Dixie
Crypto Aryan writes:
I’m not southern, don’t know much southern history, and haven’t participated in any of these forums. However, based on what I have read, I always associated the South in the pre-civil rights era with a large amount of “race mixing” and multiculturalism, certainly more than anywhere else in the USA.
(1) First, there were anti-miscegenation laws in every Southern state until the Loving decision in 1967.
(2) Second, the greatest taboo in Southern history was black male/White female miscegenation – it was formally illegal and culturally taboo to the point of provoking violence.
(3) Third, there were legal and cultural barriers to miscegenation in the Old South, but when it did happen, almost always between White men and black women, it was considered illegitimate.
The offspring of any such unions were considered black and inherited the status of the mother. Society considered miscegenation illegitimate and refused to recognize multiracial families.
That’s why Dixie never became Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic.
(4) Fourth, the Old South was a multiracial society based on a racial caste system. It was not a multicultural society.
The closest thing in the South to a multicultural society would be New Orleans and Southern Louisiana. Even there, the black/white racial division dwarfed ethnic and cultural divisions among Whites.
Louisiana has never been like Quebec. The presence of blacks in the South and the domestic institution of negro slavery – which did not exist in Quebec, or New England for that matter – bridged the social and economic divide between French and Anglos.
The same is true of other ethnic minorities like Irish and Germans. In the South, they became White and were absorbed into Southern mainstream culture. Even the Jews were far more reconciled to white supremacy and segregation in the South than elsewhere.
Social peace and rapid assimilation of White ethnic minorities was one of the many benefits of slavery.
Black nannies breast-feeding white babies, white families going to black neighborhoods for weddings and funerals of those who worked for them.
The Old South was a caste based society with an elaborate racial hierarchy. As long as blacks remained in their place and observed the rules of that society, race relations were typically friendly.
(I think I read about that in David Duke’s book), Charlie Rich learning music from black sharecroppers, Strom Thurmond’s girlfriends, and so on.
Strom Thurmond had an illicit affair with a black woman that wasn’t revealed until after his death because it was a source of shame that would have ended his political career.
“Negro music” was known in the Old South and was discouraged as a taboo among Whites because it was considered lewd and vulgar.
I also read an interesting essay by Zora Neale Hurston written in forties or early fifties ,opposing the NAACP and desegregation, basically calling for black self-advancement and voluntary rather than coercive association between the races.
The Booker T. Washington faction preferred to focus on economic development rather than stirring up racial animosity by engaging in a frontal and futile assault in white supremacy.
Arguing that the South was not a gulag for black Americans would seem to be very helpful, and historically accurate.
It wasn’t anything close to a gulag.
At the same time, it was nothing like BRA either. It was the exact opposite BRA in many ways. BRA is an inverted form of Jim Crow.
Silver writes:
I can accept that the consequences were catastrophic. Do you have a source for that statistic?
Of course.
It comes from Andrew F. Smith’s Starving The South: How the North Won the Civil War.
That’s another argument, one I don’t disagree with, as you well know.
So the free negro is more accurately described as an economic cancer whose presence elevates the crime rate, causes property values to drop, lowers the quality of public schools, burdens social services, corrupts the political system, prompts White flight, and deters business investment resulting in “blighted” neighborhoods and cities?
If so, isn’t this just an admission that the free negro is a burden to society whose costs outweigh the benefits whereas the slave was a capital good that promoted progress and prosperity?
Doesn’t that explain the relative decline of the Mississippi Valley from the richest region in America to the poorest?
That’s right, it wasn’t obvious. It also wasn’t obvious at one time that the earth was round or that it moved around the sun but knowing what you know now why would you ever go back?
This is a false analogy.
The superiority of heliocentrism over the geocentric model is confirmed by observation and its ability to predict the motion of planetary and other celestial bodies.
Is the same true of anti-slavery? It was a fanatic movement based on sentiment and enthusiasm which imposed its moral verdict on society through mass violence rather than the merit of its arguments.
I apologize. I didn’t notice your use of the term “relative” in the passage I was responding to (on the previous page).
If all the enslaved mechanical farm equipment in the Midwest was declared to be persons with civil rights rather than machines and industrial agriculture collapsed as a consequence, might we assume that the relative decline in the Midwestern economy and the resulting poverty would stem from the triumph of this version of anti-slavery?
That may have been the only compelling argument for their introduction, but it’s not the only compelling argument for their retention. I’d be the first to agree that niggers suck (or as I put it in my worst “fuck niggers” moments, “niggers equals shit, complete shit and nothing but shit, the absolute shit of the earth,” lol), but the question of what to do about it is ethically and politically complex, not ethically and politically simple, and I just don’t see that behaving as though it is simple helps any.
Okay.
What are the compelling ethical and political arguments for the retention of the free negro? Assuming there is another compelling argument other than the economic argument for slavery?
As an avid MR reader I’m sure you recall me making almost precisely that point myself not so very long ago.
Prices are always in flux. The price of slaves varied over time because they became more valuable as cotton became a more profitable crop.
Abolition forced a reassessment in the value of the free negro. This happened in every country where slavery was abolished.
To my knowledge, in every case the result was that the free negro (and everything that had been based upon negro slavery) wasn’t nearly as valuable or worth near as much as it had been before.
Just look at what happened in Haiti and Jamaica before even getting to Dixie.
The point here, however, is that the value of the assets one owns (or rather the value of one’s equity in those assets) is not the appropriate measure of an individual’s value to society,
Prices are the measure of social value. The price of my house on the market is the value of my house to society.
It might have a different value to me. The “value to society” is merely the sum of subjective assessments of individuals set as a dollar figure.
… because the individual in question may have, on the one hand, opted for a consumerist lifestyle that eschews amassing assets or, on the other hand, may have inherited a vast amount of property that he’d unlikely be able to ever earn enough to purchase on his own. (Given this line of reasoning, I suppose there are some individuals whose net worth is a perfect reflection of their value to society, but there is no way to distinguish these individuals from any others, so net worth remains an inappropriate measure in all cases.)
Sure it is.
