/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23288924]

what are some good books that justify slavery seriously?
I know Engels talks favorably about slavery compared to what he calls "wage labor" because the wage laborer is a whore or something, but I'd prefer less schizo takes.

[Anonymous No.23288931]

George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All

[Anonymous No.23288975]

>>23288924
Harry Potter

[Anonymous No.23288986]

Aunt Phillis' Cabin; or, Southern Life As It Is

Written as a (serious) retort to Uncle Tom's Cabin.

[Anonymous No.23289033]

I don't think you're going to find many non-schizo takes that justify slavery
The only argument I can think of is that in antiquity slavery would've been a better life than that of a street urchin since they at least had their immediate needs like housing and nourishment taken care of but that isn't true today

[Anonymous No.23289043]

>>23288975
Seriously, literally WHAT did Rowling mean by all the S.P.E.W. stuff

[Anonymous No.23289046]

>>23288924
Carlyle's Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question.

[Anonymous No.23289061]

There are a few libertarians who defend selling yourself into slavery, debt bondage etc., but basically no no one today is willing to defend just capturing niggas and enslaving them.

[Anonymous No.23289076]

>>23288924
The weak should be enslaved because they are too cowardly to fight back or kill themselves out of shame. It’s arguably more merciful than wage slavery because it confines suffering to a specific group of people instead of dispersing amongst everyone in an effort to collectively alleviate it.

[Anonymous No.23289078]

>>23289046
Why do anglos love negroes so much? This is basically BBC BDSM.

[Anonymous No.23289079]

>>23288924
In our world today, there's absolutely no good argument for slavery. Just ask yourself that: would you have a problem being enslaved or no? If no, why? If yes, then you're against slavery.

[Anonymous No.23289103]

>>23288924
In pre-Enlightenment days, virtually every social theorist supported slavery, largely because every society had slaves. Aristotle probably makes the leading defense, but even Epictetus (who was a slave) didn't advocate stopping slavery. There's not a word against ith the New Testament or the Old, and the Quran explicitly allows it.
As far as proslavery writing in America, George Fitzhugh is head and shoulders above all others. His argument was that slavery is a form--the highest form to date--of socialism: the slaveholder feeds, shelters, provides old age and medical care for the slave and can't treat the slave with capitalist indifference because he knows the slave personally and has a lifelong bond. But it doesn't stop there. Just type proslavery writers into Google. They abound.

[Anonymous No.23289109]

>>23288924
Jacques Ellul. Technological Society.

Slavery as a means to protect us not only from technology but even protect us from "technique". (That is, beuracracy, or habits in general, or any kind of organized way of doing things)

[Anonymous No.23289115]

>>23289103
Interestingly I read an article the other day arguing how a lot of early transcribers of bibles would've been slaves and had an impact on the first spread of Christianity
>“One reason that slaves were educated to do this work is because – especially when it comes to something like copying out a manuscript by hand – it hurts. So wealthy people who were educated didn’t want to do it”, Moss says. “And, particularly as their vision got worse as they got older, they needed enslaved people to do this work for them, because they couldn’t do it themselves.”
The article does go on to say that slaves perhaps influenced certain passages that were anti-slavery but I agree with you, I don't think there's actually that much against slavery in the bible afaik, maybe just some stuff about treating them right.

[Anonymous No.23289144]

>>23289109
>organisation are habits are.... le bad
sounds schizo as fuck

[Anonymous No.23289147]

>>23289079
>In our world today, there's absolutely no good argument for slavery.
You're either joking, blind or have a complete failure of the imagination. If all blacks were enslaved today, murder, assault, rape, the entirely drug industry, would collapse overnight. If that 13% of the population were picking cotton instead of voting Democrat, Woke and leftist hegemony would vanish from government. And you think this would be a bad thing?
Even from the perspective of blacks themselves, 'freedom' has been a disaster. There are more blacks in jail getting butt-fucked by even worse blacks than all the slaves in the antebellum South put together. More than half of black children are aborted by black mothers. Blacks under slavery had family bonds; under 'freedom' less than one in four black families has a father present. You think being a crackhead or a bulls-eye for every drive-by shooter in inner-city Chicago or Detroit or Baltimore is liberty? Go live there and see how long you do live.
Blacks live fairly well and fairly peaceably when they're tightly policed and overseen by white people who are themselves under ethical pressure to act humanely. That's why life under Ian Smith was better than mass genocide under Robert Mugabe. On their own blacks wreck everything they touch, themselves included. Yes: we need a two-tier system of handling them, and slavery was way better than what we have now, certainly for whites and even for blacks. Better Frederick Douglass being taught to read by his slavemistress than P Diddy trafficking kids.
>>Just ask yourself that: would you have a problem being enslaved or no? If no, why? If yes, then you're against slavery.
I don't want to be drafted, but am I opposed to the draft under any circumstances? No. You can hold that sharp and even unequal discipline may be needed to hold society in one stable and relatively orderly piece while not wanting to experience that discipline. Would I have a problem getting busted for heroin, or rape, or murder? Sure. I'd rather not go to jail. Am I against rapists and murderers being in jail? No. That's where they belong, for their own safety and society's. I don't want to go to jail, but I am glad that there are jails and that some people are in them. That's not even worth arguing.

