If races are not real, then you have to be logically consistent - Page 38 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15316616
FiveofSwords wrote:I think the real question should be whether the chart represents an experiment or the history of the usa.

I think you're right.

And whether those are mice or rats in that maze, it really doesn't matter (race). They were all fed pellets for pushing levers by.... the masters.
#15316621
QatzelOk wrote:If a mad scientist gathers a hundred mice together, and then cages them seperately in front of screens which they are forced to react to for food and water... can you really call this "a culture?"



"My culture is I push a lever and I get food pellets."

***

The Skinner Box is the same type of Frankenstein science as "race science" is - and the resulting mouse lifestyle creates the same kind of "culture" that technology has created for most humans.


Cars, fast food, junk food, everything is fast and furious and no cooking at home. No one talks to each other. They scarf down bad food and run.

Like mice in a car. Lol.

#15316627
QatzelOk wrote:I think you're right.

And whether those are mice or rats in that maze, it really doesn't matter (race). They were all fed pellets for pushing levers by.... the masters.

But lol...that does not accurately describe what the usa historically was. We are getting more loke that today, sore. But that is thanks to changes that YOU guys are forcing.

Back when the usa was a cozy white country, people didn't live that way.

In fact, lots of people had some romantic notions of wandering out west, killing some Indiana, and finding their own gold in some river.

It was pretty much a country of 'rugged individualism' which is essentially the natural state of liberalism. Thanks to that, there was nobreal resistance to a hostile foreign takeover of our institutions, because nobody felt like any institution was really 'theirs'..that concept would almost seem like blasphemy. But on thr other hand it was also the opposite of some mouse experiment.
#15316664
FiveofSwords wrote:a cozy white country

Map of immigration to the U.S. from the east, south, north, and west (1870-1900)

Image

Cosy white Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Canadians of unknown ethnicity - We do know from contemporary sources that at least some were Maltese - plus 8.8 million blacks, 1.5 million Jews, and 2 million 'n****r wop' Italians who were not considered white enough at the time.


:lol:
#15316669
About helpless lab rats obeying their masters, FiveofSwords wrote:...Back when the usa was a cozy white country, people didn't live that way....


The "cozy white" Irish and the "cozy white" slave masters lived in constant fear of "the other."

Their masters used this fear to manipulate them like rats in a maze.

Religion worked for centuries as a "trigger" for the bad behavior that the masters required of their rats. But eventually, religion lost its grip on the elites and they required "fake science" to motivate them, and then the rats got "mass media" - a much more effective maze-control-device than religion ever was.

TV got right into people's homes and monopolized the children - like opium used to do.... but with TV, the opium also has messages to share and not just sensations...

"Go kill the other races!" was that battle cry of the new manipulation, whereas the religious lies said "Go kill the other religions!"

Notice how the science of lab-rat-manipulation improved over time?
This is called "progress" by the mad scientists who created this "culture."


► Show Spoiler
#15316677
ingliz wrote:Map of immigration to the U.S. from the east, south, north, and west (1870-1900)

Image

Cosy white Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Canadians of unknown ethnicity - We do know from contemporary sources that at least some were Maltese - plus 8.8 million blacks, 1.5 million Jews, and 2 million 'n****r wop' Italians who were not considered white enough at the time.


:lol:

Uh..no. jews and Italians were always considered white and the proof is that they were granted citizenship. There were almost no Italians here until around the 1920s. The vast majority of immigration was from England, Germany, France, and Scandinavia. There was a brief period where Chinese were allowed in for labor, then that door was shut with the Chinese exclusion act. Initially northern Indians were allowed to call themselves white but that changed in the case baghat Singh vs thr usa, and they were deported (all 6000 of them...they were never a significant population). The Chinese and the blacks were not given citizenship until after the Civil War for the latter (a handful were given citizenship for fighting in the revolutionary war...but we are literally talking about a few hundred there) and some special plea from a Chinese in the early 1900s for the former.

