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

[Alizia Tyler]

God gave all of us life and liberty and put no man above another.

Well, there is your fist error. It is obvious that this was not and never has been the case. In fact, the precise opposite is more close to reality and to truth.

Take a few minutes. Sit down in the backyard. Breathe! The cracking under your feet is a cracking sound you will have to get used to!

I am here to help. Don’t feel bad reaching out to me!

You are perfect for all this!

 

[Tigerace117]

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.

No, it really wasn’t, as shown by the fact that you didn’t have northerners throwing bombs into churches to keep African Americans from voting.

 

[vanceen]

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.

There were convictions and sentences.

Grant Takes on the Klan

Ulysses Grant hadn’t expected the presidency to be easy, but he didn’t think it would be this hard. He thought the hard work of forging peace with the

www.historynet.com

"...Akerman accepted plea bargains from many defendants in exchange for information that further undermined the Klan. Mostly moderate sentences were handed down—sometimes by black-majority juries. But the Klan had been crippled. Political violence in South Carolina and across the South declined dramatically, and soon the KKK virtually disappeared from Southern life, not to be seen again until the 20th century..."

 

[pamak]

There were convictions and sentences.

Grant Takes on the Klan

Ulysses Grant hadn’t expected the presidency to be easy, but he didn’t think it would be this hard. He thought the hard work of forging peace with the

www.historynet.com

"...Akerman accepted plea bargains from many defendants in exchange for information that further undermined the Klan. Mostly moderate sentences were handed down—sometimes by black-majority juries. But the Klan had been crippled. Political violence in South Carolina and across the South declined dramatically, and soon the KKK virtually disappeared from Southern life, not to be seen again until the 20th century..."

There were some convictions which could not even be upheld since the Supreme Court turned them down as I showed in previous posts

United States v. Harris - Significance

The ruling invalidated a provision of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, that made it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to deprive another person of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws. The Supreme Court invalidated the provision because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize Congress to punish private persons for interfering with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Constitution only gave Congress power to regulate state action. The Court's decision gave rise to what is commonly called the "state action" doctrine in civil rights cases.



And you are free to show me who convicted the founder of KKK.

Ku Klux Klan: Origin, Members & Facts | HISTORY

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is an American white supremacist terrorist hate group founded in 1865. It became a vehicle for...

www.history.com

” Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan;

 

[Master Debator]

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.

Your reasoning is bad. Your entertainment value is through the roof and the admission that it takes you 6 years and however so many pages we've gone now to try and develop ideas that were debunked as ignorant and deplorable over a century ago is just one example of that.

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.

You attempted to but when examined it we discovered that your examples weren't logical or well reasoned. There is no benefit to slaves in allowing someone else the right to use force against them, which is what slavery is. Instead of arguing on behalf of the slaver, argue from behalf of the enslaved and explain to us under what circumstances you would find it beneficial to allow others to use force against you.

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.

Megalomaniacs also see themselves as sent from God. Your belief that you are godly isn't the same thing as actually being godly. People can claim whatever they like it doesn't make it true. Does it matter how they saw themselves? Does that tell us in any way whether or not they actually were? The answer is no.

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.

Noting them also isn't proving they are ethical or moral or christian.

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 as *built a world*.

Now you switch back to roll of stenographer. That they did something and that that something still resonates today has no bearing on whether or not they something is moral. Do you not understand the difference between history and philosophy? Really?

I contrast this to what I understand of *you* and *you-plural* take 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.

I think a majority would prefer the humanist democracy we've built on top of the racist oligarchy that came before it. You say I do nothing but tear down but no one would choose the shithole that was the Confederacy over today's imperfect but immeasurably better society.

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.

This is an ignorant theory debunked by the facts of the actual world we live in today.

 

[Master Debator]

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.

I too would prefer if you guys spoke out instead of being such cowardly cucks. I think this country would benefit greatly from being exposed to the ignorant beliefs many of our neighbors still have.

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!

Bravely, sure but intelligently? No. The only way your culture survives is by hiding and scurrying underground like rats.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

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?

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.

If God is taken to mean *nature* and *the natural condition* then god did not give anyone liberty in any sense of the word. The conditions offered by nature are slavery and determined life. And no aspect of it is very pretty. And within that natural world he put being above other beings and men above other men. And since in that world any notion of *divine right* does not exist, and there is only the right of what a given entity can take to themselves, you are obligated to take life, to assert yourself at every point. That is the imperative of nature.

