[Skynet]

Liberal democracy was just as stupid a political concept as communism was. And it barely lasted long enough to destroy the only decent political philosophy in the past 200 years.

Liberal democracy is detrimental for moral of a nation, all liberal democracies have far to few children.

South-Koreans will die out entirely within 100 Years. A smart race this Koreans but if they drink alcohole they are 2 weaks drunken...

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

We know there was slavery in the British Empire. But why say the legal basis of the trade rests on Holt's rulings, when Holt followed Hale's lead, and Hale argued that even infidels were under God's (and the law's) protection?

As a matter of common law, after Parliament twice refused to pass an Act making slavery legal, slavery was decided legal by the Court of the King's Bench during Charles II's reign. The judgment in Butts v. Penny was made by Charles II's Chief Justice Sir Richard Rainsford. Holt overturned that with his rulings. Colonial codes could not be repugnant - contradictory - to English law. But Holt died, and a new Chief Justice was appointed. And under the new queen, Anne, commercial interests soon won out.

Slavery was legal once more.

As usual, you seem to have things arse-backward.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

We know there was slavery in the British Empire. But why say the legal basis of the trade rests on Holt's rulings, when Holt followed Hale's lead, and Hale argued that even infidels were under God's (and the law's) protection?

As a matter of common law, after Parliament twice refused to pass an Act making slavery legal, slavery was decided legal by the Court of the King's Bench in Charles II's reign, and the judgment in Butts v. Penny was made by Charles II's Chief Justice Sir Richard Rainsford. Holt overturned that with his rulings. Colonial codes could not be repugnant - contradictory - to English law. But Holt died, and a new Chief Justice was appointed. And under the new queen, Anne, commercial interests soon won out.

Slavery was legal once more.

As usual, you seem to have things arse-backward.

Holt failed to outlaw slavery in the British empire despite some people suspecting that he might, because of his temperament and philosophy. As you have noticed, he preferred to simply deny that slavery occurred...despite the fact that it clearly did occur.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

Bollocks!

Holt outlawed slavery. But commercial interests overruled him. Chamberlain v. Harvey’s precedent was short-lived, as those who disagreed with it either disregarded it or, upon the ascension to the throne of Queen Anne and later King George I, judges rejected the ruling and returned to the Butts v. Penny interpretation.

[Rich]

European Christian culture and particularly European Protestant culture was morally superior to the other major world cultures, Islamic, Hindi, Han, Pagan African. However that did open it up to accusations of hypocrisy. Christianity is the most notable of the human-universalist philosophies / religions that emerged in the biggest multi racial, multi lingual, multi ethnic, multi religious, multi cultural empires of the Ancient World.

The fourth / fifth century Roman empire was for most people inside of it in effect the World Government. It was the only Christian government, hence it was the only legitimate government. Christianity was born and solidified under a world government. The fall of the Roman Empire and its replacement by multiple Christian states created a huge crisis of morality and legitimacy. A problem that the neo Christian Liberals still struggle with today. Hence their pathetic fantasies around international law. For a real international rule of law you need a world government. We don't live under a world government. In truth we westerners don't want to live under a world government. The rest of the world doesn't want to live under a world government, so we couldn't live under a world government if we wanted too, but lets pretend anyway.

As I said elsewhere the Medieval / Ancient worlds were largely zero sum games. Hence the places with the most liberty tended to have the most slavery. Under totalitarian, extreme authoritarian autocracies you don't really need a clearly defined status of slavery as the elites / middle class can do pretty much what they ant to to the lowest classes anyway. Texas, although later was a ferocious hotbed of liberty. It should not surprise us then that the first thing they did with their liberty was reintroduce slavery.

Contra to what the Marxists say slavery was never the main mode of labour, but Economically slavery was a no brainer for many positions. For the Romans the question wasn't why do you have slavery, but why in the names of the Gods would you not want to have slavery. Even today there are areas such as sex labour and a lot of agricultural labour where slavery makes economic sense. And of course abolishing slavery in the Caribbean and the Southern United States was economic madness.

However Christianity was always morally uncomfortable with all out slavery. Hence the need to resort to elaborate racial justifications.

