#MeToo and Cancel Culture: Friday is bring your own torches and pitchforks day!

Literally this. Sure the Spanish somehow blew all the gold and silver they earned for snuffing out what was likely the most evil religion ever on God only knows what, ye olden days blackjack and hookers couldn't have been that expensive.

And sure they managed to mostly blow all the good will the natives had by treating them worse then livestock. But seriously, anyone who has issue with pulling down the Aztecs and their industrialized practices of mass human sacrifice and canablism is insane.

We have photos of said people you tell me.

OIP.q-IwxV3zIreHN8SEE4l7NgHaEl
 
Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.

Namely in Central America, the ringing native superpowers were cartoonishly evil and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.

Their own neighbors saw that aa Fairplay. Why are we virtue signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?

Yeah this I agree with. I guess I should note that I am at a point where I don't fully buy the absolute pacifism of the likes of the quackers, just that I think there was plenty of stuff wrong with catholicism.
 
Yeah this I agree with. I guess I should note that I am at a point where I don't fully buy the absolute pacifism of the likes of the quackers, just that I think there was plenty of stuff wrong with catholicism.
Least bad religion there is and humans have proven unable to run a civilization long term without one. Every attempt to replace it with something better has been and continues to be a moral and material disaster beyond the scale of most people's understanding.
 
It's not just modern day wokies, enemies of Spain, England and Netherlands in particular ran centuries long propaganda campaign that portrayed Spanish adventures in Americas as the worst crime ever, second only to Spanish crimes in Netherlands. And who largely shaped the worldwide view of history?

fK8o3rj.png
 
The eternal Anglo.

edit- I've similar position when it concerns plains natives and the more imperialistic East Coast tribes, albeit for very different reasons. None of them were as fucking insane as the Aztecs and Inca, save maaaaybbe the Comanche, but more because they were military powers who were playing the Empire Game, and some of them (The Comanche and arguably the Huron and Iroquois) in some cases controlled territories larger than the home territories of some of the largest empires the world has ever seen. They played the Empire Game, and they fought like hell, in some cases single-handed against multiple global powers grinding their expansion to a halt for decades. They even played European powers against each other and recruited colonials as mercenaries in their own expansionistic wars against their neighbors.

They played the game, and guys like Powhattan would have been right at home in Pre-Norman England, a figure no less deadly and august as Alfred of Wessex etc.

So why feel guilt? These dudes had they just a littttlllee bit more technology, they very likely could have reversed the situation and the rebellion of the 13 colonies against England could have been signed in a state legislature designed to look like a Longhouse, with Washington being remembered as the first white war chief and first white President etc.

To me its an act of disrespect to marginalize people like that as victims. Those fuckers shot their shot and lost, that's damned admirable.
 
Last edited:
Least bad religion there is and humans have proven unable to run a civilization long term without one. Every attempt to replace it with something better has been and continues to be a moral and material disaster beyond the scale of most people's understanding.

I'd still argue the following: civilization is good for whom?

I've seen it do far more to protect the wolves than the sheep.

To me its an act of disrespect to marginalize people like that as victims. Those fuckers shot their shot and lost, that's damned admirable

*Gibberish shock* how uncivilized.
 
Last edited:
Literally this. Sure the Spanish somehow blew all the gold and silver they earned for snuffing out what was likely the most evil religion ever on God only knows what, ye olden days blackjack and hookers couldn't have been that expensive.

And sure they managed to mostly blow all the good will the natives had by treating them worse then livestock. But seriously, anyone who has issue with pulling down the Aztecs and their industrialized practices of mass human sacrifice and cannibalism is insane.
Hilariously, if the Spanish hadn't gone full on cartoon overlord with their new native subjects, said subjects would've been happy to remain under the Spanish banner.

A lot of the Empire's troubles wouldn't have existed if they'd not been complete douchebags in South America.
The eternal Anglo.

edit- I've similar position when it concerns plains natives and the more imperialistic East Coast tribes, albeit for very different reasons. None of them were as fucking insane as the Aztecs and Inca, save maaaaybbe the Comanche, but more because they were military powers who were playing the Empire Game, and some of them (The Comanche and arguably the Huron and Iroquois) in some cases controlled territories larger than the home territories of some of the largest empires the world has ever seen. They played the Empire Game, and they fought like hell, in some cases single-handed against multiple global powers grinding their expansion to a halt for decades. They even played European powers against each other and recruited colonials as mercenaries in their own expansionistic wars against their neighbors.

They played the game, and guys like Powhattan would have been right at home in Pre-Norman England, a figure no less deadly and august as Alfred of Wessex etc.

