They weren't race traitors, they were anti-slavery. And it wasn't Haitian blood lust, it was Rousseauianism, and the same thing had literally just happened in their mother country for the same reasons by the same people.
You know you're lying and I've brought it up several times before. Hell, I've brought up Haiti here more than anyone, and I've called it a white genocide. You're a disingenuous shit.
Murdering every white and then every mixed person on their half of the island doesn't constitute as blood lust? And yes mass executions during the French Revolution were also motivated by blood lust. Not sure where you got the idea that they weren't.
The mass executions were not motivated by blood lust, they were motivated by Rousseau. It is moral to compel the population by any means necessary to achieve acquiescence to "The General Will".
So you're saying that the population didn't (willingly) go along with the executions but Rousseau forcing them in order to terrorize the population into bending to "The General Will"?
If not how exactly did Rousseau manage to compel to population to go along with the mass executions? It's not really logical for a mob not to be bloodthirsty while cheering on executions.
Now your making up new claims for me, cool, but no.
Leftists of all stripes have always understood crowd control. Typically that involves terrorizing the the mob of social consequences for not participating (which is how you used to get lynch mobs of tens of thousands of people). You show your support, you get targeted next. The Left does this, right now, with cancel culture.
Yeah, because it's not sex slavery, it's forced marriage. Those are two completely different concepts. The women were not chattel, they even got to chose their husbands. Now, it's still genocide, but it's not slavery.
It would be equivalent to calling France a slave-state prior to the revolution because they had kings. Even with an absolute monarch, they wouldn't be slaves. You're conflating two different concepts.
They weren't race traitors, they were anti-slavery. And it wasn't Haitian blood lust, it was Rousseauianism, and the same thing had literally just happened in their mother country for the same reasons by the same people.
He's always trying to downplay anti-White racial hatred.
You know you're lying and I've brought it up several times before. Hell, I've brought up Haiti here more than anyone, and I've called it a white genocide. You're a disingenuous shit.
I never said you never mention. I said you downplay it. A great example is our discussions on White Flight.
Now, has that sentiment ever been held by any other Leftist in history towards the bourgouise, faggot?
"Yes, Giz. All of them. Thank you for defeating me with facts and logic"
You're welcome.
Murdering every white and then every mixed person on their half of the island doesn't constitute as blood lust? And yes mass executions during the French Revolution were also motivated by blood lust. Not sure where you got the idea that they weren't.
The mass executions were not motivated by blood lust, they were motivated by Rousseau. It is moral to compel the population by any means necessary to achieve acquiescence to "The General Will".
So you're saying that the population didn't (willingly) go along with the executions but Rousseau forcing them in order to terrorize the population into bending to "The General Will"?
If not how exactly did Rousseau manage to compel to population to go along with the mass executions? It's not really logical for a mob not to be bloodthirsty while cheering on executions.
Now your making up new claims for me, cool, but no.
Leftists of all stripes have always understood crowd control. Typically that involves terrorizing the the mob of social consequences for not participating (which is how you used to get lynch mobs of tens of thousands of people). You show your support, you get targeted next. The Left does this, right now, with cancel culture.
You’re the dumbass who said that when they killed the white women’s families and forced them to marry blacks, it wasn’t sex slavery because the women were married. I don’t feel inclined to listen to you about the racial politics of anything.
Yeah, because it's not sex slavery, it's forced marriage. Those are two completely different concepts. The women were not chattel, they even got to chose their husbands. Now, it's still genocide, but it's not slavery.
It would be equivalent to calling France a slave-state prior to the revolution because they had kings. Even with an absolute monarch, they wouldn't be slaves. You're conflating two different concepts.