United States.
It is interesting to see David Brion Davis admit in Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of New World Slavery that modern economic historians have found that slave labor in the nineteenth century South was more efficient than “free labor” in the nineteenth century North.
As always, Yankees destroyed what they did not understand on the basis of fashionable crank utopian theories:
“Indeed, many historians initially attacked the economic historians’ discovery that Southern slavery, despite its ghastly evils, was more efficient, productive, and profitable than free-labor farming in the North.”
You would think it would have been obvious: if free labor really was superior to slave labor, planters would have abandoned slavery for the obviously superior free labor system.
It is hard to believe that Yankees were still pushing this discredited theory after the collapse of plantation agriculture in Haiti and later in the British West Indies which were unable to compete with slave labor in Cuba and Brazil.
He writes of Haiti:
“In most respects the very existence of Haiti was a godsend for the abolitionists’ opponents. Sanguine predictions of the moral and educational advance of the people, of economic enterprise that would soon lead to thriving towns and to Haitian ships entering the harbors of the world, increasingly gave way to reports of political upheaval and hopeless poverty.”
Who could have predicted that?
“In contrast to Northern family farms, the larger Southern plantations were more like the agribusinesses of the later twentieth century in terms of size, efficiency, and complex organization…
Scholars still dispute some questions relating to the economics of American slavery, but during the past thirty years a broad consensus has confirmed the arguments of Stanley L. Engerman and the Nobel laureate Robert William Fogel concerning the extraordinary efficiency and productivity of plantation slave labor, which in no way implies they the system was less harsh or even less criminal. The historian Seymour Drescher has shown that most of the political economists of the early decades of the nineteenth century rejected Adam Smith’s overconfident assertion in 1776, in The Wealth of Nations, that because of its incentives, free labor was always cheaper and more efficient and productive than slave labor.”
Efficient, productive, and profitable are words which have never been associated with black people – especially with the Black Undertow – under the free labor system.
“The large planters soon ranked among America’s wealthiest men. Indeed, by 1860 two-thirds of the wealthiest men in America lived in the South – a fact that became difficult to believe after the devastation of the Civil War and the full industrialization of the North.”
Unlike West Indian slavery, Southern slavery was also a middle class institution – the typical slaveowner owned less than 10 slaves, and most planters owned 20 to 40 slaves.
In the West Indies, hundreds of slaves worked on sugar plantations that sprawled across thousands of acres. They also processed and refined the sugar in Cuba. Huge plantations also existed in South Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta
“The later impoverishment of the South nourished the myth that the slave economy had always been historically “backward,” stagnating, and unproductive. We now know that investment in slaves brought a considerable profit and that the Southern economy grew rapidly throughout the pre-Civil War decades.”
After the South was annihilated, the slaves were emancipated, and freedom and equality triumphed, the subsequent impoverishment of the South was cited as proof by Yankees of the backwardness of slavery.
“By 1840 the South grew more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton and supplied not only Britain and New England but also the rising industries of continental Europe, including Russia. Throughout the antebellum period cotton accounted for over half the value of all America’s exports, and thus it paid for the major share of the nation’s imports and investment capital. A stimulant to Northern industry, cotton also contributed to the growth of New York City as a distributing and exporting center gust drew income from commissions, freight charges, interest, insurance, and other services connected with the marketing of America’s number one commodity.”
As an independent nation, the plantation South could have supplied the world with cotton while easily growing its own food and relying upon Britain for manufactured goods and financial services.
“Do let me know if this is overloading your rational faculty.”
I don’t think it will overload many “rational faculties.” Your condition is a familiar and ubiquitous one. It is the very same condition as that of a man who does not want to be hanged, but nevertheless can easily be fooled into sticking his neck in a noose on the pretense it will only tickle.
I find it difficult to respond to your question, Mr. Wallace, because I can’t figure out what you’re asking. If I learn that Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin are still alive and are running a blog in which they argue that the presence of non-whites among whites is not bad for whites, I’ll post comments there, too, should I have the time. I’ll tell them I disagree.
I happen to think slavery is immoral. Men of both the North ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery ) and the South ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Petition_against_the_Introduction_of_Slavery) thought that long before the Civil War. I also happen to think, as I’ve just said, that the presence of non-whites among whites is bad for whites. Either of those thoughts puts me in opposition to any effort, on your part or the part of anyone else, to suggest that the historical enslavement of blacks by whites was good. To my mind, discussion of its “efficiency” or “profitability” or what-have-you has nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with the well-being and flourishing of the white race. Quite the opposite: it’s one more bit of white wrongheadedness.
