RSS
C. Furnas, The Road to Harpers Ferry, William Sloan Associates, 1959, 477 pp. (hard bound, out of print, but available used).
It has become such a fashion to deplore American slavery that liberals call it America’s “original sin.” We must despise any man who had anything to do with it, no matter how heroic or accomplished. Surely, George Washington will eventually end up in the doghouse, along with Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson.
How recently were scholars writing balanced, academic studies of slavery? If you go back as far as 1959, you will find a remarkable book called The Road to Harpers Ferry, by J. C. Furnas (1905–2001). He was an independent journalist and historian, who was a middle-of-the road liberal for his time. Free of today’s compulsion to treat history like a morality play, he traced American slavery from the beginnings of the slave trade up to John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry. He has many fascinating — and by today’s standards “racist” — observations, but his analysis of the motives of abolitionists is especially eye-opening.
Furnas leaves no doubt that John Brown was a charismatic crank verging on lunacy, but his portrayal of other abolitionists is just as scathing. Some were thoughtful, and they brought millions of Northerners around to abolitionism, but many were fanatics, motivated by what Furnas calls “100-proof hate.” Many didn’t seem to care much about blacks at all; they were driven by blazing fury against slaveowners and Southerners. Furnas — who was Yankee-born in Indianapolis and died in New Jersey — makes these people sound exactly like today’s crazed “anti-racists.”
It started in Africa
Furnas reports that a big part of the abolitionist view was a refusal to see the world as it was, and that a “paradisaical West Africa full of sweet-tempered primitives was a cardinal article of faith with early partisans of the Negro slave.” He counters this with contemporary accounts. Three hundred fifty years ago, a Frenchman called West African blacks “lewd and lazy to excess,” and another complained that “so slothful are the natives that if they have but one bad year, they are in danger of starving.” As an example of African simplemindedness, Furnas writes, “Dahomeyan royalty acquired twenty-odd cannon by purchase or capture, but never mounted them for use as artillery. They could go boom in prestige salutes well enough lying on the ground, touchhole up.” In defense of the Dahomey, anyone who has heard a black-powder cannon go off can imagine what a thrill it was for them.
And there were competently run kingdoms. The Ashanti “were as gold-greedy as any Spanish or English freebooter. They loved the stuff because it meant ready command of firearms and gunpowder for the wars that fascinated them, but also, miserlike, for its own massy, gleaming ductile brilliance.” Moreover, “early Europeans admired the intensive plantation farming of the well-organized Kingdom of Benin, where Negro grandees got much efficient work out of their gangs of Negro slaves.”
“West Africans took slavery as much for granted as drumming,” writes Furnas. “Where people were property,” he adds, “it was natural to ‘pawn’ a child as security to be reared by the creditor and, if payment failed, retained as a slave or maybe sold in liquidation.” The Ashanti went on regular slave-catching raids, as if they were cattle roundups. They also practiced human sacrifice. In most other societies, it was to propitiate gods by offering them something valuable, but Furnas writes that Africans slaughtered slaves and prisoners to supply ancestors with servants in the afterlife.
Long-distance slave catching was rare because a long trek back to market could mean deaths along the way, which reduced profits. Moreover, “no buyer would look at the feeble, bony survivors until after costly feeding-up.” Stronger tribes therefore preyed on neighbors. Like the American Indians and the Māori of New Zealand, when the white man came, Africans never united to resist him; tribes hated each other.
The white man comes
When whites began to explore the coast they found a ready-made network of slave-catching and slave-selling, and slaves became important in the triangular trade. In the age of sail, it was very hard for Europeans to beat against prevailing winds directly across the North Atlantic. It was much easier to follow the wind south to Africa and exchange manufactured goods for slaves. The next step — the middle passage — was to ride the easterly winds in the lower latitudes to the New World and exchange slaves for sugar, cotton, and tobacco; then run back to Europe on the northern westerlies.
The middle passage usually took seven or eight weeks, but could be made in as few as three.
When the trade began in the 16th century, slavers had to cruise the coast, picking up a dozen slaves here, a score there, and it took time to load. Later, slave-trading ports were established, where a ship could quickly load a full cargo of several hundred. This required fortifications to protect both slaves and landed European trade goods from African raiders. Europeans therefore built forts, such as Gorée in Senegal, and Anamabo and Elmina in Ghana. Elmina Castle was the first — and now the oldest — European-style building south of the Sahara, built originally by the Portuguese in 1482 for the gold and ivory trade.
For Africans, there was no stigma to buying and selling people, but in Europe and America, slave traders were universally despised. Work on a slaver was a last resort for seamen. As for the trading stations, Furnas writes that “landsman enlisting with the monopoly companies as supervisors, armed guards or clerks, had to face years in festering West Africa, so those whom shiftlessness, hope of adventure, despair or ignorance induced to do so were probably even lower than slaver seamen.” As for captains, in 1786, the deputy town clerk of Liverpool said he knew only one “who did not deserve long ago to be hanged.”
Africans were happy to work for whites in the trade, and the Kru tribe of what is now Ivory Coast and Liberia had a high reputation for resisting slavery for themselves but cheerfully practicing it on others:
Slavery was all very well for non-Kru Negroes whom they fed, flogged, guarded and, as coastal deck crews on slavers, helped to exile. But slavery for Kru men themselves was unthinkable. They preferred to commit suicide or die of sheer chagrin or remain recalcitrant to a degree ruining all commercial value.
Furnas impolitely adds: “Had all West Africans resisted by-and-sell slavery for themselves as sturdily as did the Kru, the United States would never have had a Negro problem.”
As many historians have noted, slavery in the United States was different from that of the rest of the New World, where owners imported men and worked them to death. Between 1712 and 1762, Barbados landed 150,000 slaves, but its slave population grew by only 28,000. The most profitable cargoes for the Caribbean were therefore men between the ages of 16 and 35 with a few women for house slaves. African middleman usually killed any males whom whites would not buy because it was a waste of money to keep unsaleable goods alive.
On the islands, few masters tried to convert slaves to Christianity, but in North America, Christianity greatly improved their treatment. Furnas notes that the West Indies were the worst possible places for slaves: They worked on huge plantations owned by absentee landlords who cared nothing for them, and were driven by brutal, third-rate whites. Furnas also notes that unlike in the American South, where slaves almost never worked bare breasted, in the West Indies, African custom prevailed, and some women wore nothing at all.
Today, much is made of the horrors of the middle passage, and a death rate of 15 percent on a voyage was not uncommon. However, many white crew and trans-Atlantic passengers also died. Furnas quotes what he calls “a fairly impartial observer [who] noted in the early 1800s that, thanks (he thought) to their being stowed naked and on a vegetable diet, the average cargo of slaves came ashore in the West Indies in better shape than the average unit of troops.” Furnas points out that it was good business to keep valuable slaves alive and healthy: “Whereas slaver captains and surgeons usually received small bonuses per slave landed, deaths at sea were profitable to emigrant ships, for emigrants paid fares in advance and no longer consumed provisions once their dead bodies had slid over side.”
Later in the trade, the British imposed limits on the number of slaves that could be transported, but: “[the rule of] three slaves to two tons of ship imposed by Britain in 1788 was the same ratio as that for British soldiers on transports 40 years later.” As for fraternization below decks, “the hands were supposed to stay away from the slave women, not for decorum, but to prevent quarrels. In well-disciplined ships the rule was observed.”
Just being in Africa was deadly for whites: “In 1825, a detachment of 108 British soldiers stationed in Gambia lost 87 men in four months.” Furnas notes that on the island of Fernando Po (now called Bioko and part of Equatorial Guinea), the death rate for whites was so high that the commandant always had two details constantly busy, one making coffins, the other digging graves.
It is common to believe that whipping slaves was an unparalleled horror; far from it. Furnas points out that until the mid-1800s, flogging was standard discipline in all European armies. It was not abolished in the US Navy until 1862 and persisted in the British Navy until 1881. For the worst non-capital crimes, a British seamen could be “flogged round the fleet:” rowed to every ship in port where he got 12 lashes on each. In some cases, this was a death sentence.
Stopping the slave trade
The British banned the slave trade within the empire in 1807 and the United States banned it in 1808. The British were much more vigilant in suppressing the trade than the Americans, and maintained a strong fleet off the West African coast. Almost all smuggled slaves went to Brazil and the Caribbean. They were so rare in the United States that in 1859, two freshly landed Africans were exhibited at the South Carolina State Fair as exotic curiosities.
British captains and crews won payments for catching slave ships, but until 1840, there had to be slaves found on board, which led to cat-and-mouse games. A slaver might hover off the African coast, waiting for a chance to dash in, take on a shipload of slaves, and sail away before a patrol arrived. If a British ship appeared, the slave captain quickly returned to port, unloaded the slaves and avoided arrest. In 1834, after Captain Richard Meredith of MHS Pelarus was foiled this way several times, he marched slaves back on board, declared the ship a slaver, and took ship and slaves to Sierra Leone, the haven the British had established for freed slaves. The shipowner sued for damages, and Meredith had to pay more than £1,000 — the equivalent of about 6-1/2 years’ pay. After 1840, under the “equipment clause” captains could confiscate an empty ship merely equipped with such things as manacle and a suspiciously large supply of food.
Capture by the British was not always a gift. A crew of navy men had to sail the ship up to Sierra Leone, but that was a difficult voyage against the wind. This could make the time at sea much longer than the anticipated middle passage, but with no extra food. Freedom for some slaves could mean emaciation or starvation for others. British sailors themselves were often hungry; ship’s rats were known as “midshipman’s rabbit.”
After 1820, slave trading was a crime for Americans — the equivalent of piracy — and carried the death penalty, but only one American slave captain, Nathaniel Gordon of Maine, was executed for it. He was hanged in 1860, after a career of running slaves to Brazil and Cuba, where the slave trade was still legal.
Abolition mania
The British abolition campaign was the first “social movement,” of the kind so familiar today. Dedicated people wrote tracts, gave lectures, preached from pulpits, and lobbied Parliament with the goal of ending, first, the slave trade and then slavery itself. One of the goals of ending the trade was to reduce the supply of slaves, who were commonly worked to death, in the hope that their value would increase and owners would treat them better. As in the United States, women were fervent, indispensable supporters.
In both countries, abolition was overwhelmingly Christian. Furnas describes the influential British abolitionists who became known as the Clapham Sect: “In their view, the principal reason for thinking West Indian slavery evil was not so much that it whipped and bullied Negroes — though that was a crying shame too — as that it denied their souls opportunity for salvation and tempted masters to cruelty and fornication.” It did not much matter whether abolition improved the lives of slaves; the goal was to convert them. Furnas offers abolitionist Thomas Buxton as an example of absurd piety. He was being driven in a coach at night when it overturned in an accident. He wrote:
As I was not injured, I did not feel in the slightest disturbed. I put on my spectacles, exchanged my cap for my hat, ascended through the broken window, and got upon the body of the coach, where I immediately delivered a lecture to the coachman on the impropriety of swearing at any time, but especially at the moment of delivery from danger.
American abolitionists worried that if the country persisted in slavery — which they considered a sin — America would be punished by God. “Hence so many abolitionists sounded as if they denounced slavery and slaveholders not so much because they felt for the slave’s miseries and valued his dignity and welfare as a human being as because to keep quiet would risk their own chances of personal salvation.” They believed that “the righteous man sins against God unless he makes every possible effort to reform erring brothers.”
Furnas argues that many abolitionists, Christian or not, were mentally unbalanced. The movement had:
An enticing savor of infallibility that attracted schizoid arrogance — a crucial ingredient in most crankishness — though often below the pathological level. It lent antislaveryism a greater appeal to those secretly proud of possessing the higher sensitivity, greater intelligence and social courage implied by their previous espousing of such glowing causes as phrenology and vegetarianism. The religious crank often added to the above theology a deep conviction that the end of the world was nigh and his battle against others’ sins had to be frantically intensified, lest the great day find him and his allies unfaithful stewards.
Furnas writes that “many an abolitionist of Old [John] Brown’s time thus piled multiple causes, some admirable, some freakish on one another, and combined antislaveryism with behavior that was, to say the least of it, neurotic.”
Abolition thus united legions of cranks: “Practically every reformer was antislavery . . . and conversely, Abolitionism derived much of its special momentum from the abnormally vivacious energies of the Reformers,” who were full of “wishful credulity, mistrust of objective reality, self-dramatization.”
They were like anti-racists today: all-purpose fanatics. Today, whatever else he is, every climate-change nut, militant nudist, Covid-commissar, story-hour drag queen, Antifa militant, anarchist, or Trotskyite is sure to be an anti-racist. And just like his psychological forebears, he is determined to force his views on everyone.
Abolitionists in both countries had abiding delusions. One was that slaves were noble innocents, chafing under the yoke, always ready to rise up for freedom. In Britain, there were several stage plays about idealized slave rebellion. One was called Three-Fingered Jack; another was Oroonok. These dramas firmly planted “the Negro-noble-savage-rebel in the pervasive cant of the day,” and spread the falsehood that whites went into the interior to capture Africans.
Abolitionists suppressed the fact that Africans had long enslaved each other and sold excess stock to whites. Likewise, in Jamaica, Suriname, and Saint Thomas, escaped slaves set up free villages in the jungle, but were not abolitionists. They didn’t lift a finger to help the remaining slaves.
For British and American abolitionists, the Haitian revolution was the model for what they hoped for elsewhere. Furnas notes that “the greatest effort that the Negro slave ever made in his own behalf, left his country ruined — ruined still to this day,” but abolitionists touted it as a great success. Haiti-as-black-paradise was at the top of “a long list of well-meaning fictions uttered by antislaveryites in the wishful belief that lies whiten in proportion to the righteousness of the liars’ intent.” In 1838, the American Anti-Slavery Society sent agents to Haiti to find data to prove that blacks could govern themselves. Their report was never published, no doubt because they found the opposite of what they looked for.
Furnas argues that abolitionism eventually veered from Christian duty into hatred: “Fervid reprehension of others’ sins leads almost irresistibly to sinner hating.” William Lloyd Garrison said of Southern congressmen: “We do not acknowledge them to be within the pale of Christianity . . . of humanity.” He called slaveholders “human hyenas and jackals who delight to listen to Negro groans, to revel in Negro blood, and to batten upon human flesh.” Abolitionists thrilled to every tale of slaveholder cruelty, real or imagined; it justified hatred.
The famous lady reformer, Angelina Grimke was once asked if she were not exaggerating the cruelty of slavery. She replied, “They cannot be exaggerated. It is impossible for imagination to go beyond the facts.”
