ICE AGE COLUMBUS

Posted by captainchaos on March 19, 2008, 12:39 PM | #

Death to Amerikwa!

Posted by Fr. John on March 20, 2008, 09:58 AM | #

“And the most amazing this is where they came from…”
The last line in this clip for the science-fiction movie would have been better served, if they had only said, ‘And they were WHITE.”

That would have generated a LOT more interest, rather than depicting them as ‘proto-picts’ with their blue wattle face paint, and giving some sort of ‘Out of Lascaux’ mythological referent point.

It’s great fantasy, and the ‘holy grail’ status attributed to the spear point presages the ‘Lance of Longinus’ that pierced Christ’s side on Calvary, but it’s just another false religion, rather than science.

Not that I won’t request it of my library to get, just to off-balance the glut of Indian ‘bollywood’ films we now have to slog through, and the ‘pro-Islam’ books our tax dollars are purchasing.

Equal time, you understand….

Posted by James Bowery on March 20, 2008, 11:51 AM | #

While “who got there first” is interesting it isn’t as interesting as who created the carrying capacity first.  When you create carrying capacity you, in effect, create new land.  From a hardcore Malthusian perspective the debate over legitimacy of residence really should be less about who set foot first somewhere than about who first created the carrying capacity that now supports the land’s population.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 20, 2008, 01:47 PM | #

“When you create carrying capacity you, in effect, create new land.”  (—James B.)

And that virtual “new land” you created vanishes in a puff of smoke the minute you depart, as happened in Rhodesia, leaving your incompetent replacement population scratching its collective head wondering where all the good stuff — food, potable water, electricity, roads, and so on — abruptly disappeared to.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on March 20, 2008, 03:16 PM | #

John de Nugent, editor of THE BARNES REVIEW and a good friend of mine, on the Solutreans and Kennewick Man:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=5267000&postcount=41

C.

Posted by DeShea on March 21, 2008, 03:33 PM | #

Time to reclaim what is rightfully ours !  Wonderful writing !!! Many props to you!

Posted by Fr. John on April 03, 2008, 05:54 PM | #

Well, ordered mine. They were only 9.95. Didn’t it used to be more expensive?

Pass this one to everyone you know. Such a deal! :LOL

Posted by Yuezhus on April 03, 2008, 07:39 PM | #

The redskin savages committed genocide against-

...noone.

Not even the Paleolithic Caucasoid peoples there.

Tiny, TINY bands of roving stone age hunter-gatherers, dotted sparsely among an huge Ice Age continent, with no communication between each other let alone mutual inclusion, do not discriminate via racial characteristics.

I won’t say ‘white’, because these ‘white’ Americans would look completely different from modern whites. They would be very ugly, for one thing; they separated from the main European group at least ten thousand years before sexual selection started. They descended from people who left Europe 20,000 years or so ago. They would’ve had dark hair, dark eyes and swarthy skin, not that different from similar traits of modern Native Americans.

While their Clovis Point toolkit was very beautifully crafted, it wasn’t as efficient as the microblade toolkit invented by proto-NE Asians around the Lake Baikal area, apart from in the making of arrowheads and such. Aztec weaponry is descended from this form of stone craft, using small blades of stone or obsidian embedded into a wooden core in a neat row.

I really can’t understand how continent-wide racial genocide can happen in the barely populated, Ice Age Upper Paleolithic wilderness, nor how people who are otherwise smart can reach such conclusions. I’m looking at you, Kemp Defender, by night known as J Richards.

Posted by Tin Man on April 30, 2009, 07:50 AM | #

This argument has one major flaw:  the decendants of the Europeans who crossed over 17,000 years ago would have the right to the land they discovered, not modern Europeans.  Your arguement is like saying that modern-day French people would have the right to claim England as theirs because of the Norman conquest of England in 1066.  Prior to the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxons conquered England, so modern Germans could claim England as well.  And the Irish would have the right to claim Scotland as theirs because the Scotts are descended in part from Irish tribes.  You could run all over the Old World with such claims.  Maybe you should try asking the people in North America with the mtDNA that can be traced back to Europe from 17,000 years ago if they want modern Europeans in North America.  I doubt they will - it’s their land, not yours.

Posted by Dustin on June 19, 2010, 03:39 PM | #

Tin Man,

No, sorry, there’s no “flaw in the argument” at all.

When you die, and you do not leave a will indicating otherwise, then your property goes to your relatives. (This happens, in fact, even if you do not leave a will at all.) Modern-day Europeans are much more closely related to the Soultreans (Prehistoric Europeans) than Amerindians are. So if you acknowledge that the Soultreans had a right to North America, then that right would be transferred to modern-day Europeans, not to Amerindians.

Also, there is no evidence that Amerindians are descended at all from the pre-Amerindian peoples who reached North America before they did, and in fact evidence shows that today’s Amerindians are descended from a single migration from Siberia, not from multiple migrations including the pre-Clovis and Clovis peoples, so obviously what happened is that the pre-Amerindian population either died out before the Amerindians got to North America, or (what I think is more likely) were wiped out by them.

Even if the Solutrean Atlantic Crossing Theory turns out not to be correct, there are still mountains of evidence out there destroying the “official” PC-approved version of events, i.e. that so-called “Native” Americans were “here first” before anyone else, and that they didn’t take the land from anyone else. Most notably, there is the 13,000 year old Penon Woman skull, which is the oldest human remains that have ever been found in North America, and which is definitely not Amerindian.

