The Great Plantation: Anarchism Is The Greatest Of All Curses

Editor’s Note: I strongly believe that 150 years of wage slavery has made us dumb. If you believe going from John C. Calhoun to Tim Scott is “progress,” rope yourself. We need the Yang bucks to have the leisure time to become as educated and independent of employers as our ancestors.

In his Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun explains why the preservation and perpetuation of our race is more important than liberty:

“The principle, in all communities, according to these numerous and various causes, assigns to power and liberty their proper sphere. To allow to liberty, in any case, a sphere of action more extended than this assigns, would lead to anarchy; and this, probably, in the end, to a contraction instead of an enlargement of its sphere.

Liberty, then, when forced on a people unfit for it, would, instead of a blessing, be a curse; as it would, in its reaction, lead directly to anarchy,—the greatest of all curses. No people, indeed, can long enjoy more liberty than that to which their situation and advanced intelligence and morals fairly entitle them. If more than this be allowed, they must soon fall into confusion and disorder,—to be followed, if not by anarchy and despotism, by a change to a form of government more simple and absolute; and, therefore, better suited to their condition. And hence, although it may be true, that a people may not have as much liberty as they are fairly entitled to, and are capable of enjoying,—yet the reverse is unquestionably true,—that no people can long possess more than they are fairly entitled to.

Liberty, indeed, though among the greatest of blessings, is not so great as that of protection; inasmuch, as the end of the former is the progress and improvement of the race,—while that of the latter is preservation and perpetuation. And hence, when the two come into conflict, liberty must, and ever ought, to yield to protection; as the existence of the race is of greater moment than its improvement.

It follows, from what has been stated, that it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike;—a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving;—and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it. Nor is it any disparagement to liberty, that such is, and ought to be the case. On the contrary, its greatest praise—its proudest distinction is, that an all-wise Providence has reserved it, as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties, moral and intellectual. A reward more appropriate than liberty could not be conferred on the deserving;—nor a punishment inflicted on the undeserving more just, than to be subject to lawless and despotic rule. This dispensation seems to be the result of some fixed law;—and every effort to disturb or defeat it, by attempting to elevate a people in the scale of liberty, above the point to which they are entitled to rise, must ever prove abortive, and end in disappointment. The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty, is necessarily slow;—and by attempting to precipitate, we either retard, or prematurely defeat it.

There is another error, not less great and dangerous, usually associated with the one which has just been considered. I refer to the opinion, that liberty and equality are so intimately united, that liberty cannot be perfect without perfect equality.

That they are united to a certain extent,—and that equality of citizens, in the eyes of the law, is essential to liberty in a popular government, is conceded. But to go further, and make equality of condition essential to liberty, would be to destroy both liberty and progress. The reason is, that inequality of condition, while it is a necessary consequence of liberty, is, at the same time, indispensable to progress. In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind, that the main spring to progress is, the desire of individuals to better their condition; and that the strongest impulse which can be given to it is, to leave individuals free to exert themselves in the manner they may deem best for that purpose, as far at least as it can be done consistently with the ends for which government is ordained,—and to secure to all the fruits of their exertions. Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on the exertions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. It is, indeed, this inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks, in the march of progress, which gives so strong an impulse to the former to maintain their position, and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse. To force the front rank back to the rear, or attempt to push forward the rear into line with the front, by the interposition of the government, would put an end to the impulse, and effectually arrest the march of progress.

These great and dangerous errors have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal;—than which nothing can be more unfounded and false. It rests upon the assumption of a fact, which is contrary to universal observation, in whatever light it may be regarded. It is, indeed, difficult to explain how an opinion so destitute of all sound reason, ever could have been so extensively entertained, unless we regard it as being confounded with another, which has some semblance of truth;—but which, when properly understood, is not less false and dangerous. I refer to the assertion, that all men are equal in the state of nature; meaning, by a state of nature, a state of individuality, supposed to have existed prior to the social and political state; and in which men lived apart and independent of each other. If such a state ever did exist, all men would have been, indeed, free and equal in it; that is, free to do as they pleased, and exempt from the authority or control of others—as, by supposition, it existed anterior to society and government. But such a state is purely hypothetical. It never did, nor can exist; as it is inconsistent with the preservation and perpetuation of the race. It is, therefore, a great misnomer to call it the state of nature. Instead of being the natural state of man, it is, of all conceivable states, the most opposed to his nature—most repugnant to his feelings, and most incompatible with his wants. His natural state is, the social and political—the one for which his Creator made him, and the only one in which he can preserve and protect his race. As, then, there never was such a state as the, so called, state of nature, and never can be, it follows, that men, instead of being born in it, are born in the social and political state; and of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born and under whose protection they draw their first breath. …”

