Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Master Debator]

Perhaps you will agree that such a topic could not be broached and settled in one under-5000 word post? I hope so. Because if you did think that you would be very very wrong.

All this time and you still haven't gotten to making your argument. This whole thing has been nothing but set up as you try harrass everyone into accepting the various premises and leaps of logic one needs to make in order for you to try to defend white supremacy without getting laughed at.

 

[Master Debator]

I wish to suggest that when we consider this Question of Power, and when we consider Power generally in any culture, in any time-period, in any historical situation, we have to establish that we are the middle of the Problem of Power.

There is no problem of power. To be clear your problem is in justifying your use of power against others. Bastiat solved for this problem long ago when he laid out the notion of a just government being one who's laws are collective extensions of the individual right to self defense. In this way a just and moral government could exist (under the principles of Christian morality) and not be contradicted by uses of force.

We hold from God the gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life—physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot support itself. He who has bestowed it, has entrusted us with the care of supporting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it. To that end, He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties; He has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements. It is by the application of our faculties to these elements, that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropriation, by which life pursues the circle which has been assigned to it, are realized. Existence, faculties, assimilation—in other words, personality, liberty, property—this is man. It is of these three things that it may be said, apart from all demagogue subtlety, that they are interior and superior to all human legislation. It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defence. Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties? If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defence.

 

[Master Debator]

... continued

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual—for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes. For this perversion of force would be, in one case as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. For who will dare to say that force has been given to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not true of every individual force, acting independently, how can it be true of the collective force, which is only the organized union of isolated forces? Nothing, therefore, can be more evident than this:—The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defence; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

All this time and you still haven't gotten to making your argument. This whole thing has been nothing but set up as you try harrass everyone into accepting the various premises and leaps of logic one needs to make in order for you to try to defend white supremacy without getting laughed at.

Meander

[From Latin maeander, circuitous windings, from Greek maiandros, after Maiandros, the Maeander River in Phrygia, noted for its windings.]

I locate myself in the Central Anatolia of argumentation my dear child! I am going to drag you along to my chosen destination!

Think of me as performing in the Phrygian mode — “a dark, unnerving but also exotic sound”.

You are perfect for all this!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

There is no problem of power. To be clear your problem is in justifying your use of power against others. Bastiat solved for this problem long ago when he laid out the notion of a just government being one who's laws are collective extensions of the individual right to self defense. In this way a just and moral government could exist (under the principles of Christian morality) and not be contradicted by uses of force.

Wait, wait. Is this Fight the Power?!? You are actually referring to ideas?!? Has someone hacked your account?

You have submitted your first, your very first, Wall of Text!

I’m so proud!

 

[Master Debator]

Wait, wait. Is this Fight the Power?!? You are actually referring to ideas?!? Has someone hacked your account?

You have submitted your first, your very first, Wall of Text!

I'm not holding my breath for an intelligent response.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What Christianity 'has been' in the Occident is, way too often, a pretense for exercising raw power, to justify it, rationalize it to the gullible masses. It's not much fun or inspiring to fight and die for the interests of some king on a throne, or your boss the slave owner. Far more inspiring to fight for God and religion and good! We know the slavers considered themselves good "Christians" and believed god had ordained them as superior to blacks, native Americans and others, and therefore justified slavery, genocide of the natives, etc. They were saving the heathens! That's a good thing! Right??!! That's really not about "Christianity" but about how they bent their view of Christianity to align perfectly with their own selfish interests.

If you want to explain how slavery fits into the gospels, the message of Jesus, do it. Don't tell us why we won't accept your view, persuade us!

In despite of Fight the Power’s recent Christian conversion and his introduction of the notion of God as law-giver and a whole realm of metaphysics into his stunning argument (I want to recognize and honor his masterful cut-n-paste), the problem of power is totally and absolutely present and has not been ‘solved’.

