Lothrop Stoddard’s “The French Revolution in San Domingo,” Part 1

This is a foreword that I wrote for Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo, published in 2011.

*  *  *

Lothrop Stoddard on the French Colonists in San Domingo

Historian Frank Moya Pons, writing in The Cambridge History of Latin America, describes Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo as “a book now out of fashion because of its racism, although retaining some interest.” [1]

Interesting indeed, because it reflects the racial views of an important set of American intellectuals in the early twentieth century. There was a time when evolutionary thinking was widely considered to be the key to racial self-defense.[2]  Although it didn’t play a role in the Congressional debates (itself an indication of the rapidly changing intellectual context), evolutionary thinking was prominent among some of the elite intellectual proponents of immigration restriction in the 1920s. This was the heyday of eugenics—motivated by concern about deterioration of the gene pool because modern civilization had increased the moral and intellectual burdens of life at the same time that natural selection had been relaxed because of advances in medicine, hygiene, and nutrition. Lothrop Stoddard’s The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man exemplifies these trends.[3]

Race is indeed central to Stoddard’s volume. Written at a time when the science of race, race differences, and eugenics were at their height, Stoddard sees the conflict as fundamentally about race. But his view is that of a race realist. Unlike the vast majority of contemporary intellectuals, he sees race for what it is: a gargantuan fault line that separates humans.

However, Stoddard never comes across as a cheerleader for the Whites in their conflicts with Blacks and mulattos. Indeed, the Whites are described in highly unflattering terms—an important corrective to the view one might glean from previous chapters emphasizing the high-mindedness of Whites in the anti-slavery movements. Many are “shady characters”—opportunists out to make money and without any moral scruples. Heavy drinking and gambling are pervasive. The Whites are the consummate individualists. They are not a people but “only a mass of individuals.”  Poor Whites were adventurers, unable to compete with slave labor and therefore forced to make a living by any means necessary. However, we also see strains of moralistic idealism noted in previous chapters as a characteristic of northern Europeans.

It’s difficult to have sympathy for the White planters. They live in a world of “material crudity … intellectual poverty and mental isolation.” They are surrounded by outrageous retinues of slaves, living like an Oriental potentate. Stoddard quotes a contemporary observer, Moreau de Saint-Mery: “That crowd of slaves which hangs upon the master’s lightest word or sign, lends him an air of grandeur. It is beneath the dignity of a rich man to have less than four times as many servants as he needs. The women have an especial gift for surrounding themselves with a useless retinue.”

The rich Whites are unsocial and quarrelsome with their neighbors. Another observer, DeWimpffen describes the “pretensions, either ill-founded or ridiculous; jealousies of each other’s fortune, more ridiculous still; disputes about boundaries . . . and finally trespasses committed by the negroes or the cattle — occasion such a misunderstanding, or such a coolness, that all reciprocal communication is out of the question. Consequently, as nothing is so savage as the recluse who is not so by choice, you must not be surprised that each owl rests in his hole, and that so little sociability reigns among men who have few or no sociable qualities.”

These Whites had a sense of preserving their racial uniqueness while at the same time the males among them were energetically creating a mulatto caste by procreating with Black slaves and by taking mulattos as concubines. The common understanding was that any trace of Black blood would show up among descendants and bring shame to the family, even if the parents were not recognizably Black. While creating mulatto children was commonplace and socially accepted, there was a horror at marriage with a mulatto (marriage with a Black being completely out of the question). Marriage to a mulatto resulted in ostracism and derision. Particularly interesting is that elaborate genealogies were kept so that Whites could advertise the racial purity of their ancestors.  Racial consciousness was intense: “Creole or European, poor white or planter, smuggler or governor, — all remembered that they were white; all were determined that the white race should keep white and should rule San Domingo.” Stoddard writes of “the racial fanaticism of San Domingo” that proved stronger than national loyalty: When the French government no longer supported them, they defected to the English.

