Quite a good read. I'm interested if anyone can spot any holes in any of this information. Porter's not Christian, so there are a few jabs at Christianity. I suspect his claim that Jєωs were far more likely to be traders of slaves than owners is probable, but that he underestimates the percentage of Jєωs owning slaves. I also have, I think, a more elastic definition of Jєωιѕнness than he does. There are lots of Jєωs, as the present and history attests, who won't say they're Jєωιѕн on a census. He's also only talking about slave owners in the United States, and not including Jєωs who owned plantations in the Caribbean.

I read somewhere, years back, that in colonial times there was a period early on when slavery was against the law but that some Jєωs bought off some of the leaders to legalize it. Don't know if there's any truth to that.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/slaveryblog.htm

SLAVERY, INDIANS AND MULATTOES blog

[excerpts from exchange with a White nationalist who believed that most slaves were owned by Jєωs]

No, I don't believe that all or even most slave holders were Jєωs. About 10% per cent of all whites owned slaves, although 5% might well be correct. Slaves were a necessity because they were immune to tropical diseases, also there was the rationalization of baptising them, Christianizing them, saving them from being eaten or tortured to death, typical Christian do-good stuff.

In 1860 there were 28 million white people in the whole country, plus 4 million slaves. New Orleans might have been a special case, if what you say is true. First, I do not believe that slave holding was ipso facto immoral at all.

According to your theory Washington, Jefferson, Lee, etc. were just exceptions and all other plantations were owned by Jєωs! I see no evidence of this, although no doubt Jєωs, free blacks and American Indians owned slaves, too. How many, I don't know. The only study based on actual statistics and archive records, like testamentary bequests, contracts of purchase and sale and census records, is TIME ON THE CROSS, by Fogel. The author claims that there are millions of pages of archive docuмents which have never been studied, because they are too voluminous (and because nobody wants to be accused of trying to “whitewash slavery”).

Most accounts of slavery are based on eyewitness accounts by travellers, who may not have understood what they were seeing and were often wrong.  I see nothing wrong with holding slaves if they are treated humanely, which they were.

That the Jєωs invested financially in plantations, yes, at interest, the same way they invest in Broadway plays. It is simply untrue that slavery was cruel and it is also untrue that the mulattoes resulted from mass interracial sex and/or rape by whites.
It is not difficult to disprove the alleged cruelty of North American slavery, at least in the South. A few isolated cases, more likely in the North, I would think. One famous case I do know of, but an exception. A lot of legends, a few exaggerations of real cases, but it's obvious that slavery as practiced in the South was not cruel and cannot have been cruel.

The American Indians owned slaves, too, sometimes other Indians, sometimes whites, but very often blacks as well. The Creeks became largely Negroid as a result, and the case of the Seminoles is very well known. They're black.

Most sources say only 10% of all Southerners owned slaves. But most of those owned very few, maybe 2 or 3, maybe most often just 1. They worked beside them in the fields and were simply treated as hired help. So the number of large slave holders must have been very small, 5% or less. John Randolph of Roanoke was said to have owned 300 slaves, but that was in the 18th century and I don't know how that figure was computed.

Robert E Lee was said to have been one of the biggest slave holders in the South and he only owned 55 slaves. He freed them during the war, sent them back to Africa, and received letters from them through the blockade. He obviously taught them to read and write.

Nathaniel Bedford Forrest had approximately 40 or 45 slaves, and is said to have offered them their freedom win or lose if they would fight with him, and most of them did. Very few refused. One, named Napoleon, is said to have escaped Yankee captivity several times and returned to Forrest.

There was never one single case of a slave rebellion at any time during the entire war, even though the men were all off in the army and the women, children and blacks ran the plantations. Think about it. You live in a big expensive wooden house – some plantation homes were built of brick, but this was unusual -- with lots of windows, and you're surrounded by flammable crops most of the year. Any injustice to a slave will become known to every other person of negroidal ancestry for miles around, including the house-persons of negroidal ancestry owned by everybody you know -- friends, enemies, relatives and neighbors -- which means that your family will find out sooner or later. And you’re going to go around raping slaves under these circuмstances?  

Plus your slaves have access to fire, to heavy farm tools, and they're not locked in or chained up at night. Even if they were, what’s to prevent them from burning your crops during the daytime? Do you have a fire brigade? Probably the best you could manage would be a bucket brigade from the nearest swamp.

