The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Beau Albrecht Archive
Uncle Tom’s Cabin & the Origins of Wokeness
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Some eminent notables have claimed that the American Civil War had substantial roots in literature. Mark Twain, for example, said of Sir Walter Scott that he was “in great measure responsible for the war.” That proposition is debatable, of course. This argument hinges on how much the widespread influence of his romanticized chivalric prose bolstered the South’s hyper-thumotic stance — in plainer words, piss and vinegar — which contributed to secession, and shortly thereafter a war that went horribly awry. The counterargument is that other factors created a siege mentality inspiring these desperate and tragic actions.

More plausibly, it is said that Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1862 and remarked, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!” The novelist Thomas Dixon (most notably the author of Fraternity Tri Kappa blockbusters like The Clansman, adapted into film as The Birth of a Nation) concurred, putting it a little more bluntly: “A little Yankee woman wrote a book. The single act of that woman’s will caused the war, killed a million men, desolated and ruined the South, and changed the history of the world.”

That book, of course, was the anti-slavery classic Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It first appeared in serial form and, once it was compiled into two volumes, became America’s first blockbuster novel. I would like to thank a certain Leftist professor for forcing me to read it long ago so that I may describe it now. The South fired back with a number of literary responses, including one that I reviewed for my début article here, but none matched the popularity of Stowe’s screed.

The slavery problem in development

In colonial times, captives were added to the workforce. At first these were indentured servants who were bound nominally for seven year terms. Most were white — which is why we don’t hear much about them lately –, but there were exceptions. When a former indentured servant from Angola successfully sued to keep his African indentured servant permanently, it created a precedent and gave slavery a racial character. The importation of Africans eventually became a big business. This ultimately meant that ending the slavery problem would create a race problem, because the descendants of this captive workforce turned out to be remarkably unassimilable.

This slavery problem from colonial times was inherited by the United States, and it nearly destroyed the country in the 1860s. After that, it transformed into a race problem beginning with Radical Reconstruction. It set cities aflame in hundreds of riots in the 1960s stemming from a campaign of Leftist agitation. The race problem once again threatens to tear the US apart as today’s exploiter class is using blacks in their “both halves against the middle” dialectic.

The earliest plantation owners, who couldn’t be bothered to pick their own cotton, were much like today’s globalists. They were exploiters who put their wealth ahead of their race’s well-being. Some masters of later generations were terminally greedy, too. But there were others, decent people who had inherited their estates and were doing their best to cope with the rotten institution that came with it.

Complicating the matter, some states made it difficult or even nearly impossible for masters to free their slaves. It’s likely that the legislators didn’t want to have to deal with large populations of unsupervised blacks. (That much might seem mean-spirited, but a trip to your city’s Martin Luther King Boulevard at night might provide some hints as to their rationale.) To many, the prospect of immediate emancipation was unpalatable because it meant that multiracialism would unfold on a mass scale.

Slavery was indeed a terrible mistake, one that became increasingly obvious as such with the passage of time, but there was no consensus on how to deal with it. In earlier times, practical proposals often ended in howls from the greedier types about their sacred “property rights.” (Did I mention piss and vinegar?) Moreover, it wasn’t simply a debate about maintaining the status quo versus abolition. The latter position also contained a range of opinions concerning how this would be accomplished, whether to do so gradually or immediately, and what would become of the freedmen. Thomas Jefferson, who was deeply troubled by the matter, summarized the difficulties early on:

But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.

Morally speaking, this was hardly a black-and-white distinction — if one will pardon the expression. For one thing, the martial valor and heroic resistance of the Confederates on the battlefield was indeed admirable. Even so, the ruling class in Richmond ultimately put them up to this Lost Cause mostly for the sake of cheaply-picked cotton. This gamble turned out to be catastrophic.

In the antebellum North, some abolitionists were remarkably wrongheaded. Some envisioned a multiracial society as America’s future. Apparently they had a remarkably misguided concept of what this would involve, not entirely different from that of today’s wealthy liberals and other “desegregation now, but not in my back yard” types. Then there were those who wanted to solve the race problem by amalgamation (race-mixing), much like what today’s globalists and Zionists are trying to push onto the public. They were so unpopular even in the North that few dared to advocate this openly. The most immediate threat was a growing number of radical abolitionists who wanted to settle the slavery problem with violence. By itself, agitating for non-exploitative labor practices is great. However, the ethics get a bit complicated if it involves trying to get masses of people killed over the principle.

Could there have been a better way? Was there a middle course to steer? The grim lessons from history demonstrate that the correct solution was held by the moderates who called for peaceful liberation and the creation of a colony for the freedmen. Among the pro-colonialists were several presidents, beginning with Jefferson and including Lincoln – at least until the Battle of Fort Sumter put peace out of reach. All of these eminent presidents would be considered “dangerous Right-wing extremists” today for backing peaceful separation. However, those who advocated for a controlled dismantling of slavery and colonization so that the freedmen could forge their own destiny were those who had the only right answers in a controversy in which the extremes on both sides were wrong.

The metapolitical impact of Uncle Tom’s Cabin

The debate about slavery was initially carried out mainly in terms of economics and Enlightenment philosophy. Then it acquired another dimension as ultra-Calvinism began mixing religion and politics and the latter eclipsed and eventually swallowed up the former. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was in that tradition. As a melodramatic tear-jerker that became a wildly popular bestseller, Uncle Tom’s Cabin brought considerable emotion into what started as a fairly dry debate. The book became a radicalizing factor that shifted the Overton window toward the danger zone.

Previously, the North and South had been able to negotiate over the apportionment of new states while maintaining a partial containment policy limiting the spread of the slavery problem. However, the book’s impact on the public made further cooperation increasingly politically unpalatable. All told, there may well be something to the semi-apocryphal Lincoln quote about Uncle Tom’s Cabin starting the war.

By the time Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published, abolitionist sentiment already was at a fever pitch in certain ultra-Calvinist circles. These included some zealots who couldn’t wait to foment a holy war — to be fought by other people. This appears to be the beginning of ethnomasochism, although unlike today, they had some real oppression to complain about. (It was a missed opportunity that nobody argued that “it’s only private business doing it“; that line works like magic lately.) Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped fan the flames outward to the Northern public, which previously had been much more ambivalent and disunited about the slavery problem.

After the fanatical mattoid John Brown raided Harper’s Ferry in 1859, intending to ignite a race war to the death from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, much of the North hailed the terrorist as a martyr. (The plot failed largely because Brown greatly overestimated the willingness of slaves to join him on a mission of mass slaughter. Say what one will about the violent tendencies of blacks, mattoids are far worse.) This event, and of course the Northern response to it, greatly exacerbated the Southern siege mentality. Soon things would come to a head.

The radicals got the bloodbath they wanted to soothe their aching sense of collective guilt. As they say, the rest is history. Every last one of the goody-goody preachers, fire-breathing newspaper editors, and loudmouth agitators should’ve been drafted to take point and dodge Confederate Minié balls. Their First Wave feminist allies should’ve been conscripted into elite Petticoat Platoons tasked with charging cannon emplacements.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin in brief

Indignation over the Fugitive Slave Act provided much of the impetus to write the story. At the end, Stowe indicates that the events the book describes were a composite taken from real life. How much this was true was a matter of debate. This inspired her to write another book documenting how the ill-treatment described in the novel really did sometimes happen. Other than the plot, some of the characters were composites, too. This includes Uncle Tom himself, a saintly gentle giant who suffers a martyr’s death. Where have we heard that one lately?

Christian imagery pervades the book. Stowe really did believe in Jesus. Although she lays it on pretty thick, this much is actually a bit refreshing now that ultra-Calvinism and related currents have become so watered down and moldy. In modern times, there’s still plenty of politicized Protestantism, “social gospel” stuff, Herz-Jesu-Sozialismus, and varieties of Reform Judaism that consider tikkum olam (repairing the world) to be identical with Current Year liberalism. It’s thus unusual these days to read an ultra-Calvinist text that doesn’t take religion as little more than an ideology with a plastic halo, and doesn’t consider Scripture to be a collection of liberal aphorisms amidst heaps of unimportant fluff.

The book also had its influence on the drama of its time. Some Uncle Tom minstrel acts carried into the vaudeville era. Other than that, the book was part of the tradition that portrayed blacks as rustic innocents. (Lately, blacks really don’t care for that sort of thing.) There were staged presentations of Uncle Tom’s Cabin that were generally faithful to the book, although some took out the tragic elements and focused more on the happier moments. Perhaps the creative license involved was rather like staging excerpts from Brokeback Mountain as a campy comedy.

Stylistically, the book has a clumsy start. However, Stowe’s writing chops gradually improve during the long process of creating the story. The problem is that the end wraps up with much commentary marred by frequent sour notes. To its credit, the book does get some things right, such as by supporting peaceful emancipation and colonization. Unfortunately, though, some other parts are rather horrid. Blacks agree, too, though for different reasons. (“Uncle Tom” has become an epithet for a black lacking sufficient ethnic solidarity, just as “racist” has become an epithet for a white possessing sufficient ethnic solidarity.) One positive takeaway is that it proves the notion that ideas matter and can have far-reaching effects.

Sold down the river

At the beginning, Uncle Tom’s master is persuaded to sell him to pay down a debt. During the discussion, a youngster walks in:

“Hulloa, Jim Crow!” said Mr. Shelby, whistling, and snapping a bunch of raisins towards him, “pick that up, now!”

The child scampered, with all his little strength, after the prize, while his master laughed.

“Come here, Jim Crow,” said he. The child came up, and the master patted the curly head, and chucked him under the chin.

“Now, Jim, show this gentleman how you can dance and sing.” The boy commenced one of those wild, grotesque songs common among the negroes, in a rich, clear voice, accompanying his singing with many comic evolutions of the hands, feet, and whole body, all in perfect time to the music.

This is not, as one might imagine, the origin of either the famous Jump Jim Crow minstrel act or the moonwalk. The merchant, a greasy character, convinces the master to throw the youth into the deal to call the debt even. A short discussion follows about how to take him away while minimizing the mother’s resistance, including the following:

“Why, yes, sir, I may say so. You see, when I any ways can, I takes a leetle care about the onpleasant parts, like selling young uns and that, — get the gals out of the way — out of sight, out of mind, you know, — and when it’s clean done, and can’t be helped, they naturally gets used to it. ‘Tan’t, you know, as if it was white folks, that’s brought up in the way of ‘spectin’ to keep their children and wives, and all that. Niggers, you know, that’s fetched up properly, ha’n’t no kind of ‘spectations of no kind; so all these things comes easier.”

“I’m afraid mine are not properly brought up, then,” said Mr. Shelby.

“S’pose not; you Kentucky folks spile your niggers. You mean well by ’em, but ‘tan’t no real kindness, arter all. Now, a nigger, you see, what’s got to be hacked and tumbled round the world, and sold to Tom, and Dick, and the Lord knows who, ‘tan’t no kindness to be givin’ on him notions and expectations, and bringin’ on him up too well, for the rough and tumble comes all the harder on him arter. Now, I venture to say, your niggers would be quite chop-fallen in a place where some of your plantation niggers would be singing and whooping like all possessed. Every man, you know, Mr. Shelby, naturally thinks well of his own ways; and I think I treat niggers just about as well as it’s ever worth while to treat ’em.”

As intended, that hardly leaves a positive impression of the slave traders’ mentality. I actually concur: These types could win the Fidel Castro Human Rights Award. Slavery sucks, film at 11. I won’t even say that it’s a straw-man characterization, as I’ve seen plenty of corporate dickweeds who are one whip, a pair of manacles, and two hundred years away from being plantation overseers.

