[RealPolitic]

@Pants-of-dog

The USA has never been a white country, despite the myths.

It might not be a white country but it most certainly is a white supremacist country starting with the founders who were slave owners. The fact that the Confederacy during the American Civil War was fighting to preserve the institutions of white supremacy such as slavery. The country was built around the concept of ensuring the power and wealth of the wealthy, slave owning, white European colonizers.

[FiveofSwords]

This is... not entirely wrong, I think, because Jews were viewed as racial aliens and were very successful, so much so that when Mary Phagan was murdered in 1913, the Jews were able to rally much of America against the state of Georgia during the trial with claims of anti-Semitism. Yes, you read that right, most Americans were against the perception of being anti-Semitic in 1913 and it was a powerful accusation towards the Georgian courts that they were unfairly trying Leo Frank. Of course, much ink was spilt to make these accusations stick because there were perfectly valid reasons to suspect Frank and, the comedy of it, was that the Leo Frank defense capitalized off of racist tropes against the janitor they suggested as the real murderer...

I suppose it existed on a sort of continuum: Jews were alraedy perceived as having business savvy and thus doing business with them would be acceptable, but imagine a black American trying to make it... He might have faced certain barriers to success.

It is also noteworthy that significant businesses were operating on the West Coast in the 1930s that were owned by Japanese companies, and this only changed when we went to war with Japan. So, it could be said that even very alien Asian peoples who were extreme minorities in this period outside of Hawaii were expriencing fiscal success and doing business with white Americans in the early part of the 20th century, which might also be surprising to grug-tier Leftoids who think that everywhere before 1967 was angry wypipo leering at the Coloreds and spitting as they walk by, with women clutching their pearls and locking the doors to the General Goods stores when they saw a minority coming...

There is truth in what you say here.

Nonetheless, in-group preference is real.

Actually leo frank got sentenced to death after a jury trial and then mysteriously his charges were dropped. A lynch mob in Atlanta simply killed him because they knew it was corruption that got him off. That incident is what started the adl.

Anyway I don't really understand how that is related to my point. What I was saying is that anyone could have forged their own empire. 1500 years ago, there was no reason to assume white people would dominate the earth. It just ended up that way.

So being 'white passing' has nothing to do with acquiring power. Developing the musket, though, probably did.

[Pants-of-dog]

- "USA was never a white country!"

The liberal man smiles and quietly looks at you, satisfied that he can back this up by pointing out that there has always been a sizable black and indigenous population. Even if it spent two centuries with whites comprising in excess of 85% of the population, it wouldn't matter. He'd start talking about Irish people as non-white or some shit. Plus a forest of pine trees that is only 85% pines is not a pine forest, I guess.

- "USA was founded on white supremacy."

The liberal man can now switch to the narrative that the entire structure of the United States as a political & social entity is founded on white supremacy that must be dismantled. Of course, the whites who controlled & maintained this structure for 200+ years without challenge and who STILL maintain the white supremacist state in some way, will be given no credit for the status of the USA as a sole superpower that has had an amazing and permanent impact on everyone that is largely benevolent - the only legacy of white people in America is white supremacy... But it does make you think how a country can be white supremacist from top to bottom and also never be white.

You can't argue with this stuff.

You just have to make sure it's framed properly.

The USA needed white supremacy because the USA was never a white country.

You cannot steal land from Indigenous people without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the land.

Nor can you steal labour from slaves and immigrants without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the labour.

[Fasces]

- "USA was never a white country!"

The liberal man smiles and quietly looks at you, satisfied that he can back this up by pointing out that there has always been a sizable black and indigenous population. Even if it spent two centuries with whites comprising in excess of 85% of the population, it wouldn't matter. He'd start talking about Irish people as non-white or some shit.

It's not "some shit". Your conception of white isnt universal across time or place. At the time of the founding fathers everyone but the English were non-white. Germans and Swedes were swarthy, to say nothing of the Irish, Spanish, French or Italians. Whites were indeed a minority.

