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

[Master Debator]

Well, this relates to exactly what I said about the specific history of Africans brought to America as slaves and the issue, the problem, of having been forced to function in a world not their own, not of their own design. Do you actually read what I write? Can you read what I write without mentally transforming it?

I read that just fine. What I see is a fairly accurate description of the historical realities that brought Africans to America. What I don't see is how that presentation of history proves incompatibility in today's America. Black liberation might of been incompatible with the legalized chattel slavery and white European colonial rule that existed back then but that isn't the America that exists today.

To understand the political and social scene today an entire sweep of history has to be included.

All you've presented so far is ancient history, you've ignored all the other history that has brought us to the multicultural, democratic society we have today.

You asked me, more or less, to talk about what I meant by incompatibility. These things take time and can’t be done without careful exposition.

You've had plenty of time to explain that nonsense by now.

I am speaking of Sixties Black rebellion through very specific examples. The revolutionary movements of the Sixties were as real as rain. They provoked reaction by the State which neutralized them.

And if the F.B.I. acted that way today there'd be a lot more scrutiny from Congress and the D.O.J. because most Americans find that behavior from their government against their own people abhorrent.

I presented Schmitt’s legal and constitutional analysis to clarify the logic. And I also referred to Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Constitutional rights during the Civil war.

You presented someone else's opinion, big whoop.

What is ‘not being a coward’ in your book?

Being honest about who you are.

But I definitely imply (because it is on-going) that the State will take action to similarly neutralize right-leaning radical groups (militias, etc.) that are a threat to the State’s power.

No they aren't. As they proved at the Capitol they're a clown show of morons. And the F.B.I. doesn't need to violate their rights they post about their criminality on social media.

The State would necessarily have to attack bother fringes — the Left radical fringe and the Right radical fringe.

The State desires an equilibrium where ‘the business of living’ can go on.

If you want to argue being targeted by the F.B.I. makes you incompatible with our society then aren't you saying that's its actually the Dissident Whites who are incompatible?

None of this hodgepodge of meth induced brain farting makes any sense.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

What I see is a fairly accurate description of the historical realities that brought Africans to America. What I don't see is how that presentation of history proves incompatibility in today's America.

Right, but since you pretend to interest in my views on the topic you will have to resolve yourself to a slow exposition.

(I don’t attempt to ‘prove’ but I do intend to suggest.)

The first facet I offered had to do with exactly what I (carefully!) described. An attitude of resistance, rebellion and non-cooperation. I explained its origin and how it operates in social psychology. Tell me what you think of that.

I offered visual examples where it can be observed being acted out physically. (The Harlem kids for example).

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Being honest about who you are.

Oooooh. This could be worthwhile:

Who am I according to you?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You presented someone else's opinion, big whoop.

Was Abe Lincoln justified is suspending Constitutional rights during the Civil War? ( I suspect you are not aware that he did but Google it).

 

[Ouroboros]

That's a historical fact it doesn't represent some incompatibility.

This paragraph means nothing. It's a set of empty phrases that are again, not proof of incompatibility. I still don't even know what sort of incompatibility you're taking about. Black American freedom with White American slavery? Sure those two things are incompatible but what got kicked to the curb was white American slavery not black American freedom. If you seek to reinstate white American slavery then it's you who's incompatible.

You don't get to decide what constitutes dignity for every single black person. That's a ridiculous argument. The vast majority of Black Americans live peacefully within that structure every day.

Black Americans are free to have whatever attitude they want. This freedom and attitude is also not incompatible with American democracy.

Is this really the argument you have? This weak sauce shit. Haggling and bargaining is now proof of incompatibility?

The peaceful existence of the vast majority of Blacks and Latinos offers reality in contrast to your sophistry and unproven assertions.

You haven't identified any incompatibility. Black American desire for reparations is incompatible with what? Your desire to not give them reparations? So what?

So now you think you get to define what makes every Black person happy. This is just silly and sad that you find this to be a compelling argument, your bigoted views of Black people.



There's no need going over the rest of this nonsense.

Go ahead @Ouroboros, read what she wrote and point me to the proof she provided. All I see is her saying Black people are incompatible because I say they are.

Even if it’s technically true that “white American slavery got kicked to the club,” it was for the benefit of white Northerners, not on behalf on “black American freedom,” as has been discussed here at great length in past months.

AT’s paradigm of Angela Davis’s incompatibility is far more consistent than your attempts to use Thomas Jefferson as a paradigm for slavery.

