Slavery is a Crime Against White People, regardless of its Forms

[natmanwhite]

This is my opinion on slavery based on 7 years of non-mainstream media, white nationalist research and my own view point

REASONS WHY SLAVERY IS A CRIME AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF ITS FORMS
(note: when I say "all its forms", I refer to more than the white-enslave-black trope that has between pressed into the public's brains by the jew-controlled media and education system)

1. Slavery is the reason White Americans have been stuck with Blacks and (by extension) their problems for almost 3 centuries .

2. Slavery is just extremely cheap labor, which destroys jobs and creates poor living conditions for non-enslaved whites

3. Slavery, like cheap labor, brings another (often incompatible) race in great numbers close to white people.

4. Slavery generally sucks, even it consists of white slaves with benevolent (for slave-owners anyway) masters

Please reply to this topic as I'm interested in discussing my points with others and reading your opinions

[White_Vengeance]

Yes, slavery was--and continues to be--a horrendous crime that has historically been committed against White Europeans. Here is my supporting "thesis" on the subject of slavery against White Europeans in America.

The first subhuman, barbaric, feral simian tootsoons were brought to America sometime around 1619-1620. So, the original watermelon-shuckin', jungle savage moulinyans and their various and sundry descendants—none of which can be traced, even biologically—have been unlawfully domiciled in America for over 400 years.

So, anyhow, piss on the spear-chuckin', knuckle-draggin, predatory organism tootsoons; they'll never see even a tarnished copper penny for their ridiculous claims of "reparations." When we REAL White warriors cross the second threshold and amass our heavily-armed revolutionary brigades and launch the most explosive, bloody, violent Civil War in the entire history of the world, the few remaining jig-a-boos—those that have not been destroyed, annihilated, and eviscerated—will be forcibly placed onto leaky banana boats heading back to sub-Saharan Africa. For the few banana boats that do not sink in the Atlantic Ocean, the remaining tootsoons will be back home, in the "mudda land," sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, back in sub-Saharan Africa, where the barbaric, woolly-headed cannibals will be free to wear grass skirts; live in primitive mud huts (the likes of which beavers construct much better); chuck spears to their heart's content; dine on ghetto lobster; oook and eeek in their primitive jungle "language"; receive their medical care and "health care" from the tribal witch doctor; pray to, and worship, goats, zebras, chimpanzees, and llamas; use their "high-technology," "ultra-modern" mode of transportation, swinging on vines, to transport themselves from point "A" to point "B"; and lounge around in polluted, diseased mud puddles, which they will call "a restful vacationing" in a sauna.

Yeah...screw the willy-be-crap-skinned, blubber-lipped, blue-gummed tootsoons and screw, also, their claims for reparations.

The real question is when and how these genetically-deformed, freaks-of-nature, biologically mutated savages are going to pay reparations to the Irish slaves who were treated far, far worse than the spear-chuckin', web-footed moulinyans? There were THREE TIMES AS MANY Irish slaves in America as there were low IQ, indolent, backwards tootsoons. Yes, my White Nationalist brothers and sisters, that is a fact: there were Irish slaves in America, too. Hell, some of them just might have been MY ancestors and forefathers. After all, I am a White European of five (5) distinct European nationalities, with more than a trace of Irish ancestry, descendancy, and heritage coursing through my White veins.

Historical sources maintain that the plight of Irish slaves in early America was worse than that of negro (i.e., moulinyan) slaves. Early in America's history, White Irish slaves outnumbered negro slaves by 300-percent (> 300%) and endured far worse treatment at the hands of their masters.

A facet of American history largely unfamiliar to Americans themselves is the role of indentured servant in the survival and growth of the original 13 colonies. The earliest settlers needed laborers, but only wealthy people could afford passage to the New World. This led to a system whereby those who lacked means were brought from Europe under contract to work off their passage, room, and board over a period of two to seven years, until they were considered to have earned their freedom. No fewer than half of the immigrants who came to the New World during the colonial period arrived as indentured servants.

Among the many hundreds-and-hundreds-of-thousands of impoverished Europeans brought over in this fashion were men, women, and children from England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Yugoslavia (no longer in existence, having been carved into three "ethically-pure" nations), France, Lithuania, Romania, Portugal, and elsewhere, but over the intervening centuries the notion has arisen that the Irish, in particular, were shipped to the New World as "White slaves."

In fact, according to an article first published on the Internet in 2008 and endlessly recirculated since, Irish slaves were not only common in early America, they were more common than the shufflin' tootsoon slaves, and often treated more harshly. The article making these claims is usually credited to an individual named John Martin, who, in turn, found most of his facts in a 2003 article by James F. Cavanaugh called "Irish Slaves in the Caribbean." It has gone by many names, but as of mid-2016, the most shared version of the Irish slave narrative was entitled "Irish: The Forgotten White Slaves," and posted under the byline of a man named Ronald Dwyer.

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children. Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don't really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know the facts about the feral simian moulinyan slave trade. But are we talking about African slavery? No, we are discussing Irish slavery. King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain's Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one's next-door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid-1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually White. Woven throughout is the implication that the reason so few Americans know anything about the so-called "forgotten" history of Irish slavery is that it has been excluded from "biased" history books.

That thousands of Irish people were carried across the sea against their will and indentured to serve on plantations isn't disputed. It happened. What's in question is whether or not they are rightly referred to as "slaves." Some writers, such as genealogist and Irish Times columnist John Grenham, ask why not [and I quote]:

"The labor they did was slave labor, and their circumstances were much worse than those of the indentured workers who traveled at the same time and later, not least because indentured work, though often harsh, was voluntary and time-limited. Refusing to call them slaves is quibbling.

Is it mere quibbling? Generically speaking, any form of forced labor can be called slavery. But what do we gain by doing so, besides blurring historical distinctions? Consider impressment, the 18th-century British naval practice of kidnapping young men and forcing them to serve on sailing vessels. That's slavery, in a sense. So is being sentenced to hard labor in prison. But while these share features in common with the institution of chattel slavery in America, they are on a whole separate plane."

It isn't "bias" that keeps legitimate historians from substituting the term "slavery" for "impressment," "hard labor," or even "forced indentured servitude." It's a simple respect for the facts. It has been conveniently covered up by dishonest, biased historians because they must have known that if the real, unvarnished facts were released into the public eye, and available for scrutiny, it would put a huge damper on the low IQ, slothful, barbaric tootsoons' non-stop demands for reparations. Shocking as it may seem, it might even elicit sympathy for the White Europeans, which is something that the leftist liberals, the egalitarians, the despotic federal government, and Dementia Joe Biden's Communist regime in America simply do not want to ever have happen.

So, just when, where, and how much will the subhuman, cannibalistic, feral simian moulinyans pay reparations to the descendants of the countless numbers of Irish slaves? I will be submitting further in-depth research to the NAACP (for "negroes Are Always Causing Problems") asking these very questions.

[White Man 1]

This is my opinion on slavery based on 7 years of non-mainstream media, white nationalist research and my own view point

REASONS WHY SLAVERY IS A CRIME AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF ITS FORMS
(note: when I say "all its forms", I refer to more than the white-enslave-black trope that has between pressed into the public's brains by the jew-controlled media and education system)

1. Slavery is the reason White Americans have been stuck with Blacks and (by extension) their problems for almost 3 centuries .

Although it is true that the slavery system brought the negros into our midst, I don't think the institution can be blamed for their remaining here. That is a much deeper, much more sinister problem that many good White men through the ages have sought to remedy, going back to the Founders and their American Colonization Society, an early effort to "send 'em all back to Africa". It was a concerted effort largely by radical abolitionists and industrial concerns that really kept the negro menace here.

2. Slavery is just extremely cheap labor, which destroys jobs and creates poor living conditions for non-enslaved whites

It may seem this way at first, but in reality the cost of keeping and maintaining livestock had become more and more expensive, and the technology that was quickly replacing them was becoming cheaper and cheaper. The institution of Slavery made sense when the frontier was sparsely populated and the prime crops were often very labor intensive; slaves were a tool at the landowner's disposal and they made the most of it. With inventions such as the cotton gin slave labor was becoming less and less necessary to process raw materials in the way it was before.

3. Slavery, like cheap labor, brings another (often incompatible) race in great numbers close to white people.

Absolutely true, which is why the only feasible solution to our racial problem is total separation.

4. Slavery generally sucks, even it consists of white slaves with benevolent (for slave-owners anyway) masters

I've read many Southern authors that point out the system of slavery in America was the most humane, possibly in history. George Fitzhugh is an excellent author to read on the subject. In fact, our system ended up pumping out the healthiest and wealthiest negros to have ever existed, although to our detriment.

Please reply to this topic as I'm interested in discussing my points with others and reading your opinions

[natmanwhite]

please explain "radical abolitionists and industrial concerns ", sir

[White Man 1]

Radical Abolitionists of the time argued for the total enfranchisement of the Negro and complete acceptance of them into White society. Their voices were one of the leading proponents of the invasion of the Southern States, and would play key roles in the "reconstruction" efforts after the war. As for Industrial concerns, the (largely northern) industrialists found that, in the beginning of the the 20th century, Negros would work longer hours for less pay, and actively courted them to flock to Northern cities to do just that, irreversibly changing the demographics in places like Detroit, St. Louis, and Chicago.