[Mutiny or March? Shoigu Treachery in Syria Confirmed, "Prigozhin is as Bad as the Rest of Us!" Bootlicking Surrender Treaties Now Inevitable, Holding Aussie Cossack's Feet to the Flames, and MORE!]
Rolo - many many heartfelt thanks for this. Russell is a man of the ages, for all times. He is an incomparable hero, philosopher, journalist of his times - a towering spiritual presence and of course a warrior of colossal proportions. That he emerged from where he did - rotten to the marrow late 20th century America - makes him godlike in my estimation. Thanks again. And again.
Mr.Bentley does not appreciate the role of slavery in Africa, or of African attitudes towards it. Too much anti-white liberalism in one's education has deleterious mental effects.
'...The reason they get no credit is that black people don’t see the abolition of slavery and slave trading as quite the boon for humanity that white people do. If Africans had wanted slavery and slave trading to be abolished, they could have abolished them themselves very easily, just by ceasing to indulge in them. Instead, they met white attempts at abolition with fierce resistance. This was quite natural. Slavery was their way. As for slave trading, it gave them a good profit, and they saw nothing wrong with it.
......
Indeed, if we set the white record on slavery and slave trading against the black record, it stands out as a shining example. The transatlantic slave trade lasted only a fraction of the time that Africans spent selling each other to Arabs, and the number of slaves bought by whites — perhaps ten or 12 million — was a fraction of the number bought by Arabs. As for the length of time Africans spent selling each other to other Africans, and the numbers involved, these were much greater still. The intra-African slave trade still predominated in the nineteenth century, when a European explorer reported that slave-hunting in Africa went on far more to supply the domestic than the foreign market.[2]
....
Coming to the treatment of slaves in Africa, according to Herbert Ward, a nineteenth-century English explorer, in the Congo it was customary for feuding chiefs to mark the settling of their scores by buying a slave, breaking his bones, and burying him with just his head sticking out so that all could see him slowly starve to death. The same fate lay in store for anyone who gave him food or water.[6] The Portuguese explorer Francisco Valdez reported that when the chief of a certain tribe died, no one was allowed to mention the fact for a month or two on pain of being immediately decapitated and his family sold into slavery.[7] If no buyer could be found for his family, they too would be decapitated. The King of Dahomey had to honor his ancestors. To do this, he periodically killed a few hundred slaves so that their blood could be poured on his forebears’ graves. As the victims were slaughtered, the crowd shouted out in delight.[8]
To give two more examples, according to the adventurer Hugh Murray, writing in 1853, after the King of Coomassie died 200 slaves were sacrificed each week for three months.[9] Another writer stated that at the death of a King, large numbers of his favorite wives and slaves were put to death to keep him company.[10] We hear nothing comparable about the treatment of slaves in America.
According to two independent estimates by nineteenth-century Scottish explorers, about three-quarters of the sub-Saharan African population were slaves.[11] Another observer put the proportion at four in five.[12] The slave was the unit of currency in Africa. Fines were paid in slaves, wives were bought in slaves. All the way from the coast to the remotest point in the interior, wrote the French-American anthropologist Paul Du Chaillu, the commercial unit of value was the slave. “As we say dollar, as the English say pound sterling, so these Africans say slave.”[13]
Africans did not object to slavery or slave trading, and this included slaves. In the 1800s the English explorer Richard Lander was surprised to see “the most perfect indifference” in Africans as they lost their liberty.[14] In the 1820s, a Frenchman who passed a group of women being put up for sale in the street noted that they “did not appear in the least mortified at being exhibited” for this purpose.[15] Male slaves, although shackled at the ankle, laughed, wrote two authors in 1826, and the females sang with the utmost glee as they worked in the fields.[16]
When an African slave obtained his liberty, he saw it as no cause for celebration. The naturalist Samuel Baker wrote that abolition only proved that Africans did not appreciate the blessings of freedom, nor did they show the slightest gratitude to the hand that broke the rivets of their fetters.[17] An African might even seek to become a slave, since then he would not have to fend for himself.[18] It was not unknown for former slaves in America to petition to be reenslaved.[19] In 1901, the black nationalist Booker T. Washington wrote that many emancipated slaves returned to their former owners asking to be taken back.[20]
It was only white people, with their elevated concept of the rights of man, who disapproved of slave trading, such as Francisco Valdez, who found it “detestable,”[21]and James Bruce, another explorer, who found it a “horrid practice.”[22] White people proceeded to impose their high-flown concept on those in whose minds it had never appeared.
Black people’s affinity for slavery can still be seen today, as in the many African countries where it still flourishes. For a second example, the Black Lives Matter activist Sasha Johnson reportedly said, “We don’t want to be equal, we want white people to be our slaves.”[23] Consistent with this, when I lived in a black part of London, I was quite often treated by the sort of young black man who in Africa would have been a slave owner as though I might be his slave. Finally, a senior black police officer was recently found guilty of, among other things, telling junior officers that he owned them and bellowing at them to make his porridge.[24] To many black people, today as in the past, the urge to enslave appears irrepressible.
