John Locke on the Acquisition of Property and Land Pertaining to the Native Americans Sunday, May 25 2014 

Anti-White Racism and Indians olivianus 10:24 pm

John Locke’s 2nd Treatise is fascinating. I have always wondered about what the precise definition is of property pertaining to acquisition of land; mostly because of what happened here in America with the Native Indians.

Locke, 2nd Treatise, Chapter V,

“Sec. 41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life; whom nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance, what might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy: and a king of a large and fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-labourer in England.”

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

It appears then that the native Indians were indeed judged by Yahuwah when they were killed off here for their laziness. The supposed majestic way of life of the native indians was anything but. It was a life of poverty and constant bloodshed among their own peoples.  They wanted to fight the white man who was supposedly dispossessing him of land he had never settled. His laziness turned out to be his downfall.

 

Trail of Tears? More Case Studies in The Native Genocide Myth Friday, Nov 29 2013 

Anti-White Racism and Indians and Jesuits olivianus 10:30 am

I have recently been told by a Native mongrel that my family committed Genocide against his ancestors because of the Trail of Tears.This person is another Anti-White Parasite who leeches off the WASP culture and believes the Bibles that were written by White men who gave him the ability to read anything to begin with. Anti-White Protestant Bible Believer! Wow!  Americans truly are bags of shattered glass.

Anyway, this exact complaint was answered by Missouri Senator Mason Thomas Benton, in his Thirty Years’ View; From 1820 to 1850, (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1854) Vol. I, pp. 624, 625. Chapter CXXXVI titled “Removal of the Cherokees from Georgia”,

“In the winter of 1835-’36 a treaty was negotiated, by which the Cherokees, making clean disposal of all their possessions east of the Mississippi, ceded the whole, and agreed to go West, to join the half tribe beyond that river. The consideration paid them was ample and besides that moneyed consideration, they had large inducements, founded in views of their own welfare, to make the removal. These inducements were set out by themselves in the preamble to the treaty, and were declared to be:

‘A desire to get rid of the difficulties experienced by a residence within the settled parts of the United States; and to reunite their people, by joining those who had crossed the Mississippi; and to live in a country beyond the limits of State sovereignties, and where they could establish and enjoy a government of their choice, and perpetuate a state of society, which might be most consonant with their views, habits, and condition, and which might tend to their individual comfort, and their advancement in civilization.’

These were sensible reasons for desiring a removal, and, added to the moneyed consideration, made it immensely desirable to the Indians. The direct consideration was five millions of dollars which, added to stipulations to pay for the improvements on the ceded lands—to defray the expenses of removal to their new homes beyond the Mississippi—to subsist them for one year after their arrival—to commute school funds and annuities—to allow pre-exemptions and pay for reserves—with some liberal grants of money from Congress, for the sake of quieting complaints —and some large departmental allowances, amounted in the whole, to more than twelve millions of dollars! Being almost as much for their single extinction of Indian title in the corner of two States, as the whole province of Louisiana cost! And this in addition to seven millions of acres granted for their new home, and making a larger and a better home than the one they had left. Considered as a moneyed transaction, the advantage was altogether, and out of all proportion, on the side of the Indian; but relief to the States, and quiet to the Indians, and the completion of a wise and humane policy, were overruling considerations, which sanctioned the enormity of the amount paid.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=G6I6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA624&lpg=PA624&dq=%22In+the+winter+of+1835-%E2%80%9936+a+treaty+was+negotiated,+by+which+the+Cherokees,+making+clean+disposal+of+all+their+possessions+east+of+the+Mississippi,+ceded+the+whole,+and+agreed+to+go%22&source=bl&ots=nC_oyq649L&sig=bomUV-gDCQPROneFx1HogJ1K2_k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XmWYUsLeHNXpoATfgoGgAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

How Many Native Americans Were Killed in the So Called North American Genocide? Monday, Nov 11 2013 

