933 words 
In recent years, new genetic discoveries have reshaped the story of how the Americas were first settled. Advanced DNA testing has revealed that nearly one-third of the genetic ancestry of Native Americans derives from ancient Eurasia, a finding that challenges the long-standing belief that their ancestors came solely from East Asia by way of the Bering Land Bridge about fifteen thousand years ago. This revelation has startled many scholars and forced a reconsideration of long-accepted migration theories. For much of the twentieth century, the consensus held that Native Americans descended almost entirely from East Asian populations that moved gradually into the Western Hemisphere. However, genetic evidence now indicates a more intricate origin, one that involves both East Asian and ancient Eurasian components, suggesting that the peopling of the Americas was a far more complex and interconnected process than previously thought.
Such discoveries are part of a broader transformation in the way historians and anthropologists view pre-Columbian America. The new picture that emerges is not of a tranquil Eden populated by peaceful peoples living in perfect harmony with nature, but of a continent alive with political ambition, warfare, and cultural dynamism. Native American societies were extraordinarily diverse, ranging from nomadic bands to powerful confederations , and their histories were marked by both creativity and conflict.
It is now clear that many Native American societies were builders of their own empires. They were not merely passive victims of European colonization but active participants in shaping the geopolitical landscape of North America. The Comanches, for example, constructed what historian Pekka Hämäläinen has called a “hegemonic empire on the Southern Plains.” During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they used their mastery of horsemanship, trade, and warfare to dominate weaker tribes, monopolize regional commerce, and even restrain the expansion of the Spanish Empire. The Apaches pursued similar ambitions, alternating between resisting Spanish power and asserting dominance over smaller indigenous groups. In some cases, they enslaved rival peoples such as the Jumanos and Pawnees, selling captives to Spanish settlers in New Mexico.
Other Native groups followed comparable paths of conquest and expansion. The Iroquois Confederacy in the northeast conducted organized military campaigns to subjugate neighboring peoples, integrating captives into their societies or holding them as slaves. Farther south, the Aztecs built an empire that extended through much of central Mexico, imposing tribute and exacting human sacrifices from the tribes they conquered. In the Great Plains and the American Southwest, the Sioux, Comanche, and others were engaged in continual warfare, seeking to expand their territory and influence. These examples reveal a continent shaped by power struggles, imperial rivalries, and complex systems of dominance long before the first Europeans arrived.
From this perspective, the popular claim that America is “stolen land” becomes much less certain. While European settlement undeniably altered the demographic and cultural landscape of the continent, the idea that the land was simply taken from a single, unified indigenous population overlooks a far more complicated history. Native American tribes had been contesting, exchanging, and conquering territory for centuries before any European arrived. Their borders shifted continuously, and their political alliances were as fluid and strategic as those of the European states that would later emerge.
In many cases, European and American expansion involved treaties and formal negotiations with Native leaders. These agreements reflected the realities of power, commerce, and diplomacy in a constantly changing world. To view all of American territory as “stolen” is to ignore the intricate web of conflict, exchange, and adaptation that defined the continent long before the modern United States existed. North America was never static; it was a shifting mosaic of peoples, each pursuing its own ambitions and defending its own interests.
When Europeans established permanent settlements along the Atlantic coast, they brought with them political institutions, legal systems, and philosophical traditions that would eventually give rise to a new kind of nation. The creation of the United States was the work of European-descended settlers who combined ideas from the Enlightenment with the practical experience of colonial life. The Founding Fathers, drawing on British political thought and classical learning, designed a constitutional republic that would become one of the most enduring political experiments in human history.
The indigenous peoples of North America had their own forms of governance, ranging from tribal councils to regional confederations, yet none possessed the unified political framework that could produce a nation-state on the scale of the United States. What emerged from the colonial era was something entirely new: a political order rooted in European civilization but adapted to the realities of a vast and untamed continent. The settlers and their descendants defined its borders, built its cities, and established the institutions that continue to shape American life.