The vast majority of the US population was from northern Europe until around 1980. Even the brief period a large number of Italians came (al capone was one of them) did not significantly alter the demographics and almost all of those Italians simply returned home (us cities really don't have a 'little Italy' anymore). What happened in the 1980s was that the 1965 Hart cellar act finally caught up to us and large numbers of other people moved in...also that was when Reagan granted a massive amnesty to all the Mexicans in California. The usa was about 90% white at that point and at least around 80% from northern europe.. the largest % the blacknpopulation ever got was about 20%, and that was a long time ago before they were given citizenship
#15316682
QatzelOk wrote:The "cozy white" Irish and the "cozy white" slave masters lived in constant fear of "the other."

Their masters used this fear to manipulate them like rats in a maze.

Religion worked for centuries as a "trigger" for the bad behavior that the masters required of their rats. But eventually, religion lost its grip on the elites and they required "fake science" to motivate them, and then the rats got "mass media" - a much more effective maze-control-device than religion ever was.

TV got right into people's homes and monopolized the children - like opium used to do.... but with TV, the opium also has messages to share and not just sensations...

"Go kill the other races!" was that battle cry of the new manipulation, whereas the religious lies said "Go kill the other religions!"

Notice how the science of lab-rat-manipulation improved over time?
This is called "progress" by the mad scientists who created this "culture."


► Show Spoiler

The white slave owners did not fear black people. Otherwise they would not have purchased slaves. That simply does not make sense lol...think about it. You do not elect to live around people you are afraid of.

People in the north were afraid of black people, especially after they saw the Haitian revolution, and that is exactly the primary reason why they did not want black slaves.

Christianity is actually anti racist. At least, that is the most natural interpretation of it. God made all humans, right? And consider the parable of the good Samaritan or even the parable of the canaanite woman. Christianity clearly seemed to disown the intrinsic racism of judaism which is why it was no longer just a religion for jews...duh. John brown was inspired by Christianity, for example. That was typical.

In reality the reason why a focus on race seems so persistent is because it is ingrained into human nature. It is a natural instinct...none of it needs to be taught. Science can tell you that it is a natural instinct and why it is a natural instinct. It actually takes indoctrination to make people NOT be racist. And this is why you see black americans express a lot of hatred for white people...not because they are still mad about slavery (the Spanish are not still mad about the Spanish American War, lol)...but because racism is automatic and they are never indoctrinated into not hating white people.

The common leftist meme that 'you have to be taught to be racist' is simply wrong and in fact it is the opposite of the truth. You have to be indoctrinated into anti racism. That is why white people (but not other races) who attend school for longer tend to be more anti-racist (not because they are more intelligent...this is a very new phenomenon and it doesn't really happen to other races)

If you want people to be less racist, you should actually promote Christianity and capitalism. Those are anti racist ideologies. It's funny how backwards you have everything.
#15316683
But now @ingliz they fear and shit in their pants that in 40 something years they won't be in charge anymore. Or that some Jose Gonzalez might become the next president. Oh, how low can you go? Who is to blame? Not the White Women who flush their fetuses down the toilet because they want to not be cooking bad Swanson TV dinners and Hamburger Helper and mopping floors. White men now are not going to college and getting good paying jobs. They are staying in their parents' basements and getting a job at UberEats part time.

They are victims. And who is to blame? The Global Capitalist elite run by Jews from Israel. Who deny the decent white people power on purpose. If only Hitler had eliminated the few that survived the Holocaust eh? But no, they survived and invaded Hollywood, the Banking Industry and private corporations. Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and so on....these powerful Jews running the show! Keeping decent white dudes who only speak English only and eat wonder bread ham and cheese sandwiches and used to work in Ford factories and Chrysler factories, and lived in the South and had everyone cowed that was not white...now have to compete with other Latinos and Blacks and scum of the Earth for a job....because Washington DC does not care about them anymore.

Blame the ones not responsible for the mess. They are easier to kill off and hate. The Global Capitalist elite are harder. So you go to Dominica and try to overthrow that government and take over land that does not belong to them in the hopes of being in power via force like their ancestors did before them. But the world has changed and now you have Rainbow Coalitions of freaks. Latino Neo Nazis like Enrique Tario and Black Neo Nazis....lol. And Chinese Neo Nazis. The Nazi Rainbow Coalition, oh woe is me...

