King Arts
Well-known member
You do realize that there are minorities in China yes? They are less genocidal than some other groups like Anglos.
Serious question about anti-Semitism.
- Thread starter Nitramy
- Start date
LindyAF
Well-known member
*sigh* everyone tryna be edgy while picking targets entirely in line with the dominant progressive moral framework
Anglos were hardly genocidal minus their hatred of the Irish and Scottish. And TBH that was more a Norman thing for a good chunk of the last thousand years.
Well minus Cromwell. He wanted to kill everyone who wasn't a protestant.
The damage anglos do is mostly and very sadly against themselves. Wrecking their great works out of some misplaced sense of guilt.
Well minus Cromwell. He wanted to kill everyone who wasn't a protestant.
The damage anglos do is mostly and very sadly against themselves. Wrecking their great works out of some misplaced sense of guilt.
A peoples greatest enemy is often themselves.
It was true when Cato said it two thousand years ago and is true now.
And a damn tragedy.
Yes but the money heavy, establishment movers and shakers that everyone else falls in behind aren’t.
Some wisdom is timeless.
Worst.They demanded to be liked,and when people refused reminding them of their commie past,they start accusing them of being antisemites.Most of them are unable to wonder why almost nobody like them,becouse they belive that world must worshipp them.
King Arts
Well-known member
It's not really edgieness. It's not even genocide and conquest that are the problem. It's the way it's done. Ethnic groups have certain traits, Germanics have a trait where they always take things to the logical extreme, and a fetishization of science. Anglos are a subset of Germanics who have that trait but where as standard Germans are direct, Anglos are more two faced. Like the sterotype of a greedy backstabbing Jew is wrong, it fits Anglos much better since they are the ones who are pushing the progressive agenda since the very begining. I mean New England being supportive of Trannies BLM ANTIFA and all that shit isn't new. The progressives in New England were the ones who pushed for internationalism bringing us into ww1 and ww2, before that they were a hotbed of abolitionism they supported banning alchol and prohibition, etc.
I mean they did kill off the Indians. While the Spanish conqured the New world and did put themselves at the top of the social hierarchy and people nowadays would call that a racist caste system, it's a natural thing on what a conqurer would do. They still mixed with the local population and took wives from the defeated people growing their wealth and prosperity. Unlike with English colonies where they came up with shit like one drop rule, or thinking they were the New Zion and the promised land and a bunch of other cult stuff.
They didn't exactly kill off the Indians, they made pretty strong treaties with them even gave them seats at the diplomatic table above some European nations.
Now they fucked their women which is how you end up with so many blond and gray eyes listerine drinkers on the East Coast. And why there a lot of Cherokee trying to get recognized as a lost tribe of Israel lol. And why so many Cherokee were ardently loyal to the confederacy and the last rebs to surrender.
The extermination happened more in the mid west and south west and given the plains Indians were arguably as fucked up as the Mongols that was more the natural result of an industrialized power going to war with a steppe juggernaut.
It was them or the Union.
Personally I'm kinda glad the Union won those engagements a world where the Sioux and the Comanche became a major industrialized power would look too much like the Draka books.
Edit if you don't believe me go read Empire of the Summer Moon or look up the Comanche people's reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Namely it was "wait why the fuck did they stop at only two cities? Damnit Anglos go elect one of us so we can show you how it's done!" And variations there of.
A lot of plains Indian world War two vets legitimately couldn't understand why the US didn't turn Europe and Asia into two gigantic grave yards.
Now they fucked their women which is how you end up with so many blond and gray eyes listerine drinkers on the East Coast. And why there a lot of Cherokee trying to get recognized as a lost tribe of Israel lol. And why so many Cherokee were ardently loyal to the confederacy and the last rebs to surrender.
The extermination happened more in the mid west and south west and given the plains Indians were arguably as fucked up as the Mongols that was more the natural result of an industrialized power going to war with a steppe juggernaut.
It was them or the Union.
Personally I'm kinda glad the Union won those engagements a world where the Sioux and the Comanche became a major industrialized power would look too much like the Draka books.