According to Francis Moore, a Briton writing in 1738, a certain African King would amuse himself by going out with some troops from time to time to set fire to parts of the town. As people ran out of their burning huts, the troops caught them, tied them up, and took them off to be sold as slaves.[25] In 1870, Samuel Baker reported that when a slave hunt in East Africa netted some old women who could not keep up on the return march, they were clubbed to death.[26]
Nothing satisfied an African like witnessing a brutal killing. A missionary observed a group dancing round the mangled corpse of a beheaded female slave “at the very zenith of their happiness.”[27] In 1857, an explorer wrote that Africans appeared to take pleasure in cruelty: “The sight of suffering seems to bring them an enjoyment without which the world is tame.”[28] According to Sir Richard Burton, an English traveler, during fires in Zanzibar in the 1860s black people were seen adding fuel and singing and dancing, wild with delight.[29] In 1867, Paul Du Chaillu recalled seeing a young African woman’s corpse covered in lacerations into which red peppers had been rubbed, a “common mode of tormenting with these people.”[30] He could only hope that the woman, who had presumably been accused of witchcraft, had died of her wounds and not had to endure “the slower process of agonized starvation to which such victims are left.”
When I was at college, a lecturer told us that when he had staged Shakespeare’s tragedies in Soweto, the audience had laughed at the grimmest scenes. He thought that they were expressing pleasure at not being the victims. It seems possible that they were simply enjoying the sight of human suffering.
When Herbert Ward witnessed Africans walking among the putrefying bodies of victims of a mass human sacrifice, appearing to think nothing of it, he commented that the white man would never be able to conquer his repugnance at the callous indifference to human suffering found everywhere in Africa.[31] To us this seems strange, for we have been brought up to believe that no one’s indifference to human suffering could be more callous than a white person’s.
Yet, the old explorers thought that the life of a child could have intrinsic and not just economic value. Africans were different. In 1847, John Duncan wrote, “So little do they care for their offspring, that many offered to sell me any of their sons or daughters as slaves.”[32]. Sir William Cornwallis Harris wrote in 1843 that Africans would sell their children for the sordid love of gain.[33] All over Africa, according to Mungo Park, writing in 1815, parents might sell their children.[34]
Also in 1815, John Campbell wrote of seeing a child of about eight standing in the dust weeping and looking almost like a skeleton:[35] “Neither the men, women, nor children present seemed by their countenances to express the least sympathy or feeling for this forsaken, starving child”; instead, they laughed and told Campbell that he was welcome to take her with him if he wished. He felt sure that in London the sight of the girl would have excited pity in the hearts of thousands.[36] Think of that: White people feeling sorry for a strange black girl! But perhaps Campbell was right.
What a shame it is that our intellectuals have made such a thorough job of suppressing facts such as those mentioned above, leaving us to seek moral instruction from black people as we ask them how much money they require! They peddle their tales in the name of the idea of racial equality, yet this is not the idea that they drive at, which is one of extreme racial inequality, where blacks, pure and innocent, are being incessantly mistreated by their psychopathic white persecutors.
I wonder what it will take to set the record straight.'
Sounds like slavery is a barrel of laughs for slaves.
By your narrative, slaves enjoy being slaves. But, prior to the Civil War, one of the biggest complaints of slaveowners is that their slaves would escape over the border into a free state. The Fugitive Slave Act was a direct response of the tendency of slaves to run away from the slavery you said they enjoyed so much.
In fairness, I don't think the US or European countries have any business in Africa. Darwinists might explain the ethos of Africans to the r versus K life strategies, where the r strategists are on the whole, less intelligent, less diligent and less empathic. The native populations of Africa are overwhelmingly r life strategists.
In my humble it seems that neither side wants to win this war solely by military means.
The consequences of full mobilisation on both sides will be too destructive for the oligarchs and the people.
Russia , poltically and militarily is a mess .
America politically and militarily is a mess and is in the middle of a Marxist cultural revolution.
Europe is a mess , France has been on fire for a week , immigration will bring all of Western Europe down.
Ukraine is a mess and at the front the stories coming back from the grunts on both sides are very similar.
To side with Russia is to side with corrupt oligarchs and despotic countries like North Korea and Iran. To side with the West is to side with corrupt oligarchs and genocidal racists like Israel.
Putin claims the high moral ground but he allows Russian citizens to be murdered without trial.
Biden and his family have been selling out to the Chinese organ harvesters in Beijing and side with the child castrators and war criminals.
Almost every country in the world is working towards having full control over free speech and information.
We are experiencing a time of social and political upheaval like I have not seen before in my seventy two years.
Ordinary folk are bewildered , radicalised and propagandised. Ordinary folk can not see a clear way forward out of the cesspit of globalisation.
Jews are in power in Russia , Ukraine ,Europe and the US . They have been since Rothschild won his bet on the battle of Trafalgar. They are shielded by their ownership of the world's media and the Holohoax blackmail.
Cowboy is not a bad dude but not a flexible thinker in my opinion. he is holding on too tight to beliefs and opinions .
I keep thinking about writing to the Australian minister for immigration requesting that Ozzy Cos-sack -of-shit has his Australian citizenship revoked and his path to reuniting with his Russian motherland be expedited. You are Ozzy or you are not , you have made your choice on paper to be an Ozzy but your heart it with the old motherland. We have enough Chinese , Indians and other ethnics already in our country who are not Australians at heart. Remove them all so we can return to the ANZAC spirit.
Unfortunately there is no going back.
Change is the only constant , change never stops , rust never sleeps.
Russel Texas Bentley is an extremely opinionated and prickly dude. I've been following his Telegram for the entire war and was banned from his comments for defending Scott Ritter. Ritter isn't perfect but Bentley's take that no one who hasn't been to Donbass is worth listening to is absurd. Ritter and Macgregor are doing the big picture analysis from a secure knowledge base as military officer professionals. Bentley can't see the forest for the trees in front of him. Bentley was a combat grunt, with no officer cred.
In any case, the Bentley podcasts are well worth listening to. And over the course of my 2 months following Rolo, I have come to much less confidence in what Rolo calls the Z-Anon, 5D analysts I was hooked on, The Duran, Ritter, MacGregor, Escobar, Simplicius, Big Serge, etc. On the other hand, I am not a Rolo fanboy either.
