Slavery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugY

1) This is semantics. Of course everyone knows that there are legal differences between chattel slavery and indentured servitude, but that the de facto condition is more or less the same.  Starting off right away with a pedantic nitpick and playing it up as a big gotcha is a bad start.

2) True enough.  Is that really a myth?

3) See #1.  This is another attempt to split hairs between chattel slavery and serfdom.

4) This misses all kinds of things, particularly about how a) there were riots in NYC after the Emancipation Proclamation, because people had felt duped into fighting the Civil War over slavery, b) there were massive amounts of desertions of Union troops after the Emancipation Proclamation for the same reason, and people were not willing to die for "the cause of the Negro," and c) journalists at the time; from the North, otherwise more or less sympathetic to Lincoln, were pretty united in their condemnation of the Emancipation Proclamation as nothing but a cynical move that had no actual effect, since it only freed the slaves in the territories that the Union didn't control and therefore had no authority over.

5) It was a minor issue.  He's totally wrong.  Mentioning slavery doesn't mean that slavery especially in the context of the South being "slave states" was the most important factor, merely that it was a convenient label that was in common usage at the time.  And Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist either, when elected.  Curiously, Jefferson Davis was more interested in the eventual dissolution of the institution of slavery than Lincoln was.  Don't "watch his other video" if you want more info.  Read one of Thomas DiLorenzo's books instead (or even his contributed chapters in Reassessing the Presidency.)  The real cause of the Civil War was economic Imperialism by the North, who had always seen the South as an area to be exploited by the North.

6) He doesn't even get the fact that there were two Souths; the Deep South, Gone with the Wind plantation south, and the backwoods Dukes of Hazzard South.  There is no doubt that slavery was an important economic component of the plantation south, which made it just as vulnerable and subject to eventual toppling as the Roman Empire was, which was much more dependent on slave labor than the South ever was.  Also, the 36% number is flat out wrong.  In the 1850 census, there were 350,000 slave owners.  That's less than 5%.  Now; granted, there were extended families included in the census that weren't slave-owners but which were dependent on the economics of slavery.  Maybe that's where he's getting his number?  Mine is from the actual census, as pointed out by Dr. John Hope Franklin in his book From Slavery to Freedom (1994).  His is based on some kind of voodoo mathematics.

7) This is also splitting hairs by making a big deal about alleged differences.  Saying that a worker could charge or sue his employers when he would then have no employment and would starve is absurd.

8) Again; read DeLorenzo.  There are all kinds of records that he apparently doesn't know about.  Few blacks in the South actually wanted freedom.  This shouldn't be surprising, really.  Few Americans of any color today want freedom either, and we've eagerly embraced the gradual socialization and removal of our rights as we approach slavery ourselves.  Remember; Limhi's people thought that the Lamanites taking half of their wealth as tribute was "grievous to be born"—and yet the actual tax rate once you account for all taxes that we pay (including "invisible" taxes that are baked into the cost of what we buy) are about that same rate in America today.  We are in bondage as surely as Limhi's people are, and to masters who are much more hostile to our well-being than the slave owners of the South were to the blacks.

9) Has yet to recover economically?  Good grief.  It never will recover, because west Africa is filled with Africans.  The average IQ in west African sub-Saharan countries is in the 60s and 70s with the lowest average IQ country in the world smack dab in the middle of this area, Equatorial Guinea, with an average IQ of 59.  That's the average for the entire country, and it's functionally retarded from the perspective of a Western European (or European Diaspora) nation.  In fact, every sub-Saharan African country, and most Third World countries in general have average IQs that would have been classified as "borderline deficient" (70-80) or "definite feeble-mindedness" (69 or below) according to classifications that were purged due to political correctness, but which were nonetheless accurate.  In fact, the most functional of Third World countries (China excepted—although there are numerous reasons to believe that the Chinese average IQ is significantly overstated for both methodological and political reasons) are still within the realm of "dullness" (80-90).  Rather; slavery was an opportunity for the above average elite caste of West Africa to profit from their neighbors, and given that they were both a) very tribal, and b) very r-selected, without any kind of Christian moral foundation to check their worst impulses, they saw no reason whatsoever not to sell the slaves that they already had anyway to European traders.

10) This is semantic word-games too.  Of course slavery isn't "ended" globally; because white countries only had the legal jurisdiction to end slavery within their own countries.  This point is, in fact, quite stupid, and meant as a gotcha; he agrees with it even as he disputes it by redefining the context to mean something other than what it actually means.

Anyway, this is hardly meant to be an apologetic of slavery.  The desire for cheap labor in America, whether slaves, serfs, indentured servants, or imported scabs that can be paid much less than market labor rates has been the poison that will kill America slowly over time.  We never should have brought slaves to America, and if our ancestors did so, then they should have been returned or set up somewhere else other than in America, as Lincoln himself believed was necessary for peaceful coexistence. He turned out to have been completely right on that one, at least.  The elite plantation owners are little better than the elite CEO caste who throws Americans under the bus for H1-B visas, outsourcing and illegal alien labor; both are equally sociopathic, exploiting others to enrich themselves while looting the commonwealth.

But the youtube guy is right about one thing; most people don't understand the history of slavery, and have tried to appropriate it through historical revisionism to create a victim narrative by which to blackmail their political enemies into paying victimgeld of some kind or another.

