Matt Walsh: The Conquest of North America Was Glorious

March 20, 2025 Hunter Wallace Conservatism, Culture 28

What is America?

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

28 Comments

  1. We’ve redpilled Matt Walsh. It’s over. Our job is complete. All we have to do now is sat back and enjoy the popcorn.

    Reply

  2. Yes, the jwz have corrupted our national thinking by “were a nation of immigrants” slogan, which people mindlessly parrot.
    Much of our clarity of thought has been corrupted by the substitutions of counterfeit words for words that have clear meanings. It makes clear thinking difficult, by design.

    Reply

  3. In all of our wars against Indians, French, Spanish, George III and Mexicans; in 283 years from 1607 until 1890; we killed less civilians than Israel killed in ONE YEAR in Gaza.

    Reply

    • @WU,

      “In all of our wars against Indians, French, Spanish, George III and Mexicans; in 283 years from 1607 until 1890; we killed less civilians than Israel killed in ONE YEAR in Gaza.”

      Utterly false. The number of civilians killed during the Revolution on both sides is almost completely forgotten and quiet large. Casualty figures for the War of Independence alone of all casualty lists of American losses, are literally only combat deaths. They are not deaths from disease or Invalided wounded. It isn’t deaths from POW camps or Ships of deaths. It doesn’t include militia onky combat deaths unless under Cobtinental Command. It doesn’t include frontier deaths of militia or civilians at the hands of British Indians. It absolutely doesn’t include civilian deaths from violent soldiers, crossfire, bombardment, siege, starvation, deprivation, disease caused by war, rape, murder, etc. Same for the other side.

      Turning to the Indians, frontier fighting on the East Coast was magnitudes larger, deadlier, and outcomes more uncertain than those which occurred in the Plains, Southwest, Mountains or Pacific Coast. The total number of American civilians massacred by Indians has never been officially ascertained by is probably in the scores of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. In turn, it was official Colonial and US policy to make reprisal raids on Indian settlements which originated such brutal Indian raids. Even though the casualty numbers for Indians were less, simply because man for man the Indians exacted more casualties and there were less of them, the numbers were still probably in the tens if not scores of thousands from starvation, counter raids, and bombardment. Still, it was less than the casualties the Indians suffered at the hands of other Indians.

      As to the War of 1812 and Mexican American wars, these were more set piece battles except on the Indian frontier. But, still bombardment by Americans of New London and other cities in Canada had to have resulted in thousands of casualties. Meanwhile, whole towns were smashed by the British, including Washington DC in reprisal for the bombardment and burning of New London.

      That brings us to the Civil War. Civilian casualties were atrociously high. Very few Southern towns let alone cities were spared bombardment and seige. Vicksburg alone saw thousands die. Nashville likewise. Estimates of Southern civilian casualties are in the hundreds of thousands. Not as high as military but anything beyond comprehension than Americans had hitherto or since experienced.

      You didn’t list WWII. But more Jap civilians died at the Battle of Okinawa than did military. Of course everyone knows the aerial bombings inflicted on the Axis. But, even the French civilians suffered high casualties as a result of being stuck between huge battling armies. Given the deliberate placing of offensive weapons in civilian houses the IDF has actually caused civilian casualty rates approximating the Axis and Allies in WII second only to the Eastern Front.

      Reply

  4. Matt Walsh is proving himself to be a brave man, not some plant who doesn’t mean to go anywhere. I could be wrong, but I suspect his heart was in the right place all along, and he is now ready to bring his ideas out in the open. I don’t condemn him for having a Zionist Jewish boss, he has indicated that he opposes aid to Israel. Maybe he’s so popular now that the daily wire knows they can’t afford to throw him out.