Was Stoddard possessed of an invidious “racism” in his attitudes toward Blacks? Several of his statements are sure to ruffle modern sensibilities. For example, he cites a contemporary observer who noted that African women were only too happy to be concubines of their masters. These women “are proud of having children by white men. Also, they cherish the hope that the fathers will free them or buy their liberty.”

This is the sort of statement that is doubtless considered “racist” by most contemporary readers. However, I see it as eminently plausible given that it is clearly in the self-interest of the women to engage in such relationships and given what we know about the fragility of marriage bonds among sub-Saharan Africans.  Why would an observer lie about this?

Similarly, Stoddard quotes a contemporary observer who noted “that, until the Revolution, nearly 600,000 blacks, continually armed,” obeyed without a murmur a handful of masters. Especially, as this superiority was not purely ideal. The negroes themselves recognized it by daily comparing the activity, energy, knowledge, and initiative of the whites with the degree of those same qualities in themselves and in the mulattoes.”

Stoddard cites an author who, he writes, “ably summed up the opinions of writers who have observed the negro in his African home”:

The negro is a grown-up child, living quite in the present and the absolute slave of his passions. Thus his conduct displays the most surprising contradictions. He is trifling, inconsistent, gay; a great lover of pleasure, and passionately fond of dancing, noisy jollification, and striking attire. His natural indolence is unparalleled, — force and cruelty alone can get out of him the hard labor of which he is capable. This, together with an inordinate sensuality, an ineradicable tendency to thieving, and absolute lack of foresight, a boundless superstition favored by a mediocre intelligence, and timidity in face of imaginary terrors combined with great courage before real danger, appear to be the causes of the negro’s lack of progress and of his easy reduction to slavery.

Such statements on the traits and abilities of Blacks conform to contemporary stereotypes as well. The central features of this stereotype — low intelligence and a relatively poor impulse control (low conscientiousness) — conform well to Prof. J. Philippe Rushton’s recent work, Race Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective.[4] Stoddard presents these observations as factually based, he rejects the “partisan” views of anti-slavery people who saw Blacks as noble savages, and pro-slavery writers who regarded them as less than human.

Nevertheless, despite having generally negative views of Blacks, Stoddard was quick to point out the talents of Toussaint L’Ouverture, the Black leader, commenting on his intelligence, leadership ability, and on the strategic savvy of this “extraordinary man.” When L’Ouverture achieved power, he understood that the superior intelligence of Whites would be useful in rebuilding the island: Even the Blacks acknowledged the superior intelligence and energy of Whites. When Whites were eventually excluded from the island, there was the predictable descent into African-style political oppression and economic failure.

Stoddard is quite clear on the moral implications of chattel slavery: African slavery was the curse of San Domingo. It is an “evil institution.” Slaves suffered “a life of hard and unremitting toil. From dawn to dark the field-gangs pursued their monotonous round of labor, exposed to the burning tropic sun, spurred on by the whips of the black ‘commanders’ under the overseer’s eagle eye.” The burden of the slaves’ labor combined with poor diet and high infant mortality was so great that they did not reproduce themselves. Nearly a million were brought to the island by 1789, but deaths exceeded births by 2½%.

Controlling the slaves therefore required a sort of sociopathy on the part of Whites—complete lack of empathy about causing and witnessing human suffering on a daily basis: “to extract continuous labor from such essentially indolent beings as the negroes, an iron discipline was necessary.” Such lack of concern for others was doubtless facilitated by ingroup/outgroup psychology, an evolutionary adaptation that would make it easy to consider slaves as an outgroup and therefore less than human, or at least possessing qualities such that their oppression had no moral implications.

Such a system can only survive by instilling constant fear. In the words of a commentator quoted by Stoddard, “the sense of that absolute, coercive necessity which, leaving no choice of action, supersedes all question of right.” Indeed, the authorities excused the most horrific tortures on the theory that “the safety of the colony depended on acquitting the masters of crimes against their slaves, “thus affirming the solidarity of all whites as against the slaves.” Race mattered.

But beyond moral issues, slavery of Africans merely bought short-term prosperity for the island and a few individual Whites “at the cost of [the] whole social and economic future.” Indeed, how could anyone think that a system in which African slaves outnumbered Whites 15 to one would be stable far into the future?

