George Fitzhugh, The Failure of Free Society, and The Philosophy of the -Isms

August 28, 2016 Hunter Wallace Alternative Right, Philosophy 104

In this excerpt from his 1857 book Cannibals All!, or Slaves Without Masters, George Fitzhugh explains why “free society” begets thousands of -isms, and why the American North of his time was being convulsed by social revolution:

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ISMS – SHEWING WHY THEY ABOUND AT THE NORTH, AND ARE UNKNOWN AT THE SOUTH.

The exploitation, or unjust exactions of skill and capital in free society, excite the learned and philanthropic to devise schemes of escape, and impel the laborers to adopt those schemes, however chimerical, because they feel that their situation cannot be worsted. They are already slaves without masters, and that is the bathos of human misery. Besides, universal liberty has disintegrated and dissolved society, and placed men in isolated, selfish, and antagonistic positions – in which each man is compelled to wrong others, in order to be just himself. But man’s nature is social, not selfish, and he longs and yearns to return to parental, fraternal and associative relations. All the isms concur in promising closer and more associative relations, in establishing at least a qualified community property, and in insuring the weak and unfortunate the necessaries and comforts of life. Indeed, they all promise to establish slavery – minus, the master and the overseer.”

According to Fitzhugh, liberalism is based on a false premise.

As Aristotle believed, humans are tribal beings who are social in nature. Liberalism assumes just the opposite: that human beings are naturally individualistic and selfish. These individuals exited a mythical “State of Nature” in order to create atomized proposition societies and enjoy the benefits of civilization.

Liberalism is an unnatural individualistic philosophy that disintegrates the social fabric. It sees a world of selfish rights-bearing individualists, not tribes that practice in-group altruism. In the name of “freedom” and “rights,” it sets every “individual” in an unnatural position by prying him apart from every other member of his tribe.

As liberalism and the free market advances over time, which is to say, as both cut deeper and deeper inroads into a culture, it creates huge class inequalities and erodes social capital, which leads to extreme alienation and anomie. This social disintegration and angst is the fountainhead of the North and Europe’s “-isms” which promise to restore “close and more associative relations” and to reduce glaring inequalities.

“As the evils which we have described are little felt at the South, men here would as soon think of entering the lion’s cage, as going into one of their incestuous establishments. Mormonism is only a monster development of the isms. They are all essentially alike, and that the most successful, because, so far, it has been socialism – plus the overseer.”

The “-isms” are all essentially alike because they are constantly generated by the flawed nature of free society itself. Mormon polygamy, for example, is cited as only the most recent monstrous development.

“The mantle of Joe Smith descended on Brigham Young, and if he transmit to a true prophet, there is no telling how long the thing may work. Mormonism had its birth in Western New York, that land fertile of isms – where also arose Spiritual Rappings and Oneida Perfectionism – where Shakers, and Millenarians, and Millerites abound, and all heresies do most flourish. Mormonism now is daily gathering thousands of recruits from free society in Europe, Asia, Africa, and our North, and not one from the South. It has no religion, but in place of it, a sensual moral code, that shocks the common sense of propriety. But it holds property somewhat in common, draws men together in closer and more fraternal relations, and promises (probably falsely) a safe retreat and refuge from the isolated and inimical relations, the killing competition and exploitation, of free society. All the other isms do the same – but mal-administration, or the want of a master, soon explodes them.”

The attraction of Mormonism is a fairer distribution of property and a tighter social fabric that is found lacking in mainstream New England and Britain.

“We warn the North, that every one of the leading Abolitionists is agitating the negro slavery question merely as a means to attain ulterior ends, and those ends nearer home. They would not spend so much time and money for the mere sake of the negro or his master, about whom they care little. But they know that men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation – once committed to the sweeping principle, “that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another,” are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism, to the most ultra doctrines of Garrison, Goodell, Smith and Andrews – to no private property, no church, no law, no government, – to free love, free lands, free women and free churches.

There is no middle ground – not an inch of ground of any sort, between the doctrines which we hold and those which Mr. Garrison holds. If slavery, either white or black, be wrong in principle or practice, then is Mr. Garrison right – then is all human government wrong.

