Abhor Egalitarianism!

I’m always on the lookout for ways to help Old Dixie.

We unreconstructed folk answer objections, right misconceptions (and weave through emotional confessions) quite frequently!

But the one issue at the bottom of all the controversy is a radical (and unbiblical) doctrine of social egalitarianism to which our opponents are religiously devoted.

The mere idea that class distinctions and aristocracy exist in a free society is Hell to the egalitarian. They don’t see beauty in the old social norms of Dixie; they don’t realize the honor and chivalry inherent in that sort of place! No sir! They don’t appreciate fields or workers, but see only opportunity. (Their eyes rape the land AND the workers!)

This is terrible!

Clarity is found from an odd source however:

Richard J. Ellis is a self-proclaimed liberal democrat who sees the harmful effects of this doctrine on liberalism. He connects the dots between the egalitarianism of the Unitarians and their desire to destroy the entire social structure of Old Dixie:

Radical abolitionists did not seek just the end of slavery; they sought the end of the Old South. “The whole social system of the Gulf states,” said Wendell Phillips, “is to be taken to pieces, every bit of it.” (See Ellis “The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America.)

The very nature of Southern culture drove them mad! My anscestors could not be allowed to live as they had been living, and had to either change, or die!

The gospel of egalitarianism was spread through old dixie by filthy mouthed soldiers and the call of war trumpets.

Now we hear this same gospel from the mouths of our children.

There should be a special brand of soap made to clean this horror from their mouths! We could call it: “Truth: cleansing away egalitarianism since 1865!”

Ellis shows that when the elementary nature of man doesn’t conform with the ideals of the egalitarians, these Satanists respond in the same way their Unitarian forebears responded to Dixie! They hate man and wish him eradicated!

The Egalitarian hates fallen man because the egalitarian hates the all-sovereign God. They don’t want the grace of Christ! They can’t stand this idea that some men are forgiven and others aren’t! To deny God, they must posit that all men are, at base, good. All deserve salvation!

In response I’ll end by citing an ominous observation made by Irving Babbit in his book “Democracy and Leadership”:

“…when one starts with the assumption that men are naturally good and virtuous, one ends by wishing to kill them all.”

This entry was posted in Defending Dixie and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Abhor Egalitarianism!

  1. Cart says:

    I subscribed to get updates in my email every time you post something. I need to read your stuff more. I thoroughly enjoy what you write. You’ll probably see me quoting you all the time on Facebook : )

  2. shotgunwildatheart says:

    lol…

    Well, I hope you’re not dumber for having read it.

    I appreciate the kind words.

  3. Michael Kailus says:

    Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  4. shotgunwildatheart says:

    Mr. Kailus,

    You’re going to have to expound on your point here.

    If you mean to simply let the Bible speak for itself, then you need to post the entire Bible, and not just one particular verse.

    Since you’ve posted one particular verse, you are implying that it applies to what I’ve said here in some way.

    Please explain yourself.

  5. Michael Kailus says:

    If it’s not immediately apparent how that applies in response to a post entitled “Abhor Egalitarianism” I don’t think anything I can say to clarify it will be of help.

  6. shotgunwildatheart says:

    Mr. Kailus,

    You’ll have to forgive me for what may have seemed an evasive answer…but, I see that particular passage of scripture ambiguously cited so often that I wanted to give you the chance to clarify your argument.

    You see…I don’t believe that particular verse…let alone Scripture itself…teaches us to honor or adhere to enlightenment ideals (promoted during the French Revolution) of radical egalitarianism.

    When you simply post the verse here, it is a bit presumptuous. You are, I can only assume…saying that the Bible so clearly teaches and supports radical egalitarianism, that the only argument needed is a simple posting of that verse.

    My reply was to insist on…either a clarification of your argument, or a posting of the entire Bible.

  7. danielj says:

    I’d like to see him square it with the apostle Paul’s, the apostle to the Gentiles, assertion that he is an Isralite, and therefore, a Jew. Seems like he did believe there were still Jews and Gentiles.

