Holy shit Gizortnick. You vacillate between deeply knowledgeable and deranged faggot so wildly I just don't know how to feel anymore.
Every time I start to respect you for a detailed, insightful, knowledgeable post like this you follow up by explaining to me that Colonization is, by definition, more evil than Satan's asshole. That you know that all of the colonized African nations are demonstrably, definitively, better off than their uncolonized neighbors, but it doesn't matter because a fax from Mossad told you so; or some shit.
Then you'll explain that the WHO should be run by Jews instead of the Chinese like God intended. Or that reverse colonization is Pure Justice, or something equally retarded.
it's agents switching out the same account - when the loyal but retarded one spouts something that jeopardizes its believability, another more well-trained Smith comes along to save some face.
Colonization is, by definition, more evil than Satan's asshole.
Well, no, but Colonization isn't inherently good. If it's done in occupied territory it creates demographic replacement and subjugation if integration isn't performed. As you're trying to point out English colonialism (though occasionally brutal) is one of the best forms. But, they're the exception to the rule. Colonization of occupied lands normally comes at the horrible expense of the indigenous people. Chinese colonization (happening now) is a kind of enslavement to communism. Israeli colonization could benefit Arabs, but they'll still be 2nd class citizens in a jewish state, and Israel is not gentle in it's conquests. The French are horrifically violent in their conquests. The Mongols, Ottomans, Romans, were all spectacularly violent. The Mayans and Assyrians might have been just straight up the most evil empires to ever exist. English and American Imperialism are the exceptions to the norm, and both still have their atrocities.
Colonization is currently what is happening to the US and UK. These countries are being colonized through mass migration. This is why our borders should be defended.
For Africa, I don't deny that Rhodesia and British South Africa were better off than they are now, but I also don't think it was worth the effort. Why try to build civilization there into a tribal people who hadn't had it. Does it look like they were grateful? As for the settlers, they hoped the Empire would protect them, but they failed to learn the lesson the Americans learned. The empire protects the core, not the colonies. So, even for them, colonialism betrayed them too.
That you know that all of the colonized African nations are demonstrably, definitively, better off than their uncolonized neighbors, but it doesn't matter because a fax from Mossad told you so; or some shit.
wut?
Israel engages in colonialism. Well, more Imperialism than colonialism. I've said before that this latest war is basically a Bronze Age conflict in the modern era. Populations are being intentionally displaced for the security of the state. It's never been pretty, and I can't remember a single one that didn't feature atrocities.
Frankly, if Trump gets his way with Gaza, that might be colonialism.
Then you'll explain that the WHO should be run by Jews instead of the Chinese like God intended. Or that reverse colonization is Pure Justice, or something equally retarded.
The WHO should be abolished, and everyone on it charged with crimes against humanity? It wasn't run by jews, it was run by a member of the Ethiopian Derg. One of the worst communist regimes in history, and explains it's behavior.
There's no such thing as Reverse Colonization, like with Racism, it's not directional.
But I keep giving you chances.
Bro, looking at your description of what you think my opinions are, that ain't me you're giving chances to. I don't know who he is, but he ain't me.
but I also don't think it was worth the effort. Why try to build civilization there into a tribal people who hadn't had it.
Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and so many more. Compared to Liberia etc.
The last time you spoke to me on the subject, you were pretty clear that colonization was bad by definition. I am not going to go dig up the post.
You gloss over the Romans. They were rough on resisting populations, but they brought law and trade to their conquered lands. They unified people by language. Scotland and Ireland were barbaric shitholes for a thousand years because the Romans decided they were not worth the effort.
All cultures are not equal. Raping children and cannibalism is not of the same value as the rule of law and fair, working courts. Having a big cry because the practice of suttee was stopped is utterly moronic, even if the Hindus really, really want to burn their widows.
I don't think colonization is what is happening to the western world, because the places the British Empire (for example) set up were not even countries yet. Even India was a bunch of tiny states ruled over by petty kings.
The western nation certainly are countries.
Palestine has been systematically murdering every voice of moderation, especially all the Christians, for more than a generation. The entire country is ruled by a theocratic terrorist regime. Even the other Islamic nations in the region want nothing to do with them because any immigrants immediately become militant and start terrorists attacks. Waves of immigrants from Palestine is a major reason as to why Lebanon turned into a religious civil war.
But feel free to go there and tell them to give the Palestinians more cuddles. That might just be what they need.
Anyway, carry on. I promise to more accurately recall your positions from now on.
The last time you spoke to me on the subject, you were pretty clear that colonization was bad by definition. I am not going to go dig up the post.
I agree with myself, so no need. It's always going to be bad by definition. Yes, there are benefits, but it's not worth it. It's not too far off from a regular conquest.
But feel free to go there and tell them to give the Palestinians more cuddles. That might just be what they need.
I don't even disagree with your assessment on 'Palestine'. But that's just the thing: it's a Bronze Age fight. Both parties want demographic displacement whether I like it or not. Best I can do is ask my tax money not to fund it.
Did you know that the tribal leader of Ghana asked for the British to colonize the country? They were going to refuse, but his impassioned plea changed their mind. He could see that there were real benefits to European rule and their investment in the land and its people.
Even today Ghana is a much better place to live than the surrounding countries.