Other than that, local color dialect usage had recently come into literary fashion. There’s much more of Stowe’s impression of redneck talk where it came from. It does mellow her butchering of early Ebonics, such as this:

“Well, yer see,” said Sam, proceeding gravely to wash down Haley’s pony, “I ‘se ‘quired what yer may call a habit o’ bobservation, Andy. It’s a very ‘portant habit, Andy; and I ‘commend yer to be cultivatin’ it, now yer young. Hist up that hind foot, Andy. Yer see, Andy, it’s bobservation makes all de difference in niggers. Didn’t I see which way the wind blew dis yer mornin’? Didn’t I see what Missis wanted, though she never let on? Dat ar’s bobservation, Andy. I ‘spects it’s what you may call a faculty. Faculties is different in different peoples, but cultivation of ’em goes a great way.”

“I guess if I hadn’t helped your bobservation dis mornin’, yer wouldn’t have seen your way so smart,” said Andy.

At least that was Sam and Andy rather than Amos and Andy! There are reasons why blacks don’t like the book, no matter how much it contributed to accelerating their ancestors’ liberation. Aside from that, news of the foul transaction gets out, inspiring a desperate escape and much nineteenth-century purple prose:

The frosty ground creaked beneath her feet, and she trembled at the sound; every quaking leaf and fluttering shadow sent the blood backward to her heart, and quickened her footsteps. She wondered within herself at the strength that seemed to be come upon her; for she felt the weight of her boy as if it had been a feather, and every flutter of fear seemed to increase the supernatural power that bore her on, while from her pale lips burst forth, in frequent ejaculations, the prayer to a Friend above — “Lord, help! Lord, save me!”

If it were your Harry, mother, or your Willie, that were going to be torn from you by a brutal trader, tomorrow morning, — if you had seen the man, and heard that the papers were signed and delivered, and you had only from twelve o’clock till morning to make good your escape, –how fast could you walk? How many miles could you make in those few brief hours, with the darling at your bosom, — the little sleepy head on your shoulder, — the small, soft arms trustingly holding on to your neck?

We get it. Slavery sucks! That wasn’t much of a surprise to the audience, of course.

Down in Nawlins

There are a lot of other subplots, perspectives, and developments afoot as well, but for now I’ll focus on the eponymous Tom. He ends up with the St. Clare family in Louisiana. Master Augustine is basically a decent fellow, other than being too cheap to pay his workers. As for Mistress Marie, she’s a real piece of work — not to put too fine a point on it, a bitch with fleas. The readers are laughing at her complaints about “sick-headaches” and taking her for a nitwit from the outset. Right after discrediting herself as an annoying hypochondriac, she starts on another rant which reveals her illiberal views about race. Message: White pride is uncool.

I found that quite transparent. (I always have had a knack for detecting propaganda, which seems to accompany my lifelong authority problem.) Still, it was also rather clever for a rookie novelist. Propagandist pros on the level of Edward Bernays call this sneaky psychological tactic “associative conditioning.” Over a century later, the “white pride is uncool” shtick was the central point of Norman Lear’s famous Archie Bunker sitcoms, also delivered through a straw-man character.

Then we have the following highly iconic paragraph. After reading it in college, I haven’t been able to get it out of my head despite having drunk enough beer during the following years to float a battleship:

If ever Africa shall show an elevated and cultivated race, — and come it must, some time, her turn to figure in the great drama of human improvement. — life will awake there with a gorgeousness and splendor of which our cold western tribes faintly have conceived. In that far-off mystic land of gold, and gems, and spices, and waving palms, and wondrous flowers, and miraculous fertility, will awake new forms of art, new styles of splendor; and the negro race, no longer despised and trodden down, will, perhaps, show forth some of the latest and most magnificent revelations of human life. Certainly they will, in their gentleness, their lowly docility of heart, their aptitude to repose on a superior mind and rest on a higher power, their childlike simplicity of affection, and facility of forgiveness. In all these they will exhibit the highest form of the peculiarly Christian life, and, perhaps, as God chasteneth whom he loveth, he hath chosen poor Africa in the furnace of affliction, to make her the highest and noblest in that kingdom which he will set up, when every other kingdom has been tried, and failed; for the first shall be last, and the last first.

Let that one sink in. Other than this unique vision of what Zimbabwe would be like, we can see that Stowe thought that the blacks of the future were going to be all lovey-dovey. If only those Yankee Gutmenschen could’ve seen the future and beheld today’s hordes of under-parented youths with their unfortunate habits of street crime and rioting, then America could’ve been spared a Civil War. Other than that, this wad of ultracalvinism makes me want to read Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist and Also Sprach Zarathustra back-to-back as an antidote.

Other than the above-mentioned characters, Eva (short for Evangeline, a name obviously meant to be symbolic) is another notable St. Claire family member. She was born with a heart problem; given the limitations of nineteenth-century medicine, this meant that she wasn’t going to make it to adulthood. The subplot thus drags on into an inevitable grim tragedy, but one imbued with religious meaning that inspires those around her. Topsy, a young slave girl, puts aside her cynicism. Miss Ophelia, the abolitionist who owns her — it’s slightly complicated — puts aside her prejudice. Master Augustine agrees to free Uncle Tom.

Things aren’t so simple, however. Before Mr. St. Clare can do so, he gets stabbed while trying to break up a fight between some drunks. Mistress Marie doesn’t respect his wishes, so Uncle Tom gets sold yet again. Did I mention that she’s a bitch?

The belly of the beast

Imagine the absolute worst dickweed you’ve ever had the misfortune of working for: some sadistic wallet-head who thinks being higher on the corporate totem pole makes him very goddamned special. Now imagine that you can’t quit this job, you’re not getting paid, and the petty tyrant has nearly ultimate authority which is enforceable at the end of a bullwhip. This, of course, is the basic argument for why slavery is bad. In the book, this dickweed is Simon Legree, Uncle Tom’s next master.

At this point, it’s fair to consider, how common were such types? Sadists did exist, just as they do now. However, they seem to have been in the minority; more about this later. The labor force greatly outnumbered management on plantations, so obviously there were practical reasons to keep morale problems from escalating out of control. That meant using the least amount of coercion to maintain normal production, with brute force used sparingly (and preferably never). All told, Simon Legree is essentially a caricature. Assuming that relentless cruelty was the norm in real life would be rather like making Lumbergh from Office Space the face of modern capitalism.

There are other plot points that are worse than ordinary sadism. Simon Legree is also a sexual predator. Christianity never had a “that which your right hand owns” doctrine, and slave codes didn’t exempt such disgusting behavior from being a felony, which were among several reasons why it would’ve been considered utterly abhorrent. (Moral standards have relaxed tremendously, but even now, perps belong in a concentration camp.) That’s not to say such evils never happened, but anyone that foolish risked getting a knife in the back, or at the very least an explosive scandal that would’ve made him a pariah for life. Arranging a consensual liaison would’ve much less hazardous, though it would’ve been seen as sinful and deviant if discovered. Finally, Legree’s excessive cruelty contributes to the deaths of some of his slaves. He admits early on that he routinely works them to death. Reputations mattered, and even someone suspected of such an attitude would’ve been regarded as a ghoul, at best. Moreover, that was hardly realistic, since even the most soulless economite would’ve realized that slaves are certainly not expendable.

In any event, Legree wants to add Uncle Tom to his plantation’s goon squad, although he already has two enforcers, Sambo and Quimbo (I’m not making this up). It’s one of those forgotten facts of history that most slave-drivers were blacks. Stowe tells us:

It is a common remark, and one that is thought to militate strongly against the character of the race, that the negro overseer is always more tyrannical and cruel than the white one. This is simply saying that the negro mind has been more crushed and debased than the white. It is no more true of this race than of every oppressed race, the world over. The slave is always a tyrant, if he can get a chance to be one.

That’s right; their behavior was all our fault. Over a century and a half after Emancipation, the target of blame for their aggregate character problems hasn’t changed.

Showing admirable class solidarity, Uncle Tom refuses to become an enemy of the people. Things therefore get off to a bad start. He pointedly refuses to obey a direct order to flog an unwilling concubine who is being replaced. Eventually, the subplots — most pretty grim — approach their conclusions. George Shelby, the son of the first master, sets out to buy him back, but arrives a little too late. Uncle Tom dies a martyr, a tragedy deep with religious meaning.

The John Galt speech

George Harris, a mixed-race minor character, writes a letter first declaring his allegiance to his African side. Then:

The desire and yearning of my soul is for an African nationality. I want a people that shall have a tangible, separate existence of its own; and where am I to look for it? . . . On the shores of Africa I see a republic, — a republic formed of picked men, who, by energy and self-educating force, have, in many cases, individually, raised themselves above a condition of slavery. Having gone through a preparatory stage of feebleness, this republic has, at last, become an acknowledged nation on the face of the earth, — acknowledged by both France and England. There it is my wish to go, and find myself a people.

The answer is Liberia, and other nations that shall follow. Then this:

A nation has a right to argue, remonstrate, implore, and present the cause of its race, — which an individual has not.

Careful, Harriet; you wouldn’t want people to think you’re a dangerous right-wing extremist, now would you? Then there’s an odd appeal to an envisioned future globalism:

If Europe ever becomes a grand council of free nations, — as I trust in God it will, — if, there, serfdom, and all unjust and oppressive social inequalities, are done away; and if they, as France and England have done, acknowledge our position, — then, in the great congress of nations, we will make our appeal, and present the cause of our enslaved and suffering race; and it cannot be that free, enlightened America will not then desire to wipe from her escutcheon that bar sinister which disgraces her among nations, and is as truly a curse to her as to the enslaved.

Enough purple prose already! Then this:

I want a country, a nation, of my own. I think that the African race has peculiarities, yet to be unfolded in the light of civilization and Christianity, which, if not the same with those of the Anglo-Saxon, may prove to be, morally, of even a higher type.

Still waiting on that one. . .

I trust that the development of Africa is to be essentially a Christian one. If not a dominant and commanding race, they are, at least, an affectionate, magnanimous, and forgiving one. Having been called in the furnace of injustice and oppression, they have need to bind closer to their hearts that sublime doctrine of love and forgiveness, through which alone they are to conquer, which it is to be their mission to spread over the continent of Africa.

There’s more ultra-Calvinist mush where that came from, but I’ll let it stand at this point. The last chapter, “Concluding Remarks,” carries on the filibuster in the author’s own voice. This includes overwrought attempts at generating white guilt, including the following:

Northern men, northern mothers, northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves. . . .

What do you owe to these poor unfortunates, oh Christians? Does not every American Christian owe to the African race some effort at reparation for the wrongs that the American nation has brought upon them? Shall the doors of churches and school-houses be shut upon them? Shall states arise and shake them out?

The colonization solution is still endorsed, but Stowe says that it’s our duty to educate blacks first. Apparently it wasn’t enough that they were uplifted from primitive tribal standards and taught contemporary trades:

That the providence of God has provided a refuge in Africa, is, indeed, a great and noticeable fact; but that is no reason why the church of Christ should throw off that responsibility to this outcast race which her profession demands of her.

To fill up Liberia with an ignorant, inexperienced, half-barbarized race, just escaped from the chains of slavery, would be only to prolong, for ages, the period of struggle and conflict which attends the inception of new enterprises. Let the church of the north receive these poor sufferers in the spirit of Christ; receive them to the educating advantages of Christian republican society and schools, until they have attained to somewhat of a moral and intellectual maturity, and then assist them in their passage to those shores, where they may put in practice the lessons they have learned in America.

