COLUMBUS. One response after the other. First, he was a monster. Second, on why he wanted to go westward. Another horror: Islamic violence.
Once more I want to thank my readers. I remember learning that the US was not a democracy that way. I made a casual reference to something I was sure was true, that the US is a democracy. At least a dozen people let me know I was absolutely and utterly wrong, and sent me information on the US being a Constitutional Republic. I got several lengthy detailed explanations, including a couple of links to excellent videos. I have never again referred to the US as a democracy.
A couple of days ago, I made a casual remark to not being Columbus. A reader sent me a link to a post I’ve sent to everyone, establishing that Columbus was a horrific monster.
My learning - or in this case re-learning - has not stopped there. Another reader - a very knowledgeable long-time reader - noticed a major omission in what I sent out. Here is his comment:
While this article re Columbus may or may not be true (I’m sure parts of it are true) it never mentions why Columbus sailed West in the beginning!!!
As you know . . . it was due to Islam. Columbus was looking for a different route to China,
The trade caravans between Europe and China were being robbed by the Muslims (Ottoman Empire) for their money, women, livestock, women, spices, women, perfumes, women, etc., etc!!! Oh, did I mention women? (Very few things motivate young men (15 to 45-50 years old) better than sex.) Mohammad took advantage of the “weakness” of human nature in Medina.
I’ve heard before - many times, in fact - about why Columbus wanted to go westward - the Islamic pillaging and violence that was damaging/destroying the trade route to the East. This used to be everyday knowledge. I may even have have learned it in high school, though then Islam might not have been named, just “Ottoman Empire.”
So, not only was Columbus a horror, he wanted to head west in order to reach the Far East because of another horror.
By the way, about the extent of Islamic battles, the best video I’ve seen is from Bill Warner. I’ve never thought of the Crusades in the same way - as evidence of the European/Christian evil against Muslims - after seeing this video:
I am sure I am still missing something!!
All the best to our ongoing learning!
Elsa
Posted November 28, 2025
runnin' out but I've been collectin' info on Columbus fer a future stack zo I'll share some'a my notes...
The man (imho) wuz possibly not at all a monster (some've those he had ta leave behind actin' in his name likely behaved monstrously tho') an' if it's troo he wuz a joo (converso)--he had reason ta find a newer & safer "welt" out thar away from Muslim threats... Also it's said he wuz not a failed fool navigator but a misunderstood & brilliant one... the controversy'll continue... I'll add to it!
https://thedukereport.substack.com/p/the-man-who-led-columbus-to-america?
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/g-s1-28462/christopher-columbus-spanish-jew-documentary
On property & rights...
From Murray Rothbard (per Lew Rockwell but a broken clock can be right...etc):
There is a plot by the left, supported by some but not all “native Americans,” that the land on which we live was stolen from the “indigenous people” and they are the rightful owners of the land we now live on and all we have built on it. They don’t want to kick us off our property, but they demand compensation, which could cost billions. If we don’t accept that we live here on sufferance, what can we do.
Here is where Murray Rothbard comes to our rescue. In his view, “native Americans” (AKA Indians) do have property rights, but only when they can show that their ancestors clear title to individually acquired property. Vague claims of “tribal rights” or “grazing rights” and the like do not suffice to establish title. In Volume 2 of his monumental Conceived in Liberty, he says about Indian property in Pennsylvania, “It must be recognized, however, that the bulk of Indian-claimed land was not settled and transformed by the Indians, and that, therefore, the Scots were at least justified in ignoring vague, abstract claims, whether by government or by Indian tribes, to the lands they knew that they were settling. Many of the Ulster Scots were squatters on frontier land. Lacking money to pay the prices asked by the feudal proprietary, they reasoned that they were entitled to own virgin land that they themselves had cleared and tilled. They needed no acquaintance with John Locke to sense that such land was their rightful property.”
For Rothbard, possession by an actual individual is essential. As he says in The Ethics of Liberty, “It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, ‘produces’ them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner.
“Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones’s title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its “first” (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor.
“But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.” Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.”
The implications for the Indian question are straightforward. Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises. Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue. Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights.
Let’s do everything we can to defeat the left-wing claim that most of our land belongs to Indian tribes. As a good first step, let’s join Rothbard in celebrating Columbus Day.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/nyc-considering-taking-down-statues-of-george-washington-and-christopher-columbus/
There's more--I'm kinda open ta re-thinkin' the man, his legacy, an' ALL the myths surroundin' him--incl. those that see him among "Gods & Monsters" :-)
Columbus was actually Jewish