    Reply

      • Candace has only become more successful since being fired from Daily Wire. I was going to write something about that last night, but was too tired

        Reply

    • FatMerica (and FatBritistan) are Yiddish slave states, with the expected consequences of negrolatry, greed, open borders, multiculturalism, degeneracy, porn, gay & girl power,worshipping rappers as gods, NASCAR, Holocaust indoctrination, etc etc

      Reply

  8. Illegal immigration has almost entirely ceased, Christianity is back, wokeness is dead, the richest men in the world have been won over by the alt-right (Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg). Literally the richest people on the planet and even DA JOOS are on our side. It’s not at all surprising that Matt Walsh is repeating white nationalist talking points. We live in interesting times. Truly, everything the alt-right was pushing for in 2018 has not only become mainstream, but it’s on track to become hegemonic and crush all leftist opposition, similar to how woke was but this time woke is pro-white, pro-male, pro-Christian, pro-family and pro-common sense immigration policies.
    Now, after getting everything we ever wanted, we see the grifters come out and find any excuse to complain and trash the ascendant anti-woke elite. Who knows whether they’re just naturally contrarian or they’ve built up a brand on complaining and don’t know how to change with the times like Hunter has.

    Reply

    • Basically if your buddy was thrown in jail a few years ago or de banked etc why should watching Matt Walsh earn a living stealing your act be a cause for celebration?

      Reply

    • Yes, I agree. Betrayal by our OWN kind is the worst. The Joos are simply open enemies who wouldn’t get to first base without the collaboration of traitors.

      Reply

      • @MOTS,
        The goooose(ooops)are a symptom. The white left is the cause.
        An external enemy is harmless without an internal traitor assisting. Collapse often occurs from within. Western countries have collapsed.

        Reply

  10. Fraulein Sabine is massively clickbaiting again.
    She says something correct (as always) in her
    imitated “Oxford English” (or what that is sup-
    posed to be), but still fundamentally wrong.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgec0-ddRc4

    It is important to know that women’s brains ge-
    nerally lack the biological equipment to intellec-
    tually grasp the world in full overview and depth.

    Is “English” a Germanic language? This
    Brit, with his unmistakable “physiogno-
    mic aesthetic”, is very sure about this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCE4C9GvqI0

    But one could also argue that English is (due
    to the geographical insularity of the British) a
    kind of linguistic inbred product that makes it
    largely impossible for users, unless they aren’t
    Shakespeare, to formulate precise thoughts.

    Reply

  12. If we don’t control the narrative, thee other side will, ……. Thing is, our narrative is TRUTH, because we accept, wholeheartedly, the narrative of he, who is TRUTH, who is LIGHT, who is the only WAY …….

    Reply

  14. My patrilineal ancestor both owned black slaves on a tobacco plantation he founded and physically fought the Amerindians at/aroundJamestown. I’m very proud of our genocidal slave-master forefathers. We should return to our natural ways.

    Reply

  15. @Hunter Wallace,

    I’ve been countering the Nation of Immigrant debate at academies, book clubs, political debates, and online forums since before Matt Walsh got in the game I was purged twice from pre-Elon Twitter for arguing against the Nation of Immigrant and favoring Conquest Settlement was good conclusion. In fact I was countering this falsehood since before most people who comment here were even born. So, let me explain a key misunderstanding of this debate and who is the other actual side.

    Indeed, I popularized returning American identity to its original name, Native American back in the 90s. I routinely made the point under my various noms de plum including at VDare. I pointed out there was an early political party to promote American identity, and Americanness that officially was called the Native American Party. Learning the history, the language, the icons of the Native American Party and the political and militant struggle it waged is key to starting the amd winning the liberation of the country. The victory of Trump is just an opening, a beginning, or an end of the beginning of national liberation. 

    Today, the Native American Party has been wrongly revised by anti-American politicians as the Know Nothing Party. The later was a pejorative made chiefly by Catholics and Yankee bankers writing about a secret patriotic organization that linked a number of Patriot organizations together. These organizations were chiefly special interest groups,, often labor oriented, sometimes vigilante, sometimes political. Chief among the later was the Native American Party. But, the party wasn’t the secret organization. Upon reporters or spies asking suspected members of the organization whicb was coordinating all these activities of what they knew, they were met with the same reply, “I know nothing.” Thus was born the term Know Nothing. But, the disinformation historians fail to mention this was the pejorative for a secret organization behind these groups, not the Native American Party itself, which was a very public and partisan political organization.