For evidence of the near-insanity of some of the abolitionists, Furnas explains how Haiti assumed a new and different significance:
Hayti’s failure to stabilize herself gradually grew so glaring that fewer and fewer stateside antislaveryites, however careless about the facts, could respect the new nation. The immense impact of Hayti on them came rather from the blood-lustful assault of Negroes and affranchis [freed blacks] on the whites. These were taken to mean that a slave economy necessarily seethed with readiness to conspire and rebel; that such risings stood a good chance of success; that they inevitably meant looting, arson, torture, death and rape after the Haytian example.
One of John Brown’s backers was Thomas Parker, a deeply religious man, whom one of the leading abolitionists, Lydia Maria Child, called “the greatest man, morally and intellectually, that our country ever produced.” He wrote: “The fire of vengeance may be waked up even in an African’s heart, especially when it is fanned by the wickedness of a white man; then it runs from man to man, from town to town. What shall put it out? The white man’s blood!”
James Redpath was an abolitionist journalist who promoted John Brown and later wrote his biography. For him, there was no price too high to pay for freedom for blacks: “If only one man survived to relate how his race heroically fell, and to enjoy the freedom they had won, the liberty of that solitary Negro would be cheaply purchased by the universal slaughter of his people and their oppressors.”
Furnas writes of Garrison: “He never doubted that such a black army would gather [for insurrection] on summons. He felt only abstract revulsion from the bestial horror that he assumed would follow, slaves massacring whites, and then, with cumulative viciousness, whites massacring slaves as numbers and outside help began to tell.”
The most fanatical abolitionists came so to hate slaveholders that they regretted having even to live in the same country with them. Garrison began to despise the American nation itself because it countenanced slavey. The Union was “conceived in sin,” “brought forth in iniquity,” “a covenant with death,” “an agreement with hell,” a “refuge of lies.” Many abolitionists wanted to sever ties with the South because slavery was a disease “too deep for cure without amputation.”
Furnas argues that hatred of slaveowners became more intense than concern for slaves. He notes that Garrison didn’t care much for actual black people, and swindled free blacks to get ready money. Julia Ward Howe, a prominent abolitionist best known for writing the lyrics to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” also thought slavery was so horrible that the South should be hived off. Yet, during a trip to the Caribbean in 1859 she wrote about blacks, whom she called “the raw material out of which Northern Humanitarians have spun so fine a skein of compassion and sympathy:”
The negro of the North is an ideal negro; it is the negro refined by white culture, elevated by white blood, instructed even by white iniquity; — the negro among negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature, ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest of brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no use to anybody.
She added that the Negro’s nature was such as to suggest “the unwelcome question whether compulsory labor be not better than none?”
There are other reasons to doubt the motives of abolitionists. In the 1830s and ’40s there had been proposals for gradual and sometimes compensated abolition, but this annoyed abolitionists. As late as 1857, Elihu Burritt, a diplomat and reformer of considerable stature, called for federal action to free the slaves and compensate owners by selling federal land. Garrison called this “paying a thief for giving up stolen property, and not acknowledging that his crime was a crime.” Furnas writes: “Whether any such abortive schemes would have done well if tried in good faith is speculative. But Abolitionists’ consistent scorn of them does suggest lack of primary interest in slave-freeing.”
Certainly, there were decent, thoughtful men in the anti-slavery movement. Furnas admires Theodore Dwight Weld, for example, who opposed slavery on ethical grounds and neither exaggerated the horrors of slavery nor the abilities of blacks. He faced down hostile crowds, and was beaten up more than once. Still, Furnas writes that “the cranks’ high visibility made antislaveryism look at once ridiculous and incendiary.” He argues that Garrison, who fought with practically everyone else in the movement, became well known only because so many Southern papers cited him — sometimes unfairly — as the typical abolitionist. This only entrenched pro-slavery feeling in the South.
Garrison was also unusual in insisting that freed slaves be treated as social and political equals, which also made him the perfect bogeyman for slaveowners. The vast majority of abolitionists opposed equality, and many wanted to “colonize” free blacks outside the United States.
Furnas argues that it was the screaming of men like Garrison and Redpath that began to make Southerners think there could be no compromise with the North. And then came the raid on Harper’s Ferry.
John Brown
“Old Brown,” as Furnas calls him to distinguish him from his sons, was clearly unhinged. He tried many businesses and failed in all of them, but he was good at making children: He had seven with his first wife, and after she died, produced 13 more with his second. It was finally as a violent abolitionist that he found his calling. He moved out to Kansas from New England and led gangs battling anyone who supported slavery. He raided their homesteads, stealing money, horses, cattle, household goods — anything of value. As one of his sons admitted years later, he supervised what became known as the Potawatomi Massacre. During the night of May 24–25 1856, his men hacked five unresisting pro-slavery men to death in front of their families.
Brown, steeped in the Bible and convinced he was God’s chosen instrument, had Rasputin-like charisma — at least for whites. Bronson Alcott wrote, “Our best people contribute something in aid of his plans without asking particulars. Such confidence does he inspire.” He was also a consummate showman. When he stayed with supporters, he ostentatiously checked his revolvers and rifles every night before going to bed, and warned his hostesses their carpets might be spoiled with blood: “You know I cannot be taken alive.” He rejoiced at the thought of slave insurrections and the massacre of whites. In different times, he would have been a Chinese Red Guard, a Bolshevik hitman, or an abortion-clinic-bomber.
Brown cultivated rich and influential abolitionists, and his six main backers became known as “the secret six.”
He helped convince them that slavery must be ended with violence, and they helped him buy 200 rifles and 200 revolvers for slave insurrection. Brown also bought 950 pikes to distribute to blacks who were unfamiliar with firearms.
But he had had little success with blacks. Twice in 1858, with the help of Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, he went to Canada to recruit free blacks for his fight to end slavery. They showed better judgment than whites; they thought he was a madman. His 21 Harpers Ferry foot soldiers included only one Canadian among its five blacks — along with three of Brown’s sons.
The scheme was insane from the start. If he was going to inspire blacks to revolt, his inability to recruit more than a handful should have given him pause. Furnas points out that American slave rebellions were often led by religious zealots: “In order to raise the slaves round Harpers Ferry, Old Brown should have enlisted some conspicuous local Negro preacher with religious delusions of grandeur as marked as his own.” Brown also chose a terrible place for the raid. There were few slaves in the area — hardly any plantation workers — and most were well-treated house servants. And Brown made no effort to alert and mobilize slaves. What Harper’s Ferry did have was a federal arsenal, but Brown already had more weapons than he could use.
The plan — so far as Brown had a plan — was to free enough blacks to establish a slave republic in the Allegheny Mountains, for which Brown would write a constitution, and where blacks would learn useful trades. But Brown waited until October to make his move; winter was the worst time to go camping in the mountains. Some historians think he wanted to head South, inspiring insurrections wherever he went.
The raid itself was comic — and deadly. The first man his gang killed was a free black man named Hayward Shepherd. The arsenal didn’t even have an armed guard, and was taken with ease. Brown should have loaded up weapons and left immediately. Instead, he took hostages and waited — no one knows why. His men holed up in a brick building and took potshots at citizens, killing six, including the mayor, and wounding five.
Two days later, US Marines under Robert E. Lee flushed the raiders out in three minutes, losing one man. They killed 10 of Brown’s men. Five escaped, and seven were caught, tried, and executed.
Aftermath
For Southerners, the Harpers Ferry raid was terrifying; what came later was appalling. After Brown was hanged for treason, people spoke of him as if, instead of killing unoffending strangers and planning to kill thousands more, he had piously laid down his life for the slaves in a hunger strike. Before he swung, Ralph Waldo Emerson said Brown “will make the gallows glorious like the cross.” Wendell Phillips said, “John Brown is the impersonation of God’s order and God’s law, molding a better future.” Henry David Thoreau wrote, “He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an Angel of light.” Once he had failed as an insurrectionist, Brown relished the prospect of martyrdom. There was widespread outrage in the North that he and his men should be executed for having taken up such a noble cause.
This was beyond comprehension in the South. If this was what Yankees thought, coexistence was impossible. Just as some abolitionists preferred partition rather than share a country with slavery, Southerners could not live with such people. Coming on the heels of the sanctification of a murderous madman, Lincoln’s election in 1860 pushed the South into secession. Thus, did Old Brown help set bloodshed in motion — surely enough slaughter of white men to satisfy his ghost.
Fifty-four years after publication, The Road to Harpers Ferry is as insightful and readable an account of the prelude to America’s greatest tragedy as any that today’s reader is likely to find.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
‘For Africans, there was no stigma to buying and selling people, but in Europe and America, slave traders were universally despised’
What a blatant lie by Taylor! The same people kidnapping English children off the streets of London for a life of indentured servitude in the colonies despised slavery?
Give it a rest!
You are usually less polemical than this.
Not a word about the Jewish involvement in the African Slave Trade.
J-E-W must be a 4 letter word to good ole boy, JT.
Just one small point in a very interesting and informative article (I have already ordered the Furnas book):
“One of John Brown’s backers was Thomas Parker”. It was Theodore Parker, I believe.
You are correct.
Under the Protestant “ethic”, a person who was unable to secure work, even due to circumstances beyond his control, was considered to be a criminal and was quite often locked up for vagrancy or homelessness.
You see, Protestants follow the jewish principles on “success” while embracing the “robber baron” mentality of the day which was to secure labor at the lowest cost possible while amassing great fortunes for themselves on the backs of their employees.
From time-to-time the “workhouses” were emptied with those unfortunates being “sold” into indenture and shipped to the “new world”. This was also the case in Ireland where many thousands if not more suffered the same fate.
Those indentured were given the most dangerous jobs as their “terms of service” were (supposed to be) limited.
Chattel slaves were considered to be “investments” which needed to be cared for much more than indentured servants.
Who owned the slave ships Jared, who owned the markets???
Why did they close on Saturday and not Sunday Jared?
Who were 78% of slave owners Jared?
Jared Taylor: “In both [England and America], abolition was overwhelmingly Christian. … Furnas argues that many abolitionists, Christian or not, were mentally unbalanced.”
If Christians sincerely believe the tenets of their own religion, they are ALL mentally unbalanced. It’s a psychotic belief system! Christianity’s the belief that a man who claims to be his own father and talks to invisible entities is actually God. Not only that, but the Christian believes that this character walks around battling demons, walks on water, makes food materialize out of thin air, and brings corpses, including his own, back to life. Next to this, believing that negroes are equal to whites and should be given citizenship and the vote was easy.
The multi-racial, multi-cultural cesspool America is today is a direct result of Christian irrationality.
All human beings entertain irrational belief systems, without being the least bit psychotic. Christians are no worse than anyone else in this respect. Homo sapiens is not a rational species. And I have to say, I’m detecting more than a whiff of John Brown-style fanaticism in your own comment.
Just ordered a copy. Looking forward to reading this book.
Oh, come on. Judaism, for instance, is founded on the belief that a man met a burning talking tree which gave him a magic stick that could transform into a snake, and ordered him to use the magic snake-stick to scare the most powerful man in the world into doing things clearly against his empire’s interests; and when the emperor wouldn’t obey the crazy man with the magic snake-stick, the talking tree murdered every African male baby in the land, which is the basis for morality.
Compared to this, the Gospels are downright Euclid.
Given the demonic, destructive behavior of Zionists from the days of Jesus to the slaving era to the Marxists and Cousinhood banksters of the Jewish Century to ZOG stooge “liberals” and neocons of today, was he wrong?
G. Poulin: “All human beings entertain irrational belief systems, without being the least bit psychotic.”
Anyone who actually believes any of that stuff is psychotic. But most self-identified Christians nowadays are hypocrites like you. Not psychotic. Just liars who say they believe when they don’t.
“… I’m detecting more than a whiff of John Brown-style fanaticism in your own comment. ”
It wasn’t atheists who turned the negroes loose. It was Christians.
The Germ Theory of Disease: “Compared to [Judaism], the Gospels are downright Euclid. ”
Perhaps so, but the abolitionists were Christians, not Jews.
It’s good to see Taylor starting to place the blame for the America’s negro problem where it belongs though. His usual tack is to ignore how Christianity caused it.
Nice try shifting the blame from crypto-Jew “Protestants” or “Catholics” to the all-purpose Zionist punching bag “Christians.”
What a scam you Zionists have going: when caught warmongering, thieving, killing, slaving, mass murdering, drug dealing… just blame the “Christian” confederates who did it all on the payroll of ((Jews)) for 30 pieces of silver. And they’ll happily take the blame as “Christians” before disappearing into the woodwork with their loot.
You ((Jew)) stooges are pure poison. “Satanic” really does describe your level of evil.
Chris Moore: “Nice try shifting the blame from crypto-Jew “Protestants” or “Catholics” to the all-purpose Zionist punching bag “Christians.””
Not sure what you’re babbling about. Are you trying to say that Protestants and Catholics aren’t Christians? Do tell.
Someone at UR ( Mr Ron himself? ), in choosing the headline, is obviously having a joke at Taylor’s expense. The title is an obvious nod to Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents..
Prof MacDonald is not welcome at Taylor’s organ American Renaissance, but, back in the day ( 1999 ), when they still mentioned him, they published a critique of MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. A critique of a Critique, as it were.
https://www.amren.com/news/2020/06/culture-of-critique-jews-kevin-macdonald/
The final paragraphs were as dishonest as they were nauseating.
And yet, as is clear just from the articles that appear in American Renaissance, Jewish intellectuals are by no means unanimous in denying the importance of race. Jews are present in the foremost ranks of those who would reintegrate biology into the social sciences, stop Third-World immigration, and halt government interference in race relations. If Jews have undermined the traditions on which Western Civilization depends, so are they now undermining the liberal orthodoxy that continues to threaten those traditions.
There can be no doubting the energy and influence of this remarkable people. It would be foolish and ungrateful not to recognize that this energy and influence can help save what is left of a beleaguered civilization.
Pass the sickbag, Trinity.
It’s an interesting theory, that was proposed some few years ago, that the radical Abolitionist faction was composed of old line Yankee Puritan descendants. Traditionally they viewed themselves as the nation’s conscience, their role being to point out the mote in their brethren’s eye, so to speak. It’s often forgotten their forebears were exiled from England because of their narrow-minded intolerance. In any case, they had become irrelevant in a dramatically changing 19th century America that was expanding westward, rushing into the Industrial Era, the “mighty age of steam,” with the growing nation being knitted together by railroads and telegraph lines, and the very composition of the people changing with unrestricted immigration of (gasp!) Catholics from Ireland and Germany.
