Unless you've been living under a rock you know that the Democratic party in the United States has moved radically to the left. This didn't happen overnight and has little to do with the election of Donald Trump. Trump has just brought the depth and breadth of their lunacy out in the open for everyone to see.
This shift hasn't been happening only in America but also in Europe. Angela Merkel is the leader of the Christian Democratic Union which is supposed to be Germany's center-right party and had been Germany's most socially conservative and nationalistic mainstream party, but her and her supporters are neither conservative or nationalists. Instead, she has anti-traditional social views and she's a staunch anti-nationalist, so much so that she wants to dissolve Europe's sovereign nation-states and nationalities, something Marxists have planned for over a hundred years.
This swing to the left isn't happening because of the natural evolution of culture nor is it happening as some sort of accidental or unintentional consequence, but it's a pre-planned operation engineered by leftist to dismantle Western civilization to its core so they can rebuild it in their image. This isn't hyperbole. They'll gladly tell you that our civilization is an oppressive structure containing capitalistic, imperialistic, racist, sexist, patriarchal systems that produce inequality they want to replace with their imagined utopia.
For the benefit of anyone not familiar with cultural Marxism, aka critical theory, let me briefly define how the increasing embrace of far-left ideology in our society was indeed a pre-planned operation.
When Marxism failed to take root in the West, when the predicted worker's revolution didn't happen, a group of Marxist intellectuals in the 1920s created a school of social theory in Frankfurt, Germany commonly referred to as the Frankfurt School. They believed by focusing solely on economics Marx missed the huge effect culture has on people. They took Marxism, divorced it from economics and married it to culture and taught how that in a Democracy undermining Western values can be more effective than violent revolution.
Then in 1933 Hitler came into power and because Hitler's agenda included stopping the spread of Marxism to ensure what happened in Russia wouldn't spread to Europe and because the Frankfurt School Marxists were Jews they left Germany and took refuge in America where they were welcomed at Columbia University where they fully formed their philosophy and where they taught how to apply it to society, or rather, how to achieve social domination.
No post-modernist critiques were developed from critical theory, for example, Kimberle Crenshaw, Professor of Law at UCLA and Columbia Law School, who developed the theory of intersectionality, was a student at the school for Social Research in New York City which was the Frankfurt School.
Intersectionality is a theory of interlocking oppressions that states that those who are most marginalized in society are those who fall under multiple forms of minority social stratification, such as class, race, sexual orientation, age, religion, creed, disability, and gender. In the late 1980s, the theory began as an exploration of the oppression of non-white women within society. Today, however, intersectionality is typically applied to all social categories – including social identities usually seen as dominant when considered independently. source
One of the architects of this ideology that seeped into almost aspect of our society was Max Horkheimer, a German philosopher, and sociologist who was famous for his work in critical theory as a member of the 'Frankfurt School' of social research, who wrote;
You know what I find really troubling about this statement is what he's saying is; I'm proudly subverting yet another established society that has given me refuge and welcomed me. This also shows the Achilles heel of liberal democracies.
When Horkheimer is taking about universal egalitarianism he's not saying people should have equal rights, he's saying that people should have equal outcomes; that socially and economically. people should end up the same because people are innately equal, even morally. That's a foundational principle of leftist ideology today.
This is one of the biggest and most detrimental lies being told because it tells people and groups of people that if they're not the same if they don't have as much of something as the next person it's because they've been victimized.
It's telling people who are not oppressed that they are oppressed. This causes bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly which is the very definition of resentment. Leftism is the ideology of resentment and of victimhood. The left needs victims because without the oppressed versus oppressor conflict leftism is a dead ideology, just another philosophy that has little to no impact on our society.
Leftist ideology is based on the premise that everyone should end up the same because people are not flawed only systems and institutions are flawed, therefore they conclude that when people don't end up the same it's because something unjust is happening, namely oppression.
More specifically, cultural Marxists believe inequality in society occurs because prejudice dominant social groups, aka white people, exploit less powerful social groups which creates a system of privilege and advantage for some and disadvantage for others and so they preach the reason there is inequality in society is that whites have unearned privilege derived from oppression.
This creates an ideology of resentment towards whites.
Now, I'm not saying that historically oppression didn't exist. Of course, it did. Leftists like to quote examples of slavery in America quite often but conveniently leave out the fact that slavery, a least in America, was exclusively a Democratic construct. They will often pitch is as the South vs North being pro vs against slavery when it was, in fact, a Democratic (pro-slavery) vs Republican (anti-slavery) issue. But oppression and slavery were not created by America. It existed long before America was even a thing.
