The following excerpt on Confederate developmental capitalism comes from John Majewski’s book, Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation:
“Secessionists believed that state-supported agricultural research, government investment in railroads, and interventionist trade policies would strengthen slavery in the long run. Virginia political economist George Fitzhugh approvingly noted the propensity for southern-state action during the antebellum period. Southerners may have preached free-trade, laissez-faire, and “Let Alone” policies, he wrote in the Charleston Mercury in 1856, but in actual practice they supported state activism. “We build roads and canals, endow colleges, aid education, encourage commerce and manufactures, prohibit peddling, and, in a thousand ways, endeavor by interfering with, encouraging and controlling private pursuits, by State Legislation, to enhance State wealth, intelligence, and well being.” Southerners decisively rejected “laissez-faire” when it came to controlling their slaves, Fitzhugh argued, so it was hardly surprising that southerners would reject laissez-faire in other elements of their lives. Fitzhugh was hardly representative, but his observations captured an important element of the southern mindset.”
Fitzhugh wasn’t alone in this respect.
James D.B. De Bow was a Southern economic nationalist and the antebellum champion of industrial and commercial development. George Fitzhugh wrote the bulk of his articles as a columnist for De Bow’s Review. Both were fans of technological progress and anticipated aspects of the New South.
Majewski continues:
“The secessionist focus on homogeneity of interests and the protection of slavery speaks to how Confederates could support a modern economy without supporting what scholars often label as “modernization.” Modernization theory sees economic growth creating distinct periods or phases of development in which “traditional” beliefs are cast aside in favor of modern notions of rationality, scientific thinking, and political liberalism. In contrast to modernization theory, secessionists saw a modern economy in concrete terms – more factories, more cities, more wealth, more political and military power – in a way that allowed them to reject the dichotomy between modernity and “traditional.” Even as they worked toward a more modern economy, secessionists often touted the conservative elements in their society, including slavery, evangelical religion, and (when convenient) various forms of agrarian republicanism.”
Who does that sound like?
George Fitzhugh rejected political liberalism, economic liberalism and cultural liberalism as abstract nonsense. It sounds a lot like the People’s Republic of China.
Note: Fitzhugh would have praised China’s economic miracle as proof of the superiority of Slave Society over Free Society. By “slavery,” Fitzhugh didn’t mean chattel slavery, but “any social system which formally recognized inequality, the necessity of authoritarian order and human interdependence, and embodied “a safe, efficient and human community of property.” For Fitzhugh, slavery was about being safe and protected, about being unequal but nice to each other.” The “slavery principle” he was driving at meant the opposite of freedom and laissez-faire.
I just can’t believe slavery worked very well. I feel like we are not getting the full discussion. It just doesn’t add up.
Have you never watched that PBS show, where old slaves from the WBTS said that life under the White Man was good, and that being a slave wasn’t so bad? Or the former British Colonies, who longed for the white overlords to come back, and bring stability with them?
We need to fend off at every opportunity the FALLACY, that blacks are our ontological, educational, and moral Equals. They only become so, if we slide down that slippery slope toward them, rather than their ‘rising up’ to our best and brightest.
But when white boys wear their hair in dreadlocks (I want to go up with a pair of scissors, and strike at that snake’s nest) their music is C[rap] and they think that shucking and jiving is DANCING, well…..
We’re already in the first circle of Hell.
Slavery would have worked out fine in the long run here in the South if the slaves had been white Europeans. Eventually, they would have worked their way into the free fabric of our society. Slavery itself is biblical. The problem was that the slaves were a different race. Bringing in a different race of people is not only NOT biblical, but against God’s Laws. That is the rub. It is not “slavery” that is the problem, but “race.”
Actually, the problem is/was Jews and their Northern Leftists stooges, as well as Oligarchs on the take, who exploited, and exploit, Niggers for political gain.
If they’d left Dixie alone, the Niggers would have eventually been sold off to the Caribbean, just as Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia had sold them off to the Gulf Coast South.
Cotton is the #1 crop in Texas. But in Grayson, Fannin and Lamar Counties, where I’m from, you find more combines and haying equipment in machinery barns, than cotton strippers. And more feed mills and flour mills, than cotton gins and oil/seed cake mills.
Similarly, in states like Mississippi and Alabama, you’ll find crops that have been traditionally associated with states like Iowa and Illinois. Soybeans, for instance.
By “slavery,” Fitzhugh didn’t mean chattel slavery, but “any social system which formally recognized inequality, the necessity of authoritarian order and human interdependence, and embodied “a safe, efficient and human community of property.” For Fitzhugh, slavery was about being safe and protected, about being unequal but nice to each other.” The “slavery principle” he was driving at meant the opposite of freedom and laissez-faire.” http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/05/22/southern-history-series-george-fitzhugh-on-laissez-faire-capitalism/
But here’s the rub, when the so called “aristocracy” steals the excess production for their own gain and not for the common gain of the kin-nation then it truly is chattel slavery!! See my beef regarding the globalist Yahwist “Messianic” magesterium’s of christianity, judaism, Islam, and Yahwist Solomonic Temple Freemasony’s support for “chattel” slavery of their own kin-folk: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/financial-vipers-of-venice-joseph-p-farrell/1114767861?ean=9781936239733
Secondly: “As part of this concern with modern decay the neopagans of all three periods I mentioned have great hostility to Christianity. They don’t see how Christianity can offer a different path from the decay they see around them. Many like Nietzsche and Venner have great respect for Christianity of Europe in its time of ascent. But the modern bugman in some sense “triumphed” over Christianity while in another sense he was not its negation but its son and child. The medieval European military aristocracy, the knighthood was Christian but as Venner and Nietzsche and many others never tire of saying, they had very deep quarrel with the priests and their role in this religion was very uncomfortable.”
https://theamericansun.com/2019/03/25/old-and-new-paganism-by-bap/
Choosing our economic slavery through working for others, but then being subject to the whims of the marketplace, isn’t a good deal for many people. When you think about how little people are able to choose about their lives (parents, culture, etc.), you realize just how limited our choices and therefore our free will really are.
I suspect that HW isn’t promoting antebellum-style slavery for the 21st century, though, but turning slavery on its head and allowing anyone to get the benefits of having technology work for them. If his writing on Yang is what I correctly recall, that is.
Speaking of capitalism, some of the people banned off most platforms are using SubscribeStar to get money from fans. If you think their fees are reasonable, maybe it could work for you, HW.
I will check it out.
Usually, these services seem to go down in a matter of months, so I have been waiting to see if SubscribeStar proves enduring. Thanks for the recommendation.
The African should have never been brought here as a Slave. That did nothing but cause serious racial problems for us. The White Race was already fighting the Indians. The White People and Indians eventually made peace. The African never made peace with White People. The Confederacy realized that government should be more involved in infrastructure and the economy. That really played out later while FDR was President of the USA. The South was a giant supporter of his policies anf still support his policies. However now people are brainwashed into thinking the Republitard represents us. No. The Republitards only care about the Rich. Has no care for the Middle Class and Working Poor. Those idiots are so Greedy that Automation and Robots are literally replacing Workers. Now the Illegal Immigrants making $2 an hour is more than the Rich Republican will pay for Work. It’s reality. The rich don’t care about Human Beings now. The goal is Nationalism and taking everything back from the Rich. Take the money from the rich and scatter it out across the population. Call it left wing, right wing, up, and down. Just get it done for the good of the White Race. Deo Vindice !
Am I the only one here that finds a contradiction between Southern Nationalism and her sovereignty in all aspects and global messianic monarchy?
hmm… appears to be the case…