Socialism, not Abolition, is the real object of Black Republicanism. The North, not the South, the true battle-ground. Like Fanny Wright, the author of American Socialism, the agitators of the North look upon free society as a mere transition state to a better, but untried, form of society. Thereader will not fully comprehend the ideas we would convey, without reading “England the Civilizer,” by Miss Fanny Wright. It is worth reading, not only as far the best history of the British constitution, but as the most correct and perfect analysis and delineation of free society – of that form of society which all Socialists and all thinking men agree cannot stand as it is. The Abolition school of Socialists like it because it is intolerable – because they consider it a transition state to a form of society without law or government. Miss Wright has the honesty to admit, that a transition has never taken place. No; and never will take place: be cause the expulsion of human nature is a pre-requisite to its occurrence.

But we solemnly warn the North, that what she calls a transition, is what every leading Abolitionist is moving heaven and earth to attain. This is their real object – negro emancipation a mere gull-trap.

In the attempt to attain “transition” seas of gore may be shed, until military despotism comes in to restore peace and security.

We (for we are a Socialist) agree with Mr. Carlyle, that the action of free society must be reversed. That, instead of relaxing more and more the bonds that bind man to man, you must screw them up more closely. That, instead of no government, you must have more government. And this is eminently true in America, where from the nature of things, as society becomes older and population more dense, more of government will be required. To prevent the attempt at transition, which would only usher in revolution, you must begin to govern more vigorously.”

Abolition is “a mere gull-trap.” The transformation of society is “their real object.” There is something much deeper going on here.

“In our little work, “Sociology for the South,” we said, “We may again appear in the character of writer before the public; but we shall not intrude, and would prefer that others should finish the work which we have begun.” That little work has met, every where, we believe, at the South, with a favorable reception. No one has denied its theory of Free Society, nor disputed the facts on which that theory rests. Very many able co-laborers have arisen, and many books and essays are daily appearing, taking higher ground in defence of Slavery; justifying it as a normal and natural institution, instead of excusing or apologizing for it, as an exceptional one. It is now treated as a positive good, not a necessary evil. The success, not the ability of our essay, may have had some influence in eliciting this new mode of defence. We have, for many years, been gradually and cautiously testing public opinion at the South, and have ascertained that it is ready to approve and much prefers, the highest ground of defence. We have no peculiar fitness for the work we are engaged in, except the confidence that we address a public predisposed to approve our doctrines, however bold or novel.

Heretofore the great difficulty in defending Slavery has arisen from the fear that the public would take offence at assaults on its long- cherished political axioms; which, nevertheless, stood in the way of that defence. It is now evident that those axioms have outlived their day – for no one, either North or South, has complained of our rather ferocious assault on them – much less attempted to reply to or refute our arguments and objections. All men begin very clearly to perceive, that the state of revolution is politically and socially abnormal and exceptional, and that the principles that would justify it are true in the particular, false in the general. “A recurrence to fundamental principles,” by an oppressed people, is treason if it fails; the noblest of heroism if it eventuates in successful revolution. But a “frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” is at war with the continued existence of all government, and is a doctrine fit to be sported only by the Isms of the North and the Red Republicans of Europe. With them no principles are considered established and sacred, nor will ever be.

When, in time of revolution, society is partially disbanded, disintegrated and dissolved, the doctrine of Human Equality may have a hearing, and may be useful in stimulating rebellion; but it is practically impossible, and directly conflicts with all government, all separate property, and all social existence. We cite these two examples, as instances, to shew how the wisest and best of men are sure to deduce, as general principles, what is only true as to themselves and their peculiar circumstances. Never were people blessed with such wise and noble Institutions as we; for they combine most that was good in those of Rome and Greece, of Judea, and of Mediaeval England. But the mischievous absurdity of our political axioms and principles quite equals the wisdom and conservatism of our political practices. The ready appreciation by the public of such doctrines as these, encourages us to persevere in writing. The silence of the North is far more encouraging, however, than the approbation of the South. Piqued and taunted for two years, by many Southern Presses of high standing, to deny the proposition that Free Society in Western Europe is a failure, and that it betrays premonitory symptoms of failure, even in America, the North is silent, and thus tacitly admits the charge. Challenged to compare and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of our domestic slavery with their slavery of the masses to capital and skill, it is mute, and neither accepts nor declines our challenge.”