Stowe began to back away from the colonization solution after the book was published, and ended up endorsing multiracialism instead.

Overall tone

400 years of oppression and all we got was a lousy cheeseburger
400 years of oppression and all we got was a lousy cheeseburger

Uncle Tom’s Cabin has three major settings: a kindly master, a so-so living situation, and finally the hellish lair of an evildoer. Already this shows more nuance than modern literature on the subject. Stowe could’ve written relentlessly withering propaganda from beginning to end, but incessant atrocity porn wouldn’t have been believable at that time. It was too well-known that Southerners typically were decent and genteel.

Stowe therefore had to make her case based on extreme circumstances and behavioral outliers. In her time, she was accused of misrepresenting the typical character of slavery and cherry-picking negative examples. The Simon Legree character remains a fictional trope for an exceptionally sadistic slave owner, even though it’s entirely possible that an actual person caught doing all that might have been paid a visit by concerned neighbors bringing 18 feet of rope. In our time, the Simon Legree type has become regarded as the only type of master there was. The literary seeds which Stowe planted resulted in a bumper crop of white guilt sprouting more abundantly than ever.

What actually was a “typical” experience of slavery? Field-hand work was considered the worst, so let’s take it as a reference point. Tending cotton bushes six days a week surely would’ve been dreary and boring, and an occupation that one couldn’t profit from or quit. Other than that, individual work conditions might have varied greatly, for better or for worse. It turns out that some masters were on much more cordial terms with their slaves than one might expect. Recordings of accounts by elderly freedmen reflect this more frequently than not. Most hadn’t personally received floggings or other cruelty. When outright brutality occurred, usually it was the fault of the overseer — often another black — rather than the master. In one case, the master fired the overseer on the spot after learning of an atrocity.

Things have changed. The slave novel genre had its day in the 1850s, but fell out of fashion when the Civil War erupted. Then there was a revival beginning in the 1960s. It’s hardly surprising that this irritation of century-old wounds coincided with the era’s increasing trends toward ethnomasochism and anti-white agitation. This time it was by cultural Marxism rather than its Protestant-flavored precursor of ultra-Calvinism. If Uncle Tom’s Cabin was 80-proof white guilt propaganda, then this newer stuff is like 150-proof bug juice.

The antebellum experience of slavery had passed out of living memory by the 1960s. Unlike in Stowe’s day, the authors could say nearly anything about it without fear of contradiction. This is why Alex Haley’s novel Roots — partially lifted from an earlier work, and otherwise not as true to life as advertised — was endless atrocity porn, and so was the hit TV miniseries adapted from it. In today’s popular imagination, every master was a Simon Legree, though such loathsome types were outliers back in the day and despised by whites as well.

Genuine cruelty did occur during slavery, and is a blot on history. However, the way it has been depicted recently makes things out to be much worse than they actually were. (Who is doing the depicting, and why, is another story.) They can get away with grotesquely stretching the truth, because nobody is around to say from direct experience that actual conditions weren’t like that on average. It seems that many blacks are now traumatized by overstretched narratives about the sufferings of their distant ancestors in the same way that Jewish paranoia is fueled by believing their own exaggerations regarding their own historical persecutions.

Could there have been a better way?

I’ll admit that the more sensible varieties of Leftists do have a point when they say that capitalism — as it’s practiced presently — is for the birds. However, the correct answer doesn’t involve staging yet another Bolshevik revolution, letting loose another Leon “General Buttnaked” Trotsky, setting up a new gulag system, and bringing back toilet paper rationing. The Marxist answers have turned out to be worse. Likewise, the slavery problem was solved in nearly the worst way possible, short of the sort of Haitian-style revolution that John Brown wanted. Was there a better alternative?

I cannot forget that time long ago when I was reading about the author’s charmed youth, during which she apparently spent much time in such maidenly pursuits as picking blueberries and contemplating theology. Then a sense of horror crept over me as I remembered the ghastliness to come: 624,000 KIAs (counting both sides), with untold others returning with missing limbs and morphine addictions, scenes of carnage etched into their souls, and other forms of life-changing harm. That wasn’t the end of it, since the Radical Reconstruction’s reign of terror would follow.

Most of the Civil War’s casualties were white. They bore the brunt of hazardous duty, while enlisted blacks were usually teamsters or in other pogue roles. Given that about three million slaves were emancipated, this meant that approximately one white man was sacrificed for every five blacks freed. (And they say we never did anything for them. . .) Was there a better way? Could slavery have ended peacefully?

Harriet Beecher Stowe wasn’t a murderous monster like John Brown. However, there were times she was wrongheaded and quite naïve. Uncle Tom’s Cabin didn’t agitate for war — but war came, anyway. Of course, this was hardly the first or last time in history that stated intentions of love, kindness, and helping others went seriously awry and turned into a bloodbath. I don’t intend to get all Karl Popper here, but I have to wonder: If this influential book that galvanized Northern opinion had delivered its message differently, could disaster have been averted?

From another angle, if both sides had realized that war would leave the South in ruins, the North deeply in hock to the banksters, and every family mourning the loss of its young men, could they instead have negotiated an agreement to pay off the slave owners and also step up resettlement efforts in Liberia? Even if not, slavery sooner or later would’ve had an expiration date. Already the South was being held back, since they hadn’t made comparable investments in manufacturing as the North, which was one reason for the war’s outcome. One day of exploitation is a day too many, of course, but mass slaughter was a hell of an alternative.

If peace had prevailed, slavery likely would’ve fizzled out on its own accord within a few decades, left in the dust by factory production and agricultural mechanization. Perhaps the Industrial Revolution would’ve blossomed faster, if there hadn’t been enormous losses of life and treasure. What marvels of engineering could’ve come from the minds of so many fine young men, if they hadn’t been killed on the front lines? For one thing, could Southern shipyards have produced a fleet of steam-powered ocean liners to repatriate the freedmen to their ancestral homeland? With many more returnees, would the once-promising country of Liberia have fared better?

It is difficult to say. However, it’s certain that the slavery problem — and the race problem attending it — could’ve been defused if prior generations had heeded Thomas Jefferson’s warnings, urging gradual abolition by peaceful means and resettlement of former slaves. “When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” Although quite an ambitious undertaking, the logistics would have been easier than before and offered a solution to centuries of failed efforts at multiracialism.

A better outcome, but still a half-measure

Again, ideas matter and can have far-reaching effects. Pirated American novels turned a brisk trade in Europe. Uncle Tom’s Cabin even became a blockbuster hit in Romania. This inspired them to realize that their enslavement of the gypsies was wrong. They emancipated them without setting off a bloodbath. Way to go, Romania! What a proof of concept!

We can therefore credit Harriet Beecher Stowe with indirectly doing the gypsies a favor, but there was still a missed opportunity. Romania didn’t get around to returning them to their homeland in India, where they could have been with their kindred people and a somewhat related culture. It’s a subject worthy of a longer discussion, but the gypsies of Eastern Europe aren’t fitting in, most don’t have their act together, and no amount of browbeating about discrimination is going to fix this. But it’s not too late to set things right and repatriate them to the land of their ancestors.

(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:

    All people have been created equal by society.

    But, empirical proof of this well-known equality has been denied distribution to the masses by worldwide Implicit Environmental and Evolutionary Racism (IEER).

    How can nature have got it so wrong? You might ask. If chimpanzees have the mental faculty for belief – and I’m sure they have, they continually return to food sources – then how can they view themselves as being of a higher order of species than cockroaches? IEER, no doubt, has led chimpanzees to believe this.

    The Banana Monarchy of Grating Britain is leading the charge in the war against IEER. Directing the troops over the top are Field Marshal Affirmative Action and General Grade Inflation – pronouns in both cases are he, him, his.


    Grating Britain is having success after success in this war. The results to date are astounding. The cultural and societal improvements breath-taking.

    Victories thus far have elevated notable characters such as black Dr Keon West to the pinnacle of Grating Britain’s re-imagined society and academia. Field Marshal Affirmative Action and General Grade Inflation’s tactics have won for Dr West a “Doctorate of Philosophy” (the Oxford equivalent of a PhD) and transitioned him into a “Rhodes Scholar” and a “Psychologist”. Among a few other (not pulled out of ether) accolades.

    Dr Keon West’s views may be sought via [email protected]

    Field Marshal Affirmative Action wasted no time in consolidating this victory. Somewhat like a dog, he marked his newly conquered territory by urinating Dr Keon West on a conspicuous site at Goldsmiths, University of London. And now Dr West brightly flutters on this conquered ground as a social psychologist and an associate professor.

    Dr Keon West is currently busy conducting a major 5-year research project with the title: “What does it mean to be heterosexual?”

    God, who could know what it means to be heterosexual? Since the dawn of time people have scratched their heads and pondered what the attraction between women and men is all about. And considering there are only an estimated 130 million babies born each year, finding research subjects will be expensive and almost impossible.

    Perhaps Dr Keon West sees himself as being in the style of the ancient masters:

    ○ Greek diviner, Artemidorus, claimed that “If you’re a political exile and dream about banging your mother, it means that you will soon be reunited with your mother country.

    ○ Turkish philosopher, Galen of Pergamom, claimed ejaculating was equated with seizures, and thus believed the act could be extremely dangerous.

    ○ Roman philosopher, Ovid, recommended that if you’re trying to ditch your mistress, you should keep the light on during sex so as to really see the details of her obscene and filthy body.

    Ovid’s advice would definitely work for the inebriated man that mistakenly took home a tranny. And perhaps the Grating British would not mind if Dr Keon West dreamed of banging his mother and then fu*ked off back to the craphole he sprung from.

    Quite obviously, the opaque and universally misunderstood and confusing phenomenon of heterosexuality needs, in the world’s worst way, to be researched. Its underbelly of darkness and its implicit anti-transgenderism – which is hidden behind a fake premise of humans being genetically programmed to repopulate their societies – needs to be laid open and understood.

    Dr Keon West did well in this endeavour: The European Research Council gave €746,048 to fund this research.

    Dr Keon West doesn’t limit his intellectual abilities to uncovering the infinite and hitherto unmeasurable meanings that lurk at the core of heterosexuality. He also readily tossed in his highly intellectual mind to help when he became aware that the complicated three-word English sentence “All lives matter” was causing confusion and racist hurt in Grating Britain.

    Racists will, of course, claim that “All lives matter” is a simple grammatical construction of English words, all of which have well-defined, well-accepted and well-understood meanings. They’d say that any mentally normal person that utters these three words in the given sequence, issues forth the sentence with the understanding that the listener will interpret it in line with definitions as given in any dictionary.

    Of course, there are some mental retards and idiots who never really grasp a full understanding of language or the spoken word, and therefore might misconstrue the message given when someone says “All lives matter”. But these unfortunate mental retards and idiots are in a minority and will never be making decisions or influencing institutions in a way which will affect normal majority. Or so would claim the racists.

    But Field Marshal Affirmative Action’s protégés are way ahead of the racists. Dr Keon West and his ilk look beyond dictionary definitions and the rules of grammar. When non-racists take their first look at “All lives matter”, they immediately see it contains three syllables.

    Which means there are 6 possible different ways of arranging these three syllables. And therefore, also 6 possible ways of rearranging the intonations used when speaking the sentence. And it obviously follows from this that those who say “All lives matter” are unconsciously rearranging the syllables and intonations, and that this rearrangement is then unconsciously interpreted by the listener as racist hurt.

