>>6794854 (pb) White slaves

>The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves), to live next door to the Blacks.

This isn't completely accurate. The terms "redneck" and "cracker" predate the slave trade.

"Redneck" originated in Scotland where rebels in the Bishops' Wars wore a red kerchief around their necks to signal their rejection of the authority of the English bishops.

The name stuck with that population and their descendants who immigrated to the southern United States.

"Cracker" comes from the Irish word "craic" meaning fun while drinking with friends, which comes from the middle English word "krak", meaning loud, boisterous talk.

Modern terms which share the same origin include "wisecrack" and "crack a joke".

Source: Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell (an excellent book which anybody who wants to understand the current dysfunctional state of America should read). You can find it on b-ok.org, or in a bookshop.

>>6797209

Interesting - it seems there was some overlap between descendants of crackers in the old sense and whip-wielding Floridian cowboys:

>"I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode."[2] The word was later associated with the cowboys of Georgia and Florida, many of them descendants of those early frontiersmen who had migrated South. Also used by Florida cowboys, as with picture of Florida cracker Bone Mizell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

In his book, Sowell explains why crackers had a culture of boasting and being lawless rascals.

Essentially, if you accept the rule of a civil authority then disputes are settled by appeals to the authority.

If there's no accepted civil authority, disputes are settled with violence. In that culture, the wise thing to do is brag, fight strangers for stupid reasons, and not control your impulses. You're not going to live long anyway, and the best available substitute for safety is a reputation as a violent nut.

Sowell explains that "black culture", meaning lawlessness, bragging and lack of impulse control, is in fact just "cracker" or "redneck" culture.

When the blacks were freed from slavery, they had already adopted the culture of the local feuding whites, which was the only culture they knew.

But the whites had no identity invested in that culture. When the opportunity to avail of civil authorities, education and so on arrived, they took it.

The blacks, unfortunately, thought that they had their own culture, different from the law-abiding and restrained culture of the whites.

And white liberals insisted that black culture should be preserved and protected, dooming the blacks who listened to them to a life of crime and poverty, because getting an education is "acting white", which the white liberals teach is betraying your own race.

>>6797320

globalslaveryindex.org

>>6797334

Indeed.

We should acknowledge that moral revulsion at slavery has only occurred in one civilization in human history - all peoples practiced slavery in every civilization until white Christian men affirmed that slavery is intolerable, and not only intolerable to practice, but intolerable to permit or ignore.

So white Christian Europeans and Americans forced every country in the world to outlaw slavery, against the outraged protests of those countries for whom slavery was and always had been part of normal life.

The white Christian Europeans and Americans forcefully ended the slave trade (look up the blockade of Africa), at great cost and no benefit to themselves.

No white European or American ever enslaved an African. The slaves brought to America were enslaved by their fellow Africans and bought by whites. They were not bought or enslaved because of the color of their skin. They were enslaved for profit and bought because they were for sale.

America's black slaves were enslaved by blacks and freed by whites.

Christian America had decided that slavery was abominable, and had ended the slave trade, but white slaveowners feared that if their black slaves were freed, they would take up arms and commit genocide against the whites. This worry was what prevented the abolition of slavery at the time of the abolition of the slave trade.

It was partly this prospect of revenge by former slaves that led Lincoln to free the slaves in the south.

There was no genocide, however. American Christians treated their slaves better than any society had treated slaves in the past. Those who became slaves of the muslims had no families and left no descendants. The men often died during castration, and those who survived were worked to death without pity or mercy.

In Christian America, many of the freed slaves chose to continue to work for their previous owners, as employees. They had families and were largely on good terms with their previous owners and their families. For many, little changed.

Until all this is acknowledged, the genocidal hate being fostered against white Christian Americans and Europeans will continue to grow, fed by the malicious and the ignorant.

>>6797439

Interesting analysis.

I don't think it's plausible that a different faction would appear and take control of Iran. Despite the existence of the "supreme leader", Iran is a democracy, and it's got quite a sophisticated system of government that the Iranian public doesn't want to change.

The only big problem is the ayatollah and the role of Islam.

I think that the ayatollah genuinely cares about protecting Iranian interests and Iranian society. Iran's moves have been very calculated, threatening but not provocative. The regime has been cautious but has shown total resolve within boundaries (the US is lying about the drone being in international airspace - that's standard practice - US officials mumbled something about the drone being shot down outside of Iran's territory but appeared sheepish rather than outraged and vengeful).

I think the ayatollahs would be willing to remove the position of supreme leader if it was no longer necessary, as they see it. They would be willing to be a complete republic without a protector if no protection was necessary.

That means that the threat from Israel has to be removed. Israel has been itching to exterminate the Persians again and the US will do what Israel tells it to unless Trump can solve the Israel problem.

So if the goal is world peace, it will have to be a package deal. You can't expect Iran to sacrifice its military capabilities when there's still a military threat.