The axioms of the Declaration of Independence have outlived their day. Revolution is an abnormal state of society and its principles are true in the particular, but false in the general. “The mischievous absurdity of our political axioms and principles quite equals the wisdom and conservatism of our political practice.” The divided structure of the American government has a restraining effect on the radicalism of its principles.

“In the first place, the character of the enemy we have to contend with prevents anything like regular warfare. They are divided into hundreds of little guerrilla bands of isms, each having its peculiar partizan tactics, and we are compelled to vary our mode of attack from regular cannonade to bush-fighting, to suit the occasion.”

Hundreds of guerrilla bands of -isms!

There is so much good stuff in this book. Fitzhugh and Carlyle nailed the nature of the beast generations ago.

“Why have you Bloomer’s and Women’s Right’s men, and strong-minded women, and Mormons, and anti-renters, and “vote myself a farm” men, Millerites, and Spiritual Rappers, and Shakers, and Widow Wakemanites, and Agrarians, and Grahamites, and a thousand other superstitious and infidel isms at the North ? Why is there faith in nothing, speculation about everything? Why is this unsettled, half demented state of the human man mind co-extensive in time and space, with free society? Why is Western Europe now starving? and why has it been fighting and starving for seventy years? Why all this, except that free society is a failure ? Slave society needs no defence till some other permanent practicable form of society has been discovered. None such has been discovered. Nobody at the North who reads my book will attempt to reply to it; for all the learned abolitionists had unconsciously discovered and proclaimed the failure of free society long before I did.”

Let me update that to 2016.

Why have you so many proud homosexuals, self-hating cis-het White men, transsexuals, SJWs, anarchists, democratic socialists, bra-burning feminists, Black Lives Matter activists and the like at the North?

Update: In the previous post, I alluded to the Dark Enlightenment of the 1850s. Here’s an excerpt from C. Vann Woodward on George Fitzhugh that highlights the same phenomena:

“With such a wealth of sterling and illustrious examples of the Lockean liberal consensus, from Benjamin Franklin to Abraham Lincoln and on down, surely a small niche could be found in our national Pantheon for one minor worthy who deviated all down the line. For Fitzhugh frankly preferred Sir Robert Filmer and most of his works to John Locke and all his. He saw retrogression in what others hailed as progress, embraced moral pessimism in place of optimism, trusted intuition in preference to reason, always preferred inequality to equality, aristocracy to democracy, and almost anything — including slavery and socialism — to laissez faire capitalism. Whatever his shortcomings, George Fitzhugh could never, never be accused of advocating the middle way. Granting all his doctrine to be quite un-American, one might still ask that Fitzhugh’s thought be re-examined, if only for the sharp relief in which it throws the habitual lineaments of the American mind.

Louis Hartz, who applauds America’s rejection of Fitzhugh, has deplored the prevailing indifference to what he calls “The Reactionary Enlightenment” of the Southern conservatives. “For this was the great imaginative moment in American political thought,” he writes, “the moment when America almost got out of itself, as it were, and looked with some objectivity on the liberal formula it has known since birth.” While in his opinion the movement ran to fantasy, extravagance, and false identifications, he calls it “one of the great and creative episodes in the history of American thought,” and its protagonists “the only Western conservatives America has ever had.”1

Hartz is quite justified in placing Fitzhugh near the center and in the forefront of the Reactionary Enlightenment. He goes further to pronounce him “a ruthless and iconoclastic reasoner,” “the most logical reactionary in the South,” and to attribute to him “a touch of the Hobbesian lucidity of mind.” He is on more doubtful ground when he pronounces the Virginian a “more impressive thinker” than the great Carolinian, John C. Calhoun, but he qualifies his praise with numerous charges of inconsistency, irresponsibility, and even insincerity. In commenting upon the South’s shift from the liberal doctrine of the Revolution to ante bellum conservatism, Hartz writes: “Fitzhugh substituted for the social blindness of Jefferson a hopeless exaggeration of the truth. The South exchanged a superficial thinker for a mad genius.”2 I would not agree fully with either the praise or the indictment implied, but would cordially endorse the demand for serious attention to a neglected and provocative thinker.”

About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

104 Comments

      • I didn’t come to my present views willingly.

        The 20 year old version would be horrified at the old embittered version.

        It’s not pleasant.

