1. Resist attempts to derail, troll, split or move the discussion 2. Log and archive events as they happen 3. Help others with things you know about, answer questions 4. Collect and spread memes 5. Verify things on your own, do not spread disinfo
Summary An anonymous user with Q level security clearance has been helping to explain what’s happening behind the scenes on the world stage. This user is called Q. The scope is broad so dig on your own but I will try to summarize: Trump and his special counsel are actually investigating the Clinton cabal and the deep state. Draining the swamp for real! They are ending foreign non-state groups and actors who have had America under control for decades. The house of Saud in Saudi Arabia (SA is +++), along with the Rothschild (RC is ++) and the Soros (+) families are having their house of cards crumble. There are almost 2000 sealed indictments across the USA that are likely connected to Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel. We are told to expect high level American names to be swept up in a mass arrest of corrupt officials.
Proof? Confirmation (Cross-thread) Many confirmations have come and gone. Events listed here before they happened. Trump on Nov26 retweeted a user who's timeline is full of CBTS and Q. CIA attacked the site! Trump tweeted +++ after Q posted +++ in CBTS thread. We know Trump visits Sup Forums, we know Barron is autistic. Don Jr retweeted Pep months ago. Interconnections and depth of Q posts far too complex and predictive to be a larp.
Legend & STRINGER Decoding CNC SIGNATURE Symbols +++ /_\ *QMAP REDUX WITH SIGNATURES ! Stringer Map QMAP THE RECRUMBING:
Nov 26 Trumps Tweet Nov 25 Rothschild-Uranium link (needs further digging) (Cross-thread) POSSIBLE COURT-MARTIAL COMING? POTUS confirms Q in #small tweet (Cross-thread) Court-martial Copypasta>> (Cross-thread) Court Case Crumbs (Cross-thread) Brain Interface (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread)
Nov 23 Green1 Stringer >> (Cross-thread) Al Waleed & LV (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) In-Q-Tel DT (Cross-thread) FB & co (Cross-thread) Pris Chan donors (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) Conyers V2 (Cross-thread)
++ Screeching (Cross-thread) G00gle Keyhole (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) ANS (Cross-thread) Investments (Cross-thread) MINI RD (Cross-thread) NK & SpaceX (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) KEEN (Cross-thread) Rocket Man (Cross-thread) MUSK (Cross-thread) BAD Actors (Cross-thread)
SET on NK hotel lawn (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) NK (Cross-thread) SIGNATURES V2 (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) *GODFATHER III (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) /_\ (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Y) (Cross-thread) GOLD (Cross-thread)
Ryan Anderson
Nov 22 !!! Hefner/CIA V2 (Cross-thread) Hugh Hefner/Q (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) Crash & ++ Counter (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) BAYS [..+1] == CBZT (Cross-thread) Owl by Q (Cross-thread) Owl/Minerva GLOBALIZATION (Cross-thread) Symbolism (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) Spoopy Owl (Cross-thread) FLY Eagle FLY (Cross-thread) BC = Eagle LANGLEY @CHANNEL 9 (Cross-thread) Conyers Harassment archive.is/j2gH3 MAGA (Cross-thread) China/Russia Owl FREE (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) Bohemian Club (Cross-thread) McCain BOOT SWITCH SIDES (Cross-thread) (CHAIR) Singing Birds (Cross-thread) Some OWLS (Cross-thread) (Cross-thread) In light of DEC 18 (Cross-thread)
Brandon Baker
8 Charlie Hotel . November Echo Tango / Charlie Bravo Tango Sugar
migrate_yes shills_less
Jayden Clark
Put your shekles where your mouth is. Crack Q's trip and use it.
>Implying we should retreat. >Implying we should retreat to Cripples Internet Anus. >Implying you aren't shilling.
Wyatt Jackson
Who is Q? Why is he here? Why is cbts on Yahoo news? Why did Potus retweet Magapill? Why did Magapill.com go down afterwards? Why is John Podesta's and George Soros Thinkprogress writing articles on cbts?
Noah Hernandez
...
Kayden Collins
The topic of today's class is "Racial Discrimination in Loans" by Francis.
Racial differences in the ability to acquire a loan are sometimes pointed to as evidence of White privilege. These differences are said to lead to racial disparities in home ownership rates and entrepreneurship which in turn have a variety of long-term economic and social consequences. Though this story is often repeated, it is not justified by the relevant empirical evidence.
The idea that Whites get loans easily due to White privilege is not consistent with the fact that Asians can get loans just as easily as Whites can. Desilver and Bialik (2017)
Given this pattern, the most obvious cause of differences in loan approval is racial differences in income. However, critics have pointed out that Whites are more likely than Blacks to get loans approved when comparing people of equal incomes.
This may sound compelling, but Blacks and Whites with equal incomes do not have the same spending behavior. Borgo (2013) looked at data on 25,820 American households and found that Black homes had lower saving rates than White homes even after controlling for differences in income, age, family size, education, and marital status. Thus, it makes sense for loan companies to prefer White customers over Black ones even if they have the same incomes.
Hunter Adams
These differences in spending behavior explain why Blacks and Whites with equal incomes do not have the same credit scores. As reported by The Washington Post:
“The study found that whites earning less than $25,000 had better credit records as a group than African Americans earning between $65,000 and $75,000. Overall, 48 percent of blacks and 27 percent of whites had bad credit ratings, as defined by Freddie Mac in this study.” – Loose, The Washington Post The central role of credit scores in racial loan disparities is highlighted by a survey which had lenders explain why they denied a large sample of loan applications. This research found found that an applicant’s debt-to-income ratio was the top reason non-Blacks were denied loans whereas credit history was the most frequently cited reason for Black applicants.