During the two Cuban wars of Independence, the guerrillas -- most of whom were freed or escaped slaves -- roamed the island burning crops and attacking the plantation houses. So the houses were built like forts, fire-proof, bullet-proof adobe or stone walls 3 feet thick, slits for windows, gun ports in all the walls, etc. Southern plantations were never built that way.
What happens if you're talking to 5 blacks hoeing a garden and one of them hits you on the head with a tool from behind? Slave owners were very vulnerable. But nothing happened at any time during the whole war. The closest thing to it was a Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862 which killed 800 people in 6 weeks, almost all of them women and children. This never happened in the South at any time during the war.

In any case Jєωs have never shown an interest in farming.

The fact that the slave markets or exchanges were closed on Jєωιѕн holidays does not prove that the slave OWNERS were Jєωs, only that most of the TRADERS were Jєωs, many of whom were also importers, at least in a financial sense. No Jєω will ever concentrate on purely business matters if he has the slightest chance of concentrating on the purely financial end of the business. Henry Ford offered 1000 dollars to anyone who could produce even one Jєωιѕн farmer, and the money was never claimed.

I think French Louisiana must have been a special case in most ways, which I'll explain. The English and Scots came to the New World with their families, the only nationalities to do so. The Spanish, French and Portuguese were all single men and always mated with native women. The Latin races have always been less adverse to race mixing than the Anglo-Saxons. Louisiana was a huge territory, easily equal to 5 or 6 modern US states. For this reason, large numbers of mulattoes must have originated in that area of the United States, rather than elsewhere. In Canada, the French produced tens of thousands of “métis”, mixed race Indians, just as the Spanish produced millions of “mestizos” in Central America.

TIME ON THE CROSS states flatly that Southern white men were not attracted to full-blooded blacks, and that all known free black prostitutes in the South were mulattoes. He also asserts that nothing could be kept secret in the crowded atmosphere of a Negro slave quarters, and the stories of race-mixing and white rape of blacks are pure myth.

Many people assume that because most American persons of negroidal ancestry are anywhere up to 75% white, that there must have been a lot of interracial sex going on, including rape by whites. In fact, there is no evidence of this and it goes against all logic. At the risk of having to explain the birds and the bees all over again, mulattoes can be produced in 3 ways: sex between a white person and a full-blooded person of negroidal ancestry (the whites involved being almost invariably sailors, sealers, itinerant workers, transients, bargemen, i.e., really scuмmy people), or sex between mulattoes and persons of negroidal ancestry -- which is always very rare, because mulattoes constitute a unique racial and cultural group in all countries, and are always cordially hated by full-blooded persons of negroidal ancestry -- or sex between mulattoes themselves.
 
 You could put a million mulattoes down on a desert island on planet Mars and in a million years they'd still all be mulattoes. The added ingredient of sex with whites is not required, must less interracial rape.

According to some sources, there was quite of bit of interracial sex in the slave trade, but only between the top officers and a few slaves kept apart during the voyage, women they picked out before they were mixed with the others in the hold. There are always women willing to “put out” to obtain better conditions, so if that is rape, then so is everything that happens in Hollywood between producers, agents (or people like JFK) and potential starlets.

You may be very sure that ordinary seamen avoided their slave cargoes during the voyage because of the danger of disease. Hugh Thomas’s HISTORY OF THE TRANSLATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE cites many cases in which the death rate was higher among the white crew than among the Negro cargo! Remember, blacks are largely immune to tropical disease, while whites are not.  
Another problem is that Northern soldiers raped many thousands of Negro slaves during the cινιℓ ωαr, and persons of negroidal ancestry raped many thousands of white women during Reconstruction.

Then you had a century during which white trash women were free to go looking for their more or less imaginary “big male membra” the same way they do today. Segregation was not strictly enforced among white trash, that's what made them trash. Or rather, it was enforced by excluding white trash from all dealings with decent people (with some occasional physical chastisement). In any case, no white Southerner ever cohabited openly with a Negro woman, like Thaddeus Stevens of the North.

Some persons of predominantly negroidal ancestry on www.youtube.com describes this, it might have been David James Manning, white women looking to get picked up by persons of negroidal ancestry. His mama told him that any white woman that would look for a male person of negroidal ancestry would have to be trash.