The clear violation of normative Western notions of morality became an issue in France where ideologies of abstract human rights had become the intellectual basis of revolution against the old regime. An anti-slavery society, “Amis des Noirs” was formed with a considerable involvement of elite revolutionaries: Lafayette, Mirabeau, Condorcet, and Robespierre. This society “affiliated with the network of secret revolutionary organizations then springing up over France, embraced abstract principles, and already formulated the ‘Rights of Man.’”

Notice the reference to “abstract principles” of human rights. This is a prime example of moral universalism so typical of the uniquely European form of intellectual discourse. Individualist cultures frame moral issues in universal terms. Morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal — e.g., Kant’s moral imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” This occurs because individualism implies an equality of interest—that everyone has interests, but no one has a privileged moral position, what philosopher John Rawls termed the “veil of ignorance.”[5] Arguments on morality therefore must necessarily seek an abstract sense of morality, independent of the interests of any particular individual; groups have no privileged moral standing at all. Pro-slavery arguments that slavery is good for individual Whites or for Whites as a group therefore fall on deaf ears  because they fail to attach any moral significance to Blacks either individually or as a group

On the other hand, collectivist cultures such as Judaism have a highly elaborated moral code that privileges ingroup membership. Slavery is not an evil in itself. Rather, there are different ethical codes on how slaves may be treated depending on whether the slave is a fellow Jew; the same goes for criminal offenses.[6] In collectivist cultures, group membership, typically the kinship group, is critical to moral evaluation: “What’s good for the Jews.”

Moral idealism is a powerful tendency in European culture, apparent, for example, in the German idealist philosophers and the American transcendentalists discussed in Chapter 6.[7] Universalist moral ideals are erected and then steps are taken to achieve the moral vision by changing the world, often accompanied by a great deal of moral fervor, as among the French opponents of slavery discussed below.[8] This pursuit of moral ideals accounts may well account for some of the dynamism of Western history: Societies are always imperfect and in need of moral expurgation. American history has been sparked with such crusades, from the anti-slavery fervor of the nineteenth century to the crusade against alcohol in the 1920s to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. The same can be said of England, with the Puritan crusades of the seventeenth century and periodic crusades on behalf of moral rectitude thereafter, culminating now in much of the rhetoric underlying anti-colonialism and contemporary political correctness.

The moral universalism characteristic of individualism is a liability in the struggle with other groups. Individualists are prone to acting against their own people on behalf of a moral principle, as in the American Civil War where a great many Yankees were motivated to go to war against the South in order to eradicate the slavery of Africans as a moral evil.[9] Such people place their moral ideals above ties of racial kinship and are willing to go to great lengths to punish people like themselves because they violate moral ideals.

Here is US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens expressing a typical sense of moral idealism that remains common among Europeans: 

“The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach,” he wrote in an unusually lyrical dissent [in a 1989 flag burning case]. “If those ideas are worth fighting for—and our history demonstrates that they are—it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection.[10]

Ideas are worth fighting for, but Stevens has no interest in advancing the cause of White people as a racial kinship group. Here he idealizes non-White Filipinos fighting alongside Whites and Whites fighting Germans in order to secure a set of principles. He is not concerned about his race, presumably because he thinks that what’s important is that certain ideas will continue to guide the country even if (as seems likely) people like him are fated to become a small minority of the country. For Stevens, these ideals are more important than the racial composition of the country.

The moral crusade on behalf of human rights was also center stage in the events described by Stoddard. In 1789, a delegation of the “Colons Americains” (an organization of mulattos from San Domingo) appeared at French Assembly demanding that they “be allowed to enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, not as a favor but as a natural right. … The President replied amicably that ‘no part of the nation should ask for its rights from the Assembly in vain.’”  It’s revealing that appeals to natural rights had huge emotional impact on the legislators: “the Amis des Noirs, with their ringing appeals to Revolutionary principles and their backing of sympathetic galleries, were certain sooner or later to sweep the Assembly off its feet and to gain some decisive victory.”

