RSS
Jeff Fynn-Paul, Not Stolen: The Truth About European Colonialism in the New World, Bombardier Books, 2023, 386 pp., $17.26 (paper)
The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, opens every public lecture with this:
In the spirit of respect and reconciliation, we acknowledge that Perimeter Institute is located upon lands that have been inhabited by Indigenous peoples from the beginning. In particular we acknowledge the Haldimand Tract. We thank the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Neutral peoples for hosting us on their land.
There is something malodorous here. “Inhabited by Indigenous peoples” from the beginning of what? From the time of the arrival in North America of these “Indigenous peoples,” who were not, in fact, indigenous to the continent? Had the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Neutral peoples always possessed the land? Or did it change hands over time, well before the arrival of the White Man? If it did change hands, under what circumstances? Was the land sold by earlier indigenous peoples to the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Neutral peoples, or was it conquered or “stolen” by them? How did the White Man acquire it? Was it “stolen,” or bought fair and square?
It would be nice to know the answers to such questions — and others. Every so often I read a book with the aim of acquiring intellectual ammunition to use against leftists, just in case I get into an argument with one (something which, in all honesty, I try to avoid). Not Stolen belongs to this category of book. Its author is Jeff Fynn-Paul, Ph.D., a lecturer in history at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
His book promises, in 386 pages, to provide us with all the intellectual ammunition we need to counter leftist claims about how we “non-indigenous peoples” stole all the land from the “indigenous peoples” and tried to genocide them. The book delivers on this promise — up to a point. It is not without problems.
Scholarship on European colonialism in the New World is now, of course, completely dominated by the Left. Prof. Fynn-Paul writes that such scholarship is animated by a worldview that “is so rabidly anti-white, anti-male, and anti-European that it challenges the idea of human progress itself.” He correctly attributes a kind of “Western exceptionalism” to leftist historians, in that they assume that “Western colonies and colonists were worse than others, that Western ideologies were more cruel than others, and that Western economies were more brutal than others.”
In fact, by the time Europeans began enslaving blacks in the 16th century, Muslims had already enslaved millions over the course of nearly a thousand years. And they were particularly brutal about it: Unlike Europeans, the Arabs routinely castrated their male slaves. Yet, for the Left, Western slavery was exceptionally and uniquely bad. They also apparently think that it is the only slavery anybody needs to hear about.
However, it is not just the assumptions or prejudices of leftist scholars that are bad, it is also their methodology. They willfully overestimate populations and death tolls, cherry-pick evidence, suppress inconvenient facts, and take quotations out of context. The fraud is on such a large scale, and often so childishly clumsy, it is difficult to believe that those committing it are unaware of what they are doing. It would be too charitable to say that the resulting scholarship appeals to those already committed to a certain viewpoint; actually, it seems primarily to appeal to those unaccustomed to asking any questions about what they are told.
The heroes in this field include men like Ward Churchill, the highly influential author of such works as Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America and Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America. In 2007, Mr. Churchill was fired from the faculty of the University of Colorado Boulder for “research misconduct” (it takes some very serious “research misconduct,” we should note, to motivate a university to fire a fashionable, tenured leftist).
There are academic historians working in this field who have far more credibility than Mr. Churchill. The trouble, however, is that they often uncritically repeat the claims and rhetoric of Mr. Churchill and others like him. It has now become de rigueur for academics writing about Indians and settlers to employ the language of “stolen land” and “genocide,” even in otherwise objective histories.
The absence of such tropes might make publication difficult. The situation is not unlike that faced by those wishing to write objective histories of the Third Reich, who are expected ritually to condemn Hitler and the Nazis in at least one point in the text, the earlier the better. No such requirement applies, of course, to histories of the Soviet Union or Communist China.
The attitude of leftist historians toward the Indians, who they claim they are defending, is also predictably condescending. This seems always to be the case with whomever the Left takes up as a cause célèbre. Essentially, the Left portrays Indians as peaceful, happy-go-lucky flower children, living in harmony with nature and sharing all things. In every respect, this view is false to the point of absurdity.
Indians were extraordinarily violent and ethnocentric people, who were busy “genociding” each other long before Europeans allegedly tried it on them. They were also not exactly responsible stewards of the environment; they overkilled North American megafauna to the point of extinction long before Europeans arrived. The myth that they were primitive communists was exploded all the way back in 1881, when D.W. Bushyhead, chief of the Cherokee nation, wrote to Congress saying that “The statements made to you that we, or any of the Indians, are communists and hold property in common are entirely erroneous.”
Nor were the Indians the arch-traditionalists that, ironically, leftist historians have portrayed them as (tradition, you see, is fine so long as it is not practiced by white people). The Indian way of life evolved over time. Prof. Fynn-Paul notes that leftist accounts of Indians clinging for dear life to their “Indigenous traditions” in the face of the European presence are “ironically Eurocentric in that [they] assume that Indian life never evolved in the absence of contact with Europeans.”
Early American settlers seemed to have had a much higher opinion of the Indians than modern leftists. The record of European treatment of the Indians is a very spotty one, as we shall see, but in case after case, one is struck by the fact that many Europeans directed an awful lot of good will toward Indians. Europeans were disposed, at least initially, to recognize their virtues, to treat them with respect, and to trade with them peaceably. At least part of this good will was the result of Christian and Enlightenment universalism.
Prof. Fynn-Paul correctly notes that Europe invented “the modern discourse on human rights.” He also correctly states that “We simply do not find such a plethora of humanitarian sentiment in most traditional cultures, where individual human rights are normally subsumed under the rights of powerful men, institutions, and family honor.”
It is ironic that the Left condemns Western civilization in terms of theories that are themselves the products of that civilization. And while the West has not always practiced what it has preached, it has a far better record on “human rights” than any other civilization.
Let us consider what the Indians were really like. The most advanced Indian civilizations in the New World were those in Mexico and Central America. However, leftist historians have made absurd claims on behalf of these people, asserting, for example, that they were “more advanced” than European civilization of the same period. The reality is that the civilizations of the Aztecs and the Incas were roughly analogous in their level of achievement to the Mesopotamian cultures of around 3,000 BC.
In other words, the most advanced societies of the New World were about 4,500 years behind Europe — to say nothing of China, the Arab world, and India. The Aztecs had invented the wheel, but by the time of the Spanish conquest used it only for children’s toys. Of all the Indian peoples of the New World, only the Aztecs had developed a pictographic alphabet and system of writing when Europeans appeared on their shores.
In contrast to the Aztecs, when Europeans arrived in the New World, the Indian peoples north of Mexico were in a state of civilization very much like that of the Fertile Crescent around 10,000 to 7,000 BC. They were thousands of years behind the Aztecs, with whom they had very little contact.
Prof. Fynn-Paul describes relations between the various Indian tribes as “a Hobbesian war of all against all.” Indians routinely described their neighbors in terms that translate as “devils,” “less than human,” and “worthy of extermination.” They lived in a world that was, as Prof. Fynn-Paul puts it, “intensely local and intensely tribal.” There is absolutely no evidence that they identified with each other in racial terms.
It was very common, when one tribe conquered another, to slaughter all the men and take the women and children as slaves. Infants were often killed. Slavery was widely practiced by Indian tribes. During the 17th century, records indicate that only a few hundred Indians were taken as slaves from New England. Within the same period, Indians enslaved tens of thousands of other Indians.
It is not for nothing that Indians were called “savages.” The Aztecs butchered more than 20,000 human beings a year, cutting their still-beating hearts out of their bodies in the belief that this was what kept the sun shining. Apparently, this practice was sanctioned by “Aztec philosophy.” Cannibalism is well documented among some Indian tribes. The Natchez Indians of Mississippi practiced child sacrifice.
Indians were also notoriously enthusiastic about torture, to which they devoted considerable energy and imagination (possibly even more than the Chinese). Many eyewitness accounts of Indian torture sessions have survived. They are difficult to forget, as much as one would like to.
So, readers may ask, the Indians may not have been saints, but does that justify trying to exterminate them? Certainly not, but the fact is that the only people who tried to exterminate Indians were other Indians. Prof. Fynn-Paul makes it abundantly clear that Indians pursued a policy of genocide against rival tribes.
He notes that the English, French, and Spanish “went to great lengths to curtail [this violence] over the centuries, saving hundreds of thousands of Indian lives.” In a line that would no doubt send leftists into paroxysms of rage, he remarks that “If anyone in seventeenth-century America can be considered genocidal, it should be the Iroquois, rather than the French or English.”
One trick used by leftist historians to argue that Europeans committed genocide against is to begin by grossly overestimating the Indian population in certain areas, prior to the arrival of the White Man. The sparse Indian population of those areas in later times is then used to argue that there must have been genocide. Prof. Fynn-Paul shows that in many cases, overestimates of Indian population at the time of European settlement have reached absurd extremes — sometimes by as much as 1,000 percent.
One simple argument against claims of genocide is that tens of millions of mestizos and Amerindians are alive today, living exactly where their ancestors lived in the 16th century. Prof. Fynn-Paul argues, further, that “the fact that the US Indian population has remained steady proportional to the overall US population since 1810, despite massive immigration from Europe in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is a simple and clear refutation [of the charge of genocide].”
But isn’t it the case that Europeans massacred many of the Indians? Haven’t we all heard such tales? Yes and no, as it turns out. First of all, European relations with the Indians tended to alternate between periods of peace and periods of war. And, yes, there were massacres — by both sides against the other. However, Europeans frequently allied themselves with one Indian tribe against another. Our Indian allies, under such circumstances, were only too happy to kill as many of the opposing tribe as they could. In many cases, they were settling old scores. It is impossible for anyone at this point to know who did the majority of the killing in these cases — the colonists or their Indian accomplices.
Prof. Fynn-Paul asks, “why does the historical record provide so many examples of Indians voluntarily wandering into English and Dutch camps, and even climbing on board ships,” if today’s leftists are correct about the rapacity with which Europeans went about trying to murder and enslave them?
It is estimated that the total number of North American Indians massacred by Europeans during the entire 500-year period of colonization was fewer than 10,000. This was out of an indigenous population estimated to have been a little more than a million. It is highly likely that Indians massacred considerably more than 10,000 Europeans. And it is certainly true that during the same period Indians massacred far more of each other.
What about the Trail of Tears? This refers to the forced resettlement of several Indian tribes from the Southeastern US to newly designated Indian territory west of the Mississippi. The took place from 1830 to 1850 and was occasioned by the discovery of gold in Georgia. The white man wanted the gold and decided to renege on his promise to respect the Indians’ right to occupy their ancestral lands. This was a shameful episode in American history — but here, too, the Left manages to get everything wrong.