Multiple perspectives I think give you the best handle on the murky "truth" of this gigantic, complex historical conflict that will decide the future of humanity. I'm betting on nuke holocaust as the only way forward, to crash the 8 billion to around 3 billion and wipe out all the Satanic Great Reset agendas once and for all. After the Flood, Yahweh promised never to destroy his evil creation again.. but he may just let us destroy ourselves out so we can have another shot at it. I'm being only partly facetious..
Nah, Bentley was/is an arrogant asshole and also a courageous fighter. I made gentlemanly comments, no hostility. I simply said, "Ritter is on the same side, fighting on a different front. His knowledge base is different than yours. Cut him some slack." But Bentley doesn't like critiques that sting. Still, he's worth listening to.. sometimes. Though his Telegram is repetitive. Better on your channel in interviews. The one time Bentley commended Ritter was during the Russian tour when Ritter made an eloquent, emotional public argument against the Nazis that Bentley praised for about 10 seconds before going back to bashing him as a pedo. What horseshit. Ritter was set up by the FBI/CIA in sting ops because of his strong antiwar stance. And what dark secrets does Bentley keep hidden, or for that matter any of us. For Bentley to use the US spooks character assassinations against Ritter is strong evidence of Bentley's own character flaws.
You're being an asshole. And not funny. Again, using FBI deep state sting ops against Ritter to discredit a "Z-anon" personality with far more reach than you currently have is not a good look. I get the professional jealousy thing, but try to keep it under wraps my friend.
Scott Ritter has a clear case of pedoface, he is fat, and he is retarded. and he isn't a brave whistleblower either. he was a spook that handed over valuable info to the israelis and lied on behalf of the American empire before he decided to turn over a new leaf.
im not jealous of him, i just wish the kremlin would hire even one guy who wasnt some kind of a criminal or weirdo. just once.
Really sophomoric Rolo. Fat? Retarded? Pedoface? Are we in 3rd grade? You make many evidence free assertions, some of them, about the Kremlin and Rus oligharchs I take with a smallish grain of salt because you seem to know your Slav space. What evidence do you have that Ritter gave info to the Israeli's and lied on behalf of American empire? And.. is anyone allowed, in your world, to genuinely turn over a new leaf? Again, no reply to my critique.. that you're using US spook black ops against Ritter to pillory him. Are you going to comment on that? I guess not. Which lowers your credibility substantially.
Again, I'm not about to become your fanboy. To the degree you have what seems plausible and inside information, I listen.. and pay my monthly dues. But your Big Picture Narrative is full of holes. And you obviously have many axes to grind, based on your life history.
The Slav nationalism is a bit distasteful.. as all ethnic nationalisms can become when carried too far. The antisemitism might also lapse into murderous hostility, though you seem to keep this under control.. mostly.. depending on the audience.
But your Big Picture Narrative.. which I'd condense as "It's all about gangster elites, everywhere, always,".. is really just an update on Machiavelli, and Machiavelli was always only half right. Or perhaps three quarters right. Or one quarter right.
I'm getting a lot of personal mileage out of critiquing my own buy-in to the Z-anon purveyors, Mercurous, Ritter, MacGregor, Simplicius, Big Serge, et al. I've been spreading the word about Rolo on their channels and getting nasty push back.. but again.. I'm not about to become your fanboy. The Rolo Spell is just as much a fantasy as any other..
i'm going to have to punish the inner circle adepts for divulging such information.
apologies for using my mesmeric occult powers on you to get you to see past ZAnon lies. you caught me though. you are now free from the spell of my "murderous antisemitism". drat. almost had you in my clutches.
go forth and continue watching Bill Maher on HBO with my blessings!
PS thanks for using my name to rankle these other idiots.
I get the sarcasm and blowhard pose thing.. but it gets a bit old. FYI I don't watch Maher.. and will continue to "rankle the other idiots with your name." That's because I want EVERYONE to question ALL their cherished beliefs. Including your audience questioning you.
“My contempt is my armor, my intolerance my shield..” is pure horseshit, Rolo. Real contempt and intolerance are mostly character flaws, but I suspect yours is a pose. Beneath cynicism there will usually be found a quivering soul whose idealism has been trashed by the harsh realities of life. In your case, perhaps the FSB spook interrogations and being kicked out of the Slavlands you profess to love. Or losing in love affairs with Russian girls.. who knows? I don’t really care.
What I care about is the accuracy of your take on Russian politics. To the extent you operate in “contempt & intolerance mode” I remain doubtful you’re capable of seeing things clearly. If the emotion and anger that’s obvious from your podcasts and writing is too strong, your credibility becomes questionable. I’m a US based writer, thinker with years of involvement in both hard left, and hard right activist politics in a crazy-woke Blue State I’ve escaped. I’m following the Ukr-Rus war very closely because the future of humanity rests on a knife edge. So my main concern is ACCURATE INFORMATION.
I’m not your enemy, Rolo.. and who knows what your real name is? Rolo Tomasi?? You stole that well
What I am trying to be is a constructive critic who will continue.. for the time being.. to promote you on the Z-Anon channels as an alternative to the happy talk, a counter-narrative from a source I partly trust, but remain skeptical of. Prove to your audience that you’re got the real skinny by offering evidence of your many unsubstantiated claims. And drop at least some of the BS attitude, which is funny, up to a point.