They hit upon slavery as the cause to promote to return themselves to their lost position of moral pre-eminence. And it worked, in the activist 1830s, and the movement peaked in the 1840s – but interest declined precipitously in the reactionary 1850s. Their spokesmen became more shrill as they became more irrelevant, but the dread specter of the abolitionist peril was happily exaggerated by the slavocracy, as a useful distraction in a south growing restive under their increasing economic dominance. Ironically, secession breathed a whole new life into the movement. Americans reacted to Fort Sumter the way later generations would react to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, allowing antislavers of all degrees to move into elected office as never before. In the incandescent rage that followed the cowardly murder of the president, the extremist faction was able to force its hugely unpopular agenda of racial equality on a nation eager to harshly punish the defeated south.
What surprised me most when first reading original antislavery literature is how little most would-be saviors actually thought of Africans, the men in particular, for being so spineless as to tolerate enslavement and worse, how “the chivalry” preyed on their womenfolk. The most reasonable argument against slavery was that weilding such total power over others demonstrably corrupted the morals of white men – and that an oligarchic clique would rather shatter the world’s only republic than accept democratically defined limits on expanding slavery where it was not welcome pretty much clinches that argument.
Looks like a great book. OF COURSE it’s out of print. It looks like it’s available at https://archive.org/details/roadtoharpersfer0000furn/page/n7/mode/2up
‘…Today, whatever else he is, every climate-change nut, militant nudist, Covid-commissar, story-hour drag queen, Antifa militant, anarchist, or Trotskyite is sure to be an anti-racist…’
Notta necessariree. I’m a ‘climate change nut,’ but far from being ‘anti-racist,’ I’m avowedly racist — at least with respect to blacks.
They may have despised the slaver without denying the necessity of slavery. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction here. I might admit the necessity of taxes without caring to become an auditor for the IRS myself. I can grant that some people need to be imprisoned without seeing the profession of gaoler as laudable.
‘It’s an interesting theory, that was proposed some few years ago, that the radical Abolitionist faction was composed of old line Yankee Puritan descendants…’
Indeed. It occurred to me while reading this that abolitionism must have owed much to the moral absolutism of Protestant Christianity. Ultimately, both Islam and Catholicism make room for sin, and as far as I know, while they both see manumission as desirable, historically neither has categorically demanded the abolition of slavery.
Protestantism is different. It insists — however hypocritically and ineffectually — on moral perfection, and so slavery becomes an abomination, to be stamped out immediately and without compromise.
…and if it’s only practiced by others, so much the better. I’m reminded of my wife, who is a fine woman, but who is most intolerant of precisely those vices she isn’t subject to herself.
Taylor is clearly drawing a comparison between supposedly noble Whites and supposedly ignoble africans when it comes to the slave trade. The early history of the slave trade in north America disproves what he is saying. I can understand his reaction to excessive slandering of Whites today by claiming Whites of yesteryear held thier nose and dealt with slavery whilst abhoring it but the reality is entire cities such as liverpool were built with the profits from the slave trade and slavers and merchants were celebrated members of society. To pretend otherwise is absurd. However if Whites do have a unique relationship to slavery (which all groups practised)it is that they ended it.
Taylor is perhaps getting old and crotchety.
Here’s one ironic aspect of the American slavery story that probably doesn’t get the attention it warrants…
As everyone knows, most of the leading Abolitionists were extremely religious, almost fanatic in their Old Testament beliefs, with the Bible inspiring their ideological fervor.
Yet oddly enough, the Bible was totally supportive of slavery, with widespread mention of that institution throughout the text. However, this may not have been entirely obvious because the word “slave” was always slightly mistranslated as “servant.” But perhaps if the more correct term “slave” had been used instead, such widespread religious endorsement would have had an important impact upon the American debate.
It really would be ironic if 700,000 Americans died in the Civil War mostly because of a single mistranslated word…
Observator: “In the incandescent rage that followed the cowardly murder of the president, the extremist faction was able to force its hugely unpopular agenda of racial equality on a nation eager to harshly punish the defeated south. ”
The commenter Observator can usually be counted on to produce reams of bullshit on this particular topic, and here again he doesn’t disappoint.
If the grant of citizenship and the vote to negroes was so “hugely unpopular”, and only passed because the North wanted to punish the South, then why did the North inflict it on itself as well? And who, exactly, was arguing against it? Let’s have their names. After all, if it was so unpopular, it stands to reason that many prominent men must have opposed it. Who were they? Observator ought to be able to give their names and link their speeches. Oddly — or perhaps not so oddly, since this claim is bullshit — he doesn’t. Then too, if the Reconstruction Amendments were so unpopular, why did no one ever try to repeal them? In the more than a century and half since the end of the Civil War, it’s amazing that not one attempt has ever been made. Perhaps these Amendments weren’t really so unpopular after all.
All of these mysteries are solved once we realize that it was Christian religious hysteria that provided the moral basis for the war, and that it is fundamental to the Christian creed that all “souls” are equal in the eyes of God. It’s the Christian belief that “souls” have no race, and all are equally valuable. It was therefore seen as a religious duty for white Christian Americans to bestow the franchise and citizenship on negroes. No Christian of that time felt it possible to deny that negroes also have a “soul”; nor, since the object itself is purely imaginary, could it be proved conclusively either way by anyone. Besides, many negroes were by that time of mixed blood, rendering the whole question moot.
It’s Christianity that has provided the essential catalyst for America’s ongoing negrification.
Oved means adorer, devotee, worker, servant and slave indifferently.
Clearly, as this article shows, the radical abolitionists were the key motivating force, in terms of propaganda and mass psychology, for the northern war effort.
But the secessionists did not free their slaves, which would have ended Lincoln’s war and secured the success of the confederacy.
This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the war WAS about slavery and NOT just about “states rights”.
Had Jeff Davis freed the slaves the Civil War would have ended immediately and the South would have been a free standing State, a Nation. But the rich southern slaveholders preferred to keep slavery and thus lose the war and their new country.
Do you ever ask yourself questions like if maybe the “extremely religious” abolitionists knew more about their religion than you do?
Dear Mr. Taylor: I am a “climate-change nut” who is not an “anti-racist”. So, as Samuel Johnson famously said of George Berkeley, “I thus refute Berkeley”.
I am different from you in two respects: 1) You are more intelligent than I; and 2) I am more open-minded than you. I think that if you could summon the fortitude to turn off Tucker Carlson and actually read a book on global warming by, say, James Hansen or Michael Oppenheimer, your intelligence would be put to better use. You would surely learn something new. You could at least benefit by thinking up some clever counter-arguments for the enjoyment of your many readers.
Do you care deeply about the future survival and happiness of the Caucasian race? What if the Republicans inside the Beltway unexpectedly disappoint you in pursuit of your noble quest? Are you ready for some really radical solution?
Consider this: if America followed the program of the zaniest of climate nuts (that is, people such I) and stopped use of all fossil fuels, what would America be like? It would, in many ways, be like the America of 1787, when George Washington rode out from Mount Vernon on horseback or by carriage while farmers (some 90% of the population) plowed their fields with horses or oxen. Nobody watched TV, as Poor Richard’s Almanac was the closest thing to a mass medium: people would have to learn to read and write again. No electricity for cell phones or spy cameras. No fuel for F-35s, B-52s, C-130s, or Cobra helicopter gunships. Local politics would take priority over national politics. Men would work harder, and thus be stronger and healthier. Women would need men to survive; feminism would collapse. Hard-working Whites would have no money and less sympathy for grifters or social parasites. People would cherish family, and the values which go with it, more. Men would see the necessity of keeping and bearing arms, and the wisdom of knowing their neighbors.
Would the “Wretched Refuse” still want to cheat their way in? Would Those Whose Dream is Theft want to stay?
Whites need to re-enter the White Paradise they enjoyed for millenia but unknowingly exiled themselves from when they sought ease before effort by getting into bed with “Spinning Jenny”. Easy Energy has wrought Easy Times, which has wrought Weak Men: Americans. It is time to “White Man Up” and, like Ulysses, set sail from the Land of the Lotos Eaters. It is time to rediscover our ancient spiritual heritage of agon and arete.
Which propaganda arracks a better audience from those with no economic stake: morality or economics?
Thank you for the article. It raises many questions.
The largest question to me is the make up of the thoughts, beliefs and urgings of the congress that funded the civil war and outlawed slavery? How did that come to be?
It seems to me the outlaw of slavery by war and invasion happened in the same vein as we see war everywhere else? The bottom line of the Northern wage paying industrialist could not compete with the bottom line cost of 24/7-live-in not paid forced labor available to slave owners, in either the south or the north. Industry could afford to house and feed the families of a enslaved labor force. The plantation itself provided for the life-needs of those who were bound in slavery.
We all know the civil war was about states right to make competitive, the industries of their states, not the perils of slavery? Slavery was the moral narrative that framed much of the anti slavery propaganda, but the real basis for the civil war was economics. Even the descriptive parts of the Taylor article compares the economic output of mankind bound in slavery to the economic output of a freeman faced with the same economic task. Economics, not race, is the proper yardstick to understand slavery.
Slavery in America was about the economics of generating a return on the Land Grant Plantations and the investments made by those Europeans who sought to profit from the America’s.
This archetypical, sickening angloid behavior is why the West is riped to be enslaved. How can there be such a worm-like race, always ready to serve the jews? It is like a some kind of repulsive Satanic breeding program.
And how are the Neo slaves called tax payers doing today ?. Their owners are no better { mostly worse} than than those of the Negro Slave years if you take in consideration the dates , and adjust for difference of a non industrial era to a maximum industrial era that has been manipulated into a semi slave state in the year 2023 no less. I hear the land of fruits and nuts { California } is chirping about reparations for the descendens of slavery – lol You mean Who – the Indians, Asians or Mexicans ?
The media circus must continue to keep the masses Amused and off balance from Reality.
Eric Hoffer noted how people use movements to go bonkers.
It didn’t start with Abolitionism, a variant of Christianity which is a knockoff of Judaism which is stolen from Zoroastrianism and Greek Stoicism so, hell, what we got is a gathering of loons using both the gods and current politics to lose their marbles over.
One point worth making: Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce, for two, thought the whole lot of them were nuts and they lived during the same era. Wisdom, or at least cynicism, is a pretty firm defense against the terminally batshit.
No, I saw the originally posted article a few days ago, the title was the same. I agree though, an odd choice.
Answer: “Those who looked HU-white”.
In the NT too slavery is depicted as a normal and acceptable institution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#:~:text=Jesus’%20teaching%20on%20slavery%20include,burdened%20and%20weary%20laborers%20rest.
I don’t think there are any religions in the world that have “anti-slavery” ideas in their scriptures.
Indeed. Which has a a larger “carbon footprint”, a Mexican peasant living in Mexico who rides a bicycle, a bus or hitches an occasional ride in a pick-up truck bed and has no home heating or A/C or the same peasant and his family living in northern Virginia, driving a shagged-out Ford Expedition all over town with a jimmied check engine light.
I believe that Andrew Anglin has pointed that out also.
C’mon, asshole. You want to send all the Christians to the gulag, don’t you? Admit it, asshole.
Hey Ron – with your almost unprecedented level of reading on Jewish matters and world history, could you add one topic to your American Pravada series…Jewish Attitudes and It’s Role in Slavery? I know that David Duke and the NOI have researched this topic using entirely mainstream Jewish sources and found that Jews have an enormous level of involvement in the history of slavery…
This article looksto me like when a child getting punished cries, what about him, he did it also,and you are punishing just me! There is no other country in the world(at least I don’t knowit), where 15% of it’s population consists of descendants of slaves!
My Negro Fatigue is so great and all encompassing, I do not care one whit for the fate of every black man, woman and child that walks this planet.
They are a blight on every decent civilization, requiring huge infusions of capital, hand holding and ego stroking to produce nothing of value and sadly, only produce children without families, criminal legacies lasting decades and destruction of property and manners- hysterical victim culture and sociopathic predators.
This artificial intervention in keeping another species alive, no matter the cost to the other species, is perverted and unnatural. I have no greater wish that to never hear, see or speak to a black person again as long as I live.
Holy shit! You aren’t kidding when you say that those final paragraphs are nauseating.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Jared Taylor is an Anglophile. Like all intelligent Anglophiles, he is pro-Jewish because he recognizes the crucial role that Jews played in Anglo historical prominence. Without Jews, Anglos would have remained just a nation of peasants and pirates bumming around their little island and sodomizing each other. White supremacists who admire the British empire must necessarily be pro-Jewish. The same can be said of white supremacist American conservatives who are enamored with 1950s Americana, which similarly was the product of Jewish dominance of early 20th century America.
Anglophile white supremacists like Taylor just want to return to the days when Anglos were the Jews’ junior partners. Their appeals to race are aimed at convincing Jews that they have more to gain by maintaining white nations than they have to gain by destroying them, and that Anglos are the best fit for serving Jews in a management capacity.
Sixty-four, unless the article dates from 2013. With cross-century dating, always be careful.
It’s a nice sentiment, but as the old saying goes…
Those who beat their swords into ploughshares end up as the slaves of those who kept their swords.
What’s Y-H-W-H to a Jew, J-E-W is to JT … he knows where his bread is buttered.
“All human beings entertain irrational belief systems, without being the least bit psychotic” – G Poulin
Rishi: Not the white man.Not the white man, my friend.
I am a brown, born Hindu(not practicing, loathing all faiths) and my belief from observing the world for 3 decades is that the white man for the most part is completely rational. It is his rationalism that has resulted in the progress of our society and civilization….science is a result of this rationalism.
And I agree with Dr Robert Morgan. In my earliest posts on unz I’d go on a rampage at Christians but was shut down by Christian zealots who brought up my Hindu faith without understanding where I’m coming from. All religions are useless, utterly useless but none have done as much damage to their people as Xtianity has done to the great white man. It has injected moral goodwill into their collective viens, as you can make out from this article, going back centuries. Each of these incidents have piled up and created the mess you are in today. From the abolitionist morons sitting in their praying rooms in 1859 the curse strikes you sitting in 2023….butterfly effect of the moral kind!!
All religion is damage but the Islam religion hasn’t done damage to the Arab, for the Arab didn’t have much to show for, the Hindu faith hasn’t done much damage to the Indian, for the Indian was always backward in mind and thought. But the Christian faith has done immense damage to the Anglo Saxon, for the white man conquered the world through pure might, rationality and individual bravura.
One can blame the jew all they want-and they should. But would the jew have even succeeded if the Christian faith didn’t guilt the collective mass of white men for centuries? Hitler was right about Christianity as was my hero, the greatest man who ever lived- Napoleon. Xtianity is a clutch of the weak minded.