Leftist historians offer this as typical of the way whites treated Indians. They either ignore or downplay how much the Trail of Tears divided white America. Outraged citizens launched massive petition drives against the government’s policy. Prof. Fynn-Paul writes that “The strength of antiremoval forces stunned Martin Van Buren who, writing of the events over twenty years later, portrayed the government’s side as besieged from all quarters and stated flatly that ‘a more persevering opposition to a public measure had scarcely ever been made.’”
In the end, the US Supreme Court ruled against the policy — but President Andrew Jackson ignored the Court and went ahead with it. Some Indians voluntarily resettled in the West (and the government offered them incentives to do so). Others were forcibly marched for hundreds of miles, hence “Trail of Tears.” However, the Left exaggerates the death toll. The total number of deaths was around 3,000, or about 5 percent. Most of these deaths were due to cold, exposure, and disease.
Did we steal the Indians’ land? Yes and no. First, a plausible case can be made that the forcible relocation of the Indians during the Trail of Tears was theft of land. We had originally agreed that the land was theirs and that we would respect their right to it. But when we discovered that the land was much more valuable than we had thought, Indian property rights suddenly meant little — in fact, nothing. But this was the exception and not the rule. In the vast majority of cases, land settled by Europeans was purchased from Indians, who willingly sold it.
But didn’t the settlers cheat the Indians, offering them worthless objects in exchange for their land? In fact, the settlers gave the Indians goods that they genuinely valued, most of which had some practical use. In other words, contrary to what you may have heard, it wasn’t all just sacks of colorful glass beads. Here again we see the condescension of the Left, portraying the Indians as easily bamboozled by the white man’s offer of glittering but worthless baubles. In fact, the Indians tended to be canny businessmen, and sometimes drove hard bargains.
North of Mexico, about 90 percent of the land remained in Indian hands for the first 300 years after Europeans arrived in the New World. Vast swaths of North America remained completely unoccupied by white people. For centuries, most Indians had little or no contact with Europeans. During that period, most Indians who were forced off their land were victims of other Indians.
Indeed, the “stolen land” claim rests on the assumption that Indians displaced from their land by Europeans had occupied that land in perpetuity. The truth is that the Indians displaced by Europeans had generally slaughtered the previous group of Indians — who had, in turn, had slaughtered an earlier group.
This is why groveling “acknowledgements” such as the one made by the Perimeter Institute are so silly. However, if one goes a step further and argues that we merely did to the Indians what they’d already done to each other, one commits yet another fallacy. In fact, we were usually much more humane.
As I noted, the book has problems, and these are not insignificant. Prof. Fynn-Paul includes an interesting discussion of the Indian policies of various American presidents. We read, for example, that Jefferson wrote that in dealing with the Indians it was “essential to cultivate their love.” Imagine my shock, however, when I came to the sub-section titled “The Humanity and Bravery of Lincoln.”
Is this the same Lincoln who suspended the writ of habeas corpus (without consent of Congress, as required by the Constitution)? Is this the same Lincoln who imprisoned, without trial, hundreds of newspapermen who criticized his policies? Is Prof. Fynn-Paul’s “humane” Lincoln the same one who had his generals attack Southern cities full of women and children and burn them to the ground?
The professor asserts that Lincoln’s policies toward the Indians showed “no sign of ‘racism,’ but [treated] Indian warriors with as much humanity as was later shown to Confederate POWs.” Again, we must ask: Is this the same Lincoln who allowed his generals to use hundreds of Confederate POWs as human shields, placing them in a stockade directly in front of a Yankee fort at Charleston, forcing Confederate troops to fire on their own men? This is only one of many examples of Yankee mistreatment of Confederate POWs. To be sure, there were abuses on both sides. To credit either side with displaying “humanity” demonstrates ignorance of the facts.
However, by far the most problematic part of Not Stolen is Prof. Fynn-Paul’s bizarre attempt to argue that early-modern Europeans were innocent of the charge of “racism.” Incredibly, the professor writes early on in his book, “The scholarly consensus still holds that Europeans were in fact not racist in the modern sense of believing some races to be distinct or essentially inferior, until the later nineteenth century.”
European awareness of racial identity dates back to the ancient world. Despite the tribalism of the Greeks, during the Persian invasion of 480–479 BC, the Athenians promised their Spartan allies that they would never abandon their fellow Greeks, saying that “we are one in blood and one in language, and we worship the same gods.” Plato remarked that “the Hellenic race [genos] is united by ties of blood and friendship.”
Aristotle certainly saw the Persians as belonging to a race distinct from, and inferior to, the Greeks. He urged his student Alexander the Great to treat the Persians “like plants and animals.” Many ancient authors took note of racial differences, particularly with respect to skin and hair color.
The Pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes observed that different peoples made their gods look like them: “The Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and dark, Thracians that theirs are grey-eyed and red-haired.” Greek and Roman descriptions of blacks often make for amusing reading and give ample evidence that the ancients believed “some races to be distinct or essentially inferior.”
Note how Prof. Fynn-Paul runs those two items together: a racist is someone who believes “some races to be distinct or essentially inferior.” So, one can be a “racist” simply by believing that races are distinct. This is a position usually associated with the Left, but apparently Prof. Fynn-Paul is on board. Part of his case for the late blossoming of European racism hinges on noting that it was only rather recently that we started calling ourselves “white.” But this is sleight of hand: From the fact that we were not calling ourselves “white” until the 18th century, it does not follow that we had no concept of racial distinctness!
Similar sleight of hand is at work in Prof. Fynn-Paul’s statement that “before Charles Darwin published his work on evolution in 1859, it was not really possible to conceive of humans as having evolved in distinct genetic lines in the way we now take for granted.” While it is true that pre-moderns had no scientific concept of genetics, it is certainly false to suggest that they had not noticed that racial characteristics are heritable, and that, left to their own devices, races reproduce their own kind.
Historian Benjamin Isaac noted in his 2004 book The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity that “There is a long-standing tradition in Greek and Latin literature of idealizing the concepts of unmixed origin, pure lineage, and autochthony.” The ancients also did not fail to notice that different regions seemed to cause different racial characteristics to evolve. Hippocrates, for example, remarked of the Scythians that “it is the cold which burns their white skin and turns it ruddy.” (Note the words “white skin.”)
Prof. Fynn-Paul states that the European “obsession with collecting and categorizing everything under the sun” led to the division of humanity into “black,” “red,” “yellow,” and “white” races. Later, Europeans noticed that racial groups have distinctive skull shapes, and categorized those groups accordingly. Prof. Fynn-Paul then asserts that “this led to the pseudoscience of physiognomy — the idea that you can judge a person’s character from the way they look.” Notice, once more, the sleight of hand: The fact that races have distinct skull shapes is immediately coupled with a mention of the “pseudoscience” of physiognomy (not so pseudoscience, by the way). The unfocussed reader will draw the conclusion that the categorization of racial skull shapes is also pseudoscience.
Predictably, Prof. Fynn-Paul wastes no time in trotting out the Nazis, just to let us know where disagreeing with him might lead. After seeming to endorse Darwin’s conception of human races as evolving “in distinct genetic lines,” this professional historian then draws on the Hollywood version of history: “It was left to the Nazis to take this genetic-racist idea to its extreme, with their fantasy of dominating every other ‘inferior’ race.”
Prof. Fynn-Paul goes on to state that “almost everything that led the Nazis to consider themselves ‘Aryan’ or ‘Caucasian’ was proven to be a late nineteenth century fantasy.” One expects only the Far Left in the academy to take the position that the existence of an “Aryan race” was a fantasy. In fact, the existence of an Aryan or Indo-European people is beyond dispute, and the Germanic tribes are certainly numbered among them, regardless of what inaccurate or grandiose claims the Nazis may have made about Aryans.
Sadly, Not Stolen serves to show that making arguments in bad faith is not a vice confined to the Left. Prof. Fynn-Paul’s attempt to acquit pre-19th-century whites of “racism” is the low point of the book, and causes the reader ever-so-slightly to distrust what follows. But, setting this criticism aside, does Not Stolen acquit whites of mistreating the Indians? No.
Not Stolen does burst some outright myths about our treatment of the Indians, but what the author mainly does, over and over, is simply revise the numbers downward. Leftists have grossly exaggerated massacre and enslavement. Nevertheless, it remains true that we massacred and enslaved Indians. They also massacred us, of course, but we can’t say we didn’t provoke them.
I don’t take great solace in learning that the death toll of the Trail of Tears wasn’t 15,000 or more, as claimed by some, but only 3,000. It was still an utterly shameful episode in American history. Nor do I take solace in learning that only some of the land was stolen from the Indians, not all. Prof. Fynn-Paul succeeds in showing that white treatment of the Indians was decidedly mixed. It’s true that whites often treated the Indians with good will and did much to help them. But we were also capable of treating them unjustly, and with genuine brutality. Not Stolen succeeded in reminding me that our treatment of the Indians was, on balance, pretty bad.
We should acknowledge this. But . . . what then? Since we are not going to give the land back, what purpose is served by cringey “land acknowledgements,” aside from letting affluent white liberals signal their virtue? Indians have now been very handsomely compensated for the wrong done to them. Today, the US government spends more than $20 billion a year on the descendants of Indians wronged by our ancestors, which works out to about $20,000 per Indian per year. At this point, we owe them nothing.
Some years ago, I got into a discussion about our treatment of “indigenous peoples” with a white, liberal academic. He kept harping on our injustices against the Indians, as if acknowledging this was going to change something. I agreed with him that we had committed abuses, but then, much to his consternation, I quoted another Pre-Socratic, Heraclitus: “War is father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as humans; some he makes slaves, others free.” The Indians themselves understood this far better than we do.
Not Stolen is clearly written, but is badly footnoted. In some important cases, we must simply take Prof. Fynn-Paul’s word for things, as he gives no way to check his claims.
It’s also distressing that bad English usage is now creeping into the works even of university professors. Someone needs to tell Prof. Fynn-Paul what “normative” means — a word he misuses throughout the book. At one point, he tells us that “mixed-race marriages were normative beyond the frontier.” What he means is that they were “normal.” Saying they were “normative” means that society considered them to be obligatory, or the norm. Someone also should tell the professor that “cliché” and “fraught” are not adjectives.
The book lacks an index. Most surprising, there is no information about the author. I had to go online to find out who he is.
Despite these reservations, Not Stolen can be a useful resource — if approached with caution. There is much to be learned here — much intellectual ammunition for the next Thanksgiving dinner at which some liberal relative lectures us about our treatment of “Indigenous peoples.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Any organization, in Canada, that receives government funding, is required to include a similar statement adapted to the region. In my area, it includes Métis (half breeds) and a tribe chased out of a neighbouring province by another tribe, arriving about the same time as Whitey.
