The Confederacy was oppressed women, homosexuals and multi-gendered people:
Note: In case you were wondering, I intentionally put the Hitler biography in the background on the bookshelf next to the FDR biography. I was just trolling.
The Confederacy was oppressed women, homosexuals and multi-gendered people:
Note: In case you were wondering, I intentionally put the Hitler biography in the background on the bookshelf next to the FDR biography. I was just trolling.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2023 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes
80% of the slave trade was controlled by Jews. Jews also controlled the colonial empires that explored Africa and Asia, and were its chief beneficiaries.
Race is the jews’ justification for class exploitation.
It’s unbelievable that here, whites WANT to be blamed for jewish crime and corruption.
Well, the whites at OD and the League apparently., but not many Southern whites in general it seems.
Insanity is expecting whites to give up middle class comforts to become poor for a pat on the head from a jewy planter.
Brad, in Africa slaves were owned by the local “king” for lack of a better word. American Indians had primitive concepts of republicanism and democracy. Captives were treated horribly, but, not as slaves in a structured sense. Even by the Cherokee.
Agree with Onceler and Krafty. Brad, this video is embarrassing, and you and Richard Spencer need to STOP APOLOGIZING. JEWS NEVER APOLOGIZE – FOR ANYTHING!!!
Son, time to invest in a tripod.
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was directed out of (((The City of London))). Most, if not all, of the forts/castles/buildings in Africa where the slaves left their muthaland had the Star of David on them which apparently were only removed in the 20th Century.
It is amazing how many white whores have protected another seedy, immoral, and destructive Jewboy operation and allow their own people to take the blame. Never take your eyes off of traitorous whities.
You need to put these on your bookshelf, too:
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (unknown)
The Biological Jew (Mullins)
The Synagogue of Satan (Hitchcock)
Brotherhood of Darkness (Monteith)
Judaism’s Strange Gods (Hoffman)
None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Allen)
The Leuchter Report (Leuchter)
Banking & Currency and the Money Trust (Lindbergh, Sr.)
1. The Union had racism, slavery and White supremacy.
2. EVERY race/ethnicity on the planet had racism, slavery and racial/ethnic supremacy.
3. Racism/supremacy is TOTALLY justified as a way to protect your own race/ethnicity’s
sovereignty and independence.
4. The case against slavery has to do with either the exploitation of your own people if
your enslaving them or undermining your own people by replacing them with slaves. It’s
also wrong from a demographic standpoint because of the introduction of a foreign people
into your country.
Amen to everything Old Hickory said, since the Internet is determined to destroy my longer answer.
To judge an earlier society based on contemporary standards of right and wrong is the height of ignorant, arrogant stupidity.
I’ve studied this issue.
Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade in the Dutch and Portuguese colonies. I have no problem discussing that issue, but it simply isn’t true that Jews controlled the slave trade in British North America which was only minor destination for slaves arriving from Africa.
Hmm…what are your sources for this assertion that the Jews bore little control over the slave trade in what would become the US? Ever hear of the jew propaganda book Slave Nation? Two jews try to argue that the US was founded out of Southern fear that the anti-slavery legislation passed in Britain would come to America. It’s a cherry-picking gross distortion to the point of fetish, but if you are correct it becomes interesting…not because it’s accurate in its etiology of American revolt but because of its implications that if the British oversaw slavery in their own lands, they also initiated its abolition.
I don’t think you get the Jews, Brad. On this very blog there was discussion about the (probably) drunken comment made by Gary Oldman, the brit, about jewish control of Hollywood. Oldman staggered into a minefield he hadn’t understood. ‘British’ is partially a term designed to conflate Jews with the English, not just a corralling of Scots. Jews controlled the British Empire by and large; the vast majority of indigenous anglocelts had little say or investment in its establishment and yield. Most of the Royal Navy’s officers, for example, were jews. A person whose father came to serve in it as a native of one of its colonies told me how obvious it was to him as an outsider and insider. But the average person would never know it.
Hitler greatly overestimated the jew-awareness of the working ‘British,’ which accounts in part for his military miscalculations. He didn’t think they would rally so determinedly for what was mostly a jewish oligarchy. German society was so tolerant it became the petrie dish for revolt as the common man could see the jewish hand in his enslavement.