I certainly don’t have anything against money; I could use much more of it than I have. It was you who, months ago, went on here in denunciation of capitalism and money-grubbing–all of which you contrasted to the valor of Old Dixie. You’ve gone on about agrarianism, too. Now, it is you who want to justify Old Dixie by telling us what an economic and industrial powerhouse it was. Whichever way you turn, you get it wrong–wrong for the white race.
Do I think it was good that the North set blacks free to live among non-whites? I certainly don’t. I think blacks should have been humanely removed from among whites. Before the Civil War, there were persons advocating that, too–blacks’ humane removal. Such persons were all but completely ignored, just as slavery’s early opponents were. If the white race is to survive and to grow in grace and beauty and intellect and wealth and creative power, it has only to avoid foolishness, including foolishness of the sort that was exhibited when those white men of the past were ignored. You’re still ignoring them.
PS If your follower Stonelifter thinks that anything I’ve posted here raises even the possibility that I’ve had “fancy book learning,” his standards are even lower that I would have guessed.
Killed that latter link by neglecting to leave a space before the parenthesis at the end of it. Trying again:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Petition_against_the_Introduction_of_Slavery
Re: Silver
(1) Ridiculous.
The “modern world” has existed since the Renaissance, Reformation, and the Age of Discovery – the entire history of New World slavery took place during “modernity,” and the Caribbean slave societies were actually on the cutting edge of “modernity,” as slaves were capital investments that produced agricultural commodities for foreign mass markets.
(2) I have not tried to justify “everything” my ancestors thought or did – I disapprove of the American Revolution, and I also believe that creating the Union was a serious long term blunder.
(3) Conservatism is not a loopy esoteric ideology. If it is anything, it is distrust of abstract ideologies that are allegedly “universal,” and a preference for established institutions that have the stamp of tradition.
(4) To my knowledge, no one here desires the restoration of slavery. Slaves are superfluous in the planting, harvesting, and processing of cotton and sugar.
If slavery had simply been left alone, the mechanization of agriculture could have been coupled with African colonization in the twentieth century without the long term devastating social and economic consequences of abolition.
(5) In your analogy, you forgot to mention that taxpayers, not private masters, now absorb all the external costs of the free labor system which are offloaded onto society at large.
Seeing as how your wage labors make almost nothing, it is taxpayers who foot the bill for their food (EBT cards, WIC), welfare (TANF and unemployment), education (public schools, free lunches, student loans), security (criminal justice system including prisons, police, judges, court appointed attorneys), housing (Section 8 and Fair Housing and the ban on restrictive covenants), transportation (roads, bridges, public buses and subways), healthcare (free emergency room treatment and Medicaid), utilities (absorbed by White taxpayers in cities like Atlanta).
So, instead of almost 100 percent participation in the labor force, the emancipated slaves don’t positively contribute to society at large at anything near the rate they did during slavery. What happens when these ghetto gremlins shoot and kill each other or even worse detonate on innocent Whites?
Well, that is just too bad. It is just another cost of the free labor system. Instead of abolishing slavery, the free labor system transfers slavery from blacks to White taxpayers, who are systematically looted by their government which squanders their wealth on crank social programs like Head Start.
Even if you move overseas, you can’t get out of slavery to the federal government without renouncing U.S. citizenship.
Discussion of slavery is academic. Every truly erudite man well knows the great run of men are born slaves; they crave a master.
Superior men amuse themselves by devising various mythologies that salves the consciences of these men, the born slaves.
“In your analogy, you forgot to mention that taxpayers, not private masters, now absorb all the external costs of the free labor system which are offloaded onto society at large.”
Well said and just wait until Obamacare kicks in!
“So, instead of almost 100 percent participation in the labor force, the emancipated slaves don’t positively contribute to society at large at anything near the rate they did during slavery.”
They don’t contribute as positively to the labor force as they did prior to the Civil Rights Acts and the Great Society welfare programs of the 1960’s either. I am old enough to remember when blacks worked a lot harder than they ever do nowadays before they had the handouts and every nigger bitch started to crank out welfare babies as soon as she turned 15.
(1) Most White Southerners were also the dependents (wife and children) of slaveowners. Slavery was far, far, far more of a middle class institution than, say, the stock market.
(2) A moral footing … in what, precisely? The answer is sentiment and enthusiasm, right?
Certainly not Christianity where God explicitly condemns the descendants of Canaan to slavery and advises the Israelites to acquire slaves from alien tribes and where for well over a thousand years the Church preached the obedience of slaves to their masters in this world.
