[–] Maroonsaint ago
And he told them to fck off yes?
“This is a political vendetta by city officials who are supporters of Elizabeth Warren, Ayyadurai told the paper. "“We will not remove the slogan from our bus,” Ayyadurai told the paper. “We will defend the First Amendment, and we will fight this egregious attack on the First Amendment, at any cost.”
[–] captainstrange ago
They raped, they pillaged, they scalped, burned, enslaved, tortured, terrorized, brutalized, ruined, and ravaged everything they touched. They lied, stole, cheated, and broke pact after pact, often without provocation. Wherever they went they consumed the land like locusts, like bum-ass squatters and then moved on, and they felt entitled like fucking niggers, to everything their eyes fell upon.
The myth of the noble savage was exactly that, a myth.
Fuck the indians. May they burn in hell forever.
[–] 111_onlythetruth 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
do all your lib protestors have to get approved to carry hate signs???? fuck you MASS-HOLES.
[–] 1Iron_Curtain 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
Of all the primitive peoples, I have always liked the Native Americans the best. Certainly, they had their issues and attacked whites. They tend to be pretty socially conservative and politically conservative compared to other primitive peoples.
They have a strong racial caste in their society, as seen with the Cherokees, whose chief way back then was John Ross, who was only 1/8th Native American. The Cherokees had a plantation system and invented their own alphabet. which to me shows they had a great spiritual sense of consciousness. Hitler admired the Native Americans and saw them as a fifth column against the United States.
The Fake Indians like Elizabeth Warren are the Hitlers of the left-wing and the desire to drive the white race under. Elizabeth Warren should be given her own little reserve to live on in Hollywood, with her pariah stunts.
[–] Drain-0 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Nice diatribe but it's a fucking pajeet that posted the sign.
[–] 1Iron_Curtain ago
Oh, wow, that puts a spin on things. Indians getting rough with their polar "Aryan" "other." I guess this in some weird manner could reinforce Warren's position and at the same time make Indians look as if they are conservatives, when they are not at all. Does this mean that part of my diatribe was right?
I think so in some weird way, but it also makes me think there is no such thing as a great primitive people or even a noble savage and that its all European spin ups and good-willedness. The Native Americans did invade and conquer each other, unlike Europeans, as was the case of the Mohawks, and instead of just capturing the tribes they conquered they often times killed them, unlike the case with Africa, which would make them lower than the Africans in certain regards(the settlement of South Africa was very similar to the settlement of the Wild West, with the Xhosa/Zulu being comparable to Tecumseh and the Native Americans of the Ohio Valley region and Midwestern region(Geronimo and Sitting Bull).
Let's not forget the whole Third Spirit stupidity, which was prevalent among Native Americans, and has served as the front for the radical left's agenda, so in a sense Native Americans are sort of a spiritual fifth column for the left, which is why Elizabeth Warren cherishes them and yet they show how the left does not even care for their own, but throws them into a corner. Got to feel bad for the Native Americans on that front. Now how does the Pajeet fit into this?
He seems to represent the current "conservative" front against the far-left that actually aids their cause by racializing the situation in an odd and oft-manner and by tying it into the fact that he can in fact as a particular Indian claim that the future of the Republican Party is Indians, which is basically what is being said at a cryptic level. So many conservatives will buy into this garbage and be swooned by it. This is the really sad part.
[–] theoldones 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
they're called first nations up here in cuckland, but yeah
the whole culture is animistic and focuses on nature, and the degenerate values of the (((modern world))) involve chopping too many trees down
[–] 1Iron_Curtain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yes, Native American cultures are very animistic and the main problem they etherealize it and spiritualize it into one great Spirit, rather than keeping it as rational as one can keep it, and ultimately this kind of religious mentality leads to a kind of physicalist culture, where everything is dictated by brute emotions and behavioral complexes rather than anything truly productive, but the Native Americans were the best at being able to facilitate it to survival and civilizational building, as represented in the Temples in Mesoamerica, which are just cheaper versions of the Pyramids and Ziggurats.