Even conquest is not necessarily bad. It depends on the peace after the invasion. The Romans, for better or worse, were a stabilizing and unifying influence that allowed Europe to become civilized. Without them I am sure they would still be petty, squabbling tribes enjoying 'multiculturalism' until the Muslims took the whole of Europe. I would much rather live under Roman rule than Islamic rule.
Holy shit Gizortnick. You vacillate between deeply knowledgeable and deranged faggot so wildly I just don't know how to feel anymore.
Every time I start to respect you for a detailed, insightful, knowledgeable post like this you follow up by explaining to me that Colonization is, by definition, more evil than Satan's asshole. That you know that all of the colonized African nations are demonstrably, definitively, better off than their uncolonized neighbors, but it doesn't matter because a fax from Mossad told you so; or some shit.
Then you'll explain that the WHO should be run by Jews instead of the Chinese like God intended. Or that reverse colonization is Pure Justice, or something equally retarded.
But I keep giving you chances.
This comment more or less proves he’s just autistic.
Some of my favorite people are autistic.
it's agents switching out the same account - when the loyal but retarded one spouts something that jeopardizes its believability, another more well-trained Smith comes along to save some face.
I'm still me, you retarded faggot.
Well, no, but Colonization isn't inherently good. If it's done in occupied territory it creates demographic replacement and subjugation if integration isn't performed. As you're trying to point out English colonialism (though occasionally brutal) is one of the best forms. But, they're the exception to the rule. Colonization of occupied lands normally comes at the horrible expense of the indigenous people. Chinese colonization (happening now) is a kind of enslavement to communism. Israeli colonization could benefit Arabs, but they'll still be 2nd class citizens in a jewish state, and Israel is not gentle in it's conquests. The French are horrifically violent in their conquests. The Mongols, Ottomans, Romans, were all spectacularly violent. The Mayans and Assyrians might have been just straight up the most evil empires to ever exist. English and American Imperialism are the exceptions to the norm, and both still have their atrocities.
Colonization is currently what is happening to the US and UK. These countries are being colonized through mass migration. This is why our borders should be defended.
For Africa, I don't deny that Rhodesia and British South Africa were better off than they are now, but I also don't think it was worth the effort. Why try to build civilization there into a tribal people who hadn't had it. Does it look like they were grateful? As for the settlers, they hoped the Empire would protect them, but they failed to learn the lesson the Americans learned. The empire protects the core, not the colonies. So, even for them, colonialism betrayed them too.
wut?
Israel engages in colonialism. Well, more Imperialism than colonialism. I've said before that this latest war is basically a Bronze Age conflict in the modern era. Populations are being intentionally displaced for the security of the state. It's never been pretty, and I can't remember a single one that didn't feature atrocities.
Frankly, if Trump gets his way with Gaza, that might be colonialism.
The WHO should be abolished, and everyone on it charged with crimes against humanity? It wasn't run by jews, it was run by a member of the Ethiopian Derg. One of the worst communist regimes in history, and explains it's behavior.
There's no such thing as Reverse Colonization, like with Racism, it's not directional.
Bro, looking at your description of what you think my opinions are, that ain't me you're giving chances to. I don't know who he is, but he ain't me.
Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and so many more. Compared to Liberia etc.
The last time you spoke to me on the subject, you were pretty clear that colonization was bad by definition. I am not going to go dig up the post.
You gloss over the Romans. They were rough on resisting populations, but they brought law and trade to their conquered lands. They unified people by language. Scotland and Ireland were barbaric shitholes for a thousand years because the Romans decided they were not worth the effort.
All cultures are not equal. Raping children and cannibalism is not of the same value as the rule of law and fair, working courts. Having a big cry because the practice of suttee was stopped is utterly moronic, even if the Hindus really, really want to burn their widows.
I don't think colonization is what is happening to the western world, because the places the British Empire (for example) set up were not even countries yet. Even India was a bunch of tiny states ruled over by petty kings.
The western nation certainly are countries.
Palestine has been systematically murdering every voice of moderation, especially all the Christians, for more than a generation. The entire country is ruled by a theocratic terrorist regime. Even the other Islamic nations in the region want nothing to do with them because any immigrants immediately become militant and start terrorists attacks. Waves of immigrants from Palestine is a major reason as to why Lebanon turned into a religious civil war.
But feel free to go there and tell them to give the Palestinians more cuddles. That might just be what they need.
Anyway, carry on. I promise to more accurately recall your positions from now on.
I agree with myself, so no need. It's always going to be bad by definition. Yes, there are benefits, but it's not worth it. It's not too far off from a regular conquest.
I don't even disagree with your assessment on 'Palestine'. But that's just the thing: it's a Bronze Age fight. Both parties want demographic displacement whether I like it or not. Best I can do is ask my tax money not to fund it.
Did you know that the tribal leader of Ghana asked for the British to colonize the country? They were going to refuse, but his impassioned plea changed their mind. He could see that there were real benefits to European rule and their investment in the land and its people.
Even today Ghana is a much better place to live than the surrounding countries.
Even conquest is not necessarily bad. It depends on the peace after the invasion. The Romans, for better or worse, were a stabilizing and unifying influence that allowed Europe to become civilized. Without them I am sure they would still be petty, squabbling tribes enjoying 'multiculturalism' until the Muslims took the whole of Europe. I would much rather live under Roman rule than Islamic rule.