The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Why Conservatism Inc. Beats Up On America's First Nations
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_664732000

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Indian tribesman’s claim to his ancient stomping grounds can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. That’s the stuff of the positive law. And this was the point I took away from a conversation, circa 2000, with Mr. Property Rights himself, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Dr. Hoppe argued unassailably—does he argue any other way?—that if Amerindians had repeatedly traversed, for their livelihood, the same hunting, fishing and foraging grounds, they would have, in effect, homesteaded these, making them their own.

Another apodictic profundity deduced from that conversation: The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing.

In an article marking Columbus Day—the day Conservatism Inc. beats up on what remains of America’s First People—Ryan McMaken debunked Ayn Rand’s specious claim that aboriginal Americans “did not have the concept of property or property rights.” This was Rand’s ruse for justifying Europeans’ disregard for the homesteading rights of the First Nations. “[T]he Indian tribes had no right to the land they lived on because” they were primitive and nomadic.

Hoppean Homesteading

Cultural supremacy is no argument for the dispossession of a Lesser Other. To libertarians, Lockean—or, rather Hoppean—homesteading is sacrosanct. He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner. “As the old legal adage goes, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ as it is the best evidence of legitimate title. The burden of proof rests squarely with the person attempting to relieve another of present property titles.” (Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 276.)

However, even if we allow that “the tribes and individual Indians had no concept of property,” which McMaken nicely refutes—it doesn’t follow that dispossessing them of their land would have been justified. From the fact that a man or a community of men lacks the intellectual wherewithal or cultural and philosophical framework to conceive of these rights—it doesn’t follow that he has no such rights, or that he has forfeited them. Not if one adheres to the ancient doctrine of natural rights. If American Indians had no attachment to the land, they would not have died defending their territories.

Neither does the fact the First Nations formed communal living arrangements invalidate land ownership claims, as McMaken elucidates. Think of the Kibbutz. Kibbutzim in Israel instantiate the principles of voluntary socialism. As such, they are perfectly fine living arrangements, where leadership is empowered as custodian of the resource and from which members can freely secede. You can’t rob the commune of its assets just because members elect to live communally.

Conservatism’s Perennial Piñata

Columbus Day has become an occasion for neoconservatives, conservatives and their followers to vent their spleen against American Indians. And woe betide the deviationist who pens anything remotely fair or sympathetic about, say the genocide of the Indians, the trail of tears, or the relegation of Indians to reservations. Berated he will be for daring to lament the wrongs visited on the original inhabitants of this continent on the grounds, mostly, that they were savages.

Come Columbus Day, the same hackneyed observations are disgorged—as though these repetitions cut through the Left’s rhetoric of moral superiority; as if these shopworn shibboleths challenge a cultural script that upholds the myth of the purity of primitive life, juxtaposed to the savagery of Western Culture. They don’t.

I mean, who doesn’t know that natives were hardly nature’s custodians? This fallacy was popularized by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s panegyric on the Noble Savage. Pre-Columbian America was no pristine natural kingdom. Native tribes likely engaged in bi-annual forest burning to flush out the species the Indians most wanted to hunt. There was the stampeding, during a hunt, of herds of animals over a cliff. Used repeatedly, some buffalo jumps hold the remains of hundreds of thousands of animals, with patterns of local extinction being well-documented. Where agriculture was practiced in the central and southern parts of America, evidence from sediment points to soil erosion, which was, too, likely ongoing before the arrival of Europeans.

It’s old hat that the Americas are scattered with archeological evidence of routine massacres, cannibalism, dismemberment, slavery, abuse of women and human sacrifice among native tribes. In no way can these facts mitigate or excuse the cruel treatment natives have endured. For is such exculpation not the crux of the neoconservative creed, against which President Trump ran? “The world is up to no good. As a superior ‘nation,’ let American power remake it in its image.” By hook or by crook, if necessary.

Neoconservative deity Dinesh D’Souza likes to claim Native-Americans were decimated not by genocide or ethnocide, “but by diseases brought from Europe by the white man.” Not quite. In his magisterial History of the American People, historian Paul Johnson, a leading protagonist for America, details the rather energetic “destruction of the Indians” by Andrew Jackson.

Particularly poignant are Red Eagle’s words to Jackson, on April 14, 1814, after the president-to-be had rampaged through villages, burning them and destroying crops in a ruthless campaign against the Indians east of the Mississippi:

“I am in your power. My people are gone. I can do no more but weep over the misfortunes of my nation.” Jackson had just “imposed a Carthaginian peace on 35 frightened Indian chiefs,” forcing them to part with the lion’s share of their ancestral lands.

Equally moving is the account of another philoamerican, philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville. The Frenchman describes a crowd of displaced Choctaw warriors—having been subjected to ethnic cleansing (in today’s parlance):

ORDER IT NOW

“There was an air of ruin and destruction, something which gave the impression of a final farewell, with no going back; one couldn’t witness it without a heavy heart. … it is an odd coincidence that we should have arrived in Memphis to witness the expulsion, or perhaps the dissolution, of one of the last vestiges of one of the oldest American nations.”

As they heap contempt upon native American societies—conservatives, with admirable exceptions, are at the beck and call of African-Americans. Most conservatives agree about the legitimacy of African-Americans’ eternal grievances (“the fault of Democrats,” they intone). The same establishment offers incontinent exhilaration about the greatness of African-American heroes (MLK über alles). And the only piss-poor argument mustered in these quarters for raising, rather than removing, statues for the South’s heroes is, “We need to preserve our history, horribly flawed with respect to African-Americans, mea culpa.” Or, “Who’s next? Jefferson?”

Conservatives are constitutionally (as in physically) incapable of arguing the merits of the great Robert E. Lee, something Lord Acton managed on solid philosophical grounds.

Here’s a theory as to why Conservatism Inc. uses American Indians as its perennial piñata, while generally acceding to the aggressive demands for permanent victim status levied by African-Americans.

Plainly put, among African-Americans, the extractive view of politics prevails. People seek and aggressively obtain an advantage from positions of power. Unlike African-Americans, Native-Americans have little political clout and even less of an extractive approach to politics.

In short, the First Peoples are politically powerless and proud, making them an easy target.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook,Gab & YouTube

 
Hide 106 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Jason Liu says:

    I really haven’t seen the kind of native-bashing you describe, not in mainstream conservatism anyway. At most they point out that the natives weren’t all peaceloving hippies living in harmony with nature, but that’s that’s just a statement of fact — most likely to defend from leftist guilt-tripping, and not so much about insulting natives.

    Either way, natives are hardly the enemies of the American right. Most natives I’ve met are rather folksy people who just want to be left along. The right’s most ferocious and dangerous enemies occupy high seats in academia and media, and they sure don’t look like Sitting Bull to me.

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Quaid
    I imagine this was in large part spurned by this s**tty, poorly made cartoon put out by Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire: http://archive.is/vn9b6
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-shapiros-daily-wire-website-posts-racist-video-mocking-native-americans-for-columbus-day/

    Obviously all the more illuminating when you consider Shapiro's stance on the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/07/transfer-is-not-dirty-word.html

    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them.

    I'm not going to go ahead and say every single bit of US (or Canadian, or whatever other American nation you want to pick out) territory is wholly legitimate under a full standard of ownership rights, but it begs asking- at this point, do the currently living natives even want independence? This (among many, many other things) isn't really considered by liberals/non-white agitators (especially hispanics) who use them as an eternal cudgel to justify endless mass immigration and illegal immigrants. Just considering how natives have been virtually extinct in large parts of the east coast for centuries, how sparsely populated much of the Americas has been- it often appeals to some pan-racial claim to two entire continents, on the part of the natives. Similar rhetoric is used to justify calls for the expulsion of whites from southern africa, as I'm sure Mercer is familiar with.

    , @Jeff77450
    Very well said and my take exactly. I've never seen the native-bashing, to any significant degree, that IM describes. (It's also true that I haven't looked for it).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /imercer/why-conservatism-inc-beats-up-on-americas-first-nations/#comment-2040969
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Agree: whoever
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Issac says:

    Worry not your bleeding heart. Colonial Europeans will soon join the Amerindians as a politically unobtrusive minority. At that point you can both play Lockean word puzzles while the new political majority simply extracts you out of existence.

    Vae Victis

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Ivy says:

    Damn shame, and too many misguided policies.
    However, along the way somebody ruined what was once a good program.
    I write, of course, about Indian Guides.
    As a boy, I had fun in the program with my Dad and the other boys and their dads.
    My son had fun in the program with me, and I was one of the last Tribal Chiefs before the program was gutted. Somebody in their infinite wisdom said that it exploited Native Americans. We met with local tribe reps, who seemed to welcome the interaction and sharing. Boys learned from them and experienced more about another culture. They picked up outdoor skills. You can do that elsewhere, but why ruin a program and drive away participants? Oh, yeah, I know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. renfro says:

    Elect me President…I will turn over the Dept of the Interior, the EPA and the Dept of Agriculture to a US native Indian Council.
    They could do a better job for Mother Earth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Because . . . ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Palestinians are the First Israelis. Time to return their ancestral lands, Ms. Issacsohn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Quaid says:
    @Jason Liu
    I really haven't seen the kind of native-bashing you describe, not in mainstream conservatism anyway. At most they point out that the natives weren't all peaceloving hippies living in harmony with nature, but that's that's just a statement of fact -- most likely to defend from leftist guilt-tripping, and not so much about insulting natives.

    Either way, natives are hardly the enemies of the American right. Most natives I've met are rather folksy people who just want to be left along. The right's most ferocious and dangerous enemies occupy high seats in academia and media, and they sure don't look like Sitting Bull to me.

    I imagine this was in large part spurned by this s**tty, poorly made cartoon put out by Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire: http://archive.is/vn9b6

    https://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-shapiros-daily-wire-website-posts-racist-video-mocking-native-americans-for-columbus-day/

    Obviously all the more illuminating when you consider Shapiro’s stance on the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/07/transfer-is-not-dirty-word.html

    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them.

    I’m not going to go ahead and say every single bit of US (or Canadian, or whatever other American nation you want to pick out) territory is wholly legitimate under a full standard of ownership rights, but it begs asking- at this point, do the currently living natives even want independence? This (among many, many other things) isn’t really considered by liberals/non-white agitators (especially hispanics) who use them as an eternal cudgel to justify endless mass immigration and illegal immigrants. Just considering how natives have been virtually extinct in large parts of the east coast for centuries, how sparsely populated much of the Americas has been- it often appeals to some pan-racial claim to two entire continents, on the part of the natives. Similar rhetoric is used to justify calls for the expulsion of whites from southern africa, as I’m sure Mercer is familiar with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them."

    College freshmen, left wing mandated propaganda easily shot down.

    No, it is not true and you have no proof, or you would have shown it.

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    I thought for sure that you were going to roll out the dumb 'blankets with small pox' canard.

    Smallpox blanket hoax: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    Genocide myth: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

    Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

    Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

    , @MarkinLA
    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true.

    I think the big issue is the claim that up to 90% of the population died in mass (European derived)disease related die-offs in less than 100 years. There are simply no great number of large settlements that support large numbers of Indians in the continental US. There were some on the Mississippi that died off well before the white man came but nowhere nearly enough to support the claims of 15-20 million inhabitants.

    The largest settlements were in Mexico but there is no evidence of large scale intermingling where such diseases were passed to the northern tribes. You would think that were there such cases that it would lead to conflict and become part of tribal lore - i.e. Apache telling stories about bravely fighting off the diseased enemies from the south. It takes a long time to travel any long distance, even by horseback. Any Indians suffering from diseases with such a high mortality rate would likely never make it more than a few hundred miles before succumbing. Such individuals would stick out like a sore thumb and would not be welcome.

    We can still after all these years excavate and see the remnants of those Mississippian settlements as we can see the remnants of Viking settlements in eastern Canada. One that gets mention only had about 15,000 inhabitants. Find 500 more and you might be right about the population. In addition, the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys routinely flood in spring and without dykes would flood large areas turning them into insect infested swamps unsuitable for farming. I doubt that those areas could support large numbers of hunter gatherers without horses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. We played Cowboys and Indians, not out of a disrespect for Indians even though they were the losers. They are lucky that they even have reservations for themselves and ancestors but their own government and casinos too. Plenty of tribes fought with the British along with the blacks against us. I can imagine that left a bad taste in the mouth of a whole lot of people, not to mention how many settlers they just brutally killed. There are plenty of Indians that integrated and lived in peace with the first settlers and there are those who just loathed the white man or treated them like any other tribe coming to their land; Inter-Indian warfare was the norm. We never played Cowboys and Africans, Asians, or Russians.
    Indians took slaves, Indian, White and Black. Indians stole slaves. I don’t spend my time hating them for anything they may have done a century or more ago.
    I can dislike people who have hurt me or my family currently, not a hundred years ago but now today. Not that slavery happened to some other person other than to me, not about the holocaust that I never lived through but what may or may not have happened to anyone in my family. This gives me the right to discriminate.If none of these things happen to you what reparations does anyone owe you?
    Africans aren’t my people no matter how many the government brings over and drops on my back just like Jews, Chinese, Russians…
    In a lot of ways, Rand was right and you do worship brown people and hold them above you. It’s the same propaganda they used to make the Christians like the Vampire Jews, who sucked the blood of their children. Jews are not European but Middle Eastern. All forms of circumcision come from the middle east and Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Allen says:

    yeah, I can’t say I’ve seen much evidence of the right beating up on Native Americans. For a brief period (especially in the 90′s) it was fashionable to portray Indians as peaceful proto-hippies and even a source of American tradition (remember how the left used to claim that the constitution was supposedly influenced by the Algonquin constitution; hint it wasn’t).

    Contemporary conservatives are mostly just responding to these types of arguments, even though they aren’t really made anymore. Native Americans are curiously absent from the list of “oppressed groups” championed by SJWs.

    Still, something to be said for the fact that Native Americans never invented the wheel. I don’t approve of murder, but the Europeans were pretty much culturally superior in every way. I can’t say I’m sorry history went the way it did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. wayfarer says:

    Unaccountable IRS Scandal
    Targeting of Tax-Exempt Conservative Groups
    source: http://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com/tax-exempt/
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service

    [MORE]

    Lois Lerner, Zionist actress
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Lerner

    John Koskinen, Israeli-American actor
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Koskinen

    Trey Gowdy Intelligently Interrogates IRS Commissioner

    Trey Gowdy EXPLODES on IRS Commissioner!

    Trey Gowdy Trys to Stay Calm While Impeaching IRS Commissioner

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. FYI all – “First Nations” is a Canadian term. American Indians is the most common in the USA, and even most American Indians reject the confusing “Native American” term since 90% of white Americans are native Americans per the English language.

    I found evidence that conservatives and American Indians get along great. They even named a creek about this close relationship, from Wiki:

    Squaw-Humper Creek is a stream in Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, in the United States.

    According to tradition, Squaw-Humper Creek was named for a local white man who had a live-in Native American girlfriend (squaw).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw-Humper_Creek

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Mactoul says:

    Hoppe and libertarians generally speaking, lack proper understanding of property rights.
    Private property makes sense in a nexus of laws that are defined in a particular state.
    Particular states, however, occupy or possess their territories through brute force. Thus, a state can not be said to own its territory.
    Individuals and other entities, such as corporations, do own parcels of the national territory. For they hold and secure their parcels through law–but the law itself holds in a given territory because a particular state holds that territory through brute force.

    So, a thing is owned when it is held or secured through arguments–the kind of arguments that are made in law courts–ultimately to the moral premise that man must eat of the sweat of his brow.

    A thing is merely possessed, as animals possess something, when it is held or secured through force. It is not theft or wrong per se, to dispossess one of something he only possesses through force.

    So, you are perfectly right that “The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing.”

    But the Indians nations never owned their territory so it was not theft for Americans to dispossess them.
    It is nothing particular to the Indian nations: even the American nation does not own its territory and it would not be theft for any other nation to dispossess the American nation of a particular territory such as Alaska or Hawaii.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    So, a thing is owned when it is held or secured through arguments–the kind of arguments that are made in law courts–ultimately to the moral premise that man must eat of the sweat of his brow.

    A thing is merely possessed, as animals possess something, when it is held or secured through force. It is not theft or wrong per se, to dispossess one of something he only possesses through force.
     
    Yes, this is the law of sovereigns which the anarcho-capitalists don't really consider. There's no higher temporal authority to enforce a "law," so the law is whatever the sovereign does. It's an anarchic order, ironically for the anarcho-capitalists. Individual or corporate "property rights" only happen when the farmers come and kick the hunter-gatherers off and stake out fees and register titles, which are enforced by the sovereign. What to do with the hunter-gatherers after the farmers show up is a vexing, even tragic problem but it's only a problem because the farmers bother to worry about it. If you were on the winning hunter-gatherer team you didn't worry about it.

    Sovereignty is fluid. If the civil order collapses and you have more guns and command more loyalty than anyone else, or you wash up on a desert island, congratulations: you're the new sovereign. The libertarians eschew violence, so their ideal of the sovereign individual ultimately depends on frontier. When you don't like what another sovereign is doing you can just pack up for the frontier and write your own contract with the rest of the planet. But we're out of frontier.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Mactoul says:

    Libertarian hold that one owns a previously unowned thing by mixing one’s labor with it. But how it is determined how much labor to mix with a particular thing to realize the ownership?
    That answer is not provided by general arguments and indeed it is the particular laws of particular states or nations that provide the required answer and thus enable private ownership to exist.
    Thus, private property is not pre-political as libertarians hold. Correct perspective is provided by Aristotlean political theory in which all the three levels of human organizations are irreducible.
    i) Individual
    ii)Family
    iii) The city or state or nation or tribe.

    Man is politically organized–he lives organized into particular self-ruling morally authoritative communities we call nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Wally says: • Website

    We hear about the rights if indigenous peoples, but never about the rights of the indigenous peoples of Europe.

    ‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:
    Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion

    Written by Michael Crichton (September 15, 2003)

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/

    “And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious?
    Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    Not only did they wipe out large land animals, they wiped out the people that were living here. Kennewick man was dated to about the same time as the "land bridge" theory, and there have been archaeological digs on the East Coast placing Solutreans in North America before the "land bridge" people, as well as Neolithic stone structures. Even the Piutes acknowledge that they annihilated the red haired (European) people that already inhabited what is now their "traditional land". There are just too many holes in the current "native" American narrative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. utu says:

    You can’t rob the commune of its assets just because members elect to live communally.

    Correct, but wen the Kibbutz is on the occupied territories it is a moral imperative to rob them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Ilana, I don’t see that the first few paragraphs detailing a philosophical analysis of property rights illuminates the history of european settlement of America. You can say that amerindians owned north america or you can say they didn’t – it’s just a matter of what you consider to be ownership and how precious you’d like your analysis to be.

    This parsing of what is right and wrong when humans both want a piece of territory is idealized in your piece. As with most philosophy, it first simplifies and idealizes the problem, then analyses it and solves it – the solution being useless as anything other than mental exercise because of the initial simplification.
    In the real world, if a culture is more intellectually and technically advanced and more numerous than another and wants the territory that the weaker culture occupies, it will take it. This is the natural order of things. Of course the process is replete with morally relevant interaction, but the outcome is assured from the moment europeans set foot here. There is no alternate outcome where freeways, airports and cities must adjust their boundaries so that Indians can drag their mothers on horse drawn litters across the landscape.

    Native Americans are doing a grave disservice to their young people, who should be encouraged to stop looking backward to primitivism and instead join the American project.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    Today's American Indians are thankful the white man came. Columbus named them "people of God", Indios in Spanish, which the English picked up as Indian; it had nothing to do with India! First, they did not find their lands, but ran off or killed tribes that were there before. Second, no one forces them to live on Indian reservations today, where they enjoy free federal health care and all federal welfare benefits.

    Maybe we should set them free. Cut off their federal checks, raze their old shacks, cut off electricity and TVs, close casinos and free medical clinics, and haul away their vehicles. Then they would be free once again, to roam about digging for grubs and trapping small game. No guns or horses either! Those are white man things. Here are more thoughts from my blog, about "leftists" exploiting them for political purposes:

    Feb 10, 2017 - Pawnees Saved by the US Cavalry! 

    I was googling to learn which special interest group tricked Sioux Indians to waste much effort on irrational opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline to be built near their reservation. Oil and gas pipelines crisscross our nation because Americans want this stuff, and pipelines are the safest and most economical method to move this energy. A pipeline to move more Canadian crude oil to our Gulf Coast refineries would lower gasoline prices nationwide. This would help poor Sioux, who burn gasoline to drive to these odd anti-pipeline protests.

    During this search, I stumbled upon some interesting American history. In 1873, a thousand Sioux warriors attacked a Pawnee hunting party in Nebraska consisting of 700 men, women, and children. They slaughtered 69 Pawnees as they fled and wounded many more. They would have killed more Pawnee, but left after a patrolling US cavalry troop was sighted nearby. No one was surprised because the Sioux were famous for senseless attacks on other Indian tribes.

    The history of the "Plains Indians" is instructive. They once lived in forested areas and barely survived on roots and small game. The arrival of Europeans with horses allowed them to hunt bison (aka buffalo), especially after they got rifles. This provided easy food and valuable hides that greatly improved their lives. The Plains Indians were the tallest people in the world in the 1800s. Tribes grew rapidly and spread into the Great Plains. Their nomadic lifestyle combined with the bravery needed to handle large horses to kill huge bison created a macho warrior culture that often resulted in violence when they encountered other tribes, and immigrants. 
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. “First Nations”? Are we Canadian now? I believe they’re properly called Injuns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. pyrrhus says:

    From a technical legal standpoint, we could say that Amerindians acquired title through “adverse possession”, which is usually defined as continuous uncontested occupation of real estate for more than 20 years. But that would be inconvenient for the powers that be….

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    adverse possession
     
    But you also have to show beneficial use and maintenance.

    The Neanderthal had continuous uncontested occupation of the entire planet for more than 20 years, but that doesn't compel all other extant primates to dig a hole and bury themselves in service to that interpretation of law.

    For that matter, the US is one of the few countries to recognize aboriginal rights. Almost all titled land has some adjudication to such, even if it was to quash claims through eminent domain.
    , @Sarah Toga
    Which tribe acquired what land and when?
    (There were lotsa tribes across North America)
    How did the constant wars between tribes affect said occupation?
    Who witnessed and can verify said occupation by sworn affidavit (with a Jurat)?
    BTW, adverse possession claims are usually contested in court, a European thing. Quiet title lawsuit by the adverse possessor.
    Doesn't sound like adverse possession works for this. Too much of a European sourced concept. Cultural anachronism, maybe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. I have to agree with Jason Liu above: I really haven’t noticed a great deal of Indian-bashing at the hands of conservatives. I think Ms. Mercer is burning a strawman here. And there are plenty of other humdingers in this very questionable article:

    Another apodictic profundity deduced from that conversation: The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing.

    To be sure, I haven’t read Locke’s Two Treatises of Government in ages, but I honestly do not recall him using any phrase like “Western standards” in connection with his property-ownership doctrines. I believe he simply demanded that the inhabitants of the land should somehow ‘improve upon it’ in order to be considered its rightful owners. That would probably mean, at a bare minimum, that they engage in some type of settled agriculture, or perhaps even require that they build permanent structures or dwellings on it, which would exclude most N. American Indian tribes (outside of the desert Southwest) from any possibility of claiming legitimate ownership. But it certainly wouldn’t exclude, say, India or China.

    Think of the Kibbutz. Kibbutzim in Israel instantiate the principles of voluntary socialism. As such, they are perfectly fine living arrangements, where leadership is empowered as custodian of the resource and from which members can freely secede. You can’t rob the commune of its assets just because members elect to live communally.

    Really dumbfounded that Ms. Mercer would include this little gem! I mean, if the Indians had something like a legitimate claim to the N. American soil (as I believe they did), then wouldn’t the Palestinians–who definitely did engage in settled agriculture and construct permanent dwellings–have an even stronger claim to their land?

    Neoconservative deity Dinesh D’Souza likes to claim Native-Americans were decimated not by genocide or ethnocide, “but by diseases brought from Europe by the white man.”

    Dinesh D’Souza is scarcely the only person who believes the plague theory. Many scientists, demographers, archaeologists and anthropologists insist that there occurred a massive depopulation of N. American Indians–on the order of 75 to 90% of their numbers–within a century of the arrival of the Spanish in México. This would nicely explain why, when the English arrived in Plymouth Rock 90 years later, the continent was so underpopulated that they were able to easily overpower the Indians. Plague is the likeliest explanation. Something similar was said to have occurred to the Hottentots of S. Africa–a story that Ms. Mercer should be familiar with. People in Southern Africa, just like people in the Western Hemisphere, had never been exposed to Eurasian plagues before the coming of the White Man, so they had no real resistance against them. Even in Europe, where such resistance already existed, about a third of the population was lost during the Black Deaths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Avery says:

    Why is ‘First Nations’ objectionable?

    ‘Indian’ is a misnomer, in that Columbus thought he had reached India, his original destination.
    Since it is difficult to list all the ‘Native Americans’ by their Nation – Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,…..- why not ‘First Nations’ ?
    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?

    Where is the problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    Why is ‘First Nations’ objectionable
     
    Because it smacks of the usual overly-superlative honorific our current crop of SJWs like to bestow on the de jure favored groups.

    There are African - Middle East - Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being "first nations".
    , @Chris Mallory

    Since it is difficult to list all the ‘Native Americans’ by their Nation – Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,…..- why not ‘First Nations’ ?

     

    Stone age savages works pretty well too.


    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?
     
    Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.
    , @anon
    Who knows which was first?
    Wikipedia used to say that the Maori colonised New Zealand around the 13th C.
    The Moriori, a red haired, blue eyed,peaceful race then in possession, were destroyed.

    That information appears to have disappeared.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. KenH says:

    I haven’t seen very much conservative bile directed towards the Indians. As some other posters mentioned it’s usually a dispassionate attempt to include facts omitted by leftist cherry pickers, guilt trippers and propagandists and to provide historical context. Claims of Indian moral superiority are especially laughable when they routinely slaughtered each other with reckless abandon, but when a white man named Andrew Jackson does then oh my, it’s time for hand wringing and soul searching.

    Perhaps Ryan McMacken can apply his analysis to Israel or Illana will apply the Hoppean theory to Israel in defense of the Palestinian homesteaders who were displaced by Jews.

    There are many self styled historians who seem to believe that America was the only nation in world history founded by conquest and displacement of the “native” inhabitants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. bomag says:
    @pyrrhus
    From a technical legal standpoint, we could say that Amerindians acquired title through "adverse possession", which is usually defined as continuous uncontested occupation of real estate for more than 20 years. But that would be inconvenient for the powers that be....

    adverse possession

    But you also have to show beneficial use and maintenance.

    The Neanderthal had continuous uncontested occupation of the entire planet for more than 20 years, but that doesn’t compel all other extant primates to dig a hole and bury themselves in service to that interpretation of law.

    For that matter, the US is one of the few countries to recognize aboriginal rights. Almost all titled land has some adjudication to such, even if it was to quash claims through eminent domain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Jeff77450 says:
    @Jason Liu
    I really haven't seen the kind of native-bashing you describe, not in mainstream conservatism anyway. At most they point out that the natives weren't all peaceloving hippies living in harmony with nature, but that's that's just a statement of fact -- most likely to defend from leftist guilt-tripping, and not so much about insulting natives.

    Either way, natives are hardly the enemies of the American right. Most natives I've met are rather folksy people who just want to be left along. The right's most ferocious and dangerous enemies occupy high seats in academia and media, and they sure don't look like Sitting Bull to me.

    Very well said and my take exactly. I’ve never seen the native-bashing, to any significant degree, that IM describes. (It’s also true that I haven’t looked for it).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. bomag says:
    @Avery
    Why is 'First Nations' objectionable?

    'Indian' is a misnomer, in that Columbus thought he had reached India, his original destination.
    Since it is difficult to list all the 'Native Americans' by their Nation - Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,.....- why not 'First Nations' ?
    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?

    Where is the problem?

    Why is ‘First Nations’ objectionable

    Because it smacks of the usual overly-superlative honorific our current crop of SJWs like to bestow on the de jure favored groups.

    There are African – Middle East – Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being “first nations”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {There are African – Middle East – Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being “first nations”.}

    'First Nations' as used in this context is understood to mean North America, not the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @anon
    Ilana, I don't see that the first few paragraphs detailing a philosophical analysis of property rights illuminates the history of european settlement of America. You can say that amerindians owned north america or you can say they didn't - it's just a matter of what you consider to be ownership and how precious you'd like your analysis to be.

    This parsing of what is right and wrong when humans both want a piece of territory is idealized in your piece. As with most philosophy, it first simplifies and idealizes the problem, then analyses it and solves it - the solution being useless as anything other than mental exercise because of the initial simplification.
    In the real world, if a culture is more intellectually and technically advanced and more numerous than another and wants the territory that the weaker culture occupies, it will take it. This is the natural order of things. Of course the process is replete with morally relevant interaction, but the outcome is assured from the moment europeans set foot here. There is no alternate outcome where freeways, airports and cities must adjust their boundaries so that Indians can drag their mothers on horse drawn litters across the landscape.

    Native Americans are doing a grave disservice to their young people, who should be encouraged to stop looking backward to primitivism and instead join the American project.

    Today’s American Indians are thankful the white man came. Columbus named them “people of God”, Indios in Spanish, which the English picked up as Indian; it had nothing to do with India! First, they did not find their lands, but ran off or killed tribes that were there before. Second, no one forces them to live on Indian reservations today, where they enjoy free federal health care and all federal welfare benefits.

    Maybe we should set them free. Cut off their federal checks, raze their old shacks, cut off electricity and TVs, close casinos and free medical clinics, and haul away their vehicles. Then they would be free once again, to roam about digging for grubs and trapping small game. No guns or horses either! Those are white man things. Here are more thoughts from my blog, about “leftists” exploiting them for political purposes:

    Feb 10, 2017 – Pawnees Saved by the US Cavalry! 

    I was googling to learn which special interest group tricked Sioux Indians to waste much effort on irrational opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline to be built near their reservation. Oil and gas pipelines crisscross our nation because Americans want this stuff, and pipelines are the safest and most economical method to move this energy. A pipeline to move more Canadian crude oil to our Gulf Coast refineries would lower gasoline prices nationwide. This would help poor Sioux, who burn gasoline to drive to these odd anti-pipeline protests.

    During this search, I stumbled upon some interesting American history. In 1873, a thousand Sioux warriors attacked a Pawnee hunting party in Nebraska consisting of 700 men, women, and children. They slaughtered 69 Pawnees as they fled and wounded many more. They would have killed more Pawnee, but left after a patrolling US cavalry troop was sighted nearby. No one was surprised because the Sioux were famous for senseless attacks on other Indian tribes.

    The history of the “Plains Indians” is instructive. They once lived in forested areas and barely survived on roots and small game. The arrival of Europeans with horses allowed them to hunt bison (aka buffalo), especially after they got rifles. This provided easy food and valuable hides that greatly improved their lives. The Plains Indians were the tallest people in the world in the 1800s. Tribes grew rapidly and spread into the Great Plains. Their nomadic lifestyle combined with the bravery needed to handle large horses to kill huge bison created a macho warrior culture that often resulted in violence when they encountered other tribes, and immigrants. 

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I recently read a book about Lewis and Clark. The path they traveled across the Continental Divide was mostly traveled by bands of young Plains Indian men who went immense distances in order to attack "enemy" tribes.

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no "competition for resources," the classic explanation for all human conflict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Mactoul
    Hoppe and libertarians generally speaking, lack proper understanding of property rights.
    Private property makes sense in a nexus of laws that are defined in a particular state.
    Particular states, however, occupy or possess their territories through brute force. Thus, a state can not be said to own its territory.
    Individuals and other entities, such as corporations, do own parcels of the national territory. For they hold and secure their parcels through law--but the law itself holds in a given territory because a particular state holds that territory through brute force.

    So, a thing is owned when it is held or secured through arguments--the kind of arguments that are made in law courts--ultimately to the moral premise that man must eat of the sweat of his brow.

    A thing is merely possessed, as animals possess something, when it is held or secured through force. It is not theft or wrong per se, to dispossess one of something he only possesses through force.

    So, you are perfectly right that "The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing."

    But the Indians nations never owned their territory so it was not theft for Americans to dispossess them.
    It is nothing particular to the Indian nations: even the American nation does not own its territory and it would not be theft for any other nation to dispossess the American nation of a particular territory such as Alaska or Hawaii.

    So, a thing is owned when it is held or secured through arguments–the kind of arguments that are made in law courts–ultimately to the moral premise that man must eat of the sweat of his brow.

    A thing is merely possessed, as animals possess something, when it is held or secured through force. It is not theft or wrong per se, to dispossess one of something he only possesses through force.

    Yes, this is the law of sovereigns which the anarcho-capitalists don’t really consider. There’s no higher temporal authority to enforce a “law,” so the law is whatever the sovereign does. It’s an anarchic order, ironically for the anarcho-capitalists. Individual or corporate “property rights” only happen when the farmers come and kick the hunter-gatherers off and stake out fees and register titles, which are enforced by the sovereign. What to do with the hunter-gatherers after the farmers show up is a vexing, even tragic problem but it’s only a problem because the farmers bother to worry about it. If you were on the winning hunter-gatherer team you didn’t worry about it.

    Sovereignty is fluid. If the civil order collapses and you have more guns and command more loyalty than anyone else, or you wash up on a desert island, congratulations: you’re the new sovereign. The libertarians eschew violence, so their ideal of the sovereign individual ultimately depends on frontier. When you don’t like what another sovereign is doing you can just pack up for the frontier and write your own contract with the rest of the planet. But we’re out of frontier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Logan says:

    I have noticed that American Indians, or whatever you want to call them, are generally left out of the calls for affirmative action. The only time the SJWs seem to mention them is in ritual apologia at the start of a meeting for being on land stolen from the XXX tribe.

    Nobody ever seems to care that the XXX tribe stole the land from the NNN tribe, who stole it from the DDD tribe, etc., etc.

    All conquests immediately and permanently transfers title, except when the conquerors are white. Oddly enough, this is even true when they are literally conquistadors, which means conquerors in Spanish. Hence the American Southwest is eternally rightfully Hispanic, despite the Spanish being white and proud conquerors.

    Does not compute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Logan says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    Today's American Indians are thankful the white man came. Columbus named them "people of God", Indios in Spanish, which the English picked up as Indian; it had nothing to do with India! First, they did not find their lands, but ran off or killed tribes that were there before. Second, no one forces them to live on Indian reservations today, where they enjoy free federal health care and all federal welfare benefits.

    Maybe we should set them free. Cut off their federal checks, raze their old shacks, cut off electricity and TVs, close casinos and free medical clinics, and haul away their vehicles. Then they would be free once again, to roam about digging for grubs and trapping small game. No guns or horses either! Those are white man things. Here are more thoughts from my blog, about "leftists" exploiting them for political purposes:

    Feb 10, 2017 - Pawnees Saved by the US Cavalry! 

    I was googling to learn which special interest group tricked Sioux Indians to waste much effort on irrational opposition to the Keystone oil pipeline to be built near their reservation. Oil and gas pipelines crisscross our nation because Americans want this stuff, and pipelines are the safest and most economical method to move this energy. A pipeline to move more Canadian crude oil to our Gulf Coast refineries would lower gasoline prices nationwide. This would help poor Sioux, who burn gasoline to drive to these odd anti-pipeline protests.

    During this search, I stumbled upon some interesting American history. In 1873, a thousand Sioux warriors attacked a Pawnee hunting party in Nebraska consisting of 700 men, women, and children. They slaughtered 69 Pawnees as they fled and wounded many more. They would have killed more Pawnee, but left after a patrolling US cavalry troop was sighted nearby. No one was surprised because the Sioux were famous for senseless attacks on other Indian tribes.

    The history of the "Plains Indians" is instructive. They once lived in forested areas and barely survived on roots and small game. The arrival of Europeans with horses allowed them to hunt bison (aka buffalo), especially after they got rifles. This provided easy food and valuable hides that greatly improved their lives. The Plains Indians were the tallest people in the world in the 1800s. Tribes grew rapidly and spread into the Great Plains. Their nomadic lifestyle combined with the bravery needed to handle large horses to kill huge bison created a macho warrior culture that often resulted in violence when they encountered other tribes, and immigrants. 

    I recently read a book about Lewis and Clark. The path they traveled across the Continental Divide was mostly traveled by bands of young Plains Indian men who went immense distances in order to attack “enemy” tribes.

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.
     
    So the savages conquered other tribes and drove them off their land just for fun? The Pawnee and Sioux especially were known to wage "total war" upon each other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Avery says:
    @bomag

    Why is ‘First Nations’ objectionable
     
    Because it smacks of the usual overly-superlative honorific our current crop of SJWs like to bestow on the de jure favored groups.

    There are African - Middle East - Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being "first nations".

    {There are African – Middle East – Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being “first nations”.}

    ‘First Nations’ as used in this context is understood to mean North America, not the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    You parsed away "Indian" and "Native American", but you can just as well parse away "First Nations" being as the extant tribes were almost never the first to live in the areas they claim; and they don't much fall under the definition of nation.

    It strikes me as modern euphemistic sloganeering .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. I didn’t know you were a Canadian, Ilana Mercer. Are you? They are the only ones who use that stupid-ass First Nations expression. I’ve now heard “Spirits Communities” (“Spirit” might NOT be plural, but then “spirits” is easy to remember by association, you know … with distilled spirits and all…)

    The term First Nations made me think these people were bankers the first time I heard it, I kid you not! What the hell! OK, I’ll read the article now Ilana, but please don’t start this PC stuff with me early in the morning. It seems like I’ve had to put up with the Political Correctness since 1000 BCE .

    Lastly, from my link, so you don’t think I’m totally heartless about it:

    Yeah, we make lots of light of things at Peak Stupidity, but I do have some respect for people, and this is about a guy who respected his ancestors more than worrying about this PC crap. I was at a plant out in the West and saw a guy with a cap that had big letters FBI. What would he be doing there, and from his looks, he was no FBI guy. “You’re not an FBI guy”, I said. No, he smiled, “Full Blooded Indian”. I liked that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Wally says:
    @Quaid
    I imagine this was in large part spurned by this s**tty, poorly made cartoon put out by Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire: http://archive.is/vn9b6
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-shapiros-daily-wire-website-posts-racist-video-mocking-native-americans-for-columbus-day/

    Obviously all the more illuminating when you consider Shapiro's stance on the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/07/transfer-is-not-dirty-word.html

    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them.

    I'm not going to go ahead and say every single bit of US (or Canadian, or whatever other American nation you want to pick out) territory is wholly legitimate under a full standard of ownership rights, but it begs asking- at this point, do the currently living natives even want independence? This (among many, many other things) isn't really considered by liberals/non-white agitators (especially hispanics) who use them as an eternal cudgel to justify endless mass immigration and illegal immigrants. Just considering how natives have been virtually extinct in large parts of the east coast for centuries, how sparsely populated much of the Americas has been- it often appeals to some pan-racial claim to two entire continents, on the part of the natives. Similar rhetoric is used to justify calls for the expulsion of whites from southern africa, as I'm sure Mercer is familiar with.

    “But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them.”

    College freshmen, left wing mandated propaganda easily shot down.

    No, it is not true and you have no proof, or you would have shown it.

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    I thought for sure that you were going to roll out the dumb ‘blankets with small pox’ canard.

    Smallpox blanket hoax: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    Genocide myth: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

    Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

    Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.
     
    This is one of the dumbest things you've ever said and you've been active a while.

    Resistance to communicable disease is conferred by exposure to that disease. The primary mode by which communicable diseases spread to human beings is via other animals, whether it's insects, or rats, or livestock. Livestock in particular has been a vector of serious disease for millennia, but the benefits conferred by animal husbandry far outweigh the detriments. The most serious disease we "inherited" from animals is smallpox. It's a deadly disease in some cases. In other cases, it is less serious and survivable.

    The big thing that helped us survive smallpox and why, in contrast, it was so deadly for Indians is that we raised cattle. Cattle carry a related virus called cowpox, and exposure to cowpox rendered humans immune to smallpox. Jenner observed that milkmaids tended not to get smallpox and drew that deduction. The word "vaccine" comes from the Latin for "cow."

