User Controls
Native Americans weren't so great
-
2015-09-10 at 8:05 AM UTCMorons tout them as proto-ecological hippies but the fact is they wanted to reap the land just like we do, except they sucked at it.
-
2015-09-10 at 5:52 PM UTCYeah. The natives were literally savages. I mean at least we didnt scalp them just to be like "Oh look guise! I have the most scalps im top shit!".
They just pissed that the white man fucking BTFO them out of their old stomping grounds and actually did something with it.
Fuck Injuns. -
2015-09-11 at 4:43 AM UTC
Morons tout them as proto-ecological hippies but the fact is they wanted to reap the land just like we do, except they sucked at it.
I'm fully willing to agree that various native american peoples engaged in violent barbaric acts and that some groups engaged in environmentally unsustainable practices, but if your aim is to justify their genocide I don't think it follows from that that white niggas now own the land they occupied for centuries. -
2015-09-11 at 5:59 AM UTCBy your logic it seems to follow that Australians don't now own the land they occupy. Nor does any civilization that expanded through conquest.
And that's just fucking retarded. -
2015-09-11 at 6:10 AM UTC
I'm fully willing to agree that various native american peoples engaged in violent barbaric acts and that some groups engaged in environmentally unsustainable practices, but if your aim is to justify their genocide I don't think it follows from that that white niggas now own the land they occupied for centuries.
Nah, genocide is only justified if those niggas genocide your crew first. I'm venting because I'm making up a basic religion course I didn't do well in early during my undergrad and the other students aren't on par with my thinking. I commonly log in to our class discussion to see freshmen praising the Native Americans for their earth friendly attitude and I hate feeling like a big fish in a small pond. -
2015-09-11 at 11:16 AM UTCThe elementary school version of history. Generally people are only skeptical of things that aren't in line with their biases and accept everything that is without question, regardless of what they'd like to believe. This leads to an incredibly shallow and childish version of leftist history, exemplified by A People's History (children's book).
This may interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
From Steve Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature:
Native Americans, in general, were actually incredibly violent compared to White societies, even compared to the periods of World Wars!
Another key bias that's relevant is that leftists have actually been shown to be strongly biased in favor of non-Whites, driven in part by politically correct culture, in-group polarization, ideological insulation, and different forms of social hierarchical competition (attempting to "out-left" one another, show who can be the more perfect liberal): http://takimag.com/article/killing_chip_to_save_tyrone_steve_sailer/print
It's cool to hate the white man and try to blame as much as you can on whites, it shows your anti-right, don't harbor racial pride (only bad if it's done by whites), and educated. The other side of the coin is that not only are positive myths accepted about brown races, but negative ones about the white race. For example, smallpox blankets are actually a myth, the kicker, a connection hardly anyone makes, is that the germ theory of disease didn't even exist back then! https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-smallpox-infected-blankets/ -
2015-09-12 at 3:21 AM UTC
The elementary school version of history. Generally people are only skeptical of things that aren't in line with their biases and accept everything that is without question, regardless of what they'd like to believe. This leads to an incredibly shallow and childish version of leftist history, exemplified by A People's History (children's book).
This may interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization
From Steve Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature:
Native Americans, in general, were actually incredibly violent compared to White societies, even compared to the periods of World Wars!
Another key bias that's relevant is that leftists have actually been shown to be strongly biased in favor of non-Whites, driven in part by politically correct culture, in-group polarization, ideological insulation, and different forms of social hierarchical competition (attempting to "out-left" one another, show who can be the more perfect liberal): http://takimag.com/article/killing_chip_to_save_tyrone_steve_sailer/print
It's cool to hate the white man and try to blame as much as you can on whites, it shows your anti-right, don't harbor racial pride (only bad if it's done by whites), and educated. The other side of the coin is that not only are positive myths accepted about brown races, but negative ones about the white race. For example, smallpox blankets are actually a myth, the kicker, a connection hardly anyone makes, is that the germ theory of disease didn't even exist back then! https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-smallpox-infected-blankets/
The irony of your post is the Pinker's thesis actually supports real leftist policy (rather than your convenient boogeyman with some nebulous connection to the education system) like strong non-optional states and universal governance. -
2015-09-12 at 3:34 AM UTCThat isn't exclusively leftist, the reduction in homicides weren't exclusively due to states, and beneficial aspects can still be preserved under non-statist systems. Anarchism =/= chaos.
-
2015-09-12 at 4:04 AM UTC
I commonly log in to our class discussion to see freshmen praising the Native Americans for their earth friendly attitude and I hate feeling like a big fish in a small pond.
If you haven't, you may want to read War before Civilization. In some ways, it's a guide to how anthropologists sustained the ludicrous c18 noble savage stereotype by suppessing the abundant evidence of the violence that plagued indigenous North American cultures.
-
2015-09-12 at 4:13 AM UTC
That isn't exclusively leftist, the reduction in homicides weren't exclusively due to states, and beneficial aspects can still be preserved under non-statist systems. Anarchism =/= chaos.