    Here’s a sniffer of Dr Keon West’s cerebral prowess in relation to the “racism” of those who say that all lives matter: “It obviously can’t just mean that ‘All Lives Matter,’ because (1) people say it as though it contradicts ‘Black Lives Matter,’ but (2) anyone who believes ‘All Lives Matter’ must also believe that ‘Black Lives Matter’ (Black lives are a subset of all lives, so the logic is inescapable),” West said. “So I started designing research to get at what ‘All Lives Matter’ was really saying.”

    Note how before doing any research, Dr Keon West gives away his belief that: “All lives matter” can’t possibly have the meaning that legitimate dictionaries give for the words used and the sequence they are used in. Does Field Marshal Affirmative Action’s protégé not realise he’s definitely showing Confirmation bias with this statement?

    Or maybe it’s official policy in Grating Britain to allow Affirmative Action’s protégés to embark on research projects with clearly stated prior Confirmation biases. But then, I suppose, if you are going to give a drooling lunatic the controls of a plane at 35,000 feet, you might as well also let him take drugs while he’s doing the piloting.

    The conclusion Dr Keon West reached in his personally designed research was: “So, even though we still have a lot to learn about ‘All Lives Matter’ support, we already know that it’s associated with some pretty nasty, pretty racist stuff.”

    More of Dr Keon West’s Affirmative Action ramblings and incomprehensible deducements can be read here:

    Affirmative Action: What a nauseating and disgusting way Grating Britain has chosen to commit suicide.

  2. J1234 says:

    A very interesting article. Many thanks to Beau Albrecht. Departing a bit from the Stowe theme, I see radicalism as the greatest bane of our collective existence in that it begets oppositional radicalism, creating a seemingly unending cycle of extremism, but radicalism has a cultural context. From about the Magna Carta on, England showed itself to be somewhat unique among nations, establishing a trajectory towards liberty for elites that would eventually filter down to the common man. Centuries later, that trajectory came to the 17th century, when Englishmen faced down absolute monarchy through civil war, and prevailed through revolution.

    It’s in that context that the enslavement of Africans for the colonies during the same century can be seen as a sort of extreme social radicalism, something that could never be reconciled with the moral disposition of the nation (and colonies), even after centuries. It didn’t help that religious radicals flooded the northern colonies at the same time, bringing with them their own brand of rigid moral extremism. BTW, indentured servitude was a form of slavery, but it was different in that it still recognized the agency of the enslaved to a much greater degree.

    Many slave owners compounded the radical freakishness of their institution by mating with their female slaves, something that ordinary English men and women generally found racially repugnant. Abe Lincoln capitalized on this repugnance during his campaign, connecting with the everyday values of everyday people.

    The radicalism of slavery vs. the radicalism of Puritan moral intolerance lives with us vestigially today, and is likely to curse our descendants indefinitely. It creates this absurd duality of experience, where we generally live as individuals guided by common sense and reasonable ethical constraints, but we conduct our collective lives in accommodation to whatever the vacillations of competing extremism has mandated for the moment.

  3. Interesting article. The old Railroad Shyster from Ill-noize was basically right about Stowe’s role in ginning up the war – even though she was merely one of a large cast of disreputables. I wonder if she ever felt any misgivings about the net result of her screed in terms of the mass death and destruction it fueled. One interesting question I’ve seen raised in some discussions of how the war came about is that concerning who funded Dred Scott to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court. The process took well over a decade and Scott certainly didn’t have the means to pay the legal fees – expensive even in those days. The net effect of the resultant Supreme Court decision was to nullify the Missouri Comprise – and all of the subsequent attempts to deal with the issue of slavery-expansion. It’s almost as if the nullification was the underlying purpose of the whole expensive legal battle. The same could be said for the fugitive slave act. The cui bono question surely applies here. Too many historians content with repeating tired narratives over and over.

    Brown (a very nasty piece of work) arose out of the Bleeding Kansas precursor to the great conflagration. Bleeding Kansas was a direct result of undoing of the compromises from earlier decades. Other countries managed to deal with the slavery issue without resorting to a massive bloodbath (even though the author’s note of 624,000 KIA’s is incorrect – most of those who died perished from disease rampant in the encampments – though the number who ultimately died of wounds no doubt pushed the killed number higher than actual KIA). Even Brazil, who imported far more African slaves than North America, managed to outlaw the practice with little violence a bit more than two decades after the end of the US Civil War. Ironically, a number of the die-hard Confederates migrated there with their slaves after the cause was lost in the USA. Their descendants are known as “Confederatos” in Brazil. The failure to deal with the issue rationally back then is at least partly the reason we’re in the mess we are now.

  4. Phoenix says:

    Was there a better way? Could slavery have ended peacefully?

    Probably not entirely peacefully, but could have been done without civil war.

    The North could have let the southern states secede.
    With the southern states no longer participating in Congress, the federal government would have been able to declare slavery void in the remaining states and western territories.
    No more enforcement of the fugitive slave law.

    With the North (and western territories) being a nearby non-slave country, this would have made slavery less workable in the South.

    Allowing secession would have left unsolved the problem of how to integrate free Blacks into the non-slavery economies of the North. More attention would have been given to the option of offering to return Blacks to Africa.

    Haiti and the U.S. were the only major cases of modern violent emancipation. All the other countries figured out how to do it more peacefully.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @PJ London
  5. @Exalted Cyclops

    As I recall it, Scott’s appeals were funded by the sons of his original owner (Peter Blow).

    It seems unlikely that the Scott case was deliberately set up to fail in the same way as Buck v Bell was (later, in the 1920s).

    Both decisions reflect disgracefully on the court that made them – as do Marbury v Madison; South v Maryland; Schenck; Korematsu; Wickard v Filburn; and dozens of others including Citizens United.

    That the Taney court decided in favour of capital should not surprise anybody: people who think that the BlackRobes are anything other than power’s lickspittles, really need to read more legal history.

    And it’s not just a US phenomenon: nobody gets to be on any court unless they are ‘safe hands’, and that means that they will twist words into pretzels in order to fabricate a justification for state acts.

    Even Roe v Wade; Loving v Virginia; and Brown v Board of Ed – which should rightly be viewed as contests between the Federal government and State governments… so it should be unsurprising that the Feds won in each case – because the BlackRobes are the Fed’s lickspittles first and foremost.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  6. songbird says:

    The colonization solution is still endorsed, but Stowe says that it’s our duty to educate blacks first.

    I remember this. I interpret it as her being disingenuous about resettling them. They could have been sent over and then “educated” with missionaries.

  7. anonymous[237] • Disclaimer says:

    Then there were those who wanted to solve the race problem by amalgamation (race-mixing), much like what today’s globalists and Zionists are trying to push onto the public.

    It is already in the process of happening. In 2060 America will be 40% white, 30% Latino, 13% black, 7% Asian, and 10% mixed race.

  8. G. Poulin says:

    Lincoln should have thanked Stowe. Her propaganda piece provided him with a moral cover for his naked power grab.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  9. G. Poulin says:

    Stowe was extremely naive about black Christianity. African-American Christianity is, and always has been, a bit of a fraud. It is a superficial gloss laid over typical African religious beliefs and social mores. That someone like MLK (who was fifty times the shitbag that Jimmy Swaggart ever was ) remains universally admired among blacks is proof that their Christianity is skin-deep.

    • Replies: @Craig Morris
  10. Trinity says:

    Should have repatriated all Blacks back to Africa while we had the chance. GREED. STUPID GREED. Anyone with any sense could have easily seen even way back then that Blacks would be a burden on America. Should have never brought them over here in the first place, enslaving other humans is barbaric. Of course only the rich owned slaves like good ole Anderson Cooper’s ancestors. The same people telling you to worship Blacks in 2021 had ancestors cracking the whip on good ole Uncle Tom’s back back in the day. Go figure. These people now have poor Whites to beat up on.

    • Agree: HbutnotG
  11. The importation of Africans eventually became a big business.

    Actually, it would be more accurate to refer to the trade in African slaves as “The African Export Business”. Run largely by European shipping businesses, ninety four percent of all the Africans transported by ship to the Americas wound up in South or Central America or the Caribbean Islands. Some years ago, there was a sign on Ellis Island stating that as fact. Whether or not it is still there, who knows.

    The Propaganda Factory in the United States seems to only be aware of the six percent. Or perhaps, just Uncle Tom, the one and only.

    As J. Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic.

    This doesn’t account for those unfortunates who were shipped to the east, to the Arab Countries. That’s another subject entirely and, apparently, is still going on.

    • Agree: Ace
  12. I think Twain’s point about Scott’s influence is that two generations of American boys had grown up reading Ivanhoe and had romantic dreams of knightly combat on “the field of honor” nobly contending with “a foeman worthy of my steel.” The reality of Minie balls and double canister soon put a ghastly end to such idyllic notions of war. As Emerson put it, nothing so undoes truth like a bullet. We don’t talk much about the last fifteen months of so of the conflict, because it had degenerated into what all civil wars become, an orgy of death and destruction for the sake of death and destruction.

    Stowe’s novel conveys what chiefly concerned the relatively few Americans who opposed slavery, its corrupting influence on the morals of white people. The clear majority opinion among them was repatriation to Africa. Lincoln proposed just such a policy even after he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, in his 1862 State of the Union Address. Offered as an olive branch to the rebels, he proposed a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the legal existence of slavery until 1900, by which time the federal government would have compensated slaveholders for the full dollar value of their human property. Unhappily, southern political leadership was not known for its familiarity with Realpolitik. The best of southern manhood flocked to the colors, leaving incompetents to manage the war effort on the crucial diplomatic and economic fronts. Most tragically, their mediocre performance lost them the hearts and minds of their people long before Appomattox.

    • Replies: @Götterdamn-it-all
  13. I am curious as to why the author attributes Stowe’s moralizing to “ultra-calvinism.” (Unless he be referring to her husband’s Christian name.) About the only ultra Calviniist of the time was decidedly pro-slavery, the Southern Presbyterian preacher Dabney, at least as I recall.

  14. @Phoenix

    No more enforcement of the fugitive slave law.

    The planter states could have built a wall or fence along the Potomac, Ohio, and Mississippi, to keep their wandering livestock on the ranch. They had the technology– look at China’s. Berlin is another example.

    Freely invading Ohio and Massachusetts while leaving Upper and Lower Canada untouched made a mockery of state sovereignty.

  15. Observator: “The clear majority opinion among them was repatriation to Africa. Lincoln proposed just such a policy even after he announced the Emancipation Proclamation, in his 1862 State of the Union Address.”

    In this Address Lincoln emphasized repatriation would take place ONLY on a voluntary basis. That, of course, is not a serious plan to get rid of negroes, as should have been quite obvious to anyone at the time. Additionally, it seems clear that Lincoln himself knew that with that condition it was never going to happen. Accordingly, in his speech he makes an effort to convince his audience that having a lot of free negroes running around wouldn’t be a bad thing at all, and could even be good! (LOL. Yes, we can now see what a blessing it’s turned out to be!) The practical reality is that Lincoln was America’s first antifa president, a dyed-in-the-wool racial egalitarian. He never took repatriation seriously as a possibility, but by feigning interest, he hoped to score some points with particularly gullible and stupid citizens. Amazingly, even today these sorts of citizens still haven’t caught on to his con job. The racial right especially is full of people who jabber incorrigibly about “Lincoln the racist”, who they imagine is just like them and really, really wanted to send the negroes packing. Some say Lincoln also said “you can fool some of the people all of the time”. If so, it must have been people like these the old shyster lawyer had in mind.

  16. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    another lying globohomo monarchist of those “aristocrats” attempting to be global sovereigns of, by, and for a fraudulent usury thieving supra-national commercial banking oligarchical collectivism … F* your neo-feudalism and slaving of your own kinfolk!!