The consumerist individual has a low net worth (from the vantagepoint of others) because the value his assets (to society) only marginally exceed his liabilities. Should his lifestyle ever change, his net worth would also change for better or worse.
The trust fund baby who inherits a great fortune might temporarily possess assets (properties, companies, stocks and bonds, etc.) which are quite valuable to society. His relative position in society though is also in flux and the value of his assets will change depending on how he manages them.
The trust fund baby would have assets that are more valuable to society than the consumerist.
Okay, so make it $135,000 in my example. But in turn you’ll have to cease claiming that slaves were “worth: $135,000 in 1861 since that only applies to 2009 (because the kind of labor they can do in 2009 didn’t exist in 1861).
You still miss the point that employers employ these people, so for them it’s worth it. There’s no getting around this.
Umm … the whole point of the essay was to measure the value of antebellum slaves in 2009 dollars.
$1 dollar in 1860 wasn’t worth $1 dollar in 2009. A slave that was bought for $800 in 1860 would have cost over $20,000 in 2009 dollars.
Three measures were given: the real price, the labor income value, and the social status value. Of those, the labor income value is the appropriate measure, and a slave bought in 1860 would be worth the equivalent of $135K in 2009 dollars.
Of course this is not to say that a slave bought today would be worth that much today. That was never the point of the essay.
I wanted to focus on individuals because slaves were purchased as individuals not as households (at least so far as I’m aware, though I’m sure a budding slaver like you will set me straight if I’m wrong), which I hoped would make the task of spelling out to you why your use of net worth as a measure of value is incorrect.
Slaves were purchased as individuals and in groups.
We don’t even have to consider the value of slave households because it would have been significantly greater than the value of a single slave.
An entire free household in 2012 isn’t worth the real price of a single slave in 1860 much less the labor income value of a single slave.
Note: As the weather permits, I will respond to Silver. There is a pretty bad thunderstorm outside. I don’t want to fry my new laptop so I am using my mobile phone.
Silver is an inside baseball player. It’s quite clearthat a mtiple Soave owner in that period was living a lifestyle that is comparable to that of a multimillionaire today. Why you have latched onto this slave valuation, silver, escapes me.
Natchez had more millionaires per square mile than anywhere else in the world. The tethered black is a cash cow. The free black a blight.
Anyway, what it all really comes down to is this
It depends on just what is meant by “retention,” of course. Obviously I am unable to think of any good reason why the present state of affairs (ie BRA) must forever remain unchanged (or its trajectory continue to be followed). That’s why I’m here posting at OD and elsewhere. But does undoing BRA mean that all blacks must be forced to vacate the entire USA or, for the sake of completeness, be exterminated? That, Hunter, I am going to have a problem with, and not only me feller — for chrissakes, get your head out of your ass — countless millions of your own people.
Any solution isn’t going to turn on the question of whether blacks or BRA suck or not (of course they do); it’s going to turn on how much they suck and on whether the proposed solution seems feasible. I think you’re going to find very, very few people who will agree that they suck so much that extermination (or race war, since success isn’t a foregone conclusion) or wholesale deportation are the desirable, and of those, fewer still who’d believe either is feasible. In that case it comes down to what I call “racial reform.” Yes, kill BRA, by all means kill it, but when you get down to it, the political task at hand remains some sort of “reform.” That term may sound underwhelmingly mild and impotent, but what it entails is actually quite radical.
In many ways, the choice is yours. You can remain defiant and insist that racial reality requires the most extreme force and extreme hatred the mind can conjure (ie what’s usually associated in the public imagination with anything calling itself WN), or you can accept that other, more reasonable, interpretations of the facts of reality and the racial predicament are also valid. To my way of thinking it’s clear which is preferable and which stands to gain the greatest amount of support, among both whites and nonwhites (and, who knows, even negroes). And anyway, even if you disagree, it’s wiser (craftier) to agree for now and get the ball rolling; if it still means so much to you fifty or one hundred years hence, we can always kill each other later.
Shei**tt crackers… we niggas be worth….. shei**tt…. millionzz $$$$$$$$ a piece by now……… f**k …. you whiteys…… Obrah be havin her fat black butt a billion …f**k…..
you whiteys crack me up….. that’s why I be callin’ ya’ all crackers…… my hommie leroy he jus’ be signin’ on with MambaJamba rap group….. shei***tt….. hommie be pullin’ in millions$$$$$$……… what be the price of cotton dees days honkeys? My stock broker be sayin’ I should be putin” my $$$$$$ in chink companies….. that’s what my jew-boy broker be sayin’……this nigga be goin’ with the flow bro’…… whitey be swimmin’ upstream and sh****tt…… f***k that….. I’m outta here crackers…… shei***ttt.
“Of course, no one makes anyone participate. So not exactly slavery.”
Right. The coercion is far more subtle than the whip. Which is what makes it such evil genius, which is what gives the neoslavers plausible deniability:
Since the black, being endowed with a strong back and feeble mind, has few ways in modern America to make bux big enough to provide for his need (at least his need as *he* perceives it) of da shiny stuff, college foo’bah is held out to him as one of the only ways to get it.
He’s told by universities, “You need an education, which will make you able to earn enough cash to get da shiny stuff, but you can’t pay for the education. Play foo’bah and we’ll give you the education (and a supply of hookers and blow will you’re doing so).”
He’s not told by the university, even though the university KNOWS this, that his education won’t stick, because he hasn’t the brainpower to understand. He’s not told how much arthritis all those hard hits he took will cause in 20 years, and being incapable of even thinking 20 years ahead, he doesn’t realize it himself, either.
So he signs on, at his trusted mammy’s encouragement. But she’s too stupid to know better, either.
The universities are running a scam to prey on the stupid no different than a loan shark.
College foo’bah is similar to debt slavery, in that no one “makes” anyone participate in either scam by threat of whip.
People who borrow money at usurous rates do it for the same reasons as dimwitted kids who sign on to play college ball: Because they see few options, and this one is being thrust in their face, and it *sounds* great.
