VNN Forum
Alex Linder writes:
“It’s one thing to make intellectual arguments for slavery, that’s worth doing for a number of reasons, but it is clear that some at OD wouldn’t mind seeing slavery come back. I just want it made clear that regardless of the economic benefits of slavery, the social value of having no niggers around at all is infinitely more valuable.”
Slavery is not coming back.
The overwhelming majority of negro slaves in the American South, the Caribbean, and Brazil worked on sugar and cotton plantations. I’ve said a million times now that if slavery had simply been left alone that the mechanization of agriculture in the twentieth century would have inevitably eliminated its economic rationale. Then the blacks could have been humanely returned to the European colonies in Africa.
Note: I should probably add here that slavery never really went away. Machines are chattel slaves that use hydrocarbon fuels to do work far more efficiently than free laborers. Slave labor is still superior to free labor in the production of sugarcane and cotton and corn too.
Notice that the champions of “free labor” do not argue that free laborers with a “motive” to improve themselves can possibly economically outcompete the mechanical harvesters which are the chattel property of their masters. This proves that their objection to slavery was based on moral and religious grounds. Not a peep of “anti-slavery” dissent is raised about the unfairness of the enslavement of machines which don’t possess “souls” or “human dignity.”
Slavery was and remains a dynamic engine of human progress that has liberated Westerners from toil and increased their leisure time.
Linder can’t seem to grasp the fact that intermediate arrangements are usually necessary to effect change, as if most of us don’t want resolution of the problem. He skips over the process of adjustment, referring only to “when whites (as a whole?) take power”. It seems to frustrate him that the ideal situation isn’t immediately attainable.
Not a peep of “anti-slavery” dissent is raised about the unfairness of the enslavement of machines which don’t possess “souls” or “human dignity.”
Machines aren’t human; negroes are. It’s really not rocket science. But then I suppose you don’t actually have any plans to be taken seriously any time soon. Say what you will about Alex Linder, but you’ll never find him talking utter crap like this.
Silverman,
Machines are a superior breed of slaves.
They require a certain kind of food. They require maintenance. They are the chattel property of their masters. They perform work in sugarcane, corn, and cotton fields which are not compensated by wages. They are more productive and work more efficiently than free laborers.
As for your argument that “machines aren’t human,” that’s true, but it is also true that machines are slaves, and that the abolition of slavery in the case of machines would be just as economically destructive as the abolition of slavery was in the case of the negro in the nineteenth century.
If you own any machine that does work such as an automobile or a tractor or a lawnmower, then you are a slaveowner.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/robot
Word History: Robot is a word that is both a coinage by an individual person and a borrowing. It has been in English since 1923 when the Czech writer Karel apek’s play R.U.R. was translated into English and presented in London and New York. R.U.R., published in 1921, is an abbreviation of Rossum’s Universal Robots; robot itself comes from Czech robota, “servitude, forced labor,” from rab, “slave.” The Slavic root behind robota is orb-, from the Indo-European root *orbh-, referring to separation from one’s group or passing out of one sphere of ownership into another. This seems to be the sense that binds together its somewhat diverse group of derivatives, which includes Greek orphanos, “orphan,” Latin orbus, “orphaned,” and German Erbe, “inheritance,” in addition to the Slavic word for slave mentioned above. Czech robota is also similar to another German derivative of this root, namely Arbeit, “work” (its Middle High German form arabeit is even more like the Czech word). Arbeit may be descended from a word that meant “slave labor,” and later generalized to just “labor.”
negros are not human. As long as White men think negros are human, folks will fall for false ideals like negros are our equal, should have rights, a special helping hand because they are human just like us, race mixing is ok because we’re all human etc all
White folks need to kill the idea that negros are human. That’s yankee thinking and does our kind no good
yeah but combines don’t sodomize 8 year old girls with wine bottles or shoot children in the street with ak-47s or rape 58,000 white women annully, there is no columbine president. by that logic, arn’t UAV’s similar to Mamluks, or janissaries?
correcting it is an anglo word, not a yankee word (john locke)
Just got off the tractor and came in to discover I’m a slaveowner. I disagree, however, since machines are inanimate, non-biological objects. Also, there is a moral issue: There is such a thing as humane treatment of human employees and other humans, and humane treatment of animals such as mules and horses, but no such thing as humane treatment of machines, which feel no pain, etc., although it is wasteful and unwise to misuse a machine — yet not inhumane! Hunter mentioned earlier that slaves would have been “humanely returned” to Africa when the machinery was ready to take their place. Why bother, when machines that are outmoded and useless are simply junked? I submit that machinery owners and even mule owners are not slave owners.