Certainly not in the Constitution which explicitly recognized slavery as a legitimate form of property.
Certainly not in the Greco-Roman tradition seeing as how Greece and Rome were model slave states with slave-based economies.
Certainly not from science whether Darwinian or pre-Darwinian as every known system of measurement disproves the ludicrous idea of racial equality.
Certainly not from custom or tradition seeing as how opposing slavery in principle was a radically modern idea.
(3) Let’s review:
In the United States, the result of abolition was black citizenship and voting rights.
In Cuba and Puerto Rico, the result of abolition was black citizenship and voting rights.
In Haiti, the result of abolition was black citizenship and civil rights.
In the French West Indies, the result of abolition was black citizenship and voting rights.
In the Dutch West Indies, the result of abolition was black citizenship and voting rights.
In the British West Indies, the result of aboliton was black citizenship and voting rights in Jamaica and Barbados.
(4) The logic of abolitionism led naturally to anti-racism and civil rights and finally to White guilt and ethnomasochism.
(5) Yes, it is.
I’m left wondering where in the world embrace of homosexuality and “women’s rights,” abortion, and feminism is not positively correlated with anti-racism and integration.
Moat people would notice a glaring contradiction between your “moderate” support for humanism and feminism and homosexuality and support for segregation and racism – they would argue that “equality” and “human dignity” compel anti-racism and desegregation.
Few niggers today are worth a damn in a workplace. They almost all fall into one of three catogories:
(1) Just plain lazy and won’t work.
(2) Will work but must be continuously supervised and pushed, or else will lay down the second the pusher gets out of sight.
(3)Not lazy and doesn’t require a pusher but is so damn stupid can’t do anything right.
And this describes the ones who do have employment. I’m not even talking about the unemployed niggers.
(1) You know very well that’s not the sense in which I was using the term “modernity.” Let’s amend that to “the world of today” (and that of the last 30-50 years). It’s fairly clear you and your ilk are overwhelmed with loathing of it, and that this loathing warps your minds.
(2) The effort you invest in attempting to justify slavery results from your conviction that the present day world offers no possibility of solutions to the problems you face.
(3) Conservatism, more than just a cautious disposition towards change, seems in your mind to be an ideological disavowal that any principles could theoretically ever be universally applicable. As for the “stamp of tradition,” that, of course, is one of the last refuges of the scoundrel.
(5) You’re on the verge here of broadening the scope of the discussion to what an individual can reasonably or fairly or justly expect from the society in which he lives, but without going that far I think it’ll suffice to say that the costs you outline are the costs of multiracialism and it’s those that a serious and mature racialism ought to seek to liberate people from. One certainly doesn’t require a conservative, package-deal, race-is-wrong-therefore-everything-is-wrong racialism for that.
So silver you favor half the shit that has gutted the West and oppose half the shit that has gutted the West… pretty typical really. Double mindedness is as old as mankind
The last 20 to 30 years are a regression. The first nignog president might as well have been tbe first Amoeba president. True interspecies equality finally acheived!
Then we could all be as one as we dissolve into the primordial ooze of the Monad and slither off into the sea.
Amoeba Bacteria 2012!
@Stonelifter
“Double-mindedness is as old as mankind.”
– No, it’s called nuance.
“- No, it’s called nuance.”
Gee, I thought it was called thesis and antithesis.
Hunter, yankee response to positive comments about slavery is very telling. Belief in the evil and dysfunction of black slavery (and only black slavery) is one of the fundamental tenets of the negro worship that sustains BRA. Undermining this belief helps undermine BRA.
Since most yankees in their atheism repudiate any notions of good or evil these days, the only arguments that hold any water with them are economic. Thus, they will passionately argue that slavery was unprofitable, because they have sublimated their morality to the economic sphere. They disguise their metaphysics in economic talk.
What they really mean when they say that slavery was unprofitable is that they think slavery was evil. This is the only way they have left to condemn slavery.
Likewise, since they belief that negroes are ontologically the same as white humans, and negro slavery is viewed as a degradation of humans for them, identifying with the negro as they do, they must insist that slavery was never profitable, despite the witness of centuries of slavery. This is only because they view slavery as an insult to their inner negro.
The very gnostic yankee Quaker belief in the “inner light” morphed into a universalist yankee belief in the “inner negro.” Since their metaphysics are expressed in reductionist economic terms, slavery is “unprofitable,” free trade is “inevitable,” and nothing works better or is more “holy” than an economic benefit or boycott on behalf of negro savages.