Go to Part 2.

[1] Frank Moya Pons, “The Independence of Haiti and the Dominican Republic,” in Leslie Bethell (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America: Bibliographical Essays, Vol. XI. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 234-237).

[2] This section is based on my foreword to Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo (London: Wermod & Wermod, 2011; Stoddard’s book was originally published: New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1914).

[3] Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922)

[4] J. Phillippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994).

[5] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap imprint, 1971).

[6] Kevin MacDonald, A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2002; reprint of the 1994 book published by Praeger (Westport, CT), Chapter 6.

[7] Kevin MacDonald, “American Transcendentalism: An indigenous culture of critique.” The Occidental Quarterly 8 (91–106, 2008).

[8] Kevin MacDonald, “Evolution and a Dual Processing Theory of Culture: Applications to Moral Idealism and Political Philosophy.” Politics and Culture (2010[Issue 1], April).


[9] MacDonald, “American Transcendentalism: An indigenous culture of critique.”

[10] Jeffrey Toobin, “After Stevens: What Will the Supreme Court Be Like without Its Liberal Leader?” The New Yorker (March 23, 2010).


13 replies
  1. Rught man for the job
    Rught man for the job says:

    I have read, collected and treasured Stoddart’s books since I was a teenager. His sane and mature talents of describing events and realities are without peer. Undergraduates should have a capstone course “Geniuses of the Western World” in which his numerous writings should predominate.

  2. Lady Val
    Lady Val says:

    Yet, it must be remembered that after the French revolution, many WHITE Frenchmen embraced the black slave as a “brother” and spoke of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” There are those who have suggested that this effort to “join” whites with blacks under the revolution’s banner led to the bloodbath that came after. That doesn’t change the evils of slavery in Santo Domingo, but it puts a caveat into the subject that is not considered when the horrors of the slave insurrection is considered and blamed solely on the bad treatment afforded blacks by whites and mulattos. This reality was later codified by Dr. Albert Schweitzer, hardly a man who can be considered a “racist” to use that Marxist term. Dr. Schweitzer was very clear in his instructions to fellow whites who came to Africa to “help” the natives there:

    “I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all White men who have lived here like I have must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the mental or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with White men in any functions of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: White the superior, and they the inferior. For whenever a White man seeks to live among them as their equals, they will destroy and devour him, and they will destroy all his work. And so for any existing relationship or any benefit to this people, let White men, from anywhere in the world, who would come to help Africa, remember that you must maintain this status: you the master and they the inferior, like children whom you would help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you.”
    [Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Prize for peace in his 1961 book, From (an) African Notebook]

    There is no doubt that the ill-treatment that the French colonists afforded most of their slaves was certainly part of the cause of what happened after, but consider as has been said in the above article; that is, until the Revolution in France, the black population was kept in submission by a very small number of white (and mulatto) masters. Why virtually “overnight” historically speaking, did that change? I believe that it was because an effort was made by well-meaning but naive French “republicans” to prove that indeed, “all men are created equal.” Truthfully, they are not.

    • T
      T says:

      Excellent and very well put commentary Lady Val.

      Lady Val writes: ‘I believe that it was because an effort was made by well-meaning but naive French “republicans” to prove that indeed, “all men are created equal.” Truthfully, they are not.’

      There were also (apparently) in addition to the French some Anglo-Saxons mightily involved in the 1789 French Revolution as well…in addition to their heavy involvement in the 1776 American Revolution, ie Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, amongst some likely others.

      first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders

      ‘However, unknown to Louis XVI, creation of the United States was only a prelude to a chain reaction that resulted in a new French polity. Franklin and the ideological example of the American Revolution simultaneously prepared the substrate for the French Revolution that ultimately overthrew Louis XVI and crystallized into a sister republic. As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson’s guidance and inspiration. Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France’s American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin’s ministry to France–and that American was the seed-planter.’

      It was Thomas Jefferson whom besides authoring the US Declaration of Independence would also along with Lafayette and H Mirabeau be instrumental in the writing of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

      the Declaration [of the Rights of Man] was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution… ‘The Declaration was drafted by General Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, and Honoré Mirabeau.

