HOME | DD
OddGarfield β How I Feel in Modern America
Published: 2018-01-04 17:57:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 5326; Favourites: 60; Downloads: 13
Redirect to original
Description
As much as it pains me to cover parts of a painting dating back to the War Between the States, the message is clear.Related content
Comments: 246
π: 2 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 0
π: 5 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 3 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
Itβs not just in America
Germany has become a battlefield
π: 1 β©: 0
We may be outnumbered, but in an actual war we'd stick it to the Antifa and the BLM scum!
π: 2 β©: 0
National Review certainly deserves its place in that pic.Β www.occidentaldissent.com/2016β¦ s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/vdaβ¦
π: 1 β©: 1
I'll consider it.
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
That's an insult to the Union soldiers who would in no way tolerate the causes you portray them as in here, Confederate fanboy...........
Especially when the Union's more radical Republican parties were controlled by abolitionists who were DEEPLY RELIGIOUS. Their version of the political elite were anti-slavery activists who not only can quote their bibles, but can beat you to death with them, too. I'm pretty sure John Brown react to a modern-day Pride Parade by grabbing a shotgun and getting the boys to harry them out.
π: 2 β©: 4
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 0
Or Karl Marx for that matter.
π: 0 β©: 1
The same abolitionists would have torn Marx to shreds for being anti-religious.
π: 0 β©: 1
IE they were early christcucks. memegenerator.net/img/instanceβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, and they also fought to free slaves. Yes, those evil Jesus freaks, fighting for the downtrodden and the enslaved........
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't care what you think of my piece, and I'm not a "Confederate fanboy" Anakin, I'm an armature historian.
π: 2 β©: 1
No, this is being a Confederate fanboy. Any amateur historian would know that the Union was full of devout Christians. In fact, the more radical Northerners were abolitionists, and a good number of them were the early Christian terrorists of US history. Their religion was so deep that it caused them to lash out at slaveowners and anyone else they saw as unjust, even if it broke the law. They were basically Christian jihadists, except they had a love for the oppressed that drove their terrorist actions. They sure as fuck would not support the SJW culture of today.
π: 0 β©: 2
Preston Brooks did nothing wrong.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Some people can say the same for John Brown.
π: 0 β©: 1
And how is it foolish? Brown was a genuine fighter for freedom, while all Brooks did was beat a man to death while running away from people who challenged him to duels.
π: 0 β©: 1
Brown was a terrorist and died like a terrorist.
Preston Brooks did not beat anyone to death, but he really should have.Β
π: 2 β©: 1
Brown was a terrorist who fought for the downtrodden and the weak.
Preston Brooks loves to beat unprepared men to near-death, but chickens out when people challenge him to a duel.
I once respected Brooks for standing up for his family........until I learned that he chickened out of duels that he sometimes accepts. He accepts, then backs out at the last moment.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Brown was a terrorist who tried to freed slaves, murdered innocent people, and died like a terrorist.Β
The wording of your comment shows me that you are not very well informed upon the subject and had to read this information before making this comment, choosing to interpret history in favour of your own argument.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
How can slave-owners be innocent? Especially since in America, unlike Rome or Spain, they enslaved people for life? Brown should be commended, not hated, for his work.
Don't make me laugh. It's quite clear what I was talking about, and many others see the same thing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_β¦
"Congressman Anson BurlingameΒ publicly humiliated Brooks in retaliation by goading Brooks into challenging him to a duel, accepting, then watching Brooks back out. Brooks challenged Burlingame to duel, stating he would gladly face him "in any Yankee mudsill of his choosing". Burlingame, a well-known marksman, eagerly accepted, choosing rifles as the weapons and the Navy Yards in the border town of Niagara Falls, Canada, as the location (in order to circumvent the U.S. ban on dueling). Brooks, reportedly dismayed by both Burlingame's unexpectedly enthusiastic acceptance and his reputation as a crack shot, refused to show up, instead citing unspecified risks to his safety if he was to cross "hostile country" (the Northern states) in order to reach Canada."