[Potemkin]

Holt failed to outlaw slavery in the British empire despite some people suspecting that he might, because of his temperament and philosophy. As you have noticed, he preferred to simply deny that slavery occurred...despite the fact that it clearly did occur.

Holt did not deny that slavery existed; he denied that it was legal. This not even a subtle distinction, @FiveofSwords. When a judge rules against the legality of something, he is not denying its existence. Otherwise, nothing which existed could ever be made illegal.

[Rich]

That idiot comedian going on about India is actually quite illuminating. Britain was great. He recognises that, even he knows enough history to know that. He then makes the jump that because Britain was great, in the sense of being brilliant, magnificent awesome, that must be the reason that Great Britain was called Great Britain, when it was humble deference to the province of Brittany. However in a similar fashion many Marxists and Marxist fellow travelers recognise that Britain was great but try to attribute it to slave labour. This is clearly wrong. You don't build an industrial economy on top of sugar and tobacco. I'm no fanboi of the Steel centred economic development strategy of Stalin and many other twentieth century authoritarian leaders, but its still a lot more plausible than sugar and tobacco. We saw with the huge Spanish extraction of Silver and gold from its empire that just profits don't produce industrialisation of proto industrialisation.

Slavery was profitable. It was abolished for moral reasons not economic and it was certainly necessary for the early development of the British, French and Spanish, but it didn't do a lot for industrial development. In the post medieval economies, labour shortage is a huge long term development advantage.

[Tainari88]

@QatzelOk I think it is interesting to really think about the environments in which early European settlers and their first encounters with the indigenous Americans in all of the Americas--and how that played out back then. What usually happens to people who grow interdependent on a real basis? They interact, intermarry, and eventually fuse. There are many cases of this in human history. That Roanoke scenario could very well be one of them.

You have the case of Gonzalo Guerrero, not to be confused with Vicente Guerrero, an Afro-Mexican independence founding father for Mexico's sovereignty from Spain in the 19th century. Gonzalo Guerrero was a Spanish soldier on a ship that suffered damage in a storm off the coast of what is now named Veracruz. He and his survivors spent a lot of time interacting and depending on and learning the language, lifeways and culture of the Mayans of that region of Mexico. So much so that Hernán Cortés came along in 1521 and they eventually found out through their translators that Gonzalo Guerrero was still alive and had completely culturally acculturated to the Mayans. Guerrero fought on the Mayan side against the Spaniards and used his knowledge of Spanish tactics to help his Mayan group. He had married a Mayan princess and had Mayan mixed race children whom he famously adored and wrote about.

Again the Five man has no idea about real scenarios in history where racial mixing occurred and in which all his theories about what is 'natural' actually is not natural at all. But, again fear based politically faulty thoughts.

Gonzalo Guerrero:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Guerrero

A lot of his early life is well documented in the Yucatán Peninsula. It is similar to what could have happened to the Roanoake. That Five man thinks they were eaten just plays into his usual racist trope rhetoric about how people of different cultures are supposed to fear each other and eat each other. Lol.

[Tainari88]

Holt did not deny that slavery existed; he denied that it was legal. This not even a subtle distinction, @FiveofSwords. When a judge rules against the legality of something, he is not denying its existence. Otherwise, nothing which existed could ever be made illegal.

You are in denial that Germany invaded the Soviet Union because Stalin was going to invade Germany. It was kill or be killed.

Then he goes on about every nation that Germany invaded aggressively during WWII was done defensively. Because if they had not done it first, they would have been in deep caca. The Jews were a threat. Even the babies and children.

And Germany is for the Germans, Scotland is for the Scottish only, and so on. You pass muster there Potemkin. You are Scottish on both sides as far as we know, and therefore you belong in Scotland. The ones who are not Scottish like that professor of yours who was German? Or any person who you like or love who is not pure Scottish has to not live there. because we are into the Lego color-coded versions of countries now.