    The Indians hadn't raised cattle -- they couldn't. The only cattle available were bison and they were not really domesticable, at least given the technology available to Indians. So they had no immunity to the deadliest varieties of smallpox, nor did they have the resistance against more mild forms that generations of exposure to the virus and descent from people with acquired immunity would have caused.

    The most serious disease passed to European from the Indians were sexually transmitted diseases. The Indians were no more immune to these diseases than we were, mainly because they are bacterial diseases (except for herpes and AIDS) and not viral diseases.

    So here's the tl;dr version. European had suffered from the same plagues -- they'd just suffered from them centuries if not millennia earlier and developed immunity.
    , @Jim
    "European lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans." There was a pronounced asymmetry between the diseases the two groups transmitted to each other. Europeans brought far more deadly diseases to Amerindians than the reverse. This was probably due to the fact that Old World populations were much larger so carried many more pathogens. Also many disease vectors such as malaria carrying mesquitos could not cross the Siberian land bridge. Human populations have existed in the New World only in comparatively recent times so there was much less time for the evolution of New World pathogens.

    The reduction in population in the New World was far more due to disease than violent conflict.

    The present US Amerindian population is larger than the Amerindian population living in the boundaries of the US at the time of Columbus.
    , @Quaid
    I don't understand why you're so bothered by what I wrote, or what you're trying to argue.

    What I said is contrary to liberal propaganda on this issue. Most of them died through disease that was spread without any real effort on the part of Europeans. It frequently spread in advance of them and at rates that would have been impossible through active intervention. This is contrary to the cartoon image of natives being actively expelled and massacred by Europeans across the Americas. Which did happen at times. But this was not the norm, and altogether the minority of native deaths.

    How did natives even die then? We agree it wasn't genocide, but you don't think it was even disease.

    I think I know what happened- you didn't like the fact I acknowledged there were genocides/massacres against the natives (at times), and this spurned you to assume when I mentioned disease, I meant smallpox blankets (I don't believe in this.)

    But then you claimed uh....

    "Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans."

    You know what, I don't know how to explain that. You're just a moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Personally as far as ownership of the land goes I think everyone is all washed up. The Constitution says Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness blah blah, But the most important aspect is “life”. What do you need to live’ food, water, a roof to protect from the elements, a way to protect your family. If that is true then how can anyone born here in the free colonies be denied it. Not that someone else, like the government has to give it to you, but deny someone to get it for themselves? How can someone be denied the right to eat by saying, “I’m the king and there will be no hunting without a license”. Now I can understand that a group can say “We built this reservoir and the water in it is ours” but can you stop someone from getting or building their own? How can you stop someone from putting a roof over their family’s head?

    The private property laws that the libertarians talk about are nothing but a benefit to themselves and a way for foreigners to move into someone else’s area and sell it all off. It’s what Democracy does and the country was supposed to be a Republic. Kind of like the bankers and when we wake up we find we’re homeless on our own land. The idea that you can sell off roads and bridges that were paid for for years by taxpayers is a kick in the pants. It’s all work work work and work harder and if you don’t own anything it’s your fault for not working hard enough, your not smart enough. It makes beggars of people. it destroys families and tribes. It destroys a people. God did not build ghettos or filthy cities or make anyone homeless or poor, economics, capitalism, the FREE MARKET whatever that is. But you’d be considered really smart if you did but really stupid if you didn’t take advantage of it all.
    Over priced houses because labor costs *(and investment opportunities) are so high, then no one can afford to live in them in especially old people on fixed incomes, retirees and others. Not everyone can be a rocket scientist or a movie star, basketball player etc to afford what it costs. Raising the wages just increases the costs so poor most people stay. Afraid to drink the water from your tap? Do you buy your water?

    But we’re already there now, homeless beggars, and it’s too late to change it. and nobody had a “right” to come here and change things but they did with our consent obviously. It’s all so progressive, we don’t want to live in the past do we?

    Well that’s just my opinion

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. American Indians had a quite competent grasp of private property rights. They also soundly rejected the same as a violation of the communal ownership of their nation’s resources. This is misread as often and in varied ways as necessary to suit the outsider’s interpretations; normally for some sort of gain. The minutes of the 1895 ‘Grinnell Agreement’ with the Blackfeet clearly demonstrate the chiefs attending the negotiations rejected conversion of Blackfeet lands to private title; and that in fact they were astute and well aware the Whites only approached the Indians to take advantage. This history of larceny was so egregious, SCOTUS demanded all treaties’ interpretation in matters of law be conformed to the indigenous understanding in consequent court cases.

    Some years back, some Montana libertarian, I do not recall his name, tried to tell me because an anthropologist, I think it was John Ewers, noted the Blackfeet ‘personalized’ their arrows with ownership symbols, this established private property and ownership over kills in a buffalo hunt, example given. He did not wish to consider there were cases where the personalized arrows conferred ‘credit’ for the kill, but not necessarily ‘ownership’ over kills made in a buffalo hunt. But he had a private property jurisdictional motivation having to do with hunting and fishing rights concerning a native tribe that was not to the tribe’s advantage. That’s normal, some things never change.

    In any case, comparisons of the two culture’s, particularly the old native law concept to western law concept, is fraught with peril; were there any concern with grasping the profound cultural differences, I would suggest a read:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/09/23/cosmos-consciousness/

    The fundamental concept of reality is so different between the two, as to defy comparison. The Amerind concept that could be considered ‘libertarian’ was, primarily, concerned with restraint. No one told anyone what to do but the other side of that coin was an expectation no one had a right to disturb a much larger environment belonging to all that was both; social & physical. Plato’s objectivity, and ego as a normal, individual, personality construct in the western world, were as alien as the ETs in Mars Attacks. That bare fact is nearly impossible to grasp by the westerners I see commenting here for the reason of ethnocentric bias (cultural narcissism.)

    All that said, the USA’s tribes have a history of voting conservative, possibly for reasons readers here would not have suspected:

    Native Americans have historically, typically voted conservative. Some might wonder why? Simple answer is; liberals have a long history of creating solutions for social problems in a cultural context they have little understanding of, compounding those problems more often than not. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a history of neglect in relation to Native Americans, and consequently it is the liberals are perceived as the worse offenders or ‘meddlers’ in Indian affairs. Conservatives, therefor, are less likely to imagine up solutions for problems they don’t understand whereas liberals are inclined to shove solutions that don’t work down peoples’ throats because ‘they know better.’

    Read more:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/10/09/liberals/

    If, perchance, you share the native habit of ability to laugh at oneself, the preceding could be quite entertaining :p

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Those nations were tribes of stone age savages that hadn’t even developed the wheel. We came, we killed them, and we took the land and built a nation. Mercer, you aren’t an American and never will be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Logan
    I recently read a book about Lewis and Clark. The path they traveled across the Continental Divide was mostly traveled by bands of young Plains Indian men who went immense distances in order to attack "enemy" tribes.

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no "competition for resources," the classic explanation for all human conflict.

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.

    So the savages conquered other tribes and drove them off their land just for fun? The Pawnee and Sioux especially were known to wage “total war” upon each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.
    So the savages conquered other tribes and drove them off their land just for fun? The Pawnee and Sioux especially were known to wage “total war” upon each other.
     
    Not for fun but for sport? yes. Young Indian warriors loved to go to war against other tribes to capture female sex slaves and to raise their in-tribe status (getting them more in tribe sex partners) by showing bravery and kills. We are down to human essentials here. Intra-tribal wars were waged for money-sex-power. And from time to time over resources (water, hunting grounds) in an essentially empty continent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Avery
    Why is 'First Nations' objectionable?

    'Indian' is a misnomer, in that Columbus thought he had reached India, his original destination.
    Since it is difficult to list all the 'Native Americans' by their Nation - Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,.....- why not 'First Nations' ?
    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?

    Where is the problem?

    Since it is difficult to list all the ‘Native Americans’ by their Nation – Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,…..- why not ‘First Nations’ ?

    Stone age savages works pretty well too.

    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?

    Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.}

    OK, what evidence, and who was here before the NA First Nations?.
    I am aware of several hypothesis and possibly some evidence of Europeans and possibly Chinese (?) having 'discovered' North America long before Columbus, but am not aware of any efforts to cover it up. Not saying it is not there: just that it's the first time I hear of such efforts.

    In any case, what I have read is that the prevailing hypothesis is that the First Nations's ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia when the Barents sea was fully iced up 10s, of 1,000s of years ago.

    If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to learn something new.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    "But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them."

    College freshmen, left wing mandated propaganda easily shot down.

    No, it is not true and you have no proof, or you would have shown it.

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    I thought for sure that you were going to roll out the dumb 'blankets with small pox' canard.

    Smallpox blanket hoax: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    Genocide myth: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

    Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

    Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    This is one of the dumbest things you’ve ever said and you’ve been active a while.

    Resistance to communicable disease is conferred by exposure to that disease. The primary mode by which communicable diseases spread to human beings is via other animals, whether it’s insects, or rats, or livestock. Livestock in particular has been a vector of serious disease for millennia, but the benefits conferred by animal husbandry far outweigh the detriments. The most serious disease we “inherited” from animals is smallpox. It’s a deadly disease in some cases. In other cases, it is less serious and survivable.

    The big thing that helped us survive smallpox and why, in contrast, it was so deadly for Indians is that we raised cattle. Cattle carry a related virus called cowpox, and exposure to cowpox rendered humans immune to smallpox. Jenner observed that milkmaids tended not to get smallpox and drew that deduction. The word “vaccine” comes from the Latin for “cow.”

    The Indians hadn’t raised cattle — they couldn’t. The only cattle available were bison and they were not really domesticable, at least given the technology available to Indians. So they had no immunity to the deadliest varieties of smallpox, nor did they have the resistance against more mild forms that generations of exposure to the virus and descent from people with acquired immunity would have caused.

    The most serious disease passed to European from the Indians were sexually transmitted diseases. The Indians were no more immune to these diseases than we were, mainly because they are bacterial diseases (except for herpes and AIDS) and not viral diseases.

    So here’s the tl;dr version. European had suffered from the same plagues — they’d just suffered from them centuries if not millennia earlier and developed immunity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Strawmen, illogic, & diversion galore by Anon ... yet again. LOL

    And predictably he dodges my links.

    Of course one can only expect such from an irrational Zionist.

    Please read what you wrote. It's contradictory, nonsensical.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. vx37 says:

    One of the chief (heh) methods of racism the left uses against whites is to hold whites to a standard they hold no one else to. It is a form of hate. Thus, the Sioux swept down from (they say) the north killing all who stood in their way, including children, taking slaves, gang-raping the women before killing them, scalping both sexes right down to the toddlers, taking possession of the territory. Doesn’t bother anybody, and nobody is talking about the poor Pawnees.

    In the end they were granted vast reservations, some larger than small European countries, for a relatively small population. It’s more, far more, than we’re getting. Give us exclusive territory commensurate to our population size and no more. I’ll take that deal. And 20 million cases of coke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Jim says:
    @Wally
    "But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them."

    College freshmen, left wing mandated propaganda easily shot down.

    No, it is not true and you have no proof, or you would have shown it.

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    I thought for sure that you were going to roll out the dumb 'blankets with small pox' canard.

    Smallpox blanket hoax: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    Genocide myth: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

    Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

    Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

    “European lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.” There was a pronounced asymmetry between the diseases the two groups transmitted to each other. Europeans brought far more deadly diseases to Amerindians than the reverse. This was probably due to the fact that Old World populations were much larger so carried many more pathogens. Also many disease vectors such as malaria carrying mesquitos could not cross the Siberian land bridge. Human populations have existed in the New World only in comparatively recent times so there was much less time for the evolution of New World pathogens.

    The reduction in population in the New World was far more due to disease than violent conflict.

    The present US Amerindian population is larger than the Amerindian population living in the boundaries of the US at the time of Columbus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yawn.

    And your proof for all that is where exactly?
    Nowhere.
    You are merely reciting the usual college leftist, unsupportable talking points.

    Of course it's claimed the Indian "genocide" was huge, which contradicts the 'limited population' argument.

    And, you conveniently dodged by my links. Telling.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Avery says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Since it is difficult to list all the ‘Native Americans’ by their Nation – Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,…..- why not ‘First Nations’ ?

     

    Stone age savages works pretty well too.


    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?
     
    Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.

    {Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.}

    OK, what evidence, and who was here before the NA First Nations?.
    I am aware of several hypothesis and possibly some evidence of Europeans and possibly Chinese (?) having ‘discovered’ North America long before Columbus, but am not aware of any efforts to cover it up. Not saying it is not there: just that it’s the first time I hear of such efforts.

    In any case, what I have read is that the prevailing hypothesis is that the First Nations’s ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia when the Barents sea was fully iced up 10s, of 1,000s of years ago.

    If you know otherwise, I’d be interested to learn something new.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Read up on it here...

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/04/26/boners-for-beringia/

    ...science is all over the map and of course politics plays -

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Avery, look up "Kennewick Man". These bones from something like 12,000 years ago were found near/at the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA (1 of the tri-cities with Richland and Pasco) about 10 or more years back. They were determined to be from someone more resembling a Caucasian, and not an Indian. The tribes used a Federal law to get ahold of the bones to prevent more research, cause you know, it might change the story.

    I know this because I was at the UW when the bones were there at this one museum for while at the N. end of campus, and I followed the story.

    Who's to say who the "original" inhabitants were besides the protozoa and other single-celled creatures? I'm not making a political argument here, just giving you something to check out in reply.

    (There are plenty of political arguments already, and I wish I'd read the article before now. On this Indian business, Ilana seems pretty much out of her league, a nicer phrase than I would normally use, that being "full of shit". She's not an American and has not background on this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Avery
    {Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.}

    OK, what evidence, and who was here before the NA First Nations?.
    I am aware of several hypothesis and possibly some evidence of Europeans and possibly Chinese (?) having 'discovered' North America long before Columbus, but am not aware of any efforts to cover it up. Not saying it is not there: just that it's the first time I hear of such efforts.

    In any case, what I have read is that the prevailing hypothesis is that the First Nations's ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia when the Barents sea was fully iced up 10s, of 1,000s of years ago.

    If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to learn something new.

    Read up on it here…

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/04/26/boners-for-beringia/

    …science is all over the map and of course politics plays -

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wally says:
    @Anon

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.
     
    This is one of the dumbest things you've ever said and you've been active a while.

    Resistance to communicable disease is conferred by exposure to that disease. The primary mode by which communicable diseases spread to human beings is via other animals, whether it's insects, or rats, or livestock. Livestock in particular has been a vector of serious disease for millennia, but the benefits conferred by animal husbandry far outweigh the detriments. The most serious disease we "inherited" from animals is smallpox. It's a deadly disease in some cases. In other cases, it is less serious and survivable.

    The big thing that helped us survive smallpox and why, in contrast, it was so deadly for Indians is that we raised cattle. Cattle carry a related virus called cowpox, and exposure to cowpox rendered humans immune to smallpox. Jenner observed that milkmaids tended not to get smallpox and drew that deduction. The word "vaccine" comes from the Latin for "cow."

    The Indians hadn't raised cattle -- they couldn't. The only cattle available were bison and they were not really domesticable, at least given the technology available to Indians. So they had no immunity to the deadliest varieties of smallpox, nor did they have the resistance against more mild forms that generations of exposure to the virus and descent from people with acquired immunity would have caused.

    The most serious disease passed to European from the Indians were sexually transmitted diseases. The Indians were no more immune to these diseases than we were, mainly because they are bacterial diseases (except for herpes and AIDS) and not viral diseases.

    So here's the tl;dr version. European had suffered from the same plagues -- they'd just suffered from them centuries if not millennia earlier and developed immunity.

    Strawmen, illogic, & diversion galore by Anon … yet again. LOL

    And predictably he dodges my links.

    Of course one can only expect such from an irrational Zionist.

    Please read what you wrote. It’s contradictory, nonsensical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Strawmen, illogic, & diversion galore by Anon … yet again. LOL

     

    There are no strawmen in what I wrote, particularly since I quoted you directly. Illogic and diversion? How so?

    And predictably he dodges my links.
     
    Your links are bullshit.

    Of course one can only expect such from an irrational Zionist.

    Please read what you wrote. It’s contradictory, nonsensical.
     
    Translation: It hurts my wittle bwain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wally says:
    @Jim
    "European lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans." There was a pronounced asymmetry between the diseases the two groups transmitted to each other. Europeans brought far more deadly diseases to Amerindians than the reverse. This was probably due to the fact that Old World populations were much larger so carried many more pathogens. Also many disease vectors such as malaria carrying mesquitos could not cross the Siberian land bridge. Human populations have existed in the New World only in comparatively recent times so there was much less time for the evolution of New World pathogens.

    The reduction in population in the New World was far more due to disease than violent conflict.

    The present US Amerindian population is larger than the Amerindian population living in the boundaries of the US at the time of Columbus.

    Yawn.

    And your proof for all that is where exactly?
    Nowhere.
    You are merely reciting the usual college leftist, unsupportable talking points.

    Of course it’s claimed the Indian “genocide” was huge, which contradicts the ‘limited population’ argument.

    And, you conveniently dodged by my links. Telling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Sean says:

    He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner.

    A right is something that can be enforced. and written constitutions are in effect instructions for armed violence by the police or army.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/1044-2/
    As the authors, following Thomas Hobbes, say, the key point is that no one is so strong that two or three others, joining together, cannot overcome him. In other words, no man can govern alone; he, much less often she, needs supporters. Simplifying a little, this means that there only exist two forms of government. In one, which throughout history has been the most common by far, the man at the top must make a relatively small number of key supporters happy in order to keep the majority of people in check. In the other, which historically has been far less common, the benefits of government are distributed among a far larger number of people. The former is known as autocracy, the latter, as democracy. [...]

    Briefly, it is all a question of who supports whom and what resources he or she is allocated in return. Morally speaking, democratic rulers are no better, no less inclined to doing whatever they can to cling to power, than their autocratic colleagues. The one difference is that the former rely on the many to keep the few in check; the latter do the opposite. In return, democrats provide some public goods: such as roads, education, healthcare, and, most important of all, the kind of stable legal framework people need in order to work and to prosper. This basic fact, and not ideology or people’s personal qualities, shapes the nature of the governments they form and lead.

    Conclusion: Black Lies matter. Amerindians’ don’t

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Strawmen, illogic, & diversion galore by Anon ... yet again. LOL

    And predictably he dodges my links.

    Of course one can only expect such from an irrational Zionist.

    Please read what you wrote. It's contradictory, nonsensical.

    Strawmen, illogic, & diversion galore by Anon … yet again. LOL

    There are no strawmen in what I wrote, particularly since I quoted you directly. Illogic and diversion? How so?

    And predictably he dodges my links.

    Your links are bullshit.

    Of course one can only expect such from an irrational Zionist.

    Please read what you wrote. It’s contradictory, nonsensical.

    Translation: It hurts my wittle bwain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Clyde says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.
     
    So the savages conquered other tribes and drove them off their land just for fun? The Pawnee and Sioux especially were known to wage "total war" upon each other.

    Pretty clearly these groups had little or no “competition for resources,” the classic explanation for all human conflict.
    So the savages conquered other tribes and drove them off their land just for fun? The Pawnee and Sioux especially were known to wage “total war” upon each other.

    Not for fun but for sport? yes. Young Indian warriors loved to go to war against other tribes to capture female sex slaves and to raise their in-tribe status (getting them more in tribe sex partners) by showing bravery and kills. We are down to human essentials here. Intra-tribal wars were waged for money-sex-power. And from time to time over resources (water, hunting grounds) in an essentially empty continent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Wally says: • Website

    IOW, you just ignore everything that doesn’t fit your dirty little Zionist world and pretend nothing else exists.

    And boy have I nailed you on the fake ’6M Jews’. LOL
    http://www.forum.codoh.com

    [MORE]

    Pay attention, you chimps are taking a beating here.

    America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/#comment-2012898

    Why I Still Dislike Israel
    Netanyahu Should Leave Us Alone as a New Year’s Present

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-i-still-dislike-israel/

    The Dancing Israelis
    Trump was right about 9/11 but they weren’t Muslims

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-dancing-israelis/

    Israel’s Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz & the impossible ’6M’, the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
    The tide is turning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    In other words, you're too much of an idiot to know you're wrong or too much of a jerk to admit it.

    Well done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Mark Presco says: • Website

    I will call them Native Americans for want of a better term, but I wish they would come up with a name they prefer. Every so often blacks come up with a new label they demand we call them.

    Like so many of the discussions here on Unz, you people get bogged down arguing about past injustice or whose factoids are more correct. The only thing that really matters is how we move forward.

    It is my observation that all Native American tribes are determined to rebuild their nations. For the most part they have rejected full integration into the USA proposed during the Dawes era. They accepted US citizenship in 1924 in order take advantage of the growing US welfare system, but they want sovereignty as well.

    There are 567 or so tribes in America all wanting separate sovereign nations. These people are so racist that they won’t live with one another. To be a citizen of the Navajo Nation you must have at least one quarter Navajo blood. A Cherokee citizen must be descended for someone listed on the Dawes rolls. Most other nations are equally racist.

    As a White Nationalist I support this. The local tribe has worked hard to get upgraded from a Rancheria to a fully recognized federal nation even though there are only about 1000 of them. I am currently in negotiations with them to turn over 3 acres of my land to their nation. However, they were not happy when I sat in a tribal council meeting and pointed out to them that they are every bit the racists that I am. Negotiations continue though.

    This is where this country needs to go. We need to live with our own people, in our own cultures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. I have never heard any “beating up” of American Indians by conservatives/right-wingers. What I do hear from them is ridicule for political correctness, such as objections to naming sports teams after them (e.g., the Washington Redskins). The perpetrators of these follies are almost all white. The Indians I know react with bemusement.

    As for real estate title, there is a legal concept called adverse possession, whereby one acquires a title by usage, even if the land be not within the formal metes and bounds of a deeded parcel. Thus, for example, if a fence demarking the nominal border between your land and your neighbor’s should actually encroach four feet into yours, and the fence has stood unmoved and uncontested for the requisite period, that four feet become your neighbor’s under the doctrine of adverse possession. It could be said that Amerinds, though they lacked an European understanding of real estate title, had this type of claim to the lands they occupied.

    The trouble with any such claim is that the Amerind population in what is now the United States was not a monolithic society, but rather a collection of tribes that were frequently at war with each other over their respective territories – e.g., the Chippewa and the Sioux. When the ‘white tribe’ – European settlers – encroached upon Indian tribal lands, they were met in the same way by the tribes they encountered, and fought with them, in the same way the tribes had fought with each other over land. Whites were the ultimate victors in these conflicts, and have the same claim to the lands that the Indians previously did. We should not feel guilty that our ancestors were more successful than their adversaries. This type of guilt is nothing but a manifestation of moral vanity.

    In international law there is a principle called uti possidetis, by which lands and the movable property thereon remain with the state in actual possession of them at the end of a conflict. This principle lies at the origin of all titles to land, whether in the New World or the Old. To discard it in the case of lands in the U.S. is to lend legitimacy to the claims of all irredentist factions, unto time immemorial – and these claims, ultimately, rest on no better foundation than do those of the peoples or states currently in possession.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    IOW, you just ignore everything that doesn't fit your dirty little Zionist world and pretend nothing else exists.

    And boy have I nailed you on the fake '6M Jews'. LOL
    www.forum.codoh.com

    Pay attention, you chimps are taking a beating here.

    America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/#comment-2012898

    Why I Still Dislike Israel
    Netanyahu Should Leave Us Alone as a New Year's Present
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-i-still-dislike-israel/

    The Dancing Israelis
    Trump was right about 9/11 but they weren't Muslims
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-dancing-israelis/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz & the impossible '6M', the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
    The tide is turning.
     

    In other words, you’re too much of an idiot to know you’re wrong or too much of a jerk to admit it.

    Well done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Typical arrested development of an irrational Zionist empty handed name caller.

    I win, again.

    Owning you continues. LOL

    www.forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Wally
    We hear about the rights if indigenous peoples, but never about the rights of the indigenous peoples of Europe.

    ‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:
    Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion

    Written by Michael Crichton (September 15, 2003)

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/

    "And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious?
    Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction."

    Not only did they wipe out large land animals, they wiped out the people that were living here. Kennewick man was dated to about the same time as the “land bridge” theory, and there have been archaeological digs on the East Coast placing Solutreans in North America before the “land bridge” people, as well as Neolithic stone structures. Even the Piutes acknowledge that they annihilated the red haired (European) people that already inhabited what is now their “traditional land”. There are just too many holes in the current “native” American narrative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. “Closely related” Indians wanted him reburied.
    “Kennewick Man is the name generally given to the skeletal remains of a prehistoric Paleoamerican man found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, United States, on July 28, 1996.[1] It is one of the most complete ancient skeletons ever found. Radiocarbon tests on bone have shown it to date from 8.9k to 9k calibrated years before present.[2][3] In the early 2000s, genetic analysis did not have sufficient techniques to analyze such ancient DNA. By 2013, however, techniques had improved and the ancient DNA (aDNA) was analyzed. In June 2015 the team announced their conclusions, that Kennewick Man had most in common with Native Americans among living peoples, including those in the Columbia River region where he was found.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

    I remember when this one came out in the paper, in this picture they gave him a tan and hair.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/kennewick-man-finally-freed-share-his-secrets-180952462/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. The genocide canard is getting old. Ethnic cleansing certainly happened and I won’t defend it. But most of the dirty work in reducing the American population was done for the European invaders by microbes within the first century of contact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. turtle says:

    >“[T]he Indian tribes had no right to the land they lived on because”

    they didn’t have gunpowder.

    For once, I believe Chairman Mao had it right.

    Power issues from the barrel of a gun.

    Which is also why;

    a) the Jews lost to the Wehrmacht, and

    b) the Arabs of Palestine do not have the ghost of a chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don’t even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won’t give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn’t change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn’t really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the “highly civilized western man” that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don’t they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven’t noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn’t really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands “invaded” but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just “get over it”. Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just “get over” the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There’s not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I’ll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can’t say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won’t change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don’t blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    First things first.

    You have not given us proof for your laughable claim of "genocide on 3 continents".
    Simple as that.

    The rest of your rant is therefore 'garbage in, garage out'.

    Cheers.
    , @utu
    First part of your rant was OK but then it bace typical and predictable. But this

    In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself.
     
    is clever observation. People are being played all the time so there is no surprise. The question always is by which forces. The answer in case of Trump is pretty clear by now as he shed most of his election platform already and all that is left is: do what Israel wants, spend more on military and the usual Republican business of being good for big business and banking elite.
    , @anonymous
    Thanks for taking the time to write this. You're unlikely to be engaged above the Wally level, but you may have provoked some clearer thinking among others.
    , @KenH
    That's a long pajama jew boy rant.

    Your example about "Johnny Goodman" murdering the stereotypical white meth addicts exposes you as a Jew who has a subconscious desire to murder white people. Why isn't Johnny Jew blowing away a black welfare queen with ten illegitimate kids who are mostly criminals and gang bangers? Or maybe an all American white goy can use his glock to rid the world of jewish pornographers and jewish rapists, pederasts and pedophiles who dominate Hollywood? Harvey Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Why don't you rail against Israeli Jews who gloat about violently displacing the Palestinians and who view them as inferior beings unworthy of dignity and humane treatment? Or of their efforts to create biological weapons that can harm Arabs while leaving chosenites untouched?
    https://www.wired.com/1998/11/israels-ethnic-weapon/


    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are.
     
    So is Israel and the Jewish people. Demography is not on your side and there will come a day when an America that is >50% non-white and impervious to holocaust guilt trips will stop giving Israel billions of dollars annually and refuse to act as its Middle East enforcer and bully boy.
    , @Avery
    You make some good points and I agree with many. But then you go off on a tangent and start blaming 'whites' (I take that to mean peoples of European stock) as all evil.

    To wit:

    { Although this doesn’t change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them,  }
    { european settlers to genocide the indians }
    { the indigenous population being genocided and colonized }
    { (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) }

    First of all there was no, quote 'genocide' of native peoples of North America by European settlers.
    I know these days it is fashionable to throw the word 'genocide' around like candy.
    Every crime or tragedy is a 'genocide': sure it is.

    The word 'genocide', which was coined by Prof Lemkin (a Polish Jew) shortly after WW2, has very specific meaning and applicability. It does _not_ mean crimes against humanity, war crimes, massacres, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, etc. It has to have what is called Dolus Specialis, or specific intent. Meaning, the perpetrator had the specific intent to exterminate the given ethnos: geno-cide.

    By no stretch can the word be aplied to NA.
    European settlers thought they had landed on empty lands.
    They didn't come here with the intent to exterminate anyone.
    Yes, they were obviously aware that there were peoples living here before them, but the land was sparsely populated and there were no or few permanent structures. Yes, there were massacres, forced relocation and such. Yes, treaties were broken, natives were manipulated, betrayed and sometimes exploited. But there was no genocide. Most natives (70%-80%) died as an unintended consequence of Europeans' arrival, i.e. communicable diseases that Europeans were immune to and natives weren't.

    The fact that a given people largely disappear or are greatly reduced in numbers does not necessarily mean they were 'genocided' (sic). Black Death, which was inadvertently brought to Europe from Asia, wiped out up to 60% of Europe's population. So did Asians commit 'genocide' of Europeans?

    Anasasi people largely 'disappeared' from their original place of habitat around 1,200A.D., long before Europeans showed up around 1,500 on the East coast. There are different explanations as to why the Anasasi 'disappeared': (a) there was a prolonged drought and some died off and rest moved away to other places; (b) they didn't 'disappear', rather their descendants live today as Rio Grande Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni Indians.

    I will address your belief that 'whites' (or the West) and only 'whites' are all evil with no redeeming qualities in part 2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Wally says:
    @Anon
    In other words, you're too much of an idiot to know you're wrong or too much of a jerk to admit it.

    Well done.

    Typical arrested development of an irrational Zionist empty handed name caller.

    I win, again.

    Owning you continues. LOL

    http://www.forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You are a walking testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    , @anon
    @wally

    How does it feel that no matter how many internet arguments you (think) you win, you still lose in real life? Everywhere around you is evidence of the fall of the west and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Holocaust deniers (anti-semites?) such as yourself are convinced that whites/the west are just and jews are evil pathological liars, but is this really the case? From what I see, the jews are simply giving everything back to the west that the west has ever done to the rest of the world. In this regards, the jewish concept of tikkun olam makes much more sense; the west has a jewish problem because the west has a karma problem. Only once the west (especially the right wing) tries to repair and atone for the past will it find to key to liberating itself from its heavy jewish yoke. Jews are not intrinsically good or evil, rather they are simply a people that execute the concept of karma in the material world. Had the west not been unrighteous in its actions towards the people in the rest of the world, then the west would not have its current intractable jewish problem.

    Once again I will repeat, jews are not your enemy. They are simply an immovable divine force which execute karma in the real world, once the west (and especially the right wing) does some soul searching and begins to reflect on the immorality of its past actions will the west and the white race finally begin to start the process of healing and racial regeneration. The different races of man are intended to coexist together, not conquer one another. If the white race does not learn this lesson then it will perish in the same way that it caused the extinction of so many other races and cultures.

    Also im legit laughing at an anti-semite such as yourself trying to lecture me when I have observed you shilling trump in the comments section of other articles on this website. You are aware that trump is the biggest pro-zionist president we have ever had right?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5Je73bYOY

    The cognitive dissonance of the right wing is astounding; they want to save their own race but don't believe in that right for others; they hate jews but rabidly support the most pro-jewish president ever; they dislike blacks but love watching pro-sports etc etc. How do right-wingers even function? They are literally walking contradictions
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Wally says:
    @anon
    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don't even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won't give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn't change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn't really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the "highly civilized western man" that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don't they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven't noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn't really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands "invaded" but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just "get over it". Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just "get over" the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I'll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, "live by the sword, die by the sword" and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can't say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won't change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don't blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    First things first.

    You have not given us proof for your laughable claim of “genocide on 3 continents”.
    Simple as that.

    The rest of your rant is therefore ‘garbage in, garage out’.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. We have to be careful when dealing with deconstructionist jews or what we unfortunately currently refer to as “liberals”, because despite their bluster, there will be no slave reparations, certainly not if the negros are unwilling to return to their ancestral homelands, and the indians of today, with their casinos and what have you are in very few ways functional in the ways of their ancestors and that the deconstructionists that wish to harm the United States, are largely driven by revolutionary jewish/”liberal” ideology, which is based on attempts to destroy nations, not on any overriding belief in fairness or what have you. But, when a “semitic” tribe or their ideological fellow travelers own all or a majority of the megaphones of the media, and have many willing fellow comrades with tenure at a plurality or majority of universities, they simply get traction with their garbage anti-american doctrines, does not mean that the masses should be moving in the direction of ruination in which these miscreants seek to direct their host nation.

    Simply put, the rehashing wars and actions from hundreds or thousands of years in the past, while maybe a noble intellectual pursuit, is truly not relevant to life today except from a macro type perspective of the analysis of human action, certainly not from the angle of punitive measures toward the heirs, often 5-10 generations or more removed which seems to be the pursuit of the current crop of Jew/”liberal” educated/influenced revolutionary minded leftist guerilla types.

    The United States would be wise to begin consideration of how to remove the communist/leftist/deconstructionist influences from our nation, and we do have laws on the books to do so. Unfortunately, most of our politically elected government has likely been placed into office using the funds of these nefarious actors, so the plot thickens. As one who has recently traveled the nation interacting with the common folk, I can say unequivocally, the “general mass opinion” as stated via the subversive press is largely at odds with the facts on the ground, but they are trying really hard to recruit the masses to do their will.

    How to rectify this situation is obviously of imperative importance to those who believe that the United States founding doctrines are perhaps the best any group of men has ever come up with, as do I. We are the right people, we have the right doctrines, and we will continue to prosper and raise strong families and capable individuals using the same means we have done up to the present day. Shaking off these nefarious actors will simply require a little backbone from the right folks, and these actions will likely be primarily, if not completely contained within metropolitan areas, where these ideologies have perhaps taken hold, if at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. I wasn’t aware of or had forgotten the obvious Lockean connection to the doctrine of “terra nullius” which was only displaced by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (see the Mabo case) gratuitously**recognising native title as having existed before European settlement and only extinguished by some positive acts of the Crown (i.e. the Colonial governments – typically making a Crown grant of freehold). It meant “no one’s land” and is often mistakenly ridiculed as suggesting that the land was uninhabited. But it was a legal or jurisprudential notion and the Lockean connection is clear though I suppose that may have built on Common Law assumptions.

    **”gratuitously” because Eddie Mabo was an islander whose claim of land tenure didn’t apply to the mainland where tribes were nomadic and they didn’t practice horticulture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    Why is 'First Nations' objectionable?

    'Indian' is a misnomer, in that Columbus thought he had reached India, his original destination.
    Since it is difficult to list all the 'Native Americans' by their Nation - Crow, Navajo, Apache, Cherokee,.....- why not 'First Nations' ?
    They were here, on this continent, First: 1,000s of years before Europeans arrived.
    Is it too much to ask?

    Where is the problem?

    Who knows which was first?
    Wikipedia used to say that the Maori colonised New Zealand around the 13th C.
    The Moriori, a red haired, blue eyed,peaceful race then in possession, were destroyed.

    That information appears to have disappeared.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Typical arrested development of an irrational Zionist empty handed name caller.

    I win, again.

    Owning you continues. LOL

    www.forum.codoh.com

    You are a walking testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    IOW, you still can't best me and need to project.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @pyrrhus
    From a technical legal standpoint, we could say that Amerindians acquired title through "adverse possession", which is usually defined as continuous uncontested occupation of real estate for more than 20 years. But that would be inconvenient for the powers that be....

    Which tribe acquired what land and when?
    (There were lotsa tribes across North America)
    How did the constant wars between tribes affect said occupation?
    Who witnessed and can verify said occupation by sworn affidavit (with a Jurat)?
    BTW, adverse possession claims are usually contested in court, a European thing. Quiet title lawsuit by the adverse possessor.
    Doesn’t sound like adverse possession works for this. Too much of a European sourced concept. Cultural anachronism, maybe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. utu says:
    @anon
    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don't even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won't give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn't change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn't really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the "highly civilized western man" that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don't they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven't noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn't really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands "invaded" but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just "get over it". Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just "get over" the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I'll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, "live by the sword, die by the sword" and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can't say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won't change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don't blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    First part of your rant was OK but then it bace typical and predictable. But this

    In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself.

    is clever observation. People are being played all the time so there is no surprise. The question always is by which forces. The answer in case of Trump is pretty clear by now as he shed most of his election platform already and all that is left is: do what Israel wants, spend more on military and the usual Republican business of being good for big business and banking elite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    the fact that my rant was "typical and predictable" has no bearing on whether or not it is valid. The alt-right/right wing always tries to muddy the waters and obfuscate the issue regarding european colonization, but they always fail at hiding the truth of the matter, genocide is genocide is genocide no matter how many different ways you try to parse the matter. The right wing lacks the ability to obscure the truth of the matter due to two factors:

    1.the utter egregiousness of the crime itself

    2.the right wings' barely contained psychopathic joy and swollen pride when discussing the matter of european colonization of the americas

    trump is a judgment on the west and especially on the right wing; the west is turning on itself, and the right wing continues to make boneheaded mistakes (IE voting for trump, participating in the charlottesville rally etc etc). The reason this is happening to is due to the extreme arrogance and pride of the right wing, and by extension the west. If the right wing were not so unrighteous, then it would not experiencing all of these setbacks. The western world was founded on greed, exploitation, demographic replacement and military conquest, and now as you can see; the west will ultimately fall victim to these same forces in a self-inflicted fashion. The west's sword now points inwards. Enjoy :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. The Ice People are further evolved than the Amerindian branches of the Sun People. That explains everything.
    /sarc. off/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Wally says:
    @Anon
    You are a walking testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    IOW, you still can’t best me and need to project.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Typical arrested development of an irrational Zionist empty handed name caller.

    I win, again.

    Owning you continues. LOL

    www.forum.codoh.com

    @wally

    How does it feel that no matter how many internet arguments you (think) you win, you still lose in real life? Everywhere around you is evidence of the fall of the west and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Holocaust deniers (anti-semites?) such as yourself are convinced that whites/the west are just and jews are evil pathological liars, but is this really the case? From what I see, the jews are simply giving everything back to the west that the west has ever done to the rest of the world. In this regards, the jewish concept of tikkun olam makes much more sense; the west has a jewish problem because the west has a karma problem. Only once the west (especially the right wing) tries to repair and atone for the past will it find to key to liberating itself from its heavy jewish yoke. Jews are not intrinsically good or evil, rather they are simply a people that execute the concept of karma in the material world. Had the west not been unrighteous in its actions towards the people in the rest of the world, then the west would not have its current intractable jewish problem.

    Once again I will repeat, jews are not your enemy. They are simply an immovable divine force which execute karma in the real world, once the west (and especially the right wing) does some soul searching and begins to reflect on the immorality of its past actions will the west and the white race finally begin to start the process of healing and racial regeneration. The different races of man are intended to coexist together, not conquer one another. If the white race does not learn this lesson then it will perish in the same way that it caused the extinction of so many other races and cultures.

    Also im legit laughing at an anti-semite such as yourself trying to lecture me when I have observed you shilling trump in the comments section of other articles on this website. You are aware that trump is the biggest pro-zionist president we have ever had right?

    The cognitive dissonance of the right wing is astounding; they want to save their own race but don’t believe in that right for others; they hate jews but rabidly support the most pro-jewish president ever; they dislike blacks but love watching pro-sports etc etc. How do right-wingers even function? They are literally walking contradictions

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Your hippy 'karma' Jew thing is laughable, utterly unhinged.

    I suggest you actually read the posts at www.unz.com, your sleazy Zionists are not doing so well. LOL

    Now here's a typical example of your people:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9aa743ab9b1921a2bcf6c834efadeed4e10bb230189560b5bdf845bbe2bcd5a9.jpg

    You still cannot win the collapsing 'holocau$t' debate, though you have tried in vain:
    http://forum.codoh.com
    search Andrew Mathis and learn

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Quaid says:
    @Wally
    "But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them."

    College freshmen, left wing mandated propaganda easily shot down.

    No, it is not true and you have no proof, or you would have shown it.

    Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.

    I thought for sure that you were going to roll out the dumb 'blankets with small pox' canard.