In a strange ironic way, perhaps the Islamic faith would have been better for the white man, for it may be regressive and useless but it infuses pride and might over meekness and charity.
Who knew “wokeism” in all its various and noble permutations has had such a long and storied history. Call it what it really is, fanaticism, and then you know…
Excellent points well stated. Thanks.
I don’t want to multiply my comments unnecessarily, so I chose to reply to you only. But the first observation I will make is actually a reply to Ron Unz’s silly idea that mistranslation was the cause of a war. This is totally silly because it assumes fanatics don’t have a reason, however misguided, to be fanatics. People who adhere to the Bible have to have a strong sympathy for the essential ideas of Christian doctrine. The adherence to the letter of the scriptures is just a consequence, and when some ambiguity is present, they will favor an interpretation which is in accordance to those essential ideas.
Now, let’s tackle your excerpts from Paul. They command slaves to be obedient. Well, Jesus told people to be obedient to the Roman state (‘give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar’). That does not confer a Christian status to the Roman state or Caesar. Likewise, a slave’s obedience does not imply that their masters are good Christians, or that slavery is compatible with Christianity.
It is obviously against the Christian doctrine to enslave people. ‘Love thy neighbor’ is trivially antithetical to ‘enslave thy neighbor’.
And yet, as is clear just from the articles that appear in American Renaissance, Jewish intellectuals are nearly unanimous in denying the importance of race. Jews are present in the foremost ranks of those who would obfuscate biology in the social sciences, promote Third-World immigration, and encourage government interference in race relations. Jews have always undermined the traditions on which Western Civilization depends, while promoting the liberal orthodoxy that continues to threaten those traditions.
There can be no doubting the energy and subversive influence of this satanic people. It would be intelligent and accurate to recognize that this destructive energy and harmful influence is wrecking what is left of a beleaguered civilization.
Obviously true since today’s multi-racial, multi-cultural cesspool exist only in Christianized America and western Europe where rational thought and action is as scarce and hen’s teeth.
If Jews represent only .05% of the world population, they must be the most racist group in existence. How is it that they themselves have not been bred out? They encourage race mixing for Whites, and yet they apparently never mix themselves to ensure survival of their ingroup. They are the true racists. Pretty obvious with their relatively small numbers.
Thoughtful comment, thank you. I don’t agree, though, that the Muslim peoples haven’t been held back by the culture of blind belief without reasoning or questioning, threats over persuasion and argument, and memorization of the rantings of a murderous rapist and lunatic at the expense of actual useful, practical education. The fatalism that is inherent in islam — if it happened, that’s what God wanted, oh well — doesn’t help either.
I also don’t think that anyone who wanted to abolish slavery in the US was a moron. Maybe you weren’t referring to all abolitionists but just Brown and his supporters, I don’t know.
There was zero “necessity” to go thousands of miles across the ocean to kidnap (“Buy”) and enslave (“own”) other human beings who were doing nothing to harm or threaten the slave-trading and slave-“owning” scum. If there’s a Hell, the US slavers belong there, whether they were Jewish, Protestant Anglo, Portuguese, whatever — along with the Africans who “sold” their “brothers” to the whites and Jews.
Yeah but do you like them?
Nice! Borrowing that one.
To paraphrase Dr. Clyde Wilson of South Carolina: ‘Abolitionism was the product of New England Puritans losing their religion.’
You’re one of the more original Hasbara trolls on the website, even if your grasp of history is laughable.
CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Slavery is as old as mankind, and you can read about it from the Bible to various historic accounts written by many different authors. I am right now in the middle of reading CZARS by Duffy & Ricci – an accounting of Russsian rulers for over a thousand years – and slavery was standard practice, whether done by Tartars, Cossacks or Genghis Kahn – and the skin color of the slaves was essentially irrelevant – it was all about economic and war gains.
Slavery of Whites is simple historic fact to anyone who spends even a smidgen of time on researching actual history – and it is by far a greater total in numbers than that of Blacks for one simple reason: White slaves were more accessible because of geography. The same is true for Black slaves enslaved by other Blacks in Africa. It wasn’t until global travel by sailing ships enabled commercial slave trade – mostly run by rich ship owners who were also the bankers that subsidized wars for fun and profit since the dawn of man. And guess who most of them were, eh?
I researched WHITE SLAVERY in DaLimbraw Library and here is the list of headnotes – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=White+slavery&m=1
– reading for hours if not days.
The problem is not slavery, the problem is IGNORANCE of history…….mostly willful – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/08/why-so-much-willful-ignorance-it-pays.html?m=0
wait til the social geniuses decide to solve the homeless crisis with compulsory labor the fur’s gonna fly then lol
I’m kind of undecided about religion. On the one hand all those religious stories seem like fairy tales yet religion, belief in soul/spirit and an afterlife is prevalent in all societies throughout history, even those that had no communication between them. All these religions seem different on the surface yet there seems to be some underlying commonality between their ideas which are mostly expressed differently because of cultural and historical differences. So could all those people have been wrong and the few modern atheists right? There are societies where people just cannot envisage a disbelief in God, it just seems so unnatural to them. Perhaps people need religion. The Egyptians had religion and look at what marvels their civilisation had built. And even the most primitive man, who you would have thought would have been obsessed with trying to survive in the material world, still was able to come up with religious concepts and give them uttermost importance.
I’m curious about what you mean by this. Are you saying that these societies tolerated certain types of vices because the cost of eradicating those vices would outweigh any societal damage caused by the vices themselves? I recall Thomas Aquinas said that if not for harlots, the world would be convulsed with lust. Do you have any examples of this in Islam?
The slavery and reparations chorus continues unabated in the US because the Politicians will not stand up and tell the slavery hustlers to fuck off.
This nonsense is absent from the US/ Mexico border to Tierra del Fuego, an area that imported 10+ times the number of slaves as the US.
I really dont know why, being the slimy racist country we are, the black and brown people, are swimming the Rio Grande to be with the Nigger haters and oppressors.
The idiocy will continue and rise in volume the longer the powers that be put up with it, condone it and try (unsuccessfully) to pacify the shouting mob. In the end it does not matter how much money is shovelled their way, the black man and the half breed will spend it all, returning the dough to the donors.
The poor black man ! His fate is to be the missing link between apes and homo sapiens. He cannot seem to accept that and no matter what you give them, they make a mess of everything. Even our VP Cummala needs a new IQ scale to measure her idiocy.
Drop an alien in Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC and in Africa and the interstellar traveller wont know the difference !
And any nation that wasn’t insane enough to give up technology would he able to immediately conquor the world. You cannot have your dream unless you subjugate the entire planet and force it.. which means you have a sick mind if you still advocate for it.
Funny.. the Spanish achieved quite a bit more starting the day they kicked the jews out of Spain.
Napoleon is a traitor to the Anglo. He freed the jews from the ghettos. May his name be cursed for eternity.
He says they sent a team to Haiti to see if these people could take care of their own area. His conclusion is “no”.
Get something straight, Taylor the Racist, Blacks took care of themselves very well for hundreds of thousands of years in Africa. You remove them, send them across the world and then realize you made a mistake and expect them to be dropped off on a dumb island like Haiti and be successful immediately.
Can’t stand this guy. Racist and White Supremacist to the core. Now, I notice him sporting a Hitler style mustache. Quite fitting.
My grasp of history is fine. Intelligent Anglophiles recognize the same things that I do, which is why intelligent and educated Anglophiles, like Jared Taylor, are pro-Jewish.
Only people like myself, who are anti-Anglo and anti-American, can be anti-Jewish without inconsistency.
Although Slavery was a significant emotional and legal and moral matter, the matter of secession had a real and solid axis…tariffs and the Federal plunder of the southern states .
see> https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/01/professor-dilorenzo-explains-real-cause-war-northern-aggression/
My great-grandfather, a Quaker from an abolitionist cohort that had run a station of the underground railroad on the Ohio River (risking their lives – a risk of lynching) – as a boy of 14, joined the Ohio Volunteers, was captured and held in Libby Prison Camp, released at 15 in a swap, he joined Sherman and went all the way to the sea. I brook no approval of slavery, but the Civil War had an economic reason for existence…slavery and slave-owners…? A focus, mythical, but with a basis…
Grant, in his autobiography, says that the Mexican War, the seizure of Texas, made the Civil War inevitable…
As always, an economic “drang” fitted with an emotional capsule…to enhance the emotional…
And the party continues/// also> https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/13/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/
Thanks for your contribution in showing up the christians as hypocrites.
Notice when these holy rollers are confronted with something they can’t easily dodge, they turn to name calling as though that is a suitable riposte. Anyone that points out their century’s long failings becomes a zionist, degenerate (as I was recently labeled) and all manner of insult based on absolutely nothing.
These people are unhinged ideologues so steeped in their nonsense that their reasoning abilities are seriously corrupted.
Sort of. Conversos were not initially expelled from Spain, but Spain did eventually recognize the Jewish problem as a biological problem and implement blood laws. It’s true that Spaniards were not subordinated to Jews like Anglos were. This is because Anglos are a slave race, with a deep desire to be under the control of foreign people, while Spaniards are not.
There’s a little “ought implies can” in that argument. A country would be hard pressed to give up a pillar of its economy during a war.
What was needed was a compelling path for slavery to be phased out in favor of industrialisation and diversified trade; the South, like every other developing country in history, had to become stable enough to no longer need slavery (morality, for better or worse, tends to follow practicality). There’s every reason to think this could have happened within decades without war. It was already happening — by the time hostilities broke out, there had been 50+ years of reform that was making slavery ultimately obsolete. War, as always, was a result of a minority of intransigent hardliners on either side forcing the issue.
It’s easy to imagine many Southerners feeling that they were facing some kind of Inquistion or witch trials. I can certainly imagine that, among the vast majority of Southeners who didn’t own slaves, there were many who were conflicted or uncommitted about slavery (or states’ rights for that matter), but nevertheless concerned about the growing prejudice and impending violence against them simply because they were ‘backwards’ Southerners.
They might have advised their leaders towards some kind of transitional compromise if they truly felt it would be honored, or if they didn’t feel it was being forced on them at gunpoint. Like the victims of bullies throughout history, they were pushed into a corner, and then punished for fighting back. After all, bullies with a moral justification is a good characterization of the every “intervention” that the US has ever carried out…
Imagine that the US had the will and ability to invade Mexico if it didn’t immediately end the drug cartels. We could all agree that this was a ‘noble’ cause. The wholesale disruption of the Mexican economy and the suffering that this would cause might seem a necessary price to pay. But inevitably the effort to convince the US population that it was necessary would involve demonizing Mexico to the point that even moderate domestic opponents to the cartels would see it as an ‘existential threat.’ And the sacrifice of 500K+ people (many of whom would have relations on both sides) would be hard to justify even given the (eventual) beneficial result.
Good comment. I went a bit far but that’s because I feel modern man’s religious believes and the way he goes about it is pathetic. I don’t mind certain aspects of religion. It gives a solace, especially when death is near- to the dying and also to the people around the dead. There’s a reason many powerful men after conquering and creating legacies sought solace in faith. And it’s ethics and principles are interesting, and perhaps even should be discussed around dinner tables every night. But, I think it should not be used in day to day affairs and most definately should be removed from state and politics.
I also agree on the Egyptian’s belief in a higher power and how it certainly helped create the magnificent architectural wonders. Hell, Christian churches all over Europe and America, some going back centuries are magnificent works of art so certainly there is that too-Christian influence on art and architecture for centuries. I read once how a certain gothic church completed in Hamburg, Germany could only be constructed because of the architect’s strong belief in Christ. It really touched me.
But still, overall I’ll still say religion has been a detriment in most ways, certainly on its obsession with morality and goodwill charity, which I believe is anti nature. Nature is amoral and vicious. This does not mean evil shall prevail and I am against morality. I believe morality can only be maintained in a society with strict rules, regulations and ethos. It should stand on the shoulders of rationality.
Those were probably debtors or those who became indentured to pay for passage. Have you ever read Dickens? The lower classes of England were considered to be vermin by the elites.
Look at that painting of Brown pulling a Biden and sniffing that kids hair while going to the gallows above. Omg, there’s a beheaded black kid’s head on the third step for the wayciss Whites to wipe off their shoes. Man it was brutal back then.
Um, I think that both “ignorance of history” and FUCKING SLAVERY can be “the problem.”
And murder and rape are as old as mankind too; should we also be annoyed with people who keep going on about how evil and cruel murder and rape are?
Judging by the difficulty I had in purchasing a used copy of the the book, I’d say this article has generated some interest. Yesterday, the book could have been had for under $10.00 plus tax/shipping. Today, I paid $35.00 plus tax/shipping.
Lol.. the Same anglos that left the EU.. that never integrated their currency.. that also kicked the jews out for a time.. that refused to bend the knee to a foreign pope… those anglos?
You seem to have a hated for anglos that makes you irrational and blind to reality.
“100 proof Hate.” More like 151 proof Hate. The people tearing at the White Wester Races have an Agenda wholly unrelated to “curing” the Sin of Slavery. This Country fought a Civil War over Slavery (Emancipation Proclamamtion). The people following/promoting this Hatred towards the White Western Heritage are the lowliest of the creepiest of the slime. They take advantage of all the benefits these White Race Countries offer and yet….they spew a deep, venomous HATRED of the Country that allows them to take part in the Freedoms a White Country allows. These White Race Hating Agitators wouldn’t find these Freedoms in ANY Country. And the Jewish Radicals promoting this Venomous Hatred towards White Race Countries are the sleaziest and slimiest of all. It is a White Western Race Country that has SLAVISHLY supported ISRAEL tirelessly and endlessly–for a LONG time. That Country is….the USA. And not just MONEY. Note how many times the USA has Vetoed motions in the UN to condemn ISRAEL for its Human Rights violations. The lavish support of ISRAEL continues without interruption even though NOTHING is done to help the US Citizen, who is also the TAXPAYER who funds all of the Wars and Bank Bailouts and the Welfare to foreign Countries such as ISRAEL.
Now here’s a better hypothesis than Ron Unz’s mistranslation-related one: abolition was stirred up by a bunch of jealous White wives.
Are you a protestant? I have never seen such claptrap. The Protestant “ethic” was a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. Protestant churches, like Catholic ones, often fed and clothed the poor.
In Britain, wealthy land owners often built “follies” to provide work for people in area.
Your reference may apply to the psychopathic Puritans, but not others.