Oddly enough, Irish Catholics Bono and Bob Geldof are both examples of the quintessential yankee man. Evidently, so is Gerry Adams, Chris Mathews, or any other Irishman today. The Irish appear to have a major case of homoerotic jungle fever these days. Maybe they just got ahold of some bad Litka Tatars during the Potato Famine.
Deo Vindice
Perhaps Silver is a homosexual transvestite that dislikes black men. I hear it is common among white homosexual men to dislike niggers.
But most likely Silver is just one of the many who at one time opposed things like abortion and Feminism and homosexuals, but over time grew to accept and them embrace these things. His racism in that case would simply be the last holdout, and a few years hence he will come to embrace that, too.
Is that not the story of most of our people? How many older people do we know who fit the above?
Well then you thought wrong, dumbass. Stonelifter is demonstrating an attitude of absolutism, and Silver is describing nuance.
Speaking of the Irish. I attended a funeral recently in northern Ohio. The wife of the deceased is of Irish stock and during dinner after the showing the grandson of the deceased bragged about how his mother’s Irish father, a popular football coach at a Ohio University years ago, would bring several niggers to his home during holidays to piss off “the racist and bigoted people of Youngstown.”
I’m sorry, it was the son of the dead man, not his grandson. The coach was his mother’s dad.
Supporting homosexuals is a nuance? Interesting. Then I suppose that is also the explanation of why so many Northern white men voted for and will vote again for Obama. Many of these men say they are not pro black, but are only voting Democrat because of “bread and butter issues.” Is that just a nuance?
(1) Have I understood it wrong, then? I had assumed “one in four” referred to heads of households. But if it refers to one in four of the population at large, then, yes, I’d have to say you’re correct. That wouldn’t make it “far, far, far” more middle class than the stock market, though. Owning stocks (indirectly, through pension funds) is entirely middle class — and all but very poorest of the poor are precluded from participating if they wish to.
(2) Sentiment, sure. That’s what morality always ultimately reduces to. Only in some cases the feeling that something is wrong (immoral) only arises from greater consciousness, greater awareness, an awareness arrived at through moral reasoning. That slavery didn’t strike people as deeply immoral for the vast majority of mankind’s existence is immaterial. Anti-whiteism today strikes few people as morally flawed — so much so that its very existence is denied and disbelieved — yet you would not conclude on this basis that white racial concerns are of no import.
Certainly not from science whether Darwinian or pre-Darwinian as every known system of measurement disproves the ludicrous idea of racial equality.
True enough, but will you please affirm for the record that neither is the converse true, that the reality of inequality is of itself no justification for slavery?
I’m left wondering where in the world embrace of homosexuality and “women’s rights,” abortion, and feminism is not positively correlated with anti-racism and integration.
In the world of rationality and pragmatism.
Moat people would notice a glaring contradiction between your “moderate” support for humanism and feminism and homosexuality and support for segregation and racism – they would argue that “equality” and “human dignity” compel anti-racism and desegregation.
Certainly people will see a contradiction, but the reality is support for humanism, feminism and homosexuality need not rest on any belief in equality.
Rudel, is that our 1st Hegel reference or were you using thesis and antithesis in general terms? I actually think my position on the topic flows from Hegel’s triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis
Thesis being the ideas of feminism.
antithesis being patriarchy
systhesis, in this case cannot be resolved and no new idea can be formed.
Did I get that right? I sucked at philosophy in college. More of a math man myself. Or was.
Knowing that all branches of cultural marxism support each other in their overall goal, share money, resources, vote to support each other etc, I cannot support one version, i.e. feminism, without supporting leftist racial ideals
Silver and 313piss don’t understand that if you support one aspect of cultural marxism, like weakening the patriarchy (a key factor in civilization), you support all of cultural marxism because the different branches are enter woven and mutually supportive. Both are delusional to think they are smarter then other folks because they are “nuanced”. Like its something new or admirable. Typical liberal thinking and behavior
Nuanced my ass 313piss. It’s called understanding and knowledge. I know these ideas come from the anti White man school of marx so I reject them all. While you are ignorant of their ideology roots and support certain branches of the same tree. You support your own destruction, I reject every tool of the enemy. Study up and maybe you’ll learn something.
” That’s why someone like me who approves of women’s rights and the loosening up of patriarchy, favors abortion, and is happy to turn a blind eye to homosexuality, can have no problem with racism and segregation.”
Nonsense, they are all part and parcel of the general drift of 19th century Liberalism which were derived from the entirely false ideas of the earlier Natural Rights of Man.