:lol:
#15316685
@FiveofSwords making dumb statements very easily debunked said:

The white slave owners did not fear black people. Otherwise they would not have purchased slaves. That simply does not make sense lol...think about it. You do not elect to live around people you are afraid of.


No, the white slave owners bought black people from the banks. They were paying off the banks to make sure they could use Black people as slave labor. When they were tight on funds they would farm them out for rent to other people who needed labor and paid the white slave owner. They were property. How can you be afraid of a chair or a piece of property. They are inanimate objects you can exploit at will because the law says they are not human.

The law denied their human rights. So the slaveowner had the right to even kill his slave and never go to jail. This continued for centuries. With no rights to be human. What the slaveowning class of all ethnicities did was ATROCIOUS. But it was the law.

Did this mean they treated the slaves well? The smart ones did. Just like car owners who do good car maintenance and make sure the oil changes and tune ups happen, and gas their cars up with Premium gasoline and boosters for the gas, and make sure the car is sheltered in a garage and cover it up well to maintain the body and paint job that cost them a pretty penny, because someday they are going to resell the car and they need a good return on their investment. So do not mistreat the cars.

Then there are car owners who trash their cars and forget to do the maintenance and let anyone drive it to the store or so on, and never do tuneups and they get mad at the car and in a fit of rage--kick the doors or tires, and never take it to the car wash and only put in cheap gas always to save money.

Yes, people knew in their minds and hearts that Black people were humans, they had Black nannies, cooks, caretakers and trusted their livestock, crops and children to their care. Because they loved them? Some did grow to love their slaves. But more likely they knew the slaves had no rights. So, there would never be a rebellion or an ability to alter their own circumstances. That came ironically from the Capitalist class. Who wanted to free the slaves of the South in order to control the economy, and if they could pay the ex-slaves peanuts and grow their factories? So be it. White Capitalists destroyed the South. But here you sit trying to say the Neo Nazis are not doing their dirty work for them? You are a tool. :p

That is what they were. Yet here you sit justifying all that shit in the name of White Power and White Supremacy when the majority of the Southern White Poor never owned a slave. They could never afford to. And worked like slaves in order to pay the same banks selling Black slaves to plantation owners. You still do not understand the basics in socioeconomics. Believing in BULLSHIT with no real depth. It is sad..... :lol: :D
#15316689
Tainari88 wrote:@FiveofSwords making dumb statements very easily debunked said:



No, the white slave owners bought black people from the banks. They were paying off the banks to make sure they could use Black people as slave labor. When they were tight on funds they would farm them out for rent to other people who needed labor and paid the white slave owner. They were property. How can you be afraid of a chair or a piece of property. They are inanimate objects you can exploit at will because the law says they are not human.

The law denied their human rights. So the slaveowner had the right to even kill his slave and never go to jail. This continued for centuries. With no rights to be human. What the slaveowning class of all ethnicities did was ATROCIOUS. But it was the law.

Did this mean they treated the slaves well? The smart ones did. Just like car owners who do good car maintenance and make sure the oil changes and tune ups happen, and gas their cars up with Premium gasoline and boosters for the gas, and make sure the car is sheltered in a garage and cover it up well to maintain the body and paint job that cost them a pretty penny, because someday they are going to resell the car and they need a good return on their investment. So do not mistreat the cars.

Then there are car owners who trash their cars and forget to do the maintenance and let anyone drive it to the store or so on, and never do tuneups and they get mad at the car and in a fit of rage--kick the doors or tires, and never take it to the car wash and only put in cheap gas always to save money.

