One of the most pervasive and insane lies of the past few decades is that the American Indians were living in peace and harmony until those nasty Europeans showed up and killed them while “stealing” their land
It’s nearly totally false, and is rooted in Cultural Marxism 🧵👇
First, as to the peace loving part, it’s probably the most idiotic myth
While an occasional tribe here or there might have been less violent than others, on the whole they were quite violent
And that’s not just in conquering and subjugating other tribes, though they did that too. Its also in the bloody, sickening tortures they carried out as a matter of course
Burning people alive, raping and torturing to death peaceful European women and children, hacking apart prisoners with sea shells, bit by bit, flaying them alive, etc
And that was widespread. As @njhochman pointed out in a recent tweet, while death by homicides was the cause of 2% of deaths across Europe at the time (17th century), in some native tribes it was 50%. And that often meant being tortured to death, not just stabbed
So it wasn’t for nothing that the American Declaration of Independence called them “merciless Indian savages”
In both their dealings with Europeans and dealings with each other, stomach churning violence was a matter of course and something they developed independently, not as a result of Europeans
The Last of the Mohicans does a great job of showing just how merciless and brutal they were
It was even worse in the Aztec South, where Cortes and his intrepid men essentially walked into a Satanic horror movie
Priests would top the beating hearts of sacrifice victims, flay little girls alive and wear their skin, and sacrifice their offerings to demonic gods by the tens of thousands
Meanwhile they ruled over a vast empire with an obsidian fist, butchering locals tribes that attempted to become independent or retain their independence
The Europeans were violent too, of course, but not to the same extent as the Aztecs
So, in the North there were control wars between two sides that butchered each other, particularly after Jamestown turned into a bloodbath, and in the South the Catholic conquistadors did their best to stamp out the demonic evil they came across
All that’s to say, and this is something that @0xAlaric and @njhochman have documented quite well, the Europeans were t showing up and slaughtering proto-hippies who just wanted to smoke weed and get along, as is now portrayed
Rather, they fought bravely, at often incredible odds, against hordes of barbarians who had spent generations butchering and torturing each other and wanted to do the same to the Europeans
So, why the lie about the Indians?
For one, modern leftists can’t accept that the natives, by whom they mean whoever was there last before the Europeans, were evil and violent, more akin to demons than hippies. To them, the Europeans must always be the evil ones
But it’s deeper than that. The “why” is important too
So, why? Why must they lie about the Europeans?
Because of the whole Critical Marxism mindset
After decades of naval gazing, self-hate, and churning anti-European sentiment, they’re convinced that any form of hierarchy is evil and must be dismantled, at least if it’s European at root
That means that have to hate what Europeans did in the New World (along with everywhere else). To them, Cortes isn’t a hero for stopping mass human sacrifice. He’s evil because his couple hundred men rallied native allies and defeated a vast native empire, as clear a sign as any of natural hierarchy and civilizational superiority
And so you get the lies. They can’t admit that European culture really was better in that it was more prosperous, murder was rarer, and, in any case it won the civilizational war and dominated the New World
That would mean admitting that there is a natural hierarchy amongst civilizations and that Europe was at the top, which their Cultural Marxist beliefs mean they can’t do
So they lie and claim the Indians were peaceful and awesome and the settlers who showed up only killed peaceable women, not that they fought against bloodthirsty tribes that had long murdered each other
Much the same is true of Africa and colonialism generally, which is why the Communist and “liberal democracy” worlds united to destroy Rhodesia: theamericantribune.news/p/why-rhodesia…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Barbarism is the inability to think of and plan for tomorrow, much less past it
Civilization, then, is when men plant trees in the shade of which they will never sit, and greatness and success are measured by their doing so🧵👇
Think of what it takes to build the sort of structures we associate with the great civilizations
The Pyramids of Egypt
The Acropolis of Athens
The Flavian Amphitheater of Rome
Hagia Sophia
Notre Dame
What is similar about them? Legacy is the point. They take years to build, with the work often going on for decades and outlasting the life of he who started construction
But when finished their stone stands as a testament for all time to the builder. Like the Pantheon declaring M. Agrippa, he built this, or as we still know the road Censor Appius Claudius Caecus built as the Roman way, they are a legacy that lasts for millennia
And why did they build those structures?
In part it was legacy
But more than that it was what society demanded. In Rome they had the cursus honorum, and, Coriolanus aside, the way to advance along it was contributing to the public, particularly in the form of magnificent public works
Greece had taken the idea a step farther, even, and instead of having taxes had competition amongst great men to build the public works. If a bridge needed building, the great men would compete to donate a magnificent bridge to the public. If the gods needed honoring, it would be a great man who constructed the marble-bedecked temple. Even much of the Acropolis was built in this manner
And so on: monuments to eternity were built because the public demanded it
First, having foreigners invade you is actually a punishment levied for not obeying God...not a commandment of His
Deuteronomy 28:43-45 provides, "Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers. All these disasters will come on you, and they will be with you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and keep all the laws that he gave you."
If God was pro-Great Replacement, why would he make it happening a curse for forgetting his commands?
No, it's quite clear that mass migration is a punishment from God, a curse for forgetting his commandments...which would make sense given that generally atheistic in practice America and Europe are suffering the worse from this Biblical plague
South African President Ramaphosa signed off on a new South African Land-Expropriation Law
It allows for the expropriation of property by the state for the purposes of ethnic economic equity, meaning white property will be stolen
This is how Mugabe destroyed Rhodesia🧵👇
The new law replaces South Africa's Expropriation Act of 1975. Under it, the government is allowed to seize land in the name of "public interest."
