Have we been lied to about our history? Are the Native Indians not actually the indigenous people?

CaptainTrouble

Based Member
Here's an interesting book. It's called History of Toronto and County of York, Ontario (1885), author Dr. C. P. Mulvany.


The book details an older group than the Native Indians who aren't Native Indian at all. It doesn't speculate exactly what race these people were but the book describes the following:

"in the part of North America south of what is now New York State, the present race of Indians appear to have superseded a far more civilized race, the builders of fortified towns and permanent temples, who were well acquainted with the use of metals."

The conclusion is inferred because the book describes how primitive the Native Indians were before the White settlers came thus a metalworking race of people with temples and fortified towns seemed very unlikely to have been built by Native Indians.

Of course this "theory" was later disproven by the Smithsonian Institute. If you know anything about the Smithsonian Institute, they're basically like damage control for government approved history narratives. They go into excavated sites, accidently destroys things or start fires and then make up a story that aligns with the approved narrative. They'll "preserve" historic sites by literally changing them under the guise of renovating for safety and then all the evidence that could contradict the narrative disappears. They're 100% untrustworthy. They're about as trustworthy as the government approved health organization during COVID. The fact it's this group that looked at the documented ruins described here that came from an earlier race and they said nope, they actually confirmed it was Native Indians who built them is interesting. I doubt them very much. The logic from the book is sound. Native Indians were too primitive to have built these ruins.

On another subject, or is it another subject...

According to Paiute oral history, the Si-Te-Cah were a fierce, hostile, and cannibalistic tribe with reddish hair who wove large rafts out of tule reeds to live on the lake and evade attacks.

After years of conflict, neighboring tribes formed a coalition to drive the Si-Te-Cah out of the region. The surviving Si-Te-Cah retreated into a limestone cavern overlooking the Humboldt Sink (now called Lovelock Cave). When they refused to come out and fight, the coalition piled brush across the cave entrance and set it ablaze, killing those inside through smoke inhalation and fire.

In her book Life Among the Piutes, Paiute author and activist Sarah Winnemucca recorded her tribe’s oral history of exterminating this red-haired enemy, noting that her family passed down a ceremonial dress trimmed with their reddish hair. Notably, Winnemucca described them as fierce "barbarians," not giants—the claim that they stood 8 to 10 feet tall grew out of later retellings and 20th-century sensationalized accounts.

In 1911, two miners, James Hart and David Pugh, began digging bat guano (used for fertilizer and gunpowder) from the floor of Lovelock Cave. Beneath several feet of guano, they unearthed thousands of ancient artifacts alongside mummified human remains with distinctly red hair.

Local mining engineer John T. Reid and sensationalized 1931 articles in the Nevada Review-Miner claimed that mummified skeletons measuring 8.5 feet and nearly 10 feet tall had been recovered from the cave and nearby dry lakebed, alongside 15-inch-long woven sandals.
Why is this relevant? Well, guess what race is known to be red haired, kinda like a giant barbariant with guys today 7' tall? The original primordial German race of course.

It just so happens that Native Indians might not be indigenous to America. Germans might be indigenous and the Native Indians who came after (similar to the story of the fake indigenous in New Zealand. If you don't know the people called indigenous to New Zealand are actually conquerors who killed off the real indigenous) hunted the Germans to extinction on the continent.

So, the next time you decided to talk about unseded land and time immemorial, you have every right to suggest you as a White man were the indigenous to North America since time immemorial and you will never ever give up your territory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 10
Probably.

Smithsonian, the royal society, masonry, Darwin etc.

A whole lot of fuckery going on.
 
Nobody can convince me otherwise about the Smithsonian covering up giants.
 
It's been a quite a while since my time scouring for hours upon hours on this type of stuff and unfortunately I am quite a forgetful guy.

I don't forget the main conclusion I always came to though: everything is fake and gay.

Evolution, dinosaurs, space. These institutions with interwoven hidden hands are not to be trusted or believed.
 
I haven't read this book but I assume it talks about the "Solutrean hypothesis" which posits that Europeans were the first settlers in North America (long before vikings).
 
Didn’t Jesus come to North America? Could have been him.
 
I think our entire geography is fucked and the modern day Israel and assume where Jesus lived could be an entirely different place altogether. I’ve heard some pretty interesting claims that it may have even been the eastern side of Russia and Japan.
 
There would need to be some pretty strong evidence because the Romans were controlling Judaea at that time and they definitely didn't have provinces anywhere near Eastern Russia or Japan. Not even Alexander the Great made it that far.
 
@brutana_dilewski I imagine the claim is more likely based on this:

In 1894, a Russian war correspondent named Nicolas Notovitch published The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ. He claimed that while recovering from a broken leg at the Hemis Monastery in Ladakh (northern India), Tibetan monks showed him an ancient manuscript about a prophet named "Saint Issa" (the Arabic/Islamic name for Jesus). According to Notovitch, Issa traveled to India at age 13, studied with Brahmins and Buddhists, rejected the caste system, and returned to Judea at 29.
 
Back
Top