The first public sale of slaves started in Portugal in 1444 and existed in Africa before any Europeans ever set foot on their continent, quickly spreading to Spain and the rest of Europe.
In 1777 the State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, became the first sovereign state to abolish slavery and was led by Republicans.
By 1808 the United States passed legislation banning the slave trade followed by Sweden, Netherlands, France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Cuba, Brazil, and the UN in that order.
India, Muslims, Asian, Spanish, African, Native Americans, and pretty much every nation of every race had slaves and practiced oppression, but only one nation was the first to end the practice of slavery, the United States.
When the US abolished slavery it was celebrated the world over. The US sees no credit by the media today for pioneering freedom and equality.
Even though there was a system of inequality in almost every nation's historic past we have moved way past that kind of oppression and to think that inequality is the sole factor holding someone back today seems antiquated.
The reason there are inequality and a merit-based system like ours is that people are innately unequal. We are not the same and will never be the same and it has nothing to do with race or skin color.
Some people are faster, wiser, smarter, some are dumb as shit, some people are creative and end up being art teachers, some were analytical and pursue engineering, some are driven and some are content spending their life sitting of a sofa playing Mario Brothers. Some people are responsible, some irresponsible, some consistently make good decisions and for others, life is a never-ending string of bad choices. So, naturally, people and groups of people and civilizations end up differently.
The effects of a free market on society, for example, is not the same as the effects of socialism on a society. None of these facts have anything to with race, gender, sexual orientation, age, political ideas, or one's nationality.
Just to clarify, when I say we have a merit-based system I'm not under the illusion that it's perfect. I call it a relative meritocracy because people are inherently flawed and no, Marxism can't fix that. All Marxism can do is bring the best and brightest in society down to the lowest common denominator.
But because cultural Marxists blame white people for the cause of inequality whites who buy into leftist ideology have to support their own displacement and celebrate everyone but their own people.
So why do so many white people buy into this ideology? I really had to think about this for quite a while because I can't see myself in the shoes of these ideas any more than I can see myself being caught up in some psychopathic, Jim Jones religious cult.
I think one reason so many white people buy into this ideology is it gives them a sense of identity and purpose sprinkled with a sense of moral superiority. They see themselves as representatives of the oppressed fighting to defend them.
When people don't know who they are and where they come from and don't have a sense of purpose greater than themselves they leave themselves open to all sorts of doctrines, like leftism. They're like a tree without roots; when the first strong wind comes it knocks them over. That's why you don't see many people with a deeper sense of their identity, history, and culture buy into intercultural Marxism.
Another reason so many white people embrace leftism is the natural inclination people have to adhere to a group, the comfort of inclusion. Leftist ideology is touted by Hollywood, pop culture, the mainstream media, and major universities and kids don't want to be ostracized by being branded a racist.
By the way, this is an old school Marxist tactic. The word racist first became part of a societies lexicon in 1930s Russia and was used to browbeat people who weren't wholeheartedly communist. In other words, people who weren't politically correct, a term coined by the Soviets in the 1920s.
However, racist had a different meaning then. It meant someone who was nationalistic. Good communists identified with the communist collective, not with their ethnic and cultural heritage. Funny how leftists today are using the word racist the way it was originally used in early communist Russia, even towards black people who disagree with their world view.
So let me see if I understand this. The left says they are for inclusion but they have also made it clear that the consequences of dissension from their views are severe. For example, look at Roseanne Barr who was labeled a racist for supporting Trump and because she made a racy joke was fired costing her tens of millions of dollars, and to add insult to injury, the cast of her show, the very people who she single-handedly made rich and famous either kept quiet or proudly and publicly berated her for doing something that she's been doing all of her life, making racy jokes and being controversial.
Another example is Taylor Swift, who as far as I know is apolitical at least publicly. And because she refuses to take sides and talk politics, and therefore, refuses to denounce and bash Trump, she's a racist and white supremacist by default. Welcome to the noble revolution.
One other reason I can think of why many people are caught up in this cult is old fashioned conditioning. People have simply been conditioned through the government, the media, and often their parents that left-wing ideas like multiculturalism and cultural relativism are good and a notion like Sweden should generally be a country for ethnically Swedish people is evil.