Scotland has to redo its thoughts about the American Neo Nazis of Scottish background. They need to take over Edinburgh and talk about painting their faces blue and putting on kilts and using claymores and playing the bagpipes. Hmmm, I could see you in a kilt, that might be worth them taking over Scotland for me eh? Lol. You must be a real Scottish person. No Englishman accents from Manchester, chinos and button down shirts. It is all Scottish brogue, and Haggis eating day and night, chug some milk in your tea, and oatmeal and salmon for dinner, and some Scottish stereotypes. You stop being stubborn and follow the Color Codes. No liking foreign women either! You race traitor!

I have interpretations all day today until 1pm. Busy. But I hope you come back to this thread.

@ingliz is writing a lot of lines. And they are quite engaging. I like that!

[Potemkin]

You are in denial that Germany invaded the Soviet Union because Stalin was going to invade Germany. It was kill or be killed.

Then he goes on about every nation that Germany invaded aggressively during WWII was done defensively. Because if they had not done it first, they would have been in deep caca. The Jews were a threat. Even the babies and children.

And Germany is for the Germans, Scotland is for the Scottish only, and so on. You pass muster there Potemkin. You are Scottish on both sides as far as we know, and therefore you belong in Scotland. The ones who are not Scottish like that professor of yours who was German? Or any person who you like or love who is not pure Scottish has to not live there. because we are into the Lego color-coded versions of countries now.

Scotland has to redo its thoughts about the American Neo Nazis of Scottish background. They need to take over Edinburgh and talk about painting their faces blue and putting on kilts and using claymores and playing the bagpipes. Hmmm, I could see you in a kilt, that might be worth them taking over Scotland for me eh? Lol. You must be a real Scottish person. No Englishman accents from Manchester, chinos and button down shirts. It is all Scottish brogue, and Haggis eating day and night, chug some milk in your tea, and oatmeal and salmon for dinner, and some Scottish stereotypes. You stop being stubborn and follow the Color Codes. No liking foreign women either! You race traitor!

I have interpretations all day today until 1pm. Busy. But I hope you come back to this thread.

@ingliz is writing a lot of lines. And they are quite engaging. I like that!

@ingliz is sound. His posts are always worth reading, informative and well-researched. I learn something new every day from @ingliz.

But yeah, @FiveofSwords’s neatly colour-coded view of the world is getting tiresome. And he seems to be deliberately obtuse as a debating tactic. It’s rather strange.

[Pants-of-dog]

If that is how you define white supremacy then I would not be a white supremacist. Neither would Hitler, in fact.

Your self-identification is your business, not mine.

You asked for a definition of white supremacy. It has been provided.

And you seem to have abandoned the argument that races exist as genetic groupings.

[FiveofSwords]

Your self-identification is your business, not mine.

You asked for a definition of white supremacy. It has been provided.

And you seem to have abandoned the argument that races exist as genetic groupings.

Lol...races obviously exist as genetic subgroups

[Pants-of-dog]

Lol...races obviously exist as genetic subgroups

You keep saying that.

[FiveofSwords]

You keep saying that.

Well don't worry. It isn't possible to oppress people of any race because there is no way to identify them.

[QatzelOk]

...Being a citizen of Scotland does not require that you are scottish. ...

It's the very defintion of "being Scottish." Having a Scottish citizenship.

Same with being "American" or "Canadian" or "French." If you have citizenship in one of these countries, you get special privileges and you can call yourself by the identifying name.

On the other hand, racially Scottish people who have lived there for thousands of years.... don't officially get special privileges.

If you want your family to have special privileges, as Proudhon said, you must rob or kill someone and steal all their money, and then make sure you give nothing to the state and keep it all in your family. Rich Scottish people are privileged, and often inbred pure. Same with rich Americans, or rich French people or rich Italians. Inbred criminals.

...As a ‘race realist’, you should detest the transatlantic slave trade, and the institution of race-based chattel slavery, with just as much loathing as Malcolm X or MLK did. Look what it did to your society.

There are many reasons to hate the form of slavery that was popular during the Age of Discovery. It's not just about displacing people, mixing cultures inappropriately, or taking away human rights from large groups.

Plantation slavery also meant that these slaves were not allowed to breed naturally, and were "bred like cattle" to create specific characteristics. Dumb and strong were the most important ones.