I for one am more inclined to endorse the scientific discoveries that have bolstered those who believed in natural law which of course disdains as fantasy any modern idea of “women’s rights” or matriarchy unless they refer to those entirely admirable female qualities which have always been with us and were most nobly expressed by Spartiate women.
But most likely Silver is just one of the many who at one time opposed things like abortion and Feminism and homosexuals, but over time grew to accept and them embrace these things. His racism in that case would simply be the last holdout, and a few years hence he will come to embrace that, too.
As a matter of fact, it was the other way around. Abortion, feminism, anti-racism and tolerance of homosexuality (rather than “embrace” of — certainly the thought of the act disgusts me) always seemed eminently reasonable to me. It’s (political, ideological and scientific) racialism that, over time, I came to accept.
(For the record, I don’t really identify as “white.” Culturally, I do, as well as in the broad racial sense, but I’m quite happy to forgo the label or relinquish it to those to whom it means more and/or better fits. This is another departure of mine from “traditional WN,” which tends to divide the world crisply between white and non-white, elevate the distinction to one of cosmic import, and pit whites against all others equally in racial hostilities without apparent end. For me, this world is big enough for all of us, and thus it seems reasonable to expect to find support for one’s cause among similarly inclined outsiders.)
Re: Silver
(1) It is true that I loathe the world of today – not science, not technology, not material progress, which if you knew anything about the Old South, you would know were readily adopted (see railroads, the steamboat, and the telegraph), but I despise liberalism or “humanism” for the absolutely devastating long term trajectory that foolish ideology has imposed on Dixie and the West.
That doesn’t mean that I hate modernity. The slave societies of the Caribbean and Old South were the epitome of modernity in their time. Modernity itself is often dated to Columbus’s discovery of the New World.
(2) I’m actually making all these posts about slavery because I am writing my first book – Shattering the Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean – about the devastating aftermath of abolition in “post-emancipation societies.”
(3) I don’t believe in the existence of abstract universal moral principles or that there are “natural laws” governing human societies which are in anyway similar to, say, the laws of physics.
I also believe that history shows that the attempt to force human societies to conform to these speculative abstract ideological grids has produced one disaster after another.
As for tradition, I see tradition as a well of experience that countless previous generations have developed as a practical response to various problems they have encountered. It is not something to be dismissed lightly.
(5) They are not the costs of multiracialism – in slave societies, private masters assumed both the costs and responsibilities of slave ownership. In free societies, those costs are deliberately transfered to society at large.
All the things that I mentioned above are attempts to ameliorate the original disastrous experiment of abolition and to achieve the overarching liberal vision of “equality” and “human dignity” that inspired it all.
So, in the name of altruism and egalitarianism, Whites are demonized and burdened with a false narrative of collective racial guilt that justifies the neverending expropriation of their wealth, not to mention the innumerable negative consequences of emancipation, above all black-on-white crime and the destruction of their communities.
Nonsense, they are all part and parcel of the general drift of 19th century Liberalism which were derived from the entirely false ideas of the earlier Natural Rights of Man.
Whatever they may have gotten wrong at least they did so through a process of reasoning, unlike the dupes who support a “tradition” derived solely from power relations (most tragically of all, even when such tradition compromises their own socio-economic interests). You may be an exception, but I’m quite convinced most WNs taking this line do so more out of desperation — “it’s the only way to win!” — than they do from true understanding or sincere desire to live in such a world.
I for one am more inclined to endorse the scientific discoveries that have bolstered those who believed in natural law which of course disdains as fantasy any modern idea of “women’s rights” or matriarchy unless they refer to those entirely admirable female qualities which have always been with us and were most nobly expressed by Spartiate women.
Spartan women’s lives were rather similar to the great bulk of islamic women’s lives. I see nothing admirable in any of it.
Good God, man. Why didn’t you just say you had a run-in with a nigger and be done with it? Spare us all the long pseudo-intellectual speal, it was already tedious back when people like you were mumbling about “now, when one speaks of Communism, one should distinguish between…”
Bad ass post Brutus
Re: Silver
(1) I will compare the percentage of Southern slaveowners to Northerners who were invested in the stock market.
(2) If “morality” is reducible to sentiment, then it is meaningless; for some reason, sentiment didn’t impede the transfer of 11 million slaves to the New World, or a similar number to the Arab world.
As late as 1776, the idea that slavery was immoral was radical. Never before in recorded human history had there been a movement which condemned slavery in principle. Plenty of slaves had rebelled to win their own freedom. That doesn’t mean they challenged the institution of slavery itself on a worldwide scale.
