On this program from 2016, Australian nationalist Blair Cottrell obliterates a gaggle of SJWs, Muslims and cucks who oppose his racial nationalism and advocate for the “diversity” agenda of exponentially reducing the white population in a country that whites built.
Cottrell really sticks it to the Muslim panelists who acted as if they didn’t put Islamic norms and customs above Australian ones. As Cottrell noted, a true Koran-thumping Muslim places Islamic Sharia law above any man-made laws, and thus they have no respect for any system they are living in that isn’t based on Koranic jurisprudence.
This makes Muslims an inherent revolutionary danger to all non-Muslim countries who will always seek to replace non-Islamic governing systems with an Islamic one.
Muslims have contributed nothing to Australian society besides importing terrorist ideologies and hatred of kaffirs. Muslim immigrants are behind virtually all instances of terrorism in the country. What do you expect from an alien ethnic/religious group in a nation of infidels? Muslims emigrate to Australia in order to take advantage of a successful white economy, all the while pushing their alien religion on natives, and recruiting vulnerable youths into Islamic terrorist organizations like ISIS.
Muslims are not loyal to any nation-state besides ones claiming to represent Islam. So why would any sane white nation allow masses of Muslims into their country knowing the dangers emanating from this quarrelsome group?
What does he think about Jews, Zionism and Israel?
These people that support mass muslim migration in our societies are white supremacists. These liberals think that because of their magic “goodness” they will elevate all these sub-whites (in their mind, not mine, i don’t think like that) into some magical government-assisted, taxpayer assisted, “hard working, law abiding” status of actually…. reaching average whiteness. These rabid, feral white supremacists (the liberals and the pro migration side) want to use these random muslims as a way to reach their orgasmic fantasies of “helping the downtrodden” or whatever. By making them be whites. They cannot be, they don’t want to be, they just want wealth ($$ and goodies) and it is an act of utter white supremacism to want to invite them here to “make” them whites.
In a nutshell: Fuck White Supremacism. I am not God, I don’t want to make african/muslim/mideastern migrants into whites. They want goodies that are mine, let’s deal with the situation. Sorry, mutual respect but no goodies, no land for you dudes. No to White Supremacism, No to any Supremacism. No to mass migration.
I agree completely. As one prominent French Nazbol said, “I did not fight against French Algeria just to have an Algerian France.” Down with White Supremacy, down with Colonialism, down with Imperialism and down with non-White immigration into White nations. Most of all, down with Zionism, Jews and Israel. There is no reason to hate or oppress other races, but all races are different and all except Jews should be able to enjoy self-determination and Socialism without interference.
@Jijcf
Well I have to stress something, the real people living in white societies (not the over intellectualized academic types) have every right in the world to defend themselves from invasion. And “COLONIALISM” has been used as an argument against white consciousness so I am tired listening to this word cause it has been used against me (my race).
Imperialism is a rather vague term. Dont you agree? What does it mean??
I wouldn’t be pro “oppressing” Jews. Why care? Why meddle with them if they are sitting somewhere around on the map and just dealing with their own bullshit.
You seem to be quite a fanatic (about all your issues). Why do you care so much? (it is not an ironic question)
Enough with “colonialism”. I am tired listening to this word because it has been used against me (my race). What’s with that “ism”? Why not say “colonies”. I have the answer why. Because these liberal pieces of shit want to make up a fantastic story that whites INVENTED colonies. Well we didn’t so they need to make up another fantastic story which is that we invented the “mentality” of “colonialism”. It’s crap. Everyone had colonies, it’s just that whites did it better.
About “imperialism”. It’s a vague term don’t you agree? What does it mean??
White Supremacism, when it’s literal, it’s something damaging to whites. I mean when these UNICEF unicorns think they are the best in the globe because “theyyyy heeeeelp the poor” its ok but when they think they can actually invite masses in white countries and force them to be whites to “save” them…. Then this is White Supremacism, and only the liberals got this sickening schizophrenic feeling.
Sorry for some double shit. I thought the first post didn’t make it and re-mentioned some stuff.
Lynch mob of liberal lefties they always try to assert that anti-multiculturalists are un-educated.
The muslim woman with glasses, used the laugh at him and ridicule him tactic.
What a load of rubbish.
Well done Blair and you are right, immigration is destroying western countries.