My point in quoting from Nietzsche is not to attempt to establish a Nietzschean morality, nor to justify anyone or anything necessarily, but rather to attempt to explain and expose certain things about power, and also to speak in relation to the white supremacy which has become, and in fact is, what many participating in this thread have their core issue with.

I said that *I want to get everything out on the table for discussion*. This is a personal choice that I have made, a commitment to myself essentially. There is no area that I hold myself back from examining. If someone establishes a wall or a fence or a *block*, I am immediately inclined to challenge it. So, you-plural tell me that a whole array of things are *bad* and *evil*. Racism (as you define it), sexist ideas, ideas that present themselves as opposed to homosexuality, and now those ideas that oppose or question transgenderism and chemical sex-change in children (etc.)

Whole realms of forbidden topics where *blame & shame* are applied coercively.

The United States was established by men who, by and large, were white supremacists in the precise and exact sense of the term. They came out of a European matrix that saw the world in certain ways. I referred to their *anthropology* which means the way they defined man within the framework of terrestrial life and which view of theirs was also borne out of the former metaphysics I have often referred to. The impetus that moved in the United States, the forward motion, the creative motion, the decisive motion, even seeing the United States as the ‘light upon the hill’ and the US as a New Advent quite literally for the entire world — a new thing that had never before appeared — all of this is a continuation of, an extension of, Christian motion.

So in this sense I would have to make a reference to what I alluded to before — something essentially Indo-European. A will or a motive or a tendency that moves in a specific people. Or perhaps it could be described as some sort of ‘background’ or ‘primal motivation’. It is everything that we know about it, that we see with our own eyes, that we understand. It is seen in the spirit of exploration, in the spirit of conquest, in the spirit of empire-building and dominion-building that, we have no way to avoid saying this, is part-and-parcel of ‘the white man’s will’.

It is this in essence what Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant spoke about — what they tried to define and defend — in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy [Stoddard, 1920] and The Passing of the Great Race or The Racial Racial Basis of European History [Grant, 1916]

 

[Master Debator]

In despite of Fight the Power’s recent Christian conversion and his introduction of the notion of God as law-giver and a whole realm of metaphysics into his stunning argument (I want to recognize and honor his masterful cut-n-paste), the problem of power is totally and absolutely present and has not been ‘solved’.

My point in quoting from Nietzsche is not to attempt to establish a Nietzschean morality, nor to justify anyone or anything necessarily, but rather to attempt to explain and expose certain things about power, and also to speak in relation to the white supremacy which has become, and in fact is, what many participating in this thread have their core issue with.

I said that *I want to get everything out on the table for discussion*. This is a personal choice that I have made, a commitment to myself essentially. There is no area that I hold myself back from examining. If someone establishes a wall or a fence or a *block*, I am immediately inclined to challenge it. So, you-plural tell me that a whole array of things are *bad* and *evil*. Racism (as you define it), sexist ideas, ideas that present themselves as opposed to homosexuality, and now those ideas that oppose or question transgenderism and chemical sex-change in children (etc.)

Whole realms of forbidden topics where *blame & shame* are applied coercively.

The United States was established by men who, by and large, were white supremacists in the precise and exact sense of the term. They came out of a European matrix that saw the world in certain ways. I referred to their *anthropology* which means the way they defined man within the framework of terrestrial life and which view of theirs was also borne out of the former metaphysics I have often referred to. The impetus that moved in the United States, the forward motion, the creative motion, the decisive motion, even seeing the United States as the ‘light upon the hill’ and the US as a New Advent quite literally for the entire world — a new thing that had never before appeared — all of this is a continuation of, an extension of, Christian motion.

So in this sense I would have to make a reference to what I alluded to before — something essentially Indo-European. A will or a motive or a tendency that moves in a specific people. Or perhaps it could be described as some sort of ‘background’ or ‘primal motivation’. It is everything that we know about it, that we see with our own eyes, that we understand. It is seen in the spirit of exploration, in the spirit of conquest, in the spirit of empire-building and dominion-building that, we have no way to avoid saying this, is part-and-parcel of ‘the white man’s will’.