Some studies find that racial differences in loan acceptance persist even after adjusting for credit score differences. This is true, but it is also true that the credit scoring system doesn’t work equally well for Blacks and Whites. According to a report given to congress by the federal reserve on how well loan performance is predicted by credit scores:
“Consistently, across all three credit scores and all five performance measures, blacks, single individuals, individuals residing in lower-income or predominantly minority census tracts show consistently higher incidences of bad performance than would be predicted by the credit scores. Similarly, Asians, married individuals, foreign-born (particularly, recent immigrants), and those residing in higher-income census tracts consistently perform better than predicted by their credit scores”
Jace Wilson
In other words, if you give out a loan to a Black and a loan to a White with equal credit scores, you are more likely to get your money back from the White.
This bias was shown to be strongest among those with low credit scores and to be much weaker among those with good credit scores. There is not much of a difference in the riskiness of giving loans to Blacks and Whites with good credit scores, but Blacks with poor credit scores are significantly riskier than Whites with poor credit scores to loan money to.
Given this, it should be no surprise that a study by the Chicago federal reserve found no racial bias in loan approval rates among those with a good credit score but a significant bias in favor of whites among those with a bad credit score. Loan agencies are acting exactly as we would expect them to if they were economically rational.
Perhaps the strongest evidence that racism is not the cause of differences in loan approval rates comes from a study of several thousand banks which found that Black-owned banks discriminated far more harshly against Blacks than did White-owned banks.
Specifically, at a White owned bank a Black person was found to have a 78% higher chance of rejection for a loan compared to a White person. At a Black-owned bank, this figure rose to 179%, an increase of 101%.
3.PNG
Thus, racial differences in the riskiness of loans can account for why Blacks have a harder time getting loans than White people do, and the relevant empirical evidence does not justify the belief that racism on the part of loaners is a relevant factor.
Sealed Indictments are a big deal. There are almost 2,000 sealed indictments. More than ever in American history.
SPREAD IT FAR, SPREAD IT WIDE. Pray for the protection of those in harms way. Godspeed anons.
Zachary Adams
JUST FUCKING GO ALREADY
Brayden Gray
really makes me think
Kevin Russell
This faggot literally just posted the rabbit hole graphic from MAGA Pills Twitter on his show
Charles Garcia
Concise EVENT LOG/NEWS NOV 21 NOV 22 ULTRA CONCISE BY FIBO-SIG user pastebin.com/H8aUyMhA Nov 23 archive.is/LZSGo Nov 20-21 Nov 16-19 Nov 15 Nov 14 Nov 13-14 Nov 10-12 Trump's Thanksgiving Message >0:36 "AS STORMS RAGED WILD" >0:41 "Their first act was to pray" >1:39 "Restore... Thanks... Patriots.. Warriors who kept us safe and free" >3:44 "We are doing something special. People are feeling it" youtube.com/watch?v=iQE1ZFWJMcM
You would know that the President DOES have the NSA on his side. You would know that this Mongolian Kite Flying image board is heavily monitored for whatever reason. You would know that the minute they started talking about credible attempts on POTUS and CoS that they would have been tagged and alerted immediately. You would know that this is a recipe for SHUT_IT_DOWN. You would know that when we started talking about Tavistock, Rothschild, linking John Podesta to NK , that it would have been shut down. We are here at the approval and authority of the President of the United States. We are a well armed meme milita, we have been armed with the truth. REEEEEEE and let lose the frogs of war.
Owen Richardson
Indeed. I think the parallel to "Slavery in the United States" by Ryan Faulk is obvious here.
This is a jarring statement at first glance, but I think the evidence is pretty simple and clear. Perhaps to reduce emotionality, replace “slave” with “serf” or “peasant,” which is appropriate since in practice they were the same thing—one system had a Master who owned a slave, the other had a Lord who owned land that a serf was bound to work on.
Both also had a belief that the Master / Lord would often sleep with his subjects’ wives (Prima Noctis or “Right of First Lie”). Nobody has a conniption when the BBC does a documentary saying “English peasants didn’t have it THAT bad,” so it’s not unreasonable to think that chattel slavery in the United States would be a similar story.
Height
Today in the United States, height is mainly a function of genetics, as starvation or chronic hunger is freakishly rare. But until the 1900s, chronic hunger and lack of food was a factor in height, with wealthier populations being visibly taller than poorer ones.
Today, blacks are roughly the same height as whites, very slightly shorter (this surprises some). From the paper “A Peculiar Population: The Nutrition, Health, and Mortality of American Slaves from Childhood to Maturity”, in which Richard Steckel compared height percentiles of black slaves to contemporary white populations at adulthood: So we can see that, in adulthood, black slaves, despite being roughly the same height as whites today, were taller than most whites in the world, with the exceptions being English aristocrats and Swedes (incl. Swedes in Minnesota). How can this be, if slaves were viciously exploited?
David Nelson
yes
Jace Perez
Alienated Labor
Robert Evans Jr., in his paper entitled “The Economics of American Negro Slavery” calculated the return on capital of slaves in the US, and compared it to moneylending and railroads: So we can see that while black slaves had a higher amount of alienated labor than railroad workers, the highest recorded here was 14.8% profit off their labor. You could speculate it goes up the further back you go—maybe. But the reality is that, after expenses, black slaves got back 80-90% of what they produced on average. And given that the slave plantations were on some of the richest land in the world, it’s not hard to imagine that they were better fed than contemporary whites.
Literacy
In the 1870 census, 20.1% of blacks could read and write, compared to 80% of US whites. That same year Russia had a literacy rate of around 15%. Most African countries didn’t achieve a literacy rate of 20% until around 1950, and India had a literacy rate of 20% in 1950.
One could argue that US whites should have done more to teach blacks to read and write, but the idea that their literacy was kept down by the Atlantic Slave Trade is demonstrably false. Being shipped to the Americas benefited blacks in terms of literacy.
Life Expectancy
While black slaves probably grew to be taller than most whites in the US, their life expectancy was shorter. It’s possible that these are related as caloric restriction is known to increase longevity. You could look at these as percentages, i.e. what percentage of years do blacks have of whites, but this assumes that improvements in medicine and living standards scale linearly in effect. All we can say with certainty is that blacks have always lived shorter lives than whites on average.
Liam Reyes
Symbolism of the White Rabbit??