Yes, people knew in their minds and hearts that Black people were humans, they had Black nannies, cooks, caretakers and trusted their livestock, crops and children to their care. Because they loved them? Some did grow to love their slaves. But more likely they knew the slaves had no rights. So, there would never be a rebellion or an ability to alter their own circumstances. That came ironically from the Capitalist class. Who wanted to free the slaves of the South in order to control the economy, and if they could pay the ex-slaves peanuts and grow their factories? So be it. White Capitalists destroyed the South. But here you sit trying to say the Neo Nazis are not doing their dirty work for them? You are a tool. :p

That is what they were. Yet here you sit justifying all that shit in the name of White Power and White Supremacy when the majority of the Southern White Poor never owned a slave. They could never afford to. And worked like slaves in order to pay the same banks selling Black slaves to plantation owners. You still do not understand the basics in socioeconomics. Believing in BULLSHIT with no real depth. It is sad..... :lol: :D

It's funny how you say no.. and then you say a bunch of fluff that doesn't really contradict anything I said. I mean look...duh of course slave owners always knew slaves were human. That is quite obvious. And you can see that they knew this in their own writing. They also knew slaves could rebel regardless of whether it was legal, lol. That happened in Haiti. My comment was simply that they were not particularly afraid of such a rebellion, or they would not have purchased slaves. That is also quite obvious...and nothing you said contradicts that. You cannot figure out what is relevant lol.
#15316692
@FiveofSwords

The 1870s marked the start of mass migration from Southern Italy, a region with the most poverty and least land opportunities, traditionally.

Most of these immigrants at the turn of the century were young men looking for work in the U.S. to send money home to their families.

Overall, 20 to 30 per cent of Italian immigrants returned to Italy.

But by 1900, around 1 million Italians were permanently resident in America.

Between 1900 and 1910, that number had doubled to 2 million.

And by 1920 that had doubled again.

Trivia:

In 1910, 74% of Boston's population was foreign-born or had one parent who had immigrated.


:)


p.s. Although technically white, Congress ratified curtailing Italian immigration on racial grounds in the 1920s. These dago, guinea, white n****r, n****r wops who chose to develop businesses that catered to blacks, married them.

The horror!

Trivia:

A New Orleans lynching that took the lives of 11 Italian immigrants brought Italy and the United States to the brink of war in 1892.
#15316698
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

The 1870s marked the start of mass migration from Southern Italy, a region with the most poverty and least land opportunities, traditionally.

Most of these immigrants at the turn of the century were young men looking for work in the U.S. to send money home to their families.

Overall, 20 to 30 per cent of Italian immigrants returned to Italy.

But by 1900, around 1 million Italians were permanently resident in America.

Between 1900 and 1910, that number had doubled to 2 million.

And by 1920 that had doubled again.

Trivia:

In 1910, 74% of Boston's population was foreign-born or had one parent who had immigrated.


:)


p.s. Although technically white, Congress ratified curtailing Italian immigration on racial grounds in the 1920s. These dago, guinea, white n****r, n****r wops who chose to develop businesses that catered to blacks, married them.

The horror!

Trivia:

A New Orleans lynching that took the lives of 11 Italian immigrants brought Italy and the United States to the brink of war in 1892.


All of my first cousins were half Sicilian and half Puerto Rican. Good-looking people too. Lol.

I think one of them and several of my first cousins children became professional soccer players Ingliz in the European league. Lol. Italians are interesting because each region has their own prejudices and histories.
#15316701
FiveofSwords wrote:It's funny how you say no.. and then you say a bunch of fluff that doesn't really contradict anything I said. I mean look...duh of course slave owners always knew slaves were human. That is quite obvious. And you can see that they knew this in their own writing. They also knew slaves could rebel regardless of whether it was legal, lol. That happened in Haiti. My comment was simply that they were not particularly afraid of such a rebellion, or they would not have purchased slaves. That is also quite obvious...and nothing you said contradicts that. You cannot figure out what is relevant lol.


No, you have to be spoon-fed information and told what is relevant because you have a reductive mind full of reductive thinking. You stated that white slave owners weren't afraid of Blacks because?

The white slave owners did not fear black people. Otherwise they would not have purchased slaves. That simply does not make sense lol...think about it. You do not elect to live around people you are afraid of.

People in the north were afraid of black people, especially after they saw the Haitian revolution, and that is exactly the primary reason why they did not want black slaves.



They (the white slaveowners purchased slaves because they could exploit them with the consent of the law). Why be afraid of owning people if the people you own have zero ability to fight back without being killed or jailed. They are fully controlled by the backing of the authority of the state. Not because they were respecting their human rights. They were relying on being able to exploit others with impunity.