  17. TKK says:

    The entire history of the world is that of winners and losers. Slavery is as old as dirt, and is still practiced all over the world.

    This refusal to be an adult, and accept that some people win, and some people lose, is the root of most of the West’s misery. Every group that has lost wars cannot be an eternal victim. It is not sustainable.

    If your race is repeatedly enslaved, tricked, bought, conquered, colonized and then must be artificially kept alive with an IV drip of foreign cash and World Food Program rice, man needs to step aside and let natural selection take course.

    Stop wallowing in the past. Let Africa go back to wilderness and be the world’s largest nature preserve. Imagine the burden lifted off the world.

  18. Wokeness is really just gene denial run amok. It would have just as easily happened without slavery.

    When Western societies lack a backbone the meddling egalitarians take over. These egalitarians have no care about what is actually true or not. What matters it that life is too unequal and must be fixed. Just look at the French Revolution where the revolutionaries were certain that they could fix societal inequality by getting rid of religion and the upper classes.

    White people lean towards wanting to fix the world rather than deal with it. Look at our modern society where we have the internet which in theory should put an end to egalitarian lies. Anyone can get on the internet and read about how race is not simply skin color.

    Instead the vast majority of White people use it to look up sports stats or read about celebrity couples.

    The fascists of the 30s understood the weaknesses of Whites but of course took it too far in the opposite direction. Now we have deal with the extreme opposite of that which is clown world.

    I f-king hate clowns.

    • Agree: HbutnotG
    • Replies: @HbutnotG
  19. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    That is correct and Lincoln never brought up the Liberia plan with congress.

    He did however suspend the constitution and put journalists in prison for telling the truth about the war.

    Some say Lincoln also said “you can fool some of the people all of the time”. If so, it must have been people like these the old shyster lawyer had in mind.

    Well he certainly fooled White people into giving their lives for his war even though some poor farmer in Maine wouldn’t notice if the South seceded. Northern Whites were basically duped by a lawyer into sending off their sons for what he claimed would be a short and just war.

    I think it is interesting that people described Lincoln as the ugliest man they had ever seen. There is a pattern in history where ugly men gain power and lash out at their own people. I really think he hated everyone and especially Southern Whites.

  20. A single book caused the Civil War. The savages from Africa BS.

    The Author here is very busy polishing the neo-Confederate turd.

    The radicals got the bloodbath they wanted to soothe their aching sense of collective guilt.

    It’s a wonder he didn’t slip in The Northern War of Aggession somewhere.

    Hopefully I’ll notice his name in the future before wasting as much of my time as I did in this instance.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  21. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:

    Russia, Brazil, and Austria-Hungary all freed their slaves peacefully around the same time we did. A subject to explore.

    Another data point might be explored is the restraints put upon slavery by the Roman Catholic Church leaders. Bishop Quiroga (sp.) in Mexico is still honored by the simple folk for his edicts regarding treatment of serfs-slaves in 16th C. Mexico

    Wiki on Quiroga

    • Thanks: Nancy
  22. @Exalted Cyclops

    Re – death by disease. I believe the current belief is that around 2/3’s of civil war deaths were due to disease. Diseases of many kinds were rampant thru out the armies…. something which was largely true for most of history up until the
    20 C.

  23. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Ignoring the morality & utility of repatriation still leaves us with the infinitely debatable question of whether repatriation was logistically possible at numbers which could be called significant.
    Sure, some thousands could have gone back to Africa, but 100’s of thousands? Millions?
    Coercion or voluntary? If voluntary – wouldn’t the Fed’s have needed significant sweetners to get black people to take on a Liberian lottery?
    I suspect the blunt cost of the endeavour itself would have seen even Republicans baulk at the idea….

  24. Maddaugh says:

    I really dont know why the black slavery thing just goes on and on. Its a YAWN. Consider:
    >slavery has existed since the first man crawled out of his cave.
    >every race on earth were at one time slaves
    >Moslems were the masters of the black slave trade long Whitey showed up
    >during the slave days blacks sold other blacks to the whiteman in Africa
    >during the slave days blacks in Africa had other blacks in bondage
    >blacks in the US also owned other blacks and slave plantations
    >Mulattoes in the Caribbean were slave holders….ask Kamala, she knows
    >whites owned slaves but whites also fought and died to abolish slavery
    >slavery existed among the Indigenous Tribes of the Americas
    >slavery still exists in Africa TODAY
    >we got some blacks today who are so stupid, they repudiate their Christian names and take Moslem names (the people who originally enslaved them) or African names which is even more absurd


    The black man may have escaped physical slavery but he is still a slave in his mind. Negroes need to follow the accepted path to the good life:
    >finish elementary and high school
    >go to college/ university
    >study a profession or trade that is marketable
    >dont fuck around in class or be marching
    >stay away from other troublesome blacks
    >stop going on and on about slavery, CRT and white oppression. Its boring !
    >dont drum the slavery thing in your kids heads day after day
    >get off government programs, these are also a form of servitude
    >avoid criminal activities and hence the police, the criminal system and jail
    >ignore the race hustlers and preacher grifters, they also enslave you
    >dont breed kids all over the place and be a responsible husband and father

    Negroes need to get this through their heads. Contrary to popular belief Whitey rarely thinks of you. If you think we get up in the morning and scheme over our coffee how to fuck with you, then you are delusional. We are too busy making a living,paying the bills and pushing ourselves and offspring to get ahead.

    If you continue to obsess over “slavery” you are wasting your time and your life. Another 200 years will pass and your children will be no further ahead. They in turn will still be complaining about “slavery” which is already a tiresome mantra.

    Their is a difference between a Nigger (a law breaker, social parasite and complainer) and a Negro who is a black man responsible and sensible in every way. Being a Negro is easier. If you chose to be a Nigger, be it on your head. Dont blame the White Man. We are tired of your moaning and groaning and quite frankly few of us give a shit.

  25. Maddaugh says:

    the infinitely debatable question of whether repatriation was logistically possible at numbers which could be called significant.

    To me the whole exercise is logistically impossible. In summary, WHO will pay and WHO will be paid and HOW MUCH ??

    WHO PAYS: In all fairness, African Chiefs, Moslem countries and black US slave owners will also need to stump up. We might even have to garnish Kamala Harris’s VP salary to pay reparations as her ancestors were slave owners.

    WHO GETS: Many blacks in the US today were never slaves and/ or are not descendants of slaves. In the case of a mulatto say with 50% black blood, does he get 50% of the payout ?

    If there is compensation and Uncle Maddaugh discovers he has 1% Congo running through his veins then some money should come to me. LOL. With Brandon paying \$450K to the illegals, I’ll take my 1% slavery share thank you very much, (which should run in the millions) plus compounded interest. Will Jay Z, Oprah, Snoop, Meghan Markle and their ilk get a taste as well.

    I think TKK, can advise on this but as far as I know only the injured party is eligible for compensation and only from the person guilty of inflicting said injury. How this will ever be equitably determined by law is a mystery and an impossibility. Finally, the whole exercise is silly, since once compensation has been determined we must deduct what has already been paid……welfare, food stamps, housing etc.

    It looks like reparations are due to the White Man. Yes well, I acknowledge the check from the Wakanda Association for Reparations (aka WAR) is in the mail LMAO.

  26. gotmituns says:

    From what I remember of the story, Uncle Tom was the hero/winner. Simon LeGree had to kill him. Uncle Tom had beaten him with his moral compass.

    But we must understand that Harriet Beecher Stowe was just another hysterical woman – but with a bit of writing ability. This time, used to stir up trouble – something the species known as femalelia are infamous for throughout the centuries.

    • Replies: @savages in town
  27. Birds of a feather, flock together.

  28. @TKK

    “Let Africa go back to wilderness and be the world’s largest nature preserve. ”

    Not while there are still many natural resources to be extracted. Pathological altruism extends only so far where there’s money to be made.

  29. @gotmituns

    White women always do great harm, but have no moral qualms about it as long as someone else suffers. It might be very good if more suburban soccer moms and self-righteous professional white women started to suffer for their love affair with radical egalitarianism (affirmative action) – always coming, of course, at the expense of white men. Truth is, white women are privileged in our culture. We should take those privileges away, and leave them to suffer for the world they did so much to create: a world of Jew cultural marxism and the lie of the Noble Nigger.

  30. PJ London says:

    “What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon.” –
    Napoleon Bonaparte

    George Bush could not stand up and say, “Enron and the other oil companies have told me I have to Invade Iraq to protect our oil profits and steal their oil.”.
    So he (his handlers) have to invent “Hussein kills and gasses his own people, has chemical weapons and eats cockroaches!”, just so that the people will jump and scream “I Wanna kill him. Let me, let me” then they join up in thousands to be sent over to the desert to kill helpless civilians, whilst ignoring the fact that a few Americans are taking billions of tax dollars and blowing worthless things up in a desert.”

    Slavery was never an issue not in America or in Europe.
    “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” –
    London Spectator, 1862

    In December of 1860 and January of 1861, many newspapers across the North and Midwest echoed Greeley’s sentiments to “let the South go in peace.”
    But the bankers, railroads and shippers soon informed the press of the financial implications of southern independence.
    The editorial tune changed dramatically in February and March of 1861 to “No, we must NOT let the South go,” and “what about our shipping?” and “what about our revenue?”
    As the New York Times noted on March 30th,“We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.”
    [ See Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965 — See Sample editorials here. ]

    Yep! it was all about the money.

    “We disapprove of slavery and the cost of the maintenance and upkeep of slaves. We prefer our English model in which we control the issuance of currency, and control of money, it allows us to control labor without the cost of maintaining it.”
Lord Baron Rothschild (private owner of the Bank of England. Quote 1849)

    When an item is your property it has value. When it is not, then you don’t give a damn.
    Think about rental cars versus owned cars. Only the rental company has any interest in spending money keeping them serviceable.

    But again, you can’t just say “Listen you must get rid of your slaves and become paupers because I want you to be starving so that you work in my farms and factories for crusts.” You have to couch it in terms of how wonderful the people are to do that on their own.
    (Vaccinations anyone?)

    Slavery has a bad rap, even though it has been a way of life for at least 30,000 years and continues to this day in large parts of the world.
    When the options are “Do you want to work for me (as a slave) or would you rather starve?” the option becomes much more appealing.

    The benefits of slavery (to the slave) had to be castigated and made evil. Shouts of “Freedom” rain through the air.
    Freedom to do what?
    For millions of Southerners, black and white, and for millions of Europeans, especially English, it was freedom to starve.

    The “Owners” of this world care only about getting and retaining their wealth. Protecting it from all who want an equitable society.
    To do this they create wars.

    Next it will be Iran’s turn to be used as the whipping boy.

    “Still, it is true, lamb,” said Satan. “Look at you in war — what mutton you are, and how ridiculous!”
    “In war? How?”
    “There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war.
    I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war.
    The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.”
    Then the handful will shout louder.
    A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
    Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so.
    And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
    Mark Twain

    The current war is being waged by the owners on the American people (who would like to keep more than 20% of their production after ALL taxes) and the weapon is “Vaccination” but the people are so blind and intrinsically stupid that they line up for the death shots.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Thanks: Nancy
    • Replies: @Thomasina
  31. Sarah says:

    … are trying to push onto the public


    Thank you for this link to a fundamental article : The War Against Whites in Advertising. I made a discovery about a phenomenon I was not aware of.

    It also contains an interesting part on the dangers: STD, violence, very high percentage of divorce and separation, mothers left alone with a child without a father, poverty.

    Solution to counter this outrageous propaganda: don’t buy these magazines, have the systematic reflex not to buy the products promoted in these so-called “ads”.

