND EVIL JEW/WASP RULING CLASS!

    EXPLICIT WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS NOW!

  107. You see, everything great is race-ist, which is why I embrace rac-ism.

  108. “*each state that joined the union joined under the provision that they could have their own rights, as well as return to the status of an independent state if they so choose. the southern states did in fact choose to dissolve their status in the union. that was their legal right.”

    absolute nonsense . . . though I think they could have and should have made their case in the courts.

    supremacy clause is in effect and there is no constitutional clause to depart the union upon demand. You might want to examine the process by which states can be part of the union, from heel to toe those standards are established by Congress, furthermore, you will have to explain the cessation argument in light of those states carved out of federal territory.

    The southern states utilized all aspects of federalism except when it they thought it did not suit them.

  109. @Pierre de Craon

    “The oracle’s jury of one may have spoken to his own satisfaction on the unimpeachability of the (((conventional narrative))), but a few mere mortals still question whether Morgan should be considered the oracle of choice when it comes to deciding who precisely is pushing a canard. HornetHole has no doubts, however”

    Well, excuse me for doubting the conventional narrative on this site, which seems to me more concerned with doubting the mainstream narrative for the sake of it than with the truth of the matter – as though anything important hinged on the narrative being false; as though we needed it to be false in order to justify our attitudes on blacks and Jews. What a strange way to think!

  110. Malla says:
    @Malla

    ” The transference of power to a newly-arrived minority is, however, possible if the original stock can be kept fairly equally divided by the wedge of some exterior issue. For this purpose the negroes of the South continue to be used. The matter is explained by Mr. Robert. E. Sherwood, one of President Roosevelt’s ghost-writers, in Roosevelt and Hopkins: ‘Roosevelt said to me’ (during the fourth-term election campaign) ‘that, if there were some fifty million people who would actually vote on election day, you could figure roughly that some twenty million of them were determined to vote Democratic and another twenty million Republican (give or take a few million either way) regardless of the issues or candidates. This left ten, million or more uncommitted independents who were subject to persuasion during the course of the campaign, and it was to these that the strongest appeals must be made … A substantial number of negroes was included in the independent minority, as Roosevelt reckoned it. It was obvious that anyone with his exceptionally positive social views would he implacably opposed to racial discrimination.’
    The Southern negro thus plays in the 1950s, as in the 1860s, the part of stalking horse in the pursuit of political power. The cry of ‘racial discrimination’ is not genuinely raised on his behalf, the real meaning is that it would be ‘racial discrimination’ to oppose the new immigration from taking over the American future, as the intrepid reviewer remarked. The ambition, aspirants and method are not peculiar to America; they occur in England, South Africa and all countries known to me.

    snip…..

    Stevens pointed the way: ‘Hang the leaders, crush the South, arm the negroes, confiscate the land.’ He wanted chaos in the negro-populated area as an essential step towards revolution in the North; the same idea was being taught to American Communists (as an apostate once testified) at the Lenin Institute in Moscow in 1930, and is the ruling aim of American Communists in 1951. The negroes were ‘better qualified to establish and maintain a republican government than the whites’. The vote should be taken from the whites and given to the negroes. Attacking ‘racial discrimination’ he forced through Congress a bill ‘establishing for the security of the coloured races safeguards which went infinitely beyond what the government has ever provided for the white race’ (President Lincoln’s successor, Mr. Johnson, vetoed this bill and narrowly escaped arrest at General Butler’s demand).
    From the negroless North these white men raved for the extermination of the Southern whites. They tried to suspend trial by jury and, when the Supreme Court resisted, to pack this with compliant judges (President Roosevelt was the next to try that). When the victorious General Grant became president the military commander in Louisiana, General Sheridan, telegraphed asking him to declare the whites there ‘banditti’, saying ‘no further action need he taken except that which would devolve on me’. The real aim of all this was, as Stevens said, ‘to secure perpetual ascendancy to the Republican Party’. This continuing attempt to transfer power in the Republic to a more recently arrived section of the community is the reality of all politics there today, though it is now pursued by the other party.
    Those fantastic years in the South, I found when I went over the ground, are illuminating for the understanding of the present. The mass of liberated slaves, utterly bewildered, returned to the plantations; chronicles of the day record the gratified surprise of the whites at their general behaviour. Some of them, however, received arms and joined with poor whites of the South and ‘carpet-baggers’ from the North in a twelve-year orgy of ruin and corruption. The carpet-baggers were men of the kind whom the Western Powers in 1945 forced on the countries of Eastern Europe, thus abandoning them to the Communist Empire. They descended on the South like flies on cadaver, making themselves leaders of the negroes and exerting every means to keep the freed men from returning to their former masters or befriending themselves with the whites.
    These carpet-baggers offered the negroes the white man’s lands, womenfolk and money, and incited them to take those. The moon looked down on wild festivals of drunken intermingling in the idle cottonfields. Negro superstition was exploited and at black masses (a recognisable feature of any such regime) fearful fates were depicted to any who voted the wrong way. On the ruins of State governments macabre Conventions met and carpet-bagger orators, inciting black audiences, disfranchised masses of the whites. In mock parliaments the people’s representatives laughed and yelled, passed bills with their feet on the backs of chairs, sent out for cases of liquor and boxes of cigars, and ran up enormous debts; in Louisiana alone one of these sessions cost nearly \$1,000,000 as against \$100,000 before, some of the largest items being for champagne and other entertainment.
    One observer wrote, ‘It is a monkeyhouse, with guffaws, disgusting interpolations, amendments offered that are too obscene to print, followed by shouts of glee. Members stagger from the basement bar to their seats; the Speaker in righteous mood sternly forbids the introduction of liquor on the floor. A curious old planter stands in the galleries a moment looking down on the scene and with an exclamation, “My God!” he turns and runs, as from a pestilence, into the street.’ Such corruption at the river’s mouth could not come from a source less corrupt. Mr. Bowers wrote in 1929 that ‘never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the nation, been so brutal, hypocritical and corrupt’. Mr. Truslow Adams, in 1931, spoke of ‘the most shameful decade in our entire national history’ and of ‘a moral collapse without precedent and, let us hope, without successor’. Since President Roosevelt reintroduced the ‘racial discrimination’ issue into the forefront of American political controversy these comments have become apt to the living present. ”

    • Replies: @Malla
  111. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The wonder is that the South ever lifted itself from that prostration, and by its own bootstraps. During the worst years the minority of misguided negroes was held in check by the Ku-Klux-Klan, which effectively played on superstitious fears. It was in truth a resistance movement, and only when I saw the South did I understand something that formerly puzzled me; why the Communists in 1950 still rail so much about the Ku-Klux-Klan. They fear future resistance movements, not the one of 1865-77. The negro also played a part in the recovery. He was unable, at little more than one remove from the Congo, to look after himself and turned to the white folks. His natural virtues also contributed. To me he seems, in Africa or America, an innately conservative man in the mass. He is not good revolutionary material, save possibly in the moment of ecstatic excitement to which he is prone, and he is often deeply religious. It was a Negro Senator who wrote in 1876: ‘A great portion of our people have learned that they were being used as mere tools and determined, by casting their ballots against these unprincipled adventurers, to overthrow them.’ That precisely describes the relationship between the negroes and the white politicians who use the racial-discrimination issue today. Mr. Truslow Adams says of the twelve years, ‘There is no parallel for the situation in the history of modern civilized nations, and it is almost incredible that it occurred within our own country.’ American politics of today, however, are moving parallel with those of 1860 and again, not for the good of the negro but to divide white people.
    I was perhaps better equipped than most, by long experience, to relate the story of those years to our today. I was also in a good town and a good house to study them. The town knew the full brunt of the tragedy and by wonder escaped General Sherman’s burning. The house once watched the young men go gaily off to fight, but saw few of them return; it knew also the anguished prayer meetings of 1865, when it was filled with weeping women, the South was in ruins, and no future offered. It had survived to know again the presence of a large and happy family in its fine rooms. Yet the -memory of many tears was in it, and all around. I paid a call on neighbours who, I was told, were rich people ‘before the war’ but now somewhat reduced. I expressed surprise, saying I thought America was richer, not poorer, through the war. ‘Ah, I mean the Civil War,’ said my companion, and I remembered that in South Africa too ‘the war’ means the old one, not either of the world wars.
    The South has never fully recovered, though it is advancing quickly now. It still has people who have never been able to adjust themselves to the changed order and who live amid furniture and hangings which seem to have 1865 imprinted on them, ancestral portraits then discontinued, and the remnant of family silver, possibly saved by a faithful negro. Like Irish squireens, impoverished but unbowed, they live as in a vacuum suspended in time. Deliberately but without posturing they reject compromise with a time they feel inferior to the one that the wind destroyed. If neighbours arrive from afar these remain ‘Northerners, but nice’.
    …snip

    Simultaneously an increasing number of negroes is being drawn from the South into these seven states by Communist-dominated unions. The powerful waterside union in California chiefly instigates this movement. It has long been a state within the Californian State (the flag of which, curiously, carries a Bear and a Star, both of suggestive implication). These unions are under the control of leaders of Eastern European origins. The polyglot population, which would get along well enough if the impact of the races were left to regulate itself in amity, is subjected to an unremitting propaganda of racial antagonism. Newspapers, literature, radio-programmes and plays constantly harp on the theme. The words ‘white man’ or ‘gentile’ are never used but the insinuation is that the white gentile population consists of bigots, gaiters, mongers and ‘Fascists’, and that any decent ones must prove themselves by voting the way the propagandists wish. For such token of moral virtue the material rewards of the Welfare State are offered; the Republic, like England, if it is to go down, will go down with free dentures gleaming and half-price toupets waving in the breeze.
    By these means the vote of the seven key states has been mobilized for Democratic or Communist candidates, as a recent rule. At the last presidential election the only one of these states lost by the Democratic nominee was New York, where the large Communist vote split the Leftist block, and let in a Republican. By then, however, the Republicans were so intimidated by the bigot-and-baiter campaign that (like the Conservatives in England), they were leaning over backward to appease Political Zionism and Communism, so that their supporters would have been little cheered had their man won.”