However, it's still not all that easy for the left to convince the masses that whites are evil oppressors for creating a civilization that everyone wants to come and live in. Like we've seen time and time again throughout history, a little revisionist history, aka propaganda, is required to validate their insane bullshit. This is especially evil because this is how our kids are taught to hate themselves and their culture. which in turn makes them susceptible to leftist ideology.
The Crusades
I'd be rich if I had a nickel every time the left has cited the Crusades as an example of evil, white European Christians invading the lands of peaceful Muslims and brutalizing them in the name of Christianity. Well, the record of history is clear and it says, Islam was born in Arabia in the seventh century and the Muhammadans immediately began attacking the Middle East which was full of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and polytheistic Arabs.
Major Christian cities were captured including Antioch and Jerusalem. Then northern African cities like Alexandria and Egypt were invaded and captured. Then Muslims crossed the Mediterranean and began attacking Europe. They conquered the island of Sicily and using that as their base they attacked coastal towns which entailed killing, robbing, raping, and taking slaves.
During this time over one million, white Europeans were taken into the Islamic world as slaves.
In 846 AD or CE, if you want to be politically correct, while attacking Rome, Muslim invaders looted Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's basilica's, desecrating and pillaging the holiest places of all of Christendom. They also invaded and conquered Spain and tried to invade Europe from the southwest, but were stopped by the Franks at the battle of Tours, which historians regard as the battle that saved European Western Christian civilization.
All of these 400 years of brutal aggression happened before the first crusade was ever waged. Also, unlike the Muhammadans who waged war because their holy book commanded them to create a worldwide Islamic state, (sounds a lot like Nazis) the Pope only got involved to unite the different kingdoms and empires of Europe which were often at odds with each other, because in unity there is strength.
The Pope called on Western European Christians to aid Eastern Christians oppressed by Muslims. The Crusades were a push back and were a result of continual Muslim subjugation. Now, I'm not going to lie. When these kingdoms united and this push back happened it was brutal.
When the Crusaders, which consisted of about 4,000 mounted Knights and 25,000 infantry, when they moved east and began defeating Turkish armies and taking back cities it wasn't pretty. When they finally reached Jerusalem and breached the walls the Knights slaughtered everybody inside that wasn't a Christian.
Now, I'm not saying what those Knights did was right, but after 400 years of brutality against Europe and after three-quarters of their fellow Crusaders in bloody battles leading up to Jerusalem, I can understand why they were pissed.
Since this is about context what's important to know is the Crusades consisted of these battles.
Compare that with the 400 or so battles Muslims waged against Europe leading up to the Crusades.
Unfortunately, the Crusades didn't end Muslim aggression. In 1453, long after the Crusades, they conquered Constantinople which ended the Eastern Roman empire. Then they hammered Eastern Europe all the way to the gates of Vienna. This jihad against the European Kaffir was relentless and lasted about a thousand years before white Christians were able really begin to push them back out and get some of their lands back.
On a side note, when a new Sultan came to power it was traditional for him to immediately launch new wars just so he would be known for how well he fought against the infidels. And between the 7th and 15th centuries, Muslims dominated the slave trade and they dealt in the trade of eunuchs which were castrated male slaves most often used in military service.
Eunuchs were created by amputating the penis and scrotum of 6-12 year old boys which is why there's no black population in the Arab world today. That and because they would kill the newborn children of their African concubines that they got pregnant.
I already mentioned Europeans being enslaved by Muslims as early as the 7th century but I want to reiterate while Muhammadans were killing and enslaving Africans they were doing the same with white Europeans. Before Catherine, the Great conquered the Muslim-ruled Peninsula of Crimea and put it under Russian rule, millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Armenians, and Slavs, aka white people, had been enslaved and sold through Crimea. The term the Crimean raids is familiar to every Ukrainian, Russian, and Pole as it is an integral part of their history.
Also between 1530 and 1790, it is estimated that North African Muslims abducted and enslaved more than a million European slaves from coastal towns and the high seas. They even enslaved Americans.
In 1788 when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary States, the estates of the Ottoman Empire North Africa. Their ships were stopped and it's crews and passengers taken off into slavery. An estimated one and a half million European and American slaves between 1750 and 1850.
Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren't in the Crusades, we weren't in the war in Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people?
And the ambassador said very plainly; because the Quran gives us permission to do so because you are infidels and that's our answer. And Jefferson said well, in that case, I will send a Navy which will crush your state which he did.
Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a masochistic lie to say so and it excuses those who are the real criminals and it blames us for the attacks made upon us.
Slavery
Now, that brings me to the holy grail of the anti-white narrative, slavery. It's not hard to expose leftists who want to single out whites and blame them for this immoral practice because just a cursory glance at history shows that slavery was common and an excepted way of life in every culture throughout history. It was fully established in every society and there was a myriad of ways you could become a slave.
You could be born a slave, you could lose a war, you could run out of money and be unable to pay your debts, or your parents could just sell you into slavery, but since the left only wants to talk about the Christian slave trade which was from about 1515 to 1815, let me add this, slavery in other civilizations was on a larger scale, lasted a longer time and was more brutal. Also, whites were the first to act on their conscience and abolish slavery and through their influence effectively ended slavery in the world.
Although it was practiced in China and in various parts of Africa until the 1940s, Saudi Arabia had slavery until 1962, Peru until 1968, and India until 1976. It's probably also worth noting that unlike the Muhammadans, Europeans didn't go into Africa to kidnap and enslave people, they bought slaves from African slave traders who had bought them from African kings and warlords. As a matter of fact, 40% of all blacks in West and Central Africa were slaves within Africa before and during the period of the Atlantic slave trade and only about 5% of all slaves traded went to America, the rest went to India, Spain, Europe, and stayed in Africa.
Talking about historical facts does not condone or excuse what happened throughout history, but to ignore the complete historical context of something as horrific as slavery to guilt trip people into turning against their own culture doesn't move us toward a resolution either.
Also, in America slavery wasn't just practiced by whites. Indians practiced slavery before any white people ever set foot here and later they also owned African slaves. Blacks, of course, also owned slaves in America as they did in Africa. According to the US Census of 1830 in Charleston, South Carolina alone 407 African-Americans owned slaves and it's estimated that 28% of all freed, black slaves owned slaves.
The bottom line is demonizing white people because of slavery while giving every other race, ethnic group, and civilization a pass is deceptive, agenda-driven, leftist conditioning and it's pathetic that in the age of information there are people dumb enough to buy into this white guilt dribble.
Thankfully, not everyone is buying into this narrative as this video shows.
#WalkAway Compilation - The Black-Americans Edition (2019)
I have watched as the left have allowed themselves to become hypnotized by false narratives and conclusions perpetuated by social justice warriors who misrepresent and misconstrue facts, evidence, and events to confirm their own biases that everyone who does not comply with their prejudicial conclusions and follows their orders is a racist, a bigot, a Nazi, a white supremacist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, and alt-right extremist.
I've watched as they use these heartless and carelessly assigned labels to intimidate, threaten, bully, silence, attack, unemploy, blacklist, and destroy anybody who dares to fight back.
So, tell me again, who is doing the oppressing and who is creating division between people these days? It's definitely the left who claim to be tolerant and inclusive, unless, of course, you believe you're a victim and think exactly as they do. If you don't accept their narrative they will do everything in their power to shut you down.
Did you know that even Martin Luther King was a Republican, not a Democrat? Think about that for a second.
The left acts like it's against oppression and racism but they have historically opposed every law that helps minority communities with the exception of laws that keep them dependent on voting for Democrats.
America is about people of all races and backgrounds coming together as one nation and it's not about what this extreme left narrative is making it out to be.
I have friends who are black or people of color like the media is saying we have to say now to be politically correct. I have friends that are Indian, Asian, Latino, Native-American, white, of every ethnicity, and none of my friends feel oppressed or superior over another. What the hell is the media talking about? We're tired of hearing this narrative and it's only originating from one place, those with leftist ideologies. Those with a victim ideology who try to divide people and foster resentment.
Show me a leftist and I'll show you someone who is not very grateful for the gifts our ancestors have left us. Of course, they don't understand cultural and national pride because those things are the manifestation being grateful and thankful and appreciative, something that's hard to do when you're feeling resentful.
When the left says we don't have any right to take pride in the things our ancestors did because we didn't personally do them, they're again speaking out of both sides of their mouth because in the next breath they'll say, but you should feel guilt and shame for the things you didn't personally do but your ancestors did do.