On white soldiers raping female persons of negroidal ancestry, see Walter Cisco's WAR CRIMES AGAINST SOUTHERN CIVILIANS. David L. Hoggan, DAS BLINDE JAHRHUNDERT [The Blind Century], Part I, Chapter III, pp. 170-176, claims that persons of negroidal ancestry raped "hundreds of thousands" of white women after the war. But never DURING the war. Cisco cites one slave woman who said she "never saw a Yankee yet that wasn't common as dirt". Typical negroidal ancestry-lovers.
Just found an interesting book, Jєωιѕн PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN by Edward Kritzler. That's a new one to me. I thought Jєωs were too cowardly for that. I would have expected them to finance piracy through limited companies, and so on.
Fogel even claims that only about a third of all slave plantations had white overseerers! What does that tell you?
I'm sure Jєωs owned a lot of slaves, but only indirectly, only financially, they would never want to bother with making them work and worry about getting the crops in. There may have been a few exceptions, somebody like Judah P Benjamin. If you research his life you'll probably find the answer. You can bet they dominated the trade, owned the exchanges, advanced money at interest to buy them, etc. But who wants the trouble of actually owning persons of negroidal ancestry? I wouldn't give you a nickel for 10 of them.

I think the figure would be about 5% of white Southerners, apart from those that owned only one. And what about the native Amerindians from eastern Siberia? The Cherokees even fought for the Confederacy! Or at least a faction of them. The last Confederate general to surrender is sometimes said to have been a Cherokee Indian named Stand Watie.
Plus, you know why the American Indians, the Tasmanians, and so on, died out as a race, to the extent that they did? The Indians, because they killed each other off, then intermarried with their captives to keep their numbers up. Some of these captives were whites, whom they kidnapped and kept as slaves, while the Tasmanians, like all non-white races, treated their women as slaves and sold them to white sealers for a bag of flour or sugar. They raided each other for women, so the tribe that lost the war couldn't reproduce, then they sold the women to white sealers, who treated them better than their own people, and now the Tasmanians claim we made them extinct!
 
 See also Darwin,VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE, on the way the Tierra del Fuegians treated THEIR women!
There are a lot of Tasmanians still alive, but they are 31/32nds white. So by what right does the 1/32 presume to lecture us?
Whites took over America, and Canada when the whole continent was almost empty. There were never more than 10 million Indians on the whole continent, the whole hemisphere, most of them in Central America. Now they lie and say, “There used to be 150 million of us, now there are x hundred thousand, that proves you murdered the rest of us”. There is no proof of this. It's like saying "There used to be a million elephants around here. There are no elephants now. That proves we killed a million elephants".
 
 The French Canadian film LES INVASIONS BARBARES ("The Barbarian Invasions", actually a comedy about the collapse of the Canadian public health care system), claims that “Without the atomic bomb and with gas chambers, the Spanish and Portuguese exterminated 150 million Indians. Then the English exterminated 50 million more. The biggest massacre in the history of the world took place right here, all around us”.

But those 200 million people never existed in the first place! This is very easy to prove. A whole continent (North American), much of it arid, mountainous or forested, with no cities to speak of, except in Central America and parts of South America; no aquaducts, no irrigation, no large-scale farming, no transport systems (they never even invented the wheel), and we're supposed to believe that both these continents were the most thickly populated areas on earth, more so than Europe or China?
The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (remember, no new information on Indian population figures has come to light since the 16th century) estimates the total number of Indians in the whole Western Hemisphere at 10 million, most of them in Central America. NUMBERS FROM NOWHERE by David Henige describes the manner in which these fantastic population figures have been fabricated, based on purely mathematical extrapolations based on assumptions read into just a few Spanish words.
 
 For example, they see the word “casados”, which means either married men counted apart from their wives, or married couples. They decide that the men were counted separately, so they double the number. Then they “postulate”, which means they imagine, a 98% population decline and multiply that number by 50. Or 99% and multiply by 100. Same with “casa”, “pueblo”, and other words. They say, OK, how many people per house, how many houses per village, how many villages per kilometre, how many kilometres, assuming that everything is uniform over tens of thousands of square miles, and come up with some fantastic figure which is purely speculative. It’s a huge fraud.
 
 Even the huge epidemics have been grossly exaggerated. One historian made up the lie of a huge smallpox epidemic wiping out practically both continents, North and South America together. There are no Indian records of this, no pockmarked Indians, nothing. So they made up the lie that the disease spread faster than the white man could travel, while the incubation period lasted so long that the disease didn’t break out until the white man was no longer there and couldn’t see it. This was said to have included the entire American South West. But Fernando de Soto travelled 1500 miles, back and forth along the same route, staying in the same Indian villages on his way out, and his way back, both, and he saw nothing of the sort.
 