Not so in Britain. Jews had maintained various crypto statuses for hundreds of years. The working (or not) stiff connected little of the Depression’s scourge to Jewish hegemony.
In short, I’d rigorously question your sources if you would even bother to cite them.
more @ Hunter Wallace
…and, as for the racial aspect of British colonialism, did you know how ‘racialized’ the Irish were by the (((British)))?
The Hunger Museum at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut was built (strategically or instinctively with money from the jewish Lender family – as in bagels – family of New Haven) a few years ago. It houses some paintings of the supposed Irish that were shocking to see in their distortions of the gaelic celts. Most of the artwork depicts the horrors of (the orchestrated) mass starvation, but a few bear testimony to the sensationalism of race.
If 23andme groups ‘British and Irish’ ancestry together could they have been that far apart 160 years ago? Why did my grandfather give one of his sons an irish middle name to allow him to hide his identify, so that if he needed to blend in with the Protestants he could – easily? His last name could go either way, not conspicuously irish-sounding. His family called him ‘Tim’ but its placement prepared him for camouflage professionally.
I’m just putting this out there. You take a lot of axioms that came out of that period as essential truth when much of the era’s ‘discoveries’ were whole or partial fictions, no different from today’s.
I am sick and danged tired of Southrons being blamed for slavery along with all that went with it. LETS HAVE SOME TRUTH SHALL WE?
Number 1. Slavery was introduced in most of the South during the days of the British Empire and by the time of the Revolution it was adjusted for inflation a TRILLION dollar WORLD enterprise, involving Jewish Bankers, London Nobility, Spanish Nobility, Portuguese Nobility, Muslims and Local African Chiefs. In Florida it was introduced by Spain as it was in Texas, although both colonies weren’t worth a dog’s spit because the Spanish were so far flung, they simply didn’t have the resources to develop them. Their money was largely spent in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. When the United States came to be in 1776, it wasn’t as if the Fairy Godmother could just wave her want and make it disappear, it was the very thing FUNDING our Revolution.
Number 2. Slavery existed in the North as well, from Delaware to Maine. The enterprise was very popular in Massachusetts, as well as Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York. The only state were slavery was unpopular was in Pennsylvania proper, because the Quakers had always seen Negroes as human beings. The first Abolition movement was in PENNSYLVANIA, New England didn’t have one into the 1830’s. The popularity of slavery waned in the North because of the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that came out of the American Revolution and because a surplus of white labor was flowing into the North. Slavery was first banned outright by the Republic of Vermont in 1777 and the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Quok Walker Case of 1783. All of the other nearby states, sensing there was more money to be made liquidating their own slaves by selling them to Southerners and replacing them with Irish and poor whites, who didnt have to be cared for from cradle to grave passed gradual emancipation laws. Pennsylvania passed hers in 1780, but it took until 1847 for Pennsylvania to outlaw slavery. New York passed hers in 1799 but didnt outlaw slavery until July 4 1827. Sec of State William Seward came from a wealthy slaveholding New York Family and Sojourner Truth was a former New York Slave. New Jersey and Delaware both had slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment, New Jersey started gradual emancipation in 1804, but said that all slaves born before 7/4/1804 were to remain slaves for life unless masummited by their owners. All other slaves had to serve a period of indenture to pay back the master for raising them until they were in their late 20’s. When New Jersey outlawed slavery in 1846, it was a targeted masumission. The law didn’t emancipate children, nor the slaves born before 7/4/1804. In 1865 SIXTEEN slaves remained in New Jersey, who were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Delaware never emancipated hers, holding to slavery until the bitter end, but even in 1861 there were many more free Negroes than slaves in the state. When Emancipation came with the Thirteenth Amendment 900 slaves were left in Delaware. New Jersey ratified the amendment after it became law in 1866. Delaware ratified the 13th 14th and 15th amendments on Lincolns Birthday, 1901.
Slavery also existed in the Northwest Territory, even though the Northwest Ordinance forbade it. Slavery was allowed to exist in the French settlements in Southern IN and IL just under the reclassification of Indentured Servant. The Indiana Supreme Court freed all of Indianas slaves in 1820 and the state of Illinois freed all remaining indentured servants in the French towns in 1848. Slavery ended by government fiat in the entire west above the 36 30 excluding Missouri by the Missouri Compromise.