It is this in essence what Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant spoke about — what they tried to define and defend — in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy [Stoddard, 1920] and The Passing of the Great Race or The Racial Racial Basis of European History [Grant, 1916]

All of that never addresses the fundamental fault with your ideas and the ideas of white supremacists, God never put you above another and you have no right to impose on another man's liberty. To do so is the opposite of Christian, despite your claims.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

These were Protestant American men and it is fair to say that they were of the *stock* that made the nation and who built it. And if there is a *spirit* that can be seen as running though it, it is uniquely and significantly a creation of a specific people, with a specific background, with a specific historical impetus, and with a very defined and very specific will. I should not have to mention that these are a militaristic and a war-like people, and their use of power, and those things they attain in the world, came about through their warring temperament.

But this is what I am trying to get at when I define the *meta-political*. Politics is one thing, politics is *of a moment*. But the nature of a people is another thing.

And this is why, in my own researches, I have had to deliberately challenge and oppose the *wall* that has been set up that inhibits me — and you and anyone — from thinking about *our being*, thinking about *our history*, thinking about *our accomplishment*, and thinking about *what we brought into the world* as a result of our being.

Critical Theory and Postcolonial Theory have to be seen in their context — they set themselves up *in opposition to* the spirit and the structure I define here.

Oh hold on now. Hold on. One sec please . . .

This just in!

All of that never addresses the fundamental fault with your ideas and the ideas of white supremacists, God never put you above another and you have no right to impose on another man's liberty. To do so is the opposite of Christian, despite your claims.

But this is precisely what I am attempting to bring out into the open and to talk about: it is the contrast and the contradiction between two very different metaphysical systems. That is the *original* Indo-European and that which has been, as I say, imposed over the former : the Christian.

But again I say: that when Greco-Christian ideas became the foundation on which our Occidental culture was established and constructed, it had to assume power, it had to define authority, and it had to incorporate into it the expansive, the exploratory, the conquering, the domineering, the building and the founding element and aspect, which is part-and-parcel of the way power actually works in this world. Works now and will likely always work, in one way or another.

Mr Fight the Power makes a small mistake here: he asserts that what I describe, which is real indeed, is what I am trying to establish as a *proper morality*.

But no, I separate explanation from defense. To explain is not to defend. To explain something is very different from establishing it as policy.

So, I say that there is more to be gained from understanding. But this does not mean and should not be taken to mean that I *renounce power* necessarily. So I will not deny that I am also implicated within the problem of power simply because I *identify* with Europe and I adamantly turn against all that tries to destroy it.

(More about this later . . .)

 

[Alizia Tyler]

To do so is the opposite of Christian, despite your claims.

To oppose what is Christian, and defined through Christian morality and ethics — as metaphysical principles — is a good thing according to you. You do not *believe in* such things, you oppose them in all senses.

So am I making progress now?

If I am to believe what you tell me, what you persuade me to believe, I must see the better reason in your arguments and adopt your views. Is this not right?

God never put you above another and you have no right to impose on another man's liberty.

God most certainly did insofar as *in the course of human events* what happened, happened. The *world spirit* moved, the world-spirit acted and decided.

Wait, hold on, you are referring to God now as if God is a *real thing*?!? When did this epiphany come over you?

Ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum.

Pious little Fight the Power! Bowed before metaphysical authority at long last!

Oh Happy Day!

 

[Master Debator]

[cont. from previous]

These were Protestant American men and it is fair to say that they were of the *stock* that made the nation and who built it. And if there is a *spirit* that can be seen as running though it, it is uniquely and significantly a creation of a specific people, with a specific background, with a specific historical impetus, and with a very defined and very specific will. I should not have to mention that these are a militaristic and a war-like people, and their use of power, and those things they attain in the world, came about through their warring temperament.

But this is what I am trying to get at when I define the *meta-political*. Politics is one thing, politics is *of a moment*. But the nature of a people is another thing.