A very strong case is made for “wage slavery,” however. In fact I agree many employees are defacto slaves, and taxpayers are defacto slaves of the Tyranny.
Pretty sure HW is joking about the machine thing, but it’s in poor taste in face of how this is a post where legitimate confusion over his beliefs is at a forefront.
And HW, I’m aware of your writings on the superiority of the plantation system in many cases, but I question this because even beyond basic ethical issues, black slavery, and slavery in general, though especially black slavery, is centrally problematic because of the conflict and internal problems it brought about in the long term. Were the economic benefits really worth it for the massive problem of deportation of millions and millions of transplanted people like that, and to say nothing of the innumerable social and philosophical issues that arose from slavery, most notably the gulf between the south and the north and the civil war it ultimately led to? I doubt you’ll argue against that, but your posts on things like the economic benefits make it really hard for some to see just where you’re coming from, though others are as well, like your post about greco-roman treatment of slaves.
In other liberal contexts, forums– whathaveyou these topics are quite openly discussed.
Without automated machinery we would still be whipping nigs to do work. It’s only because of industrial ingenuity that we do not. Moral questions don’t even come into it.
This proves that their objection to slavery was based on moral and religious grounds.
This is the part that interests me. Christianity moralized the problem of slavery, thereby preventing it from being solved in a low-key manner using reason by means of political compromise. It’s a theme with that cult that continues today even though slavery in the white world is gone. Mere reality is never enough for christian drama queens. The same old ‘sanctimonious madmen’ (Judge Lawless) that were the abolitionists continue to plague us today. Even as they hector whites with traditional racial attitudes as immoral, they seed our — pardon me they take money from ZOG to seed remaining pockets of White civilization with gen-u-wine African niggers.
This cult is not what’s killing us. That would be jews. This cult is what keeps us from defending ourselves. Because at some level we can’t get past what church and state alike inform us – that we are morally evil because we don’t want to go down the road they’re pushing us.
I think you should use your formidable historian abilities to investigate the role of this cult in unmanning America and paving the way for the jews. The best book I know in this regard, though turgid as hell, is by Ann Douglas, a feminist:
The Feminization of American Culture
http://www.amazon.com/The-Feminization-American-Culture-Douglas/dp/0374525587
Don’t you find it funny that the highest man in all christendom gives his formal approval to a smear invented, popularized and made genocidally dogmatic by communist jews? Yes, the pope agrees that racism is evil and racists are immoral. Well that settles in then. He’s god’s vicar on earth. Right? And I don’t know of any significant Protestants who disagree. My question is why we listen to various hill apes snake shakers who claim this cult has anything to do with our racial cause when manifestly it is anti-White because it is universalist by dogma. Thus it has contained the potential for what we see today from day one, and always will.
Communism and the christian cult are about as opposed as the Republicans and Democrats. You will notice that the christians like E. Michael Jones hop over themselves to repeat smears such as those in Pink Swastika that upon inspection turn out to have been concocted by the jewish communists the Sturm Abteilung were fighting. This is more than interesting, it is telling. Christians oppose communism but they HATE racialism. This puzzled me for the longest time. The answer is that racialism, whether Hitler’s or another form, threatens to supersede their church, because it offers a different and superior worldview or overall-conception, whereas communism will merely oppress the church but ultimately fail because it is unattractive, based on force alone, and grounded in extreme unreality. I’m going astray but my point is that any thinking that conservatism or the jebus cult have any help for our cause is completely wrong.
The jebus cult took at least two sides on the slavery question and both were wrong! That is truly remarkable when you think about it. And this cult and the mentality it continues to cultivate is just as relevant in 2012 as it was in 1850 because churches on both sides are happily taking money from the feds to perform anti-White social services as mentioned above.