    The Native American Party organized activists and street gangs to protect neighborhoods and precincts from mostly Catholic sectarian gangs and political groups. But it also pushed heavily for legislative action. It was for 10 to 20 year naturalization, a long period of Americanization to preceed naturalization, the prohibition of foreign born persons holding elected or appointed offices of profit and trust, and the prohibition of Papists from immigrating or holding office or the franchise unless they foreswear Papal supremacy. Their party successfully destroyed the two party system of its day. Many of their political goals became standard American policy such as public education for Americanism and morals, a naturalization period, tests for naturalization, and oaths of allegiance. 

    Over time, the Native American Party got involved in the debate over abolition of slavery which caused discord with their brethren chapters in the South. But, in general they opposed slavery on principle, opposed extension north of the Mason Disxon line, and like everyone else supported White Supremacy. Nonetheless, a number of state chapters rebranded as the American Republican Party to differentiate themselves from pro-slavery chapters. In turn, these American Republicans became the nucleus for the modern GOP in the North. In the South, Native American chapters and the few American Republican chapters united around the short lived Constitutional Union Party just prior to the Secession.

    During this era from roughly 1842-1858, virtual Civil War was taking place, chiefly in Northern cities between local Patriots and foreign ethnic organizations. Hundreds of people were being killed in violent street battles every year. Think of the Battles of Berkeley and Charlottesville but even more violent, far larger, and more bloodied, month after month for years. Assasination of political bosses wasn’t uncommon.

    In turn, political campaigns became Increasingly vitriolic between the Native Americans and other parties made elections electrifying periods of instability in every city impacted by Catholic immigration. The battles totally disintegrated the two party system that existed to that point. But, in a feat little remarked upon, abolitionist superseded the political campaigns, recoalesced the various coalitions and remade the political debate between sectionalism. The War Between the States finished the remnants of the Native American Party.

    In the early 21st century, a small but growing number of people including myself started repopularizing the term Native American again for American descendents of colonial settlers. This accomplished the dual objective of seizing back legitimacy to the continent from the Indians to the Americans and rediscovered a common identity for the Colonial Settler descended people of America. It was this group that put forward old flags and terms like No Foreign Interference and various old style icons of the era.

    Cheif among the icons was reclaiming the Native American term for the descendents of the original American nation. It simultaneously forces debates over the identity of Indian tribal nations and the American people. In turn, it forces proponents into rediscovering the utter savagery of the Indian nations and de romantizing their history thereby taking away victim status and blame old America arguments.  So fearful has been our governing class of Yankee globalists, Catholics and Jews over the potential of this debate that they lobbied Congress to officially rename Indians as Native American by Congressional Law several years ago.

    This of course just makes seizing the name back a point of political agitation within the party system, especially the Republican Parry. Taking back the name is a key step on reclaiming American identity. Matt Walsh and others are merely rediscovering a pathway earlier hacked from the the overgrown roadway of the old Native American movement by myself and others. Nonetheless, do to their popularity, the term Native American is is back in play.

    As a parting shot, I will mention the “Nation of Immigrants” and “Melting Pot” terms were NOT originally made by the Jews. The term Nation of Immigrant was first popularized by Tammany Hall Papist Paddy political bosses in various speeches and newspapers at the end of the 19th and turn of the 20th century. It was first written as a major literary subject matter by Papist writer Lorijo Metz in 1900. It was first introduced into Congress by Papist activist and Mafia retainer Pedro Giambalvo in 1952. It was later advanced by Papist JFK in alliance with the ADL in 1958 to help end the Immigration Restriction Act. It is a relatively new term, and was originally made by Papists, not Jews. Until the dunder headed Patriots get it thru their skulls that their chief opponent isn’t Jews but Papists, they won’t win this debate.

    Same with the idea of reducing America to a cooking utinsel: “The Melting Pot.” The term was first promoted by French Papist Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecœur. It was he who first organized the almost non existent Catholics in New York at the turn of the 19th century. He continued to promote the idea for decades as a means of subverting the still existent Anti-Papist laws. By saying the Melting Pot for immigrants in the late 1800s, Tammany Hall obtained support from Americans to promote a kind of paleo-Americanism campaign in the ethnic White Ellis Island ghettosnof New York City. Again, this was a term and a campaign originally promoted by Papists not Jews. It is true that Israel Zangwill the Anglo-Judean and early Zionist wrote his play “The Melting Pot” in the early 1900s thereby popularizing the use of the term by the growing power of the Ethnic Ellis Island people political bosses. But, it was done to reinforce an already existent and long term Papist political campaign at changing American identity.  Unless, Patriots understand this history and stop fixating like retarded autistic weirdos over “Duh, Jews” they will be playing half blind. Learn your Native American history.

