30% of Republicans Now Openly Support Violence

submitted by EthnocratArcheofuturist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nasser 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Why is enslaving Whites considered unthinkable and horrific yet enslaving Blacks is "ok"? Can we not agree that the whole institution is fucked up and evil?

[–][deleted]  (20 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    Aristotle's Politics has very interesting perspectives on slavery that I tend to agree with.

    I think paternalism, in the form of institutions set up to keep people in pro-social ways of being, and even in some cases some form of slavery for people incapable of staying between the lines on their own free will is morally superior than liberal negative freedom. The negative freedom model being followed now just causes the people who are in their essential beings slaves to be free to act upon their natures, which leads to anti-social outcomes that negatively harm themselves and others. In a society with good institutions, including potentially slavery, these people would be more developed mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally etc rather than the places they end up today IE addiction with gambling, drugs etc, criminality, homelessness, perpetually unemployed etc.

    Let's say you have a man who is impulsive, kind of dumb etc

    In todays world he is preyed upon by vice industries, he spends his entire life drinking, doing drugs, gambling, doing petty criminality, and barely working a job. He's incredibly unhealthy, never has a family or if he does he's abusive or an absent parent etc.

    In a paternalistic pro-social system there would be limits on the vice industries and institutions in place to keep such an individual more on the right track, more opportunities for work and maybe even things like communal living and such. For a lot of it, this is just a matter of bringing back institutions that existed, religious communities, military conscription etc could clean up the issue with a lot of the people who end up in bad situations just to be exploited today.

    Anyone who thinks allowing people to just slip through the cracks of indifferent liberalism into terrible lives and suffering just to preserve muh individual freedom is superior to actually having a society is a total sociopath. Indeed, slave societies are all morally superior to liberalism and it's not close.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Let's say you have a man who is impulsive, kind of dumb

    You ensure men of his kind don't reproduce. You either execute them for crimes or pay them to get a vasectomy. The same for low iq, slutty working-class women.

    Crime is largely a function of genetics. Eliminate these people from the gene pool and you're fine to go. The industrial revolution was successful in Europe to a large extent because of the death penalty. For over 1000 years, the most violent criminals were executed by the authorities. This caused criminality and violent thuggish behavior to collapse by the 18th century.

    Europe's success is largely due to the fact that over a period of 900-1000 years, every generation the upper one-third of society outbred the lower two-thirds. Due to the older age of marriage, death due to poverty-related issues, and low life expectancy, the upper 1/3rd replaced the lower two-thirds of Europe twice.

    There's no need to keep around useless hordes out of a misplaced sense of paternalism. Don't let them reproduce and have the welfare state look after them till death in exchange.

    Plus, slavery is ruinous economically. The black slaves got back 90 cents on every dollar they produced. Slavery was the reason the south lost to the north. It received less European immigration and remained an agricultural backwater. This allowed the north to surge ahead due to heavy industrialization and a larger population.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Perhaps there is nothing wrong with it, assuming that is used to render punishment for crimes caused or restitution for debts unpaid. Though for that second one there would have to be some consideration that the value produced by slave labor exceeds the value extracted from wage garnishment.

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      What about the other 90% of NPCs who aren't criminals? You completely missed the point plus literally everything you mentioned was a result of institutions shaping society, not just people liberally free willing themselves around.

      The area I live in like 2/3rds of people were unemployed pre-covid. This is because there's not any opportunities, institutions, and incentives for them to be able to be functional in society IE fit into Plato's conception of justice. There are many many people who are alcoholics, gambling addicts etc that in the past would have been slaves, or would have had institutions in place to allow them to participate in society without having to make decisions for themselves (I can't tell you the amount of people I've heard say things like 'I don't know what I want to do with my life'). Today all we need is decent institutions to take away some of their negative freedom and get them into having healthier, more pro-social lives.

      Plus, slavery is ruinous economically...

      Yes this is the real issue. Liberals/capitalists realised it's much more economically efficient to exploit retarded people with vices, cut out costly institutions etc to simply make more money and let the plebeians be damned to miserable lives. I say this is the inhumanity and psychopathy of liberalism, liberals say it's 'rationalisation' and 'freedom' . We should just execute millions of people simply for not having high enough agency to have positive freedom in the every man for himself world instead of daring to actually have a society, right? Wouldn't want to be illiberal.

      [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Yes this is the real issue. Liberals/capitalists realised it's much more economically efficient to exploit retarded people with vices, cut out costly institutions etc to simply make more money and let the plebeians be damned to miserable lives.

      If you really think about it from the perspective of the financial-monetary logic on which contemporary society runs, a drug addicted, gambling addicted drunkard who is neck deep in loans is way more "productive" than the average blue collar industrial worker. Bankers create money out of the blue that this person borrows, then he spends it and "feeds the economy", then he can't pay it back so they just seize all of his assets further centralising wealth and finally this person has to rent and and engage in, I suppose, "subsistance labour" for the rest of his life. Way more wealth is being extracted from this type of person than a worker who is actually producing something and is saving his wages in order to secure his financial independence, housing, family etc.

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yep, the entire society is based around exploiting high time preference, low agency etc people. All marketing and internal economic policy is orientated around this.

      Low interest rates with high inflation makes saving worthless, pair that with stagnated wages and the ever increasing relative inflation of assets and those with good instincts have no opportunity to sort their life out. Thus even many of these people will slip into miserable lives of addiction and such whereas their nature should have had them being perfectly well adjusted.

      [–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Have you considered relocating? You make your area sound pretty dysfunctional, at least in the human sense. Does it have great geography and weather?

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Not really, this is where my family is.

      Does it have great geography and weather?