        • The argument that slavery was brutal because one slave was brutalized is the same argument that parenthood is brutal because one parent lashed his child tied to a fencepost with a dog chain. Brutality happens it is a fact. This does not make all harsh disciplinarians abusers nor does it make slavery bad. Just something we have to put up with. The burden of being human.

          • Life isn’t pretty unfortunately cruelty and murder happens and it could to any of us. We all learn to understand that at some point. Human beings like any other animal need to be broken to be productive. Always has been that way always will be that way. Is breaking ugly? Yes but its necessary

          • This isn’t really a reply to his post. It’s just a restatement of the emotional argument you made with post one. His point stands. I’ll also add: the end result of emancipation has been the disintegration of the black family and a crime and murder rate so high that 12 percent of the population is committing 80 percent of the murders.

          • No, it’s not. We don’t know anything about the man whose photo you posted. There is at least, at least, as good a possibility that this man was a vicious and brutal human being who could kill on impulse without remorse as there is he was just some innocent man who happened to be black, and that this is the reason for the scars. Do you deny this? With all we know now today?

          • I don’t deny it at all. What I deny is that whites had any right to drag him or his ancestors out of Africa in the first place.

          • Maybe so, but what good is your point of view concerning that today? Tell us that. It is a simple reality that the black man was brought here and that he is here today among us. What point except to divert attention from and vilify what needed to be done in the 19th century to keep violent blacks in line and what needs to be done today in 2016?

          • I think I’ve essentially answered this above. The problem in the Nineteenth Century was not how to keep violent blacks in line. The question was how to remove blacks, violent or not, from the U.S. That is still the question, in 2016.

          • Robbie makes an excellent point. You don’t know any of the context around that man. IOW, your emotional argument was flawed before it began.

          • I’ve made clear I find the context irrelevant. If you don’t want blacks committing crimes in your white land, don’t bring them into it.

          • Not to trivialize the scars but blacks keloid very easily. I doubt those wounds are from repeated whip marks in the exact same place. A keloid makes any injury look far worse. Any strike from a whip is a severe injury to the skin. It looks like massive keloiding to me. It’s like the displaying of Emmett Till in an open casket for shock value. Several days of being in Mississippi swamp water during the month of August probably did far more damage to his body than the beating by Bryant and Milam. But, pointing that out would have undermined the agenda.

          • It is possible to have a symbiotic relationship between whites and blacks, but the Left won’t let that happen. That makes us racial competitors, even if they are on another continent. They will still consume fossil fuels, seafood, poach endangered species, take up space that could be taken up by whites (NW Europeans, not Sicilians) and serve as a reservoir for existing diseases and a generator of new diseases. At least with slavery the disease problem was better under control and they contributed labor.

          • Any involvement of whites with blacks is bad for whites–and for blacks–so I reject your statement that the two races can have a symbiotic relationship. As for what the left “won’t let happen,” even your stating it that way is a sign of weakness. The left is your challenge. Either you will meet it, or you will perish.

            As for blacks’ use of fossil fuels, their being a disease reservoir, etc.: All of that is a consequence of white involvement with blacks. There should be no such involvement.

          • Negro slavery in antebellum South was good for whites–and for blacks–so I reject your statement that any involvement is necessarily bad for both.

            Yes, our true enemy is the political Left, including whites and jews. Leftist whites are highly concentrated in yankee states and yankee nests within the South. The dindus are just pawns and a nuisance for us.

            No, whites are not the reason blacks, esp in Africa have been a disease reservoir. This is basic Biology. R-selected populations breed until disease or starvation kills them off. Shantytowns around the world are ideal environments to give rise to new diseases and new strains of old disease organisms.

            Regarding fossil fuels, you are correct that blacks would never, ever, ever have learned to exploit them without white contact.

          • Obviously, we disagree on the effect of the presence of blacks among whites in the antebellum South.

            Africa’s being a disease reservoir is not “basic biology.” It’s part of the entire mess that has resulted from white involvement with blacks. Tremendous black population growth and its attendant negatives, including poaching of animals, disease, quasi-civilization consisting of shantytowns, and whatever other negatives we might be able to list: Those are a disastrous whole, a consequence of white involvement with blacks.

          • Evidently, you think the nightmare that we call the Third World “just happened.” It didn’t just happen; and in fact, I would say it didn’t even exist in its present form as recently as my own childhood, in the latter ’50s and early ’60s. Whites created it, the same way they created the black neighborhoods of U.S. hip-hop. It is all the modern version of colonialism: it is what results when SJWs rule the white lands.