In this sense, the European settlers and their descendants became the true natives of the political entity known as the United States. They were the ones who conceived of the idea of America as a nation, articulated its principles, and gave it enduring form. The United States did not arise spontaneously from the land itself but from the deliberate effort of a particular people who carried the traditions of Europe across the Atlantic and transformed them in a new environment.
The story of America, therefore, is not one of simple dispossession or moral abstraction. It is the story of competing civilizations, of encounters between ambitious and resourceful peoples, and of the eventual emergence of a distinct national identity. The land that became the United States was never the exclusive possession of any single group, and its political and cultural foundations were laid by those who built, organized, and imagined it into existence.
36 comments
These examples reveal a continent shaped by power struggles, imperial rivalries, and complex systems of dominance long before the first Europeans arrived.
It actually sounds like a failed attempt at multiculturalism, before the homogenous Europeans arrived. 🙃
“Indigenous” is simply an anti-white concept, at its core. Some writer for American Renaissance made this point years ago, that “indigenous” will never apply for whites anywhere, at any time, in any society, and we cannot use the concept to justify resisting replacement migration in Europe. There was a map of “indigenous people around the world” that got posted on twitter, and it conspicuously had all of Europe blotted out with no indigenous population whatsoever, save for the Sami.
The quick google AI overview gives the following definition
>”Indigenous” refers to people who are native to a particular region or environment, especially those who are descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a place that was later colonized.
>especially those who are descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a place that was later colonized.
The best thing to do here is to abandon the concept, and attack the very concept of indigenous people on a meta level. “There is no such thing as indigenous, it’s simply a nonsense concept used to exclude white Europeans.” As soon as you give credibility to the concept, you’re dragged down into an argument you can’t win, as the battlefield is loaded against you.
And “stolen land” is likewise nonsense, as if the land was swindled from under them in some elaborate parlor trick, or taken slyly like how a thief pickpockets someone. “Stealing” is an intra-societal crime, you cannot steal land from out-groups you don’t share a society and with, you can only conquer.
I believe this is an important topic. How did these settler-nations come about; was it evil; was it wise; was it inevitable? Etc.
For my part I will say that while the Left makes way too much hay of this topic, and nothing they have added has been useful, I have to question whether Europeans ever setting foot in the new world was really a good idea. It has led to problems – existential problems.
It may be that Whites in the new world have to retreat to specific White only zones, and then separately have mixed zones and fully nonwhite zones, each self governing. This then raises the question of why did the Whites create this system where we were living among and/or ruling over other races? If Whites had landed and then created a White only enclave nobody could really complain. It’s this mixing that has led to big problems for everybody.
As far as the origin of the Amerindians goes, isn’t the consensus now that *all* human life emerged in the central Eurasian steppe area? Which gives a more balanced view than out of Africa, which is a theory weaponized by anti Whites to undermine White integrity
“For my part I will say that while the Left makes way too much hay of this topic, and nothing they have added has been useful, I have to question whether Europeans ever setting foot in the new world was really a good idea. It has led to problems – existential problems.”
Somebody would have settled it eventually. Asians, perhaps.
Besides, North America (I mean North of the Rio Grande) was demographically comparatively empty ─ unlike South and Central America.
That is why North Americans are predominantly White even today ─ not Brown and Black mixed races.
It is not hard to understand, but somewhere in the last century we lost our way.
🙂
The colonization of the Americas needn’t result in an existential crisis. Only a lack of resolve does that.
Note also that leftists don’t try to make the Mongolians, Turks, and Japanese feel guilty for their imperialistic past. The guilt trip is just a bunch of guff. European empires usually improved the places they colonized considerably.
