Saturday, March 3, 2012


Archaeologists have long held that North America remained unpopulated until about 15,000 years ago, when Siberian people walked or boated into Alaska and then moved down the West Coast.

But the mastodon relic found near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay turned out to be 22,000 years old, suggesting that the blade was just as ancient.

Whoever fashioned that blade was not supposed to be here.

Its makers probably paddled from Europe and arrived in America thousands of years ahead of the western migration, making them the first Americans, argues Smithsonian Institution anthropologist Dennis Stanford.

“I think it’s feasible,” said Tom Dillehay, a prominent archaeologist at Vanderbilt University. “The evidence is building up, and it certainly warrants discussion.”

At the height of the last ice age, Stanford says, mysterious Stone Age European people known as the Solutreans paddled along an ice cap jutting into the North Atlantic. They lived like Inuits, harvesting seals and seabirds.

The Solutreans eventually spread across North America, Stanford says, hauling their distinctive blades with them and giving birth to the later Clovis culture, which emerged some 13,000 years ago.

When Stanford proposed this “Solutrean hypothesis” in 1999, colleagues roundly rejected it. One prominent archaeologist suggested that Stanford was throwing his career away.

But now, 13 years later, Stanford and Bruce Bradley, an archaeologist at England’s University of Exeter, lay out a detailed case — bolstered by the curious blade and other stone tools recently found in the mid-Atlantic — in a new book, “Across Atlantic Ice.”

“I drank the Solutrean Kool-Aid,” said Steve Black, an archaeologist at Texas State University in San Marcos. “I had been very dubious. It’s something a lot of [archaeologists] have dismissed out of hand. But I came away from the book feeling like it’s an extremely credible idea that needs to be taken seriously.”


Much like the "out of Africa" theory, the "who were the first people in America" argument has, for the past 40 to 50 years, been framed around PC progressive theory which posits an inherent anti-White bias. A bias that has saturated every strata of society, including so-called scientists.

And right there in an article from the Washington Post you see them admitting such. They rejected any evidence or presentation "out of hand" which did not fit the current Leftist Paradigm.


Because to look at any actual facts that go against the prevailing Leftist orthodox would risk "throwing your career away".

But then this is the mindset of society at large.

In the name of "racial equality" we are burning our society to the ground even though there exists not one shred of evidence that the races are equal. In fact all the evidence (mountains of it) shows just the opposite.

And even as we see all things crumbling around us we are warned that it is "racist" to notice the death and destruction.