Slavery (of non-whites) Anonymous ID: 52710bbd 06/12/20 (Fri) 05:57:34 No. 1206 [ D]
There is a large enigma over historical non-white slavery that is often overlooked among pro-white circles. Of course, the slavery of whites by non-whites (typically jews and whomever they sold them to, which occurred on all continents including sub-Saharan Africa) was bad, but what of the slavery of non-whites in the west, including but not limited to negroids?
For example, approximately 97,000 jews were enslaved by Roman soldiers in the 70 AD siege of Jerusalem, after being taken as prisoners of war; was there anything wrong with this? (especially considering that the jewish diaspora consisted of jews voluntarily leaving Judea to gain influence abroad long before 70 AD, not of jewish slaves being sent elsewhere, as Zionists typically claim) On one hand (mostly applicable to blacks), slavery brought non-whites to white lands en masse, which leads directly to the negroid problem in north and south America (and to a lesser extent, Europe) and thereby to the negrification of the world, as it was launched out of the USA. Of course, jews were heavily over-represented in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, many West Africans even being owned by North African jews before being sold to other jews coming from Spain, Holland or elsewhere. It also technically brought Asiatic and Caucasus peoples to Eastern and Central Europe en masse, leading to Russia's problem with non-Slavic Mongoloids ravaging the entire country and being pushed as "Russians" by Putin and the jewish oligarchs. However, slavery also represents an example of white domination over jews (in-case of the Roman sack of 70 AD) and of course, of negroids; at the time this happened, no-one saw it as morally wrong (in-fact, it was required in the past due to the lack of factories), thus discarding white enslavement of other races is essentially denying that whites ever dominated their main racial enemies in the past. So what is your opinion on this enigma? The main conflict in my view is either slavery of non-whites as an example of historical white dominance, or jews being responsible for slavery and thus dispersing negroids and mongoloids throughout the western world; so at least "white apology" over slavery can be completely rejected, as it's wholly anti-white in nature, and is logically invalid anyways as it projects modern views of slavery onto pre-industrial societies.
Anonymous ID: 771300a5 06/12/20 (Fri) 23:00:42 No. 1219 [ D] [ DF]
The argument from the left tends to be that black slavery is topical because the grandparents and great grandparents of today's black adults faced the racial tensions that were a direct byproduct of the slavery in early America.
As the grandchild of Sicilian immigrants, I tend to counter it by mentioning that African raiders (namely the Milanese and the Moroccan corsairs) kidnapped Europeans living along the Mediterranean and sold them as slaves in Africa. If their grandparents suffered because of slavery from 200 years ago, then they must concede that my grandparents did as well.
Anonymous ID: 771300a5 06/12/20 (Fri) 23:05:41 No. 1220 [ D] [ DF]
Also, I like how the looted treasure in that carving of Romans includes some TV studio cameras. Proof that Jews controlled the media even then.
Anonymous ID: 771300a5 06/12/20 (Fri) 23:12:56 No. 1221 [ D] [ DF]
Also, I meant Malinese, not Milanese. Obviously.
Anonymous ID: 7f967015 06/13/20 (Sat) 04:34:10 No. 1223 [ D] [ DF] >>1219
I've already talked about white slavery; jews were involved in that too. There was also a slave-trade in Eastern Europe carried out by the Crimean Khanate (Mongol descendants), that reached lands as far north as the Finnish province of Karelia:
The Wikipedia page alone even admits the jewish involvement in the Crimean slave trade:
>The Jewish population was concentrated in ufut Kale ('Jewish Fortress'), a separate town near Baheseray that was the Khan's original capital. As other minorities, they spoke a Turkic language. Crimean law granted them special financial and political rights as a reward, according to local folklore, for historic services rendered to an uluhane (first wife of a Khan). The capitation tax on Jews in Crimea was levied by the office of the uluhane in Baheseray. Much like the Christian population of Crimea, the Jews were actively involved in the slave trade. Both Christians and Jews also often redeemed Christian and Jewish captives of Tatar raids in Eastern Europe.
Notice how the jews had their own fortress; this was to protect them from any gentiles rightfully trying to strike back at them for their crimes, thus they were housed by the Khan for protection. The same thing occurred in Navarra, Spain before 1492 (which mostly just led to the jews dominating the new world as they were only "expelled" from Iberia, and that's not including conversos)
Anyways, you're kind of missing my point here: it's not about white slavery (as I have stated) or black victimhood for slavery. It's that black slavery can be viewed as both a period where whites were humiliating blacks (one of their main racial enemies) which dispels the modern judeo-negrified narrative that blacks are physically superior, or that since there was a disproportionate jewish involvement in it, also jews bringing blacks in and increasing their population in white lands, as a weapon against whites. Which one is it?