So long as we remain christian we will find it impossible to defend ourselves. Our punches will glance because at bottom we believe, as church and state relieflessly tell us, we are immoral.
You can say your cause is Southern and not racial but the South doesn’t have the manpower or the brainpower to liberate itself. Put your money on the north and the west. Why? Because, which you all don’t acknowledge, there are
1) more Northerners with Southern racial attitudes than Southerners
2) they are better men – smarter, more fanatical, better educated, better connected than you are
None of that is gainsaid by your pointing out the overall figures that show the north a fraction more liberal than the South.
Anyway, it’s been a very interesting and informative run through the history of the Caribbean, and I wanted to say I’ve enjoyed it. I just think a lot of the rancor directed at the North, while certainly deserved, is drawing attention away from more interesting and productive areas – like the role of the church in undermining our race through its reality-averse moralizing.
Stonelifter,
White folks need to kill the idea that negros are human. That’s yankee thinking and does our kind no good
Well, if we’re all going to be so arbitrary about it, some may decide that southron racists aren’t human and that thinking they are does nobody any good. At this point in time I’d say there’s a far greater likelihood of that than of what you propose. Didn’t your mother tell you that people who lift stones shouldn’t live in glass houses?
Huntard,
and that the abolition of slavery in the case of machines would be just as economically destructive as the abolition of slavery was in the case of the negro in the nineteenth century.
No, because if you outlaw the ownership of machines no one can then hire those machines, but people are able to hire the former slaves by paying them a wage.
(1) Negro slavery has been superceded by the enslavement of machines. The term “robot” comes from the Czech word for slave.
(2) Negro slavery made sense in the 19th century. It doesn’t make any sense in the 21st century. Machines are superior to negro slaves in sugarcane and cotton. If abolitionists had been defeated, negro slavery would have ended as naturally as sharecropping.
(3) Abolition, not slavery, is to blame for the Black Undertow.
(4) Abolition was the cause of the War Between the States. From 1789 until 1848, the North consented to “the extension of slavery,” and prior to the 1830s there wasn’t a mass abolitionist movement that was alienating the South.
(5) The American colonies were created for the benefit of their metropoles. Only WNs deplore slavery for corrupting America’s pristine whiteness. They can do this because they conventially forget that it was slavery that made whiteness important, after the negroes were brought here, and that whiteness ceased to be important in the areas where slavery never developed a strong foothold.
Silverman,
If we outlawed the ownership of machines, the machines would be free (like the negroes who were set loose in the British West Indies), not to labor for their masters in cotton, corn, and sugarcane fields.
The result would be destruction of billions of dollars worth of property, a collapse in land values, soaring commodity prices, a scramble for substitutes, and probably famine in much of the world. Emancipating machines would legislate poverty.
If only those ‘tight with a penny’ Yankees had done the right thing and bought the slaves out of slavery and moved them North!
Even a reasonable man like Ron Paul agrees!
Ron Paul: Civil War Didn’t Need To Be Fought–Could Have “Just Bought The Slaves & Freed The
Huntard,
If we outlawed the ownership of machines, the machines would be free (like the negroes who were set loose in the British West Indies), not to labor for their masters in cotton, corn, and sugarcane fields.
Only living things can be free.
But keep going, you’re doing a fantastic job discrediting yourself by even beginning to take this line of argument, even in jest, let alone by stubbornly defending it.
Hunter,
You may joke about machines, but artificial intelligence is coming and soon white liberals will have a new class of victims to champion and exploit.
Free the toasters!
Blacks also had to be brought in to quickly exploit the virgin land.
We are the Vacuum Cleaner Liberation Army!
strike up the battle hymn of the republic were gonna plow south and free the internet modems from the southron knaves!
all inate matter is born equal, total equality, bluejay-and shale for president! let there be a national association for the advancement of mealworms! DEO VINDINCE!
HW is arguing not that machines are slaves, but that slaves are capital. And as far as the south practiced slavery this was somewhat correct. But those slaves are naturally inclined to seek status, particularly ours, while machines, pets, livestock, and work animals do not.