    Smallpox blanket hoax: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/–did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    Genocide myth: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=12675

    Reject the lie of white “genocide” against Native Americans: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject_the_lie_of_white_genocide_against_native_americans/page/full

    Comanches butchered babies, ate enemies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396760/How-Comanche-Indians-butchered-babies-roasted-enemies-alive.html

    I don’t understand why you’re so bothered by what I wrote, or what you’re trying to argue.

    What I said is contrary to liberal propaganda on this issue. Most of them died through disease that was spread without any real effort on the part of Europeans. It frequently spread in advance of them and at rates that would have been impossible through active intervention. This is contrary to the cartoon image of natives being actively expelled and massacred by Europeans across the Americas. Which did happen at times. But this was not the norm, and altogether the minority of native deaths.

    How did natives even die then? We agree it wasn’t genocide, but you don’t think it was even disease.

    I think I know what happened- you didn’t like the fact I acknowledged there were genocides/massacres against the natives (at times), and this spurned you to assume when I mentioned disease, I meant smallpox blankets (I don’t believe in this.)

    But then you claimed uh….

    “Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans.”

    You know what, I don’t know how to explain that. You’re just a moron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The simple fact is that I challenged you for proof of your infantile 'genocides through disease' assertion, and of course you cannot produce it.

    "Natives" died like all people died / die. What a silly question. LOL

    So, what you are really doing is generally referred to as 'dodging'.

    Because YOU cannot refute my position I'M a moron? Projection, Mr. Dumsky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don't even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won't give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn't change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn't really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the "highly civilized western man" that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don't they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven't noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn't really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands "invaded" but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just "get over it". Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just "get over" the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I'll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, "live by the sword, die by the sword" and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can't say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won't change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don't blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    Thanks for taking the time to write this. You’re unlikely to be engaged above the Wally level, but you may have provoked some clearer thinking among others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. KenH says:
    @anon
    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don't even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won't give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn't change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn't really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the "highly civilized western man" that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don't they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven't noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn't really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands "invaded" but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just "get over it". Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just "get over" the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I'll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, "live by the sword, die by the sword" and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can't say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won't change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don't blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    That’s a long pajama jew boy rant.

    Your example about “Johnny Goodman” murdering the stereotypical white meth addicts exposes you as a Jew who has a subconscious desire to murder white people. Why isn’t Johnny Jew blowing away a black welfare queen with ten illegitimate kids who are mostly criminals and gang bangers? Or maybe an all American white goy can use his glock to rid the world of jewish pornographers and jewish rapists, pederasts and pedophiles who dominate Hollywood? Harvey Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Why don’t you rail against Israeli Jews who gloat about violently displacing the Palestinians and who view them as inferior beings unworthy of dignity and humane treatment? Or of their efforts to create biological weapons that can harm Arabs while leaving chosenites untouched?

    https://www.wired.com/1998/11/israels-ethnic-weapon/

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are.

    So is Israel and the Jewish people. Demography is not on your side and there will come a day when an America that is >50% non-white and impervious to holocaust guilt trips will stop giving Israel billions of dollars annually and refuse to act as its Middle East enforcer and bully boy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story, its another textbook right wing attempt to try to obscure the central argument with lots of crudely done obfuscations. Murdering another person and then stealing their property for their perceived crimes, savagery or baseness does nothing to change the fact that you still committed a murder. Murder is murder and genocide is genocide. The type of morality that you continue to espouse (just murder and appropriation of property) is more or less a level of morality that would literally belong to cave men and the animal kingdom.

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies, which like I said is highly ironic because the right wing always likes to act like western man is so highly evolved, but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is, and he displays none of the values that the right wing likes to pretend that western man stands for, such as things like: a sense of fair play, rationality, honesty, integrity, so on and so forth. The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west; if the west were not so wicked, then it would not be experiencing its cultural and demographic demise at the hands of the jews. Judaism is a culture of critique; since the west refuses to critique itself (and subsequently feel some kind of remorse for its past actions) then the jews will do it for them

    Just FYI, the reason why the US gets continually drained of billions of dollars a year and loses blood and treasure defending israeli interests in the middle east is due to the wickedness of the west. The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest, and now the west is becoming victim to these same concepts. Imagine a glutton eating himself to death; this is the west. Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the "woke" right wing. But guess what? The majority of the right wing is blinded by their pride and arrogance, as a result they are unable to see what is truly going on, meanwhile people like you are aware of what is going on, but nobody will listen to you. In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Avery
    {Maybe, but there is some evidence to the contrary, no matter how much they try to cover it up.}

    OK, what evidence, and who was here before the NA First Nations?.
    I am aware of several hypothesis and possibly some evidence of Europeans and possibly Chinese (?) having 'discovered' North America long before Columbus, but am not aware of any efforts to cover it up. Not saying it is not there: just that it's the first time I hear of such efforts.

    In any case, what I have read is that the prevailing hypothesis is that the First Nations's ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia when the Barents sea was fully iced up 10s, of 1,000s of years ago.

    If you know otherwise, I'd be interested to learn something new.

    Avery, look up “Kennewick Man”. These bones from something like 12,000 years ago were found near/at the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA (1 of the tri-cities with Richland and Pasco) about 10 or more years back. They were determined to be from someone more resembling a Caucasian, and not an Indian. The tribes used a Federal law to get ahold of the bones to prevent more research, cause you know, it might change the story.

    I know this because I was at the UW when the bones were there at this one museum for while at the N. end of campus, and I followed the story.

    Who’s to say who the “original” inhabitants were besides the protozoa and other single-celled creatures? I’m not making a political argument here, just giving you something to check out in reply.

    (There are plenty of political arguments already, and I wish I’d read the article before now. On this Indian business, Ilana seems pretty much out of her league, a nicer phrase than I would normally use, that being “full of shit”. She’s not an American and has not background on this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Joe Hide says:

    I need to use these terms to describe the article; unhelpful, a distraction from solutions, and most of all… boring. It could have provided excellent problem / solution format, but instead chose to rant on about past injustices and how they weren’t okay / were okay. The author has the writing and thinking skills to do really good work if a small cognitive change happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    First part of your rant was OK but then it bace typical and predictable. But this

    In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself.
     
    is clever observation. People are being played all the time so there is no surprise. The question always is by which forces. The answer in case of Trump is pretty clear by now as he shed most of his election platform already and all that is left is: do what Israel wants, spend more on military and the usual Republican business of being good for big business and banking elite.

    the fact that my rant was “typical and predictable” has no bearing on whether or not it is valid. The alt-right/right wing always tries to muddy the waters and obfuscate the issue regarding european colonization, but they always fail at hiding the truth of the matter, genocide is genocide is genocide no matter how many different ways you try to parse the matter. The right wing lacks the ability to obscure the truth of the matter due to two factors:

    1.the utter egregiousness of the crime itself

    2.the right wings’ barely contained psychopathic joy and swollen pride when discussing the matter of european colonization of the americas

    trump is a judgment on the west and especially on the right wing; the west is turning on itself, and the right wing continues to make boneheaded mistakes (IE voting for trump, participating in the charlottesville rally etc etc). The reason this is happening to is due to the extreme arrogance and pride of the right wing, and by extension the west. If the right wing were not so unrighteous, then it would not experiencing all of these setbacks. The western world was founded on greed, exploitation, demographic replacement and military conquest, and now as you can see; the west will ultimately fall victim to these same forces in a self-inflicted fashion. The west’s sword now points inwards. Enjoy :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH
    That's a long pajama jew boy rant.

    Your example about "Johnny Goodman" murdering the stereotypical white meth addicts exposes you as a Jew who has a subconscious desire to murder white people. Why isn't Johnny Jew blowing away a black welfare queen with ten illegitimate kids who are mostly criminals and gang bangers? Or maybe an all American white goy can use his glock to rid the world of jewish pornographers and jewish rapists, pederasts and pedophiles who dominate Hollywood? Harvey Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Why don't you rail against Israeli Jews who gloat about violently displacing the Palestinians and who view them as inferior beings unworthy of dignity and humane treatment? Or of their efforts to create biological weapons that can harm Arabs while leaving chosenites untouched?
    https://www.wired.com/1998/11/israels-ethnic-weapon/


    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are.
     
    So is Israel and the Jewish people. Demography is not on your side and there will come a day when an America that is >50% non-white and impervious to holocaust guilt trips will stop giving Israel billions of dollars annually and refuse to act as its Middle East enforcer and bully boy.

    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story, its another textbook right wing attempt to try to obscure the central argument with lots of crudely done obfuscations. Murdering another person and then stealing their property for their perceived crimes, savagery or baseness does nothing to change the fact that you still committed a murder. Murder is murder and genocide is genocide. The type of morality that you continue to espouse (just murder and appropriation of property) is more or less a level of morality that would literally belong to cave men and the animal kingdom.

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies, which like I said is highly ironic because the right wing always likes to act like western man is so highly evolved, but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is, and he displays none of the values that the right wing likes to pretend that western man stands for, such as things like: a sense of fair play, rationality, honesty, integrity, so on and so forth. The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west; if the west were not so wicked, then it would not be experiencing its cultural and demographic demise at the hands of the jews. Judaism is a culture of critique; since the west refuses to critique itself (and subsequently feel some kind of remorse for its past actions) then the jews will do it for them

    Just FYI, the reason why the US gets continually drained of billions of dollars a year and loses blood and treasure defending israeli interests in the middle east is due to the wickedness of the west. The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest, and now the west is becoming victim to these same concepts. Imagine a glutton eating himself to death; this is the west. Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the “woke” right wing. But guess what? The majority of the right wing is blinded by their pride and arrogance, as a result they are unable to see what is truly going on, meanwhile people like you are aware of what is going on, but nobody will listen to you. In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness

    Read More
    • LOL: Rurik
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Jews are a judgment upon the west
     
    in a way, of course this is true

    were it not for the venality of men like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John McCain, the Jews would be pounding sand

    when the Jews can literally purchase the Pope, like walking into Walmart, or every US Senator with a price tag on their shirts, then things in the West are at a nadir

    nevertheless, there is hope

    for hundreds of years, from the horrors of Moorish Spain, the Jews have been doing all they can to destroy Europa

    and yet she thrives

    http://www.themalaymailonline.com/uploads/articles/2016-09/1809-life-oktoberfest-munich.jpg

    as a mockery of their impotent rage and congenital hate

    increasingly medical advances with genetic screening are going to become more and more popular, and people will select for beautiful, intelligent offspring
    , @KenH

    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story,
     
    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren't hurting anybody but themselves. They aren't raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.

    genocide is genocide is genocide
     
    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There's more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you're probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.

    If someone could guarantee that the white population would increase by 400% after we lose all political power resulting from rapid demographic change then I would welcome political disenfranchisement.

    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren't you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies,
     
    In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.

    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,
     
    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.

    The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism
     
    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it's racial and cultural chauvinism?

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west
     
    Then what are you, an antifa, Daily Kos reading lefty? If yes then you're just an easily manipulated pawn of the jews since they bankroll every aspect of the radical left wing establishment.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn't the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?

    The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest,
     
    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn't motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930's and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?

    Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the “woke” right wing.
     
    As does the vast majority of the left wing just to an ever so slightly lesser degree.

    In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness
     
    And where will you be when all of this happens? In Israel or in a spaceship watching it all unfold?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Avery says:
    @anon
    The comments section of this article pretty much shows why the alt-right/right wing platform fails to gain much traction amongst large swathes of the population. Let me boil down their arguments really simply:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don't even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won't give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    2.The indians had it coming to them, they were savages anyways. Although this doesn't change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them, somehow the fact that the indians were savages and guilty of internecine strife somehow makes it OK for european settlers to genocide the indians. I guess when indians are guilty of internecine strife they become savages, but when europeans do it (all of european history but especially world war 1 and world war 2) they are somehow not savages by that same standard. Ok, makes perfect sense.

    Either way, right-wing apologetics for european colonialism always like to trot out the awfulness of the victimized indigenous population as somehow justifying the indigenous population being genocided and colonized. However this logic doesn't really hold up in any other situation and I will explain so below with a simple analogy:

    Trailer trash betty sue and her common law husband jim bob are both meth addicts, welfare abusers and beat their kids; then one day the morally impeccable and outstanding citizen Johnny Goodman shows up with his trusty glock and completely annihilates betty sue, jim bob and their spawn; afterwards he demolishes their trailer, builds a fancy, affluent new condominium on top of it and lives happily ever after.

    Clearly, regardless of how bad of people betty sue and jim bob are; they and their kids do not deserve to be killed and have their property unjustly appropriated; so do pray tell me how this analogy is any different than the apologetic arguments frequently trotted out by right wing commenters? If you answer in the affirmative that the indians, as well as betty sue and jim bob had it coming to them, then you clearly think of yourself above the law, and as such are hardly the "highly civilized western man" that you think of yourself as, and are much more closer to an animal lacking any kind of moral or ethical sentience. I find it hilarious how the alt-right/right wing always try to pass themselves off as highly advanced, superior, paragons of morality and civilization, yet when you logically examine their beliefs and arguments, you can see that actually they are just boorish, selfish, arrogant, and heartless hypocrites

    3.We have no problems taking credit for all the scientific innovations and advancements that western civilization has achieved, yet whenever anything negative comes up (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) we always try to dodge, obfuscate and explain away the matter (usually with tenuous and tortured logic as well as lots of double standards). If the alt-right/right wing were really so morally superior and advanced, then why don't they act like mature adults and take responsibility for both the glorious AND shameful parts of the history of western civilization? If the right wing had any integrity then they would be able to own up to the atrocious history of the west as easily as they try to take credit for all the positive accomplishments of the west. The fact that the right wing is unwilling to do this shows the essential weakness, moral fallibility and hypocritical nature of the character of the right wing

    I also find it hilarious how numerous commenters on this article have said something to the effect of they haven't noticed that conservatism inc beats up on native americans. In my opinion, this is partially true, conservatism inc doesn't really address native americans for the most part, however the conservative rank and file have no problem denigrating and despising native americans, and this can be seen throughout the comments for this article. This doesnt surprise me though, the right wing has no problems with kicking a man (or a people) while they are down.

    The entire western world is being deluged with multiculturalism and mass immigration; yet I can hardly shed a tear. The west is merely reaping what it has sown. Funny how the right wing whines non-stop about having their heritage destroyed and their lands "invaded" but when it comes to the native americans, all the sudden the right wing says that the native americans should just "get over it". Thats funny, well I hope the right wing can just "get over" the fact that the west is being deluged under a tide of color. Just a reminder folks; the alt-right/right wing unironically expects people to take them and their anti-immigration platform seriously while the right wing has no problem pissing on the memory of the (unfairly) vanquished native americans who were the original victims of mass immigration. LOL. Why does the right wing expect anyone to give their views sympathy when the right wing itself is so niggardly about giving sympathy to anyone else? #rightwinglogic

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There's not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I'll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, "live by the sword, die by the sword" and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can't say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won't change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don't blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    You make some good points and I agree with many. But then you go off on a tangent and start blaming ‘whites’ (I take that to mean peoples of European stock) as all evil.

    To wit:

    { Although this doesn’t change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them,  }
    { european settlers to genocide the indians }
    { the indigenous population being genocided and colonized }
    { (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) }

    First of all there was no, quote ‘genocide’ of native peoples of North America by European settlers.
    I know these days it is fashionable to throw the word ‘genocide’ around like candy.
    Every crime or tragedy is a ‘genocide’: sure it is.

    The word ‘genocide’, which was coined by Prof Lemkin (a Polish Jew) shortly after WW2, has very specific meaning and applicability. It does _not_ mean crimes against humanity, war crimes, massacres, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, etc. It has to have what is called Dolus Specialis, or specific intent. Meaning, the perpetrator had the specific intent to exterminate the given ethnos: geno-cide.

    By no stretch can the word be aplied to NA.
    European settlers thought they had landed on empty lands.
    They didn’t come here with the intent to exterminate anyone.
    Yes, they were obviously aware that there were peoples living here before them, but the land was sparsely populated and there were no or few permanent structures. Yes, there were massacres, forced relocation and such. Yes, treaties were broken, natives were manipulated, betrayed and sometimes exploited. But there was no genocide. Most natives (70%-80%) died as an unintended consequence of Europeans’ arrival, i.e. communicable diseases that Europeans were immune to and natives weren’t.

    The fact that a given people largely disappear or are greatly reduced in numbers does not necessarily mean they were ‘genocided’ (sic). Black Death, which was inadvertently brought to Europe from Asia, wiped out up to 60% of Europe’s population. So did Asians commit ‘genocide’ of Europeans?

    Anasasi people largely ‘disappeared’ from their original place of habitat around 1,200A.D., long before Europeans showed up around 1,500 on the East coast. There are different explanations as to why the Anasasi ‘disappeared’: (a) there was a prolonged drought and some died off and rest moved away to other places; (b) they didn’t ‘disappear’, rather their descendants live today as Rio Grande Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni Indians.

    I will address your belief that ‘whites’ (or the West) and only ‘whites’ are all evil with no redeeming qualities in part 2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There’s not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I’ll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can’t say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won’t change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don’t blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself
     
    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time

    Secondly, you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics. Do you really think this kind of argument holds water? But that being said, lets just take your "accidental genocide not really genocide" argument into consideration; assuming this is true, then why did this pattern of colonization (which in all fairness did not culminate in genocide) occur in africa, india and asia as well? You are trying to paint the european settlers are neutral parties, but the modern history of the world clearly shows that europeans had a malefic and exploitive intent towards other sovereign populations which cannot simply be handwaved away; it is clearly self evident. You are obviously trying to square the circle, but it doesn't work. Your attempt at rationalizing what happened does not change what actually happened.
    , @Avery
    Part2

    The Mongol Empire stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Danube River on the Eurasian continent. It was the largest empire in history. During its 360 history (1206–1368 ) and its conquests the Mongol empire killed unbelievably huge numbers of people. Estimates rage from a low of ~20 million to a high of ~40 million. Considering the world* population around that time was estimated at ~450 million, 20-40 million killed is truly beyond comprehension.


    (European) Romans also killed a lot of people during their conquests, but they left as their legacy roads that last to this day, magnificent buildings, aquaducts, development of cement, civic structures (the Senate) and much more.
    What did (Asiatic) Mongols leave as their legacy to the world? Nothing but death and destrcution.

    Imperial Japan conquered and subjugated most of East Asia, killing and enslaving millions of their fellow Asians. Koreans suffered the longest and worst. Young women and girls from Korea, Philippins and other conquered territories were forced into sexual slavery to service the Imperial Japanese military.

    So how is it that 'The west is merely reaping what it has sown' does not work in Asia that you so gleefully point out for the West?
    How is it that Japan is _not_ being flooded with people from the lands they conquered, subjugated, enslaved, murdered and killed? Japan will simply not allow any large numbers of Koreans, or Chinese, or Filipinos or other 'lesser' Asians to immigrate into Japan. Unlike Europeans and North Americans.

    Finally:

    Several centuries ago, warlike nomadic Turkic (Asiatic) tribes from East and Centrla Asia started moving West, through Iran, Caucasus, and Asia Minor, finally being stopped at the Gates of Vienna.
    On their way they destroyed, burnt, looted, raped, murdered, massacred, forcibly Islamized and Turkified those whom they had not massacred. Asia Minor, home to creative, sedentary, indigenous civilizations – Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks – was completely denuded by the Turkic plague. The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe 'genocides' you trot out. And I am not aware of any Western country that denies what they have done to the natives, including here in the US: and the West made and makes amends as much as is practically possible.

    Japan to this day denies the crimes of Imperial Japan, or dances around them using euphemisms to explain away their war crimes.

    So........Any redeming qualities to those eeeeeevil 'white' peoples, including those who settled North America? I don't know: let's take a loook.
    Pretty much everything in this modern world was created, invented, developed,....by European-stock peoples.

    Internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, jet engine, air travel, laser, LED, cell phone, GPS, integrated circuit, microprocessor, computer,.....calculus,...antibiotics,....refining oil, manufacture of plastics,......

    Have a nice day.
    _____________________________________________________

    * I am guessing when they say 'world' they mean mainly Eurasia, since both Americas and Africa were undiscovered/unexplored and there were no records of populations in those continents in those years.

    ** Lemkin coined the new word 'genocide' largely on his study of the Armenian genocide and the genocide of Jews. Note: it is unfortunate that Slavic peoples do not publicize the fact the Nazis fully intended and planned to extemiante them, and very nearly succeeded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rurik says:
    @anon
    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story, its another textbook right wing attempt to try to obscure the central argument with lots of crudely done obfuscations. Murdering another person and then stealing their property for their perceived crimes, savagery or baseness does nothing to change the fact that you still committed a murder. Murder is murder and genocide is genocide. The type of morality that you continue to espouse (just murder and appropriation of property) is more or less a level of morality that would literally belong to cave men and the animal kingdom.

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies, which like I said is highly ironic because the right wing always likes to act like western man is so highly evolved, but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is, and he displays none of the values that the right wing likes to pretend that western man stands for, such as things like: a sense of fair play, rationality, honesty, integrity, so on and so forth. The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west; if the west were not so wicked, then it would not be experiencing its cultural and demographic demise at the hands of the jews. Judaism is a culture of critique; since the west refuses to critique itself (and subsequently feel some kind of remorse for its past actions) then the jews will do it for them

    Just FYI, the reason why the US gets continually drained of billions of dollars a year and loses blood and treasure defending israeli interests in the middle east is due to the wickedness of the west. The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest, and now the west is becoming victim to these same concepts. Imagine a glutton eating himself to death; this is the west. Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the "woke" right wing. But guess what? The majority of the right wing is blinded by their pride and arrogance, as a result they are unable to see what is truly going on, meanwhile people like you are aware of what is going on, but nobody will listen to you. In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness

    Jews are a judgment upon the west

    in a way, of course this is true

    were it not for the venality of men like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John McCain, the Jews would be pounding sand

    when the Jews can literally purchase the Pope, like walking into Walmart, or every US Senator with a price tag on their shirts, then things in the West are at a nadir

    nevertheless, there is hope

    for hundreds of years, from the horrors of Moorish Spain, the Jews have been doing all they can to destroy Europa

    and yet she thrives

    as a mockery of their impotent rage and congenital hate

    increasingly medical advances with genetic screening are going to become more and more popular, and people will select for beautiful, intelligent offspring

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    europes thrives...are you saying this to convince me or yourself? From what I can see, immigration and the appearance of non-white faces continues unabated in america, I cannot speak for the rest of the west, but I strongly suspect that the situation is no different.

    I get the strong impression from your comment that you don't really have much to say; "cornered" would probably be a good term for it. Your comment is heavy on emotive imagery and words but light on factual arguments or realistic considerations

    Just FYI, when (not if) genetic screening and genetic engineering becomes mainstream; racial nationalists will completely lose all support. If the entire genomes of the different races of man can be completely preserved in tiny test tubes; then this will completely destroy any remaining rationale that the right wing has for border control and racial preservation. In a scientific sense; the white race will be able to survive into perpetuity, but in a practical sense, the west will probably continue to transition into one, big mish mash of colors and races. Think hard about that ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Wally says: • Website
    @Quaid
    I don't understand why you're so bothered by what I wrote, or what you're trying to argue.

    What I said is contrary to liberal propaganda on this issue. Most of them died through disease that was spread without any real effort on the part of Europeans. It frequently spread in advance of them and at rates that would have been impossible through active intervention. This is contrary to the cartoon image of natives being actively expelled and massacred by Europeans across the Americas. Which did happen at times. But this was not the norm, and altogether the minority of native deaths.

    How did natives even die then? We agree it wasn't genocide, but you don't think it was even disease.

    I think I know what happened- you didn't like the fact I acknowledged there were genocides/massacres against the natives (at times), and this spurned you to assume when I mentioned disease, I meant smallpox blankets (I don't believe in this.)

    But then you claimed uh....

    "Any plagues would have also decimated Europeans, Europeans lack of resistance to Indian diseases would have also decimated Europeans."

    You know what, I don't know how to explain that. You're just a moron.

    The simple fact is that I challenged you for proof of your infantile ‘genocides through disease’ assertion, and of course you cannot produce it.

    “Natives” died like all people died / die. What a silly question. LOL

    So, what you are really doing is generally referred to as ‘dodging’.

    Because YOU cannot refute my position I’M a moron? Projection, Mr. Dumsky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It's been explained to you why you're wrong. You refuse to even address a coherent argument against you. It seems like you're only here to abuse people under cover of anonymity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Wally says: • Website
    @anon
    @wally

    How does it feel that no matter how many internet arguments you (think) you win, you still lose in real life? Everywhere around you is evidence of the fall of the west and there is nothing you can do about it.

    Holocaust deniers (anti-semites?) such as yourself are convinced that whites/the west are just and jews are evil pathological liars, but is this really the case? From what I see, the jews are simply giving everything back to the west that the west has ever done to the rest of the world. In this regards, the jewish concept of tikkun olam makes much more sense; the west has a jewish problem because the west has a karma problem. Only once the west (especially the right wing) tries to repair and atone for the past will it find to key to liberating itself from its heavy jewish yoke. Jews are not intrinsically good or evil, rather they are simply a people that execute the concept of karma in the material world. Had the west not been unrighteous in its actions towards the people in the rest of the world, then the west would not have its current intractable jewish problem.

    Once again I will repeat, jews are not your enemy. They are simply an immovable divine force which execute karma in the real world, once the west (and especially the right wing) does some soul searching and begins to reflect on the immorality of its past actions will the west and the white race finally begin to start the process of healing and racial regeneration. The different races of man are intended to coexist together, not conquer one another. If the white race does not learn this lesson then it will perish in the same way that it caused the extinction of so many other races and cultures.

    Also im legit laughing at an anti-semite such as yourself trying to lecture me when I have observed you shilling trump in the comments section of other articles on this website. You are aware that trump is the biggest pro-zionist president we have ever had right?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5Je73bYOY

    The cognitive dissonance of the right wing is astounding; they want to save their own race but don't believe in that right for others; they hate jews but rabidly support the most pro-jewish president ever; they dislike blacks but love watching pro-sports etc etc. How do right-wingers even function? They are literally walking contradictions

    Your hippy ‘karma’ Jew thing is laughable, utterly unhinged.

    I suggest you actually read the posts at http://www.unz.com, your sleazy Zionists are not doing so well. LOL

    Now here’s a typical example of your people:

    [MORE]

    You still cannot win the collapsing ‘holocau$t’ debate, though you have tried in vain:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    search Andrew Mathis and learn

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. bomag says:
    @Avery
    {There are African – Middle East – Asian peoples with a whole lot more claim on being “first nations”.}

    'First Nations' as used in this context is understood to mean North America, not the world.

    You parsed away “Indian” and “Native American”, but you can just as well parse away “First Nations” being as the extant tribes were almost never the first to live in the areas they claim; and they don’t much fall under the definition of nation.

    It strikes me as modern euphemistic sloganeering .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    You make some good points and I agree with many. But then you go off on a tangent and start blaming 'whites' (I take that to mean peoples of European stock) as all evil.

    To wit:

    { Although this doesn’t change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them,  }
    { european settlers to genocide the indians }
    { the indigenous population being genocided and colonized }
    { (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) }

    First of all there was no, quote 'genocide' of native peoples of North America by European settlers.
    I know these days it is fashionable to throw the word 'genocide' around like candy.
    Every crime or tragedy is a 'genocide': sure it is.

    The word 'genocide', which was coined by Prof Lemkin (a Polish Jew) shortly after WW2, has very specific meaning and applicability. It does _not_ mean crimes against humanity, war crimes, massacres, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, etc. It has to have what is called Dolus Specialis, or specific intent. Meaning, the perpetrator had the specific intent to exterminate the given ethnos: geno-cide.

    By no stretch can the word be aplied to NA.
    European settlers thought they had landed on empty lands.
    They didn't come here with the intent to exterminate anyone.
    Yes, they were obviously aware that there were peoples living here before them, but the land was sparsely populated and there were no or few permanent structures. Yes, there were massacres, forced relocation and such. Yes, treaties were broken, natives were manipulated, betrayed and sometimes exploited. But there was no genocide. Most natives (70%-80%) died as an unintended consequence of Europeans' arrival, i.e. communicable diseases that Europeans were immune to and natives weren't.

    The fact that a given people largely disappear or are greatly reduced in numbers does not necessarily mean they were 'genocided' (sic). Black Death, which was inadvertently brought to Europe from Asia, wiped out up to 60% of Europe's population. So did Asians commit 'genocide' of Europeans?

    Anasasi people largely 'disappeared' from their original place of habitat around 1,200A.D., long before Europeans showed up around 1,500 on the East coast. There are different explanations as to why the Anasasi 'disappeared': (a) there was a prolonged drought and some died off and rest moved away to other places; (b) they didn't 'disappear', rather their descendants live today as Rio Grande Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni Indians.

    I will address your belief that 'whites' (or the West) and only 'whites' are all evil with no redeeming qualities in part 2.

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There’s not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I’ll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can’t say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won’t change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don’t blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself

    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time

    Secondly, you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics. Do you really think this kind of argument holds water? But that being said, lets just take your “accidental genocide not really genocide” argument into consideration; assuming this is true, then why did this pattern of colonization (which in all fairness did not culminate in genocide) occur in africa, india and asia as well? You are trying to paint the european settlers are neutral parties, but the modern history of the world clearly shows that europeans had a malefic and exploitive intent towards other sovereign populations which cannot simply be handwaved away; it is clearly self evident. You are obviously trying to square the circle, but it doesn’t work. Your attempt at rationalizing what happened does not change what actually happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    the west in its present form is finished.
     
    Mostly we are lectured on the glorious good times that are being bestowed upon us by the multicult and immigrants; they are going to be much better citizens than what came before!

    You have broken from the progressive hive mind; broached honesty; and related that it is all in service to punishment for past crimes and taking advantage of current mistakes. Well done.
    , @Avery
    {... you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics.}

    Nope: genocide is a deliberate act.

    When someone is murdered, he ends up dead.
    When someone gets inadvertently infected by one person who is immune to the given disease but the victim has weakened immune system and doctors cannot save him, he also ends up dead.
    In the first case a crime was committed and the murderer is punished.
    In the second case, no crime was committed: possibly civil liability, but no crime.

    { But that being said, lets just take your “accidental genocide not really genocide” argument}


    There is no such thing as 'accidental genocide', so there is no argument to take into consideration. Your attempt to make something that happened into something else does not change what actually happened,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    The simple fact is that I challenged you for proof of your infantile 'genocides through disease' assertion, and of course you cannot produce it.

    "Natives" died like all people died / die. What a silly question. LOL

    So, what you are really doing is generally referred to as 'dodging'.

    Because YOU cannot refute my position I'M a moron? Projection, Mr. Dumsky.

    It’s been explained to you why you’re wrong. You refuse to even address a coherent argument against you. It seems like you’re only here to abuse people under cover of anonymity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik

    Jews are a judgment upon the west
     
    in a way, of course this is true

    were it not for the venality of men like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John McCain, the Jews would be pounding sand

    when the Jews can literally purchase the Pope, like walking into Walmart, or every US Senator with a price tag on their shirts, then things in the West are at a nadir

    nevertheless, there is hope

    for hundreds of years, from the horrors of Moorish Spain, the Jews have been doing all they can to destroy Europa

    and yet she thrives

    http://www.themalaymailonline.com/uploads/articles/2016-09/1809-life-oktoberfest-munich.jpg

    as a mockery of their impotent rage and congenital hate

    increasingly medical advances with genetic screening are going to become more and more popular, and people will select for beautiful, intelligent offspring

    europes thrives…are you saying this to convince me or yourself? From what I can see, immigration and the appearance of non-white faces continues unabated in america, I cannot speak for the rest of the west, but I strongly suspect that the situation is no different.

    I get the strong impression from your comment that you don’t really have much to say; “cornered” would probably be a good term for it. Your comment is heavy on emotive imagery and words but light on factual arguments or realistic considerations

    Just FYI, when (not if) genetic screening and genetic engineering becomes mainstream; racial nationalists will completely lose all support. If the entire genomes of the different races of man can be completely preserved in tiny test tubes; then this will completely destroy any remaining rationale that the right wing has for border control and racial preservation. In a scientific sense; the white race will be able to survive into perpetuity, but in a practical sense, the west will probably continue to transition into one, big mish mash of colors and races. Think hard about that ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the west will probably continue to transition into one, big mish mash of colors and races
     
    nope

    the reverse will obviously happen

    here's Brazil's top model

    http://i.forbesimg.com/media/lists/people/gisele-bundchen_416x416.jpg

    Mexico

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/_iQgXoW4qzaQ/S479kBIhljI/AAAAAAAAAns/EgA5Ukt1Uu8/s1920/mariana003.jpg

    Israel (Esti Ginzburg- can't get more shiksa-looking than that!)

    http://www.israel21c.org/wp-content/uploads/stories/culture/models/esti-ginzburg.jpg

    and it's the same with males, when selected for brains and looks, the trends always favor the Nordic-looking

    when women are picking what their child will look like, there's a definite trend

    http://www.co-parentmatch.com/UserFiles/Mother.jpg

    I'm not saying it's exclusionary, but the trends are unmistakable

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. KenH says:
    @anon
    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story, its another textbook right wing attempt to try to obscure the central argument with lots of crudely done obfuscations. Murdering another person and then stealing their property for their perceived crimes, savagery or baseness does nothing to change the fact that you still committed a murder. Murder is murder and genocide is genocide. The type of morality that you continue to espouse (just murder and appropriation of property) is more or less a level of morality that would literally belong to cave men and the animal kingdom.

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies, which like I said is highly ironic because the right wing always likes to act like western man is so highly evolved, but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is, and he displays none of the values that the right wing likes to pretend that western man stands for, such as things like: a sense of fair play, rationality, honesty, integrity, so on and so forth. The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west; if the west were not so wicked, then it would not be experiencing its cultural and demographic demise at the hands of the jews. Judaism is a culture of critique; since the west refuses to critique itself (and subsequently feel some kind of remorse for its past actions) then the jews will do it for them

    Just FYI, the reason why the US gets continually drained of billions of dollars a year and loses blood and treasure defending israeli interests in the middle east is due to the wickedness of the west. The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest, and now the west is becoming victim to these same concepts. Imagine a glutton eating himself to death; this is the west. Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the "woke" right wing. But guess what? The majority of the right wing is blinded by their pride and arrogance, as a result they are unable to see what is truly going on, meanwhile people like you are aware of what is going on, but nobody will listen to you. In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness

    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story,

    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren’t hurting anybody but themselves. They aren’t raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.

    genocide is genocide is genocide

    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.

    If someone could guarantee that the white population would increase by 400% after we lose all political power resulting from rapid demographic change then I would welcome political disenfranchisement.

    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren’t you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies,

    In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.

    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,

    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.

    The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism

    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it’s racial and cultural chauvinism?

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west

    Then what are you, an antifa, Daily Kos reading lefty? If yes then you’re just an easily manipulated pawn of the jews since they bankroll every aspect of the radical left wing establishment.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn’t the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?

    The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest,

    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn’t motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930′s and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?

    Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the “woke” right wing.

    As does the vast majority of the left wing just to an ever so slightly lesser degree.

    In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness

    And where will you be when all of this happens? In Israel or in a spaceship watching it all unfold?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren’t hurting anybody but themselves. They aren’t raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.
     
    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them. As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible. Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory. Makes perfect sense. Europeans would do the same if native americans suddenly showed up in europe and started trying to encroach on traditionally european territory at that time. However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards. White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about "indians doing it to each other!", and then subsequently trying to gain cheap moral high ground by invoking minorities with: "indians hurting non-whites too!", shows that you are also aware of how tenuous your own position is. Just to thoroughly demolish this particular argument, let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

    "During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: "well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn't matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view"

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.


    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.
     
    You made a crucial mistake by including this particular argument. You are aware that by this logic, there is no "white genocide" as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world

    And in the year 1900 there were approximately 400 million white people in the world according to this stormfront forum post:


    I should add that in 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion, of which 25% was European (400 million), and at that time Europe was essentially 99% white. Africa's population by comparison was only 118 million. In the 111 years since then Europe's population has growth by 89%, and Africa's by * 750% *
     
    https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t798477/

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.

    As for your claim that there was no native american genocide, well I dont even know what to tell you. Your claim is that ridiculous. I guess the european settlers showed up and then the native americans and their culture suddenly disappeared without any correlation at all huh? Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide when it is apparent that similar policies were being carried out by europeans during this time period as well. Your own history books, and the writings of innumerable western men themselves incriminate you and prove that what you are trying to say is bullshit.


    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren’t you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?
     
    genocide is absolutely genocide. The topic of this particular article has nothing to do with the various genocides that you brought up, that is why they are unimportant in the present context. I know this and you know this, but you are deliberately attempting to muddy the waters by bringing up other genocides throughout history so that you can try to deflect blame off of the genocides committed by the europeans in america. The fact that you bring up the topic of other genocides in order to deflect off the genocide committed by the europeans in america strongly suggests that you yourself don't really have a good argument to debunk the fact european colonists actually did genocide the native americans.

    Also FYI, I never made the claim that the conquest of north america by europeans was the most monstrous crime in all of world history; rather I am discussing the culpability regarding this particular crime because it is related to the topic of the article itself. You obviously lack the ability to understand context. That being said, since you brought up the topic of the most monstrous crime in all of world history; I think that the european conquests of the americas, india, africa, numerous parts of asia and australia as well would probably qualify quite well for the most monstrous crime in all of world history. Its quite a feat to cause that much destruction around the world, does anybody debate that this actually happened? So yeah, I would say that the european imperialists ravaging the entire world would definitely qualify for one of the most monstrous crimes in history. Instead of you trying to deflect the whole situation, why dont you own up to it instead? Show some integrity bud



    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies
     
    In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.
     
    I would say that the right wing does largely lack morality and ethics. Any neutral party reading everything you just wrote would probably come to the same conclusion. Just a reminder, you are trying to make the argument that the concept of sovereign nations and property does not exist, and that if whites are inclined to take something then they should be allowed to, and if the natives resist in any way then the natives are the guilty ones not the whites. This is equivalent to a robber coming into a home, trying to rob, rape and kill everyone in there, then the homeowners resist (unsuccessfully) and finally the homeowners get framed as the ones who had really committed a crime in the first place. This is yours (and the right wing's) twisted morality on display for everyone to see, you cannot logically debate that I have twisted your argument, because this is exactly what you are saying. If the situation was reversed and it was europe who was being encroached on by native american settlers then you would absolutely celebrate native europeans as heroes for trying to fight off the encroaching native americans. So tell me this, if native europeans have the right to try to expel hypothetical native american settlers off european lands, then why dont native americans have the same rights? If you can't honestly answer this then that makes you a hypocrite. So much for your "morality"


    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,
     
    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.
     
    wrong. I don't have to do anything to destroy the alt-right/right wing; they will do it to themselves, and they are presently doing it to themselves. All I have to do is sit back and watch them self-destruct. The right wing is its own worst enemy.

    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it’s racial and cultural chauvinism?
     

    Wrong, I have been on the alt-right scene for a long time. White nationalist and pro-white whites only want to end imperialistic wars that don't directly benefit white people themselves (IE booty or living space). If suddenly there was the political will for western nations to invade africa, genocide all the natives and then repopulate the place with white people then the MAJORITY of white nationalists/pro-white whites would be for it. I have seen white nationalist voice this and similar sentiments too many times for it to be a coincidence. Furthermore, I know that most white nationalists would support this because literally without exaggerating nearly 100% of white nationalists are completely sanguine and extremely proud about european colonial history. The fact that nearly all white nationalists are proud about european colonial history betrays the true motives of white nationalists. If they are proud about something that happened in the past, this strongly suggests that they would be openminded to doing something similar in the future as well. White nationalists like to give lip-service to the idea of leaving other people alone and respecting sovereign nations, but underneath that, there is a strong undercurrent of desiring to revive white supremacy and the white colonization of the world. You can lie and deny all you want, but everyone reading this knows that this is the dirty little secret of the alt-right.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn’t the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?
     
    Jews specifically are the executors of karma in the material world. I never made the claim that everyone who experiences something bad is experiencing negative karma. The west had a chance to deal with indigenous people in a humane and fair way; they chose not to, and now they will deal with the consequences. Enjoy your just deserts

    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn’t motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930′s and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?
     