Adding to the insanity, is that the land that was “inhabited from the beginning” was under an ice sheet, then water from the melting ice for thousands of years after they after they allegedly arrived.
Yet nobody cares about these so-called ‘Native Americans’ exterminating the race of megalith/mound building white giants that inhabited this continent before them.The Indians & negroes should be glad Caucasians colonized America. They should recognize that if it wasn’t for superior white created civilization & its accompanying technology (electricity, automobiles, plumbing, TV, telephone etc) the Indian & simian would still be existing & stagnating in some primitive paleolithic retarded society–instead of making millions playing sports & mating with white female scum.
Mexican food today is far more advanced than the cuisines of the American Indians, although no doubt food in Mexico today is a lot different than it was before Spanish colonists arrived, since those immigrants brought over beef, chicken, and pork. I’m not sure what American Indians have got going on in this department. Apparently there’s a restaurant in Minnesota that serves Native food and also informs customers that they’re on Native land.
This is far, far better documented than most people think.
The Solutrean “hypothesis” is seen as a fraud and debunked by scholars everywhere. A recent study that sticks scrupulously to the facts says it is a simple fact. “Solutrean” refers to a European peoples who lived during the Ice Age where the border area of France and Spain are now (roughly). They arrived some 22 thousand years ago and a recent book, Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture shows them arriving 22 thousand years ago. Good stuff.
Also worth a look, a Canadian film imaginatively recreates their journey:
Video Link
Question.
Suppose a much more advanced China had happened upon Northern Europe inhabited by barbarians. Suppose the Chinese took the land and drove the native barbarians into the sea or into special reservations.
Would you say the European lands were stolen or not?
One thing for sure, America was taken by force by the white arrivals. Given the vast contrasts in power and numbers, the Indians didn’t have a chance.
Some say the French had a more humane policy of assimilation as opposed to the Anglo policy of elimination or expulsion.
Others say the Indians fought among themselves and stole each other’s lands, but that’s neither here nor there. Europeans have been fighting one another forever. In the 20th century, they had two world wars. But it was white vs white, and no matter which side won, Europe remained white.
Likewise, even though red man fought red man, it was a red affair.
Japanese fought many wars too before it was finally unified. But regardless of which side won, Japanese always came out on top in Japan.
For most of US history, one would have thought, despite all the tragedies, it was worth it.
But given what has become of America lately, I wish the Indians had kept all the land and no white man ever arrived.
When the great white man was magnificently race-ist, he built a mighty and proud civilization that expanded on the great European achievements. It was great power for great ideas and values.
But once whites cucked to Jews, blacks, and homos, the US has become raw sewage for all the world. All that power and wealth in service of corrupting and perverting the world with sodomy celebration, twerking & jungle fever, and cucking to Zionic gangsters.
So, unless white people insist on keeping their race-ism, they should just crawl into a hole and disappear.
Matbe China didn’t.
Why does no one remember that Moors and Ottoman Turks could and often did take large chunks of Europe? Literally, and Asian Africans plundered Europe, mostly in the south and east. Slav = Slave: word origin.
Just considering the Barbary Coast slavers. It went on longer than the African slave trade but whites have just put it outside their thinking.
As far as modern Europeans they are being cucked. That’s all. There will come a time when the rot is obvious and action will be taken. It’ll probably be really brutal because white traitors are numerous and nobody fights and kills their own with as much glee as those crazy white guys.
Who the fuck cares. It doesn’t matter. The only things that actually matters are:
1. muttmerica is the greatest evil ever existed in this planet, by a lot, and nothing come close to it.(nb4 what about the kikes: it’s the same thing. muttmerica is jews and jews are muttmerica, you two are essentially indistinguishable. Distinguishing muttmerica and jews is as meaningless as distinguishing, say, various jewish ideologies and the jews.)
2. As long as muttmerica exists, nothing good can ever happen on earth and there is no hope for humanity at all. Ergo, muttmerica must be exterminated to the ground, without any kind of remnants at all, and the rest of the world should ensure that this vile abomination should never be allowed to “revive” in any form at all. Maybe we can designate the whole land of muttmerica as a worldwide shared disposal of radioactive wastes or something.
America did not exist prior to discovery by Europeans. Nothing was stolen since nothing existed.
Megafauna of the Pleistocene | Randall Carlson.
Video Link
There’s only one tribe that matters to the liars.
The Synagogue of Satan Khazar mafia.
The Indians like the blacks are just bioweapons.
Western Civilization is a obstacle to ZOG.
These worthless parasites will do anything to turn the world into a slave labor camp.
Fortunately, they are about to be eliminated by their own rhetoric.
Crayola politics paints these pasty vermin as oppressors not victims.
The enemy will kill itself off with its own stupidity eventually.
However, why wait for this event?
White Men can hasten their demise easily.
Crush the Central Bank scam and these parasites are powerless and doomed.
This failed state cannot get it up anymore.
2024 should see an electile dysfunction.
Trump is just as much a fool tool as Biden.
Only the overthrow of ZOG will suffice.
The armies aren’t there to prop up the swamp.
Burn it down and let it sink away.
The spectacle of the uniparty supporting ZOG.
Its not even plausible to deny the corruption.
ZOG Palestine is the beginning of The End.
The whole world is going against the vampire squid and its lying bullshit.
Now is the time to fight back and crush them.
Hit them while they are spread too thin.
You have the numbers and the reason.
Its a You or them existential battle.
I personally can’t get enough of sacrificing my enemies.
No price is too small to eliminate them.
Excellent video about the Solutreans that everyone must watch. Note the Injun racketeers block research by claiming any evidence found is from a sacred burial ground so everything must be given to their “tribe” who bury it.
It has been well proven that Europeans and even Africans were in the Americas before the Asian immigrants now called indigenous people, or “First Americans” in Canada. Tribes look much different, even those living in the same region. Compare the Hopi to the Navajo. Look at the Ojibwe people.
More here: https://www.winterwatch.net/2022/12/the-first-migrants-to-the-new-world-were-white-european-solutreans/
There is a reason the US Govt. don’t allow the huge mounds along the Mississippi River to be dug into. We can surmise that these invading Asian immigrants slaughtered the European immigrants they encountered. Also read about the Mayan culture that went from stone age to massive cities in a few years while they built pyramids. Just a quirk, or did some people arrive from the Med? Also search the net for stories about blond Eskimos in Canada that even Wikipedia allows mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Eskimos
Here is more hard proof.
Video Link
there was no “America” until White colonists hacked it out of a howling wilderness. The occupants – 400 nomadic tribes of asiatic savages running around naked, shooting arrows at each other, and living in holes in the ground covered with animal skins – required some pacifying and civilizing, all of which has long since been accomplished. Today they drink a lot and get rich running casinos.
Very little history of the natives here was taught to schoolchildren!! The genocide was ignored and children were taught that the world was a better place ” because the savages have been exterminated!! All that remains of them are on small ” reservations “!!
The five Iroquois’s tribes had ” a federation”; rules and laws that they lived by! That ” federation ” is what the European colonists used to set up a government after their revolt from the British!! Our United States Constitution is an outgrowth of that!!
Israel is just doing what we did many centuries ago; take whatever you want because no one can stop you!!
Bibi and Biden are blatant criminals; so are their nations; but massive propaganda twists that into ” we are the good guys” to keep the public in a coma!!
Video Link
Man, the Indians came from Asia.
A modern day long-haired Thai or Lao guy looks just like a native American.
Same race.
Similar arguments as set forth here against the pre-Colombian inhabitants can be used by the Jewish Collective to justify the gradual erasure of the white man’s balls (freedom of rebellion taken away against master race) and genome (mixed and diluted over time with mass immigration).
The white man thinks it is at the top of the food chain and can laugh off the genocide of native people but zoom in with a magnifier and you see a parasite lodged in its brains and heart, pulling the strings of the white man, and leading the hypnotized white man down the ravine.
We’ve just been inundated by this sort of racist shit in Austfailia, regarding our Indigenous, in order to defeat the Voice referendum. Scratch a Westerner and you’ll find a racist, or a proto-racist just needing this sort of Murdochite hate-mongering to push them into full race-hatred.
As ever, as in Gaza, the Indigenous are ‘savage beasts’ without human virtue, worthy only of extermination by a ‘superior race’. Gaza is just the beginning of the all-out Race and Civilizational War of the West against the ENTIRE non-Western world. Be certain-Chinese, Russians, Iranians et al are ALL ‘beasts and savages’, too.
In the photo above you see Indians riding horses.
Horses and other draft animals, were an introduction of European culture into the culture of many Indian tribes. The horse change native culture so much that few know what the native culture was prior to European contact. It elevated many tribes, the Comanches being one that was probably saved from cultural extinction by their adoption of yhe horse.
From the high plains Indian warrior and their war horses to the Mexican indigenous peasants and their donkeys, European draft animals changed and elevated the cultures of many American Indian tribes.
This is one of the least recognized benefits of European culture on indigenous cultures.
Video Link
All points well taken and well argued, with one exception: the claim that native Americans wiped out the Pleistocene megafauna. This statement is so absurd that it seriously undermines the credibility of anyone making it. There is overwhelming evidence from geology and a host of other sciences that the Pleistocene creatures were killed in a cosmic cataclysm similar to that which killed the dinosaurs in an earlier epoch.
Excellent comment. I totally agree. Not so sure about French benevolence but the Chinese and Russians both treated their indigenous populations better than we did. Which is not to say they didn’t push them around and rough them up a bit. But they didn’t try to genocide them and they did a good job of eventually integrating them. Russia’s Sergei Shoigu is from an indigenous Central Asian Mongol-Siberian tribe of the same stock as our own Native Americans.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oldest-genetic-link-asians-native-americans-siberia
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-dna-evidence-charts-native-american-migrations-back-across-the-bering-sea-180981435/
Napoleon supposedly said, “Scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar.”
Articles and discussion threads about such topics are always fascinating sources for studying the whole range of fallacious arguments, from relatively sophisticated begging the question to downright denial and ad hominems.
The very first thing to do is to agree on the difference between “is” and “ought”. Did Europeans come to the Americas and conquer them by force, killing in the process millions of indigenous people? Yes. Have other people done similar things since the dawn of time? Yes. Is that then natural behaviour for H. sapiens? Yes. Those are the “is” questions and answers.
Once you shift to the key of “ought” – the ethical dimension – things get trickier. Conquerors, exploiters, and even slaveowners have always found arguments to excuse their deeds. My favourite is Winston Churchill’s brusque dismissal of the entire ethical aspect of colonialism:
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.
It’s amusing to reflect that, had events fallen out a little differently, the Nazis might have quoted those words back to the British after conquering them.
