Apparently historians have decided that history needs some editing, specifically during the time period in which Egyptian Pharaohs used ‘slaves’ to build the temples and pyramids. Historians have decided that this is all a myth, that they weren’t really ‘slaves’, they were free laborers, conscripts, who were paid a wage and needed the work.   The basis for this shift is in the term ‘conscript’.   It is not unlike obligatory military service wherein housing and meals are provided in return for labor. Another term used to identify the laborers who built the pyramids is – civil servant. And civil servants require a ‘strong government’ body to … force them into slave labor.

Hmmm.

Is this some weird way of heralding in Social-Communism?

Of course there is the fact that a conscript in the military is not free to leave, as this would be considered AWAL, and grounds for court marshal, the terminology is rather obliquely conveyed to serve a purpose, albeit a strange one.

The entire basis of this new conclusion is the fact that a dozen intact skeletons were found in a shaft constructed of mud and brick behind the Giza pyramids. According to this conclusive evidence, historians conjecture that if they were slaves they would not have been buried, and they had to have been pyramid builders because their grave was behind a pyramid.

YIMINEE.

Interesting logic, not for its conclusion but for its absolute immature irrational thinking process.

Oddly, this same logic would seem not to apply to black slaves in Europe and the US who were buried, many with headstones and inscriptions.   Should we then conclude that the slaves in Europe, the white slaves of the Barbary Coast, and all slaves of history were not really slaves, but simply civil servants, laborers?

A friend shared with me that a man who is of black, white and Hispanic heritage believes that all white men should pay remuneration to all black men because of past slavery.   Of course, given that this man is partially white, wouldn’t his white part have to thus pay all black men?   And if we apply his remuneration logic, wouldn’t his black part have to pay all European whites for their Barbary Coast slave trade?   And given that Spain was considered a pioneer of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, wouldn’t this man’s Hispanic heritage make him libel to his black heritage and all black men?

He’d go broke.

Of course all of this is on the heels of the new agenda in which all white men are brutalized as having ‘white privilege’ for which they must be made to suffer and curl into a ball of shame.    But shame isn’t the real agenda, the real agenda is redistribution of $$$$.   A stage is being set for a special white privilege tax to be levied, lawsuits to erupt, and chaos to ensue.

So let’s do what the historians have done regarding the Egyptian slavery – let’s simply redefine it as civil conscription, i.e. a necessary service in order to build agriculture which benefits everyone…

And women were not really property or chattel, they were laborers who were ‘persuaded’ to have more children so as to benefit society with their added labor and protection.

Problem solved!! Slavery never existed.