π: 0 β©: 1
Slavery was not a crime.Β Compare the condition with the slave in America to the tenants of the poor houses in European cities. Look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.
Brooks had been in many duels in his life, and furthermore won them.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
It was, when the slaves themselves were made slaves by greedy warlords looking for a buck. Compare that to Rome, where slaves are former enemies of the state, criminals, or people in debt. Or in Spain, where slaves actually CAN own property and work their way to freedom. The slaves in the South were taken from villages and clans who did no wrong to anyone and were made slaves out of greed. And unlike the Spanish, where they can work their way to freedom, in the Anglo states, they can't.
Also, of course slaves are better off than factory workers and tenants, but that's like saying that prisoners of the Inquisition were better off than Holocaust victims.
Which made it all the more embarrassing when he later chickened out of other duels.
π: 0 β©: 1
There never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes.
π: 0 β©: 1
Rome would like to say otherwise. Because even though they had slavery, it was more akin to indentured servitude. The multitude of Jews who were spread across the Empire after the fall of the Temple were citizens within less than a century after their enslavement.
π: 0 β©: 1
The presence of indentured servitude only works to further my point.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
No it doesn't. The South could have made slavery to be like indentured servitude, but they didn't. Indentured servants could work to the point where they're equal to their masters. Southern chattel slavery doesn't have that chance.
π: 0 β©: 1
It does, because one portion of the community was yet living on the labour of another. The presence of indentured servitude works to further my point.Β
Indentured servants and slaves were two very different classes. Slaves were born to be slaves.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
That kind of proves that the "master" class is useless. Unlike Roman patricians, they didn't serve the public. Unlike Medieval/Renaissance nobles, they didn't fight for the king. They mostly stayed at home and made a profit off of someone else without paying them.Β
Not in Ancient Rome they weren't. Slaves were usually criminals or prisoners of war. There were also those who sold themselves into slavery due to debt. But many of them eventually got freedom. For example, the Jews who were taken as captives to the Roman Empire after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and the destruction of the Temple, most of them, no, ALL of them were slaves. But by the end of the century? They were freedmen, and so were their children.
π: 0 β©: 1
The plantation class did serve the public in that many of them were civil servants and military leaders. Everything you stated is virulently false.Β
Slaves typically being criminals or prisoners of war does not, in any way, take away from the point that was being made.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The plantation class were mostly rich idiots who made money off of human property. Sure, some did serve in politics and the military, but most didn't. In fact, many of them stayed behind during the Civil War and had the nerve to ask occupying Union troops to get them their slaves back.Β
It kind of does. Because Rome had reasons to enslave people that were valid. Enemies of state, criminals, or people who want to be enslaved to clear their debts. They didn't buy slaves from greedy kingdoms that captured innocent people to fill the slave quota. What was stopping white southerners from enslaving other whites that were criminals?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The plantation class were priests, officers, civil servants, and socialites. Your argument of them "doing nothing" is inaccurate and slanderous.Β
Those of the plantation class who did stay behind were children, boys too young to fight, women, and old men. This is all very well documented.Β
The Roman argument for slavery was no more valid than that of the Indies or the American South.
π: 0 β©: 1
I suppose you may be right in that regard. But many other slaveowners stayed behind in the Civil War and even asked the Union forces to fetch their slaves.
I suppose the slaveowners I was talking about were the older men. Because even boys signed up for war.
The Roman argument for slavery actually has moral justifications, because the slaves are either enemies of the state, lawbreakers, or people seeking to pay off their debts with service. The Southern version of slavery has no justifications and is reeking of greed, having innocent people captured then having them and their descendants used as pack animals for the rest of their days. What did they do to deserve slavery?
How would you like it if you were kidnapped and used as a slave until your death? How would you like it if the same treatment was extended to your women and your descendants?Β
Perhaps that's what we should do. Take all these pro-slavery Southerners and put them in chains. After all, the ancestors of their black slaves did nothing wrong to warrant slavery.