Probably the only cure for Anglos & like-minded exceptionalist ubermensch is a dose of their own medicine:
The word origin of “Slav” is not “slave” or vice versa. Most scholarship maintains that the origin of the word Slav is Sclaveni, one of the three main branches of Indo European tribes to populate Central and Eastern Europe, later known as the Slavs. Another academic theory holds that the Russian/Slavic etc “slovo”, which means “word”, is the origin.
Who cares?
Be careful normalizing such things. Especially in the time when there is mass immigration of engineers and scientists.
Who want your violent savages relocate to some reservation and start building science and human rights based perfect society.
When your history is based on the beautiful lies , you find soon yourself in the same situation, as Soviet Union or modern Israel , one was and the another is in the permanent war and forced to defend cardhouse of lies 24/7 and defending lies is so expensive that Soviet Union collapsed despite having world biggest natural resources. Israel will follow soon.
The Chinese civilization seems to be acquiring the anti-Semitism, too.
We? No. I have never stolen anything from an Indian.
Which ones? The Slurpee Indians or the Casino Indians?
It’s amazing how many historical falsifications there are in the text and comments. I will refer to some later. So who were the natives of Europe?
I bet maybe only a few readers know. I think almost nobody knows the meaning of the name of Europe. So, in short, haplogroup ‘I’ is the only DNA group of European origin. It means that Serbs and Scandinavians are natives of Europe. Both of them came from Vinca, which was the cradle of European civilization, culture and language. All the so-called Slavic peoples and languages (including modern Serbs) developed from the ancient Vinca/Serbs.
The ancient Serbs were Aryans who took the old Serbian language to Asia, from which Sanskrit was born, and from it many languages on the subcontinent. The ancestors of today’s Westerners were nomads, who did not know for metals, agriculture and houses and who came to Europe relatively recently (2800-2500BC) from the Russian steppes and committed genocide against the natives and took their wives. For example, Serbian-speaking tribes lived on the territory of today’s Germany before the Germans came from Asia.
It is interesting that in the last 4500 years descendants of these nomads from Russian steppes started almost all the wars in the world. They committed genocide in North America (and Australia and South America) and took the land from the natives.
&&&&&&&
The text contains a forgery about the Greeks and Persians. Alexander the Great was not Greek but Serbian and Serbs made up the majority of his army in the battle against the Persians. In the Persian army, almost half were Greeks (20 K out of 40 K). In the battle in which the Persians were defeated by Alexander at Granicus river, 18 K Greeks who were on the Persian side died. Greeks are also not native to Europe. Until now, no one could answer the question – when did the Greeks come to Europe (to the Balkans) and from where?
The first Europeans who showed up were Northern explorers. It took roughly 700 years for Whites to conquer North America following those first who dared cross. Doesn’t sound like conquering more like a slow Lebensraum. If the natives had banded together in racial defense instead of tribal infighting they might have survived more racially intact. This will be Whites future if we don’t Wisen up.
Apocalypto will, and always will be, a masterpiece.
Victimhood is the most prestigious status one can attain in current Western society. Victimhood has also become arguably the biggest industry in America, with each minority race jockeying for their position at the trough. The spoils of war come in the form of: special legal status, entitlement programs, nationally syndicated virtue signaling, race-based hiring quotas, race focused special interest groups, a plethora of government mandated funding programs, free housing, free education, and the list literally goes on and on. However, at some point it all gets muddled together and simply becomes anti-White policies. Now that we’re nearing the end of the American empire, it’s a literal feeding frenzy to scavenge the last pieces of meat off the bone before it all collapses.
History is fascinating. One thing we know for sure is that groups of people have always displaced others whether it be migration or war. The difference now however is that the western governments are willfully displacing their own people. They’re also making it illegal to notice. These marxists cunts don’t seem to realize that the people they’re replacing us with don’t give a fuck about them or their rules. You can’t make this up. At least we were patriotic. I guess that wasn’t good enough for the marxist cunts. Being marxist cunts, they won’t be happy until they are an island of wealth in a sea of poverty. Perhaps divine intervention or a cosmic event may be the only thing that saves us this time. Are the watchers watching, or have they left for greener pastures? Hmm.
There should be place for a moderate view.
That view would imply that (a) not all of the territory of the United States “belonged” to the Indians, so not all could be “stolen”.
(b) that “might doesn’t create right”, victory in a war is no argument for the legality of redistribution, neither in white/Indian wars nor in Indian/Indian wars.
(c) all this means that we have to learn about the “legal” systems of the Indians themselves. Of course, a lot of Indian property was simply stolen by the neighbouring tribes who won a war. On the other hand there may have been some rudimentary legal systems for the transactions of property between people. And we have to test if white gains did accord to those Indian legal rules or not …
The nerve!
Justifying the genocide of 2 continents is simply shameful. Instead of just keeping quiet and repenting, you are using intellectual masturbation to cover the facts.
Conquista was one of the worst crimes of western “civilization” which led to hundreds of MILLIONS of deaths thru extermination, diseases and hunger. Then you had the flibustiers, then colonial wars between major European powers, then American Fruit Company etc etc . You should be ashamed to even try to squeeze some justification for this unprecedented holocaust (a real one, for that matter).
Why not one Latin American country is not demanding retributions from Spain and other vultures just proves the point – the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples was as final a solution as Adolf wud have dreamed about.
And now clowns like Trudeau can cry crocodile tears about it.
So typical!
In another century most Whites would be merged with another race, therefore, what are we talking about?
“Fortunately, they are about to be eliminated by their own rhetoric.”
Despite the fact that millions of Whites who are fully red pilled on the JQ are looking forward to the complete destruction of Zionism and a long overdue end to jewish power and supremacy – this is mostly likely simply wishful thinking.
On Friday, the Big Kahuna who is supposed to be the leader of Hezbollah was scheduled to make a speech and we all were hoping that he would declare war on Israel. I didn’t watch or listen to the speech, but the news this morning reports that he kind of cucked out and didn’t declare war. So, it looks like Hezbollah is going to allow Israel to genocide the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m wondering if there have been some behind the scenes talks and deals made to persuade Hezbollah to remain neutral, because both the Israelis and the White House seemed to really be sweating over Hezbollah entering the conflict. If so, the Palestinians are being hung out to dry.
Slav = Slave: word origin
What a brilliant insight! The Slavs looked into the English dictionary to find out how to spell slave and that’s how they called themselves.
Probably the Turks were also looking for the name turkey to name their country.
In Slavic languages, the word Slava means Glory, Fame and Slovo means Word.
The American Indian is the ONLY non white that deserves to stay in America.
Blacks should have been shipped out of America at least 150 years ago probably and certainly after 1970 when TNB got amped up on Tren and HGH.
Jews Arabs, Dot Indians, and other assorted Brownies and non European Whites should have never been allowed entry and have no place in White nations.
IF I were the Fuhrer Of America for 4 years the only non whites left would be the American Indian and they would be greatly compensated for being done wrong by the White man.
All other non whites have been raping White Americans and America literally and figuratively forever. In addition most American Indians don’t like Beaners and Blacks.
America took the Southwest by force from the Mexicans but these half breeds had already taken it from American Indians themselves so shut up Jose about America stealing land from half breed Mexicans.
Removing all kikes, Arabs, nigras, beaners, chinks, dots/pakis, etc., makes Whites with a brain happy and benefits the American Indian. The Indian could be paid reparations from all the money the kikes, negroes, and other parasites have stolen from Whites.
The struggle is on going. I am happy to report that the Alabama Coushatta tribe were able to reopen their casino. Of course they had to sue the state of Texas at the US Supreme Court to get it done. Here is some background on the case. Even today the state of Texas can’t seem to understand what the word sovereign means.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/208/670/2563120/
the american indian was given a lofty status by the media in the 1970’s. with it came an almost comical caricature in the minds of us growing up with this new godly creature.
let us not forget the indian with tear running down his face who actually turned out to be an italian bit part actor of the time who was one of the first cultural appropriationists to hit the scene.
if you want to read a good book that demolishes the lefts lofty identity of the american indian, read this. it came out in 1997….
Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century
by fergus bordewich.
Every square inch of land on this earth was at one time inhabited by someone else. On the North American continent Tribes butchered each other in endless war for resources, slaves and revenge. The Comanches for example became Lords of the Plains. Every other Tribe in their neck of the woods was butchered or fled. Even the fearsome Apaches were forced into the desolate deserts of the South West.
Even among a particular Tribe there were splinter groups. Members of the sub-tribes also murdered each other.
The fact is even the Indians of South America ended up there as a result of pressure from the Tribes behind them. As late as the 1960’s the fearsome Kayapo Tribe in Brazil slaughtered everything in their path in their bid for supremacy, resources, slaves and women. Africa, India, China, Europe etc ? The same historical dance has played out over the centuries.
The White Man is just the latest to push everyone out in turn and get his share. For 40,000 years or so North America was a wilderness. It would have remained so but for the White Man. Today, the Indigenous groups, in spite of generous Government perks just cannot get their act together.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy with this stolen land mantra. The lifestyle enjoyed by the people who vomit up this nonsense would be non-existent but for the development of the Continent.
The Chinese seem to be susceptible to this nonsense. Having lunch with a colleague he strenuously asserted that Whites were all thieves and had stolen the land from the Native Tribes. Well, I said, since you own a house and and other properties, you in fact are in receipt of stolen goods. Therefore, you should contact the few members of the local Tribal Group and sign the properties over to them !!
Needless to say I am still waiting for him to correct the injustice and also needless to say I never got another invitation to lunch in Chinatown where all the buildings are stolen property, And the Third needless is that he still expounds this shit to anyone in earshot. Strangely enough, he never reported this wholesale theft to the State or Federal Police being content to also cover up his participation in thhe grand larceny.
There is no cure for an attack of ignorance.
Whites took America from the Indian, but Whites built America. Not kikes, not Blacks, not Arabs, not Chinese, not Dot Indians, etc.
Whites camped out in an almost barren South Africa and built that nation. Blacks from other African nations STOLE South Africa with help from their like overlords.
Whites built the Southwest when they defeated the Messcans. The Southwest was sparsely populated and barren for the most part.
The kikes stole the Soviet Empire during (((The Russian Revolution))), and Eastern Europe after WWII, the West a little later, before later stealing Palestine.
Whites build, non whites destroy, the only exception being what Whites did to the American Indian and their culture.
Ah, a white solipsist enters the debate.
Even the most ignorant inhabitant of the planet knows that more than 250 million redskins had to be murdered, including millions of children, to take over their lands. It is even known that tens of millions of Buffaloes were sacrificed just to starve the indigenous people.
Even by the numbers and the bestiality of mass murdering even children, it was a crime greater than that of the European Nazis, and for now it surpasses the Israelis in number of victims, although not in the bestiality in which the Israelis due to racial hatred religious with champions.