If your opinions and understanding are changing I think you are at least open to seeking for the truth in all of this drama. Closed minds perpetuate untruth. I was also a Ritter , Duran fan for the first five months or so of the SMO. Remember that a comfortable income stream is possible from your kitchen table if you are willing to pick a side, remain frozen in your support for that side and propagate popular lies and conspiracies. I would love to know how much Ritter has made and who financed his Russian tour. You don't have to be paid directly by the country you support to be a paid shill , YouTube and fans will pay you.
Absolute bullshit "Jesus is a Jew ... ." Jesus is very God and very man, born of the Holy Ghost and a woman with no earthly father. His mother Mary was not called a "Jew." Abraham was called a Hebrew as was Issac, Jacob (Israel), the Patriarchs, the Judges, King Saul, King David, King Solomon, et al. Jew isn't even in the Old Testament until the reign of Zedekiah King of Judah. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah among the captives taken to Babylon were called by Nebuchadnezzar "children of Israel" and they truly were, whose faith was in the promised Messiah and not in some Priest and later Rabbi with an ever growing list of "traditions" - the Talmud. In the New Testament the word "Jew" is mostly used in a pejorative sense. The exceptions are Aquila, Priscilla, Apollos, and others who switched from reliance on their Abrahamic ancestry and obedience to the Talmud - those counterfeits of God's law - for salvation, to worship of Jesus, their Redeemer, the early Christian Church.
Jesus pointed out that Talmud was diametrically opposed to the Law of God and called the Pharisees, Scribes, and Lawyers children of the devil, i.e., Jesus had nothing in common with them. The Romans called Jesus "King of the Jews" but that was because they called all the Israelites "Jews" in a derogatory sense. It was the organized proxy government Jews, not the Romans, who did everything in their power to kill all the Christians, the early church, and those spiritual descendants of those children of the devil, do all they can to eliminate all Christians, children of God, today. There is no such thing as "Jews for Jesus." All who have converted from the dead religion of Judaism, indeed from any false religion, to worship of God - Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost are Christians, ancestry, language, etc., are irrelevant to the fact that they are saved from the eternal wrath of God by the grace of God the Father through faith in the Son by the regenerative work of the Holy Ghost and that totally by grace, not works, it cannot be bought or chosen as an act of will.
Well now, if this interview / conversation is not a breath of fresh air in the all encompassing information war, I don't know what is... Or to put it another way, it's like alien acid blood burnig through multiple decks of the propaganda ship, bringing the listener mercilessly closer to the truth. Thank you for this.
Russell: "It's like the old saying 'I promise that I'll never try to c*m in your mouth.'"
That is lie number three from David Allan Coe's X rated song "The Three Biggest Lies."
Lie number 1 is: "This will only hurt for a little while."
Lie number 2 is a particularly good saying that can be used to describe how people are convinced to take the first step down a path that leads to a certain outcome for them.
I'm a bit disappointed in the interview. I thought a lot of it got tangled in the weeds and rabbit holes of talking about Jews. I don't really care if someone likes or dislikes Jews, but using Jewishness as a means of explaining events is minimally productive. For example, Bentley said all the slave traders were Jews. Undoubtedly some slave traders were Jewish, but does that mean if Jews were not allowed to operate in commerce, there would be no slave trading? No. So, what has the time spent talking about Jews gained you?
I also take issue with Bentley's assertion that all billionaires are evil and need to have their assets confiscated. Often a person becomes a billionaire because he is exceptionally talented and inventive. The big advantage of having billionaires is that they can get ideas heard that the government wants to shut down. Trump would never have been able to run his campaigns without being a billionaire. And the big benefit of Trump is not that he is a super-Messiah, but he gave populist nationalism a window to be heard. A true American nationalist is not going to want to interfere with Russia, Ukraine or Iran one way or another.
The Azov's are Nazis, but recall that the Nazi's were not only murderous towards Jews. They were murderous towards any nationality they saw as standing in their way. The Nazi's killed more Russians and Poles than they did Jews. I would feel much more comfortable in Azov territory as a Jew than as a Russian or Russian speaker. So, again it's down a rabbit hole to talk about the Azov being Nazis and therefore murderous towards Jews. They are murderous towards Russians in their current incarnation.
Agree about Azov. A lot of them are Russians as well.
As for the slave traders, I'm pretty sure that literally ALL of the big trading companies were run by space lizard families. The justification for it was the Bible telling them that it was a-OK to enslave non-lizards.
I thought this might be good for a laugh. I asked Chatgpt "What percentage of slave traders prior to the Civil War were Jewish?" I got back a very politically correct response:
"It is important to approach historical topics with care and avoid perpetuating stereotypes or misinformation. While it is true that individuals from various backgrounds were involved in the slave trade, it is incorrect and unfair to single out any particular religious or ethnic group as primarily responsible for slave trading.
The transatlantic slave trade was a complex and tragic historical event involving multiple European nations, African kingdoms, and American colonies. It is not accurate or appropriate to assign responsibility for the slave trade to a specific religious group.
It is essential to study the history of the transatlantic slave trade in its entirety, understanding the involvement of various individuals, societies, and nations, without singling out any specific religious or ethnic group."
A lot I don't agree with Russel on but a pro Kremlin propagandist wouldn't call Prigozhin a hero, wouldn't talk up Wagner, wouldn't say Shoigu would make an awful president, and most importantly wouldn't re-post Rolo articles on his telegram page.
Rolo - many many heartfelt thanks for this. Russell is a man of the ages, for all times. He is an incomparable hero, philosopher, journalist of his times - a towering spiritual presence and of course a warrior of colossal proportions. That he emerged from where he did - rotten to the marrow late 20th century America - makes him godlike in my estimation. Thanks again. And again.