π: 0 β©: 1
The overwhelming majority of able-bodied slave owners fought in the war. There is no argument to be had over this subject.Β
Yes, older men that were physically incapable of fighting in a war. Look into books before you post such stupid comments.Β
As did the arguments in the Americas, of which I have already expressed. There will always be a subservient class as opposed to a ruling one.Β
No one was being "captured" in the South. Slaves were born to be slaves.Β
Men have enslaved each other for as long as they have invented gods to forgive or defend them in doing it. Furthermore, we are all already slaves to something ; me to my convictions and you to your non-arguments.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Really? So all slave owners left back home were either women or old coots?
Older men? Then what the fuck would you call Robert E. Lee? Or heck, what about Winfield Scott?Β
The difference is, subservience is something that is to be deserved, same as merit. In the days of Ancient Rome, you were enslaved because A) you fought on the losing side of the war, B) you're a criminal, or C) you're a deadbeat who wants his debts paid off. Medievals didn't have slaves, but had serfs who had rights that slaves didn't.Β
Then isn't that worse? You make slaves of people from birth, which they did not deserve to be enslaved because they haven't done anything wrong yet.
Yes, but the difference in those days was that they enslaved enemies, criminals, or people in debt. In short, they enslaved people who either A) were former enemies of the state, B) were criminals who deserved to be enslaved, or C) people who WANT to be slaves to get away from others who might break their legs for owing money.
That's not the same thing. Do your convictions force you to do back-breaking labor for zero pay every day? Would it be the same if I had you enslaved and I forced you to clean my house?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, that was easily the case 75% of the time.
General Lee was 54 at the start of the war, and it was widely believed in the United States that Winfield Scott was far too old to continue leading armies, his senility being blamed for his defeat at the Battle of Manassas.
It is not a matter of method, or what one has done to become a slave, through either birth or defeat in arms. Slaves in the Americas were living finer lives than the working class in Europe.Β
Slaves were born for the sole purpose of being slaves ; it isn't a matter of what they "deserve".Β
False equivalency in that this was not always the case, even in the majority of the time.Β Β
They wouldn't need to. I was not born to be your slave.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
That's not a point to boast about. The working classes of Europe were living like dregs. Everyone that came before them lived better lives than them.Β
Wrong again. If slaves were born for the sole purpose of being slaves, then God would not have given them free will. Just an animalistic mind like that of an ox, horse, or dog.Β
Slavery was always a matter who who deserved it, especially in Ancient Times. Aren't modern people supposed to be better?
But you could be. And if you get into trouble with the right people, you will be someone else's slave. And nobody will buy your freedom. Also, many of those "slaves" in the south were not born to be slaves either: they were born free in Africa until some greedy kings and their soldiers captured them and sold them to the white man.
Oh, and 1600 years ago, you people would totally be slaves. Most white people are partly Germanic, you see, and Germans used to be slaves to the Romans. 1600 years ago, your kind were meant to be nothing more but slaves in some Roman household or cannon fodder for Roman generals who didn't want to sacrifice Roman lives to fight Huns. And with Muslims coming to own Europe and America no longer being a majority white country, whites can get enslaved again if they piss off other people enough. Heck, some whites are already slaves in prison. More to the pile really won't change anything. Other whites already own their lives.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I think it obvious that I'm not boasting.Β
Conscience. Divine instinct. Immortal voice from Heaven. Infallible judge of good and evil, making man like to God.Β
Rousseau; being born with a free will only means that you're a man, not that you are not born to be a slave.Β
No, it wasn't.Β
No, I couldn't be. In no world would a French nobleman be considered someone's property, especially to an American who watches too many movies. Those slaves in the South at the time of the Civil War would all have been born there.Β
No, we wouldn't. Most French people today are an admixture of Celtic, Germanic, and Latin, descended from Romans themselves.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>