  112. Catiline says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Stumbled upon this recently and thought you might be interested:

    In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.

    Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners’ brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political “outrages” committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln’s election. But the core of their argument―the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately―did not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln’s election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.

    Dew’s discovery and study of the highly illuminating public letters and speeches of these apostles of disunion―often relatively obscure men sent out to convert the unconverted to the secessionist cause–have led him to suggest that the arguments the commissioners presented provide us with the best evidence we have of the motives behind the secession of the lower South in 1860–61.

    Addressing topics still hotly debated among historians and the public at large more than a century after the Civil War, Dew challenges many current perceptions of the causes of the conflict. He offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war―indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.

    • Replies: @Zachary Smith
  113. anarchyst says:
    @Rebel Roy

    I came of age during the first so-called “civil-rights” movement and saw for myself the underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the deterioration of civil society.
    Almost all of the “civil-rights” workers and demonstration “handlers” were of one persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true “civil rights”, but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (actually “pets” who were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate government and society–a favorite communist tactic).
    These New York-based “carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future “civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists…and the ADL and \$PLC being invented.
    Those of us whites who were in the middle of this “civil-rights” revolution had a saying: “Behind every negro, there is a jew”. No truer words were spoken.
    Let’s not forget jewish infestation of the nation’s education and entertainment systems, (which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist poison.
    The so-called “non-violent civil-rights demonstrations” were anything but “non-violent”. Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts committed by jewish civil-rights handlers and their black “pets” were common, but never reported, as even the “mainstream media” of the day was “in on the game” and conveniently turned off their cameras during the acts of violence. You see, even then,”creating crises” was a part of the agenda.
    The “beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against white Americans, which, in itself was a violation of “posse comitatus”–the prohibition of the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes.
    President Eisenhower, being of jewish extraction showed his visceral hatred of us white gentiles by using federal troops to suppress constitutionally protected dissent.
    As most whites were (and still are) law-abiding, they (we) were “steamrollered” by the use of federal troops to crush our (white) honest dissent.
    We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from there…

    • Replies: @turtle
  114. @Catiline

    I’ve had a copy of the “Apostles” book for several years. It’s a good one! That the crazies in the South sent genuine missionary-lobbyists to other states was something none of my college history books had bothered to mention.

    Charles Dew is a good example of a born-and-bred racist Southerner getting some real education. The link below is a review of another of Dew’s books describing his painful path away from being a proudly ignorant jerk.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Pettigrew/publication/320996662_Growing_Up_Racist/links/5a4c32100f7e9b8284c2f1f0/Growing-Up-Racist

  115. @kerdasi amaq

    Were there any slave states on the Union side in the War to Prevent Southern Independence?

    I was born in Kentucky and so know the answer to that one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War

    The South invading neutral Kentucky was surely one of its dumber moves at the start of the Civil War. From the link:

    Kentucky was the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, his wife Mary Todd, and his southern counterpart, Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Lincoln had declared, early in the war, “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.”[2]

    I believe two other slave states remaining in the Union were Delaware and Maryland. Maryland very recently ditched a horrible state song. The racists will no doubt cry about another of their Glorious Traditions being destroyed.

  116. Karl1906 says:

    I remember talking about “1619” with a historian – a liberal, middle class and of African origin. He outright called it “insidious propaganda bullshit”.

    He also pointed out that it is mostly talked about and represented by women in the public sphere (because countering shamelessly lying whores and female imbeciles is already considered “misogynist” at this stage). I’d even go so far an bet that “1619” was designed from the get-go to be that way – read emotional, unprovable and purely for agitational purposes. And for women as the “carrier” of this plague. There’s definitely no serious historical research going on because it’s already unscientific in its whole outline – and it’s also designed for WHITE people as the target group.

    So, the most anti-white and anti-historian propaganda against Americans and their history is created for the part of the population they clearly want to get rid off.

    Yeah, an 1865-project would make sense. If it wasn’t too late already.

  117. @turtle

    La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís was founded in 1610, which makes it the oldest state capital in the United States.

    Albany is second; 1614. Its original name is also impressive: Pempotowwuthut-Muhhcanneuw.

    (Some list Albany much lower, as it wasn’t made capital until 1797. But by that standard, Santa Fe didn’t become a state capital until 1912, the fourth-youngest.)

    Pempotowwuthut-Muhhcanneuw = Powwow, then a mutt hump eunuch.

    Quebec City dates to 1608, and Mexico City almost 300 years earlier. Xalapa, capital of Veracruz, is even older. Pachuca, capital of Hidalgo, was founded in 1050.

    • Thanks: turtle
  118. Zachary Smith: “The link below is a review of another of Dew’s books describing his painful path away from being a proudly ignorant jerk.”

    So a guy whose future success as an academic depended on him becoming a shitlib changed his racist opinions? Shocking! Reminds me of Upton Sinclair’s remark that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    Never underestimate the spineless conformity of the American anti-racist.

  119. Catiline: “Stumbled upon this recently and thought you might be interested …”

    Nice find! Certainly it is true that “[Dew] offers a compelling and clearly substantiated argument that slavery and race were absolutely critical factors in the outbreak of war―indeed, that they were at the heart of our great national crisis.”

    • Replies: @Autisticus Spasticus
  120. Diouldé says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    I did not know that Africans load slaves into boats and exported them to Europe for sale?! What history teaches is that slavers from Europe came to Africa in search of people to enslave, using guns and swindle, inciting wars among Africans by proxy, the exact way you have been doing in the last 5 hundred years. But, while you are at that, as you claim the moral high ground, why would accept to buy the slaves even if they were shipped to Europe? You are just like the python after it swallowed in prey, the fault is always on the victim. You are wrong, white people armed to the teeth and crook priests were directly in the game, but aided by some African puppet kings installed and corrupted by your cruel ancestors just as you have done with Latin America, Asia, Australia, and now in the West Asia with your so called “sand niggers”. Assume your ugly past and present inhumane deeds you will feel much better. If Africans created a slaves market (they did not!), they did so only when bad luck put them in face of the enslaver Caucasian or his Middle eastern cousin!
    No there had been slaves in Rome and in Greece. Do you remember. Human degradation and plunder are among your most prominent genes of the Mongolian Caucasus (Wiking or Celt). This has been so all the time, only means and methods change.

  121. Diouldé says:
    @Malla

    In French, they will call this, “Noyer le Poisson!
    I am not a smoker of anything, but you know, America is a Narco-State by excellence (consumption rate, and investment!). Anyway you have been dying by tons of opioids lately, remember the statistics?

    As for the European being older than the African. you are just silly by saying that. During the 200,000 years of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the Cro-magnon, your ancestor propped-up about 20,000 ya in the last glaciation (Wurmian Glaciation) in Europe preceded by the Grimaldi man (a black man), the first occupant of Europe (40,000 ya). These are solid scientific facts that you have been hiding by subterfuge and malice while your uncivilized ancestors were still waging war and destruction in the Mongolian desert/steps.

    Anyway, you have to demonstrate that Rome and Greece were Caucasian from the outset: the Dorian Greek is certainly from your extraction, but they found people living there long before as your colonial ancestors found people living and thriving in the Americas in 1492. So, if someone is dealing crack, it is most certainly you.

    As for Europe being advanced in the 1500 AD, that is your BS from your brain washing academia. What the whole World know that you are wanted to go to the East whatever the costs for the riches reported by Marco Polo that you were coveting: hence the exploration voyages leading to Europeans fleeing their miserable continent to plunder the rest of the World. Remember that?

    As for blacks being more violent than others, you demonstrate your “enlightenment”: Europeans almost were going to extinction through endless wars that culminated with the so called world wars (in fact European wars). America, the best son of Caucasus used Atomic Weapons (not once) on cities and innocent civilians! Agent orange, biological and chemical weapons, remember that?

    the fact remains that pygmy, bantu, Koi San, Fulani, Ethiopian, Kushit, Mandingo, Wolof, Fanti… they are all black people, you remember the one drop of blood thing? There are all types of black shades of people in Africa including your so called black pharaohs… All negros (at time you called white negros by your academicians) according to your definition.
    One pushing the other is part of natural law.

