Europeans Did Nothing Wrong: Tracking Migration Through the Ages [stream #86]
The Great Johannes PodcastShow Notes
It is disingenuous to say that the migration of large groups of strangers into another’s settled society is a phenomenon of all ages. No, modern mass migration is abnormal. We have never seen this before. People have always lived as migratory groups, as nomadic pastoralists, or as hunters following herds and seasonal fruit crops, but throughout human history and prehistory, most migrations involved small groups of relatives moving away from other families. They were not moving toward each other. People simply didn’t live with strangers. At most, we lived as clans of no more than 150 people, and in many cases barely 12, all of them relatives and their spouses and children. We certainly never moved into other people’s yurt tents and teepees, unless that was the outcome of a war. There was simply no reason to impose oneself onto others, since vast and fertile, unexplored lands always lay just beyond the horizon. When conflicts arose—and they often arose—either between groups of strangers vying for the same natural riches, or between groups of relatives, i.e., different sides of the family now turned into rivals, the resolution was always that one group would pack up and migrate away, into uninhabited land. If one such related group of people, a family clan, stumbled upon a particularly fertile strip of land, they would settle there for as long as the riches lasted. It made sense to try and protect access to these resources, such as wild herds or crop fields, from others who might find them appealing, as well. Through the reproductive success of having many children, such fertile regions very quickly became overpopulated with one’s own kind. It made no sense, therefore, to invite others in for the sake of diversity. Why would you surrender what you have found to others who will take it from you? Resource Protection Over time, the need for protection of the natural resources under one’s control led to the development of the first human settlements and the earliest civilizations. Survival demanded that humans developed skill at controlling land, crops, water, shelter, animals, and even other people. Some early groups of humans specialized in capturing herds, in order to domesticate them as pastoralists, usually in the more unpredictable areas of our planet where agriculture wasn’t possible, such as the steppe lands of Eurasia where many of our White ancestors hail from. These pastoralist races of people usually developed into aggressive warrior clans, for they had to defend their mobile assets, which could be stolen overnight, by hand. Other groups of humans learned to cultivate areas of land meant for growing crops. But if you spent decades of your life removing tree stumps and rocks to make your soil fertile, would you surrender the fruits of your hard labor to whomever arrived at your door from faraway lands? Of course not. Even agricultural peoples had to deal with thieves stealing their supplies and equipment, or their grain stores, and so agricultural societies, since they can produce larger but more settled populations, developed specialized standing armies protecting their lands and borders. Cities tended to start out as merchant hubs for doing trade with different peoples via land or water. Consider cities early warehouses where both people and goods could be stored for trade or profit. Indeed, the earliest city-states of Mesopotamia regularly captured wandering hunters and gatherers from the surrounding territories in order to enslave them in sweatshops, to make their captives produce clothing or apparel for wealthier, often distant customers. As sources of material wealth, city-states and their elites logically developed a need for defending their wealth, and that’s why early cities developed behind tall city walls, namely to keep their slaves in, and to keep roving bands of robbers out. Soon, the competition between different merchant towns over the control of a region’s shared resources and people saw the birth of l
More from The Great Johannes Podcast
In this livestreamed discussion, I went over several concepts relating to White men as the world’s scapegoats. And that—though we cannot change the role—we can stop playing it. By focusing on what we still can do for ourselves, we win status and competence on our own terms. That is something society cannot prevent us from doing. So, we escape the scapegoat role by refusing to argue for better treatment. Instead, we start treating ourselves right.
It turns out that people’s sense of race and language develops simultaneously. Meaning, a White American child would expect other White children to speak their language. But if they meet a brown child who speak proper American English, they will prefer the brown child to another White child who can’t speak English well. Elites, therefore, united behind their shared accents and dialects, usually the language of the power elite. However, rural people cannot unite behind a single language, since they speak wildly different dialects. And so, rural resisters must unite themselves behind race and religion.
In short, Epstein was working for the Rothschilds. He was a basic occultist working for Satanists. Their goal is to use technology to erase human religiousness. The Bill Gates jibby-jab may have been an attempt to chemically erase religiosity in some people. Elites hate Christianity, especially the patriarchal branch, because it guarantees people a free will. And elites rather see people as happy servants, bred to be slaves.
Nearly every Western nation is suffering an aging population, mass immigration, political corruption, an affordable housing crisis, and an anti-White media. Diversity is called a strength, or has it really been the result of our weakness in other domains? The Western world initially believed it could relegate Chinese industry into a position of eternal supplier to our needs. Then it appeared that China might win top dog position in the economic hierarchy of national rankings. In response, Western elites decided that we needed to get India to side with the West, at all cost. But how could we convince the massive population of India to fight with us against China? This, our ruling classes believed, could be achieved through a massive transfer wealth, namely to buy loyalty. India today is the number one recipient of remittances coming out of the USA. Remember Christmas 2024 when even Elon Musk started calling white people retarded if they didn’t like the h1b visa scam that was bringing in hundreds of thousands if not millions of Indians into the USA? His concern must have been that China wasn’t going to need any more Teslas and that Tesla was going to need the Indian market to both sell Tesla cars to and to have them produced there more cheaply. Perhaps the idea was to get to China and India to compete on price for Western consumer demands. So we learned that we can never trust our billionaire overclass’ interests because their interests are global and ours are local and national. The average person living in the West does not live globally but lives nationally at best, and how many people do you know who never even leave their local neighborhood because they work and study and go out in the same nearby streets? The needs of globalism have become a threat to our national survival. We are no longer investing in rearing children of our own because our foreign policy priorities are that we first house Indian or Somali immigrants for geopolitical reasons. A part of Somalia called Somaliland, for example, is a piece of real estate necessary for the defense of international trade routes along the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. And so it seems that the Somali daycare scam in the state of Minnesota under the supervision of former vice presidential candidate Tim waltz is most definitely a dark money scheme to funnel U.S. taxpayer funds to illicit foreign organizations. Chinese strategists however foresee a totally different outcome. They believe that China will take the number one position as the world’s next only superpower. They believe that the U.S. and India will ultimately be competing against each other for second and third place positions. If this indeed were the outcome, then the USA will no longer be able to fund the defense of Israel, in which case that piece of real estate will fall into the hands of Arabs backed by China. No, I don’t support Israel or its regime. And no, I also don’t support China taking over the territory. But if China did take over the Middle East, it would then rule all international trade. And then, in such a scenario, what is to become of Europe? Already the USA seems incapable of defending Europe under its NATO pact. Of course Europe shouldn’t have to rely on defenses paid for by the USA. Europe should rather become independent. Europe, today, is importing over 60% of its energy needs from outside of the EU bloc. How can Europe ever be independent? For starters, we could reduce our surplus population. What I personally foresee is that the economic wealth of the West is going to wither away, that the Western military presence around the world will have to be largely withdrawn, and that we will once again realize that our most precious assets are our own people living on their own land. But there is a serious risk of subjugation by foreign enemies. Our land will require heavy defenses in the near future, since Europe is surrounded by its Islamic enemies and even the Russian leaders are dreaming of annexing
Thanks to TikTok’s Daniel Clark (who gets banned often), Johannes (English), and Seth. Note that Seth isn’t a member of the Vryburger Beweging, but added his comments about New Jersey and the situation in the USA. We spoke at length about the situation in South Africa, and about how to organize successfully against the “Woke Rainbow” governments. A great insight was delivered by South African Johannes, namely that “normie” White people tend to arrive at the same conclusions once they’ve had the same experiences.