It is worth remembering that the last of the great massacres of redskins was not in very distant times, it was at the end of the last century and no one paid for the crimes. Many of us live it.
{Every square inch of land on this earth was at one time inhabited by someone else.}
Totally, obviously FALSE.
The Earth was totally devoid of human populations at one point.
Totally devoid: no humans; just animals.
Then humans emerged* and started migrating to places where there were no humans before.
If you migrate to a place where only animals lived before, then fine: you are now the proud, “legal” owner of that piece of real estate.
However, if you migrate to a place where there are other humans who got there before you, then it is stealing — assuming you forcibly displace or “disappear’ those that were there before you.
Note: presumably many of these migrating tribes intermixed voluntarily.
In the case of North America, there were obviously many different indigenous peoples already living on the land for 1,000s of years.
________________________________
* the prevailing theory is that humans emerged from Africa and then spread throughout the world. But there are competing theories that say humans emerged at multiple places.
Russkies AND Ukrainians are MY WHITE brothers and sisters while a Jewkrainian is an alien enemy to all Whites of European descent. Russians and Ukies need to join forces and fight (((the real enemy.)))
The Aboriginal, the American Indian, and others are humans with souls, it is the kike, the nigra, and sand nigras/Pakis/Turks etc., who I wonder about. However, I have met some “foreign” nigras while traveling the Caribbean and they seemed more virtuous than than nigra in America and Europe, but even these niccas change as soon as they invade White nations. That cool cab driver in Port au Prince becomes a “nigger” after a year of privilege in JewSA.
Of course there are outliers in all races. A husky feather Indian beat a frail White cellmate to death in a Canadian prison awhile back. Inmates in adjoining cells screamed for help but useless prison guards were either napping or jerking off. Inmates reported the guy beat the frail inmate for hours with his fists, kicks, knees, take a break, repeat, etc.
Only something owned can be stolen. National territories are not owned — only occupied or possessed by brute force. Hence national territories cannot be stolen. They get conquered not stolen.
The palestinians aren’t quite quite that important to anyone. Not worth going to war over.
“Steal” is a bad term, “conquer” was the word used for such enterprises, and it has a positive tone that “stolen” lacks.
Anyway, whether the lands were “stolen”, “conquered”, colonized or anything else, those types of “aknowledgements” are cringey and stupid. Because Leftism and Leftists at bottom are cringey and stupid. The Unabomber was right in their assessment of them. It’s not even an ideology, it’s just some weird way of looking at life through a completely deformed lens, where “victims” are always saintly and “oppressors” are always evil, when we know things are rarely so clear cut in real life.
The Indians were here before, but no one has an eternal claim to land (except, I guess, the “Jews” in Israel?!?), they were actually lots of different, enemy tribes, most were also quite violent, and in the end they lost. The end.
I wonder. Hope that you are correct.
It’s not the same as a hundred to seventy years ago, when C.P.C. had many chosenite advisors.
However, in post-Deng China, many involved in business or trade admire (or used to admire) the Jews for what are euphemistically called ‘sharp practices’ (cheating) in business.
I don’t know about the mainland now,
my friends from there now are, like me, not very interested in business nor very greedy, just tech. work and a decent living.
Chinese friends from Taiwan still have the idea of Jews as superior business-people.
Total sample size of about six, so not definitive, but P.R.C. needs to take great care on it.
I look into Chabad Ludovico in the Ukraine and Japan. Too many, a clear push, although for the Ukraine, they have all run away, except for the top of the govt. For sure, they must have skeleton staff at their Ukraine sites, especially Dnieprpetroprovosk, and just as Russia allows the Israelis to bomb Syria at will, doubtless there is a directive to not hit any Chabad Ludovico site.
In Syria, the Russians have an excuse, it seems the Israelis usually bombard Syria from Lebanese air-space, or from northern Palestine.
Should check on Chabad Ludovico in China. I would guess that C.P.C. has been foolish enough to allow them to set ‘Chabad Centres’ up in various places.
Would be lovely to see a massive coup d’etat to overthrow Zelensky’s ZOG farce, but it seems the internal measures (imprisonment, public torture. banning all oppositional political parties, all opposional media) make that unlikely.
Concludes, sort of:
And thereby proving that the white colonists indeed came and stole the land from its present inhabitants who as occupiers of the territory when they arrived were entitled to continued peaceful possession of it they had every right to defend against outsiders seeking to encroach upon it that is a law of nature as every species without exceptions defends from outsiders territory they inhabit that provides for them the necessities of life. That’s the Darwinian struggle for life. In this struggle, you either fight and prevail or you retreat and succumb.
Both have a right to engage in the struggle, and between two rights, force always decides.
Thus the native population had every right to defend their territory against the white colonialists, and wipe them out to preserve their territory. That’s period, paragraph, end of story.
What told against the native population is their vastly minimal technological development that gave the colonialists vastly superior weapons weapons that enabled them to crush the Indians and the
far lower level of social organization and cohesion they had that limited from matching the greater numbers the colonials were able to put in the field against them that was grounded in the the much lower level of social organization that their more limited scale of productive forces imposed on them.
To put it simply, the native people almost universally practiced hunter/gathering production using simple tools that prevented them from expANDING THEIR SOCIAL LRGANIZATIO BEYOND tribal organization that in turn were not sufficient diverse to produce the kind of divisions of labor that enhanced technological innovation. This was especially so in North American where the vast tracts of available land made it possible for tribes to move away from adversaries rather then compelling them to stay and fight for their territory. Just note the vastly lower population density in North America than in Europe that required the Europeans to create social organizations that unified much larger populations than anyt4hing the North American natives had to do. (There is a difference in South America where the South American population much larger social organization developed over territory that was hemmed in by natural barriers that made it difficult for groups simply to split off and prosper elsewhere. Indeed, the social organizations that developed in eastern South American pretty much mirrored those in North America because of the wide expanses of land in that region that were not nearly as densely populated as along the western coastal areas or in area north of where the Panama canal is no located.
Thus the North American native population could never unify to pose a solid front to oppose the colonialists who were encroaching on their territory. The colonialists could, instead divide and separately conquer the tribes inhabiting North America that gave them an enormous advantage to seize their territory.
The fact that the social organization and technological capabilities of the colonizers enabled them to generate the superior force to crush the Indians did nor confer upon them any right to do so whic is the foundation for the thesis that the colonizers did not steal the land from the natives. Of course they did, because they had the force necessary to accomplish it.
What is most interesting is that the thesis that the white colonialists did not actually “take” the land
is published exactly at the time that the Jews are engaged in engaging in ethnically cleansing by forcing the Palestinians from their territory. Now that’s exactly what the white colonialists did to the Indians, and by justifying that cleansing operation, it also justifies what the Jews aRE TRYING TO DO TO THE pALESTINIANS.
But as before, it was the people who were in peaceful possession of the territory they inhabited who have the inherent right of self defense to prevent the invader from seizing it that under International Law recognizes the Palestinians are entitled to use force to eject the occupier, and the occupier has no right whatever to use force to sustain their illegal occupation.
America was not stolen.
Canada was not stolen.
Australia was not stolen.
Palestine was not stolen.
You know why? Because we tell you so.
Deal with it goyim.
ABRACADABRA 🪄
Now we’re turning the tables.
Blacks and Browns are stealing Europe.
Blacks and Browns are stealing Canada.
Blacks and Browns are stealing the USA.
You know why? Because we make it so.
Deal with it goyim.
ABRACADABRA 🪄
I like the way you think. Very Jewish.
I understand that a dumb American goy like you does not have the knowledge and/or the intelectual capacity to understand the Middle East, but on quite the contrary, the Palestinians are of the utmost importance to make our Greater Israel a reality.
No one really ever owns anything in this world. The Jewy gubmint makes you pay property takes on that home you “own. ” Even that car you drive is living on borrowed time.
And the meek shall inherit the Earth. Hmm, hopefully this is true and the assholes on power trips finally get what’s coming to them. Oh, and that would be a large portion of Whites and NEARLY ALL non whites of non European descent. This shit about angelic kikes, and other non whites is ridiculous. Narrow is the pathway to Heaven or something like that. No bad deed goes unseen.
Cue: Highway To Hell by AC/DC
Neither are the sand gypsies aka kikes IMO. Neither are friends of Whites of European ancestry.
I didn’t know that. The famous crying Indian was really Italian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody
A fake like Elizabeth Warren. She didn’t have a third party expert do her DNA test, she got her own who claimed her DNA showed that her great great great was likely to have some Red Indian blood. Other experts say that DNA is so diluted going back that far most Americans can claim they are Injuns.
The Italians did enuff stealing in America only to be vastly surpassed by the Kike. Italians for the most part straightened up but you can see why they were not welcomed to America at first. And unfortunately to a much lesser degree this app!is to the Irish as well. Troof be the troof. Like it or lump it.
It’s absurd because it’s a strawman.
While it is true that many of the tribes were involved in what I’d call blood feuds with neighboring tribes, there were also peacemakers among the native tribes who’d adopted the ritual of the peace pipe, or calumet.
Lighting up to seal the deal was a respected tradition among some but not all of the tribes, and the pipes themselves held special significance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_pipe
Jef Costello wrote:
When the Europeans arrived in the Illinois Country of N. America, the native tribes were feasting on abundant game, including such megafauna as bison, moose, elk, deer, bear and cougar. Yep. In the Degannes Memoir, the author notes that the Illini tribes sometimes bagged 60 different animal species on their hunts, and additionally farmed corn, beans and squash.
Suffice it to say there were at that time vast herds of bison that were nearly wiped out later by Europeans with firearms in what many see as a coordinated effort to deny the native tribes one of their main sources of food.
But the earlier extirpation of megafauna in the Americas is related to some cataclysmic event that likely occurred when there were few, if any humans in N. America.
The native tribes were no doubt still dealing with the climatic challenges of the Little Ice Age when the Europeans arrived in the W. Hemisphere, by which time the earlier Cahokian mound-building culture in Illinois had fallen, plausibly as a result of this climatic downturn.
It is not clear if the Illini tribes descended from Cahokia, but the several tribes were probably never very numerous, plausibly numbering about 10,000 individuals when they were first encountered by the French. Whatever the actual numbers, it’s important to note that these Illini tribes occupied a vast territory including parts of several states located around the Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois and Ohio rivers, which later became the home states of millions of Americans.
By the time Illinois became a state in 1818, virtually all the native tribes of the former Illinois Country had been defeated and the survivors banished to reservations. Today the descendants of the Illini and closely related Miami occupy a tiny sliver of land in NE Oklahoma.
