linkhidalgogato

using that quote to defend religion is like defending the state by quoting the "Paris Commune" if that supports any view its mine.

yeah and in plenty of those societies religion WAS the hierarchy. how could we ever even eliminated class society while also preserving organizations and ideologies to which hierarchy is inherent.

did u happen to forget that religion has exists as it does today and in even more oppressive forms for thousands before capitalism came around? the idea that capitalism is making something that has been bad long before capitalism even exists bad is straight up a historical.

could have just said "so a slave should not have complained about his conditions because he ate his masters food and worked for him?" or pointed out that everything they have is made in China and everything they wear in Vietnam

i would prefer socialism u know equality for all not a this messed up changing of the guard shit. i dont want a world where different people are on top i want one where no one is, and if people like that asshole want whites to be an underclass what prevents latino and black people from being next fuck that, this shit sucks but what the fuck is the point of having a "revolution" just to be in the same shit again but with different people at the top.

literally and i do mean that word read the comment above yours. like wtf is this gas lighting shit you are on its literally their fucking words, wtf. and are u seriously pretending u cant think of a single case where white people made treaties with indigenous people granting them certain places and then broke said treaties and took the land anyways and built cities there thats like the entire history of the usa.

im not just a by stander because while im not american i live in this shithole and idk if i get to be a citizen in your particular flavor of dystopia as it stands im fucked but im certainly not gonna support a revolution to then also be fucked at the end of it, if its people like u or capitalists, i guess im a splitter but i would much rather just a revolution led by leftists. and two because and maybe its just me but if something is morally wrong then idk im against it.

idk where this magical coalition is at, i certainly i havent seen it around and if u want indigenous supremacy (which if it is according to you their land and therefore they should rule it u clearly do) then i dont see why such a coalition would ever form.

and what makes it their land, who lives where thru out the world has been ever changing why is the rightful snapshot of territory that most be preserved for eternity 1 second before the whites arrived why not a little earlier why not a little later u makes these statements as if they are simply fact but they arent, why should land belong to whoever happen to be living at any one place 400 years ago

the guy saying that white people dont deserve sovereignty and that democracy is bad? yeah i have read his comments. either way in many many cases the lands that indigenous people claim are (not coincidentally) where white people built their cities. so the argument that these claims do not conflict is just nonsense and granting these claims would mean displacing millions of people so again how can that possibly be justified.

sure but that doesnt make their claim to land where other people are living more legitimate the fact that just about all indigenous communities in north america were displaced doesnt give them the right to displace others or to rule over others

1 seem like u are calling me white/american which frankly disrespectful. and 2 all that says is the corporations and rich people need to own a lot less land (non to exact) but it says nothing about the ability of opressed peoples to take and occupy that land u have been saying this statistic as if its prove indigenous people can take on the capitalists state but it just doesnt if 60% of the people in the usa can occupy only 25% of the land what makes u think less than that can occupy 75% of it. also why should a small minority of people control the majority of the land thats like the whole thing that we are against here.

by what metric could u say that 60% people occupy 25% of the land cuz if its 25% of all land then thats kinda stupid like who cares what matters is what percentage of accupiable or worthwhile to occupy land they occupy like who cares if whites dont live on the mountains or in the middle of a forest almost no one lives there or is going to live there. like the other 75% of land isnt occupied by oppressed peoples its mostly not occupied at all and opressed people almost certainly occupy less land than white people because 1 they are just less and 2 most white people live in fucking suburbs why is about as inefficient as land use gets

what makes anyones claim to land legitimate? imma be real with u i dont think people who lived somewhere 200+ years ago have a more legitimate claim to a place than whoever lives there right now