"don't support Prigozhin, he's no better than we are" 🤣🤣🤣
Mr.Bentley does not appreciate the role of slavery in Africa, or of African attitudes towards it. Too much anti-white liberalism in one's education has deleterious mental effects.
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2023/07/04/a-realistic-view-of-slavery-slave-trading
'...The reason they get no credit is that black people don’t see the abolition of slavery and slave trading as quite the boon for humanity that white people do. If Africans had wanted slavery and slave trading to be abolished, they could have abolished them themselves very easily, just by ceasing to indulge in them. Instead, they met white attempts at abolition with fierce resistance. This was quite natural. Slavery was their way. As for slave trading, it gave them a good profit, and they saw nothing wrong with it.
......
Indeed, if we set the white record on slavery and slave trading against the black record, it stands out as a shining example. The transatlantic slave trade lasted only a fraction of the time that Africans spent selling each other to Arabs, and the number of slaves bought by whites — perhaps ten or 12 million — was a fraction of the number bought by Arabs. As for the length of time Africans spent selling each other to other Africans, and the numbers involved, these were much greater still. The intra-African slave trade still predominated in the nineteenth century, when a European explorer reported that slave-hunting in Africa went on far more to supply the domestic than the foreign market.[2]
....
Coming to the treatment of slaves in Africa, according to Herbert Ward, a nineteenth-century English explorer, in the Congo it was customary for feuding chiefs to mark the settling of their scores by buying a slave, breaking his bones, and burying him with just his head sticking out so that all could see him slowly starve to death. The same fate lay in store for anyone who gave him food or water.[6] The Portuguese explorer Francisco Valdez reported that when the chief of a certain tribe died, no one was allowed to mention the fact for a month or two on pain of being immediately decapitated and his family sold into slavery.[7] If no buyer could be found for his family, they too would be decapitated. The King of Dahomey had to honor his ancestors. To do this, he periodically killed a few hundred slaves so that their blood could be poured on his forebears’ graves. As the victims were slaughtered, the crowd shouted out in delight.[8]
To give two more examples, according to the adventurer Hugh Murray, writing in 1853, after the King of Coomassie died 200 slaves were sacrificed each week for three months.[9] Another writer stated that at the death of a King, large numbers of his favorite wives and slaves were put to death to keep him company.[10] We hear nothing comparable about the treatment of slaves in America.
According to two independent estimates by nineteenth-century Scottish explorers, about three-quarters of the sub-Saharan African population were slaves.[11] Another observer put the proportion at four in five.[12] The slave was the unit of currency in Africa. Fines were paid in slaves, wives were bought in slaves. All the way from the coast to the remotest point in the interior, wrote the French-American anthropologist Paul Du Chaillu, the commercial unit of value was the slave. “As we say dollar, as the English say pound sterling, so these Africans say slave.”[13]
Africans did not object to slavery or slave trading, and this included slaves. In the 1800s the English explorer Richard Lander was surprised to see “the most perfect indifference” in Africans as they lost their liberty.[14] In the 1820s, a Frenchman who passed a group of women being put up for sale in the street noted that they “did not appear in the least mortified at being exhibited” for this purpose.[15] Male slaves, although shackled at the ankle, laughed, wrote two authors in 1826, and the females sang with the utmost glee as they worked in the fields.[16]
When an African slave obtained his liberty, he saw it as no cause for celebration. The naturalist Samuel Baker wrote that abolition only proved that Africans did not appreciate the blessings of freedom, nor did they show the slightest gratitude to the hand that broke the rivets of their fetters.[17] An African might even seek to become a slave, since then he would not have to fend for himself.[18] It was not unknown for former slaves in America to petition to be reenslaved.[19] In 1901, the black nationalist Booker T. Washington wrote that many emancipated slaves returned to their former owners asking to be taken back.[20]
It was only white people, with their elevated concept of the rights of man, who disapproved of slave trading, such as Francisco Valdez, who found it “detestable,”[21]and James Bruce, another explorer, who found it a “horrid practice.”[22] White people proceeded to impose their high-flown concept on those in whose minds it had never appeared.
Black people’s affinity for slavery can still be seen today, as in the many African countries where it still flourishes. For a second example, the Black Lives Matter activist Sasha Johnson reportedly said, “We don’t want to be equal, we want white people to be our slaves.”[23] Consistent with this, when I lived in a black part of London, I was quite often treated by the sort of young black man who in Africa would have been a slave owner as though I might be his slave. Finally, a senior black police officer was recently found guilty of, among other things, telling junior officers that he owned them and bellowing at them to make his porridge.[24] To many black people, today as in the past, the urge to enslave appears irrepressible.
According to Francis Moore, a Briton writing in 1738, a certain African King would amuse himself by going out with some troops from time to time to set fire to parts of the town. As people ran out of their burning huts, the troops caught them, tied them up, and took them off to be sold as slaves.[25] In 1870, Samuel Baker reported that when a slave hunt in East Africa netted some old women who could not keep up on the return march, they were clubbed to death.[26]
Nothing satisfied an African like witnessing a brutal killing. A missionary observed a group dancing round the mangled corpse of a beheaded female slave “at the very zenith of their happiness.”[27] In 1857, an explorer wrote that Africans appeared to take pleasure in cruelty: “The sight of suffering seems to bring them an enjoyment without which the world is tame.”[28] According to Sir Richard Burton, an English traveler, during fires in Zanzibar in the 1860s black people were seen adding fuel and singing and dancing, wild with delight.[29] In 1867, Paul Du Chaillu recalled seeing a young African woman’s corpse covered in lacerations into which red peppers had been rubbed, a “common mode of tormenting with these people.”[30] He could only hope that the woman, who had presumably been accused of witchcraft, had died of her wounds and not had to endure “the slower process of agonized starvation to which such victims are left.”