  32. profnasty says:

    Why do Jewish men pay so much money for divorce?
    Because it’s worth it.

  33. Trinity says:

    Stowe was yet another New England wacko who claimed to be a “race expert” on Negroes. At its peak, only 6% of all Southern households owned slaves while a much larger percentage of the tiny Jewish population were slave owners. I doubt that many “Simon Legree” types castrated their slaves the way Arab slave masters did the male Black slaves. And lest we forget Brazil had far more slaves than America. The first slaves in Haiti were Taino Indians and Africans were brought in when the Indian tribe began to dwindle and die off. And lest we forget Ulysses S. Grant was the last President to have owned a slave, so it isn’t as if the North was completely innocent as well. Slavery existed in states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New Hampshire up until about 1840-1850, haha, notice that 3 of those states are New England states. WHAT HYPOCRITES, THOSE NEW ENGLAND YANKEES ARE.

    Which brings us to White slavery in the nation. Poor little Mary Phagan was poor little 13 year old girl in Georgia working 12 hour shifts in a pencil factory before she was raped and murdered by her pencil pushing do nothing “slave master” Leo Frank and discarded like trash under a pile of sawdust shaving in a factory basement. A cord was wrapped around her neck and she had a deep head wound as well. Look at the novel “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair and tell me that poor working class Whites had it much better than slaves. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that those slaves worked harder than little Mary Phagan or those poor Whites in meatpacking plants in Chicago.

    My ancestors are from the Deep South and stories have been passed on for generations. Stories of a Black man raping my mom’s aunt, stories of a White sheriff using his night stick on a little colored boy who stepped out of line at a movie theater. I have heard the good and bad from both sides. While visiting the small towns in the Deep South I would watch Blacks AND POOR WHITES do the dirty work for sure, but I was also observe that even in the late 1960s and early 1970s NEARLY every Black was loafing on the job and the poor Whites were shouldering the bulk of the work. My GUESS is that Blacks were loafing a great deal in those cotton patches as well and had to be CONSTANTLY WATCHED. Poor Whites who slaved away in the fields, ( yes Whites picked cotton as well), worked 12-14 hour shifts in slaughterhouses, lumberyards, etc., were worked far harder than any slave. I GUARANTEE IT.

    And btw, how “free” is a 13 year old girl who has to work 12 hour shifts in a pencil factory for a fraction of what her northern counterparts in Boston made at that time. RIP Mary Phagan. RIH Leo Frank.

  34. profnasty says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Emancipation Proclamation.
    Abbie hoped to entice the slaves to join the fight. There was no one to stop a slave uprising. They did not. Why not.
    The Slave System wasn’t as cruel as the old bitch Harriet would have US believe.
    Now, about Anne Frank…

  35. Trinity says:

    Why is it that in the past before the Great North even had more than a scattering of Negroes that so many “race experts” on the Negro came from lily White New England or states like Minnesota or the Pacific Northwest. Kind of like some Jew who lives in Manhattan’s Upper West Side and discusses the Negro situation at cocktail parties with a token Negro or two along with other Jews and white traitor trash who think public transportation is for plebes. haha. Made me think of that Thomas Wolfe book, “Radical Chic.” Wolfe was hip to the game long ago for sure. The story centers around a party at a Park Avenue duplex inhabited by (((Leonard Bernstein))) with guests like (((Babs Walters))) and other “wealthy socialites” to discuss racial issues with their token Black Panther guests. ROTFLMMFWAO.

    IF Babs Walter ever took the D train to the Bronx she would have a nervous breakdown and probably shit herself. The only Blacks these hypocrites have to deal with is that crazy guy walking down the street talking to himself outside their luxury apartments or maybe a waiter at some expensive restaurant. Seems Bernstein used White South Africans to serve his guest at that little soiree full of FAKE and HYPOCRITICAL Jews and assorted white traitor trash, didn’t want to offend their BP friends with Black waiters or waitresses. haha

  36. Thomasina says:
    @PJ London

    Best comment, IMO! Thank you, PJ London, for reminding us again. I too have posted things like, “Everything that happens is always about economics,” but then even I forget what I said the day before and get sucked into an author’s small and tidy narrative.

    Harriet Beecher Stowe was useful to the monied elite (otherwise we’d never have heard of her), just as George Floyd is helpful today. These people are used to paint a particular story, which then enables the elites to engineer and manufacture a particular outcome. Makes it easier to steal and loot.

    “Yep! it was all about the money.”

    It is always about the money. I’m quite certain they had the Covid story sitting in the wings, just in case they needed it. And surprise, surprise, they did. Deflation was looming in the fall of 2019 (J. Powell was pumping billions into the system) and there needed to be an excuse to infuse the world with trillions, otherwise Humpty Dumpty was going to fall down. Voila!

    Blue cities destroyed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter? Just coincidence? Follow the money. Who will make fortunes rebuilding and gentrifying these cities? The Blacks will be shipped off to White areas under the guise of equality (or some made-up nonsense) in order to allow the rebuilding. The newly constructed condos will be sold off to Chinese investors, just to allow them a place to park the billions they’ve gained from all the manufacturing jobs we sent their way.

    Reparations? The elites could care less about Blacks. What they DO care about is all the money to be made off of the story (by the bankers, retail outlets, homebuilders, etc.) Think of the money that could be sloshing around, just there for the taking. Who will pay? Whites – again – just like they paid in the Civil War and all the other wars.

    A great story is always told, one that moves the masses, the bought-and-paid-for media run with it, and the rest is history. Am I cynical, or what?!

    It is ALWAYS about the money.

    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @Nancy
  37. The Dutch version of the book is amusing. De Negerhut Van Oom Tom. I doubt you can find a copy today.

  38. Trinity says:

    The Blacks have had their “reparations” and then some. Generation after generation on the gubmint dole, GIVEN jobs over more qualified White applicants, etc. And that horseshit about Blacks being the last hired and first fired is horseshit. They had a Black female police officer in Tampa a few years back and the lady had cussed out her superiors, threw temper tantrums in the police station where she wrecked another police officer’s desk, threw stuff at other employees, etc., this type of behavior went on for years before she was FINALLY fired. One can only imagine how well she performed her “job.” Did not Michelle Obama make a 6 figure salary doing a “job” where she didn’t even have to show up half the time.

    Jews and Blacks NEED TO PAY WHITES REPARATIONS for how much money they have TAKEN from honest hardworking Whites and how much they have destroyed our inner cities and for all the innocent White lives raped, murdered and assaulted due to anti-White propaganda stirred up by Jews and all the Black violence against Whites over the years that has to number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions when you count all assaults, murders, rapes, etc. over the last 70 years.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  39. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Please, no more lies, Lincoln (see greenbacks policy) was assassinated and the radical commie usury loving Republicans passed all the “reconstruction” laws and destroyed the several sovereign Republic’s and turned it into a monarchy… See Jefferson on politcal-economy (usury) monarchy going global “messianic and “dominionist” totalitarian” now:

    “The story of the American political order, at least to this point, is the collapse of the influence and autonomy of the local into a consolidated political and financial order, what Jefferson’s people called monarchy.” ~

    TREASON was committed from many on both sides of the Mason-Dickson line fools!!

  40. @TKK

    You wouldn’t get any kind of wilderness or natural park : first of all most Bantu-related peoples are champions at destroying their ecology and environment, they tend to transform everything they inhabit into a shanty town, no matter it was town, countryside or wilderness originally, as their favourite building material was always corrugated iron whenever in history they had the means to hammer it themselves, steal it or buy it at discount price : they were the first people of humanity to enter iron age and they entered it without having passed through the Bronze age. Their methods of land cultivation, though among the most exhausting in the world physically (original African land tillers, even when of a dominant ethnic group, even when carrying swords or guns, had not a better standard of living or different life than the slaves they would capture, breed and sell would lead on the New World plantations), are the fastest conducive to deforestation, laterization of soils and ultimately desertification. What I state here is exchange of words I report from various Black peoples themselves discussing their own future, not White prejudices against them.

    Bantus, who form definitely the bulk of the greater sub-saharan Black Race, originally lived in the Sahara for the most part when it was rather s savannah than the desert it is now, then moved Southwards to the Guinea coast as the Sahara became just uninhabitable most probably at least in good part thanks to their own doing (as their traditional methods of cattle raising and land cultivation has clearly been shown to contribute heavily to the recent ongoing desertification of Sahel as well as of distant places naturally lush such as Haiti) before concentrating in heavier masses than ever more and more South of the Equator into Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique and SA. The Whites even when Victorian-style racist tend all too often to see potentially good savages who left to themselves, after having died like flies for want of modern care, would turn back their habitat to pristine nature.

    This is somewhat true for many nations of Amazonian Indians but this is definitely not true for Blacks stemming from the Bantu civilisation : it is a hellish, barbaric and destructive civilisation, but a civilisation nevertheless waging one of the fiercest war against nature ever (hence the natural affinity between them and the most predatory, nature-fighting kind of Jews and Calvinist Protestants that once translated into Baden Powell’s siding with the Zulus against the White Boers as he founded his boy scout order, and later on into the sponsors of the woke movement), not a state of Edenic nature in any way, bar a few very exceptional and numerically negligible tribes such as those of the Omo valley in Ethiopia, the Nuba of South Sudan and the Himba of Namibia, who are less numerous than the photographers and anthropologists who come to watch them like rare birds : for one lover of nature that lives in the nude picking medicinal plants (it is so rare that people living in the nude are considered religious initiates) there are thousands of users of corrugated iron who cut as many trees as possible to sell themfor the charcoal : never under-estimate their heavy-duty iron hage instincts : incapable though they are to build a competitive industry for lack of any efficiency sense, their love of forged metal makes them surprisingly apt to work at good repairmen of outdated luxury cars or second-hand weapons.

    So what you will get if you leave Africa to Bantu and Bantu-like peoples and other Congoids is not any state of nature, it is first much more desert, and swamps wherever their desertification process is impeded by heavy rains, together with vast shanty towns eking out their survival from the pillage of more desertified and impovershed regions, and all these lands made infertile they will turn into permanent battlefields : if you do away with the pathological altruism of so many religious and secular missionaries, international Somali-style piracy will come nevertheless to use those permanent battlefields in their schemes of world domination, you will get another hotter more violent Iraq or Syria, and you really risk seing all great legendary animal species such as elephants, giraffes, hippos, rhinos, zebras, going extinct one after another to be replaced by scrawny unproductive cattle most expert at eating away the last remnants of vegetal covering, especially since it is to be expected that Chinese poachers will hunt down the last of those poor beasts for their aphrodisiac horns. Experience has shown that if you want to keep a natural park in its pristine wildlife-rich state in Africa you first have to remove the Bantu and Congoid blacks (for instance by hastening their migration to big criminalized cities in Africa or in the West) bar a few wildlife-like tribes and are not typical Blacks but rather Pygmies or Hottentots (of the kind Black woke racists tend to exterminate in great priority like fair hunting game for the meat whenever allowed) that number in 1000’s or 10 000’s never more.

    • Agree: TKK
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @TKK
  41. Thomasina says:

    Trinity, I agree with you. Blacks have been given the farm, and then some. They’ve been placated in order to try to keep the violence down to a dull roar and keep the Black voters onside.

    But if there wasn’t money to be made off them, they would have long been left in a ditch. Just think of the money the bankers make off of them (from fees for doling out the EBT cards and sucking them into subprime mortgages), the 7-11’s and Walmart stores who receive all that welfare money, sneaker and clothing retailers, the lawyers, the prison system, and the list goes on.

