It’s statistically more likely Rubinsteins ancestors owned more slaves than Madison. Then again we can talk about the overwhelmingly large amount of Jewish slave owners in America and globally? I think it’s time we force every minority to experience the cruelties their ancestors committed and then ask if they want to be white.
Rather, it's more likely that they were involved in the slave trade rather than in slave owning per se, the most cruel part of the slavery system. Middlemen everywhere engaged in trade in humans as though it was like trade in goods.
The mistake is to say that there was anything wrong in slavery at the time. It was simply what existed at the time. The people who judge people in the past for holding slaves are the same kind of people who insist that they would have been the exceptional anti-Nazi rebel - when in fact, their obedience to the norms of the CurrentYear demonstrates that back then, they would have obeyed the norms of the time.
It's also very funny some of these users claiming Jews owned slaves and act as if they are against it when these people have complete and utter disdain against black people. They would be slave owners if they could back then. In fact, if they could get away with it, these neonazis would own black slaves today.
They also forget that this is also a fake narrative as only a minority of Jews owned slaves, and most didn't.
What slavery concern? Idc anymore if random people are slaves. There are slaves all over the world. I don't like it. I don't own em. I have my own problems.
I don't think having disdain for black people implies wanting to own slaves. The reason there are black people in the United States is the slave trade. If you don't like them being in the United States, then you probably think the slave trade was a bad idea. Pretty much everyone seems to think the slave trade was a bad idea.
The majority of no ethnic group owned slaves, and I've never seen a claim otherwise. Slaves were concentrated on large plantations, though many more families owned a small number of household slaves.
The majority of no ethnic group owned slaves, and I've never seen a claim otherwise.
Not explicitly, no, but plenty of people imply that slavery of black people in the US rests entirely with white people and all white people at that. Yet, as you've pointed out, the majority of white people in the US would not have been rich enough to ever own slaves (plus plenty of white people in the US would have had ancestors that arrived in the US after slavery was abolished). Instead, it is likely that the upper class of white people from generationally wealthy families who are the ones who have historic ties to slavery.
Here you can see why the ruling elite love pushing the slavery message on to white people as a whole - it distracts from the actual reality that it is their inherited wealth that was accrued in part due to slavery. If anyone was to pay "repatriations", it should be these people, not white people as a whole. What they are pushing has some resemblance to "privatise the profits, socialise the losses".
No one should pay reparations on the principle that we don't visit the sins of the father on the son. If they wanted to confiscate the wealth of slave owners, they should have done so back then. Now, reconstruction was shitty on the whole south, so some slave owners were fucked over along with a lot of other people, but it wasn't systematic reparations. Northerners got no punishment other than the freeing of their slaves, that I'm aware of. It's too late for that now.
"Only a minority of white Southerners owned slaves, and most didn't." Known fact.
I would love to read a study on who did the slave trading and owning to/from/in North America, but I am aware that any such study would have an 80% chance of being tainted by bias, whether from Jews/Dems or neo-nazis.
I haven't been to Montpelier, but I visited Monticello a few years ago. It was really, really bad. I remember visiting as a kid, learning about Jefferson, seeing some of his inventions, his library, the innovations he brought to Monticello, his collections, etc., and being very inspired. Guess what--they also talked about slaves.
Now it is NOTHING but Sally Hemmings, slavery, Jefferson man bad, Hemmings, Hemmings, and slaves.
Thomas Jefferson is the worst founder for them, because he was the most based. Their hero, Hamilton, was a monarchist and Jefferson's rival. It is important to them to slander Jefferson more so than Washington or Franklin.
Yes, well, not only made him a black guy (wasn't he played by the Puerto Rican? IDK, don't watch that shit although I saw the dude on 60 mins and he's a cuck), but also lionized a false version of Hamilton. They kind of left out that he tried to make America into basically a monarchy and distrusted the common people.
Now it is NOTHING but Sally Hemmings, slavery, Jefferson man bad, Hemmings, Hemmings, and slaves.
Interesting thing I learned recently - a 2011 review by a bunch of historians came to this conclusion:
However, it is our unanimous view that the allegation [that Jefferson fathered Hemming's kids] is by no means proven; and we find it regrettable that the public confusion about the 1998 DNA testing and other evidence has misled many people into believing that the issue is closed. With the exception of one member, whose views are set forth both below and in the more detailed appended dissent, our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly untrue.
Of course, finding any mention of that anywhere is virtually impossible these days.
In order to understand the other side, you shouldn't be afraid to entertain what the other side thinks.
Mull this over in your head. If this offends your sensibilities, that just means you should mull harder.
Why do Jews hold a disproportional amount of the wealth and power in some of the most influential industries that are responsible for changing our views of the world - i.e. media, hollywood, banking, etc. despite being a tiny, tiny percentage of our population?