And this is why, in my own researches, I have had to deliberately challenge and oppose the *wall* that has been set up that inhibits me — and you and anyone — from thinking about *our being*, thinking about *our history*, thinking about *our accomplishment*, and thinking about *what we brought into the world* as a result of our being.

Critical Theory and Postcolonial Theory have to be seen in their context — they set themselves up *in opposition to* the spirit and the structure I define here.

Oh hold on now. Hold on. One sec please . . .

This just in!

But this is precisely what I am attempting to bring out into the open and to talk about: it is the contrast and the contradiction between two very different metaphysical systems. That is the *original* Indo-European and that which has been, as I say, imposed over the former : the Christian.

But again I say: that when Greco-Christian ideas became the foundation on which our Occidental culture was established and constructed, it had to assume power, it had to define authority, and it had to incorporate into it the expansive, the exploratory, the conquering, the domineering, the building and the founding element and aspect, which is part-and-parcel of the way power actually works in this world. Works now and will likely always work, in one way or another.

Mr Fight the Power makes a small mistake here: he asserts that what I describe, which is real indeed, is what I am trying to establish as a *proper morality*.

But no, I separate explanation from defense. To explain is not to defend. To explain something is very different from establishing it as policy.

So, I say that there is more to be gained from understanding. But this does not mean and should not be taken to mean that I *renounce power* necessarily. So I will not deny that I am also implicated within the problem of power simply because I *identify* with Europe and I adamantly turn against all that tries to destroy it.

(More about this later . . .)

If you're not trying to establish proper morality then you shouldn't describe things as unethical or ethical. Those are moral distinctions. So which is it? Are you a historical stenographer or are you trying to find justifications for the desires of the dissident right?

 

[Master Debator]

To oppose what is Christian, and defined through Christian morality and ethics — as metaphysical principles — is a good thing according to you. You do not *believe in* such things, you oppose them in all senses.

I do not oppose them in all senses, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I was raised a Roman Catholic, I have many loved ones who are very religious from catholics, to Christians to rastas and Jews. I'm not opposed to them, I just don't believe in their religions.

So am I making progress now?

Not really. When cornered you rather talk about people then discuss the merits of your arguments.

If I am to believe what you tell me, what you persuade me to believe, I must see the better reason in your arguments and adopt your views. Is this not right?

God most certainly did insofar as *in the course of human events* what happened, happened. The *world spirit* moved, the world-spirit acted and decided.

Is that a logical, reasoned argument? What is the principle of the point that you're trying to make? The world spirit moved and the world spirit acted... what is that? Do you mean every thing that happens is right because it happened? Wouldn't that mean that everything that happens is good? Including the destruction of the South and elimination of a white ethno state in America?

Wait, hold on, you are referring to God now as if God is a *real thing*?!? When did this epiphany come over you?

I'm able to argue under the assumption of a given premise even if I don't believe in it? Are you really so unfamiliar with this easy to understand concept?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The contradiction is in conquers trying to justify their conquering under the guise of Christiandom.

The contradiction though is really yours. Or I should say that it is yours essentially. What I am trying to point out, and to talk about carefully (and this means going slowly and thoroughly) is the contrast between two distinct metaphysical systems.

One is really *the way the world is* which involves ‘raw power’ and its use, and the way that the great and the noble, at one time, defined greatness and nobility (conquest, domination, exertion of power, and being powerful) in contrast to a superseding morality that is best understood in Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals. Or the Genealogy of Morals is a place to start, to begin to mull the problem.

What I am trying to point out is that there is a sort of *uneasy* bridging of the two impetuses when one examines European culture, especially in the Medieval phase, the central phase, when Europe was significantly defined.

And before we can get to the point of talking about Our Present, and the issues with Power, with those who have and use power, and the problematics of power, and the battles around power and its use, we have to lay out the ground for such a conversation.

And this is what I have been asked to do by Brother JasonL . . .

I am just doing what I’ve been told! How unjust that you hold this against me! You bad bad man!