Once the slaves were freed by Abe Lincoln (to create a black army to kill the remaining First Nations), the USA now had a lot of dumb-but-strong people running around freely. These ex-slaves were not compenstated for what they had undergone (genetic destruction by slave-master mad scientists), and their situation has never truly been recognized for what it is: genetic ruination by gold-seekers.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well don't worry. It isn't possible to oppress people of any race because there is no way to identify them.

You keep saying I said that.

[Tainari88]

It's the very defintion of "being Scottish." Having a Scottish citizenship.

Same with being "American" or "Canadian" or "French." If you have citizenship in one of these countries, you get special privileges and you can call yourself by the identifying name.

On the other hand, racially Scottish people who have lived there for thousands of years.... don't officially get special privileges.

If you want your family to have special privileges, as Proudhon said, you must rob or kill someone and steal all their money, and then make sure you give nothing to the state and keep it all in your family. Rich Scottish people are privileged, and often inbred pure. Same with rich Americans, or rich French people or rich Italians. Inbred criminals.


There are many reasons to hate the form of slavery that was popular during the Age of Discovery. It's not just about displacing people, mixing cultures inappropriately, or taking away human rights from large groups.

Plantation slavery also meant that these slaves were not allowed to breed naturally, and were "bred like cattle" to create specific characteristics. Dumb and strong were the most important ones.

Once the slaves were freed by Abe Lincoln (to create a black army to kill the remaining First Nations), the USA now had a lot of dumb-but-strong people running around freely. These ex-slaves were not compenstated for what they had undergone (genetic destruction by slave-master mad scientists), and their situation has never truly been recognized for what it is: genetic ruination by gold-seekers.

I refrain from judging people over these situations. If you did not sex on command you could be whipped or killed Q. This also happened with Roman slaves who were Europeans. If they were slaves they were told when and with whom to have sex with. Sometimes some older and not fertile unattractive Roman vieja and the man who was a slave had to do so or be whipped or punished. You did not have to be exclusively black either. There was a case of a German indentured servant forced to have children with her white master who held power over here for seven years. These situations were terrible.

I do not think Black people of the Americas should be judged for what happened after the Civil War was done and they had to try to survive as sharecroppers. It is amazing they survived all that horror in my honest opinion.

That 12 years a slave book was interesting. He details the lack of real freedom the slaves had. Patsy's story was terrible. Being whipped nearly to death over the jealousy and hatred of the Mistress of the House because she was being raped by the Master and then had to pick cotton all day in the hot sun and was smelly and the Mistress would deny her a bar of soap to wash up with to make her feel disgusting. For a woman that is just horrible!

I am glad that horrible institution was ended. In Puerto Rico slavery ended officially on March 22, 1873. They celebrate it with the closing of all official business. It is an official holiday. They do not have an official end of slavery day in the USA because the Confederacy saw it as a slap in the face after the ending of the Civil War and they lost the war. It was humiliating. So to compromise the Northern Yankee states never did an official end of slavery day.

Sore losers the racists are. Lol. On both sides of the North and the South. Many Northern states just wanted cheap African labor for the new factories in NYC and Philadelphia, PA.

[Tainari88]

@ingliz is sound. His posts are always worth reading, informative and well-researched. I learn something new every day from @ingliz.

But yeah, @FiveofSwords’s neatly colour-coded view of the world is getting tiresome. And he seems to be deliberately obtuse as a debating tactic. It’s rather strange.

It is not strange. You have to see him within his context for debates. He is a Nazi. He believes in the inferiority of other races. He argues about people disagreeing like Holt because they refuse to acknowledge something exists. He is projecting their knee-jerk denial of their own way of thinking onto others. Even people who never thought that way at all. It is in keeping with the erroneous thoughts of if you are not selfish or only looking out for your own nationality and or group. Based on myths really, then you are in the wrong. Everyone has to favor their own group first or a nation can't exist. The nationals of almost all nation-states in the world which is close to 200 of them according to the UN, all get nation-states privileges. Like the right to vote. The right to work in that country. The right to open a bank account. The right to send your kid to a local school without having to pay out of pocket provided by taxes that are local and federally funded through the state.