Does the left ever criticize non-whites for showing ethnic and cultural pride? No, they encourage it. Proclaim your brown pride and the left thinks that great, but say it's OK to be white and they lose their collective mind. There's no controversy in saying black is beautiful and it is beautiful, but if a white woman says white is beautiful she's branded a hateful, evil person. When non-whites want to remain homogeneous it's cultural pride, but whites against mass third-world immigration into their countries are Nazis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, everyone should be proud of their cultural heritage and ethnic identity and that includes white people. You know, every race has philosophers, explorers, conquerors, pioneers, inventors, and builders of the greatest civilizations. Civilizations that have made this world an immensely better place for everyone. We can be proud of that and in being proud you're being grateful.
Have we done horrible things in the past and should we feel bad about it? Of course, we have and so has every culture that has ever existed. But to relive our mistakes while negating our successes and punishing people today for those past mistakes while not appreciating how far we have come to live as one human family is the biggest mistake of all. We must learn to forgive and we should never forget the mistakes of the past so we don't make them again in the future, but the future cannot get better without forgiving.
By continually placing emphasis on only our shortcomings without acknowledging how far we have come to unite people from all ethnic backgrounds, something that is uniquely American and what the country is founded on, we only limit ourselves and what we can accomplish moving forward. There's a reason so many people from all over the world want to come to Western countries, let's not forget that and let's stop hating people for being proud of their country. It is far from perfect but it's not going to get better drinking Hateraid.
What do you think about this?
Related Posts
Fake Narratives Need To Be Called Out - The Rise Of Fake Hate Crimes
Black People Dismantle White Privilege
Luzcypher's Announcement For Steem Witness
I think you are mostly right although you oversimplify some issues by bundling everything together to create two neat categories: "yours" and "the others". In reality you are likely to find people agreeing with you on any combination of positions but not necessarily on all. I agree with you on most of what you write but not on European nationalism. I think European nationalism is today a relic and a nuisance. Europe was governed as mixed-nationality Empires for almost all of its civilized history. Then Nation States began to appear after the end of the war of 30 years and the whole Continent caught fire and stayed like that for about 200 years afterwards with quasi continuous wars and destruction.
I believe it's time we transcend the Nation State in Europe and create something akin to Switzerland (a Confederation) at the scale of the Continent.
But of course, for most of the rest I share your views.
Interesting comment. I don't think having a nationalistic view is a nuisance at all. It's what makes countries unique and strong regardless of one's ethnic background. The US is a country of immigrants but when we had a nationalistic common thread it bound us together as one nation.
Part of why it is weakening is because we are losing sight of that perspective and as all the different factions attack each other it's crumbling from within.
Totally agree that it makes sense for the US, a nation of 350 millions souls and the most powerful economically and militarily. But nationalism is not free. It's not "all upside and no downside". The downside you can get a glimpse of in jingoism and xenophobia and poor cooperation with others.
So you need to balance upside and downside. My point is that for a typical European nation of about 10 000 000 people the downside is about as big if not bigger than the upside. Nations for which nationalism is a net positive short-medium term are typically France and Germany. Long term, you just need to look at the past 200 years to see what the "short term view" about the benefits of nationalism has led to ...
So I say: let's ditch nationalism in Europe and create a Confederation.
I don't see nationalism as to blame for those things. There are certainly MANY factors that were involved with what happened in the past 200 years in Europe. I don't see nationalism as the cause. I do see it as an EXCUSE some people that were pushing many other IDEAS would use to try to justify their actions. Yet ultimately that is not nationalism. That is imperialism. There is a difference.
Your completely working against human nature and history. Look at the European Union and Yugoslavia. If Europeans are even to exist in 200 hundred years in any dignified manner we need strong nations anything else is folly.
I've been to Switzerland, and admire the people and the government they run. The point is they run their government, unlike what is being done to Europe now with the EU. It is also unlike any other European state, in that regard, as all of the others are far more Empires than Confederations.
The USA also began as a confederation, but was nationalized in short order. While some states later tried to restore that original confederation during the Civil War, they were defeated, and the USA has become ever more imperial thereafter.
Labels aren't the things they label. There are specific mechanisms that empower the Swiss people to keep the reins of government in their grasp, and one of the strongest is that 10% of the military is required to keep their arms at hand and in good order, ready for action, after they leave active service. Another is that a popular vote of the people requiring a 75% majority is necessary for any increase in taxes. [Not 75% of those that voted, but 75% of eligible voters must vote for the increase, or new tax.]