    Once again you are deflecting. The fact that these other things may have been based on greed and military conquest does not suddenly let the west off the hook. If you were to commit a murder, just because there are other murderers out there doesn't suddenly mean that you're not guilty. Do you understand how this works? Stop trying to deflect and change the subject; its obvious that you have no good answer for the FACT that the west was built on greed and military conquest, so because you dont have a good answer for that, you just try to deflect and bring up other things as well in the hopes that I won't notice
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Rurik says:
    @anon
    europes thrives...are you saying this to convince me or yourself? From what I can see, immigration and the appearance of non-white faces continues unabated in america, I cannot speak for the rest of the west, but I strongly suspect that the situation is no different.

    I get the strong impression from your comment that you don't really have much to say; "cornered" would probably be a good term for it. Your comment is heavy on emotive imagery and words but light on factual arguments or realistic considerations

    Just FYI, when (not if) genetic screening and genetic engineering becomes mainstream; racial nationalists will completely lose all support. If the entire genomes of the different races of man can be completely preserved in tiny test tubes; then this will completely destroy any remaining rationale that the right wing has for border control and racial preservation. In a scientific sense; the white race will be able to survive into perpetuity, but in a practical sense, the west will probably continue to transition into one, big mish mash of colors and races. Think hard about that ;)

    the west will probably continue to transition into one, big mish mash of colors and races

    nope

    the reverse will obviously happen

    here’s Brazil’s top model

    Mexico

    Israel (Esti Ginzburg- can’t get more shiksa-looking than that!)

    and it’s the same with males, when selected for brains and looks, the trends always favor the Nordic-looking

    when women are picking what their child will look like, there’s a definite trend

    I’m not saying it’s exclusionary, but the trends are unmistakable

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Rurik says:

    Israel (Esti Ginzburg- can’t get more shiksa-looking than that!)

    half curious, I checked this girl out a bit further, and see she “was briefly a co-host on the Israeli reality singing competition show, HaKokhav HaBa, but was soon replaced by Rotem Sela.’

    I was wrong! It is possible to be even more Nordic, goyisha looking

    Rotem Sela

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. I haven’t seen this flood of Indian bashing that Ilana Mercer refers to. What I have seen over the past 10 years is that Columbus Day, which used to be a minor holiday where we celebrated the discovery of the New World by people of European descent like ourselves, has become Hate Whitey Day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. bomag says:
    @anon

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There’s not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I’ll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can’t say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won’t change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don’t blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself
     
    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time

    Secondly, you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics. Do you really think this kind of argument holds water? But that being said, lets just take your "accidental genocide not really genocide" argument into consideration; assuming this is true, then why did this pattern of colonization (which in all fairness did not culminate in genocide) occur in africa, india and asia as well? You are trying to paint the european settlers are neutral parties, but the modern history of the world clearly shows that europeans had a malefic and exploitive intent towards other sovereign populations which cannot simply be handwaved away; it is clearly self evident. You are obviously trying to square the circle, but it doesn't work. Your attempt at rationalizing what happened does not change what actually happened.

    the west in its present form is finished.

    Mostly we are lectured on the glorious good times that are being bestowed upon us by the multicult and immigrants; they are going to be much better citizens than what came before!

    You have broken from the progressive hive mind; broached honesty; and related that it is all in service to punishment for past crimes and taking advantage of current mistakes. Well done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    your attempt to neutralize my analogy about johnny goodman does nothing to change the essential dynamics of the story,
     
    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren't hurting anybody but themselves. They aren't raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.

    genocide is genocide is genocide
     
    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There's more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you're probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.

    If someone could guarantee that the white population would increase by 400% after we lose all political power resulting from rapid demographic change then I would welcome political disenfranchisement.

    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren't you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies,
     
    In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.

    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,
     
    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.

    The right wing always has pretensions of morality, but its a thin, shoddy veneer for their true nature, which is greed, arrogance and extreme racial and cultural chauvinism
     
    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it's racial and cultural chauvinism?

    I am not a jew, but nice try? Jews are a judgment upon the west
     
    Then what are you, an antifa, Daily Kos reading lefty? If yes then you're just an easily manipulated pawn of the jews since they bankroll every aspect of the radical left wing establishment.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn't the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?

    The modern west was founded on greed and military conquest,
     
    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn't motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930's and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?

    Also remember that the vast majority of the right wing SUPPORTS ISRAEL, you only represent a tiny fraction of the “woke” right wing.
     
    As does the vast majority of the left wing just to an ever so slightly lesser degree.

    In the same way that the west rendered the indigenous people powerless, you too will be made to feel the agony of powerlessness
     
    And where will you be when all of this happens? In Israel or in a spaceship watching it all unfold?

    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren’t hurting anybody but themselves. They aren’t raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.

    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them. As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible. Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory. Makes perfect sense. Europeans would do the same if native americans suddenly showed up in europe and started trying to encroach on traditionally european territory at that time. However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards. White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about “indians doing it to each other!”, and then subsequently trying to gain cheap moral high ground by invoking minorities with: “indians hurting non-whites too!”, shows that you are also aware of how tenuous your own position is. Just to thoroughly demolish this particular argument, let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

    “During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: “well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn’t matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view”

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.

    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.

    You made a crucial mistake by including this particular argument. You are aware that by this logic, there is no “white genocide” as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world

    And in the year 1900 there were approximately 400 million white people in the world according to this stormfront forum post:

    I should add that in 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion, of which 25% was European (400 million), and at that time Europe was essentially 99% white. Africa’s population by comparison was only 118 million. In the 111 years since then Europe’s population has growth by 89%, and Africa’s by * 750% *

    https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t798477/

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.

    As for your claim that there was no native american genocide, well I dont even know what to tell you. Your claim is that ridiculous. I guess the european settlers showed up and then the native americans and their culture suddenly disappeared without any correlation at all huh? Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide when it is apparent that similar policies were being carried out by europeans during this time period as well. Your own history books, and the writings of innumerable western men themselves incriminate you and prove that what you are trying to say is bullshit.

    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren’t you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?

    genocide is absolutely genocide. The topic of this particular article has nothing to do with the various genocides that you brought up, that is why they are unimportant in the present context. I know this and you know this, but you are deliberately attempting to muddy the waters by bringing up other genocides throughout history so that you can try to deflect blame off of the genocides committed by the europeans in america. The fact that you bring up the topic of other genocides in order to deflect off the genocide committed by the europeans in america strongly suggests that you yourself don’t really have a good argument to debunk the fact european colonists actually did genocide the native americans.

    Also FYI, I never made the claim that the conquest of north america by europeans was the most monstrous crime in all of world history; rather I am discussing the culpability regarding this particular crime because it is related to the topic of the article itself. You obviously lack the ability to understand context. That being said, since you brought up the topic of the most monstrous crime in all of world history; I think that the european conquests of the americas, india, africa, numerous parts of asia and australia as well would probably qualify quite well for the most monstrous crime in all of world history. Its quite a feat to cause that much destruction around the world, does anybody debate that this actually happened? So yeah, I would say that the european imperialists ravaging the entire world would definitely qualify for one of the most monstrous crimes in history. Instead of you trying to deflect the whole situation, why dont you own up to it instead? Show some integrity bud

    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies

    In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.

    I would say that the right wing does largely lack morality and ethics. Any neutral party reading everything you just wrote would probably come to the same conclusion. Just a reminder, you are trying to make the argument that the concept of sovereign nations and property does not exist, and that if whites are inclined to take something then they should be allowed to, and if the natives resist in any way then the natives are the guilty ones not the whites. This is equivalent to a robber coming into a home, trying to rob, rape and kill everyone in there, then the homeowners resist (unsuccessfully) and finally the homeowners get framed as the ones who had really committed a crime in the first place. This is yours (and the right wing’s) twisted morality on display for everyone to see, you cannot logically debate that I have twisted your argument, because this is exactly what you are saying. If the situation was reversed and it was europe who was being encroached on by native american settlers then you would absolutely celebrate native europeans as heroes for trying to fight off the encroaching native americans. So tell me this, if native europeans have the right to try to expel hypothetical native american settlers off european lands, then why dont native americans have the same rights? If you can’t honestly answer this then that makes you a hypocrite. So much for your “morality”

    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,

    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.

    wrong. I don’t have to do anything to destroy the alt-right/right wing; they will do it to themselves, and they are presently doing it to themselves. All I have to do is sit back and watch them self-destruct. The right wing is its own worst enemy.

    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it’s racial and cultural chauvinism?

    Wrong, I have been on the alt-right scene for a long time. White nationalist and pro-white whites only want to end imperialistic wars that don’t directly benefit white people themselves (IE booty or living space). If suddenly there was the political will for western nations to invade africa, genocide all the natives and then repopulate the place with white people then the MAJORITY of white nationalists/pro-white whites would be for it. I have seen white nationalist voice this and similar sentiments too many times for it to be a coincidence. Furthermore, I know that most white nationalists would support this because literally without exaggerating nearly 100% of white nationalists are completely sanguine and extremely proud about european colonial history. The fact that nearly all white nationalists are proud about european colonial history betrays the true motives of white nationalists. If they are proud about something that happened in the past, this strongly suggests that they would be openminded to doing something similar in the future as well. White nationalists like to give lip-service to the idea of leaving other people alone and respecting sovereign nations, but underneath that, there is a strong undercurrent of desiring to revive white supremacy and the white colonization of the world. You can lie and deny all you want, but everyone reading this knows that this is the dirty little secret of the alt-right.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn’t the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?

    Jews specifically are the executors of karma in the material world. I never made the claim that everyone who experiences something bad is experiencing negative karma. The west had a chance to deal with indigenous people in a humane and fair way; they chose not to, and now they will deal with the consequences. Enjoy your just deserts

    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn’t motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930′s and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?

    Once again you are deflecting. The fact that these other things may have been based on greed and military conquest does not suddenly let the west off the hook. If you were to commit a murder, just because there are other murderers out there doesn’t suddenly mean that you’re not guilty. Do you understand how this works? Stop trying to deflect and change the subject; its obvious that you have no good answer for the FACT that the west was built on greed and military conquest, so because you dont have a good answer for that, you just try to deflect and bring up other things as well in the hopes that I won’t notice

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    butt hurt much?
    , @KenH

    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them.
     
    No, you just got your tortured logic thrown back in your antifag face and you don’t know how to respond. Third world immigrants are not being forced into Europe and the rest of the Western world either. They are coming of their own volition and most have no plans to assimilate and are only here to leech off of the generous social welfare systems and our thriving economies.

    As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible.
     
    And they failed so get over it. Again you need a history lesson since you think the conquest of N.America by Europeans was an unprecedented and uniquely evil event in world history. The ancestors of the Japanese displaced the Ainu people, the Turkish Muslims displaced the largely Greek Christian settlements in Anatolia and Constantinople which is now Turkey. The Muslim Tamerlane depopulated whole regions to the tune of 17 million people via mass murder. In 1066 the Normans (Norseman) conquered and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons and Celts in England. Hell, the cro-magnons very likely exterminated the neanderthals.
    The list is endless.

    Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory.
     
    No, they were savages by the gruesome methods they used and in their delight in torturing their victims slowly. You will respond that this was ok, so to be consistent it would be ok for Europeans to murder and hideously torture Africans and Muslims invading Western Europe, U.K. and Scandinavia, right? After all, Europe indisputably belongs to white Europeans.

    However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards.
     
    The hypocrisy and double standards are all on your end. Anti-white leftists are the ultimate hypocrites and shape shifters.

    White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.
     
    Provide examples. Characterizing the Indians and their form of warfare as savage isn’t the same as “getting mad” that they fought Europeans settlers. White nationalists have opposed all U.S. wars in the Middle East and elsewhere so much that I recall some cuckservatives were calling us liberals and unpatriotic.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about “indians doing it to each other!”
     
    Perhaps in your own little mind. They Indians routinely waged war upon each other and exterminated each other. You definitely need to crack some history books because you are abysmally ignorant about that era of American history. The Indians were not one big happy family smoking their peace pipes, eating buffalo meat sandwiches and having inter-tribal orgies until the wicked white man cometh.

    “During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology.
     
    Apples to oranges. The war lasted four years and they weren't doing awful things to each other. Trench warfare just maximized casualties on all sides. There were many instances of friendliness and fraternization between the opposing sides exemplified by the Christmas truce of 1914. Efforts were made to protect non-combatants.

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.
     
    Your idiotic analogy didn’t prove anything and you keep patting yourself on the back so much I think you tore your rotator cuff. Better go get an MRI using your Obamacare plan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Ace says:
    @renfro
    Elect me President...I will turn over the Dept of the Interior, the EPA and the Dept of Agriculture to a US native Indian Council.
    They could do a better job for Mother Earth.

    Because . . . ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Avery says:
    @Avery
    You make some good points and I agree with many. But then you go off on a tangent and start blaming 'whites' (I take that to mean peoples of European stock) as all evil.

    To wit:

    { Although this doesn’t change the fact that we brutally genocided, manipulated, betrayed and exploited them,  }
    { european settlers to genocide the indians }
    { the indigenous population being genocided and colonized }
    { (like genociding and colonizing indigenous peoples across three different continents) }

    First of all there was no, quote 'genocide' of native peoples of North America by European settlers.
    I know these days it is fashionable to throw the word 'genocide' around like candy.
    Every crime or tragedy is a 'genocide': sure it is.

    The word 'genocide', which was coined by Prof Lemkin (a Polish Jew) shortly after WW2, has very specific meaning and applicability. It does _not_ mean crimes against humanity, war crimes, massacres, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, etc. It has to have what is called Dolus Specialis, or specific intent. Meaning, the perpetrator had the specific intent to exterminate the given ethnos: geno-cide.

    By no stretch can the word be aplied to NA.
    European settlers thought they had landed on empty lands.
    They didn't come here with the intent to exterminate anyone.
    Yes, they were obviously aware that there were peoples living here before them, but the land was sparsely populated and there were no or few permanent structures. Yes, there were massacres, forced relocation and such. Yes, treaties were broken, natives were manipulated, betrayed and sometimes exploited. But there was no genocide. Most natives (70%-80%) died as an unintended consequence of Europeans' arrival, i.e. communicable diseases that Europeans were immune to and natives weren't.

    The fact that a given people largely disappear or are greatly reduced in numbers does not necessarily mean they were 'genocided' (sic). Black Death, which was inadvertently brought to Europe from Asia, wiped out up to 60% of Europe's population. So did Asians commit 'genocide' of Europeans?

    Anasasi people largely 'disappeared' from their original place of habitat around 1,200A.D., long before Europeans showed up around 1,500 on the East coast. There are different explanations as to why the Anasasi 'disappeared': (a) there was a prolonged drought and some died off and rest moved away to other places; (b) they didn't 'disappear', rather their descendants live today as Rio Grande Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni Indians.

    I will address your belief that 'whites' (or the West) and only 'whites' are all evil with no redeeming qualities in part 2.

    Part2

    The Mongol Empire stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the Danube River on the Eurasian continent. It was the largest empire in history. During its 360 history (1206–1368 ) and its conquests the Mongol empire killed unbelievably huge numbers of people. Estimates rage from a low of ~20 million to a high of ~40 million. Considering the world* population around that time was estimated at ~450 million, 20-40 million killed is truly beyond comprehension.

    (European) Romans also killed a lot of people during their conquests, but they left as their legacy roads that last to this day, magnificent buildings, aquaducts, development of cement, civic structures (the Senate) and much more.
    What did (Asiatic) Mongols leave as their legacy to the world? Nothing but death and destrcution.

    Imperial Japan conquered and subjugated most of East Asia, killing and enslaving millions of their fellow Asians. Koreans suffered the longest and worst. Young women and girls from Korea, Philippins and other conquered territories were forced into sexual slavery to service the Imperial Japanese military.

    So how is it that ‘The west is merely reaping what it has sown’ does not work in Asia that you so gleefully point out for the West?
    How is it that Japan is _not_ being flooded with people from the lands they conquered, subjugated, enslaved, murdered and killed? Japan will simply not allow any large numbers of Koreans, or Chinese, or Filipinos or other ‘lesser’ Asians to immigrate into Japan. Unlike Europeans and North Americans.

    Finally:

    Several centuries ago, warlike nomadic Turkic (Asiatic) tribes from East and Centrla Asia started moving West, through Iran, Caucasus, and Asia Minor, finally being stopped at the Gates of Vienna.
    On their way they destroyed, burnt, looted, raped, murdered, massacred, forcibly Islamized and Turkified those whom they had not massacred. Asia Minor, home to creative, sedentary, indigenous civilizations – Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks – was completely denuded by the Turkic plague. The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe ‘genocides’ you trot out. And I am not aware of any Western country that denies what they have done to the natives, including here in the US: and the West made and makes amends as much as is practically possible.

    Japan to this day denies the crimes of Imperial Japan, or dances around them using euphemisms to explain away their war crimes.

    So……..Any redeming qualities to those eeeeeevil ‘white’ peoples, including those who settled North America? I don’t know: let’s take a loook.
    Pretty much everything in this modern world was created, invented, developed,….by European-stock peoples.

    Internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, jet engine, air travel, laser, LED, cell phone, GPS, integrated circuit, microprocessor, computer,…..calculus,…antibiotics,….refining oil, manufacture of plastics,……

    Have a nice day.
    _____________________________________________________

    * I am guessing when they say ‘world’ they mean mainly Eurasia, since both Americas and Africa were undiscovered/unexplored and there were no records of populations in those continents in those years.

    ** Lemkin coined the new word ‘genocide’ largely on his study of the Armenian genocide and the genocide of Jews. Note: it is unfortunate that Slavic peoples do not publicize the fact the Nazis fully intended and planned to extemiante them, and very nearly succeeded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Avery says:
    @anon

    In closing; the west in its present form is finished. Its done for. Its as done as the native americans are. I know this, and everyone reading this knows it as well. There’s not a damn thing you can do to stop it, and everything you try to do to abate this tidal wave of multicult and immigration is bound to fail. Do you all seriously think that you will EVER get the popular support to completely halt all immigration and kick out all the immigrants? LOL, that will never happen. And what are you gonna do about it? Run to trump and cry? Sorry but trump is not actually on your side. In fact your whole little nationalist uprising is nothing but a cleverly executed color revolution here in the united states itself. Bet you never thought about that did you? Please, do everything you can to reverse the current situation, I’ll be waiting and watching; go ahead and write more impotent essays about why immigrants are bad, or better yet, go ahead and participate in some charlottesville style marches, that is definitely one way to gain some popular support! Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude. As they say, “live by the sword, die by the sword” and it is quite obvious that the west is falling on its own sword. Can’t say im surprised though, the west chose to open up pandoras box by invading and colonizing the world in order to set up its mythical empire, and now the empire is being deluged by its colonial subjects (every. single. day.) Poetic justice much? And only crocodile tears for the right wing. Just remember, you all can write all the nasty comments to me that you want, but ultimately it will only be symbolically cathartic and it still won’t change the situation on the ground. If the west had not acted so wantonly and chaotically then western culture would not be experiencing its current problems. Don’t blame me for pointing out your problems, blame yourself
     
    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time

    Secondly, you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics. Do you really think this kind of argument holds water? But that being said, lets just take your "accidental genocide not really genocide" argument into consideration; assuming this is true, then why did this pattern of colonization (which in all fairness did not culminate in genocide) occur in africa, india and asia as well? You are trying to paint the european settlers are neutral parties, but the modern history of the world clearly shows that europeans had a malefic and exploitive intent towards other sovereign populations which cannot simply be handwaved away; it is clearly self evident. You are obviously trying to square the circle, but it doesn't work. Your attempt at rationalizing what happened does not change what actually happened.

    {… you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics.}

    Nope: genocide is a deliberate act.

    When someone is murdered, he ends up dead.
    When someone gets inadvertently infected by one person who is immune to the given disease but the victim has weakened immune system and doctors cannot save him, he also ends up dead.
    In the first case a crime was committed and the murderer is punished.
    In the second case, no crime was committed: possibly civil liability, but no crime.

    { But that being said, lets just take your “accidental genocide not really genocide” argument}

    There is no such thing as ‘accidental genocide’, so there is no argument to take into consideration. Your attempt to make something that happened into something else does not change what actually happened,

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    So how is it that ‘The west is merely reaping what it has sown’ does not work in Asia that you so gleefully point out for the West?
    How is it that Japan is _not_ being flooded with people from the lands they conquered, subjugated, enslaved, murdered and killed? Japan will simply not allow any large numbers of Koreans, or Chinese, or Filipinos or other ‘lesser’ Asians to immigrate into Japan. Unlike Europeans and North Americans.
     
    Japan is now a neutered shadow of what it used to be. It is not only america's footstool but it is also a whorehouse for america's military as well. Not only that, but large swathes of the entire population seems to have lost the will to reproduce and even have sex. Its almost as if japan spent all of its vital energy during "the great pacific war" and is now reeling from that expenditure. Not to mention the incredible ease that foreign men have with coming to japan and hooking up with the local ladies while lots of local guys get nothing. Granted what I have written is a bit of hyperbole, but the truth in what I am saying is obvious. Japan is in a slow motion, self destructive decline akin to the west. I would say that it very much appears that Japan is reaping what it sowed. Also you forget to mention that Japan went on its murderous rampage for a couple of decades; the west went on its murderous rampage for a couple of centuries. So it would not surprise me that the "punishment" for the west would be much larger and more intense in scale than that which the Japanese are receiving.

    Its also pertinent to consider that Japan may have intended to genocide the local populations and replace them with japanese people (whether or not this was their actual policy or just WW2 anti-axis propaganda I do not know), but Japan actually failed to do so. The west had the same intent and actually succeeded in doing so. Thus this would be why the west has a magnitude greater difficulty regarding immigration than Japan does. So, it is logical to me that if such mechanism as karma exists, then it is playing out in a measured proportionate way according to the extent, length and severity of a given entity's actions. Even if karma doesnt exist, it would still make sense that the degree of backlash and unexpected events resulting from past actions would generally reverbrate in tandem with the size, scale and severity of the original event.

    Lastly, regarding japan, events are still unfolding. Its only been about seven decades since WW2 ended, therefore its plausible that we may end up seeing japan being flooded by its neighbors afterall; this is especially possible considering the immense economic leverage that a rising china has with regards to japan. Although like I said above, assuming that karma is an actual principle, Japan would not necessarily be subject to having their country subjected to a deluge of immigration since japan actually failed in attempting to colonize other countries and replacing their populations unlike the europeans.

    Several centuries ago, warlike nomadic Turkic (Asiatic) tribes from East and Centrla Asia started moving West, through Iran, Caucasus, and Asia Minor, finally being stopped at the Gates of Vienna.

    On their way they destroyed, burnt, looted, raped, murdered, massacred, forcibly Islamized and Turkified those whom they had not massacred. Asia Minor, home to creative, sedentary, indigenous civilizations – Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks – was completely denuded by the Turkic plague. The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe ‘genocides’ you trot out. And I am not aware of any Western country that denies what they have done to the natives, including here in the US: and the West made and makes amends as much as is practically possible.

    Japan to this day denies the crimes of Imperial Japan, or dances around them using euphemisms to explain away their war crimes.
     
    What Japan or the turks do regarding their own past crimes that they have committed has nothing to do with the crime of european colonization. You are trying to deflect again. The europeans colonized the americas, this is fact. Meanwhile the alt-right/right wing wants to be proud of this fact, while simultaneously complaining about their own cultural and racial displacement. The alt-right/right wing position on this topic is hypocritical. You cannot simultaneously be proud of subjugating and colonizing a foreign population and then complain about it happening to you. If the alt-right/right wing wants to complain about multiculturalism then they need to gain a more appropriate, somber perspective regarding the history of european colonization of the world instead of the psychopathic, gleeful, childishly arrogant perspective that they currently have.

    So……..Any redeming qualities to those eeeeeevil ‘white’ peoples, including those who settled North America? I don’t know: let’s take a loook.

    Pretty much everything in this modern world was created, invented, developed,….by European-stock peoples.
    Internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, jet engine, air travel, laser, LED, cell phone, GPS, integrated circuit, microprocessor, computer,…..calculus,…antibiotics,….refining oil, manufacture of plastics,……
     
    I find it hilarious how you WN types always try to play the victim and accuse people of hating you just "coz youre white". Let me refute your argument for you with the following points:

    1. I never claimed that white people are irredeemably evil, in fact I specifically said the following:

    Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude.
     
    In fact I pointed it out again in this post:

    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time...
     
    But I think you deliberately ignored what I originally wrote (which anyone can verify that I did indeed write), as well as me pointing out to you what I had originally wrote, so that you could justify writing your redundant screed and setting up a classic strawman.

    2. Nobody and no race is inherently evil or bad. This is especially hilarious that you are whining about how I was supposedly impugning that white people are bad, when you yourself were saying this:

    The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe ‘genocides’ you trot out.
     

    What did (Asiatic) Mongols leave as their legacy to the world? Nothing but death and destrcution.
     
    It seems pretty clear to me that you have no problems generalizing entire races and juxtaposing them in a negative way against whites, yet you get hurt when you feel like someone is negatively generalizing all white people LOL.

    The WN cries as he strikes you

    With your above quoted comments you have no problems denigrating entire races as "savages", yet you get mad about people generalizing the entire white race as bad. Do you see your hypocrisy here? This is the problem with WN/the alt-right, their world view is so warped that they cannot see that they are guilty of the same things that they accuse other people as being guilty of.

    Furthermore, something else funny that I have noticed about WN is how quickly they think people hate white people just because they're white. This reminds me a lot of how WN love to mock black criminals who think that they are in jail just because they are black, not because they have committed some heinous crime. In the same way, WN love to play the victim on behalf of the white race and act like everyone is hating white people just because they are white and not because of their brutual (and factually proven) history of colonization and conquest of the entire world. If WN were actually that clever, they would realize that maybe people don't hate the west because of the color of their skin, but rather because of their actions in the past.

    3. What you say regarding the accomplishments of those white people who settled america is absolutely true. I agree with what you wrote 100%, it is factual truth. That being said, no matter what those white people who settled america accomplished, it does not absolve the crimes of european colonialism. Let me give you an analogy to clear this up for you:

    A man breaks into a house, kills the husband, rapes and then kills the wife, and also kills the kids for good measure. Afterwards he steals everything and leaves. Years later this same man goes on to win a nobel prize for curing world hunger and lives happily ever after

    Regardless of what the man in the analogy achieved; it does not change the fact that he is a murderer, a thief and a rapist. The good that he accomplished does not diminish his past crimes, but his past crimes also do not diminish the good which he accomplished as well. The two things exist separately from each other and do not cancel each other out. Furthermore, according to WESTERN LAW, if the police were ever able to find out that this guy committed all those crimes, then this guy would be punished regardless of whether or not he solved world hunger.

    In the same way, "those white people who settled america" have accomplished many positive things which they indeed deserve credit for; but all the good they accomplished does not change the fact that large parts of the west were founded on genocide (yeah I said it, deal with it, stop with your semantic squirming) and colonialism. Therefore, the positive things which the west has accomplished do not weigh out the bad things which the west has done. Rather, both the good things and the bad things that the west has done exist jointly.

    Thus, regardless of what the west achieved, according to what I am seeing in real life it appears that the west is succumbing to the same forces that it unleashed. Is this karma? Personally I believe it is, but perhaps it has a more mundane explanation as well. Regardless of the mechanism behind what is currently happening, it does not change the fact that it is actually happening. This brings me back to my original point, which is: WN/alt-right want to be proud about the european conquest of the americas, but at the same time WN/alt-right is complaining about their current cultural and racial displacement. As far as im concerned, the WN/alt-right deserve everything that is coming to them, meanwhile the majority of other whites are completely indifferent or even supportive of what is happening LOL

    Nope: genocide is a deliberate act.
     
    Thats cool that you want to play semantic hockey here. Ok, i'll bite. According to your logic; there is no white genocide going on in the west. Whites are not being deliberately slaughtered, rather their countries are just being filled with immigrants. Now, due to the presence of these immigrants, whites may or may not incidentally end up mixing with them and thus forfeiting their racial integrity, but it can hardly be considered an act of genocide.

    Game, set, match. As you said, Your attempt to make something that happened into something else does not change what actually happened

    In closing, I am legitimately laughing that you are trying to paint the european conquests of the americas (as well as numerous other countries throughout the entire world) as being some kind of neutral, incidentally malign but quasi-benign occurrence. I guess all the indigenous peoples of america just died from disease and whites came and then peacefully moved in? That sounds a lot like what you're trying to say. If this is what you're trying to say then I guess the trail of tears never happened, or any of the other countless anti-indian actions which occurred in north america. Im also guessing you have never read about the spanish conquests of the americas? BTW I hope you're aware that other people besides us are reading this exchange. Who knows how many people are reading your hypocritical and flimsy apologetic arguments and subsequently get turned off by what you're saying. WN/alt-right would do a lot better if they just owned up to the brutal conquest and colonization of the americas instead of trying to tiptoe and explain away what happened to the native americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Rurik says:
    @anon

    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren’t hurting anybody but themselves. They aren’t raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.
     
    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them. As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible. Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory. Makes perfect sense. Europeans would do the same if native americans suddenly showed up in europe and started trying to encroach on traditionally european territory at that time. However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards. White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about "indians doing it to each other!", and then subsequently trying to gain cheap moral high ground by invoking minorities with: "indians hurting non-whites too!", shows that you are also aware of how tenuous your own position is. Just to thoroughly demolish this particular argument, let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

    "During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: "well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn't matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view"

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.


    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.
     
    You made a crucial mistake by including this particular argument. You are aware that by this logic, there is no "white genocide" as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world

    And in the year 1900 there were approximately 400 million white people in the world according to this stormfront forum post:


    I should add that in 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion, of which 25% was European (400 million), and at that time Europe was essentially 99% white. Africa's population by comparison was only 118 million. In the 111 years since then Europe's population has growth by 89%, and Africa's by * 750% *
     
    https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t798477/

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.

    As for your claim that there was no native american genocide, well I dont even know what to tell you. Your claim is that ridiculous. I guess the european settlers showed up and then the native americans and their culture suddenly disappeared without any correlation at all huh? Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide when it is apparent that similar policies were being carried out by europeans during this time period as well. Your own history books, and the writings of innumerable western men themselves incriminate you and prove that what you are trying to say is bullshit.


    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren’t you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?
     
    genocide is absolutely genocide. The topic of this particular article has nothing to do with the various genocides that you brought up, that is why they are unimportant in the present context. I know this and you know this, but you are deliberately attempting to muddy the waters by bringing up other genocides throughout history so that you can try to deflect blame off of the genocides committed by the europeans in america. The fact that you bring up the topic of other genocides in order to deflect off the genocide committed by the europeans in america strongly suggests that you yourself don't really have a good argument to debunk the fact european colonists actually did genocide the native americans.

    Also FYI, I never made the claim that the conquest of north america by europeans was the most monstrous crime in all of world history; rather I am discussing the culpability regarding this particular crime because it is related to the topic of the article itself. You obviously lack the ability to understand context. That being said, since you brought up the topic of the most monstrous crime in all of world history; I think that the european conquests of the americas, india, africa, numerous parts of asia and australia as well would probably qualify quite well for the most monstrous crime in all of world history. Its quite a feat to cause that much destruction around the world, does anybody debate that this actually happened? So yeah, I would say that the european imperialists ravaging the entire world would definitely qualify for one of the most monstrous crimes in history. Instead of you trying to deflect the whole situation, why dont you own up to it instead? Show some integrity bud



    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies
     
    In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.
     
    I would say that the right wing does largely lack morality and ethics. Any neutral party reading everything you just wrote would probably come to the same conclusion. Just a reminder, you are trying to make the argument that the concept of sovereign nations and property does not exist, and that if whites are inclined to take something then they should be allowed to, and if the natives resist in any way then the natives are the guilty ones not the whites. This is equivalent to a robber coming into a home, trying to rob, rape and kill everyone in there, then the homeowners resist (unsuccessfully) and finally the homeowners get framed as the ones who had really committed a crime in the first place. This is yours (and the right wing's) twisted morality on display for everyone to see, you cannot logically debate that I have twisted your argument, because this is exactly what you are saying. If the situation was reversed and it was europe who was being encroached on by native american settlers then you would absolutely celebrate native europeans as heroes for trying to fight off the encroaching native americans. So tell me this, if native europeans have the right to try to expel hypothetical native american settlers off european lands, then why dont native americans have the same rights? If you can't honestly answer this then that makes you a hypocrite. So much for your "morality"


    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,
     
    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.
     
    wrong. I don't have to do anything to destroy the alt-right/right wing; they will do it to themselves, and they are presently doing it to themselves. All I have to do is sit back and watch them self-destruct. The right wing is its own worst enemy.

    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it’s racial and cultural chauvinism?
     

    Wrong, I have been on the alt-right scene for a long time. White nationalist and pro-white whites only want to end imperialistic wars that don't directly benefit white people themselves (IE booty or living space). If suddenly there was the political will for western nations to invade africa, genocide all the natives and then repopulate the place with white people then the MAJORITY of white nationalists/pro-white whites would be for it. I have seen white nationalist voice this and similar sentiments too many times for it to be a coincidence. Furthermore, I know that most white nationalists would support this because literally without exaggerating nearly 100% of white nationalists are completely sanguine and extremely proud about european colonial history. The fact that nearly all white nationalists are proud about european colonial history betrays the true motives of white nationalists. If they are proud about something that happened in the past, this strongly suggests that they would be openminded to doing something similar in the future as well. White nationalists like to give lip-service to the idea of leaving other people alone and respecting sovereign nations, but underneath that, there is a strong undercurrent of desiring to revive white supremacy and the white colonization of the world. You can lie and deny all you want, but everyone reading this knows that this is the dirty little secret of the alt-right.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn’t the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?
     
    Jews specifically are the executors of karma in the material world. I never made the claim that everyone who experiences something bad is experiencing negative karma. The west had a chance to deal with indigenous people in a humane and fair way; they chose not to, and now they will deal with the consequences. Enjoy your just deserts

    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn’t motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930′s and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?
     
    Once again you are deflecting. The fact that these other things may have been based on greed and military conquest does not suddenly let the west off the hook. If you were to commit a murder, just because there are other murderers out there doesn't suddenly mean that you're not guilty. Do you understand how this works? Stop trying to deflect and change the subject; its obvious that you have no good answer for the FACT that the west was built on greed and military conquest, so because you dont have a good answer for that, you just try to deflect and bring up other things as well in the hopes that I won't notice

    butt hurt much?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    actually what is more telling is that you cannot be bothered to refute anything I have written. This appears to be a common tactic of the WN, argue with shoddy logic (as I have clearly demonstrated, and anybody reading this exchange can see for themselves) and then when they get blown away, they try to obfuscate, muddy the waters, accuse others of doing the same things in the past, deflect or simply resort to using ad hominem or petty insults as their retort.

    Just FYI rurik, the WN/alt-right position is on extremely shaky ground; if it were not then the pro WN commenters would be able to argue their position more effectively as opposed to simply throwing out ad nausem "but someone else did this too!" arguments, which are actually pretty unconvincing. I have seen no WN commenter that has been able to formulate any kind of convincing argument yet. I encourage you and the rest of the alt-right gang to continue debating me in this thread, it will give a chance for any casual readers who happen to read our exchange to see just what you all are made of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. polskijoe says:

    I wish US-Americans stop calling the pre-Europeans in USA “American Indians”.
    Confusing.
    Indian person from India.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. MarkinLA says:
    @Quaid
    I imagine this was in large part spurned by this s**tty, poorly made cartoon put out by Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire: http://archive.is/vn9b6
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-shapiros-daily-wire-website-posts-racist-video-mocking-native-americans-for-columbus-day/

    Obviously all the more illuminating when you consider Shapiro's stance on the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/07/transfer-is-not-dirty-word.html

    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true. It is undeniable there were genocides throughout the Americas, that European did make efforts to spread it, or they at times saw the plagues as a sign from God- but by and large, disease decimated native populations through no effort of Europeans, and it often spread in advance of them.

    I'm not going to go ahead and say every single bit of US (or Canadian, or whatever other American nation you want to pick out) territory is wholly legitimate under a full standard of ownership rights, but it begs asking- at this point, do the currently living natives even want independence? This (among many, many other things) isn't really considered by liberals/non-white agitators (especially hispanics) who use them as an eternal cudgel to justify endless mass immigration and illegal immigrants. Just considering how natives have been virtually extinct in large parts of the east coast for centuries, how sparsely populated much of the Americas has been- it often appeals to some pan-racial claim to two entire continents, on the part of the natives. Similar rhetoric is used to justify calls for the expulsion of whites from southern africa, as I'm sure Mercer is familiar with.

    But the idea that the destruction of the natives came largely by disease is true.

    I think the big issue is the claim that up to 90% of the population died in mass (European derived)disease related die-offs in less than 100 years. There are simply no great number of large settlements that support large numbers of Indians in the continental US. There were some on the Mississippi that died off well before the white man came but nowhere nearly enough to support the claims of 15-20 million inhabitants.

    The largest settlements were in Mexico but there is no evidence of large scale intermingling where such diseases were passed to the northern tribes. You would think that were there such cases that it would lead to conflict and become part of tribal lore – i.e. Apache telling stories about bravely fighting off the diseased enemies from the south. It takes a long time to travel any long distance, even by horseback. Any Indians suffering from diseases with such a high mortality rate would likely never make it more than a few hundred miles before succumbing. Such individuals would stick out like a sore thumb and would not be welcome.

    We can still after all these years excavate and see the remnants of those Mississippian settlements as we can see the remnants of Viking settlements in eastern Canada. One that gets mention only had about 15,000 inhabitants. Find 500 more and you might be right about the population. In addition, the Mississippi and Missouri river valleys routinely flood in spring and without dykes would flood large areas turning them into insect infested swamps unsuitable for farming. I doubt that those areas could support large numbers of hunter gatherers without horses.

    Read More
    • Agree: KenH
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik
    butt hurt much?

    actually what is more telling is that you cannot be bothered to refute anything I have written. This appears to be a common tactic of the WN, argue with shoddy logic (as I have clearly demonstrated, and anybody reading this exchange can see for themselves) and then when they get blown away, they try to obfuscate, muddy the waters, accuse others of doing the same things in the past, deflect or simply resort to using ad hominem or petty insults as their retort.

    Just FYI rurik, the WN/alt-right position is on extremely shaky ground; if it were not then the pro WN commenters would be able to argue their position more effectively as opposed to simply throwing out ad nausem “but someone else did this too!” arguments, which are actually pretty unconvincing. I have seen no WN commenter that has been able to formulate any kind of convincing argument yet. I encourage you and the rest of the alt-right gang to continue debating me in this thread, it will give a chance for any casual readers who happen to read our exchange to see just what you all are made of.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    {... you are splitting hairs here and arguing semantics.}

    Nope: genocide is a deliberate act.

    When someone is murdered, he ends up dead.
    When someone gets inadvertently infected by one person who is immune to the given disease but the victim has weakened immune system and doctors cannot save him, he also ends up dead.
    In the first case a crime was committed and the murderer is punished.
    In the second case, no crime was committed: possibly civil liability, but no crime.

    { But that being said, lets just take your “accidental genocide not really genocide” argument}


    There is no such thing as 'accidental genocide', so there is no argument to take into consideration. Your attempt to make something that happened into something else does not change what actually happened,

    So how is it that ‘The west is merely reaping what it has sown’ does not work in Asia that you so gleefully point out for the West?
    How is it that Japan is _not_ being flooded with people from the lands they conquered, subjugated, enslaved, murdered and killed? Japan will simply not allow any large numbers of Koreans, or Chinese, or Filipinos or other ‘lesser’ Asians to immigrate into Japan. Unlike Europeans and North Americans.

    Japan is now a neutered shadow of what it used to be. It is not only america’s footstool but it is also a whorehouse for america’s military as well. Not only that, but large swathes of the entire population seems to have lost the will to reproduce and even have sex. Its almost as if japan spent all of its vital energy during “the great pacific war” and is now reeling from that expenditure. Not to mention the incredible ease that foreign men have with coming to japan and hooking up with the local ladies while lots of local guys get nothing. Granted what I have written is a bit of hyperbole, but the truth in what I am saying is obvious. Japan is in a slow motion, self destructive decline akin to the west. I would say that it very much appears that Japan is reaping what it sowed. Also you forget to mention that Japan went on its murderous rampage for a couple of decades; the west went on its murderous rampage for a couple of centuries. So it would not surprise me that the “punishment” for the west would be much larger and more intense in scale than that which the Japanese are receiving.

