link the comments have more takes from the "historian"
maybe its the effects of white boy summer :thinkin-lenin:
also john brown didnt go far enough :john-brown:
The only alternative is to construct a reeducation camp the likes of which the world has never seen.
Reconstruction, but done right. (As in the freemen never disarmed and held the plantations they occupied by force)
The idea that you can "reeducate" it out of everyone is just fantasy tho
Given enough time and enough resources, everyone would either be reeducated or die while being reeducated, so it works out in the end.
No, but if we somehow had a revolution so swift and complete that we had all the chuds under lock and key immediately without having killed any yet, it seems likely we would have enough. Obviously this is unrealistic, but in that hypothetical I think we would be morally obligated to set up such a reeducation facility. In a more realistic scenario, many of them would already be dead from revolutionary fighting, and some fo them would have their wills broken by our victory. I think we would have to execute those who were caught in open combat and captured, but we should try to reeducate most of the rest.
that we had all the chuds under lock and key immediately without having killed any yet
this is also a fantasy tho, so yea moot point
pacifism is a fantasy
I mean yeah, that's why I said it's an unrealistic hypothetical. I'm not a pacifist, I'm just saying we shouldn't be violent for the sake of violence, and should do everything in our power to help our foes become better once we have won.
murdering your political opponents is genocidal
no it isn't, unless you are trying to make genocidal mean nothing which is probably the case
This is really where the both sides brainworms have gotten us, this moronic notion that every political position that can be held has an opposite that is equally justified, regardless of how ludicrous said opposite may be (like 'slavery is good'). It's what justifies moron libs trying to get conservatives to vote with them, particularly on things like the voting rights act. So many libs acting outraged that conservatives would dare vote down a bill that would undo all of the purposeful work they have done for better than a decade lmao. Or better yet, acting as though conservative hypocrisy should cause the conservative to combust when pointed out.
These people would try to debate Nazis in 1942, fail, and then turn themselves in to the camps without force.
You can't resolve the contradictions sweaty, you just need to heighten them and then masturbate to their existence
"Murdering your political opponents"
And he calls himself a historian? That's what his take on "Bleeding Kansas" is?
Just some light political sparring with my opponent who's spent their whole life oppressing me and raping and murdering my friends and family (for political reasons).
That's basically the liberal discourse on violence against white people. You can only kill people when it's on behalf of the legitimate liberal government. All other killing in history was immoral, except for when the Americans did it (and we're just going to avoid talking about the bit where they were convinced to do it because Britain said that they weren't allowed to go genocide any more Indians, it was Canada's turn).
The best possible way to avoid realizing the obvious contradictions of this is to never try to answer the question "when is political violence necessary?"
when your political opponents are slave owners, i don't give two shits
It was just a civil disagreement between gentlemen until mean old John Brown came along.
IMO if you arnt serious about this as a potential consequence of having and using power, you dont actually have any politics.
Technically he didn't even kill them.
"Said I, ' Captain Brown, did you kill those five men on the Pottawatomie, or did you not? He replied, 'I did not, but I do not pretend to say that they were not killed by my order, and in doing so I believe I was doing God's service.' My wife spoke and said, 'Then Captain, you think God uses you as an instrument in His hands to kill men?' Brown replied, "I think He has used me as an instrument to kill men, and if I live, I think he will use me as an instrument to kill a good many more!'"
-The words of John Brown's personal friend, cited in WEB DuBois' biography on Brown.
They also weren't just "vocally advocating" for slavery. These were the men that had just sacked Lawrence, Kansas, burning numerous homes. I believe one of Brown's family members was staying in one that was burned as well. Brown and his men hunted them down, dragged them from their homes, and ordered them hacked to death by claymore in a swamp.
I generally don't like people invoking the name of God to justify murder, because usually it's targeting sex-workers or just women in general or mixed-race couples. Here, however, I am completely fine and even have scriptural backing to support his claim.
Yeah, exactly. The difference between John Brown's brand of "god told me to murder" is that it was "God told me to free the oppressed, and if you are going to prevent me from doing that, I will kill the fuck out of you and God is gonna back me up here."
Whereas from your typical religious extremist its more like "god said wear this piece of clothing, don't eat a particular plant, and you can't say his actual name and if you do any of those things i will kill the fuck out of you."
One of these things is demonstrably good and cool. The other, not so much.
There's also a whole book of the Bible mostly about God telling a man to kill some slavers, and then the man goes and kills some slavers.
Exodus. That's the one where Moses liberates the Tribes of Israel from Egypt by releasing the Ten Plagues on them.
Doesn't exactly narrow it down, honestly. Moses actually started his religious leader career by killing 2 slavers and hiding their bodies.
I don't think he did actually kill anyone who owned slaves, but he killed pro-slavery activists in the Kansas Territory, plus 1 marine at Harper's Ferry.
But his explicit intent with the Harper's Ferry raid was to start slave uprisings which definitely would have killed a few slave owners.
he called someone a slaver when he is the one siding with slave owners (he deleted every tweet like a coward by the way)
The free state was a weird place. Basically exactly what Ancaps want the world to be like. There were a few colonies of freed slaves, but way more ruthless capitalists and bloodthirsty racist militias. John Brown's group was constantly being attacked and people in his community were being kidnapped and killed (his son was kidnapped, tarred and feathered by a racist militia).
Harpers Ferry was retaliation that barely even compared to the constant harassment and violence suffered by John Brown and the free slaves, but of course, after reconstruction was scuttled we have to take the revisionist line that he like murdered poor innocent racists in their sleep instead of fighting against a group that made their living murdering innocents.
The US is the older brother pretending to also cry after giving his little brother a bloody nose and mom comes running.
Fuck this centrist pearl clutching. Nazi lives doesn't matter.
:nazi-punching:
If there are millions of klansmen and sympathizers we're gonna need a lot of rope
:JB-shining-aggro:
If there are millions of klansmen and sympathizers we’re gonna need a lot of rope
Actively admitting there are millions of racist people in this country lmao
Not just racist, but literal Klansmen, or people who look at the Klan and think "you know, they're alright"
Anyone with "cynic" in their Twitter handle or bio is at best insufferably lib and thinks they're clever or outright fash.