    …The Hoffmeyr Skull found in South Africa, a skull older the oldest negroid skull is similar to Upper paleolithic European skulls. But the Negroid race is more primitive because their ancestors mixed with primitive homo erectus ghost populations… you claim. What I know is that to date: all the European fossils and well posterior to African ones be they from Homo sapiens sapiens, Neandertal, Homo Erectus or the Australopithecus (the last two did not leave Africa. But, you always falsify history: remember the Piltdown man hoax in Sussex? You have always tried to claim the first place in history scale despite evidence. It is true that your race has excelled in all domains during the last 5 hundred years (no doubt about that), you are now the torch bears, but you will have to accept that it had not been always so. You are a late comer in building human civilization. Ancient Egypt (the Nile Valley), Persia, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, the Dravidian civilization (Indus Valley) Greece, Rome, the Ottomans, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Chinese, the late Mongols (you are the first Mongols though you dislike it) they all came with something and left the scene, brilliantly but violently occupied now by the Caucasian branch of mankind. Visible signs are appearing that he too will soon cede the scene for others to take the lead willy nilly.

    Someone argued here that you are a thinking people, yet a people that elect Joe Biden after Donald Trump (not a long hiatus after the Bush saga), does not display critical thinking.

    When I visit this site, I am astonished to observe that what you complain about the Jews is exactly what the rest of humanity is complaining about the crooked white man. Maybe this is the epitome of Karma!

    I know for sure that you are ready to Jim crow me or worst to lynch me albeit virtually. But thank you anyway for demonstrating that mankind is in deep trouble as far from being repentant you are doubling down and leading humanity to your Walhallian Paradise with a nuclear Holodomor. It seems that there is no way saving you (and sadly saving humanity) from yourself: too late!

    Look at statistics, in the 15th century you were about 30% of the world population, now you are hardly 10%. Your woke culture coupled with violence and greed is not going to save the day judging by the long count calendar!

    Peace to all of you from sh!thole Africa, cradle of humanity though you hate even that!

    Hotep & Seneb

    Au revoir!

  122. jsigur says:
    @Observator

    As I recall, Booth was a Mason and agent for the Rothschilds. Probably done to aide Jewish Carpetbaggers in their exploitation of post war south

  123. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    America is a Narco-State by excellence (consumption rate, and investment!). Anyway you have been dying by tons of opioids lately, remember the statistics?

    You are right about America being a narco state but I am not American.

    As for the European being older than the African. you are just silly by saying that.

    Nope. Fact. The oldest negroid skull is much older than the oldest Caucasoid skulls. The Hoffmeyr skull of South Africa are older than the earliest Khoi, San and Bantu skulls even found anywhere in the World. That is the ancestors of African blacks existed but they did not look like African blacks yet via evolution. The Hoffmeyr skulls are similar to Upper Paleolithic European skulls. Also we find Black Africans having DNA of ghost populations which they ingested into their genepool which happened BEFORE the Out of Africa event. So if the ancestors of black Africans had been the population who went out of Africa, non Africans would have these ghost population DNA traces too. Non Africans do not. The truth is Africa being a huge place had many human lineages living concurrently. Some human races became completely extinct (Ishango skull). The population/s which left Africa was a completely different population than who later became black Africans and the ancestors of black Africans were not interbreeding with the Out of Africa populations for hundred thousand years before the out of Africa event. They were distinct human populations.

    But I will let this video explain

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Diouldé
  124. Fufu says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    #74 Mis(ter)Anthrope

    Westerners initiated slave trade because they demanded slaves (to exploit newly conquered lands).

    Then other groups joined to fulfill this demand: Westerner-ish, Jewish, Arabic traders and local African chieftains.

    But Westerners were the people who initiated this shamefull process.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  125. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The oldest negroid skull is much older than the oldest Caucasoid skulls.

    Sorry, mistake, other way round.

  126. anarchyst says:
    @Fufu

    What say you about Cinque, the leader of a slave revolt aboard ship that resulted in him and his cohorts being released as “free men” after trial?
    The movie Amistad left out one important point about Cinque. After gaining his freedom, he ended up becoming one of the most prolific slave traders, making numerous trips to the African continent to procure “(sub)human capital”.
    The slaves that ended up in North America were fortunate, compared to the slaves who ended up on sugar plantations in the Caribbean…
    It is a loosely-guarded secret that there were many black African “slave-procurers” and slave owners at the time.
    The institution of slavery was not an exclusively white (jewish) endeavor; many blacks were involved in the slave trade, as well.

    • Replies: @Diouldé
    , @Fufu
  127. Diouldé says:
    @anarchyst

    Shifting the blame to the victims again? Go tell that to John Smith, the good white guy that you ended up hanging (bleeding Kansas), Dred Scott, the lynched ones, the raped ones, the ones your ancestors prevented to marry, to own their own children. You have a weird reasoning and a stinking moral indeed. What crime were the Native Indians guilty of to deserve their fate? Perversity is the first born of Caucasus!

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Hibernian
  128. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    As for Europe being advanced in the 1500 AD, that is your BS from your brain washing academia.

    Actually Western academia and media try to hide this fact. But it is fact none the less. The facts are coming out. Medieval Europe being backward was pushed during the Renaissance.

    By the 12th century, Europe as a civilization was already equal to all the other civilization spaces in the rest of Eurasia and Meso America. The so called “dark ages” happened from the 4th to 8th century. The Myth of backward Europe was a myth which was propagandized during the enlightenment.
    By the 15th century, Europe was more or less far ahead for the rest of the World in civilian and military technology.


    Was Medieval Western Europe “Not Advanced”?

    • Replies: @Diouldé
  129. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages by Jean Gimpel

    The common, simplistic view of the Middle Ages as religion-centered and materially backward is challenged by Jean Gimpel in this milestone study, originally published in 1976. The Medieval Machine tells how, between the years 900 and 1300, Europeans created their first industrial revolution, which set Western civilization on the road to global dominance. Gimpel describes the main features of this early machine age: the pervasive use of waterpower (the oil of the medieval era); the agricultural innovations that energized the population through better nourishment; the spread of mining along with mechanized iron mills; and the appearance of modern industrial problems such as labour unrest and pollution. This is a story of technology triumphant: architect-engineers were adulated; there were tallest-building contests like those of the twentieth century. The climax comes with the invention of the key modern device-the mechanical clock.
    Also
    The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabriele (Author), David M. Perry

    NOT FROM THE BOOKS
    David Landes, Prof of History and Economics in his book, Wealth and Poverty of Nations
    “Europe of the Middle Ages -one of the most inventive societies that history had known. Some may be surprised: for a long time one saw these centuries as a dark interlude between the grandeur of Rome and the brilliance of the Renaissance. That cliché no longer holds in matters technological.”

    Prof Joseph R Strayer in his paper, Medieval Religion and Technology writes
    …the extraordinary range of medieval technological innovations. All classes were affected by these changes – better ploughs for the peasants, better weapons for the fighting men, better machinery for textile workers, better ships and sail patters for merchants and seamen, spectacles for elderly scholars, paper for notaries, clocks for astrologers and perhaps for churchmen more power (wind and water mills) for everyone.”

    Medieval Europe already had a standard of living by 1200 A.D. about 90 percent of Song Dynasty China, was already an equal to all the other civilizations of Eurasia/ Meso America by the 12th Century, was ahead of the world (including Islamic civilization) by then in castle and naval technology, even the Mongol Imperial forces found the maze of Western European Castles too formidable to expand further. Medieval Europe had loads of innovations and inventions during the Middle ages including the mechanical clock (ones in Switzerland impressed a Ottoman gentleman traveler Evleya Celibi, who called it “White magic”) etc…. This was already leading to higher economic productivity in Europe in the Middle Ages itself, from the 12th century A.D.

  130. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    How European architectural techniques (Cathedrals) were racing ahead of the rest of the World during the Medieval period and was much superior in the end.

    What is Architecture and how does Indian Architecture measure up?

  131. anarchyst says:
    @Diouldé

    EVERY culture practiced involuntary servitude at one time or another. No race is immune from the scourge of slavery.
    Your black supremacy is showing.
    Go back to wakanda…

  132. Diouldé says:
    @Malla

    BS and lies that have been made during decades to argue the polycentric theory that has been long debunked by DNA, and microbiology, and archeology. The Mono-centric theory has prevailed despite your falsifications like the Video you posted. The fact is that the African continent is the only place having all the fossil sets while West Asia and Europe had only Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man, and Sapiens all coming out of Africa. The Bolombos site (cave) has the earliest human art representation (80,000 ya). by then your cruel ancestors had not entered history, not yet. Hollywood and Eurocentric academia, and fake data (the Piltdown man hoax) can convince the ignorant and the brain washed, but the truth is coming out despite your hate of it. You remember how much resistance and for how long you displayed against Africa being the cradle of mankind? Are the fossils in Africa Cro-Magnon types as you seem to argue that they were everything but African?

    Yu still failed to show me the achievement of Caucasus before the 15-century except wonton violence, rape, plunder and oppression of women, the other races, and the environment? Admit that you had humble beginnings since your inception 20,000 ya. Reason and science do not admit your exclusive claim of Greek and Roman achievements. But even these were very late in History supposing they were all Caucasus.

    But let me very clear, I agree completely that during the last 5 hundred years your breed has accomplished unprecedented progress in the way to civilization. that is a objective fact. But the rest of humanity was not sitting idly by waiting for you to come to bring light as you are just a yesterday’s boy both creative and destructive!

    This fact you are wont to reject against evidence and reason, always ready to insult, falsify, distort, devaluate, erase, destroy and commit genocide to have your false cause to prevail.