[Anonymous No.23289162]

>>23289147
Based, the inherent asymmetry of ethnicity and inequality of individuals means total control is more compassionate than wanton freedom. Should we let dogs roam the streets to fight, menace people, fuck and get run over by cars because "freedom?" No. In civilised societies we either put them down or enslave them for emotional purposes. The same concept can be applied to the less intelligent and more impulsive of our genus.

[Anonymous No.23289169]

>>23288924
So I assume anons that are pro slavery wouldn’t be if they were the slaves, right?

[Anonymous No.23289171]

>>23289147
Imagine typing all this out

[Anonymous No.23289239]

>>23289147
This is such a braindead take it's unreal. You actually make a good argument for slavery; maybe people like you should be enslaved.
>If all blacks were enslaved today
What if you were black? Imagine being born, and from the moment you were born, your entire life is over, and you'll forever be a slave. I doubt you'd be for slavery of blacks if you were one. Niggers can go and rot in prison, but this doesn't mean they should be enslaved.
>And you think this would be a bad thing?
Yes. If you were black, I doubt you'd have written this entire post full of bullshit. What if instead of slavery, we started trying to solve the issue of from its core instead coming up the bullshit you wrote?
>I don't want to be drafted, but am I opposed to the draft under any circumstances? No
The more I read, the more I'm convinced that you should be enslaved. You're using nigger logic. You know that if there's a draft, everyone gets drafted, right? There's no inequality here. You don't like getting drafted, but everyone around you is getting drafted, you're all in the same boat. For slavery, you have a distinct number of people getting enslaved, while the others just watch, and benefit.
>Would I have a problem getting busted for heroin, or rape, or murder? Sure. I'd rather not go to jail. Am I against rapists and murderers being in jail? No.
Holy mother of retardation. If you commit a crime, you should be in jail, you liking it or not is irrelevant. Of course you won't like it, but that's the consequence of your action. But being enslaved is not a consequence of an action. There's no action being taken prior to it. You're just enslaved because your were born that way.
>That's not even worth arguing.
Because you're fucking retarded.

Let me ask you this, your entire point of slavery is for people to be punished this way. If you were acting like a nigger, would you accept being enslaved? Maybe there's a reason we have prisons?

[Anonymous No.23289263]

>>23289115
>I don't think there's actually that much against slavery in the bible afaik,
nta, but if you dig into Wm. Lloyd Garrison's The Liberator, and other anti-slavery/abolitionist publications circa 1830-1860, you can find some very detailed, carefully argued anti-slavery arguments by knowledgeable Bible Christians, as well as of course pro-slavery arguments based on that same Bible.

A few examples and citations here, although this article is rather poorly researched and incomplete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_abolitionism#:~:text=Abolitionist%20writings%2C%20such%20as%20%22A,as%20seen%20in%20the%20South

[Anonymous No.23289466]