 Until well into the 1930s, in fact, until the 1960s, the standard estimate of North American Indian populations found in all encyclopaedias and reference works was 1 million Indians occupying 2 million miles of land. The Indians exterminated each other in war and then died out as a result of race-mixing with whites and Negroes, usually either captives or slaves. Sequoia, the inventor of the “Cherokee alphabet”, was half-German; his white name was George Guess. Historians quote the chroniclers and then delete all contemporary references to internecine warfare as a cause of Indian population decline. I recommend Henige very highly. He has also written several other books on the same subject. The “historians” also assume that if something is true mathematically, then it is true historically. Another trick is, whenever they come up with wildly disparate numbers, they simply "average" them. This gives a very exact-looking result. But it's rubbish.

 
In fact, at least 90% of the land was completely empty. In North America, 1 million Indians occupied 2 million square miles of land, starving, murdering and eating each other, torturing each other to death, living in misery. Francis Parkman describes a hunting party of 19 Iroquois who had nothing to eat for 3 days except for one porcupine and one rabbit. It is generally estimated that the greatest population density that can be supported by a hunting-gathering life style is 3 or 4 persons per square mile, or less.

The American Indians were the 19th century equivalent of Mexican drive-by shooters: they had to be defeated, disarmed, confined to reservations and made to stay there. There was no other way. This is why we cut down the forests, because anywhere there were trees, there were Indians. Just as the Australian Aborigine is perfectly adapted to life in the desert – they will sit in the shade of a tree and never move a muscle all day -- the Iroquois were perfectly adapted to life in the forests: they could lie down behind a log and conceal themselves under leaves and never move a muscle, for days. You come along and they bash your brains in.

2 million square miles of land occupied by 1 million people, most of them migrant bands of only a few hundred people who roamed thousands of square miles and only passed through most areas once or twice a year, if that? Sometimes for centuries nothing happened, but then for no reason they show up and butcher 300 white people by surprise, mostly women and children. And we're supposed to recognize a legitimate title to the whole continent on that basis? Apart from the fact that they were paid very large amounts of money for their land in many cases.

At worst, we treated them they way they treated each other. In the end, the Iroquois obtained firearms from Dutch traders and exterminated all the other related tribes, speaking related Iroquois languages, 5 whole tribes. There were none of them left except for a few who ran away all the way down into the USA someplace, the Wyandots, who are now found only in North Dakota, if memory serves. Plus, they're all more white than Indian anyway, since they adopted white captives into the tribe after massacring, torturing and eating all the others (they were all cannibals), so in the end they became more or less white and died out as a race. Same with the Tasmanians. They treated their women as slaves and sold them to white sealers for a few bags of tea or sugar, then they couldn't reproduce as a race, now they say we "exterminated" them. All the so-called "Tasmanians" today are about 31/32ths white, but they claim their status as "1/32th Tasmanians" gives them a right to criticize everybody else and demand money?

Plus the other original 1/32th, the original "one half" of the original "white fraction of 1/32", were the very same people they accuse of committing all the atrocities! Their own ancestors! By what right do they even call themselves “Tasmanians”? By what right do they demand money from us?  

By the Indians' own rules, we conquered them, so we own it.

The Mexican and Peruvian empires had no knowledge of each other's existence, but they both had a religious tradition of white gods. The Spanish exploited that, and the locals never recovered their manliness. Prescott calls the Peruvians "effeminate". They never got their act together even after they discovered that the Spaniards weren't gods at all! Peru was one of the most highly advanced, best organized societies that ever existed, millions of Indians, and it fell almost completely without a fight. The Jєωs did the same thing to us. We think they're "Israelites". The Spanish were never more than a few hundred men. The Jєωs did the same things to us that the Spanish did to the Mexicans and Peruvians. Exploited all their weaknesses.

Sources:
 CONQUEST OF MEXICO and CONQUEST OF PERU by William H. Prescott
 HISTORY OF THE JESUITS IN NORTH AMERICA IN THE 17th CENTURY by Francis Parkman
 HISTORY OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE by Hugh Thomas
 THE FALSIFICATION OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY vols 1 and 3 by Keith Windschuttle, Macleay Press, Australia
 NUMBERS FROM NOWHERE by David Henige
 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Indians”, plus look up individual tribes. Very interesting table at the end of the article on "Indians" describes most of the New York tribes as "more white than Indian" or "Indians in name only".
 COMING OF THE cινιℓ ωαr by Avery Craven
 TIME ON THE CROSS: The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman
 THE MARTIAL SPIRIT by Walter Millis (Spanish-American War, Cuba)