Mar 23, 2022 A Brief History Of The Trail of Tears
The Trail of Tears refers to the forced displacement of what white American colonizers called “The Five Civilized Tribes”. Over twenty years between 1830 and 1850; somewhere around 60,000 to 100,000 Native Americans were forced from their homes into the land the new Government had decided would be “Indian Territory”. During their removal, countless died from exposure, disease, and starvation. Their unnecessary deaths are now seen as a near-genocidal event, and the route they walked and died upon is forevermore known as The Trail of Tears.
Aug 27, 2021 Great Sioux Warrior and Mystic Medicine Man | Full Documentary
Profile of the great Sioux warrior and mystic medicine man who led his people in a bloody struggle for survival against the encroachment of the white man’s “civilization”. Includes the story of his victory over Custer at Little Bighorn.
After every war – the winners write the history – it’s basically a right of conquest. And as the author keeps repeating, we’re dealing with the current
mis-history of the left because we were literally conquered by DaLeft in all institutions which form, direct and control our culture.
Antonio Gramsci anyone?
Eight years ago – http://www.crushlimbraw.com – I stated that if anyone my age or thereabouts had paid attention, this bastardization of our society might not have happened……but who knows? So now what?
I fully admit my former ignorance and have declared my intent to spend the rest of my life to not only repent, but work to re-direct all our efforts towards what is true, beautiful and good……as in PROVE ALL THINGS!
Same with Grey Owl aka Archibald Stansfeld Belaney.
I don’t see that any harm was done. These people loved the Red Indians and were able to pass themselves off as Indians, and publicised worthy causes, like awareness about the degradation of the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Owl
This is why the US *must* stand with the genocidal Zionists, a similar sin of their own.
Let’s end this stupid charade already.
From The New York Times:
Neanderthal Or Cretin? A Debate Over Iodine
Dr Jerome E Dobson, geographer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, offers provocative theory that iodine deficiency was responsible for physical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, and could explain why they were so rapidly and completely replaced by modern humans in Europe about 30,000 years ago; Dobson suggests that Neanderthals may actually have been anatomically modern humans who were pathologically altered by iodine-deficient diseases such as cretinism; drawings; iodine condition might also explain why Neanderthal traits like heavy brows and thick bones did not persist even if their genes continued in later European populations; paleontologists react critically (M)
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/01/science/neanderthal-or-cretin-a-debate-over-iodine.html?smid=em-share
I was not aware of this argument in college but I support it strongly. A previous article I read on the net indicated that there was a repositioning of the thyroid in our human past and that this was more proof of the theory.
At 39,000 bc there was a proposed nova explosion from the Geminga star which brought material to Earth, followed by 30,000 and later ejecta that showered the Earth.
The damaged Neanderthals were not a separate race but Modern Humans exposed to the radiation of the Geminga nova, and the alteration of the food stuffs being depleted in iodine.
The theory posed here: REGRESSION, is easily supportable by looking at history.
Freedumb of religion enshrined in constitutions, freedom from religion buried under an mountain of Abrahamic merchandising fuckery and crap.
Indian taxcattle got the “res” and casinos, no time to figure out what’s stolen from whom.
lol, you do know that Adam and Eve didn’t have a belly button.
ah, by way of a song some serious science here folks….
Ah, a shitposter enters the debate to start a flame war.
No Thanks!
But I will let you get the last word in, since I know how important that is for you trolls.
YES.
Ah, you recognized the truth about yourself and let your babbling do the talking.
Bellum Judea is based on theft, genocide, secrecy, and scapegoating.
Of course, scapegoating is necessary for maintaining secrecy, and explains why they need to accuse their scapegoat of theft and genocide.
No one stole “America” from the indians. There was no America but before Europeans created it. All there was, was a vast expanse of land occupied by primitive bipeds gathered into competing tribes, driving each other and all of the megafauna into extinction.
The premise of an existing Amerindian “nation” is also a fallacy. The Amerindians had no concept of nations, or sovereignty, and made no distinction between property and possession, or ownership and occupation.
They happened to wander over a land bridge a few thousand years earlier, wiped out whatever even more primitive beings lived here, took a crap, and somehow this translates into ownership within the current historical fallacy.
I disagree that America is at fault for the problems here. Much of the rot happened in the British Empire, where the Rothschilds had bought/married into their royalty and gained royal privileges, which has been used to bankroll all the subversion in America starting before the founding of the Federal Reserve.
The fact is, these guys act as a Mafia, and they’re drawn to anywhere there’s concentrated wealth that they can swindle. Any sufficiently rich civilization would do, and the same thing happened to Russia with the Bolshevik takeover, and even Weimar Germany which had no great resources to plunder other than a productive and intelligent people. While it’s a shame to see America’s military might slaved to the Zionist conspiracy, the same happened with the British Navy forcing the Chinese to take opium to enrich the Sassoons, or the Russian soldiers fighting to enlarge the Bolshevik realm.
This is a battle that can’t be fought with armies, but with ideas. They turned our great civilization against us, but we can turn it back. We’ll be stronger for it in the end.
By the same Jewish Supremacists whose entire history is based on genocide (and non-stop lying, stealing, etc. etc. I could go on but I’d never finish).
We don’t take history lessons from hypocrites. And no one thinks for a second that you give a shit about Indians. Your interpretation of history is all about ass-covering.
P.S.
Since I know how important that dopamine hit is for you sanctimonious trolls,
I’ll let you get the last word in.
This article is useful only for the few factoids it contained. It is equivocal, attempts to be somewhat even handed, and brings along the emotional baggage of how cruel the Indians were to their own indigenous kind.
Remember the “Prime Directive” from Star Dreck? “First do no harm”. The Enterprise was entrusted and commanded to not influence the civilizations it encountered, whatever judgments or standards were applied. This is valid and wise. The effects of “civilizing”, “converting”, are unpredictable and unforeseen. And what right do they interlocutors have to proselytize and preach their values?
Therefore, largely influenced by a Buddhist perspective, the Europeans should have adopted a “hands off”, neutral, and inherent respect for the Indians’ values and mores. Conquest should have (and always should be) avoided at all costs. This is not a specific principle but a general and universal one that should have applied to all colonial encounters. Trade and other commercial relations should have proceeding, as a mutual understanding and benefit. The Europeans could have enriched themselves, while maintaining the principles that they totally ignored and suppressed, existent in the Christian religion.
I find it hard to take Christianity seriously, because of its wet spaghetti structure and fealty to its high sounding tenets and canons. No wars or conquest have ever been fought using Buddhism as rationale, imperative, or justification. Unlike the Abrah Ham Hock religions, docrine and central ideals and values cannot be just put aside, suspended, or substituted, exemptions carved out, etc, etc.
This article is a waste of time. Like an airplane that taxis around an airport in circles, but never gets airborne and launches to a higher level, it is a thowaway, sports page section of some banal rag.
Not quite.
Word source tells me the word slave was appropriated after a long time because of the large number of Slavs who were enslaved back in the old days.
Not too likely the early adumbrations of the word would have led to its widespread use.
In discussions of word origins the usually mention the association. As part Slavic myself I was always aware of it.
Prof. Fynn-Paul asks, “why does the historical record provide so many examples of Indians voluntarily wandering into English and Dutch camps, and even climbing on board ships,” if today’s leftists are correct about the rapacity with which Europeans went about trying to murder and enslave them?
A very good question …
250 million?? Have you been taking lessons from the chosen?
“If the natives had banded together in racial defense instead of tribal infighting they might have survived more racially intact.”
Oh the irony.
The props in the death pit scene were rather poorly made. Just foam human figures painted black.
Yes!
I have never ever have had a conversation with you ever. You know what is in my mind and my knowledge? Get real by being engaging would be a good start and recommendation in my lifelong experiences. Bless your heart! “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” James Madison
It’s not just left-wingers who propagate and use this genocide myth for political purposes. Famous “right-winger” David Cole does too, as do other rabid Zionists. Their position is that the genocide of injuns is real, and therefore, it excuses whatever Jews do to Arabs in Gaza. And if you complain about Gaza, you should probably either leave the USA or dump the entirety of your 401k at the entrance of the Navajo reservation, or both.
Naturally, Zionists exempt themselves from these acts of contrition, even though they benefited materially from a European-settled America. Gentile Americans never benefited from an ethnically cleansed Palestine–quite the opposite, they helped pay for it.
Ever been to an Indian reservation? Trust me. They are african reservations. No Indians at all to be seen
You sound like this strange reptilian looking neighbor down the street who lives in a Airstream trailer that I believe doubles as a time portal to another dimension.
Beings like him have been documenting/mapping parts they’ll flatten and what parts will be human prison slave colonies, similar to what Zionist are doing to Palestinians only to the 4th power.
It’s rumored that Jews are shape shifting aliens who’ve morphed into human form and will eventually eradicate all humans.
I was not here, this comment will self destruct in 48 hours.
All right. Now you’ve made it clear. The English word slave comes from Slav, not Slav from the English word slave.
And now something about land theft, but this time in Europe. The so-called (Anglo) Saxons and Franks were one Semitic people originating from Sumer, or rather from Chaldea.
They were brought from Sassanid Persia as mercenaries at the end of the Roman Empire to defend against the Celts.
In Europe, apart from the Celts, the natives for thousands of years were the Teutons (who were not Germanic people at all) and the Slavs. In the times of Julius Caesar, Germania was inhabited by Slavs.
Originally invaders from Sassanian Persia conquered Britain and then began the conquest of continental Europe, starting with the founding of their first country, AustrASIA.
The fight between the Sassanids and the Europeans – Celts and Slavs – continues to this day.
Just one more linguistic digression at the end – in Slavic languages Slovo = Word, Germans = Mutes. So we have a war Word vs Mute.
Not exactly. We killed 95% of them without knowing it. Diseases killed off 50 million of them, without them having ever even known about a white or a black white man.
And so the rest of it was just a mop-up operation.
Right: no harm.
It’s Hollywood: if 6’3″ blue eyed John Wayne can play Genghis Khan, then anything is possible.
Great comment!
Yep! This is one of the reasons I refer to him as David Mole.
The amount of money wasted on these people in all of North America over the last 100 years is staggering. It is mostly all wasted. It has not improved their lot one ounce.
Is that you, Marcia?
Another worthless try from the most deluded part of the western population to learn to indigeneous people their history to battle against their “leftist” rivals ; stop agitating yourself and go do something useful, your sentimentalism and inner-racism will be agitated in a not-so-long time for another war for your masters.
It’s too funny to see this many white butthurt goyim in one place.
😀
The book “1491” notes that after Columbus arrived >99% of most native American tribe populations disappeared due to introduction, unintentionally, of European “childhood” diseases, for which the Indians had no immunity. This has also been stated as the reason the massive populations put up so little resistance to their Spanish conquerors.
