Thread: This is bizarre, weird, even frightning...

Originally Posted by fedupinwaukegan

His latest post. He just keeps coming back. Read link if you want to be perplexed.....


YAOTL
Average Member
164 Posts
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 23:43:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what you don’t understand. I’m referring to the people of Anahuac (North American Citizens). We are the true Americans like it or not! The White so-called Americans are European (even if you were born here on our land-continent, you are still a European!) If an African was born in China is he Chinese? I don’t think so; he/she may be a citizen to china on paper but NOT of identity.
Coyote, the southwest (Aztlan), and Florida was stolen by the Spanish from our people. Now the land, wealth, education, and lives are controlled by the Hispanic/Latino agenda. The Hispanic/Latino agenda is only different from the Anglo-American and French/Canadian agenda in that it uses Spanish instead of English or French. Remember that neither English, French nor Spanish are our languages. Indigenous people from all Anahuac are starting to awake to what is going on; just look at what is happening to the Mohawks of the six nations to the Mayans in Chiapas. We are sick of being treated like
This is NOT OUR LAND (NORTH AMERICA),and they can just move us when they please!

PB- President Fox is the reason why all this crap is going on. He is stealing the land of the Indigenous people and kicking them up here so he can sell land to rich developers (Europeans). He has no intention to help these people. It’s NOT Mexican on Mexican; it’s White Mexican (Spanish) vs. Mexican Indigenous people! Get it Right!

WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA (ANAHUAC)

http://margotbworldnews.com/_private/Nu ... tions.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/indianWars.pdf

INDIGENOUS RACE!
NORTH AMERICA NATION!
MEXICA IDENTITY!

http://www.waukegan.org/Forum/topic.asp ... hichpage=3

The valley of Anahuac was deep in Mexico in the region shown as Aztec territory in the maps previously provided. It was not in any part of the current United States. Aztlan was not a concrete place, but rather a mythical place of origin in Aztec history, known also as the White Place. The Aztecs themselves made no geographical claim to the place nor could they accurately tell the Spaniards where they believed this place was other than it was somewhere in the north.

All this crap spewed by our little fantasy land dweller here is just a modern concoction cobbled together by the reconquista movement to justify Mexican expansionism. Period.

My question to this little goofball would be, if the American Southwest belonged to the Mexica, then how in hell do they explain all the other Native American tribes who claim no descent from or kinship with the Mexica but had been living there for at least centuries when the white man arrived?

Crocket, this is true, but sometimes those blinded, prefer to stay blinded. They just do not want to face reality.

I had a thought about something, when reading about the mythical place called Aztlan.

Biblically speaking. Here is my thought on this place they speak of, but cannot say where it is. A while back I read something on a Christian site called "Dinosaurs in the Bible". The author of this said that all cultures have their own "fairy tales" of dragons. Now the interesting part of this is that up until the early 1900's in Wales, people reported seeing "flying serpents that raided their chicken houses". As well, Genesis does talk about dragons, ones who actually breathed fire.

So if we say the Bible is 100% accurate, God inspired, then we have to acknowledge there were dragons. Ok. So, many cultures also have their own collective memories of floods, and other events that were also in Biblical text. Then possibly, this collective memory the Aztecs had about the mythical place they called Aztlan might be the oral history of mankinds migrations after the flood and Noahs family began to populate the earth? Not saying this gives them any rights to our country, but might explain the Aztecs belief in it.

However, it is now becoming the battle cry for people disenfranchised by their own governments. They are using a potential oral history of their people migrations down from the Bering land bridge to where the Aztecs settled in Central Mexico. Just my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

Crocket, this is true, but sometimes those blinded, prefer to stay blinded. They just do not want to face reality.

I had a thought about something, when reading about the mythical place called Aztlan.

Biblically speaking. Here is my thought on this place they speak of, but cannot say where it is. A while back I read something on a Christian site called "Dinosaurs in the Bible". The author of this said that all cultures have their own "fairy tales" of dragons. Now the interesting part of this is that up until the early 1900's in Wales, people reported seeing "flying serpents that raided their chicken houses". As well, Genesis does talk about dragons, ones who actually breathed fire.

So if we say the Bible is 100% accurate, God inspired, then we have to acknowledge there were dragons. Ok. So, many cultures also have their own collective memories of floods, and other events that were also in Biblical text. Then possibly, this collective memory the Aztecs had about the mythical place they called Aztlan might be the oral history of mankinds migrations after the flood and Noahs family began to populate the earth? Not saying this gives them any rights to our country, but might explain the Aztecs belief in it.