 

[JasperL]

I doubt that you have read much of the writing of those who are influential in this area. Say Jared Taylor of Sam Francis. I would include Greg Johnson here but though I agree with him in some areas I cannot say I agree in all.

I must say that I have doubts about *white nationalism* as a social or cultural project. But I definitely am interested in the 'attack on whiteness' being stopped. And I am definitely interested in a raising of awareness in specific senses among Whites. But above and beyond all of that I want to better understand the present.

I've read some of both, and what you and they call an "attack on whiteness" is an attack on white supremacy/nationalism. Just for example, people now distancing themselves from Confederate monuments and the Confederate flag aren't attacking "whiteness" but white supremacist traitors who fought a civil war to protect slavery. The confederate flag simply was the banner of white supremacists in the south protesting attacks on Jim Crow well into my lifetime. "We" are not defined by them. as white people or a country. The attacks are simply saying just that, that we do not respect the values those monuments and the flag were intended to celebrate, and so they shouldn't be celebrated in the public square in 2021, just as they were rejected by large swaths of the country in those men's era, and much of the 'white' world at that time.

Of course those guys basically agree with the white supremacists, and might argue that 'state' mandated segregation is unwise, but that certainly it's fine if an individual restaurant owner or anyone else put a "whites only" sign on the door, and used the state to protect his rights to keep blacks out. So they agree with the sentiment, if not the execution. The 'attack on whiteness' is just an attack on their 'racialist' ideas, their 'race awareness' and what it means in real life. They don't like their ideas challenged, and so try to broaden attacks on them and THEIR ideas, rejected by most whites, to something it's not, which is an attack on being 'white.'

 

[pamak]

Yes, they do, actually. And the rest of your post is not about the Klan.

You did not quote the evidence then that they supposedly presented. The only thing they claimed was that she KKK people were arrested but as it was explained, without convictions one cannot break an organization. And the rest of the post is clear evidence that Grant could not break the white supremacy in the South, So, it is about te Klan too!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Is that a logical, reasoned argument? What is the principle of the point that you're trying to make? The world spirit moved and the world spirit acted... what is that? Do you mean every thing that happens is right because it happened? Wouldn't that mean that everything that happens is good? Including the destruction of the South and elimination of a white ethno state in America?

No argument is *reasoned*, in your book, unless it is the argument that you want to make or think must be made. Let’s get that out in the open . . .

The point I am trying to make is the point that I carefully explain that I am making, but which you can’t get for a group of reasons. I think this is going to take you some time. But stick with it!

Are you aware of what I speak about when I mention *the world-spirit*?

Your argument, based on *bits & atoms* (you actually said this) can only allow that what happens is right because it happened. In order for you to say anything different, you will require a metaphysics. You require some means to determine wwhat is *right* and what is *wrong*.

Think it through, you are on the verge of a break-through. You’re on the verge of gettin over.

According to your logic, yes, the destruction of the South is good because it happened. Except for those who it happened to, who might have a different opinion on the matter.

All my arguments and the ideas I express are sound, well articulated, reasoned and reasonable.

 

[pamak]

Given that the politicians of the North did not end up doing much to liberate Black people beyond abolishing the overt institution of slavery, do you therefore deem the Northerners white supremacists as well as Southerners?

The fact that racism existed even in the north is not a secret. But this does not put the northerners on the same level with the South.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'm able to argue under the assumption of a given premise even if I don't believe in it? Are you really so unfamiliar with this easy to understand concept?

I think you must argue through and on the basis of what you yourself believe, not what you assume others believe.

You are in your own way very slippery and tricky.

It is not that I am unfamiliar with the possibility that you or anyone could *argue* a notion they don’t actually believe, I see that they could, but it is absurd that you do this here within this context of conversation.

 

[Master Debator]

The contradiction though is really yours. Or I should say that it is yours essentially. What I am trying to point out, and to talk about carefully (and this means going slowly and thoroughly) is the contrast between two distinct metaphysical systems.