Although smallpox is often presented as the main disease that killed the native Americans, measles which is much more contagious and for which the Indians had no immunity was probably the most deadly disease, killing quickly. The Europeans, in turn, brought syphilis, for which the Indians had some immunity, back to Europe ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/
As far as I (American and not Jewish), the Jews are welcome to kick, or kill, the Arab natives out of Palestine so as to occupy it. What I strenuously object to is the involvement of my country in the process in any way at all (pro or con), or in any such process underway outside the US’s own borders.
I think I would object (a little less strenuously) to such a project inside the US, as well, especially if my own group were its object.
That’s like asking if the Turk and Mongol hordes stole Central Asia from the native White people – they did. Or if the Greeks had their land stolen in Anatolia – they did. Bantu Blacks stole land from pygmies. European Jews stole land from the Palestinians. Slanty eyed people stole land from the Black looking natives [the negritos] of the Philippines and Thailand. The Australian Aborigines in certain theories, arrived only 5,000 years ago and brought dingos with them, and stole the land from kinky haired negrito looking people.
It happens. The only difference is the Jew controlled media focuses only on Whites because guilt tripping White people is vital to them continuing to rule as a minority in the West. Same with slavery. Arabs get a pass, while Whites get exclusive guilt and blame for it.
How did this work in practical life?
Did the Europeans send over an army and clear out the Indians, so settlers/pioneers could follow and establish farms and villages?
Or did ships full of wanna bee settlers, with kith and kin, show up, start homesteads with one hand and fight the Indians with the other?
Did the settlers take over established farms?
The best thing to do would have been, to leave a whole continent to a stone age culture.
Whistling past the graveyard, Shlomo.
I can smell you from Sarah Palin’s house. hehe. How about trying a disappearing act, boy. teehee. And please wash your ass before you do.
Cue: That Smell by Lynyrd Skynyrd
Of course Americans seized the land from the Indians. Little distinction matters if it was “sold” or “stolen” — as if the Indians had maintained clear chains of title and so forth. Often “sales” happened in light of the fact that what was coming would be worse absent the “sale”. And even more often, in fact constantly, the Indian doing the “sale” was no relation to the surprised other ones who actually inhabited the land in question. Americans also completely destroyed Indian cultures. Most of the genocide would be accidental, in the form of imported European diseases. But still it happened.
Face up to the facts. Indians were roughly treated and greatly wronged. People who try to rationalize otherwise only look foolish.
On the other hand, everybody who was involved on both sides are dead. All that was destroyed is gone forever, it cannot be brought back. “Restitution”, from whom to whom? It really is a matter for God to sort out now. Go ahead and give Virginia back to … who? I might be all for that, to be honest, but not for said reasons of “restitution”, but more to get rid of the clowns who run the place now, on the theory that we could hardly do worse.
This Land is your land
This Land is my land
From California to the New York’s island.
This Land was made for you and me.
My dear goy,
The only word I understood in the incoherent verbal diarrhea you wrote is: graveyard.
Speaking of which (graveyard), it sounds and smells a lot like the current state of the US and the EU.
😀
I’d say that you’re a far better example of simian, racist troll, but that would be an insult to monkeys.
Your typically Western problem is in seeing the Earth as property. That is the pathopsychology that has seen the natural world devastated, and our doom sealed. Enjoy your last twenty years (if we have that long).. Perhaps you can find some varmints to shoot, trap or poison, and some tree to chop down.
Is that you, Pauline?
I must add that the demise of the Illini tribes came primarily at the hands of other native tribes after the arrival of the Europeans had upset the balance of power. In particular the Iroquois tribes had acquired firearms from the Dutch and English in the fur trade, giving them advantage in firepower that allowed the Iroquois to dominate and and destroy any number of neighboring tribes during the course of the so-called Beaver and French & Indian Wars. By 1650, the Iroquois had expanded their territory and the fur trade into the Illinois Country, chasing the Illini across the Mississippi River.
During this time, the number of Illini tribes was reduced from twelve to five: the Cahokia, Kaskaskia, Michigamea, Peoria, and Tamaroa remained, while the Chepoussa, Chinkoa, Coiracoentanon, Espeminkia, Maroa, Moingwena, and Tapouaro had disappeared or merged into the remaining five tribes.
But the Illini had other enemies all around them to the north, west and south in addition to the Iroquois coming in from the east. It is some testament to the martial skill and warrior spirit of the Illini tribes to consider they’d held on to this very choice territory for some unknown period of time before the Europeans arrived, and it was only the changed dynamic brought on by the arrival of the Europeans that upset existing balances of power throughout the Americas, and let their enemies gain the upper hand.
Unfortunately for the Illini, they’d allied themselves with the French who wouldn’t sell them firearms.
Finally, as the author Jef Costello notes, there was a very wide gap of several thousand years of cultural and technological development that divided the peoples of the two hemispheres and gave one an overwhelming advantage against the other.
Wash your azz, kike. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. A little soap & water never hurt anyone. And for goodness sake, jew boy, floss before brushing. Now make that bar of soap disappear, magic boy. Wash, wash, wash, don’t forget behind the ears.
Did We Steal America From The Indians? NO, we stole land from the Indians, BUT Whites ( European Whites ONLY) BUILT America, not (((kikes,))) not Blacks, not Browns, not Yellows.
No north american tribe had a written language and few south american tribes did. So how did they establish what land they owned? We can’t let them say, “I live here so i own all the land for 50 miles around.”
Harry 1 Tonto 0
Heydrich 1 Inferiors 0
Zylenskyy 1 Putin 0
Biden 1 Trump 0
Israel 1 Gaza 0
Now in other action it was………..Bill and Hilary doubles defeating Nuland and Frankenstein..
American indians were the evilest culture in history. They loved torture and tortured to death countless numbers of indians and white settlers. We need to talk about that. Geronimo loved to hang a white man upside down and keep a small fire burning a few inches from his head. Took a week to die.
That sounds like how Jews stole Palestine between the late 1800s and 1948.
Not at all, Shlomo. The Jew didn’t, couldn’t, wouldn’t be able to conquer anyone without aid from the West, nor is the Jew capable of building anything worth a shit due to lack of any worthwhile skills and just laziness. The Jew is allergic to physical work of any sort as well as mano el mano combat. Without the West, Israel would have zero chance against their Arab cousins. A duck would stand a better chance against an alligator.
Can it truly be that you thought that Franz was saying that the ethnonym Slav was derived from the noun slave rather than the other way around? The etymology of slave used to be something that everyone learned, at the very latest, in high school.
Of course, the other complainer, the renowned Mr./Ms. Anonymous, doubled down on his/her ignorance about the word’s etymology by adding a healthy dose of sarcasm to his reply.
Even though the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary insists on Wokely preaching to its users that respectable virtue-signalers say “enslaved persons” rather than “slaves,” it still hasn’t gone whole hog by tracing slave’s etymology to something Derek Chauvin said in a bar before he and his cop buddies carried out their planned martyrdom of Saint George Floyd.
Speaking of words and parts of speech, the author, Jef Costello, is dead wrong in saying that fraught isn’t an adjective. Indeed, his article, evidently like Not Stolen, is fraught with errors.
Our family has mixed race heritage from a variety of ancestors, something true of a pretty good percentage of Americans.
One Thanksgiving I found myself thinking how much my aunt and uncles resembled Chief Dan George. The family farm was in north central Arkansas. My sunt and uncles told me that the whole family was relieved when the local courthouse burned, taking family records with it, so the farm couldn’t be taken away because of our Native American heritage.
Ah, an ignorant jackass replies
In this post-modern age neither truth nor justice matters. No one can criticize the version I presented in #30, but someone in another thread will flatly declare that I am making baseless claims.
At present, none of them have the courage to address any of my claims. But that’s why there will be a bunch of moronic statements like this unfortunate Franz who seems to be another dull panzer commentator, who intends to make a name for himself with imbecile statements.
What a bunch of falsifications in the quote, which is understandable considering that the entire history of that period is one big falsification. It’s just ridiculous to read cited examples that are out of time and space.
The term ‘Slavs’ was artificially created in the 6th-7th century to suppress Serbian name. As for language, the oldest language in Europe is Vinča/Serbian which has continuity from the Palaeolithic and is older than Latin, Hebrew and Greek by many thousands of years, not to mention English (12th century AD) or German, which is even younger.
Sanskrit is a local version of the ancient Serbian language that was brought there by the Aryans. All those languages, as younger ones, have taken many words from Serbian. We have already said before that the English words: land, ghost, vampire, cat, father, and many others are adopted from Serbian.
From the Serbian word ‘med’ (honey) came the words – medicine, medicament, etc. Therefore, one should first read comment #30 in order to be able to orient oneself in time and space instead of spouting nonsense a la Panzer Franz.
Should we say that dozens of Serbs were Roman emperors such as Constantine, Diocletian, Justinian, Galerius, and many others. Yes, Spartacus was a Roman soldier and later a slave leader and he was also a Serb.
Droll. Very droll. But he thereby exposes his cognitive impairments by proving he can’t even come up with an original response but merely plagiarizes the statement that accurately identifies his philosophic stance that he demonstrated he has adopted as exhibited by the conclusions he voiced to which I original responded.
.
“Sanskrit is a local version of the ancient Serbian language that was brought there by the Aryans.”
The Lithuanians make the same claim, whereas, the Sanskrit speakers claim the reverse meaning that all those languages derived from them but I say that both are wrong and the ProtoIndoEuropean came from somewhere in the Caucasuses, e.g. present day Chechnya, Dagestan etc.
2 White guys are walking down the road on a Saturday evening trying to find something to do. They’re searching their pockets trying to scrounge up some change for a bottle of vodka when they come upon a carnival tent with a sign out front that says “For only 1 dollar,we can turn you jewish”.
Todd’s got $1.01 and Jeff’s only got 99 cents,so Todd goes “Look,there’s no reason for both of us to get scammed. I’ll go inside,give them a dollar and if it works,I’ll come out and give you the penny and you can go in and do it.” Jeff says that’s alright so Todd mosies in to the tent and there’s this bright flash of light followed by a lot of asthmatic wheezing and soon enough a guy comes out with a caftan,sidelocks,a greasy dirty beard, fucked up rat teeth, he’s jacking off in public and then rubbing his hands together,chucking bombs at babies,he smells like piss,the whole bit. He’s as jewish as Johnathan Greenblatt.
Jeff goes “Holy shit! It worked! Quick give me the penny so I can go in and try it!”
And Todd says “Help! Help! Police! It’s an antisemitic hate crime! I’m being Holocausted!”
