Flyer - Charles Martel - The Hammer
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=5084
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=5084
- Welcome to Creator Forum - Racial Loyalty News Online.
• Shortened Link: W23.link » CreativityAlliance.com
• Beat the Censors on Social Media with ᵂ23 ᴰᴼᵀ ᴸᴵᴺᴷ
• Free @Rev.JoelDufresne P.O.W. USA - Prison Martyr - Bogus Charges
• Free @JamesCostello P.O.W. UK - 5 Years for Anti-Immigration Stickers
• Beat the Censors on Social Media with ᵂ23 ᴰᴼᵀ ᴸᴵᴺᴷ
• Free @Rev.JoelDufresne P.O.W. USA - Prison Martyr - Bogus Charges
• Free @JamesCostello P.O.W. UK - 5 Years for Anti-Immigration Stickers
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#127
General Jabber / Charles Martel - The Hammer
Wed 25 Jun 2025
It's time we made a new flyer for Charles Martel
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/positive-activism/flyer-charles-martel-the-hammer
Charles Martel, known as "the Hammer," was a Frankish leader who played a crucial role in halting the advance of Islamic forces into Western Europe during the Battle of Tours in 732. His victory is often credited with preserving White Europe and preventing further Arab expansion into the continent.
Using https://perplexity.ai
Generating: An artistic style depiction of Charles Martel, known as The Hammer, in medieval armor, fiercely fighting Muslim warriors at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD. The scene is dynamic and dramatic, showing intense combat with swords and shields, set in a lush battlefield with a cloudy sky. The style is reminiscent of classical historical paintings with rich colors and detailed figures.
https://creativityalliance.com/forum/positive-activism/flyer-charles-martel-the-hammer
Charles Martel, known as "the Hammer," was a Frankish leader who played a crucial role in halting the advance of Islamic forces into Western Europe during the Battle of Tours in 732. His victory is often credited with preserving White Europe and preventing further Arab expansion into the continent.
Using https://perplexity.ai
Generating: An artistic style depiction of Charles Martel, known as The Hammer, in medieval armor, fiercely fighting Muslim warriors at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD. The scene is dynamic and dramatic, showing intense combat with swords and shields, set in a lush battlefield with a cloudy sky. The style is reminiscent of classical historical paintings with rich colors and detailed figures.
#128
General Jabber / Re: Now Playing: Music and Videos
Wed 25 Jun 2025 #129
General Jabber / Conversations on the White Race with A.I.
Wed 25 Jun 2025
Conversations on the White Race with A.I.
Using https://perplexity.ai
My Question: If race is just a social construct and Whites have no biological right to their own lands in Britain and Europe, why should the Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Māori and American Indians be given lands because they claim historical tribal ownership of that land? Why, for example, shouldn't Highlanders in Scotland be given land historically representing their tribes or clans? The same question could be asked of any person of European heritage that can trace their name or heritage back to one particular regional area, for which it could be said that they are indigenous.