These neoslavers (universities football recruiters and loan sharks) just take advantage of stupid, desperate people, who are desperate because they have nothing to offer society, but they “need” the shiny stuff. People who sell themselves into debt slavery and people who sell themselves into college foo’bah slavery are doing it for the same reasons, but to say it’s “voluntary” is a lie.
Promise of immediate shiny stuff is dangled by debt slavers and university slavers in front of desperate people with few options, with wits too dim to understand what they’re really doing. That the promise will only bring you ruin isn’t disclosed to these people who are too stupid to realize for themselves, so they spend their lives only getting worse off over time.
It’s about Hunter’s conflation of the concept of a free negro’s “net worth” with his price as a slave, not the dollar figure value of a slave per se. I’ve latched onto it because as much as I can’t stand nigs, something bothers me about Hunter’s apparent insistence (and maybe yours too) that they are totally valueless humanoids and that this “fact” justifies doing anything at all to them. In other words, you people go too far.
It’s a crucial point, this “going too far” business. You can explain people’s extreme loathing people have of the nazis with this concept alone (regardless of how inaccurate their knowledge of the details of what transpired), even though the same people would highly likely find nazi social policy agreeable, ie to the extent that it values racial belonging, encourages fellow-feeling, sets high standards, respects science and the facts of reality etc. It’s the perceived aggression and hatred towards others that people imagine racism requires that so roils them. If they didn’t perceive that racism requires such aggression and hatred they wouldn’t be so anti-racist. But they do perceive that it requires it, so they are anti-racist, and their preferred solution to the problems that even they recognize multiracialism causes becomes to attack their own race as “racist” (evil, hateful etc) in the hope that that this might calm tensions. When it comes to non-blacks, this approach hasn’t been without its successes, so anti-racists feel encouraged, but this just enrages racists even more. It’s a vicious circle.
That’s another highly informative and valuable contribution from you, Joe. You’re a real asset to this blog. (Talking about ‘net worth’ lol…)
Hunter, remember your disdain for unmitigated free speech principles on blogs and forums? Perhaps now would be a good time to institute a policy in line with your feelings on the subject.
Jack Ryan doesn’t want us to use the acronym for laughing online ( ell-oh-ell). Jack Ryan specifically said so. @ Silver is breaking “OD” rules.
Really? I missed that. That’s too bad. I’d hate to step on Jack Ryan’s toes. He’s been known to employ iron hand moderation in the past, whenever it’s struck his fancy to exercise some of the power he feels imbued with as a front page contributor to this blog. I’ll have to tread softly from now on.
@ Silver
As you’ve been known to write long detailed posts [ nothing wrong with that] then it should be a breeze for you to just type out ” laughing online” than to devolve into laziness of resorting to using acroynms, one would think.
No need to “tread softly”, necessarily, just take an extra second of your time to type just 2 words, “laughing online”. It just takes about another second or two to type out “laughing online” than it does to type out the acronym, that’s been my experience.
That’s a good answer Silver. Yeah it’s the problem with accepting realism. 7 months ago I’d have agreed with the standard liberal line. Something changed. I didn’t watch local news, never thought about just why equality is needed. I never connected modern Africa with the American inner city.
I think that allowing the black equality is just preparation for replacement these days. Reading Martin Bernal’s “Black Athena” triggered arealization in me that equality is a smokescreen for blackfacing everything. I mean everything. Even the dawn of western civ.
People have to go through these things for themselves. I’m not a preacher either. I’m just coming to terms with experience.
Why not face it. The black
He doesn’t give any precise figures. I’m not sure if this is included as a footnote. I will have to go back and check. In any case, it is a credible when you consider that negroes were capital goods who were worth the equivalent of $135K in 2009 dollars.
The essay clearly states that $135K was how much a slave was worth in 1860 in 2009 dollars. It also clearly says that a slave bought for $800 would have cost the equivalent of $20,000 in 2009 dollars. Finally, it also clearly says that the real price of the slave ($20,000) is not synonymous with how much a slave was worth ($135,000).
Prices are the value that economic society attaches to goods and services. Net income is the monetary value of individuals and households. Because value is subjective and varies from individual to individual, prices are always is a constant state of flux.
If you were to go to the bank and apply for a loan, the bank would consider your debts and liabilities in addition to your income.
American Blacks in a Marxist framework are now surplus labour.
They are only productive in fields like college ball or pro sports. Perhaps music. That’s really all they are good for collectively. This highlights Hunter’s point. Under contract and strickcontrol they are dynamos. Under a free system they are a manifest burden.
Strict control.
iPhone gets creative! Sorry for the long list of spelling errors.
Silver,
We’re discussing the compelling ethical and political arguments for their retention. I can’t think of any compelling economic arguments aside from the pro-slavery argument. The opportunity costs alone of harboring such a large free negro population in cities like Detroit must be incalculable.
I have never advocated exterminating blacks. I see no compelling political or ethical argument though for their retention.
… countless millions of people are resigned to the status quo, not because there is any compelling ethical or political argument for the status quo, but because violence was used to impose the status quo in the past and all societies whether racialist or otherwise operate on sheer inertia.
Economically, free negroes devastate our cities by driving out the White population through a combination of elevating crime, ruining schools, and destroying property values.
Politically, free negroes seem to corrupt any type of government they touch – local, state, or federal – and the effect of the enfranchising the negro voter is to nullify the political power of the White working class by inflating the electorate.
Ethically, “racism” wasn’t considered immoral or sinful in the West or elsewhere until the mid-twentieth century. The acknowledgement of the existence of racial differences has nothing to do with moral qualities.
Israel is deporting them right now.
Does anyone here believe in “reforming” BRA? Show of hands? You can’t reform a system that it is closed to reform. You can only destroy the legitimacy of that system and overthrow it.
A simple preference to live in a racially and ethnically homogeneous society in which the nation is identified with the state is not synonymous with “extreme force” or “extreme hatred.” It is nothing more than nationalism and has ample precedent in our own history.
We’re not interested in appealing for the support of negroes. Mitt Romney can chase after the 1 percent of the black vote.
You never enumerated the compelling political and ethical arguments for their retention. We’ve spent enough time discussing the economic arguments.