    Its also pertinent to consider that Japan may have intended to genocide the local populations and replace them with japanese people (whether or not this was their actual policy or just WW2 anti-axis propaganda I do not know), but Japan actually failed to do so. The west had the same intent and actually succeeded in doing so. Thus this would be why the west has a magnitude greater difficulty regarding immigration than Japan does. So, it is logical to me that if such mechanism as karma exists, then it is playing out in a measured proportionate way according to the extent, length and severity of a given entity’s actions. Even if karma doesnt exist, it would still make sense that the degree of backlash and unexpected events resulting from past actions would generally reverbrate in tandem with the size, scale and severity of the original event.

    Lastly, regarding japan, events are still unfolding. Its only been about seven decades since WW2 ended, therefore its plausible that we may end up seeing japan being flooded by its neighbors afterall; this is especially possible considering the immense economic leverage that a rising china has with regards to japan. Although like I said above, assuming that karma is an actual principle, Japan would not necessarily be subject to having their country subjected to a deluge of immigration since japan actually failed in attempting to colonize other countries and replacing their populations unlike the europeans.

    Several centuries ago, warlike nomadic Turkic (Asiatic) tribes from East and Centrla Asia started moving West, through Iran, Caucasus, and Asia Minor, finally being stopped at the Gates of Vienna.

    On their way they destroyed, burnt, looted, raped, murdered, massacred, forcibly Islamized and Turkified those whom they had not massacred. Asia Minor, home to creative, sedentary, indigenous civilizations – Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks – was completely denuded by the Turkic plague. The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe ‘genocides’ you trot out. And I am not aware of any Western country that denies what they have done to the natives, including here in the US: and the West made and makes amends as much as is practically possible.

    Japan to this day denies the crimes of Imperial Japan, or dances around them using euphemisms to explain away their war crimes.

    What Japan or the turks do regarding their own past crimes that they have committed has nothing to do with the crime of european colonization. You are trying to deflect again. The europeans colonized the americas, this is fact. Meanwhile the alt-right/right wing wants to be proud of this fact, while simultaneously complaining about their own cultural and racial displacement. The alt-right/right wing position on this topic is hypocritical. You cannot simultaneously be proud of subjugating and colonizing a foreign population and then complain about it happening to you. If the alt-right/right wing wants to complain about multiculturalism then they need to gain a more appropriate, somber perspective regarding the history of european colonization of the world instead of the psychopathic, gleeful, childishly arrogant perspective that they currently have.

    So……..Any redeming qualities to those eeeeeevil ‘white’ peoples, including those who settled North America? I don’t know: let’s take a loook.

    Pretty much everything in this modern world was created, invented, developed,….by European-stock peoples.
    Internal combustion engine, automatic transmission, jet engine, air travel, laser, LED, cell phone, GPS, integrated circuit, microprocessor, computer,…..calculus,…antibiotics,….refining oil, manufacture of plastics,……

    I find it hilarious how you WN types always try to play the victim and accuse people of hating you just “coz youre white”. Let me refute your argument for you with the following points:

    1. I never claimed that white people are irredeemably evil, in fact I specifically said the following:

    Regardless of what you do, the west is doomed; but the west is not doomed because the west is inherently bad, or because white people are bad, rather the west is doomed because of its actions and its unrepentant attitude.

    In fact I pointed it out again in this post:

    Read it again avery. You obviously didnt read it very carefully the first time…

    But I think you deliberately ignored what I originally wrote (which anyone can verify that I did indeed write), as well as me pointing out to you what I had originally wrote, so that you could justify writing your redundant screed and setting up a classic strawman.

    2. Nobody and no race is inherently evil or bad. This is especially hilarious that you are whining about how I was supposedly impugning that white people are bad, when you yourself were saying this:

    The Asiatic savages to this day deny their crimes and genocides: yeah, it was genocide**, the genuine article, unlike the make-believe ‘genocides’ you trot out.

    What did (Asiatic) Mongols leave as their legacy to the world? Nothing but death and destrcution.

    It seems pretty clear to me that you have no problems generalizing entire races and juxtaposing them in a negative way against whites, yet you get hurt when you feel like someone is negatively generalizing all white people LOL.

    The WN cries as he strikes you

    With your above quoted comments you have no problems denigrating entire races as “savages”, yet you get mad about people generalizing the entire white race as bad. Do you see your hypocrisy here? This is the problem with WN/the alt-right, their world view is so warped that they cannot see that they are guilty of the same things that they accuse other people as being guilty of.

    Furthermore, something else funny that I have noticed about WN is how quickly they think people hate white people just because they’re white. This reminds me a lot of how WN love to mock black criminals who think that they are in jail just because they are black, not because they have committed some heinous crime. In the same way, WN love to play the victim on behalf of the white race and act like everyone is hating white people just because they are white and not because of their brutual (and factually proven) history of colonization and conquest of the entire world. If WN were actually that clever, they would realize that maybe people don’t hate the west because of the color of their skin, but rather because of their actions in the past.

    3. What you say regarding the accomplishments of those white people who settled america is absolutely true. I agree with what you wrote 100%, it is factual truth. That being said, no matter what those white people who settled america accomplished, it does not absolve the crimes of european colonialism. Let me give you an analogy to clear this up for you:

    A man breaks into a house, kills the husband, rapes and then kills the wife, and also kills the kids for good measure. Afterwards he steals everything and leaves. Years later this same man goes on to win a nobel prize for curing world hunger and lives happily ever after

    Regardless of what the man in the analogy achieved; it does not change the fact that he is a murderer, a thief and a rapist. The good that he accomplished does not diminish his past crimes, but his past crimes also do not diminish the good which he accomplished as well. The two things exist separately from each other and do not cancel each other out. Furthermore, according to WESTERN LAW, if the police were ever able to find out that this guy committed all those crimes, then this guy would be punished regardless of whether or not he solved world hunger.

    In the same way, “those white people who settled america” have accomplished many positive things which they indeed deserve credit for; but all the good they accomplished does not change the fact that large parts of the west were founded on genocide (yeah I said it, deal with it, stop with your semantic squirming) and colonialism. Therefore, the positive things which the west has accomplished do not weigh out the bad things which the west has done. Rather, both the good things and the bad things that the west has done exist jointly.

    Thus, regardless of what the west achieved, according to what I am seeing in real life it appears that the west is succumbing to the same forces that it unleashed. Is this karma? Personally I believe it is, but perhaps it has a more mundane explanation as well. Regardless of the mechanism behind what is currently happening, it does not change the fact that it is actually happening. This brings me back to my original point, which is: WN/alt-right want to be proud about the european conquest of the americas, but at the same time WN/alt-right is complaining about their current cultural and racial displacement. As far as im concerned, the WN/alt-right deserve everything that is coming to them, meanwhile the majority of other whites are completely indifferent or even supportive of what is happening LOL

    Nope: genocide is a deliberate act.

    Thats cool that you want to play semantic hockey here. Ok, i’ll bite. According to your logic; there is no white genocide going on in the west. Whites are not being deliberately slaughtered, rather their countries are just being filled with immigrants. Now, due to the presence of these immigrants, whites may or may not incidentally end up mixing with them and thus forfeiting their racial integrity, but it can hardly be considered an act of genocide.

    Game, set, match. As you said, Your attempt to make something that happened into something else does not change what actually happened

    In closing, I am legitimately laughing that you are trying to paint the european conquests of the americas (as well as numerous other countries throughout the entire world) as being some kind of neutral, incidentally malign but quasi-benign occurrence. I guess all the indigenous peoples of america just died from disease and whites came and then peacefully moved in? That sounds a lot like what you’re trying to say. If this is what you’re trying to say then I guess the trail of tears never happened, or any of the other countless anti-indian actions which occurred in north america. Im also guessing you have never read about the spanish conquests of the americas? BTW I hope you’re aware that other people besides us are reading this exchange. Who knows how many people are reading your hypocritical and flimsy apologetic arguments and subsequently get turned off by what you’re saying. WN/alt-right would do a lot better if they just owned up to the brutal conquest and colonization of the americas instead of trying to tiptoe and explain away what happened to the native americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. KenH says:
    @anon

    Your analogy is pretty idiotic. White meth addicts aren’t hurting anybody but themselves. They aren’t raping, torturing, killing, robbing and enslaving other whites and non-whites as the Indians were doing to each other and white settlers.
     
    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them. As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible. Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory. Makes perfect sense. Europeans would do the same if native americans suddenly showed up in europe and started trying to encroach on traditionally european territory at that time. However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards. White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about "indians doing it to each other!", and then subsequently trying to gain cheap moral high ground by invoking minorities with: "indians hurting non-whites too!", shows that you are also aware of how tenuous your own position is. Just to thoroughly demolish this particular argument, let me propose a hypothetical scenario:

    "During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: "well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn't matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view"

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.


    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.
     
    You made a crucial mistake by including this particular argument. You are aware that by this logic, there is no "white genocide" as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-white-people-are-there-in-the-world

    And in the year 1900 there were approximately 400 million white people in the world according to this stormfront forum post:


    I should add that in 1900, the world population was 1.6 billion, of which 25% was European (400 million), and at that time Europe was essentially 99% white. Africa's population by comparison was only 118 million. In the 111 years since then Europe's population has growth by 89%, and Africa's by * 750% *
     
    https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t798477/

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.

    As for your claim that there was no native american genocide, well I dont even know what to tell you. Your claim is that ridiculous. I guess the european settlers showed up and then the native americans and their culture suddenly disappeared without any correlation at all huh? Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide when it is apparent that similar policies were being carried out by europeans during this time period as well. Your own history books, and the writings of innumerable western men themselves incriminate you and prove that what you are trying to say is bullshit.


    If genocide is genocide is genocide then why aren’t you harping on Jewish inspired genocide in Bolshevik Russia (20 million minimum), the Turkish Muslim genocide of Armenians (1.5 million), The ongoing Muslim eradication of Christians in Syria and Iraq and the Hutu slaughter of the Tutsis in Africa? Why are you seemingly arguing that the conquest of N. America by Europeans is the most monstrous crime in all of world history?
     
    genocide is absolutely genocide. The topic of this particular article has nothing to do with the various genocides that you brought up, that is why they are unimportant in the present context. I know this and you know this, but you are deliberately attempting to muddy the waters by bringing up other genocides throughout history so that you can try to deflect blame off of the genocides committed by the europeans in america. The fact that you bring up the topic of other genocides in order to deflect off the genocide committed by the europeans in america strongly suggests that you yourself don't really have a good argument to debunk the fact european colonists actually did genocide the native americans.

    Also FYI, I never made the claim that the conquest of north america by europeans was the most monstrous crime in all of world history; rather I am discussing the culpability regarding this particular crime because it is related to the topic of the article itself. You obviously lack the ability to understand context. That being said, since you brought up the topic of the most monstrous crime in all of world history; I think that the european conquests of the americas, india, africa, numerous parts of asia and australia as well would probably qualify quite well for the most monstrous crime in all of world history. Its quite a feat to cause that much destruction around the world, does anybody debate that this actually happened? So yeah, I would say that the european imperialists ravaging the entire world would definitely qualify for one of the most monstrous crimes in history. Instead of you trying to deflect the whole situation, why dont you own up to it instead? Show some integrity bud



    You yourself demonstrate the typical lack of morality and ethics that the right wing always embodies
     
    In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you and who contradicts your fact averse, condescending screed lacks morality and ethics.
     
    I would say that the right wing does largely lack morality and ethics. Any neutral party reading everything you just wrote would probably come to the same conclusion. Just a reminder, you are trying to make the argument that the concept of sovereign nations and property does not exist, and that if whites are inclined to take something then they should be allowed to, and if the natives resist in any way then the natives are the guilty ones not the whites. This is equivalent to a robber coming into a home, trying to rob, rape and kill everyone in there, then the homeowners resist (unsuccessfully) and finally the homeowners get framed as the ones who had really committed a crime in the first place. This is yours (and the right wing's) twisted morality on display for everyone to see, you cannot logically debate that I have twisted your argument, because this is exactly what you are saying. If the situation was reversed and it was europe who was being encroached on by native american settlers then you would absolutely celebrate native europeans as heroes for trying to fight off the encroaching native americans. So tell me this, if native europeans have the right to try to expel hypothetical native american settlers off european lands, then why dont native americans have the same rights? If you can't honestly answer this then that makes you a hypocrite. So much for your "morality"


    but honestly the right wing western man is the WORST and most DECADENT version of western man that there is,
     
    Only because you disagree with them politically. Like all brains contaminated by anti-racist and left wing thought/bile, any white person who is not a self hating leftist has no redeeming qualities and must be destroyed.
     
    wrong. I don't have to do anything to destroy the alt-right/right wing; they will do it to themselves, and they are presently doing it to themselves. All I have to do is sit back and watch them self-destruct. The right wing is its own worst enemy.

    White nationalists and pro-white whites are so greedy, avaricious and racially chauvinistic that we wish to end all illegal, imperialistic wars in foreign lands and let non-Westerners chart their own course and build their own nations however they see fit. Then we wish to re-order the U.S. economy so that it allows working and middle class people to prosper.

    How come every non-white racial group and Jews can advocate for their own interests but when whites do it in their own nations it’s racial and cultural chauvinism?
     

    Wrong, I have been on the alt-right scene for a long time. White nationalist and pro-white whites only want to end imperialistic wars that don't directly benefit white people themselves (IE booty or living space). If suddenly there was the political will for western nations to invade africa, genocide all the natives and then repopulate the place with white people then the MAJORITY of white nationalists/pro-white whites would be for it. I have seen white nationalist voice this and similar sentiments too many times for it to be a coincidence. Furthermore, I know that most white nationalists would support this because literally without exaggerating nearly 100% of white nationalists are completely sanguine and extremely proud about european colonial history. The fact that nearly all white nationalists are proud about european colonial history betrays the true motives of white nationalists. If they are proud about something that happened in the past, this strongly suggests that they would be openminded to doing something similar in the future as well. White nationalists like to give lip-service to the idea of leaving other people alone and respecting sovereign nations, but underneath that, there is a strong undercurrent of desiring to revive white supremacy and the white colonization of the world. You can lie and deny all you want, but everyone reading this knows that this is the dirty little secret of the alt-right.

    If Jews are a judgement on the West and every people who fall on hard times are being judged by some higher power then wasn’t the white man a judgement upon the American Indians?
     
    Jews specifically are the executors of karma in the material world. I never made the claim that everyone who experiences something bad is experiencing negative karma. The west had a chance to deal with indigenous people in a humane and fair way; they chose not to, and now they will deal with the consequences. Enjoy your just deserts

    Only to a certain degree but as an anti-Western ideologue you wish to believe the worst. So the Muslim invasion of Spain in 711 wasn’t motivated by greed or military conquest or the attempted Muslim conquests of mainland Europe that was ended permanently in 1683? What about the Japanese invasion of China, Indochina in the 1930′s and later the Phillipines? Was that based on human rights and brotherly love?
     
    Once again you are deflecting. The fact that these other things may have been based on greed and military conquest does not suddenly let the west off the hook. If you were to commit a murder, just because there are other murderers out there doesn't suddenly mean that you're not guilty. Do you understand how this works? Stop trying to deflect and change the subject; its obvious that you have no good answer for the FACT that the west was built on greed and military conquest, so because you dont have a good answer for that, you just try to deflect and bring up other things as well in the hopes that I won't notice

    Typical psychopathic WN perspective. White settlers were not forced to come to the new world, they voluntarily came in order to settle an alien land which did not belong to them.

    No, you just got your tortured logic thrown back in your antifag face and you don’t know how to respond. Third world immigrants are not being forced into Europe and the rest of the Western world either. They are coming of their own volition and most have no plans to assimilate and are only here to leech off of the generous social welfare systems and our thriving economies.

    As a result of the white settler incursions into their lands; the indians reacted as any other normal people would, they tried to expel the settlers by any means possible.

    And they failed so get over it. Again you need a history lesson since you think the conquest of N.America by Europeans was an unprecedented and uniquely evil event in world history. The ancestors of the Japanese displaced the Ainu people, the Turkish Muslims displaced the largely Greek Christian settlements in Anatolia and Constantinople which is now Turkey. The Muslim Tamerlane depopulated whole regions to the tune of 17 million people via mass murder. In 1066 the Normans (Norseman) conquered and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons and Celts in England. Hell, the cro-magnons very likely exterminated the neanderthals.
    The list is endless.

    Basically you are saying that indians are savages for trying to eject the squatters which had showed up in their traditional home territory.

    No, they were savages by the gruesome methods they used and in their delight in torturing their victims slowly. You will respond that this was ok, so to be consistent it would be ok for Europeans to murder and hideously torture Africans and Muslims invading Western Europe, U.K. and Scandinavia, right? After all, Europe indisputably belongs to white Europeans.

    However as is typical for WN/right wingers, you are unable to detect your own hypocrisy and ludicrous double standards.

    The hypocrisy and double standards are all on your end. Anti-white leftists are the ultimate hypocrites and shape shifters.

    White nationalists basically get mad at any indigenous population for attempting to fight off european imperialism in their own homelands.

    Provide examples. Characterizing the Indians and their form of warfare as savage isn’t the same as “getting mad” that they fought Europeans settlers. White nationalists have opposed all U.S. wars in the Middle East and elsewhere so much that I recall some cuckservatives were calling us liberals and unpatriotic.

    My analogy is perfectly sound I can assure you that; and the fact that you had to grasp for straws by bringing up that tired old retort about “indians doing it to each other!”

    Perhaps in your own little mind. They Indians routinely waged war upon each other and exterminated each other. You definitely need to crack some history books because you are abysmally ignorant about that era of American history. The Indians were not one big happy family smoking their peace pipes, eating buffalo meat sandwiches and having inter-tribal orgies until the wicked white man cometh.

    “During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology.

    Apples to oranges. The war lasted four years and they weren’t doing awful things to each other. Trench warfare just maximized casualties on all sides. There were many instances of friendliness and fraternization between the opposing sides exemplified by the Christmas truce of 1914. Efforts were made to protect non-combatants.

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!

    My analogy clearly shows how full of shit your attempt at debunking my original argument was.

    Your idiotic analogy didn’t prove anything and you keep patting yourself on the back so much I think you tore your rotator cuff. Better go get an MRI using your Obamacare plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. KenH says:

    You are aware that by this logic, there is no “white genocide” as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:

    You are aware that Europeans were 90% of the U.S. population until 1965 but are a mere 61-62% in 2017 and on course to be less than 50% by 2042 or sooner, right? You are aware that worldwide Europeans comprised 30% of the world population on the eve of WWI but are now approximately 9%, right? Whites genocide is real and we have just cause to be alarmed.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.

    It doesn’t matter when the non-white population has grown 5-10 times faster which has shrunk the white percentage of the world population to 9%.

    Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide

    European colonization of Africa, Asia, India and Australia led to a population explosion of the native populations in each continent thanks to modern medicine, the ending of tribal warfare and food production and distribution methods of the horribly wicked Europeans. Why are non-white people of former European colonies jumping at the chance to go to Europe and live with their former colonial overlords if white people are so murderous and perfidious?

    Go ahead and keep believing your loony left wing fairy tales about European colonization and that America was teeming with highly cultured indigenous peoples (injuns) until the evil, no good, yellow toothed, disease ridden Europeans arrived with their small pox blankets killing 500 million Indians or whichever inflated number lefties use to make the anti-white narrative as sexy as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    No, you just got your tortured logic thrown back in your antifag face and you don’t know how to respond. Third world immigrants are not being forced into Europe and the rest of the Western world either. They are coming of their own volition and most have no plans to assimilate and are only here to leech off of the generous social welfare systems and our thriving economies.
     
    Stay on topic, stop deflecting. You are purposely trying to change the topic because you know that you don't really have a good answer for my original claim; which is that the european colonizers can't really complain about experiencing a negative reaction from the native americans since the european colonizers were for all intents and purposes, alien intruders

    And they failed so get over it. Again you need a history lesson since you think the conquest of N.America by Europeans was an unprecedented and uniquely evil event in world history. The ancestors of the Japanese displaced the Ainu people, the Turkish Muslims displaced the largely Greek Christian settlements in Anatolia and Constantinople which is now Turkey. The Muslim Tamerlane depopulated whole regions to the tune of 17 million people via mass murder. In 1066 the Normans (Norseman) conquered and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons and Celts in England. Hell, the cro-magnons very likely exterminated the neanderthals.
    The list is endless.
     
    Once again, stop deflecting. You have no good argument against the fact that the european colonizers indeed came to the americas and genocided/wiped out the native americans. My argument this whole time continues to be that white nationalists/alt-right have no right to complain about their own cultural and racial displacement while at the same time being proud of the european conquests of the indigenous peoples of the americas.

    No, they were savages by the gruesome methods they used and in their delight in torturing their victims slowly. You will respond that this was ok, so to be consistent it would be ok for Europeans to murder and hideously torture Africans and Muslims invading Western Europe, U.K. and Scandinavia, right? After all, Europe indisputably belongs to white Europeans.
     
    Actually, I think that lots of white nationalists/alt-righters would probably delight in torturing and slowly killing the african and muslim invaders in europe. Anyways, you are purposely deflecting again and trying to avoid straightforwardly answering my question. Answer my question:

    Do the native americans have the right or not to attempt to repel foreign invaders from their traditional lands?

    I don't need any longwinded, logically contorted arguments about why or why not, just answer with a simple YES or NO


    The hypocrisy and double standards are all on your end. Anti-white leftists are the ultimate hypocrites and shape shifters.
     
    Wrong. Anyone with a brain and two eyes can see that all the hypocrisy and double standards in this particular argument have been the domain of the WN people I have been debating against. WN/alt-right commenters are simply mad that I am actually examining their claims/rhetoric and then testing out the strength of their logic. In comment after comment I have revealed their penchant for hypocrisy and double standards. Although keep in mind, my objective is not to convince you all, you all are beyond convincing. My objective is to convince those who are silently reading this whole exchange. Any rational, neutral party reading our debate can clearly discern the quality of the arguments that each side is putting out. From my point of view, the WN/alt-right attitude regarding european colonialism is indefensible and incompatible with the primary policy on the WN/alt-right platform, which is white racial and cultural preservation.

    Provide examples. Characterizing the Indians and their form of warfare as savage isn’t the same as “getting mad” that they fought Europeans settlers. White nationalists have opposed all U.S. wars in the Middle East and elsewhere so much that I recall some cuckservatives were calling us liberals and unpatriotic.

     

    This entire comments section is bursting with examples of this. WN/alt-right have this contorted logic that native americans were the bad guys for resisting european efforts to colonize their lands. In what universe does that make sense? Oh thats right, the WN universe.

    Regarding the WN stance on all US wars in the middle east; I am more than happy to give credit where it is due. This is because I am a rational and fair thinker. From what I have seen, white nationalists are pretty consistent when it comes to being anti-war when it comes to the middle east. Although that being said I get the strong (very strong) impression that WN are only against these wars because they are tired of white guys being used as cannon fodder for the zionists, as opposed to having some deeply principled stance against war and invasion itself. Just to reiterate, I have been on the alt-right scene for a very long time and from what I have seen, depending on the context, White nationalists/the alt-right are more than happy to contemplate theoretical wars of conquest and invasion. White nationalists/the alt-right are merely against wars that benefit israel, I don't think that they are against wars that would directly benefit themselves or the white race.

    I garner that this probably reflects the true psychology of WN/alt-righters since most of them tend to be heavily psychologically tilted towards pragmatism and a strictly rationalist/materialist worldview, as well as the fact that nearly 100% of them are A-OK with europe's brutal colonial past, which strongly suggests that WN/alt-righters would be more than happy to repeat history if they were given the chance. You can claim this is merely conjecture (which it is), but my proposed layout of the psychology of a typical WN/alt-righter is completely congruent with everything that they say, write and think.

    Perhaps in your own little mind. They Indians routinely waged war upon each other and exterminated each other. You definitely need to crack some history books because you are abysmally ignorant about that era of American history. The Indians were not one big happy family smoking their peace pipes, eating buffalo meat sandwiches and having inter-tribal orgies until the wicked white man cometh.
     

    I never said the indians were all one big happy family. Internecine warfare seems to be common everywhere in the world. What you are doing is called a strawman.

    Apples to oranges. The war lasted four years and they weren’t doing awful things to each other. Trench warfare just maximized casualties on all sides. There were many instances of friendliness and fraternization between the opposing sides exemplified by the Christmas truce of 1914. Efforts were made to protect non-combatants.
     
    Once again you are trying to muddy the waters and dissemble. Answer my question with a YES or a NO:

    Does internecine warfare give an external third party the moral right to invade a given territory?

    I will post the original analogy again:


    “During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: “well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn’t matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view”
     
    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are "allowed" to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are "allowed" to invade them. Do you understand this?

    World war one is a limited example that I more or less randomly chose for the purpose of crafting the analogy itself. World war one could be replaced with any other european conflict and the integrity of the analogy would remain the same.

    Don't tell me that you really want to get started on the history of european internecine conflict do you? So since world war one only lasted four years, that isn't long enough to qualify as sufficiently brutal for you? What about this war? (3.5 million casualties from what I could find about it)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

    Also im laughing at your attempt to imply that europeans are singularly humane in internecine warfare when there are numerous examples in history that depict just the opposite. Uh, do you recall that time when eisenhower had millions of german POWs starve to death after world war 2? Yeah, about that...


    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!
     
    Its not the aliens job to civilize them and impose order in the first place. What gave you that idea? Oh that's right, western chauvinism and the white man's burden. You do realize that the current multicultural fate of the west is directly tied to policies enacted which were based on the idea of the white man's burden right? You do realize that because of colonialism and the idea of "the white man's burden", that billions of non-whites are more or less acculturated to western culture and speak western languages and as such can assimilate much easier into the west as opposed to if these same people had just been left alone and still remained "spear-chucking, illiterate savages" right? Once again, history shows the law of unexpected consequences. Since the europeans were so nice to colonize, modernize and civilize all these colored savages across the world, these same colored savages are now familiar with western culture, can speak western languages and can now come and dissolve western civilization (and the western genepool) by more easily assimilating into it. Bravo! Great job european colonialists, you all really shot yourself in the foot with that one!

    And to answer your question, actually I would definitely be arguing for the rights of indigenous europeans. Believe it or not, I strongly support equality, and strongly oppose double standards/hypocrisy of any kind. If europeans were being legitimately oppressed, and through no fault of their own then I would not hesitate to take their side. That being said, the present situation is different since the europeans/the west pretty much brought this current situation on themselves. Whats worse is that the WN/alt-right still refuse to feel any kind of remorse for the past and to the contrary they feel extremely proud about it. As such, I have trouble generating any sympathy for the west and its current demographic and culture downwards spiral. You are deluded if you think that I dislike the west just because of their race. That is completely moronic. I have certain issues with the west merely because of their not-so distant past. I judge the west based on their ACTIONS and not on their skin color.


    You are aware that Europeans were 90% of the U.S. population until 1965 but are a mere 61-62% in 2017 and on course to be less than 50% by 2042 or sooner, right? You are aware that worldwide Europeans comprised 30% of the world population on the eve of WWI but are now approximately 9%, right? Whites genocide is real and we have just cause to be alarmed.
     
    I warned you in my last reply that this was a very bad argument to make, but instead of heeding my warning you just doubled down. Now prepare to be eviscerated.

    Below is what you wrote:


    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.
     
    Back when columbus discovered the americas, native americans constituted 100% of the population; now in the United States alone native americans constitute only 2% of the population (as of 2014); however objectively speaking, according to you, there are more native americans alive now than there were back when the europeans conquered them, so they can't be too mad about it and this "couldn't be considered native american genocide".

    Likewise, Europeans used to be 30% of the population of the world on the eve of world war 1, but now they are only 9% of the world population but objectively speaking in terms of absolute population numbers they have nearly doubled in size from around 400 million in 1900 to 760 million in 2017 (I am 100% positive that the absolute population numbers for actual whites in the US has objectively increased as well compared to the past). The only thing that has changed is their proportion of the entire population. So what gives? White genocide is real because the proportional numbers of whites have decreased compared to the total population of the world (even though the white population is effectively double what it used to be back in 1900), MEANWHILE native american genocide is not real even though the proportional numbers of native americans in america have decreased compared to the total population of the United States but according to you, the native american population is much larger than what it was when the europeans conquered them. So which is it?? This right here is a very typical example of WN/alt-right hypocrisy.

    I literally just took your entire argument regarding the native americans and their population numbers, swapped it out with authentic data regarding white population numbers and the rhetoric of the argument remains absolutely 100% the same. The fact that I just destroyed your argument by mirroring it and you weren't able to realize the feebleness of your own position beforehand just goes to show how atrocious and maladroit the reasoning of a typical WN/alt-righter is. You all are literally unable to perceive things outside of your own limited perspective, amazing! You all have a HUGE blind spot, its incredible really


    European colonization of Africa, Asia, India and Australia led to a population explosion of the native populations in each continent thanks to modern medicine, the ending of tribal warfare and food production and distribution methods of the horribly wicked Europeans. Why are non-white people of former European colonies jumping at the chance to go to Europe and live with their former colonial overlords if white people are so murderous and perfidious?
     
    To answer this, I will reply with what you yourself just said regarding "white genocide":

    It doesn’t matter when the non-white population has grown 5-10 times faster which has shrunk the white percentage of the world population to 9%.
     
    So you are basically mad about "white genocide" (as defined by you anyways) when white genocide is the direct result of exploding populations which is due to european innovation in the first place (again according to you). So instead of being mad at me, shouldn't you be mad at your colonial forebearers who caused this situation to begin with?

    Go ahead and keep believing your loony left wing fairy tales about European colonization and that America was teeming with highly cultured indigenous peoples (injuns) until the evil, no good, yellow toothed, disease ridden Europeans arrived with their small pox blankets killing 500 million Indians or whichever inflated number lefties use to make the anti-white narrative as sexy as possible.
     
    There is no need to spruce up what actually happened. It doesnt matter how good or how bad, or how cultured or how savage the native americans were; in an ethical/moral sense, the european colonization of the americas was wrong. You cannot square this circle, there is no way to morally justify it. That being said, the only reason this moral quandary is still relevant at all is simply because WN/alt-right/the right wing still want to be proud about the european conquests of the indigenous peoples of america while simultaneously complaining about their own racial and cultural displacement. Do you see the schism here?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. fnn says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    You are aware that by this logic, there is no “white genocide” as well right? There are approximately 760 Million white people on the earth right now according to this article:
     
    You are aware that Europeans were 90% of the U.S. population until 1965 but are a mere 61-62% in 2017 and on course to be less than 50% by 2042 or sooner, right? You are aware that worldwide Europeans comprised 30% of the world population on the eve of WWI but are now approximately 9%, right? Whites genocide is real and we have just cause to be alarmed.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world

    Objectively speaking, there are nearly double the amount of white people in the world than there were back in the year 1900.
     
    It doesn’t matter when the non-white population has grown 5-10 times faster which has shrunk the white percentage of the world population to 9%.

    Not only that but the european colonization of the americas did not occur in a bubble; the same thing was occurring in africa, asia, india, australia etc; so its extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there was no native american genocide
     
    European colonization of Africa, Asia, India and Australia led to a population explosion of the native populations in each continent thanks to modern medicine, the ending of tribal warfare and food production and distribution methods of the horribly wicked Europeans. Why are non-white people of former European colonies jumping at the chance to go to Europe and live with their former colonial overlords if white people are so murderous and perfidious?

    Go ahead and keep believing your loony left wing fairy tales about European colonization and that America was teeming with highly cultured indigenous peoples (injuns) until the evil, no good, yellow toothed, disease ridden Europeans arrived with their small pox blankets killing 500 million Indians or whichever inflated number lefties use to make the anti-white narrative as sexy as possible.

    No, you just got your tortured logic thrown back in your antifag face and you don’t know how to respond. Third world immigrants are not being forced into Europe and the rest of the Western world either. They are coming of their own volition and most have no plans to assimilate and are only here to leech off of the generous social welfare systems and our thriving economies.

    Stay on topic, stop deflecting. You are purposely trying to change the topic because you know that you don’t really have a good answer for my original claim; which is that the european colonizers can’t really complain about experiencing a negative reaction from the native americans since the european colonizers were for all intents and purposes, alien intruders

    And they failed so get over it. Again you need a history lesson since you think the conquest of N.America by Europeans was an unprecedented and uniquely evil event in world history. The ancestors of the Japanese displaced the Ainu people, the Turkish Muslims displaced the largely Greek Christian settlements in Anatolia and Constantinople which is now Turkey. The Muslim Tamerlane depopulated whole regions to the tune of 17 million people via mass murder. In 1066 the Normans (Norseman) conquered and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons and Celts in England. Hell, the cro-magnons very likely exterminated the neanderthals.
    The list is endless.

    Once again, stop deflecting. You have no good argument against the fact that the european colonizers indeed came to the americas and genocided/wiped out the native americans. My argument this whole time continues to be that white nationalists/alt-right have no right to complain about their own cultural and racial displacement while at the same time being proud of the european conquests of the indigenous peoples of the americas.

    No, they were savages by the gruesome methods they used and in their delight in torturing their victims slowly. You will respond that this was ok, so to be consistent it would be ok for Europeans to murder and hideously torture Africans and Muslims invading Western Europe, U.K. and Scandinavia, right? After all, Europe indisputably belongs to white Europeans.

    Actually, I think that lots of white nationalists/alt-righters would probably delight in torturing and slowly killing the african and muslim invaders in europe. Anyways, you are purposely deflecting again and trying to avoid straightforwardly answering my question. Answer my question:

    Do the native americans have the right or not to attempt to repel foreign invaders from their traditional lands?

    I don’t need any longwinded, logically contorted arguments about why or why not, just answer with a simple YES or NO

    The hypocrisy and double standards are all on your end. Anti-white leftists are the ultimate hypocrites and shape shifters.

    Wrong. Anyone with a brain and two eyes can see that all the hypocrisy and double standards in this particular argument have been the domain of the WN people I have been debating against. WN/alt-right commenters are simply mad that I am actually examining their claims/rhetoric and then testing out the strength of their logic. In comment after comment I have revealed their penchant for hypocrisy and double standards. Although keep in mind, my objective is not to convince you all, you all are beyond convincing. My objective is to convince those who are silently reading this whole exchange. Any rational, neutral party reading our debate can clearly discern the quality of the arguments that each side is putting out. From my point of view, the WN/alt-right attitude regarding european colonialism is indefensible and incompatible with the primary policy on the WN/alt-right platform, which is white racial and cultural preservation.

    Provide examples. Characterizing the Indians and their form of warfare as savage isn’t the same as “getting mad” that they fought Europeans settlers. White nationalists have opposed all U.S. wars in the Middle East and elsewhere so much that I recall some cuckservatives were calling us liberals and unpatriotic.

    This entire comments section is bursting with examples of this. WN/alt-right have this contorted logic that native americans were the bad guys for resisting european efforts to colonize their lands. In what universe does that make sense? Oh thats right, the WN universe.

    Regarding the WN stance on all US wars in the middle east; I am more than happy to give credit where it is due. This is because I am a rational and fair thinker. From what I have seen, white nationalists are pretty consistent when it comes to being anti-war when it comes to the middle east. Although that being said I get the strong (very strong) impression that WN are only against these wars because they are tired of white guys being used as cannon fodder for the zionists, as opposed to having some deeply principled stance against war and invasion itself. Just to reiterate, I have been on the alt-right scene for a very long time and from what I have seen, depending on the context, White nationalists/the alt-right are more than happy to contemplate theoretical wars of conquest and invasion. White nationalists/the alt-right are merely against wars that benefit israel, I don’t think that they are against wars that would directly benefit themselves or the white race.

    I garner that this probably reflects the true psychology of WN/alt-righters since most of them tend to be heavily psychologically tilted towards pragmatism and a strictly rationalist/materialist worldview, as well as the fact that nearly 100% of them are A-OK with europe’s brutal colonial past, which strongly suggests that WN/alt-righters would be more than happy to repeat history if they were given the chance. You can claim this is merely conjecture (which it is), but my proposed layout of the psychology of a typical WN/alt-righter is completely congruent with everything that they say, write and think.

    Perhaps in your own little mind. They Indians routinely waged war upon each other and exterminated each other. You definitely need to crack some history books because you are abysmally ignorant about that era of American history. The Indians were not one big happy family smoking their peace pipes, eating buffalo meat sandwiches and having inter-tribal orgies until the wicked white man cometh.

    I never said the indians were all one big happy family. Internecine warfare seems to be common everywhere in the world. What you are doing is called a strawman.

    Apples to oranges. The war lasted four years and they weren’t doing awful things to each other. Trench warfare just maximized casualties on all sides. There were many instances of friendliness and fraternization between the opposing sides exemplified by the Christmas truce of 1914. Efforts were made to protect non-combatants.

    Once again you are trying to muddy the waters and dissemble. Answer my question with a YES or a NO:

    Does internecine warfare give an external third party the moral right to invade a given territory?

    I will post the original analogy again:

    “During world war 1 all of europe is engaged in internecine warfare and doing awful things to each other; all of the sudden aliens appear from outer space and proceed to conquer the europeans with their advanced technology. When asked afterwards why the aliens colonized and depopulated europe, they respond with: “well the europeans were all killing each other, so it doesn’t matter whether we killed them or not too, they were just a bunch of savages from our point of view”

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?

    World war one is a limited example that I more or less randomly chose for the purpose of crafting the analogy itself. World war one could be replaced with any other european conflict and the integrity of the analogy would remain the same.

    Don’t tell me that you really want to get started on the history of european internecine conflict do you? So since world war one only lasted four years, that isn’t long enough to qualify as sufficiently brutal for you? What about this war? (3.5 million casualties from what I could find about it)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

    Also im laughing at your attempt to imply that europeans are singularly humane in internecine warfare when there are numerous examples in history that depict just the opposite. Uh, do you recall that time when eisenhower had millions of german POWs starve to death after world war 2? Yeah, about that…

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!

    Its not the aliens job to civilize them and impose order in the first place. What gave you that idea? Oh that’s right, western chauvinism and the white man’s burden. You do realize that the current multicultural fate of the west is directly tied to policies enacted which were based on the idea of the white man’s burden right? You do realize that because of colonialism and the idea of “the white man’s burden”, that billions of non-whites are more or less acculturated to western culture and speak western languages and as such can assimilate much easier into the west as opposed to if these same people had just been left alone and still remained “spear-chucking, illiterate savages” right? Once again, history shows the law of unexpected consequences. Since the europeans were so nice to colonize, modernize and civilize all these colored savages across the world, these same colored savages are now familiar with western culture, can speak western languages and can now come and dissolve western civilization (and the western genepool) by more easily assimilating into it. Bravo! Great job european colonialists, you all really shot yourself in the foot with that one!

    And to answer your question, actually I would definitely be arguing for the rights of indigenous europeans. Believe it or not, I strongly support equality, and strongly oppose double standards/hypocrisy of any kind. If europeans were being legitimately oppressed, and through no fault of their own then I would not hesitate to take their side. That being said, the present situation is different since the europeans/the west pretty much brought this current situation on themselves. Whats worse is that the WN/alt-right still refuse to feel any kind of remorse for the past and to the contrary they feel extremely proud about it. As such, I have trouble generating any sympathy for the west and its current demographic and culture downwards spiral. You are deluded if you think that I dislike the west just because of their race. That is completely moronic. I have certain issues with the west merely because of their not-so distant past. I judge the west based on their ACTIONS and not on their skin color.

    You are aware that Europeans were 90% of the U.S. population until 1965 but are a mere 61-62% in 2017 and on course to be less than 50% by 2042 or sooner, right? You are aware that worldwide Europeans comprised 30% of the world population on the eve of WWI but are now approximately 9%, right? Whites genocide is real and we have just cause to be alarmed.

    I warned you in my last reply that this was a very bad argument to make, but instead of heeding my warning you just doubled down. Now prepare to be eviscerated.