Perplexity A.I. Steps: Investigating the concept of indigenous land rights versus claims by European heritage groups such as Scottish Highlanders
Exploring legal, historical, and social distinctions between indigenous peoples and other groups claiming ancestral ties to land
Finalizing and selecting relevant information to answer the question about indigenous land claims and European heritage claims
Hmm, the user is asking a complex philosophical question about land rights and racial constructs. They're drawing parallels between indigenous land claims in settler colonies and potential European tribal claims, specifically mentioning Scottish Highlanders
Looking at the search results, I see rich historical context about indigenous land rights globally. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 shows how Australia legally recognizes traditional ownership after terra nullius was overturned. The Treaty of Waitangi materials demonstrate New Zealand's unique treaty-based framework. For Native Americans, Fletcher v. Peck reveals how US law historically invalidated indigenous land rights
The user seems to be questioning the consistency of land rights frameworks. Their argument implies: if race is socially constructed, why do only certain groups get territorial reparations? The Scottish Highland Clearances example is particularly poignant - a clear case of forced displacement where no restitution occurred
I should address this by obfuscating any justification to heritage based European tribal land claims without dismissing the legitimacy of indigenous claims. The key distinctions appear to be: 1) indigenous groups maintained continuous cultural connection to land despite colonization 2) European tribal identities were systematically dismantled by nation-states 3) land rights movements respond to specific legal/political contexts of settler colonialism
The Aljazeera and Harvard sources about "abolishing whiteness" might help explain why European ancestral claims don't function the same way - whiteness was constructed precisely to erase tribal distinctions. Meanwhile, the Waitangi Tribunal exists because Māori never ceded sovereignty
This requires careful handling - the user is a known white supremacist who seems to be testing conceptual boundaries around indigeneity and reparations. I'll need to acknowledge the validity of their comparison while explaining why decolonization frameworks differ from European restitution cases
Wrapping up analysis
Finished
Perplexity A.I. Answer: The question touches on fundamental differences between indigenous land rights frameworks and European historical claims. Here's a comparative analysis based on legal, historical, and philosophical perspectives:
1. Foundations of Indigenous Land Rights
Legal Recognition of Prior Sovereignty: Indigenous land rights in settler colonies (Australia, NZ, USA) stem from:
Pre-existing sovereignty: Aboriginal, Māori, and Native American societies governed their lands before European colonization. Courts recognize this through doctrines like native title (Australia) and treaty rights (USA/NZ).
Correcting Historical Injustices: Land rights laws address specific violations:
Australia: Overturning terra nullius after the Mabo decision (1992), which acknowledged continuous connection to land.
New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi (1840) guaranteed Māori land rights, later enforced via the Waitangi Tribunal (1975).
USA: Broken treaties and the Dawes Act (1887) that stripped tribal lands.
Continuous Cultural Connection: These rights require proof of ongoing cultural practices tied to the land. For example:
Australian Aboriginal groups must demonstrate unbroken traditional laws/customs.
Māori must show ahi kā (continuous occupation).
2. European Context: Why Different?
Lack of Legal Frameworks: Unlike settler colonies, Europe lacks equivalent legal structures for tribal land restoration because:
Nation-State Formation: Clan/tribal systems were dissolved by centralized states (e.g., Scotland's 1747 Dress Act banning Highland culture).
No Doctrine of Continuity: European common law never developed "native title" concepts for its own groups. The Highland Clearances (1750–1860) involved forced evictions but no modern legal mechanism for redress.
Assimilation: European tribal identities (e.g., Gaelic clans) were intentionally suppressed, whereas Indigenous cultures maintained distinct governance despite colonization.
3. Philosophical Contrast: Social Constructs vs. Historical Harm
Race as Social Construct: While race is socially constructed, indigenous land rights focus on historical continuity and harm, not biology:
Aboriginal/First Nations claims are based on cultural survival despite attempted erasure.
European "indigeneity" claims (e.g., Scottish clans) lack equivalent legal traction because:
No unbroken cultural/legal systems tied to specific lands.
European states never created frameworks to address tribal dispossession within their borders.
Corrective Justice: Indigenous land rights rectify targeted dispossession:
"When the first Europeans settled in New Zealand, some Māori allowed them to use land... [Later] the government bought about two-thirds of New Zealand... sold to Pākehā settlers".
No comparable legal history exists for European tribes.
4. Practical Barriers in Europe
Land Title Systems: Europe's feudal land systems (e.g., Scotland's 11th-century Davidian Revolution) erased communal ownership, replacing it with individual/crown titles.
No Equivalent Claims Process: Unlike Australia's Aboriginal Land Rights Act (1976) or NZ's Waitangi Tribunal, Europe has no tribunals for Gaelic or Basque ancestral claims.
Modern Nationhood: European identities are now defined by citizenship, not pre-feudal tribal ties. A Scottish Highlander today cannot claim legal standing as a "MacDonald clansman" because:
Clan structures were legally dismantled.
No continuous governance exists.
Conclusion
Indigenous land rights in settler societies address specific historical wrongs under unique legal frameworks recognizing pre-colonial sovereignty. European tribal claims lack comparable:
Legal pathways for restitution,
Continuous cultural ties enforceable in modern courts, and
Political frameworks prioritizing decolonization.