Why do these people default leftist to far leftist positions?
This is not the feminist "why are more white males in positions of power" argument - that argument is VERY easy to debunk because you can point to the millions of tof males who aren't in the positions of power and that a majority of these nations have white majorities, so of course it makes sense that white people would be in power.
Us Asians tend to be in the higher income groups, but we often never reach the highest bastions of power. We become doctors, lawyers, etc. but we are almost never found to be head CEOs or anything. We are successful but we aren't the ones making decisions for the nation here in the US.
On the other hand, Jewish people always end up in extremely high and influential positions of power, and they're often responsible for controlling the media to always sound a certain way. Whether it's intentional or not, I don't know.
Now, where I separate from the "alt-right" is I personally see it as a stand-alone complex. Meaning they get to these positions of power because they're smarter or more motivated than us Asians, and also due to in-group preference (Ashkenazi Jews have IQs higher than most of us Asians, and if you met any Asian, you'll know Asians will give other Asians nepotistic powers/positions if they can, and I can imagine Jews do the exact same thing) but once they hit those positions of power, because they're almost all left wing by default, they run their corporations to push leftist/globalist views.
The "alt-right" position appears to be that a lot of these Jewish people seem to suffer from some kind of hatred for the human population, and most importantly white folks. They don't see themselves as part of the local white population; they may be taught by their parents or some nefarious organization to dislike whites, so all these Jewish CEOs, despite not directly talking to each other, take actions to directly or indirectly lead the fall of "white" civilization, to replace them with uneducated and low IQ immigrants who would continue the "machine" running for pittances. To them, that's why shit like social justice, degeneracy, pro LGBTBBQ (which is basically repeating myself), globalism (we are one human race), anti-nationalism, etc. being promoted and they'll work directly with other people with tons of money, Jews or not, to push the end of the white race.
If that sounds schizophrenic to you, then whatever. You at one point thought the left's views on race, sex, etc. were a valid position, but you can see that the left is running on its own version of a mass formation psychosis with its idpol narrative.
It is important to know what these sides think. You already know what the far left thinks. You already know what the traditional right wing thinks. Now try to figure out what the "alt-right" (the REAL one) thinks. You don't have to agree with them, you just have to know their position.
Why do Jews hold a disproportional amount of the wealth and power in some of the most influential industries that are responsible for changing our views of the world - i.e. media, hollywood, banking, etc. despite being a tiny, tiny percentage of our population?
Because of high literacy rates, savings rates, and strong family ties.
Because the alt-right are National Socialists, which are Leftists, and they are arguing the same thing all the other Leftists are: Disparity is evidence of Discrimination.
Us Asians tend to be in the higher income groups, but we often never reach the highest bastions of power. We become doctors, lawyers, etc. but we are almost never found to be head CEOs or anything. We are successful but we aren't the ones making decisions for the nation here in the US. On the other hand, Jewish people always end up in extremely high and influential positions of power, and they're often responsible for controlling the media to always sound a certain way. Whether it's intentional or not, I don't know.
Jewish populations in the US had a longer history of living in the US, and also had fewer explicit laws written against them, and also were able to quite literally be: "white passing" as most of the time they didn't have to advertise their faith, and could change their name.
Since many were in finance and law already (because jewish populations have always been highly literate, and also European jews tended towards finance because they weren't allowed to own property), ethnically jewish populations entering politics was entirely reasonable of an expectation.
Asian immigration to the US was aggressively restricted, even to the point that Asian women weren't even allowed to immigrate to the US for decades, in the hopes that the earlier immigration to the US would literally demographically die off (which nearly happened). In the west, Asians were considered "Colored" and so couldn't continue to get as many higher income jobs, and Asians still represented an extremely small demographic.
This is contrasting with semites who are more numerous in the US than even in Israel.
This 1619 stain has also been smeared to founding father Thomas Jefferson when you got to Monticello. There are hints of it at Mount Vernon, but nothing to this level.
They are likely being blatantly obvious about this on purpose.
They are intentionally creating a rise in negative sentiment against their ethnic group so they can cite it and say hate is on the rise and then use that as a justification for the crackdown on everyone's freedom speech via censorship and hate speech legislation.
It is likely this group does this shit on purpose in order to provoke a negative reaction against them which they can cite to say that anti-semitism is on the rise and they then use it to get more donations to the ADL and expand their hold on the major institutions.
It’s statistically more likely Rubinsteins ancestors owned more slaves than Madison. Then again we can talk about the overwhelmingly large amount of Jewish slave owners in America and globally? I think it’s time we force every minority to experience the cruelties their ancestors committed and then ask if they want to be white.