    Reply

  16. “Scholarship on European colonialism in the New World is now, of course, completely dominated by the Left. Prof. Fynn-Paul writes that such scholarship is animated by a worldview that “is so rabidly anti-white, anti-male, and anti-European that it challenges the idea of human progress itself.” He correctly attributes a kind of “Western exceptionalism” to leftist historians, in that they assume that “Western colonies and colonists were worse than others, that Western ideologies were more cruel than others, and that Western economies were more brutal than others.”
    In fact, by the time Europeans began enslaving blacks in the 16th century, Muslims had already enslaved millions over the course of nearly a thousand years. And they were particularly brutal about it: Unlike Europeans, the Arabs routinely castrated their male slaves. Yet, for the Left, Western slavery was exceptionally and uniquely bad. They also apparently think that it is the only slavery anybody needs to hear about.

    Essentially, the Left portrays Indians as peaceful, happy-go-lucky flower children, living in harmony with nature and sharing all things. In every respect, this view is false to the point of absurdity.
    Indians were extraordinarily violent and ethnocentric people, who were busy “genociding” each other long before Europeans allegedly tried it on them. They were also not exactly responsible stewards of the environment; they overkilled North American megafauna to the point of extinction long before Europeans arrived. The myth that they were primitive communists was exploded all the way back in 1881, when D.W. Bushyhead, chief of the Cherokee nation, wrote to Congress saying that “The statements made to you that we, or any of the Indians, are communists and hold property in common are entirely erroneous.”
    Nor were the Indians the arch-traditionalists that, ironically, leftist historians have portrayed them as (tradition, you see, is fine so long as it is not practiced by white people). The Indian way of life evolved over time. Prof. Fynn-Paul notes that leftist accounts of Indians clinging for dear life to their “Indigenous traditions” in the face of the European presence are “ironically Eurocentric in that [they] assume that Indian life never evolved in the absence of contact with Europeans.”
    Early American settlers seemed to have had a much higher opinion of the Indians than modern leftists. The record of European treatment of the Indians is a very spotty one, as we shall see, but in case after case, one is struck by the fact that many Europeans directed an awful lot of good will toward Indians. Europeans were disposed, at least initially, to recognize their virtues, to treat them with respect, and to trade with them peaceably. At least part of this good will was the result of Christian and Enlightenment universalism.

    Prof. Fynn-Paul correctly notes that Europe invented “the modern discourse on human rights.” He also correctly states that “We simply do not find such a plethora of humanitarian sentiment in most traditional cultures, where individual human rights are normally subsumed under the rights of powerful men, institutions, and family honor.”
    It is ironic that the Left condemns Western civilization in terms of theories that are themselves the products of that civilization. And while the West has not always practiced what it has preached, it has a far better record on “human rights” than any other civilization.

    Prof. Fynn-Paul describes relations between the various Indian tribes as “a Hobbesian war of all against all.” Indians routinely described their neighbors in terms that translate as “devils,” “less than human,” and “worthy of extermination.” They lived in a world that was, as Prof. Fynn-Paul puts it, “intensely local and intensely tribal.” There is absolutely no evidence that they identified with each other in racial terms.
    It was very common, when one tribe conquered another, to slaughter all the men and take the women and children as slaves. Infants were often killed. Slavery was widely practiced by Indian tribes. During the 17th century, records indicate that only a few hundred Indians were taken as slaves from New England. Within the same period, Indians enslaved tens of thousands of other Indians.
    It is not for nothing that Indians were called “savages.” The Aztecs butchered more than 20,000 human beings a year, cutting their still-beating hearts out of their bodies in the belief that this was what kept the sun shining. Apparently, this practice was sanctioned by “Aztec philosophy.” Cannibalism is well documented among some Indian tribes. The Natchez Indians of Mississippi practiced child sacrifice.