We see it in Podesta's art, the Playboy Bunny, and a reference to a rabbit's foot in leaked Clinton emails. Why?
John F. Olsen in his analysis of southern cotton farms and northern farms, came to the conclusion that the average free farmer on a norther farm worked 3,130 hours per year, while the black slave worked 2,798 hours per year between 1850 and 1860.
Robert Fogel in “Time on the Cross” claimed that the gang-system—which usually included black slaves and a white “motivator”—was vastly more efficient, saying, “A slave working on an assembly-line basis in cotton, sugar and tobacco–the Southern staples–produced as much output in 35 minutes as a traditional worker produced in an hour.”.
In other words, while they worked fewer hours, they worked so much harder that it was still worse. However an analyses by Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode showed that free cotton farms were just as efficient per hour as the touted “gang system”—and they didn’t even count the fact that the “motivator” wasn’t doing any useful work.
More recently in 2015, Trevon Logan did an experiment with his children, seeing how much cotton they could pick per day and compared that to the daily cotton production of slaves at the time. His results showed that his kids picked about 95% of what the slaves picked on average of the same age. In my opinion this experiment conclusively shatters the myth of the gang system: So blacks worked fewer hours and there’s no evidence that they worked any harder. >captcha: selected arterial >message from Q to slit your wrists?
Adam Cruz
Breaking up Families
According to “The Slave Family, a View from the Slave Narratives” by Stephen Crawford, only 51.1% of black families had both parents co-residing. By 1880 this number had increased to around 70%, which is where it stayed until 1940, when it started to decline. By 2011 only 37% of blacks lived in two-parent households, while 75% of whites did.
The “breaking up families” line on slavery was probably more compelling back when blacks had nuclear families more than 51.1% of the time.
I don’t know of any statistics on the percentage of slave families broken up by sale, so we don’t know what proportion of the broken-up black families was a result of being split by sale.
Corporal Punishment
I can only find one quantitative record of how often corporal punishment was used, and that is the records of Bennet H. Barrow. The record spans a 23 month period, and over this period he issues 160 whippings, and he had 129 slaves. This averages out to about 0.65 whippings per slave per year.
However, having read through his records, Barrow seems like a bit of a sadist who enjoyed what he did, and so in my opinion Barrow was not typical. But the system made it so that people like Barrow can have as much power over people as he did. That is an unavoidable reality of slavery, and why it’s good that white people worldwide abolished it not only in their countries but around the world.
I am shocked at how difficult it is to find basic corporal punishment data during slavery. You may think something that is so often referenced in film and in essays and presentations on other topics, that the data on it would be easier to find.
Owen Miller
The Subjective Texture
If you’ve gone to public schools, these statistics I post here may seem at odds with the “subjective texture of vicarious experience”—i.e. how you feelslavery was, based on the stories and narratives presented in public school.
There is a great book called “They were White and they were Slaves” which is full of personal accounts of a very different world—in fact a world much more similar to today—regarding race and slavery. Here are some examples:
“…You know, boss, dese days dere is three kind of people. Lowest down is a layer of white folks, then in de middle is a layer of colored folks, and on top is de cream, a layer of good white folks…” “…The slaves saw enough abject poverty, disease, and demoralization among the poor whites… to see their own condition under Ole Massa’s protection as perhaps not the worst of evils.” (Eugene D. Genovese, “‘Rather Be a Nigger Than a Poor White Man’: Slave Perceptions of Southern Yeoman and Poor Whites,” in Toward a New View of America)
“‘When I was a boy,’ recalled Waters Mcintosh, who had been a slave in Sumter, South Carolina, ‘we used to sing, ‘Rather be a nigger than a poor white man.’ Even in slavery we used to sing that.’”
Cooper Nelson
“Gangs of Irish immigrants worked ditching and draining plantations, building levees and sometimes clearing land because of the danger to valuable (negro) slave property …George Templeton Strong, a Whig patrician diarist… considered Irish workmen at his home to have had ‘prehensile paws’ rather than hands. He denounced the ‘Celtic beast’… lrish youths… were sometimes called ‘Irish slaves’ and more frequently ‘bound boys’…” A common joke in the South in the pre-Civil War period was that when Blacks were ordered to work hard they complained that their masters were treating them ‘like Irishmen.’” “…a slave… expressed no surprise that his master, who was Big Buckra, never associated with white trash. And Rosa Starke, who had been owned by a big planter in South Carolina, reported that poor whites had to use the kitchen door when they went up to the Big House. Her mistress ‘had a grand manner; no patience with poor white folks.’”
“Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, observed bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were negroes, the men in the hold were Irish. Olmsted inquired about this to a mate on the ship. ‘Oh, said the mate, ‘the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.’”
THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES > THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES > THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES
They are still killing like rabbits those, who do not want to take the money and shut up about the truth of the **false flag las vegas multiple shooters*** operation by alphabet agencies.
“John Randolph of Roanoke, traveling in England and Ireland with his black manservant Johnny, wrote to a friend back home: ‘Much as I was prepared to see misery in the south of Ireland, I was utterly shocked at the condition of the poor peasantry between Limerick and Dublin. Why sir, John never felt so proud of being a Virginia slave. He looked with horror upon the mud hovels and miserable food of the white slaves, and I had no fear of his running away.”
Obviously the book and its quotes only tell one side of the story, but that’s the whole point—to serve as counter-bias. I’m not saying that these narratives prove me correct, just that there is a whole ocean of contemporary narrative that backs up my statistical claims. And these narratives portray the United States as having the same crust of anti-white elites who prefer foreigners to “poor white trash.”
Now, why you have never heard these narratives is a whole topic unto itself.
Christian Garcia
who is he/what show user?
Connor Miller
damn there goes my almond again
Aiden Johnson
The hardest redpill to swallow is that Lucifer did nothing wrong
Gavin Phillips
That sounds rather far-fetched, it seems much more likely it's a metaphor for "Whites Did Not Benefit from Slavery (Not Even at the Time)" by Ryan Faulk.