Number 3. The acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase brought thousands of slaves into the Union and as our nation was founded upon the position that men had the right to maintain their property, we couldn’t very well emancipate them and risk a Franco-Spanish rebellion in Louisiana now could we? Besides, the climate in Louisiana, Southern Miss, Southern Ala, Southern Ga, Low Country SC and Florida were so dangerous to whites, that the Irish immigrants who came there to work on canal projects to drain swamps had an enormous death rate.
Number 4. The South didn’t want Kansas or Nebraska, she wanted the Transcontinental Railroad from New Orleans to San Diego and up to Los Angeles. The land in Kansas and Nebraska was piss-poor for slavery except for the extreme eastern ends. The Kansas-Nebraska deal was cut by Stephen Douglas, a corrupt Vermont Yankee and famous Illinois Democrat to enrich himself, as the South traded a transcontinental railroad to Chicago for the possibility of two new slave states. The South got completely screwed on the deal. Douglas and the Northern Democrats gave tepid support for Kansas settlement by slaveholders while the Republicans gave millions of dollars worth of supplies to New England families willing to relocate to Kansas. By 1860, Stephen Douglas was as popular in Dixie as Frederick Douglass. The South realized one thing, never trust a Yankee for a job only a Southern man can do.
Number 5. A downside of the slavery system was that yes it did create a problem of haves and have nots among the White population. The Southern solution to this problem was always expansion, give the Poor whites something to work for and they’ll not oppose the system. They hit a wall with this in the 1840’s. As stated before Texas was piss-poor land for farming with 1840’s technology much west of the 96th parallel and was full of hostile Comanches/Kiowa. while Florida below Saint Augustine was at the time a gigantic swamp, parts of which were fit for cattle grazing and raising hogs but that was about it. Thus the South was backed into a position. Either gain independence and expand into the Golden Circle, or remain part of the United States and slowly be economically ruined. She chose the former, whether she lost the war or remained in the Union she was already guaranteed economic ruin so might as well fight. Had present technology such as internal combustion engines, irrigation, backhoes and bulldozers, and stuff existed in 1850, Texas and Florida could have been much more profitable than they were, however it took another SIXTY YEARS and the coming of the railroad to even make settlement in Florida and irrigation to make large swaths of Texas even remotely possible for sustained agriculture.
DIXIE HAD NO CHOICE.
Yeah, Brad. I agree with you that Jewish involvement in the slave trade in the British colonies was limited, because as I have mentioned to you and Cushman the British mercantile system forbid it, or taxed it to marginal profitability.
Now the Jews may have been secondary makers of slave markets in Charleston, and most early American Jews got here to run trading houses in major American ports like Charleston. Were Jews banned from trading in Philadelphia?
On TV some coon said regardless where he’s from is an attack on us all. In regard to MLB Boston athlete from Domenica Republican a fan toss peanuts .Racist a code word for white.
Billy Ray, you forgot the damned Frenchies on your the list, which left us the Congolese disaster that goes by the name of Haiti today, but which used to be the most profitable slaving outfit in history, all in the name of “Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité”.
On the people involved in your number one point, I meant.
A few points:
1.) If memory serves, the Transatlantic Slave Trade went on in the American colonies and later the United States from 1619 to 1808. The overwhelming majority of the African slaves came here though after 1700. It was mostly an 18th century phenomenon.
2.) In that time frame, the crops which were grown here were rice, indigo and tobacco. The antebellum world of cotton plantations was mostly still in the future. British North America was an unprofitable backwater in the larger world of slavery. The plantations we had here were little more than farms compared to those in the Caribbean and South America. It cost a lot more to transport slaves here from Africa than to the Caribbean or South America.
3.) The vast majority of the slaves that came to the American colonies were brought on English ships due to the British system of mercantalism. Jews were involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but that was mostly in the Portuguese and Dutch colonies like Brazil and Suriname as well as the islands like Curaçao and Sint Eustatius which were regional entrepôts. Suriname and Brazil are the only slave societies that I am aware of that had a significant number of Jewish planters.
4.) Only 4% of the slaves brought to the New World came to British North America. American slavery was a sideshow in the larger world of slavery in the South Atlantic.
5.) There are a number of books and studies on the subject of Jews and the slave trade:
Some of these are written by Jews. From everything I have read, it is generally acknowledged that Jews were active in the slave trade in the Caribbean and South America, but less so in British North America. I’ve also never seen any evidence that Jews were ever a significant number of planters in the Old South.