@John
One shouldn’t allow technology to make one lazy. Laziness is Sloth; And Sloth is a sin one should always be on guard for: So one doesn’t get lazy and sloppy as well as inarticulate ; That doesn’t suit for a proud White Nationalist and/or plain ole’ confederate even, or even just a regular, everyday type white type.
I shall ask [ + Fr John + and/or Lynda, depending on your particular congregational proclivities ] to pray you somehow find the presence of mind and the strength to pull yourself out from the pit called Sloth [ Patraiarch Shem, I’m sure, would be appalled at you right now]. Melkchezdek, Patriarch Shem’s cousin-patriarch wouldn’t be too thrilled with you right now neither. “Strict control” : Remember—> Strict Control : That’s always wise for the slothful to keep in mind.
Zippy,
I really don’t see the difference between slave societies and free societies.
Far from being opposed to capitalism, slavery in the British West Indies and French West Indies was an especially intense form of capitalism. The first modern factories were the sugar plantations in the West Indies and Brazil.
The plantation system spread across the tropics because it was profitable. It produced agricultural commodities like sugar, cotton, indigo, rice, tobacco and coffee for international markets.
Capital was invested in slaves who were bought and sold on the free market. Is this any different from investing capital in a workforce or machines that perform the same tasks that slaves used to perform although much more efficiently?
Slave societies were profit driven. The profit motive determined whether land was cultivated or left uncultivated. The profit motive determined which crops were produced for international markets. The profit motive determined whether slaves were retained or sold.
The whole system was based on property rights and profit extracted from labor – just like “free societies,” the only difference being that negroes were classified as a form of property.
Well, I shouldn’t say the only difference – the major difference between slave societies and free societies is that it introduces a racial element into capitalism. Slavery fostered racial consciousness and racial solidarity whereas that is not true of free societies.
In free societies, free laborers can auction their services to employers who place bids, so it is true that they have a wider range of choices. They can also save their capital, start a business, and turn other people into their servants, which is not true of slave societies.
These are not really fundamental differences though. The slaveowner was just a capitalist who extracted more profit from his laborers.
“These are not really fundamental differences though. The slaveowner was just a capitalist who extracted more profit from his laborers”
Hunter, I think there is a tremendous difference from the viewpoint of the slave.
In one, you are forced to do what you don’t want under threat of the whip. In the other you force yourself to do what you don’t want lest you starve.
The pioneers out West, the farmers up North, and most Southerners [about 75%], didn’t have slaves. Certainly the pioneers didn’t starve. It’s pathetic to think one has to have a slave ” lest you starve”. The only ones who had a problem with food were the poor Southerners who couldn’t find work because the people down South with money had slaves and didn’t have to pay their own kind for any kind of work/service. The poor Southerners always suffered from pellagra and rickets from lack of food because of the unjust and un-balanced slave economy : The poor whites didn’t starve exactly, but there was always great malnutrition amonst the poor whites down South left in the dust because of the slave system. “Lest you starve” : Laughing online.
Hunter,
I’d appreciate it if you could do that. The reason I’m skeptical is that it just doesn’t jibe with my understanding of economic history. A per capita GDP twice the level of someone else’s is a hefty difference. As happens sometimes on race blogs southern europe gets scorn heaped on it for being economically less developed than northern europe, and there certainly are substantial differences, but countries like Portugal and Greece, the poorest in southern europe, are (or were, prior to GFC) at something like 70-75% of northern european per capita GDP. So just think what a two-times difference would imply. When you consider that every standard history describes the northern states (of America) as more industrialized than the confederacy it’s very hard to believe the south could have been twice as wealthy as the north, or even to simply believe it could be wealthier at all.
Thanks for the Eco101, but none of it refutes anything I said.
When I originally read that essay my only interest in it was why the author would reject the use of CPI adjusted real prices. As I expected his reason was the large span of time between 1861 and 2009, which makes such comparisons less meaningful. As the author noted, much of what we could spend $20,000 on in 2009 wasn’t available in 1861. So when he said “Using the real price is not the correct index to use for measuring the value of a slave’s labor services in today’s prices,” I assumed he was implying that what a slave could produce in 2009 also differs markedly from what he could produce in 1861. So I didn’t bother read to any further.
Rereading that essay now it’s not clear at all to me how $135,000 was derived nor why he insists (as you do) that this the “proper measure” of anything. (I can understand how he calculated the $78,000 referred to, which was roughly 20 years worth of farm labor at $12/month in 1860 converted to 2009 dollars, but nowhere does he explain how he got to $135,000.) We’re not discussing here whether slaves were a good investment or not; we just want an idea of what they were worth in today’s money, and the best measure of that remains what a slave sold for on the market converted to today’s dollars, which is about $20,000. For the reasons I gave above — the greater range of uses a slave could be put to today — a slave would likely sell for a great deal more, but I can’t be bothered speculating about all that.
Hunter,
I know you haven’t, but others have, that’s why I said “for the sake of completeness.”
Their apparent acquiescence suggests to me they’re not as bothered by it as WNs seem to imagine. This shouldn’t be surprising. Time heals all wounds and much time has passed since Reconstruction. If this wasn’t the case you’d expect to see, say, Iranians’ blood boiling over Persepolis, but that’s not what we find.
I agree completely. I’m not whining about “racism.” It’s true, though, that non-whites dislike it and that it makes whites uncomfortable, and these facts speak to the feasibility of — gosh, calling it “reform” set you off — uh, “the racial project.” But of all the impediments, this would be easiest to overcome. There’s nothing inherently immoral about preferring your own kind, considering it superior (whether objectively or not), or noting the racial differences between racial kinds.
Yes, it’s pretty bad out there, as I agreed earlier. But just how bad all of this is perceived to be will in large part determine, as I see it, what anyone resolves to do about it. WNs prefer to portray it as The End Of The World, but I’m not sure that’s very likely to catch on.
Sure, but they’re very recent arrivals. The passage of time matters greatly in human affairs, in all sorts of ways. That’s so self-evident I don’t think I have to say any more. Israel would have much greater difficulty attempting to deport black Jews, both because they’re considered Jewish and because they’ve been established for so much longer.