Abolition was rooted in the peculiar secular and religious humanitarianism that emerged in the West in the late eighteenth century. It drew its strength from the sentimental emotionalism and mass enthusiasm that characterized evangelical Christianity.
That’s the “moral foundation” it is rooted in – the exact same foundation which drives what you call “anti-Whitism.”
(3) Does the fact of racial inequality justify slavery? Not by itself.
(4) The above is “rational” only in the sense if your purpose or end is to create a society based on equality.
(5) Oh really? Then on what foundation does your ensemble rest?
Re: Silver
Like natural science, “tradition” is based on and vetted by time and human experience, whereas abstract reasoning creates speculative intellectual sand castles that have utterly no basis in reality, which are impervious to empirical refutation.
As for tradition, I see tradition as a well of experience that countless previous generations have developed as a practical response to various problems they have encountered. It is not something to be dismissed lightly.
It’s not to be dismissed lightly, no. But neither is it to be defended to the death simply for being tradition. In truth, there is not quite as much experience contained within it as you may think, since one can hardly say it is the result of societies trying, testing and trying again to find optimal solutions to a wide range of societal problems. In reality, much of it is the result of no more than the efforts of elites to safeguard power and privilege against any and all threats.
Also, if you allow that change has occurred in the past, such at that what is now traditional was in some cases originally radically new, then you are artificially terminating the process of “discovery” by closing the book at the present point in time and declaring that all worth knowing has already been learned.
(5) They are not the costs of multiracialism – in slave societies, private masters assumed both the costs and responsibilities of slave ownership. In free societies, those costs are deliberately transfered to society at large.
A society in which blacks were physically kept separate by law and custom may be technically “multiracial’ but it severely confuses the issue to conflate it with multiracialism as it is known today.
As for who bears the costs, the wealthiest owned the most slaves and in those days bore the costs of upkeep privately. Today, while costs are more widely distributed, the wealthy pay the lion’s share of taxes, so not as much has really changed in this regard as it appears at first glance.
So, in the name of altruism and egalitarianism, Whites are demonized and burdened with a false narrative of collective racial guilt that justifies the neverending expropriation of their wealth, not to mention the innumerable negative consequences of emancipation, above all black-on-white crime and the destruction of their communities.
Yes, it’s anti-whiteism. It’s wrong and it must be resisted and reversed. That requires a revision of certain liberal tenets, not liberalism’s wholesale abandonment.
“Spartan women’s lives were rather similar to the great bulk of islamic women’s lives. I see nothing admirable in any of it.”
You obviously know nothing of ancient Sparta. They were citizens, literate, physically trained with the boys in their youth, competed in the Olympics, ran the households, and most importantly could own property in their own right and inherit or pass it down independently of their husbands. As equal citizens they could divorce and remarry without fear of losing their personal wealth or their children.
The Ancient Greeks are our genetic brothers and cultural antecedents and the founders of Western Civilization; quite unlike you and your Semitic cousins in Islam.
(2) If “morality” is reducible to sentiment, then it is meaningless
Are you able to think of anything you regard as deeply immoral — “This is really, really wrong!” — which doesn’t also make you feel bad? As I see it, strong feeling is always involved, and I take this to mean that feelings (emotions, sentiments) are the basis of morality. But feelings are not set in stone. Feelings can change, and often do change, as a result of deeper reflection, and what once seemed moral or neutral can come to seem morally repugnant — just as occurred with slavery.
(4) The above is “rational” only in the sense if your purpose or end is to create a society based on equality.
(5) Oh really? Then on what foundation does your ensemble rest?
Fairness, a society based on fairness.
“Spartan women’s lives were rather similar to the great bulk of islamic women’s lives. I see nothing admirable in any of it.”
I can see that your affectation of ignorance is no mere affectation.
The lives of Spartan women were nothing like those of Islamic women.
“For the record, I don’t really identify as “white.” Culturally, I do, as well as in the broad racial sense, but I’m quite happy to forgo the label or relinquish it to those to whom it means more and/or better fits.”
The solipsistic postmodern viewpoint Silver espouses is about as substantial as an evanescent soap bubble. Detached (in an ironic sense, of course), disembodied, bloodless, and ultimately, unreal. Perfectly vapid and just a wee bit too precious.
Hard to take Silver and his WN straw man seriously. Brutus summed it up well.
Silver, my yankee straw man can kick the living sh*t out of your WN straw man.