There is an agenda and we must fight it.
On these shows they like to have an “intellectual expert to quote survey results” to mislead and brainwash the audience.
And worse still is the fact that this is typical of similar real life debates occuring outside of a studio.
Jijcf, you’re good at dodging questions and you didn’t answer many of my questions to you, like what are you gonna tell the Mickey D’s workers you’ve rounded up for your revolution if they happen to ask you why they should be making just as much money as an engineer?
You realize there has been a Marxist stigma attached to colonialism which presents it as something only the “evil white man” has done, right? According to this narrative, colonialism was/is only a ‘white phenomenon’; no one else has done it or does to it, and there was nothing good about white colonialism either. This narrative is a lot like how gentrification is an ‘evil white phenomenon’: how DARE whites actually move into shitty neighborhoods and renovate land, houses and buildings, lower crime rates, and thus make the property values and rents increase, right Mugabe?!
I wouldn’t round anyone up. If your White ethnostate treats the poor like crap, you can bet there will be resistance. I will be there to channel it in a Marxist-Leninist direction.
Pre-capitalist colonialism was at least done with honorable purpose, such as the spread of islam. Whether or not you are Muslim, and I am not, that is far more honorable than the capitalist European colonialism that was solely about greed and theft. Europeans had colonialism before capitalism too, such as in ancient Rome so the distinction between capitalist and non-capitalist colonialism is not about race.
There is nothing good about colonialism. It murdered 100 million Native Americans, and destroyed unique cultures around the world. It was a precursor to Globalism and Multiculturalism. It is disgusting how you always hear about the Holohoax and never about the tens of millions killed by White colonialism.
Don’t play word games with me, son. You were just talking about leading your own Maoist, guerrilla revolution on the Novorossiya article. I want to know what you’re gonna tell your Mickey D’s workers if they ask you why they should be making just as much as engineers. Are you gonna maybe tell them that flipping burgers is a really “strenuous” job that requires “massive IQs”, “incredible bravery” and that almost nobody can do it? Maybe you’ll tell them that raising the minimum wage is a “great idea” too, or something?
Yeah I can tell you’re also an Islamophile. The spread of Islam was not “honorable”. Islam spread by the sword and caused a lot of destruction, culture erasure, death, and slavery. Slavery is still going on in many Muslim countries. How many inventions have Muslims invented, BTW? You know Europe has been invaded by not only Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Jews, but also by the Mongols and the Huns, right?
Lmao! I can tell you’re getting that “100 million natives murdered” from Marxist sources. The natives was just poor, innocent, cute lil victims that dindu no wrong and got along so well with each other before capitalism came along wit’ dollar signs in their eyes, right? There weren’t even close to ‘100 million’ natives in North America and on top of that, the vast majority of them died due to diseases. How do you suppose natives are still alive if whites were trying to exterminate them en masse?
You’re not pro-white you clown, and you’re a perfect example of why Marxists/commies are anti-white. BTW, I have no idea how you think that white capitalism went from being ‘sooo genocidal’ to ‘minorities’, to flipping on it’s head and suddenly being soooo genocidal to whites? How does that work in your mind, Holmes?
I don’t think he is pro white too. But let’s not bring economics into ideology. Raising the minimum wage is good when you need to throw money into the economy. Not a very principled action but it might be appropriate when $$ is needed direly. It is just another way of printing $$. If we are against printing $$ (which is an idea that I am open to, but I don’t support it wholeheartedly: changing to some gold standard or something related) then we need to say it openly. But we cannot return to some gold/silver/whatever standard because we don’t control the central banks folks!
Marxism tends to exaggerate whatever they term as “bourgeois” shit. If they identify the “colonialist” era in North America as a “bourgeois” endeavor then they will create propaganda against it. I am NOT FOR PROPAGANDA. I don’t think that the natives were peaceful people AT ALL. But guess what? I don’t think the whites were very peaceful too. If there was an organized native nation then there might be rational revanchism by the natives, but at least in the US there was nothing organized in what we consider as a national scale. The Aztec empire and the Inca empire were I guess the closest to a Nation in the “New World”, but let’s not forget that they were supernational, they were empires and the Spanish found a lot of warrior dudes disillusioned with their Aztec / Inca masters willing to fight for the Spanish side.