How would you propose translating the necessary personal rights and individual power retained for centuries by the Swiss people to Europeans that are accustomed to being little more than serfs of feudal nobles, or subjects of imperial states? Perhaps less importantly, at least secondarily, how could such a confederation be prevented from the American fate, and quickly transformed into the kind of imperial nation that most Europeans are acculturated to?
I agree it is a far better way for Europe to govern itself than is being practiced now, or than has ever been done in most European states, but the cultures of those nations are not inculcated with the principles and practices that are requisite to self governance, even in the Swiss confederation model.
Thanks!
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
I really appreciate your post on this issue. I learned some things, and that's always extremely valuable to me.
I have to take issue with one matter regarding slavery, however. Slavery does yet persist in the USA, and in fact is growing rapidly. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution allowed for slaves to be possessed by the states, when they were incarcerated, and this is common practice today.
The practice is profitable for the governments and corporations that lease labor from those governments holding captives, and this provide direct incentive for states to take more victims into captivity. In a bitter twist of irony, the Land of the Free now has more prisoners per capita than any nation in the history of the world. Over 2 million Americans are presently kept as slave labor by the 50 state governments, federal government, and local, county jails, and privately owned prisons.
This is real slavery, not some trick of semantics. Many people unaware of the facts of slavery you point out in your post aren't aware that white people were kept as slaves. In fact Slavs are called that because they were so often enslaved. Slave is the root of the word Slav. Keeping white people in the same conditions as black slaves is indeed slavery, despite that many Americans weren't aware that slavery wasn't only committed to blacks. Keeping people convicted by governments in those conditions is also slavery, no matter what their race or ethnicity.
I don't know how many captives are held in the countries on your slave list, but I am confident few have as many as the USA. If their prisons aren't slave labor camps, then the USA would be third on the list, because all US prisons are slave labor camps, and all American prisoners are slaves, and there are well over 2 million of them today.
Thanks!
Very true I've written on that subject several times. I feel it is one of the main reasons we have the largest prison population on the planet, and why so many victimless crimes are given longer prison sentences than crimes with actual victims. Which would you prefer a peaceful slave, or an aggressive one?
Indeed. It also seems that flouridated water, phytoestrogens, and endocrine disrupting additives in food and chemical pollution have been very successful at reducing the testosterone poisoning that makes slaves testy.
Well, that was a mouthful! Two key points I want to applaud as these things are universally true: 1. Hating white people is still racism, and so moving backwards as a society. 2. Being grateful is a lost art and makes the entire world a less lovely place.
The history lesson was most excellent, that clearly took some time to compile. Thanks for the effort. Will share it on facebook so my family can get some exercise scrolling...
Exercise scrolling... Hahaha.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
I've resteemed that and if I was allowed to (I am not because i am a public official teacher and we have to be politically neutral) I would read that post in front of my pupils. Here in germany we are so much deep within this process (on our schools, the media, on the street...) and as I read your lines about Angela Merkel I was feeling this very close again.
Excellent reading, a great review of history you have left us here, which is very important, because remember, Marxists want to erase the past, as they did in China by forcing themselves to forget their millenary history.
I just do not agree with something. You say America was the first to abolish slavery, I think it's not right, the other day I saw a documentary about it, and I think it was the countries of South America, I'll have to investigate about it. For the rest, I completely agree with each and every one of your observations.
Cheers!
The problem of humanity is as old as humanity, we have in us the ability to create and to solve issues.
Thanks a lot @luzcypher, for the explanation especially on Marxism.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Hi @luzcypher!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.679 which ranks you at #130 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 220 contributions, your post is ranked at #34.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Great post young man, keep it up. Have a little look at my blog, you just might like it.
This is a pretty phenomenal post which I will resteem. Have you considered making this entire post into a documentary? You hit so many points that fit so well together that it is something I truly think is worthy of documentary status.
I don't prefer making videos. This one though I think deserves it. I'll resteem and up vote this. If I could do more I would as it is a post that certainly deserves to be seen. I hope a lot more people read it.
Did Ben Garrison credit Der Stürmer with those caricatures, or did he plagiarize them?
The mirror image statement “Unless you've been living under a rock you know that the Republican party in the United States has moved radically to the right” is at least as accurate.
Led by Republicans? How could Republicans have done that in 1777 if the Republican Party didn’t exist until 1854? Even the earlier Democratic-Republicans weren’t around until 1792.
And slavery was outlawed in a variety of jurisdictions well before that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
Posted using Partiko iOS