          • Tell us a few details about this slave. His name. More importantly and relevant here, what was he like? Was he just a black that was abused simply because he was a slave and black, or was he an animal that you had to beat the shit out of regularly? What is that slave and his master frequently cited since our youth? The one where the slave owner is accused of beating all the time, but when the slave got loose got about 70 people killed and beat a woman to death with a fence post or something. That kinda goes a long way in explaining why the big buck might have had to have hell beat out of him from time to time. Don’t you think?

            So, like I said, details please.

            You show us a photo of a man with a lot of scars from the whip on his back. Very well. But today, with so much information concerning black propensity to violent crime and just plain brutal behavior, and the daily or near daily reinforcement of that knowledge on our news and internet news sites, I think it fair to ask the kind of questions I am asking. Details, please.

          • Exactly. Most likely tried to kill people, including his own wife. And like today, why, he was just a dindu nuthun.

            Like I said, just as likely the “overseer” had good cause to beat hell out of this man as there is to believe he did nothing at all. In fact, we know full well now there is more reason to believe the man was violent.

            Do you deny this very distinct probability? After all we know today based upon contemporary events?

          • Not having read the whole of that Wikipedia entry, I can’t say whether it’s a probability; but as you know, I’ve already said it’s a possibility. It’s irrelevant. As I have said here to our host, Mr. W., on more than one occasion, I hold the South responsible for all the difficulties that the presence of blacks among whites, here in the U.S., causes for whites. The problem, back then in the 1800s, was how to bring the presence of blacks among whites, here in the U.S., to an end. The South, by insisting on maintaining Negro enslavement, made the solving of that problem impossible. If, by the way, you think nobody saw the problem clearly, in that time, consult the writings of Hinton Helper, a Southerner himself.

          • English soldiers were customarily flogged until the same period. The German system of discipline was pretty terrifying as well.

          • US Army officially ended flogging in 1861 but General Custer refused to honor that and on more than one occasion ordered that the punishment be carried out. The Confederates officially banned the practice in 1862 but unofficially it continued in both armies

          • Well if it weren’t for abolition, and the freeing of slaves by sympathetic masters, they wouldn’t be a problem, but a blessing. Many crops are still picked by hand today.

          • The whole slave emancipation issue was never handled properly from 1798 to 1860 You even had a couple of isolated cases of masters who sent their slave offspring to Massachusetts and elsewhere and gave them college educations. Each state’s laws were different in this regard. For whatever reason the Jeffersonians were just fine with this chaos. In fact some of Jefferson’s friends tried dumping their slaves in Ohio in the early 1800s and the Ohio State Militia came out threatening to kill them.

            The Second Governor of Illinois, Edward Coles a Virginian and personal friend of Thomas Jefferson brought his slaves from Virginia to Illinois and freed them.

            Finally when the government secured land in Liberia a place was finally provided, but again going there wasn’t mandatory.

            The sad part is certain liberal Southern Masters helped to sew some very evil seeds and early on even assisted abolitionists. Traitors sure do run in families.

          • Sorry. No, slave importation was banned in the US around 1805. The south after that then simply kept these negroes captive and on the land. Besides all of that Southerners were late to the use of slavery compared to the Spanish and Portuguese.

          • Robbie pegged you here…

            “You are a liar. You do not hold the South responsible for anything. You only wish to denigrate whites. You are delighted with blacks and their crime. You try to pose as an intellectual while you maintain an anti-white stance and disposition. Then you lie again when you imply you are opposed to liberalism.”

            It’s become more transparent.

          • You are a liar. You do not hold the South responsible for anything. You only wish to denigrate whites. You are delighted with blacks and their crime. You try to pose as an intellectual while you maintain an anti-white stance and disposition. Then you lie again when you imply you are opposed to liberalism.

            Why the deceit? Why have you sustained such a record of lies on this site for so long?

          • I’m talking about something else. And it did occur to me that this black might well have deserved the beating for criminal behavior. We know that blacks today could do with corporal punishment. But at 20? The possibility that he was just a thug wouldn’t have occurred to me.

        • Interesting. Every time I see any negro who’s living among whites, I wonder what white man thought himself entitled to bring that negro’s ancestors into a white land.

