[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords, how do you think we should handle all the brown/black people in America?

Kill them all off because if they can't control the scene you got to blow up the nation. But they are not violent.

I tell you though, if I had to bet who would win a firefight war with guns with the KKK or my Auntie Titi M? I would bet on my Tia. The Navy could not cope with her at all. Lol. She was voted the most difficult person against military occupations in Vieques. Lol. If they had killed my mother they would have been dead as doornails. Good thing they missed TWICE. In the motel and on the highway with the wrong person driving.

My Auntie is a force of nature.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

In England, at this time (1702), a villein was a bondsman, a tenant farmer bound to give service or rent for his land but free in all dealings with people other than his landlord.

[FiveofSwords]

No

Where is that Holt quote?

Well what did you mean, exactly? Becaus3 clearly you said Roanoke was 'saved' by indigenous people but the reality is that Roanoke was completely destroyed lol. It became a ghost town. And nobody knew what happened to the inhabitants but one thing that for sure did NOT happen was that they were 'saved' lol. So that was just a batshit crazy thing to think.

And I read about John holt and the whole argument about slavery from an actual book like 10 years ago. I am not going to do your homework for you and find some specific internet link. I really don't care that much about your education. The point I was trying to make is si ply that YOU clearly don't know what you are talking about. You had zero real education on history or the reality of European expansion and conquest. You were fed a fake Hollywood version of the story and you clearly are unable to comprehend the idea that you might be ignorant of things because that is just how much of a radical narcissist you are.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well what did you mean, exactly? Becaus3 clearly you said Roanoke was 'saved' by indigenous people but the reality is that Roanoke was completely destroyed lol. It became a ghost town. And nobody knew what happened to the inhabitants but one thing that for sure did NOT happen was that they were 'saved' lol. So that was just a batshit crazy thing to think.

Again, there is new evidence.

This is an irrelevant tangent that sprang from my claim that the US needed a mythology of white or European supremacy in order to justify colonialism during an era of supposed enlightenment and equality.

Do you have any questions about the important claim?

And I read about John holt and the whole argument about slavery from an actual book like 10 years ago. I am not going to do your homework for you and find some specific internet link. I really don't care that much about your education. The point I was trying to make is si ply that YOU clearly don't know what you are talking about. You had zero real education on history or the reality of European expansion and conquest. You were fed a fake Hollywood version of the story and you clearly are unable to comprehend the idea that you might be ignorant of things because that is just how much of a radical narcissist you are.

It is you who made the claim. I am more than happy to ignore it if you do not wish to support your claim with evidence.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

In England, at this time (1702), a villein was a bondsman, a tenant farmer bound to give service or rent for his land but free in all dealings with people other than his landlord.

Like I said it was no different from a serf except he was not legally tied to the land. You are providing a distinction without a difference. And of course in practice it certainly was not easy to just find a new lord lol...there was no kind of ngo facilitating such a transition lol. They were in practice the same as slaves.

And certainly your favorite 'humanitarian' could have ended the trans atla tic slave trade...it was within his authority to do that. And many 'Dutch' slave traders were happy to discover that he did not.

It took another century under William Wilberforce for that to happen.

All history you are totally ignorant of...but you still want to argue with someone who seems to know about it. Pretty wild.

[FiveofSwords]

Again, there is new evidence.

This is an irrelevant tangent that sprang from my claim that the US needed a mythology of white or European supremacy in order to justify colonialism during an era of supposed enlightenment and equality.

Do you have any questions about the important claim?



It is you who made the claim. I am more than happy to ignore it if you do not wish to support your claim with evidence.

Dude...it is just very telling that you suggested that Roanoke was 'saved' by indigenous people when the reality is that the colony was totally wiped out and no survivors were ever found...lol...that makes your claim so wrong thst it is actually funny.

But I am also not surprised that you would make such an absurd claim because you are ideologically tied to the assumption that every bad thing ever done in history was done by white people and non whites are incapable of ever doing bad things. White people are like some supernatural evil in your world view.

And you aren't alone in that. It is actually a pretty typical attitude...especially in historically white countries. Which is remarkable to observe.

It is actually pretty horrific both in how much hatred there is against white people...but also just in how stupid and childish it is. And it rests on these ridiculous historic lies exactly like 'Roanoke was saved by indigenous people'...lol

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

For fucks sake, a villein in England was not a slave. He had all the rights of a freeman. He could even take his lord to court and sue him.

In 1697, Chief Justice John Holt, who was appointed as chief justice of the king’s bench by the newly installed William III in 1689, issued a ruling in Chamberlain v. Harvey that upended the precedent set in Butts v. Penny that legalized slavery in England. Holt held that “no man can have property in the person of another while in England.”

In 1701, in Smith v. Brown and Cooper, Holt stepped in to invalidate the debt claim, to arrest the judgment, noting that “as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free.”