 

[Ouroboros]

AT has asserted a lot but proven very little. If you want to argue that white supremacy and black freedom are incompatible then I'd agree but AT isn't making that assertion, she's asserting black people are incompatible with western democracy which is a stupid argument backed by nothing whatsoever except her say so and the opinions of noted white supremacists like Jared Taylor.

I actually did. I pointed out that there are Chinese Muslims, American Muslims, European Muslims, African Muslims, liberal Muslims and radical Muslims. It's a point that both people from all over and Islam itself are highly mutable. I still have no clue what point you're making here.


And? I don't think the unfortunate beliefs of cucks makes them incompatible with American society, that isn't the argument I'm making. Here in America you're free to hold whatever unfortunate beliefs you want. What I'm speaking to is waning popularity of those beliefs.

WTF?

Did you just try to equivocate black Civil rights activists with the slaving and raping of the Old South? Jesus you two are giant morons.

Yep, that makes them totally the same.

The Old South tried to keep human beings in bondage and deny blacks basic human rights, that is incompatible with the idea that all people have a right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Black civil rights activists aren't trying to take away anyone's rights but if you want to argue that black Civil rights activists are liars that's a separate argument from incompatibility and one I doubt very much you could argue intelligently.

IMO it’s Black Culture, not Black people, that are incompatible with western democracy, and we have discussed this at great length with respect to the founders of CRT.

Compatibility is still not demonstrated by how many people in any given nation join a particular subculture.

You’ve talked about more than “waning popularity.”

Black Civil Rights activists forfeited the high ground the moment they embraced CRT and 1619.

 

[Master Debator]

Right, but since you pretend to interest in my views on the topic you will have to resolve yourself to a slow exposition.

So what else is new? But you go ahead and take your time and see if you can make a coherent argument out of your hilarious claim.

(I don’t attempt to ‘prove’ but I do intend to suggest.)

Already signaling failure and lowering expectations. You're a consummate Dissident White, I'll give you that.

The first facet I offered had to do with exactly what I (carefully!) described. An attitude of resistance, rebellion and non-cooperation. I explained its origin and how it operates in social psychology. Tell me what you think of that.

Resistance and rebellion and non cooperation with slavery, Jim Crow and segregation is as about American as it gets.

I offered visual examples where it can be observed being acted out physically. (The Harlem kids for example).

Yes, you have shown a tendency to be swayed by pictures and snippets of narratives over objective reality.

Oooooh. This could be worthwhile:

Who am I according to you?

A racist, as I've maintained.

Was Abe Lincoln justified is suspending Constitutional rights during the Civil War? ( I suspect you are not aware that he did but Google it).

In what way do you mean justified? Morally? I'm not a moralist, you'd be better off asking @vanceen that question. Was he legally justified? The Supreme Court heavily implied no when they ruled later that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus.

 

[Ouroboros]

Proud of yourself for encouraging that racist nonsense @vanceen?

There’s nothing sadder than a jilted forum debater.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No they aren't. As they proved at the Capitol they're a clown show of morons. And the F.B.I. doesn't need to violate their rights they post about their criminality on social media.

Well, I do not think that riotous group was insurrectionist but they did intend disruption.

If they are morons (some could almost literally be classed as idiots) they could hardly be described as a viable political threat.

It is more likely that the powers-that-be are being unduly hard on these Capitol rioters when compared to many other rioters who invaded Federal properties. But from the State’s perspective this makes some sense, no? The Capitol in distinct from other Federal properties.

But a real threat is the potential political movement that could arise out of Trumpism. Though it has so far been democratically legal the threat (to the existing power regime) seems to be quite real.

So the object of the State police (Federal police: FBI) would be to associate Trump with extremism. And to create lists of activists within the wider Trump-Patriot movement. To observe them. And when needed embroil them in expensive litigation. (As with Angela Davis).

There is a low intensity social and political war going on. Do you agree?

 

[Master Debator]

Even if it’s technically true that “white American slavery got kicked to the club,” it was for the benefit of white Northerners, not on behalf on “black American freedom,” as has been discussed here at great length in past months.

Where did I ever argue White Northerners fought Confederates to end slavery? What does that matter? Obviously Black Americans benefited from the end of slavery regardless by the virtue of no longer being someone else's legal property.

AT’s paradigm of Angela Davis’s incompatibility is far more consistent than your attempts to use Thomas Jefferson as a paradigm for slavery.

A moron like you would believe that despite reality being otherwise. The fact is Jefferson was a slaver and Angela Davis is an American. Really, what more needs to be said here. You can argue a slaver isn't a slaver and a celebrated American is incompatible in America but you must be describing some cuck boy fantasy world because it doesn't accurately describe this one.