One common claim I hear floating around is that whites benefited from slavery, and that whites are as well off as they are because of slavery. Different people have different variations of this claim, some claiming more than others.
Obviously the United States is not made out of cotton, tobacco and indigo today. The argument is not that the blacks literally built the infrastructure (if they’re making that argument that’s obviously false since most rail was in the north and nearly all railroad workers during slavery were white), but that the profit off of their labor funded the industrial expansion.
We have data about the South, and the black population of all slave states, including those that did not secede, was 26%, or 30.8% of just the Confederacy. Obviously the Southern economy was a dead-end, and so this argument hinges on the South funding the Northern economy.
I’m not talking about morality, or even about the conditions of slaves. The topic is about whether or not WHITES, on the aggregate, benefited from slavery AT THE TIME.
And there are two aspects to this:
First, the “South funding US industrialization” argument.
The second is the direct expropriation of labor – how much did whites get directly from black slaves versus what they would have gotten doing other things?
Tyler Lewis
The South funding US industrialization 1A. Northern Agriculture was more valuable than Southern Agriculture
In 1860, 65% of all United States farm acreage was in the North. Now it’s possible that Northern farm production was less than 65% of the value of what was produced, or even less than 50% – that the South, with 35% of the farmland, produced more money with it’s agriculture than the North did with their agriculture.
But there are reasons to not believe this. First are the overall values of farm products produced in 1860:
The combined production of hay and potatoes give “king cotton” a run for it’s money. But the real value of US farm production in 1860 was cereals. I don’t know what percentage of farms in the North and South produced cereals, but I do know that they were more geared toward cereal (what, oats, barley, corn) than the south.
We also know that farmland in the North cost more per acre, according to Peter Lindert’s study of farm prices in the paper “Long-Run Trends in American Farmland Values”:
There are lots of reasons land would cost more in the North, I’m not saying the additional cost was entirely a function of additional yield. But the fact that it did cost more makes the idea that Southern agriculture was, in aggregate, more valuable than Northern agriculture, seem unlikely. Or at least shows that there is no obvious reason to believe it would be more valuable.
And so if slavery was such enormously profitable exploitation, why wasn’t land in slave states more valuable?
Jose Reed
Daily reminder that we will not accept the rule of a civic nationalist alliance. If you're just kikes that don't fuck and eat children but you continue the same bullshit policies the kikes who did maintained, you're more or less just as bad as them. Maybe slightly better.
Noah Sanchez
1B. The tariff was disproportionately paid by the North
A table from “The Rise of the New York Port” by Robert Greenhalgh looked at the percentage of imports were paid by the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
Now the fact at 80+% of all imports are going through these states each year doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re paying 80+% of the tariffs. But it probably does. And in the year 1859 the port of New York paid roughly 76.67% of all US tariffs. So for that one year, the imports roughly match the tariffs paid, and there’s no reason to expect that, barring minor fluctuations by year, the percent amount a state pays in tariffs is going to be about the same as the percent of all imports go through that state.
Andy Hall looked at the highest tariff revenues of selected ports in the United States in FY 1859, and listed off some of the revenues for various ports:
He also made this visualization:
In the case of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, this appears to match what we know about the percent of goods imported through those ports.
Now the keen observer will see that these are tariffs paid by ports. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the “real cost” of the tariff was paid by the north, as it is possible that these goods arrived in northern ports, where the tariff was paid, and this cost was passed on to southern farmers.
Easton White
WTO was already with POTUS' Asia trip.
Alexander Wood
This is why I pointed out that Northern agriculture was bigger than Southern agriculture. And according to the National Parks Service, the North had twice as much machinery per acre than the South, which translates to 78.79% of all agricultural machinery. So even if we presume farmers were hit harder by the tariff because it increased the cost of farm machinery, a disproportionate amount would be paid by the North anyway because they bought most of the farm machinery.
So no, the North was paying slightly more than 80% of the tariff directly, and used slightly less than 80% of all agricultural machinery.
The North was paying around 80% of the tariff in both direct and indirect costs.
The South was not paying the tariff, and slave labor produced perhaps 1/3 of what the south way paying based on their population.
1C. A disproportionate amount of Federal infrastructure funds went to the South
Not that it matters much, since federal spending in 1860 was $78 million, while the GDP of the US was roughly $4,387 million or $4.387 billion. Federal spending amounted to 1.78% of GDP in 1860. For what it’s worth, 42% of all Federal infrastructure spending went to the South between 1800 and 1860 (table 5).
But it was a drop in the bucket so who cares.
Ryder Rivera
...
Jason Diaz
The direct benefit of slavery for whites 2A. The South didn’t need slaves to grow cotton
And so we can see that the South did not build the US. And since the argument for a BIG white benefit from slavery requires the South paying for the development of the United States, this makes the idea that blacks in the South paid for it through their labor basically impossible.
The next question is how much did whites benefit from having black slaves instead of having to negotiate a wage? Well that is difficult to tell, but we do have rough estimates for the return on investment for slaves compared to railroads and short-term (90 day to 180 day) loans. This gives us a rough idea of how profitable slaves were compared to “the rest of the economy”:
Profitability by Investment, “The Economics of American Negro Slavery” Table 14, Page 208 Table 25, Page 220
Now lets not sneeze at this, an average profit of 12.61 would be amazing today. But remember profits were higher back then than they are today. There were probably specific investments that paid better than slaves, but there was probably no CLASS of investments that was more profitable than slavery.
Now if you’re a free market autist and wondering why everyone didn’t just invest all their money in slaves – well why aren’t you finding the most profitable thing to invest in today and put all of your money in that?
But 12.61% profit means 87.39% cost. It means roughly 87.39% of what a slave was producing went back into feeding, clothing and sheltering the slaves, as well as paying for whatever was needed for him to continue working.