If we want to give a “moral” answer we can think of 1500s happening now (worldwide). Well if I was Spanish or if I lived in Spain I would take off for the colonies, for new open spaces (very important), new economies, new “world”, and I like native pussy (not for a family but ok, some amerindian latina types look good for fucking, sadly the minority but ok).
I like that “frontline” idea very very much (simple demand based economics, open spaces) so I would head to Rio de la Plata, cause there was a lot of fuckin vast open spaces in what is now Argentina back then. If I was in the English system I would go to the US of course but Latin America has something more mystical and exciting, better flavor to say.
I hear ya. I’ve personally been a fan of Brazilian culture with it’s own unique, charismatic style and vibe. Unfortunately, whites are now under 50% of the population there, affirmative action has been implemented in the last few years, and GMOs became legal there in 2005. But there are sites like Happier Abroad that give good feedback on various cultures, women, where to travel, and updates. Good site, although Winston isn’t very red-pilled on race
Hollywood, reality TV, the music industry, and other influences have really done a number in America when it comes to making people ignorant, cocky, superficial/materialistic/fake, and far removed from reality.
Haha, where I’m from, the Amerindian females are cursed with ugliness. They’re often obese with flat asses, flat tits, and ugly faces. I know there are good-looking Amerindian chicks, but some tribes are terribly cursed and I don’t know what it is. These women were as bad as the Aborigine women; I have yet to see a good-looking Aborigine female and it’s like they’re cursed or something.
Aborigines are waaaaaay down the ladder of evolution for my taste. There are virtually no good “Aborigine” females yeah. US amerindians have some kind of aboriginish feel to them, I have noticed that myself.
There are kind of nice chics in Central America (10% or something), but there’s so much white admixture that in the end you don’t know if they got their good ass because of Spanish genes. When I went to Spain I saw some good Catalan chicks (the ones who werent leftist enough because leftist chicks look bad).
South America is better (in this regard) than Central because you CAN find latinas with good looks. But the european admixture was limitless probably. Lol the Spanish were horny and didn’t have a lot of women. Can’t blame them HAHAhahah.
Lol Fox, sounds like we have similar tastes in women!
Yeah man, for years I really thought that American Indian females were the ugliest females on the planet. And I intuitively knew about sample sizes and this wasn’t a small sample size. I’d travel around to different schools all over the state for chess tournaments and other sports, and a lot of these areas were right near reservations and had large Amerindian populations. I remember thinking that I feel really sorry for Indian dudes. And when the animated movie Pocahontas came out, I distinctly remember thinking no Indian female has the aesthetic features that Pocahontas has, lol.
I had seen good looking Mexican chicks up to that point and later on in life met hot broads from and in various countries south of the border, but as you say, it’s hard to know if their look comes from Spanish admixture or what, because a lot of times they don’t know either. Just out of curiosity though, and in researching Amerindian cultures, I found YT vids of Amerindians in remote forests in South America that had seemingly never came into contact with any outside groups and are still basically living in the stone-age and the females run around naked. Some of these females are actually pretty cute though, to my surprise, and so I’m a believer that there are good-looking, full Amerindian chicks now, lol.
Yeah, I thought they were the ugliest women on the planet until I got to Australia and saw the Aborigine women. Man those women are ugly. And you’re right, these Indian chicks in America from many different tribes strongly resemble Aborigine females. Obesity is high; flat tits and asses; and they’ve got those large, protruding cheek bones, big faces, and their faces look eerily masculine. I don’t know how they reproduce because those broads are erection killers, lol. I know black dudes will bang anything though, lol. 🙂
Australian Aborigines in general look like they confirm Darwin lol 😛 I am skeptical about darwinism like I am skeptical about evolution but these ppl look like they are borderline human. As if they are really ALIENS in the real sense of the word. Of course “borderline human” doesn’t imply any of the usual conservoprogressivist bullshit, it is just my awe when I saw them first.
White women have reached various points of flawlessness as in my opinion the Central Slavic women. They don’t have the gypsiness of south slavs (unfortunate gypsy and or grecoturkish admixture there). But they don’t have this Germanic huge, angled facial-bone bitchlike structures. They (central Slavic like Slovakian and Czech) are the perfect mix betwen Germanic and Mediterranean (in general).