    Blacks are useful pawns for the monied elites. Painted in glorious colors when convenient, like now, and only because Whitey appears to be waking up and not going along.

    This is all about bringing Whitey back in line, to show them who’s in control. The crony capitalist system can’t function if Whites can’t be milked and made to pay for it.

    Whatever story is told, always follow the money. You will find it.

    • Agree: Trinity
  42. @savages in town

    White liberal women in the burbs arrogantly think they can use their intellect and empathy to fix what is really just nature. It’s no different than looking at the tide and thinking you can fix it with your feelings. The media/schools have convinced these women that White men made this mess and our racial problems never were have occurred if moral and just White women were in charge. They really do believe this. Being in the burbs allows them to have a completely fictional view of the world.

    But that is only half the story. The other half is that there is a giant army of purse husbands behind these women. We have also been undermined by neutered men that seem to think it is in their best interest to hand their balls over to the egalitarian collective.

    I have been around these couples and the men are insufferable. The women aren’t attracted to their weak nature which just creates sexual anxiety on both sides. Everything is unbalanced. I can’t even go to one of these functions without having one of the women eyeball me. They find White men with guts to be alluring and exotic. It’s all insane and needs to change.

    The idea that race doesn’t exist is really the main problem. These egalitarian meddlers would simply focus their efforts elsewhere if they didn’t buy into Wakanda theory. They would go to more soccer games and PTA meetings instead of fretting about how White men have ruined what would have been a racial utopia.

  43. “From another angle, if both sides had realized that war would leave the South in ruins, the North deeply in hock to the banksters…”

    Perhaps, the bitch worked for the banksters of her time…

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  44. HbutnotG says:
    @John Johnson

    You mention some good points.

    Egalitarianism: It said somewhere that “all people are created equal.” Actually a myth. And, much inaccuracy in interpretation there for sure. First off, it said “created” not maintained. Importantly it does not infer “guaranteed ‘equality’ (in life, once beyond the womb, irregardless).” But that statement has been twisted (TV in particular) to mean that even the most untrainable uncivilized moron, regardless of upbringing, somehow will don classic conservative J C Penney clothing, and automatically deserves a brand new \$450,000 condo full of Crate & Barrel. In its unbastardized form, that “equal” concept, taken alone, has nothing to do with color or lifetime circumstances. Egalitarianism is a totally goofball myth. Difficult to grasp? Well, for starters, let’s just consider that if you didn’t fertilize or ovulate that egg – it’s quality of life shouldn’t have anything to do with you. You just cannot, using earthbound logic, and millennia of factual history, argue that.

    Computers: Were developed to streamline “paperwork.” Period. It was an outgrowth of the data processor device, which technologically expanded with the inventions of magnetic tape and, later, micro chips. Ironically, in the age of computers, we now have more paper shufflers than ever jacking up the price of each & every single thing you buy, which should actually be the opposite situation! That’s what the computer was invented to do. Eliminate XS clerks, while, in the process, allowing the “thinkers” to actually improve products using computers to simplify their work, thereby saving time and cost. Sure didn’t work out that way, did it?

    I’d go as far as to say, that if classic astrology was right about one thing, just using stars as an “excuse,” it clearly states that “equality” is an unattainable myth. Equality is a term that should have never appeared. Astrology or not, your genes and time & place are a dice roll. Nothing more, and you can’t change that part. In fact, “created equal” only applied in a day and place of an extremely tightly wound culture (one religion, one ethnic, and punishable rules – like how you dress or when you curtsy). Outside of that, it’s meaningless. We’re not in Salem Mass anymore. Haven’t been for a long time.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  45. @Francis Miville

    You make a lot of good points and are correct that the Bantu would have destroyed numerous wildlife preserves if not for government protection. The elephants probably would have been wiped out in the ivory trade as there were plenty of Bantu criminals willing to shoot one with an AK. In South Africa and Namibia they pretty much depend on foreign (read White) hunters to fund these reserves.

    But it needs to be noted that the Bantu population only exists because of White technology. The Zulu expansion depended upon corn and Anglo agricultural techniques.

    Nature kept the Bantu population in check for tens of thousands of years. If you took out the missionaries, the NGOs and the foreign aid these states would collapse. As with Black cities in the US they are propped up by outside workers. All it would take actually is an oil spike and they would be in serious trouble. They can’t roam around Africa without oil so there would just be chaos in the cities. In fact I expect one of these countries to eventually collapse and the left will demand we take in millions of refugees.

    That is a key reason why we need to eliminate the great lie. The Bantu countries are largely fictional states that will become increasingly vulnerable to system shocks. If we don’t find a solution then Africa could well return to a simpler state where the nature preserves are protected because the Bantu don’t have the technology to enter them. But that would be after a future AOC type left brings in millions.

    • Agree: TKK
  46. @Observator

    “…its corrupting influence on the morals of white people.”

    Oh, please. It isn’t slavery that is corrupting the morals of white people TODAY. In point of fact, I would bet that the morals of the average slave owner back then would be far superior to that of today’s average corporate board member. And if I had to choose between Simon LeGree and your average Mexican drug cartel kingpin, I would have a difficult time deciding.

  47. TKK says:
    @Francis Miville

    Very good analysis and you have a better background grasp than I do.

    My hope was that if we stopped the IV of foreign aid, these types would eventually leave the gene pool..I am not sure they could survive without the billions in food and money they receive.

  48. @HbutnotG

    I’d go as far as to say, that if classic astrology was right about one thing, just using stars as an “excuse,” it clearly states that “equality” is an unattainable myth. Equality is a term that should have never appeared.

    An interesting point. I would add that classic astrology would be preferable to the status quo because the excuse of the planets at least doesn’t require targeting Whites as The Cause.

    Plato believed that equality was only obtainable by having an elite class lie about the origins of inequality. Basically if you believe that your social class is destined from birth then you won’t believe that life is unjustly unequal and needs to be fixed. He called this the Noble Lie and believed it was required for an ideal society. Lies are taught as unethical but he concluded there had to be this one big lie that a small class of rulers are allowed to know. He argued that other virtues wouldn’t be possible without this lie.

    Our rulers believe in their own Noble Lie for similar reasons. Their great lie is that race doesn’t exist. They believe that this lie must be told for maximum equality to exist, even if it has great costs and may eventually doom society. In their minds it needs to exist for the sake of other virtues.

    I acknowledge that it is entirely possible that a multi-racial society is more stable with lies. This could in fact be true even though I suspect it causes just as many problems as it solves. But I really don’t care since I’m not an egalitarian. The establishment is my enemy and they made that clear many years ago. I really don’t care at all if their lies have function. Their egalitarian goals are in opposition to my nature and I accept that.

  49. Thomasina says:
    @Chinaman's Nightmare

    “Perhaps the bitch worked for the banksters of her time…”

    If not working for them, then used by them. Her book would have been heavily promoted. It’s probably a decent little book, but it was taken up and MADE famous by the elites of the day because its contents matched their agenda.

    • Replies: @Chinaman's Nightmare
  50. @Thomasina

    I had read it back in the high school days but what I remember the most was her sanctimonious and needless preaching.

  51. Technomad says:

    Most slaves lived and worked on small plantations that nowadays would be called large farms, like the Phelps plantation in Huckleberry Finn. While Southerners love to remember the big showcase places, they were very much a minority among plantations as a whole.

    A big problem with American abolitionism was that it aped British abolitionism—which was aimed at the sugar islands, where slavery was just about as bad as they said it was. Conditions were rough enough on the islands that they had to keep importing fresh African’ts, since natural increase was low. In contrast, in what became the US, natural increase was great enough to keep the black population growing even after importation was curtailed in 1808.

    A plantation that was big by American Southern standards would have been considered rather small on Jamaica or Barbados—and, all things being equal otherwise, it was known that the larger the plantation, the less well-treated the slaves were. Also, American plantation owners lived on their plantations, and generally were keeping a close eye on things, while British and other sugar-islands planters were swanning around Brighton and other such places, leaving their plantations in the hands of overseers and other such hired people. By pre-revolutionary Haitian standards, Simon Legree would not have been exceptional at all.

    But since American abolitionist propaganda and tactics aped the British, they not only didn’t help much, but made matters worse. They petitioned Congress again and again, not caring that, unlike the UK parliament vis-a-vis the sugar islands, Congress had no power at that time to interfere in the states’ internal affairs. They portrayed all slaveholders as cruel monsters, and all that did was to harden Southern hearts; the Southerners felt insulted and slandered and refused to listen to even reasonable suggestions.

    • Thanks: Nancy
  52. Of course there’s no mention of the Bank of London as the spark that ignited the civil war.

  53. Nancy says:
    @Exalted Cyclops

    Would like to know more about how Brazil eliminated slavery. Would it be the cultjural milieu? Portuguese? Catholic?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  54. animalogic: “Ignoring the morality & utility of repatriation still leaves us with the infinitely debatable question of whether repatriation was logistically possible at numbers which could be called significant.”

    True, deporting millions would have been a daunting task given the technology of the time, but I’ve never seen any evidence that that was a consideration. Was anyone protesting that the project was unaffordable, or impractical? Not that I know of. Evidently the issue never came up, because those good white Christians preferred to smoke the opium of their racially egalitarian religion, and dream that somehow the problem would solve itself. The more stupid and gullible among them imagined the negroes were all going to volunteer to leave, while the more realistic ones, like Lincoln, tried to tell themselves that maybe it wouldn’t be so bad, and left any problems for future generations to deal with. Expulsion by force or simply killing them all was likewise ruled out by Christian ethics.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  55. G. Poulin says:

    Regardless of what Lincoln wanted or didn’t want, the Republican Party had no intention of shipping the former slaves to Africa. The Party wanted to make them citizens (by hook or by crook) and get them voting, in order to help rig every election in the South for the next fifteen years.

    • Agree: Catdompanj
  56. Trinity says:

    I think Blacks should DEMAND that Anderson Cooper make a public apology for his ancestors owning slaves. I also think CNN should do a documentary on the Jewish role in the African Slave Trade as well as a documentary on the cruelty that Arabs inflicted on Black slaves particularly the castrating of Black male slaves. Alas, we could use some books, movies and documentaries how Africans conquered other Africans, enslaved them, raped the captured women, tortured the vanquished tribes and were the ones that sold the slaves in the first place.

    Kind of like you hear or read how cruel the White man was to the Native American but totally disregard how cruel the other tribes were to each other and what Indians did to Whites. It worked both ways. The White man IMO while not perfect has PROVEN to be far more humane than the Jew, the Indian, the Black, the Yellow race, Arabs, etc. IF it weren’t for Whitey being too kind to a fault, lets just say we wouldn’t face the problems we face today. Whitey would have told these anti-White racist parasites where to shove it long ago. Without question the White race has done more for humanity than all the other races combined and the White man has definitely a better track record than the Jew, the Black , the Yellow race and all others that want to point fingers. Stop APOLOGIZING Whitey and tell them to bend over and stick their thumb up their smelly asshole.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  57. Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-men’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States

  58. We can’t get the negro out of the United States and we’re egged on to worry about Romania and its Gypsies… how nonsensical!

  59. @Nancy

    Brazilian slavery was absolutely brutal. The slaves knew they were doomed if they set foot in a Brazilian sugar plantation. There are stories of them trying to get on a boat to America.

    The Southern Whites tried to take care of their slaves while the Brazilians just worked them to death and then brought in replacements. They had crunched the numbers and concluded it was cheaper to replace them.

    It isn’t talked about because liberals like depicting Southern slavery as the ultimate evil.