Indians olivianus 6:04 am

When discussing the history of white men, most people in America will resort to whatever lies and levels of deception necessary to justify the displacement and Genocide of white men, especially Southern Bible Believing white men. I have recently been told, that in the arrival of white men to North America, “it’s stolen land bought with genocide, lies, betrayal and rape of hundreds of millions of innocent people”. Hundreds of millions huh? Interesting. Other popular liars at The Espresso Stalinist website state,

“GENOCIDE AND DENYING IT: WHY WE ARE NOT TAUGHT THAT THE NATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA WERE EXTERMINATED

Death Toll: 95,000,000 to 114,000,000

American Holocaust: D. Stannard (Oxford Press, 1992) – “over 100 million killed” “[Christopher] Columbus personally murdered half a million Natives”

http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

I took the trouble of actually consulting Mr. Stannard’s work and guess what? The phrase “100 million” appears nowhere in that book. See for yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RzFsODcGjfcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=%22100%20million%22&f=false

I even took the trouble of examining every page of that book that contained the word “million” and nothing even close to this so called quote appears in this book. It is a complete fabrication.

But that is only the beginning. This kind of professional lying even goes on among Scholars. One such incident is recorded in The Encyclopedia of Native American Economic History edited by Bruce Elliott Johansen, pages 67-68,

“One measure of the demographic (and therefore economic) destruction Native Americans have faced during the last five centuries may be gained by comparing Dobyns’ estimate of 90 to 112 million in 1492 to contemporary environmental activist Winona LaDuke’s calculation of the number of indigenous people alive in 1992—28,264,000, 25 to 30 percent of the precontact total (LaDuke, 1992, 55). Given the magnitude of population loss, one can only begin to imagine the economic consequences on societies in which 80 to 90 percent of the people died within periods ranging from a few years to a century.

Dobyns’ estimates of indigenous population at contact represent a radical departure from earlier tallies. The first “systematic” count was compiled during the early twentieth century by James Mooney, who maintained that 1,153,000 people lived in the land area now occupied by the continental United States at first contact. [A number generally agreed upon by many other scholars of the early and mid 20th Century such as Bandelier, Rosenblatt, Kroeber, and Steward. – DS] Mooney calculated the 1907 Native population in the same area at 406,000. Dividing the country into regions, he calculated the percentage loss ranging from 61 percent (in the North Atlantic states) to 93 percent in California.

Defending his precontact population estimates, Dobyns argues that the absence of evidence does not mean the absence of phenomenon, especially where written records are scanty, as in America before or just after permanent European contact. Dobyns maintains that European epidemic diseases invaded a relatively disease-free environment in the Americas with amazing rapidity, first in Mesoamerica (with the Spanish), arriving in Eastern North America along native trade routes long before English and French settlers arrived. The fact that Cartier observed the deaths of fifty natives in the village of Stadacona in 1535 indicates to Dobyns that many more may have died in other villages that Cartier never saw. Because of the lack of evidence, conclusions must be drawn from what little remains, [Huh? – DS] according to Dobyns, who extends his ideas to other continents as well: “Lack of Chinese records of influenza does not necessarily mean that the Chinese did not suffer from influenza; an epidemic could have gone unrecorded, or records of it may not have survived” (Dobyns, 1989, 296).

Critics of Dobyns assert that “there is still little certain knowledge about pre-1500 population levels” and that ” . . . Dobyns has been accused of misusing a few scraps of documentary evidence we have in an effort to sustain his argument for widespread 16th-century epidemics” (Snow and Lanphear, 1988, 16). To critics of Dobyns, the fact that fifty natives were recorded as dying at Stadacona means just that: Fifty natives died, no more, no fewer. To Dobyns, however, such arguments “align themselves with the Bandelier-Rosenblatt-Kroeber-Steward group, [The evidence based position of around 1 million. -DS] which minimizes Native American population magnitude and social structural complexity” (Dobyns, 1989, 289).”

http://books.google.com/books?id=BIQLMYyfHncC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Alfred+L.+Kroeber,+one+million,+POPULATION&source=bl&ots=td_yrwcjEM&sig=CMrIWui8dBoh7wPbFmdOwqCgYcI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K2WAUsGnKsWkyAHZjYHACA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here we see that the documented population of American Natives in the entire land of what we know of today as the United States in North America, North of the Rio Grande was  about 1 million. Other numbers are complete fictions imagined by people who want to justify the Genocide of white men in this country.