You’re getting lost in the semantics. If blacks are going to continue to exist on the same land mass and within the same political jurisdiction, whatever “destroying and overthrowing” entails it is ultimately going result in some sort of reform (reformation, re-formatting) of the racial arrangement. I just prefer to call it “racial reform” because it sounds so much less threatening. You, I take it, like so many of your WN predecessors, appear to believe going in all guns blazing is the sounder strategy.
Why of course not, Hunter Wallace, I’m just imagining all the extreme rhetoric I’ve heard from the racial right. LOL
Kidding aside, it’s one of the great “paradoxes” (if that’s the word) of WN that it is all simultaneously so simple — whites matter, whites are losing, a white ethnostate is the answer, everyone else get out — yet so complex — who is “us” (you), who is in, who is out, how to win their support, what precisely is the objective, how to reach it, what to do regarding others, how to defeat the opposition etc etc. Do you really suppose your glib answers to me move the discussion forward in this regard, as though I was some newb or anti that you just wished to shoo away?
I said that in the context of taking a reasonable approach. You’re free to reject that approach, of course, but proponents of that approach (like me) are not going to go away just because you don’t like it.
I don’t recall claiming there were any compelling political arguments. The ethical argument for their retention on the north American landmass is that the punishment should fit the crime; as bad as they are they’re not bad enough to deserve the cruelty that deporting them would entail. (Kinda obvious isn’t it?)
Silver,
(1) Prices are the monetary value that society attaches to goods and services. The price of something – whether it is a house, bubble gum, or a slave – is how much that good or service it is worth to society.
What about individuals and households? The net worth of an individual or a household (its assets minus its liabilities) is the measure that society – whether public or private – uses to assess the worth of an individual or household.
You’re arguing that prices are not the appropriate measure. Presumably, there is some other measure than price formation which you have in mind, which is what exactly?
(2) Here’s the exact quote:
“Local economies shaped regional lifestyles, affecting, among other things, what people ate. As a result of the cotton-slavery connection, Southern per capita income rose steadily during the first decades of the nineteenth century; by 1860 it was almost twice that of the North. Southern wealth, however, was distributed disproportionately. The rich were very rich, and this wealth was manifested in their culinary lives as they enjoyed generous servings of meat and expensive imported foods accompanied by the best European wine and spirits.”
There is no footnote in that paragraph.
(3) The difference between the $78,000 figure and the $135,000 figure is that the latter was based on 1850 slave prices whereas the latter was 1860 prices. See the graph.
John,
Oh, you’re a recent convert. You sound like an old hand.
Anti-racism is multifaceted, and like racism it is nested. At the extreme there are leftwing nutters who appear to believe their own propaganda that everything will be good in the world once whites are permanently marginalized or removed. Up from that level, others are anti-racists because they’re put off by the thought of people being harmed or disadvantaged by factors beyond their control (like race/racial features) ; others because they consider racial differences trivial; others still for fear of the destabilization of the prevailing socioeconomic order that racism threatens. So it’s wrong to impute the same motives to all anti-racists.
The effect of extreme racist hatred (or what is perceived as extreme hatred) is to shift people to a new level of anti-racism. For example, if someone was only anti-racist because he feared racism would destabilize the economy (true of plenty of republicans in the US, center-right parties in Europe) he would shift to a come-off-it/trivial differences level of anti-racism. If someone was a trivial differences anti-racist he would shift to a don’t-disadvantage-them type of anti-racist. If he was a don’t-disadvantage-them anti-racist he could very well shift to a well-take-that-you-white-racist-cunt anti-racist and demand the destruction of the white race.
Okay, this isn’t exactly highly scientific, but it’s my observation of many years on race boards that this is the sort of effect the perception of racial hatred has on whites.
Silver,
This is a moot point. I don’t advocate exterminating blacks. Thus, extermination has nothing to do with my argument.
It is more likely that they are just resigned to the status quo. Force was used to settle the matter. The opposition didn’t triumph by making any compelling political or ethical argument.
Not really.
We didn’t “reform” slavery. It was abolished by military force. Similarly, we didn’t reform segregation either. That too was abolished by the federal government and was imposed by military force on three occasions.
I disagree.
We’re a permanent minority in a state that is based upon majority rule. Even if our opposition to abolition or integration was nearly unanimous, as it was in the 1860s or 1960s, the decision would still rest in the hands of the “majority,” which is to say, outside our hands.
I disagree.
Both abolition and integration were correctly perceived as a racial disaster by the public. They both inspired overwhelming public opposition. In the end, the federal government triumphed, not because it made a more compelling argument, but because when the chips were down it used force to impose its will.
The takeaway lesson was that abolition and integration were bad, but you are powerless to do anything about it, so there is no point in even thinking about it. Gradually over time, challenging these things came to be seen as outside the realm of possibility and have been sustained mainly by inertia.
The Boers have been in Africa for as long as Whites have been in North America. Whites have lived in Africa for centuries. Similarly, Germans had lived for centuries in Eastern Europe.
How long had the Indians lived in North America? Jews have been expelled from any number of countries on numerous occasions after centuries of residence. Time of residence matters to modern Western liberal societies and to almost no one else.
The French Revolution wasn’t a “reform.” It was a total destruction of the old existing order. The same was true of the American Revolution. The conflict reached a point where it could no longer be resolved within the existing political system which lost its legitimacy and collapsed.
I’m quite open about being a secessionist.
We’re talking about nationalism here – the identification of a people with a state, the most powerful force in the modern world. It is “extreme rhetoric” to liberals who don’t subscribe to the premises of nationalism.
I’m not a White Nationalist.
If I am giving you glib answers, it is because my position on this issue is only contained in a mountain of posts in the archives.
A “reasonable approach” is an approach that is calculated toward achieving some specified end.
Seeing as how we advocate the creation of a White ethnostate in Dixie, it is senseless to waste our time making appeals for the support of negroes, as we advocate the restoration of white supremacy and the end of the welfare state in order to bring about their self deportation.
