'Minneapolis Renames Columbus Day As Indigenous People's Day' - Part 2

After viewing many Columbus Day protests, I found it amusing that elsewhere like New York City, the parade goes on seemingly without a hitch. About a minute into this video, you will see the name of an organization called the Columbus Citizens Foundation. The foundation is in full support of anything Columbus, but is based on "Italian heritage" not specifically "Columbus." In other words, from what I can gather, they avoid any "intellectualizing" about all the facets of the Columbus issue (just as the opposing side does), and merely hangs their hat on the "Italian-American" heritage concept.

There's an old saying that I think is mostly true: "Every nation was born in blood." Christopher Columbus was one of many explorers in the New World, starting with Leif Erikson. Erikson was even praised by President Obama... a sometimes-anti-imperialist. Erikson certainly would have set up a permanent colony along the eastern Canadian coast, but it was too far out of the way at that time. Beyond Leif Erikson, all of these early explorers did their part to set up the Americas for colonization.

Columbus, to some "the new Hitler"

Personally, I believe that it was actually "Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch Imperialism," not "EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM." Again, how many nations participated? There were perhaps fifty European nations in 1492! If someone doesn't like something that China did, they can't blame Tibet, even if they may look similar! If something bad happens in Algeria, you can't blame Pakistan, even if they may look similar! Even the overwhelming colonization of later times right up to the 60s, was the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, and Holland; with the rest being small and sporadic. Even Soviet expansion into Asia, early on, was in huge very depopulated regions.

There's nothing that "the West" did in the New World that Islam did not equal or surpass for 1,500 years on three continents. What did the Berbers, an Indo-European-like people in northwest Africa, endure that the Amerindians didn't endure? They were either driven from their lands or forced to convert to a foreign religion and culture. Islamic colonization took down many peoples and cultures in this manner; just as the Catholic Church did... but some people prefer to ignore all of the facts and just blame Columbus. There was imperialism and slavery all over the world long before Columbus.

Sometimes Mexico is included among the victims of American Imperialism. Really? That's really selling Mexico short, as it adhered to all of the same imperialism, slave trading, and religious supremacy. There aren't too many people in Mexico who don't speak a European language, have a European name, or practice a European-centered religion. Somehow it just seems a little late in the game for Mexican Columbus protesters to suddenly "become Indians" after all the bloody conflicts with Amerindians in Mexico and the Southwest over the centuries. Those protesters want us to "Go back to Europe," when some of their own ancestors were among the very worst Spanish imperialists, slave owners, and Catholic supremacists.

The Cherokees put hundreds of thousands of innocent Africans in chains

If someone wants to blame Columbus, then they must have the entire plate! They cannot ignore the establishment, expansion, and mere existence of the United States, the role of the Vatican in American colonialism (Latin America), the fact that 19 out of 20 captured Africans were sold into slavery in Latin America, and much more. How about the African Chieftains and their henchmen who captured people by literally the millions to sell along the West African coast? Maybe it's time to find out who really owned all those slave ships? Also, there were many Arab slavers working along the West African coast. How many people know that the Cherokee Nation was up to their necks in the slave trade? I think that the Columbus protesters, of all races, should be careful of what they ask for.

Where does it end? There have been hundreds of cases such as demands that a grammar school change its name from "George Washington," or for Andrew Jackson's name to be removed from the $20 bill... because they were "racists." Well, are we going to rehash all the history of all other nations too... the vast majority of which were "born in blood"..? What about the Cherokee Nation... are they going to give an apology for their large role in the slave trade? I don't think there were any Latvians, Hungarians, or Greeks bidding on captured Africans... but there sure were Cherokees bidding. Why is that such a secret? How many people realize that many Irish people were sold into slavery in the Americas? 


.