    “I say, then, Did God cast away His people? let it not be! for I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” Romans 11:1

    • Michael Kailus says:

      I’m not what you’d call a “radical egalitarian” either. I don’t deny that differences between people exist, I just believe that the biblical argument is that in Christ’s view, different people are still equal. The sincere Christians of the bible “did not claim any possessions [as their own]” as demonstrated in Acts 4. The traditional American south (influenced by enlightenment philosophers like John Locke) by contrast, saw property as an inherent right of human beings, and stratified their society accordingly. Radical egalitarianism is indeed counter-biblical. The problem with your post here is you seem to suggest that a landed aristocracy kept in power by their control of a slave-dependent economy is the biblical counterpoint, which in my opinion is even less of a Christian point of view. Your mileage may vary.

  8. danielj says:

    Well, the goal posts have been moved…

    In fact, you aren’t even playing the same game anymore. I’ll let the blog owner have first crack at this.

  9. danielj says:

    What do you think about “Slaves, obey your masters as unto the Lord?”

  10. shotgunwildatheart says:

    I see no reason, nor do I feel compelled in any way to accept Mr. Kailus’ opinion of the matter.

    Private property is a basic presupposition of Levitical case law, as is familism, and those who claim otherwise have a difficult job to do in demonstrating it.

  11. Michael Kailus says:

    I take it in the context of the second part where it turns around to say “Masters, treat your slaves in the same way” 1 Timothy even says that a master should serve a slave better than the slave serves the master! This was obviously NOT the way the supposedly Christian majority of the landed southern aristocracy treated their slaves. Additionally, the social and economic opportunities afforded slaves in the time of Christ were systematically denied slaves in the American south. Perhaps most glaring of all, the belief that people of African descent were somehow inherently inferior to whites was widely embraced, and in many cases enforced by societal opinions and law.

    If you look at the biblical passages that restrict the abuses of slavery, by both slaves AND masters, as God sanctioning slavery, you’re making the same mistake as the Pharisees did with divorce.

  12. Shotgun says:

    Mr. Kailus,

    You say that you are not a radical egalitarian and that you believe differences among people exist, but then complain that the South “believed that blacks were somehow inherently inferior to whites.”

    Are there not any differences between blacks and whites? If there are, then what are you willing to admit to?

    Before we can discuss the complex societal arrangement of Southern slavery, we have to treat the egalitarian root issues.

    • Michael Kailus says:

      Africans, in general, tend to have very different texture to their hair and much, much, darker skin, as well as different facial structures. Culturally, many have a different view on life from whites because they have come from a different background and been treated differently. These are all, however, generalizations. To decide that, say, Frederick Douglass (egalitarian or no) was fit only for a life of servitude performing manual labor is absurd.

      The problem with the social distinctions in the slavery-dependent agricultural south and the abused and underpaid laborer-dependent industrial north is that both of them were based on worldly values, not Godly ones. Survival of the fittest, not servant leadership.

      Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not just another nut raging against “The Man”. I have no illusions of Africa as a paradise spoiled by the “white man”. Many slaves were captured in African wars by Africans and sold to Europeans.

      A lot was lost along with the Confederacy in the Civil War, good and bad. States-rights would forever be a dirty word in American politics, and as a result horrible abuses of executive power are not only the norm, but demanded by the people.

      I think where you’re misreading the Bible is in your assumption that because God didn’t call for the violent overthrow of something that He liked it. Keep in mind that Jesus advocated paying the legally required taxes to the completely corrupt and Antichrist Roman government.

      The world is complicated, and Jesus and the apostles understood that. Trying to overthrow slavery in the Roman empire would be suicide, a martyrdom that would accomplish nothing.

      What we do know from the Bible is that God would have us look at the heart, not the outward appearance. Slavery, accordingly, should not be based on race. We also know that we are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves. I’ll believe you’re a Christian who is fine with slavery when you volunteer to pick cotton for a man who spends more money on dinner than you’ll ever see in your life.

      • danielj says:

        The problem with the social distinctions in the slavery-dependent agricultural south and the abused and underpaid laborer-dependent industrial north is that both of them were based on worldly values, not Godly ones.

        That is why they call them social distinctions :)

        I think where you’re misreading the Bible is in your assumption that because God didn’t call for the violent overthrow of something that He liked it.

        I think where He doesn’t say ‘thou shalt not’ (and where it isn’t deducible from a scriptural hermeneutic) than we shouldn’t add one.

        Keep in mind that Jesus advocated paying the legally required taxes to the completely corrupt and Antichrist Roman government.

        I don’t think it was that simple. I don’t really understand what he advocated entirely. There is stuff about drachmas and fishing that I couldn’t properly exegete entirely so I’ll refrain from comment.