Both the article by Jared Taylor and the book by Kevin MacDonald you cite take their respective titles from the same source, namely Civilization and Its Discontents, which is the English language title for Sigmund Freud’s book Das Unbehagen in der Kultur, written in 1929.
None of those “rebellious” acts hurt the yids, if anything, they cemented their power even further on the monkey island. If I remember correctly, there was never any shitskin in power pre (((BREXIT))). Aren’t they looking to roll it back?
But anyway, the fact that the Negro-Saxon as a race will never repent for 1919 and 1945 is enough to snuff this jew slave race out, permanently. Oh, and the call for WW3 right now, how can we forget.
Don’t be too butthurt, most of the western (((conservatives))) have to go to, you are not alone.
The person responsible for coining the English title Civilization and Its Discontents is, to the best of my knowledge, that book’s first translator into English, Joan Riviere, in 1930.
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Freud_SE_Civ_and_Dis_complete.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Riviere
Are you seriously implying that Anglos run the UK?
Never happened. Jews were there the whole time even while they were allegedly banned. See “the Jews and Modern Capitalism” by Werner Sombart. Even if it did happen, the expulsion was decreed by Edward Longshanks, a Plantagenet (French), not a member of the Anglo slave race.
Tudors were Welsh and French, not Anglo slave race stock.
Now don’t be too hard on Mr. Taylor. He’s a propagandist, and that breed has no interest at all in matters of “truth”.
I’ll give him credit here for an unusually slick bit of propaganda. He skillfully weaves a story composed of verifiable truths into an extremely dishonest view of history.
Taylor veers from the Official KKK story here when he admits that Blacks can be efficient Capitalists. In fact, the quoted part describes how African blacks are just like people everywhere. In other words, they’re typical humans.
It’s no real surprise that White Abolitionists included nutcases among their ranks. Was the situation of the wealthy and super-rich back then any different than for the same class in 2023? Taylor takes full advantage of the “slant” in US history books of portraying Abolitionists as universal Good Guys. That’s no more true than the KKK Whites claim of all black Americans being Dirty Stupid and Dangerous N*ggers.
Great stuff here – Taylor says that because “This” horror can be justified because “That” one has a similar fatality rate. More:
Because the barbaric Brits sometimes tortured their sailors to death, whipping slaves until they died is nothing we modern folks should be worried about.
Again, this is a masterful demonstration of mixing “truthful” ingredients and creating from those ingredients a glowing finished product which has no relationship to the truth.
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame said what white guilt prevents whites from saying, and that’s “get the hell away from black people, just get the fuck away”
I would also add 2sLGBTiQPWXYZ +, Jews, Mohammadans, Hispanic gangbangers, and PIGs aka People In Governments.
This changed very quickly for the better, in the British Empire at least.
From “Tropical Colonization: An Introduction to the Study of the Subject” by Alleyne Ireland, published in 1899 by Macmillan
“In the meanwhile steps were taken in the colonies for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves. I have before me the Slave Laws of Jamaica passed in 1816, and some of the provisions are interesting as affording a view of the legal restraints placed upon planters in their relations with the slaves. Under this law the slaves were entitled to one day free from labor in every fortnight in addition to every Sunday. If the slaves did not receive at least twenty-six such free days in a year, the owner was liable to a fine of £20. No sugar mills were to be worked between the hours of seven o’clock on Saturday night and five o’clock on Monday morning, under a penalty of £20. Owners of slaves were compelled to give each slave a plot of land for the growing of provisions, or else to supply each slave with food to the value of 3s. 8d. weekly, under a penalty of £50; and slave-owners who failed to provide their slaves with proper and sufficient clothing, to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace, were liable to a fine of £100.
A statement on oath was required every year from each slave-owner in regard to the food and clothing supplied and the condition of the negroes’ provision grounds.
If any slave-owner turned away a slave because of sickness, age, or infirmity, he became liable to a heavy fine and imprisonment in default of payment. The hours of labor for slaves in the field were fixed by law at a maximum of eleven and a half hours, except during crop time, and a penalty of £50 was attached to a breach of the law in this respect. Any person killing a slave was to suffer death, no alternative sentence being included in the law; and any person who cruelly whipped or otherwise maltreated a slave, or was in any way party to such an offence, was liable to a fine of £ 100 and imprisonment for twelve months.
In 1826 the law was amended in several respects. The right was conferred on the slaves of owning property. Carnal knowledge of a female slave under ten years of age and rape on any female slave were made punishable by death. In the case of any slave charged with a capital offence the parish in which the trial took place was compelled to provide such slave with a legal adviser, the expense to fall on the parish funds.
In the other British slave colonies laws were in force similar to those of Jamaica. I need only give one more instance. An Order-in-Council dated November 2, 1831, was the basis of the slave law in British Guiana. Every owner or manager of slaves had to provide once a year “ to each male slave of the age of fifteen years or upwards, one hat of chip, straw, or felt, or other more durable material, one cloth jacket, two cotton check shirts, two pairs of oznaburg trousers, one blanket, two pairs of shoes, one knife, and one razor. To every female slave of the age of thirteen or upwards, one chip or straw hat, two gowns or wrappers, two cotton check shifts, two oznaburg petticoats, two pairs of shoes, one blanket, and one pair of scissors.” The food to be given to the slaves was also specified. The manager or owner had the choice of giving each slave above the age of fifteen, half an acre of land suitable for growing provisions, and providing him or her, as the case might be, with all the necessary seeds and implements of husbandry for the cultivation of the plot (every child under fifteen years of age to receive a quarter of an acre); or of supplying each slave over ten years of age with twenty pints of wheat flour, or of the flour of Guinea or Indian corn, or fifty-six grown plantains, or fifty-six pounds of yams, and in addition seven salted herrings or shads, or other salted provisions, weekly. All offences on the part of slaves were divided into four classes, containing in all thirty heads, and the punishment for each offence was specified. Records
were to be kept of every punishment inflicted, and such records, together with all others required under the law, were to be open to the Protector of Slaves, who was empowered to visit any estate without warning and had free access to the slaves at all times. The slaves had the right to leave any estate without permission if they wished to lay complaints before the Protector. All complaints were immediately investigated by the Protector or one of his subordinates.
Every owner of forty slaves was compelled to engage the services of a medical practitioner, who had to inspect all the slaves under his care at least once a fortnight, and keep a journal in which the results of such inspections were to be entered. Special provision was made in the law that husband and wife, parent and child could not be separated from each other without their own free will and consent, and the following extract from the law shows how minute was the legislation on this point — the extract refers to women who might be detained in confinement for any offence — “ Provided always, and I do hereby order and direct, that if any woman in confinement shall be at the time giving suck to a child, the said child shall be duly sent in, at the proper periods, to its mother for that purpose.” ”
The author then cites instances of the punishment of white slave-owners for offences against their slaves. Amongst others are the following:—
Jamaica, 1777: Thomas Fell found guilty of an assault on a negro slave and sentenced to pay a fine of £20, and to be imprisoned in the common jail one week, and until payment of the fine.
Jamaica, 1786: George Geddes was found guilty of cruelly beating and maiming two slaves, and was sentenced to a fine of £100 for each slave, and to be imprisoned for six months, and afterward to find securities for his good behavior.
Grenada, 1776: A white man (name not given) was convicted of the murder of his own slave, and executed. “
I read somewhere on the Internet that the abolitionist movement only took off in Great Britain when the British didn’t need slave labour anymore? Britain’s arch rivals (France and Spain) were more dependent on slave labour to operate their colonies in the Caribbean and the abolitionist movement was a way to hit back at them economically?
Your comment:
… doesn’t hold water in the days of the “robber barons”, all who were prominent Protestants of the day.
In the days of the “robber barons”, the united States of America was largely successful due to the Protestant (lack of) ethics, most builders of industry raking in millions in profits while ignoring the basic needs of those who made their success possible by their hard work.
It was common to see these Protestant “captains of industry” do their damnedest to pay their employees as little as possible, constantly decreasing wages of their employees while raking in massive profits benefiting only themselves. They cared not one wit for the well-being of their employees.
Protestants still consider anyone who cannot be successful in business as suffering from a moral failing of their own doing, not outside circumstances. Today’s equivalent is the Protestant “prosperity gospel” preached by the likes of Joel Osteen and others.
The Catholic faith requires business owners to look out for the well-being of their employees by paying their workers a fair wage–not below subsistence wages. There is no comparable demand in Protestantism.
These Protestant “captains of industry” attempted to redeem themselves by establishing “foundations” (which guarded their wealth, making it tax exempt) and indirectly countering their own Protestant belief that “good works” were not necessary for salvation.
They always pleaded poverty to their employees while living grand lives themselves.
This contributed to the rise of labor unions, which at first, were brutally suppressed.
There were exceptions, such as Henry Ford, who almost single-handedly created the middle class by paying his employees well above “market wages” of the day. His $5.00 per day wage was not entirely altruistic as it was also instituted to stem “turnover” as assembly line work was monotonous, but his writings have stated that one of his objectives was to make it possible for workers to “enjoy the fruits of their labor”. Ford KNEW that he would be well rewarded in spades. One could safely argue that Ford created the modern-day middle class. Of course the Wall Street crowd criticized Ford for paying his employees a good wage.
The Protestant Reformation resulted in the legalization of usury, the establishment of the debt based financial system and central banks which has enabled the usurers to accumulate so much wealth and power that they can impose their NWO.
The Reformation resulted in crony capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, two world wars which resulted in the decimation of the European peoples by the jews and WASPS acting as muscle for the bankers, and various genocides and the dystopian difficulties that are a part of modern civilization.
I am a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic…
Best regards,
The Bible is totally supportive of lots of things, including the Mass Murder variety of Ethnic Cleansing. The Exodus story of the old Hebrews doing precisely that is the basis of the Shithole state’s claim for a 3,000 year-old land deed.
But back to slavery. The version I’ve seen goes like this;
Mary was clearly a special case. The ONLY woman who ever “made it” in the Catholic church, and thus could not be allowed to have been a slave. Thus the “servant” business.
Was the Virgin Mary Actually a Slave?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/was-the-virgin-mary-actually-a-slave
I don’t believe Jesus “approved” of slavery – it was simply a universal fact of life in his time. This is doubly true if he had spent his first 30 years as a Jewish slave. After reading that link, I’ve wondered if a possible “slave Jesus” might not have been the property of some rich Jewish city folks. During his brief ministry Jesus had no shortage of money. Also, several events involved coordinated undercover actions where adequate funding would have been really useful, and maybe even required.
” was to ride the easterly winds in the lower latitudes to the New World and exchange slaves for sugar, cotton, and tobacco; then run back to Europe on the northern westerlies.”
Huh?
” In 1838, the American Anti-Slavery Society sent agents to Haiti to find data to prove that blacks could govern themselves. Their report was never published, no doubt because they found the opposite of what they looked for.:”
This proves nothing.
Non-Communist Czechs in Czechoslovakia, suddenly required to be administrators of, say, universities, public utilities, and large and small enterprieses, also made a pretty big mess of things.
They simply hadn’t had the necessary experience, having been excluded from entry positions and a normal career advancement.
Why do you think the Allies kept a lot of German Nazis on board as administrators and bureaucrats? Because they knew how to run these entities.
How were slaves, the children of slaves, supposed to figure out how to run a country in five days?
Come on.
“A country would be hard pressed to give up a pillar of its economy during a war.”
My post is a critique of the common assertion that the ‘civil war was not about slavery’
However if slavery was as you say a ‘pillar of the Confederate economy’ then that proves my point.
And keep in mind that the war itself was economically destructive also, being fought almost entirely in the South, and so if the Confederate leaders truly wanted to save their economy they could have freed the slaves and thus immediately stopped the war and kept their new country and prevented the economic loss due to the destruction caused by the war, destruction of people and land productivity.
The fact that they refused to do this, refused to even countenance freeing the slaves as a way of ending the war, proves that the war was in fact about slavery because of its economic importance, and not about states rights etc.
😂
Oh? Luke 9:58 suggests otherwise. Or is it a mistranslation of an Essene pun? I await the usual insightful clarification from you or one of the other Perpetually Cool Godless.
I pass over in silence the utter lack of relevance—to anything—of the quoted sentence. Still, irrelevance is hardly unexpected from the scoffer community.
‘I’m curious about what you mean by this…’
I mean that both faiths accept that people have sinful desires, and even actually do sin. Naturally, this needs to be repressed, and curbed, and so on — but sins and sinful desires are a fact of life.
Protestantism, at least some sects thereof, tends more towards the attitude that if you truly are saved, not only do you not sin, but you never even wish to. Therein lie the seeds of much hypocrisy and guilt…
But this wasn’t the motive for the war — at least, it wasn’t the motive for most of the combatants.
Certainly slavery fueled the animus that arose between North and South, but for most who fought, the issue was the right to secede on the one hand, versus the need to preserve the Union on the other. After all, four of the states that remained with the Union practiced slavery themselves. Slavery was at the root of it all, but the actual fight was over whether or not the individual states had the right to leave the Union.
Note that even half-way through the war, Lincoln only declared that the slaves would be freed in those states that remained in rebellion.
You over-simplify the landscape. France’s dominant type of Catholicism by then, Jansenism, was even nastier than Calvinism. It went further than the Robber Barons. Instead of being directed to the entrepreneurs as a clientele of choice, it was directed to the tax-collecting bourgeoisie that prided itself of adding nothing of value to the economy and to punish the peoples of the earth for the original sin by exacting as large as possible amounts of taxation. Other catholic currents were mellower in favour of the humbler classes but they as a rule were not welcome in most of France. The idea of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay was rather Lutheran, the proof being that it ended up flourishing in the Scandinavian social democracies before they departed from the model by growing cultural marxist. The catholic discourse in most of Southern France and Spanish countries was that both entrepreneurs and qualified workers had to be impoverished for minimizing their sin of pride and enhancing their chance of a good salvation through the practice of austerity.
White teacher goes ‘scott adams’ and just walks away from blacks who act like morons.
US spends $20,000 per year on these morons on the premise that the ‘schools fail the students’ when these idiots have no desire or aptitude for learning. Better to build jungles and let black youths romp around there.
I’m not arguing for the states’ rights side. I’ll concede it’s worth some consideration — after all, the secession of the Colonies from England was still in living memory at that time, and a major point of pride. “Freedom from tyranny” is a powerful theme, especially when you believe that it’s written into the nation’s framework,. But typically the people who most vehemently argue for states’ rights vs slavery as the central cause are at best overestimating it, and at worst it’s misdirection for anothet agenda completely.