This line is like the comfort blanket you cling to when you aren't brave enough to address the things you've said. No one here needs you to point out the contradictions of a humanist democracy growing on top of what was once a white ethno oligarchy that grew on top of monastic empire. Contradictions abound.

Your aim, and it has been apparent from your claim that there were benefits to slavery for the slaves, that white Europeans had a divine right, and blacks and whites are incompatible. You are interested in trying to moralize racism and not only are you not bright enough to, you're not even bright enough to know how bad you are at it.

 

[vanceen]

You did not quote the evidence then that they supposedly presented. The only thing they claimed was that she KKK people were arrested but as it was explained, without convictions one cannot break an organization. And the rest of the post is clear evidence that Grant could not break the white supremacy in the South, So, it is about te Klan too!

Your contention was that the Klan was not vigorously prosecuted after the Civil War. (The term you used referred to "terrorism", but terrorism prosecutions as they exist now did not exist at the time.) That contention is false.

I did quote evidence from sources that the Klan was suppressed succesfully. I even bolded the relevant phrases.

Here's another source:

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/ku-klux-klan/

"In 1871, during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, anti-Klan laws were passed allowing the president to declare martial law. Grant did not use these powers to the full extent of the law, but some state militias did break up Klan chapters. Nine South Carolina counties were placed under martial law and arrests followed.

However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, state legislatures were able to put in place Jim Crow laws that ensured white superiority and segregation. Black voters were intimidated or simply blocked from registering and voting. The new laws placed almost insurmountable obstacles in the way of voting. The early Klan disbanded in the 1870s...."

If you want to change the subject and talk about white supremacy and racist laws in general in the South, we could do that. But it is a different subject; we were talking about the Klan.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The fact that racism existed even in the North is not a secret. But this does not put the Northerners on the same level with the South.

In some ways it put them in a worse position. The Southerners lived with the Black population and interacted with them constantly. They were part-and-parcel of the Southern culture, though subordinate.

In the North the exclusion was strict and absolute. See for example North Over Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860 by Leon Litvak. It was one of the titles I read when investigating the topics.

 

[pamak]

I assume that, in order to maintain your lame parallel, you also have copious cases of assault and murder upon white people committed during King’s protests.

Which murders are toy referring to? The ones committed during the BLM demonstrations by the extreme right of the boogaloo movement?
And yes, there were assaults against white people too during the civil rights movement protests. Do you think that teenagers were smashing widows then and the store owners were not trying to protect their property?
People like you make it very clear that there is no need to have murders of white people during protests in order to discredit the BLM movement. The mere cases of vandalism have been used to discredit the BLM message.

 

[pamak]

Your contention was that the Klan was not vigorously prosecuted after the Civil War. (The term you used referred to "terrorism", but terrorism prosecutions as they exist now did not exist at the time.) That contention is false.

I did quote evidence from sources that the Klan was suppressed succesfully. I even bolded the relevant phrases.

Here's another source:

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/ku-klux-klan/

"In 1871, during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, anti-Klan laws were passed allowing the president to declare martial law. Grant did not use these powers to the full extent of the law, but some state militias did break up Klan chapters. Nine South Carolina counties were placed under martial law and arrests followed.

However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, state legislatures were able to put in place Jim Crow laws that ensured white superiority and segregation. Black voters were intimidated or simply blocked from registering and voting. The new laws placed almost insurmountable obstacles in the way of voting. The early Klan disbanded in the 1870s...."

If you want to change the subject and talk about white supremacy and racist laws in general in the South, we could do that. But it is a different subject; we were talking about the Klan.

You did quote that it was suppressed but this was a CLAIM> You did not quote the evidence of how this happened and I challenged the claim by showing that arrests did not lead to convictions and that despite your claims about Grant's success to supposedly break the KKK we had the emergence of similar paramilitary organizations after the supposedly policies that Grant enforced in the South.

And yes, as I told you, with the end of reconstruction and the return of power to the perpetrators there was no need for the KKK to exist. And the thing you left out from the quote supports my point

From your link

The early Klan disbanded in the 1870s, partly because of federal laws but also because its goals had been met.