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.

The definition of white is continually changing. Within my living memory, Arabs and North Africans went from white to not white. Jews are both white and non white depending on context.

[FiveofSwords]

It's not "some shit". Your conception of white isnt universal across time or place. At the time of the founding fathers everyone but the English were non-white. Germans and Swedes were swarthy, to say nothing of the Irish, Spanish, French or Italians. Whites were indeed a minority.



The definition of white is continually changing. Within my living memory, Arabs and North Africans went from white to not white. Jews are both white and non white depending on context.

This is nonsense and I can tell it is mainly inspired from reading a single paragraph from Franklin's "observation concerning the increase of mankind". We could of course prove that the populations you mentioned as being 'swarthy' were ALWAYS considered white by simply pointing out that the country had white only citizenship while having citizens of those ethnicities.

The truth is that the founders understood that it was rather arbitrary where you draw the line between white and non white and they didn't much care where exactly that line was drawn. Indeed to this day arabs are counted as 'white' on the census. It was never really discussed whether high caste indians (from india) were white until the 1920s, when the Supreme Court decided they weren't and thus deported them.

But unlike 'leftists', the founders did not think the arbitrary nature of that distinction would undermine their policy of white only citizenship because unlike people today, they were not prone to making a spectrum logical fallacy. The average iq of white people in that era was at least 20 points higher than it is today, and it shows in issues like that.

[FiveofSwords]

The USA needed white supremacy because the USA was never a white country.

You cannot steal land from Indigenous people without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the land.

Nor can you steal labour from slaves and immigrants without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the labour.

Total nonsense. You can absolutely steal land from indigenous people, just as they did with eachother, without promoting some mythology of being superior. In fact it is quite easy for people...ALL people...to be brutal to each other without having some sense of superiority.

It is baffling that you just somehow assume that this is some sort of requirement or even relevant.

In fact, if you read much literature or philosophy at the time, you might be surprised to learn that white people did NOT feel innately 'superior' to the indigenous people.

The most typical attitude, in fact, was a hope that the natives would convert to Christianity and assimilate into our society where they would prove to be our equals if they simply received a proper education.

The idea that white people are innately better at some stuff is really only a product of our post colonial history when efforts to civilized and educate people of other races led to a constant string of frustrating failures. It was those failures thay caused white people to give up on that rather utopian vision, and it was informed by experience...not ideology nor desire.

[ingliz]

Developing the musket, though, probably did.

Wasn't that the Chinese?

The history of firearms begins in 10th-century China.

[Rich]

The USA needed white supremacy because the USA was never a white country.

You cannot steal land from Indigenous people without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the land.

Nor can you steal labour from slaves and immigrants without the myth that white people are better and more deserving of the labour.

No you're wrong, so totally and utterly wrong, but that line I have highlighted is incredibly important. Because so many of the Euracian Infidel Goy, so many of my people believe this. What you've written here is so,so important. So first off lets rephrase that into something that might be true.

Christians and neo- Christians cannot steal land from Indigenous people without the myth that they are are better people and more deserving of the land.

Look at the pre Christian Romans, they didn't believe they were a morally deserving people. The Romans believed that they were descended from total moral degenerates. The Aeneid was a very late writing but again it certainly doesn't teach that the land of Italy was Roman by moral right. Look at the Spartans. They didn't teach their children that they deserved Laconia through moral right. If anything they taught their children the complete opposite. They taught their children that they had invaded Laconia and stolen it, hence you better never let your guard down with the Helots or the other peoples of Greece.

Read the old Testament. Little about it says that the Jews deserve Yahweh's favour. The Israelites / Jews only gain their land because of their alliance with Yahweh. Why Yahweh chose the Jews is never explained. It makes me laugh, these people that want to ban Jew hating literature. Well you obviously need to start with the Old Testament. How can anyone read and believe in the Bible and not hate the Jews?