Your words, if I recall correctly, were that there were political and ethical arguments. What are those?
Why is it cruel to deport them to Africa? If we had the desire to do so, we could start transporting them there easily right now, and far more comfortably than the process by which they were brought here.
Their moral status in BRA is based on the assumption that their enslavement in Africa was a great injustice. If that is the case, then justice is served by returning them to Africa which would restore them to their former condition.
That’s just the thing, though, net worth is not really the measure that society sues to assess the worth (value) of an individual. That measure is his income. Society, of course, does use the net worth of an individual to assess his “worth” in a more indirect sense, as in the “status” of an individual. That’s why someone born into wealth is immediately of higher status than someone born into poverty. But income is a more direct measure of value-to-society because it represents the reward society bestows on an individual for that individual’s talents. Going back to my brain surgeon, your measure would have it that his value to society drops if he fritters his income away, but society will continue to pay him the same fees for his services whether he fritters or whether he saves, which suggests to me his value has not dropped to society at all, despite his frittering away his income. Alternatively, your measure (net worth) would consider a talentless trust fund baby (imagine his parents earned their fortune but their son lost in the genetic lottery) more valuable to society than a highly talented brain surgeon from an impoverished background. It just doesn’t make as much sense as using income.
Hmm, somewhat dubious, imo. We really only have estimates for GDP during the 19th century, and that’s especially true for the early decades. Per capita GDP grew three to four times over the 19th century (depending on whom you ask) so since your author specified the early decades and industrialization didn’t really take off until the latter part of the century I suppose it’s possible.
Etre comme une poule qui a trouve un couteau.
[ To be at a complete loss] to answer my common-sense questions.
Hence the obvious value in non-southerners coming to believe that what southerners want is not unreasonable or immoral.
Sure, but that’s only half the story. The inertia itself is sustained by the people who lived through the civil rights era (“Generation Niggerlover”). As those people pass away the inertia will ebb, more people will question the racial status quo, and so on. What they then resolve to do will in large part be determined by just how intolerable they assess their predicament to be.
As your examples show, time of residence didn’t matter to western societies either at one time. That changed and other societies can and are likewise changing. Peace among people has become a reality, not a mere pipe dream, and there are real benefits to be gained from states of peace, which is why it has become so preferred. At some level even nationalists are aware of this, which is why they have to invent reasons to hate people when no good reasons really exist.
You’re referring to the political order, which was indeed destroyed rather than reformed. I’m referring to the racial facts on the ground. Except in the case that all negroes are removed, they are going to exist in some way on the n.american landmass. If they come to exist in a different state than that which now prevails, whether that comes about through ballots or bullets, that can be described as a racial rearrangement — or racial “reform.”
It can still be extreme even to people who do. Extreme rhetoric is suggestive of extreme aims, which can be a frightening prospect even if one agrees with the tenets of nationalism. The apparently open-ended, unlimited aims of nationalism are of grave moral concern.
Forget about negroes for a moment. Briefly detach yourself from the romantic pull of your designs and consider that your putative future state will have to have some of relationship to neighbors and to the outside world. What sort of relationship would you prefer, hostile or peaceful? Cooperative or uncooperative? Don’t you think that calculations regarding such matters will weigh heavily on those contemplating lending your objective support?
I think I said political and ethical complexities.
It’s cruel because they would not wish to go and the punishment would be greater than fits the crime.
Their moral status is not based on their enslavement alone. Justice would be far better served by permitting them a future in n. america, if for no other reason than that they are not the same race that was brought to America.
Brain surgeon?
Is he black like Morgan Freeman?
Farkin’ hell Silver. It’s quite clear that blacks are more productive when under strict coersive authoritarian management by whites.
Anything else results in criminal anarchy or begging.
O n’est pas sorti de l’auberge
[ We are not out of the woods yet].
John, I didn’t make my brain surgeon black. The discussion about value had nothing necessarily to do with blacks. Of all the effort I put into the previous few posts this is what you ask me?
Silver,
No, it means that White Southerners are ruled through majority rule by non-White Southerners, which means that “reform” is a waste of time because even nearly unanimous opposition to abolition or integration by White Southerners wouldn’t suffice to alter the direction of public policy.
True.
The other half of the story is that because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1965, which radically inflated the size of the electorate, the case for “reform” is even less plausible now because we have drastically less political power than we did in the 1960s.
If you trying to say that Whites (not just in the South, but elsewhere) are becoming worse off because (1) their political power is diminishing as the non-White vote grows and (2) because the costs of the multiracial society grow exponentially every year, then I would agree.
I don’t think so.
On the contrary, I would argue that mass immigration, violent crime, stagnating wages, redistributive spending, multiculturalism, affirmative action and other grievances are probably resented more than ever before, but because the non-White electorate is always expanding, the political power of Whites is diminishing as a consequence, which makes elected politicians ever less responsive to our interests.
So it is not that White people “prefer” what you call “peace” (aka the systematic redistribution of their wealth and the destruction of their political power) so much as they are increasingly resigned to their inability to change the status quo through elections.
That’s what I advocate.
If we had a government which sought to deport negroes from North America to Africa (a government like the one in Israel), then I don’t see any real obstacles to this process. Israel is doing it right now.
I wouldn’t call it a reform.
If negroes are ever deported from North America (and the federal government will never do it), then it will because that government lost its legitimacy and was been terminated and replaced by a new one.
“Extreme” presupposes some vantagepoint. It begs the question – extreme from whose point of view?
So yes, nationalism sounds extreme to liberals, who see Whites as nothing more than autonomous individuals saddled with a purely negative racial collective identity who exist for the sole purpose of paying taxes which are redistributed to permanently aggrieved racial minorities.
What is meant by “a grave moral concern”? It is a grave concern from the vantagepoint what moral system? Surely, it would be a moral concern to liberals who identify morality with “social justice” or the leveling of all social classes and races, whose policies are designed to hold down Whites while elevating non-Whites.
How about indifferent?
Whites have been expelled from almost every country in the African continent. If Africans are expelled from Dixie, so what? They will get over it.