>>23289239
>>You actually make a good argument for slavery; maybe people like you should be enslaved.
Spoken like a Woketard. “You make a good argument! You should be forcibly shut up.”
>Imagine being born, and from the moment you were born, your entire life is over, and you'll forever be a slave.
More historical ignorance. If you’d bother to read, you’d know that before the Civil War roughly 10% of blacks were freedmen. How’d they get that way? Because ‘intolerable’ slave labor left slaves enough free time to allowed them to work jobs off the clock to make money—enough money to buy their own freedom. At least in those cases where the slaveowner didn’t free them himself for exceptional service. They didn’t free them because they thought they’d go out and rape and murder white people, but if they showed enough iniative and self-discipline to distinguish themselves or earn their own freedom, they were granted freedom. You weren’t ‘forever a slave’: there was always a ‘talented tenth’ that deserved freedom and could get it.
>Niggers can go and rot in prison, but this doesn't mean they should be enslaved.
Gee. Would I rather be anally raped by Tae’Quando every night in the same cage for twenty years, or pick cotton in the fresh air? I’d rather pick cotton. Clearly you prefer a prolapsed rectum.
>If you were black, I doubt you'd have written this entire post full of bullshit.
If I were black, stats say I would most likely be too functionally illiterate to write much of anything. Oh, but I’d be fit for freedom! Whitey say so!
> What if instead of slavery, we started trying to solve the issue of from its core
To solve a problem, you first have to state it clearly. ‘From its core’ is too incoherent to mean anything, much less pose a soluble question. So let me do it. The problem is, statistics tell us that blacks are so much stupider, so much more violent, so much more inclined to addiction and racism and degeneracy than whites, that these two incompatible demographics can’t coexist under the same set of rules. If we try applying them, blacks impact whites in a predatory, parasitic, destructive way, and do even worse to themselves. In such a situation, there is no alternative but to adopt a two-tier response in which the predatory demographic is reigned in tight, and shaped—or coerced—to act in positive rather than negative way. So far those responses have been ‘slavery’ and ‘Jim Crow.’ From the perspective of the _majority_ white population, those ways were a blessing. From the perspectives of blacks, they were harsh.
Speaking as a white person: so fucking what? Why should we give them the freedom to rob and slaughter us, to drain our taxes and pollute our airwaves and vulgarize our culture and our everyday lives—and to do even worse to themselves?

[Anonymous No.23289471]

>>23289239
>The more I read, the more I'm convinced that you should be enslaved.
I’m glad you’re beginning to appreciate the virtues of slavery. Next step: advocacy.
>You know that if there's a draft, everyone gets drafted, right? There's no inequality here.
Oh no. Women all get drafted. Kids, the elderly, illegal aliens. Yeah, we’re all in the same boat. It’s not like white males do the majority of dying. Oh, wait, They do! More white privilege.
>>For slavery, you have a distinct number of people getting enslaved, while the others just watch, and benefit.
Yeah, slaveholders ‘just benefit.’ They don’t pay for _lifelong_ food, housing, medical care, child care, elder care. Can you even pay your own fucking rent? Try paying for that of a hundred others. Slavery was a symbiotic relationship, and not the smallest part of the benefit that slaves got was a framework that kept them from acting like the savage retards they are when they’re freed.
>being enslaved is not a consequence of an action. There's no action being taken prior to it. You're just enslaved because your were born that way.
Translation: because of genetic determinants. Like skin color? No, because many blacks during slavery were free, and because any black slave who could earn enough money on the side could become free. If you’re born a retard, though, and a violent, oversexed, addiction-prone retard at that, enslavement becomes a matter of social hygiene. It’s not the consequence of an action, but of a socially dangerous genetic predisposition.
>you're fucking retarded.
Your capacity for reasoned argument is most impressive.
>your entire point of slavery is for people to be punished this way.
Slavery is not about punishment. It’s about restricting freedom in those cases where it is likely to be sorely, even murderously and self-destructively, abused, and redirecting toward some amount of socially productive labor.
> If you were acting like a nigger, would you accept being enslaved?
If I were acting like a nigger, or reasoning like you, I’d deserve to be enslaved.

[Anonymous No.23289487]

>>23288931
This. Great book.

[Anonymous No.23289488]

>>23289078
Mind broken thirdie.

[Anonymous No.23289492]

>>23289239
>You know that if there's a draft, everyone gets drafted, right? There's no inequality here
The absolute naivety of this statement is astounding. That has never once been the case in any draft or conscription in the course of history.

[Anonymous No.23289506]

>>23289115
>I don't think there's actually that much against slavery in the bible afaik, maybe just some stuff about treating them right.
>>23289263
if you dig into Wm. Lloyd Garrison's The Liberator, and other anti-slavery/abolitionist publications circa 1830-1860, you can find some very detailed, carefully argued anti-slavery arguments by knowledgeable Bible Christians, as well as of course pro-slavery arguments based on that same Bible.
If you dig into Garrison and other religious abolitionists, you’ll find some very good arguments that there are reasonable _implications_ in Christian Scripture (less so in Old Testament) that favor not practicing slavery. I would agree. The fact remains, no one in roughly 1,700 years of Christianity and double that in Judaism ever thought so or argued so, not before the Quakers ‘saw the light’ in the 18th Century.
The book to read on this subject is Eugene Genovese’s A Consuming Fire, about the positions of Southern pastors and divines about slavery. Basically, it was that slavery was allowed by the Bible—after, the Jews had slaves, and God issued no commandments against it, nor did Jesus, Mary, nor Paul. However, the Bible did not sanction cruelty or abuse of slaves. Rather, it was the task of slaveholder to civilize his slaves by prosyletizing, by example, and by just treatment and charity. An ideal of which the South fell short, and so needed to make extra effort.
In a strange way—the Civil War was nothing if not paradoxical—the Southern divines were the first negro-worshipping Woketards. They felt that black slaves were the platform on which white people could sharpen and display their virtue, that black falleness was an opportunity and a calling for white people to show their charity and godliness by treating black people as nicely as possible. God would punish them if they were not nice enough to blacks, and the divines admitted that they hadn’t been, hence the loss of the war