Now I do not deny that the Yankees performed mass Genocide against the natives. They did. But that was the Yankees. We Southerners have no obligation to apologize for the crimes of our enemies. I have already spoken to the Southern relations among the Natives at other places:

http://drakeshelton.com/averting-the-coming-race-war/

Here are the facts, horrifying to the Cultural Marxist as they may be.

 

Why Did the White Europeans Come To North America? Monday, Dec 10 2012 

Anti-White Racism and Indians and Jesuits olivianus 11:27 am

As we saw from an earlier article, the years 1607 until the mid 17th century saw little else than starvation, desperation and massacre for our original Jamestown Settlement. However, this would soon change. An influx of Europeans were about to arrive in Virginia and many places in North America.

Consider the years 1658-1688 A.D.  Protestants in England were persecuted after the death of Oliver Cromwell and many of them left England and came to America. If any Native American wants someone to blame for white people being here in America he needs to blame the Vatican, the Stuarts and the Jesuits. Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné says in his The Protector, pages 84-85,

“The liberties and Protestantism of England were on the verge of shipwreck, when Cromwell intervened; and all his life he upheld in Great Britain religious liberty and the national prosperity.

And what became of the country after his death?—The Stuarts returned; and “when the rejoicings were over, the illuminations extinct, then punishments followed.”

One hundred corpses were exhumed, among which were the great Oliver, his old and venerable mother, his dearly beloved daughter Bridget Pym, and the famous admiral Blake. Their mouldering bodies were hung on the three corners of the gallows at Tyburn, and the cavaliers found a subject of merriment and pleasantry in this revolting exhibition.

Ears were cut off, noses were slit, and numbers lost their heads on the scaffold. The sentence pronounced against them all was conceived in the following terms:—”You shall be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and there you shall be hanged by the neck; and being alive, you shall be cut down and mutilated; your entrails shall be taken out of your body, and (you living) the same to be burnt before your eyes; and your head to be cut off, and your body to be divided into four quarters.” The Stuarts, as if this were not enough, filled the country with immorality; and an illustrious Royalist of the present day can find no other excuse for Charles II. than by saying that, in propagating this corruption of morals,” it is probable that this prince merely followed the course of his own inclinations and the fickleness of his character.”! Two thousand ministers were driven from their benefices; the churches were oppressed; the noblest hearts of the country were forced to seek a refuge in distant lands; vast colonies in America were peopled by them; and England would have become like Spain, and worse than Spain, had not William III. resumed the task so energetically begun by Cromwell. If, so long after the war, and after a pacific recall to their native land, the Stuarts committed such atrocities, what would they not have dared when men’s passions and animosities were in full vigor?”

Consider also 1685 A.D. and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In 1688, the Jesuit Pere La Chaise, wrote a letter to Jesuit Sir Edward Petre (Catalogue of the Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum: Index, 1896, pg. 274) suggesting that Petre exterminate English Protestants as he had exterminated French Protestants. La Chaise used blackmail to convince Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes. Louis XIV had committed fornication with his daughter-in-law and La Chaise refused to give him absolution unless he revoke the Edict of Nantes. Do we then see the Political and Social evil of the Roman Catholic soteriological system? If Louis XIV had believed in Calvinism La Chaise would have had no power over him.

The French Catholics murdered about 500, 000 (Ridpath’s Universal History,John Clark Ridpath, [New York: Merrill & Baker, 1901] Vol. XIV, p. 454) Protestants in France. The French Protestants then fled to North America.