    Below is what you wrote:

    Except there was no genocide in the case of the European conquest of America. There’s more Indians living today then when we conquered them. But you’re probably one of those lefties that make baseless claims that 80-100 million Indians were killed by white settlers.

    Back when columbus discovered the americas, native americans constituted 100% of the population; now in the United States alone native americans constitute only 2% of the population (as of 2014); however objectively speaking, according to you, there are more native americans alive now than there were back when the europeans conquered them, so they can’t be too mad about it and this “couldn’t be considered native american genocide”.

    Likewise, Europeans used to be 30% of the population of the world on the eve of world war 1, but now they are only 9% of the world population but objectively speaking in terms of absolute population numbers they have nearly doubled in size from around 400 million in 1900 to 760 million in 2017 (I am 100% positive that the absolute population numbers for actual whites in the US has objectively increased as well compared to the past). The only thing that has changed is their proportion of the entire population. So what gives? White genocide is real because the proportional numbers of whites have decreased compared to the total population of the world (even though the white population is effectively double what it used to be back in 1900), MEANWHILE native american genocide is not real even though the proportional numbers of native americans in america have decreased compared to the total population of the United States but according to you, the native american population is much larger than what it was when the europeans conquered them. So which is it?? This right here is a very typical example of WN/alt-right hypocrisy.

    I literally just took your entire argument regarding the native americans and their population numbers, swapped it out with authentic data regarding white population numbers and the rhetoric of the argument remains absolutely 100% the same. The fact that I just destroyed your argument by mirroring it and you weren’t able to realize the feebleness of your own position beforehand just goes to show how atrocious and maladroit the reasoning of a typical WN/alt-righter is. You all are literally unable to perceive things outside of your own limited perspective, amazing! You all have a HUGE blind spot, its incredible really

    European colonization of Africa, Asia, India and Australia led to a population explosion of the native populations in each continent thanks to modern medicine, the ending of tribal warfare and food production and distribution methods of the horribly wicked Europeans. Why are non-white people of former European colonies jumping at the chance to go to Europe and live with their former colonial overlords if white people are so murderous and perfidious?

    To answer this, I will reply with what you yourself just said regarding “white genocide”:

    It doesn’t matter when the non-white population has grown 5-10 times faster which has shrunk the white percentage of the world population to 9%.

    So you are basically mad about “white genocide” (as defined by you anyways) when white genocide is the direct result of exploding populations which is due to european innovation in the first place (again according to you). So instead of being mad at me, shouldn’t you be mad at your colonial forebearers who caused this situation to begin with?

    Go ahead and keep believing your loony left wing fairy tales about European colonization and that America was teeming with highly cultured indigenous peoples (injuns) until the evil, no good, yellow toothed, disease ridden Europeans arrived with their small pox blankets killing 500 million Indians or whichever inflated number lefties use to make the anti-white narrative as sexy as possible.

    There is no need to spruce up what actually happened. It doesnt matter how good or how bad, or how cultured or how savage the native americans were; in an ethical/moral sense, the european colonization of the americas was wrong. You cannot square this circle, there is no way to morally justify it. That being said, the only reason this moral quandary is still relevant at all is simply because WN/alt-right/the right wing still want to be proud about the european conquests of the indigenous peoples of america while simultaneously complaining about their own racial and cultural displacement. Do you see the schism here?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. KenH says:

    Stay on topic, stop deflecting.

    I’ve noticed you say this often when you can’t refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.

    Once again, stop deflecting. You have no good argument against the fact that the european colonizers indeed came to the americas and genocided/wiped out the native americans

    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn’t amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You’re just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.

    Actually, I think that lots of white nationalists/alt-righters would probably delight in torturing and slowly killing the african and muslim invaders in europe.

    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don’t be a coward, just answer the question.

    Do the native americans have the right or not to attempt to repel foreign invaders from their traditional lands?

    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.

    Wrong. Anyone with a brain and two eyes can see that all the hypocrisy and double standards in this particular argument have been the domain of the WN people I have been debating against

    Both I and a couple of other posters have cited facts that you’ve been unable or unwilling to refute.

    This entire comments section is bursting with examples of this. WN/alt-right have this contorted logic that native americans were the bad guys for resisting european efforts to colonize their lands. In what universe does that make sense?

    Again, provide specific examples. Are whites supposed to love the Indians for what they did to the white settlers who lost battles or were taken captive? Speaking only for myself the conquest of this continent by whites was a great achievement. You’re entitled to your opinion on the matter but you seem to think you have a monopoly on righteousness on this subject.

    Regarding the WN stance on all US wars in the middle east; I am more than happy to give credit where it is due.

    Finally your being honest about something.

    as well as the fact that nearly 100% of them are A-OK with europe’s brutal colonial past, which strongly suggests that WN/alt-righters would be more than happy to repeat history

    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?

    No one can predict the future but the bulk of white nationalists are mostly concerned with asserting control over all Western nations and reversing our declining birthrates for the foreseeable future.

    I never said the indians were all one big happy family. Internecine warfare seems to be common everywhere in the world. What you are doing is called a strawman.

    Finally wrung some truth out of you. After the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 there were still wars in Europe but they tended to be of short duration and relatively civilized compared to the conflict between the European settler and N. American Indians. The barbarism of WWII ended the evolution of civilized warfare on the European continent.

    Once again you are trying to muddy the waters and dissemble. Answer my question with a YES or a NO:
    Does internecine warfare give an external third party the moral right to invade a given territory?

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That’s why there’s armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.

    https://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.

    Don’t tell me that you really want to get started on the history of european internecine conflict do you? So since world war one only lasted four years, that isn’t long enough to qualify as sufficiently brutal for you? What about this war? (3.5 million casualties from what I could find about it)

    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.

    Also im laughing at your attempt to imply that europeans are singularly humane in internecine warfare when there are numerous examples in history that depict just the opposite. Uh, do you recall that time when eisenhower had millions of german POWs starve to death after world war 2? Yeah, about that…

    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I’ll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the “semitic hatred” that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.

    Oh that’s right, western chauvinism and the white man’s burden. You do realize that the current multicultural fate of the west is directly tied to policies enacted which were based on the idea of the white man’s burden right?

    Not necessarily. It’s called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man’s sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren’t allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.

    And to answer your question, actually I would definitely be arguing for the rights of indigenous europeans. Believe it or not, I strongly support equality, and strongly oppose double standards/hypocrisy of any kind.

    That’s great. There is hope for you.

    Whats worse is that the WN/alt-right still refuse to feel any kind of remorse for the past and to the contrary they feel extremely proud about it. As such, I have trouble generating any sympathy for the west and its current demographic and culture downwards spiral.

    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?

    Likewise, Europeans used to be 30% of the population of the world on the eve of world war 1, but now they are only 9% of the world population but objectively speaking in terms of absolute population numbers they have nearly doubled in size from around 400 million in 1900 to 760 million in 2017

    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

    You don’t have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it’s not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?

    MEANWHILE native american genocide is not real even though the proportional numbers of native americans in america have decreased compared to the total population of the United States but according to you, the native american population is much larger than what it was when the europeans conquered them. So which is it?? This right here is a very typical example of WN/alt-right hypocrisy.

    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don’t have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I’ll agree with you.

    I literally just took your entire argument regarding the native americans and their population numbers, swapped it out with authentic data regarding white population numbers and the rhetoric of the argument remains absolutely 100% the same

    No, you just got owned. Again. See my previous responses.

    So you are basically mad about “white genocide” (as defined by you anyways) when white genocide is the direct result of exploding populations which is due to european innovation in the first place (again according to you). So instead of being mad at me, shouldn’t you be mad at your colonial forebearers who caused this situation to begin with?

    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don’t put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn’t foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.

    This wouldn’t be a problem if Europe would bar the door to the third world and cut off all aid. Eventually, third world birth rates will start imploding through war, disease, starvation and other natural causes that they wicked white man kept at bay.

    There is no need to spruce up what actually happened. It doesnt matter how good or how bad, or how cultured or how savage the native americans were; in an ethical/moral sense, the european colonization of the americas was wrong

    That’s just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won’t work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you’ve done.

    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven’t you left if you consider it “morally wrong” and are so incensed about how it was founded?

    Do you see the schism here?

    No, just because we conquered America doesn’t mean we’re supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America’s founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you’re a genius. But don’t forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    I’ve noticed you say this often when you can’t refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.
     
    nah, you're just talking shit and hoping it sticks at this point. Simply calling my arguments specious doesn't make them so ;)

    I have to work to keep you on topic though since you yourself know that the WN/alt-right stance regarding the colonization of the americas and their own stance regarding multiculturalism and mass immigration is at odds with each other. It doesn't take long winded replies (from both you and me) to realize that. Its self evident. WN/Alt-righters have to convince themselves of these shoddy justifications for colonization though in order to control the raging cognitive dissonance in their own minds. WN/alt-righters cannot effectively argue against this logic, this is why they must always resort to trotting out different examples from history and trying to deflect instead of staying on topic and giving a cogent, well reasoned argument as to why they condone and even support the european conquest of the native americans which lead to the subsequent racial and cultural destruction of the native americans, while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.

    As far as I am concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Metaphorically speaking, if you are willing to take a life, then you should be prepared for the possibility that you might lose your own. This is called taking responsibility for your own actions and being able to accept potential consequences. WN/alt-righters like to act brave by talking about how happy they are to "take another life", but when it comes to their own lives they have to resort to feigning innocence, begging and special pleading about why they are different and why they deserve to survive. Honestly that just strikes me as cowardly. This isn't to say that WN/alt-righters have to just give up their struggle, but they should at least be honest that their political platform is built upon a shaky moral foundation and they should consider trying to reconcile over these glaring moral contradictions and creately a more internally consistent political worldview.


    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn’t amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You’re just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.
     
    Speaking of inconvenient facts:

    Mexican sovereignty over Alta California was short lived, as after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed to end the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took control of California, and in the latter half of the 19th century both State and Federal authorities, incited[5][6] aided and financed miners, settlers, ranchers and people`s militias to enslave, kidnap, murder and exterminate a major proportion of displaced Native American Indians, sometimes contemptuously referred to as "Diggers", using many of the same policies of violence against the indigenous population that it did throughout its territory. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

    Simultaneous to the ongoing extermination, reports of its effects were being made known to the outside world.[notes 1]

    A notable early eyewitness testimony and account: "The Indians of California" 1864, is from John Ross Browne, Custom's official and Inspector of Indian Affairs on the Pacific Coast systematically categorizing the fraud, corruption, land theft, slavery, rape and massacre perpetrated on a substantial portion of the aboriginal population.[16]

    By one estimate, at least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870.[17] Historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873 and estimated that during this period at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").[18] Professor Ed Castillo, of Sonoma State University, provides a higher estimate: "The handiwork of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush."[19]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Genocide-California-Catastrophe-1846-1873/dp/0300181361/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SVCA3KVX50B8FDKYHDK5
    https://www.amazon.com/Murder-State-Californias-American-1846-1873/dp/0803269668/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2E7A2FFS8XVCEQ8S43BK
    https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Land-Early-California-Indian/dp/0875863647/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=N97Z6G0VZQ1R4ZHPXF4G

    googling the phrase: "california native genocide" brings up 1,540,000 hits FYI

    So the uninvited european invaders were just incidentally killing indians on their native home turf (this itself is criminal and unethical behavior) but this is not genocide right? Oh wait, there was actual government organized efforts to exterminate the indians as well. Does that qualify as genocide yet? If that doesnt, then what does? Muh white genocide?

    What about this inconvenient fact:

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

    “You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”
     
    https://books.google.com/books?id=X9jLOv_r_asC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=“You+will+do+well+to+try+to+inoculate+the+Indians+%5Bwith+smallpox%5D+by+means+of+blankets,+as+well+as+to+try+every+other+method,+that+can+serve+to+extirpate+this+execrable+race.”&source=bl&ots=0VqQyyk0UO&sig=7mhfrMakFfv2pJ1ERJMm11DF_vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmibP17oDXAhUk6IMKHQ6zARwQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CYou%20will%20do%20well%20to%20try%20to%20inoculate%20the%20Indians%20%5Bwith%20smallpox%5D%20by%20means%20of%20blankets%2C%20as%20well%20as%20to%20try%20every%20other%20method%2C%20that%20can%20serve%20to%20extirpate%20this%20execrable%20race.%E2%80%9D&f=false

    So basically the native americans deserved to be killed because they were fighting off the europeans who intruded upon their traditional territory in the first place. How does that make any sense? You are still trying to deflect and obscure the guilt of the european colonists in the demise of the native americans. Unfortunately for you, this is not very convincing for anybody. Your argument is essentially the same as saying this:

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen's house in order to rob him; in the process of robbing him, they accidentally killed him, buts it not really murder since the white citizen was trying to resist the black criminals' attempt to incapacitate him and they ended up accidentally having to kill him.

    So when it comes to the native americans; its not really considered genocide to murder the native americans en masse since the european colonists were just trying to incapacitate the native americans while they were colonizing the traditional lands of the native americans; in the same way, in the analogy its not really considered murder when the black criminals killed the upstanding white citizen since the black criminals were only trying to incapacite the upstanding white citizen while they were trying to rob him. That makes sense right? uh huh...

    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don’t be a coward, just answer the question.
     
    I'm not a coward and i'll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible. That wasn't a hard question for me to answer btw, I am pretty consistent in all of my views and strive to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible. That being said, you are purposely trying to conflate the issues and discuss apples and oranges. When it comes to african and muslim influx into europe; there are two caveats:

    1. African and muslim immigrants are coming to empty handed; its not like they are showing up en masse to europe with ak-47s. Hence for the most part the african and muslim "invaders" are more of a civil influx as opposed to a military one. And no, don't try to trot out a couple of isolated terrorist attacks as evidence of african and muslim immigration being a military invasion. Compared to the european conquest of the americas, the african and muslim immigration situation is child's play and lacks the cohesive, overt military organization and collectivized intent of the european colonists.

    2. The west brought this situation upon itself. The west got the ball rolling with global colonization, which then morphed into globalization, which then in turn lead to the immigration situation which the west is currently experiencing. Also did you forget? Its currently the western countries that continue to stir the pot in the middle east, which then in turn leads to more bloody conflicts, which then leads to more muslim immigrants heading to europe. Funny how that works isnt it? Its strange because it seems like the more things change, the more things stay the same. The west just can't seem to stop bothering people around the world and interfering with sovereign people's business. At one time I "blamed the jews" for this situation, but then I realized that you can't really blame the jews for every single instance of western depredation on other sovereign countries; the west has a proven track record of doing this and it seems to be ingrained into the culture. WN/Alt-righters always like to blame the jews for making america invade the middle east, but actually if you read what WN/alt-righters/right wingers write and even talk to a few then it quickly becomes evident that the west doesn't need any nefarious third party to coax it into invading someone else and violating their sovereignty, generally speaking the west is already more than happy to invade others without any coaxing at all.

    As I have said before, the west has made its bed, now it can sleep in it. WN/Alt-righters always try to sweep the bloody history of the west under the rug and then act like the west has just been minding its own business and hasn't been bothering anyone else and then all the sudden all these mean immigrants started showing up and started bullying the west for no reason LOL

    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.
     
    You are slow period. If you think this entire argument has only been about how sad it was that the native americans were defeated then you havent been paying attention, either that or you lack reading comprehension. The point of my argument has been and continues to be the following:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.
     
    This is hypocrisy. If the WN/alt-right wants to discuss equal rights for whites when it comes to racial survival, then WN/alt-right needs to support these same rights for every other race as well including the native americans. Failing this, it just reveals the WN/alt-right for the unapologetic white supremacist movement that it really is. Its not about white racial self preservation for these people, its about racial domination over all others.

    WN/alt-righters always talk about how moral, civilized and advanced western civilization is but if this is true then WN/alt-righters cannot be proud about the history of european colonization. If WN/alt-righters are proud about this, then it means that they condone murder, rape and theft on a massive scale. Colonizing a landmass and subjugating its native people is not a walk in the park; its an extremely brutal, harsh and sustained action which by its inherent nature involves committing countless savages acts. So which is it? Do WN/the alt-right support being civilized or do they support the law of the jungle? It would be possible for the west to retain its claims of moral advancement and being extremely civilized if the west only responded to external incursions of its own sovereignty with extreme violence and brutality, but the west actually went out of its way (literally crossed oceans) to antagonize and brutalize others. And this is what you consider civility?

    I notice that WN/alt-righters always have a schism when it comes to this topic; WN/alt-righters always want to proclaim the moral advancement of the west and call others backwards savages, but then when its convenient to them (when the conversation comes to the topic of european colonial history) they always want to talk about how its a cruel world and how all that matters is the law of jungle. So how is this any different than how a "savage" would think?

    Also I find it hilarious that WN/alt-righters sub-rosa condone murder, rape and theft via the process of conquest and colonization but then WN/alt-righters get mad when blacks commit murder, rape and theft. Logically speaking, the kind of murder, rape and theft that WN/alt-righters condone and even support is magnitudes larger in scale and impact than the murder, rape and theft that blacks commit. Funnily enough though, WN/alt-righters give blacks heat for this, but then pat themselves on the back (well, the backs of past european colonizers) for doing the same thing, only much worse.

    I guess WN/alt-righters just hate the disorganized fashion in which blacks commit murder, rape and theft and look down on it because its not as effective and organized as the white/european way of doing things LOL

    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?
     
    Like I said, WN/alt-right have no other arguments to use except "other people did it too!" due to their inability to defend their own feeble position. WN/alt-right are fully aware of this weakness and this is why they can only resort to "tu quoque" kinds of arguments. This discussion has nothing to do with the crimes that other people committed; stay on topic.

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That’s why there’s armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You lack reading comprehension. Why do you think I put "allowed" in quotation marks in the original post?

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?
     
    Of course third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish; that is a given. But we are describing the moral and ethical dimensions of this topic and not the practical aspects of it.

    War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You do know that just because war and conquest is in man's very DNA, it doesn't mean that we have to submit to these desires. The fact that we have the ability to act on or suppress these specific drives is what separates man from animals, civilization from savagery.

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.
     
    You are being disingenuous and purposely dissembling here. It was very clear I was not referring to the literal basis on which the europeans decided to colonize the new world; rather I was referring to the casual, sub rosa WN/alt-right justification that is so casually trotted out. You yourself support this whole "internecine warfare is an appropriate justification for invasion and conquest", you implied so yourself here:

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!
     
    So basically you're saying that if somebody in a foreign land is beating up on their own local neighbors then you have the right to go over there and impose order. Yeah ok, that doesn't really sound right to me. Also I have a question for you:

    What would you do if it was an indisputably technologically/militarily superior foreign country that was beating up on their own local neighbors? Would you still go and try to impose order? IMO, WN/alt-righters only advocate trying to "impose order" and "civilize" those that they know they can easily defeat and take the resources from. This silly idea about imposing order and civilizing others is just a shoddy fig leaf for desiring to take what belongs to others. The whole rhetoric about imposing order and civilizing others goes completely out the window if there is the possibility that the adversary in question might be more powerful than you. Just saying

    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.
     
    The fact that the native americans were ruthless in warfare and practiced torture and cannibalization doesn't provide justification to conquer them. I know that is hard for you to understand, but Im just letting you know that. BTW, if that's not what you're trying to imply, then what are you getting at? Why do you care whether or not the native americans used to practice extremely barbaric warfare? You act as if it was the native americans who came to europe and were killing europeans in this way; native americans were isolated in the americas doing this to each other. It literally had nothing to do with the european colonizers. So again, why do you care so much?

    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I’ll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the “semitic hatred” that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.
     
    WWII was a judgement on the west. Hiter was actually a pretty honorable man once you get past all the allied propaganda about him (assuming the alternative facts I have found about him are true), however the west was manipulated and turned against itself by the jews in the same way that the west has manipulated and played off indigenous peoples against themselves for hundreds of years. In a twist of poetic justice, due to european internecine fighting, european global colonial power was broken, and the foundations for multiculturalism and the eventual demographic shift in the west was set in place. In my opinion, the jews were only able to infiltrate the west due to the essential unrighteousness of the west due to its colonial past.

    Not necessarily. It’s called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man’s sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren’t allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.
     
    The west spent centuries actively subjugating native populations and cultures while it mostly retained its own european based homogenous racial and culture identity, meanwhile the ottoman turks empire was multi-cultural from the very beginning. Therefore european colonization had a very different dynamic and tone than did the colonization attempts of the ottoman empire. As a result of this, this affects the degree and type of backlash that the west will receive for its past actions vis a vis turkey.

    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?
     
    Regarding any of the other examples you trotted out; they are not relevant to the conversation at hand. Stop deflecting and trying to point out what others did, we are discussing the topic of the west and its hand in the colonization of the americas.

    Self flagellating is different than honestly reflecting over past history. WN/alt-right/the right wing is very much about celebrating and remembering the past when it comes to the more glorious events in the history of the west, but mysteriously WN/alt-right/the right wing gets squeamish when the topic about culpability regarding the history of european colonization comes up. Whenever this topic is broached, all the sudden WN/alt-right/the right wing wants to pretend like the past is the past (or they try to come up with tortured apologetics about why european colonization was not a crime.) Usually its some odd mixture of both. Thats kind of silly isn't it? Also it this inconsistent stance strongly suggests a fundamental lack of integrity as well. A WN/alt-righter with integrity would have no problem acknowledging both the proud as well as shameful aspects of western history

    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

    You don’t have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it’s not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?
     
    you are missing the point. again. My original point was that the native americans legitimately suffered by genocide using your own standards as applied to white people; yet you don't consider the native american case genocide but you consider the situation with the white race as genocide. Either both are considered genocide (again, using your standards), or neither are. Which is it?

    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don’t have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I’ll agree with you.
    So whites don't want to have kids and its considered genocide, but when native americans are ruthlessly killed and displaced by european settlers is not considered genocide?
     
    You are also being purposely deceptive in how you are connecting your arguments. First of all you just said that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most western nations, and then you bring up the fact that Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. These two things have no correlation with each other. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has nothing to do with the fact that native americans have their own sovereign territories and are allowed to keep out non-native americans. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has little to do with immigration and more to do with the fact that whites simply arent having kids. Secondly, the only way in which the absolute numbers of whites would be stagnant or declining would be connected with immigration would be if you are referring to interracial relationships and the non-white offspring born from that; in that case, this too hardly qualifies as "genocide". Whites aren't forced at gunpoint to race mix, white men and white women voluntarily choose to do this.

    Your argument for white genocide basically boils down to:

    1.white people dont want to have many kids

    2.white people are willingly choosing to racemix with immigrants

    You could factually state that the white race is dwindling in numbers; but you cannot call it white genocide. This is especially so if you cannot concede that what happened to the native americans was considered genocide. The "white genocide" that whites are experiencing in the US is A LUXURY RESORT compared to the actual genocide and mistreatment that the native americans experienced at the hands of european colonists.

    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don’t put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn’t foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.
     
    No, there's no need to concede anything. At no point did I ever try to deny the fact that european intervention led to a higher quality of life for the entire world and a subsequent population explosion in the third world. I am perfectly fine to give credit where it is due. That being said, Europe's attempt to colonize the world (and its successful genocide of the native americans) was indeed a crime against humanity. There is no need to "make up my mind" when both concepts can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. As far as I am concerned, the presence of both situations form a smooth, logical continuum of action and subsequent consequence as opposed to being two contradictory events. The west's mistake was in colonizing the world, and as an unexpected result of taking on the burden of colonizing the world, the west inadvertently caused a massive increase in standards of living and a subsequent third world population boom which now threatens to subsume the west who originally colonized these countries. The west opened up pandoras box when it decided to start going around and colonizing the whole world, and now it is dealing with the consequences. Why do WN/alt-righters have such a difficult time dealing with the concept of consequences? The west ran roughshod over the entire world for centuries and WN/alt-righters act shocked and indignant that now the west's past actions are catching up to it.

    That’s just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won’t work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you’ve done.
     
    Im not guilt tripping; im just informing WN/alt-right/the right wing why the west is doomed. The west made its bed and now will lay in it. We already see this happening in real life; nobody argues about the cold harsh reality that is multiculturalism and mass immigration to the west and the complete lack of control that westerners themselves have over this development. As I have said before, the west brought this on itself; the west opened up a veritable pandoras box when it went around the world colonizing everybody. WN/alt-righters/the right wing all want to brag about how the west colonized the rest of the world, but then they want to act like they are the victims when the western colonization project grew legs (globalization) and begins to negatively impact the west in unforeseen ways. Generally speaking, conservatives are all about responsibility and integrity; so why don't WN/alt-righters objectively own up to the fact that the west created its own problems? Nobody takes WN/alt-righters seriously when WN/alt-righters try to pretend like the west was "jus being a good boy, ain't hurtin' nobody and dindu nuffin" when it comes to the topic of the west being victimized by multiculturalism. Once again, the west is a victim of its own actions in the past. Contrary to what WN/alt-righters believe; history did not begin in the 1960s when the west first started taking in large numbers of immigrants; the root causes of this development go back hundreds of years, but in order to mask this inconvenient fact; WN/alt-righters only focus on the cause and effect of the past couple of decades.

    I think that every unjust act in this world invites an equal and proportionate "backlash" sooner or later down the line. Nobody is exempt from this. That being said, you are deflecting again; the crimes of other people are not relevant to this discussion, we are discussing the west and its colonial history, specifically as it relates to the conquest of the native americans (refer to the original article please). The fact that you are so dodgy about the european involvement in the colonization of the americas strongly suggests that you doubt the strength of your own position, that's why you have to resort to so many tu quoque arguments. You are basically making the following argument:

    A man murders somebody and then subsequently claims that the fact that he committed murder doesn't matter since lots of other people commit murders too.

    However in reality, the murderer is still guilty of his own crime, just as are all the other people who commit murders are equally guilty of their own crimes as well. Just because other people/nations are committing a specific crime does not absolve you of guilt for your own crimes that you have committed.

    In case you are wondering, I am not jewish


    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven’t you left if you consider it “morally wrong” and are so incensed about how it was founded?
     
    Yes I live in america, and I am not so much incensed about how it was founded, but rather I am incensed over the hypocrisy of WN/alt-right when it comes to the topic of the native americans and WN/alt-righters views regarding their own personal racial and cultural preservation. This is my very first post in this comment thread which set the tone:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don’t even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won’t give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority
     
    I would not have as much as a problem if the WN/alt-right had a more mature and morally consistent view on the topic of native american displacement instead of the arrogant and hypocritical stance which they currently have. Also I enjoy the fact that there are lots of good people in this country (white and otherwise) who have a more balanced and reasonable perspective on this matter than WN/alt-righters do. Just FYI, large numbers of americans (even white americans!) are totally cool about america becoming a more multicultural and diverse nation. The fact that the west is undergoing this transformation is only really a bad thing to people like you.

    No, just because we conquered America doesn’t mean we’re supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America’s founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you’re a genius. But don’t forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?
     
    You don't have to welcome anything. In fact I encourage you to do everything you can to reverse the situation, but I am telling you this; due to the heavy karmic debt of the west, everything that WN/alt-right/the right wing try to do to reverse this situation will backfire on them. While it sounds like a cliche; the right wing is literally on the wrong side of history. This is not just empty rhetoric, external events reflect what I am saying, and you are well aware of what is going on as well. WN/alt-righters believe that they are going to regain power and create a new western renaissance, but this is nothing but a pipedream; the large majority of white americans want nothing to do with WN/alt-right, and this is unlikely to change, even in the face of some catastrophic event like an economic collapse, war, etc. You guys are done, this whole WN/alt-right movement will ironically go the way of the native americans, marginalized and ignored in their own country. That is poetic justice
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    Stay on topic, stop deflecting.
     
    I've noticed you say this often when you can't refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.

    Once again, stop deflecting. You have no good argument against the fact that the european colonizers indeed came to the americas and genocided/wiped out the native americans
     
    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn't amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You're just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.

    Actually, I think that lots of white nationalists/alt-righters would probably delight in torturing and slowly killing the african and muslim invaders in europe.
     
    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don't be a coward, just answer the question.

    Do the native americans have the right or not to attempt to repel foreign invaders from their traditional lands?
     
    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.

    Wrong. Anyone with a brain and two eyes can see that all the hypocrisy and double standards in this particular argument have been the domain of the WN people I have been debating against
     
    Both I and a couple of other posters have cited facts that you've been unable or unwilling to refute.

    This entire comments section is bursting with examples of this. WN/alt-right have this contorted logic that native americans were the bad guys for resisting european efforts to colonize their lands. In what universe does that make sense?
     
    Again, provide specific examples. Are whites supposed to love the Indians for what they did to the white settlers who lost battles or were taken captive? Speaking only for myself the conquest of this continent by whites was a great achievement. You're entitled to your opinion on the matter but you seem to think you have a monopoly on righteousness on this subject.

    Regarding the WN stance on all US wars in the middle east; I am more than happy to give credit where it is due.
     
    Finally your being honest about something.

    as well as the fact that nearly 100% of them are A-OK with europe’s brutal colonial past, which strongly suggests that WN/alt-righters would be more than happy to repeat history
     
    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?

    No one can predict the future but the bulk of white nationalists are mostly concerned with asserting control over all Western nations and reversing our declining birthrates for the foreseeable future.

    I never said the indians were all one big happy family. Internecine warfare seems to be common everywhere in the world. What you are doing is called a strawman.

     
    Finally wrung some truth out of you. After the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 there were still wars in Europe but they tended to be of short duration and relatively civilized compared to the conflict between the European settler and N. American Indians. The barbarism of WWII ended the evolution of civilized warfare on the European continent.

    Once again you are trying to muddy the waters and dissemble. Answer my question with a YES or a NO:
    Does internecine warfare give an external third party the moral right to invade a given territory?

     

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That's why there's armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man's very DNA, not just whitey's, which probably comes as a shock to you.
    https://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?

     

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.

    Don’t tell me that you really want to get started on the history of european internecine conflict do you? So since world war one only lasted four years, that isn’t long enough to qualify as sufficiently brutal for you? What about this war? (3.5 million casualties from what I could find about it)
     
    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.

    Also im laughing at your attempt to imply that europeans are singularly humane in internecine warfare when there are numerous examples in history that depict just the opposite. Uh, do you recall that time when eisenhower had millions of german POWs starve to death after world war 2? Yeah, about that…
     
    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I'll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the "semitic hatred" that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.

    Oh that’s right, western chauvinism and the white man’s burden. You do realize that the current multicultural fate of the west is directly tied to policies enacted which were based on the idea of the white man’s burden right?
     
    Not necessarily. It's called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man's sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren't allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.

    And to answer your question, actually I would definitely be arguing for the rights of indigenous europeans. Believe it or not, I strongly support equality, and strongly oppose double standards/hypocrisy of any kind.
     
    That's great. There is hope for you.

    Whats worse is that the WN/alt-right still refuse to feel any kind of remorse for the past and to the contrary they feel extremely proud about it. As such, I have trouble generating any sympathy for the west and its current demographic and culture downwards spiral.
     
    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?

    Likewise, Europeans used to be 30% of the population of the world on the eve of world war 1, but now they are only 9% of the world population but objectively speaking in terms of absolute population numbers they have nearly doubled in size from around 400 million in 1900 to 760 million in 2017
     
    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169
    You don't have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it's not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?

    MEANWHILE native american genocide is not real even though the proportional numbers of native americans in america have decreased compared to the total population of the United States but according to you, the native american population is much larger than what it was when the europeans conquered them. So which is it?? This right here is a very typical example of WN/alt-right hypocrisy.
     
    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don't have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I'll agree with you.

    I literally just took your entire argument regarding the native americans and their population numbers, swapped it out with authentic data regarding white population numbers and the rhetoric of the argument remains absolutely 100% the same
     
    No, you just got owned. Again. See my previous responses.

    So you are basically mad about “white genocide” (as defined by you anyways) when white genocide is the direct result of exploding populations which is due to european innovation in the first place (again according to you). So instead of being mad at me, shouldn’t you be mad at your colonial forebearers who caused this situation to begin with?
     
    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don't put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn't foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.

    This wouldn't be a problem if Europe would bar the door to the third world and cut off all aid. Eventually, third world birth rates will start imploding through war, disease, starvation and other natural causes that they wicked white man kept at bay.

    There is no need to spruce up what actually happened. It doesnt matter how good or how bad, or how cultured or how savage the native americans were; in an ethical/moral sense, the european colonization of the americas was wrong
     
    That's just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won't work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you've done.

    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven't you left if you consider it "morally wrong" and are so incensed about how it was founded?

    Do you see the schism here?
     
    No, just because we conquered America doesn't mean we're supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America's founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you're a genius. But don't forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?

    I’ve noticed you say this often when you can’t refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.

    nah, you’re just talking shit and hoping it sticks at this point. Simply calling my arguments specious doesn’t make them so ;)

    I have to work to keep you on topic though since you yourself know that the WN/alt-right stance regarding the colonization of the americas and their own stance regarding multiculturalism and mass immigration is at odds with each other. It doesn’t take long winded replies (from both you and me) to realize that. Its self evident. WN/Alt-righters have to convince themselves of these shoddy justifications for colonization though in order to control the raging cognitive dissonance in their own minds. WN/alt-righters cannot effectively argue against this logic, this is why they must always resort to trotting out different examples from history and trying to deflect instead of staying on topic and giving a cogent, well reasoned argument as to why they condone and even support the european conquest of the native americans which lead to the subsequent racial and cultural destruction of the native americans, while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.

    As far as I am concerned, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Metaphorically speaking, if you are willing to take a life, then you should be prepared for the possibility that you might lose your own. This is called taking responsibility for your own actions and being able to accept potential consequences. WN/alt-righters like to act brave by talking about how happy they are to “take another life”, but when it comes to their own lives they have to resort to feigning innocence, begging and special pleading about why they are different and why they deserve to survive. Honestly that just strikes me as cowardly. This isn’t to say that WN/alt-righters have to just give up their struggle, but they should at least be honest that their political platform is built upon a shaky moral foundation and they should consider trying to reconcile over these glaring moral contradictions and creately a more internally consistent political worldview.

    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn’t amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You’re just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.

    Speaking of inconvenient facts:

    Mexican sovereignty over Alta California was short lived, as after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed to end the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took control of California, and in the latter half of the 19th century both State and Federal authorities, incited[5][6] aided and financed miners, settlers, ranchers and people`s militias to enslave, kidnap, murder and exterminate a major proportion of displaced Native American Indians, sometimes contemptuously referred to as “Diggers”, using many of the same policies of violence against the indigenous population that it did throughout its territory. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

    Simultaneous to the ongoing extermination, reports of its effects were being made known to the outside world.[notes 1]

    A notable early eyewitness testimony and account: “The Indians of California” 1864, is from John Ross Browne, Custom’s official and Inspector of Indian Affairs on the Pacific Coast systematically categorizing the fraud, corruption, land theft, slavery, rape and massacre perpetrated on a substantial portion of the aboriginal population.[16]

    By one estimate, at least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870.[17] Historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873 and estimated that during this period at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the “intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise”).[18] Professor Ed Castillo, of Sonoma State University, provides a higher estimate: “The handiwork of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush.”[19]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Genocide-California-Catastrophe-1846-1873/dp/0300181361/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SVCA3KVX50B8FDKYHDK5

    https://www.amazon.com/Murder-State-Californias-American-1846-1873/dp/0803269668/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2E7A2FFS8XVCEQ8S43BK

    https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Land-Early-California-Indian/dp/0875863647/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=N97Z6G0VZQ1R4ZHPXF4G

    googling the phrase: “california native genocide” brings up 1,540,000 hits FYI

    So the uninvited european invaders were just incidentally killing indians on their native home turf (this itself is criminal and unethical behavior) but this is not genocide right? Oh wait, there was actual government organized efforts to exterminate the indians as well. Does that qualify as genocide yet? If that doesnt, then what does? Muh white genocide?

    What about this inconvenient fact:

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

    “You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=X9jLOv_r_asC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=“You+will+do+well+to+try+to+inoculate+the+Indians+%5Bwith+smallpox%5D+by+means+of+blankets,+as+well+as+to+try+every+other+method,+that+can+serve+to+extirpate+this+execrable+race.”&source=bl&ots=0VqQyyk0UO&sig=7mhfrMakFfv2pJ1ERJMm11DF_vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmibP17oDXAhUk6IMKHQ6zARwQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CYou%20will%20do%20well%20to%20try%20to%20inoculate%20the%20Indians%20%5Bwith%20smallpox%5D%20by%20means%20of%20blankets%2C%20as%20well%20as%20to%20try%20every%20other%20method%2C%20that%20can%20serve%20to%20extirpate%20this%20execrable%20race.%E2%80%9D&f=false

    So basically the native americans deserved to be killed because they were fighting off the europeans who intruded upon their traditional territory in the first place. How does that make any sense? You are still trying to deflect and obscure the guilt of the european colonists in the demise of the native americans. Unfortunately for you, this is not very convincing for anybody. Your argument is essentially the same as saying this:

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen’s house in order to rob him; in the process of robbing him, they accidentally killed him, buts it not really murder since the white citizen was trying to resist the black criminals’ attempt to incapacitate him and they ended up accidentally having to kill him.

    So when it comes to the native americans; its not really considered genocide to murder the native americans en masse since the european colonists were just trying to incapacitate the native americans while they were colonizing the traditional lands of the native americans; in the same way, in the analogy its not really considered murder when the black criminals killed the upstanding white citizen since the black criminals were only trying to incapacite the upstanding white citizen while they were trying to rob him. That makes sense right? uh huh…

    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don’t be a coward, just answer the question.

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible. That wasn’t a hard question for me to answer btw, I am pretty consistent in all of my views and strive to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible. That being said, you are purposely trying to conflate the issues and discuss apples and oranges. When it comes to african and muslim influx into europe; there are two caveats:

    1. African and muslim immigrants are coming to empty handed; its not like they are showing up en masse to europe with ak-47s. Hence for the most part the african and muslim “invaders” are more of a civil influx as opposed to a military one. And no, don’t try to trot out a couple of isolated terrorist attacks as evidence of african and muslim immigration being a military invasion. Compared to the european conquest of the americas, the african and muslim immigration situation is child’s play and lacks the cohesive, overt military organization and collectivized intent of the european colonists.

    2. The west brought this situation upon itself. The west got the ball rolling with global colonization, which then morphed into globalization, which then in turn lead to the immigration situation which the west is currently experiencing. Also did you forget? Its currently the western countries that continue to stir the pot in the middle east, which then in turn leads to more bloody conflicts, which then leads to more muslim immigrants heading to europe. Funny how that works isnt it? Its strange because it seems like the more things change, the more things stay the same. The west just can’t seem to stop bothering people around the world and interfering with sovereign people’s business. At one time I “blamed the jews” for this situation, but then I realized that you can’t really blame the jews for every single instance of western depredation on other sovereign countries; the west has a proven track record of doing this and it seems to be ingrained into the culture. WN/Alt-righters always like to blame the jews for making america invade the middle east, but actually if you read what WN/alt-righters/right wingers write and even talk to a few then it quickly becomes evident that the west doesn’t need any nefarious third party to coax it into invading someone else and violating their sovereignty, generally speaking the west is already more than happy to invade others without any coaxing at all.

    As I have said before, the west has made its bed, now it can sleep in it. WN/Alt-righters always try to sweep the bloody history of the west under the rug and then act like the west has just been minding its own business and hasn’t been bothering anyone else and then all the sudden all these mean immigrants started showing up and started bullying the west for no reason LOL

    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.

    You are slow period. If you think this entire argument has only been about how sad it was that the native americans were defeated then you havent been paying attention, either that or you lack reading comprehension. The point of my argument has been and continues to be the following:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.

    This is hypocrisy. If the WN/alt-right wants to discuss equal rights for whites when it comes to racial survival, then WN/alt-right needs to support these same rights for every other race as well including the native americans. Failing this, it just reveals the WN/alt-right for the unapologetic white supremacist movement that it really is. Its not about white racial self preservation for these people, its about racial domination over all others.

    WN/alt-righters always talk about how moral, civilized and advanced western civilization is but if this is true then WN/alt-righters cannot be proud about the history of european colonization. If WN/alt-righters are proud about this, then it means that they condone murder, rape and theft on a massive scale. Colonizing a landmass and subjugating its native people is not a walk in the park; its an extremely brutal, harsh and sustained action which by its inherent nature involves committing countless savages acts. So which is it? Do WN/the alt-right support being civilized or do they support the law of the jungle? It would be possible for the west to retain its claims of moral advancement and being extremely civilized if the west only responded to external incursions of its own sovereignty with extreme violence and brutality, but the west actually went out of its way (literally crossed oceans) to antagonize and brutalize others. And this is what you consider civility?