The Mussolini/Fascist issue

Our folk have been historically known for political extremism. Fascism, Communism, Anarchism, etc. These concerns have been successful because they are correct on a handful of issues. I usually don't like the term "extremism," because anyone can use the word to belittle anyone they wish; even while supporting types of extremism themselves. However, Fascism was basically a dictatorship in which the state oversaw and largely controlled industry. It is the opposite, or "opposame," of Fabianism in which transnational financial and economic concerns largely control, or at least have undo influence upon, the governmental apparatus of nations; sort've like "International Socialism."

Benito Mussolini was of Emilian descent, which means that he was a member of our folk. However, he was an "Italian nationalist" who cared very little about common people. For example, he, in an apparent attempt to show off his power to the National Socialists, got his country involved in wars of which they were ill-prepared for. This was done in the name of a modern type of "Roman Imperialism." Although the Italian Fascists had limited success, conquering Libya and Ethiopia, the plan was brutal and disastrous even for their own country and people.

The plan was for neo-Rome to conquer the Balkans, North Africa, and other places; and set up a Roman-style imperialist system. In the Balkans, they actually tried to change people's family surnames. For example, a family with the name "Bradovich" would be forced to take a name like "Columbo," even though they didn't not speak Italian at all. They wanted to colonize most of the Mediterranean region with people from Italy, and it was mostly people from the north who colonized North Africa. Italians in general would have some type of high racial status in these colonies. For example, I recall reading once that in colonial Libya, where was a law, with a penalty of eight years in prison, for "touching a white woman." Of course, I don't believe that they should have been in Libya at all. It was almost like Mussolini was showing off for Hitler. At least that's the impression that I always had. Small populations of Jews and Black Africans in Libya were more-or-less forced to go away, and the common Libyans were to be given some type of status as long as they went along with the Fascist dictatorship.

[Left: Libyan resistors being taken to a concentration camp; on the left of the image, two Libyan colonial soldiers, traitors to their people; unfortunately, treason is part of the human character]

Ethnic and linguistic differences, within the Italian peninsula, were even more repressed then before. The Italian Fascists force-migrated people from Southern Italy into the ethnic-German South Tyrol. Also, they were trying to force the Tyroleans to speak standard Italian and change their names. Mussolini, though his own statements, believed that the Langobards were everywhere in the peninsula and that it somehow meant that every Italian was an Aryan-Italian. No regionalism. All were to take the identity of Fascist Lombardo-Romans. From any type of Padanian/Cisalpine folkish way of thinking, Mussolini was a traitor to his own people.

Like the Communists and Fabianists, theirs was a dark world view. Although they defeated the Italian Communists, the results were just as bad as what may have occurred otherwise. Both denied our people freedom, or even a self-identity, as does the Fabianist EU Plutocracy today. We need to finally break away from this right-left Hegelian dialectic, and make our own way. I call this paradigm "the grinder." Throw in a legitimate issue or concern, and out it comes, stripped of all truth or worth. Neatly packaged under a false right or left label; to be put back up on the shelf with all of the other dead issues that the Fabianist power structure doesn't want to trouble itself with.

The fact that we are forced to the right, is a direct consequence of the rise of Fabian Socialist Plutocracy and it's Monopoly Capitalist and Social Marxist minions who today have almost the entire globe in a political straitjacket. I can't see how anyone of our concern could really consider Mussolini or the Fascists as any type of political ideal or icon. The Romans destroyed the Etruscans and Gauls, and the process keeps being recycled over and over again. Remember that bully in the sixth grade? He just absolutely would not stop... until someone literally, physically STOPPED him. We are all still subject to the "law of the jungle."

A very important point to remember. "All wars" were not fought over nationalism or religion; "All wars" were started by bankers, industrialists, and dictators who merely USED nationalism or religion as effective propaganda tools.

[10-25-12 ADDITION

Reader/Contributor Etrusco-Umbro-Gallic pointed out the following:

Speaking of the Rumagnols, you erred once in calling Mussolini an Emilian. He was a Forlivese Rumagnol. Rumagnols are a different folk, culturally and genetically. There are perhaps analogous to Bresans, being more masculine, robust and better built, while Emilians are more like Western Lombards.]

.