When human beings lose their human rights? Why should they be treated as humans in the minds of these exploitation people?

You come up with very irrelevant reasons for why they were not afraid. They got afraid over the Nat Turners, the Malcolm X types and the ones who fought back violently like in Haiti and Toussant.

Haiti was a full rebellion and the Haitians hated the institution of slavery so much that they burned the only means of making money in Haiti to the ground and preferred being without a way of making a living at all than going back to the system. It put the fear into the the free exploitation folks who loved the law because it was making them rich. Once the chairs and objects started killing them in reprisals then the system is scary. Lol.

The British loved their colonies in the Americas. Until the colonists started kicking them off the land and affecting their profit margins.

Your excuses for lack of fear are not correct. Mine are. That is the relevancy. You throw everything into some white people are doing what all white people do. Exploit. No, there were a lot of peasant Southern white farmers who never owned slaves and worked hard and never got ahead because the advantages were for the large plantation owners and gentry that had power in their local counties. Bacon's Rebellion talks about what happens when whites and blacks of the same status socioeconomically have either common interests that bind them together or they do not have the divide and conquer tactics work.

The one with reductive thinking is you.
#15316704
Tainari88 wrote:No, you have to be spoon-fed information and told what is relevant because you have a reductive mind full of reductive thinking. You stated that white slave owners weren't afraid of Blacks because?



They (the white slaveowners purchased slaves because they could exploit them with the consent of the law). Why be afraid of owning people if the people you own have zero ability to fight back without being killed or jailed. They are fully controlled by the backing of the authority of the state. Not because they were respecting their human rights. They were relying on being able to exploit others with impunity.

When human beings lose their human rights? Why should they be treated as humans in the minds of these exploitation people?

You come up with very irrelevant reasons for why they were not afraid. They got afraid over the Nat Turners, the Malcolm X types and the ones who fought back violently like in Haiti and Toussant.

Haiti was a full rebellion and the Haitians hated the institution of slavery so much that they burned the only means of making money in Haiti to the ground and preferred being without a way of making a living at all than going back to the system. It put the fear into the the free exploitation folks who loved the law because it was making them rich. Once the chairs and objects started killing them in reprisals then the system is scary. Lol.

The British loved their colonies in the Americas. Until the colonists started kicking them off the land and affecting their profit margins.

Your excuses for lack of fear are not correct. Mine are. That is the relevancy. You throw everything into some white people are doing what all white people do. Exploit. No, there were a lot of peasant Southern white farmers who never owned slaves and worked hard and never got ahead because the advantages were for the large plantation owners and gentry that had power in their local counties. Bacon's Rebellion talks about what happens when whites and blacks of the same status socioeconomically have either common interests that bind them together or they do not have the divide and conquer tactics work.

The one with reductive thinking is you.


Lol...black people didn't have rights in the north either! Have you ever heard of the dred Scott case? But the north did not partake in the institution of slavery. How are you going to make that consistent with your dumb narrative?

No, everything you are saying is both reductionist and irrelevant. And stupid. I said slave owners were not afraid of their slaves. You simply agreed with that comment, while pretending you disagree. The discussion was never about WHY they were not afraid lol...that is just some irrelevant thing you tried to shoehorn in there.

Nothing you say is ever relevant nor does it ever make sense. You are just absurd.
#15316708
FiveofSwords wrote:[T]he [N]orth did not partake in the institution of slavery. How are you going to make that consistent with your dumb narrative?

Slavery was legal and present throughout the American colonies - New York was 14% enslaved in 1750.

The difference boils down to crops grown.

Enslaved people were employed chiefly as household servants in the North because the crops grown didn't require many hands to work the land.

In the South, plantation slavery developed because the staple crop colonists chose to cultivate was labour-intensive.

Looking at the institution of slavery as “just a Southern thing” obscures the interdependency between slavery and people’s wealth and power in the North and South. Many nineteenth-century banks, especially in New York, were deeply committed to the continued expansion of slavery.

Northerners as different as Harriett Beecher Stowe and William Henry Seward regarded slavery as a national sin rather than a Southern fault.