When I was at college, a lecturer told us that when he had staged Shakespeare’s tragedies in Soweto, the audience had laughed at the grimmest scenes. He thought that they were expressing pleasure at not being the victims. It seems possible that they were simply enjoying the sight of human suffering.
When Herbert Ward witnessed Africans walking among the putrefying bodies of victims of a mass human sacrifice, appearing to think nothing of it, he commented that the white man would never be able to conquer his repugnance at the callous indifference to human suffering found everywhere in Africa.[31] To us this seems strange, for we have been brought up to believe that no one’s indifference to human suffering could be more callous than a white person’s.
Yet, the old explorers thought that the life of a child could have intrinsic and not just economic value. Africans were different. In 1847, John Duncan wrote, “So little do they care for their offspring, that many offered to sell me any of their sons or daughters as slaves.”[32]. Sir William Cornwallis Harris wrote in 1843 that Africans would sell their children for the sordid love of gain.[33] All over Africa, according to Mungo Park, writing in 1815, parents might sell their children.[34]
Also in 1815, John Campbell wrote of seeing a child of about eight standing in the dust weeping and looking almost like a skeleton:[35] “Neither the men, women, nor children present seemed by their countenances to express the least sympathy or feeling for this forsaken, starving child”; instead, they laughed and told Campbell that he was welcome to take her with him if he wished. He felt sure that in London the sight of the girl would have excited pity in the hearts of thousands.[36] Think of that: White people feeling sorry for a strange black girl! But perhaps Campbell was right.
What a shame it is that our intellectuals have made such a thorough job of suppressing facts such as those mentioned above, leaving us to seek moral instruction from black people as we ask them how much money they require! They peddle their tales in the name of the idea of racial equality, yet this is not the idea that they drive at, which is one of extreme racial inequality, where blacks, pure and innocent, are being incessantly mistreated by their psychopathic white persecutors.
I wonder what it will take to set the record straight.'
Who is innocent enough to throw the first stone?
Sounds like slavery is a barrel of laughs for slaves.
By your narrative, slaves enjoy being slaves. But, prior to the Civil War, one of the biggest complaints of slaveowners is that their slaves would escape over the border into a free state. The Fugitive Slave Act was a direct response of the tendency of slaves to run away from the slavery you said they enjoyed so much.
In fairness, I don't think the US or European countries have any business in Africa. Darwinists might explain the ethos of Africans to the r versus K life strategies, where the r strategists are on the whole, less intelligent, less diligent and less empathic. The native populations of Africa are overwhelmingly r life strategists.
In my humble it seems that neither side wants to win this war solely by military means.
The consequences of full mobilisation on both sides will be too destructive for the oligarchs and the people.
Russia , poltically and militarily is a mess .
America politically and militarily is a mess and is in the middle of a Marxist cultural revolution.
Europe is a mess , France has been on fire for a week , immigration will bring all of Western Europe down.
Ukraine is a mess and at the front the stories coming back from the grunts on both sides are very similar.
To side with Russia is to side with corrupt oligarchs and despotic countries like North Korea and Iran. To side with the West is to side with corrupt oligarchs and genocidal racists like Israel.
Putin claims the high moral ground but he allows Russian citizens to be murdered without trial.
Biden and his family have been selling out to the Chinese organ harvesters in Beijing and side with the child castrators and war criminals.
Almost every country in the world is working towards having full control over free speech and information.
We are experiencing a time of social and political upheaval like I have not seen before in my seventy two years.
Ordinary folk are bewildered , radicalised and propagandised. Ordinary folk can not see a clear way forward out of the cesspit of globalisation.
Jews are in power in Russia , Ukraine ,Europe and the US . They have been since Rothschild won his bet on the battle of Trafalgar. They are shielded by their ownership of the world's media and the Holohoax blackmail.
Cowboy is not a bad dude but not a flexible thinker in my opinion. he is holding on too tight to beliefs and opinions .
I keep thinking about writing to the Australian minister for immigration requesting that Ozzy Cos-sack -of-shit has his Australian citizenship revoked and his path to reuniting with his Russian motherland be expedited. You are Ozzy or you are not , you have made your choice on paper to be an Ozzy but your heart it with the old motherland. We have enough Chinese , Indians and other ethnics already in our country who are not Australians at heart. Remove them all so we can return to the ANZAC spirit.
Unfortunately there is no going back.
Change is the only constant , change never stops , rust never sleeps.
Russel Texas Bentley is an extremely opinionated and prickly dude. I've been following his Telegram for the entire war and was banned from his comments for defending Scott Ritter. Ritter isn't perfect but Bentley's take that no one who hasn't been to Donbass is worth listening to is absurd. Ritter and Macgregor are doing the big picture analysis from a secure knowledge base as military officer professionals. Bentley can't see the forest for the trees in front of him. Bentley was a combat grunt, with no officer cred.
In any case, the Bentley podcasts are well worth listening to. And over the course of my 2 months following Rolo, I have come to much less confidence in what Rolo calls the Z-Anon, 5D analysts I was hooked on, The Duran, Ritter, MacGregor, Escobar, Simplicius, Big Serge, etc. On the other hand, I am not a Rolo fanboy either.
Multiple perspectives I think give you the best handle on the murky "truth" of this gigantic, complex historical conflict that will decide the future of humanity. I'm betting on nuke holocaust as the only way forward, to crash the 8 billion to around 3 billion and wipe out all the Satanic Great Reset agendas once and for all. After the Flood, Yahweh promised never to destroy his evil creation again.. but he may just let us destroy ourselves out so we can have another shot at it. I'm being only partly facetious..
he was right to ban you for defending Ritter to be honest.
glad to see you waking up from the ZAnon spell.
