Really makes you think

This is the most hillariously retarded example of mental gymnastics I've ever seen. Exactly why I follow molymeme

Attached: slavery_was_a_choice.png (757x486, 54K)

Black africans sold their slaves to merchants to bring to America.

This post is absolutely brainlet tier. Drugs are addictive and slavery isn't. Drug manufacturers make the drug incredibly hard to quit to maximize profits.

he called out jewish hypocrisies but he has a family so he probably doesn't want to lose his life just to get some internet points.

Why is it mental gymnastics? Everyone had slaves back then, they just happened to be black.

I honestly think the user is worse.

That's based as fuck.

Those would be the drug makers, not the dealers.

Attached: 15157652894542-800x450.jpg (800x450, 59K)

I'm not denying that Africans sold their own people, he's implying that slavery was somehow less bad using a retarded analogy.
I expect nothing less of le epic argument man

user is worse.

whites rid the world of slavery

The arab world alone took far more europeans slaves than all the slaves taken from africa to america combined.

The slave trade was dominated by arabs and jews. Slave trade is still legal in certain parts of the arab world today.

Yet europeans are perputrated as historys only slave traders.

Attached: 1527538524536.png (487x479, 338K)

That's because you're anglo

Attached: anglo.jpg (640x793, 86K)

he literally has niigger

It's funny because of how similar they actually are. Drugs make you happy for a moment, but they ruin you in the long run. The exact same thing happened to America with slavery.

Arabs used to castrate their black slaves and kill their newborn, whites are the most compassionate people by far, and I'm not even white.

This isn't true. For example, in the UK 46,000 people owned slaves out of a population of 12 million.

Whites didn't own slaves. Aristocrats, merchants and jews did.

Additionally, slaves were freed by whites as 'god grant all men rights'.

Which is why {{{they}}} want to do away with Christianity.

it's a false dichotomy although Stefan is on the right track.

African slave sellers were basically the drug growers.
Jews were the drug smugglers and wholesalers.
Landed whites were the drug users.
Enslaved blacks were the product.

If you want to take out a drug cartel you go after the wholesalers and smugglers because the users and growers are easily replaceable and a creation of the environment that is facilitated by the trademakers.

Not only that, but the obvious comparison between slave trade and mass import of cheap third-world labour today is always, always, missed.

America never would have survived to reach industrialization without the income from plantation cotton and tobacco. The south subsidized the north for nearly 40 years and the moment factory owners found a foothold they pushed for a war to nullify the debts.

>bongs

Except whites and drug users similarly pick up the habit of selling their own purchases on.

Stefan is conceited and deceitful.

I thought it was the Joos that owned the slaves. This guy needs to make up his mind.

>Drug manufacturers make the drug incredibly hard to quit to maximize profits.
So did the Jew when they made slavery hard to quit because it's really profitable. But whites ended slavery, much to the chagrin of the Jew as it's pretty much like the shoah to them to lose the most lucrative business of slavery.

That's bullshit on such level that even one as ignorant of American history as I can call it such. Taxation in the past was so low that the south most certainly did not subsidise the north. And European countries industrialised just fine without slaves, so there's no reason to believe Americans couldn't have done it. In fact, they did, because the northern states indeed were not subsidised. That's just ridiculous.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

What on earth do tariffs have to do with subsidies? Nothing, that's what. In fact, tariffs just go to show how little the north needed the south. Had they truly needed them, they couldn't have afforded tariffs. Evidently they could.

speak for yourself, bogan

Stefan's power levels keep rising. How the fuck does he hide it so openly?

Attached: 1564251411736.png (640x480, 259K)

....so the blacks and the jews right?

that's quite the opposite.

He's not "implying that slavery was somehow less bad," he's saying that the blame for slavery lies with the wrong people.

He's pretty clear on this one. President Trump could take some lessons.

my god youre dumb.
>brb im gonna find another wikipedia link

Attached: 1528296319421.jpg (519x488, 76K)

He should have said Arabs, not blacks. The Arab slave trade paid Africans tribes for slaves as well as abducting them themselves then they sold to the slave ships which in turn sold to the new world.

Attached: Thomas sowell-on-slavery.jpg (960x720, 95K)

No it doesn't. Americans/Europeans bought slaves of their own volition.

In addition to the import tax is also set a 45% commodities tax on all unprocessed tobacco and raw cotton, which fucked souther farmers and led to a recession that nearly destroyed the economy of south carolina.

Merchants are distributors, blacks are the drug and the dealer. And technically the creator since they fuck.

Rapists are the victim because their victims let themselves be raped.

Inb4 read more history. Whites weren't hopeless addicts with no real self control, calling them users implies that on some level. What they did should never have happened, regardless of who the "dealer" was.

I didn't say I agree with him, I'm just explaining his thought process.

It really isnt. American factories straight sucked until about the 1850s and couldnt compete with europe in anything until roughly the 1880s. Theres a reason why european imports have such a connection to high quality in the US, and its because buying american in the 1800s was like buying chinese in the 2000s.

Everytime people bring this up they act like whites had absolutely no choice in buying slaves whatsoever. As if Africans were pointing at gun at their heads.