He gets his meanness from his Spartan mother, who was known to say, “Come back with your shield, or on it.”
Honor and loyalty are healthier values for a society than equality and human dignity.
Deo Vindice
Rudel,
Spartans were ultra-conservative, slave-owning scum. (All Greeks owned slaves, but few were as hysterical about defending the institution (and other privileges) as Sparta.) I’m not surprised you admire them; your side has a tradition of it.
The Ancient Greeks are our genetic brothers and cultural antecedents and the founders of Western Civilization; quite unlike you and your Semitic cousins in Islam.
Good for you. Now, I’m hardly some semite, but even if I were I don’t see how or why it should change anything I’ve said or how or why it should preclude anyone from agreeing with it (in the case that they find it reasonable).
I can relate to a “fair” society. Just as long as it is devoid of niggers, spics, Arabs, Asians, and kikes.
Re: Silver
(1) I don’t think of “morality” in terms of feeling one way or another about some given issue.
I tend to think of morality in terms of virtues and vices and their relationship to social ends. I also think of morality as something that is bounded and made intelligible only within common traditions.
(2) What you are describing is known as “emotivism” and goes a long way toward explaining the present moral disarray of the West.
(3) “Fairness,” another way of saying “equality,” or liberalism.
Just as long as it is devoid of niggers, spics, Arabs, Asians, and kikes.
Well, whether you care to hear what I have to say or not, the reality is if one were to follow my train of thought to its logical end, that’s what you’d eventually have. Better yet (in my opinion), you’d arrive there with less rancor, less enduring hostility and even a good measure of well wishing. The alternative is to declare no possibility of such an outcome, dig your heels in and prepare for and stake your entire future on a holy race war that may never eventuate.
“Spartans were ultra-conservative, slave-owning scum.”
Spartan society maintained its independence for 600 years. Even Alexander didn’t dare try to subjugate them. Even after coming under Roman rule the Romans greatly admired them and gave them autonomy to continue their way of life. Spartan phalanxes were successfully battling the Visigoths as late as the 4th century A.D.
Since you were shooting off your mouth in complete ignorance in incorrectly equating Spartiate women with those of Islam I will regard your above statement as having the same validity, that is, none.
BTW, you’re what is known as a “concern” troll and you are also a liar as you are obviously a kike. Go away, there is nothing for you here.
I tend to think of morality in terms of virtues and vices and their relationship to social ends. I also think of morality as something that is bounded and made intelligible only within common traditions.
Regardless, give me one example of something you believe to be deeply immoral that doesn’t also make you feel bad. This is what I mean by morality ultimately reducing to feelings. It’s not always immediately obvious that it’s a question of feelings, but that’s what it seems to come down to.
(3) “Fairness,” another way of saying “equality,” or liberalism.
Treating people fairly doesn’t necessarily equate to treating people equally. For example, I would most certainly support harsher punishment for blacks who commit crimes against whites than for blacks who commit (the same) crimes against blacks. This is certainly not a case of treating people equally, but I’m quite confident I could argue that this treatment is fair.
BTW, you’re what is known as a “concern” troll and you are also a liar as you are obviously a kike. Go away, there is nothing for you here.
Rudel, I’m familiar with your posting history and quite aware of your inability to have a civil discussion so I’m hardly surprised by your outburst. But you don’t get get to tell me what to do, okay? I’ll leave when HW requests it.
Re: Uncle Silver
(1) That’s a caricature of tradition.
Like natural science, the strength of tradition is precisely that it is practical and flexible and draws upon the collective experience of previous generations who have been repeatedly tested by various problems.
Bad ideas that don’t work are progressively weeded out through trial and error.
(2) That’s also why abstract reasoning is so dangerous and produces disaster after disaster: compared to tradition, ideology is inflexible and impervious to experience, and incapable of progressing beyond its usually silly axioms.
(3) Here in the South, we adopted the railroad, the telegraph, and the steamboat, while rejecting the foolish doctrine of negro equality because it “contradicted” the abstract doctrine of universal human rights.
OTOH, the Northeast has progressively eliminated the “contradictions” to its silly doctrine, starting with overthrowing monarchy and progressing from there through abolition to feminism to full blown communism in some cases.
A comparative victory for Southern tradition and non-ideological thinking, I would say.
(4) You mean multiracialism + free society.
(5) Sure it is.
We have shifted from private responsibility to social responsibility and the effective result is that there are no more masters who are personally liable when negroes misbehave as they inevitably do when given “freedom” and left to stir and riot in their ghettos.