All I’m saying is that the hardline abolitionists backed The South into a corner unnecessarily, and I absolutely understand why secession appeared to Southerners to be preferable to capitulation. I may be misreading your point, but to me it sounds similar to making the argument that all the Colonies needed to do to avoid war with England was pay their fair share of taxes.
Sheeeeeiiiit, it aint his fault.
I wasn’t suggesting Jesus went around with lots of silver and gold – such a thing would have not been permissible in terms of his mission.
Consider the Passover entry into Jerusalem:
In light of all the “color revolutions” undertaken by the US during recent years, we know they take a lot of organization, and money. Somebody created a lot of publicity and this got the huge crowds. Somebody had arranged the donkey to be where it was, and ready for instant use. Later there was a room rental for the Last Supper.
Jerusalem was bulging at the seams with visitors, yet a large and furnished room had been kept ready for use. More planning and probably some stiff fees paid to somebody.
Jesus was literate – he could both read and write. Wiki claims that the numbers of people who could do both were in single digit territory – 3% is the number they use. Jesus had experiences a peasant from hicksville would have hardly experienced – like the Wedding at Cana. There is the episode of pre-teen Jesus in the Temple where he awed scholars there. More intense education here.
Jews kept slaves back in Judea same as they did in the US South. I’ve learned it was quite a common practice in the old days. As is always the case, male slave-owners had the use of their female slaves in any way they wanted. Suppose a rich guy got Mary pregnant. Suppose a wife or sister or “somebody” was unhappy about this, and had the clout to create a deal where Mary was freed and the infant was taken in as a household slave. I suppose this might even explain all the incoherent tales of the travels while she was pregnant – to have her and the child somewhere else well out of sight at the birth. Mary and Joseph set up housekeeping and had a bunch of kids who had no interest whatever in their half-brother until much later after he has died.
Crucifixion of Jesus: he got a break when a Roman soldier stuck a spear in him and hastened his death. Executioners have always been willing to take money to speed up nasty executions. More bribes got access to the body of Jesus, and somebody provided a very expensive tomb.
Brother James suddenly appeared and kicked Peter aside to take over the Jewish Christian Church. Paul was kept on a tight leash until Jerusalem was destroyed, and suddenly Christianity was no long Jewish. In fact, Jews were suddenly declared to be hated enemies. This was an attempt at self-protection from the Romans, but a very cruel sort.
Jesus also tries to cure blindness by making spittle and mud pies and smearing them onto the blind man’s eyes.
John 9:6 KJV
I remember that I was an altar boy, way back in the 90s, and the priest told me this story and I was shocked. Perhaps this was the first sliver of doubt that I had as to the veracity of Catholicism.
Jesus also has a curious remedy for deafness:
Mark 7:32-33 KJV
All of this stuff is absurd on its face, and ought to be beneath our contempt.
This is so incredibly stupid as to be laughable. Look at the historical record up to the present day. Very many intelligent and educated Anglophiles have not been pro-Jewish. Far from it, they have been anti-Jewish. Think T S Eliot & Ezra Pound and many more.
This is another stupid statement. Most Anglo-Americans, until the last 60 years or so, were very much anti-Jewish, not pro-Jewish. To say that you have to be anti-Anglo ( whatever that means ) and anti-American to be anti-Jewish is absurd. Just ask Andrew Anglin.
Memo to Tel Aviv Hasbara Factory Manager:
Poor Shlomo is tying himself in logical knots. Please replace him with a more intelligent and subtle operative, someone with some knowledge of history.
Ezra Pound, the Anglophile who… spent most of his adult life in Italy, voluntarily…?
Thanks for the information.
It seems a rather odd translation for something that would be better translated as:
The Uneasiness in Culture/Civilisation.
Of course, lots of mistranslations do occur. Marcel Proust’s A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu.
It got translated as : Remembrances of Things Past, more recently as: In Search of Lost Times. Neither is adequate.
The Finding Again ( Rediscovery ) of Times Lost is much better.
Fine but originally they were just random people abducted.
I am less worried about the (shaky) equivocations Taylor makes but rather more concerned with the idea that blacks had no issue with chattel slavery (slavery in Africa was not chattel slavery-but may as well have been since there was no real punishment for mistreating slaves) whereas noble White people have always found it distatsteful (LOL). This is obvious bullshit and as I have stated in other comments is probably driven by an elderly Jared Taylors negative reaction to Whites being held to a double standard regarding slavery in 2022. Taylor is getting old and crotchety.
One does not have to look far to find the idea that White elites or just Whites generally disliked slavery from the get go to be an obvious untruth-simple common sense would teach us otherwise. Yankee puritans may have disliked slavery but they hated blacks even more (the decline of slavery and black populations in the north has much more to do with climactic conditions than any Yankee high mindedness) and whilst many slave owners past 1830 may have hated slavery for the difficulties it had in giving a large amount of slaves freedom this does not mean that merchants in Liverpool or plantation owners in South Carolina in 1750ish held all slave merchants/owners in contempt-just the opposite. We need only look to see how White elites treated thier own lower class White people to understand how they had no issue with slavery.
Whites do not need to self flagellate or hold up our ancestors from a less enlightened age as moral paragons to understand that the anglo-saxon plantation economic system was very brutal even in its mildest form in North America (as opposed to say the Carribean).
The Negro-Saxon HATE the true faith of God. They will never admit to their vile crimes against humanity. It is best to stand back and watch as God delivers his VENGEANCE upon this wretched, despicable and Sub-Human race.
Well,
I am not sure of the point here. The entire attempt to justify slavery in the US by examining the matter universally, always backfires. And that is the case here. As soon as you acknowledge that slavery meanings and practices varied — you place it justification squarely on that society. So what practices and meanings existed elsewhere simply cannot be applied to the US.
You even go so far as to acknowledge that slavery across societies meant servants, and that included people with skills and trades as was the case in Egypt and Rome. So in the in the US slavery must be measured by the standards: the social mores of the colonies to the creation of the nation. And once the document of declaration is made — the end game of slavery was up.
You even go so far as reference scripture and that is your downfall — because you ignore as most who advocate the normalcy of slavery do,
that verse that encourages slaves to seek their freedom and there are very clear guidelines about how people of faith and practice were to treat their slaves, and it does include tongue pulling, and neck braces . . . breeding, adultery, selling off parents or children . . .
as for the craziness of abolitionists —- laughing, might have been crazy as loons,
but they were right. Slavery in light of who and what the country said it was — total and complete hypocrisy and as such destined to be a long term consequential thorn in the side.
If i pulled you out of a burning home, saving your life, you would not in all likelihood say,
“Put me back — your crazy. ”
it’s informative to know what others did or did not do regarding slavery, but it what we did and how we did it measured to our ethos, that matters.
“The argument is essentially that of a the child telling the parent, but franks dad and mom let them . . . .”
I don’t think I was ever permitted to get passed “let them . . .”
Nah. I don’t know for sure which version of the Bible your average Abolitionists read, but the King James version has hundreds, if not thousands, of references to not just slaves, but “masters”, “bondage”, “neither bond nor free” (referring to all being the same in Christ but not denying who they are in the world either), and so on…
I don’t always agree with Mr. Unz, but his point is a good one. This was no misunderstanding though – being Christians, the Abolitionists likely concentrated their energy on the New Testament, but it still has many references to slavery, NOT servants, and seems to have no real problem with the practice.
Thank you for bringing this up, Ron Unz. Mr. Taylor is right when he compares these people to the antifa, Climate Crisis™ fanatics, BLM, and so forth. The only thing keeping those old Abolitionists from being Communists was the internet not being around for their easy perusal of The Communist Manifesto yet.
Our great limericist Mr. Tilley, (not)
has glommed upon Science! so silly. (rot)
He’s smitten with Greta.
Though he coulda done betta,
when sane she’s a pretty fine filly. (hot)
Achmed E. Newman (on pot)
Steve Sailer is an Anglophile who has spent most of his adult life in Los Angeles, voluntarily.
C’mon, man, the climate is so much warmer.
You may be a cranky old libertarian, but I like you.
You’re completely missing the point in its bigger context. If slavery in America were just a thing in the history books, like indentured servitude, the Indian Wars, and other practices/events that were common at the time but not put up so much with nowadays, this article wouldn’t mean so much for today’s world.
The point IS, that for 30 years or more, in this whole damn country, black people and retarded or cucked-out Whites have been making American slavery out into the worst thing that every happened to ANY PEOPLE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in all of history. In fact, yes, American slaves were treated so much better than African slaves in the Caribbean and Latin America (which had much greater numbers brought in) and an African slave taken by Arabs would have been castrated if male, and then millions of White people were made slaves by the Moslem world too.
Additionally, beyond the scope of Mr. Taylor’s post here, the American Indians – especially in the West, practiced torture and took slaves of other Indians, White people, whomever. Other savages practiced cannibalization, in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere.
So, no, it wasn’t the worst thing every in the world, not by a long shot. How about we call it a day, seeing as no black slave owners are alive in America today (just America, as that doesn’t hold for elsewhere) and nobody alive has ever been a black slave in a Southern plantation?
Just in case, though, here is Peak Stupidity‘s Reparations Plan. A small excerpt:
Colin Wright: “But [slavery] wasn’t the motive for the war — at least, it wasn’t the motive for most of the combatants. … Slavery was at the root of it all, but the actual fight was over whether or not the individual states had the right to leave the Union.”
Lincoln named slavery as the cause of the war in BOTH of his inaugurals, and exactly how you, writing more than a century and a half later, can claim to know what the majority of the combatants’ “real” motives were isn’t clear. Maybe it’s a sort of telepathy or astral projection. In any case, the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which the Union soldiers sang before marching to their deaths, proclaim that the purpose of their deaths was “to make men free”, not to determine some Constitutional question of states’ rights. It amazes me that anyone is gullible enough to believe that it was. But then, white Christians always have had trouble taking responsibility for their insane action of granting citizenship and the vote to negroes.
Also, the “states’ rights caused the war” cope so popular today is no help in explaining why the negroes were turned loose immediately afterwards. According to that interpretation, it must have been just a coincidence.
Speaking of slavetraders, Yale university was named after slavetrader elihu yale. Why hasn’t that college been renamed?
“””Lincoln named slavery as the cause of the war in BOTH of his inaugurals, and exactly how you, writing more than a century and a half later, can claim to know what the majority of the combatants’ “real” motives were isn’t clear.”””
When the war started Lincoln asked SLAVEOWNER robert e lee to be commander of all Union troops. Explain that.
And Lincoln also allowed 4 slave states (KY MD DE MO) to remain in the Union and practice slavery during the entire 4 years of the war.!!!
The CW was NOT about slavery. The idea is absurd.
“The point IS, that for 30 years or more, in this whole damn country, black people and retarded or cucked-out Whites have been making American slavery out into the worst thing that every happened to ANY PEOPLE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME in all of history. In fact, yes, American slaves were treated so much better than African slaves in the Caribbean and Latin America (which had much greater numbers brought in) and an African slave taken by Arabs would have been castrated if male, and then millions of White people were made slaves by the Moslem world too.”
Hmmm . . that is interesting so the point is that hypocrisy on such a mass scale has consequences. That the subsequent treatment of of an entire population is the consequence of a practice wholly contradictory to the US ethos and fostered a host of very negative consequences: i.e. exaggerated harm . . . but predicated on a mountain of truth. And that is the real problem. What was predicted as consequence if the US did not end its slavery by choice at the founding — would invite a host of evils
hate to use another’s choice of term . . . but I am afraid in this instance
It is you that has missed the point. But I do appreciate the suggestion that one of the negative consequences of that horrendous truth is that everyone and their mothers uncle would make a claim on slavery and thereby reap the benefits. Nicely done.
The only question is not whether the institution contradicted nearly every core fiber of the country’s ethos, but just how horrendous the matter was and how horrendous the consequences. Apparently that matter is yet to be determined. You are certainly invited to tell the millions whose lives were negatively impacted that their history is a sight better than the slaves of asia or colonial africa.
As I said, measured by our standards, not some foreign land whose understanding of slavery and practice was vastly different. Well, at least you have a two bowls of gruel instead of one.
Laugh so very very funny — and yet — not at all. Tragic.
That is my point —
Winds are described by the direction they are COMING FROM.
” . . . treated so much better than African slaves in the Caribbean and Latin America . . . ”
I can see that your grasp of the varying practices of slavery in the US is very limited. Whether slavery was some kind of better depended on the plantation and how it was operated.
Ohh the color game — let’s see . . uhhh wow . . white people were slaves no way . . . even yellows, no way . . .
people of other colors were also slaves — no kidding.
Thanks … I think … ;-}
For Mr. Tilley (not): I didn’t mean that first comma. That’s your handle. l do think you’re a great limericist.
Peter Helland has discussed this at length on YouTube.
You are 100 percent correct. Religious people are dangerous fools.
I think you may be confusing a tactical exigency with deeper, more compelling motives for the war.
Yep, Abolitionists are still around. Look at the above comment and think about it.
Anyway, here’s what was happening back then — expanded story.
The South was relying on “King Cotton” to save them — the UK was supposed to intervene on the Southern side in order to keep its cotton cloth production industry supplied. This hoped for intervention supposedly foundered on cotton supply from Egypt, and from an England that was opposed to slavery (presumably the Egyptian field workers were not slaves). I must say, the English overlooked a really good way to destroy the US, which turned out to be their principal competitor over the next century or so and which ultimately destroyed the British Empire and (arguably) Europe. However, that’s a side issue. The UK did, in fact, not intervene.
So — the blockquote above suggests that, as a first step in what looked like a war, the South destroy its cotton agriculture by eliminating the organization of labor that made large scale cotton production possible. Shall I say, in an understated way, that such a move would have been a bad idea? On the bright side, Jubilation C. Cornpone has worthy heirs.
The argument that slavery drove the Civil War is at best only part complete. The US Southeast had been blocking Northern expansion through the Northern States (See: Bloody Kansas) in order to preserve the Southeast’s working majority in Congress, hence its domination of US politics. This wasn’t as, ah, irrational as it now seems, because both North and South had run into the Great American Desert / Great Plains, where neither cotton/tobacco slavery nor smallholding farming using existing techniques was economically rewarding or even possible. Kansas turned out to be the limit for Northern agricultural expansion, East Texas for Southern agricultural expansion. It looked, for a time, as though Southern dominance could be continued through suppression of just a few Free States.
The game broke down eventually. First, California was obviously going to be a Free State as cotton wouldn’t grow there, but might be lost (see: Republic of California) if not connected to the USA by a Transcontinental Railroad. Second, the South had been bribing the North by paying for the Federal government with tariffs on imports. As the North industrialized, this bribe became less and less effective.