Do you think the Comanche thought themselves morally superior to the Apaches? Do you think the Zulu needed to morally justify their conquests and enslavements of other peoples. Do you really think the Vikings wasted time concocting some elaborate theory of morality to justify their raids and invasions?

[ingliz]

@Rich

But the English and Americans are not Spartans or Comanche.

Between the 'I am better than you' and the US/English love of whining, you get this shite. A 'pity me' poem specially written to cater for both ...

Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden—
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain.
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden—
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper—
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go make them with your living,
And mark them with your dead!

Take up the White Man's burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:—
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden—
Ye dare not stoop to less
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden—
Have done with childish days—
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

— Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden (1899)

[Tainari88]

@Rich and @Verv it is all justified with being Christian now? I really think the way you are interpreting being a decent Christian is very questionable with what you have written so far in this thread on this topic.

Unless you believe being Christian is the superior religion and the only truth, and you prove that by forcing people to march off their ancestral lands 'The Trail of Tears' and you kill the wild Buffalo or North American Bison by the millions almost to the point of extinction to let them rot in the plains of North and South Dakota because you want some pink Gold in the Black Hills and the Lakota were not moving from the place they buried their dead. Such a superior way of thinking eh? Wasting meat and resources using violence and get frustrated that they cannot defeat some savages on their own land, so just waste millions of animals to force them into starvation. The acts of a superior culture eh? No one mentions what Stormfront produces. A kid is going to jail forever over killing innocent black people. This is recent history folks--not a century and a half ago. It is the mentality that has to be examined.

No, the denial of what has happened continues on in the minds of white men who refuse to think they might not be the great and superior race that is born to rule over others. That shit needs to stop and it needs to be examined for what it is. Not justify it with ideas of a special status that no one else on Earth has.

That is the problem with the entire idea of why governments go to war. We are special. We have more rights. We got to do this. There is no other option or choice because if we do not? The OTHERS will take our place. We were replaced by the OTHERS. Who think the same way about us as we do about them. Kill or be killed.

Fear of losing power and being replaced. Over what? Money? Land? It is mostly fictional privileges and ego-driven CRAP.

The problem is that.

What are the Satanic forces for Christians but lies and EGO that say put your ego first in all decisions eh?

And you fall for it every time!

[Tainari88]

Wasn't that the Chinese?

The history of firearms begins in 10th-century China.

That is another characteristic of the White Man's Myth. They invented everything and appropriated everything from other cultures that have intrinsic value and write a new history making them the Hero. That is the MO. It is really about not wanting to deal with the damage they do all day and every day with arrogance and with a lack of respect for nature, for their fellow human beings, for a value system that has devastating consequences to many. It is all justified under the banner of 'if we did not do this, the others would have.' It is like a thief saying 'everybody steals. We just do it better. It is in our nature as human beings to be selfish and to be power hungry. We just do it better.'

The thief thinks all others share that mentality. They do not. It is a way of avoiding taking full responsibility for what acts the thief commits.

It is also characteristic of elitists and people who have an ingrained love of class and caste systems.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is baffling that you just somehow assume that this is some sort of requirement or even relevant.

In fact, if you read much literature or philosophy at the time, you might be surprised to learn that white people did NOT feel innately 'superior' to the indigenous people.

If you read history, you will see that racism was (and is) very necessary to settler colonialism in the Americas, and things like the residential school system and the transatlantic slave trade clearly indicate that white people convinced themselves of their superiority.

The most typical attitude, in fact, was a hope that the natives would convert to Christianity and assimilate into our society where they would prove to be our equals if they simply received a proper education.

The idea that white people are innately better at some stuff is really only a product of our post colonial history when efforts to civilized and educate people of other races led to a constant string of frustrating failures. It was those failures thay caused white people to give up on that rather utopian vision, and it was informed by experience...not ideology nor desire.

The base assumption is that Indigenous and Black people need to be educated as Europeans in order to rise up to the level of Europeans, which indicates a sense of innate superiority to begin with.

