Yesterday we touched upon what makes the natural aristocrat. The natural slave is merely the polar opposite - one who is incapable of handling freedom in any shape or form, so they must be constantly monitored and coerced in order to keep in line. This is the person who is referred to when it is said "do what thou wilt, save watch the policeman on the corner."
And they are quite worthless, for sans some form of coercion:
They cannot be trusted to be a husband, because marriage is slavery and they should be allowed to dump their wife the moment they get bored of them.
They cannot be trusted to be a mother, because children are slavery and they should be allowed to kill the kid the moment they get bored, or if they cry too much at night.
They cannot be trusted to honour a business contract, because despite voluntarily signing on the dotted line, they feel that being made to stick to the clauses they agreed to without duress would be slavery.
They can't be trusted to meet up with someone for drinks, because they feel that they should be allowed to flake if and when the fancy strikes them. You want to hold me to my word? Slavery!
They can't be trusted to work without supervision, they can't be trusted to not steal their employer's property, they can't be trusted to put their back in and stand a line even if they may not desire to at that very moment -
- They believe must be allowed to execute their every momentary whim and desire, regardless of prior words or commitments, or else that's slavery. Every responsibility, every commitment, every promise, every contract, every expectation.
Love yourself, too, and take whatever is needed for your benefit – after all, isn’t mankind one big happy family? Is this word a giant pot-luck? Eat whatever you want, protest whatever you want, sue whomever you want, and fuck whomever you want – with no regard for yourself, for your children, for your country, or for what the future consequences are.Well, what can we do with such people? Remember, the point of a reactionary society is not to cull such degenerates, but give such people a space or exile them to a society where they will have one. The latter simply makes such degenerates someone else's problem, and it eventually has to be dealt with. There is no need to cull them even if moral qualms were made irrelevant; under a traditional society free association and that small, uncomfortable pain at the bottom will cause it to be naturally eugenic.
Don’t judge, just live!
And always be true to yourself.
Do note that this is, like the natural aristocrat, a natural slave is a fairly rare thing. The societal narrative is often enough to provide some form of paternalism to the cognitive miser mass man; Billy may be paralysed at the thought of striking out on his own and becoming a world-travelling author who bangs women and writes books for a living, but he can choose between taking up an apprenticeship with the welder or interning at the local law office some years down the road. Jenny may not be able to choose from a whole city's worth of men, but certainly is able to pick between Pete Plumber, Louie Lawyer and Simon Surgeon while her father keeps Harley McBadboy away.
Freedom is not a binary thing, but a spectrum. Neither Billy nor Jenny are able to handle the full-blown fruits of freedom without ruining themselves, and yet they're able to manage some limited form of freedom. They are not natural slaves. Where do we find natural slaves, then? Well, repeat offenders in prison would be a good one. Or in those who feel no shame in being on welfare and consider it a right. Or in the slut who can't help but seek greater and greater oxytocin rushes. Habitual liars and backstabbers, frauds and cheats.
Billy and Jenny can at least be expected to hold their word and deal with responsibilities thrust upon them as befits their station in the grand hierarchy of life. Natural slaves cannot.
If masters and slaves were better off than employers and employees, an economist would ask, why could they not just cut a deal to do what they previously did, only without chains and beatings, do the same tasks in the same way, only as employees?
The answer to that question is: that the former slaves, once freed, could not credibly commit to stick to such a deal, and generally did not stick to such a deal, thus economically worse off. Stupid people, prone to violence, with short time horizons, needed masters.
-JimThe greatest irony is that in decrying any form of binding commitment as slavery, natural slaves make themselves fit for nothing save that very institution, which is well-suited to take care of these pathetic excuses for human beings. I find it quite fitting and delicious.
Oh, on a last note, think about this: if I ask you what your problem is with slavery, and you immediately cite the cruelty of a slaveowner, the pain of being whipped and the exhausting labour, what you're telling me is that you don't really have a problem with slavery per se. You just dislike cruel slaveowners.