[Anonymous No.23289530]

>>23289169
>So I assume anons that are pro slavery wouldn’t be if they were the slaves, right?
If my being enslaved meant that every whining, murderous, parasitic, psychopathic black in the nation were safely under control, I would consider that a fair trade, yes. But then self-sacrifice is a white trait.

[Anonymous No.23289532]

>>23289488
I don't want nogs near me, let alone as slaves. How am I mind broken, Nigel?

[Anonymous No.23289534]

>>23289532
Because you made the accusation first.

[Anonymous No.23289541]

>>23289534
What?

[Anonymous No.23290096]

OP here. Thanks for the discussion. I am mainly just interested in societies or people that place more value on subordination rather than liberation or "emancipation". It all started after I read the chapter in Shadow of the Torturer where Malrubius compares the divine relationship between God and man to that between a master and his dog.

[Anonymous No.23290120]

>>23290096
>OP here. Thanks for the discussion. I am mainly just interested in societies or people that place more value on subordination rather than liberation or "emancipation".
No societies other than post-Enlightenment European ones ever placed more value on 'emancipation' than on subordination. If you want a picture of such societies, look at Sparta or Rome, or better yet, pre-colonial Africa. Mungo Park estimated that 75% of black Africans were enslaved by the blacks themselves. Slavery was the universal legal punishment among tribes there.
If you're OK with fictional representations--aside from bullshit history like "Roots"--you might want to read Thomas Disch's The Puppies of Terra, or even The Story of O.

[Anonymous No.23290168]

>>23289239
>You actually make a good argument for slavery
I am not advocating slavery. I am defending slavery, and Jim Crow, as understandable attempts at a social solution for co-existing with a violent, vulgar, parasitic sub-populations like blacks. It is better not to co-exist with them at all. It is better to expel them. That isn’t a practical possibility at the moment, so the question becomes how to subordinate them so they do the least amount of damage.
Right now the two best steps we can take is, one, to make meritocracy a universal principle, and cancel Affirmative Action entirely. Base leadership and management on merit, and you will never get a VP Harris, a Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown, a missing-in-action black Secretary of Defense or a President Claudine Gay. You won’t have black Chiefs of Police overseeing mass slaughter in inner cities, or black judges and juries letting the felons go, or missing-in-action black Secretaries of Defense filling the military with trannies, or black talk show hosts and anchorpersons whining and moaning for more gibs and more anti-white discrimination.
Step two, re-affirm property rights and freedom of association. Give landlords or real estate people the right not to rent their properties to blacks, and apartment houses and neighborhoods will go bleached overnight. Give restaurant owners and gyms and shops the right to bar blacks, and companies the right not to be forced to hire incompetent black employees, and venues will be safe again and companies productive.
These two options are simple and feasible. What will happen to blacks if they're implemented? Who cares? The point of building a safe functional majority-white society is not to forever kiss black peoples asses. Cream rises to the top, and blacks sink to the bottom, naturally. Black people will gravitate to overwhelmingly black areas separate from whites, where they sink as low as they want--or build Wakanda if they want. But they won’t be able to drain and retard and damage us.

[Anonymous No.23290243]

>>23289061
There is no need for that. Capitalism gives people pretty convincing incentives to slave themselves out.

[Anonymous No.23290276]

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 KJV

[Anonymous No.23290322]

>>23290120
thanks, I'll check that out.

[Anonymous No.23290326]

>>23290243
how so? Are you taking Engel's perspective in that slavery is more dignified than wage labor or do you think wage labor is slavery even though the laborer is not bound to any master?

[Anonymous No.23290340]

>>23288924
Slavery is unjustifiable in all forms save those in which the slave has been rendered a slave by vice—i.e., the Biblical debt slave, but even the Biblical debt slave was only a temporary slave. Laziness and greed are the roots of slavery.

[Anonymous No.23290344]

>>23290340
>Laziness and greed are the roots of slavery.
and yet, slavery is the best cure for each.