They do not see the problems in being stateless because the Nazis never really have to leave the USA and try to get immigration status in other countries while stating clearly they are Nazis or have criminal backgrounds. The vast majority of nations on Earth with functional bureaucracies will never give temporary or permanent residency status to people who can't make a living, not be able to prove financial solvency, and who do not or can't prove that they have a clean record, such as never have been arrested in their countries of origin, (many of the Neo Nazis have been arrested by the state they lived in, for minor or worse offenses--Don Black served three years in prison. If he tries to run to Dominica again or enter some little nation like Palau or American Samoa or some such shit? REJECTED. Cayman Islands, Bermuda, etc. all are gonna say no way Blow Jay.

Being stateless is hard. They do not know that because they are all limited shit thinkers thinking the world revolves around White Genocide, White Power, White Supremacy, and LEGO Color codes. When it does not. 95% of the planet is not European-based. It is about capitalism in different stages with some state capitalism in the PRC and so on and some nations who have social democracies like Sweden and Norway. You have some assassinations due to political disagreements with the politics of presidents from the past like in Sweden you had Olaf Palme who was killed in 1986 for being too socialist. A big cover-up. Another white Swede probably from some Nazi background. All one-race kumbaya shit is not realistic.

But what can you expect from these foolish men who think the reason that they are persecuted is because the governments all around the world are exterminating the White Race?

He avoids real points. Never addresses any valid points. Why? Has to keep to the script. It is tiresome. He needs to start dealing with reality.

Which they are not doing. He won't. Ingliz is wrong. You are wrong, so am I and so will anyone who finds his view critically flawed.

Again, plausible deniability.

He also like a typical Nazi fascist is willing to burn a country even his own native society to the ground if it is does not allow control of the society by his group. That is also characteristic of such mentalities. If we can't be the ones in the driver's seat, politically, economically, militarily and so on? Because we care about our own and have the best system in the history of the world? Then burn it all to the ground. Destroy it. Pathological shit really. You do not have a right to destroy an entire nation because you do not control it fully. That is what crazy ass obsessed mentalities living in fear 24/7 do.

For me? If my native land wants something different than I want politically will I then want them to burn and die and not live another day? No. Accept defeat with grace and work with a positive contribution. Try to have a civilized dialogue of why they want that path that you disagree with and serve the ones who you care about with consistency is the answer. Not destroy the nation and the world because it is not doing what you want.

Then they say they are not wanting something negative. Yeah right with that story.

Si me comprendieras.

[FiveofSwords]

It's the very defintion of "being Scottish." Having a Scottish citizenship.

Same with being "American" or "Canadian" or "French." If you have citizenship in one of these countries, you get special privileges and you can call yourself by the identifying name.

On the other hand, racially Scottish people who have lived there for thousands of years.... don't officially get special privileges.

If you want your family to have special privileges, as Proudhon said, you must rob or kill someone and steal all their money, and then make sure you give nothing to the state and keep it all in your family. Rich Scottish people are privileged, and often inbred pure. Same with rich Americans, or rich French people or rich Italians. Inbred criminals.


There are many reasons to hate the form of slavery that was popular during the Age of Discovery. It's not just about displacing people, mixing cultures inappropriately, or taking away human rights from large groups.

Plantation slavery also meant that these slaves were not allowed to breed naturally, and were "bred like cattle" to create specific characteristics. Dumb and strong were the most important ones.

Once the slaves were freed by Abe Lincoln (to create a black army to kill the remaining First Nations), the USA now had a lot of dumb-but-strong people running around freely. These ex-slaves were not compenstated for what they had undergone (genetic destruction by slave-master mad scientists), and their situation has never truly been recognized for what it is: genetic ruination by gold-seekers.

Having scottish citizenship does not make a person scottish. Citizenship is just a fictional relation between yourself and the ruling elite in a state. It has nothing to do with reality.

Scottish people are not 'inbred'. Also, there are ways to build civilization other than theft.

[FiveofSwords]

You keep saying I said that.

Well how do you identify what race a person is?