The more you know (media.patriots.win)          TOP  KEK    
posted ago by BeesWax2 ago by BeesWax2 +103 / -12
Comments (21)
sorted by:
I_Am_John_Galt 11 points ago +11 / -0

That was about being a property owner or not, correct?

BeesWax2 [S] 0 points ago +11 / -11

Yes, Most of the Europeans that first came here were "Bond-Slaves" and were known from the country they originated from, not that they were "white" That racial destnation was created in order to separate the European “Indentured Servants” from the African slave..

The Irish slave trade began when James II 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. IIreland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Not the kind of reception one would receive from a "White Nation", eh?

In fact, these White Nationalists today wouldn't be property owners, which were less than 1% of the colonial population, most likely they would've been whipped and beaten by their "White" Master.

The Constitution wasn't written for white men, it was written for property owners and taxpayers.

It got worse after Reconstruction, as poor Whites were treated just as poorly as newly-liberated Black slaves.

Whites have never truly been 'equal" to the American aristocracy that rules them. .... and the aristocracy is increasingly becoming non-white.

It's always been about Class, not Race. Don't let these race hustlers fool you.

wwwchae 3 points ago +3 / -0


AgnesDomini 2 points ago +2 / -0

From what is this meme derived?

SlapUp4 1 point ago +3 / -2

Everyone accepts that whites exist, are being genocided, and need to stick together.

So... Fuck off with you anti-white bullshit.

BeesWax2 [S] -4 points ago +8 / -12

Caucasians aren't being genocided, they just quit having kids because of abortions, contraception, and the "we'll-have-kids-after-our-careers-take-off" lifestyle. You brought it on yourselves.

EgalitarianismIsEvil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, and they are not being passed over for positions either. All of those affirmative-action programs are just a figment of their imaginations too. Those policies don't really exist. No has written anything that is anti-white either. That's all a lie.

deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
BeesWax2 [S] -6 points ago +8 / -14

...... and the White Nationalists here won't debate me because they know it's true. They've been pulling this "White Identity" bullshit on people for a while now. Today, the grift is over

Northernrebel 3 points ago +3 / -0

You saying white people didn't exist until 1691?

BeesWax2 [S] -2 points ago +8 / -10

Here's something else the White Nationalists don't want you to know.


"The establishment of Jamestown in Virginia by English colonists occurred 400 years ago in 1607. From the beginning, Jamestown was a crude, rough, and turbulent community of mostly young Englishmen who came to seek their fortunes and return home. They planned to emulate the Spanish; to obtain wealth by conquering and enslaving the native peoples, and forcing them to produce gold and silver. However, the Indians didn’t take well to slavery; many died of European diseases and others escaped to unknown territories. Also there was no gold and silver immediately available; but settlers soon discovered a crop, tobacco, whose trade would bring them wealth.

But growing and processing tobacco required very hard work. The greatest problem the colonists constantly faced was lack of labor; many settlers would not or could not do such intensive work. Within a decade, the colony began to import indentured servants, mostly from England, and it was this pattern of servitude that provided a model for the slavery that was to come later. Servants were bought and sold, ill-fed, ill-clothed, and poorly-housed. They were punished cruelly for petty crimes. Mortality was high, but the surplus poor emigrating from England in the early 17th century had few choices. If they survived the period of debenture, usually 4-7 years in the New World, they could be set free, allowed to acquire land and servants, and to make their fortunes for themselves. However, there were many degrees of servitude; and most did not survive. In 1619, the first Africans arrived. There has been some debate about who they were, but we know that they had Spanish or Portuguese names and were already familiar with European culture. In the US it is widely and popularly believed that the colonists brought Africans to the New World as slaves from the beginning and that Europeans were “naturally” prejudiced toward Africans because of their physical characteristics, specifically dark skin. Historians now hold that true slavery did not exist in the early decades of the English North American colonies (see Allen 1997, Fredrickson 2002, E. Morgan 1975, P. Morgan 1998, Parent, Jr. 2003, among others). Englishmen were unfamiliar with the institution. They saw their society as a free one, based on free labor, and believed that English laws had terminated all forms of slavery centuries before their arrival in the Americas. But they were familiar with many forms of bond servitude which they saw as unfree labor, and some men who purchased headrights to laborers treated them as if they were slaves for life. Masters were often brutal; they flogged servants for disobedience, or cut off their ears, or put skewers through their tongues. But the settlers were also callous and cruel toward one another. Often servants were called slaves, and a distinction between servitude and slavery was not at all clear. Consequently, the first Africans who arrived in Jamestown were not initially or uniformly perceived as slaves (Parent 2003). They were assimilated into the colony as laborers under varying contracts like those of Europeans. Some Africans worked off their debts and became freedmen. A few ambitious men obtained land and livestock, built substantial houses, married, and established themselves as well-to-do planters. Some became entrepreneurs and engaged in trading and other commercial activities and had business dealings on an equal footing with whites. One famous family, that of Anthony Johnson and his two sons owned more than 440 acres of land; they also had headrights for, (that is, owned) three Africans, three Europeans and two Indians as servants. They exercised the same rights as propertied Europeans. They participated in the assembly, the governing body of the colony, voted, served on juries, and socialized with white planters. Like their white counterparts, free black property owners were often contemptuous of government, arrogant and insulting toward those considered their social inferiors, assertive of their rights, and prone to fighting. In fact, numerous court records provide clear evidence that these 17th century Africans did not act differently from whites of the same social class. Edmund Morgan wrote, “There is more than a little evidence that Virginians during these years were ready to think of Negroes as members or potential members of the community on the same terms as other men and to demand of them the same standards of behavior. Black men and white serving the same master worked, ate, and slept together, and together shared in escapades, escapes, and punishments” (1975, 327). “It was common for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together” (1975, 327).