The ‘forrmer metaphysics’ that I have referred to as Indo-European was situated more within a naturalistic metaphysics than the successive *imposition* that we understand Christian morality to be. Christian morality (or Jewish morality if you want to go Nietzsche’s route) undermines naturalistic metaphysics. It establishes, arbitrarily according to Nietzsche, that the victim of life’s ruthless imperatives has some sort of ‘justice claim’ against the Creator himself. But certainly against any being that *violates* the ‘life and liberty’ you mention.

So what I have made patient and indeed wunderful efforts to point out this fine morning is that Occidental man lives in an *uneasy tension* between and indeed within two opposed metaphysics.

This is really as far as I have gone. I have simply made an effort to point this out. And I contextualize this when I refer, first to Medieval European culture which was founded on the notion of The Great Chain of Being, but is the matrix for successive European civilization. A sort of compromise had to me made, as it will have to be made in any governing system, between one moral imperative (let us define this as Christian) and the other imperative which, as I say, has to do with creation, expansion, clearing ground, pushing aside while building takes place.

But I have only just begun! You are so impatient. Before the present can be talked about, one has to establish the ground. I explained that you cannot lay all this out in one or two paragraphs.

 

[Master Debator]

If God is taken to mean *nature* and *the natural condition* then god did not give anyone liberty in any sense of the word. The conditions offered by nature are slavery and determined life. And no aspect of it is very pretty. And within that natural world he put being above other beings and men above other men. And since in that world any notion of *divine right* does not exist, and there is only the right of what a given entity can take to themselves, you are obligated to take life, to assert yourself at every point. That is the imperative of nature.

You misunderstand what Bastiat means by nature. He doesn't mean mother nature, he means the nature of mankind as divined by God. A being above all the other creatures of the earth but not above one another.

The ‘forrmer metaphysics’ that I have referred to as Indo-European was situated more within a naturalistic metaphysics than the successive *imposition* that we understand Christian morality to be. Christian morality (or Jewish morality if you want to go Nietzsche’s route) undermines naturalistic metaphysics. It establishes, arbitrarily according to Nietzsche, that the victim of life’s ruthless imperatives has some sort of ‘justice claim’ against the Creator himself. But certainly against any being that *violates* the ‘life and liberty’ you mention.

As I believe I said to you from the start, if you want to live by the metaphysical rules of mother nature then don't come here crying about how the Northerners cucking the Confederates is unethical or about how you have a right a white ethno state. You don't unless you can pick up a stick and take it back. If you want to argue you have a moral right a white ethno state then explain how that state exists to respect the rights of all men while imposing white hegemony.

So what I have made patient and indeed wunderful efforts to point out this fine morning is that Occidental man lives in an *uneasy tension* between and indeed within two opposed metaphysics.

No they don't. You do because you want the power to impose an ethno state with the legitimacy of moral righteousness but you can't have both. No one else has this tension because a white ethno state isn't something any of us are trying to morally justify.

This is really as far as I have gone. I have simply made an effort to point this out. And I contextualize this when I refer, first to Medieval European culture which was founded on the notion of The Great Chain of Being, but is the matrix for successive European civilization. A sort of compromise had to me made, as it will have to be made in any governing system, between one moral imperative (let us define this as Christian) and the other imperative which, as I say, has to do with creation, expansion, clearing ground, pushing aside while building takes place.

Yes. We know you can't because it is impossible to and yet you won't accept that obvious conclusion.

But I have only just begun! You are so impatient. Before the present can be talked about, one has to establish the ground. I explained that you cannot lay all this out in one or two paragraphs.

Thats embarrassing...

 

[vanceen]

There were some convictions which could not even be upheld since the Supreme Court turned them down as I showed in previous posts

United States v. Harris - Significance

The ruling invalidated a provision of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, that made it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to deprive another person of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws. The Supreme Court invalidated the provision because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize Congress to punish private persons for interfering with the exercise of Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Constitution only gave Congress power to regulate state action. The Court's decision gave rise to what is commonly called the "state action" doctrine in civil rights cases.



And you are free to show me who convicted the founder of KKK.

Ku Klux Klan: Origin, Members & Facts | HISTORY

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is an American white supremacist terrorist hate group founded in 1865. It became a vehicle for...

www.history.com

” Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan;

Those goal posts are getting pretty far away. It's hard to make them out from here.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Your reasoning is bad.

Actually it is the other way around!

ideas that were debunked as ignorant and deplorable over a century ago is just one example of that.