I’m going to point out the obvious here and it feels like we’ve collectively gone over this turf about 6 million times already, but :
What you say is all basically true, but when you consider the quadruple-whammy of :
– White empathy
– Christianity
– the Jews
– and nonwhite ethnocentrism
You have a very deadly cocktail indeed and we are witnessing that play out in real time. I don’t think White South Africa has long left and that’s a warning sign for even the old countries. Take the UK for example : Whites already a minority in under 18s. Once the over 60s die, Whites will be a minority in the UK. The future’s dark… the future’s brown.
It seems that no matter what White people did the usual tribe would have found some way to weaponize pathological altruism against us and we’d still be made to feel false guilt over the Untermensch. But ultimately I agree to some degree, the men who thought it would all workout fine leaving the Africans roaming around us were utter utter fools and should be condemned for it. They share the blame for every White victim of black violence.
“Some writer for American Renaissance made this point years ago, that ‘indigenous’ will never apply for whites anywhere, at any time, in any society, and we cannot use the concept to justify resisting replacement migration in Europe”
Actually, I think you might be thinking of a piece written on this website by the same writer who authored the current piece:
https://counter-currents.com/2025/05/whites-are-entitled-to-a-homeland-but-indigeneity-is-the-wrong-framework/
This idea that white people stole the land is absurd. As the author points out, these primitive tribes were constantly invading one another. They scalped one another. They sought to employ new visitors against the other tribes they held grudges against. What actually defeated the tribes, to this day, was simply the fact that their females married whites for a better life.
Same way the Cro-Magnons defeated the Neanderthals.
“Married”? Certainly there was white-Indian race mixing post-1492 in America, heavily in Spanish colonies, less in British. They rarely if ever married.
use the term mated then
Sorry that I came across as a pedantic dick. There were some marriages. Sir William Johnson, a very important figure in American history but forgotten because he was a Tory, married an Iroquois. The marriage was recognized and celebrated by the Iroquois because it meant they had the British as a formidable ally against the French and the French-allied Indians. The British, and maybe Johnson himself, just ignored the marriage but didn’t think any less of Johnson for doing it.
Everything I know about the Eastern Woodland Indians I got from Allan Eckert’s classic six or seven books that straddle the line between history and historical fiction.
“early one-third of the genetic ancestry of Native Americans derives from ancient Eurasia,”
So…my Native American ancestors were Ruskies?
Rather Mongols or Turks. So called Altaic Peoples.
If you go back far enough, you’ll have common relations with various Turanian peoples of Siberia.
With the ongoing spat between the Canadian and American administrations this would be a good time 🙂 to point out that the Iroquois came up from New York State in the 1600s and wiped out the Canadian Hurons – and now they want an apology from whitey for themselves being colonized! Talk about chutzpah.
There seemed to be a spectrum of Indians in eastern North America, some warlike and imperious, some relatively placid and peaceful. I’ve read conflicting things about the Iroquois. Some say they held sway as far west as Illinois and as far east as Maine, and with their related Susquehannocks and Tuscaroras as far south as Virginia and North Carolina. Others say their “empire” was confined to upstate New York and adjacent areas of Ontario.
The Catholic Church has the North American Martyrs who were eight Jesuit missionaries tortured and killed. Some by the Huron, some by the Iroquois and two by the Mohawks.
The Mohawks were Iroquois, one of the Five Tribes (later, Six Tribes, after the Tuscaroras moved from North Carolina to upstate New York in the early 1700s to become the sixth Iroquois tribe; why they did that, who knows, but they did move).
The Iroquois were so dominant and warlike that all the tribes within hundreds of miles were scared of them. That’s what I gather from my extensive hobby reading of books about Indians. One of their few competitors were the Pequots, in Connecticut and Rhode Island, I believe, and the Pequots were destroyed early on in the 1630s (?), not mainly by the freshly arrived Puritan colonists, but by the numerous Indian tribes in New England who had been under the Pequot heel and felt emboldened by these newcomers with black hats and thundersticks to rise up and massacre their overlords.