We’re not counting on the support of foreigners either.
I’m sure there are political and ethical complexities for liberals, but that is to be expected, as we don’t share the same premises.
Is it cruel to allow Africans to stay in Africa? After all, they don’t want to stay there, and would much rather be here living off the welfare state. It is also cruel to allow them to stay here and suffer under white privilege and structural racism.
Yes, their moral status in BRA is based on (1) their enslavement in Africa, (2) the centuries they spent here as slaves, (3) the racial discrimination they suffered under Jim Crow, and finally (4) the enduring legacy of “white privilege” and “structural racism.”
I’m afraid the only just solution to the crippling legacy of slavery and segregation as well as the persistence of inequality in the form of “white privilege” and “structural racism” is racial separation – having been compensated by 40 years of the Great Society welfare state, separation would remove them from the crippling effects of living in an inhospitable racist environment.
How so?
There were fewer White Southerners than White Northerners. Slaves were clearly an extremely valuable asset. Here in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley, around 42 percent of Whites were slaveowners (owning one slave in 1860 would have been worth $135K) and in the previous thread I calculated the number of (relative) millionaires and multimillionaires.
What did Yankees own compared to Southern slaveowners? The slaveowners owned slaves and improved acreage on their plantations and smaller estates. Did Yankees have that much money invested in land or the stock market?
If that were the case, then no business, household, or individual would ever go bankrupt because they would have assets and no liabilities. Society does use “net worth” to gauge the worth of individuals, households, and businesses. Hence the term, net worth!
When a bank is considering whether to extend you a loan, it takes a look at your income, but it also takes a look at your liabilities in order to judge you as business proposition. It takes a look at your “net worth,” which is far more than just your “status,” as it is crucial to determining your ability to repay the loan.
I would argue that net worth is a far better measure of value-to-society or the value to any potential investor or buyer because it balances assets and liabilities. How much is a negro who makes $15,000 a year worth to society who owes $30,000 to his creditors and who lives off of thousands of dollars in transfer payments?
Some other examples of using income as a measure of value to society include San Bernandino, Detroit, Birmingham, Stockton, Harrisburg, Wachovia, MF Global, Enron, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers.
It is inaccurate to compare free negroes to cities or major corporations or brain surgeons or trust fund babies though. We can’t determine their value to society by assessing their income alone. We also have to determine how much free negroes cost our society.
What do they pay in taxes? What do they receive in social services? How much does it cost to rebuild Birmingham, Mobile, Montgomery, Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta and other cities in the suburbs?
What is the opportunity cost of mass incarceration and healthcare for negroes? What does it cost White families when negroes move into their neighborhood and take over the public schools and destroy the property value of their house? What does it cost to White people by making everything from transportation to housing to education far more expensive than it otherwise would be?
Hunter, you’re a formidable babbler, even when pressed to make it up as you go, I’ll grant you that. Please see my post above regarding “going too far.” You’re having that effect on me right now. Who knows how many other people you have had that effect on (people whose opinions I’m sure you’d care about vastly more than mine).
The only thing worth responding to here is
As but merely one such vantage point, extreme from what the bulk of people today regard as reasonable. It’s something ‘sensed’ better than it is ‘understood,’ but the effect is no less real for it.
It often sounds extreme to people who don’t take that view of whites at all, who’d readily agree that whites being wiped from the earth and denied a future in their own countries is utterly depraved.
From the vantage point of the moral system that values peace and friendly relations among differing peoples; from the vantage point of the moral system that doesn’t regard racial difference as sufficient cause for making war and causing suffering; from the vantage point of the moral system that regards with horror the enslavement of other peoples for mere fun and profit; from the vantage point of the moral system that would happily lop your head off and shove a thousand more reconstructions down your “southron” throat, you unaccountably arrogant little faggot; and all this from a moral system that has no more use for the goddamned fucking black afro nigger animal than you do. Fuck the south, fuck it harder than it’s ever been fucked before. Fuck it totally, fuck it utterly and fuck it unremittingly.
(Actually, I’ve calmed down by this point. By I’m going to post the above anyway, just for the hell of it.)
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf
I count 12 million black or partial blacks living in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas. Adding Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and Florida brings the number to around 21 million.
So…how to get rid of them, and where would they go? It would seem important to remove them quickly, since when word spreads about what is being attempted the ones who haven’t yet left might get a little, uh, uppity….Especially the ones who own property and guns.
Apparently the world’s largest passenger jet — the Airbus — can be retrofitted to hold 853 passengers flying coach. At that rate, it would only take 24,618 flights to remove all of them. With 67 fully loaded flights every day out of Atlanta, Houston, Memphis and Miami, you could get the job done in just ONE year. Assuming of course that there is some place for the planes to land in Africa, and the African nations let them take off again once they land, knowing that if they do so we’ll be coming back again with more people.
Of course a few might get a little worked up beforehand and not make it onto their plane. That’ll speed things up even more!
Also need to figure out how many brave Occidental Dissenters it’ll take to make this happen. Getting them out of their homes, on the bus, and to the airport will be a chore as will dealing with those who resist arrest. Dealing with the real enemy will also be a chore. Not just the invaders from the North. The oil and weapons embargo. The international boycotts. The white dixie collaborators. Elton John and his friends! The list goes on!!!!!!
It would certainly make an exciting video game or animated feature.
Israel by the way plans to deport 25,000 africans. It has no plans or ability to deport the five million Arabs under its control, nor the tens of thousands of Ethiopian Jews that have barely assimilated during the past two decades. The Nazis were also very limited in their ethnic cleansing abilities before war broke out. Even in 1941, thousands of Jews were still living in their homes on GERMAN soil, the Nazis having been unable to get them to leave in peacetime.
Population transfer only works during times of a complete civilizational breakdown, such as during the end of WWII.
Silver,
You’ve been doing this moderate shtick on the internet for at least five or six years now. It is obviously based on your own personality. It is something you enjoy doing for some reason and has nothing to do with other people.
What is meant by “reasonable,” Silver? Why is it “reasonable”?