IMO it’s Black Culture, not Black

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Master Debator]

There’s nothing sadder than a jilted forum debater.

Of course you're not bright enough to recognize I'm making fun of him and daring him to continue to equivocate on someone who cheered at the mention of slave rape.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Was he legally justified?

Was the US government justified in waging an extra-constitutional para-military war against the various revolutionary groups that armed themseves and engaged in guerrilla war during the Sixties and Seventies?

I do mean justified in the Carl Schmitt sense.

Yes or no.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

There’s nothing sadder than a jilted forum debater.

Ouch! That might leave a mark!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Where did I ever argue White Northerners fought Confederates to end slavery?

They did not BTW. The fight was to keep the Union together. And certainly to avoid the rise of a parallel, competing power that controlled the entrance to the Mississippi River. I have never encountered much geo-political discourse by the North where such a threat was recorded. But it seems likely.

 

[Master Debator]

Well, I do not think that riotous group was insurrectionist but they did intend disruption.

If they are morons (some could almost literally be classed as idiots) they could hardly be described as a viable political threat.

It is more likely that the powers-that-be are being unduly hard on these Capitol rioters when compared to many other rioters who invaded Federal properties. But from the State’s perspective this makes some sense, no? The Capitol in distinct from other Federal properties.

But a real threat is the potential political movement that could arise out of Trumpism. Though it has so far been democratically legal the threat (to the existing power regime) seems to be quite real.

So the object of the State police (Federal police: FBI) would be to associate Trump with extremism. And to create lists of activists within the wider Trump-Patriot movement. To observe them. And when needed embroil them in expensive litigation. (As with Angela Davis).

There is a low intensity social and political war going on. Do you agree?

If anything the Capitol rioters have been treated with kid gloves. I'm not opposed to this, I think the restraint the police showed that evening and the leniency the courts are giving to these rioters are the standard that all Americans should receive.

I think there is a social and political war going on but that's a part of democracy and I don't think Dissident Whites are being unfairly targeted by law enforcement, I think their willingness to use more violence and fraud to accomplish their political goals will naturally lead to more scrutiny by law enforcement. Ultimately though I think they lay down like the cucks they are and accept their political and cultural fates.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Of course you're not bright enough to recognize I'm making fun of him and daring him to continue to equivocate on someone who cheered at the mention of slave rape.

Only declared immature hot-heads like myself respond to baiting and provocation. More efficient to keep baiting me. I’ll always bite!

 

[Master Debator]

Was the US government justified in waging an extra-constitutional para-military war against the various revolutionary groups that armed themseves and engaged in guerrilla war during the Sixties and Seventies?

I do mean justified in the Carl Schmitt sense.

Yes or no.

I don't know who Carl Schmitt is or what sense he's talking about it. If you mean the moral sense my answer is morality doesn’t exist. If you mean the legal sense then consult the Supreme Court, they're the ultimate authority on what is or isn't legal.

They did not BTW. The fight was to keep the Union together. And certainly to avoid the rise of a parallel, competing power that controlled the entrance to the Mississippi River. I have never encountered much geo-political discourse by the North where such a threat was recorded. But it seems likely.

I don't actually give a shit what their intentions were.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Ultimately though I think they law down like the cucks they are and accept their political and cultural fates.

But we have not got quite yet to the point of talking about this. What I mean is about organized political resistance to that fate you describe.

 

[Master Debator]

Only declared immature hot-heads like myself respond to baiting and provocation. More efficient to keep baiting me. I’ll always bite!

That's fine. His non response is all the response I need.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I don't know who Carl Schmitt is or what sense he's talking about it.

Schmitt's work has attracted the attention of numerous philosophers and political theorists, including Giorgio Agamben, Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Susan Buck-Morss, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Waldemar Gurian, Jaime Guzmán, Reinhart Koselleck, Friedrich Hayek, Chantal Mouffe, Antonio Negri, Leo Strauss, Adrian Vermeule, and Slavoj Žižek, among others.​

 

[Alizia Tyler]

His non response is all the response I need.

You devil! Your satisfactions are self-sustaining!

 

[Master Debator]

But we have not got quite yet to the point of talking about this. What I mean is about organized political resistance to that fate you describe.

Maybe you need hundreds of pages of exposition to arrive at a logical conclusion but I certainly don't.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I don't actually give a shit what their intentions were

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”​

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Maybe you need hundreds of pages of exposition to arrive at a logical conclusion but I certainly don't.

Man, that is sure obvious!

 

[Master Debator]

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”​

If you want to help black activists make the point that North or South it doesn't really matter, America was a racist country, by all means, be my guest.