So, the reality is that within a decade after the end of the civil war, the KKK had accomplished its objectives using often violent tactics and its members (including its leaders) did not face any legal consequences. As for the federal laws, I showed how the Supreme Court invalidated them.

 

[Master Debator]

I think you must argue through and on the basis of what you yourself believe, not what you assume others believe.

So you don't understand the simple concept. You've never heard of devil’s advocate? I'm not assuming anything about your Christian beliefs, I'm questioning them in comparison to my own understanding of Christianity. As I understand it, God gave all of us life and liberty and put no man above another. You have no divine right to steal or harm or hurt another. You have an obligation to maintain your own life but not at the expense of another man's life or liberty. Is this wrong? If you think so then how? Why?

You are in your own way very slippery and tricky.

Dude, I'm as straight forward as they come. I'm just not going to humor your nonsense.

It is not that I am unfamiliar with the possibility that you or anyone could *argue* a notion they don’t actually believe, I see that they could, but it is absurd that you do this here within this context of conversation.

Why? Because you assumed I couldn't read? I even provided you an excerpt from a classical Christian liberal who gave you the manuscript for a just Christian state. Your problem is that liberty doesn't get you what you want. Only force does. Only in forcing everyone to adhere to your principles does it become possible to engineer a white ethno state and through that force you delegitamize your moral claims.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

This line is like the comfort blanket you cling to when you aren't brave enough to address the things you've said. No one here needs you to point out the contradictions of a humanist democracy growing on top of what was once a white ethno oligarchy that grew on top of monastic empire. Contradictions abound.

Your aim, and it has been apparent from your claim that there were benefits to slavery for the slaves, that white Europeans had a divine right, and blacks and whites are incompatible. You are interested in trying to moralize racism and not only are you not bright enough to, you're not even bright enough to know how bad you are at it.

If I was that bad at it I don’t think you’d be along for the ride. But you are just saying things, anything you can, as a blocking-movement. Your purpose is to block and oppose. I don’t have a particular problem with this because it helps me to develop my ideas.

There were definitely ‘benefits to slaves’ that came as a result of enslavement in the early United States. I have explained why I think this carefully and coherently. I recognize it is not a popular idea to put out, but it is I think a truthful one, and I prefer truth over fiction, and truth over self-deception.

I explain that Europeans definitely understood themselves to have a set of *rights* that flowed out of a spiritual mandate with deep links and foundations within Christian ideation. I also explain that these same impetuses still move in our world. By noting this I am not *advocating* for it necessarily, and explaining is not advocacy.

But I am definitely located, myself, within a problematic zone, this I admit, because I refuse to acquiesce to your specific power-machinations, and the larger power-machinations which are operative today. And by referring to the *meta-political* I am, without any doubt, asserting that Caucasian Europeans have a unique history and trajectory that has many problematic aspects, and yet it has *built a world*.

I contrast this to what I understand of *you* and *you-plural* taken as a generality. You do not build anything and you cannot build anything. Not comparable to Occidental culture and civilization. But you can, at this juncture, find many good reasons to tear down and destroy. Just like the rioting in the cities, the destruction of property, and including the blind destruction of *monuments* which have extended well beyond mere problematic figures of Southern history.

White Caucasians and Africans are indeed incompatible. If they were not incompatible they’d have mixed. You do not see my point. Africans come out of a near stone-age cultural matrix. That of Europe was defined by 1,000 years of civilization. CG Jung notes this *incompatibility* back near the turn of the century. It is a factor that is real as anything in American sociology.

But where the crime is, on my part, is broaching the topic. It has become illegal and crimethink to think contrarily to today’s *dispensation*.

I do not have the problem that you seem to with race-realism or a realistic understanding of race within the social and cultural context. But again, it is really that I choose not to fetter myself, and not to muzzle myself, that is my crime.

But my object is “getting out from under intellectual coercion” so I am achieving what I set out to achieve.

Not brave enough? By your definition I am acting bravely indeed!