HH60 - The Celtic Holocaust

[Penner]

Some others do feel like his work has waned. Mostly has to do with his Hardcore History show since it takes now so long to get an episode, some feel like they're on topics that Dan has already done, episodes length, and just generally feeling like the overall quality has waned.

That's my only complaint about Dan. The podcasts have all but fallen to nothing. We get annual, massive epics from a single source - which is worse than useless.

^
This. Usually on a topic he's already done AND with the same musings and angles as the last time.
It's like if you take a TV series that you've seen many times, say the Twilight zone, canceling it and instead releasing 3 hr cinema versions of every old episode, one a year, with the same content, just a hell of a lot more exposition.

You probably just predicted what Hollywood would do in the next 5 years or so.

Also, Twilight Zone has been canceled for decades and it was already made into a movie:

[Fife]

Have you seen that movie? Do you get the point? Twilight Zone: The Movie is not the point that was being made. Rather the opposite.

[GloryofGreece]

I'm only about 40 minutes in, but Dan confirmed something that I've been thinking about since I've been listening to Bollelli's episodes on Crazy Horse and Little Bighorn and especially the current one on the Conquest of Mexico. I look at the whites that defeated the Indians as evil yet I look at Caesar as a hero, despite him committing the same atrocities.

Is this just bias in the sources I've been reading all of my life? Or do we forgive Caesar because of everything else he did before and after the Gallic Wars? I guess if Cortes had gone home to Spain and defeated the monarchy while installing a stronger, more stable form of government we'd have a different view of him as well. Maybe it all comes down to the original source, maybe we'd have a different view of Cortes if he wrong something like Caesar's commentaries

I believe so. Kids weren't taught that nonsense before the 1970s or thereabouts. It's a product of the long march of marxism through the institutions, including the universities and government schools.

In particular, Cortez didn't do anything the indiginous civilizations didn't do and wouldn't have done to us if they had the opportunity. Also, the other nations joined him against the Aztecs. But the kicker is that the Aztecs now control the whole thing, so it's not like the Spanish did themselves or anybody else a favor. Zapotec and others are now ruled over by Mexico, which is a nation state extension of Aztec civilization. They speak Spanish now and they worship the real God, but they are still the same people. The name Mexico is the Spanish derivative of the name the Aztecs called themselves (Mexica).

In the Andean region, the full-indigenous population in many parts is now higher than it ever was prior to contact and conquest. Boliva is now run by the indigenous population. In Peru, the average Peruvian is not really all that far removed from the various civilizations that lived there prior to contact either.

The paradigm we were taught, in my opinion, is totally false.

Is it false that 90-95% of the native populations in the Americas were wiped off the face of the earth in less than 100 years? Is it false that the natives that inhabited the Caribbean islands were worked as slaves into extinction? And b/c the Mexica (one native group that we know something about (ill be it from Spanish sources only) were ruthless cunts that means the Spanish were no worse so what does it matter? Right. No malice in their intention for sure. But hey Peru has native Quecheu so its all good dude. And it sure as shit wasn't tragic to see an entire people be wiped out of a continent or two. Gold, God, and Glory. "I have a thirst that can only be quenched by gold" - Cortes.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm only about 40 minutes in, but Dan confirmed something that I've been thinking about since I've been listening to Bollelli's episodes on Crazy Horse and Little Bighorn and especially the current one on the Conquest of Mexico. I look at the whites that defeated the Indians as evil yet I look at Caesar as a hero, despite him committing the same atrocities.

Is this just bias in the sources I've been reading all of my life? Or do we forgive Caesar because of everything else he did before and after the Gallic Wars? I guess if Cortes had gone home to Spain and defeated the monarchy while installing a stronger, more stable form of government we'd have a different view of him as well. Maybe it all comes down to the original source, maybe we'd have a different view of Cortes if he wrong something like Caesar's commentaries

I believe so. Kids weren't taught that nonsense before the 1970s or thereabouts. It's a product of the long march of marxism through the institutions, including the universities and government schools.

In particular, Cortez didn't do anything the indiginous civilizations didn't do and wouldn't have done to us if they had the opportunity. Also, the other nations joined him against the Aztecs. But the kicker is that the Aztecs now control the whole thing, so it's not like the Spanish did themselves or anybody else a favor. Zapotec and others are now ruled over by Mexico, which is a nation state extension of Aztec civilization. They speak Spanish now and they worship the real God, but they are still the same people. The name Mexico is the Spanish derivative of the name the Aztecs called themselves (Mexica).

In the Andean region, the full-indigenous population in many parts is now higher than it ever was prior to contact and conquest. Boliva is now run by the indigenous population. In Peru, the average Peruvian is not really all that far removed from the various civilizations that lived there prior to contact either.

The paradigm we were taught, in my opinion, is totally false.

Is it false that 90-95% of the native populations in the Americas were wiped off the face of the earth in less than 100 years? Is it false that the natives that inhabited the Caribbean islands were worked as slaves into extinction? And b/c the Mexica (one native group that we know something about (ill be it from Spanish sources only) were ruthless cunts that means the Spanish were no worse so what does it matter? Right. No malice in their intention for sure. But hey Peru has native Quecheu so its all good dude. And it sure as shit wasn't tragic to see an entire people be wiped out of a continent or two. Gold, God, and Glory. "I have a thirst that can only be quenched by gold" - Cortes.

