🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in
.  The society was founded on the backs of the slaves (In the
> south), the profits from their importation and sales (in the north),
> and on the taking of land away from the Amerinds (all over) either
> without payment or with promises that were not kept, and in any case
> with genocide by intentional infection with European diseases.

I once told a fellow that being supportive of whites did not necessarily
mean hatred toward anyone else. He replied that it really did, in almost
every case. Well, I don't know about that. But the reverse seems to be true:
whites who are critical of whites do seem to develop a pathological hatred
of their own people, as you so aptly illustrate.

So you think America owes its prosperity to blacks. Bob, that is amazing. If
blacks are such a benefit, Africa would be an economic powerhouse.

>And
> all of it financed by the Jews,

You think us white nationalists are hateful, do you? Keep talking like this
and you'll get a lesson in real hatred.

since many Christians though usury
> (loaning money with interest) was a sin.  The "whites" did not do it
> themselves, which is the claim I was refuting.
>
> >All the talk about the South being
> >built by slaves doesn't explain how the South continued to prosper
without
> >them.
>
> Who are you kidding?  Even after slavery ended, blacks were still a
> very high percentage of Southern population and did most of the work,
> for cheap.  Meanwhile anyone who says that the South prospered after
> the Civil War better study their history.  Even today, almost 150
> years later, the average income and education level in Mississippi and
> Louisiana is a fraction of the average for Yankees.

You're making my point for me. I don't suppose you consider that Missisippi
has the highest proportion of blacks in the country as explanation for your
facts.

> >Besides, not only did Jefferson's slaves support him, he also supported
> >them.
>
> How?  What did he do for his slaves while he sat in France for a
> dozen-odd years?

If they ate, he fed them. If they were clothed, he clothed them. If they
slept indoors, it was his house.

> >He obviously believed it made more economic sense to have slaves as
> >servants than free whites or blacks, or he wouldn't have had any.
>
> Correct.  He owned them and did not have to pay them wages.  He could
> not afford to run his property without slaves.

That is ridiculous. The fact that he kept slaves does not mean he had no
other viable alternatives. Do you believe it was impossible for estate
owners to run their property without slaves, so therefore there were no
non-slave holding property owners? Not even one, anywhere? Or perhaps you
think it was just Jefferson who was so incompetent he could not function
without them?
>
> >But
> >regardless of what they believed, the wealthy white Northerners did not
> >become poor after the slavery option was no longer available.
>
> The wealthy white Northerners used their ill-gotten wealth to build
> industry (incidentally, often by industrial espionage against the
> British), whereas the South did not have the resources, and kept their
> wealth in land like the aristocrats of Europe.  Yankee ingenuity also
> included Yankee cutthroatedness.

Yes, we whites are just a bunch of crooked SOB's, aren't we?

Here's a thought, Bob: since you're so ashamed of your country and your
people, why don't you give up your place as an American to some deserving
African? There must be about a billion of them who would be just tickled at
the prospect. Then you could live out your life with superior people, in a
superior culture and a superior lifestyle.

Mark