Immigrants? Invaders? Colonists?

All the same? For some, apparently so.

In this last of a series by a guest blogger on the subject of immigration, the writer either is misguided or is making a huge mistake in conceding ground to the anti-Whites. He — I assume the writer to be a ‘he’ — uses the Left’s terminology (“Native American“) and seems, like our Dear Leader, to make a moral equivalency between jihad-bent invaders and the Christian Pilgrims who came to North America to worship freely.

And he seems to take as a given that the Pilgrims, or ‘white devils‘ as he calls them — yes I know he may be using it ironically, but it’s a bad, bad choice on his part — were homicidal or genocidal as today’s brainwashed young and their teachers insist.

“By welcoming the Europeans to their shores and helping them to survive the first hellish winter, the Native Americans signed their own death warrants. There was no mass resistance to the immigration/invasion until it was far too late.
Seriously, if you happened to be a Native American with access to a time machine, what advice would you give the Indians? Help the settlers or kill every last one of the white devils?

And that is the problem facing Europe now.”

There is so much wrong with just that short extract. It sounds as though he is buying the anti-White Left’s twisted view of history. Maybe he’s read Howard Zinn’s ”history” books, or maybe he was educated in a politically correct travesty of a school system. He identifies himself as ‘European’ but his language usage and terminology suggest he is North American. Whatever.

The PC view of our history is that our ancestors were not just evil, but also helpless incompetents who did not know how to survive the elements, how to grow or harvest crops, and that they had to be treated like children by the all-wise Indians — excuse me, ”Native Americans”, taught how to grow food and how to build shelters and survive.

Do you mean to tell me that harsh winters were unknown in England? Or in the Netherlands, from which another group of colonists came? Really? Maybe England was a semi-tropical paradise where winter was unknown, and the people had no knowledge of how to build housing to protect themselves. Our children are taught that the Pilgrims would have had no food on the first Thanksgiving had the generous and nurturing Indians not shared food with them.

It may well have been the case that the English colonists were unfamiliar with the plants and game that existed in North America. Perhaps they lacked knowledge of what was safe to eat, or which crops grew best. But our ancestors were nothing if not resourceful; the very history of Europe and our forebears’ flourishing civilization there tell us that they were not lacking in intelligence, know-how, ingenuity and perseverance. They did survive through the Ice Age without having to have the Wise and All-Knowing noble savages come across the ocean and rescue them.

Yet our school textbooks and people’s heads, unfortunately, are full of these disparaging little stories about how the colonists were clueless and helpless without their Wise Elder Brothers, the Native Americans.

Yet we’re to accept that, while being childish and feckless in most ways, they were diabolically genocidal, and that they thought up schemes such as giving disease-infested blankets to the naive and ingenuous Native Americans, so as to kill them en masse. Or that the colonists ‘invented scalping’, a practice which was unknown before said ‘white devils’ came to these shores. So, according to the official narrative, our ancestors were both childish and ignorant and yet cunning and diabolically cruel.

The writer also makes an equivalency between the initially sparse English colonies and the millions who are coming from the Third World to Western nations now. There is no comparison. There is no equivalency. The motives of today’s Third World immigrants seem to be divided between simple envy, covetousness, and greed on the part of many of those coming to North America now, as well as the desire to wage jihad and kill (or convert) the peaceful and tolerant Infidels, the desire to ‘conquer’ the women as we see with this mass rape and molestation epidemic. Would this guest blogger care to point out to us where the English (or the Dutch) colonists in the 16th and 17th centuries paralleled this behavior?

Remind me again: was it the English or the Dutch colonists who carried out sneak attacks on sleeping villagers, cutting throats or carrying women and children off, raping and slaughtering, often torturing captives to death slowly? Seems to me it was the ”Native Americans” who did those things all across the continent, the horrors being replicated as the settlers moved West over time. I have saved reports from books of the time, describing these atrocities. Yet the official story is that the Indians were morally superior. How? Why?

Some, even some misguided ‘conservatives’ will argue that the Indians had understandable motives in doing such things; their land was being ‘invaded’, and they were merely defending it, but rape, torture, enslavement of captives, wanton killing of young and old, those are not defensible tactics. The Indians for their part would not willingly coexist peacefully alongside Whites, though the White colonists foolishly gave them a chance, converted some to Christianity (or so they only thought, in some cases) and tried to persuade them to make peace. Some took the offer and stopped being hostile, but too many did not, and the attacks on Whites continued even into the early 20th century in some remote parts of the West.

It’s just a pity that ‘Bad Eagle’, known to us as David Yeagley, a Comanche patriot, is not alive to write his thoughts about this guest blogger’s piece. Yeagley, who was a gentleman and a scholar in the truest sense of the word, decidedly did not hold with the ”white devil” school of thought. He regarded Whites as having been worthy opponents of the Indians, and he thought that Whites won honorably, and were good warriors, not ‘white devils’ or opportunistic schemers who took advantage of the poor Indians. To see history in that way is essentially condescending to the Indian, as though they are worthy only of pity and sympathy, but not respect. Indians should not need to have ‘White knights’ speaking for them and taking offense on their behalf, any more than blacks should need to have paternalistic White people speaking for them at every opportunity.

This issue of how we frame our early history, especially that involving American Indians, is vitally important in the war for truth, which we should all be waging. The opposing side are warriors in the cause of the Lie. Lies are their weapons, lies are their cause and their whole reason for being. For too long, they have gone unchallenged. They have held the field, while we remain silent and thus give assent to their falsehoods and deliberate deceptions.

Notice how every time an anti-White starts ranting about our shameful history, of how White people are ‘oppressors’, they go on about how we ”stole” the Indians’ land, how we ”genocided” their people. Why do we go along with this? Why don’t we speak up and contest these falsehoods whenever they crop up? Even worse, why do so many ”conservatives” go along with much of the anti-White narrative? Do they think it makes them look more magnanimous or ‘fair-minded’ if they agree with much of what the antis say, such as agreeing that ”no, we shouldn’t have ‘genocided’ the poor Native Americans; we shouldn’t have cheated them out of their lands’‘. There is a good deal of misguided White guilt on the ‘right.’ Why? We need to confront this and disavow it.

And I think the term ‘genocide’ is far too freely tossed around these days. I know that some pro-Whites think that we should use it to our purposes, speaking of White genocide. And I agree that the powers-that-be seem to have just that grim purpose in mind — and that’s not conspiracy-mongering on my part. I am just taking them at their word. God knows many of them have said as much, openly, people like Noel Ignatiev or Tim Wise or any number of others. Some talk of a kind of ‘soft genocide’ where they advocate mixing our DNA out of existence for all practical purposes, via miscegenation and probably via genetic engineering, eventually. So yes, it’s a concern for European-descended people. But we need to stop accepting the term ‘genocide’ in regard to American Indians. They still exist in every state of the Union. They are still here, very visibly here, and any European who thinks Indians are extinct or rare is sadly misinformed. Any American who says American Indians were ‘genocided’ is delusional or a liar. Genocide truly means extirpation, and the Indians are still alive, not endangered — except perhaps by intermarriage with Hispanics or blacks, as is happening on a fairly large scale in some areas. In any case, we did not commit genocide against them. That lie should be stopped in its tracks.

Don’t give the least bit of fuel to the anti-Whites’ fire, no matter what.
We have no cause to be ashamed of our colonist ancestors, or of our Western pioneer ancestors who settled the frontier. It’s an affront to compare them to the lawless and barbaric invaders of Europe in our day. There is no moral equivalency there.