      No it's a post-industrial urban hellscape in England. On the bright side it is and has always been a hotbed of revolutionary nationalism and anti-capitalism so there's always potential for political activity here. It was on the Hope not Hate list for areas of extremism or whatever they call people who don't want to be slaves to jews and capitalism.

      [–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It's 1:1 with a map of the most diverse places in the UK

      And you're staying there so you can be near your family in an urban hellscape full of dindus and other creatures? I would wonder why your family stays there, but mainly I'd GTFO. I moved 2000 miles from my family, to be on the California beach. It's full of leftists and all the idiots you hear about, but the place is great.

      In a couple weeks, that will be 40 years ago. It's become far more crowded, and dindus began appearing a few years ago, but haven't yet found a new place that wouldn't be a downgrade.

      Back in Pennsylvania, the older cities and towns have those horrific brick or stone row houses, like the pics in your article. Anyway, I'm kind of picky about my environment. Walking outside on an early summer morning to 87 F is not my idea of a place that's habitable. Same goes for 50 degrees F below freezing in the winter. Here, the temp range averages 44 to 76 F. :)

      Anyway, hope you and your family can escape that place someday.

      [–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      remained an agricultural backwater.

      Arguably a far superior moral position, especially compared to todays cancerous growth at any cost until it's standing room only model.

      [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      Slavery as punishment for crimes isn't really slavery though, unless those people are literally commodified.

      If you are performing penal labor, you aren't a slave, you still (at least theoretically) have some rights, and you're not property, especially not in the legal sense.

      If you were to sell people to private citizens as punishment for a crime, THAT would be slavery, and would be bad for similar reasons.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. So they, the radical republicans of Abe Lincoln, understood that same difference you mention. They still would have called it slavery, just justified and allowed.

      [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      True, however I would say that referring to it as slavery is a misstep, especially if you want to preserve the system. It would be better to refer to it as "penal labor", even if such is technically euphemistic, because there are distinct differences between the two systems that justify such a difference in wording. Especially today, since at the time of the 13th amendment, slavery wasn't seen in general as being as bad and scornful by most as it is today, and penal labor was the norm, even the default, back then as well. Therefore, one arguing that penal labor should be kept and/or expanded would likely want to use such a distinction to avoid giving opponents undue opportunity to muddy the waters or elsewise mischaracterize your argument.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I'm wary about that, trying to change definitions based on official things like amendments to the constitution, based on being worried what woke people will think. If you're forced to work, and you have no say, you can't quit the job for example, that to me is slavery. Now there may be a reason why you're a slave. Being grabbed from africa, being born a slave, is different from being punished for a crime with forced labor. I suppose woke people will want to outlaw that so prisoners just can sit around all day, resulting in more criminals trying to get into prison for 3 hots and a cot. We do need to make prison worse, make the punishments worse.

      [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I suppose woke people will want to outlaw that so prisoners just can sit around all day, resulting in more criminals trying to get into prison for 3 hots and a cot. We do need to make prison worse, make the punishments worse.

      it's less about that and more about reinforcing anarcho-tyranny; in our current system, prison is horrible for people who are reformable and are mostly normal, but is great for violent thugs and career criminals. Obviously it should be bad for everyone, and especially bad for career criminals and the like, but the globohomo regime that rules the West wants to maximize harm, especially to Whitey.

      Ideally the justice system would seek to reform those who can be reformed and severely punish/utilize those that cannot be.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      whether reforming, or punishing, I don't care so much, it's really just to get them off the street so they're not robbing us.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Slavery as a punishment for a crime is still slavery.

        Indeed, but it depends how broad your definition of slavery is.

        You're comparing this kind of slavery with chattel slavery to draw such conclusions, but in reality there are multiple systems that can be called slavery.

        I'm aware there were other forms of slavery, but chattel slavery is the type generally referred to. I guess under other types of slavery penal labor would in fact classify as slavery and/or indentured servitude.

        The issue I have with leasing/selling slaves to private companies is that two problems then arise: those slaves could be taking jobs that normal citizens want or need, and only creating a few (those few jobs created being those looking after or otherwise caring for said slaves) and the possibility of escape.

        Ideally penal labor would be used to perform unpleasant or unprofitable jobs that normal workers would never reasonably want or be expected to do. Take for instance some types of farming that, without significant automation, are very unprofitable; unpaid labor eliminates this issue and allows these products to be produced and go to market without concerns for losing money from having to pay workers.

        [–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I disagree because it gives economic advantage to the slave holder. The cause of the civil war was the fact that northern farmers could not compete with southern farmers on the open market because their labor was far more expensive compounded by a shorter growing season. Banning slavery to make the market more fair for the north was seen as an economic attack from the perspective of the south. They responded by declaring independence. The fact is, slavery is an exceptionally bad idea, even making prisoners slaves. You don't want public policy that rewards treachery.

        You will never be the person that owns slaves. You will be person whose income is lower because someone else does.

        [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        Whether you like it or not, psychologically modern humans tend to assign moral value to things based on their intelligence (and secondarily, work ethic. There 2 metrics, as proxies for economic value, are the only virtues allowed in a materialist, production-consumption based society). Vegan vs meat eater arguments tend to argue about this a lot because people will say something like 'I can't eat X animal because it's too intelligent'. Along this line it seems more morally passable to enslave a black than a white because blacks are low intelligence.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          seem to value their own race more than other races.

          https://leakreality.com/video/26188/dindu-nazi

          [–]Nasser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          I don't care, the discussion whether slavery is good or bad is not one I'm having.

          [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Every slave society that has ever existed is many times over morally superior to every liberal one.

          Bit of a paradox for you.

          [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          it isn't. Slavery in general is retarded and causes nothing but problems, ask literally any society that has ever practiced it.

          [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

          evil

          Doesn't exist.