    Europe and the US without the loot, the plunder and the vandalism they meted on other parts of the Globe would have been a real sh!thole. The World have seen how you fared during the Covid pandemic, no better than other or even worse. This trend will catch up with you as the rest of the Humanity has started displaying effective resistance with no other means than what made you so effective in subjugating the other: weapons and brutal warfare! I will predict that in 100 years, you will be no longer superhuman, but just human.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  133. Diouldé says:
    @Malla

    Then why did you need to go out your way to plunder, genocide, and migrate to the other “hellish” continents? people leave for obvious reasons, mostly economic and for freedom.

    I told you that you are pure product of brain washing. There is nothing worthwhile in Europe in terms of resources, climate, tolerance, and hospitality. Other people are paying back in emigrating to your lands for pure economic reasons as you horded 80% of world wealth. No sain African, Asian, Latino or Slavic, for that matter, is dazzled by your woke mentality, greed, and unhuman capital-liberalism.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  134. Fufu says:
    @anarchyst

    #133 anarchyst

    “many blacks were involved in the slave trade, as well.”

    It is all about proportion.

    90% of final beneficians of slave trade were Westerners.

    10% of non-Westerner beneficians ( Arabs, Jews, local Africans etc.) don’t change outcom.

    • Replies: @anon
  135. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Military technology

    As mentioned earlier video “Was Medieval Europe not advanced”, the Crusaders had superior castle technology than the Muslims. Well this video, discusses the brilliance of European castle technology through the ages. Not only castle technology but also European advancement in canon technology. Check out the star fortresses, Europeans innovated to defeat canons.
    Also Crusader castles, nearly impossible to defeat by Islamic forces. The Islamic armies had no clue how to take them. The Muslims had to use subterfuge and cunning and lies to take them.

    This Italian history war buff, Raffaello Urbani sez at 20:50 to 23:30 minutes that the Mongols would have completely failed in Western Europe because of Castles (had they not gone back after the death of the Great Khan) and that that by the late 15th century, Europe had gone way ahead of the rest of the world in warfare technology.Even if Ogedei Khan had not died and the Mongols invading Europe had not gone back for the election of the next great Khan, they would have still found conquering Western Europe much more difficult to nearly impossible. Indeed it is historical facts that even before the death of the Great Khan, the moment the Mongols start seeing the more advanced fortified stone masonry castles of Western Europe, they just stop. The Mongols may have been unbeatable in field warfare, they would not have been able to cope with siege warfare on a land with such large numbers of castles. So even if the Mongols had access to Chinese and Persian Engineers, even if the Mongols had defeated fortifications in China, Korea, Persia, Arabia etc..with ease, they would have found dealing with the castle ridden landscape of Western Europe in countries such as Germany, France, Italian area, England etc… impossible.

  136. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Ancient Egypt (the Nile Valley), Persia, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, the Dravidian civilization (Indus Valley)

    Egypt is very debatable about race but I wont go there now. Lets start with the Indus valley Civilization, before the Aryans went to India. The original Indus Valley people who predated
    the Aryans in Northern India/Pakistan by many millennia were themselves of the Caucasian type.
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/scientists-reconstruct-faces-of-indus-valley-people/articleshow/71512919.cms
    Scientists reconstruct faces of Indus Valley people
    In a first, scientists have generated an accurate facial representation of the Indus Valley Civilization people by reconstructing the faces of two of the 37 individuals who were found buried at the 4,500-year-old Rakhigarhi cemetery.”
    …snip…
    A multi-disciplinary team of 15 scientists and academics from six different institutes of South Korea, UK and India, applied craniofacial reconstruction (CFR) technique using computed tomography (CT) data of two of the Rakhigarhi skulls, to recreate their faces.
    …snip…
    “The CFR technology generated faces of the two Rakhigarhi skulls, therefore, is a major breakthrough,” Shinde, a professor at Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, said. Going by the 3-D video representation of the faces, the two individuals appeared to
    have Caucasian features with hawk-shaped and Roman noses.”

    ———-
    That is, even before the Nordic Aryans came to India and Persia, the originators of the Indus Valley Civilization of India were already of the Caucasian type. Indeed the Rakhigari search have found out that the Indus Valley Civilization people were about 75% Caucasoid and 25% Australoid. When they went into the interior towards South India, with the coming of the Aryans, by the time they reached South India, mixing with Australoid tribes along the way (and also Mongoloid populations moving in from the East with rice farming like Cambodian rice farmers, Tibeto Burmans etc…) meant that the population became 75% Australoid and 25% Caucasoid i.e. today’s Dravidians. Later Aryan ancestry came into the upper castes of South India like Nayars and Brahmins.Indeed the Indus Valley Civilization may be even older than the Sumerian/Iraqi and Egyptian/Nile civilizations according to new findings.

    The women in the above video is a South Indian Dravidian upper caste Hindu.

  137. anon[350] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Moore

    notice that the author of this article doesn’t mention “jews” even once afaict despite the oversized jewish role in the slave trade and in slave ownership and also the fact that its the jews at the NY Times that are behind the 1619 Project

    very convenient

  138. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You know, there’s one question that I can’t answer but maybe you can. Since the Jews seem to control virtually everything, and have done for a very long time, why did they ever allow Hitler to come to power? I must ask you not to tell me that they didn’t have the means to prevent his election and rise to power, because we all know that they did.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  139. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Diouldé

    Just for your information, my suboptimal negro friend. Asians and Caucasians are from a lineage that includes orangutans. This lineage had its origins in East Asia.

    Negros, chimpanzees and gorillas are not descended from this lineage that evolved Asians, Whites and orangutans. It’s possible that negros and modern African apes did arise in Africa. But it’s more likely that the lineage that evolved modern African apes and negros arose in Asia and very early on split away from the lineage that went on to create Whites, Asians and orangutans. And that eventually this ancestral negro/chimp lineage was forced to migrate into Africa by the White’s/Asian’s better evolved forebears. Then, when in Africa, it split up to evolve negros, chimps and gorillas, and the numerous other ape-like bipeds whose remains have been uncovered across the continent.

    Very advanced man-made artifacts dating back 250,000 years have been found in East Asia. The reality of these artifacts shows the fatuity of the claim that modern Whites and Asians are descended from migrants that left Africa 60,000 years ago (as is posited by modern Western woke morons).

    Studies of female orangutans show that their mothering abilities are superior to female negros and almost equal to White and Asian mothers. The orangutan baby, like White and Asian babies, gets long term one-to-one care from its mother.

    The negro baby, like the young of chimps and gorillas, is basically let loose soon after birth to be reared in an ad hoc manner by the tribe. The negro dad, like the chimp dad, rarely sticks around. Of interest is the fact that the newborn negro baby is much more physically advanced than its White or Asian counterpart.

    An American negro once boasted that blacks were superior to Whites because newborn negro babies could sit up on their own much sooner than newborn White or Asian babies could. Some in the woke US media latched onto this, but soon backtracked and shut it down. Because it was pointed out that it indicated (or, more pertinently, proved) that negro newborns were very close to the physical toughness of chimpanzee newborns (chimps and negros have a different gestation process to humans so that their babies are born tougher so as to survive in the wild and be able to cling to tribe members as they flee predators).

    Male Orangutans, like White and Asian human males, prefer frontal lovemaking with their females, whereas chimps, gorillas and negros prefer entering their females from the rear.

    The typical White and Asian baby making appendages when erect stands somewhat vertical to the body. The White/Asian vagina is positioned towards the front of the body. Thus, both anatomies are designed for frontal lovemaking. Intimate civilized lovemaking.

    The negro baby making appendage when erect stands horizontal to the body (ask any typical English whore). The female negro vagina is positioned more to the rear than the White vagina. Thus, both anatomies are designed for front to back lovemaking. Animalistic, forceful, lustful and dominating sexual coupling.

    Back to front lovemaking also facilitates the fact that chimps and negros use rape as a reproduction strategy. It’s easier, safer and quicker for chimps and negros to pass on their genes by sneaking up behind the females, grabbing their arms from behind, pushing them forward onto the ground, keeping them quiet by shoving their mouths in the dirt, and then quickly inserting themselves into their rearward positioned vaginas.

    Being acclimatized to back to front lovemaking is also why nominally heterosexual negros will overnight turn homosexual when imprisoned. Many negros do actually very quickly turn homosexual when in jail. It’s not so different for them to do their cellmates from behind because this position is the natural setting for them. Sex for the full-blood negro isn’t remotely about intimacy, it’s simply and solely about fulfilling a primeval and animalistic lust.

    • Replies: @Autisticus Spasticus
  140. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    About Sumeria, Sumerians are suspected for being blue eyed.

    Sumerians : Civilizations Origins (2 of 4) the Blue Eyed Gods

    https://www.livescience.com/63396-ancient-israel-immigration-turkey-iran.html
    Blue-Eyed Immigrants Transformed Ancient Israel 6,500 Years Ago

    Thousands of years ago in what is now northern Israel, waves of migrating people from the north and east — present-day Iran and Turkey — arrived in the region. And this influx of newcomers had a profound effect, transforming the emerging culture.

    What’s more, these immigrants not only brought new cultural practices; they also introduced new genes — such as the mutation that produces blue eyes — that were previously unknown in that geographic area, according to a new study

  141. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    As far Persia goes, first we look into the uncanny similarity in between Persian, Vedic Indian and pre Christian mythology of Europe.

