The liberty of the slaves

The Dark Enlightenment and neoreaction recommend reading old books, and taking them seriously as the works of civilizations whose knowledge we have lost and whose institutions and social order we no longer understand, reading them to find out what evils Chesterton’s fences once held back.

Thermidor has noticed a great gem in Seneca: That the modern conception of liberty is the liberty that the Romans allowed to slaves and small children, but not, however, to free adult male Roman citizens:

This needs to be added to the Canon:

It is perfectly natural, normal, and indeed, inevitable that those who studiously affect the manners and habits proper to slaves- whether they are self-aware of it or not- should get the type of rule they have coming to them, namely slavery. …

In this respect, the blue-pill mytho-history of Progress, with its story of a historical ascent from darkness and despotism to an enlightened age of Liberty under the “rule of law” is a mirror-image in which the facts of modern history appear in reverse. From the red-pilled point of view, the historical trajectory runs in the opposite direction. What actually happened is that Westerners, much like the clueless teenage girl who runs away from the home of her firm but loving parents only to end up becoming tattooed as property by some outlaw biker and tricked out on the streets with an arm and a pimp to feed, quit a life of moderate subjection under the intrinsically lawful and just auspices of throne and altar for a perhaps more exciting, but perilously more dangerous and in any case, degraded and dehumanized life- one that additionally turns out to be rather less than perfectly liberating when it is already too late to go back.

12 Responses to “The liberty of the slaves”

  1. Ulick McGee says:

    Fate of Empires.

    Is it too late? Do we already need that secret Foundation on Trantor? Or can the Right create a School between virtual pillars teaching great books for men with compulsory meatspace fight clubs locally to weed out travesties, whores and autistes?

  2. viking says:

    Im not so sure anyone really believes in total freedom the argument seems to be who will set the boundaries or where they shall be.Not only my boundaries but the boundaries of the other guy that might effect me.everyone thinks there position is best of course and that can be settled by war though many think it will be a temporary settlement,but those looking for a compromise are all over the board.
    Its worth noting whites have always been the more freedom people and a good case can be made its what makes our lower IQ and other civilizational traits less important.which is to say no matter how wise we may think it to wind down the freedom it may not be possible with us we may be bred to not tolerate authority well. That isnt to say the present situation is good.The cathedral seems to have solved the problem by mind control and addiction but of course that a waste of human capital.

    • viking says:

      While it is true there were many wits talking up freedom at the same time as men were freeing themselves, I think its wrong to think the talk is what caused it and other talk can put the serfs back in the bottle.However most people dont want more freedom than they can handle, provide them good government and tell them they are free and they will behave and support punishing bad behavior.Cathedral as propaganda that transforms democracy into fascism is quite brilliant its just badly directed.I dont think you will ever be able to tell white men they are subjects like you can asian men

  3. pdimov says:

    This Thermidor article is exceptionally good.

  4. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Somewhat tangential, but i dimly recall in an earlier comment section someone bringing up the subject of ancient greek oratory record (more specifically the wealth of occasional discourses on all sorts of topics the proponents made decisions for or against), and quoted an exerpt from one speaker in particular (the passage im trying to find now) on the subject of sending their city-state’s military after some other city-state.

    Does anyone else have the link/remember that?

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    It was Christianity, really. The notion that you serve a greater sovereign than the King. Once the religious opened the barn door on state authority, then the nihilists and libertines wedged it open and burned the barn down.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Such is why the high priest and the grand marshal must be the same office.

    • peppermint says:

      That’s an objection to cuckstainty I haven’t thought of. The gods of the past would tell kings what they should do and kings would choose something else at their peril, but wouldn’t order kings or morally compel them, and the moot and the lawspeaker would be able to admonish or depose a king of he was ruining the nation.

      According to the Beatitudes, the poor are blessed – thus they should rule.

    • Steel T Post says:

      Christianity is the Jews’ revenge on Roman civilization.

Leave a Reply