Daniel Cox
But what if the South didn’t have slaves? Could they have grown cotton without slaves? The answer to that is a resounding yes:
“Cotton Production, The Growth of the Cotton Industry in America”
1861-1865 is the Civil War, and so we can see that cotton production collapsed after it. Now it’s hard to tell exactly due to annual fluctuations, but it seems that cotton production matched its pre-war peak around 1871, and went up from there. So yes, cotton could be produced without slaves. It shouldn’t be too hard to believe since most white southerners were farmers, and most of the farmers in the United States at the time were white, and produced a net food surplus.
2B. Opportunity denied
In 1860 slaves were 12.67% of the US population, now while some whites gained from that sweet 12.61% profit off of his slaves, the average profit for investment in the economy at large was around ~8.5%. So we’re talking about a 4-5% higher profit that people who invested in slaves got compared to what they would have gotten if they invested elsewhere.
This, right here – this is what SOME whites got from slavery.
Nolan Garcia
bump, havent been here the last week. have i missed something important? any redpills? any insider infos? any predicted events in the future? tl:dr pls
Hunter Flores
But because of these high profits, a certain amount of investments that could have been used on railroads, or shoe factories, or something good – were instead used on more slave plantations. This did two things:
It diverted Southern investments into the short-term profits of slavery instead of the long-term profits of industry. Say you build a shoe factory – that factory has a bunch of machines to work the leather and buckles and stuff, that machinery needs people who know how to work it. It requires iron and steel, and lubricants. Basically you now have a machine-tools industry. Now that you have started making them, machine tools in general become cheaper for other things, creating investment opportunities in textiles, or in metal tea pots and kettles, in coaches, in steam engines.
A plantation has no such expansion effects; and this, to oversimplify a bit, is why the North exploded and the South stagnated. I’m not blaming the black slaves for it, they didn’t DO anything, they couldn’t do anything, but it is merely to say that whites would certainly have gone more in the industrial direction if they didn’t have slaves. I’m not alone in this speculation, and it is hypothesized that Rome would have industrialized if it didn’t have slaves.
It diverted Southern investments away from things that employed white workers and toward things that “employed” black slaves. Any white who didn’t own slaves was made poorer by the fact that other whites did, because investments were diverted from say railroads, which he could be employed in, to slaves.
Adam Nguyen
he probably didn't think eve would fall for it.
>the first being to be shocked by female stupidity.
William Brooks
Now, whether the total dollar value of the short term extra profit (again about 4-5%) some white people got from slaves instead of other investments outweighs the effects it had in directing the South down a long-run economic dead end of being an agricultural resource economy and the immediate impact of denying the white working class in the south better employment opportunities, I don’t know.
Intuitively, I think it absolutely made whites worse off. It certainly made working-class whites worse off, and it may have even ultimately been worse for the investing class who may have ultimately had higher profits in about 20 years if they invested in factories.
Conclusion
But that was a very theoretical argument. Lots of mays and coulds. It is impossible to know for certain whether whites on net benefited from slavery at the time.
However, the BIG argument about the South, through slavery, funding the tariff and thus industrial expansion in the North, is absolutely wrong. Dead wrong.
And really we’re at the point of talking about the additional profit margins of slaves versus the denied opportunities for white workers and the long-term economy-stagnating effects of slavery.
Now in this post I have not gone into the cost of the Civil War that was brought on by slavery, the damaging political externalities of having a large African population in the United States, or the budgetary impact of blacks today. The point of this post was the CORE of it; the idea that whites gained significantly from black slavery.
Jacob Torres
wto?
Jose Taylor
Reminds me of Empire of Dust where the chink is talking about the Congolese spending all of their money getting drunk on payday and then asking for loans the day after.
Levi Howard
And whites certainly did not gain significantly. 5% extra profit for the super rich in the South – that may add up to half a percent of GDP of the whole US? If that.
Whether whites in the US, on aggregate, gained AT ALL is more debateable and more sketchy. I strongly feel that we didn’t, but I don’t have any data to back it up, just economic theory and examples. Certainly the theoretical costs of slavery sound like they would dwarf that extra profit, which may add up to 2% of the GDP of the South.
But once you start thinking in these terms, you’re a million miles away from “Whites in the US today, most of whom descend from immigrants who came after 1865, owe their wealth to the profits extracted from slaves”. You’re dealing with very small numbers that are going to be dwarfed by the cost of the Civil War and the budgetary impact of blacks anyway.
Jack Turner
NEED NEW EXPERIENCED BAKER. Ingredients for bread can be found here: pastebin.com/pbKUb9jh (Thanks )
>NEED NEW EXPERIENCED BAKER. Ingredients for bread can be found here: pastebin.com/pbKUb9jh (Thanks )
NEED NEW EXPERIENCED BAKER. Ingredients for bread can be found here: pastebin.com/pbKUb9jh (Thanks )
>NEED NEW EXPERIENCED BAKER. Ingredients for bread can be found here: pastebin.com/pbKUb9jh (Thanks )
Blake Richardson
They are still KILLING LIKE RABBITS those, who do not want to take the money and shut up about the truth of the **false flag las vegas multiple shooters*** operation by alphabet agencies.
Yep. No coincidences. Simultaneously to your post, I posted this above....
Symbolism of the White Rabbit??
We see it in Podesta's art, the Playboy Bunny, and a reference to a rabbit's foot in leaked Clinton emails. Why?
World Trade Organization, and the IMF threatened him on stream in Vietnam. The stream was then set to repeat and the footage of the threat was removed from youtube.
Brayden Myers
>have i missed something important? any redpills? any insider infos? Oh boy, buckle up.
"Segregation" by Ryan Faulk.
When I was younger, I would read world atlases. And sometimes I would come to an article, say an article on the country Colombia, and it would say that Colombia is a world leader in coffee production, then list off some other “cash crops”. Then it would go into the growing textiles sector, and mention that it has some problem with debt. Maybe it’s a leading producer of phosphates as well or something. And if you read all of this qualitative, subjective description, you would never realize that Colombia was poor. It’s not until you got to “per capita GDP” that you would discover that it was $3,000 per capita.
