Canada: How White Liberals Distort Indian History, or, a Visit to the “First Nations” Exhibit at the BC Museum
by TNO Staff
I decided to take the kids to the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC, last week. Now I like museums, they have a long history of rigorously checked fact-based conclusions. Well they used to.
The above-article got off to a good start, but never went anywhere...
It's hard to distort that which never existed. The indians had no written language and would not today were it not for Christian missionaries or eventual half-breeds who developed the various written indian alphabets quite recently in modern history.
It's really amazing that that a people (Europeans) who have a 4,000 year history of writing history (with only a slight aberration of dishonest individuals and soviet, atheist, evolutionist, liberal humanists writing false history and hating the truth) are demonized and accused of writing a "distorted view" of indian history, when the opposition has nothing to hold up to it by comparison other than "oral tradition" (including naturalistic mythology and shamanism) —which "oral tradition" changes when political expediency arises and the tribal chieftains are taught by the Talmudists (who taught the Negroes) "how to play the game".
Before the modern world-wide epidemic of the mental illness of "political correctness", the Indians maintained that they simply killed the people on the land before them and took the land. Before "political correctness" machismo ruled, and it was manly to tell the straight-up truth.
Genocide is what the indians perpetrated against their own people too. The "noble savage" is as rare as the "Nobel Savage" (I haven't seen any awards over the past century, but since I mention it, look for it in the future) —it is a myth. The Indians, north, central, and south were savages, they predated upon the weaker, smaller tribes of their own people (or anyone else, those there before them, the Celto-Iberians, Phoenicians, etc.) and enslaved them, bred with them, and ATE them.
[—who were NOT white, despite what many people who are part indian want to believe; if there were "white indian" tribes, they were not known as Indians; they were called Indians because Columbus thought he reached INDIA. They were savages, cannibals, filthy, ran around half naked, migratory criminals who developed little more than chistling pieces of flint into arrow or spearheads and the men did little other than hunt or war and laze around the rest of the time while their women did all the work. Good work if you can get it! (or are conscience devoid to God and man).]
Some indian tribes were "whiter" than others, depending upon how many European women and children they kidnapped and raped and bred with and raised as indians.
However, once the Age of Political Correctness arrived and the indians learned that they could make TONS OF WAMPUM by claiming they were the "first nation"... then their "oral tradition" took a 180 degree about-face pale-face. Now they get subsidies, tax-free, casinos, and a ton of welfare benefits the average person is not even aware of, bleeding the white man dry.
Incidentally, in Oklahoma, beer by law is only about 50% (or less) of beer anywhere else (if you want real beer you have to drive to another state). The only reason for this (which is unspoken) is the indian population who "cannot hold their fire-water" and "go off the reservation". Of course, the real reason has probably, (to use an ironic term) "whitewashed" and "buried" because the real reason would not be politically correct.
In the U.S. southeast and other states people (who are part indian) believe indians were white; but that is only because the local population has intermarried so much that most everyone who is "white" in those regions is part indian—and thus, it is ignorantly and falsely assumed that indians are white. This is a false tautology. It is sort of like the evolutionists who say "this mollulsk is 13 billion years old". When asked how they know that the mollusks are 13 billion years old, they reply, "because it was found in a strata of rock that is 13 billions years old". When asked how they know that the rock strata is 13 billion years old, they reply, "because mollusks that are 13 billion years old are found in that strata".
However, to see what the original indians looked like, just go to Oklahoma where they were herded. It is the same thing with hispanics and "persians" (Iraqi, Iranians) and Afghans, and modern "greeks" and modern "syrians", etc.—the lighter colored representatives are promoted in PR events (brainwashing), those who have intermarried with whites, and thus they are declared by the corrupt government and corrupt department of education and corrupt media to be "white". History is "proven true" the more intermarriage takes place, and thus the contrast is hidden more and more. When you hide what is white and what is black and show people only various "off-white" shades, then people begin to believe the lie that white and black don't exist.
This is in violation of what God commanded. Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness. God commanded His people to be separate. Christendom is being turned into Babylon ("confusion by mixing").
Pretty soon we will be told that blacks are actually "white". Advertisement and movies (not to mention socialist antichristian education) are brainwashing the youth into mixing with aliens, so that in a generation, white Christians will be less than 5% of a population that was once 95% white and Christian.
It is easy to brainwash a non-reading population (or one that only read newspapers and pot-boiler propaganda "New York Times Best-Seller titles, and not REAL history (books written before 1920, for the most part). It is easy to brainwash a non-Bible reading people—or one that only knows the HUMANISTIC modern retrograde interpretation (modern man thinking that God and history must conform to modern man's notions of "morality" and "fairness").