[Pants-of-dog]

….
I unfortunately cannot see social constructs so I cannot identify anyone's race.
….

This is almost certainly not true, since you keep making a point about how no country supports any white nations.

[Rancid]

@FiveofSwords

If you could carve up the world, how would you do it?

[FiveofSwords]

This is almost certainly not true, since you keep making a point about how no country supports any white nations.

Well I define race as a genetic group so I can see what race people belong to based on genetic characteristics. You guys don't define race that way. So based on your definition I could never oppress any black people, only people who happen to look black to me.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

If you could carve up the world, how would you do it?

I guess the only change I would really make is hand over Israel to hamas and call dibs on the first planet humans colonize for white people. There isn't a way to really repair the damage already done to this planet.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords



The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century brought about a distinction between usury (charging high-interest rates) and the more acceptable lending of money at low-interest rates. Islam, on the other hand, has historically not made this distinction, but charging interest is not allowed in the religion.


Source:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/us ... 20religion.



Why did slavery not make Europe rich? Arabs and Blacks participated also in the slavetrade.
The first religion who spoke out against slavery were the Quakers.

The richest country on Earth was India until the development of the steam engine.

Protestants were still complaining about charging interest well into the 1900s. But there wasn't much they could do about it because jews had built the economy in a way that protestants simply could not compete with. Adaptation was forced by necessity.

There is still slavery in Africa. There is a huge slave trade in Mauritania, for example. That country is not rich, fyi. I guess it would have to be, based on your world view.

Europeans achieved enormous productivity and military power via technology and innovation. The invention of the steam engine did more for the economy than 100 million slaves ever could.

[ingliz]

So how much does a black person cost?

In Liverpool, in 1706, when it was legal* to sell black men, a 'negro' was worth £30 in old money.

By the time he got to Barbados, that's gone up to around £50.





* Quasi-legal if you exploited the right loopholes in the law, but you needed to keep a good hold on them. If they ran away, there was no way to recoup your investment. Legally, they were freemen and you couldn't sue for their return.

[Rich]

The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century brought about a distinction between usury (charging high-interest rates) and the more acceptable lending of money at low-interest rates. Islam, on the other hand, has historically not made this distinction, but charging interest is not allowed in the religion.

The ban on usury was inherited from the Jews. The Jews thought that charging interest was not a nice thing to do someone, as it could lead them into spiraling debt. Hence it was against the Mosaic Law to charge interest to another Jew / Israelite. The Gentiles, the Goy, sometimes translated as cattle were not considered fully human, so it was fine for Jews to "exploit" Gentiles by charging them interest. St Paul taught that in Christ there is no Greek nor Jew. Hence Christians were banned from charging interest to anyone.

The early puritan settlers of New England were socialists, arguable even Communists. Their vision, their societies were really just monasticism with wives children and family. The vision was still a life devoted to God. It was most certainly not a life centred around the accumulation of capital. After some time Communism was abandoned. There was a repeated pattern in Protestant movements. They would encourage, even mandate severe thrift and personal discipline. Work was considered a form of devotion to God. They therefore accumulated wealth almost by accident, which then corrupted them.

[FiveofSwords]

The ban on usury was inherited from the Jews. The Jews thought that charging interest was not a nice thing to do someone, as it could lead them into spiraling debt. Hence it was against the Mosaic Law to charge interest to another Jew / Israelite. The Gentiles, the Goy, sometimes translated as cattle were not considered fully human, so it was fine for Jews to "exploit" Gentiles by charging them interest. St Paul taught that in Christ there is no Greek nor Jew. Hence Christians were banned from charging interest to anyone.

The early puritan settlers of New England were socialists, arguable even Communists. Their vision, their societies were really just monasticism with wives children and family. The vision was still a life devoted to God. It was most certainly not a life centred around the accumulation of capital. After some time Communism was abandoned. There was a repeated pattern in Protestant movements. They would encourage, even mandate severe thrift and personal discipline. Work was considered a form of devotion to God. They therefore accumulated wealth almost by accident, which then corrupted them.

Jews were only prohibited from charging interest to another jew. They could charge interest all they wanted on non jews.

The puritans were certainly not communist, since communism prohibits religion.

[FiveofSwords]

In Liverpool, in 1706, when it was legal* to sell black men, a 'negro' was worth £30 in old money.

By the time he got to Barbados, that's gone up to around £50.





* Quasi-legal if you exploited the right loopholes in the law, but you needed to keep a good hold on them. If they ran away, there was no way to recoup your investment. Legally, they were freemen and you couldn't sue for their return.

