Why are anglos such hypocrites>be john locke>talk about natural rights of man>participate in the transatlantic slave trade and sacrifice all your principles for money.
>>539164221>of manNiggers are a separate race
>>539164221I don't know much about John Locke except that he promoted learning Latin by reading interlinear books, and he also recommended learning French, so that's based.
>>539164221
Liberal "philosophers" were all propagandists for the East India Company.
>>539164545I love you!
>>539164545Jewish company btw
>>539164508>>539164471He wasn't Jewish. He was born in 1632, and England did not formally readmit Jews until 1656. He was an English Protestant and an Englishman.
>>539164473here's a Latin-English interlinear book John Locke wrotehttps://books.google.com/books?id=m98IAAAAQAAJ
>>539164221>natural rightsThe idea of rights actually existing (and not just an idea invented by humans) is a ridiculous level of cope.
>>539164890I appreciate both of their ideas, but Locke was the father of classical liberalism.Without his intellectual influence, the American Revolution may never have taken the form it did. His central insight was that political authority does not originate with kings or governments, but with individuals. People possess natural rights, and governments are created through their consent to protect those rights.The idea that men can come together, establish their own institutions, and replace governments that violate their trust became foundational not only to the American experiment, but to the development of modern liberal democracy and many later forms of government, including national socialism in Germany.German men decided to create a mythos for their people to believe in, they decided that they were not going to see themselves and created a strong leader and a mythos for a people. at the heart of this are the ideas of classical liberalism. Only the slaves would disagree, but we all know this, its why we are all here, frustrated at the intellectual dishonestly and contradictions of thought within society.
>>539165196Natural rights are fundamental, anon.In the state of nature, you can walk up to someone and call them whatever you choose. No law, licence, or institution physically prevents the words from leaving your mouth. When the state declares certain speech illegal or claims that permission is required to express particular ideas, that restriction exists only because people collectively recognise and enforce it.It is a legal construct imposed upon natural freedom, not a principle inherent to nature itself.That is why the founders understood that certain rights were given to us by the creator, and these rights should be protected,Speech being the main way we can reshape the thought forms of society, understanding this we see it as the first amendment, then they understood the weaker minds bound to the will of tyrants would inevitably use violence to suppress certain speech, so they gave them the rights to arms. To protect the natural rights with natural rights to revolution.
>>539164908English and European Jews converted to Christianity in the 1100s to avoid being genocided
>>539165395You have no rights in the jungle. This is a cruel, indifferent universe. All we have is each other.
>>539164221Well you see...niggers are not human so they are not "men"
>>539165395Shoulda coulda woulda
>>539165442Did you even read his post?
>>539167098We don't have "natural freedoms", no "rights were given to us by the creator", etc.
>>539167716I don't think you you understand, natural rights, is the law of the jungle.
>>539164221Niggers aren't human.
>>539170645the law of the jungle is I eat you and there's nothing you can do about it
>>539170694that is your natural right to determine this.It was a right your creator gave to you, to see them like this.
>>539170714Yes and i can do the same.
>>539170761>your creatorShow some respect. His name was Yakub.
>>539170791No you can't. I already ate you.
>>539170824that is your natural right to see the creator like this.
>>539164221He never had to reconcile his principles with the reality of African slavery because he simply didn’t see Africans as part of the political community his philosophy was written for. Locke wasn’t confused. He just didn’t apply his theory to people who weren’t his people.
>>539164473>>539164924Shut the fuck up, retard. Go make another one of your faggot threads seething about being utterly colonized by Anglo culture. Nigger
>>539171343stfu anglophone rat, you're the one who's seething
>>539164221>be john locke>talk about natural rights of man>to a nigger>"I don't knoe nuf bout that" he says, with genuine humility>"oh... I see. well you just do what you do best and get back to shoeing those horses jeremiah"
>>539171210Its because they viewed slaves as property.Slaves were considered property, and though their lives may have appeared harsh, they actually had certain benefits compared to modern times. They received free food, community, their own harems of slave women, and worked for only a few hours each day picking cotton while raising large families and maintaining a sense of community. Most negros would join a wealthy family and have a home and a position which was far better living standard from the African nation they were living in.Contrary to popular belief depicted in Hollywood, slaves were not mistreated or kept in chains. The only instance when a slave would be in chains was when they were one of the bucks that needd beaking, at which point they would be sold to brutal labor camps, similar to today's prison system where African Americans are disproportionately incarcerated and subjected to harsh conditions.