      ‘The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (French: Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789), set by France’s National Constituent Assembly in 1789, is a human civil rights document from the French Revolution.

      ‘The Declaration was drafted by General Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, and Honoré Mirabeau. Influenced by the doctrine of “natural right”, the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself. It became the basis for a nation of free individuals protected equally by the law. It is included in the beginning of the constitutions of both the Fourth French Republic (1946) and Fifth Republic (1958) and is still current. Inspired by the Enlightenment philosophers, the Declaration was a core statement of the values of the French Revolution and had a major impact on the development of freedom and democracy in Europe and worldwide.’

      And Thomas Paine…

      One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, he authored the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution and inspired the rebels in 1776 to declare independence from Britain…Paine fled to France in September [1792] where, rather immediately and despite not being able to speak French, he was elected to the French National Convention.

      Thomas Paine (born Thomas Pain; 1737 – 1809) was an English-born American political activist, philosopher, political theorist and revolutionary. One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, he authored the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution and inspired the rebels in 1776 to declare independence from Britain.

      His ideas reflected Enlightenment-era rhetoric of transnational human rights. Saul K. Padover described him as “a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination”.

      Born in Thetford in the English county of Norfolk, Paine migrated to the British American colonies in 1774 with the help of Benjamin Franklin, arriving just in time to participate in the American Revolution. Virtually every rebel read (or listened to a reading of) his powerful pamphlet Common Sense (1776), proportionally the all-time best-selling American title, which crystallized the rebellious demand for independence from Great Britain. His The American Crisis (1776–1783) was a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. Common Sense was so influential that John Adams said: “Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain”.

      Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote Rights of Man (1791), in part a defense of the French Revolution against its critics. His attacks on Irish conservative writer Edmund Burke led to a trial and conviction in absentia in England in 1792 for the crime of seditious libel…’




      • T
        T says:

        Depending upon how one looks at it, either the law of unexpected consequences or Karma entered the picture with the 1793 Yellow Fever epidemic which struck Philadelphia that year killing an estimated 5,000 people, approximately ten percent of the entire population. Philadelphia, besides being Ben Franklin’s adopted hometown and a critical hub of the 1776 Revolution, was the then US capital and its largest city. It’s generally believed that refugees fleeing the French Revolution driven San Domingo slave rebellion whom had come to Philadelphia in the Spring of that year had brought the fever with them.

        It is likely that the refugees and ships carried the yellow fever virus and mosquitoes.

        ‘In the spring of 1793, French colonial refugees, some with slaves, arrived from Cap Français, Saint-Domingue. The 2,000 immigrants were fleeing the slave revolution in the north of the island. They crowded the port of Philadelphia, where the first yellow fever epidemic in 30 years began in the city in August. It is likely that the refugees and ships carried the yellow fever virus and mosquitoes. It is transmitted during mosquito bites. The mosquitoes easily breed in small amounts of standing water. The medical community and others in 1793 did not understand the role of mosquitoes in the transmission of yellow fever and other diseases. Physicians and other survivors of the epidemic wrote extensively about it trying to learn from the crisis.’

        As an aside, recently I’ve been re-watching Mel Gibson’s well done movie We Were Soldiers about the particularly brutal November, 1965 battle fought between the United States and NVA in the la Drang Valley of South Vietnam. I doubt the US infantryman with his economically based ideology of Capitalistic artificial hyper-individualism nor the NVA soldier with his ecomically based ideology of Communist/Marxist artificial hyper-collectivism, would have appreciated knowing that they each shared the same ‘Founding Fathers’ in regards to their respective American and French based revolutionary ideologies in the form of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

        This forced Hegelian dialetic that’s been being played across the globe since 1776 has got to be played out to the end though to create that long dreamed of perfect ‘Multi-cultural’ global super-state, the synthesis of Capitalism and Communism. The fifty thousand plus the United States lost and the one million Vietnam lost during the Vietnam War are just part of the price the peoples of the world are expected to pay to achieve this coming planned heaven on earth.