Interesting. Thank you. Any information on the west coast Indians would be appreciated. For example, I’m led to believe that the Haida Gwaii from the once Queen Charlotte Islands would conduct slaving raids on the more southern tribes and that they were even cannibals but I’m unsure if that’s gossip or fact.
Actually “indigenous” peoples don’t exist. They always came from somewhere else.
All peoples are descendants of immigrants. There are early and there are late immigrants, there are also first immigrants, but they too are not “indigenous”.
American Indians are not “indigenous”, they are Siberian immigrants.
Franklin Ryckaert: October 29, 2025 … “indigenous” peoples don’t exist. They always came from somewhere else… There are early and there are late immigrants, there are also first immigrants, but they too are not “indigenous”… American Indians are not “indigenous”, they are Siberian immigrants.
—
You’re right. All peoples originate somewhere and none of them from the Biblical Garden of Eden. My wife is a “late” Siberian immigrant because I brought her here from there 22 years ago. She’s as Aryan as they come, no Indian.
I’m not sure now where I found your quoted material below about the Jewishness of the SPLC, but I used in in my book Pocahontas Show Trial as well as here at NA’s forum whitebiocentrism.com in the topic “SPLC is Hate Group.”
The fact is that our “embattled” organization has weathered the storms and prevailed over all of those who tried to take us down, including the crooked Jewish** so-called “law center.” What is it doing now that all of its top Jews and queers were either fired or “retired.?”
**Franklin Ryckaert wrote (in Show Trial):
Of the twenty-two (22) SPLC senior program staff members, fifteen (15) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 68%. Of the thirteen (13) SPLC directors, eight (8) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 62%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among the SPLC senior program staff members by a factor of 34 times (3,400 percent), and over-represented on the SPLC board of directors by a factor of 31 times (3,100 percent).
The senior program staff members and board of directors of the SPLC have changed considerably since many of the Jews were fired or retired, but are still anti-White. At least the “law center” is no longer illegally partnered with the FBI.
https://www.bxscience.edu/ourpages/auto/2009/4/5/34767803/Pre-Columbian%20population.pdf
Pre-Columbian population of North America north of the Rio Grande:
Low estimate: 900,000
High estimate: 12,250,000
Contiguous US area: 8.08 million km²
Assuming that the above figures only refer to the area of the contiguous US, this would yield a pre-Columbian Native American population density of between 0.11 and 1.52 per km².
For reference, the current population density of Alaska is 0.5 per km², Wyoming has 2.3 km² and the modern contiguous US around 43 km² as a whole.
Conclusion: It has empty land.
The same argument applies to South Africa and Australia.
The pre-Columbian population of the “Indigenous” is problematical for various reasons but the depredations of Smallpox or other diseases is a big factor.
Anthropologist (((Jared Diamond))) put 50 million pre-Columbians in the Mississippi River basin, for example. That seems like absurd guesswork because “urbanite populations” cannot sustain themselves in such densities without modern sanitation methods of some sort.
Whatever the pre-Columbian levels of the population actually were, the modern estimate of the “Natives” circa 1776 is about 600 thousand in the lower-48 territories, with Blacks at about 500 thousand, and the White population at over 2 million.
Btw, the primary cause of the 1776 Revolution was King and Parliament enforcing the Paris Treaty of 1763 which severely (and sometimes brutally) limited American Westward migration to protect French and Indian interests.
Another important factor is that most of the American population settled East of the 100th Meridian for obvious reasons. Whether or not you bring your Bibles and Book of Mormon along, rain does not necessarily “follow the plow.” The population centers in the West tend to be urban.
The majority of the 41 million Canadian population lives within 100 kilometers of the U.S. border, and about 70 percent of the country is White.
AUSTRALIA
As far as Australia, that continent seems just as empty as the North American. In a similar historical time period, the Aboriginal contingent was perhaps as low as 300 thousand.
Today, Australia has a population of about 27 million and nearly all of them live in coastal cities. For reference, the state of Texas has 31 million.
