noavbazzer posted:

tsargon is Always Right.

gyrofry posted:

...FAR right

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Tsargon posted:

what in the world is an anglo caribbean?

the white people who run all that shit and have since they brough in the slaves. my point is that your premise about englands pattern of colonization somehow making not american history built upon the backs of black slaves is completely stupid.

1. i have never, if you re-read my posts, defended the white people who 'brough in the slaves' or who did 'run all that shit'. also its canada btw, come on man its right there.

2. i have never said that Americas history did not feature, very critically, black slavery. obviously it did. i simply said that American colonization did not absolutely require, to the point of being impossible without, the institution of slavery, which you did say by arguing that all white people 'starve' without slave production. its dumb to argue counter-factuals i know but it was necessary because you insisted that free southern labor benefited from being in competition with slave labor.

to sum up, i am arguing that the institution of slavery exerted deleterious effects upon both poor white southerners as a class and upon the political economy of the south as a whole, which again should be obvious. you are contesting this, i think, because you seem to want to lump all white people south of the mason dixon into an undifferentiated mass of slave drivers, which simply was not the case.

GoldenLionTamarin posted:

working all day long on the McRib plantation

my only solace, as i hoe out these mcribs, is that by flooding the market with slave produced mcribs i am making life infinitely better for the small mcrib producer.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

so you're proposing a break from history where its just like WELCOME TO AMERICA BLACK PEOPLE YOU ARE FREE

also lol @ painting it as a north vs south thing. i am a proud southerner i just dont have the hubris to say that southern worker white people are somehow not the exact same giant white privileged pieces of shit as northern people.

again, as i said above, its dumb to argue counter-factuals, and if you want to return to the core argument that small cotton producers benefited from being in competition with cotton plantations then by all means lets.

i dont know about northern people, but obviously the ohio or pennsylvania type model of development was more desirable from the perspective of poor whites than the southern model, which is to say 'live in the worst parts of the state because everything decent is owned by aristocrats, get by without schools, roads or hospitals because the only goal of your state government is to keep taxes at 0, and compete with slave plantations for the marketing of your crop with the only alternative being to leave'

xipe posted:

are there any right-wing voices worth listening to these days tsargon?
(and what subjects are they worht listening to on??)

i investigated the 'new right' people a little and they were v. terrible; maybe u have some better suggestions idk

ya dont listen to anyone who is alive right now pretty much if you want to hear anything hearable

its like julius evola says bro we all alone in this shit......

elemennop posted:

EO, while it's certainly true that large portions of the white lower class benefited from black slavery in reduced commodity prices and "infrastructure" (as much as existed at the time) afforded by the depressed labour, those groups of white workers in direct competition with slave labour undoubtedly suffered from reduced market prices.

lol i have never said that isn't true just bringing that up as some sort of white to justify white people being pigs is absurd.

white 'workers' still benefit from black slave labor to this day hth

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

so what youre saying is rustbelt shitholes had a more desirable mode of development for white people than the south? lol that's cool i guess... but really who gives a shit about what was the best mode of development for 'poor' whites lol

well as a poor white person, *raises a paw*

AmericanNazbro posted:

I'm a White Supremacist. Please interpret my posts accordingly

quick q, if you dont mind: as a white supremacist, how do you deal with the fact that within the internal logic of such an ideology you are compelled to argue that the british are genetically superior to anyone

Tsargon posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

I'm a White Supremacist. Please interpret my posts accordingly

quick q, if you dont mind: as a white supremacist, how do you deal with the fact that within the internal logic of such an ideology you are compelled to argue that the british are genetically superior to anyone

i'm actually a slav supremacist. i fucking hate white people. sorry man, i can't answer this question and i don't think anyone sane can either

AmericanNazbro posted:

Tsargon posted:

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

again, whether you say you are or not is irrelevant. and, you're right, no its not but the premises you base your specific shit on are white supremacist premises.

what is this situation wherein poor "whites" would have been better as well as "blacks?"