However, it is now becoming the battle cry for people disenfranchised by their own governments. They are using a potential oral history of their people migrations down from the Bering land bridge to where the Aztecs settled in Central Mexico. Just my humble opinion.

One could speculate forever, but the Mexicans may as well claim that they came from Atlantis for all the practical good it does identifying a specific region to which they have any sort of birthright claim.

Is there a possibility that we do need a draft? Just wondering. A friend in the military told me that it was likely that the first thing the next president will have to do is to implement a draft.

He said that we need it now but that GB doesn't want to because he said before the 2004 election that he would not do that and he said that he thought that GB does not want the "read my lips" phenomenon to happen to him like it did to his dad on taxes.

What do people think about that? I'm trying to figure out what the best stand on that issue is if it becomes an issue.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Is there a possibility that we do need a draft? Just wondering. A friend in the military told me that it was likely that the first thing the next president will have to do is to implement a draft.

He said that we need it now but that GB doesn't want to because he said before the 2004 election that he would not do that and he said that he thought that GB does not want the "read my lips" phenomenon to happen to him like it did to his dad on taxes.

What do people think about that? I'm trying to figure out what the best stand on that issue is if it becomes an issue.

No. We need to adjust our military priorities to our strengths. The US is too small of a nation to be an occupier anywhere. What we do well is use asymmetrical force to rout the enemy and crush its will to fight, but we have ceased using the full power of our military in that manner and now seek to do limited damage and then use the captive populace for experiments in control and nation building. The idea that after routing the enemy we somehow owe them our help stabilizing or rebuilding is a fraudulent concept foisted on us by the internationalists who know that attempting to do such a thing necessarily weakens us.

As for conscripts, they have never been worth a damn and they actually do more harm than good by sapping morale and doing a generally poor job, then sucking up benefits set aside for those who truly serve the country. If we think that we need a draft, then that's the surest sign that our military has deviated from its mission of defending the nation and its borders.

I know Crocket, I am sure any explanation to them other than what they want to believe, in some mystical land where they were powerful rulers, is not acceptable. I only speculated because it would seem that as mankind began migrating from the point where they landed (after the flood) that the oral histories must have been passed down and stayed with each group.

I also wondered if the Germans, namely that one group who will remain unnamed here, believes in something similar for their beginnings.

This site, "Dinosaurs in the Bible", linked me to the one that talked about the lineage of the nations. It does kind of open your eyes as to how certain people had these "folklores" about their beginnings.

Here is an excert from the site I mentioned, and also here is the link for anyone interested: http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

Many groups migrated southwest into Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and eventually Mexico, establishing the powerful Aztec tribes with their beautiful fortified cities, integrating with the Mayas (who had been there hundreds of years before, and thought of the Aztecs as barbarians). Likely there was a mixing of cultures as they migrated, as there was no conquest of the Maya world by the Aztecs; that title would be given to the Spaniards in the late 17th century. The Aztec's traditions and legends are largely ignored by modern scholars as myths and fables. The Aztecs, according to their own legends, departed from a region in the north called Chicomoztoc, a region that is today the areas of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Later establishing a city known as Aztlan, somewhere in north or northwest Mexico (now lost), their tribal name Aztec was born. Being nomadic, they eventually reached the valley of Mexico in the 12th century A.D. They were known as fearless warriors and pragmatic builders who raised an enormous city called Tenochtitlan, their capital city (now Mexico City).

The Aztecs would later call themselves "Mexica" (where Mexico is derived), and their language, Nahuatl, was linguistically related to other native language groups throughout the U.S. southwest and northern Mexico. Linguists note, for instance, the Shoshoni language in the Utah-Nevada region was understood by all the tribes from Mexico, without difficulty. Other related tribes included the Paiute, Hopi, Pima, Yaqui/Apache, Tepehuan, Kiowas and Mayos. Catholic missionaries in the 1850's established the fact that all of those peoples were of one language family. While there are other examples of language similarities, studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language.

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

Here is an excert from the site I mentioned, and also here is the link for anyone interested: http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

Many groups migrated southwest into Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and eventually Mexico, establishing the powerful Aztec tribes with their beautiful fortified cities, integrating with the Mayas (who had been there hundreds of years before, and thought of the Aztecs as barbarians). Likely there was a mixing of cultures as they migrated, as there was no conquest of the Maya world by the Aztecs; that title would be given to the Spaniards in the late 17th century. The Aztec's traditions and legends are largely ignored by modern scholars as myths and fables. The Aztecs, according to their own legends, departed from a region in the north called Chicomoztoc, a region that is today the areas of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. Later establishing a city known as Aztlan, somewhere in north or northwest Mexico (now lost), their tribal name Aztec was born. Being nomadic, they eventually reached the valley of Mexico in the 12th century A.D. They were known as fearless warriors and pragmatic builders who raised an enormous city called Tenochtitlan, their capital city (now Mexico City).

