patrick.net

I have not listened to the man, I also don't know who he is. This country is built up on the blood of millions who lived here before, just like Israel is built upon the blood of hundreds of thousands. If you are proud of that, I feel kinda sorry for you. Then you do not realize that things can go peacefully, too. Why are humans so bloodthirsty? The native tribes were probably not all peaceful, either, but Thanksgiving has come to be because the immigrants survived with the help of the Natives. I don't thank any country minds that there are people coming (and going). But Europe now sees, what comes of an invasion, just like Native Americans saw, what happened, they have been trampled, murdered, dishonored... Is that something to be proud of?

Orson Scott Card (author of Ender's Game) wrote "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" back in 1996. Yes, it's fiction, but there were actually a fair number of demons Western Civilization needed to iron out. Unfortunately, the rest of the world remained "red in teeth and claw."

Fans of cyclic history will recognize that sometimes, civilizations shed their martial ways and are consumed by the Goths surrounding and envying them.

@Ingrid

The Indians died of diseases in large numbers, but those diseases were never spread intentionally - the "smallpox blankets" hoax started by Prof Ward Churchill of U. Michigan is complete fiction.

America was not built on the blood of anyone. Americans did import slaves from Africa who were already enslaved over there by other Africans, but ended that practice about when everyone else did, and far earlier than the Arabs, who still have black slaves to this day in some places. Every culture on earth had slaves until white people stopped it globally, mostly by being in control of various colonies.

The worst you can honestly say is that Indian tribes were herded together into reservations, partly because of their ongoing violence against settlers. There are now somewhat more Indians in America than when white people arrived, which shows you how incredibly sparse the population here was when Europeans first arrived. Mexico had a pretty high density of Indians though, and continues to today. Very different history down there.

Indians would regularly slaughter each other in the most horrific ways imaginable, like skinning alive. White people were just one more tribe, and much more gentle than the people they displaced.

It's really hard to estimate these things given all of the fake and hidden history, and many genuine anomalies in various descriptions. Graham Hancock's books hypothesize very large past populations in North and South America into antiquity. Many earth findings suggest advanced older civilizations that came and went mysteriously rather than the '1492' myth of discovering a new and largely unpopulated land. The Bering land bridge theory of populating the Americas is complete bogusness.

We have been spoon fed bullshit for the most part in standard education. The Smithsonian collects and destroys evidence that does not follow a traditional imposed fake narrative, and their charter even says as much that this is an important part of their designated 'mission'.

Like Patrick said, many of the alleged 'slaughters' may have been from diseases novel to them rather than the sword. Indians were not served well by being more concerned with their traditional tribal conflicts than worrying about the massive population of Euros headed into their territories, much as the Middle East seems to remain today. Try to keep a scorecard on Syria and all the warring and proxy groups who seem to shift loyalties on a whim.

There is an interesting book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, but I would read the book rather than the various recast documentaries based on it. " ....Jared Diamond's theory on technology disparity caused by guns, steel, and germs' impact."

There is also a site called stolenhistory.net that explores a lot of anomalous historical information.

Several years ago I partially read a book from a Native American historian. She seemed to think quite differently. There were Natives before the Bering street, I read recently, as remains were found that predate it. I agree that not all tribes were gentle, but quite a few seem to have been.
The Smitsonian is not alone. There are quite a few musea that destroy or hide what does not fit 'history', which is probably 95 % lies. It has been known for many years that the history of Egypt is quite badly distorted because an Egyptian historian in Roman times duplicated the Pharaos, adding 300 or more years to the real history, bit it is still thaught like that in schools. Just one example. What we learned in Belgium about the Congo is 100 % lies. They could hardly teach us our former king was a murderer, mutilizer, thief, rapist?
Certainly many died of diseases, but all those tribes forced to go to Oklahoma, some in freezing weather... I have not been able to read that story to the end, it was that horrible.

The Clovis fraud, taught in schools and universities to this day, stated that populations migrated over the Bering from Asia between glaciers.

There have never been any human remains identified of any 'Clovis', just selected artifacts. Also, the 'Clovis Layer' in archeology was deemed to be the 'end depth' of such explorations. Of course, I remember being taught the Clovis fraud in school, too.

Margaret Mead was also a fraud, apparently appended to the Intels. I remember seeing her talk in Berkeley in the day when she was still rattling around. Her job was to spread socialist themes in anthropology. It is similar to Jane Goodall who preaches a highly selective fantasized version of animal behaviors in monkeys. She is also a fraud, subsidized it seems by the baleful powers. Of course, she is on board with the WEF propaganda religion of 'people bad' desired human extinction green themes.