Some More great Unz articles

Archived, so I can find them more easily again.

http://www.unz.com/article/jewish-politics-in-america-a-post-political-view/

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israel-wins-2018-election/

http://www.unz.com/proberts/why-white-gentiles-cant-get-admission-to-ivy-league-universities/

http://www.unz.com/proberts/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/

There's especially a lot in the last article, small though it is.  Or rather, there's a lot more on that topic than the last article has, although there's some pretty good links within the article itself.  As an ethnic Southerner myself, I grow extremely tired of the slander and hatred poured upon the South, where we are cast as the eternal villains and the Original Sin of America, which justifies the continued oppression of our people, our culture, our traditions, our iconography and symbols, and indeed, the replacement of us in our own homelands.  The lies and slander about the South and Southerners is hardly new; it started before the Civil War even happened, but it was tempered by at least some common sense.  I mean, when I was a kid, it was still possible for The Dukes of Hazzard to not only be made, but even to be a huge, nationwide hit.

Almost nothing about what people "know" about the Civil War is really true.  Especially the notion that the Confederacy was the American equivalent of Nazi Germany.

For that matter, Nazi Germany wasn't even what Nazi Germany is believed to be either.

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2018/10/ron-unz-on-jews.html

And not Ron Unz, but another Jewish "defector" telling America what's really going on.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Republicans vs Democrats

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2018/11/2018-midterms-continued.html

An interesting breakdown of midterm election statistics.  What caught my eye the most?  The educational divide.  Those who have had to endure a university indoctrination are more likely to be democrats.  And they say brainwashing doesn't work!

Today's archetypal Republican is a successful small business owner in a trade like plumbing, welding, building contracting, etc. without a college degree, but with several trucks and employees.  Today's archetypal Democrat is the over-educated barista at Starbucks with pointless advanced degrees agitating for socialism because her own poor choices have made her desired lifestyle unachievable, and socialism would pay more of her foolishly acquired bills.

Another Dad's comments

Great stuff!  Italics is what he's responding to, on CNN.

The American civil war didn’t end. And Trump is a Confederate president

It’s easy to mock this sort of leftist lunacy, now in “Confederate!” form. 

But of course the GOP is the party of–and Trump appeals to–married white gentiles. The closer you are demographically to being a (private sector employed) married white gentile, the more likely you are to be a Trump voter. 

Rather the big lie here is that the “who whom” is precisely the reverse of what she claims. 

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run. 

In the 158th year of the American civil war, also known as 2018, the Confederacy continues its recent resurgence. Its victims include black people, of course, but also immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women who want to exercise jurisdiction over their bodies. 

The desire–demand!–for dominance here is not white men wanting to dominate “black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women”, but the reverse! 

“Black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women” are demanding the right to dominate white guys–make white guys work for them and give them their white guy stuff. 

They–the “coalition of the fringes” are the “slave power”, trying to enslave white men. Trump’s appeal to us evil white guys is essentially that we can be left alone, live our lives as free men and not be looted and abused by the fringes. 

The way you can prove this is who is demanding what from whom? Or who is willing to separate from whom? 

This is the acid test that i was attempting to flush out in the previous Zero Amendment comment thread: 

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607940 

And the distinction between the whines of “oppression” from the fringes and actually slavery in the earlier comment: 

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607227 

This “who-whom” dependency issue is why i think raising the “separate nations” question is quite powerful and needs to be done by Trump and nationalists repeatedly. Given the open treason and hatred (for white gentiles) that is now routine on the pages of the NYT, i’d be more than happy to split America right now. (We aren’t one nation, when “elites” openly spew out their desire to see the nation’s actual core population dispossessed.) 

Let’s have all the Hillary voters group up in their areas–i’ll happily move if that’s necessary. They can have their rainbow hued, open-borders, “nation of immigrants”, hands-up-don’t-shoot, gender fluid utopia. I’m actually not dependent on them and don’t need them whatsoever. 

We Trump voters can then have our regular old American nation. We’ll farm our fields, build our houses, tractors, trucks, cars, airplanes, drill for oil and gas (and do solar and nukes) and live our lives and get along just fine … in fact better! without being looted by the fringes. 

Mention “separate nations” and the resulting screams of anguish will tell you who is actually intent on looting whom.

Be sure and go vote today and get the takers out of power, as much as possible.  The more success we have with the ballot box, the less we'll need to appeal to the bullet box.

The Last Days

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/10/from-berlin-beijing-to-brasilia-new-era.html

The New World Order and the Liberal World Order are the same thing; the former is just after the competing ideology of the Soviets was defeated, it took a victory lap and a name change... only to fall apart in a single generation as unsustainable, unsupportable, and in denial of reality.

The Chinese classic of literature, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms starts with the following line: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."

The American Empire, united since the Civil War must now divide again to its more manageable constituencies.  Hubris will declare that all will want to unite again in the future, assuming we get that far without the Second Coming interrupting the flow of history, but reality will declare that such hubris will end.

It really kind of goes back to the Puritan heresy of Babel; trying to build an earthly Utopia by forcing everyone everywhere to acknowledge the superiority of your vision, and making them live it.  No wonder the NWO is the child of Satan; it's literally the warmed over leftovers of his plan from the Pre-existance all over again.