All said and done, we cannot assume that only English are trustworthy. Look what they did in India and Europe. English have always been hegemonistic and hungry for land. Partly because they were deprived of it for many generations which may have genetically transformed their psyche.

But I do agree with the English “never give up” attitude and their loyalty towards the crown. If not, they would have never been able to control large tracts of land worldwide. The English could have left a better example in Asia, particularly India. Their treacherous attitude and innate racism towards natives still echoes with the people there.

Last but not the least, I encourage you to come up with more of these inside scoops of history! Cheers ..

http://www.butikonlinemurah.com/

http://www.you-sexcam.org/

http://www.you-sexcam.org/

This is not as sophomoric as it may sound to many disillusioned, and ‘oh-so-blase’ multicultists out there. Writer John de Nugent devoted a great deal of time on this fact on his site; this presumption on the part of the English is due to, or as a result of a) white Migration during the Ice Age, to the East Coast of the USA via the ‘Solutreans’- which was chronicled in the Discovery channel’s video, ‘Ice Age Columbus.’

Moreover, DNA of Eastern vs. Western Indians, shows a matrilineal marker related to Caucasoids, which is more prevalent, the further east one goes- but no patrilineal marker. Historic drawings of now deceased Eastern US Amerindian tribes DO show a ‘European phsyiognomy, (blue eyes, and fair/light hair) and Jos. Smith’s belief (found in the modern Book of Mormon) that Indians were the “Lost Ten Tribes’ is also a clue that this was not some ‘fallacy’ or wish fulfillment on the part of conquering European supremacists (as we now constantly hear) but a verifiable ethnic fact, translated as early American settlers saw it. Of course, they weren’t ‘Hebrews,’ but they most clearly had caucasoid ancestry!

I don’t know all the stats, but it basically is the conclusion that while Caucasoids HAVE visited the New World prior to Columbus (a late example is the verification of the Kensington Runestone in MN., only recently via analysis of tempero-specific runes used only on the stone and ONE fifty-year period among the residents of Gotland, Sweden, in use some 150 years before Columbus), if the Solutreans DID make it over here, they were then massacred as the first ‘Native Americans’ when the Sinoid ‘Amerindian ethnics’ came over later on the ‘Siberian Land Bridge’, who took their wives and children, and imprinted their subsequent DNA on the conquered Whites. In short, Whites were here first, and those Eastern US “Indians” viewed some thousands of years later by the English Colonists at Jamestown, most likely were the ethnic descendants of Solutreans and the Asiatics who had killed their men, and taken their ‘fair and beautiful’ women as their wives.

(1) Whites do not look at Indians and Blacks the same way. Even among white racialists, there are different attitudes towards miscegenation with Indians and Blacks. I think a large part of this has to do with an aesthetic criterion of race. Typical Indian features are ugly, but they are far less ugly than typical Black features. There are also more atypically attractive Indians than there are atypically attractive blacks. Indians are genetically closer to Whites than are Blacks, and the hybrids look more like us. I think this explains why the Jamestown settlers were more open to amicable relations with Indians than with the blacks they purchased as slaves. But how does one establish community with strangers that one deems genetically similar enough for amicable relations? See my next point.

(2) Whites are trusting and trustworthy people. High degrees of trust and trustworthiness are important conditions for the creation of large-scale, complex societies. But when one meets foreigners, one must be on one’s guard. How does one move from distrust to trust, from a stand-off to a handshake? One party has to take the risk of letting down his guard. One party has to make a gesture of good faith, even appeasement. This is what the colonists did over and over with the Indians, regardless of the repeated crimes committed against them.

There is, of course, good reason to make this leap of faith over and over again, for in our history, the willingness to do so has laid the foundations for the most powerful and flourishing civilization in history.

But how do individuals psychologically sustain this attitude in the face of repeated disappointments? By making it a matter of moral principle. Now it so happens that Christianity makes self-sacrifice and turning the other cheek into moral principles. So Christianity was grafted onto and reinforced a pre-existing propensity on the part of whites to take risks to create high-trust social orders.

(3) In the end, white high-mindedness only works with other white people. After a while, the colonists realized this and began to treat the Indians as confirmed enemies rather than as potential friends. This only happened when the Indians piled up enough concrete personal grievances (in the form of murdered and raped and tortured and betrayed and robbed whites) to outweigh the abstract moral reasons to keep making gestures of good faith.

Unfortunately, the sensible whites meet resistance all along the way from other whites who derived ego gratification and public acclaim from suicidal high-mindedness towards Indians, then Blacks, and the rest is history. We have to deal with these people today, plus the Jews too.

The good news is that our ancestors learned, and so can our generation too. We just have to resign ourselves that for every two steps forward, we will be dragged one back by moralistic wankers.

Yes, this is, paradoxically, our type of ethnocentrism: We desire objectivity, truth, reason, order and justice. We scorn corruption, favoritism, nepotism, and ethnocentric thinking.

Paradoxically, this is our particular etnocentrism for no other group can do this — they cannot refrain from using nepotism, systematically citing (unnecessarily) their ethnic compatriots in research, favor them in employment, favor them in all other sorts of ways etc., etc. Arabs even marry cousins so that property will not leave family control. Completely dysgenic of course, but nepotism is more important.

Our desire for objectivity and their desire for subjectivity makes us incompatible — we would like to be able to function with them in a civilized way, but it is simply not possible. “Sad, but true.” (Not really, but nevertheless, this was the prevailing pre-suicide attitude.)

All in all, this becomes a ethnocentrism of a rather strange contorted type.

Hence the most subjective, fanatic, ethnocentric group in world history use more energy to hate us and destroy us than they use trying to survive. We are their anti-thesis of a sort, even though we don’t understand it.