So why feel guilt? These dudes had they just a littttlllee bit more technology, they very likely could have reversed the situation and the rebellion of the 13 colonies against England could have been signed in a state legislature designed to look like a Longhouse, with Washington being remembered as the first white war chief and first white President etc.

To me its an act of disrespect to marginalize people like that as victims. Those fuckers shot their shot and lost, that's damned admirable.
A major difference, however, between the British Empire and the Colonies at the time is that the Colonists (and later the American state) were untrustworthy dicks on the whole. They constantly reneged on promises and treaties, and were as slimy as fuck.

The Empire? Yeah, we weren't saints, but we actually honoured treaties on the whole. It was part of our "divide and conquer" thing which worked; turns out not being an untrustworthy dickbag worked wonders for diplomacy, relations, and alliances.
 
Hilariously, if the Spanish hadn't gone full on cartoon overlord with their new native subjects, said subjects would've been happy to remain under the Spanish banner.

A lot of the Empire's troubles wouldn't have existed if they'd not been complete douchebags in South America.

A major difference, however, between the British Empire and the Colonies at the time is that the Colonists (and later the American state) were untrustworthy dicks on the whole. They constantly reneged on promises and treaties, and were as slimy as fuck.

The Empire? Yeah, we weren't saints, but we actually honoured treaties on the whole. It was part of our "divide and conquer" thing which worked; turns out not being an untrustworthy dickbag worked wonders for diplomacy, relations, and alliances.
Part of where the Spanish went off the rails was when Phillip II of Spain (Felipe el Prudente) decided to pick a fight with the protestant younger half-sister of his deceased English wife Mary.

That did not end well for the Spanish because said protestant younger half-sister was Elizabeth I.
 
They played the game, and guys like Powhattan would have been right at home in Pre-Norman England, a figure no less deadly and august as Alfred of Wessex etc.
The Virginia Indian Wars were not, as most people probably think, Settlers vs Indians. Most of them started because one Indian tribe attacked another Indian tribe who happened to be allied to the English, so when said tribe called up its allies it included the English colonists, and the English colonists were all "yeah, let's fuck these assholes up!"

It is of note that the most staunchly allied Indian tribes of the Virginia colony exist to this day, the lands reserved to them by treaty still considered theirs, and treaties signed between the Indians and colony of Virginia in the 17th century are still in effect and upheld by both the Commonwealth and those tribes.
 
Waldensians, Lollards, Freticillians, just off the top of my head. These guys were existing long before the reformation. They were a minority but they were there. And being a minority or a majority does not mean being right or wrong. It just means a belief is popular or at least not looked at in hostility by the masses

Anti-Lgbtq folk were a minority until recently. Up until then most people didn't care. You'll fine that no body is 100% right on 100% of things man.
I quickly looked over those groups only the Lollards had a pseudo pacifist mentality where they opposed crusades and stuff. The other two are just proto Protestant, where they never opposed using secular power to enforce religious law.
As for popularity, I’m not asking for it to be the majority of it’s not legitimate. When I say popular I mean common because otherwise you could point to one obscure village in the middle of nowhere and say yup this fits Christianity supports this stance of complete pacifism. I disagree with that stance Christianity does teach submission to earthly authority so I can believe that it would condemn rebellion to impose Christianity (unless certain criteria are met) but I haven’t seen anything from when Christianity became dominant to show that people were saying it’s wrong to enforce it at the point of the law.
 
I quickly looked over those groups only the Lollards had a pseudo pacifist mentality where they opposed crusades and stuff. The other two are just proto Protestant, where they never opposed using secular power to enforce religious law.
As for popularity, I’m not asking for it to be the majority of it’s not legitimate. When I say popular I mean common because otherwise you could point to one obscure village in the middle of nowhere and say yup this fits Christianity supports this stance of complete pacifism. I disagree with that stance Christianity does teach submission to earthly authority so I can believe that it would condemn rebellion to impose Christianity (unless certain criteria are met) but I haven’t seen anything from when Christianity became dominant to show that people were saying it’s wrong to enforce it at the point of the law.

Jesus Before Pilate

28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"

30 "If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

31 Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law."

"But we have no right to execute anyone," they objected. 32 This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34 "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

35 "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

38 "What is truth?" retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"
 

Honestly the commies hating on Mr. Beast is pretty hilarious.

It's weird being able to watch Mr. Beast build a dynasty for himself in real time. The man has a net worth of over 50 million and has a small business empire. He's essentially amoung the first of a new generation of New Money people as the likes of people like Musk Zuckerberg and Bezos become Old Money.
 

In which feminists try to argue that punishing someone for making false accusations will keep real victims from coming forward.

And the reason why thats a mistake is that eventually people will decide their tired of your shit and will crack down on you, with glee.
 
Back
Top