    The god-force of waters ahúrání and the Norse sea-god ægir Authentic gatha Zoarastrianism
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/10/28/the-god-force-of-waters-ahurani-and-the-norse-sea-god-aegir/

    “The Avestan term for water is apö, compare apö with Lithuanian term for river uppe, Vedic ap and Latin aqua.

    In the Zoroastrian calendar the eighth month is dedicated to Waters.The tenth day of every Zoroastrian month is also dedicated to the Waters, and so the tenth day of the eighth month, Ábán Rooz (day of waters) of Ábán Máh (month or moon of waters), is the great feast day of waters called Ābānagān.”

    …snip…

    “In Yasna Haptaŋ-háiti or the Seven Chapters (Yasna 38.3) the Waters are venerated as ahúrání. The name Ahúrání is derived from Ahúrá (god-force, Old Norse æsir) with a feminine suffix –ání. (Compare with, tištryaæiní- “stars near the star Tištrya”)

    So the waters as “Ahúrá (Old Norse æsir) or god force’s female, nurturing aspect (ahúrání) are parallel to Old Norse sea god Ægir and the varuṇānī of Varuṇa in the Rig Veda. (Also compare the Gothic word for waters, rivers “ahua”)”

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/02/10/vohu-mano-passion-spiritmind-and-the-old-norse-vili-and-ve/

    “To create, manifest through the power of an awe-inspiring, wondrous spirit/mind.

    Khratü, Vedic kratú is the power of spirit/mind to manifest itself, the power to create and to do work. It is the “Geisteskraft.” khratü comes from the Proto Indo European base kar-/ker “to have power, bring forth, create.” Greek kratia “have power over, Old English cræft , Dutch kracht, German Kraft, Icelandic kraftur, Old Norse kraptr all come from the same root and mean originally “having power to create, bring forth, manifest. It appears in the form of khrapat in Yasna 40.1.”

    The ancient Zoroastrian Mid-Spring festival, Celtic Beltane and the German Witches’ Night Hexennacht,
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2018/05/08/the-ancient-zoroastrian-mid-spring-festival-celtic-beltane-and-the-german-witches-night-hexennacht/

    Avestan payan “milk” is a cognate of with Lithuanian pienas, Latvian piêns, Vedic páyas “milk,” Vedic pipyúši “rich in milk” and is derived from reconstructed Proto Indo European *pieh “be fat, prosperous, swollen,” and *pipih usih “rich, overflowing in milk.”

    …snip….

    “Zarem, the second part of maiδyö.zarem comes from Avestan zairi “fresh green, lush or golden” and can be compared with Old Church Slavonic zelenū, Lithuanian geltas, želvas “yellow/golden,” Latvian zęlts “golden,” Russian zelënyj “green.” In post Indo European times, the word for golden/yellow were often the sources for new words for green. This root is recorded from Celtic to Vedic, and is assured in Proto- Indo European. This also argues that the Proto Indo Europeans saw yellow/golden as a primary color.”

    Ayáthrimá, the last autumnal thanksgiving festival and Celtic Samhain
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/10/17/ayathrima-the-last-autumnal-thanksgiving-festival-and-celtic-samhain/

    Ayáthrimá is a time when the autumn harvest is reaped, cattle are bred, and the preparation for winter begins. This festival has a lot in common with the Celtic festival of Samhain on October 30th. In fact, almost all Zoroastrian and Celtic festivals are apart by about 2 weeks and bear striking resemblance.

  142. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    As far as Persia is concerned.
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/03/31/the-aryan-origin-of-most-iranians-darius-greats-inscription-and-the-propaganda-movie-300/
    Out of 10 Ancient Iranian human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the greater Khorasan in the northeast of Greater Airan/Iran, 9 possessed the distinct Aryan R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup. (That is the ancient Iranian/Aryan marker R1a predominates in Andronovo samples)
    mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.
    The study determined that at least 2/3 of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains’ samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and grey or blue, green eyes.
    (An average of 8% to 9% percent of Present day Iranians have light colored eyes in the urban areas and about 15% of the Present day Iranians in the rural mountainous areas have light colored eyes.)
    Today, R-M17 can be found in most parts of Western Asia, in widely varying concentrations, from almost NO presence in areas such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to much higher levels in Kurdish parts of Iraq, Eastern Turkey and Iran.
    Wells 2001, noted that in the western part of the country, Iranians show lower R-M17 levels (an average of 15%,) while males of eastern parts of Iran carried up to 35% R-M17.
    Nasidze 2004 found R-M17 in approximately 20% of Iranian males from the cities of Tehran and Isfahan. Regueiro 2006 in a study of Iran noted much higher frequencies of R1a among the population.
    R-M17 is found in extremely high frequencies among ancient Iranian Tajik populations of Central Asia, especially in the mountainous badakhshan region and the towering Pamir ranges.
    The highest R1a1 frequencies are detected in the Central Asian populations of Ishkashemi Tajiks (68%) and Pamiri Tajiks (64%), both groups being remnants of the original Eastern Iranian population of the region. Apart from these two groups, high frequencies of R1a1 are also found in Pashtuns (44.8%) and eastern parts of the Iranian Highlands up to frequencies of 35%, similar to Northern India.
    In Europe, the R-M17 sub-clade, is found at highest levels among peoples of Eastern European descent (Poles, Russians and Ukrainians; 50 to 65%) (Balanovsky 2008, Behar 2003, and Semino 2000).
    In the Baltic countries R-M17 frequencies decrease from Lithuania (45%) to Estonia (around 30%) (Kasperaviciūte 2005).
    There is a significant presence in peoples of Scandinavian descent, with highest levels in Norway and Iceland, where between 20 and 30% of men are in R-M17 (Bowden 2008 and (Dupuy 2005).
    Vikings and Normans may have also carried the R-M17 lineage westward; accounting for at least part of the small presence in the British Isles (Passarino 2002 and Capelli 2003).
    In East Germany, where Haplogroup R-M17 reaches a peak frequency in Rostock at a percentage of 31.3%, it averages between 20%-30% (Kayser 2005).
    In Southern Europe R-M17 is not common, for example only 10% in Albania Kosovo and most parts of Greece (Pericić 2005, Rosser 2000 and Semino 2000).
    We do have DNA samples of the Indo-Iranians aka Aryans of Sintashta culture.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture#Genetics

    Here are the genetically closest modern populations.

  143. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    polycentric theory that has been long debunked by DNA

    LOL what a buffoon. You did not even watch the video. The video supports that non Black Africans went out of Africa but were a very different branch of humanity who had separated from the ancestors of Black Africans hundred thousand years before the OOA event and did not look like today’s black Africans based on solid science and logic.

    Yu still failed to show me the achievement of Caucasus before the 15-century except wonton violence, rape, plunder and oppression of women, the other races, and the environment?

    LOL, what a demented fool. wanton voilence? LOL rape? Where? Plunder? Not true at all. Opression of womne? LOL European rule was the best for women rights everywhere.
    You are brainwashed with Marxist excreta. LL lies and bullshit. As far as achievements before 15th century, I have shown them a lot, you cannot emotionally accept it. That is your problem.

    falsify, distort, devaluate, erase, destroy and commit genocide to have your false cause to prevail.

    More rants. Zero substance.

    Europe and the US without the loot, the plunder and the vandalism they meted on other parts of the Globe would have been a real sh!thole.

    False, Europe and USA would have been richer.

  144. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Then why did you need to go out your way to plunder, genocide, and migrate to the other “hellish” continents? people leave for obvious reasons, mostly economic and for freedom.

    Your understanding of history is very weak. Colonialism started when Europeans wanted to break the monopoly of the Middle Easterners in the spice trade in between the Indies and Europe, after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. If the Turks would have not conquered Constantinople, there is a possibility colonialism might have never taken place.
    In the earliest days of Colonialism, the MAIN MARKET WAS EUROPE. Europe’s wealth had increased creating a wealthy class who consumed global goods. To break the monopoly of trade in these goods of the Muslims + Venetians, the Portuguese and Spanish first went forth. Their primary aim were the Indies (Indian Subcontinent + South East Asia) and that is why these Companies were called the East Indian Companies. French East India Company, British East Indian Company. In trying to reach East Indies, they discovered West Africans and on the other side, the Americas. That is why the Caribbean are called the WEST INDIES (as against the East Indies) and they mistook native Americans as Indians and hence they were called INDIANS.

    What these European companies wanted was not conquests but MONOPOLY OF TRADE in the trade in between the Indies and Europe in these Luxury goods Versus other European Companies.
    After that the main driving force of more conquests and colonialism was to deny the other European power monopoly in such trades. It was this rivalry which led to early colonial conquests.

    The rivalry in between the Britsh EIC and Dutch VOC led to the Dutch conquest of Java out of Dutch fears about the English. The British came to India to trade. But rivalry with other European powers especially the French led to the conquest of India. The earliest conquest of Indian regions of India by the English was primarily because of rivalry with France. It was originally France which started interfering in Indian affairs forcing the British to do the same in response out of fear of losing trade rights in India. Before that the English policy was to not interfere in local affairs much but just concentrate on trade. India for a while (especially) South India was going more French than British. However French ambitions depended on one person Joseph François Dupleix, a Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of. However the French East India Company Directors lambasted Dupleix to not waste energy and money on conquests and empire buildings but concentrate on trade. The French themselves were only interested in trade in India, that was their policy, it was Dupleix who started interfering which the South Indian powers also supported for their own interests.
    Must add that many Indian powers like Hyder Ali of Mysore and Bahadur Jung were friends of Dupleix and unlike the French East India Company directors, the local powers were not complaining about his actions. The Indians wanted French artillery and to use French troops to defeat their enemies.
    Unfortunately the brilliant Dupleix met his match with the equally brilliant Englishman Robert Clive (who founded the bedrock of British Conquest of India), another Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of too.