“all inate matter is born equal, total equality, bluejay-and shale for president! let there be a national association for the advancement of mealworms! DEO VINDINCE!” – speaking of speciesism, would the advocates of that particular offshoot of equality go away if they got what they wanted? or would they move on to the next cause?
of course non anon, equality is simply a bourgeois guise for control, you can control the mass man with equality “fighting for equality”, mono-reality equality “atomic equality” is just an illogical parody of cibil rights, it is taking it past it’s societally applicable means and using it in a demented/deranged way, but then of course equality was never meant in a trancendental, buddhist sense, it was meant in the jew-deo-christ-stain mass man socialist impulse
Wasn’t there a film about granting a robot personhood?
Conchobar, Bonaccorsi, and myself are going to go to Kansas and kill those filthy, fucking, machine-owning, slave-masters once and for all! Bleeding Kansas II!
A good definition of slavery is that a thinking being is being kept. An Artificial Intelligence that could think like a person might be a slave, hobbit if such things existed could be a slave a computer like the one I am typing on is not.
Neither is a draft or service animal a slave they may have souls and can think but not on any human level.
African’s while on aggregate not as smart as Whites (exceptions exists) and I’ve known many they do think in a human fashion . They are as human as you and I just if you’ll forgive words abuse a different clade (or race if you like) of the broader human one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
Thus when we were keeping them for labor is was slavery in a way that keeping say a cotton gin or draft horse was not.
As for the ending of slavery , agrarian slavery, yes. I suspect that they’d have ended that. Service slavery would have gone on until political pressure ended it.
As for repatriation, that would not have been able to happen. With an estimated 4 million slaves (fully excluding freedmen) in 1860 at $200 costs each
it would have cost far more than they civil war. Given the weak Federal system it would have been far beyond our logistical capacity or monetary ability.
The entire Federal budget as of 1861 was 80 million This endeavor would have cost every penny we could raise for ten years.
And no, there is no way the Congress at the time or the people would have acceded to doubling taxes or putting in an income tax without the bad excuse of the Civil War.
So repatriation, while a seemingly good idea was simply not possible.
John wrote: “Without automated machinery we would still be whipping nigs to do work. It’s only because of industrial ingenuity that we do not. Moral questions don’t even come into it.”
Who is this “WE” for whom “moral questions” wouldn’t come in? What use would those “WE” have for morality, then, except possibly for making a show, in church, etc.? Why SHOULDN’T white people enjoy working with their own hands while they are creating machinery to make the work lighter?
Matt Strickland is right, I think, that: “As for the ending of slavery , agrarian slavery, yes. I suspect that they’d have ended that… (but) Service slavery would have gone on….”
In the northern colonies and states, slaves were not used so much in agriculture, but many were kept as household servants — many as status symbols — and there is no way to estimate the economic value of a status symbol or pet, and there can be no certainty that their “service use” would have ended with mechanisation of agriculture.
For the Pennsylvania German farmer, his work IS his recreation, and how much more motivation could there be than that? Brains, muscle and will together in one man, no need for a whip to “be their own slave” as some say in derision.
Benjamin Franklin said “when they find a piece of fertile ground, they look down at it and never look up again.” But they also mind their own business, and don’t look over their fences at slave owners, and others, and try to reform them. The Quakers and Puritans did.
If technology had not advanced re sugar cultivation we would still be flogging them to cut down the cane.
You might not get your hands dirty but you’d still be eating the final product. Sugar beet also changed the industry. Corn syrup also.
@Hunter Put this comment in the wrong place:
Linder & Tom Metzger are in general right in a logical fashion. We on the other hand look somewhat favorably back at the institution of slavery because of family history. I don’t know that my ancestors owned slaves for a fact, but, I do know they owned a lot of property in Virginia, and some of my more distant branches elsewhere in the South. If you bought property, the slaves generally came with the property as a bonus. So I’m sure they did own a few slaves, and I wouldn’t want to bet they didn’t. LOL.
Looking back at it, I look at my friends whose families owned a lot of slaves for Virginia—and it must have been kind of “different” having an African village on your farm.
My only wish is that my great-grandfather had held onto the piece of property that today is a golf course & resort. LOL
I’m not saying that slavery was in good taste. Or nice. Or a cherry on top a sundae. I just don’t see morality entering into it. Today slavery is used as a guilt trip for flogging whites. Fck em. I think the unthinkable!