Posted by Tin Man on November 27, 2010, 11:49 PM | #

North-east Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA haplotype (X) that connects with Solutreans.  They are the the descendants of Solutreans - you’re"closest relative” argurment is moot.  This was one of the points made in Ice Age Columbus, but you’ve choosen to ignore it.  Recently, it’s been shown that R1b is of recent middle-eastern origin (well after the LGM), so most men who carry it in western Europe cannot be descended directly from Solutreans.  Kind of muddies the picture, doesn’t it?

Posted by Steve Kaufmann on January 30, 2011, 12:41 PM | #

Von Hoffmeister’s point about “Whites” reclaiming lost territory from the Asiatic Native Americans implies that they had a right to do so…since they were overrun by Asians some 10,000 years ago. So what was the British excuse for decimating Aboriginal populations in Australia? Aboriginals had been in Australia for at minimum 40,000 years…what “right” did the Brits have to settle Australia? Even if Solutreans did indeed arrive in the New World 17K years ago, I don’t think this entitles all whites to return milennia later and conquer. BTW, it still remains to be proven that Solutreans were the first to set foot here…the documentary/movie bends the truth a bit by saying it’s been “proven” that “cavemen from Europe discovered America”...it’s not a sure thing just yet.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 30, 2011, 01:05 PM | #

Mr Kaufman, it’s a propaganda tool.  Surely you don’t begrudge white Americans a little propaganda of their own?  Everybody else is drowning in it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2011, 01:00 AM | #

So what was the British excuse for decimating Aboriginal populations in Australia?

The eradication of consummate evil in the form of Aboriginal ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism of their children.

what “right” did the Brits have to settle Australia?

The right of conquest.

Posted by Leon Haller on January 31, 2011, 07:31 AM | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2011, 05:00 AM | #

The eradication of consummate evil in the form of Aboriginal ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism of their children.
what “right” did the Brits have to settle Australia?
The right of conquest.

Then Mexicans have a “right” to America, because they damn sho is conquering our white asses!?

This is all wrong. Conquest does not establish ‘right’. Right of land occupancy is determined by the superiority of the civilization, coupled with the use to which the land is put.

According to KaufJew above, the abos had 40k years to make something of ‘their’ land, and failed to do so. By what right then can they claim the entirety of ancient, let alone modern white-civilized, Australia? At most they could claim to ‘own’ their little personalty (boomerangs they made, loin cloths, domesticated animals, if any).

Of course, any discussion of ‘right’ to me presupposes God, at least for practical effect. In GW’s merely material world, there is no ‘right’, only ‘eat or be eaten’. In that sense, right of conquest is indeed the only right.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 01, 2011, 02:09 AM | #

Leon,

Right of land occupancy is determined by the superiority of the civilization, coupled with the use to which the land is put.

So if Martians a la War of the Worlds sought to conquer earth, in the process exterminating all humanity, they would then have a “right” to do this due to their technological superiority?  I don’t think you believe that, but in order to be logically consistent you would have to.

Of course, any discussion of ‘right’ to me presupposes God, at least for practical effect. In GW’s merely material world, there is no ‘right’, only ‘eat or be eaten’.

No.  What GW would say is something to the effect that our morality which forbids us from pursuing our absolute racial advantage, limited only by our own power, even unto the extermination of the rest of humanity, is an expression of our Being - that is it is intrinsic to us.  So long as we are what we are, and we are true to ourselves, to our Being, no “God” need be relied upon.  Our morality is as real as our genetic peoplehood is real.  They are one and the same. 

Maybe because you are a typically bullish Kraut he is letting you twist in the wind.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 01, 2011, 03:26 AM | #

Then Mexicans have a “right” to America, because they damn sho is conquering our white asses!?

If the Mexicans were using force, then yes, but they are not, so it is not conquest.

Right of conquest is founded in the Christian/Catholic doctrine of ‘just war’. For Christians war is always evil but is justified if it eradicates a greater evil. Thus the consummate evil justifies war and the European conquest of indigenous peoples in the eyes of a Christian God.

Géza Róheim:

Describing it as “a quite favourable picture”, Roheim tells us of “the custom of raping Aboriginal children, eating every second child and making the older children also eat them. Mothers regularly forced their children to eat their newborn siblings in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure. Sometimes the fetus would be pulled out by the head, roasted and eaten by the mother and the children and sometimes a big boy would be killed by the father by being beaten on the head and given to the mother to eat”

Roheim: “the children who watched their mothers killing or eating babies suddenly avoided their parents, shrieked in their presence, or expressed unusual fear of them…recounting dreams about animal-man beings with the faces of parents smeared with blood. The fears and dreams get stored in their inner alters as time bombs to be exploded later in life.”

Steven A. LeBlanc, Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage. New York: St. Martins Press, 2003
Simon Harrison, Violence, Ritual and the Self in Melanesia. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993
Eli Sagan, Cannibalism: Human Aggression and Cultural Form. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1974
Geza Roheim, Children of the Desert: The Western Tribes of Central Australia. Vol. One. New York: Basic Books, 1974
Arthur E. Hippler, “Culture and Personality Perspective of the Yolngu of Northeastern Arnhem Land: Part 1—Early Socialization.” Journal of Psychological Anthropology
Cathy Joseph, “Compassionate Accountability: An Embodied Consideration of Female Genital Mutilation.” The Journal of Psychohistory 24
Ibid., p. 117; Edward Brongersma, Loving Boys. Vol. I. Elmhurst: Global Academic Publications, 1986

Maurice R. Davie, The Evolution of War: A Study of Its Role in Early Societies. Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003

In the foreword to Coming of Age in Samoa, Mead’s advisor, Franz Boas, wrote of its significance:

  “Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal…

Posted by Latest Bollywood Movie on October 20, 2011, 05:44 PM | #

As per my experience ice age is a better for on Columbus people…......