The Aboriginal population of Australia is about 3.8 per cent and the Asian population is given as 10.2 percent.
The White population of Australia with Western European ancestry including Greek is given at about 60 percent.
“Australian” is given at 30 percent (I assume locally-born or mixed White).
The demographic threat Down Under seems to be Asian immigration ─ plus the factor that most of the continent is apparently not sustainable other than in the big coastal cities.
SOUTH AFRICA
The bottom line here is that once the White settlers from hundreds of years ago made their country prosperous, it ultimately attracted the Colored hordes of the African Continent like moths to a flame. And the elites running the country just could not resist cheap labor for the farms and mines.
In spite of Apartheid, once the White population became the minority in the 1940s, there was no way out. I see no future for Whites in South Africa now, but they would be a needed addition in North America and Australia.
🙂
I was at a social gathering a couple of years ago and one of the usual suspects was there expounding on White guilt and having stolen land from the Indians. I described to her the history of torture, cannibalism slavery and all manner of human horrors that virtually all the Indian tribes practiced prior to European colonization. She told me, yes, but they learned it from the Europeans. They were not like that in and of themselves. They were peaceful. lol.
Noble Savages.
😉
She told me, yes, but they learned it from the Europeans.
That was a very stupid comment from her, but many smarter people would answer that yes, you are right, they practized cannibalism and tribal wars, but this was their business, this was their live. And they did not ask you to come and to stop this. Something like this I maybe have even heard in Scorsese’s film Killers of the Flower Moon.
Well, my point is I think they really think like this. No amount of data will change their point of view, as it is based in the heart. But to answer your version, which is even more absurd, is that people with this degree of strife between(precolumbian indians) them cannot claim any political unity or any group right to anything. The premise is that genocides among sub groups are allowed, but any outside interference from out some imaginary line set in the 20th century is not allowed.
Maybe the best behaviour would be not to meddle at all, and let them kill each other. The meddling is not a thankful deed, both then and now, just remember Mogadishu-1993.
The archaeological evidence is pretty clear that the Old Ones were cannibals, and this research has not been met well by Leftist anthropologists.
I agree that how savage and cannibalistic the Noble Savages were may not be our problem to fix ─ until it does become our problem.
And once they go on the warpath, it takes the intervention of the Texas Rangers or the U.S. Cavalry to prevent the White settlers from exterminating them.
🙂
I agree that (white) Americans are the native Americans, but not because of anything to do with ancient Amerindian DNA. It’s simply because there was no America prior to us creating it, they were not intended to be part of it, and “American”, as an ethnic group, refers to us. At best, Amerindians are native North Americans.
wolfemu said: “west coast Indians would be appreciated”
“Ain’t comin in there, them bastards attacked us”–Chef, Apocalypse Now
I would say the Polynesian connection between Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest is possible, not just the land bridge. When Europeans and Americans were gung ho about “opening” that area in the 1790s they made their base in Hawaii. You could say they did this because Spanish and Mexican bases were denied them, but maybe Hawaii would have been the right base no matter what. The antiwhite Jared Diamonds and the CIA Cold War civnat James Micheners would probably poopoo any Polynesian connection to Alaska and British Columbia, I’m guessing. Thor Heyerdahl would probably not.
This article is delusional and argues against things its opponents arent saying
Since the times before the Flood of 10,000 BC, Hyperboreans and Atlanteans have been colonizing the Americas, as the genius H. Wirth had already intuited, even speaking of North and South Atlantis.
The Treta Yuga / Age of the Mother: The Pre-Nordics (sections: 6.1 Wirth’s and Tilak’s Airyana Vaējah – 6.2 Pre-Nordics in America and Atlantis)
https://www.ereticamente.net/strade-del-nord-il-tema-delle-origini-boreali-in-herman-wirth-e-negli-altri-parte-1-michele-ruzzai/
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.