Nah, Bentley was/is an arrogant asshole and also a courageous fighter. I made gentlemanly comments, no hostility. I simply said, "Ritter is on the same side, fighting on a different front. His knowledge base is different than yours. Cut him some slack." But Bentley doesn't like critiques that sting. Still, he's worth listening to.. sometimes. Though his Telegram is repetitive. Better on your channel in interviews. The one time Bentley commended Ritter was during the Russian tour when Ritter made an eloquent, emotional public argument against the Nazis that Bentley praised for about 10 seconds before going back to bashing him as a pedo. What horseshit. Ritter was set up by the FBI/CIA in sting ops because of his strong antiwar stance. And what dark secrets does Bentley keep hidden, or for that matter any of us. For Bentley to use the US spooks character assassinations against Ritter is strong evidence of Bentley's own character flaws.
ritter has pedoface though, i mean c'mon just look at his face.
You're being an asshole. And not funny. Again, using FBI deep state sting ops against Ritter to discredit a "Z-anon" personality with far more reach than you currently have is not a good look. I get the professional jealousy thing, but try to keep it under wraps my friend.
Scott Ritter has a clear case of pedoface, he is fat, and he is retarded. and he isn't a brave whistleblower either. he was a spook that handed over valuable info to the israelis and lied on behalf of the American empire before he decided to turn over a new leaf.
im not jealous of him, i just wish the kremlin would hire even one guy who wasnt some kind of a criminal or weirdo. just once.
Really sophomoric Rolo. Fat? Retarded? Pedoface? Are we in 3rd grade? You make many evidence free assertions, some of them, about the Kremlin and Rus oligharchs I take with a smallish grain of salt because you seem to know your Slav space. What evidence do you have that Ritter gave info to the Israeli's and lied on behalf of American empire? And.. is anyone allowed, in your world, to genuinely turn over a new leaf? Again, no reply to my critique.. that you're using US spook black ops against Ritter to pillory him. Are you going to comment on that? I guess not. Which lowers your credibility substantially.
Again, I'm not about to become your fanboy. To the degree you have what seems plausible and inside information, I listen.. and pay my monthly dues. But your Big Picture Narrative is full of holes. And you obviously have many axes to grind, based on your life history.
The Slav nationalism is a bit distasteful.. as all ethnic nationalisms can become when carried too far. The antisemitism might also lapse into murderous hostility, though you seem to keep this under control.. mostly.. depending on the audience.
But your Big Picture Narrative.. which I'd condense as "It's all about gangster elites, everywhere, always,".. is really just an update on Machiavelli, and Machiavelli was always only half right. Or perhaps three quarters right. Or one quarter right.
I'm getting a lot of personal mileage out of critiquing my own buy-in to the Z-anon purveyors, Mercurous, Ritter, MacGregor, Simplicius, Big Serge, et al. I've been spreading the word about Rolo on their channels and getting nasty push back.. but again.. I'm not about to become your fanboy. The Rolo Spell is just as much a fantasy as any other..
who told you about the Rolo Spell???
i'm going to have to punish the inner circle adepts for divulging such information.
apologies for using my mesmeric occult powers on you to get you to see past ZAnon lies. you caught me though. you are now free from the spell of my "murderous antisemitism". drat. almost had you in my clutches.
go forth and continue watching Bill Maher on HBO with my blessings!
PS thanks for using my name to rankle these other idiots.
I get the sarcasm and blowhard pose thing.. but it gets a bit old. FYI I don't watch Maher.. and will continue to "rankle the other idiots with your name." That's because I want EVERYONE to question ALL their cherished beliefs. Including your audience questioning you.
question at me all you want, my contempt is my armor, my intolerance is my shield. come at me with all you got.
“My contempt is my armor, my intolerance my shield..” is pure horseshit, Rolo. Real contempt and intolerance are mostly character flaws, but I suspect yours is a pose. Beneath cynicism there will usually be found a quivering soul whose idealism has been trashed by the harsh realities of life. In your case, perhaps the FSB spook interrogations and being kicked out of the Slavlands you profess to love. Or losing in love affairs with Russian girls.. who knows? I don’t really care.
What I care about is the accuracy of your take on Russian politics. To the extent you operate in “contempt & intolerance mode” I remain doubtful you’re capable of seeing things clearly. If the emotion and anger that’s obvious from your podcasts and writing is too strong, your credibility becomes questionable. I’m a US based writer, thinker with years of involvement in both hard left, and hard right activist politics in a crazy-woke Blue State I’ve escaped. I’m following the Ukr-Rus war very closely because the future of humanity rests on a knife edge. So my main concern is ACCURATE INFORMATION.
I’m not your enemy, Rolo.. and who knows what your real name is? Rolo Tomasi?? You stole that well
What I am trying to be is a constructive critic who will continue.. for the time being.. to promote you on the Z-Anon channels as an alternative to the happy talk, a counter-narrative from a source I partly trust, but remain skeptical of. Prove to your audience that you’re got the real skinny by offering evidence of your many unsubstantiated claims. And drop at least some of the BS attitude, which is funny, up to a point.
Did the guy from Portugal contacted you?
no, dont think so
Please check your mail which starts rololives , the guy mailed you yesterday
ok got it ty.
When will you be interviewed?