Leftism =/= inefficiency
Leftism =/= fairy tales about noble savages
Leftism =/= total state control of every aspect of life
Leftism =/= encouraging failure
and yet these fantasies seem to persist in your mind -
2015-09-12 at 4:16 AM UTCfor USians, leftism is the more popular of the two phony, constrained, self-contradicting options within our false paradigm.
-
2015-09-12 at 5:49 AM UTC
for USians, leftism is the more popular of the two phony, constrained, self-contradicting options within our false paradigm.
God, I hope for your sake you're trolling and not dumb enough to actually post that. -
2015-09-12 at 6:57 AM UTC
Leftism =/= inefficiency
Leftism =/= fairy tales about noble savages
Leftism =/= total state control of every aspect of life
Leftism =/= encouraging failure
and yet these fantasies seem to persist in your mind
This is the leftism that the vast majority of self-proclaimed leftists support and you know it. You know how dumb standard Democrats are, you were too good for that pathetic commoner's ideology. -
2015-09-12 at 7:06 AM UTCwesterners are so utterly brainwashed they now scurry to take offense on behalf of 'labels.' these labels, which have been used entirely to stifle critical thinking and manufacture consent, refer originally to where French parliamentarians sat depending on their faction (might be a bit off on the history bit, but the basics are right).
It's part of an old strategy: divide and conquer. While the people are busy arguing about which reality tv star they will vote for, the oligarchs keep printing ugly paper and trading it for valuables.
Think for yourself. Drop the classical politics. None of it is true; it's just there to keep the people distracted, nothing else.
-
2015-09-12 at 7:28 AM UTCThe dichotomy has a genuine basis in fundamental aspects of ideology. Then there's the well documented aspect of tribalism. The vast majority are, by their nature, mindless hyper-partisans, regardless of what they'd like to believe, and don't have particularly good reasons for supporting the things they do.
The people distract themselves. It's the reality of the nature of the common man reflected throughout the finance driven aspects of society, which are molded by consumer demand.
It's what idealist don't want to accept. There is no grand overarching conspiracy, they largely do it to themselves and always have. Repeat after me: There is no god, there is no hope.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2015-09-12 at 8:36 AM UTCThis is what actually existing leftism leads to, Lanny:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/10/housing_and_pov.html
You made the poor poor and then you proclaim yourselves to be the only ones preventing them from starving. You people sicken me. -
2015-09-12 at 11:25 AM UTCTheodore H. White disagreed. As he wrote to a friend in 1960: [INDENT] … it is all fraudulent, all of it, everywhere, up and down, East and West. The movies, radio and state and books and TV — all of them are fraudulent; and the foundations and universities and scholars, they are all fraudulent too; and the executives and the financiers … and the Commissars and the Krushchevs and the Mao Tze-tungs, they are fraudulent equally; it is all a great game; and there are two dangers in this great game: first, the fraudulent people come to believe their own lies, they come to have faith in their fraud; and second, underneath it all, because people are fundamentally good, they come to realize that we live in lies and the people get angrier and angrier and they may explode.
The scenery of politics is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Yet I must report all this as serious. This is the strain on me. That I must be serious, and I must exhaust myself trying to find out what is true and what is fraud and yet, even after I know, I must take them both seriously and write of them both as if I did not know the true distinctions between them.
[/INDENT]
He was a journalist covering the Nixon-Kennedy campaign, traveling with both parties. He won the Pulitzer for his work.
-
2015-09-12 at 12:56 PM UTC
The dichotomy has a genuine basis in fundamental aspects of ideology. Then there's the well documented aspect of tribalism. The vast majority are, by their nature, mindless hyper-partisans, regardless of what they'd like to believe, and don't have particularly good reasons for supporting the things they do.
Everything after your first sentence is a non-sequitur.
Tribalism and zealotry are irrelevant to the matter at hand.The people distract themselves.
Nobody would have ever heard of important political events like Terri Schiavo's prolonged death, or Elian Gonzalez's return to Cuba, or Trayvon Martin if the politicians and their media didn't push frivolous stories like these to avoid genuine controversies.
The people distract themselves; and the six media conglomerates that control 90% of all media in the US comply with vigor.It's what idealist don't want to accept.
I can hear Oakland from here.There is no grand overarching conspiracy, they largely do it to themselves and always have. Repeat after me: There is no god, there is no hope.
another weird non-sequitur. Who are you? The real Malice is a trifle conventional, but never quite this banal.
-
2015-09-13 at 1:19 AM UTCfuck native americans
-
2015-09-13 at 4:59 AM UTC
This is what actually existing leftism leads to, Lanny:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/10/housing_and_pov.html
You made the poor poor and then you proclaim yourselves to be the only ones preventing them from starving. You people sicken me.
An out-of-context chart about one, not particularly important, issue generated from data out of a political research group which was a driving force in the Bush jr. era. Yes, you're sure shown me, all my ideas about leftism were wrong, an entire political philosophy turned over with one simple chart. Yeahhhhh