    He notes that the English, French, and Spanish “went to great lengths to curtail [this violence] over the centuries, saving hundreds of thousands of Indian lives.” In a line that would no doubt send leftists into paroxysms of rage, he remarks that “If anyone in seventeenth-century America can be considered genocidal, it should be the Iroquois, rather than the French or English.”
    One trick used by leftist historians to argue that Europeans committed genocide against is to begin by grossly overestimating the Indian population in certain areas, prior to the arrival of the White Man. The sparse Indian population of those areas in later times is then used to argue that there must have been genocide. Prof. Fynn-Paul shows that in many cases, overestimates of Indian population at the time of European settlement have reached absurd extremes — sometimes by as much as 1,000 percent.
    One simple argument against claims of genocide is that tens of millions of mestizos and Amerindians are alive today, living exactly where their ancestors lived in the 16th century. Prof. Fynn-Paul argues, further, that “the fact that the US Indian population has remained steady proportional to the overall US population since 1810, despite massive immigration from Europe in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is a simple and clear refutation [of the charge of genocide].”

    It is estimated that the total number of North American Indians massacred by Europeans during the entire 500-year period of colonization was fewer than 10,000. This was out of an indigenous population estimated to have been a little more than a million. It is highly likely that Indians massacred considerably more than 10,000 Europeans. And it is certainly true that during the same period Indians massacred farmore of each other.“ Guy missed on the trials of tears so.>

    “When you think of the Trail of Tears, you likely imagine a long procession of suffering Cherokee Indians forced westward by a villainous Andrew Jackson. Perhaps you envision unscrupulous white slaveholders, whose interest in growing a plantation economy underlay the decision to expel the Cherokee, flooding in to take their place east of the Mississippi River.
    What you probably don’t picture are Cherokee slaveholders, foremost among them Cherokee chief John Ross. What you probably don’t picture are the numerous African-American slaves, Cherokee-owned, who made the brutal march themselves, or else were shipped en masse to what is now Oklahoma aboard cramped boats by their wealthy Indian masters. And what you may not know is that the federal policy of Indian removal, which ranged far beyond the Trail of Tears and the Cherokee, was not simply the vindictive scheme of Andrew Jackson, but rather a popularly endorsed, congressionally sanctioned campaign spanning the administrations of nine separate presidents.”

    ““In the early 1800s, American demand for Indian nations’ land increased, and momentum grew to force American Indians further west. The first major step to relocate American Indians came when Congress passed, and President Andrew Jackson signed, the Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830.
    The Act authorized the President to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River, primarily in the states of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and others. The goal was to remove all American Indians living in existing states and territories and send them to unsettled land in the west.
    In his message on December 6, 1830, President Jackson informed Congress on the progress of the removal, stating, “It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.”
    Jackson declared that removal would “incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier.” Clearing Alabama and Mississippi of their Indian populations, he said, would “enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”
    By the end of Jackson’s Presidency, his administration had negotiated almost 70 removal treaties. These led to the relocation of nearly 50,000 eastern Indians to the Indian Territory—what later became eastern Oklahoma. It opened up 25 million acres of eastern land to white settlement and, since the bulk of the land was in the American south, to the expansion of slavery.
    Perhaps the most well-known treaty, the Treaty of New Echota, ratified in 1836, called for the removal of the Cherokees living in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. The treaty was opposed by many members of the Cherokee Nation; and when they refused to leave, Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott was ordered to push them out. He was given 3,000 troops and the authority to raise additional state militia and volunteer troops to force removal.
    Despite Scott’s order calling for the removal of Indians in a humane fashion, this did not happen. During the fall and winter of 1838-39, the Cherokees were forcibly moved from their homes to the Indian Territory—some having to walk as many as 1,000 miles over a four-month period. Approximately 4,000 of 16,000 Cherokees died along the way. This sad chapter in our history is known as the “Trail of Tears.”
    By the 1840s, nearly all Indian tribes had been driven west, which is exactly what the Indian Removal Act intended to accomplish.”

    Other info.>

    In 2020, 52% of counties (with 10% of the population) had no murders. 68% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 18% of the population. These counties account for only 2.6% of all murders in the country. The worst 1% of counties (the worst 31 counties) have 21% of the population and 42% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties (62 counties) contain 31% of the population and 56% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 73% of murders. But even within those counties, the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.” (John Lott)

    Why no violent crime problem?