So I guess that by your logic, it isn't possible for someone to both be black and not a slave. Laws about black people are not merely laws about black people...they define fundamentally what a black person actually is.

[Potemkin]

Jews were only prohibited from charging interest to another jew. They could charge interest all they wanted on non jews.

The puritans were certainly not communist, since communism prohibits religion.

Communism does not prohibit religion. Marx thought that religion was obvious nonsense, a projection of our own frustrated earthly ideals onto an imaginary deity and an imaginary world to come. But nowhere did he advocate banning or outlawing it. It would be like outlawing Flat Earth or phlogiston theories. Pointless and counterproductive. The Bolsheviks certainly persecuted organised religion, but that was a legacy of the Tsarist system’s abuse of Russian Orthodoxy as a state religion, which led the Bolsheviks to detest any form of religious faith. They certainly didn’t get this from Marxism though.

And the early Puritans took the description of the first Christian communities outlined in Acts seriously. They certainly weren’t rugged individualists or proto-capitalists. That came later, and culminated in the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’ of modern times, which the early Puritans would probably have regarded as a wicked parody of Christianity.

[Rich]

Jews were only prohibited from charging interest to another jew. They could charge interest all they wanted on non jews.

Indeed. Just to emphasise I would have no problem what so ever with Jews in pre modern times doing what ever they wanted both to survive and get ahead. It was a dog eat dog world. The problem arises when people try and portray them as innocent virtuous victims. I crudely, roughly agree with the moral standards of modern western life. But demanding that pre modern people live by those standards is just absurd. For instance in the modern world I take a dim view of cannibalism. i believe it should be strongly discouraged even between consenting adults, However from my comfortable position (at least for now) in modern western life I'm not going to make moral judgments of the pre modern New Guinee hill tribes, who had to deal with very limited protein resources.

The puritans were certainly not communist, since communism prohibits religion.

Communism is a description of a number of ideologies. Monasticism, Christian and Buddhist is a form of Communism. While the claims of Acts of the Gospels should be treated with scepticism, just the claim that the early Jerusalem Church held all property in common demonstrates that Communism was a significant current in early Christianity.

[ingliz]

So I guess that by your logic, it isn't possible for someone to both be black and not a slave.

Don't be silly.

communism prohibits religion

The Muslim religion is rooted in principles of religious communism, by which "no man may be a slave to another, and not a single piece of land may be privately owned."

For those who call themselves Muslims but disagree with Communism, I’m willing to say that they are not true Muslims.

— Haji Misbach, Islamism and Communism

[FiveofSwords]

Communism does not prohibit religion. Marx thought that religion was obvious nonsense, a projection of our own frustrated earthly ideals onto an imaginary deity and an imaginary world to come. But nowhere did he advocate banning or outlawing it. It would be like outlawing Flat Earth or phlogiston theories. Pointless and counterproductive. The Bolsheviks certainly persecuted organised religion, but that was a legacy of the Tsarist system’s abuse of Russian Orthodoxy as a state religion, which led the Bolsheviks to detest any form of religious faith. They certainly didn’t get this from Marxism though.

And the early Puritans took the description of the first Christian communities outlined in Acts seriously. They certainly weren’t rugged individualists or proto-capitalists. That came later, and culminated in the so-called ‘Prosperity Gospel’ of modern times, which the early Puritans would probably have regarded as a wicked parody of Christianity.

Communism absolutely would have to prohibit religion because the only identity a person is allowed to have is a class identity. Puritans would not have been happy with that at all.

Puritans would not merely be offended by the prosperity gospel, lol. There are plenty of things they would hate about modernity.

[FiveofSwords]

Indeed. Just to emphasise I would have no problem what so ever with Jews in pre modern times doing what ever they wanted both to survive and get ahead. It was a dog eat dog world. The problem arises when people try and portray them as innocent virtuous victims. I crudely, roughly agree with the moral standards of modern western life. But demanding that pre modern people live by those standards is just absurd. For instance in the modern world I take a dim view of cannibalism. i believe it should be strongly discouraged even between consenting adults, However from my comfortable position (at least for now) in modern western life I'm not going to make moral judgments of the pre modern New Guinee hill tribes, who had to deal with very limited protein resources.


Communism is a description of a number of ideologies. Monasticism, Christian and Buddhist is a form of Communism. While the claims of Acts of the Gospels should be treated with scepticism, just the claim that the early Jerusalem Church held all property in common demonstrates that Communism was a significant current in early Christianity.