? the situation is the one i describe, where slavery is outlawed from the start and the slave trade does not occur. the slaves would benefit from *not being slaves* and poor whites would benefit from not being in economic competition with slaves and having their statehouses not be run by slave owners. the losers would have been white aristocrats who, from the beginning of the thread, i have declared my hostility towards both in the historical form of the planter and in the modern form of bush 2.

who/what was the driving force to abolish slavery in the south? was it just northen capital trying to hone in on the action of slave labor? i don't really know much of anything w/r/t that time period but even after slavery was officially abolished, it still continued through the criminalization of black culture and amassing a giant slave labor pool of black people in prisons

well there was no large, popular drive to 'abolish slavery' in the north pre-war, abolitionists were generally a small and despised minority (until the civil war), but there was a very large popular drive in the north to contain slavery through the free soil movement. as the united states expanded westward a conflict broke out ideologically and materially over whether the new states would be free (benefiting the incoming white settlers who did not want to compete with slave power for land or crops) or slave (benefiting the established slave aristocracy through an expansion of the southern aristocracies internal political power, political power which they required so as to keep secure the slave system which they depended upon to reproduce themselves).

as free soilers continually triumphed over slave power, and finally when lincoln (a free soiler) was elected without carrying a single southern state, it became apparent that, if things continued as they were, slave power, previously the dominant political and economic bloc of the united states, would become marginalized and, through marginalization, vulnerable, meaning that something had to be done. southern aristocrats, being by nature martially oriented (all aristocrats are) and over-confident in themselves by dint of having won the mexican war essentially on their lonesome and by having had a bumper crop of cotton in 1860, therefore overplayed their hands and attempted to force a situation which northern industrialists did not want (remember, lincoln came to office pledging reconciliation).

once the war, which the north did not want, was started northern industrialists came over when confronted with the huge amount of money lincoln was interested in spending on arms and supplis. southern tenaciousness in battle then forced lincoln to free the slaves, support for which had been produced by increasing bitterness in the north towards southern aristocrats which temporarily trumped their loathing for black folk. southern slaves were the critical prop in the southern war machine, enabling the south to conscript far more white soldiers proportionally than the north was able to owing to slave field labor, and once they came over en masse the war was essentially finished.

and once it was *really* finished and reconstruction was started (which was a hugely expensive and incredibly bloody affair), and especially once the depression of 1872 got underway, northern support for abolition and the reform of the south evaporated completely without a southern villain to focus on and far more important affairs to look after, and the old southern power structure thereby re-asserted itself, mostly through terrorism.

as such the abolition of slavery was not undertaken as an economic measure, in accordance with the ambition of some specific class, but rather because it was strategically critical and the main class which supported slavery (southern aristocrats) had shifted from being fellow lawmakers to military enemies. as such slavery re-asserted itself in the south (more or less) after the war because the only two classes who had real emancipation in their interests, poor whites and freed blacks (there were slave-owning black aristocrats before the war), were never able to either come together or command enough power separately to be able to wrestle under control of the south for themselves.

AmericanNazbro posted:

Tsargon posted:

AmericanNazbro posted:

I'm a White Supremacist. Please interpret my posts accordingly

quick q, if you dont mind: as a white supremacist, how do you deal with the fact that within the internal logic of such an ideology you are compelled to argue that the british are genetically superior to anyone

i'm actually a slav supremacist. i fucking hate white people. sorry man, i can't answer this question and i don't think anyone sane can either

oh. slavs you say *looks away, bites upper lip*

xipe posted:

Tsargon posted:

under the reign of slave power poor whites suffered economically for the reasons already outlined, culturally as southern aristocrats developed the rhetoric of 'white trash' which they exported to the rest of the country so as to justify the miserable state of non-aristocratic whites in the south, and socially as aristocrat politicians ruthlessly worked against any institution which would have benefited poor whites as a class up until the aristocratic power structure was overturned first during reconstruction and later, partially, during the progressive era.

i am not saying, as is sometimes said by other far-rightists, that white people were the TRUE victims under slavery; clearly it is better to be a dirt poor hillman than a plantation slave. but i am saying that the political economy of a plantation society is destructive to every class other than the aristocrats who run it.

non-economic benefits mustve been pretty valuable to poor whites; my understanding is that they went proper rahowa to prevent competant blacks fixing their society during reconstruction

there werent 'non-economic benefits', aristocrats hated poor whites generally much more than they hated their own black slaves and servants. and yes, although there was some cooperation between freed blacks and poor whites during reconstruction, generally the two groups despised each other and the coalition came apart pretty quickly.