Certainly Abolitionist propaganda/activity brought about the Civil War, but the Northeast wasn’t slow about funding the Transcontinental Railway a year after the Civil War started (at that time the eventual victor was uncertain and the US Federal government had started issuing “greenback” fiat currency) to open Kansas and California to Northern markets and troop movements. Apparently, development of the Plains States and access to California was just as important to the Northeast as was winning the Civil War.
So, we had an intractable conflict even without the Abolitionists.
The story that fanatical Abolitionists (devil surrogates) were entirely responsible for the Civil War is at best a mistake. Certainly the Abolitionists motivated much of the general public, but the Civil War was no more due to Abolitionists than WW II was due to Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor or The Third Reich’s annexation of half of Poland (with the USSR taking the other half). As usual, the general populations’ desires were not the critical ones.
The critical conflict of interest was the Northeast’s opportunities to massively industrialize vs. the Southeast’s desire to continue its agricultural / cotton plantation society.
Think of the conflict as New York City vs. Mississippi. To this day, NYC (not just the Jewish and Black elements, but all people who have grown up there) has a residual hatred of Southerners, one that is reciprocated. Back in the 1860s, it was the upper and middle classes that had the hatred. Surprisingly enough, the Irish did not; the NYC Draft Riots quickly turned into an assault on Black settlement in NYC. Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” and the Jewish “see the Holocaust Museum” and, for that matter, this comment stream illustrates the division back in the 1860s. The difference was expressed differently in other parts of the US (see: “Bloody Kansas”).
SO WHAT? WHY SHOULD THIS MATTER TO THE READER?
The argument about whether Abolitionists were demons or Saints is beside the point, historically. Where interests conflict, pretexts abound. So it has been, so it will be, and so it is.
The only difference between then and now is that now the Left sees a chance to keep the income streams from the American Empire and dispense with the Right that provided the muscle to keep the streams going and staff the muscle driven fist to boot. The Right wants to either get the income streams or end their use by the Left that is trying to genocide the Right, and also to end the burden of maintaining the armed force that is the fist maintaining the income stream.
Yes, the goals contradict themselves.
As before, the conflict is etherealized into moral issues that amount to pilpul — that cannot be settled by observation or logic built on observation.
Sometimes conflicts are so deep rooted that argumentum ad baculum, cum magnum baculum is the only possible outcome. For an example of “magnum baculum” consider the 2021/01/06 operation, which is roughly comparable to Harper’s Ferry. Supposedly 2/3 of Americans recognize 2021/01/06 as a setup.
It was a jest, as you have correctly guessed. Writing seriously, there are very few real libertarians left. Most now masquerading as “libertarians” are corporatist shills, defending the interests of oligopolies and oligarchs. ( “Paypal stopped you using them, the bank froze your account indefinitely. They’re private organisations, no connection to the state. Nothing to see here, move on.” )
Others are fastidious souls, often completely lacking in historical awareness, who are more worried about the theoretical harm that action by the state may cause rather than actual serious abuses of “private ” actors. ( ” Break up Microsoft. We can’t let the state have these extra powers. Teddy Roosevelt ? What’s he got to do with it ?” )
Good luck, Mr Newman, and all who sail with you.
Now you’re pretending I’m talking about ALL Catholics and Protestants, when you know damn well I’m talking about ((Jew)) stooge “Protestants” and “Catholics,” who aren’t Christians any more than ((Jew)) stooge “atheists” are “rational.” Like you and Taylor, they’re Zoglodytes; they’ll stoop to any level, no matter how low, for filthy lucre or even just a pat on the head from top kikes with the promise of some future payoff.
You go about calling yourself a “Dr.” So does Zoglodyte Fauci, pimping poisonous “vaccines” for Big Pharma and Big Government. Same as the big brained Zoglodyte PHD’s who declared the Twins went down due to being hit by jetliners while totally ignoring WTC7.
You Zoglodytes are utterly retarded by your own warped greed and path of least resistance pathology, and your compulsion for power, easy living, and and narcissistic navel gazing. In a previous incarnation, you Zoglodytes were in the slave trade with ((Jews)) without any regard for what was going to happen to future generations and what importing millions of Blacks was going to do down the line. You’re get rich quick narcissists, just like the kikes. And now you’re in on Globalism with kikes.
As a Zoglodyte, have you ever considered putting yourself out of your squirmy brained misery, “Dr”? If not, re-think your decision to stay alive to do your worst, or repent and reform your subhuman ways.
“So — the blockquote above suggests that, as a first step in what looked like a war, the South destroy its cotton agriculture by eliminating the organization of labor that made large scale cotton production possible.”
Odd that the loquacious Mr. Anonymous cannot conceive of the reality that the organization of labor making large scale cotton production possible continued when the war was over and the slaves freed. Cotton picked by freed slaves could have been picked in 1861 just as it was picked by freed slaves in 1866. And the confederacy would have endured without a bloody civil war. Glib lines upon lines of pompous erudition are clearly possible without common sense rationality spoiling the show.
After watching many of his videos I must say that I have come into agreement with most here that Taylor has some sort of aversion to mentioning the Jews and their direct impact on race in America and the world.
You are way out of bounds. The majority of slave owners and those involved in slavery were in fact jews. Therefore, it can be surmised that jews caused Americas negroe problem.
There is no country on earth dominated by blacks that is anything near functional. They hadn’t even invented the wheel prior to White contact.
You have certainly learned a lot of history and theology from HBO.
If you read something that is not victor’s “history,” perhaps you’ll come to see what ought already to be obvious: that the North’s sole compelling motive for the war was profiteering.
What’s more, Lincoln was a stooge for the railroad trusts, whose bidding he faithfully did.
Good grief,
European jews, being white supported slavery as did most of the country. But the issue in the US is not faith and practice or ethnic origins — it was first and foremost skin color. And there s no escaping that fact. So whether you want to claim it only two jews or fifty, the matter was settled on skin color primarily.
But it does relief the other issue regarding jewish access in the US despite being predominantly “christian.”
1.2%
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1992/2/12/jews-and-the-slave-trade-just/
So your theory is:
Didn’t happen. Cotton production dropped to near nothing for several years, then picked up again under a “sharecropping” system. The UK continued to get its cotton from Egypt (which was inside the British Empire trade zone, and so paid taxes to the UK rather than the US). The South became very poor, and some of the “freed slaves” became “dead slaves” from starvation. ( https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/National_History/Book%3A_U.S._History_(American_YAWP)/15%3A_Reconstruction/15.07%3A_Economic_Development_during_the_Civil_War_and_Reconstruction ). It did not help that Northerners (many Jewish, apparently) came to the South and looted it both through politics and direct theft, but that’s another subject.
Just because you can imagine it doesn’t mean that it happened. And just because you’re trying to be insulting doesn’t mean you’re correct.
On a related subject, apparently WingsofaDove is not all that unusual today, nor is Romanoff, nor Taylor. The attempt to show that Americans, at least if White, are evil fools is general. It appears to be another media/scholarly offensive in the color color revolution that both Democrats and Republicans are conducting against American government and the possibility of that the popular vote might actually set policy. Here (
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/03/historical-fatalism-us-politics-history-schools/673313/?utm_source=feed ) is a discussion of this offensive in The Atlantic, which documents the offensive’s existence and mechanics, then comes to the usual Postmodernist conclusions: Strawberry fields, nothing is real, there’s nothing to get hung about. Strawberry fields forever! And the opposition to Postmodernism isn’t human.
, as Cato used to say.
In the meantime, in the physical world, Amazon sells potassium sulfate (a simple and very widely used cheap fertilizer, adds potassium and sulfur) for $12/pound in 1 pound lots, or for $100 / 50 pound bag, unit price around $0.20/pound. Urea, same general price: $0.20/pound. 10-10-10 NPK, about $0.10/pound, $54 for a 33 pound bag. I can’t find potassium sulfate or urea locally at any price in feed and seed stores. Agriculture as we know it isn’t possible at these prices, and of course home gardening is also uneconomic. IMHO: This is not part of a color revolution offensive; this is part of the failure of world trade, with some countries ending the export of fertilizers so that they will have enough for their own population.
Taylor correctly indicates that slave traders were universally despised, not slavery.
Read more carefully!
Where would Jews be without the Holyco$t?
Where would Negros be without their Slavery lament?
I guess they’d have to buck up and get on with life, like everyone else.
“Taylor correctly indicates that slave traders were universally despised, not slavery.
Read more carefully!”
excuse the intrusion. But it would not be unreasonable to conclude that if people despised slavery they would despise the those that engaged in the practice of kidnapping and the like.
One aspect of American “negro fatigue” that is never discussed is the fact that the blacks who were brought to the “New World” were not the “best and brightest” but were the dregs of their respective societies that their “despotic leaders” wanted to get (and be) rid of. From criminals and troublemakers to slow-dull-witted morons and retards that were brought here, we are “paying the price” for their presence to this very day.
Quite often, those enslaved were conquests of the many tribal wars that were common in the day.
African blacks were (and still are) enslaved by their own African brethren before being shipped to the “New World”.
Contrast the typical American black with many African immigrants…American blacks see themselves as being “oppressed” and “kept down” by the white man whereas African blacks see themselves as having opportunities that they don’t have in their countries of origin. In many cases, African blacks want nothing to do with American blacks, being aware of their deficiencies and considerable societal shortcomings.
Correct. Christianity is a totally insane belief system. This god bellows, “I love you so much that if you do not love me back I will burn you for all eternity in my hell pit.” He creates begins but because he made them too curious (a mistake in the blueprint) he damns the entire bunch to hell. Damn Eve and her apple bite.
He has a change of heart and decides to save a few of these miserable, carnal, fallen creatures and thinks it would be a good idea to save them via bloody sadistic human crucifixion. Throw into the mix a bit of pagan cannibalism, “Eat my flesh, drink my blood.” And, you get the idea.
“Next to this, believing that negroes are equal to whites and should be given citizenship and the vote was easy.”
Hate to break the news to you. Black citizens are equal by way of the Constitution, and always have been, it just took whites a tad to admit it. Black citizens do have the vote, though the country spent no small amount of energy abridging that right.
As for God . . . he can certainly speak himself.
Nancy O’Brien Simpson: “Christianity is a totally insane belief system. This god bellows, “I love you so much that if you do not love me back I will burn you for all eternity in my hell pit.””
Nicely stated. No doubt it will shock you to learn that Adolf Hitler made a similar observation in July of 1941.
EliteCommInc.: “Black citizens are equal by way of the Constitution …”
Under the Constitution negroes are equal to whites in the same way that women are equal to men. Similarly, one might describe an imaginary reality in which squares are equal to triangles, or two equal to four. The trick is getting actual reality to conform to the one you’ve dreamed up. This is the task of Christianity, a belief system for psychotics who are and have always been steadfast in their opposition to actual reality. For the Christian, actual reality (i.e., Nature) is the domain of Satan, in rebellion against God; therefore he makes war against it.
“Under the Constitution negroes are equal to whites in the same way that women are equal to men. Similarly, one might describe an imaginary reality in which squares are equal to triangles, or two equal to four. The trick is getting actual reality to conform to the one you’ve dreamed up. This is the task of Christianity, a belief system for psychotics who are and have always been steadfast in their opposition to actual reality. For the Christian, actual reality (i.e., Nature) is the domain of Satan, in rebellion against God; therefore he makes war against it”
Well, I won’t argue with anyone who acknowledges that were are still short changing black citizens of their rights. That’s progress. And I want you to know, we have a long way to go before we get the mess the country has made of socializing black citizens. But again, so proud of you that you admit — it remains a very real problem.
And good for you by the way.
And just so you know . . . . faith and practice is simply not a requirement for equal access and treatment. Christian, jew, hobgoblin or agnostic — equal access and treatment are a demand of the laws of the land.
I cannot express my how impressed I am by your admission. Near stunning
That is NOT the point I’m making. I’m saying Blacks lived hundreds of thousands of years in Africa and made it to 2023 without any help. Doesn’t matter if they didn’t figure out the wheel. Apparently they didn’t fucking need it!
EliteCommInc.: “And good for you by the way. … I cannot express my how impressed I am by your admission. Near stunning ”
And for my part, I’m impressed with your admission that negroes are as equal to whites as squares are equal to triangles, or to use a more apt comparison, as baboons are equal to humans. It’s rare to find such an honest negro as yourself.
Kudos! If I wore a hat, I’d take it off to you.
Jared Taylor:
“How recently were scholars writing balanced, academic studies of slavery? ”
Yes, a “balanced” view of slavery, of owning other human beings as property, disregarding their humanity, their freedom and inflicting them pain and suffereing to bend them to your will. Let’s have a “balanced” view of that.
Jared Taylor, you are a piece of shit. An absolutely trash human. The fact that you somehow went to Yale is appalling. Sure, a B.A in philosophy doesn’t require much brain power, but still you are levels below what is expected from a Yale Man, both in terms of intellect and especially in terms of character.
Let’s have a “balanced” view on slavery. What’s next? Let’s have a “balanced” view on foot-binding? Or what about a “balanced” view on castrating little boys so that we can have great soprano singers? A “balanced” view my ass. Some things deserve utter and absolute moral condemnation. You are just a psychopath.
“squares are equal to triangles, or to use a more apt comparison, as baboons are equal to humans.”
Laughing.
whether i am black, white, green , yellow or magenta citizen is of no ,matter in this exchange. nice try.
The issue is under what matter of application are beings equal and what that means.
Squares, triangles would all be classified as geometric shapes, each shape according to its purpose, but each an equal member of the geometric family
https://www.mathsisfun.com/quadrilaterals.html
As for baboons and human beings . . . they reside as equals as belonging to the animal kingdom.
however, neither the geometric family nor the baboon family are citizens in the US and therefore would not be equals as to the application of access and treatment by way of the Constitution. Since the topic is equality to the constitution i can categorically say that neither baboons nor squares are subject of the exchange and introducing them suggests, that you have a problem with properly framing and identifying like entities to their respective place
doing so might appear obtuse.
Hence the constant calls that people in the US who are citizens of the US be denied equal access to the same, simply does not understand citizenship and it relationship to the human being. Though I am not sure obtuse is the correct term for your symptom.
EliteCommInc.: “whether i am black, white, green , yellow or magenta citizen is of no ,matter in this exchange. ”
On the contrary, your negritude explains your lack of comprehension and inarticulateness.
EliteCommInc.: “The issue is under what matter of application are beings equal and what that means.”
“The issue is under”? LOL Looks like your first language isn’t English. Maybe you are thinking in Ooga-booga.