There are now archeology sites that go below the so called 'Clovis' layer and have found abundant evidence of human settlements and human remains preceding it. Apparently, the Smithsonian often shows up and tries to expropriate these sites and collect the artifacts, so the diggers have to kick them out and reject their 'help'.

One wonders about the viciousness of academics to opposing theocratic versions of science and history, and it comes down to their status and their income being associated with what amounts to a Mockingbird version of false history, and a Kommie style struggle session against anybody who opposes their themes. Many of our major 'authorities' are doctrinaire frauds whose task is to keep us in the dark about our past. When an academian steps out of line, they are persecuted, fired, and their grant money dries up. It is Inquisitorial suppression.

There are always layered 'universities', with one version of science and history for the agog plebs, and 'inner sanctum universities' for designated elites and bloodlines who are given the real scoop so they can 'rule'. That's true for the Ivies as much as any other school. Technocracy is taught only up to the point that the technocrats are needed for work.

The end goal, as usual, is to engineer that what we believe are always lies to de-synchronize public consciousness. That is the familiar theme. Whether it is religion or school, they want us chasing fairy tales. Their vicious fear of truth means that what we believe challenges the control grid.

Modern human beings have, as far as the latest tabulation, existed for approximately 300,000 years. Why do we now have "advanced" civilization, as opposed to tens of thousands of years ago? Recently unearthed ruins at Göbekli Tepe in what is now southwestern Turkey dating from 9500 BC further fuel the smoldering fire which is the "Sapient Paradox."

Personally, I think we let psychopaths end up ruling us and blasting us back to dust via ABC (some variant of atomic, bacteriological, or chemical) warfare, time and time again. The author Herman Miller had something to say about this.

There is lot of flaws above. I see people with guns just stealing from people without guns. Catholics n muslims are way higher on violence scale.both have eliminated complete ethnicities.

Europe was quite shithole before 1400, even after.
Gunpowder invented by Chinese.
Europeans first began using guns in the second quarter of the 14th century, around 1330 CE.

Every description n stories show europe at constant war. Look at images of crusades, kids in rag fighting muslims.

Number of beheading , burning women or killing bcs other didt agree with their version of Bible is everywhere. Even with natives, killing n fighting they were not eliminating whole race. Europe Torture stories are everywhere. Puritans were original refugees. These guys couldn't even farm, natives helped them. Once they build, they betrayed n took over natives.

Current British books describe Americans as unemployed bumpkins. Usa was dumping of criminals by both British n French.

Pinal colony usa
https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/the-land-of-the-free-criminal-transportation-to-america/
French

https://www.benningtonbanner.com/local-news/a-readable-history-of-new-orleans/article_e920a907-abe9-5506-8ae6-cebde5e7d4ec.html

Spain n Portugal hanged or chopped too many peoples hand to convert to catholic.

Except for Rome rest of Europe was mess till colonization, slaves n stealing. Spanish n african gold, indian gold, n diamonds.
Leopold killed 20 million Africans.
Europeans killed100 million americans natives by moving n removing their food, 100 million indians by starvation. Even after all this money n wealth they had 2 world wars where they tried to kill all Europeans. British have tried to kill of Irish, scottish..

Almost as if they do opposite of 1st commandant, the shall not kill.

Usa got rich after ww1 n 2 when everyone bought things from usa. Transferring British n European loot to usa.

KgK one says

Europe was quite shithole before 1400, even after.

1000 years of little to no lending at interest, without the figleaf of Patronage/Gifts the Muslims used, kept Europe poor since the fall of Rome.

KgK one says

Europeans killed100 million americans natives by moving n removing their food, 100 million indians by starvation.

If there were 100 million American natives the Europeans never could have colonized it. Even the whole of Europe did not have that many people in 1600. The areas north of the Rio Grand had well under 10 million at that time.

What happened to KgK's comments?

KgK one says

Usa got rich after ww1 n 2 when everyone bought things from usa. Transferring British n European loot to usa.

Bologna. If the Euros were such a market for Americans goods after WW1 without the Euros selling goods in America there would have been no Smoot-Hawley tariffs. After WW2, the balance of trade did favor the US, but not by a great amount. American wealth was a product of American productivity, not the looting of Europe.