This idea that we were running for our lives from the Roman Catholic Inquisition and its influences in Europe and the British Isles, is not only a fundamentalist Christian position. Thomas Paine mentions this exact thing in his Common Sense, page 25,

“The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.”

(link)

This coming from the same man who said,

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” (The Age of Reason, page 6)

(link)

This is then no conspiracy theory. It is conspiracy HISTORY.

We did not come here to exploit anyone or take the Indian’s land and get rich. We came here to escape persecution. Those same powers that drove us here then forced an African slave trade on us to start a race war which I explained here. Moreover, Eric Jon Phelps has shown in his Vatican Assassins III, that this same Roman Catholic institution and Jesuit order  has now taken complete control of our government, our media and our treasonous educational institutions. They are doing everything they can to foment race war here and  filling the heads of Blacks and Latinos with Anti-White European propaganda  is a necessary prerequisite to that Race War.  This article is intended to fend off such a notion and maintain peace.

 

How Did the White Men from England Take Possession of Kentucky? Monday, Dec 10 2012 

Anti-White Racism and Indians and Jesuits olivianus 10:29 am

As a Protestant Christian, I affirm Samuel Rutherford’s work Lex Rex where  he denies in Question XII that a just title to a kingdom is conquest. Did the colonists from England take the land of Kentucky by conquest? No!

A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians, by E. Polk Johnson, (1912),

“Christopher Gist, another adventurous character, as agent for the “Ohio Company,” next led an expedition, the objective point of which was the territory which is now Ohio, setting out from the Potomac October 3, 1750. After scouting through the lands north of the Ohio river, he came finally to that stream which he descended to within fifteen miles of the present site of Louisville. Discovering there signs of large bodies of Indians, Gist turned back to the mouth of the Kentucky river. Under many difficulties Gist and his party continued their retreat and on May 1, 1751, first came in sight of the beautiful Kanawha river plunging over rapids and through mountain gorges on its tempestuous way to the sea. Gist finally reached his home in safety after traversing the most beautiful section of the future Kentucky, which he found without inhabitants and temporarily peopled only by bands of Indians intent upon the chase and these, in the main, confined their operations to points near the Ohio river north of which stream they lived.

Irving in his life of Washington says of Gist: “From the top of a mountain in eastern Kentucky near the Kentucky river, he had a view of the southward as far as the eye could reach over a vast wooded country in the fresh garniture of Spring and watered by abundant streams, but as yet only the hunting ground of savage tribes and the scene of their sanguinary conflicts. In a word, Kentucky lay spread out before him in all its wild magnificence. For six weeks was this hardy pioneer making his toilsome way up the valley of the Cuttawa or Kentucky river, to the banks of the Blue Stone; often checked by precipices and obliged to seek fords at the head of tributary streams, and happy when he could find a buffalo-path broken through the tangled forests or worn into the everlasting rocks.”…

Kentucky does not seem to have been the permanent home of the Indians, though often occupied by them on their hunting trips or warlike forays. It was their “happy hunting ground” and, on occasion, their battle ground, before the coming of the white man when they came in contact with their enemies of other tribes. North of the Ohio river were the powerful Iroquois, who claimed the territory as their own. To the South were the Cherokees, who fewer in number, were equally warlike, and who likewise claimed Kentucky as their own, with the result that when the hunting parties of these tribes met they became war parties and there was some beautiful fighting all along the savage lines. Having thus to struggle for their prolific hunting grounds, it is not strange that the Indians should have bitterly resented the coming of the white man to possess the land and that his coming meant the writing of blood-red chapters in the history of the first occupancy of the state. The Indian knew the bountiful land to be worth fighting for, and used all his savage strategy to retain its possession. The white man found the land not alone worth fighting for, but, if need be, dying for, and set out to possess it and with his rifle filed a deed of possession with the result known to all the world — the Indian was overcome and driven towards the western sun, while the white man remained to make a garden spot where he had found a wilderness, albeit a beauteous and bountiful wilderness.”

