Another Post in Defense of Slavery

“A person dependent on somebody else for everything from potatoes to opinions may declare that he is a free man, and his government may issue a certificate granting him his freedom, but he will not be free. He is that variety of specialist known as a consumer, which means that he is the abject dependent of producers. How can he be free if he can do nothing for himself? What is the First Amendment to him whose mouth is stuck to the tit of the “affluent society”? Men are free precisely to the extent that they are equal to their own needs. The most able are the most free.” – Wendell Berry

Since my recent bout of national fame, I’ve had many opportunities to expound on my defense of Southern Slavery (as an institution).

My biggest surprise, to date, has been how few southerners and pro-white advocates are willing to defend this aspect of their people’s history – even they, it seems, have been cowed by politically correct rhetoric and the will to be (what they call) “relevant”.

They can have their relevancy – I’m the one getting phone calls from nationally syndicated talk shows.

At any rate, I’ve gotten in so many discussions about the issue that I’ve begun breaking it down into easy to understand points of contention that, if properly understood, reveal to Dixie’s detractors, the nature of the argument.

If I were to argue for slavery using a clear and precise syllogism, premise one might be something like this:

1. Slavery can never be abolished.

This first premise is so important for understanding the nature of the defense of slavery provided by our ancestors, that it deserves fleshing out.

If slavery can never be abolished, then all we can do is abolish it in name, or abolish the appearances of it.  But in the end, society will remain as structured as ever.

We will still have a “serf” or “peasant” class, even if it’s not formally recognized as such.

And if we are always to have the poor among us (as Christ promised), then shouldn’t we formally acknowledge them, care for them, and see they’re treated fairly?

Dixie managed this freely, organically, and in keeping with the honorable social hierarchy of our chivalrous ancestors.  In abolishing slavery, Americans forced a new sort of social organization on Dixie that was alien to her and foreign.  This presumed egalitarianism is at fault for much of our social ills to this day (just as writers like Calhoun, Fitzhugh, and Hughes predicted).

People argue against this premise of course.

It can only be maintained as a true premise if we take for granted a Jeffersonian view of freedom, which Wendell Berry highlights so well in the above quote.  Only by owning your own means of happiness, and being able to produce for yourself, your daily needs, are you truly free of the restrictive will of others – thus the agrarian, who can produce his own lifestyle, is free to speak his mind without fear of reprisal.

In the latter days of my military career, I felt these bonds of servitude acutely.  I despised the notion of women serving in the military, but it was essentially illegal to voice this view.  I had the misfortune of having to answer to many neo-feminists who, upon hearing of my opinions, would have immediately and wrathfully brought vengeance upon me in cruel and creative ways.

In the news now, there is an enlisted man who spoke out against the military’s new policy of accepting homosexuals.  He is now being threatened with court martial!

This is not just the case in the military, but exists all across our “land of the free”.  Look at how many people have been fired for uttering politically incorrect words, for instance (Paul Dean being the latest example).  Look at how many men shamelessly promote their employers when, just a few years before, they were adamantly opposed to industrial villainy.

(John Kerry is another good example.  When he was a young activist, he was sensitive to needless wars – now that he’s employed by Obama, he’s begging for an attack in Syria).

The only way to escape slavery is to return to the land and moderate one’s necessities.  In restricting our base desires, we no longer have a need for large televisions, multiple cars, four story houses, and the like.  But on top of it, a country life is far healthier and freer than any grueling metropolitan existence.

Only by rejecting this Jeffersonian notion of “Freedom” and accepting a newly-minted, modern, and “moderated” view, can people convince themselves that slavery has been abolished.

But this is a move we Southrons cannot allow them to make.  We must rub their faces in their own servitude.

It really is true, as my grandfather used to say:  Slavery wasn’t abolished, they just grew the size of the plantation.

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

9 Responses to Another Post in Defense of Slavery

  1. rogerunited says:

    Given you’re a Christian monarchist, what is your take on the American Revolution? Biblical or not?

  2. shotgunwildatheart says:

    I can’t say one way or the other. It’s far too complex for me and I know very little about the circumstances.

  3. shotgunwildatheart says:

    I will say that, here to fore, I’ve been following historian Thomas Woods’ take on the situation – basically, it was the King who was usurping the historical “constitution” (his abuses being enumerated in the DoI).

    So America, according to Woods, was conservative in outlook from the very start – at least, the Revolution was.

    I have De Tocqueville’s book comparing the American Revolution to the French, in my queue to read and I hope to do more thinking on the issue afterwards.

  4. John Perkins says:

    This is really great writing. Have you read Thomas Carlyle’s On the Nigger Question and his other writing?

  5. The poor and the slaves aren’t always the same because many of the destitute were homeless and un-employed, while slaves have those but haven’t got freedom of association.

    I can’t comprehend what freedom of association would be like, though, except by exercising the power of imagination.


    • shotgunwildatheart says:

      Not all poor are slaves, and not all slaves are poor … I concede that.

      I’d also note that we don’t have freedom of association today either.

  6. John Perkins says:

    “My friends, I have come to the sad conclusion that Slavery, whether established by law, or by law abrogated, exists very extensively in this world, in and out of the West Indies; and, in fact, that you cannot abolish slavery by act of parliament, but can only abolish the name of it, which is very little! In the West Indies itself, if you chance to abolish Slavery to Men, and in return establish Slavery to the Devil (as we see in Demerara), what good is it? To save men’s bodies, and fill them with pumpkins and rum, is a poor task for human benevolence, if you have to kill their soul, what soul there was, in the business! Slavery is not so easy to be abolished; it will long continue, in spite of acts of parliament. And shall I tell you which is the one intolerable sort of slavery; the slavery over which the very gods weep? That sort is not rifest in the West Indies; but with all its sad fruits, prevails in nobler countries. It is the slavery of the strong to the weak; of the great and noble-minded to the small and mean! The slavery of Wisdom to Folly. ”

    Carlyle in the Nigger Question


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

You are commenting using your 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