That this exchange has something to do with whether unequal things should be treated equally though is an issue of which you appear to be cognizant, though dimly. You appear to want to answer this question in the affirmative.
EliteCommInc.: “… the topic is equality to the constitution …”
No, the topic is whether the Constitution is correct to prescribe unequal things be treated equally. Since it’s your position that it is, you need to explain why. So far, you’ve failed miserably.
““The issue is under”? LOL Looks like your first language isn’t English. Maybe you are thinking in Ooga-booga.
That this exchange has something to do with whether unequal things should be treated equally though is an issue of which you appear to be cognizant, though dimly. You appear to want to answer this question in the affirmative.
EliteCommInc.: “… the topic is equality to the constitution …”
No, the topic is whether the Constitution is correct to prescribe unequal things be treated equally. Since it’s your position that it is, you need to explain why. So far, you’ve failed miserably.”
again, you really don’t get it.
Laughing. Well, the document has a means of addressing that. That when citizens , equal to the or under or by the law, violate they rules, the matters is dealt with according to the customs of any articular local, state . . . .
but before walking down that path, let’s address your inability to grasp the concept of framing — as to how things are qualified here are the qualifications for citizenship:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
posterity those born of parents who are citizens of the US or by adoption through a naturalization process ( in the case of freed slaves, nearly to a one all black ) – that is it the 14th Amendments addressed them specifically — that they are citizens.
That is it. Skin color is simply not a factor . . in fact, the record is fairly clear that the black population could be as productive or nonproductive as whites. There is no standard to equality . . . your argument suggests a standard that should have existed but could not for a very simple reason —
the entire polity of the system was designed to remove a caste system by which any person by rank or status be vantages. so your standard of color is arbitrary
blacks in colonies afforded education read, shoes, wrote, played instruments, planted, harvested as did the whites they lived among. This inequality by skin color simply did not and does not exist. And it certainly nothing that could be applied. There are and always have been too many exceptions to your supposed rule to be anything but arbitrary — if if could create such a standard, what to do about the impact of the whites who fell below it.
Don’t tell me you think Pres. George Washington actually earned his rank and position by merit. The founders already knew that skin color was not a sign of inequality, that is why it is not listed in the documents for citizenship. Though they may have wanted it to be white — they knew there was no standard that someone of another color could not then achieve.
But you insist on this inequality that you cannot quantify, save by numbers which against is arbitrary because the numbers are not soley to color but environment.
And why there is so much hopscotching around about IQ but no qualifying number, but because someone with some undesirable trait, always matches the same or excels beyond it.
Laughing. I could always improve writing skills . . . but then I am in very good company apparently
https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-lamest-authors-of-all-time
https://leelofland.com/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/
I am really comforted by the life of Neils Borh, if I recall was a horrible writer, in fact his wife wrote his theoretical works.
At any rate, bad writing . . is hardly a sign of skin color. Nor is some valuation of one’s thinking. because according to you the founders were to dumb to arrive at a standard by which only white skin qualified for citizenship. But you keep trying . . .
EliteCommInc.: “… the document has a means of addressing that. …”
The document doesn’t address the question at all. Nor do you. Why is it correct to treat unequal things equally? Would you treat baboons the same as humans? Give them the same “rights”, the same privileges? To what purpose?
Your negro brain seems incapable of even pondering this question, let alone answering it.
“That this exchange has something to do with whether unequal things should be treated equally though is an issue of which you appear to be cognizant, though dimly. You appear to want to answer this question in the affirmative.”
Allow me to help you out
1. first establish the quality that makes white people superior
2. If whiteness is the standard, then albino shaded individuals rank the most superior
3. Explicate/define whiteness
4. Who qualifies as white
5. explicate the difference between 1/8 drop verses 1/4 drop of blood to skin color
“The document doesn’t address the question at all. Nor do you. Why is it correct to treat unequal things equally? Would you treat baboons the same as humans? Give them the same “rights”, the same privileges? To what purpose?”
Sure it does very simple
when one breaks the law they can have their rights abridged in otherwords — they are no longer treated equally to all other citizens , but that must be determined by a due (fair) process. You might actually want to read the foundation by which citizens are treated equally before commenting.
You are assuming some inequality without first identifying the difference in humans. I consider citizens equal under the law, entitled to the same access and treatment.
When we discuss the human family we are changing the frame humans are not baboons and would not expect them to be as humans in our society. The fact that you asset the questions outside of the frame by which we address equality in the US suggests, you are not able to stay within the lines by which to judge anything to any standard of equality.
Keep in the frame here it is Animals, the human animal, the human animal as US citizen. trying toss in baboons when they are not human or citizens is just a very peculiar tact, and it makes no sense. It is a false comparison.
Your press was to skin color of humans. Stay to the complaint and assertions you made and that to the Constitution. Which I am still expecting you to provide the definitive standard for citizenship as it relates to skin color. Your making your hole deeper than it needs to be.
I have no unique praise of black people as people , , they are as dumb, smart, moral, immoral as other people to various environment.
But what I do appreciate is they have a very unique place in our national history. They are in my mind, truly the first US citizen. Because those families who come from slavery know nothing else but the US, their knowledge of their past is almost obliterated by the realities of slavery and colonialism, They can through DNA trace biology — but culture, civilization . . . in terms of knowledge history — but little to none. So unlike all other immigrant populations the US is truly home. And they more than any other group hold the key what our nation is in juxtaposition to what it aspires to be.
Stripped of all else they have had to forge their way in a land that for most of its history despised the color of their skin, a condition from which there is practically no escape — yet have manged to forge a home in hostile environments and function quite well in spite of the impediments, including their own.
No mass of the population has that unique according as US citizens.
——-
But you have some work to do . . I best let you get to it. Excuse the above observation.
EliteCommInc.: “You are assuming some inequality without first identifying the difference in humans. … Your press was to skin color of humans. ”
No, you’re assuming equality where there is none.
The difference between you negroes and whites isn’t limited to “skin color”, as you so stupidly claim. It’s a profound difference so self-evident that Darwin wondered if he should assign negroes to another species. He questioned whether you’re human at all. In Descent of Man he wrote:
Furthermore, in Dredd Scott, the US Supreme Court held that this difference was so manifestly obvious to the Founders that it was clear that you negroes had no rights a white man was bound to respect. The Court held that you were not citizens in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution and were therefore relegated to the status of mere property.
Since you’ve proved incapable of coming to grips with the question posed, namely, WHY the manifold differences between the races should be ignored, I’ll give you the answer. As I demonstrated at some length above, it’s clearly the result of Christian psychosis. There is no good reason they should be; or at least, no good reason that YOU have been able to give.
“The difference between you negroes and whites isn’t limited to “skin color”, as you so stupidly claim. It’s a profound difference so self-evident that Darwin wondered if he should assign negroes to another species. He questioned whether you’re human at all. In Descent of Man he wrote: . . .”
Stay in frame, the standard is the constitution, now to the extent that it simply sets citizenship as standard —
it does not require equality other than access and treatment if one is a citizen. You say the document is all wet for doing so. That means you are responsible for setting some standard that should be used. If being a human and being a citizen of the US is insufficient, then identify a better standard. You say whiteness, and i simply say that you then have to identify what standard that whites have that would uniquely bar black citizens.
Well,
Darwin gets a lot wrong.
https://www.wired.com/2014/12/fantastically-wrong-thing-evolution-darwin-really-screwed/
https://www.dw.com/en/what-darwins-descent-of-man-got-wrong-on-sex-and-race-and-why-it-matters/a-56661400
furthermore you are the one claiming skin color is the standard, that is your sole position that skin color embodies some unique qualifier that should have eliminated blacks from consideration — so identify the standard quality in whiteness that would establish a unique model by which a black person would not qualify.
But before proceeding”
Allow me to help you out
1. first establish the quality that makes white people superior
2. If whiteness is the standard, then albino shaded individuals rank the most superior
3. Explicate/define whiteness
4. Who qualifies as white
5. explicate the difference between 1/8 drop verses 1/4 drop of blood to skin color
Furthermore, I do not contend any such thing as you indicate. Again nice try. But that you lean on Darwin as opposed to the naturalist scientific community or better yet . . .
https://www.str.org/w/are-blacks-human-beings-
As for the Dread Scott decision, well, it was not based on science, that clear. Furthermore, as i have laid out very clearly, the standard is treatment and access, you say its wrong because blacks are somehow not equal, i say well lat that out what is the “unequalness” that should reconfigure what the Constitution does by expectation that equality to the law and under the law. The Dred Scott decision was made in 1857(?) Dred Scott was a slave, that by definition would not be considered a citizen but property. I clearly lay out that the standard is citizenship. now here is where the entire argument you make backfires on you. Because despite Mr and Mrs Scott’s inability to read, Mr. Scott filed suits and petitions was able to comprehend the contradictions between the ideal of the country and what it delivered. More importantly whites not only respected his rights to do so they considered the matter up to the supreme court. And sure, it would be accurate to point out that particulars were spelled by lawyers, just like white people who are citizens did at the time. Curious choice, you made. But it a choice that contradicts the purpose of its use, in practice, if not in decision.
Whether I am human . . . it is my understanding that my genetics is all other humans , with variation for adaptions. But no doctor or neurologist or geneticist has ever said
“Hey, you’re not human.”
I think I will stick with their assessment over Darwin.
Name the quality that the Constitution should have included to treat black citizens differently. If it in fact self evident, you can identify it.
“[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species.”
Laughing —- Uhhh I don’t think you are comprehending what Darwin is saying in the above reference. When he says subspecies, he is not singling out blacks from humans as a different species. He saying that both africans and europeans are human beings, though different they are still in fact both human. Note Darwin identifies four sub-species — this is a category of humans, not each a unique species, at least as i have reviewed.
I think you should stop digging. Note: if skin color made a lick of difference in these discussions, i would reference it — but content of the discussion certainly outweighs.
As I always say: were it not for Christianity, the notion that negroes were the same species as our selves would never have occurred to us.
The “further information” that Darwin seems to be alluding to, here, is the myth of all anapterous bipeds’s being created equal, in the image and likeness of the Jewish tribal war god, as found in the Bible.
gaedhal: “The “further information” that Darwin seems to be alluding to, here, is the myth of all anapterous bipeds’s being created equal, in the image and likeness of the Jewish tribal war god, as found in the Bible. ”
He expends a lot of ink in that chapter trying to justify his decision to include them in the human species. I don’t find him particularly persuasive on this score, and I think he might have reached a different decision if he had our information; information whites have so painfully gleaned from almost another two centuries now of trying to find a use for these monkeys.
It’s well to remember that Darwin was from a religious family of renowned abolitionists, and was personally horrified by slavery. It seems clear Christianity colored his scientific views of race, even if unconsciously.
I am reading up on Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), as this portly preacher seems to be very popular in America. In fairness, the fellow can write, even though he uses his writing skills to write about nonsense. I sometimes listen to his autobiography on Audible so as to aid in my drifting off to sleep. Darwin went to a liberal Christian Church. I think that Darwin grew up a Unitarian Anglican, but deconverted to atheism, before he died, because of the nasty creatures—like the Ichneumonidae—that The Almighty supposedly created. A hell planet full of hellish creatures is what this world is, and Darwin well knew it. The Monty Python song All Things Dull and Ugly sings of this.
Spurgeon considers the Liberal Christian environment that Darwin grew up in to be worthy of note in his series of articles on The Downgrade Controversy.
Darwin also studied theology.
I kinda suspect that Transgenderism, also, has a lot to do with Christian magical thinking, and in particular, with the Christian belief in Cartesian-dualist souls.
Souls, being ghostly, presumably don’t have any sex organs. The souls of men and women, presumably, are not dimorphic.
You aren’t a woman stuck inside a man’s body… you are a man’s body!
gaedhal: “I kinda suspect that Transgenderism, also, has a lot to do with Christian magical thinking, and in particular, with the Christian belief in Cartesian-dualist souls.”
Christianity, of course, didn’t invent the idea of the soul. It’s common to a lot of cultures and most religions, although Buddha taught the idea of “no soul” (anatta). Transgenderism is likewise not unique to Christian lands. But as I hinted at above in #147, Christian ideas of equality probably influenced women’s suffrage and other “civil rights”. It’s noteworthy that in America negro males were granted the right to vote and juridical equality long before white women. As time went on, I suppose that decision must have looked more and more ridiculous. After all, if it’s already been granted that there’s no difference between the races in terms of “soul equality”, how could a sexual difference be justified?
gaedhal: “Souls, being ghostly, presumably don’t have any sex organs. The souls of men and women, presumably, are not dimorphic.”
If souls have sex, how does God tell male souls from female? I’ve never encountered any theological explanations of this. Are you aware of any? We could always appeal to his omniscience, I suppose, but that seems to assume the point rather than prove it.
As I’ve mentioned before in previous remarks, I believe the idea of a soul existing separate from the body is evidently false, but built into the very structure of our consciousness by the forces of evolution. This idea of the soul must have something to do with the dawn of consciousness, but it’s not clear exactly how it arises. It somehow enhanced fitness; improved self-control maybe. Thus, it became a necessary illusion.
Of course, to thoroughly analyze this question, one would first have to define the term “soul”, and definitions vary. Often it’s thought of as the mind and personality, though this, it seems to me, would pose some theological problems as well as evolutionary ones. In the former case, would that mean that a person in a vegetative state — someone who had no brain activity — no longer had a soul? Or what about anencephalic babies, born without a cerebrum? Are they “soul-less”? And fetuses, or even zygotes? If they have a soul already, then clearly it can’t be tied to mind and personality. Evolutionary problems too, e.g., do animals have souls? Plants? Bacteria? If so, then clearly it has nothing to do with mind or personality. If not, then man is once again a special creature, apart from other animals. It’s an idea that doesn’t reconcile with evolution at all.
The idea of “soul” is riddled with conceptual pitfalls, and the ones I’ve just mentioned are only a few of them. It fundamentally makes no sense at all and in my view has no place in a scientific understanding of the world.
Chattel slaves were considered to be “investments” which needed to be cared for much more than indentured servants.
Indeed. The mortality rate for indentured servants was immeasurably higher than for slaves, and a great many white indentured servants never saw the end of their terms of service. For those who did, many were subjected to sadistic treatment by their masters, including sexual abuses. A harrowing account of the fate of white indentured servants is the fascinating book ” Voices of Freedom”, by Eric Foner (2019, W. W. Norton and Company).
No. What I wrote was correct you are nitpicking. And Tyalor is a self righteuos philo-semite who thinks his WASP tribe have never done anything wrong.