[Tainari88]

If you read history, you will see that racism was (and is) very necessary to settler colonialism in the Americas, and things like the residential school system and the transatlantic slave trade clearly indicate that white people convinced themselves of their superiority.



The base assumption is that Indigenous and Black people need to be educated as Europeans in order to rise up to the level of Europeans, which indicates a sense of innate superiority to begin with.

Well that was truth in the fast lane.

[FiveofSwords]

If you read history, you will see that racism was (and is) very necessary to settler colonialism in the Americas, and things like the residential school system and the transatlantic slave trade clearly indicate that white people convinced themselves of their superiority.



The base assumption is that Indigenous and Black people need to be educated as Europeans in order to rise up to the level of Europeans, which indicates a sense of innate superiority to begin with.

You guys should actually read some of the stuff you pretend to read, because your takes on history are always just unsophisticated and in fact just silly.

You are talking about people and an era which was frankly far more intelligent and enlightened than the current day; they had to be; fools did not live long.

One could easily argue, for example, that the north was far more 'racist' than the south. Because their normal attitude was that they simply do not want black people around, not even as slaves.

And in fact one of their concerns about slavery was not that it was immoral...but rather that they feared a slave uprising...especially after Haiti happened. Part of why southern men were less concerned was simply because they were more comfortable with violence and confident in their martial discipline than the northern eggheads-i mean roundheads..

But in general, really, you might notice if you read more history that nobody was as hysterical as you are about race. The people you like to label as 'white supremacists' generally never even gave the matter much thought. Awareness of race was a thing that largely was a product of Darwin and the widespread acceptance of evolutionary biology...which took quite a long time because both Christians and communists were deeply resistant to it for ideological reasons.

In fact, Voltaire, who was probably the most censored philosopher prior to ww2 and could be the first of the 'new athiests' like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, semi jokingly remarked that if you believe that all humans were created by God, then that would have to include sub saharan africans. Which he felt was ridiculous to consider.

But yeah...the whole narrative and framing you guys construct about how the 'white man' used 'race' to oppress people...is just ignorant and kinda stupid. We used hard power to oppress people...and we never really gave a damn what people 'believed' about it lol. That just wasn't important. In fact the connection between ideology and power has always been rather vague and at best indirect. The real history of power has always been driven by technology, which I personally believe the white man was particularly suited for biologically.

[FiveofSwords]

Wasn't that the Chinese?

The history of firearms begins in 10th-century China.

The Chinese developed fireworks, bro. The gun did in fact exist as a concept for centuries before Europeans transformed it into a formidable weapon that could actually make a difference on the battlefield. Your midwit takes on history are so predictable, lol.

For sure if the English civil war had occurred just 100 years earlier, the cavaliers would have crushed their opposition.

The real beginning of the musket being significant as a weapon of war started in Spain around 1600, and it was thanks to improvements made to the concept via europeans.Europeans.

And fyi.. the Chinese 'discovery' of gunpowder was just a product ofbthe fact that daoists loved to just mix random stuff together because they believed it was possible to create a potion that granted immortal life, like the jade emperor.

The literally tried ingesting anything they could imagine. Including random metals etc. I believe that to this day there are still daoists who do this stuff.
the guy who 'discovered' gunpowder probably was looking for an immortality potion and he probably died.

[ingliz]

The Chinese developed fireworks

Wrong!

The Chinese used firearms and cannons during the Song period (960–1279). Though not as sophisticated, being smooth-bore hand cannons and the long cannons were smaller, they were weapons of war, and the technology worked (killed people) just as efficiently as any Spanish arm by the late 13th century.

[FiveofSwords]

Wrong!

The Chinese used firearms and cannons during the Song period (960–1279). Though not as sophisticated, being smooth-bore hand cannons and long cannons, they were weapons of war, and the technology worked (killed people) just as efficiently as any Spanish arm by the late 13th century.

That is a funny assertion because it kinda reveals you don't even know what the gun used by Spain in the 13th century was also useless.