    Slavery declined in Brazil because at some point they had plenty of cheap labor and sugar wasn’t as important. Brazil was pretty much one big Portuguese plantation for about 250 years. It wasn’t a democratic country like the US.

    By the time slavery was banned the upper class was plenty wealthy and didn’t need them.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  60. @Trinity

    Stop APOLOGIZING Whitey and tell them to bend over and stick their thumb up their smelly asshole.

    Completely agree and these idiots don’t seem to get that apologizing doesn’t make them go away.

    Even without slavery there would be some liberal/non-White resentment alliance.

    Canada didn’t have slaves and yet they have the same liberal hegemony.

    Black immigrants that commit crimes in Canada are provided with the same excuses. It’s “gun crime” and poverty caused by the (White) system.

    Canadian TV has the same type of White guilt garbage but they mix in more native resentment. Instead of a Black Wakanda it’s all about how life was idealistic until those evil French and British arrived.

    An unfortunate factor here is that part of the White population will always resent Whites and identify with any type of alliance against them. Whites create geniuses but also these bitter losers that would happily import a million Zulus to unleash upon the rest of us. These weak losers identify as being for equality but Nietzsche was right in that they just resent the strong. They want to tear down the strong in order to compensate for their own weakness.

    I have worked with a lot of Whites and have seen this personality type too many times. They can’t stand that their cousin is a famous author or their sister has a prestigious university position. Instead of appreciating the work of others they resent society and want to burn it down. In their minds a Zulu Mad Max type world would be more equal and favorable to their middle class lifestyle.

  61. Thomasina says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    From National Geographic’s website:

    “On February 6, 1820, the first group of formerly enslaved people in the United States to resettle in Africa departed from New York. An organization called the American Colonization Society, with funding from Congress, had been established to return them to the U.S. colony of Liberia, in West Africa.”

    Some 15,000 Blacks went back and they were given acreage in Liberia.

  62. Nancy says:

    Cynical? Or just clear-eyed? Reminds me of the Two Masters choice we have… and it was made very clear, they are absolutely mutually exclusive. Look what the Mammon choice has gotten us to, with help of the ultimate ‘Mammon Worshippers’.

  63. @John Johnson

    Brazil was unmitigated hell for all people but the landowners and the business class (which was all Jewish by then, though Jewish in the context of Portuguese culture meant more or less Protestant by then in form deemed tolerable by the Church) no matter free of slave, no matter white or black. And it has remained one a great deal for nearly all kinds of populations, except the 1% globalist. In the sertao the settlement of the land was entrusted to indentured whites (mostly North Portuguese landless peasants) but despite the fact it was a very near equivalent of the settlement of Middle West and Mississippi valley they rapidly fell, partly due to the very irregular drought-prone climate proper to the Brazilian Nordeste, into a sub-human standard of living quite equivalent to that of the plantation negroes along the coast. Slavery died of disuse because being a fugitive or freedman gave no real advantage (unless the Black man could walk as far as to reach a Quilombo, that is to say a sanctuary fortified town for fugitive slaves where living conditions were those of deepest Africa pure and simple) despite the fact that the working conditions on plantations were among the harshest in the world compared to other slaves, with the exception of Haiti and other French Islands where the owners and bailiffs were true disciples of the Marquis de Sade. A notable difference with North America is that Brazil didn’t apply the one drop rule : a mestizo class was formed (in Portugal as well as in Brazil) that was never to be confused neither with the Portuguese proper neither with pure Black field negroes. Pure Blacks in Brazil are supposed to lead a purely physical life, Mestizos (the biggest group) are in demand for the multitudinous more elaborate jobs related to sensual life and arts, and all serious jobs are for the non-Blacks though most Whites of Portuguese descent, no matter high class or low class, are not supposed to be too educated as per the ethos of Portuguese catholicism, as originally all trades demanding superior knowledge were for Jews only. The only way for a White to assert his superiority when he enjoys no inherited family fortune is through military or military-like activities, otherwise they are peasants on equally low standing with Blacks and not minding to live among them though never to be confused with them neither.

    Jewishness in Brazil was a far broader social category than in other countries (though it was headed by a reckless criminal business elite worse than in North America), actually as soon as you exerted a howsoever qualified urban trade, even a buggy repairman’s or a horse veterinarian, you were de facto part of that category that could dispense with obedience to the Church, with the result it was not synonymous with the status it has nearly always meant in the anglosphere, unless accompanied by very big money. As Brazil ceased to be a slave state officially the “jewish” class that had monopolized that trade at all levels, even the lowliest ones or the most dangerous ones including able seamen on Africa-bound boats (the Portuguese empire was the only one where the Jewish entity was systematically involved very directly in that trade in person, rather than through capital lending and equipment as in other colonial empires such as the incipient American one) dissolved into the sophisticated non-Portuguese European one that concentrated in the most Southern, temperate, near European-looking part of the country, which went for various esoteric schools of spirituality influenced by Kabbalah.

  64. @John Johnson

    Canada never was an independent country, nor did it really claim or fight for any kind of independence at any point of its history, it was rather told by his British parents to leave the family basement and at least pretend to grow autonomous while moving in a neighbouring identical one possessed by the US : for all practical purposes it has nearly always been a condominium between Blue-voting US (both Southern and Northern Democrats) and the British Empire Eternal, with a small but proud and fierce Jewish elite arbitrating between both : every social movement affecting the US is bound to find bigger echo in Canada than in the US proper, though on the blue side only (Canadian Conservatives are Southern Democrats not Republicans while Canadian Liberals are NYC style Democrats and Quebec nationalists and separatists are Detroit or Philadelphia style Democrats) while any fashion that affects Britain or Anglo India also fatally affects Canada with even more echo (most of the Canadian press in the same hands that control the Indian English one).

    Contrary to the US, the Shiny British Whites proper never were in position of economic supremacy, and never differed economically on average from the vanquished French Canadians, despite their having been the official victors of the Seven Years War. The economic elite that was really privileged was Jewish right from the start, and then Scottish, and then Italian. If you subtract the three first ethnic groups (the Jews were always on top, but the two other groups may change : The Chinese now come just after ; during the sixties and seventies it still was the Cosa Nostra Italians) of non anglo origin among the greater English speaking group, it would have never overtaken the French economically, though no opportunity was ever missed to sell anti-English resentment to the French and anti-French superiority to the greater anglophone group. The French have now learned to detest all Whites and not only their English champions as the greater race that has always oppressed them, to give proofs of their sincere hatred through abundant race mixing with Blacks and claims of having never been racist to the point of having nearly all Indian blood, while the Anglophones are encouraged to bash against these French as against retarded Appalachian style White supremacist louts.

    There have never been any Black slave in colonial Canada, apart from a dozen of luxury domestic grooms brought by some French would-be aristocrats, but the Black problem tormented Canada like the US before, during the Civil War and after long before there was any significant number of Black immigrants, with the result the latter already claim against White racism and supremacism the very day they deplane in Montreal or Toronto : they come to Canada with the purpose of fighting White racism where it is.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  65. GeneralRipper [AKA "J.S. Tomlin"] says:
    @G. Poulin

    Lincoln should have thanked Stowe. Her propaganda piece provided him with a moral cover for his naked power grab.


    Thank you.

  66. @John Johnson

    The white population that resents whites has jewbrain……they have been brainwashed by jews to hate their own people.

    A mad majority of Catholics have jewbrain, and nearly every college grad has jewbrain unless they mature and grow out of it.

    Wokeness is simply jewish brainwashing.

    CRT kicked in many years ago with the dirty jew Howard Zinn and his bullshit book, A People’s History of the United States. This is an awful evil tract and every page is filled with horrifying anti-white bullshit. If any white academic wrote such filth about jews they’d be cancelled and ostracized forever. Sadly, Zinn’s anti-white tome is required reading at most colleges.

  67. It’s a subject worthy of a longer discussion, but the gypsies of Eastern Europe aren’t fitting in, most don’t have their act together, and no amount of browbeating about discrimination is going to fix this. But it’s not too late to set things right and repatriate them to the land of their ancestors.

    Europeans have put up with Gypsies for a thousand years and there is nothing to indicate that they won’t put up with them for another thousand years. Lately, even more sub-continentals (Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bengalis) have been moving to the West and nobody is attempting to halt this new migration, so I’d say that it is too late. It would be absurd to start sending the Gypsies back to India while being flooded with new Indians moving in the opposite direction.

    (If in some far-flung future the Indian subcontinent and Africa become more developed and wealthier than Europe and North America then maybe the blacks and Gypsies will go back voluntarily, and that is assuming that those countries do not set up barriers for their return, which they may very well do in such circumstances unlike most White countries which welcome almost everybody)

  68. @G. Poulin

    As compared to white Christianity, which is the real deal.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  69. Thomasina: “Some 15,000 Blacks went back and they were given acreage in Liberia. ”

    And became cannibals again, living happily ever after? LOL.

    My point, which you apparently missed, isn’t that some tiny percentage of American negroes volunteered to leave, but that the overwhelming majority didn’t, and that this was an expected result.

    Thomasina: “An organization called the American Colonization Society, with funding from Congress, had been established to return them to the U.S. colony of Liberia, in West Africa.”

    In the charter of the ACS was that all “colonization” was to be voluntary. Frauds and charlatans always “forget” to tell people this, hoping to leave the impression that a sincere effort was being made to remove the freed slaves from the US. Voluntary deportation always was bullshit with no chance of success whatsoever as a way of ensuring a whites-only America. A shrewd politician like Lincoln knew this. That’s one reason why, in his last public address before being assassinated, he called for negroes to be given citizenship and the vote.

  70. G. Poulin says:
    @Craig Morris

    Comparatively speaking? Yes, of course. Look at the reaction of white Christians to the piddly little sins of Jimmy Swaggart : universal abhorrence. Now look at the reaction of black Christians to the much worse sins of of that asshole King: universal denial and universal acclaim. Next time, instead of comparing real things to some impossible ideal, try comparing real things to other real things. Then maybe you’ll begin to see the world as it actually is.

  71. GeneralRipper [AKA "J.S. Tomlin"] says:
    @Zachary Smith

    Yes, of course. Anyone who strays from boilerplate Yankee mythology and writes something thoughtful or close to even-handed about the American Civil War is “polishing a neo-Confederate turd”.

    I swear it’s your kind who make me laugh myself silly thinking about coons and Leftists tearing down monuments to Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin etc…

    In for a penny, in for a pound, boyo.

  72. @savages in town

    savages in town: White women always do great harm, but have no moral qualms about it as long as someone else suffers.

    The moast important comment of the last decade [for the entire internet] was just posted this afternoon at Free Republic.

    who_would_fardels_bear: The jab mandates are a boon for those mothers with Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

  73. @Francis Miville

    Not sure why you gave us an unnecessary history lesson. Did you even read my comment?

    Canada has a Black crime problem from its immigrants and the liberals make excuses for them. The point is that wokeness and blaming/shaming Whites doesn’t require a history of slavery.

    The liberals in Canada use the same euphemism of “gun crime” instead of facing the reality of race.

    Keep in mind that liberals in the US have been telling us that Canada is a model due to having stricter gun laws. Well there goes that theory.

  74. Hiop says:

    It was logistically possible to bring them here, therefore it would’ve been logistically possible to send them back. No matter the cost, it would’ve been money well spent.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  75. Thomasina says:

    “It was logistically possible to bring them here, therefore it would’ve been logistically possible to send them back.”

    Agreed, and the people who profited by bringing them here (the slave traders) should have had all of their wealth and assets seized to help pay for the journey back.

    • Agree: Franz
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Beau Albrecht Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism