Palestine

All of what you said is what I've been arguing. Like how the wheels of a car are integral to a cars movement so is western european christianity integral to colonialism. But just like how the wheels are not the cause for colonialism so it is with christianity. It doesn't by itself cause colonialism. I do not know how I can make this clearer and I think you're refusal to look at the actual cause, the relentless pursuit of profit, comes from you sharing in the profits of this machinery. I can see no other reason why else you would go so far as to blame the overexploited for their enslavement. Disturbing stuff.

So let’s add this up. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, and your own sources betray you. I am done with you acting like you know a god damned thing about this.

you continue to reaffirm my belief that you do not properly engage with what I say, don't have a dialectical understanding of history and ultimately are very underdeveloped in your understanding of the world beyond eurocentric cultures. I believe this because your arguments are rather trivial and seem thought up in the moment.

Marx famously labeled religion the “sign of the oppressed creature” a way for people to cope with a heartless world, but one that ultimately prevents real liberation.

And therefore Marx agrees that religion is not what causes colonialism, it's a response to oppression that capitalism then turns around to subjugate the masses, like how opium is a very efficient and even necessary painkiller that nonetheless gets used to dull the senses of the masses.

Lenin argues that religion is both the response to and cause of oppression. So he believes it is the cause, not just the result of oppression. You don’t have Lenin on your side.

I do not know how you reach this understanding, you offer nothing.

Hudson never spoke on Christianity being the cause of oppression.

Hudson's Superimperialism is the definitive work giving the blueprint to the motor of todays colonialism and oppression. That it doesn't even mention christianity is what I am trying to get at.

Slavery as we know it in the Americas could never exist without Pope Nicholas V in the 1450s who granted rights to enslave non-Christians, laying the foundation for the Atlantic slave trade. Read that again, without Christianity there would never have been the slave trade that Sakai wrote about.

How do you figure that? If Pope Nicholas V had been the head of some other religion he wouldn't have legalised slavery? Or that if he had been the head of a non-religious but equally powerful political organization he would not have? How does his christianity factor into this?

I leave you with this quote from Engels^[https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Socialism:_utopian_and_scientific] which more successfully demonstrates what I believe to be the motor of oppression, stripped away of the religious sanctity and lying bare it ran even more efficiently:

We saw how the French philosophers of the 18th century, the forerunners of the Revolution, appealed to reason as the sole judge of all that is. A rational government, rational society, were to be founded; everything that ran counter to eternal reason was to be remorselessly done away with. We saw also that this eternal reason was in reality nothing but the idealized understanding of the 18th century citizen, just then evolving into the bourgeois. The French Revolution had realized this rational society and government.

But the new order of things, rational enough as compared with earlier conditions, turned out to be by no means absolutely rational. The state based upon reason completely collapsed. Rousseau’s Contrat Social had found its realization in the Reign of Terror, from which the bourgeoisie, who had lost confidence in their own political capacity, had taken refuge first in the corruption of the Directorate, and, finally, under the wing of the Napoleonic despotism. The promised eternal peace was turned into an endless war of conquest. The society based upon reason had fared no better. The antagonism between rich and poor, instead of dissolving into general prosperity, had become intensified by the removal of the guild and other privileges, which had to some extent bridged it over, and by the removal of the charitable institutions of the Church. The “freedom of property” from feudal fetters, now veritably accomplished, turned out to be, for the small capitalists and small proprietors, the freedom to sell their small property, crushed under the overmastering competition of the large capitalists and landlords, to these great lords, and thus, as far as the small capitalists and peasant proprietors were concerned, became “freedom from property”. The development of industry upon a capitalistic basis made poverty and misery of the working masses conditions of existence of society. [...]

In a word, compared with the splendid promises of the philosophers, the social and political institutions born of the “triumph of reason” were bitterly disappointing caricatures. All that was wanting was the men to formulate this disappointment, and they came with the turn of the century. In 1802, Saint-Simon’s Geneva letters appeared; in 1808 appeared Fourier’s first work, although the groundwork of his theory dated from 1799; on January 1, 1800, Robert Owen undertook the direction of New Lanark.