And you are saying the southern culture at that time was not fundamentally intertwined with slavery? A culture where people are seen as less than human will intrinsically lead to their disenfranchisement. It has to go.
Or are you thinking I’m saying tea parties are an evil?
Are you saying it could be subsumed under it?
What are you interested in? Fighting slavery or fighting culture? Don’t pretend they are synonymous. Even in a “slave culture” the slavery will only be one among many institutions.
Are you saying it could be subsumed under it?
What are you interested in? Fighting slavery or fighting culture? Don’t pretend they are synonymous. Even in a “slave culture” the slavery will only be one of its many institutions.
Everything is synonymous with culture. Do you think your propertarian society would have a snowball’s chance if there weren’t a culture of respect for property.
THe best way to fight slavery is to fight the culture that justifies it.
You don’t see me saying we have to destroy the current southern culture.
At least medieval knights put their lives on line when fighting a war that they willingly join, as did King Richard the Lionheart in the last Crusade. He also got beheaded by slavers and barbarians for having dared to protect the eternally oppressed Syrians, which makes him far more of a man than Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini combined.
I don’t choose sides when communist factions fight over who gets to do the “will of the people”.
You’ll be happy to know the IMF works in the name of capitlaism, despite the austrian cries of “statistm = socialism because stalin/maoism is socialist.”
“A feudal tyrant put his life (well actually, his men’s if everything would’ve went to plan) on the line in a war over religion is more of a man…” than who.
Stalin gave material support to anti-apartheid movements in S Africa. Is he a great man now?
IMF is neither capitalism nor socialism, but an annoying source of moral hazard, that only lasts as long as it can still give money.
Its job is to make governments more careless with money, which only destroys those governments faster, although governments also drag down the rest of the country with them on the way down.
Interestingly, it has never been able to impose a single condition it requests for its loans…and still gives those loans away. It’s a self-defeating charity organization that never got back a penny it gave in loans.
It’s not me that’s saying hte IMF is capitalist, it’s the IMF.
The Crusades were not done over religion; they were done to protect the most persecuted religious group in the world - the eastern Christian people.
Did you know that before the First Crusade, entire Christian families in Syria were stripped naked, had their flesh nailed to pieces of wood, were forcefully marched across with a rope holding all those pieces of wood, and (when they had to be sold off as slaves) had the wood ripped off from their flesh as they were sold away? Did you know that before they were sold as slaves, they first faced endless decades of raids and pillaging to steal their abundant wealth and once there was no more to be stolen, they were killed or enslaved?
And what did those evil Crusaders do? They came in to protect them and then had to protect the Muslims in the territory for which they were responsible. And amazingly enough, none of those Crusaders ever committed an atrocity against Muslims. The few atrocities attributed to them only in recent times have turned out to be complete fiction. Indeed, any Frankish knight who dared commit any offense against a local Muslim was severely punished by his own, and that’s why Muslims liked to live under Crusader governments of the Principality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
This was not a fight between Islam and Christianity. It was a fight between the Selijuk raiders (later the Fatimid Saracens) and the Europeans who came to protect belatedly whatever was left of Meditteranean merchants (many of whom were Muslims). And those medieval knights, sworn to a life of ascetism and service, never committed any wrong nearly as severe as what General Sherman did in Atlanta or what the British did in Dresden. The one group of knights that did was excommunicated immediately.
I would like to see sources for that. The one you link is “muslim cannibals in the crusades” by “realcrusadehistory.com” or something like that.
Hardly sounds like a reputable source.
Why not? Do you deny that the current southern culture is fundamentally intertwined with drugs prohibition?
Haha, no. If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be so many meth labs. Even if it was, that’s not the forcible enslavement of human beings. It is a problem that must be addressed, but it’s not slavery.
I tend to believe that Liberty Student is right about as to why Lincoln started the war and why the south seceeded. And the southerners knew that slavery wasn’t sustainable, as the cost of putting rebellions down wouldn’t be worthwhile.
The northerners hated blacks more than the southern slave owners did.
I’d recommend everyone read Thomas DiLorenzo and Clyde Wilson if they haven’t.
I tend to believe that Liberty Student is right about as to why Lincoln started the war and why the south seceeded.
You can ignore it if you want, but I have shown their legislators exact reasons, as stated by themselves, that they seceeded to protect the institution of slvaery as a property rights issue.
And the southerners knew that slavery wasn’t sustainable, as the cost of putting rebellions down wouldn’t be worthwhile
BUt yet going to war to protect wasn’t so costly? I would advise against postdicting the future.
People who want to believe particular good guy, bad guy narratives generally aren’t too interested in doing research, but once one is exposed the the true character of Lincoln and the Union generals, it’s hard to see the civil war as anything but a war of northern aggression.
For me, the first test of whether someone is serious about liberty is where they stand on secession. If they don’t believe people have the right to leave bad political arrangements, then its a long climb to some sort of sane conversation.
The Southerners tried to secede without violence. Please study some history.
This is usually the extent of their research when it comes to morality and war:
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina
Please study some non-revisionist history. (I know, you’re going to argue that it was SC and therefore union soldiers being there was aggression. But as you know, military forts are property of the US government, no matter where they are stationed.)
Communist organizations like the UN and IMF calling themselves free marketers and intentionally causing destruction to defame markets is not unusual. The IMF and UN were both created at the same time by Soviet agents Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White with FDR. Hiss was the first DG for the UN. White was supposed to be first MD for the IMF except he died.