[Volume 1, Pages 2-4]

(link)

The Iroquois claim to much of what is now Kentucky was purchased in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768). (link 1, link 2)

The claim of the Shawnee and Mingo was purchased at the Treaty of Camp Charlotte concluding Dunmore’s War (1774). (link)

This can be seen in the letter of William Preston to  George Washington, May 27, 1774.

“FINCASTLE May 27. 1774.

DEAR SIR

Agreeable to my Promise I directed Mr. Floyd an Assistant to Survey your Land on ColeRiver on his Way to the Ohio, which he did and in a few Days afterwards sent me the Plot by Mr. Thomas Hog. Mr. Spotswood Dandridge who left the Surveyors on the Ohio after Hog Parted with them, wrote me that Mr. Hog and two other Men with him had never since been heard of. I have had no Opportunity of writing to Mr. Floyd Since. Tho’ I suppose he will send me the Courses by the first Person that comes up, if so I shall make out the Certificate and send it down. This I directed him to do when we parted to prevent Accidents. But I am really afraid the Indians will hinder them from doing any Business of Vallue this Season as the Company being only 33 and dayly decreasing were under the greatest Apprehension of Danger when Mr. Dandridge parted with them. It has been long disputed by our Hunters whether Louisa or CumberlandRivers was the Boundary between us and the Cherokees. I have taken the Liberty to inclose to you a Report made by some Scouts who were out by my Order; and which Sets that matter beyond a Doubt. It is say’d the Cherrokees claim the Land to the Westward of the Louisa & between Cumberland M [mutilated] and the Ohio. If so, and our Government gives it up we loose all the most Valluable part of that Country. The Northern Indians Sold that Land to the English at the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744. by the Treaty of LogsTown in 1752 and by that at FortStanwix in 1768. At that Time the Cherrokees laid no Claim to that Land & how the[y] come to do it now I cannot imagine…”.

(link; pages 1-3)

 

 

 

Did the White People of the Original Jamestown Settlement, Pursuant to the Establishment of the Colony of Virginia, Obtain Land and Influence by Conquest and the Genocide of Native Americans? I Deny. Sunday, Dec 9 2012 

Anti-White Racism and Indians and Jesuits olivianus 1:09 pm

Based on Alfred A. Knopf’s review of Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation by David A. Price.[1]

Fact 1: On May 14th, in the year 1607 A.D., three English ships, named Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed, under Captain Christopher Newport arrived in what would be later named the Jamestown settlement with a total of 105 colonists. That is not exactly what I would call an invasion. Clearly, this was no a conquest of the Indians pursuant to Genocide. These men, like most 17th century adventurers were seeking to circumnavigate the earth and find gold. There was no pre-planned attack. John Smith was trying to find a way to the Pacific Ocean.

Fact 2: Jamestown was founded on uninhabited land.

Fact 3: On May 25, 1607 A.D. the Jamestown settlement was attacked by the Natives, unprovoked.  A small English boy was killed and a dozen English soldiers were wounded. The Natives are the ones who drew first blood.

Fact 4: In the Winter of 1607 A.D. Captain Smith left the Settlement to look for gold and a rout to the Pacific Ocean. Instead his men were ambush by Chickahominy warriors and one of them, Mr. Cassen was tortured:

“The natives prepared a large fire behind the bound and naked body. Then a man grasped his hands and used mussel shells to cut off joint after joint, making his way through Cassen’s fingers, tossing the pieces into the flames.”

Again it was the Natives who drew blood. They then captured John Smith. Smith escaped torture by claiming he was a chief. Later, Powhatan (Native Chief) ordered his men to force Smith’s head down on a large rock and dash out his brains. It was then that Pocahontas, the favorite of Powhatan’s many children, threw herself on top of Smith to rescue him from execution.

Fact 5: In 1608 A.D.  Powhatan started sending small parties of men to steal from the English. The English at one time caught and imprisoned a dozen of them.