Rather, it's more likely that they were involved in the slave trade rather than in slave owning per se, the most cruel part of the slavery system. Middlemen everywhere engaged in trade in humans as though it was like trade in goods.
The mistake is to say that there was anything wrong in slavery at the time. It was simply what existed at the time. The people who judge people in the past for holding slaves are the same kind of people who insist that they would have been the exceptional anti-Nazi rebel - when in fact, their obedience to the norms of the CurrentYear demonstrates that back then, they would have obeyed the norms of the time.
It's also very funny some of these users claiming Jews owned slaves and act as if they are against it when these people have complete and utter disdain against black people. They would be slave owners if they could back then. In fact, if they could get away with it, these neonazis would own black slaves today.
They also forget that this is also a fake narrative as only a minority of Jews owned slaves, and most didn't.
I wouldn't own a black slave today. What good is a sub iq animal that likes to hit things and rape people?
And this is why we are all sure you people are disgusting, and why your fake concern about "slavery" is not selling it.
What slavery concern? Idc anymore if random people are slaves. There are slaves all over the world. I don't like it. I don't own em. I have my own problems.
Read the replies above with idiots like you feigning concern about slavery.
I don't think having disdain for black people implies wanting to own slaves. The reason there are black people in the United States is the slave trade. If you don't like them being in the United States, then you probably think the slave trade was a bad idea. Pretty much everyone seems to think the slave trade was a bad idea.
The majority of no ethnic group owned slaves, and I've never seen a claim otherwise. Slaves were concentrated on large plantations, though many more families owned a small number of household slaves.
Not explicitly, no, but plenty of people imply that slavery of black people in the US rests entirely with white people and all white people at that. Yet, as you've pointed out, the majority of white people in the US would not have been rich enough to ever own slaves (plus plenty of white people in the US would have had ancestors that arrived in the US after slavery was abolished). Instead, it is likely that the upper class of white people from generationally wealthy families who are the ones who have historic ties to slavery.
Here you can see why the ruling elite love pushing the slavery message on to white people as a whole - it distracts from the actual reality that it is their inherited wealth that was accrued in part due to slavery. If anyone was to pay "repatriations", it should be these people, not white people as a whole. What they are pushing has some resemblance to "privatise the profits, socialise the losses".
No one should pay reparations on the principle that we don't visit the sins of the father on the son. If they wanted to confiscate the wealth of slave owners, they should have done so back then. Now, reconstruction was shitty on the whole south, so some slave owners were fucked over along with a lot of other people, but it wasn't systematic reparations. Northerners got no punishment other than the freeing of their slaves, that I'm aware of. It's too late for that now.
"Only a minority of white Southerners owned slaves, and most didn't." Known fact.
I would love to read a study on who did the slave trading and owning to/from/in North America, but I am aware that any such study would have an 80% chance of being tainted by bias, whether from Jews/Dems or neo-nazis.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Why are you attacking as if all Jews are responsible for this idiot?
I haven't been to Montpelier, but I visited Monticello a few years ago. It was really, really bad. I remember visiting as a kid, learning about Jefferson, seeing some of his inventions, his library, the innovations he brought to Monticello, his collections, etc., and being very inspired. Guess what--they also talked about slaves.
Now it is NOTHING but Sally Hemmings, slavery, Jefferson man bad, Hemmings, Hemmings, and slaves.
Thomas Jefferson is the worst founder for them, because he was the most based. Their hero, Hamilton, was a monarchist and Jefferson's rival. It is important to them to slander Jefferson more so than Washington or Franklin.
Remember how they race switched Hamilton into a gay black man in the musical?
Demoralizing a country by attacking all its heroes is what Yuri Bezmenov warned us about:
https://www.hiddendominion.com/yuri-bezmenov-demoralization-destabilization-crisis-and-normalization/
How would the left respond if :
Barack Obama was portrayed as a lispy white guy?
Mohammad was portrayed as a lesbian/child molestor?
Yes, well, not only made him a black guy (wasn't he played by the Puerto Rican? IDK, don't watch that shit although I saw the dude on 60 mins and he's a cuck), but also lionized a false version of Hamilton. They kind of left out that he tried to make America into basically a monarchy and distrusted the common people.
Interesting thing I learned recently - a 2011 review by a bunch of historians came to this conclusion:
Of course, finding any mention of that anywhere is virtually impossible these days.
Current or former university professors are by and large responsible for museum curation.
It was inevitable that they would trash memorials to the founders.
>Rubinstein
Sigh, the antisemitism writes itself.
In order to understand the other side, you shouldn't be afraid to entertain what the other side thinks.
Mull this over in your head. If this offends your sensibilities, that just means you should mull harder.