As I said above, we judge whether or not something is reasonable in terms of its end or objective. If your objective is to get drunk tonight, then it would be reasonable to consume lots of beer or liquor which contain alcohol. If your objective is to lose weight today, then it would be reasonable to limit your calorie intake and engage in cardiovascular exercise.
Granted, I am sure the bulk of what I am saying doesn’t sound very “reasonable” to most people who are liberals. If the objective our society is create a colorblind racial utopia based on social equality, then it sounds “unreasonable” to advocate White racial consciousness and separatism.
That’s not a goal we share here though.
They have a typically incoherent worldview:
(1) On the one hand, Whites are expected to think of themselves purely as individuals and eschew their racial and ethnic identities in order to “progress” to the colorblind utopia, at least the traditional White majority of the host nations.
(2) On the other hand, Whites are bestowed with a purely negative sense of collective racial identity in order to generate the White guilt necessary to redistribute wealth to non-White minorities.
(3) The ostensible goal of BRA is to create the colorblind racial utopia, which is why Whites are required by the prevailing taboos to eschew their racial, ethnic, and cultural identities, but at the same time non-Whites are encouraged to revel in racial grievances, assert themselves as racial groups, and glorify their own racial identities to the point of atavism. So the colorblind racial utopia turns out not to be the goal after all.
The individualism angle contradicts the racial collective guilt angle. The encouragement of non-White racial consciousness while enforcing taboos against White racial consciousness contradicts the notion that the goal of society is the achievement of a colorblind paradise.
Why didn’t you just say liberalism?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oinfgVafuzs/T5A3PzZOPRI/AAAAAAAACKI/ywRS-GQfxJU/s1600/padded+room.jpg
http://www.winmentalhealth.com/images/Haldol.drug.treatment.mental.health.disorders.jpg
Time for a mixed drink?
Re: crypto aryan
(1) EITHER they could join the 46 percent of their co-ethnics who now live in the North and West, OR failing that we could start resettling them in Africa should Northerners and Westerners prove amenable to colonization.
(2) I’ve said in a previous thread that at a minimum we could start loading them up on Greyhound buses in Montgomery and Birmingham and “Freedom Ride” them to Vermont and other Northeastern states.
(3) It would be much easier to restore white supremacy and gut the welfare state. I’m confident that alone would get rid of most of them. We got rid of almost half of them before Jim Crow was abolished.
(4) Ghana offers them dual citizenship.
(5) If the North invaded the South in the 21st century, Boston, New York City, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia would cease to exist within hours. It wouldn’t be quite the same thing as trying to march an army in here in the 1860s.
(6) Come to think of it, all we would have to do is shut down the oil and natural gas and cities like Baltimore and Los Angeles would be on their knees within hours.
(7) Israel hasn’t gotten to the point where it dares to deport 5 million Arabs, but is getting there.
(8) Millions of Whites and Asians were driven out of Africa after the Second World War.
Silver – I use LOL when I actually do laugh aloud. Jack has never admonished me yet, on this point, as I usually post an accompanying citation of the fact that I have laughed aloud.
FYI.
I need to learn how to do the clinking beer glasses thingy, instead of LOL.
women always get over easy– especially blondes
Mostly I see negros self-deporting in stages as we slowly regain our states and our nations
#1a The 1st part of BRA to get axed would probably be would be all the do nothing federal jobs negros/ women etc tend to get over White men. They would be the 1st ones to self-deport.
#1b would be AZ like immigration laws which would speed up the beaner exodus. This might even be #1a, but I think both would occur cat more or less the same time
#2 on the list would most likely be repealing affirmative action; no more special privileges when negros, beaners, women etc apply to college, jobs or promotions. X amount of negros/ beaners women etc would self deport
#3 would be tougher criminal sentences and better gun laws for the average White man. Negros/ beaners would self deport
#4 would be welfare reform. X number of negros would self deport when there is no more EBT card, section 8 etc for them. Negro crime would go, which would get more negros locked up and more negros shot. Which would get more negros to self-deport
and so on and so on
Silv should be back in a few hours. Haldol should be wearing off.
I think Silver might be gay. Where the he’ll did the faggot thing cone from? It also sounds like he’s an S&M type as well.
Dabbling in slavery but a safe version of it.
1 no federal sit on your arse jobs.
2 fleeing to Chimpcongo and NYC.
3 free tickets to Vermont and Africa.
4 no eeoc jobs
5 jigs up! time to go
6 possible concentration in one or two states.
7 likely bleeding hearts in Canada, New England.
“Do you really suppose your glib answers to me move the discussion forward in this regard, as though I was some newb or anti that you just wished to shoo away?”
Silver, we don’t WANT to ‘move the discussion forward.” As a born and bred Yankee, I could ‘love my Afreakin-Amurrican bruvuh’ all I wanted, as long as I never set eyes on one, except maybe the Jackson 5 on the Carol Burnett show when I was a teenager.
I began to meet/see/smell them in college. Every instance- even among those blacks who at first chat seemed ‘nice’ turned evil, wicked, snide, aggressive, and eventually confrontational, as the scales fell from my eyes.
I’m saying this as preamble. I am reduced to gutter language, because when you are talking about human excrement, that’s the only words that work.
Many of us care NOTHING for blacks today, because we were LIED to, for twenty, thirty, forty, some even fifty years about the ‘potential of the Black.’ But now, as more and more of the reality of their bestial behaviour comes to light on Hunter’s blog, and on SBPDL, we are awakening as from a dream, and Kipling’s warning about ‘When the Saxon begins to hate’ now find root in us.
We don’t want to ‘move the discussion forward,’ because there is NOTHING to discuss. Hunter is still young enough to think that he can appeal to your intellect. I know better. Liberals are DAMNED, and their minds are seared, as St. Paul says, ‘with a red hot iron’- just like sodomites, and other perverts. YOU CANNOT dissuade us, because your entire philosophy is all LIES. And we’re tired of being lied to, anymore. End of tirade…..
“Joe says:
July 19, 2012 at 12:27 am
women always get over easy– especially blondes”
Then things are as they should be….
@Denise
…… and forever shall be….. amen.