You could also have someone qualitatively describe a football game between Auburn and Alabama. And they could do highlights, and describe some of the big plays, and you wouldn’t know that Alabama completely steamrolled Auburn until you looked at the box score.
Or imagine if your son was “describing” qualitatively and subjectively how he was doing in his classes. As a parent you don’t care, you want to see the damn grades.
And so the effects of segregation on blacks. What does the data say? Because in school when segregation is taught, it’s the equivalent of describing a football game by just looking at the highlights and not the box score. It’s cat-lady storytime.
Well, there are a few big go-to topics that popped into my mind to try to quantify the effects of segregation on blacks: cops and courts, schools, income and lynching. So that’s what I go-to’d.
Parker Rivera
1. Incarceration rate
The incarceration rate for blacks relative to whites has increased at least since 1930, probably long before that. So in terms of blacks being targeted for being sent to prison, it looks like they were substantially less targeted compared to today.
So if the legal systems were unfair during segregation, they appear to be even more unfair today. Or perhaps they weren’t unfair during segregation, are unfair today, or perhaps the laws are different today in a way that disparately impacts blacks more than they did in the past.
There are all sorts of things we can speculate, but it’s not immediately or obviously apparent, from the data, that the legal system was particularly keen on incarcerating blacks compared to today.
2. Prison sentences
For prison sentences, the numbers have been remarkably stable. When you look at length of prison terms for blacks compared to whites after the FIRST release from prison, it’s very close.
The first release data is important because none of these are repeat offenders. Repeat offenders get more time, and blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders.
That said, based on the data below, blacks serve roughly ~15% longer prison terms for their first term. It could be because the crimes blacks commit within each category are, on average, more severe. It could be racial bias on the part of judges.
Or it could be that blacks have worse courtroom behavior, as when IQ is controlled for, the racial gap in prison sentences goes away.
But what you don’t see is blacks having longer prison sentences during segregation.
Austin Cook
Now what if we looked at median prison time served just in the South, and back in 1937 – smack in the middle of “Jim Crow” – and included repeat offenders, of which black inmates are a higher proportion today? The result is not that much different from the entire US today:
Remember, the 1937 data is JUST from the South, supposedly the hot seat of bigotry, and includes repeat offenders.
Homicide data is an unweighted average of each category. In 1937 and 1952 they used Murder and Manslaughter, in 1964 they just had Homicide, and in 2009 they had Murder, Negligent Manslaughter and Non-Negligent Manslaughter.
In case you think I am cherry-picking the years to paint a particular narrative, these are literally just the years used in the Bureau of Justice report I am citing.
And so what we can see is that the black-white incarceration gap is wider today than it was in 1930. In addition, the racial gap in sentence length for first offenders does not appear to have changed at all. Even the data that INCLUDED repeat offenders just in the South in 1937 doesn’t differ that much from the first-time offender data nationally and later.
And so this makes the idea that the current US legal system was more biased against blacks during segregation than it is today SEEM false.
Henry Young
I can pickup baker position. Thanks for efforts user. #575 in the oven ready2go @ 350 replies.
Godspeed
Jose Price
3. Lynching
A related topic to this is lynching. From Richard M. Perloff, Professor of Communication at Cleveland State University:
“Approximately 4,742 individuals were lynched between 1882 and 1968; of the victims, 3,445 or 73 percent were Black.”
All lynchings were in response to a claimed offense, such as a rape or stealing cattle. Blacks were 72.65% of all recorded lynchings while being ~26.87% of the population of the South at the time.
The Black population of the Southern US 1880-1970 averages 26.87% at each decade. And so based on their population alone, if lynchings were race-neutral, and we knew nothing about race differences in violent crime going in, we would expect 26.87% of all lynchings to be of blacks. Blacks comprised 72.65% of all lynchings, giving them a representation 2.70 times their population.
However, according to wikipedia, most lynchings occurred between 1882 and 1920, and during that time period the average black population was 31.76% of the southern US population. Using this number, blacks as a percentage of lynchings are only 2.29 times their percentage of the population.
If we split the difference and just say that the black population of the south was 29.32% of the total population, then blacks as a percentage of lynchings was 2.48 times their percentage of the population.
By comparison, in 2010, blacks comprised 12.6% of the total US population, but were 38.13% of the population charged for violent crimes, giving them a representation 3.03 times their population.
And so by raw numbers the lynch mobs appear to be slightly less racially targeting than the current US legal system is. Here are those numbers put in a table:
Mason Thomas
So why not simply kill all these pricks? If he has the military he should be able to. Also that doesn't really answer my question about ethnonationalism.
Cameron Thomas
4. Income
This is where arguments regarding the negative effects of segregation start to have some backing in data. Looking at census data from 1948, we can see that black income as a proportion of white income went from around 44% in 1948 to about 80% in 2000. This looks like a massive effect from desegregation on it’s face:
However, there is some interesting data from 1880. If you just look within regions, the racial gap is much less. At that time, black workers earned on median 37% of what white workers earned. However, if you just looked at the south, blacks earned 58% of what white workers earned. So just with that regional control we’re already almost half way to the current black-white income ratio.
But the paper did something else – it looked at black labor income relative to whites, but just looked a rural southern whites and blacks, and only looked at labor income. And in that instance, black income was 89% of white income: And so when you look at the same region, and the same kind of work, and just compare the wages of workers, the black-white income gap in the rural South was only 11%, lower than it is today. And that difference could very plausibly be due to blacks having fewer skills on average in 1880.
I would be interested to see similar thin slices just looking at urban blacks in the south vs. urban whites in the south, and urban blacks in the north to urban whites in the north. I suspect that the more you held constant region and urban/rural divide, the smaller the racial gap would be.
Which is to say, that it seems like much of the black-white income gap could have been a function of blacks living in rural areas (which were poorer back then) and living in the south (which was poorer back then).