  3. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    I read this great book with relish, along with Stoddard’s other excellent works, years ago. The racial debacle in Haiti was a clear ‘warning from history’, if there ever was one. I vividly recall the part where the Whites were trapped by the Negro murderers at Cap Haitien, I believe, and the heroic actions of the Regiment du Cap saved the day.
    What more can be said today, other than vive Regiment du Cap, you did your racial duty for your willfully ignorant peoole.

  4. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “He is not concerned about his race, presumably because he thinks that what’s important is that certain ideas will continue to guide the country even if (as seems likely) people like him are fated to become a small minority of the country. For Stevens, these ideals are more important than the racial composition of the country.”

    Today you could cross out Stevens name and put in Jordan Peterson’s. And not just his.

    This explains why so he’s well liked and highly promoted (and rewarded) by the Jewish community for insisting that group interests for Whites is bad but for Jews it’s good. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that In Your Face hypocrisy either. Which is why he’s referred to as a Shill. An accusation he dismisses with a contempt that’s as predictable as it is unconvincing.

    “The moral universalism characteristic of individualism is a liability in the struggle with other groups.” With all respect I disagree with this. Moral universalism has never been in the name of Individualism. Rather, it’s promoted by groups of Whites interested in two things, 1. protecting their own trough, and 2. feeding their addiction to mood-altering through self-righteousness.

    I don’t think it would take much to convince TOO readers that this is a very real and serious addiction afflicting many Whites. An addiction, moreover, that the current opiod crisis doesn’t come close to touching. The opiod crisis is an epidemic, no question. But the addiction to virtue signaling is an intermittent, yet persistent, plague that’s done more damage to Whites than any world war or drug epidemic could ever do.

    The only bright spot is that recover from addiction is not only possible, but common. Still, the first step is admitting one has a problem. But, until that happy day, the Virtue Signallers present a very real problem that’ll have to be addressed sooner or later. Preferrably sooner.

  5. T
    T says:

    K Mac writes: ‘But beyond moral issues, slavery of Africans merely bought short-term prosperity for the island and a few individual Whites “at the cost of [the] whole social and economic future.”

    The exact same dynamic is at work with wage slavery (ie ‘cheap labor’ so called). The most stable periods in US history were in the decades immediately following the Revolution when prior to industrialization immigration was low and the period between 1924 – 1965 when immigration restrictions were in place.

    K Mac writes: ‘Many are “shady characters”—opportunists out to make money and without any moral scruples.’

    When a person looks at chattel slavery and its trade in reality as having been monetized rather than being abolished with the 19th century introduction of the cheap labor/mass immigration system to the world one ought not to be surprised to find the same type of person in character behind the scheme.

  6. N. Joseph Potts
    N. Joseph Potts says:

    What is this great fear on the part of Whites in the US of becoming a (small?) minority? Jews are a small minority in the US. How are THEY doing?

    Maybe the great fear is, in fact, of who, or what bids fair to become the majority, and what they might do once they are.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      To better understand ” this great fear “, or indeed understand it at all, you had better contemplate the majority in your second sentence increasingly becoming the foot-soldiers of your first sentence ” Jewish small minority “.

      Your own wording ascribes power to this ” small minority “, while their program needs no interpretation and had best be taken verbatim.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “Maybe the great fear is, in fact, of who, or what bids fair to become the majority, and what they might do once they are.”

      I don’t think it’s the fear that Whites know we just don’t have each others back.

      For example; If any non-White is attacked they group doesn’t respond by saying “One of us was attacked.” It responds by saying “WE were attacked!” And then it springs into immediate action.

      And Whites?

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        Meant to write; I think it’s the fear that Whites know we just don’t have each others back.

  7. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    As long as you bring in the topic of Jews, by your own “logic” Israel should admit Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese (all refugees from Israeli military action) into the “Holy Land” with open arms…thus proving the Israeli love of humanity!

    Aside, there are many forms of marijuana today demonstrating once again that America is going to pots.

Comments are closed.