          • Isn’t it true that your post above is a complete lie and that you never give wonder to that at all? Isn’t it true you instead only subtly slip in your denigrations of whites and liberal world view? Isn’t it true you are opposed to whites taking action against blacks?

          • What evidence would that be? Aside from Mr. W., our host, I am the only person who, in posting here, gives his name and city of residence. I have said directly, more than once, that I am a racist.

          • No, I am not what? The only person who identifies himself here by name and city? Who else does? There was Michael Cushman, who used to call himself “Palmetto Patriot,” but I don’t think he ever named his city. Also, he hasn’t posted here in a while.

          • I said that, apart from our host, Mr. W., I am the only person here who identifies himself by name and city of residence. Who else does?

            (For the record: I don’t quite recall how specifically Mr. W. has identified his place of residence; but basically, he’s made it clear.)

          • Who do you think, genius? Does that look like a random photo someone would choose for an avatar, there to the left of my posts? And what do you think I use to sign in from here when I comment on discus, and what, exactly that photo is from? You can get my phone number inside of two minutes there, if you want it.

          • I really don’t know the workings of these commenting systems. If there is something here in Disqus that indicates your city of residence, well, then, you and I both identify ourselves by name and city. Now that you’ve mentioned this, I’ll accept the possibility that others persons also thus identify themselves here. If that’s true, then I was mistaken.

            I personally, as you see, include the name of my city in my screen name. Also, before the switch here to Disqus, my screen name said “John,” not merely “J,” as I imagine some of the long-timers here remember.

          • Yes, I remember your name was John. And when I first posted here on discus, and if I do it on another computer, tablet or smart phone, it was not necessary for me to fill out anything, it gives the option of using FaceBook or Linkedin( others too, I think).

            I also, directly to you in a post, identified my state. In at least one post I identified the general area of Indiana. That is at least as helpful as identifying Philadelphia.

            More to the point, that is my actual photo, I and my daughter, actually. I did not lie when I said my phone number was readily available inside of two minutes, if one wishes it. As are photos of my family, address, the whole nine yards, in fact. Few people on these sites readily offer as much identification. So I have you beat in that regard. Your signature here actually does little.

          • When I signed up on discus, I just used my facebook link. But I don’t care one way or the other what handle someone uses. I’ve been on these sites nearly 20 years now and on more than one occasion, when someone brought up the identity thing trying to get digs in (Once, it was Thomas Fleming), I whipped out my full name, address and telephone number. That shuts them up. In a hurry. And obviously I am still alive, haven’t been the subject of an ADL hit or job loss, etc.

          • Since my address and phone number are still, as far as I know, in the Philadelphia phone book, I disagree that my identification here “does little”; but apart from that, I basically accept what you’ve said, i.e., that you’ve made your identity pretty clear here. If other persons can say the same, well, then, as I’ve said, I was mistaken in saying that only I and Mr. W., our host, have self-identified.

            As for your profile photo: I hadn’t even looked at it until you and I entered upon this exchange of ours about self-identification. You needn’t tell me you “did not lie” about anything. Unless I’m completely misremembering, I haven’t accused you or anyone else here of lying about anything at all.

          • Let’s look at the secession.

            Wouldn’t it have been logical to let the Confederacy go it’s own way and bar the movement of blacks into the remainder of the US, given your position on the immorality of moving blacks into white lands. Just let the slavers go and wind up like South Africa with a controlled black population reduced to second class citizenship. By the time the confederate shelled fort sumpter the black population was more or less a given.

          • What exactly should have been done in reaction to the secession is a whole other topic. Even if, as seems to me unlikely, the blacks in the South would have eventually become not slaves but second-class citizens, as were the South African blacks, well, what I see as the problem wouldn’t have been solved. I think there should have been no blacks in South Africa at all.

          • If you’ll check the history of South Africa, which began as a Dutch supply station for ships en route, around Africa, from Europe to the Orient, you’ll see, I think, that a black population was permitted to grow there; but even if the blacks had already been there, whites should not have settled in any territory from which the blacks had not first been removed.

          • Do you still deny, then, that I was right about you? Do you deny that you lied when you said the answer to my every question is no? Clearly, I am right on at least one of them, and most likely all of them.