[Anonymous No.23290384]

>>23290344
No, it isn't. Fucking moron. I was talking about the master's laziness and greed, not the slave's. If you couldn't even tell that, you should stop trying to spread your views on society. You're too stupid.

[Anonymous No.23290402]

>>23290384
>Slavery is unjustifiable in all forms save those in which the slave has been rendered a slave by vice—i.e., the Biblical debt slave
Clearly slavery is clearly justifiable. namely when it comes to vices, like laziness and greed.

[Anonymous No.23290488]

>>23290402
Another idiot who can't even understand the post. Just shut the fuck up, mouthbreather. I don't care what appears clear to a moron for whom a simple post is opaque.

[Anonynous No.23291058]

>>23289144
You'll find a similar message about half way through Jean Jacques Rooseau's "Emile, or On Education."

[Anonynous No.23291066]

>>23289144
Iirc he inironically talks about magic, buf i didn't get very far. I don't know if it was a metaphor or something.

[Anonynous No.23291930]

>>23288924
Based

[Anonymous No.23291994]

Why?

[Anonymous No.23291996]

>>23290276
tf does that have to do with slavery, are we the slaves of god? doin as we please?

[Anonymous No.23292653]

>>23288924
>The Curse of Canaan by Eustace Mullins
>The Negro: A Beast or in the Image of God? by Charles Carroll
>The Right of American Slavery by T.W. Holt
>Slavery Ordained of God by Rev. Fred A. Ross, D.D.
>Abolitionism Exposed! by W.W. Sleigh, F.R.C.S.L.
>Bible Defense of Slavery by Josiah Priest
>Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakoth 16b Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 96-97
And, as another anon already mentioned, Thomas Carlyle's "Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question."

[Anonymous No.23293181]

>>23290096
Another good fictional treatment is the Gor novels of John Norman, in which women, not blacks, are the slave class.

[Anonymous No.23293189]

>>23289144
It isn't, it's actually a very lucid view of a much more general force that enslaves humanity. More to do with society being enslaved to quantification and processes, as well as the inevitable end that will lead to. It's like a more developed and sane Ted Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.23293195]

>>23290488
>Another idiot who can't even understand the post. Just shut the fuck up, mouthbreather. I don't care what appears clear to a moron for whom a simple post is opaque.
Rudeness aside, the objection to your post is that while some slaveholders might be lazy and greedy, not every slaveholder fit that description. Were Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Jackson lazy and greedy. Also, not every slave who ever existed was energetic and despised money. Slaves and slaveholders were and are (there are still some 40 million slaves in Africa and Islamic nations, not that anyone cares about modern slaves) human beings, with all the positive and negative baggage that entails. Dehumanizing slaveholders, like dehumanizing slaves, gives us a false picture.

[Anonymous No.23293253]

>>23289033
>since they at least had their immediate needs like housing and nourishment taken care of but that isn't true today
Isn't it, though?

[Anonymous No.23293370]

>>23289147
Bump for this. Fuck that other niggerposter

[Anonymous No.23293418]

>>23288924
Anon should learn Arabic - there might be Ottoman tracts defending white slavery.

[Anonymous No.23293803]

>>23292653
Let's not forget one of the very best defenses: Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (2v.). Davis had no doubt whatever that slavery was the best system for regulating the coexistence of blacks and whites, for blacks and whites both. His arguments are in passing, but they're cogently argued.

[Anonymous No.23293827]

>>23288931
>George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All
Possibly the greatest Southern defense, but anything by Fitzhugh is worth reading, especially his Sociology for the South. Eugene Genovese's very appreciative Marxist review of Fitzhugh's arguments is well worth reading too: The World The Slaveholders Made.

[Anonymous No.23293849]

>>23289033
>at least had their immediate needs like housing and nourishment taken care of but that isn't true today
The difference between slavery and liberal welfare is that under slavery black welfare recipients were under an obligation to provide _some_ positive contribution to society instead of none, were constrained by overseers from their usual over-indulgence in slaughter, rape and substance abuse when left alone. Whites fed, clothed, sheltered them then just like they do now, except then blacks had at least some behavioral constraints. They have absolutely none now, and we can all see the result of that.

[Anonymous No.23294676]

>>23289043
It means that feminism feels like that sometimes. She isn't actually trying to make a point or thinking about the Implications.
Harry Potter's world comes directly from the gut and doesn't pass through the brain. The Bulgarian prime minister pretends not to speak English as a prank. This is because like a lot of people (particularly anglophones and small children) Rowling's gut tells her that when nobody's looking foreigners just speak her language among themselves (maybe with an accent).
She doesn't think this. She isn't trying to convince you of it. But she feels it.