You are calling things communist that have nothing to do with communism.

Since you seem to be fine with dogs eating dogs...are you just as accepting about when it went the other way? That is...when Hitler decided it would be better for Germany to get rid of the jews?

[FiveofSwords]

Don't be silly.


The Muslim religion is rooted in principles of religious communism, by which "no man may be a slave to another, and not a single piece of land may be privately owned."

For those who call themselves Muslims but disagree with Communism, I’m willing to say that they are not true Muslims.

— Haji Misbach, Islamism and Communism

Lol! What rubbish

[FiveofSwords]

So fyi...the philosophy of Marxism has as its foundation what is known as dialectical materialism...which in essence asserts that all of history is driven by class warfare and ONLY class warfare. There is no room for any God in that. Anyone who cares about things other than class warfare...like their nation, or the pursuit of truth, or other 'silly tangents' like that cannot be a true marxist. It is not sufficient and in fact not necessary to simply be opposed to slavery or private property. Socrates was opposed to private property but he could not be called a marxist because he did not reduce all motivation for all behavior to class warfare. Marxism (and it's implementation communism) is very specific....you should not use it to describe anything and everything that looked down on materialist greed.

[Rich]

You are calling things communist that have nothing to do with communism.

Ah you're from the Bush-Obama school of philosophy.

Since you seem to be fine with dogs eating dogs...are you just as accepting about when it went the other way? That is...when Hitler decided it would be better for Germany to get rid of the jews?

A stupid mistake on Hitler's part, but a stupidity for which he was far from alone. The Japanese took a very different view, if anything privileging Jews over other westerners. I can sort of see why so many German Nationalists, but not the Kaiser had a psychological need to demonise the Jews, but aside from their own psychological needs it was pure stupidity. Far from exterminating the Jews of Poland and Ukraine, they should have carved them out a homeland. Its really not that complicated. Germany needed to keep their neigbours divided. Nazi policy seems calculated to being them all together.

I just don't get the Liberals. They whined like bitches about the Kaiser. But then they seemed no happier with the people that replaced him. I guess there's just no pleasing some people. I had thought the Liberals were finally happy with the Germans, but now they seem to be whinging again. This time moaning that Germans are not militarist enough.

[Potemkin]

Ah you're from the Bush-Obama school of philosophy.

Everything seems to be neatly colour-coded in his world, like Lego bricks.

A stupid mistake on Hitler's part, but a stupidity for which he was far from alone. The Japanese took a very different view, if anything privileging Jews over other westerners. I can sort of see why so many German Nationalists, but not the Kaiser had a psychological need to demonise the Jews, but aside from their own psychological needs it was pure stupidity. Far from exterminating the Jews of Poland and Ukraine, they should have carved them out a homeland. Its really not that complicated. Germany needed to keep their neigbours divided. Nazi policy seems calculated to being them all together.

Germany went off the rails when Bismarck was dismissed, and never got back onto them again. Brilliant tactics, terrible strategy.

I just don't get the Liberals. They whined like bitches about the Kaiser. But then they seemed no happier with the people that replaced him. I guess there's just no pleasing some people. I had thought the Liberals were finally happy with the Germans, but now they seem to be whinging again. This time moaning that Germans are not militarist enough.

Like all narcissists, Liberals are never happy. No matter what they are given, there is always something wrong with it. Even when they get their own way all the time, their face is still off and they go and sulk in their room. And everything is always somebody else’s fault. They should have been beaten more as children. Spare the rod and spoil the child.

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

All Marxists are communists, but not all communists are Marxists, and to complicate matters further, few Marxists slavishly follow Marx.

The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Marxist RSDLP.

As to all blacks being slaves ...

A question.

If that was true, how come you had free blacks in Antebellum Mississippi and the other Southern states?

During its first half-century as a territory and state (1810-1860), Mississippi was an agrarian-frontier society. Its population was made up of four groups: Native Americans, White people, enslaved people, and free Black people. All four groups were present in Mississippi from its territorial beginnings.

[FiveofSwords]

@FiveofSwords

All Marxists are communists, but not all communists are Marxists.

As to all blacks being slaves ...

A question.

If that was true, how come you had free blacks in Antebellum Mississippi and the other Southern states?

During its first half-century as a territory and state (1810-1860), Mississippi was an agrarian-frontier society. Its population was made up of four groups: Native Americans, White people, enslaved people, and free Black people. All four groups were present in Mississippi from its territorial beginnings.

Well based on your logic, they obviously weren't black