          • Gracious person that I am, I’ll go through your questions, one at a time:

            1 — Isn’t it true that your post above is a complete lie and that you never give wonder to [what white man thought himself entitled to bring Negroes to live among whites]?

            No–it’s not a complete lie. What was in the mind of the whites who brought blacks to live among whites is a question I have raised with more than one friend.

            2 — Isn’t it true you instead only subtly slip in your denigrations of whites and liberal world view?

            I have no liberal world view. On the race question in particular, I am more of a racist than any other person who posts here, including every one of the Southerners. I don’t waste time talking about “IQ,” because I wouldn’t want blacks and whites living among each other even if their average IQs were identical–or even if average black IQ were higher than average white IQ. Similarly, I don’t prattle about whites’ “right to exist,” because I don’t care whether whites or any other persons have a “right” to exist. I WANT whites to exist.

            As for my denigration of whites, it is never subtle, and it is always intended to undo whites’ obtuseness, which has brought them to the verge of extinction.

            3 — Isn’t it true you are opposed to whites taking action against blacks?

            I think every black should be removed from Europe, the U.S., Australia, South Africa, and Canada.

          • Isn’t it true that we have no evidence for the truthfulness of your assertions other than your testimony? Isn’t it true that you are now admitting that you lied to me above, concerning denigrating whites, when you said I was wrong on that count? Isn’t that true?

            On the one hand we have your pleading that you are this and that you are that. On the other hand we have your entire posting history on this site pointing inexorably to the inescapable fact that you are a habitual liar and nothing but an anti-white poser.

          • I’ve answered your questions, including the one about my supposedly subtle denigration of whites. It is not subtle.

            If you think my posting history belies the answers I’ve just given you, you are a poor reader.

          • If you want to understand someone’s psychology, Billy Ray, you could start by learning to spell “schizoid.”

          • It was perfectly legal at the time, so every free white man that thought he was entitled to do so was absolutely correct. The only thing I would add is that they should have been sterilized. We won’t be making that mistake again once we’re independent.

          • The only thing you’ll be doing when you’re independent is what you’re doing now: drinking.

          • I haven’t had an alcoholic drink in over 5 yrs, and drank very little before that. Maybe I will again. I also plan to eat, sleep, breathe, have sex, and assassinate ignorance online.

          • I wasn’t counting. It’s been over 5 yrs since I moved to my current location and haven’t had a drink since before that time. It’s probably been more like 6 yrs but I didn’t make a note in my calendar so I went w conservative estimate.
            Why don’t you just give up.

          • I don’t know about Bari, which is a place of which I’ve never heard; but if you’re asking me whether I think the countries of Europe should be allowing blacks in, my answer is no.

            If you ask me another such question–which is to say, a question with no point that is apparent to me–I’ll simply ignore it.

          • When I spoke of whites who thought themselves entitled to bring blacks to live among whites, I was speaking of the slavery days, not the present problem.

        • Evidently, one thing he must have did was try to kill his own wife. And out of his own mouth he said he was crazy. They (the people of the plantation where he was a slave) also said he tried to kill multiple people, with a gun.

          Untelling what else he did habitually. You know it was serious to get those kind of beatings, apparently regularly. Evidently, the other slaves did not get this treatment. Since this slave was a propaganda piece during and after the war, and his photo was shown all over the North, and they know who his owners were, we can be certain that after the war they would have zeroed in on the other slaves and shown them about if they all had scars, too.

      • The nigger is incapable of understanding anything except when it’s horsewhipped into his worthless black hide.

        • I can make no sense of that question. In the several exchanges in which I’ve participated in this comment section, I’ve made clear that I think blacks should not be living among whites and should never have been brought to live among whites.

          In using that phrase, “white genocide,” you’ve reminded me of a video clip that revealed just how low is the quality of white leadership. In the clip, which was posted here, at Occidental Dissent, Matt Heimbach said, with a passion that, unfortunately, veered close to pleading, something like, “Whites have a right to exist.” The reply from the white liberal by whom Heimbach was being interviewed was something like, “Not if they’re destructive.”

          Would you care to guess Heimbach’s reply? Did Heimbach say, as he should have said, “Your view, then, is that white genocide is possibly justified?”

          No–Heimbach, as I recall, said nothing at all. He let the statement stand. That’s the leadership on which you’re depending.