Many different factors contributed to various transvaluations. I understand what you mean by deplorable and ignorant though. These are shaming terms. I wish to suggest that they can be examined through Nietzschean lenses. And doing so helps us to sort through the power-problematic. Read a bit more slowly, take a bit more time.

Megalomaniacs also see themselves as sent from God.

Fair enough. Who then has been genuinely sent by God?

as actually being godly.

What do you mean by this? What does *being godly* entail? Can you explain?

I think a majority would prefer the humanist democracy we've built on top of the racist oligarchy that came before it. You say I do nothing but tear down but no one would choose the shithole that was the Confederacy over today's imperfect but immeasurably better society.

Well, I personally like and appreciate the abundance of different food options. [Just kidding].

I agree with a great deal in what you have said here. And as you know I *tend to think* that a wrong turn was taken when, for various reasons, many questionable, the immigration policy to the US was modified in 1965. I have said a dozen times that I think the creation of the Multi-Ethnic society is an error. It leads to a situation where people no longer share common interests. Where they cannot *build together*. The social glue begins to break down, and I think this is what is going on today.

I think that you are not being as honest as you could be about the *darker* side of much that you actually say. Your reveling in the undermining of the white demographic. Your gloating about *cucking*. Your happiness and glee that the white demographic is in decline. And your joy and happiness that *your side* (as you define that) is winning and ‘taking over’. I do not think you are aware how *nefarious* your goals and values seem.

I think the ideals of classic Liberalism have many sound aspects, and indeed I referred to Isaiah Berlin and his expositions on liberalism. I also think that they may only function within a culture and civilization with people who are largely alike and who share common ground.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You misunderstand what Bastiat means by nature. He doesn't mean mother nature, he means the nature of mankind as divined by God. A being above all the other creatures of the earth but not above one another.

I am not too concerned about Bastiat. I am more concerned with the actual problem, realistically explained.

And don’t try your Christian whitewashing on me, buddy! The pose-of-piety just won’t fly!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

As I believe I said to you from the start, if you want to live by the metaphysical rules of mother nature then don't come here crying about how the Northerners cucking the Confederates is unethical or about how you have a right a white ethno state. You don't unless you can pick up a stick and take it back.

Now you’re talking! Why did it take you so long to get this out in the open!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No they don't. You do because you want the power to impose an ethno state with the legitimacy of moral righteousness but you can't have both. No one else has this tension because a white ethno state isn't something any of us are trying to morally justify.

What I more do is to examine tha validity or non-validity of the core premise. And I cite an example that can be useful:

Could the French say *France for the French*?

Is there a definable Frenchman who can say, with right and justice

”This France is mine! It is my creation, my property, and I choose to define it as such and to protect it! And this means that I must renew it and renovate my commitment to it!”​

​

Can anyone, in your view, make such a claim?

 

[pamak]

Those goal posts are getting pretty far away. It's hard to make them out from here.

What goalposts?

You force me to repeat myself and say things that I have already mentioned in previous posts.
The only new thing I added was the issue of not convicting KKK's first leader which is very pertinent to my point. It is hard to argue that KKK was treated as a terrorist organization when its leaders did not face legal consequences.

 

[Master Debator]

Fair enough. Who then has been genuinely sent by God?

That is for believers to sus out. I am not a believer but I enjoy and respect Bastiat's view. In that it aligns with my understanding of the Christian God. God clearly separates man from beast and man from God and offers all the gift of life. In that regard, we all are sent by God and given his gift of life and liberty and we are all equal in that we are all below God and above beasts.

What do you mean by this? What does *being godly* entail? Can you explain?

Isn't it obvious? Wouldn't being a good Christian entail living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I agree with a great deal in what you have said here. And as you know I *tend to think* that a wrong turn was taken when, for various reasons, many questionable, the immigration policy to the US was modified in 1965. I have said a dozen times that I think the creation of the Multi-Ethnic society is an error. It leads to a situation where people no longer share common interests. Where they cannot *build together*. The social glue begins to break down, and I think this is what is going on today.

You've said this a bunch of times but you haven't been brave enough to examine the truth of this statement. You say multi-ethic societies lead to a situation where people no longer share common interests but people of different ethnicities share common interests all the time and the history of white Europeans is a history full of conflict and war. Also I don't see this break down is society you're describing. I see a strengthing of social values in the face of an angry minority who refuses to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

I think that you are not being as honest as you could be about the *darker* side of much that you actually say. Your reveling in the undermining of the white demographic. Your gloating about *cucking*. Your happiness and glee that the white demographic is in decline. And your joy and happiness that *your side* (as you define that) is winning and ‘taking over’. I do not think you are aware how *nefarious* your goals and values seem.