There has been no Aryan invasion in the subcontinent of India / it got inserted by the RotSchild falsificators during the socalled British Raj in India (of which they were the great movers behind the scenes…
They mobilised scholars – just like Scofield in the West with the footnote Bible- to do this work – Max Mueller is one of them… they translatd the Vedic Litterature in English from there other languages followed…
Sanskrit – a friend of mine made from that once Sun Script – he has some book published on how many languages would be deived from Dutch – te language of the Neherlands…
Cigarette – zuig er uit – litt. suck from it… etc. He is a funny guy / rough background but academics in the Netherlands took his ideas seriously some time ago…
The sound value – of each mantra – of Sanskrit in which the Vedas have come to us is of prime importance…not the meaning of the events that took place in history or as some want it as mythology….
About Serbia & India / this association comes up Nikola Tesla who is as most will now from Serbia met in Chicago – Indian – Swami Vivekananda at some World Congress on religion in 1895 via French actress Sarah Bernhard
https://www.teslasociety.com/tesla_and_swami.htm Tesla attended many of Vivekandas lecturs / got to know each other well
Later back in India Vivekananda in a lecture: “I myself have been told by some of the best scientific minds of the day, how wonderfully rational the conclusions of the Vedanta are. I know of one of them personally, who scarcely has time to eat his meal, or go out of his laboratory, but who would stand by the hour to attend my lectures on the Vedanta; for, as he expresses it, they are so scientific, they so exactly harmonize with the aspirations of the age and with the conclusions to which modern science is coming at the present time”.
Tesla was opposin Einstein…..https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/taking-einstein
Einstein – btw a staunch zionist -is known to have worked in a patenT office for some years & must have read the theries of French phycicist Emile Poincare…..
Funny point (point) carre (square) / Albert E. has put the Ein stein on the point / the apex….RotSchild media power is responsible why the world sees everywhere THE tongue out of the mouth of Albert E.
Sanskrit is the most ideal for computers so say experts: https://www.analyticsinsight.net/forget-programming-languages-machines-need-good-old-sanskrit-to-perform-efficiently/
CIA O
Thank you, I agree with your view of the Lithuanian language and the oit theory, but not with the Caucasian theory. Maybe I will later explain it concisely, but it is better for you to explain where that language originated, to describe the previous 5000 years of that language (from the proto-language) and how and when it spread across Europe and a large part of Asia. Also, what is the connection of the Rg Veda with that Caucasian language and which modern language is a direct continuation of that so-called PIE language.
Even were this true, so what? No matter how glorious and grandiose the Serbs’ past might have been—I am not alone hereabouts, however, in considering this claim dubious—the fact remains that the English word slave derives from Slav. To restate that fact, first stated by Franz, with supporting documentation was the sole reason for my earlier comment.
Thanks!
(3 min)
This is true in the sense that only the Aztecs AND THE MAYANS AND THE MI’KMAW had developed a pictographic alphabet and system of writing when Europeans appeared on their shores. What does a horse’s ass feel like?
Do you even Indian bro?
#3 @Odyssey: Enough about fucking Serbs and Serbia! You’ve got Tesla and that’s enough instead of posting these made-up stories. Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Serbian. Everything you post about Serbia is a lie. Stop the madness (he said to the mental patient).
So, what? So, nothing! A trifle. This trifle is perhaps the biggest forgery in world history. Is there anything dubious? You might be able to say something if you had some knowledge that you don’t have. That imbecilic quote testifies to that.
When was the English language able to form that word based on the name ‘Slavs’? The language was formed in the 12th century AC. What happened in England then? Catholic William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings, destroyed Orthodoxy in England and imposed Catholicism. The whole country was devastated.
At that time, and for the next few hundred years, Serbia was the strongest country in Europe and in terms of population, it was similar to the English and Germans. The founder of the medieval dynasty was a descendant of Constantine’s sister and Emperor Licinius, with whom he issued the Edict of Milan at their wedding function. Her mother was the daughter of Emperor Maximian, Diocletian’s co-emperor, and the sister of Maxentius, governor of the city of Rome. Constantine himself married her mother’s sister. Where were the English then and their English language? Before Constantine and after him, there were dozens of other Serbian emperors (e.g. Justinian).
So where are the slaves? On what basis could the English in a state in disintegration, with a language that was almost extinct and was barely preserved in monasteries, take the word for a slave after the example of some ‘Slavs’? Which so-called ‘Slavs’ did they know and have contact with?
So what language did the Anglos use before then? Just like there used to be Old Serbian, different from modern Serbian, there was also the Old English language. And whatever Serbian was spoken in Vincha would have hardly been the same as modern Serbian.
So you give us your etymology of the English word “slave”, seeing you disagree with Pierre de Craon.
I am no expert on the Proto-Indo-European language but my guess is somewhere in the cold part of Russia there lived a people who spoke the mother of Indo-Persian-European languages. And cold and famine may have driven them out to western Europe and to the East towards Iran and India.
Thanks. A simple logic is sufficient for the basic picture. Is it more likely that these people lived for a couple of tens of thousands of years in some Russian ice without food or did they live in some microclimate without ice on the banks of a large river rich in fish where they created a high civilization over thousands of years and where they were very numerous. The creation of a language requires a critical mass of people, not lonely nomadic families wandering the Russian steppe, with or without ice.
There are differences between the development of the Serbian and English languages. It can be proven that the Serbian language is very old (Alinei says from the Paleolithic). Linguistics is a much more exact science than some people think. It is known how many thousands of years it takes for a language to develop organically (other languages are derived from organic languages, such as all Slavic languages from Serbian), the periods when certain consonants appeared are known. I usually illustrate that it takes 4-5000 years of development from the consonant ‘Rrrrrr…’, to the sentence ‘Serbs are a very wonderful people!’.
Many modern Serbian words are the same as at the time of the first industrial revolution (5000 BC in Vinca) or earlier. Tagore’s great-granddaughter found 22% identity (11% high similarity) of Sanskrit and modern Serbian words (something can be seen from #125). Younger languages arose in the environment of the Serbian language. Latin was a provincial Apennines that was taken over by the church but was not a spoken language. There is a 200-year-old dictionary of Latin words adopted from Serbian.
English was practically formed in the 12th century (there’s an excellent BBC 8-part documentary on its history) as it was almost eradicated and preserved in monasteries. It took a lot from the French language – military, culinary and, I think, legal terminology. It also took earlier a lot from Serbian, so that many archaic Serbian words have been preserved in English (the terms Saxons in Germany, Wends or Lusatian Serbs are considered to overlap).
If the English language only took the word for ‘slave’ from Latin in the Middle Ages, then the question is how did they not have that word earlier and if so, what was it. Did the Catholic Church come up with that word for ‘slave’ and how come the Latin language didn’t have that word at the time of the gladiators 1000 years earlier?
If we are talking about prisoners in medieval conflicts in central Europe (modern Germany?), who captured whom. The captives were not slaves because slavery did not officially exist but serfs may have existed.
Why is the English word for ‘slave’ not for e.g. ‘Irish’ (and who could be considered their slaves at that time), who were much closer to them instead of ‘Slavs’, with whom they had no direct contact? Pierre’s quote is illogical (I also expect from him to come with the aforementioned dubiousness), I may really study the origin of the English word ‘slave’ myself.
There is a certain irony here. The Hudson Bay Company was granted a Charter in 1670 giving the Company ownership of the watershed, about 1/3 of what is now Canada. While they had employees travel with the Indians to the interior as early as 1690, they remained at the shores of the Hudson and James Bays to conduct their commerce with the “Indians”. The first inland trading post was 1774, after the end of the war with France. While further trading posts were built, even into what is now the US, they continued with their “not leaving a footprint” manner of conducting trade. Yes, some of the traders took “country wives” gifted by the Chiefs to strengthen ties, but they chose to remain low key. The real problems started with the rival North West Company illegally entering the territory and encouraging the “Indians” to violence against the HBC. It was all downhill after that, including large scale (illegal) immigration from Quebec, sponsored by the RC Church. It ended with the British Government first forcing a merger of the companies, then revoking the Charter and selling the land to the Canadian government. The resulting treaties are now being claimed to be something they aren’t.
https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2018/04/the-oldest-english-writing-in-the-british-library.html
This interesting reference also mentions other texts older than the date of the creation of the English language according to you. Also it states:
What is the first known text in the Serbian language? Can you find a contemporary reference to what languages were spoken in Serbia at that time (700 to 1100 AD)?
I am not saying that what you claim isn’t true but you need to furnish some references.
I await a longish comment from “Odyssey” complaining that you are covering up the fact that the “Indians” you speak of were actually Canada’s true aboriginals: Serb explorers who had arrived in Canada around 35o BC.
Most of those technologically advanced, peace-loving people were wiped out by vicious Dutch, English, and French traders, who then replaced the “Indians” with Lapps and Andaman Islanders, who were promised perpetual First Nations status, complete with casino licenses, in return for keeping mum about their own cooperation with the Serb genocide in Canada.*
________
*WHIMSICALITY ALERT!
Very disappointing, I know you can do much better. With the absence of wit, you can’t brag that you can’t find a single ‘doubiosis’.
I already mentioned some references earlier and by the way. For example, the Xanthos obelisk from the 8th century BC, which I have already written about. That script is identical to the Etruscan one, which I also wrote about and referenced a book about its decoding that no one in the West wish to hear about. References are also Sanskrit as well as the Vinča script. It is little known that Serbian manuscripts were systematically destroyed by the Greeks (for example, Patriarch Photios of Constantinople destroyed all Serbian books from the library). When the topic is about it, we can recall these and some other references.
Thanks for the information. Obviously, there has been a cover-up as I was not aware of this.
I got the information from an Albanian, so it must be true.
Xanthos isn’t quite in Serbia, and between Vincha and the first known manuscripts is a long time.
It would be good if you could be more generous with links and references, e.g. Patriarch Photios’ book burning, to save us doing the searches.
I saw a report concerning an Indian tribe who had their land taken away by the MassiveTwoTits State or Colony ILLEGALLY. And recognized as such by legal experts. But it took decades to get it back.
So you see, folks, that is how vigilantism gets started and expands. Justice denied.
And not a word about Kennewick Man , Solutrian culture and ancient megalithic structures built by non-indians?
I’m none too fond of the Yankees, but prior to the Civil War all Americans fought against these savages,
What year is it where you live? Where I live it’s 2023 and we don’t call people Yankees unless they are in pinstripes playing on a baseball diamond – We grew up
It seems to me that the European conquest of the American Indian was quite benign compared to what may have been their fate if the Japanese had landed on the west coast and desired the continent.
The Europeans certainly didn’t genocide the race nor was it ever attempted. It was probably one of the most subtle conquests in all history.
The only cause for the extinction of the pure-bloodlines of American Indians is their lack of concern for preserving them. Inbreeding with other races, perhaps predominantly with their European conquerors, has all but exterminated their bloodlines – a practice that no other people compelled them to do. Indeed, the primary guilt for their extinction is on them.