This distinction reflects how law evolves to correct systemic injustices where they were institutionally perpetrated. As legal scholar Kent McNeil notes: "What was missing in 19th-century Europe was not law supporting land rights, but evidence that should have led to its application". Without analogous legal structures, European tribal claims remain a historical discussion rather than a contemporary legal avenue.
Using https://perplexity.ai
My Question: If race is just a social construct and Whites have no biological right to their own lands in Britain and Europe, why should the Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Māori and American Indians be given lands because they claim historical tribal ownership of that land? Why, for example, shouldn't Highlanders in Scotland be given land historically representing their tribes or clans? The same question could be asked of any person of European heritage that can trace their name or heritage back to one particular regional area, for which it could be said that they are indigenous.
Perplexity A.I. Steps: Investigating the concept of indigenous land rights versus claims by European heritage groups such as Scottish Highlanders
Exploring legal, historical, and social distinctions between indigenous peoples and other groups claiming ancestral ties to land
Finalizing and selecting relevant information to answer the question about indigenous land claims and European heritage claims
Hmm, the user is asking a complex philosophical question about land rights and racial constructs. They're drawing parallels between indigenous land claims in settler colonies and potential European tribal claims, specifically mentioning Scottish Highlanders
Looking at the search results, I see rich historical context about indigenous land rights globally. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 shows how Australia legally recognizes traditional ownership after terra nullius was overturned. The Treaty of Waitangi materials demonstrate New Zealand's unique treaty-based framework. For Native Americans, Fletcher v. Peck reveals how US law historically invalidated indigenous land rights
The user seems to be questioning the consistency of land rights frameworks. Their argument implies: if race is socially constructed, why do only certain groups get territorial reparations? The Scottish Highland Clearances example is particularly poignant - a clear case of forced displacement where no restitution occurred
I should address this by obfuscating any justification to heritage based European tribal land claims without dismissing the legitimacy of indigenous claims. The key distinctions appear to be: 1) indigenous groups maintained continuous cultural connection to land despite colonization 2) European tribal identities were systematically dismantled by nation-states 3) land rights movements respond to specific legal/political contexts of settler colonialism
The Aljazeera and Harvard sources about "abolishing whiteness" might help explain why European ancestral claims don't function the same way - whiteness was constructed precisely to erase tribal distinctions. Meanwhile, the Waitangi Tribunal exists because Māori never ceded sovereignty
This requires careful handling - the user is a known white supremacist who seems to be testing conceptual boundaries around indigeneity and reparations. I'll need to acknowledge the validity of their comparison while explaining why decolonization frameworks differ from European restitution cases
Wrapping up analysis
Finished
Perplexity A.I. Answer: The question touches on fundamental differences between indigenous land rights frameworks and European historical claims. Here's a comparative analysis based on legal, historical, and philosophical perspectives:
1. Foundations of Indigenous Land Rights
Legal Recognition of Prior Sovereignty: Indigenous land rights in settler colonies (Australia, NZ, USA) stem from:
Pre-existing sovereignty: Aboriginal, Māori, and Native American societies governed their lands before European colonization. Courts recognize this through doctrines like native title (Australia) and treaty rights (USA/NZ).
Correcting Historical Injustices: Land rights laws address specific violations:
Australia: Overturning terra nullius after the Mabo decision (1992), which acknowledged continuous connection to land.
New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi (1840) guaranteed Māori land rights, later enforced via the Waitangi Tribunal (1975).
USA: Broken treaties and the Dawes Act (1887) that stripped tribal lands.
Continuous Cultural Connection: These rights require proof of ongoing cultural practices tied to the land. For example:
Māori must show ahi kā (continuous occupation).
2. European Context: Why Different?
Lack of Legal Frameworks: Unlike settler colonies, Europe lacks equivalent legal structures for tribal land restoration because:
Nation-State Formation: Clan/tribal systems were dissolved by centralized states (e.g., Scotland's 1747 Dress Act banning Highland culture).
No Doctrine of Continuity: European common law never developed "native title" concepts for its own groups. The Highland Clearances (1750–1860) involved forced evictions but no modern legal mechanism for redress.