I do gloat and I do celebrate your demise but not the demise of all white people. Just white racists.

I think the ideals of classic Liberalism have many sound aspects, and indeed I referred to Isaiah Berlin and his expositions on liberalism. I also think that they may only function within a culture and civilization with people who are largely alike and who share common ground.

Then you didn't read Bastiat well enough to see that he solved the power problem. One can build a moral society that protects its values and its property and its culture so long as those values are in respecting the rights of your fellow man. So long as force both individually and collectively was used to protect liberty and property and nothing more, then that society could call itself just. Unfortunately for you this doesn't apply to states that would impose an ethnic majority.

What I more do is to examine tha validity or non-validity of the core premise. And I cite an example that can be useful:

No you don't. You've never once examined the validity of any of your claims.

Could the French say *France for the French*?

Is there a definable Frenchman who can say, with right and justice

”This France is mine! It is my creation, my property, and I choose to define it as such and to protect it! And this means that I must renew it and renovate my commitment to it!”​

​

Can anyone, in your view, make such a claim?

No because society is never a creation of just one man. It is a collection of souls and if each of their rights were equally respected one can easily see how it becomes impossible to impose ethically an ethnic majority. Suppose all your neighbors want to marry and have kids with Africans or Mexicans?

 

[JasperL]

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.

LOL, yes, being discriminated against is WORSE than being a slave, being bought and sold, having your children sold 1,000 miles away, whippings, rapes, murders and all the rest that came with being owned by another man, and your kids owned by that same man, for perpetuity.

And I've read parts of that book, and he never claims the "exclusion was strict and absolute." Anyone interested can download the pdf of the book and see for themselves.

North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860

ecommons.cornell.edu

 

[ClaraD]

I guess not starving to death (and ~30% of the slaves did after being freed) wasn't a good thing?

How many were killed, raped, lynched or starved while slaves?

 

[ClaraD]

And here you have "I am blocking my ears to anything you say!" This is what children on playgrounds do.

The way this plays out in Academia, for example, is in youths who absolutely refuse to allow people who have ideas contrary to those they believe, with zealous conviction bordering on religious sentiment, to be wrong, are blocked even from speaking. They cannot even be heard.

"No speech allowed to fascists!" and other such things are said. These are examples of 'coercive intellectual processes' and activism.

This shows where the Progressive-Left idea-movement, after morphing into activist postmodernism and extreme 'identity politics', and after it has decamped from former Liberalism into territories of absolute intolerance, takes its followers.

Suddenly there are 6 zealots who have appeared in this thread, ready to do fierce battle! To the barricades!

So, you are in Colombia are you? Tell me, how wonderful was it for the people kidnapped by FARC? Also, do you really think rape, then stealing children to sell them as chattel and lynching the males when they become no longer useful is wonderful? Or a good life?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

LOL

You distorted what I wrote for your own purposes. I call that *underhanded*. In general, the book paints a realistic picture of what life was like, generally, for Blacks in the North. You took what I said to mean that I was proposing that life under slavery was better. I do not make that point.

With understated outrage Litwack details the racist nature of the "free" Northern states in the years between American independence and the Civil War. Indeed, it was in the "free" states that the system that would come to be known as Jim Crowe came into being. Non-enslaved Blacks were segregated in all matters of public life. Attacks on African-Americans by white mobs, sinister ancestors of lynchings, occurred in many northeastern cities. ​

​

There were only a few New England states, which tellingly had exceptionally low Black populations, in which there was Black suffrage. The majority of politicians publicly laughed at the notion of equal rights between the races by pointing to the US constitution as a document that clearly did not grant citizenship to Black people because its authors were slave-owners. ​

​

There are passages that are almost darkly comic in their irony. One of the greatest controversies amongst abolitionist societies was whether or not to allow African-Americans to be members, with the majority banning Black people from their meetings. ​

​

Litwack makes clear, however, that as severely abused as the Black populations of the free states were, they were nonetheless far better off than the enslaved populations of the southern states. For the free Black populace was able to, and did, organize and protest for equal rights, and formed alliances with sympathetic whites. By 1860, the northern Black population was still greatly marginalized and oppressed. But it had, through struggle, greatly improved its condition since 1790.​

​

My comment was fair and also reasonable. Your rephrasing of it was not.

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.

 

[vanceen]

What goalposts?

You force me to repeat myself and say things that I have already mentioned in previous posts.
The only new thing I added was the issue of not convicting KKK's first leader which is very pertinent to my point. It is hard to argue that KKK was treated as a terrorist organization when its leaders did not face legal consequences.