And what does that mean? In addition to the normal preeminent domain reasons, per Section 25 of the Constitution, it means "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources."
In other words, the "public interest" is defined as racial economic equity, or the races getting "what they need"
It's just race communism
Further, under the law, if property is being held for the sole purpose of wanting it to increase in value, which is the case with most property due to inflation, the state can take it without paying any compensation
That's because what it means, letting the cream of society rise to the top, leads to huge outcome differentials to which egalitarian liberalism reacts with fury
In fact, it's why the West destroyed Rhodesia and won't tolerate this either🧵👇
The simple fact is there are differences in culture and capability that are generally attendant with ethnic differences. Those, in turn, result in differences in outcome
British doctor Theodor Dalrymple, describing how that played out in Rhodesia, where he worked, said:
“Unlike in South Africa, where salaries were paid according to a racial hierarchy, salaries in Rhodesia were equal for blacks and whites doing the same job, so that a black junior doctor received the same salary as mine. But there remained a vast gulf in our standards of living, the significance of which at first escaped me; but it was crucial in explaining the disasters that befell the newly independent countries that enjoyed what Byron called, and eagerly anticipated as, the first dance of freedom. “The young black doctors who earned the same salary as we whites could not achieve the same standard of living for a very simple reason: they had an immense number of social obligations to fulfill. They were expected to provide for an ever expanding circle of family members (some of whom may have invested in their education) and people from their village, tribe, and province. An income that allowed a white to live like a lord because of a lack of such obligations scarcely raised a black above the level of his family. Mere equality of salary, therefore, was quite insufficient to procure for them the standard of living that they saw the whites had and that it was only human nature for them to desire—and believe themselves entitled to, on account of the superior talent that had allowed them to raise themselves above their fellows. In fact, a salary a thousand times as great would hardly have been sufficient to procure it: for their social obligations increased pari passu with their incomes.
“These obligations also explain the fact, often disdainfully remarked upon by former colonials, that when Africans moved into the beautiful and well-appointed villas of their former colonial masters, the houses swiftly degenerated into a species of superior, more spacious slum. Just as African doctors were perfectly equal to their medical tasks, technically speaking, so the degeneration of colonial villas had nothing to do with the intellectual inability of Africans to maintain them. Rather, the fortunate inheritor of such a villa was soon overwhelmed by relatives and others who had a social claim upon him. They brought even their goats with them; and one goat can undo in an afternoon what it has taken decades to establish.”
This same thing played out in the Rhodesian voting system
To vote on the important "A" voter roll in national elections, you had to either A) have the modern equivalent of $60k USD in Rhodesian property, or B) be highly educated
Those requirements were the same for blacks and whites. It was "colorblind" and as much of a meritocracy as is possible without communist confiscation of everything
What happened with it was much the same as happened with wealth generally: whites did better at qualifying, and though many blacks were able to qualify, whites tended to do so at a much higher rate
A huge problem with illegal immigration is that it brought truly nasty people here, from random criminals to MS-13-style gangs, and created a significant potential for South African-style farm attacks
This is a serious problem in some American farming towns, and in cities 🧵👇
First, as to the scope of the problem:
This is a major problem that's not often thought about, but should be in mind given the Tren de Aragua (a gang of Venezuelan illegal immigrant criminals) takeover of apartment buildings across the country
But while cities are most thought of, it's a rural problem too. Farms have imported totally unvetted, often criminal, workers by the truckload, and the opioid crisis has meant the widespread establishment of drug networks spreading out across the heartland.
The county of Galax, VA, for example, has a significant MS-13 problem. Drugs and farm laborers meant the establishment of illegal immigrant networks, and that has meant gang networks as well
The same should be expected not just of sanctuary cities that more or less encourage illegal immigration while doing little if anything to stop the crime brought by illegal immigrants, but farming communities across the country
If Galax, rural Virginia, has an MS-13 problem, you can be sure that California, Southwest, and similar communities known for large-scale agriculture relying on illegal immigrant labor have similar gang problems
The same is probably true of those places that, like rural Arkansas, employ illegal immigrants on a grand scale for awful jobs like meat-packing; the presence of such networks likely means the presence of gang networks as well, and the widespread nature of the drug problem make that all the more likely
It's MLK Day. So, to pair that with my favorite subject, what was MLK's stance on Ian Smith's Rhodesia?
As could be predicted given his communist connections, he stood totally opposed to Rhodesia's existence and independence
Instead, he sided with the communist rebels🧵👇
First, yes, in addition to being a serial philanderer and plagiarist, MLK Jr. had communist sympathies
Namely, some of his closest advisors and speechwriters were outright members communists
One was Stanley David Levison. He, who worked for the defense of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, traitors who handed nuclear secrets to the Soviets, was known to the FBI as a major financial coordinator for the Communist Party USA through 1957. He was an advisor and close friend of King; Andrew Young, a main villain of the Rhodesia story, stated, "Stan Levison was one of the closest friends Martin King and I ever had. Of all the unknown supporters of the civil rights movement, he was perhaps the most important."
Another was Harry Wachtel. Another lawyer, he was a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America, and his wife was a communist too, being identified in 1944 as a member of King County Communist Party. Wachtel founded the Research Committee, which not only provided King with philosophical, financial, and legal help, but helped write many of his speeches. Wachtel handled King's estate after his death
So, with two communists as his close friends, advisors, and speechwriters, King was suspected by the FBI of being a communist as well
It found that he, though not a card-carrying member, unlike Levison and Watchel, did believe in it, agree with it, and want to advance "friendship toward the Soviet Union"