    So we set out on our own search for the poorest counties, relying on data by the U.S. Census Bureau measuring the average yearly wealth from 2008-2012. As our colleagues at PolitiFact National noted in a July story, there are several ways to gauge the poorest counties. We compiled Bottom 10 lists based on three criteria.
    Lowest Median Household Income:
    * Owsley County, Ky., $19,624
    * Jefferson County, Miss., $20,281
    * Wolfe County, Ky., $21,168
    * Brooks County, Texas, $21,445
    * McCreary County, Ky., $21,758
    * Hudspeth County, Texas, $22,083
    * Hancock County, Tenn., $22,205
    * Jackson County, Ky., $22,213
    * Clay County, Ky., $22,296
    * Holmes County, Miss., $22,335
    Six of these counties are in Appalachia, according to a listing by the congressionally-funded Appalachian Regional Commission — the five in Kentucky and Hancock County, Tenn. All six have populations that are more than 90 percent white. The two counties in Mississippi are about 85 percent black and the two in Texas are more than 77 percent Hispanic and Latino.” (Politifact)

    Black women in the USA are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be shot and killed unarmed by the police.
    “A total of 317 deaths occurred among males (85 per- cent). Eighty-nine percent of fatalities (332 deaths) occurred among whites; 8 percent, or 29 deaths, occurred among blacks; and 3 per- cent, or 13 deaths, occurred among people of other and unspecified races.” (BLS/NCHS) (CDC) “From 2006 through 2021, there were 444 lightning strike deaths in the United States. Males are four times more likely than females to be struck by lightning.” I’m talking strikes but still… According to heeby Washington Post “Officers have fatally shot from 2015-2024, nine unarmed black women (includes 8 year old and Breanna Taylor) .” Less than 1 per year… “This database contains records of every person shot by an on-duty police officer between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2024, as well as the agencies involved in each event.”

    In 2018, there were 7,407 black homicide victims. In 2019, police shot and killed 9, yes 9, unarmed black men. For reference, Lawn mowers kill 70-75 people per year. Around 25 die from skateboarding… 46 people die snowboarding or skiing… 100 drown every year in bathtubs…

    A police officer is over 18 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be shot and killed by the police. (Heather McDonald- Myth of Systemic Police Racism).

    In 2014, if New York was all white, the murder rate would have dropped by 91%, the robbery rate by 81%, and the shootings rate by 97%. – 2016 Color of Crime

    The survey sample is carefully selected to mirror the American population, and it is huge. Last year it was 238,043 people or nearly a quarter of a million. For opinion polling, a sample of 1,500 people is a big sample, and that gives a margin of error of about 2-1/2 percent. A sample of 233,000 is gigantic, and gives good results.

    So let us turn to the justly celebrated and aptly numbered Table 13, which includes the figures for interracial crime. When blacks and Hispanics commit violence, whites are their most frequent victims, followed by their own race, and then the other race. So, it’s all very well to worry about black-on-black violence, for example, but according to the NCVS, there were actually 121,000 more cases of black-on-white than black-on-black violence. Hispanics attacked about 2,400 more whites than they attacked fellow Hispanics.

    We can get other interesting numbers. The NCVS says that whites are 61 percent of the US population, blacks are 12 percent, and Hispanics 18 percent. Since we know the number of perps of each race who attacked someone of another race, we can calculate the likelihood that any given person of any of these three groups will attack someone from another group. For blacks and whites, the numbers are shocking. A black person was 35 times more likely to attack a white rather than the other way around. A black person was three times more likely to attack a Hispanic than the reverse, and a Hispanic was 3.3 times more likely to attack a white rather than the other way around.

    The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports the data to the public every year.” (Amren)

    BJS-

    White on black grape -0
    Black on white grape – over 19,000

    Datahazard estimates a total of 145,695 white people – including 35,000 women – killed by blacks in the last 53 years. Just for comparison, that’s more than the 117,000 American soldiers killed in the First World War.
    Over on the right are estimates of white-on-black murders, again with men in orange and women in blue, for a total of 47,876 blacks killed by whites. Given that there are about five times as many whites as blacks in the country, a black was about 17 times more likely to kill a white than the other way around. But it’s worse than that, because as Datahazard points out, for most historical data, the government stupidly lumps Hispanics in with whites, so that in these graphs, “whites” includes whites and Hispanics.”

