Haaretz Kikell Whines that Roman Emperor Forbid them Enslaving Christians

The other day I saw the following image making the rounds on Telegram.

I’ve dealt with fake screenshots before, and it’s never productive. I fully expected this to be the same, so I did some Googling expecting to find nothing at all.

But no, I was able to easily find the offending piece. We’re gonna start with the subheading.

Haaretz:

Possibly the worst of the edicts handed down this day in 339 CE was the ban on owning Christian slaves, though death for circumcising them was arguably worse.

I tried to bold some parts of that, but nothing really jumps out as being uniquely worse than any other bit. He’s literally whining that not being allowed to enslave the goyim was a horrible crime, almost as bad as not being able to sexually mutilate them after enslaving them.

David B. Green

The someone in this case is “David B. Green,” a Haaretz author. And judging by his profile page, he’s still a regular contributor, with his last piece being only three days old as of time of writing.

But enough of that. Let’s see how David B. Green justifies his take that jews were really oppressed by not being allowed to enslave the goyim and mutilate them against their will.

On August 13, 339, C.E., Emperor Constantius II enacted a series of new laws restricting the freedom of Jews in the Roman Empire even more than under the anti-Jewish legislation imposed by his father, Constantine the Great.

I’m sorry, did he not start this by whining about jews not being allowed to enslave people? We now see our entrepid Schlomo is whining about jews freedoms being restricted. And I’m getting some weird feeling he’s gonna redefine this as jews inalienable right to freely enslave the goyim or something.

It was under Constantine (who ruled 306-337) that Jews were prohibited from taking action, particularly violent action, against Jews who had converted to the rapidly growing Christianity. A law enacted in 315 C.E. imposed death on any Jew who so harassed a Christian proselyte. Similarly, any non-Jew who decided to convert to Judaism also risked execution.

You’ll have to forgive my peanut sized goy brain for not quite getting this, but violently assaulting or murdering people is not “freedom,” but rather the opposite. Or at least it’s not freedom for everyone, which presumably includes the freedom to not be murdered for converting to Christianity, or proselytizing Christianity.

The [new proclamations from Roman Emperor Constantinius II] were three in number: First, Jews were now prohibited from owning Christian slaves, and any such slaves that were in Jewish possession at the time of the law’s enactment would automatically be transferred to ownership of the imperial treasury (rather than being freed).

Second, any Jew who had owned a slave and, in the case of a male, had him circumcised, was to lose the slave and also be executed, presumably in that order. Finally, Jews were specifically prohibited from marrying Christian women who had been working in imperial weaving factories (called gynaeceum). Any such marriages were to be dissolved.

Based, based, and more based.

Let me go ahead and read between the lines for you here, goy. It’s true that slavery was not being outlawed, but there was no doubt a difference between the goy slave owners, and the disgusting and no doubt extra evil jew slave owners. Executing the ones who mutilated the genitals of their goy slaves was a quick and dirty way of having the most vicious and cruel of jew slavers dealt with in one fell swoop.

Secondly, preventing jews from marrying goy women is interesting, mostly because it appears to have been given equal weight as the first two. Presumably there were a lot of Leo Frank‘s out there, who were exploiting the economic precarity of these poor women and preying upon them in various ways. It’s also probably some sort of proto-racial hygiene law, pushed thousands of years ago. 

Leo Frank’s glorious end.

Probably the prohibition on ownership of Christian slaves was the most onerous of these new rules, and one with not just religious implications, but also real economic ones.

Prepare yourself for some of the most hebrew logic you’ve ever seen.

Jewish-owned businesses were in competition with state-owned ones, and the holding of slaves was integral to running a profitable business. Being denied the right to hold non-Jewish slaves, at a time when both Jews and pagans were taking on Christianity in large numbers, put Jewish entrepreneurs at a disadvantage.

No, it didn’t put jew “entrepreneurs,” at a disadvantage, it put jew slavers at a disadvantage. That’s what actually happened. Jews made mass profits off of the backs of the goyim, or at least some small but politically relevant section of them did. This kike reframes this as something about economic competition, and yet jews were never forbidden from enslaving other jews. So, why couldn’t they just use jew slaves?

Well they couldn’t use jew slaves because the entire point is profiting off of the backs of the goy-cattle. Using jew slaves defeats the purpose. So fuck David B. Green and Haaretz, which bills itself as a “left-wing” jew news org, for denying the clear and obvious racial component in question. Slavery was a crime that jews committed to the goyim. The goyim were the victims, and yet this kike is pretending that jews were the real victims here.

In 351, when Constantius was preoccupied with political intrigues in the west, he appointed his cousin Constantius Gallus to be Caesar of the east. It was in this context that a revolt among the Jews of the Land of Israel took place, in protest of the persecution that they were suffering at the hands of the imperial government and of Christians in general.

It’s almost unbelievable reading this. They were forbidden from enslaving the goyim, so they LITERALLY DID A REVOLT. Because to Der Juden, equality feels like oppression.

Gallus sent the general Ursicinus to put down the revolt, which he did with great brutality.

I wonder how that went over with everyone?

It really is just amazing with these people. The level of victimhood inversion is honestly difficult to wrap your head around. Imagine a group of people who believe that they’re oppressed because they’re no longer allowed to enslave people.

Well, now you don’t have to imagine anymore.