His name is joao
If your opinions and understanding are changing I think you are at least open to seeking for the truth in all of this drama. Closed minds perpetuate untruth. I was also a Ritter , Duran fan for the first five months or so of the SMO. Remember that a comfortable income stream is possible from your kitchen table if you are willing to pick a side, remain frozen in your support for that side and propagate popular lies and conspiracies. I would love to know how much Ritter has made and who financed his Russian tour. You don't have to be paid directly by the country you support to be a paid shill , YouTube and fans will pay you.
I need your approval for seeking truth? You assume my mind was closed, and now I've seen the light? Puhleeeze..
He promised never to destroy it again with water.
Absolute bullshit "Jesus is a Jew ... ." Jesus is very God and very man, born of the Holy Ghost and a woman with no earthly father. His mother Mary was not called a "Jew." Abraham was called a Hebrew as was Issac, Jacob (Israel), the Patriarchs, the Judges, King Saul, King David, King Solomon, et al. Jew isn't even in the Old Testament until the reign of Zedekiah King of Judah. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah among the captives taken to Babylon were called by Nebuchadnezzar "children of Israel" and they truly were, whose faith was in the promised Messiah and not in some Priest and later Rabbi with an ever growing list of "traditions" - the Talmud. In the New Testament the word "Jew" is mostly used in a pejorative sense. The exceptions are Aquila, Priscilla, Apollos, and others who switched from reliance on their Abrahamic ancestry and obedience to the Talmud - those counterfeits of God's law - for salvation, to worship of Jesus, their Redeemer, the early Christian Church.
Jesus pointed out that Talmud was diametrically opposed to the Law of God and called the Pharisees, Scribes, and Lawyers children of the devil, i.e., Jesus had nothing in common with them. The Romans called Jesus "King of the Jews" but that was because they called all the Israelites "Jews" in a derogatory sense. It was the organized proxy government Jews, not the Romans, who did everything in their power to kill all the Christians, the early church, and those spiritual descendants of those children of the devil, do all they can to eliminate all Christians, children of God, today. There is no such thing as "Jews for Jesus." All who have converted from the dead religion of Judaism, indeed from any false religion, to worship of God - Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost are Christians, ancestry, language, etc., are irrelevant to the fact that they are saved from the eternal wrath of God by the grace of God the Father through faith in the Son by the regenerative work of the Holy Ghost and that totally by grace, not works, it cannot be bought or chosen as an act of will.
Thank you Russell Bentley for the shout-out to our mad reporting powers.
Well now, if this interview / conversation is not a breath of fresh air in the all encompassing information war, I don't know what is... Or to put it another way, it's like alien acid blood burnig through multiple decks of the propaganda ship, bringing the listener mercilessly closer to the truth. Thank you for this.
On the lighter side of the conversation:
Russell: "It's like the old saying 'I promise that I'll never try to c*m in your mouth.'"
That is lie number three from David Allan Coe's X rated song "The Three Biggest Lies."
Lie number 1 is: "This will only hurt for a little while."
Lie number 2 is a particularly good saying that can be used to describe how people are convinced to take the first step down a path that leads to a certain outcome for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnEmghSrOig
It's very crude so don't listen to it if you are easily offended.
I'm a bit disappointed in the interview. I thought a lot of it got tangled in the weeds and rabbit holes of talking about Jews. I don't really care if someone likes or dislikes Jews, but using Jewishness as a means of explaining events is minimally productive. For example, Bentley said all the slave traders were Jews. Undoubtedly some slave traders were Jewish, but does that mean if Jews were not allowed to operate in commerce, there would be no slave trading? No. So, what has the time spent talking about Jews gained you?
I also take issue with Bentley's assertion that all billionaires are evil and need to have their assets confiscated. Often a person becomes a billionaire because he is exceptionally talented and inventive. The big advantage of having billionaires is that they can get ideas heard that the government wants to shut down. Trump would never have been able to run his campaigns without being a billionaire. And the big benefit of Trump is not that he is a super-Messiah, but he gave populist nationalism a window to be heard. A true American nationalist is not going to want to interfere with Russia, Ukraine or Iran one way or another.
The Azov's are Nazis, but recall that the Nazi's were not only murderous towards Jews. They were murderous towards any nationality they saw as standing in their way. The Nazi's killed more Russians and Poles than they did Jews. I would feel much more comfortable in Azov territory as a Jew than as a Russian or Russian speaker. So, again it's down a rabbit hole to talk about the Azov being Nazis and therefore murderous towards Jews. They are murderous towards Russians in their current incarnation.
Agree about Azov. A lot of them are Russians as well.
As for the slave traders, I'm pretty sure that literally ALL of the big trading companies were run by space lizard families. The justification for it was the Bible telling them that it was a-OK to enslave non-lizards.
I thought this might be good for a laugh. I asked Chatgpt "What percentage of slave traders prior to the Civil War were Jewish?" I got back a very politically correct response:
"It is important to approach historical topics with care and avoid perpetuating stereotypes or misinformation. While it is true that individuals from various backgrounds were involved in the slave trade, it is incorrect and unfair to single out any particular religious or ethnic group as primarily responsible for slave trading.
The transatlantic slave trade was a complex and tragic historical event involving multiple European nations, African kingdoms, and American colonies. It is not accurate or appropriate to assign responsibility for the slave trade to a specific religious group.
It is essential to study the history of the transatlantic slave trade in its entirety, understanding the involvement of various individuals, societies, and nations, without singling out any specific religious or ethnic group."
A lot I don't agree with Russel on but a pro Kremlin propagandist wouldn't call Prigozhin a hero, wouldn't talk up Wagner, wouldn't say Shoigu would make an awful president, and most importantly wouldn't re-post Rolo articles on his telegram page.