Why do Jews hold a disproportional amount of the wealth and power in some of the most influential industries that are responsible for changing our views of the world - i.e. media, hollywood, banking, etc. despite being a tiny, tiny percentage of our population?
Why do these people default leftist to far leftist positions?
This is not the feminist "why are more white males in positions of power" argument - that argument is VERY easy to debunk because you can point to the millions of tof males who aren't in the positions of power and that a majority of these nations have white majorities, so of course it makes sense that white people would be in power.
This is SPECIFICALLY about Jewish people.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/the-size-of-the-u-s-jewish-population/
We're a population of 332 mil people. 1.1% of the US population in the US is something like 3.6 million.
I'm American born, Korean/Japanese by blood. By contrast, us Asians:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-americans/
Are 22.4 mil of the population. About 6.7% or so.
Us Asians tend to be in the higher income groups, but we often never reach the highest bastions of power. We become doctors, lawyers, etc. but we are almost never found to be head CEOs or anything. We are successful but we aren't the ones making decisions for the nation here in the US.
On the other hand, Jewish people always end up in extremely high and influential positions of power, and they're often responsible for controlling the media to always sound a certain way. Whether it's intentional or not, I don't know.
Now, where I separate from the "alt-right" is I personally see it as a stand-alone complex. Meaning they get to these positions of power because they're smarter or more motivated than us Asians, and also due to in-group preference (Ashkenazi Jews have IQs higher than most of us Asians, and if you met any Asian, you'll know Asians will give other Asians nepotistic powers/positions if they can, and I can imagine Jews do the exact same thing) but once they hit those positions of power, because they're almost all left wing by default, they run their corporations to push leftist/globalist views.
The "alt-right" position appears to be that a lot of these Jewish people seem to suffer from some kind of hatred for the human population, and most importantly white folks. They don't see themselves as part of the local white population; they may be taught by their parents or some nefarious organization to dislike whites, so all these Jewish CEOs, despite not directly talking to each other, take actions to directly or indirectly lead the fall of "white" civilization, to replace them with uneducated and low IQ immigrants who would continue the "machine" running for pittances. To them, that's why shit like social justice, degeneracy, pro LGBTBBQ (which is basically repeating myself), globalism (we are one human race), anti-nationalism, etc. being promoted and they'll work directly with other people with tons of money, Jews or not, to push the end of the white race.
If that sounds schizophrenic to you, then whatever. You at one point thought the left's views on race, sex, etc. were a valid position, but you can see that the left is running on its own version of a mass formation psychosis with its idpol narrative.
It is important to know what these sides think. You already know what the far left thinks. You already know what the traditional right wing thinks. Now try to figure out what the "alt-right" (the REAL one) thinks. You don't have to agree with them, you just have to know their position.
Because of high literacy rates, savings rates, and strong family ties.
Because the alt-right are National Socialists, which are Leftists, and they are arguing the same thing all the other Leftists are: Disparity is evidence of Discrimination.
Jewish populations in the US had a longer history of living in the US, and also had fewer explicit laws written against them, and also were able to quite literally be: "white passing" as most of the time they didn't have to advertise their faith, and could change their name.
Since many were in finance and law already (because jewish populations have always been highly literate, and also European jews tended towards finance because they weren't allowed to own property), ethnically jewish populations entering politics was entirely reasonable of an expectation.
Asian immigration to the US was aggressively restricted, even to the point that Asian women weren't even allowed to immigrate to the US for decades, in the hopes that the earlier immigration to the US would literally demographically die off (which nearly happened). In the west, Asians were considered "Colored" and so couldn't continue to get as many higher income jobs, and Asians still represented an extremely small demographic.
This is contrasting with semites who are more numerous in the US than even in Israel.
I'm amazed you didn't get down voted to oblivion by these neonazi leftists for destroying their narrative in one simple post.
And like all leftists they will seethe after reading this. Facts seem to have an anti-left bias.
They're only in specific posts that attract their attention.
I'm not Jewish, but they are correct that I'm a subversive little shit.
It seems they are very much the NPC meme, the way they act.
Thank you for correcting them, you are the right kind of "subversive little shit".
subversion of the founding fathers to replace them with fiction
Title credit: https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1548368547457273857
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1548368551882264576
fucking jews
every time
The destruction is the point.
Rubinstein is a good, wholesome, American name.
They are likely being blatantly obvious about this on purpose.
They are intentionally creating a rise in negative sentiment against their ethnic group so they can cite it and say hate is on the rise and then use that as a justification for the crackdown on everyone's freedom speech via censorship and hate speech legislation.
4chan pol right once again?
It is likely this group does this shit on purpose in order to provoke a negative reaction against them which they can cite to say that anti-semitism is on the rise and they then use it to get more donations to the ADL and expand their hold on the major institutions.