In 1706, Smith v. Gould, Holt's last and most influential case involving slavery, echoed the verdict in Chamberlayne, limiting the ability to sell slaves, or to make a claim to sell slaves, even in the colonies. As in Smith v. Brown and Cooper, the Holt court also reversed a lower court decision, stopping or 'arresting' a lower court's decision awarding the value of a negro at £30. It specifically negated the argument that “a negro was a chattel by the law of the plantations, and therefore trover would lie for him.” Instead it returned to a simple and broad argument that “Trover does not lie for a negro,” regardless of where that person is, because “the common law takes no notice of negroes being different from other men.” The court continued that “by the common law no man can have a property in another” (the ruling in Chamberlayne). While they allowed that a limited property can be held in a villein, the only legal action allowed is the writ per quod servitiium amisit (loss of services), a writ that does not allow recovery of the person and is for a broken contract. The court, speaking in a per curium decision, then said unequivocally that Butts v. Penny was not law. Thus, a man who had lost goods and “a negro” could receive damages only for the goods. The “negro” was a man, and a man could not be stolen, and was not fungible or replaceable with money. “Men may be the owners, and therefore cannot be the subject of property.”

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

For fucks sake, a villein in England was not a slave. He had all the rights of a freeman. He could even take his lord to court and sue him.

In 1697, Chief Justice John Holt, who was appointed as chief justice of the king’s bench by the newly installed William III in 1689, issued a ruling in Chamberlain v. Harvey that upended the precedent set in Butts v. Penny that legalized slavery in England. Holt held that “no man can have property in the person of another while in England.”

In 1701, in Smith v. Brown and Cooper, Holt stepped in to invalidate the debt claim, to arrest the judgment, noting that “as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free.”

In 1706, Smith v. Gould, Holt's last and most influential case involving slavery, echoed the verdict in Chamberlayne, limiting the ability to sell slaves, or to make a claim to sell slaves, even in the colonies. As in Smith v. Brown and Cooper, the Holt court also reversed a lower court decision, stopping or 'arresting' a lower court's decision awarding the value of a negro at £30. It specifically negated the argument that “a negro was a chattel by the law of the plantations, and therefore trover would lie for him.” Instead it returned to a simple and broad argument that “Trover does not lie for a negro,” regardless of where that person is, because “the common law takes no notice of negroes being different from other men.” The court continued that “by the common law no man can have a property in another” (the ruling in Chamberlayne). While they allowed that a limited property can be held in a villein, the only legal action allowed is the writ per quod servitiium amisit (loss of services), a writ that does not allow recovery of the person and is for a broken contract. The court, speaking in a per curium decision, then said unequivocally that Butts v. Penny was not law. Thus, a man who had lost goods and “a negro” could receive damages only for the goods. The “negro” was a man, and a man could not be stolen, and was not fungible or replaceable with money. “Men may be the owners, and therefore cannot be the subject of property.”

Dude...none of this contradicts anything I said. Holt was certainly offended by the thought that there was slavery in the British empire. Are you going to agree with him that there was not? You think the British empire abolished slavery in 1700?

Really?

[Rancid]

America is not a white country so white people should not live in America. The entire country ought to be destroyed, actually. I think there should be total anarchy.

Ok, but when you say destroyed. Do you mean, remove all the white people, and leave everyone else there to their own devices, or kill all the white, black, and brown people?

[Pants-of-dog]

@FiveofSwords

Let me know when you have an argument about white supremacy. Thanks.

Or if you wish, we can just move on to sickle cell anemia. That would be your next argument if you follow the usual race realist pattern.

[FiveofSwords]

Ok, but when you say destroyed. Do you mean, remove all the white people, and leave everyone else there to their own devices, or kill all the white, black, and brown people?

The institution of the usa must be dismantled. It is only a force of extreme evil all over the world. The only people who have any reason to support the usa are jews and so anyone who supports the usa who isn't jewish is just an idiot. That is the totality of my opinion on the usa and I don't care about any other issue. Go ahead and flood it with africans, I don't care.

[Potemkin]

The institution of the usa must be dismantled. It is only a force of extreme evil all over the world. The only people who have any reason to support the usa are jews and so anyone who supports the usa who isn't jewish is just an idiot. That is the totality of my opinion on the usa and I don't care about any other issue. Go ahead and flood it with africans, I don't care.

That’s already happened, @FiveofSwords, due to the transatlantic slave trade. This is probably why the English made it illegal to own slaves in England - they knew what the likely outcome would have been a few generations down the line, and didn’t want it. The colonies, of course, were different - nobody gave a monkey’s what happen to those societies down the line, because after all it wasn’t as though they were real countries or ever likely to be real countries, eh? The British, like all imperialists, regarded the American colonies as being, first and last, a means to make money.

As a ‘race realist’, you should detest the transatlantic slave trade, and the institution of race-based chattel slavery, with just as much loathing as Malcolm X or MLK did. Look what it did to your society.

