>It is the duty of society to protect the weak. But protection cannot be efficient without the power of control. Therefore it is the duty of society to enslave the weak. - George FitzhughThoughts?
>>18055631He's 100% correct and the abandonment of the humanitarian establishment of slavery will be looked back upon as one of the greatest mistakes in history.
>>18055631Garbage cope but it's better for people who support slavery and other immoral acts to be hypocritical like that because it makes them easier to argue against. It's worse when they don't even pretend to be moral and openly dismiss morality itself.
>>18055631>>18055633Fitzhugh would have even white people be relegated to the status of slaves if you take his "muh slavery is more humane than free labor" autism to its logical conclusionOnly bootlicking retards who yearn to be serfs take this faggot seriously
>>18055647>Fitzhugh would have even white people be relegated to the status of slavesAs many of them should be.
>Cannibals All! garnered more attention in the Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper, than any other book. Abraham Lincoln is said to have been more angered by George Fitzhugh than by any other pro-slavery writer, yet he unconsciously paraphrased Cannibals All! in his House Divided speech.So this is how sociology got started.
Does anyone know if any pro slavery Americans ever argued for slavery from a thousand year state kind of standpoint?
>>18055652You'd be one of them retard
>>18055784>Under slavery people would tell you what to do!!!!Moreso than the 300,000 already existing federal, state, county, and local laws tell me what to do?
>>18055807>*cracks whip* Shut yo mouth, boy!
>>18055631>the weakso like old people?*takes cover*. . . . .. . . . NOOOOOOOO0OOO0OOOOO0OOOOOO NOT LIKE THAAAAAAAAAAA
>>18055872Not necessarily slavery. But old people should be wards of the state.
>>18056072You mean poor old people. Rich ones will hire men to kill you. The weakness he's talking about is just being out of power.
>>18056079>ahhhh slavery means people are just randomly being killed and stuff!!!! ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!
>>18056104You're the slaver. The old guy who has you killed is trying not to be enslaved.
>We need to protect the weak>Oh I get it control the weak>Uh no I said protect>Right yes lets control themlmao
>>18056162That part I agree with, it's inherently paternalistic and superior to want to protect "the weak" and in reality, John Wayneian white supremacy is exactly what happened. Think about it from an information standpoint. Europe had technological progress that couldn't interact with ancient culture on any mutual terms. When they came into contact, the ancient one died. The fact that people carried out these currents with gusto doesn't make them responsible for the imbalance. Other cultures were subjugated as a direct consequence of contact and assimilation. Today they've been brought to an equal intellectual footing more or less, they've been rebuilt as natives of the technological world. It doesn't make for an inspiring political tract, but it's better than the alternative. The problem for him is blacks were getting educated by the 1840s, they wanted out. Weakness isn't permanent.
>In order to save South Vietnam from communism the US had no choice but to destroy it.
>>18056206>John Wayneian white supremacy
>>18056224he said he believes in white supremacy until blacks are educated to the point of responsibility. It was the most normie opinion at the time and it happened.
Fitzhugh wrote Cannibals All! and other works arguing that Northern free labor was exploitative, while Southern slavery was humane, when the reality was actually the opposite. What a retard.
>>18055631>But protection cannot be efficient without the power of controlI disagree
>>18055631They look like porcelain dolls. Lifeless mummies. Hollow and distant. The Blackies are enjoying the fruits of Life.
>>18055631I agree boomers should be enslaved and work until they die
>>18056206>That part I agree with, it's inherently paternalistic and superior to want to protect "the weak"Not really.
>>18056206>it's inherently paternalistic and superior to want to protect "the weak"Modernity made you gay and retarded. It is the mother who wants to protect the weak. That is literally her primary purpose in life.
>>18055631Surely, the Oriental Despotic regime I stan for would not chop me in twain at the waist.
>>18055644>It's worse when they don't even pretend to be moral and openly dismiss morality itself.If someone tries to argue that it is fundamentally moral to dominate others based on power you can win that debate by shooting them
>>18058825>>18058697what's the point of being paternal if you're just a sigma gay nazi? bot opinion
>>18059025I don't consume enough tiktok to understand what this means.
>>18059058what's the point of being paternal if you don't care about protecting the weak
>>18058825Do you think this father wouldn't protect his daughter from Jeffrey Epstein?
>>18059065>>18059072Protecting your own is not the same as protecting "the weak", even if "your own" are weak. "Protecting the weak" implies that the reason for the protection is the weakness, whereas clearly, a father protecting his kids protects them because they are his.Women protect "the weak" regardless of ownership (because women don't really own anything anyway). That's why they vote for infinity naggers and gibs for everyone.
>>18059082He thought slaves were possessions. he's talking about protecting your own household, maybe you have a more northern view that blacks don't belong in america at all but that ship had sailed, as it were, in the south.
>>18059089I'm not discussing slavery. I'm discussing whether it is paternal to spend ressources on that which is weak simply because it is weak. And my argument is that it isn't - it is entirely maternal, arguably a twisted, unhealthy sort of maternal instinct which presumably arises from the woman having insufficient children of her own.
>>18055631>But protection cannot be efficient without the power of control. Therefore it is the duty of society to enslave the weakI don't see the connection here. If society must protect the weak, it must be powerful enough to do so, sure. Why should that mean it must have control over the weak? And why should that control be so intense as to become slavery? How does slavery insure protection?
>>18059114that's nothing but empty rhetoric. Utopian thinking. How am I supposed to protect the weak on the other side of the planet? Obviously this whole conversation is about protecting people within your borders both politically and socially. To whatever degree it's referencing all the weak classes of society, state actors absolutely concern themselves with those classes. If private, it concerns your own household. There's no argument conflating private care for property with public responsibilities of the state.
>>18059133>Utopian thinkingI don't think you understand the words you're using. Nothing I've said is even remotely utopian.>state actors absolutely concern themselves with those classes.Do you seriously think all statesmen automatically care for the weakest elements within their dominion?I'm speaking of archetypes, because you brought one up. If you don't want to talk about archetypes that's fine by me.
>>18055631I own some of his writings
>>18055631No, it's not the societal duty