No stigma was associated with what we today call intermarriages. Black men servants often married white women servants. Records from one county reveal that one fourth of the children born to European servant girls were mulatto (Breen and Ennis 1980). Historian Anthony Parent (2003) notes that five out of ten black men on the Eastern Shore were married to white women. One servant girl declared to her master that she would rather marry a Negro slave on a neighboring plantation than him with all of his property, and she did (P. Morgan 1998). Given the demographics, servant girls had their choice of men. One white widow of a black farmer had no problem with remarrying, this time to a white man. She later sued this second husband, accusing him of squandering the property she had accumulated with her first husband (E. Morgan 1975, 334). In another case, a black women servant sued successfully for her freedom and then married the white lawyer who represented her in court"

BeesWax2 [S] -2 points ago +8 / -10

The classification of "white" being a race didn't exist. In fact, you could say when the first African-Americans arrived in Virginia in 1619, there were no “white” people there to greet them. That came later. Racial slavery constituted a ruling class response to a problem of labor solidarity. "Bacon's Rebellion", an armed rebellion of European and African bond laborers against the Virginia Governor that took place from 1676 to 1677, so shook up the English Crown that a system of racial privileges for the property-less “whites” was deliberately instituted in order to align them on the side of the plantation owner against the African-American bond laborers.

Northernrebel 0 points ago +1 / -1

No whites but there were african amicans? Interesting, so what color were the colonizers then?

BeesWax2 [S] -2 points ago +8 / -10

The colonizers were identified by their nationality, not their skin color. In fact, the English never considered the Irish to be white. They believed the Irish "race" was the "Milesian Race", because the genuine Irish (Celtic) people were supposed to be descended from Milesius of Spain, whose sons, say the legendary accounts, invaded and possessed themselves of Ireland a thousand years before Christ. Yet the English and the Irish both have the same white skin.

Northernrebel 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are men who think they're women doesn't change the fact that they have a dick.

BeesWax2 [S] -9 points ago +1 / -10

There is more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world put together. If you take someone from Ethiopia and someone from the Sudan, they are more likely to be genetically different from each other than anyone else on the planet! The genetic make-up of African Americans is even stranger, the average ethnicity estimate is 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American. The modern science of genetics proves there is no such thing as race.

Northernrebel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Africans are a different species

Jjones23 0 points ago +1 / -1

Stephen Hawking’s flaccid dick personified

jimmityjimjimjim 0 points ago +1 / -1

Christ Compels you to Accept Him as your Lord, Savior and Messiah.

Fabius 0 points ago +1 / -1

Thanks, Rabbi.

We're good.

BeesWax2 [S] -9 points ago +1 / -10

I hope everyone takes cues from my comments below and does their own research. The race hustlers on this discussion board have been given way too much "breathing room" for their ugly, misguided ideology and need to have more people pushing back on their garbage.