Palmetto Patriot dug up this quote several years ago:

“The emotional climax of Preston’s address came toward the end. “Gentlemen of Virginia,” he called. The people of the South “are not canting fanatics, festering in the licentiousness of abolition and amalgamation; their liberty is not a painted strumpet, straggling through the streets; no does their truth need to baptize itself in pools of blood.” No, he cried, Southerners “are a calm, grave, deliberate and religious people, the holders of the most majestic civilization and the inheritors, by right, of the fairest estate of liberty.”

Note: The fight against the Yankee mindset and wage slavery must be renewed.

About Hunter Wallace 9512 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

11 Comments

  1. No there is no such thing as pure Liberty there are just forms of slavery that are more agreeable than others. True anarchy would exist as long as it would take a few men to double up their fist or to tsake some firearms to the masses. Nature abhors a vacuum and a anarchy leaves a power vacuum that is fastly filled, by other men, and you usually end up with a tyranny worse than you had before

    I am from New York and have a Norman name Anglo-Norman/Hiberno-Norman. How about the ultimate heresy a Calvalier can take ? America asking if breaking away from the monarchy of Britain has severely screwed things up ? We of British ancestry, just so happening to break away from Great Britain (of no doing of ourselves) would agree the real British, not New England British, would never have let the lower races be on equal terms as themselves (ourselves ?). All this talk of the south rising again. No hanks I’d rather kiss a legimitate princess on the cheek. Also, there has no been a legitimate king of England since Richard the III and Shakespeare portrayed him unfairly. The masses fell out of love with the aristocracy and monarchy because there hasn’t been legit ones on France and England in centuries. The real British and French monarchy is of the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Constantine usurped it from the Merovingians using the Carolingnians and the Tinker nobility and middle classes stole it from the British in Britain.

    P.S. my family DeBurgh(Burke) wrote the official book Burke’s Peerage on the landed Gentry in Ireland, England, Scotland and American in like the 1800’s in London.

    • “No thanks I’d rather kiss a legimitate princess on the cheek. ”

      Then go ‘suck face’ with Mulatto Markle, and tell me how THAT British Royal is doing US (or you) ANY GOOD!?

      Royalty (like intellect) is earned as much as it is deserved. The Modern Royal house of the UK has less inherent nobility than many intelligent commoners in Eire, Scotland, the countryside of England or the Midwest of the USA, if this is the model to which you appeal.
      Puke.

    • >>No there is no such thing as pure Liberty there are just forms of slavery that are more agreeable than others. True anarchy would exist as long as it would take a few men to double up their fist or to tsake some firearms to the masses. Nature abhors a vacuum and a anarchy leaves a power vacuum that is fastly filled, by other men, and you usually end up with a tyranny worse than you had before.

      This would be a bad thing, why?

      The weak should fear the strong.
      The strong should fear the crazy.

  2. Wow, pretty deep stuff. Does anyone know if there is an archive of the old “Golden Circle” podcasts?

  3. You have not considered the modifications that will be made to Yang’s “dividend reimbursements” before they can make it through Congress, sir.
    Certain racial groups along with their monkey congressmen (and women…) will demand “they Reparations!!”…and there we are. Black families will recieve EXTRA and BOOM,..how “equal” will that be, Griffin?
    Think it won’t happen that way? Wait and see..

    • It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.

      The Tupamaros, in Uruguay, largely funded themselves with state welfare payments. You could too, if you’re still into the “Cold Dead Hands” thing.

      Beats more typical means of raising funds for would-be Aryan Warriors (i.e. cooking meth and robbing banks).

  4. And they’ll TAKE your UBI if you don’t have health insurance…just sayin’..
    That, and good ole’ corporate amurrica will just raise prices on necessary items like gas and food when the UBI comes into effect, (..if ever.)
    Do you think even if Yang took office tomorrow, everybody would get their checks the following month?!? No. Just like Trump’s wall, it’ll never manifest in the way you’re hoping it will. It’ll be blocked, held up, amended beyond recognotion or original intent if ever passed. Meanwhile, gun control legislation will be on greased skids as well as more aid to Israel…
    Are you going to address ANYTHING I have stated, or is it too much practical reality to deal with?

  5. We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a while. For you must not forget that we can also build. It is we who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and America and everywhere. We, the workers. We can build others to take their place. And better ones. We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing in this minute.

Comments are closed.