        The world is complicated, and Jesus and the apostles understood that. Trying to overthrow slavery in the Roman empire would be suicide, a martyrdom that would accomplish nothing.

        If He wanted to, He could have.

        What we do know from the Bible is that God would have us look at the heart, not the outward appearance.

        That is the exact opposite of what the Bible says about the civil code. There are some circumstances where intentionality plays a role in the punishment meted out for offence, but generally, it is what you do or don’t do that is what matters.

        Slavery, accordingly, should not be based on race.

        What should it be based on?

        I’ll believe you’re a Christian who is fine with slavery when you volunteer to pick cotton for a man who spends more money on dinner than you’ll ever see in your life.

        What does that have to do with the issue? I don’t wanna be a wage slave but that is where God has me now. It is really irrelevant how one feels about it.

        You still haven’t addressed the issue. God does not say “Masters, release your slaves!”

  13. danielj says:

    The Bible presupposes the institution of slavery and does not condemn or demand its abolishment. Albeit, it doesn’t condone perpetual chattel slavery.

    Contrary to your assertion God sanctions slavery but not without any regulations (like everything else He sanctions). We are supposed to treat everybody in a Christlike manner so I don’t understand why you think it strange that we should treat our slaves in a Christlike manner. Treating everybody in a Christlike manner does not mean treating them all exactly the same nor does it demand the elimination of all earthly rank and distinction. One law for both the ox and the donkey is criminal.

    As far as divorce goes, I think the Westminster is wrong. No divorce for any reason and the only permission we have to remarry comes at the death of our spouse. However, if you are referring to O.T. law to support the institution of divorce as Moses granted then we can just as easily refer to the OT law to support slavery so it is you who is acting like a Pharisee.

    Africans are inferior to Whites in various respects, equal in others and superior in others. What of it?

    • Michael Kailus says:

      You’ve misunderstood my point completely, and I apologize. Hastily typing, I often make my opinions unclear. What I’m trying to say is that you can support a LOT of things under Old Testament law. Divorce, amongst other things, establishes the precedent that most of these “sanctions” are actually limitations. The divorce laws in the OT were established to limit the abuses of divorce, just as the slavery laws, penal code, etc. were established to limit abuses. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth makes sense when compared to other ancient civilizations, were if a poor man took a rich mans tooth, he would lose his life (an oversimplification of Hammurabi and others, I know). The Old Testament has rules for slavery, polygamy, revenge killing, etc. The whole point of Jesus’ teaching is that God was LIMITING these things with the law, not condoning them.

      • danielj says:

        You hastily called me a Pharisee I think.

        What I’m trying to say is that you can support a LOT of things under Old Testament law.

        What is N.T. law? I don’t think the law has been abolished.

        Divorce, amongst other things, establishes the precedent that most of these “sanctions” are actually limitations.

        Even taking the standard interpretation of the divorce law, doesn’t allow that it was a limitation. The O.T. law that allowed for divorce was simply a law that allowed for divorce in the case of fornication. It wasn’t designed to “protect” or “limit” anything. Jesus Christ put an end to that ability for divorce during his earthly ministry in my opinion. We can discuss this at length in a different place since it is a different issue.

        What rules for polygamy? It is clearly outlawed in my opinion. All the stuff about a man having “two wives” I believe to be sequential wives after the death of the first. Although, I haven’t studied the issue extremely hard. I’m willing to be converted.

  14. Michael Kailus says:

    Anyway, I apologize if all of this was a waste of time. I enjoy hearing other people’s views, and that’s my main interest in debate. I don’t expect to change your mind, and I don’t really expect to have my mind changed unless I get convinced I wouldn’t mind being a slave.

    Anyway, I encourage you to keep pursuing the truth with an open mind and heart. Love one another!

  15. shotgunwildatheart says:

    Mr. Kailus,

    Your response to me presupposes an underlying commitment to statism in that the state predicates and dictates for us the quality of a person…in other words, a person is defined in terms of his relationship to the state.

    This is unBiblical. God, through His natural hierarchy has designed how people will relate to each other.

    For instance, you completely overlook that slavery in the South wasn’t about race, but rather about relationships between people. A negro child is a slave, not because he was a negro, but because, by virtue of his birth, he inhereted a particular social status.

    This ideal of statism (where the state is the arbitrator of all reality) lies at the bottom of our disagreement.

    God’s law, or man’s law…there is no inbetween.

    With whom will you stand?

Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s