Though it has been attested by some that Jews living in the South percentage-wise owned more slaves than average Whites. it is also true that they were in Dixie just like their cousins in the North an URBAN people. These were not Planters, these were mercantilists, exporters, etc.
Cotton merchants. Remember President Grant’s infamous letter banning Jewish cotton merchants from certain areas he had “liberated?”
Typically, the Jewish slaveowner in the Old South was a merchant who lived in a city and owned a few house slaves. He was connected to the world of slavery through his business and investments. Jews didn’t have a reputation for supporting the abolitionist movement.
David Irving on Jew involvement in the slave trade:
The planters were the consumers. They were not the brains behind the operation.
A friendly reminder: “One of the Jewish vocations is that of dealer in old books and rare documents. In these dealings, records containing unfavorable references to the past can be sequestered and destroyed. Other rare documents, which contain no unfavorable references to the Jews, are sold to gentile collectors at huge profits. As usual, the Jew has it both ways, protecting his flanks by destroying all references to his activities, and financing this task with the gentile’s money.”
(c) 1968, The Biological Jew, Eustace Mullins
It was easy for the North to condemn and ultimately outlaw slavery because they had an economy that wasn’t based on vast sugar cane, tobacco and cotton plantations like the South had. BTW, Billy Ray, Vermont did not become a State until 1791. Prior to that I think it was part of New York.
“It houses some paintings of the supposed Irish that were shocking to see in their distortions of the gaelic celts. Most of the artwork depicts the horrors of (the orchestrated) mass starvation, but a few bear testimony to the sensationalism of race.”
Are you familiar with Chris Fogarty of the website irishholocaust.org?
You are the only other person I have ever seen mention the intended starvation of the Irish. Was it not Queen Victoria who gave the order? 45,000 British troops stationed on the island to destroy crops, livestock, and prevent shipments from sea. The mass graves. The participation of the Vatican.
Can you please describe how the Jew caricatured the Irish at the museum?
It had White Supremacism for the usual reasons, because they knew how “diversity” was like!
They would no longer work for free? Oy veeey, it is like anuvva Czardom!
SPAHNRANCH. Vermont became an independent nation in 1777, it was absorbed into the USA like Texas was in 1791. The independence of Vermont was never completely recognized
@BillyRay: There were a few problems regarding state boundaries and issues of sovereignty in the early days of the Republic. For example, Massachusetts and RI had a low-intensity border dispute that ran from Colonial times up until 1864. To this day there are some houses along the state line where the living room is in RI and the backyard patio is in MA. Maine did not become a state until 1820, because it was generally considered part of Massachusetts prior to that. Then there was the “state” of Franklin, which was part of stern Tennessee. I didn’t know VT considered itself a sovereign country, but that was only during the Articles of Confederation era, before the Freemasons in Philadelphia secretly and illegally imposed their Constitution on us.
I think the idea that morality changes over time is not only erroneous but harmful – and quite progressive if one wishes to view it in such a way (as I personally would).
It implies that the human will is the starting point of what’s good or evil, which gave rise to the legal positivism that permeates our society, and facilitates the democratization of morality we currently endure, which in turn creates a war for power amongst various groups motivated by their unique interests.
Too often humans falsely believe that we have a deeper understanding of moral truth than we actually do. When primitive societies abandoned human sacrifice as a moral and religious practice, it didn’t mean that the moral paradigm changed; it meant people adjusted to moral reality properly and assimilated those truths accordingly into their cultures. This is a very different thing. In one sense, you’re saying that the very existence of moral truth is not only relative but ontologically subjective, i.e having an existence only in the human mind and sensibilities (which means it’s arbitrary and a matter of taste). We can change it because a majority says so or because doing so is expedient for progressive purposes.
In the other, you’re saying moral truth is a fragment of an objective reality that humans CAN understand, although they don’t always do, and some groups understand these truths at a more accelerated rate than others for a variety of reasons.