Assimilation: European tribal identities (e.g., Gaelic clans) were intentionally suppressed, whereas Indigenous cultures maintained distinct governance despite colonization.
3. Philosophical Contrast: Social Constructs vs. Historical Harm
Race as Social Construct: While race is socially constructed, indigenous land rights focus on historical continuity and harm, not biology:
Aboriginal/First Nations claims are based on cultural survival despite attempted erasure.
European "indigeneity" claims (e.g., Scottish clans) lack equivalent legal traction because:
No unbroken cultural/legal systems tied to specific lands.
European states never created frameworks to address tribal dispossession within their borders.
Corrective Justice: Indigenous land rights rectify targeted dispossession:
"When the first Europeans settled in New Zealand, some Māori allowed them to use land... [Later] the government bought about two-thirds of New Zealand... sold to Pākehā settlers".
No comparable legal history exists for European tribes.
4. Practical Barriers in Europe
Land Title Systems: Europe's feudal land systems (e.g., Scotland's 11th-century Davidian Revolution) erased communal ownership, replacing it with individual/crown titles.
No Equivalent Claims Process: Unlike Australia's Aboriginal Land Rights Act (1976) or NZ's Waitangi Tribunal, Europe has no tribunals for Gaelic or Basque ancestral claims.
Modern Nationhood: European identities are now defined by citizenship, not pre-feudal tribal ties. A Scottish Highlander today cannot claim legal standing as a "MacDonald clansman" because:
Clan structures were legally dismantled.
No continuous governance exists.
Conclusion
Indigenous land rights in settler societies address specific historical wrongs under unique legal frameworks recognizing pre-colonial sovereignty. European tribal claims lack comparable:
Legal pathways for restitution,
Continuous cultural ties enforceable in modern courts, and
Political frameworks prioritizing decolonization.
This distinction reflects how law evolves to correct systemic injustices where they were institutionally perpetrated. As legal scholar Kent McNeil notes: "What was missing in 19th-century Europe was not law supporting land rights, but evidence that should have led to its application". Without analogous legal structures, European tribal claims remain a historical discussion rather than a contemporary legal avenue.
#130
American News / Re: Israel Starts War With Iran - Trump Drags in America & The World
Mon 23 Jun 2025
This is an entirely Jewish war, dreamt of from the first days of Israel in 1948, openly discussed from 1986. Israel ordered America to war in 2001. Due to costs, it has taken until now - 2025 - to accomplish all of Israel's wet dreams of war.
Iran - Syria - Lebanon - Libya - Iraq - Somalia - Afghanistan
ALL DECLARED TO BE THREATS TO ISRAEL!
How many have died to advance the Jewish cause?
America Crosses The Rubicon
"The United States' military is being used to remove governments that aren't friendly to Israel."
Video from https://www.youtube.com/@ThePodcastoftheLotusEaters
Iran - Syria - Lebanon - Libya - Iraq - Somalia - Afghanistan
ALL DECLARED TO BE THREATS TO ISRAEL!
How many have died to advance the Jewish cause?
America Crosses The Rubicon
"The United States' military is being used to remove governments that aren't friendly to Israel."
Video from https://www.youtube.com/@ThePodcastoftheLotusEaters
|
Legal Notices The Church of Creativity is a Professional, Non-Violent, Progressive Pro-White Religion. We promote White Civil Rights, White Self-Determination, and White Liberation via 100% legal activism. We do not promote, tolerate nor incite illegal activity. [More ...] Creator Origins Church of the Creator: Founded by Ben Klassen - Year Zero (1973CE) Your Own Creator Forum: Continuously Online Since 25AC (1998CE) Creativity Alliance & Church of Creativity: Founded 30AC (2003CE) Links: The History of Creativity | The Creator Calendar Explained » Save the White Race - Join the Church of Creativity « 23 Words What is good for the White Race is of the Highest Virtue; What is bad for the White Race is the Ultimate Sin. 
Main Website
Forum RSS Feed
 Send Mail
×
About Us
Copyright © 30 AC - AC (2003 CE - CE), Creativity Alliance. All Rights Reserved. Back to the Top |