>(((Americans/Europeans)))

I think he was referring to African tribes sending raiding parties to rival tribes to capture lucrative slaves. The tribes then send the captives to arab traders and they transport either to the north or to eastern African ports.

You're really stupid, user. What you're describing is that the south was dependent on the north, not the other way around. Clearly the north industrialised without the south, but the south went to shit, since it had done the mistake of investing in niggers.

Tariffs and import taxes have nothing to do with subsidies. A state taxing imports is not a subsidy. Every state is free to do it, and there's nothing unusual about it.

Would you prefer if I browsed JSTOR for a roughly similar encyclopedia article of the same historic tariff that led to the nullification crisis?

Were? Niggers are selling niggers in Libya as slaves right now. LOL

>they act like whites had absolutely no choice in buying slaves whatsoever.
Can you point a single example? Because I've never seen such behaviour in my whole life. Whites bought slaves, because they were stupid and naive. Pretty much the same as any starting drug users, really.

Although, many argue that it wasn't actually whites who did most of the buying, but Jews. I'm not sure how truthful that is, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

>Clearly the north industrialised without the south, but the south went to shit

Orange line is manufactured goods. We were a net importer in factory goods (0% means imports and exports even, positive means we import more than we export) until roughly the early 1900s. While norther coal was indeed a factor in our raw materials export, most of our raw exports, which were positive and only fell in the post-civil war era, were cotton and tobacco. Industrialization in the north eventually beat raw goods from the south. But it only took more than half of the nayions life to get there.

Attached: ES1913Fig2_20190515122431.jpg (661x436, 63K)

>whites
thats retarded, "whites" is a very broad spectrum, most of us didn't take slaves
name the ethinicity, not the skin colour
>inb4 slavs are not white
das rite, don't associate us with those degenerates

I have no clue what you're trying to prove anymore. I think I've quite conclusively shown that the south did not subsidise the north. Tariffs and import taxes are not subsidies. If such things fucked the south, well, the south was indeed dependent on the north. Whatever the case, the north industrialised just fine, and the south did not. What the lesson to be learned? Don't let niggers in your country. Not even as slaves.

The analogy is fucking retarded. If I said "What's worse incel shooters or the men who sell them the guns? When it came to slavery africans were the sellers." See how stupid that sounds? They're not in anyway equatable. This is seriously retarded.

>Although, many argue that it wasn't actually whites who did most of the buying, but Jews. I'm not sure how truthful that is, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.

This is one of the most Jow Forums tier thing I've ever read, holy

This is pretty average for when it comes to leaf posts.

>45% tax on southern goods and a 32% tariff on goods that compete with northern goods was clearly meant to support the south

I get english is your third language, but please do not speak with confidence.

Why do you put words in my mouth? Why would I argue that the north somehow tried to support the south? Is Finland trying to support Russia? No. Why should it? If Finnish tariffs somehow fuck Russia up, it's Russia's problem, not Finland's. And it most certainly would not mean that Russia is somehow subsidising Finland. Do you even know what that word means?

You're truly exceptionally low IQ. English is indeed my third language, but I'm afraid I speak it better than you do.

You mean Arabs are selling African slaves.

Moly's analogy is incorrect, though he's close.

>Drug = Blacks (slavery)
>Drug user = whites (democrats)
>Drug dealer = jews

Thank you. I've been saying this for years. If certain rights are seen as inalienable and God given then no person can deny you of your demand of right. If rights come from people to people than a person can take away another person claim to a right. The aspect of the divine is important in determining the genesis of a political inheritance of that such .

Charlatan boomer od's in redpills
Yawn

Attached: 1559164911565.png (1416x1435, 250K)

Holy shit, read the link, you are backwards you stupid fuck.

Attached: 1565277600686.png (225x225, 4K)

Oh hai FBI were these Jeffrey’s Epsteins last words or you for real don’t like molymeme?

Arabs aren't black though, techically blacks were the suppliers and the dealers were arabs.

Stupid people are so very tiresome. If you have an argument, make it. If you see a flaw in mine, point it out. If you can't do either, shut up.

Attached: tiring.jpg (492x449, 48K)

your analogy is retarded.

to make it equal it would be ""What's worse incel shooters or the incel shooters who sell them the guns?"

good, here's another one.

the confederacy flag was originally just a cross but they slanted it so as not to offend the confederate's anti-christian jews.

>Miles received a variety of feedback on this design, including a critique from Charles Moise, a self-described "Southerner of Jewish persuasion." Moise liked the design but asked that "...the symbol of a particular religion not be made the symbol of the nation." Taking this into account, Miles changed his flag, removing the palmetto and crescent, and substituting a heraldic saltire ("X") for the upright cross.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Battle_flag

hey did you know that the NORTHERNERS used the slaves not the south?
thats right fagots

Attached: 1537565467111.jpg (205x120, 6K)

>implying jews werent the dealers

I more like the jew was the dealer and the negro was the drug.

he's just stating the truth though, blacks were willingly supplying their own people as slaves and slavery was common practice way before any whites set foot in africa