    I notice that WN/alt-righters always have a schism when it comes to this topic; WN/alt-righters always want to proclaim the moral advancement of the west and call others backwards savages, but then when its convenient to them (when the conversation comes to the topic of european colonial history) they always want to talk about how its a cruel world and how all that matters is the law of jungle. So how is this any different than how a “savage” would think?

    Also I find it hilarious that WN/alt-righters sub-rosa condone murder, rape and theft via the process of conquest and colonization but then WN/alt-righters get mad when blacks commit murder, rape and theft. Logically speaking, the kind of murder, rape and theft that WN/alt-righters condone and even support is magnitudes larger in scale and impact than the murder, rape and theft that blacks commit. Funnily enough though, WN/alt-righters give blacks heat for this, but then pat themselves on the back (well, the backs of past european colonizers) for doing the same thing, only much worse.

    I guess WN/alt-righters just hate the disorganized fashion in which blacks commit murder, rape and theft and look down on it because its not as effective and organized as the white/european way of doing things LOL

    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?

    Like I said, WN/alt-right have no other arguments to use except “other people did it too!” due to their inability to defend their own feeble position. WN/alt-right are fully aware of this weakness and this is why they can only resort to “tu quoque” kinds of arguments. This discussion has nothing to do with the crimes that other people committed; stay on topic.

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That’s why there’s armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.

    You lack reading comprehension. Why do you think I put “allowed” in quotation marks in the original post?

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?

    Of course third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish; that is a given. But we are describing the moral and ethical dimensions of this topic and not the practical aspects of it.

    War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.

    You do know that just because war and conquest is in man’s very DNA, it doesn’t mean that we have to submit to these desires. The fact that we have the ability to act on or suppress these specific drives is what separates man from animals, civilization from savagery.

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.

    You are being disingenuous and purposely dissembling here. It was very clear I was not referring to the literal basis on which the europeans decided to colonize the new world; rather I was referring to the casual, sub rosa WN/alt-right justification that is so casually trotted out. You yourself support this whole “internecine warfare is an appropriate justification for invasion and conquest”, you implied so yourself here:

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!

    So basically you’re saying that if somebody in a foreign land is beating up on their own local neighbors then you have the right to go over there and impose order. Yeah ok, that doesn’t really sound right to me. Also I have a question for you:

    What would you do if it was an indisputably technologically/militarily superior foreign country that was beating up on their own local neighbors? Would you still go and try to impose order? IMO, WN/alt-righters only advocate trying to “impose order” and “civilize” those that they know they can easily defeat and take the resources from. This silly idea about imposing order and civilizing others is just a shoddy fig leaf for desiring to take what belongs to others. The whole rhetoric about imposing order and civilizing others goes completely out the window if there is the possibility that the adversary in question might be more powerful than you. Just saying

    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.

    The fact that the native americans were ruthless in warfare and practiced torture and cannibalization doesn’t provide justification to conquer them. I know that is hard for you to understand, but Im just letting you know that. BTW, if that’s not what you’re trying to imply, then what are you getting at? Why do you care whether or not the native americans used to practice extremely barbaric warfare? You act as if it was the native americans who came to europe and were killing europeans in this way; native americans were isolated in the americas doing this to each other. It literally had nothing to do with the european colonizers. So again, why do you care so much?

    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I’ll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the “semitic hatred” that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.

    WWII was a judgement on the west. Hiter was actually a pretty honorable man once you get past all the allied propaganda about him (assuming the alternative facts I have found about him are true), however the west was manipulated and turned against itself by the jews in the same way that the west has manipulated and played off indigenous peoples against themselves for hundreds of years. In a twist of poetic justice, due to european internecine fighting, european global colonial power was broken, and the foundations for multiculturalism and the eventual demographic shift in the west was set in place. In my opinion, the jews were only able to infiltrate the west due to the essential unrighteousness of the west due to its colonial past.

    Not necessarily. It’s called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man’s sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren’t allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.

    The west spent centuries actively subjugating native populations and cultures while it mostly retained its own european based homogenous racial and culture identity, meanwhile the ottoman turks empire was multi-cultural from the very beginning. Therefore european colonization had a very different dynamic and tone than did the colonization attempts of the ottoman empire. As a result of this, this affects the degree and type of backlash that the west will receive for its past actions vis a vis turkey.

    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?

    Regarding any of the other examples you trotted out; they are not relevant to the conversation at hand. Stop deflecting and trying to point out what others did, we are discussing the topic of the west and its hand in the colonization of the americas.

    Self flagellating is different than honestly reflecting over past history. WN/alt-right/the right wing is very much about celebrating and remembering the past when it comes to the more glorious events in the history of the west, but mysteriously WN/alt-right/the right wing gets squeamish when the topic about culpability regarding the history of european colonization comes up. Whenever this topic is broached, all the sudden WN/alt-right/the right wing wants to pretend like the past is the past (or they try to come up with tortured apologetics about why european colonization was not a crime.) Usually its some odd mixture of both. Thats kind of silly isn’t it? Also it this inconsistent stance strongly suggests a fundamental lack of integrity as well. A WN/alt-righter with integrity would have no problem acknowledging both the proud as well as shameful aspects of western history

    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

    You don’t have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it’s not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?

    you are missing the point. again. My original point was that the native americans legitimately suffered by genocide using your own standards as applied to white people; yet you don’t consider the native american case genocide but you consider the situation with the white race as genocide. Either both are considered genocide (again, using your standards), or neither are. Which is it?

    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don’t have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I’ll agree with you.
    So whites don’t want to have kids and its considered genocide, but when native americans are ruthlessly killed and displaced by european settlers is not considered genocide?

    You are also being purposely deceptive in how you are connecting your arguments. First of all you just said that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most western nations, and then you bring up the fact that Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. These two things have no correlation with each other. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has nothing to do with the fact that native americans have their own sovereign territories and are allowed to keep out non-native americans. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has little to do with immigration and more to do with the fact that whites simply arent having kids. Secondly, the only way in which the absolute numbers of whites would be stagnant or declining would be connected with immigration would be if you are referring to interracial relationships and the non-white offspring born from that; in that case, this too hardly qualifies as “genocide”. Whites aren’t forced at gunpoint to race mix, white men and white women voluntarily choose to do this.

    Your argument for white genocide basically boils down to:

    1.white people dont want to have many kids

    2.white people are willingly choosing to racemix with immigrants

    You could factually state that the white race is dwindling in numbers; but you cannot call it white genocide. This is especially so if you cannot concede that what happened to the native americans was considered genocide. The “white genocide” that whites are experiencing in the US is A LUXURY RESORT compared to the actual genocide and mistreatment that the native americans experienced at the hands of european colonists.

    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don’t put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn’t foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.

    No, there’s no need to concede anything. At no point did I ever try to deny the fact that european intervention led to a higher quality of life for the entire world and a subsequent population explosion in the third world. I am perfectly fine to give credit where it is due. That being said, Europe’s attempt to colonize the world (and its successful genocide of the native americans) was indeed a crime against humanity. There is no need to “make up my mind” when both concepts can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. As far as I am concerned, the presence of both situations form a smooth, logical continuum of action and subsequent consequence as opposed to being two contradictory events. The west’s mistake was in colonizing the world, and as an unexpected result of taking on the burden of colonizing the world, the west inadvertently caused a massive increase in standards of living and a subsequent third world population boom which now threatens to subsume the west who originally colonized these countries. The west opened up pandoras box when it decided to start going around and colonizing the whole world, and now it is dealing with the consequences. Why do WN/alt-righters have such a difficult time dealing with the concept of consequences? The west ran roughshod over the entire world for centuries and WN/alt-righters act shocked and indignant that now the west’s past actions are catching up to it.

    That’s just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won’t work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you’ve done.

    Im not guilt tripping; im just informing WN/alt-right/the right wing why the west is doomed. The west made its bed and now will lay in it. We already see this happening in real life; nobody argues about the cold harsh reality that is multiculturalism and mass immigration to the west and the complete lack of control that westerners themselves have over this development. As I have said before, the west brought this on itself; the west opened up a veritable pandoras box when it went around the world colonizing everybody. WN/alt-righters/the right wing all want to brag about how the west colonized the rest of the world, but then they want to act like they are the victims when the western colonization project grew legs (globalization) and begins to negatively impact the west in unforeseen ways. Generally speaking, conservatives are all about responsibility and integrity; so why don’t WN/alt-righters objectively own up to the fact that the west created its own problems? Nobody takes WN/alt-righters seriously when WN/alt-righters try to pretend like the west was “jus being a good boy, ain’t hurtin’ nobody and dindu nuffin” when it comes to the topic of the west being victimized by multiculturalism. Once again, the west is a victim of its own actions in the past. Contrary to what WN/alt-righters believe; history did not begin in the 1960s when the west first started taking in large numbers of immigrants; the root causes of this development go back hundreds of years, but in order to mask this inconvenient fact; WN/alt-righters only focus on the cause and effect of the past couple of decades.

    I think that every unjust act in this world invites an equal and proportionate “backlash” sooner or later down the line. Nobody is exempt from this. That being said, you are deflecting again; the crimes of other people are not relevant to this discussion, we are discussing the west and its colonial history, specifically as it relates to the conquest of the native americans (refer to the original article please). The fact that you are so dodgy about the european involvement in the colonization of the americas strongly suggests that you doubt the strength of your own position, that’s why you have to resort to so many tu quoque arguments. You are basically making the following argument:

    A man murders somebody and then subsequently claims that the fact that he committed murder doesn’t matter since lots of other people commit murders too.

    However in reality, the murderer is still guilty of his own crime, just as are all the other people who commit murders are equally guilty of their own crimes as well. Just because other people/nations are committing a specific crime does not absolve you of guilt for your own crimes that you have committed.

    In case you are wondering, I am not jewish

    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven’t you left if you consider it “morally wrong” and are so incensed about how it was founded?

    Yes I live in america, and I am not so much incensed about how it was founded, but rather I am incensed over the hypocrisy of WN/alt-right when it comes to the topic of the native americans and WN/alt-righters views regarding their own personal racial and cultural preservation. This is my very first post in this comment thread which set the tone:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don’t even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won’t give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority

    I would not have as much as a problem if the WN/alt-right had a more mature and morally consistent view on the topic of native american displacement instead of the arrogant and hypocritical stance which they currently have. Also I enjoy the fact that there are lots of good people in this country (white and otherwise) who have a more balanced and reasonable perspective on this matter than WN/alt-righters do. Just FYI, large numbers of americans (even white americans!) are totally cool about america becoming a more multicultural and diverse nation. The fact that the west is undergoing this transformation is only really a bad thing to people like you.

    No, just because we conquered America doesn’t mean we’re supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America’s founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you’re a genius. But don’t forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?

    You don’t have to welcome anything. In fact I encourage you to do everything you can to reverse the situation, but I am telling you this; due to the heavy karmic debt of the west, everything that WN/alt-right/the right wing try to do to reverse this situation will backfire on them. While it sounds like a cliche; the right wing is literally on the wrong side of history. This is not just empty rhetoric, external events reflect what I am saying, and you are well aware of what is going on as well. WN/alt-righters believe that they are going to regain power and create a new western renaissance, but this is nothing but a pipedream; the large majority of white americans want nothing to do with WN/alt-right, and this is unlikely to change, even in the face of some catastrophic event like an economic collapse, war, etc. You guys are done, this whole WN/alt-right movement will ironically go the way of the native americans, marginalized and ignored in their own country. That is poetic justice

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.
     
    You continue to learn at a snail's pace or not at all. In your mind, which has been deformed by anti-white hate propaganda, since Europeans conquered the Americas they too should perish as "karmic retribution" similar to what was done to the Indians even though there's many more Indians living today then at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov't and the plains Indians.

    Virtually every race of people has conquered and displaced native peoples. Therefore, by your line of reasoning, no race deserves equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation. Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.

    Speaking of inconvenient facts:
     
    If you reviewed the information you posted you'll find that the numbers for the alleged California genocide are all over the map. The low estimate of 4500 Indian deaths between 1849 and 1870 amounts to 214 deaths annually. The middle of the road numbers cited by Madley of 9400 to 16,000 between 1846 and 1873 amounts to 348 to 592 Indian deaths annually. Not exactly eye popping.

    Ed Castillo's numbers are highly inflated, seemingly not backed up by anything other than his own vivid imagination, and are intended to spin a sexy yarn of mass genocide of peaceful indigenous people. This is the Hollywood version of things and is obviously what you choose believe.

    No doubt some or many Indians were killed and displaced in California as a result of U.S. government policy, but you did not prove, nor did the sources you cite prove, that it amounted to genocide. Again, the estimates vary widely and are all over the map.

    And while you harp on the immorality and unethicality of it all when the white man is the aggressor, you keep forgetting that the Indians frequently victimized, slaughtered and enslaved each other in California and elsewhere:
    http://westerndigs.org/mass-grave-found-in-california-reveals-prehistoric-violence-against-outsiders/
    http://westerndigs.org/skeletons-in-utah-cave-are-victims-of-prehistoric-war-study-says/
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/9/crow-creek-massacre-in-1300s-remains-south-dakotas/
    https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

    So, to sum up your view of things:
    Indians slaughtering Indians: No biggie; much ado about nothing; it's their land anyway.
    Whites slaughtering Indians: Crime against humanity; genocide; all whites must die.

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:
     
    The situation is more complicated than that. It would appear a small number of British officers expressed that sentiment but it isn't conclusive whether they ever truly followed through. It seems historians are divided on this point. They also risked infecting white settlers and settlements with smallpox if they did so. Whites were still very much vulnerable to the disease since the first smallpox vaccine wasn't invented until 1796.
    https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/download/25644/25413

    And as for claims that we deliberately infected the plains Indians with smallpox you'll have to explain why then we would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes if we were trying to kill them all with it? Those darn facts just keep getting in the way of your bogus claims:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236817992_Lewis_Cass_and_the_Politics_of_Disease_The_Indian_Vaccination_Act_of_1832

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen’s house in order to rob him
     
    Oh boy, you really need to get out of the analogy business. It isn't your forte.

    As for the rest of it, it's nice to know that white nationalist and alt-righters live rent free inside your head and keep you up at night.
    , @KenH

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes,
     
    That's not much of an answer. Your long, meandering reply is larded with qualifiers and double talk in a feeble attempt to establish distinctions between the European arrival in N. America and the Afro-Islamic arrival in Europe to let yourself off the hook.

    There's plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic "no-go" zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there's the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    So if you were honest instead of duplicitous the answer would be a simple, yes, the Europeans can eject these hostile invaders by any means possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. KenH says:
    @anon

    I’ve noticed you say this often when you can’t refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.
     
    nah, you're just talking shit and hoping it sticks at this point. Simply calling my arguments specious doesn't make them so ;)

    I have to work to keep you on topic though since you yourself know that the WN/alt-right stance regarding the colonization of the americas and their own stance regarding multiculturalism and mass immigration is at odds with each other. It doesn't take long winded replies (from both you and me) to realize that. Its self evident. WN/Alt-righters have to convince themselves of these shoddy justifications for colonization though in order to control the raging cognitive dissonance in their own minds. WN/alt-righters cannot effectively argue against this logic, this is why they must always resort to trotting out different examples from history and trying to deflect instead of staying on topic and giving a cogent, well reasoned argument as to why they condone and even support the european conquest of the native americans which lead to the subsequent racial and cultural destruction of the native americans, while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.

    As far as I am concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Metaphorically speaking, if you are willing to take a life, then you should be prepared for the possibility that you might lose your own. This is called taking responsibility for your own actions and being able to accept potential consequences. WN/alt-righters like to act brave by talking about how happy they are to "take another life", but when it comes to their own lives they have to resort to feigning innocence, begging and special pleading about why they are different and why they deserve to survive. Honestly that just strikes me as cowardly. This isn't to say that WN/alt-righters have to just give up their struggle, but they should at least be honest that their political platform is built upon a shaky moral foundation and they should consider trying to reconcile over these glaring moral contradictions and creately a more internally consistent political worldview.


    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn’t amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You’re just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.
     
    Speaking of inconvenient facts:

    Mexican sovereignty over Alta California was short lived, as after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed to end the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took control of California, and in the latter half of the 19th century both State and Federal authorities, incited[5][6] aided and financed miners, settlers, ranchers and people`s militias to enslave, kidnap, murder and exterminate a major proportion of displaced Native American Indians, sometimes contemptuously referred to as "Diggers", using many of the same policies of violence against the indigenous population that it did throughout its territory. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

    Simultaneous to the ongoing extermination, reports of its effects were being made known to the outside world.[notes 1]

    A notable early eyewitness testimony and account: "The Indians of California" 1864, is from John Ross Browne, Custom's official and Inspector of Indian Affairs on the Pacific Coast systematically categorizing the fraud, corruption, land theft, slavery, rape and massacre perpetrated on a substantial portion of the aboriginal population.[16]

    By one estimate, at least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870.[17] Historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873 and estimated that during this period at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").[18] Professor Ed Castillo, of Sonoma State University, provides a higher estimate: "The handiwork of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush."[19]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Genocide-California-Catastrophe-1846-1873/dp/0300181361/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SVCA3KVX50B8FDKYHDK5
    https://www.amazon.com/Murder-State-Californias-American-1846-1873/dp/0803269668/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2E7A2FFS8XVCEQ8S43BK
    https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Land-Early-California-Indian/dp/0875863647/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=N97Z6G0VZQ1R4ZHPXF4G

    googling the phrase: "california native genocide" brings up 1,540,000 hits FYI

    So the uninvited european invaders were just incidentally killing indians on their native home turf (this itself is criminal and unethical behavior) but this is not genocide right? Oh wait, there was actual government organized efforts to exterminate the indians as well. Does that qualify as genocide yet? If that doesnt, then what does? Muh white genocide?

    What about this inconvenient fact:

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

    “You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”
     
    https://books.google.com/books?id=X9jLOv_r_asC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=“You+will+do+well+to+try+to+inoculate+the+Indians+%5Bwith+smallpox%5D+by+means+of+blankets,+as+well+as+to+try+every+other+method,+that+can+serve+to+extirpate+this+execrable+race.”&source=bl&ots=0VqQyyk0UO&sig=7mhfrMakFfv2pJ1ERJMm11DF_vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmibP17oDXAhUk6IMKHQ6zARwQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CYou%20will%20do%20well%20to%20try%20to%20inoculate%20the%20Indians%20%5Bwith%20smallpox%5D%20by%20means%20of%20blankets%2C%20as%20well%20as%20to%20try%20every%20other%20method%2C%20that%20can%20serve%20to%20extirpate%20this%20execrable%20race.%E2%80%9D&f=false

    So basically the native americans deserved to be killed because they were fighting off the europeans who intruded upon their traditional territory in the first place. How does that make any sense? You are still trying to deflect and obscure the guilt of the european colonists in the demise of the native americans. Unfortunately for you, this is not very convincing for anybody. Your argument is essentially the same as saying this:

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen's house in order to rob him; in the process of robbing him, they accidentally killed him, buts it not really murder since the white citizen was trying to resist the black criminals' attempt to incapacitate him and they ended up accidentally having to kill him.

    So when it comes to the native americans; its not really considered genocide to murder the native americans en masse since the european colonists were just trying to incapacitate the native americans while they were colonizing the traditional lands of the native americans; in the same way, in the analogy its not really considered murder when the black criminals killed the upstanding white citizen since the black criminals were only trying to incapacite the upstanding white citizen while they were trying to rob him. That makes sense right? uh huh...

    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don’t be a coward, just answer the question.
     
    I'm not a coward and i'll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible. That wasn't a hard question for me to answer btw, I am pretty consistent in all of my views and strive to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible. That being said, you are purposely trying to conflate the issues and discuss apples and oranges. When it comes to african and muslim influx into europe; there are two caveats:

    1. African and muslim immigrants are coming to empty handed; its not like they are showing up en masse to europe with ak-47s. Hence for the most part the african and muslim "invaders" are more of a civil influx as opposed to a military one. And no, don't try to trot out a couple of isolated terrorist attacks as evidence of african and muslim immigration being a military invasion. Compared to the european conquest of the americas, the african and muslim immigration situation is child's play and lacks the cohesive, overt military organization and collectivized intent of the european colonists.

    2. The west brought this situation upon itself. The west got the ball rolling with global colonization, which then morphed into globalization, which then in turn lead to the immigration situation which the west is currently experiencing. Also did you forget? Its currently the western countries that continue to stir the pot in the middle east, which then in turn leads to more bloody conflicts, which then leads to more muslim immigrants heading to europe. Funny how that works isnt it? Its strange because it seems like the more things change, the more things stay the same. The west just can't seem to stop bothering people around the world and interfering with sovereign people's business. At one time I "blamed the jews" for this situation, but then I realized that you can't really blame the jews for every single instance of western depredation on other sovereign countries; the west has a proven track record of doing this and it seems to be ingrained into the culture. WN/Alt-righters always like to blame the jews for making america invade the middle east, but actually if you read what WN/alt-righters/right wingers write and even talk to a few then it quickly becomes evident that the west doesn't need any nefarious third party to coax it into invading someone else and violating their sovereignty, generally speaking the west is already more than happy to invade others without any coaxing at all.

    As I have said before, the west has made its bed, now it can sleep in it. WN/Alt-righters always try to sweep the bloody history of the west under the rug and then act like the west has just been minding its own business and hasn't been bothering anyone else and then all the sudden all these mean immigrants started showing up and started bullying the west for no reason LOL

    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.
     
    You are slow period. If you think this entire argument has only been about how sad it was that the native americans were defeated then you havent been paying attention, either that or you lack reading comprehension. The point of my argument has been and continues to be the following:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.
     
    This is hypocrisy. If the WN/alt-right wants to discuss equal rights for whites when it comes to racial survival, then WN/alt-right needs to support these same rights for every other race as well including the native americans. Failing this, it just reveals the WN/alt-right for the unapologetic white supremacist movement that it really is. Its not about white racial self preservation for these people, its about racial domination over all others.

    WN/alt-righters always talk about how moral, civilized and advanced western civilization is but if this is true then WN/alt-righters cannot be proud about the history of european colonization. If WN/alt-righters are proud about this, then it means that they condone murder, rape and theft on a massive scale. Colonizing a landmass and subjugating its native people is not a walk in the park; its an extremely brutal, harsh and sustained action which by its inherent nature involves committing countless savages acts. So which is it? Do WN/the alt-right support being civilized or do they support the law of the jungle? It would be possible for the west to retain its claims of moral advancement and being extremely civilized if the west only responded to external incursions of its own sovereignty with extreme violence and brutality, but the west actually went out of its way (literally crossed oceans) to antagonize and brutalize others. And this is what you consider civility?

    I notice that WN/alt-righters always have a schism when it comes to this topic; WN/alt-righters always want to proclaim the moral advancement of the west and call others backwards savages, but then when its convenient to them (when the conversation comes to the topic of european colonial history) they always want to talk about how its a cruel world and how all that matters is the law of jungle. So how is this any different than how a "savage" would think?

    Also I find it hilarious that WN/alt-righters sub-rosa condone murder, rape and theft via the process of conquest and colonization but then WN/alt-righters get mad when blacks commit murder, rape and theft. Logically speaking, the kind of murder, rape and theft that WN/alt-righters condone and even support is magnitudes larger in scale and impact than the murder, rape and theft that blacks commit. Funnily enough though, WN/alt-righters give blacks heat for this, but then pat themselves on the back (well, the backs of past european colonizers) for doing the same thing, only much worse.

    I guess WN/alt-righters just hate the disorganized fashion in which blacks commit murder, rape and theft and look down on it because its not as effective and organized as the white/european way of doing things LOL

    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?
     
    Like I said, WN/alt-right have no other arguments to use except "other people did it too!" due to their inability to defend their own feeble position. WN/alt-right are fully aware of this weakness and this is why they can only resort to "tu quoque" kinds of arguments. This discussion has nothing to do with the crimes that other people committed; stay on topic.

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That’s why there’s armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You lack reading comprehension. Why do you think I put "allowed" in quotation marks in the original post?

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?
     
    Of course third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish; that is a given. But we are describing the moral and ethical dimensions of this topic and not the practical aspects of it.

    War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You do know that just because war and conquest is in man's very DNA, it doesn't mean that we have to submit to these desires. The fact that we have the ability to act on or suppress these specific drives is what separates man from animals, civilization from savagery.

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.
     
    You are being disingenuous and purposely dissembling here. It was very clear I was not referring to the literal basis on which the europeans decided to colonize the new world; rather I was referring to the casual, sub rosa WN/alt-right justification that is so casually trotted out. You yourself support this whole "internecine warfare is an appropriate justification for invasion and conquest", you implied so yourself here:

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!
     
    So basically you're saying that if somebody in a foreign land is beating up on their own local neighbors then you have the right to go over there and impose order. Yeah ok, that doesn't really sound right to me. Also I have a question for you:

    What would you do if it was an indisputably technologically/militarily superior foreign country that was beating up on their own local neighbors? Would you still go and try to impose order? IMO, WN/alt-righters only advocate trying to "impose order" and "civilize" those that they know they can easily defeat and take the resources from. This silly idea about imposing order and civilizing others is just a shoddy fig leaf for desiring to take what belongs to others. The whole rhetoric about imposing order and civilizing others goes completely out the window if there is the possibility that the adversary in question might be more powerful than you. Just saying

    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.
     
    The fact that the native americans were ruthless in warfare and practiced torture and cannibalization doesn't provide justification to conquer them. I know that is hard for you to understand, but Im just letting you know that. BTW, if that's not what you're trying to imply, then what are you getting at? Why do you care whether or not the native americans used to practice extremely barbaric warfare? You act as if it was the native americans who came to europe and were killing europeans in this way; native americans were isolated in the americas doing this to each other. It literally had nothing to do with the european colonizers. So again, why do you care so much?

    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I’ll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the “semitic hatred” that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.
     
    WWII was a judgement on the west. Hiter was actually a pretty honorable man once you get past all the allied propaganda about him (assuming the alternative facts I have found about him are true), however the west was manipulated and turned against itself by the jews in the same way that the west has manipulated and played off indigenous peoples against themselves for hundreds of years. In a twist of poetic justice, due to european internecine fighting, european global colonial power was broken, and the foundations for multiculturalism and the eventual demographic shift in the west was set in place. In my opinion, the jews were only able to infiltrate the west due to the essential unrighteousness of the west due to its colonial past.

    Not necessarily. It’s called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man’s sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren’t allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.
     
    The west spent centuries actively subjugating native populations and cultures while it mostly retained its own european based homogenous racial and culture identity, meanwhile the ottoman turks empire was multi-cultural from the very beginning. Therefore european colonization had a very different dynamic and tone than did the colonization attempts of the ottoman empire. As a result of this, this affects the degree and type of backlash that the west will receive for its past actions vis a vis turkey.

    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?
     
    Regarding any of the other examples you trotted out; they are not relevant to the conversation at hand. Stop deflecting and trying to point out what others did, we are discussing the topic of the west and its hand in the colonization of the americas.

    Self flagellating is different than honestly reflecting over past history. WN/alt-right/the right wing is very much about celebrating and remembering the past when it comes to the more glorious events in the history of the west, but mysteriously WN/alt-right/the right wing gets squeamish when the topic about culpability regarding the history of european colonization comes up. Whenever this topic is broached, all the sudden WN/alt-right/the right wing wants to pretend like the past is the past (or they try to come up with tortured apologetics about why european colonization was not a crime.) Usually its some odd mixture of both. Thats kind of silly isn't it? Also it this inconsistent stance strongly suggests a fundamental lack of integrity as well. A WN/alt-righter with integrity would have no problem acknowledging both the proud as well as shameful aspects of western history

    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

    You don’t have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it’s not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?
     
    you are missing the point. again. My original point was that the native americans legitimately suffered by genocide using your own standards as applied to white people; yet you don't consider the native american case genocide but you consider the situation with the white race as genocide. Either both are considered genocide (again, using your standards), or neither are. Which is it?

    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don’t have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I’ll agree with you.
    So whites don't want to have kids and its considered genocide, but when native americans are ruthlessly killed and displaced by european settlers is not considered genocide?
     
    You are also being purposely deceptive in how you are connecting your arguments. First of all you just said that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most western nations, and then you bring up the fact that Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. These two things have no correlation with each other. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has nothing to do with the fact that native americans have their own sovereign territories and are allowed to keep out non-native americans. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has little to do with immigration and more to do with the fact that whites simply arent having kids. Secondly, the only way in which the absolute numbers of whites would be stagnant or declining would be connected with immigration would be if you are referring to interracial relationships and the non-white offspring born from that; in that case, this too hardly qualifies as "genocide". Whites aren't forced at gunpoint to race mix, white men and white women voluntarily choose to do this.

    Your argument for white genocide basically boils down to:

    1.white people dont want to have many kids

    2.white people are willingly choosing to racemix with immigrants

    You could factually state that the white race is dwindling in numbers; but you cannot call it white genocide. This is especially so if you cannot concede that what happened to the native americans was considered genocide. The "white genocide" that whites are experiencing in the US is A LUXURY RESORT compared to the actual genocide and mistreatment that the native americans experienced at the hands of european colonists.

    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don’t put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn’t foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.
     
    No, there's no need to concede anything. At no point did I ever try to deny the fact that european intervention led to a higher quality of life for the entire world and a subsequent population explosion in the third world. I am perfectly fine to give credit where it is due. That being said, Europe's attempt to colonize the world (and its successful genocide of the native americans) was indeed a crime against humanity. There is no need to "make up my mind" when both concepts can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. As far as I am concerned, the presence of both situations form a smooth, logical continuum of action and subsequent consequence as opposed to being two contradictory events. The west's mistake was in colonizing the world, and as an unexpected result of taking on the burden of colonizing the world, the west inadvertently caused a massive increase in standards of living and a subsequent third world population boom which now threatens to subsume the west who originally colonized these countries. The west opened up pandoras box when it decided to start going around and colonizing the whole world, and now it is dealing with the consequences. Why do WN/alt-righters have such a difficult time dealing with the concept of consequences? The west ran roughshod over the entire world for centuries and WN/alt-righters act shocked and indignant that now the west's past actions are catching up to it.

    That’s just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won’t work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you’ve done.
     
    Im not guilt tripping; im just informing WN/alt-right/the right wing why the west is doomed. The west made its bed and now will lay in it. We already see this happening in real life; nobody argues about the cold harsh reality that is multiculturalism and mass immigration to the west and the complete lack of control that westerners themselves have over this development. As I have said before, the west brought this on itself; the west opened up a veritable pandoras box when it went around the world colonizing everybody. WN/alt-righters/the right wing all want to brag about how the west colonized the rest of the world, but then they want to act like they are the victims when the western colonization project grew legs (globalization) and begins to negatively impact the west in unforeseen ways. Generally speaking, conservatives are all about responsibility and integrity; so why don't WN/alt-righters objectively own up to the fact that the west created its own problems? Nobody takes WN/alt-righters seriously when WN/alt-righters try to pretend like the west was "jus being a good boy, ain't hurtin' nobody and dindu nuffin" when it comes to the topic of the west being victimized by multiculturalism. Once again, the west is a victim of its own actions in the past. Contrary to what WN/alt-righters believe; history did not begin in the 1960s when the west first started taking in large numbers of immigrants; the root causes of this development go back hundreds of years, but in order to mask this inconvenient fact; WN/alt-righters only focus on the cause and effect of the past couple of decades.

    I think that every unjust act in this world invites an equal and proportionate "backlash" sooner or later down the line. Nobody is exempt from this. That being said, you are deflecting again; the crimes of other people are not relevant to this discussion, we are discussing the west and its colonial history, specifically as it relates to the conquest of the native americans (refer to the original article please). The fact that you are so dodgy about the european involvement in the colonization of the americas strongly suggests that you doubt the strength of your own position, that's why you have to resort to so many tu quoque arguments. You are basically making the following argument:

    A man murders somebody and then subsequently claims that the fact that he committed murder doesn't matter since lots of other people commit murders too.

    However in reality, the murderer is still guilty of his own crime, just as are all the other people who commit murders are equally guilty of their own crimes as well. Just because other people/nations are committing a specific crime does not absolve you of guilt for your own crimes that you have committed.

    In case you are wondering, I am not jewish


    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven’t you left if you consider it “morally wrong” and are so incensed about how it was founded?
     
    Yes I live in america, and I am not so much incensed about how it was founded, but rather I am incensed over the hypocrisy of WN/alt-right when it comes to the topic of the native americans and WN/alt-righters views regarding their own personal racial and cultural preservation. This is my very first post in this comment thread which set the tone:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don’t even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won’t give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority
     
    I would not have as much as a problem if the WN/alt-right had a more mature and morally consistent view on the topic of native american displacement instead of the arrogant and hypocritical stance which they currently have. Also I enjoy the fact that there are lots of good people in this country (white and otherwise) who have a more balanced and reasonable perspective on this matter than WN/alt-righters do. Just FYI, large numbers of americans (even white americans!) are totally cool about america becoming a more multicultural and diverse nation. The fact that the west is undergoing this transformation is only really a bad thing to people like you.

    No, just because we conquered America doesn’t mean we’re supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America’s founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you’re a genius. But don’t forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?
     
    You don't have to welcome anything. In fact I encourage you to do everything you can to reverse the situation, but I am telling you this; due to the heavy karmic debt of the west, everything that WN/alt-right/the right wing try to do to reverse this situation will backfire on them. While it sounds like a cliche; the right wing is literally on the wrong side of history. This is not just empty rhetoric, external events reflect what I am saying, and you are well aware of what is going on as well. WN/alt-righters believe that they are going to regain power and create a new western renaissance, but this is nothing but a pipedream; the large majority of white americans want nothing to do with WN/alt-right, and this is unlikely to change, even in the face of some catastrophic event like an economic collapse, war, etc. You guys are done, this whole WN/alt-right movement will ironically go the way of the native americans, marginalized and ignored in their own country. That is poetic justice

    while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.

    You continue to learn at a snail’s pace or not at all. In your mind, which has been deformed by anti-white hate propaganda, since Europeans conquered the Americas they too should perish as “karmic retribution” similar to what was done to the Indians even though there’s many more Indians living today then at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov’t and the plains Indians.

    Virtually every race of people has conquered and displaced native peoples. Therefore, by your line of reasoning, no race deserves equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation. Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.

    Speaking of inconvenient facts:

    If you reviewed the information you posted you’ll find that the numbers for the alleged California genocide are all over the map. The low estimate of 4500 Indian deaths between 1849 and 1870 amounts to 214 deaths annually. The middle of the road numbers cited by Madley of 9400 to 16,000 between 1846 and 1873 amounts to 348 to 592 Indian deaths annually. Not exactly eye popping.

    Ed Castillo’s numbers are highly inflated, seemingly not backed up by anything other than his own vivid imagination, and are intended to spin a sexy yarn of mass genocide of peaceful indigenous people. This is the Hollywood version of things and is obviously what you choose believe.

    No doubt some or many Indians were killed and displaced in California as a result of U.S. government policy, but you did not prove, nor did the sources you cite prove, that it amounted to genocide. Again, the estimates vary widely and are all over the map.

    And while you harp on the immorality and unethicality of it all when the white man is the aggressor, you keep forgetting that the Indians frequently victimized, slaughtered and enslaved each other in California and elsewhere:

    http://westerndigs.org/mass-grave-found-in-california-reveals-prehistoric-violence-against-outsiders/

    http://westerndigs.org/skeletons-in-utah-cave-are-victims-of-prehistoric-war-study-says/

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/9/crow-creek-massacre-in-1300s-remains-south-dakotas/

    https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

    So, to sum up your view of things:
    Indians slaughtering Indians: No biggie; much ado about nothing; it’s their land anyway.
    Whites slaughtering Indians: Crime against humanity; genocide; all whites must die.

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

    The situation is more complicated than that. It would appear a small number of British officers expressed that sentiment but it isn’t conclusive whether they ever truly followed through. It seems historians are divided on this point. They also risked infecting white settlers and settlements with smallpox if they did so. Whites were still very much vulnerable to the disease since the first smallpox vaccine wasn’t invented until 1796.

    https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/download/25644/25413

    And as for claims that we deliberately infected the plains Indians with smallpox you’ll have to explain why then we would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes if we were trying to kill them all with it? Those darn facts just keep getting in the way of your bogus claims:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236817992_Lewis_Cass_and_the_Politics_of_Disease_The_Indian_Vaccination_Act_of_1832

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen’s house in order to rob him

    Oh boy, you really need to get out of the analogy business. It isn’t your forte.

    As for the rest of it, it’s nice to know that white nationalist and alt-righters live rent free inside your head and keep you up at night.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. KenH says:
    @anon

    I’ve noticed you say this often when you can’t refute unimpeachable facts that contradict you specious arguments and claims.
     
    nah, you're just talking shit and hoping it sticks at this point. Simply calling my arguments specious doesn't make them so ;)

    I have to work to keep you on topic though since you yourself know that the WN/alt-right stance regarding the colonization of the americas and their own stance regarding multiculturalism and mass immigration is at odds with each other. It doesn't take long winded replies (from both you and me) to realize that. Its self evident. WN/Alt-righters have to convince themselves of these shoddy justifications for colonization though in order to control the raging cognitive dissonance in their own minds. WN/alt-righters cannot effectively argue against this logic, this is why they must always resort to trotting out different examples from history and trying to deflect instead of staying on topic and giving a cogent, well reasoned argument as to why they condone and even support the european conquest of the native americans which lead to the subsequent racial and cultural destruction of the native americans, while at the same time arguing that whites deserve equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation.

    As far as I am concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Metaphorically speaking, if you are willing to take a life, then you should be prepared for the possibility that you might lose your own. This is called taking responsibility for your own actions and being able to accept potential consequences. WN/alt-righters like to act brave by talking about how happy they are to "take another life", but when it comes to their own lives they have to resort to feigning innocence, begging and special pleading about why they are different and why they deserve to survive. Honestly that just strikes me as cowardly. This isn't to say that WN/alt-righters have to just give up their struggle, but they should at least be honest that their political platform is built upon a shaky moral foundation and they should consider trying to reconcile over these glaring moral contradictions and creately a more internally consistent political worldview.


    Once again, learn how to argue effectively and understand historical context. The Europeans conquered America and did kill Indians in the process since the Indians were killing them, but it didn’t amount to genocide especially when their diminution was a result of all causes including death at the hands of rival Indian tribes. You’re just an ideological hard case who refuses to face inconvenient facts.
     
    Speaking of inconvenient facts:

    Mexican sovereignty over Alta California was short lived, as after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed to end the Mexican-American War, the U.S. took control of California, and in the latter half of the 19th century both State and Federal authorities, incited[5][6] aided and financed miners, settlers, ranchers and people`s militias to enslave, kidnap, murder and exterminate a major proportion of displaced Native American Indians, sometimes contemptuously referred to as "Diggers", using many of the same policies of violence against the indigenous population that it did throughout its territory. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

    Simultaneous to the ongoing extermination, reports of its effects were being made known to the outside world.[notes 1]

    A notable early eyewitness testimony and account: "The Indians of California" 1864, is from John Ross Browne, Custom's official and Inspector of Indian Affairs on the Pacific Coast systematically categorizing the fraud, corruption, land theft, slavery, rape and massacre perpetrated on a substantial portion of the aboriginal population.[16]

    By one estimate, at least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870.[17] Historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873 and estimated that during this period at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians, mostly occurring in more than 370 massacres (defined as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").[18] Professor Ed Castillo, of Sonoma State University, provides a higher estimate: "The handiwork of these well armed death squads combined with the widespread random killing of Indians by individual miners resulted in the death of 100,000 Indians in the first two years of the gold rush."[19]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

    https://www.amazon.com/American-Genocide-California-Catastrophe-1846-1873/dp/0300181361/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SVCA3KVX50B8FDKYHDK5
    https://www.amazon.com/Murder-State-Californias-American-1846-1873/dp/0803269668/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2E7A2FFS8XVCEQ8S43BK
    https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Land-Early-California-Indian/dp/0875863647/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=N97Z6G0VZQ1R4ZHPXF4G

    googling the phrase: "california native genocide" brings up 1,540,000 hits FYI

    So the uninvited european invaders were just incidentally killing indians on their native home turf (this itself is criminal and unethical behavior) but this is not genocide right? Oh wait, there was actual government organized efforts to exterminate the indians as well. Does that qualify as genocide yet? If that doesnt, then what does? Muh white genocide?

