I was referring to the abolitionist movement in USA.
But as you can clearly see from your Wiki source, Whites had slaves aswell. Non-Whites (jews specifically) were banned from owning White slaves, Whites were not banned from owning White slaves (or non-White slaves). To blame everything "bad" on KIKES and arabs is stupid. We can all agree that we don't want to assimiliate with non-Whites but the act of slavery itself isn't a "non-White activity".
Just like the kikes have used the Holohoax to command their "morality" on Whites they also used that to peddle their "humanism/universalism" on Whites, which to it's core is anti-Christian.
Christianity built Western society, Christianity approves of slavery (with certain caveats).
>Whites were not banned from owning White slaves
First of all, there was no such thing like blacks/whites/browns and shit during the medieval era. There were christians, muslims, jews, heretics and pagans
Let's get shit straight here. The notion of race wasn't even a thing.
In 1315 already slavery was banned in france, almost entirely except in few ports. Any slave setting foot in france was automatically a free man. By royal decree.
>1315 France Louis X publishes a decree abolishing slavery and proclaiming that "France signifies freedom", that any slave setting foot on French ground should be freed.[19] However some limited cases of slavery continued until the 17th century in some of France's Mediterranean harbours in Provence, as well as until the 18th century in some of France's overseas territories.[20] Most aspects of serfdom are also eliminated de facto between 1315 and 1318.[21]
So, starting with the middle of the medieval era, slavery was already well on its way out. At least, when it comes to european on european slavery.
Slavery is all fun and games until you get a slave revolt/uprising right in the middle of a war at your borders.
Ofcourse there was lmao, race was common sense since the dawn of man, in the Bible for example non-Whites are referred to as "mamzers" which translates to mongrels/mixed breeds/wild animals. The word arab in Biblical Hebrew translates to "mixed origin" "mingled peoples", which is what they are, there are no single origin for arabs or their genetic cousins the jews, they are per definition banned from being Christians. So when kikes tell you that the Bible (either Testament) is a jewish book or Jesus Christ was a kike on a stick, tell them that the kikes are mixed breed mongrels who by definition are destined for the Lake of Fire.
The Greeks called them savages/barbarians.
The Romans enslaved them (and eventually got kiked and set the animals free).
Christian Europe simply didn't have to contend with non-Whites because kikes were banned in all of the Christian world.
You think the Nazi racial laws were hardcore? They even had honorary kikes. Christianity literally put death penalty on people who race mixed.
Like I said, slavery is a nothingburger historically for Whites, more Whites have been enslaved by non-Whites then Whites by other Whites. But to say it's a non-White thing is simply blasphemy, the White man was created to do Gods will on this earth, and the world was a much better place for everyone when the White man ruled.
>Ofcourse there was lmao, race was common sense since
No
The main concern during the middle age was the soul, when new people were encountered the question was whether they had a soul or not, whether they were creature of god / humans, or creature of the devil, or animals
That was the christian middle age, that was above all considerations
And when the new world was discovered, it was the central question for the vatican when it came to the people over there
You don't know that you don't know shit
Of course blood lines existed, but again, religion was front and center and above all else
>Christianity built Western society, Christianity approves of slavery (with certain caveats).
Christianity tried to justify it at one point or another (during the roman era, to accomodate the TPTB, and later on with the new world until they revised their position)
But early christian considered christian slaves as free men
It was justified from the creation of Adam, Adam and his seed (Adamites) (literally translates to "ruddy skin" "to show redness" in Biblical Hebrew (not the modern bastardized version) was created to rule the earth. You are correct that Christians MAY NOT have Christian slaves, now keep in mind, the racial laws of the Bible makes it very clear that only Whites are Christians _BUT_ pagan Whites are considered as slave material, but they must be released with full pay on the 7th year.
Think hard and long on this simple fact: When Whites followed God, He blessed us with "honey and milk", the White man literally at it's peak ruled 90% of the earth, now today the Kikes want you to believe that colonialism was bad and evil, it is not. Colonialism was simply the White man doing the will of our God.
Obviously you had retarded blasphemeres who would try to make Christians out of niggers and gooks but thats just that, blasphemy.
>the racial laws of the Bible makes it very clear that only Whites are Christians
Yes BUT
This is christianity, you read the old through the new
The old only is the jew stuff christianity≠judaism
(post is archived)