“Smith sent a message to Powhatan, saying that if the spades, shovels, swords, and tools the Indians had stolen were not returned, he would hang the prisoners. The Indians then caught two colonists and proposed an exchange. Smith, his numbers reinforced by a new installment of colonists, went on a punitive expedition, in which he killed no one, but burned villages and destroyed canoes. Powhatan returned the two colonists. Smith learned from his Indian prisoners that Powhatan planned to hold a feast for the English, kill them while they were off guard, and take all their weapons and tools.”

Fact 6: In 1609 A.D. Captain Smith sailed back to England. There were at this time about 500 people in Jamestown. Again, this is no invasion. Many of the colonists were completely incompetent. This played a role in the coming “Starving Time”.

“After Powhatan had met the incompetents who replaced Smith, he began attacking the colony again with surprise raids. His men massacred a party of English who went looking for food, and left their bodies for the others to find. By March 1610, 400 out of the 500 Smith had left behind were dead of starvation or Indian attacks.”

Here we have the fourth act of unprovoked aggression by the Natives. So far from Imperialism, Conquest and Genocide, during the starving times the English colonists became so hungry they resorted to Cannibalism.

Fact 7: In 1613 A.D. Samuel Argall kidnapped Pocahontas, but John Rolfe befriended her, introduced her to Christianity and later married her (1614), creating a bond of peace between the settlement and Powhatan. (Ridpath’s United States: A History)[2]

Fact 8: So far from conquest, the English responded to Pocahontas’s conversion by setting aside 10,000 acres of land to be used as a Christian college for the Natives. George Thorpe even had an English-style house built for Opechancanough, who was the brother of Powhatan who captured Smith. Opechancanough became the new chief after Powhatan’s death in 1618 A.D..

Fact 9: Opechancanough led the Virginia massacre of 1622.  So far from genocide and conquest, to have established the conditions that made it possible for the Indians to move about so freely with the colonists to even make the massacre of 1622 possible, the English showed an extremely  high level of trust and friendliness, which the Indians brutally betrayed.

The next year was full of conflict as can be understood. The colonists poisoned 200 Natives. I am rebuked by their leniency in this. Things should have gotten very bad for the Natives at this point but they didn’t.

Fact 10: In 1623 A.D.  a real peace treaty was signed between the Natives and the English.

Fact 11:Nevertheless, in 1644 A.D. The Natives attacked yet again!

“Amazingly, in 1644, Opechancanough masterminded an identical sneak attack, and this time managed to kill between 400 and 500 people. The impact was not as great, since the colony had grown bigger still, but this time the English did not stop until they had killed a great many Indians, including Opechancanough. In 1646, the Virginia General Assembly noted that the natives were “so routed and dispersed that they are no longer a nation, and we now suffer only from robbery by a few starved outlaws…..For the English to have then so lowered their guard that the same Indian chief could slaughter another 500 colonists 21 years later in exactly the same way, again shows how much the English were prepared to trust their neighbors.”

Contrary to the Liberal claims and the Nation of Islam’s claims that White men can never get along with anyone and continue to push their aggression onto others, we see the exact opposite in the founding of the Jamestown colony and the establishment of English influence in Virginia.

“It is instructive to note that nearly 400 years later, the whites who have now taken possession of the continent have lost none of the illusions of the Jamestown colonists. As whites, in their turn, suffer invasion by aliens they persist in believing that with enough love and generosity, the children of today’s illegal immigrants “will blesse the day when first their fathers saw their faces.” This, of course, was the illusion that led to the massacres of 1622 and 1644. It is only whites who believe in and try to practice multiracialism and peaceful coexistence.”

White people are the ones that go around the word building hospitals and schools for people all around the world. I graduated from Bob Jones University, a Christian University in South Carolina for undergrad and I was confronted with White Christian Missionary families one week after another who were either preparing for or who had already established missions around the globe, building hospitals and schools for savage tribes and nations. I never saw a single Black, Latino or Asian family preparing for this. They were all White. All of them!

