Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Histories Plantation America
Hate History
Larry La Marca Wants to Know When the only Hated Folk First Came to America
Larry La Marca commented on About Writing #1 Oct-14-2020 1:19 PM UTC
Man! I am sorry to hear that! On the upside, I like the Myth guys, so I will be happy for that. I recently e-mailed Adam a question about when the [only folk in history to be persecuted by other races and creeds] first came to America, I won't go into it here, but I was sincerely interested. I also begged them to have you on again. I am currently searching your online stuff to see if you mentioned it. A whole bunch of writing came up, so I am reading that when I have the time. Best of luck, Mr. Lafond.
And best wishes for Lynn!

Bro, I'm trying hard to stay off of hate crime registries, which is not easy when one plumbs Reality, that forbidden well of heresy, apostasy and political incorrection. I am not a member of this group of people, who have the only exclusively unique story in the human drama. Therefore, according to fantasy-based ethics adhered to by the vast majority of my mewing fellows in this feed pen of souls, I cannot speak to anything concerning their story. I will speak to early contact from people reported to have used their written language, to resemble them in bearded wise, and to have shared national identity, and who even favored the Sub-Saharan slave class as those you name now cleave too as junior partners in the social justice contract currently reshaping this sick nation along ancient lines.
For the record, I am speaking in broad terms about Non-Christian Europeans who I stand utterly terrified of offending in any way. In this world we live in, where gods now walk among us, runaway slave boys such as I rightly tremble in our fitful sleep, let alone our waking discourses.
The oldest possible "Punic" contact with the new world would be some of their lost tribes in Old Antiquity [Pre-Roman] bringing their favorite slaves with them and carving the Olmec heads in Central America near Oaxa, I think. This is really tenuous crackpot theory here. But based on a lack of ocean going transport and massive engineering by West Africans and the fact that these people have been the most trafficked sex slaves of the punics in Medieval Egypt and modern America, and currently form a great erodica fetish, eh, a case might be made that glorified West African physiognomy in antiquity, might have been the elevation of pornographic imagery to godhead status, something happening here and now.
Since Columbus is thought to have been a "converso" [another possible case of these folks blaming Italians for their sins?] some have postulated that bearded chiefs in the American Southwest in the 1500s, even the legend of Cortez returning as a bearded Aztec god, were a legacy of people expelled from Spain in the late 1400s or even forced to assume Christian identity, having resulted in a secret exodus to North America.
Much pre-Columbian non-native construction in the Eastern Woodlands was noted by explorers up into the 1800s. The earliest solid Punic inscription is of Hanno, the lost Carthaginian mariner of 700 B.C. leaving his name inscribed in New England. Arlington Mallory, in the 1940s and 50s amassed a number of Punic inscriptions found on shards containing other Old World texts with great and undetermined [as far as I know] antiquity.
I once read three books in the Trinity High School Library in Washington County Pennsylvania, written before I was born, that described "lost tribes" of punic origin in almost Mormon terms. Indeed, the vast body of evidence of Pre-Columbian Old World contact in late 1700s and early 1800s Eastern North America, surely contributed to the development of Mormon theology.
I suspect, as a fan of Nick Mason and Adam, that you are specifically wondering about the antiquity in early modern times of European branches of this storied family tree.
It is difficult to sort the names of early protestant and Non-Christian European invaders of North America, as they all chose Old Testament names and all regarded themselves as the real Children of I!@#$%. The earliest solid North American dates are 1609 to 1623 in New York and New Jersey and even taking an infamous, misunderstood visit to Virginia and Jamestown in 1619. The word you are generally looking for is "Dutch."
If we go back to 1521 we find that of the 18 survivors of Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe that only one made any money [most being killed or jailed] by hiding a handful of Java cloves up his ass] and that the only person other than this toothless drunk, to make any profit off of the expedition that claimed some 200 European lives and many native, was the banker who backed it, changed his name, changed his faith, and moved to The Low Countries to found a banking house there. Banking from Amsterdam would fuel much of the slave trade in English, Irish, African and German chattel from the mid 1500s through 1804.
By 1675, Non-Christian houses of worship in Manhattan had provisions for visiting Gentiles to attend service. It has become obvious to me through a reading of the primary sources, including billing records of European chattel, that the entry of punic people into the political power structure of English-Speaking North America, may be traced by the replacement of the term "Christian" and the associated and subordinate identities such as, "English, French, Dutch, Swedish and German" with the amalgamating social-economic-zoological designation of "White," as a racial noun which did not exist in all of European history until about 1600, that point in time when the Dutch bankers came to dominate the West Indian Slave trade in Europeans and Africans, in service to the One True God of all:
Money.

Note: that when the Norse referred to Canada as "White-mans-land" they were repeating a translation from two captured Inuit children who referred to the Irish Catholics living there circa A.D. 1000 as "white men" because the priests wore white linen robes and carried white banners, not as a racial assignment of skin tone. There is no ancient precedence in literature for the idea of a meta-race of "whites." Northern Europeans were named "the fair-haired races" by their later Roman rivals. One North African claimant to the throne was known as "the white" because he was bizarrely light of skin for a Roman, who were manifestly Caucasian folk, with a deep Aryan language pedigree and founding fathers with blonde hair. White, with no internally inherited racial terminology based on the assignment of the absence of color as genetic human trait [1] extant in the literature of Greece and Rome, as an externally assigned meta-racial term being adopted by the European Diaspora in modern times, is the clearest indication of our complicit and internal colonization by an at once exterior and internalized human force, even as our forefathers supposedly colonized native realms. The coming into use of the term "white" an historic anomaly of the Modern Era, is, to my mind, the best way to track the coming to economic power of this ancient folk you allude to.
-1. Apart from the symbology of the absence of color denoting purity and virginity, which was shared with other Caucasian peoples of Punic and Berber type...
prev:  ‘Bird Signs?’     ‹  histories  ›     next:  Katrina
eBook
broken dance
eBook
the greatest lie ever sold
eBook
menthol rampage
eBook
the lesser angels of our nature
Add Comment
Bryce SharperOctober 17, 2020 10:11 PM UTC

What do you think of the idea of black ancient greeks? A black kook at the cigar shop was claiming this. Moar:

http://www.realhistoryww.com/
responds:October 18, 2020 4:28 AM UTC

Sir, I will check it out.

Aristotle s pretty clear than only a select few North Africans had dark skin...