Bentley Long
Thanks user
Evan Cook
In addition, we can see that the narrowing of the black-white income gap roughly corresponds with blacks moving out of the south. This is not a 1:1 correlation, but it is does suggest that simply moving out of the south, which began in earnest around 1910, is part of the explanation for the narrowing of the black-white income gap: And in the north, where more of the blacks were slaves who had earned their freedom before 1865, black wages as a proportion of white wages were higher. In fact blacks in the north were wealthier than whites in the south for quite some time.
Moreover, the narrowing of the black-white income gap at the national level occurred almost entirely during segregation. So to say that the smaller amount of narrowing that occurred following desegregation was in fact a result of desegregation is something that sounds kinda plausible – there’s certainly a little story you can tell – but there’s very little data for it. The most you could say is that there was a brief acceleration of the narrowing of the black-white income gap immediately after 1965, but that could be a coincidence, and even if you want to say it was a result of the civil rights act, then the acceleration versus a continuation of the previous trend is still only going to be like 2%.
Now as for why the black-white income gap narrowed from 1948 (at least) to 2000, that’s another topic. I suspect much of it has to do with the economic rise of the south and the migration of blacks away from the rural economy. Also this higher income may not have corresponded with a rise in living standards relative to whites since the cost of living may have increased, but that’s more speculative. But desegregation doesn’t appear to have any relevance to it.
So even the narrowing of the black-white income gap, long touted as prime evidence that segregation was previously suppressing black wages, the evidence is not so clear on that.
David James
5. Wealth and Employment
Two more things to consider is that up until the 1950’s blacks had employment rates similar to that of whites. And the unemployment rate in blacks grew much more after 1965: And in terms of wealth, black wealth as a proportion of white wealth has remained stagnant since 1963: Moreover, I would say that the absolute disparity is more important than the black-white ratio. Because lets say you have $10 and Bob has $100. That’s a $90 gap. Depending on your job, that’s a day’s wage, or half a day’s wage. Now if you have $100 and Bob has $900, now you’re looking at multiple days’ wage. And so on and so on. So even though the relation is the same, the practical importance of the gap is growing. Also just the total dollar amount difference is increasing. And these are all in “2013 dollars”, which adjusts for inflation.
And so when people say that the relative economic situation of blacks has improved relative to whites since segregation, they’re looking at one thing: nominal income at the national level. They’re not looking at employment, at wealth, or how much, if at all, the income gap has narrowed when controlling for what region of the country we’re looking at, or if it’s urban or rural.
Elijah Russell
6. Schools
Another argument that segregation depressed black economic success is their lower school funding. On average, from 1890 to 1950, the average of how much each state spent on black schools as a proportion of what they spent on white schools was 56.96%. So they had less funding.
But funding for what? For “better teachers”? What’s a “better teacher”? What has been found in the US is that increased real spending on schools has not increased overall performance since the 1970s, and more importantly voucher studies have shown that the school an individual goes to has no real impact on either GPA, standardized test scores or future college attendance.
So the fact that additional funding didn’t matter in 1970 is one thing. But did it matter from 1870 to 1954?
Well, we don’t have regular standardized tests from that time period, but we do have a nationally representative IQ test done in 1917 for all US army conscripts for World War 1. In it blacks scored a median of 83 compared to the white score that was set to 100. Today the black median is still at 85. Okay, two points. And my guess is they were hollow for “g” anyway.
Certainly there were journalists at the time who did “investigative journalism” and wrote anecdotal reports of how bad the black schools were. Michael Moore does “investigative journalism” today too about how great the Cuban healthcare system is. Walter Duranty visited the USSR in the 1930s and came back writing glowing reviews of the benevolent, if firm, policies of Stalin.
Maybe they were telling the truth, maybe they were making things up, who knows.
Leo Lewis
Black schools were probably worse But the question is how much worse really? And for most people, did it even matter? Most of what people learn in school they forget anyway, so aside from literacy and basic math, the practical importance of school would be minimal for most people at that time.
And the culture of school credentials as a signal to employers hadn’t developed yet, so at the time any “educational disadvantages” blacks had, whatever they were and if any, would not matter in terms of credential-signaling because that hadn’t developed yet, and in terms of knowledge beyond basic literacy and math – that all gets forgotten anyway.
7. Countrymen?
This section is a bit of a digression. In a broader sense, blacks weren’t seen as legitimate countrymen to some extent for some time in the region. And so since the blacks were viewed as “foreigners” to southern whites, who to some extent viewed northern whites as foreigners as well, they didn’t think they owed the blacks equal school funding any more than they owed people from Peru or Romania or China equal school funding.
I.e. the black-white gap in school funding meant as much to them as the american-chinese gap in school funding, as both the Chinese and the blacks were foreign to the southern whites.
Now you can have whatever opinion you want about it, and say that blacks were rightful countrymen of southern whites, and really pound your fists in self-righteous certainty about it because you “know it to be true”. That’s certainly your viewpoint.
Benjamin Sullivan
Thank you for summarizing thread top-down. Suggest leave Barron out of it per FLOTUS's request to MSM some months ago? He's a minor, let him have some privacy to grow up.
Juan Peterson
Yeah the real /cbts/ is over at cripple chan now
See
Andrew Price
Because that means POTUS is a dictator. I agree they should be killed, but Jeff Sessions needs an opportunity to do his job. 1800 sealed indictment indicates imvho that he is indeed going to do the job we hope he is going to do.
Pic related
Jayden Moore
But understand that it is just your viewpoint, and when you realize that the southern whites viewed blacks the way we look at illegal immigrants today, and that the times during which either repatriation of blacks to Africa or creating a separate black country out of land in the US were serious proposals were still in living memory at the time.
Today blacks have been part of the US for so long that such proposals probably seem bizarre to you. And they would bizarre and cruel if implemented today. But also remember that the US had to impose military governments in the south in order to pass the 14th amendment that gave the blacks citizenship. And Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio renounced their ratification of the 14th amendment after the fact in protest of this action.
Obviously is was a symbolic gesture, but it showed that opposition to the way the 14th amendment was passed wasn’t considered some kooky fringe idea at the time. Of course it is now because if you bring up the use of military governments in passing the 14th amendment – well, “only racists talk about that”, so it just gets dismissed.