I believe that is a calumny derived, in part, by the mistaken belief by the Spanish that the plague which wiped out so many in Mesoamerica was the smallpox they brought with them from Europe.

There simply weren't that many people north of Mesoamerica to kill. Our English ancestors, in my opinion, killed off a higher percentage of the indigenous population than the Spanish (though the population was much, much smaller) because we lacked a caste system like they had and interbreeding was strictly forbidden for a long time, and frowned upon really until living memory. But the absolute numbers were pretty small.

As far as Mesoamerica and Peru.. the Mesoamericans and Andean peoples run their own shit today. Mexico is literally the modern Aztec state. The word Mexico is derived from the Aztec word for themselves Mexica. Even if you want to discount them because they have a tiny bit of European genetics (mestizo), the indigenous populations are pretty strong now. In fact, there are more indigenous people in the Andean region than there ever was before first contact. Bolivia is more indigenous than not now. Their entire government is run by them.

This entire narrative that we came here and exterminated the indigenous people is just absurd. All of South America and Mesoamerica is ruled by the same people it always ever was ruled by except for about three hundred years of Spanish imperial rule. There simply weren't that many people in what would become the United States. No civilization here. The most advanced culture to emerge here was mostly extinct by the time Europeans arrived. There was already a huge population loss.

[GloryofGreece]

What sources have you looked at for estimations on Native populations in either North or South America? Couldn't there been as much as tens of millions?

[Penner]

It was the plague that killed a lot of the Natives in places before white people came. I mean sure there were other examples of where maybe a combination of nature and plague killed the Natives before any contact with white people (like the Hopi, and Mayans) but for the most part it was plagued like smallpox that ravaged the population.

[Speaker to Animals]

What sources have you looked at for estimations on Native populations in either North or South America? Couldn't there been as much as tens of millions?

1. The fact that the Mesoamerican and Andean people to this day run their own shit same as ever is a demonstrable fact. I think you are trying to weasel out of that one.

2. As far as what happened in our little section of North America, a simple internet search would provide you with nuggets like this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-science/

The number of Native Americans quickly shrank by roughly half following European contact about 500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.


The finding supports historical accounts that Europeans triggered a wave of disease, warfare, and enslavement in the New World that had devastating effects for indigenous populations across the Americas.

(Related: "Guns, Germs and Steel—Jared Diamond on Geography as Power.")

Using samples of ancient and modern mitochondrial DNA—which is passed down only from mothers to daughters—the researchers calculated a demographic history for American Indians. (Get an overview of human genetics.)

Based on the data, the team estimates that the Native American population was at an all-time high about 5,000 years ago.

The population then reached a low point about 500 years ago—only a few years after Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World and before extensive European colonization began.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... s-science/\


Do you see the problem with this (aside from the link to the hack Jared Diamond)?

First of all, I think we can all agree that the population was much higher many centuries before Columbus showed up. We know there existed an extensive complex culture throughout the middle regions of what is now the United States that had collapsed.

Second, if genetic evidence shows the population drop (regardless of cause) was about 50%, then you right away know that the huge estimates the anti-western historians like to throw around can't be realistic. Double the population of indigenous tribes at any time between first contact and now and you don't get anywhere near the enormous numbers they like to use.

Third, the researcher makes the assumption that the population had to be caused by the Europeans, even though he admits that the evidence shows this population drop must have occurred no later than a few years after first contact, which really is quite absurd. Hitler would be so jealous of that kind of efficacy, and they didn't even have mobile gas chambers and mass transport!


It's nonsense like this that makes question it. I think the population here collapsed long before Europeans arrived. I think the stories of extermination in Mexico and Peru are fucking absurd on the face of it when I just look at video footage of Mexican and Peruvian people running their own shit today.

This is why Marxism is creating a kind of intellectual dark age. People can't use the brain God planted in their heads because they are so caught up in the "narrative".

[Speaker to Animals]

It was the plague that killed a lot of the Natives in places before white people came. I mean sure there were other examples of where maybe a combination of nature and plague killed the Natives before any contact with white people (like the Hopi, and Mayans) but for the most part it was plagued like smallpox that ravaged the population.

There was only one big plague, called the cocoliztli. The Spanish assumed it was smallpox and blamed themselves, which stuck in the history books for a long time, but now some researchers believe it was actually an uncatalogued indigenous virus. Some others believe it was salmonella.

In any case, even if it were brought here by Europeans, it was hardly an intentional act. Europeans didn't know what viruses and bacteria were then either.

"The" plague, i.e. the black death, could not likely have made it here since the time to sail across the ocean was longer than the incubation period of the disease (I think it was something like 27 days), and by then Europeans had established some pretty sophisticated systems of quarantine to limit its spread.

If it were something we brought, it was more likely smallpox, though the symptoms don't match, so that's not really the culprit for the cocoliztli.

[Hastur]

Also it wasn't like it was some kind of ancient high cultures that were wiped out. The university of Oxford is older than the Aztec culture. American civilization never really took of.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, but the Aztecs were hardly the only civilization in the region, and some of them were pretty old, or were more recent iterations of cultures that were there for a long time.

And the southern portion of Mesoamerica was Mayan, who's civilization dates back to the times of the Olmec.

I don't know why the Aztecs get so much play when most of the northern region was divided up into several different civilizations that almost nobody knows about outside of academia (and who read books on the subject).