Machines are certainly better behaved and more productive than negroes. The automation of slave functions has rendered negroes completely obsolete. Were it not for the “humanistic” social programs applied to these beasts, they would soon find their way onto the evolutionary scrap heap.
Positing human status onto derelict, maladaptive livestock is patently absurd. How long can we afford the luxury of such a sloppy, sentimental view in the face of the stark reality of negro dysfunction? Must we see our entire civilization submerged in such dysfunction before we realize enough is enough?
Deo Vindice
Slavery was advantageous for production at the time, otherwise it would. It have existed. It was a bad idea from the beginning and is no longer necessary. It is. Of, however, evil in itself. It is a natural state of mankind, as is poverty. Some societies have created wealth and raised themselves above slavery. However, those societies, in the big scope of history are the exception, not the norm.
It’s not needed with the cheap energy we consume. That could change, oil will become more expensive.
The left uses slavery as one of several arguments to gain the morale high ground in any debate, thereby causing our children to hate themselves because they are descended from “evil doers”, which in turn causes them to roll over and allow themselves to be displaced out of guilt. Slavery isn’t the only hammer, though. There is also the extermination of the Plain Indians for you Yankees to deal with and the Holocaust for Europeans to deal with. Hunter’s articles tackle slavery and simply give another side to the leftist narrative of “whites are evil and need to be displaced”. However you feel about slavery, you must admit that this is the narrative. And it’s not going away even if Hunter quits writing about it–the left will never let it.
Question: suppose that the people of Somalia were enslaved to work in agriculture in Africa in the same manner as blacks worked the plantations of the American South. Would they be better off than they are now? Would they be starving? Would they be killing each other? Would they be pirating our ships?
See it’s not about comfort it’s about “identity”.
@Wayne
You don’t get to decide to what is “better” for complete strangers. Doesn’t your mentality demonstrate the same shit you Confederetards alaways accuse us “Yankees” of doing?
You are the biggest moron I’ve ever encountered online.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/09/24/romney-seeks-momentum-in-campaign-swing-9-swing-states-show-romney-leading-in-n-carolina/
even the Kuwaitis know Romney is collapsing.
Well said, Wayne. Which is why no white should ever accede to the positions and arguments of our enemies on these issues. The colonization of the New World and the global expansion of white rule was not a crime, rather it was a blessing for all concerned.
The enervation of whites following the world wars of the twentieth century was the real catastrophe. The legacy of white abdication due to manufactured guilt is the barbarity and chaos that continue to creep forward as our civilization decays.
Abolitionism and the myth “free labor” are defended as two of the last bastions of the rotting corpse of liberalism. In this way, we can rationalize our degenerate status as another “inevitable improvement” over the “oppressive” past.
The myth of progress is the bedrock of liberal fundamentalism.
Deo Vindice
“I just want it made clear that regardless of the economic benefits of slavery, the social value of having no niggers around at all is infinitely more valuable.”
I deny the economic benefits of negro slavery, but I certainly do not deny the enormous advantages of a white civil society. To that end, while negroes can be, under close supervision and careful management, economically productive, white laborers are always superior. And an all white society obviously means dramatically reduced crime rates and welfare costs. Emanciaption without expatriation and colonization, tragically, began the ultimate degredation of American society.
Chris: my personal opinion is to leave them to their own means–whether destruction or glory. However, the Western world is subsidizing turd world population growth through medication, feeding, watering, etc. the only thing lacking is having them pay for this by labor. The motivating spirit of these dwl’s is the same that killed 600,000 white men to free the slaves, and the same suicidal mentality that would import billions of turd word hordes and their own children be damned!
Chris: if Southerners ever killed their inhabitants by mass starvation, then I would welcome Yankee intervention. As far as I know the only genocidal campaign waged on the N. American continent was when the Yankees exterminated the plains Indians, after those pesky Southerners were defeated.
@Wayne
Southerners mass deported Indians off their lands to Western territories to make room for plantations. And Southerners starved plenty of white men to death at Andersonville during the Civil War. Get off your high horse.