you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No it has existed without Jews. Abolitionist sentiment in America -- Emerson's quote about the cross and the gallows comes to mind -- often contained nascent anti-white sentiment and gleeful acceptance and even celebration of the coming Black revenge on Whites. Same with revolutionary attitudes towards the Haitian revolt. You could also say there's a definite hint of that fetishization of the 'other' in Rousseau that was planting a seed for the attitudes we see present today. Jews just do it more viciously and with greater zeal than many others have and also have the advantage of being 'one of us' when they make their clearly ethnically motivated attacks against us.

Also I don't believe in the effctiveness of this gotcha strategy when talking to liberals. There's not some perfect rhetorical trap you can use to 'win' them over because all belief systems are fundamentally pre-rational.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No it has existed without Jews. Anti-abolitionist sentiment in America -- Emerson's quote about the cross and the gallows comes to mind -- often contained nascent anti-white sentiment and gleeful acceptance and even celebration of the coming Black revenge on Whites. Same with revolutionary attitudes towards the Haitian revolt. You could also say there's a definite hint of that fetishization of the 'other' in Rousseau that was planting a seed for the attitudes we see present today. Jews just do it more viciously and with greater zeal than many others have and also have the advantage of being 'one of us' when they make their clearly ethnically motivated attacks against us.

I disagree that anti-abolition is tied to anti-white. Quite the opposite. Keeping a massive African population on the continent meant Brazilification would have been unavoidable. Abraham Lincoln was elected to end slavery, but he also wanted to send the slaves back to Africa.

In hindsight, those plans were never realized, but the alternative of keeping slavery around was not worth it either.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I meant to say 'abolitionist'. My bad I'll edit.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Regardless though, see the rest of my point about the slave trade. Britain had outlawed slavery in its colonies, and even went to war with African Kingdoms to stop them from selling it to other Europeans.

From a 19th century perspective, being against slavery was more likely pro-white. Especially since industrialization was around the corner, and thus using pack mule Blacks was a way to slow down development and lower the cost of labor (sounds familiar? Illegal immigration is the exact same thing today. Yet which side supports massive 3rd world immigration? The left...)

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh 'regardless'?

Fuck it's pointless talking to you. I'll stop.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm confused what your point is?

I'm saying opposing the slave trade was about protecting white interests. Lincoln knew this, hence why he thought of moving them away from predominantly white areas and having them live in their own country.