The primary utility of the gun used by Chinese (and actually moreso mongols) was just that it was loud so it hurt the enemy moral. Military theorists call this 'weapon push'. Fireworks in fact could have done that job just as well, which is the irony of your 'counter'.

As far as scoring actual kills goes, the crossbow was far superior in that era.

The turks found cannons useful for destroying walls when they were fighting Byzantium. That actually did have military significance.

But anyway, I am not interested in giving you history lessons. You just are a typical midwit who thinks you know a lot more than you actually do.

In fact the ultimate midwit is someone who uses the term 'dunning Kruger' a lot because they actually believe it is some obscure concept that people don't know about...lol. this is what happens when you get your 'education' from YouTube instead of actually reading books.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

The Spanish didn't have guns in the 1200s.

Early Chinese weapons were little more than a close-quarter low-power bamboo or laminated paper shotgun tube strapped to a spear and flashbangs. But technology advances, and by 1270, the Chinese had perfected high-nitrate powder; used metal tubes; and sized projectiles.

[Tainari88]

@FiveofSwords

The Spanish didn't have guns in the 1200s.

Early Chinese weapons were little more than a close-quarter low-power shotgun tube strapped to a spear. But technology advances, and by 1270, the Chinese had perfected high-nitrate powder; used metal tubes; and sized projectiles.

He continues to think that using YouTube is a problem. It is a problem for him because most of those big traffic sites have prohibited hate speech people from using their platforms for being scared of legal lawsuits in the USA and in other nations, so they banned his ass a long time ago. So if he can't use the videos then we are all illiterates and or use it because we never read books.

In terms of guns and the history of arms, I think @ingliz is way more 'educated' than Five is. For sure! Lol.

Notice Ingliz how he keeps using insecure words like your history is unsophisticated and silly. No, HIS is rudimentary and just outright lies. But he has to push the narrative because to admit that other 'races' are great at many subjects blows up his White Supremacy bullshit thoughts.

It is all pushing lies as the truth. It is bad. But then they get brainwashed and misinformed young people like Payton G. there who go out and in a fit of racist hatred kill a lot of Black people minding their own business and he gets thrown in the slammer for the rest of his natural life. And the cowardly pieces of shit who never had the guts to act out on killing the top government people or the corporate masters or the ones in charge and who tell lies about how inferior and not worthy of respect Black people are...and they brainwash the Paytons of the world out there? They are responsible for that kid being stuck in some solitary confinement cell in New York or a Federal prison for the rest of his life. Went in at 18,28,38,48,58,68,78, thousands upon thousands of days looking at four walls and doing NOTHING with his life at all. Voided out of society. Repudiated by the world. Why? Believing those fucking lies these people peddle as truth.

Then @Verv says nothing about Payton and what lying racist shit ideologies full of hate does to minds that are young and impressionable like Payton's. This happened recently folks. It is not the only incident tied to Stormfront. Over 100 murders are tied to that website alone.

If PoFo had that kind of history? Would you want to be a part of it? Think about that for a minute. I would not. Not in a million years. I would never be a part of helping to spread intolerance, and hatred and taking innocent lives. Now, if the Nazis had the balls to go after the CEO of Exxon Mobile or some corporation that is wanting to push their shitty globalist exploitation agenda on the world? And some Nazi extremists wanted to do a Jihad and go for broke on them for their cause? It would be more justified than going after some innocent Black people shopping. But no. No cojones for that kind of confrontation. They prefer killing defenseless women who bake for the church or some older father who watches sports on TV. Heroes they are. Yeah, right.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

Perhaps you are getting the Spanish mixed up with the Moors.

The first use of cannon for military purposes in the Western world was the Moorish cannon used in the defense of Seville in 1248 and of Niebla in 1262. In both cases, the city’s Arab residents fired some sort of primitive gun at the Spanish who were besieging them.

The Arab gun was not metal and fired a large arrow.