          • Actually I find that Sven Longshanks to be a good wielder of the verbal kill shot. Heimbach is better as a bouncer at skinhead parades.

  2. Brilliant. It is worth noting that Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans are the true heirs of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke and that it was the Southern Confederates who sought something nobler and higher than what most could understand and that was a restoration of an orderly society, a society that began to unravel with the end of serfdom in England in the 1500’s. This unraveling of serfdom which flooded the English cities with thousands of peasants, largely the descendants of the enslaved Britons and poorest Saxons who had been bound to the land for 1000 years brought on the social tumult of Puritanism and all of the other ism’s because these impoverished people grabbed onto any idea that promised revenge.

    The exact same thing happened in France in 1789 when the enslaved Gallic-Italian-Semitic Peasantry of France revolted against the Germanic Aristocracy and set about murdering them. The revolt of the slaves.

    The only thing that saved England somewhat from the worst effects of Emancipation and Freedom was her ability to colonize her problem populations in the Americas and later Australia which was a let off valve. Without a let off valve of colonialization, France was left in a cycle of governmental chaos.

    I believe the vast majority of men are tools, and few cannot truly understand the gravity of the situation. I believe Fitzhugh was so far above most in intellect that few truly understood what he was saying. The common Southerner thought the war was entirely about making nigras equal with whites, because he didn;t have the education that Fitzhugh and his contemporaries had.

    Abraham Lincoln seemed to believe it was nothing but a spat over slavery in the territories and some financial polices, and told his followers that hey we all pray to the same God quote unquote. So if I simply offer the South to keep their slavery hemmed in in their present states, that should satisfy them. A good example of why I personally believe Lincoln was a buffoon who thought in terms of economics and policies, not in the truth, because to comprehend the truth required a deep education.The Southern Unionists like Andrew Johnson tended to have very little education, so weighty concepts and history meant little to them.

    Their writings proved to me that Davis and Stephens did have an understanding of the situation in the MACRO and the MICRO and I believe in time most of the military leaders came to understand at least most of the truth

  3. Traditionalists feel that the bonds of nature are the best, and perhaps only bonds that can offer security and civilization.

    The liberals don’t trust the bonds of nature to actually work consistently, and they do not like that they do not extend to humanity as a whole (Universalism).

    I actually see evidence for both, both today and throughout history; why the ambiguity?

    The cycles of history.

    Traditionalism can become frozen, stultifying, and destructive to individual rights; often falling prey to external tribes. Liberalism can overheat and tear everything down to the ground; destruction from within. The heroes of any age throw themselves as counterweight against which ever side seems to have the upper hand.

    Why, then, should we fight like hell to stop the other side?

    We have entered a stage of history where at any time we can have a permanent break of the cycle into a nightmarish dystopia, or even oblivion (the real “End of History”!). Technology is too powerful, and there are too many people to trust that you and yours will be there when the cycle comes around again!

    This is the transcendent dilemma we will face until we can sustain life off of the face of the Earth, and this dilemma transcends the specific white racial struggle to the broader struggle of man vs machine vs future man.

    Should we, the first to understand the evolutionary sweeps of history, allow our selves to be victims of it? No!

  4. “Human beings are social in nature”

    Yes. This was first impressed upon me by my early Jesuit instructors.

  6. The American Empire totally removed Christianity. That’s a very good reason why our “Free Society” is in a downward spiral of Crime, Immorality, and Sin. The American Empire is nothing but an organized criminal conspiracy and worships Satan. Nothing more and nothing less in modern times. We need a better way. Deo Vindice !

    • The US CONSTIUTION was a secular Freemasonic Document. The individual states espoused Christianity at the founding of our present government in 1789 and although all of the 13 states required Christian beliefs to hold office and some even sponsored their particular colonial church via tax dollars, A union of Christian States if you will not a Christian Nation. Most new states into the Union also had religious litmus tests of one kind or another, up until after the WBTS.

      The Confederate Constitution sanctioned God but Reverend Thornwell said it was not a Christian Document and wanted it amended to sanction Jesus Christ as did Stonewall Jackson, but Benjamin and the Jews blocked that move.

      The Fourteenth Amendment ended the states ability to have religious litmus tests or to support Christianity and this was found to be the case in Gitlow vs New York 1925.

Comments are closed.