Your original contention was that Klan members were not prosecuted.

I showed that a fair number were prosecuted during the Grant administration, and convicted, to the extent that the Klan ceased to exist until the 20th century.

Then you introduced a number of new qualifying conditions such as the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and Democratic rule, Supreme Court rulings on the convictions, and the rise of groups other than the Kllan. That's what I mean by moving the goalposts.

 

[JasperL]

You...

You said in some ways the north was worse because they practiced segregation. All the southerners did was enslave them, rape them and beat them with impunity, murder them with impunity, sell their kids, sell them, and more. In what ways were the slavers' treatment of blacks in any way, morally, ethically, in practical terms, better than the northerners? That they lived among the slaves that did all their labor earns them no points because that 'part and parcel' of the culture was a necessity of enslaving blacks, treating them as livestock. And the slaves weren't merely "subordinate." Anyone with a job is a "subordinate" to his boss. Blacks were slaves and had no agency, no freedom at all.

And you mischaracterized the claims in the book. Separation was NOT "strict and absolute." That isn't what the author claimed because it wasn't true. And instead of quoting the author, the book, you quoted a small snippet by someone reviewing that book.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

And you mischaracterized the claims in the book. Separation was NOT "strict and absolute."

And instead of quoting the author, the book, you quoted a small snippet by someone reviewing that book.

I selected that review quote because it was accurate in representing what I had said about Litvak's thesis.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You said in some ways the North was worse because they practiced segregation.

That is indeed what I did say. You got that right! You have astute power of observation!

"In some ways the North was worse..."

That is the general thrust of Litvak's study. He has a very specific position and he works that angle throughout. Though there were some sort-of exceptions, as is noted just above.

 

[JasperL]

That.....

"In what ways were the slavers' treatment of blacks in any way, morally, ethically, in practical terms, better than the northerners? That they lived among the slaves that did all their labor earns them no points because that 'part and parcel' of the culture was a necessity of enslaving blacks, treating them as livestock. And the slaves weren't merely "subordinate." Anyone with a job is a "subordinate" to his boss. Blacks were slaves and had no agency, no freedom at all."

 

[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!

Master Debator wrote:

As I believe I said to you from the start, if you want to live by the metaphysical rules of mother nature then don't come here crying about how the Northerners cucking the Confederates is unethical or about how you have a right a white ethno state. You don't unless you can pick up a stick and take it back. If you want to argue you have a moral right a white ethno state then explain how that state exists to respect the rights of all men while imposing white hegemony.

In regard to JasperL I can only say what I have already said: in the Late Mediaeval period there was a predominant *anthropology* that was part of the worldview of Europeans generally.

Their expansion out of Europe, the Age of Exploration, the Age of Conquest and the Age of Colonialism, were all parts-and-parcel of an essentially Christian motivation. If one steps back a bit from what I am saying and views it dispassionately it is easier to understand.

Even in what we know as *Americanism* — the idea that *the American way* is a better way, and in this sense an *ordained way* that must be and will be applied to the entire Earth, and this idea was very strong and talked about constantly in the formative years of the Republic — is a derivative of a religiously-defined motive. One can find this powerful, advancing motive operative in many different areas. One finds it strongly in what motivates the so-called Social Justice Warrior

Those Puritans who first came to the New World, as everyone knows, were intensely motivated by their Christian idealism. And at various junctures in American history there have been revivals such as ‘the Great Awakening’.

If one wanted to reduce everything about Christianity, about Europe, about expansion, about the missionary tendency of Europe, about conquest, about domination, about extending the borders and perimeters of ‘civilization’, solely to avarice and to selfish motive, and all the machinations of culture and also of power to “a pretense for exercising raw power, to justify it, rationalize it to the gullible masses”, this is certainly an option. I mean it can be done.

It is definitely the route of understanding taken by Left-Progressive thinkers generally, and those who operate with a Marxian framework. And it is still very much alive, and in a sense more alive now, when one examines the motives of those who are influenced by *Activist Critical Theory* and *Actvist Post-Colonial Theory* in all its various forms and manifestations.

In regard to Fight the Power: I acknowledge that your contempt and hatred of the South, the Confederacy, and all those you see as the source of the racism and exclusion that has produced so much difficulty for you (you-plural of course) is a *real thing*. I understand that you are in a war-of-sorts and that you have defined your enemy. And in order to understand you I also have to understand the larger context of the transformation of America.