The Aztecs would later call themselves "Mexica" (where Mexico is derived), and their language, Nahuatl, was linguistically related to other native language groups throughout the U.S. southwest and northern Mexico. Linguists note, for instance, the Shoshoni language in the Utah-Nevada region was understood by all the tribes from Mexico, without difficulty. Other related tribes included the Paiute, Hopi, Pima, Yaqui/Apache, Tepehuan, Kiowas and Mayos. Catholic missionaries in the 1850's established the fact that all of those peoples were of one language family. While there are other examples of language similarities, studies of the native languages of the Americas have shown them to be extremely diverse, representing nearly two hundred distinct families, some consisting of a single isolated language.

The problem with their fanciful history is that the Aztecs were identifiable by their stone structures and massive cities. If they brought their civilization from north of the Rio Grande, where are the cities, where are the pyramids, where are the other structures? They don't exist.

It is very likely that any myths that mirror the stories of the Old World were brought by either the African Olmecs or the Phoenicians, depicted in Mesoamerican carvings complete with their pointed beards and Phrygian caps, who the Aztecs took to be gods. There is good reason to believe that the Americas were not only visited by one or another of the Phoenician civilizations such as Tyre or Carthage that scoured to globe seeking metals and other raw materials. It was the Phoenicians who colonized the British Isles for their tin mines, for example. The writings of the ancient world refer to a place most commonly called Ophir that was across the "great ocean" and was a land of gold and silver. The native workers who worked the mines were referred to as the "black-headed people" and were eventually morphed into the dwarfish Nibelung as the stories made their way into the Germanic lands. The presence of the Olmecs, who were almost certainly black Africans, and of the "gods" such as Quetzalcoatl were almost certainly ancient Semites. Even the fanciful idea of the "winged serpent" comes from the Old World, as it was the symbol of the deity variously referred to as Ningishzideh, Aesculapius, Hermes, Thoth, etc.

I could go into much greater detail, but the point is that there is little reason to grant credence to any of the fanciful and often magical "history" of a bunch of human-sacrificing cannibals. The fact is that the Aztecs and related tribes had been sequestered in what is now Central Mexico from the earliest recorded history. If they ever had a claim on the lands that are now the American Southwest, those claims were lost in remote antiquity.

No I certainly agree, they have no claims to the Southwest, as this article explained that the "mythical" city of Aztlan was in north/northwest Mexico, not in our Southwest.

I also understand that ANY interpretation of Biblical anthropology is subjective, mainly because we are faulty and so would our studies be of it all.

My main issue here was to show that in this Biblical anthropologists studies and opinions, he felt that this was possibly how their migrations from Asia happened and how they came to be the nation they were, and their possible genetic links to Noah.

This article does show their civilization was always within the borders of what is modern day Mexico. This seemed plausible, and seemed reasonable. As for their claims to the American Southwest, it stems from greed, and delusion.

I maintain this stance; America is a modern nation, established by Americans. Our ancestors and founding fathers established this country, paid for it in blood, sweat, tears and in money. We bought that land from Mexico fair and square, and they have no modern rights to it, and no historical claims to it either.

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

No I certainly agree, they have no claims to the Southwest, as this article explained that the "mythical" city of Aztlan was in north/northwest Mexico, not in our Southwest.

I also understand that ANY interpretation of Biblical anthropology is subjective, mainly because we are faulty and so would our studies be of it all.

My main issue here was to show that in this Biblical anthropologists studies and opinions, he felt that this was possibly how their migrations from Asia happened and how they came to be the nation they were, and their possible genetic links to Noah.

This article does show their civilization was always within the borders of what is modern day Mexico. This seemed plausible, and seemed reasonable. As for their claims to the American Southwest, it stems from greed, and delusion.

I maintain this stance; America is a modern nation, established by Americans. Our ancestors and founding fathers established this country, paid for it in blood, sweat, tears and in money. We bought that land from Mexico fair and square, and they have no modern rights to it, and no historical claims to it either.

Don't misunderstand. I thank you for providing that article and am always interested in hearing fresh perspectives.