If there was a White man who was personally liable every time a free negro commits a heinous crime, there would be less violent crime and property crime.
(6) Anti-Whiteism follows naturally from liberal ideology and has been with us since the earliest days of liberalism when it was first discredited by Jacobinism during the French Revolution.
Ideally men and women are of equal but different value. A Spartan man had to die in battle to earn his name on his grave, a Spartan woman had to die in childbirth to earn the same honor. Pretty equal recognition for different roles. The Spartan arrangement of helot slavery and traditional gender roles lasted 700 years. Depending on how you define it. These type of examples of traditional gender role/ slave societies lasting for many years are a dime a dozen in history
There is no indication modern gender roles will last much longer since White folks are soon to be out numbered by tribes who don’t ascribe to modern gender roles.
Seems pretty clear on gender roles and national longevity
Re: Silver
I think gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins, is immoral. I don’t get emotionally animated by gluttony though. On the contrary, I can see why a society would have valid reasons to proscribe, stigmatize, and discourage overeating as a vicious behavior while encouraging moderation in eating habits.
Political, social, and economic equality
Spartan women, of the citizenry class, enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world. The higher status of females in Spartan society started at birth; unlike Athens, Spartan girls were fed the same food as their brothers.[92] Nor were they confined to their father’s house and prevented from exercising or getting fresh air as in Athens, but exercised and even competed in sports.[92] Most important, rather than being married off at the age of 12 or 13, Spartan law forbade the marriage of a girl until she was in her late teens or early 20s. The reasons for delaying marriage were to ensure the birth of healthy children, but the effect was to spare Spartan women the hazards and lasting health damage associated with pregnancy among adolescents. Spartan women, better fed from childhood and fit from exercise, stood a far better chance of reaching old age than their sisters in other Greek cities, where the median age for death was 34.6 years or roughly 10 years below that of men.[93]
Unlike Athenian women who wore heavy, concealing clothes and were rarely seen outside the house, Spartan women wore dresses (peplos) slit up the side to allow freer movement and moved freely about the city, either walking or driving chariots. Girls as well as boys exercised, possibly in the nude, and young women as well as young men may have participated in the Gymnopaedia (“Festival of Nude Youths”).[94][95]
Spartan women were also literate and numerate, a rarity in the ancient world. Furthermore, as a result of their education and the fact that they moved freely in society engaging with their fellow (male) citizens, they were notorious for speaking their minds even in public.[96]
Most important, Spartan women had economic power because they controlled their own properties, and those of their husbands. It is estimated that in later Classical Sparta, when the male population was in serious decline, women were the sole owners of at least 35% of all land and property in Sparta.[97] The laws regarding a divorce were the same for both men and women. Unlike women in Athens, if a Spartan woman became the heiress of her father because she had no living brothers to inherit (an epikleros), the woman was not required to divorce her current spouse in order to marry her nearest paternal relative.[98]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Role_of_women
Silver’s whole post on Sparta smacks on anti White liberalism. Hell he self admits to not really seeing himself as White. We cannot expect some one like that to have the best interests of Southron White in his thinking
In your liberal society, virtuous taxpayers are forced to subsidize the damaging consequences of the vice of gluttony through Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid which are based purely on the sentiment that universal healthcare is a “fundamental human right.”
“Fairness, a society based on fairness.”
Yes, a society based upon fairness…fair eyes, fair hair, and fair skinned.
Jim Crow…separate but equal…what could be fairer. Silver’s world is delusional because in reality nothing can be fair because individuals and groups differ in ability and traits which of course breeds enormous resentment.
” I’m familiar with your posting history and quite aware of your inability to have a civil discussion”
What is the point of having a civil discussion with someone like you who knowingly spews out falsehoods? I’ve got your number jewboy, even if you do have Hunter hooked at the moment.
Morality based on feelings, huh? I see.
An impotent man must feel mighty bad towards a more healthy man who is able to bang that sexy woman. So sex becomes immoral.
A never-do-well has strong negative feelings when he sees another man who has much. So making too much money and having too many of the things the never-do-well doesn’t have becomes immoral. In fact, so do many of those “things” the never-do-well doesn’t have.
We could go on and on.
When we hear of a man who stole millions of dollars, do we feel bad?
Does the man who stole it feel bad? How about if he doesn’t get caught, or at least doesn’t get punished too bad?
Didn’t Ronnie Van Zant say a few lines about this in “Sweet Home Alabama?” Does your conscience bother you, Silver? Tell the truth.
Silver is almost certainly tracking back here from a liberal website. He’s sounds like someone off Dkos.