Internationalists are a desperate lot who will go to any length in order to impose their worldview upon humanity. Or at least upon Occidentals. We frequently hear from them of how North America, Australia and New Zealand were inhabited prior to the coming of Whites and thus they are immigrant nations which must open themselves to the world. This is a faulty argument but it is at least easy to understand how it came about and how effective it can be. This should not, however, be the case with Europe but sadly it is.
I have seen many attempts at trying to justify open borders in Europe despite the fact Europeans are the indigenous peoples of that continent many times before but this article is really quite horrid and warrants a response.
John Dyer at Vice, the creation of pseudo-edgy cuckservative Canadian Gavin McInnes, has written a post on migrations in prehistoric Europe and of how Europeans should give into national suicide because of something that happened thousands of years ago. Now to be fair much of the blame lies not with him but with the so-called experts feeding him information,
“We’re seeing how our ancestors adapted,” said Hélène Rougier, an anthropologist at California State University, Northridge and one of the study authors. “This has resonance for today.”
Rougier and other experts were especially quick to note that the findings were a counterpoint to the xenophobic backlash against the desperate Middle Eastern and North African asylum seekers who have been traveling thousands of miles to reach Germany, Greece, Italy, and other countries.
“Our history is made of migrations. This is part of our ancestry,” Rougier said. “So what is happening now are things that happened in the past, and we made it all right.”
Some of the earliest Europeans appear to have resided in what is now Belgium, according to a 35,000-year-old fossil, the researchers found. That’s an apt location given that Brussels is the capital of the European Union. But the scientists also found that the first Europeans had brown eyes and dark skin. Near Eastern farmers first introduced blue eyes and pale skin to the continent.
“What this is showing is a very important social message,” said Ian Tattersall, curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History, who did not work on the study. “Everybody is a giant mongrel.”
Clearly these archaeologists have a political agenda here and they have impressed it on ignorant Dyer. We can see from this article’s title: Researchers to European Islamophobes: Your Ancestors Were Migrants Who Settled in Belgium that Dyer has readily accepted their treachery. It is clearly intended to shame Whites and to fool them into opening their borders even more and allowing their displacement to continue unabated.
Yes, there was a prehistoric movement of farming peoples from West Asia into Europe and as Dyer notes they were White. Apparently this is some stunning breakthrough that shatters preconceived notions but in reality this is nothing new. Several studies over the past several years have shown this and sadly in many of these cases anti-White activism was made front and centre as well. Archaeology like other academic disciplines has come under the sway of cultural marxism which is constantly trying to undermine Western civilization. We can see this very clearly with the above quotes from Rougier and Tattersall.
As it turns out pale skin and blue eyes already developed in Scandinavia before Near Eastern farmers arrived and so too had the Indo-Europeans/Aryans. Like the Scandinavians the Indo-Europeans came from within Europe – the Pontic steppes of Ukraine. They later spread throughout the rest of the continent much like the earlier wave Near Easterners. Arguably they are far more important given the spread of their genes, languages (almost all European languages today are Indo-European), technology (particularly the wheel) and cultural traits. It is from them that the ancient myths and legends of the Greco-Roman, Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Celtic worlds descend from. The tripartite society and Western ideals of aristocracy and nobility also ultimately come from them.
In the past as Kevin MacDonald among others notes race was completely denied. Now it is denied only in regards to the White man by the extreme left. With so-called moderates we are seeing race being accepted but, as we see here, while race is accepted history is being distorted in order to push the internationalist anti-White agenda. There are countless examples of non-Whites migrating into the lands of others: Sub-Saharans displaced Capeoids, Japanese displaced Ainu, Mongoloids displaced the White inhabitants of Central Asia (historically much of Central Asia Central Asia was inhabited by Whites, take for example the Scythians, Yuezhi and Tocharians), etc. but these are never used against them.
There is also evidence that Amerindians were not the first arrivals to the Americas. There is evidence to suggest a European group (usually referred to as Soultreans) was present in America 10,000 years prior to the coming of the ancestors of modern Amerindians. Genetic research makes it clear that Amerindians are not purely Siberian; they have European admixture which is in many places quite high. Some suggest this is solely because of the Mal’ta people who came via the Bering land bridge. Either way it shows that there was mixing in the Americas but you would never hear anyone try to use this against Amerindians; to try and force them into accepting the mass migration of Europeans from 1492 on. New evidence also suggests Australoids were in the Americas prior to Amerindians as well. Again, this won’t be used to push some anti-Amerindian identity agenda.
In the end it really should not matter that there was some prehistoric movement of people from the Near East into Europe. That was 35,000 years ago and those people were completely different from the hordes coming in today. What occurred in prehistory also took a far longer process, unlike the rapid movements of non-Whites into Europe today. Moreover, the nations of Europe are the creations of centuries of tireless work by Europeans. They are in every way European. It makes no sense to bring in non-Europeans into these lands; they are too dissimilar from the native inhabitants.
Clearly Rougier, Tattersall and Dyer could care less for native rights. Indeed, anyone who promotes internationalism is against native rights, or at least they are when it comes to Whites. Toxic sentimentality mixed with outright fabrication of history is thus being used as a potent weapon against Europeans, their cultures, lands, histories and identities.