These Natives here were heathen savages who showed their asses (In more ways than one) in their first orientation with my ancestors and as we saw, they clearly deserved the displacement they received. Moreover, these people were not taking dominion over the earth and were therefore disobeying God’s law (Gen. 1:28). I will not say that the Natives deserved the treatment they received from the Yankees in the West after the Civil War (Philip Sheridan under the guidance of Jesuit De Smet), but for my part, as a person now living in a previous commonwealth of Virginia (Kentucky), I feel no guilt whatsoever for what happened to the Indians here and see this as the land of my ancestors and hopefully the land of my children and their children after them.

 

The French Roman Catholic-Native American Allied Powers vs. the English Protestant Colonies; A War that Still Wages Today Tuesday, Oct 9 2012 

Anti-White Racism and Indians and Jesuits olivianus 10:57 pm

In Ridpath’s Universal History, Volume XIV, pages 557-558, we are introduced to the historical backdrop of the Seven Years War otherwise known as the French and Indian War where the Native Americans were allied with the French Catholics and Jesuits in a war against the English Protestant Colonialists. Ridpath states,

“It will be remembered that after the vicissitudes of two centuries of voyage, discovery, and precarious settlement the English succeeded in establishing their colonies and institutions on the Atlantic slope of the present United States. In the same interval the French fixed their settlements in Canada. Partly by chance and partly by design, different policies were adopted by the two peoples respecting their colonial enterprises. England chose to colonize the sea-coast ; France, the interior of the continent. From Maine to Florida the Atlantic shore was spread with English colonies; but there were no inland settlements. The great towns were on the ocean’s edge. But the territorial claims of England reached far beyond her colonies. Based on the discoveries of the Cabots, and not limited by actual occupation, those claims extended westward to the Pacific. In making grants of territory the English kings had always proceeded upon the theory that the voyage of Sebastian Cabot had given to England a lawful right to the country from one ocean to the other. Far different, however, were the claims of France ; the French had first colonized the valley of the St. Lawrence. Montreal, one of the earliest settlements, is more than five hundred miles from the sea. If the French colonies had been limited to the St. Lawrence and its tributaries, there would have been little danger of a conflict about territorial dominion. But in the latter half of the seventeenth century the French began to push their way westward and southward ; first along the shores of the great lakes, then to the head-waters of the Wabash, the Illinois, the Wisconsin, and the St. Croix; then down these streams to the Mississippi, and then to the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the French, as manifested in these movements, was no less than to divide the American continent and to take the larger portion; to possess the land for France and for Catholicism. For it was the  work of the Jesuit missionaries.

In 1641 Charies Raymbault, the first of these explorers, passed through the northern straits of Lake Huron and entered Lake Superior. In the thirty years that followed the Jesuits continued their explorations with prodigious activity. Missions were established at various points north of the lakes, and in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In 1673 Joliet and Marquette passed from the head-waters of Fox River over the water-shed to the upper tributaries of the Wisconsin, and thence down that river in a seven days’ voyage to the Mississippi.”

Does this not provide motive for the Jesuits to demonize the White Protestants in the eyes of the Native Americans? Would this not provide serious motive and a Conflict of Interest when Jesuit trained educators and Jesuits themselves teach modern day Americans about the supposed crimes against the Native peoples by the English Colonialists? Today, when I tell people that the Roman Catholics have wanted control of this country for centuries they look very strangely at me as if that was some strange conspiracy theory I thought up in my living room.

The image attached to this post (Ridpath, Vol. XIV, pg. 558) shows Jesuit Priests be-dazzling the Native Americans with their sorcery. The Jesuit Peter De Smet, in his Life, Letters and Travels, mocks that the Protestants were making Native converts at a fraction of the rate that the Jesuits were. What he doesn’t tell you is how these Natives were converted and what they were told. As the Roman Church of old these Jesuits sold a Christianized form of Paganism to Natives and used them against the Protestants to further their Counter-Reformation.