So the strong should control the weak, huh
When you try to be anarchist but just end up being the liberal strawman of your own ideology
anarchism is when you reinforce the state, and the more you reinforce it the more anarchisty it is, complete tosser
Average anarchist activity /s
Can’t wait to hear this guy’s take on the CCP and Best Korea.
“If you think about it, all humans migrated from somewhere in Africa so really everyone’s a colonizer.”
“Very interesting, please face the wall.”
Apparently he isn’t an anarchist, which really just makes me more confused
maybe their profile pic the ukraine fascist flag and not the anarchy flag :o
deleted by creator
They also only won in 48 because Czechoslovakia shipped them weapons right at the last second.
there are literally only like 4 good twitter users in this whole country, fucking hell
all the good aussies are on hexbear
julian assange isn’t on hexbear
He’s literally just a NAFO guy. A lot of what he posts just seems like generic liberal.
So a NATO leftist lmfao these people are too predictable.
Anglo Saxons indigenous marginalized people?
I mean, circa 1100 AD, yeah.
But uh, like, time happens yah know.
nah capitalist settler colonialism is distinct from primitive conquest and accumulation. all the Normans did was (mostly) kill the old nobility and knick their stuff. the saxons were just as the norman peasant or the dijonnais peasant, not a group targeted for dispossession & extermination.
this distinction was observed just within the island of Ireland. the normans took over ireland in the 12th century, same way they did england, but all that came of it were some administrative impositions, and different names on the nobles. in a few centuries, like their compatriots in England spoke English, they were speaking Irish. now in the 16th century, the synthesis of protestantism, a centralizing state, and a developing merchantilist/capitalist economic system drove a different sort of conquest of Ireland. no longer sharing a common religion, the english took all the land from the catholics (irish) & while happy to make them dirt-poor laborers, they systematically kept them from food & killed so many in the wars, the English lords found themselves lacking sufficient labor—thus came the settlers, Good Protestants who wouldn’t rise up, who’d make common cause with the landlords against the indigenous, for fear of being driven off the stolen land
Was gonna say, it absolutely was
This is like when conservatives bring up the way the US used to treat Irish and Italian people.
Yes that was fucking awful, and I would be condemning it, IF I WAS FUCKING ALIVE IN THE 1700 AND 1800s! But yah know things fucking change and so do your priorities.
Edit: and it’s extra funny when they turn around and are like “why do you still care about this thing that happened when your grandpa was in his 20s?” Oh idk maybe that’s like still affecting the current fucking world???
It happened a long time ago and also, England isn’t a French colony rn. They got it back.
A group of plucky young honkies managed to nearly wipe out multiple civilizations using only black powder guns and germ warfare
I’d say the United States of America deserves to control everything
““Anarchists”” advocating for states and borders will never stop amusing me.
is this guy implying the indigenous folk are colonisers
Might makes right but you wanna feel like the underdog at the same time
Does this person know where the word “Welsh” comes from?
Casting off the Normal yoke is the highest calling for an Anglo-Saxon, so that bit is half right. Anglo-Saxons weren’t an indigenous population to England though, that was the celts they themselves had displaced a few centuries prior.
That’s actually a common historical misunderstanding. Anglo-Saxons didn’t eradicate or exile the natives, they simply replaced their ruling class. And even then, Brythonic nobility were allowed to rule under them provided they swore fealty and adopted their customs. A lot of people don’t realize that ethnic cleansing is very resource intensive, and why would you waste perfectly good subjects/peasants (provided you aren’t brain-rotted by early modern nationalism or race theory)? It’s not like they had enough settlers to feasibly do it anyway.
This was pretty much the norm of the time for the migrations of various Germanic tribes west except the Anglo-Saxons were actually successful in imposing their languages on the natives rather than adopting the locals’ (as had happened with the Visigoths, Franks and Vandals), probably because Roman Britain was one of the less developed and populated provinces. It’s not even a loose theory: historical records show “English” lords with mixed or completely Romano-British names/titles and DNA testing shows most Englishmen are descended to the Stone Age people who came before the Celtic migrations.
I think this is important to point out because it’s the exact kind of misunderstanding Zionists exploit by claiming Arabs wiped out the entirety of the Middle East and North Africa, so Palestinians are ackchully foreign colonizers themselves. It’s the same story there: the language of Arab Muslims, either by sword or by conversion, was spread throughout pre-existing populations though not entirely (see Maghreb languages).
Good video showcasing this linguistically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FHRTpEhaAs&t=1s
That and of course the Celts in question are mostly Brythonic speakers, who wrote in Latin and are mixed with Roman colonizers.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
didnt the celts also “displace” the previous, even more original population?