    What about this inconvenient fact:

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

    “You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”
     
    https://books.google.com/books?id=X9jLOv_r_asC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=“You+will+do+well+to+try+to+inoculate+the+Indians+%5Bwith+smallpox%5D+by+means+of+blankets,+as+well+as+to+try+every+other+method,+that+can+serve+to+extirpate+this+execrable+race.”&source=bl&ots=0VqQyyk0UO&sig=7mhfrMakFfv2pJ1ERJMm11DF_vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmibP17oDXAhUk6IMKHQ6zARwQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CYou%20will%20do%20well%20to%20try%20to%20inoculate%20the%20Indians%20%5Bwith%20smallpox%5D%20by%20means%20of%20blankets%2C%20as%20well%20as%20to%20try%20every%20other%20method%2C%20that%20can%20serve%20to%20extirpate%20this%20execrable%20race.%E2%80%9D&f=false

    So basically the native americans deserved to be killed because they were fighting off the europeans who intruded upon their traditional territory in the first place. How does that make any sense? You are still trying to deflect and obscure the guilt of the european colonists in the demise of the native americans. Unfortunately for you, this is not very convincing for anybody. Your argument is essentially the same as saying this:

    A bunch of black criminals invade an upstanding and affluent white citizen's house in order to rob him; in the process of robbing him, they accidentally killed him, buts it not really murder since the white citizen was trying to resist the black criminals' attempt to incapacitate him and they ended up accidentally having to kill him.

    So when it comes to the native americans; its not really considered genocide to murder the native americans en masse since the european colonists were just trying to incapacitate the native americans while they were colonizing the traditional lands of the native americans; in the same way, in the analogy its not really considered murder when the black criminals killed the upstanding white citizen since the black criminals were only trying to incapacite the upstanding white citizen while they were trying to rob him. That makes sense right? uh huh...

    And just to be consistent you would support their torture and slow killing of African and Muslim invaders the same way you cheered Indian atrocities against white settlers, correct? Don’t be a coward, just answer the question.
     
    I'm not a coward and i'll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible. That wasn't a hard question for me to answer btw, I am pretty consistent in all of my views and strive to avoid hypocrisy as much as possible. That being said, you are purposely trying to conflate the issues and discuss apples and oranges. When it comes to african and muslim influx into europe; there are two caveats:

    1. African and muslim immigrants are coming to empty handed; its not like they are showing up en masse to europe with ak-47s. Hence for the most part the african and muslim "invaders" are more of a civil influx as opposed to a military one. And no, don't try to trot out a couple of isolated terrorist attacks as evidence of african and muslim immigration being a military invasion. Compared to the european conquest of the americas, the african and muslim immigration situation is child's play and lacks the cohesive, overt military organization and collectivized intent of the european colonists.

    2. The west brought this situation upon itself. The west got the ball rolling with global colonization, which then morphed into globalization, which then in turn lead to the immigration situation which the west is currently experiencing. Also did you forget? Its currently the western countries that continue to stir the pot in the middle east, which then in turn leads to more bloody conflicts, which then leads to more muslim immigrants heading to europe. Funny how that works isnt it? Its strange because it seems like the more things change, the more things stay the same. The west just can't seem to stop bothering people around the world and interfering with sovereign people's business. At one time I "blamed the jews" for this situation, but then I realized that you can't really blame the jews for every single instance of western depredation on other sovereign countries; the west has a proven track record of doing this and it seems to be ingrained into the culture. WN/Alt-righters always like to blame the jews for making america invade the middle east, but actually if you read what WN/alt-righters/right wingers write and even talk to a few then it quickly becomes evident that the west doesn't need any nefarious third party to coax it into invading someone else and violating their sovereignty, generally speaking the west is already more than happy to invade others without any coaxing at all.

    As I have said before, the west has made its bed, now it can sleep in it. WN/Alt-righters always try to sweep the bloody history of the west under the rug and then act like the west has just been minding its own business and hasn't been bothering anyone else and then all the sudden all these mean immigrants started showing up and started bullying the west for no reason LOL

    You are a slow learner. All people have the right to repel invaders, but as I previously said the Indians tried and were defeated. If the defeat of the Indians is still tearing you up then consider suicide. Jumping from the Golden Gate bridge would do the trick.
     
    You are slow period. If you think this entire argument has only been about how sad it was that the native americans were defeated then you havent been paying attention, either that or you lack reading comprehension. The point of my argument has been and continues to be the following:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.
     
    This is hypocrisy. If the WN/alt-right wants to discuss equal rights for whites when it comes to racial survival, then WN/alt-right needs to support these same rights for every other race as well including the native americans. Failing this, it just reveals the WN/alt-right for the unapologetic white supremacist movement that it really is. Its not about white racial self preservation for these people, its about racial domination over all others.

    WN/alt-righters always talk about how moral, civilized and advanced western civilization is but if this is true then WN/alt-righters cannot be proud about the history of european colonization. If WN/alt-righters are proud about this, then it means that they condone murder, rape and theft on a massive scale. Colonizing a landmass and subjugating its native people is not a walk in the park; its an extremely brutal, harsh and sustained action which by its inherent nature involves committing countless savages acts. So which is it? Do WN/the alt-right support being civilized or do they support the law of the jungle? It would be possible for the west to retain its claims of moral advancement and being extremely civilized if the west only responded to external incursions of its own sovereignty with extreme violence and brutality, but the west actually went out of its way (literally crossed oceans) to antagonize and brutalize others. And this is what you consider civility?

    I notice that WN/alt-righters always have a schism when it comes to this topic; WN/alt-righters always want to proclaim the moral advancement of the west and call others backwards savages, but then when its convenient to them (when the conversation comes to the topic of european colonial history) they always want to talk about how its a cruel world and how all that matters is the law of jungle. So how is this any different than how a "savage" would think?

    Also I find it hilarious that WN/alt-righters sub-rosa condone murder, rape and theft via the process of conquest and colonization but then WN/alt-righters get mad when blacks commit murder, rape and theft. Logically speaking, the kind of murder, rape and theft that WN/alt-righters condone and even support is magnitudes larger in scale and impact than the murder, rape and theft that blacks commit. Funnily enough though, WN/alt-righters give blacks heat for this, but then pat themselves on the back (well, the backs of past european colonizers) for doing the same thing, only much worse.

    I guess WN/alt-righters just hate the disorganized fashion in which blacks commit murder, rape and theft and look down on it because its not as effective and organized as the white/european way of doing things LOL

    Why should WN/alt-righters wring their hands and flog themselves over past colonialism when non-Western peoples invaded and colonized, too? You seem to be very ignorant of world history. Are you not aware that Europeans became anti-colonialists of their own free will? Are you fuming over the Muslim conquest of the Middle East that used to be entirely Christian but is now almost entirely Muslim?
     
    Like I said, WN/alt-right have no other arguments to use except "other people did it too!" due to their inability to defend their own feeble position. WN/alt-right are fully aware of this weakness and this is why they can only resort to "tu quoque" kinds of arguments. This discussion has nothing to do with the crimes that other people committed; stay on topic.

    Third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish just like the nation being invaded has a right to fight back and repel the invasion. That’s why there’s armies and border barriers and border guards. War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You lack reading comprehension. Why do you think I put "allowed" in quotation marks in the original post?

    If an external third party wishes to invade a foreign land then they can choose to do so; but they cannot morally justify their invasion based upon the internecine squabbling in that territory. Just because the native americans were fighting each other does not mean that the europeans are “allowed” to invade them, and just because europeans are fighting each other does not mean that extraterrestrials are “allowed” to invade them. Do you understand this?
     
    Of course third parties have a right to invade a given territory whenever they wish; that is a given. But we are describing the moral and ethical dimensions of this topic and not the practical aspects of it.

    War and conquest is in man’s very DNA, not just whitey’s, which probably comes as a shock to you.
     
    You do know that just because war and conquest is in man's very DNA, it doesn't mean that we have to submit to these desires. The fact that we have the ability to act on or suppress these specific drives is what separates man from animals, civilization from savagery.

    The internecine warfare of the Indians was not the basis for European conquest and colonization, nor was it for most other conquests in world history. Early European settlers were seeking religious freedom and to live in peace. The internecine warfare of the Indians is routinely cited to refute left wing crybabies who claim the Indians were peace loving environmentalists who eschewed war and violence and were hapless victims of the wicked Europeans.
     
    You are being disingenuous and purposely dissembling here. It was very clear I was not referring to the literal basis on which the europeans decided to colonize the new world; rather I was referring to the casual, sub rosa WN/alt-right justification that is so casually trotted out. You yourself support this whole "internecine warfare is an appropriate justification for invasion and conquest", you implied so yourself here:

    But if Europeans were enslaving, torturing, mass murdering innocent civilians and cannibalizing each other then hail the invading aliens who would put a stop to this, civilize them and impose order. If aliens did invade and conquer then by your logic it would constitute “alien supremacy” and “alien chauvinism” and you would be belching out rambling screeds against aliens and in favor of the indigenous Europeans, right? Hey, hey, ho, ho alien culture has got to go!!!!
     
    So basically you're saying that if somebody in a foreign land is beating up on their own local neighbors then you have the right to go over there and impose order. Yeah ok, that doesn't really sound right to me. Also I have a question for you:

    What would you do if it was an indisputably technologically/militarily superior foreign country that was beating up on their own local neighbors? Would you still go and try to impose order? IMO, WN/alt-righters only advocate trying to "impose order" and "civilize" those that they know they can easily defeat and take the resources from. This silly idea about imposing order and civilizing others is just a shoddy fig leaf for desiring to take what belongs to others. The whole rhetoric about imposing order and civilizing others goes completely out the window if there is the possibility that the adversary in question might be more powerful than you. Just saying

    Of course Europe was wracked by internecine wars as was much of the rest of the world. The difference is in degree and Europeans almost never tortured (especially hideously) and cannibalized the losers as the Amerindians often did. WWI was horrible but 3.5 million amounts to less than 1% of the European population and there was no torture and cannibalism of the vanquished.
     
    The fact that the native americans were ruthless in warfare and practiced torture and cannibalization doesn't provide justification to conquer them. I know that is hard for you to understand, but Im just letting you know that. BTW, if that's not what you're trying to imply, then what are you getting at? Why do you care whether or not the native americans used to practice extremely barbaric warfare? You act as if it was the native americans who came to europe and were killing europeans in this way; native americans were isolated in the americas doing this to each other. It literally had nothing to do with the european colonizers. So again, why do you care so much?

    You have a point here and as I said earlier WWII regrettably marked a return to barbarism in warfare. But I’ll qualify by saying that this can be attributed to Jewish influence in the U.S. government and military high command. In The Patton Papers , general Patton spoke of the “semitic hatred” that was crafting post war policy to maximize German deaths.
     
    WWII was a judgement on the west. Hiter was actually a pretty honorable man once you get past all the allied propaganda about him (assuming the alternative facts I have found about him are true), however the west was manipulated and turned against itself by the jews in the same way that the west has manipulated and played off indigenous peoples against themselves for hundreds of years. In a twist of poetic justice, due to european internecine fighting, european global colonial power was broken, and the foundations for multiculturalism and the eventual demographic shift in the west was set in place. In my opinion, the jews were only able to infiltrate the west due to the essential unrighteousness of the west due to its colonial past.

    Not necessarily. It’s called Jewish power and influence combined with Western man’s sentimentality and guilt over colonization. All Europe has to do is grow a spine and mass deport and refuse to accept third world refugees and immigrants. After all, the Ottoman Turks conquered and colonized Southeast Europe and the Middle East and they aren’t allowing millions of former subject peoples into Turkey as immigrants.
     
    The west spent centuries actively subjugating native populations and cultures while it mostly retained its own european based homogenous racial and culture identity, meanwhile the ottoman turks empire was multi-cultural from the very beginning. Therefore european colonization had a very different dynamic and tone than did the colonization attempts of the ottoman empire. As a result of this, this affects the degree and type of backlash that the west will receive for its past actions vis a vis turkey.

    Why should they self flagellate over past history? Do you have any evidence that Muslims or Orientals feel remorse for crimes of their past and skeletons in their closet. Are Jews guilt tripping themselves over the mass murder of the Russian people during the Bolshevik revolution or the illegal conquest of Palestine and subjugation of the Christians and Muslims?
     
    Regarding any of the other examples you trotted out; they are not relevant to the conversation at hand. Stop deflecting and trying to point out what others did, we are discussing the topic of the west and its hand in the colonization of the americas.

    Self flagellating is different than honestly reflecting over past history. WN/alt-right/the right wing is very much about celebrating and remembering the past when it comes to the more glorious events in the history of the west, but mysteriously WN/alt-right/the right wing gets squeamish when the topic about culpability regarding the history of european colonization comes up. Whenever this topic is broached, all the sudden WN/alt-right/the right wing wants to pretend like the past is the past (or they try to come up with tortured apologetics about why european colonization was not a crime.) Usually its some odd mixture of both. Thats kind of silly isn't it? Also it this inconsistent stance strongly suggests a fundamental lack of integrity as well. A WN/alt-righter with integrity would have no problem acknowledging both the proud as well as shameful aspects of western history

    This is pure spin. The death rates of whites are exceeding their birth rates in almost 20 U.S. states for the last five years. In other Western nations birth rates are just at or below replacement level.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/why-is-europe-losing-the-will-to-breed-1.2644169

    You don’t have to be a math scholar to conclude that not only our percentages relative to non-whites are in decline but also our absolute numbers. And to make things worse the third world is mass migrating to white nations, so only an intellectually dishonest person or hardcore ideologue such as yourself would deny European man is on a trajectory to extinction. If it’s not happening then why are leftists and non-whites trumpeting our looming demise in their opinion journals and websites?
     
    you are missing the point. again. My original point was that the native americans legitimately suffered by genocide using your own standards as applied to white people; yet you don't consider the native american case genocide but you consider the situation with the white race as genocide. Either both are considered genocide (again, using your standards), or neither are. Which is it?

    Except I just showed that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most Western nations. Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. Whites don’t have that luxury. When Indian deaths are exceeding their births and their many reservations are being flooded with non-Indians then I’ll agree with you.
    So whites don't want to have kids and its considered genocide, but when native americans are ruthlessly killed and displaced by european settlers is not considered genocide?
     
    You are also being purposely deceptive in how you are connecting your arguments. First of all you just said that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining in most western nations, and then you bring up the fact that Indians have their own sovereign territories within the U.S. and are allowed to keep out non-Indians which they do. These two things have no correlation with each other. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has nothing to do with the fact that native americans have their own sovereign territories and are allowed to keep out non-native americans. The fact that the absolute numbers of whites are stagnant or declining has little to do with immigration and more to do with the fact that whites simply arent having kids. Secondly, the only way in which the absolute numbers of whites would be stagnant or declining would be connected with immigration would be if you are referring to interracial relationships and the non-white offspring born from that; in that case, this too hardly qualifies as "genocide". Whites aren't forced at gunpoint to race mix, white men and white women voluntarily choose to do this.

    Your argument for white genocide basically boils down to:

    1.white people dont want to have many kids

    2.white people are willingly choosing to racemix with immigrants

    You could factually state that the white race is dwindling in numbers; but you cannot call it white genocide. This is especially so if you cannot concede that what happened to the native americans was considered genocide. The "white genocide" that whites are experiencing in the US is A LUXURY RESORT compared to the actual genocide and mistreatment that the native americans experienced at the hands of european colonists.

    LOL. So now when it suits your purpose you are conceding that European colonialism led to an explosion of third world births whereas previously it was a crime against humanity. Make up your mind. And again don’t put words in my mouth as I never expressed madness at you unless of course you support the third world invasion. The wicked and genocidal Europeans thought they were doing the right thing in bringing medinical and other advancements to their non-white colonies and obviously didn’t foresee what an explosion of birth rates would portend for the white world.
     
    No, there's no need to concede anything. At no point did I ever try to deny the fact that european intervention led to a higher quality of life for the entire world and a subsequent population explosion in the third world. I am perfectly fine to give credit where it is due. That being said, Europe's attempt to colonize the world (and its successful genocide of the native americans) was indeed a crime against humanity. There is no need to "make up my mind" when both concepts can coexist and are not mutually exclusive. As far as I am concerned, the presence of both situations form a smooth, logical continuum of action and subsequent consequence as opposed to being two contradictory events. The west's mistake was in colonizing the world, and as an unexpected result of taking on the burden of colonizing the world, the west inadvertently caused a massive increase in standards of living and a subsequent third world population boom which now threatens to subsume the west who originally colonized these countries. The west opened up pandoras box when it decided to start going around and colonizing the whole world, and now it is dealing with the consequences. Why do WN/alt-righters have such a difficult time dealing with the concept of consequences? The west ran roughshod over the entire world for centuries and WN/alt-righters act shocked and indignant that now the west's past actions are catching up to it.

    That’s just your opinion and nothing more. Your guilt tripping won’t work on white nationalists. You will need to apply that standard to all conquests throughout history and especially to the Jewish conquest of Palestine. The fact that you shrink from this likely means you are Jewish or half Jewish since Israel strikes a mystical chord with the vast majority of Jews & half Jews and they try to change the subject just as you’ve done.
     
    Im not guilt tripping; im just informing WN/alt-right/the right wing why the west is doomed. The west made its bed and now will lay in it. We already see this happening in real life; nobody argues about the cold harsh reality that is multiculturalism and mass immigration to the west and the complete lack of control that westerners themselves have over this development. As I have said before, the west brought this on itself; the west opened up a veritable pandoras box when it went around the world colonizing everybody. WN/alt-righters/the right wing all want to brag about how the west colonized the rest of the world, but then they want to act like they are the victims when the western colonization project grew legs (globalization) and begins to negatively impact the west in unforeseen ways. Generally speaking, conservatives are all about responsibility and integrity; so why don't WN/alt-righters objectively own up to the fact that the west created its own problems? Nobody takes WN/alt-righters seriously when WN/alt-righters try to pretend like the west was "jus being a good boy, ain't hurtin' nobody and dindu nuffin" when it comes to the topic of the west being victimized by multiculturalism. Once again, the west is a victim of its own actions in the past. Contrary to what WN/alt-righters believe; history did not begin in the 1960s when the west first started taking in large numbers of immigrants; the root causes of this development go back hundreds of years, but in order to mask this inconvenient fact; WN/alt-righters only focus on the cause and effect of the past couple of decades.

    I think that every unjust act in this world invites an equal and proportionate "backlash" sooner or later down the line. Nobody is exempt from this. That being said, you are deflecting again; the crimes of other people are not relevant to this discussion, we are discussing the west and its colonial history, specifically as it relates to the conquest of the native americans (refer to the original article please). The fact that you are so dodgy about the european involvement in the colonization of the americas strongly suggests that you doubt the strength of your own position, that's why you have to resort to so many tu quoque arguments. You are basically making the following argument:

    A man murders somebody and then subsequently claims that the fact that he committed murder doesn't matter since lots of other people commit murders too.

    However in reality, the murderer is still guilty of his own crime, just as are all the other people who commit murders are equally guilty of their own crimes as well. Just because other people/nations are committing a specific crime does not absolve you of guilt for your own crimes that you have committed.

    In case you are wondering, I am not jewish


    Do you live in America? If yes, then why haven’t you left if you consider it “morally wrong” and are so incensed about how it was founded?
     
    Yes I live in america, and I am not so much incensed about how it was founded, but rather I am incensed over the hypocrisy of WN/alt-right when it comes to the topic of the native americans and WN/alt-righters views regarding their own personal racial and cultural preservation. This is my very first post in this comment thread which set the tone:

    1.We (the alt-right/right wing) demand the right for the white race and western civilization to exist and perpetuate, yet we have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL with wrecking and destroying other races and cultures. Don’t even expect any tears or remorse from us because we won’t give it, we are entitled and feel a childish need to project our superiority
     
    I would not have as much as a problem if the WN/alt-right had a more mature and morally consistent view on the topic of native american displacement instead of the arrogant and hypocritical stance which they currently have. Also I enjoy the fact that there are lots of good people in this country (white and otherwise) who have a more balanced and reasonable perspective on this matter than WN/alt-righters do. Just FYI, large numbers of americans (even white americans!) are totally cool about america becoming a more multicultural and diverse nation. The fact that the west is undergoing this transformation is only really a bad thing to people like you.

    No, just because we conquered America doesn’t mean we’re supposed to welcome our demise simply because in your mind you believe America’s founding was a moral outrage and everyone else is supposed to fall in line because you think you’re a genius. But don’t forget that diaspora Jewry is working tirelessly to transform and destroy the Western world while supporting Israel as a homeland for Jews only.

    See the schism here?
     
    You don't have to welcome anything. In fact I encourage you to do everything you can to reverse the situation, but I am telling you this; due to the heavy karmic debt of the west, everything that WN/alt-right/the right wing try to do to reverse this situation will backfire on them. While it sounds like a cliche; the right wing is literally on the wrong side of history. This is not just empty rhetoric, external events reflect what I am saying, and you are well aware of what is going on as well. WN/alt-righters believe that they are going to regain power and create a new western renaissance, but this is nothing but a pipedream; the large majority of white americans want nothing to do with WN/alt-right, and this is unlikely to change, even in the face of some catastrophic event like an economic collapse, war, etc. You guys are done, this whole WN/alt-right movement will ironically go the way of the native americans, marginalized and ignored in their own country. That is poetic justice

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes,

    That’s not much of an answer. Your long, meandering reply is larded with qualifiers and double talk in a feeble attempt to establish distinctions between the European arrival in N. America and the Afro-Islamic arrival in Europe to let yourself off the hook.

    There’s plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic “no-go” zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there’s the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    So if you were honest instead of duplicitous the answer would be a simple, yes, the Europeans can eject these hostile invaders by any means possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    You continue to learn at a snail’s pace or not at all. In your mind, which has been deformed by anti-white hate propaganda, since Europeans conquered the Americas they too should perish as “karmic retribution” similar to what was done to the Indians even though there’s many more Indians living today then at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov’t and the plains Indians.
     
    You are dissembling. Two points:

    1.There are many more native americans living today than at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov’t and the plains Indians (according to you). So what? This doesn't change the fact that native americans faced widespread mistreatment and cultural destruction from the european colonizers as well as the fact that they were displaced en masse from their traditional lands.

    2.There are also more (actual) white amerians living today than there were a century ago. The only reason that the absolute numbers of white americans may be dwindling is simply due to the fact that white people are not having as many kids, and/or whites are VOLUNTARILY choosing to have children with non-white partners. You try to act as if whites are the victim and are experiencing "genocide", meanwhile you offer flimsy apologetics for the actual genocide and cultural destruction that the native americans faced. You are a prime example of why white nationalists/alt-right cannot be taken seriously.


    Virtually every race of people has conquered and displaced native peoples. Therefore, by your line of reasoning, no race deserves equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation. Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.
     
    Wrong. You are purposely twisting my original argument, which I have posted numerous times here and I will post again:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.
     
    Anybody (regardless of their race) who gloats about destroying other races but then begs and pleads for their own race to be able to survive is a hypocrite and a coward.

    Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.
     
    Im legit laughing at how once again you are trying to paint whites as victims. WN/alt-righters have no idea how whiny and weak they come across when they try to blame all their woes on people just being racist against white people. This is no different than the stereotype that some black people choose to blame everything on racism. WN/alt-righters always poke fun at black "crybabies", but WN/alt-righters whine and cry just as much. Its not really befitting for a movement that likes to act like it is so tough, traditional and masculine (LOL)

    If you reviewed the information you posted you’ll find that the numbers for the alleged California genocide are all over the map. The low estimate of 4500 Indian deaths between 1849 and 1870 amounts to 214 deaths annually. The middle of the road numbers cited by Madley of 9400 to 16,000 between 1846 and 1873 amounts to 348 to 592 Indian deaths annually. Not exactly eye popping.

    Ed Castillo’s numbers are highly inflated, seemingly not backed up by anything other than his own vivid imagination, and are intended to spin a sexy yarn of mass genocide of peaceful indigenous people. This is the Hollywood version of things and is obviously what you choose believe.

    No doubt some or many Indians were killed and displaced in California as a result of U.S. government policy, but you did not prove, nor did the sources you cite prove, that it amounted to genocide. Again, the estimates vary widely and are all over the map.
     

    You intentionally focus on relatively trivial side arguments like this in order to obscure the big picture. European colonists came uninvited to the americas and pushed the native americans off their land, mistreating, displacing and killing them in the process. Its really that simple. You cannot argue with this extremely compact and truthful rendition of what actually happened, so this is why you must resort to bringing up ultimately irrelevant ancillary arguments such as this, hoping that the primary point of contention will get swept away in the details. Ive noticed that you like to do this though; since you cannot effectively argue against the primary point, you try to argue around it and hope that the conversation gets mired down in a discussion about minutiae.

    And while you harp on the immorality and unethicality of it all when the white man is the aggressor, you keep forgetting that the Indians frequently victimized, slaughtered and enslaved each other in California and elsewhere:
     
    I harp about the immorality and unethicality of WN/alt-righters begging for the white race to be able to exist meanwhile WN/alt-righters jeer and guffaw at the unjustly vanquished native americans.

    Regarding native on native atrocities; as far as I am concerned, that's a family affair. Natives fighting natives is qualitatively different than europeans invading traditional native american lands and committing atrocities. In fact, I can prove the duplicty of your argument with two simple examples:

    1.Whites kill/attack other whites everyday in america, do you care about this? Im guessing you dont. But if blacks kill/attack a white person then WN/alt-right throw a hissy fit.

    2.You probably wouldn't bat an eye if two european countries decided to fight each other; but im sure you would get fired up if it was a hypothetical african or muslim superpower that decided to come and bully europe.

    Also do not forget that europe/the west has a proven track record of going around the world and colonizing people. Thus this compounds the guilt of the european invaders since it becomes retrospectively clear that they are habitual offenders.


    So, to sum up your view of things:
    Indians slaughtering Indians: No biggie; much ado about nothing; it’s their land anyway.
    Whites slaughtering Indians: Crime against humanity; genocide; all whites must die.
     
    If native americans came and invaded europe in the 16th century and treated europeans the same way that european colonists treated the native americans then I would consider it a criminal act. You have to resort to hyperbole and act like whites are the victim when in actuality this has little to do with race at all and more to do with simple moral and ethical concepts.

    And as for claims that we deliberately infected the plains Indians with smallpox you’ll have to explain why then we would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes if we were trying to kill them all with it? Those darn facts just keep getting in the way of your bogus claims:
     
    Not really. Kind of funny how this entire situation would have been avoided in the first place if the europeans had chosen not to colonize the americas in the first place, funny how that works huh?

    In case you're wondering why they would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes, I found the answer in the very article that you linked:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236817992_Lewis_Cass_and_the_Politics_of_Disease_The_Indian_Vaccination_Act_of_1832


    There was no input from American Indians during the conception, design, and implementation of the program, and vaccinations were used to enable Indian removal, to permit relocation of Native Americans to reservations, to consolidate and compact reservation communities, to expedite westward expansion of the United States
     
    Ouch! The US giveth and the US taketh. I guess the european colonists were just giving these poor indians the smallpox vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts eh?

    So its considered genocide by your standards when western countries decide to let in a bunch of immigrants and white people themselves choose not to have many kids, yet its not considered genocide when the US government uses the pretext of smallpox vaccines in order to enable Indian removal, to permit relocation of Native Americans to reservations, to consolidate and compact reservation communities and to expedite westward expansion of the United States? Talk about darn facts getting in the way of bogus claims!


    As for the rest of it, it’s nice to know that white nationalist and alt-righters live rent free inside your head and keep you up at night.
     
    The feeling is obviously mutual. Otherwise you wouldn't bother to respond ;)

    That’s not much of an answer. Your long, meandering reply is larded with qualifiers and double talk in a feeble attempt to establish distinctions between the European arrival in N. America and the Afro-Islamic arrival in Europe to let yourself off the hook.

    There’s plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic “no-go” zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there’s the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    So if you were honest instead of duplicitous the answer would be a simple, yes, the Europeans can eject these hostile invaders by any means possible.
     

    It was a perfectly acceptable answer. I answered you in a very clear, detailed and unambiguous way.

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible.
     
    The european conquest of the americas (you yourself have used this terminology numerous times, as opposed to the less loaded term "arrival" that you purposely used in this response in order to soften the perception of european actions in the americas) is quantitatively different than the influx of african/muslim immigrants to europe. There is nothing feeble about my explanation. The europeans were military invaders, hence that is why you yourself have repeatedly referred to them as "conquerers" or as "conquering"; meanwhile the majority of african/muslim immigrants to europe are either refugees (ironically coming to europe due to western interference, invasions and occupations in their homelands) or they are just normal, run of the mill, impoverished people. They are hardly an invading military force akin to the european conquerers. To say otherwise would be disingenuous.

    There’s plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic “no-go” zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there’s the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.
     
    WN/alt-right doom porn. You would hate them whether they came as conquerers or as friends. The vast majority of africans/muslims are probably law abiding, normal citizens. I'm sure there is an underlying militant faction of the african/muslim diaspora in europe; but their present actions do not compare at all (either quantitatively or qualitatively) to the actions of the european colonizers in the americas. This is self-evident. You are intentionally trying to compare apples and oranges. Now, if an african or muslim country overtly declared war on europe and sent large numbers of actual military forces to conquer europe then it would be a vastly different and much more comparable situation.

    Also derbyshire is hilarious and is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the alt-right:

    derbyshire is anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism; yet he himself is an immigrant (from UK to america) and he is married to a chinese woman LOL. So he is a hypocrite on both counts, but thats not really surprising considering that WN/alt-right are full of hypocrisy.

    Most importantly, as I said before; the west brought this on itself by deciding to colonize and invade the world to begin with. Many of the african immigrants are from countries that were formerly european colonies; as a result of this, these african immigrants are somewhat familiar with western culture and can speak western languages. Had the west never colonized and invaded africa to begin with; then there would not be this cultural and linguistic link binding modern day europe and africa. Likewise with the muslim immigrants; if the west could mind its own business and stop antagonizing muslim countries then there would not be the current influx of muslim refugees that there are in europe. You are clearly trying to blame the muslims, but you should blame the western military policies that caused them to flee to europe in the first place.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes,
     
    That's not much of an answer. Your long, meandering reply is larded with qualifiers and double talk in a feeble attempt to establish distinctions between the European arrival in N. America and the Afro-Islamic arrival in Europe to let yourself off the hook.

    There's plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic "no-go" zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there's the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    So if you were honest instead of duplicitous the answer would be a simple, yes, the Europeans can eject these hostile invaders by any means possible.

    You continue to learn at a snail’s pace or not at all. In your mind, which has been deformed by anti-white hate propaganda, since Europeans conquered the Americas they too should perish as “karmic retribution” similar to what was done to the Indians even though there’s many more Indians living today then at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov’t and the plains Indians.

    You are dissembling. Two points:

    1.There are many more native americans living today than at the time of cessation of hostilities between the U.S. gov’t and the plains Indians (according to you). So what? This doesn’t change the fact that native americans faced widespread mistreatment and cultural destruction from the european colonizers as well as the fact that they were displaced en masse from their traditional lands.

    2.There are also more (actual) white amerians living today than there were a century ago. The only reason that the absolute numbers of white americans may be dwindling is simply due to the fact that white people are not having as many kids, and/or whites are VOLUNTARILY choosing to have children with non-white partners. You try to act as if whites are the victim and are experiencing “genocide”, meanwhile you offer flimsy apologetics for the actual genocide and cultural destruction that the native americans faced. You are a prime example of why white nationalists/alt-right cannot be taken seriously.

    Virtually every race of people has conquered and displaced native peoples. Therefore, by your line of reasoning, no race deserves equal rights for racial and cultural self preservation. Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.

    Wrong. You are purposely twisting my original argument, which I have posted numerous times here and I will post again:

    WN/alt-right demand the right for whites to be able to survive and protect their own racial and cultural interests, but then in the same breath WN/alt-right gloats about having conquered the americas and in the process having racially and culturally destroyed the native americans.

    Anybody (regardless of their race) who gloats about destroying other races but then begs and pleads for their own race to be able to survive is a hypocrite and a coward.

    Except in true hypocritical loony left fashion, this only applies to whites and no other race of people.

    Im legit laughing at how once again you are trying to paint whites as victims. WN/alt-righters have no idea how whiny and weak they come across when they try to blame all their woes on people just being racist against white people. This is no different than the stereotype that some black people choose to blame everything on racism. WN/alt-righters always poke fun at black “crybabies”, but WN/alt-righters whine and cry just as much. Its not really befitting for a movement that likes to act like it is so tough, traditional and masculine (LOL)

    If you reviewed the information you posted you’ll find that the numbers for the alleged California genocide are all over the map. The low estimate of 4500 Indian deaths between 1849 and 1870 amounts to 214 deaths annually. The middle of the road numbers cited by Madley of 9400 to 16,000 between 1846 and 1873 amounts to 348 to 592 Indian deaths annually. Not exactly eye popping.

    Ed Castillo’s numbers are highly inflated, seemingly not backed up by anything other than his own vivid imagination, and are intended to spin a sexy yarn of mass genocide of peaceful indigenous people. This is the Hollywood version of things and is obviously what you choose believe.

    No doubt some or many Indians were killed and displaced in California as a result of U.S. government policy, but you did not prove, nor did the sources you cite prove, that it amounted to genocide. Again, the estimates vary widely and are all over the map.

    You intentionally focus on relatively trivial side arguments like this in order to obscure the big picture. European colonists came uninvited to the americas and pushed the native americans off their land, mistreating, displacing and killing them in the process. Its really that simple. You cannot argue with this extremely compact and truthful rendition of what actually happened, so this is why you must resort to bringing up ultimately irrelevant ancillary arguments such as this, hoping that the primary point of contention will get swept away in the details. Ive noticed that you like to do this though; since you cannot effectively argue against the primary point, you try to argue around it and hope that the conversation gets mired down in a discussion about minutiae.

    And while you harp on the immorality and unethicality of it all when the white man is the aggressor, you keep forgetting that the Indians frequently victimized, slaughtered and enslaved each other in California and elsewhere:

    I harp about the immorality and unethicality of WN/alt-righters begging for the white race to be able to exist meanwhile WN/alt-righters jeer and guffaw at the unjustly vanquished native americans.

    Regarding native on native atrocities; as far as I am concerned, that’s a family affair. Natives fighting natives is qualitatively different than europeans invading traditional native american lands and committing atrocities. In fact, I can prove the duplicty of your argument with two simple examples:

    1.Whites kill/attack other whites everyday in america, do you care about this? Im guessing you dont. But if blacks kill/attack a white person then WN/alt-right throw a hissy fit.

    2.You probably wouldn’t bat an eye if two european countries decided to fight each other; but im sure you would get fired up if it was a hypothetical african or muslim superpower that decided to come and bully europe.

    Also do not forget that europe/the west has a proven track record of going around the world and colonizing people. Thus this compounds the guilt of the european invaders since it becomes retrospectively clear that they are habitual offenders.

    So, to sum up your view of things:
    Indians slaughtering Indians: No biggie; much ado about nothing; it’s their land anyway.
    Whites slaughtering Indians: Crime against humanity; genocide; all whites must die.

    If native americans came and invaded europe in the 16th century and treated europeans the same way that european colonists treated the native americans then I would consider it a criminal act. You have to resort to hyperbole and act like whites are the victim when in actuality this has little to do with race at all and more to do with simple moral and ethical concepts.

    And as for claims that we deliberately infected the plains Indians with smallpox you’ll have to explain why then we would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes if we were trying to kill them all with it? Those darn facts just keep getting in the way of your bogus claims:

    Not really. Kind of funny how this entire situation would have been avoided in the first place if the europeans had chosen not to colonize the americas in the first place, funny how that works huh?

    In case you’re wondering why they would offer the smallpox vaccine to many Indian tribes, I found the answer in the very article that you linked:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236817992_Lewis_Cass_and_the_Politics_of_Disease_The_Indian_Vaccination_Act_of_1832

    There was no input from American Indians during the conception, design, and implementation of the program, and vaccinations were used to enable Indian removal, to permit relocation of Native Americans to reservations, to consolidate and compact reservation communities, to expedite westward expansion of the United States

    Ouch! The US giveth and the US taketh. I guess the european colonists were just giving these poor indians the smallpox vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts eh?

    So its considered genocide by your standards when western countries decide to let in a bunch of immigrants and white people themselves choose not to have many kids, yet its not considered genocide when the US government uses the pretext of smallpox vaccines in order to enable Indian removal, to permit relocation of Native Americans to reservations, to consolidate and compact reservation communities and to expedite westward expansion of the United States? Talk about darn facts getting in the way of bogus claims!

    As for the rest of it, it’s nice to know that white nationalist and alt-righters live rent free inside your head and keep you up at night.

    The feeling is obviously mutual. Otherwise you wouldn’t bother to respond ;)

    That’s not much of an answer. Your long, meandering reply is larded with qualifiers and double talk in a feeble attempt to establish distinctions between the European arrival in N. America and the Afro-Islamic arrival in Europe to let yourself off the hook.

    There’s plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic “no-go” zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there’s the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    So if you were honest instead of duplicitous the answer would be a simple, yes, the Europeans can eject these hostile invaders by any means possible.

    It was a perfectly acceptable answer. I answered you in a very clear, detailed and unambiguous way.

    I’m not a coward and i’ll be happy to answer your question. If african and muslim invaders were legitimately coming to europe in the same fashion as the european colonists were coming to the americas then yes, I would support native european efforts to repel the invaders in any fashion possible.

    The european conquest of the americas (you yourself have used this terminology numerous times, as opposed to the less loaded term “arrival” that you purposely used in this response in order to soften the perception of european actions in the americas) is quantitatively different than the influx of african/muslim immigrants to europe. There is nothing feeble about my explanation. The europeans were military invaders, hence that is why you yourself have repeatedly referred to them as “conquerers” or as “conquering”; meanwhile the majority of african/muslim immigrants to europe are either refugees (ironically coming to europe due to western interference, invasions and occupations in their homelands) or they are just normal, run of the mill, impoverished people. They are hardly an invading military force akin to the european conquerers. To say otherwise would be disingenuous.

    There’s plenty of evidence from the mouths of African and Islamic invaders and by their actions that they are coming as conquerors and not as friends. Derbyshire posted a column months ago where a U.K. Imam said that Allah had bequeathed England to the Muslims. There are many and growing Afro-Islamic “no-go” zones in Europe where police enter at their own peril. Then there’s the growing number of sexual assaults on European women.

    WN/alt-right doom porn. You would hate them whether they came as conquerers or as friends. The vast majority of africans/muslims are probably law abiding, normal citizens. I’m sure there is an underlying militant faction of the african/muslim diaspora in europe; but their present actions do not compare at all (either quantitatively or qualitatively) to the actions of the european colonizers in the americas. This is self-evident. You are intentionally trying to compare apples and oranges. Now, if an african or muslim country overtly declared war on europe and sent large numbers of actual military forces to conquer europe then it would be a vastly different and much more comparable situation.

    Also derbyshire is hilarious and is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the alt-right:

    derbyshire is anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism; yet he himself is an immigrant (from UK to america) and he is married to a chinese woman LOL. So he is a hypocrite on both counts, but thats not really surprising considering that WN/alt-right are full of hypocrisy.

    Most importantly, as I said before; the west brought this on itself by deciding to colonize and invade the world to begin with. Many of the african immigrants are from countries that were formerly european colonies; as a result of this, these african immigrants are somewhat familiar with western culture and can speak western languages. Had the west never colonized and invaded africa to begin with; then there would not be this cultural and linguistic link binding modern day europe and africa. Likewise with the muslim immigrants; if the west could mind its own business and stop antagonizing muslim countries then there would not be the current influx of muslim refugees that there are in europe. You are clearly trying to blame the muslims, but you should blame the western military policies that caused them to flee to europe in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?