Will Tanner Profile picture
Sep 1, 2024 10 tweets 6 min read Read on X
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 🧵👇 Image
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 stabbedImage
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 wereImage
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 independenceImage
Image
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 acrossImage
Image
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 EuropeansImage
Image
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 tooImage
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 superiorityImage
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 otherImage
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
 

Keep Current with Will Tanner

Will Tanner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Will_Tanner_1

Jan 31
This is very much a civilization-destroying idea

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🧵👇 Image
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 millenniaImage
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
Read 13 tweets
Jan 27
This is one of the stupidest, most mendacious claims of the favela Christian, "shithole socialist" talking points

God doesn't command you to import infinity violent foreigners into your country

In fact, the Bible is against doing so and describes it as a "disaster" 🧵👇
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."Image
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 plagueImage
Read 8 tweets
Jan 24
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🧵👇 Image
Image
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."Image
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 compensationImage
Read 15 tweets
Jan 22
This is oft-repeated, but not true

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🧵👇 Image
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.”Image
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 rateImage
Image
Read 16 tweets
Jan 21
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 🧵👇 Image
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 wellImage
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 likelyImage
Read 16 tweets
Jan 20
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🧵👇 Image
Image
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 deathImage
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"

Here's what the FBI noted in a 1968 reportImage
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(