Edit if you don't believe me go read Empire of the Summer Moon or look up the Comanche people's reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Namely it was "wait why the fuck did they stop at only two cities? Damnit Anglos go elect one of us so we can show you how it's done!" And variations there of.
A lot of plains Indian world War two vets legitimately couldn't understand why the US didn't turn Europe and Asia into two gigantic grave yards.
LindyAF
Well-known member
*yawn*
Half of this is literally just bog-standard progressive whining about imperialism and the conquest of America. The difference between colonization in America vs mexico & south america was mostly just that there existing civilizations to conquer and supplant, whereas North America had always been less densely populated, and colonization occurred alter smallpox had swept through. And America ended up being a functional nation (at least for a while) whereas mexico is a cartel-run mess.
The other half of this is just traditional wariness and criticism of jews that you're ridiculously transposing to Anglos, because it is verboten under the current dominant moral framework to do anything that might be perceived as attacking jews (although not israel) whereas it is both acceptable and popular to attack Anglos. Doing it for "based" reasons doesn't change that.
Bringing in foreign cheap labor of an unlike group is a mistake, which is what slavery was. Abolition without repatriation was a poor way to deal with it, but slavery was both immoral and unstable in the long run. New England is both very white and not very dense, which means for the most part that they don't have to deal with or interact with blacks (and to a lesser extent trans, lgbt, etc., which are a fairly urban phenomena as well), which is part of why they're sympathetic to them.
Last edited:
Also its a lie that we incorporated mestizos.
Chile and Argentina spent 90 years waging a relentless war of extermination against mestizos and nativos. To the point where all of the extant brown and red men in those two countries are imported by commies from Bolivia and Peru for votes.
The Anglos never did that.
Chile and Argentina spent 90 years waging a relentless war of extermination against mestizos and nativos. To the point where all of the extant brown and red men in those two countries are imported by commies from Bolivia and Peru for votes.
The Anglos never did that.
Last edited:
Argentina - yes,Chile - no,Mapuche indian made less then 10% of population.And Anglos killed all indians on East shore,that is why all so called indian there are white people.Becouse they keep some younger womans,and they are their descendents.
All becouse anglos were protestants,and belived in Old Testament bullshit that jews killed all pagans there,so as new Israel they wonted to do the same./in reality the same population lived in Kaanan from bronze era to 1948/
The take-home lesson here is that there is a difference between cleverness and wisdom.
Mapuche barely exist in Chile or anywhere really. There's like what? A hundred thousand left in Chile? And a handful of drunken Gypsies falsely claiming Mapuche descent in Argentina. Last I checked there was barely a hundred.
And no they didn't exterminate them on the East Coast. Huron cheifs were treated better by England and France than they treated other European kings for fucks sake lol.
Its not their fault Cherokee and Powhatan and Pontiacs people jumped on Anglo dick to where they fucked themselves white in a century.
Edit- Powhattan to the point that a quarter of all living Americans are descended from him through his daughter no less.
That's not genocide, that's strategic integration
King Arts
Well-known member
Yeah interbreeding is not genocide. If the Anglos took in some Indian Native
for wives and concubines then I retract my complaints.
Yeah interbreeding is not genocide. If the Anglos took in some Indian Native
Not "some" Brazil was "some".
within 20 years of landing, there were blue eyed, 6'3 Viking looking Indians all over the East Coast. And the East Coast tribes were very much okay with this because they used settlers as mercenaries in their own wars of conquest and would seal the alliances with marriage much like dark age Anglo Ealderman would. Pocahontas herself was what the Saxons called a "Peace Cow" for example.
Which I think is why, the European powers took the Huron, Iroquois, Cherokee and Powhattan and other tribes so seriously and did treat them like vassals/allied powers. As opposed to what was done in California and the Great Lakes and the like.
Newport and Smith for example, would compare Powhattan to Alfred the Great in letters. I think they basically saw a more primitive version of their own forefathers and treated them accordingly.
Shit still happened, don't get me wrong and disease still ruinated a lot of tribes, but yeah..its a bit different on the East Coast, especially the South East/Mid Atlantic and New England region.
I don't think any form of conquest is inherently immoral.
It's simple Darwinism.
It's simple Darwinism.
Please give an example of something that you would consider immoral.