:)
#15316725
ingliz wrote:Slavery was legal and present throughout the American colonies - New York was 14% enslaved in 1750.

The difference boils down to crops grown.

Enslaved people were employed chiefly as household servants in the North because the crops grown didn't require many hands to work the land.

In the South, plantation slavery developed because the staple crop colonists chose to cultivate was labour-intensive.

Looking at the institution of slavery as “just a Southern thing” obscures the interdependency between slavery and people’s wealth and power in the North and South. Many nineteenth-century banks, especially in New York, were deeply committed to the continued expansion of slavery.

Northerners as different as Harriett Beecher Stowe and William Henry Seward regarded slavery as a national sin rather than a Southern fault.


:)

Sorry but no. Black people were not allowed to cross the Ohio River during the colonial era and early in independence. Whether or not thos4e blacks were free men. People in the north simply could not deal with being around black people. The black % of the northern states population was very small, effectively none. The pacific northwest also instituted and enforced a 'no black' policy from its founding.

It is true that slavery existed in Northern states, but it wasn't black slaves. You forget that there were a lot of Irish slaves in the US as well, especially after the campaign of Oliver cromwell...so the issue of slavery in the usa was not merely racial. In fact, you are ironically falling for confederate propaganda when you think that it was, lol. Even the northerners who supported abolishing slavery did not want to give blacks equal rights, and the fear of it inspired the draft riots.
#15316749
@FiveofSwords

Racism was always there. Among seventeenth and eighteenth-century Europeans, the most common assumption was that the original colour of man was white. Deviation from the original was evidence of degeneration and inferiority. Variations from the original needed to be eliminated or, at the very least, controlled for the sake of a well-ordered and moral society.

The Spanish had a 'Sistema de Castas,' a hierarchy of more than 40 racial classifications (castizo, morisco, mestizo, mulatto, indio, negro, etc.) designed to delineate degrees of whiteness.

but

Money - a poor man's wages - and the threat of unrest were the driving forces behind the North's racist laws.

Attitudes hardened out of fear that a flood of cheap black labour would undercut white men’s wages and racist laws grew out of fear that, without a living wage, the poor man would take up arms against the rich.

Without blacks, emancipation in the North and slavery in the South kept the Northern textile workers and mill owners in cheap Southern cotton and quiet.

Giving Northern banks free rein to broker profitable deals with Southern slaveowners gave them the funds they needed to invest in new industries and made the rich richer.


:)
#15316787
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

Racism was always there. Among seventeenth and eighteenth-century Europeans, the most common assumption was that the original colour of man was white. Deviation from the original was evidence of degeneration and inferiority. Variations from the original needed to be eliminated or, at the very least, controlled for the sake of a well-ordered and moral society.

The Spanish had a 'Sistema de Castas,' a hierarchy of more than 40 racial classifications (castizo, morisco, mestizo, mulatto, indio, negro, etc.) designed to delineate degrees of whiteness.

but

Money - a poor man's wages - and the threat of unrest were the driving forces behind the North's racist laws.

Attitudes hardened and grew out of fear that a flood of cheap black labour would undercut white men’s wages and racist laws grew out of fear that without a living wage the poor man would take up arms against the rich.


:)

Dude...right off the bat you said something stupid which proves you have no idea what you are talking about. 18th century Europeans were not stupid and they knew the first humans were not white. Most of their knowledge of ancient history came from Greece and Rome, in fact. Historians like herodotus were very aware that the somewhat more 'brown' people of Egypt and Babylon were older than the Greeks. Musing about who the 'first people' were was very common in thr ancient eorld and everyone had their own idea. There are even funny anecdotes of people engaged in a sort of proto scientific approach with creative thinking and semi controlled experiments to determine an answer to that question. So yeah...the average educated European in the 18th Century definitely understood a lot more about various cultures and history than you do, and your dismissive and arrogant attitude towards them is totally baseless.
Last edited by FiveofSwords on 29 May 2024 19:58, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 56

If you assume this claim is entirely true. There […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

any comment on this ? The hideousness of Russia[…]

I'm not sure if this is true. But I am sure that[…]

By the definition of "human shields" th[…]