    Also European Wars spilled over in to far sides of the World. British was fighting France while at the same time British troops + their Native American allies were fighting French troops + their Native American allies in North America while at the same time British troops + their Asian Indian allies were fighting French troops + their Asian Indian allies in the Indian subcontinent.

    Inter European (including) Russia competition and fears drove colonial conquests. That was followed by the entry of the USA and Japan. It were fears and insecurities in between these powers which drove colonial conquests even if the Colonial Empires over all were expensive.

  145. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Other people are paying back in emigrating to your lands for pure economic reasons as you horded 80% of world wealth.

    Pure lies, the West lost money on the Third World. Even during the times of colonialism. The theory of Europe “looting colonies” was made up bullshit by the Marxists in their desire to explain why the Industrialized countries of the West who were supposed to go Communist never went Communist according to Marx’s theory. The early industrial powers like Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands etc… all had Communist parties as well as Worker’s unions but Communism never became successful there. Even in Asia, Japan the first Asian industrial power never went Communist even though there is a Communist Party in Japan. To explain away this anomaly, the Marxists explained that the colonies were used as dumping ground for production excesses.

    The truth is European nations mostly lost money on their colonies.
    The Great American economist Milton Friedman on Colonialism

    A student poses a question to Milton Friedman in which he asks for an appraisal of just how exactly the riches that now exist in the so called “capitalist democracies” were obtained and how those countries became so rich so quick. Specifically he asks Friedman to account for the effect that having free labor derived from slavery allowed them to enrich themselves, and how the possession of colonies allowed rich countries to bleed wealth out of their colonial domains. Friedman responds by claiming it’s simply untrue that the wealth that arose in Western countries was due to slavery. Slavery was a disgrace and a blot on the United States’ record, but many rich Western nations did not have slavery. Britain and Japan did not have slaves when they developed and Hong Kong does not have slaves today. He goes onto claim that the facts are against the notion that the wealth was created due to the West exploiting its colonies. The reason people are quick to think so is that they have an ingrained predisposition to see view the world as a zero-sum game where if one man gains the other man looses. In reality a free market allows everyone to gain through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. When the West colonized Africa they brought with them technology that greatly improved the condition of the people that lived there and actually made them better off. The wheel for example had not even been invented in Africa in the 19th century. As a result of Africa’s contacts with the West their condition improved greatly from what it previously was. To the charge that colonizers bleed wealth from their colonies, Friedman notes that it has always cost the mother country more to maintain its colonies then what was ever received in direct or indirect economic benefit. (5:44 minutes in the above video) In the famous case of India, conclusive studies have shown that it cost Britain far more to maintain India then if it had never had it. Furthermore, many Western nations never possessed colonies yet became wealthy despite that fact.

    One must remember that Finland has a higher standard of living than Portugal, Finland which had no colonies and Portugal who was the European power with colonies for the longest period of time. not only Finland had no colonies, but it was once part of the Swedish Empire and later of the Russian Empire. The Finns later faced a devastating invasion from the Soviet union where the brave heroic Finns fought like lions and made the Soviet Communist aggressors bleed. Impressed even Stalin.
    European nations as well as the USA and Japan became prosperous by the same technique mainland China has become financially powerful today, by large scale industrial manufacturing coupled with rise in education and healthcare and using its high IQ disciplined workforce. Not colonies. Hell even the USSR became powerful using the same technique of large scale industrialization.
    Indeed Ethiopia, a nation known from biblical times was not really colonized except for a very short period by the Italians (when the “evul” Fascists banned slavery and set slaves free! Oy vey). Ethiopia later went Communist under the Derg and was far more Communist than under Italian rule. In 1991, after Communism collapsed, Ethiopia was a shithole. According to Marxist and anti-colonial theory, Ethiopia should have been rich and Finland poor. Did not happen, their theories are crackpot and rubbish. Yet millions of unthinking brainwashed clowns parrot this bullshit.

    • Replies: @Fufu
    , @anon
  146. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    I will predict that in 100 years, you will be no longer superhuman, but just human.

    LOL, where did that come from. There are no super humans only humans. White Nationalists want their nations of their own. They are not colonialists. They do not want to interfere into affairs of non whites, they do not have White Man’s burden. They are opposed to their ZOG government’s unnecessary interference in global affairs. They have no interest in keeping Africans poor or even interfering much in African affairs. Except for the Whites down South. African countries are free to do what they wish , as far as they are concerned.

    As far as being superhuman, every tribe, ethnic group, race etc.. believe they are smarter, better etc… than others. This does not mean, people of different backgrounds cannot coperate at times, sure they can, but this feeling of superiority of one’s culture, religions, race, language, ethnic/tribal group is very common among all humans Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Reds…….you name it. Whites have issues with each other at times, Blacks have issues with each other at times. This is just human nature, sadly. I do not know which country you are from but other than maybe the Southern most African countries, White Nationalists are not concerned much about other African countries, they have no desire to attempt invasion or colonization or any desire to keep down the people or anything of that sort.

  147. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Europe and the US without the loot, the plunder and the vandalism they meted on other parts of the Globe would have been a real sh!thole.

    LOL, let’s take the French Empire for example, during the French Empire, France lost money on it’s African colonies. French colonization cost more than it yielded 2 years out of 3. 2.1 % of French GDP was spent on an average in French colonies each year during about a century…
    That is 3 times more than the OECD recommendation established in 1969 for ODA (0.7% of GDP).
    That is overall the equivalent of 7 European Recovery Program (“Marshall Plan” as they say in France) that was GIVEN, not lent, to the colonies by France.
    This is a proven fact by French historians( Jacques Marseille and Daniel Lefeuvre works).

    As far as the British Empire
    https://unherd.com/2021/09/how-liberals-made-the-british-empire/
    How liberals made the British Empire

    By 1791, the Sierra Leone Company, run by liberal humanitarians including Wilberforce, had taken over governance of the nascent colony, initiating a process described by the historian Bronwen Everill as one where abolitionists had adopted a worldview “defined by this loose coalition of ideas: the ‘civilization’ of Africa via an end to the slave trade, adoption of standards of western life, material culture, and institutions; Africa’s conversion to Christianity; and the introduction of ‘legitimate’ commerce to simultaneously replace the slave trade, enrich the colonies and the metropoles, and inspire ‘civilized’ consumption.”

    As with the humanitarian interventions of our own era, ideals of free trade, globalised capitalism, military intervention and the conversion of downtrodden natives to liberal Western ways were intertwined from the start. For Sierra Leone’s governor, Charles MacCarthy, the division of the colony’s unexplored forests into parishes run by the Church Missionary Society was the beginning of a process that would make “Sierra Leone the base from whence future exertions may be extended, step by step to the very interior of Africa”. As Everill notes, “colonisation was a developing anti-slavery ideology,” which “disrupted local economies, power structures, ideologies, and religions in much the same way that settlers in Australia or North America overcame the aboriginal peoples.”

    Yet the failure of the Niger expedition radically altered the process by which the British conquest of West Africa took place. Instead of leading through example, the British Foreign Office and Admiralty found themselves drawn into an ever-widening series of military interventions to eradicate slavery at its source, which would lead inexorably, though unintentionally, to direct colonial rule. Firstly, the anti-slavery campaign of the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron turned out to be almost wholly ineffective: the trade in enslaved Africans boomed over the course of its deployment as American and Spanish merchantmen, backed by their governments, refused the Royal Navy’s authority to board their slaving vessels.

    Instead, the Royal Navy settled on a policy of eradicating the slave trade on the ground, sailing into coastal towns and villages to pressure their kings and chieftains to sign agreements banning the sale of slaves, and bombarding them and replacing their rulers when they did not. Bit by bit, driven by the unintentional logic of humanitarian intervention, Britain found itself the master of much of the West African coastline.

    Many Africans were bewildered by the shift in British policy, and the destruction of their traditional ways of life. As late as 1897, the Nigerian historian Philip A. Igbafe observed, the deposed Oba or ruler of the Benin kingdom pleaded from his jail cell for permission “to catch some Urhobo slaves for sacrifice as the rains were falling too incessantly for the good of the people and their crops,” a request the new British rulers denied.

  148. Malla says:
    @Diouldé

    Yet the unwillingness of African rulers to go along with the newfound abolitionist crusade of the British middle classes had set the stage for a reinterpretation of Britain’s mission from one of education and negotiation to one of military conquest and direct enforcement of liberal mores. As Huzzey notes, “blunt bigotry and frustration at African slave-dealing led the Spectator, in 1853, to moan that ‘British lives are lavished on the African coasts to negotiate and treat with the Black babies who can’t keep from selling each other and cheating us.’ The paper concluded that it was impossible to educate West Africans as ‘moral observers of the Anti-Slavery faith.’” Instead, the perceived intransigence of African rulers “moved Britain to kindle freedom with force”, setting the stage for the expansionist, racialised imperialism of the later 19th century.

