SPECIAL EDITION FRIDAY: Slavery Was Never About A Color – Democrat Cultural Marxists Were

The following was originally written September 17, 2017.  As I indicated recently in response to the spate of complaints and fallacious accusations that blacks are without equal justice, ad nauseum, I believe it is of benefit to reprint certain of my articles having to do with the myth of skin color.  These articles expose frauds like Nikole Hannah-Jones who the NY Times helped defraud factual history. She and all those like her are pernicious liars and historical revisionists driven by Marxian agendas to destroy the social and industrial fabric of America.

Self-limiting pursuits that serve only to retard personal growth and reject modernity have plagued certain groups of people in America uninterrupted, in the form of identity politics, since the collapse of the oppressive eras of subjugated inequality, i.e., slavery, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and Jim Crow laws that were instituted and maintained by the Democrat Party.

No people as a group have been more harmed by the reckless constructs of identity politics than that demographic committed to reducing themselves to being singularly recognized as a crayon color. I contend that W.E.B. Du Bois, with the admonition of Vladimir Lenin, introduced identity politics at the beginning of the 20th century, and it continues today as an industry – second only to abortion in its destructive effect on the pimps and harlots of skin tone.

Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiative and Richard Nixon’s skin-color based affirmative action programming can be argued as nails in the coffin that contained the abandonment of personal responsibility, true self-esteem, civility, and propriety, for many, if not most unable and/or unwilling to think beyond melanin content. And as referenced, said decline continues unabated today.

Tragically, most of these peoples base their identity upon the mythical color of their skin and the inculcated immiseration born out of their self-induced theology of victimology associated with same.
For the overwhelming majority of such people, being a skin color is not only sacrosanct; it is paramount to their identity above all else including God Almighty Himself. Skin pigmentation is foundational to all they aspire to be to the point of harboring visceral contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their debilitating fixation upon it.

Perhaps one of the most overlooked, indeed most unknown facts is that slaves were not brought to America as a color. That is a difficult fact to understand for those fixated upon being a color. It is the deadly truth those making an industry out of marketing skin color do not want known, and/or understood because it threatens the manufactured skin color narrative. Specific to said point, if that understanding is embraced, then it logically follows that people will begin to question when and why did pigmentation become important?

Africans were hunted, captured, and sold as a form of commerce, just as it slavery was with every other group of people spanning history beginning in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. People were not selected to be slaves based upon a mythical skin color; they were conscripted into slavery vis-a`-vis war and/or commerce, which understandably resulted in people being born into slavery.

As I outlined in my eBook “Blacks Are Victims Because They’re Told They Are,” Africans certain South American groups were slaves just as every other population group has been at some point in their history. But thanks to Lenin and Du Bois slavery in America has resulted in a windfall of bounty for the skin color mongers, and emotional and psychological poverty for the rest.

Reducing one’s self-esteem to being a crayon color is an act of self-sabotage that has been encouraged by nefarious hate mongers, the ignorant and those who refuse to acknowledge and embrace modernity.

Another myth that many Americans as a whole buy into, is that slavery was about being a skin color. Slavery was not about being a skin color, rather as I have argued, it became about being a skin color because that fit at first a social narrative, and later a socio-political narrative.

I have argued many times that the Civil War wasn’t fought based upon the skin color of the slaves. Slavery was only a tangential reason for fighting the Civil War. The primary reasons had to do with state’s rights versus what several Southern states viewed as an overreach of federal authority, in violation to the Constitution. Other causal factors were expansionism and nationalism that led to calls for Southern secession, which the Northern states were unwilling to abide. These factors, while not exhaustive, played a large role in launching America into war with itself. Specific to that point, skin color only became the issue when the Democrat Party employed same as a means to continue slavery and as a reason to punish “free Negroes” for supporting Republicans.

Pigmentation became the issue Democrats exploited, as we see evidenced by the arguments Democrats employed to perpetuate slavery. Skin color for Democrats was a means of fomenting fear-mongering that the “dark skinned” slaves were less than human, and if freed they would rape transplanted European and Dutch women. (Evidence: The Birth of a Nation; D. W. Griffith; 1915)

“In 1820, the Democrat Congress passed the Missouri Compromise. That law first repealed the provisions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law forbidding the extension of slavery into any federal territory, and then authorized the extension of slavery into new federal territories.” (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Page 3)

Democrats fought all restrictions on slavery asserting that ending slavery would not only negatively impact the happiness of America but would also lead to America’s destruction by the freed slaves. The same argument would have been made regardless of the skin color of the slaves. In fact, the argument was used against the Indian tribes to validate the abhorrent treatment they received. Hitler likewise used the argument against the Jews to create negatives that were used as reasons to validate their extermination.

It is also important to note that the terrorism and mistreatment of “free Negroes,” as persons of color were called in America at that time, didn’t start until slaves were freed. It was at that time the KKK and Jim Crow laws were used by Democrats to subjugate the former slaves because they had turned to the Republican Party in vast numbers. Democrat consternation had to do with political control and skin color identity politics was the most expedient way to accomplish their objective.

This fact was attested to by “Free Negroes” themselves: The “inhuman outrages” perpetuated upon African Americans in the South were largely committed through the Democrats’ Ku Klux Klan.
It is indisputable historical fact that the Klan was started by Democrats. In fact, during congressional hearings on the subject, one prominent Democrat testified that the Ku Klux Klan “belongs to . . . our party – the Democratic Party.” And the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was prominent Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, an honoree at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. Recall also that every Democrat in Congress voted against the 1871 bill to punish Klan violence (See note about this bill on Pg. 8; Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Word).

Why were blacks so often the target of Klan violence? According to African American U. S. Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than white men are thus persecuted simply because they constitute in larger numbers the opposition to the Democratic Party.” African American U. S. Rep. Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of the AME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The bad blood of the South comes because the Negroes are Republicans. If they would only cease to be Republicans and vote the straight-out Democratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then the bad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” It was these Democratic and Klan “inhuman outrages” to which Republicans here object. (Democrats and Republicans In Their Own Words; Pg.14)

It cannot be overlooked that neither of these men said they were persecuted for being “colored.”  Both men stated quite clearly that they were persecuted because the “free Negroes” in vastly greater numbers supported the Republican Party. Democrats weren’t concerned about skin pigmentation as such; they were concerned about the preservation of slavery at any cost. Skin pigmentation was simply the vehicle they used to disenfranchise the “Freed Slaves” and advance their Erebusic agenda, just as Democrats and progressives are doing today.

Moving forward, both Lenin and Du Bois understood that by fomenting resentment and distrust based upon skin color they could prosper politically, which also meant that they could prosper financially.

Fast forwarding past the history I discuss in my book, as referenced previously, we come to where we are today. Being recognized in any capacity as long as their skin color is included is the utmost desire for many “coloreds.”  In reality skin color prestige is the affectation of the small-minded who are motivated by various forms of inculcated inferiority and exhibitions of bigotry as a means of obfuscating same.

The brainwashing of these peoples pursuant to the importance of valuing a crayon color above all reason has been so complete and thorough — that they with apoplectic hysteria reflexively attack anyone and everyone who does not subscribe to being a color.

Persons who view themselves by nationality juxtaposed by melanin are accused of being ashamed of their “race,” which as I have explained in other writings, there is no such thing as “race.”  They despise persons who do not place skin pigmentation on an altar to be worshiped. And the demonic progressive hordes that benefit financially and politically encourage said behavior.

Americans are more than a skin pigmentation and embracing nationality over melanin does not by definition mean one is ashamed of their pigmentation. It means they are proud of their nationality a fact that history proves is not a bad thing; it is quite the opposite.