The South was already divided over the issue, as some prominent political figures in the South, even prior to the Era of Civil war, expressed their distaste with the institution of slavery wherever it existed. Some not only anticipated emancipation but actively helped with it (with the caveat that the negros be returned to their ancestral homeland. The point, though, is one can disagree with the instution of slavery without saying morality changes. The Confederacy was wrong about it as were the Northerners; however, it doesn’t then follow logically that one desires a racially mixed society grounded in liberal egalitarianism precisely because they find slavery morally reprehensible. It’s amazing how that works: 1) Slavery is wrong, 2) I still don’t want to live in a multicultural melting pot.
Blacks should’ve been exported back to Africa when the opportunity arose – and to me that was the real point in American history that was truly a missed opportunity that continues to haunt us.
You need to write a piece on the religious difference between the NORTH and the SOUTH in 1801 vs 1861. In 1801 the South was a rather godless place, Anglicanism had collapsed in Virginia and Closet Atheists like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the leaders of old Dixie. Far away in a place called Cane Ridge in Kentucky there was a huge revival. The meeting was hosted by the Presbyterian Church. Here was where Baptist, Methodists and Campbellites (Church of Christ) began their onslaught on the frontier. Most of the Scots Irish frontiersmen had been nominal Presbyterians or unchurched but soon Presbyterianism was waning and the Baptists began to boom. By 1850 the South had begun to surpass the North in Church attendance, but the Bible Belt as we know it today came after the war, although it had been born just prior to it.
The North in 1801 considered itself the religious conscience of the United States. New England was the most devout by the numbers. However by 1820, the growth of Unitarian/Universalism and urbanization caused the fast decline of religion in New England. Add to that the disestablishment of the state churches in New England and it decreased at a pretty rapid clip. By 1850 a new sort of religion a secular social religion had taken over the Upper Class whereby God was a concept not an all powerful deity and they decided to make heaven on earth. However at its core was the old Puritan zeal. The Old Northwest at that time period’s religious patterns mirrored the South.
When the ware began in 1861, some Southerners attempt to couch the war as a fight of Southern Christian Civilization vs Yankee Secularism, but thats only half the truth. The truth was what you had in the North was a Secular Social religion largely practiced by the Politicians and the Educated class, with a mix of Catholic Immigrants and devoutly religious rural people rounding it out. It was shall we call it chaos. The South had by 1861 a firmly Christian Aristocracy and among the common folks religion had grown by leaps and bounds since 1801. I compare it to this. In the South the Aristocrat and the Common soldier would both bow their heads in prayer, in the North the commoner bowed his head and the Aristocrat scorned him as a buffoon.
At the end of the day MONEY TALKS. The Southern Aristocracy that survived the war needed Negro labor to rebuild the economy and the Northern Aristocrats wanted to exploit said Negro labor, At the end of the day the problem is THE RICH. Who makes up a large percentage of them? (((WHO INDEED)))
That only makes sense for the North, not the South. Lincoln only emancipated blacks in the South and maintained the Northern institution of slavery years after the Civil War. Right? So, how did these Southern aristocrats maintain their slaves after the war?
They did it through the sharecropping system, which was better than slavery in one way and that as the landowner, you had no investment in the Negroes, they were completely on their own. If they starved, you didn’t have to feed them, if they got ill, you let nature take its course. The Southern aristocrats who managed to survive the war and survive insolvency, rebuilt part of their fortunes via the use of sharecroppers. Remember not all of the South was destroyed, entire counties in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida were relatively untouched by the war. Only Virginia and South Carolina were truly burned to a crisp. If you lived in an untouched area, it was relatively easy to get back to work.
The point I made was this. Any effort by any politician to demand the removal of Negroes from the USA would have met with opposition from BOTH Southern Aristocrats who needed agricultural labor and Northern businessmen who wanted to use them as strikebreakers and for grunt work they viewed as too undignified for Whites. In the end, everything comes down to MONEY. Just like those Texas bastards kept our border with Mexico open so MUH OIL and MUH VEGETABLE FARMERS could have plenty of laborers.
Ah, so blacks lived on land in the South as freed men and in return they gave a portion of their yield to the landowners as a kind of payment for living on that land? Kind of like Feudalism? Interesting.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree that returning the blacks to Africa would have been the best course of action?
The economic damage caused by returning the Negroes would have been a small price to pay for long term stability. However as wealthy men are short-sighted they would have never went for it. That’s the reason the Southern Planters demanded the Negroes stay in the USA just like the Texas Oil/Veggie bunch demanded the Mexican border remain open. ITS $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$