    Yet by this point, whatever appeal direct humanitarian intervention on the African continent had held for Britain’s governing classes had long since evaporated. As the Colonial Secretary, the Duke of Newcastle, observed in 1861, “the ‘suppression of the Slave Trade’ is leading us into serious Territorial complications, on the whole W. Coast of Africa.” Prefiguring anti-interventionist voices today, the Times in 1863 demanded with exasperation,

    “Who ever heard of a war in Gambia? What do we know of the King of Bedaboo, and why should we rejoice at having taught him a “severe lesson!” What harm has he done us and why should we be anxious to pay an additional income tax for the pleasure of killing . . . his sable subjects? As it stands it looks as much like a piratical inroad as any exploit we ever read about. . . . who ordered it? And who will pay for it? . . . Can it be possible after all the lessons we have received of the inflammatory character of little wars we can find ourselves in the thick of a ‘war upon Gambia’ without notice, and so far as we know, without reason?”

    By 1865, the parliamentary select committee chaired by Charles Adderley was strongly advising against any further extension of direct control and urged British withdrawal from Africa, though only once the slave trade had been finally extinguished, an exit strategy whose conclusion seemed to stretch further and further out of reach. The financial benefits accruing to Britain were, contrary to modern perceptions, negligible: throughout the early and mid-19th century, trade with the entire African continent made up less than 2.6% of Britain’s trade balance.

    As even James Stephen, described by the historian Seymour Drescher as “the Colonial office’s most influential abolitionist undersecretary” warned, “[If] we could acquire the dominion of the whole of that continent, it would be but a worthless possession.” As the Times complained in 1873, “why do we retain or even extend what we call a Protectorate over this pestiferous coast?” And yet, as Huzzey notes, “Anti-slavery policies locked an unwilling state into obligations toward African colonies.” And then as now, it was the moral crusading of journalists that drove Britain into its next wave of imperial expansion.

  149. Hibernian says:
    @Diouldé

    …John Smith…

    His name was John Brown.

  150. Fufu says:
    @Malla

    #151 and #152 Malla

    “Colonialism started when Europeans wanted to break the monopoly of the Middle Easterners in the spice trade in between the Indies and Europe, after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. ”

    “The truth is European nations mostly lost money on their colonies.”

    Westerners had no money so they conquered colonies in order to lost more money.

    Interesting theory, really “interesting”.

    • Replies: @Malla
  151. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fufu

    It is all about proportion.

    90% of final beneficians of slave trade were Westerners.

    10% of non-Westerner beneficians ( Arabs, Jews, local Africans etc.) don’t change outcom.

    the middle east arab slave trade was larger and much crueler than the North Atlantic slave trade

    and who do you think made the profit off the slave trade, the end user or the usual (((bankers, merchants and middlemen)))?

  152. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    In the famous case of India, conclusive studies have shown that it cost Britain far more to maintain India then if it had never had it.

    someone did get rich through the occupation of India though, the jews pushing opium on the Chinese and using the British military to enforce their “right to free trade” in China

    • Replies: @Malla
  153. @Anon

    I have to take issue with that last part. Of all the races, blacks are by far the most hostile to homosexuality, so I doubt very much that they would be the most ready to resort to sodomy in prison.

    It has been hypothesised that the backwardness of negroes, in both body and mind, could be due to ingression of an erectus strain of archaic hominids there, instead of the Neanderthal and Denisovan hybridisation events that mark Homo sapiens in Eurasia. If that be the case, it is likely that modern sapiens evolved the critical cognitive capabilities for the “Neolithic package” of technological and cultural advances outside Africa, likely in the Near East or the Caucasus. These newer alleles may have then diffused back into Africa via admixture, which would explain why we see more recently-evolved Caucasoid morphology in the Horn of Africa. In other words, if mankind’s “great leap forward” occurred outside Africa with only a partial later diffusion back there, that would account for the otherwise puzzling cognitive and physiological differences between negroes and the rest of humanity, which have been acknowledged by all Eurasian cultures since antiquity, though such observations are now strictly verboten due to political duress.

  154. Anon[214] • Disclaimer says:

    “I have to take issue with that last part. Of all the races, blacks are by far the most hostile to homosexuality, so I doubt very much that they would be the most ready to resort to sodomy in prison.”

    The two most hostile races to homosexuality are negros and Arabs. There’s a psychological reason for this.

    The majority of the most virulent and violent homophobes are actually lashing out against themselves. The Arab world due to inbreeding is rift with homosexuality and paedophilia. When they throw a que*r from a rooftop, they are trying to kill that inner paedo/homo in themselves. When they lash out at homos on the street, it’s for the same reason.

    Even among Whites’ homophobia is largely rooted in distress the “macho” homophobe felt when he randomly and unexpectedly felt sexual desire for some male or other.

    The negros are slightly different kettles of fish. While inbreeding does result from the rape strategy they evolved to pass on their genes, their propensity to easily switch between hetrosexuality and homosexuality is rooted in their position on the evolutionary ladder.

    Think of a male dog, he has to sense the hormones emitted by a bitch to switch-on his desire to copulate with her. If the bitch is not in-heat, the male dog feels no desire to mate with her.

    But imagine if a freak of evolution meant the gene in the male dog that the in-heat bitches’ hormones switches-on, stayed active all the time. Then the male dog with his small brain would attempt fu*k every bitch he came across. And if there were no bitches around, well one hole is as good as the other.

  155. turtle says:
    @anarchyst

    The “beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against white Americans, which, in itself was a violation of “posse comitatus”–the prohibition of the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes.

    Remember Kent State
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

    Note that Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhauer, and Geo. S. Patton were the commanders of the federal troops which dispersed the Bonus Army during the Great Depression.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

    The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

    • Thanks: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anon
  156. Anonymous[168] • Disclaimer says:
    @omegabooks

    Gates is jewish, retard.

  157. Anonymous[168] • Disclaimer says:
    @SafeNow

    How unfortunate they were cordial to you. No Californian deserves such treatment.

  158. anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @turtle

    Remember Kent State

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

    the reason the MSM made such a huuuuuuuuuge deal out of Kent State is that at least 3 of the 4 killed were jews

    surprise surprise

    “MAY 4TH MASSACRE !!!!!!”

    “KENT STATE MASSACRE !!!!”

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @anarchyst
  159. Malla says:
    @Fufu

    Not theory but fact.

    Westerners had no money

    LOL, What???

    hey conquered colonies in order to lost more money.

    They conquered colonies for a number of reason but the prime driving force was preventing the other European power getting control of a territory or denying a territory to an European rival due to trade, resources or strategic locations. Denial of territory in case of an economic or military confrontation or you can avoid the other side from doing the same to you by taking the territory first. Basically Europe had become SO powerful by the 1500s that inter European competition and politics overflowed into the rest of the World.
    In the 1920s Britain alone was generating more revenue than the rest of the Empire combines including settler and non settler parts of the Empire, indeed Britain itself generated double the revenues than the rest of the Empire combined.
    Also worth noting that, the gap in per capita income in between Europe/Japan and the Third World increased enormously with decolonization. That is, after giving independence to most of it’s colonies, the relative prosperity of the colonies w.r.t the mother country decreased much much more than what was during the Empires.
    The Great Divergence in between the West and the Third World predates colonial empires and post dates colonial empires and the Divergence increased further with decolonization.

    • Replies: @Fufu
  160. Malla says:
    @anon

    Agreed, indeed many of these colonial Empires were transfer of wealth from the commoners of the home country to the elites (many jewish) of the home country. In other words the commoners of the home country were taxed to maintain the Empires while the elites got benefits. Britain during Empire was one of the highest taxed nations on Earth.
    But the same elites promote post-colonisation literature, leftist movements etc…

    • Replies: @Malla
  161. anarchyst says:
    @anon

    You are correct.
    Most people accept the “official narrative” about the Kent State “massacre” without investigating for themselves “what really happened”.
    It turns out that there were “agents provocateurs” (outsiders) of the communist persuasion who were fomenting “hate and discontent” among the college students, as well as wreaking havoc and destruction on the local businesses in the town. Their agenda was to destroy civil society, using the college students for their own nefarious purposes. College students are the easiest types to “dupe”.
    The local businesses begged for intervention to stop the rioting for approximately a week before troops were called in.
    The troops were National Guard reservists with no experience in crowd and riot control.
    It was easy to see that they could be “spooked” by the events going on around them as well as being personally attacked.
    Yes, it may be unfortunate that (not so innocent) people were killed, but the blame cannot be put on the National Guard, but must be placed on the communist (anti-war) agents provocateurs, outsiders, and the students themselves…

    • Agree: turtle
    • Replies: @turtle
  162. turtle says:
    @anarchyst

    It turns out that there were “agents provocateurs” (outsiders) of the communist persuasion

    And not just @ Kent State. Communist subversion, as we both know, having lived through it, was endemic to that era. Their “public face,” for as long as they could get away with it, was “anti-war” protests, for which there was widespread, and eventually mainstream, support.

    Under the surface, however, there was certainly a contingent of avowed Marxists and their dupes, which certainly included naive and gullible university students. Some of the subversives (students and others) would even admit to being Commies if called out; others would dissemble, and flat out lie, about their beliefs and intentions.