They sometimes say that if diseases had not killed Native Americans(like Inuits(they have IQs of 90) and North American variety with less connections to Mesoamerica) and if they had been allowed to have their own place to live, as was the case with George III's Demarcation Line they might have been the only primitive peoples to produce a great mind, but I highly, highly doubt this based off my experiences with Natives and understanding of Native American culture in general, given how they have generally not inculcated the civilizational model these days and prefer to live off the grid so to speak.
The Great Spirit and Totem notion of religion was certainly of a more developed spiritual mentality than anything coming out of the primitive world and one could even say the Middle-East and South-Asia. Did the Native Americans chop down trees in large amounts? There is nothing wrong with chopping trees down. People did it in Quebec and Oregon had a lot of Ulster-Scots that moved out there and were timber man.
I can see the point of your argument, it might have been best to keep a certain part of North America and Canada primitive, so Native Americans could live somewhere in the forests or mountains and would essentially be "reserves." The modern world has degenerated things to a certain extent, but I am more of a believer that our missionary groups were a stronger corrupting force, along with the Peckerwood types that hated the governments guts and wanted to live a life of ex-orbinant luxury, but you know what you can't blame them and the Native Americans had already caused enough damage in North America and were a potential existential threat to a peaceful society and prosperous economy in Southern California, although I might be wrong about this. I ultimately think that Northern Europeans were far and away superior in their treatment of Native Americans compared to the Spaniards, although the Spaniards did give Native Americans places to live in Sonora/Baja, Yucatan, and of course Guatemala is a country that broke off from the Mexican-Central American union sometime around the time when the Wars of Independence against the Spanish were going on.
The Northwestern Company did mess up things a bit in the region of Western Canada and I have always preferred the Hudson Bay Company. Native Americans do well to live in Igloos, the smartest of them to have lived in them or closer to the Tundra. Its not the modern world that is the problem, its how it facilitates things and ultimately what kind of innate problems it plays into, which are a far greater concern.
South Africa did great when Verwoerd modernized the place and was about to create Bantustans, but the problem with modernization is it produces racial and cultural softness, so essentially what you have happening certain factions like Dmitri Tsfarendis and radical whites, like the one who tried to assassinate Verwoerd infiltrate the scene and sometimes on a larger scale than just this. Canada has handled things much better than us to be honest. They were more balanced. We sort of either were too permissive with the Native Americans or bulldozed them.
[–] PeacefulAssassin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
the whole arguement on what to call native americans annoys me. Don't like calling them I dians, confuse the with curry eaters, native americans, confused with americans, first people, there is a lot of debate on who was actually first to the Amerocas.
I like the term Danai, or however it is spelled, it means "the people"
[–] carlip 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
native Americans took to western society very well all things considere
[–] 1Iron_Curtain ago
Not really. We tried to Europeanize them and they just feel flat. Jackson did not help things with removing the Cherokees, but the Creeks and Choctaw were problems to contend with, and although some had sided with the colonialists in fighting against the Native Americans, like during the Creek Wars around the time of the War of 1812, they could not be trusted. Jackson was trying to protect the Southern border and move West, but getting rid of the Cherokees should never have been part of that plan.
The military and Supreme Court looked into the case and wanted to do something about it, but Jackson overrode them. I think Jackson was doing it because the Southern Native Americans had been a little closer to the British, who he hated, but he also a point because during the Chickamauga War in Tennessee they killed Ulster-Scottish tradesmen and hunters/merchants. I think when you make the argument in full Jackson was justified in the Trail of Tears, except for in the case of the Cherokees, who represented no threat to the establishment at all. I think Grant was wrong though to take the Reserve option, although it made sense to ensure they did not attack whites and soldiers, but Grant should have just driven them into Canada or along the Left Coast.
We might not have any white leftists on the Left Coast and massive degeneracy these days, but rather just Native American populations(who would be leftists probably), with major white urban areas dictating the whole situation in the region, and having so many Native Americans in the region might have kept the leftists more conservative.