[FiveofSwords]

That’s already happened, @FiveofSwords, due to the transatlantic slave trade. This is probably why the English made it illegal to own slaves in England - they knew what the likely outcome would have been a few generations down the line, and didn’t want it. The colonies, of course, were different - nobody gave a monkey’s what happen to those societies down the line, because after all it wasn’t as though they were real countries or ever likely to be real countries, eh? The British, like all imperialists, regarded the American colonies as being, first and last, a means to make money.

As a ‘race realist’, you should detest the transatlantic slave trade, and the institution of race-based chattel slavery, with just as much loathing as Malcolm X or MLK did. Look what it did to your society.

Lol. It wasn't the slave trade.

[Potemkin]

Lol. It wasn't the slave trade.

Then what was it, @FiveofSwords? Why is America “not a white country”?

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

Let me know when you have an argument about white supremacy. Thanks.

Or if you wish, we can just move on to sickle cell anemia. That would be your next argument if you follow the usual race realist pattern.

Lol..what do you consider 'white supremacy' to even mean?

[FiveofSwords]

Then what was it, @FiveofSwords? Why is America “not a white country”?

just one singular cause? major changes in history and culture usually have multiple causes.

Liberal democracy is itself a fatal contradiction and was quite stupid as a political philosophy. Democracy politicizes the masses and motivates 'voting blocks' who basically engage in civil war at the polls every election. Meanwhile liberalism is apolitical and atomises people, leaving the state vulnerable to economic takeover.

Liberal democracy was just as stupid a political concept as communism was. And it barely lasted long enough to destroy the only decent political philosophy in the past 200 years.

[Potemkin]

just one singular cause? major changes in history and culture usually have multiple causes.

Liberal democracy is itself a fatal contradiction and was quite stupid as a political philosophy. Democracy politicizes the masses and motivates 'voting blocks' who basically engage in civil war at the polls every election. Meanwhile liberalism is apolitical and atomises people, leaving the state vulnerable to economic takeover.

Liberal democracy was just as stupid a political concept as communism was. And it barely lasted long enough to destroy the only decent political philosophy in the past 200 years.

Let me guess what political philosophy that was… lol. Anyway, Nazism destroyed itself - Stalin had a deal with Hitler, which he scrupulously adhered to. It was Hitler who tore it up and launched his reckless invasion of the Soviet Union.

And why blame liberal democracy for all America’s woes? The huge influx of Africans into America was not caused by liberal democracy, but by the transatlantic slave trade, which itself was motivated by capitalist greed. Liberal democracy wasn’t even a thing back then.

[Pants-of-dog]

The institution of the usa must be dismantled.

Yes.

It is only a force of extreme evil all over the world.

While this is subjective, simplistic, and reductionist. let us just go with “yes”.

The only people who have any reason to support the usa are jews and so anyone who supports the usa who isn't jewish is just an idiot.

…and then we fly off into Protocol of Zion conspiracy theory land.

Let us go with “no”.

That is the totality of my opinion on the usa and I don't care about any other issue. Go ahead and flood it with africans, I don't care.

The music has been enjoyable so far.

Lol..what do you consider 'white supremacy' to even mean?

White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races and thus should dominate them.[1] The belief favors the maintenance and defense of any power and privilege held by white people. White supremacy has roots in the now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism and was a key justification for European colonialism.[2][3]

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

[FiveofSwords]

Let me guess what political philosophy that was… lol. Anyway, Nazism destroyed itself - Stalin had a deal with Hitler, which he scrupulously adhered to. It was Hitler who tore it up and launched his reckless invasion of the Soviet Union.

And why blame liberal democracy for all America’s woes? The huge influx of Africans into America was not caused by liberal democracy, but by the transatlantic slave trade, which itself was motivated by capitalist greed. Liberal democracy wasn’t even a thing back then.

No..your history is bad. Stalin was always planning to attack Germany and Hitler always knew that. We do know this for a fact after Stalin papers were declassified in the 90s. You didn't have to be all that clever to realize Germany was forced to do everything it did geopolitically.

Anyway no...the usa was over 80% white for pretty much its entire history until quite recently. That change was the result of the 1965 hart cellar act...but the hart cellar act (and civil rights) was a result of ww2. But anyway population does not = power. Jews are only 2.5% of our population but have 100% of the power.

By the way...Malcolm X who you mentioned earlier had an alliance with George Lincoln Rockwell. And Adolf Hitler mocked fdr for hesitating to sign the anti lynching bill. You might be making wrong assumptions about what my own opinions are on this stuff.

[FiveofSwords]

Yes.



While this is subjective, simplistic, and reductionist. let us just go with “yes”.



…and then we fly off into Protocol of Zion conspiracy theory land.

Let us go with “no”.



The music has been enjoyable so far.





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

If that is how you define white supremacy then I would not be a white supremacist. Neither would Hitler, in fact.