But yes, understand that the 14th amendment was seen like granting “amnesty” to the illegals is today – it would be creating an alternative method of granting citizenship for a specific group of non-citizens in the US today.
(And the fact that more whites supported granting citizenship to the black slaves at the time than supporting granting amnesty to illegals today is support for a theory I have about whites in the past being more “neurologically left-wing” even if they would be considered today to hold “far-right” positions by today’s standards.)
Jeremiah Mitchell
...
Nathan Morgan
Conclusion
The beginning of my line of thinking here was the cases involving George Zimmerman and Derrick Wilson. Among the general public there was controversy. But among the jurors, there was no controversy, the cop (in the case of Wilson) and the wanna-be cop (in the case of Zimmerman) were unanimously found to be not guilty. And there were riots and protests in response to these events, and protesters would use these events as examples of a “white supremacist” society.
The jurors certainly knew more facts about each case than the general public did. Moreover, whites are more likely to believe Zimmerman and Wilson were justified, and whites do better on tests of current events knowledge. In addition, males, who do better on current events knowledge tests than females, also were more satisfied with the Zimmerman verdict than women, and women do worse on current events knowledge tests. Also, people with higher education levels approved the verdict as well.
Thus, all three factors that correlate with general political and current events knowledge (being white, being male and having lots of time in school) also correlate with approving the Zimmerman trial verdict. And the people who had the MOST knowledge – the jurors – unanimously found Zimmerman not guilty.
If you go by the literature in news media talking about “institutional racism” and “white privilege”, it’s not immediately obvious that the aggregate of all media is any less obsessed with the plight of the coloreds than they were in 1964. Maybe they were, but I have no way to really tell.
Grayson Hughes
But lets say Derrick Wilson killed “the gentle giant” in 1961. There was no internet in 1961, what you knew about the events was what a few major news outlets chose to report. As it happens, a jury also found J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant not guilty of murder in their killing of Emmett Till. And what do you know about that event? Do the facts you know of the Emmett Till verdict seem to paint a one-sided story to where it is unbelievable, yes, unbelievable that a jury would find Bryant and Milam not guilty?
Because we all know that the courts in the South were incredibly unfair to the blacks? Except there’s no real data to support that at the time, and victim surveys from modern times correspond with the police arrest rates, and police are more likely to kill a white person in any given arrest situation, are more likely to shoot blacks in simulations, and the black percentage of killing cops is higher than their percentage of being killed by cops. And in fact the black incarceration rate relative to whites is HIGHER than it was during segregation.
As shown in previous articles, modern “institutional racism” in terms of police and court bias, callbacks and educational opportunities are very easily revealed to be phantasms – or at the very least the issue of whether or not they exist is much more complex than the basic statistics you hear on tumblr and huffpo posts would suggest.
Isaiah Powell
Recent studies have shown that residential racial segregation has increased in the United States. This is an improvement over older studies which simply looked at cities and the percentage of each race in the cities. These newer methods actually look at the likelihood of you having a neighbor of a different race, and find that racial segregation is increasing.
We already know that schools are more segregated than they were during the late 1960s. Now this is a profound thing; you’ve been to school. You had first hand experience with how racially segregated they were. THAT was close to what it was like during Jim Crow that we hear so many stories about. So… how segregated did it seem?
In other places on this site, Sean and I make arguments about how currently, blacks and hispanics are not getting a raw deal in employment, courts or education. But what surprised me was just how much, looking into the past, the old days seem so similar to today in terms of the lot of blacks compared to whites.
They are drawn parallel. The past is not far away, it’s right here. 60 years ago was yesterday.
Benjamin Rivera
hey look copy and paste fag
Liam Harris
Filter shills. Those posting innumerable comments about boomers, kikes, schizo, LARP, and "proof" Q is fake, posts about blacks, any new topic in these spam posts - to be hidden. Use pic related as soon as you see such a post. BTW this drives the little snowflakes fucking berserk, so you can feel good about filtering them. Just imagine them sweating with rage in their parent's basement.
Easton Young
oh vey, i asked and you delivered. my lazy ass thanks you anons
Andrew Martin
Can you explain to a boomer how to filter Swedefag?
Gavin Wood
press Alt-F4
Angel Foster
For those of you who didnt saw this
Adrian Sanchez
And then this
Thomas Myers
click his pic for a guide bro
Gavin Hughes
it is OY vey. Learn it or lose it
>150985360 yes two posts up from yours LOOK AT THE IMAGE user POSTED jesus
>yall whores listen up
8 Charlie Hotel . November Echo Tango / Charlie Bravo Tango Sugar
migrate_yes shills_less
Christian Clark
...
Nicholas Gomez
This. MAGA
Aiden Evans
Cripples In America. Cripples In America. Cripples In America.
Dylan Reed
...
Dylan Thomas
Where oh where is love?
Zachary Martinez
who? me?!
HAHA yes ok sure i'll LARP
pew pew
Jeremiah Powell
>Cripples In America. >Cripples In America. >Cripples In America.
Jackson Brown
>574 threads of LARPing
jesus fuck
Lucas Moore
Sign of a possible cult: Members are encouraged or required to socialize only with other group members.
Samuel Gray
Signs of a cult: Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Charles Walker
Smile! It's Happening
Henry Harris
seriously... no but Sup Forums wants us out so we just get out we're good people the info is the important thing here I'll still stroll around Sup Forums like I have done since you were in diapers though so no worries
pic related
William Mitchell
ourth characteristic of a group that has become a cult or is behaving in a cult-like manner is that there will be a persecution complex.
A group of outside forces will be identified who are “the enemy”.
A little fortress will be built in which all those on the inside are the “faithful ones” while all those on the outside will increasingly be demonized and feared.
Elijah Fisher
And? Who cares? As long as you win. Why attach yourselves to some bullshit democracy?
Oliver James
I was here before Legion newfag. No matter when you came here you are a newfag to me.