    “Lynching in the United States is estimated to have claimed over 4.7 thousand lives between 1882 and 1968, and just under 3.5 thousand of these victims were black.”

    “Lynching is another historical practice used to shame whites. Over the entire period of lynching, 72.7 percent of victims were black, while almost all the rest were white. The number of lynchings peaked in 1892 at 230. Of that number, 161 were black. This means that in 2016, in Chicago alone, more blacks were killed by other blacks than were lynched in any year throughout the entire United States.
    Black lynch mobs occasionally lynched blacks, and there is at least one recorded case of blacks lynching a white — in 1914 in Clarkesdale, Tennessee, for raping a black woman. In 1872, in Chicot County, Arkansas, a black mob broke three white men out of jail and riddled them with bullets. It is also largely forgotten that the majority of lynchings were not random acts; many victims — probably most — had committed the crime of which they were accused. I believe a reawakening of pride in America and in whites is vital to our civilization’s survival. This cannot happen if such things as slavery and lynching can be used to shame us. An accurate understanding of the past is an essential part of our reawakening.”

    Reply

  17. https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/counter-currents-radio-podcast-no-629-joel-davis-and-the-ns-question/

    The pro/contra NS debate continues in search of a fully functioning political system that ensures and guarantees our survival. NS was a form of anti-liberal racial nationalism taken to the extreme, many claim it was exaggerated and excessive, even pathological.

    You can turn it around however you like, as everything always has its inherent down side. The question of whether our fate would be the same today if there had been no “fratricidal wars” that degenerated into world wars remains speculative.

    The highly developed culture of white humanity is too complex a system to find a simple answer and agreement. Instead of pitting exclusivities against each other in a war of arguments “black against white”, a synthesis should be attempted in which all parts that have proven to be destructive, harmful and disadvantageous are split off and eliminated as in the digestive process, merging into a synthesis and synergy.

    Let’s use the model of a car, a completely white invention, as an illustrative example. Incidentally, the wheel itself is said to have been invented first north-east of the Black Sea, as 4000-year-old finds show, i.e. the region from which our “Indo-European” ancestors also came. I therefore asked AI:

    If we were to break down a car into its most essential components necessary for drivability, which nation or people contributed the most technical developments, inventions, or achievements? This question leads us to explore the contributions of various nations to the development of the automobile.

    Germany made some of the most significant contributions to the development of the modern automobile. Carl Benz developed the first practical motorcar with an internal combustion engine in 1885/1886, which is considered the birth of the modern automobile. Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach worked independently from Benz on the development of automobiles with internal combustion engines. Nikolaus August Otto developed the four-stroke engine in 1876, which formed the basis for many later automobile engines. Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine in 1897, which achieved a higher efficiency than the Otto engine.

    France also contributed significantly to early automobile development. Nicolas Joseph Cugnot constructed the first self-propelled steam wagon in 1769, which is considered a precursor to the automobile. Étienne Lenoir patented a gas engine in 1860. Panhard & Levassor and Peugeot were among the first automobile factories in Europe.

    Great Britain made important contributions to electric mobility, with Robert Anderson building the first electric vehicle in 1839. Austria contributed to the further development of the automobile, with Siegfried Marcus developing a motorcar with a gasoline engine in 1870, and Gräf & Stift producing the first car with front-wheel drive in 1898.

    The United States played a crucial role in the industrialization of automobile production. Henry Ford revolutionized the manufacturing of automobiles by introducing assembly line production. The USA became the dominant country for automobile production in the first half of the 20th century.

    In summary, Germany and France contributed the most fundamental technical developments to the drivability of the automobile, while the United States revolutionized mass production. Each nation made important contributions to the overall development of the automobile, but the German inventions of Benz, Daimler, Otto, and Diesel form the foundation of the modern automobile with an internal combustion engine.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/03/21/hitler-is-national-socialism-and-national-socialism-is-hitler/

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Civil rights apostate Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*