Will they be have a celebration for the new overlord?
'appointed' by a bank?
and they wonder why there is a world revolution going on.
Oh, red text donk, sometimes you put out ironic truths.
creep donks are posting live right now!
the key to the donk
donk does not equal donkey.
but you are upset that the word describes you perfectly so you have to badger my efforts?
you show yourself as that.
you're not an anon. if you thought I was self identifying you'd be calling me a name fag?
a donk is one who is paid to donk.
so you are paid to badger me. It's yo who out yourself. I am merely here making spurious comments about how festered the breads are lately with donk.
and you verify it.
A shill tries to discourage and that's a bad thing, right? discouragement?
a shill donk? well that's a horror. You're paid to do harm to people.
Are you?
but I don't realy know if you are or if you aren't paid. But I can see you as a donk because you are a badger and doing your 'I am the voice of . . . '?
but that's the part you miss? you are the voice of donk.
concerning yourself with my silly word play is the essenece fo donk. You simply can't allow new words that peg your behavior and make you the poster child for the new hypocracy.
how dare I be a clever person, you must badger me.
that's what donk does: it badgers the forward and clever alpha-linquistic anti-donk.
the irony is that a lot of the 'native' groups were interlopers and slaver-minded assholes who were out pestering and hurting people, raiding, and looting, and driving people to live in cliffs to stay safe.
so who stole whose land?
the fallacy of ownership played out in Marxist propaganda conflicts wtih their native 'merica nariative (abbriviated to show disdain for their narrative).
the marxist teach: oh the holy natives were so hurt by the westerners and powerless and blameless and always victims and didn't own anything, they were true marxists.
and then they say 'but they had their land stolen'.
and the real truth is much much much different.
but the marxists won't tell you thta it's unclear where all the people came from. That some claim that European languages were spoken by some 'natives', that some think that the Scottish were here far earlier than anticipated but kept it secret (that's why all them mason creeps are scots and we're supposed to know the names of the royal families that are reasl in that world).
all in all the theory of natives being 'victims' is stock marxist tripe.
in fact the victimizers were the bully groups of some of the 'natives' who were out looking for slaves and pillage. They drove some to hide in cliffs in the South West (some evidence is not easy for those to remove).
why don't all those marxists explain the fact that most groups or bands welcomed the law bringing of the US Army to fight out those mauraders who victimized others as a way of life.
In the Marxist narrative the skin color, not the behavior, determines their 'virtue'.
their virtue to Marxists is only as victims, a cultre that sacrifices it's own for the elites, but never the elites themselves, the culture is marxism is well suited for conquoring canible peoples who horded in from the East some time before Columbus.
The Mongols or whoever came from the East long before the Europeans? Or the Europeans who came but kept it secret (The Scots and the Sinclairs) or the Europeans who came and said 'we found a new place'
or the ones who came and brought brick making?
or Quetquital who is thought to ahve been Irish by some people?
which group do you mean?
I am posting to the person who is posting the marxist memes about 'natives' being victims to express that the story is not what the memes suggest and presents a base view of History that is incorrect, which is typical of a marxist presentation.
what is your problem with what I discuss? you ask me for relevance? what gives you the right to ask me for relevance?
how is your asking me for relevance relevant, and not just badgering?
does it bother you that some people actually know history and will discuss it and won't take the hook of the 'holy savage' and the sanctification of people based upon false history of victimhood.?
marxists are a 'them' to me, anon.
sorry if it's not like that for you.
the rest of what you imply is unclear. you're just using stock techniques of badgering to shut me up.
In fact my narrative says you need to look at individuals and groups and not 'all the people of one place' before a date as 'holy' and their descendants all as 'victims' which is what that other narrative of the memes demands.
whatever, you don't understand me and thus you are . . . looking for clarity about what?
what part of my narrative is 'us and them'
the part where I dis marxists? or the part where I express that the marxist view doesn't include real details of the brutal hordes of Turks and Mongols who went out murdering people for glory.
whatever, it's not division to discuss truthfull stuff that happend 800 to 500 years ago.
?
bot you said something else before and
didn't give me any curtesey by answerig my Queries.
like you are scripted response.
do you dog?
how many cantilopes got married?
which is the correct question?