    There is something rather ludicrous about seeing a Wellesley girl from Darien, CT sit cross legged on the carpet, wearing faded and torn blue jeans, and listening to her piously declare that “property is theft.” Or listening to her classmate from Oak Park, IL, an erstwhile Goldwater supporter, pretend to be a “student radical,” that being the “trendy” thing to do in 1968.

  163. Fufu says:
    @Malla

    #166 and #167 Malla

    “Not theory but fact.”

    Facts are that many nations desperately fought to break Westerner’s domination starting c.a.1800 in Haiti and South America. Why if they lived better under colonialism than before one ?

    “But the same elites promote post-colonisation literature, leftist movements etc…”.

    They promote this such vigorously that today many nations are neo-colonialized and soon they will be under totall electronic slavery made by “brilliant” Westerners.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  164. anon[920] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fufu

    Facts are that many nations desperately fought to break Westerner’s domination starting c.a.1800 in Haiti and South America. Why if they lived better under colonialism than before one ?

    truth ^^

    apparently slaves were treated horribly in South America, especially Brazil, where they were worked to death in 5-6 years because the trip from Brazil to west Africa and back was much shorter than the US-Europe-West Africa-Caribbean route and as a result the slaves cost less

    They promote this such vigorously that today many nations are neo-colonialized and soon they will be under totall electronic slavery made by “brilliant” Westerners.

    if you look closely you will see that most of the “Westerners” who are benefiting from this have names like Goldbergstein, Silverblattberg, Levine, Shapiro, Dimond, Kristol, etc.

    The average Levine in the US has 20x the wealth of the average American, Levines are 6x more likely to have a household income over \$200k and 3x more likely to have household income over \$100k than the average American (Pew Research). Levines are 15-20x over-represented on the Forbes 400 billionaires list, 4x over-represented in the House of Representatives, 5x over in the US Senate, 10x on the Supreme Court and 20x in Biden’s cabinet including occupying 5 of the 6 most powerful positions. Levines run 18 of the 25 largest hedge funds including Blackrock and Vanguard.

    Levines are 1000% over-represented in the British Parliament.

    Levines for some reason occupy the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of Ukraine and were the 2 previous Prime Ministers and also occupy about a third of the Ukrainian Parliament despite the fact that they are less than 1/8th of 1% of the population.

  165. @White refugee in USA

    How about Euros importing themselves to this continent and genocide-ing hundreds of millions of 13000 year inhabitants? Got advice?

    • Replies: @anon
  166. Malla says:
    @Fufu

    Why if they lived better under colonialism than before one ?

    Some local elites fooled them because they wanted power?
    Most anti-colonial “heroes” were local elites, most of them got brainwashed in Western Universities with Marxist bullshit and came back radicalised. The million dollar question is why were these Western countries allowing such rubbish in their Universities?

    neo-colonialized

    Neo colonization is one more bullshit theory pushed by leftists because they expected the West to collapse after decolonization and have a revolution of the proletariat. This did not happen as the West was not that dependent on the Third World in reality. In Marxist and third world literature it was so but not reality. And decolonization actually benefited the West. But to keep up the idiotic theory, this theory of neo colonisation is being pushed.
    Now you have Wall Street hitmen who do go for loot, but it was the same Wall Street which funded anti-colonial projects and decolonization from European Empires and destroyed the Japanese Empire via war.
    And according to KGB agent Jack Barsky, the Soviets/ Warsaw pact commies were pushing this theory of post colonial West “looting” the Third World to explain to their own people on the know, why the working class of the West lived far better than their own Working class. It should have been opposite. No, the Soviet elites said, they are so rich because they exploit the Third World. Even thought this was bullshit.

  167. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Agreed, indeed many of these colonial Empires were transfer of wealth from the commoners of the home country to the elites (many jewish) of the home country.

    That is why this American “empire”, is harmful for the average American. Americans are taxed while the ((elites)) get the benefits. And that is why it would benefit Americans to become more isolationist and at the same time reverse non White immigration. Reverse, Invade the World invite the World, elite ideology.However the USA might have to get involved in the far East. The Far East might be the USA’s last foreign engagement, which is a good thing. Let Israel protect itself and not ride on the back of the USA.

  168. Malla says:
    @Fufu

    Most of those rich elites of the colonies went to the European metropoles and got brainwashed with socialism, anti-colonialism crackpottery and Marxism. Then they came back to rile up the placid masses against the same Empires, and later after Independence unleashed stupid post-colonial socialist crackpottery to torpedo their own country to shithole. That is a big story of decolonisation. Same story for British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc…Empires. Examples among many are Nehru (India), Kwame (Ghana), Nyerere (Tanzania), Kenyatta (Kenya) etc..
    Nehru and the Indian revolutionary leaders got influenced by a Marxist Jewish crackpot named Lansky (pro Soviet, hated Hitler) in Britain when they were getting educated there. Independent India was a Lanskian Socialist economy with low Hindu rate of growth until bankruptcy in 1990s. But at least Nehru was not a thaggard, at least he was a gentleman, other nations were not that lucky. So decolonisation and some form of Marxism was indoctrinated into these Westernised the metropoles of the European empires themselves!!!!! Wow!!

    Empire of the Mind: Episode 10: Victims of Anti-Colonialism

    Video about Suriname and the brutal thaggard Surinamese dictator Dési Bouterse and the Dutch Empire.
    Check out the elderly black Surinamese grandma woman Lisette Munslag say at 7:14 minutes in the above video: “I think there was still the people who went to the Netherlands. They got educated over there. Agitators. Social agitators all educated in the Netherlands and they brought back the dynamic of like okay..we need to become independent. They got..they got educated in the Netherlands by the anti-colonial mindset right…they get educated they get indoctrinated with EXACTLY (her stress) the things that were not good for the developing countries. They brought all um..Can I use the word….all the garbage. …All the garbage that was not uh uh beneficial or productive for people in the colonies. They brought all those things back, social destabilising environment, political upheavel…so I was 13…”continued.

    Earlier at 5:34 minutes in the above video Dr. Gilley says: “But Suriname’s radicals educated in European cafes made common cause with the radicals of the ruling Labour Party”
    Same story in nearly all colonies, western educated elites from colonies, educated in Western European Universities came back radicalized. Not radicalized in Moscow or Beijing or Pyongyang but in British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc…universities.

    • Replies: @Fufu
  169. anon[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Los Audacity

    How about Euros importing themselves to this continent and genocide-ing hundreds of millions of 13000 year inhabitants? Got advice?

    there weren’t hundreds of millions of 13000 year old inhabitants on the continent but even if there were it would have been no great loss since your kind contributed nothing other than cutting out beating hearts and playing soccer with human heads. The odd thing is your kind never complain when you kill each other and get killed by each other, only when whitey does it do you suddenly have a big problem with it

  170. Fufu says:
    @Malla

    #173 and #175 Malla

    You ignore simple facts that colonialized people dozens times preferred to die in fight than live in “paradise” made for them by Westerners.

    And when they finally freed (to some degree) in 1960s you don’t want to see that Westerners didn’t surrend and applied neo-colonialism: they are supporting social unrests and coup d’état-s in Latin and South America, Africa and Asia.

    Final word.

    Every complex issue (like colonialism) has good and bad features so it is matter of proportion in order to make final score.

    Westerner’s colonialism did 20% good things and 80% bad things that’s why it was (in general view) catastrophic idea.

    • Replies: @Malla
  171. Malla says:
    @Fufu

    You ignore simple facts that colonialized people dozens times preferred to die in fight than live in “paradise” made for them by Westerners.

    You ignore the facts I wrote, most of those anti-colonial movements were fake.

    Final word.

    Westerner’s colonialism did 20% good things and 80% bad things that’s why it was (in general view) catastrophic idea.

    Idiotic analysis. Western colonialism was 80% positive and 20% negative on average. It was a catastrophic idea yes, for the West.

  172. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Ultimately, ALL wars are matters of economics!

  173. Shafar Nullifidian: “Ultimately, ALL wars are matters of economics! ”

    Economics isn’t the sole motive for all human activity.

    • Replies: @Autisticus Spasticus
  174. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Can you answer the question I asked you? Go back to my comment, number 145. I would really like to know the answer. Thanks.

  175. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Autisticus Spasticus

    > “Since the Jews seem to control virtually everything, and have done for a very long time, why did they ever allow Hitler to come to power?”

    1. They don’t.

    2. If they do, maybe, because Hitler was too predictable? He had laid out his plans back in Mein Kampf, and was indeed easily pushed towards Russia to self-destruct. (Although again, contemporary people seem not to have valued Russia highly enough, so idk.)

    This Russian boyo has made a video listing all the mistakes of Germany in WW2 – also paying due attention to English spies such as Canaris.

    • Replies: @Autisticus Spasticus
  176. anarchyst says:
    @anon

    This was the same situation with Kyle Rittenhouse who defended himself against three jewish criminals, one of them being a convicted pedophile child molester, all three of them being career criminals.
    It is interesting to note that both the Kenosha county sheriff and Kenosha city police chief are both jews. This is why the judicial system went after Rittenhouse.

  177. @Adûnâi

    I don’t speak Russian, so I can’t understand a word he’s saying. Are there any English speakers who make similar criticisms?

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anthony Bryan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2