Another great “ideal” is the Spanish/Portuguese. I really like them they look very cute, 80% mediterranean 20% germanic. However these bitches might be the easiest to get you carried away into thinking they are cute. I mean they look less whores than they are. Not unlike Greek women.
A fantastic, but not 100% white ideal for female is the Turkish ones that are 80% pure white 20% pure asiatic. These look amazing. I like Turkish women who do not look very mideastern, but have the white/mongolic mix.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/liMu0oZ_JYA/hqdefault.jpg
http://istanbulturkeybook.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/asli-tandogan-1.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/97/b2/5997b253bcfd86651a6a11aa25721037.jpg
All from Turkey (actresses). Lol if I lived during the Greco Turkish war I would flip sides and go fuck Turkish bitches. LOL. The only problem is that a lot of non-actresses just look way too mideastern over there in Turkey.
Yeah the Aborigines are quite alien-esque, no doubt.
The second link isn’t working but I looked Asli up. She’s not bad. She has photos she looks better in than others, and I couldn’t tell that she’s any Mongolian.
I’ve heard plenty of times that Americans are very liked in Czechoslovakia and if I learn any non-English and non-Spanish/Portuguese language, I might focus only on the Czech language given that and because they seem to be one of the least culturally Marxist countries in Europe. I don’t have the time or desire to be trying to learn 5 damned languages lol.
There are obvious “mongolic” whites in Eastern Europe (north or south). They exist because of Turkic and Genghis khan dick. A lot of them are in Turkey for obvious reasons. But there are examples all over eastern europe.
Dan Petrescu, Romanian, David Duchovny lookalike lol. Very obvious mongolic.
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Dan+Petrescu+qyHrK1PQexDm.jpg
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/67/590x/dan-petrescu-444138.jpg
https://scoutingromania.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/danpetrescue4.jpg
Thomas Rosicky, Czech, despite his “whiteness” you can observe eastern Samurai-like appearence, obvious Mongolic.
https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/67/590x/Arsenal-Arsenal-FC-Gunners-Arsene-Wenger-Tomas-Rosicky-Sparta-Prague-Fans-Rosicky-Sparta-Fans-578967.jpg
https://cityvoiceng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tomas-Rosicky-640×360.jpg
https://platform-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/premierleague/photos/players/250×250/p8597.png
I never felt completely european myself tbh, I am white, I am the usual spanish/italian face but I could also pass as an Istanbul Turk. And Istanbul Turkish culture is not very far from Greece you know. Greek popular music would sound wildly eastern and outlandish to a Northern European or a US “anglo”.
Example of Greek popular music 1996.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEomWKZnQvw
I support europeanism because I got the rationality etc, ancient greece etc etc. I also have very eastern-like characteristics however. I think women should be led with complete fucking FASCISM and society should be left as a space for men to act relatively democraticaly, doing business, managing economics, creating philosophy, art, dealing with bullshit. Another aspect that I am eastern is that I am a fanatic of personal morality. I believe in meditation, graduality, and the flawlessness of letting the cosmos guide you when you are feeling disturbed. I believe that everyone as a person is a kind of Ronin, samurai without a master, who deals with “morality” in his head and I could care less about the social structure’s morality because I believe in my own. I am close to Taoist Philosophy (and even possibly it’s religious/philosophical outlooks).
Sometimes I feel I could care less even for science despite being a scientist/engineer. I sometimes feel it’s a vain quest to find “God”. But God is being in a state that you are completely TUNED as brain to reality. This doesn’t even need mathematics. Feeling reality creep in your head and acting according to reality, with a clear moral goal that is completely personal but honorable. Emptying your head of western rationalist bullshit is useful sometimes, otherwise you end up too western, like the Jordan Peterson over-rationalized, over-intellectualized, over-westernized types. These people suffer from moral over-compartmentalization and other Western-related illnesses LOL.
Fox, that music is Arabian. You Arab!!!
Lol, j/k 🙂
Of course, and first and foremost, multiculturalism doesn’t work. Anytime different cultures are suddenly foisted upon each other and/or suddenly put in a jar with one another, perceived disrespect and thus disagreement and conflict is inevitable. This applies even to people of the same race.
I don’t know if you’ve researched this in depth, but many Asians of the Orient don’t consider themselves “one” with each other because of all their inter-tribal rifts and conflicts. This isn’t just disagreements between, say, Chinese and Indians (Indians still being Asians), but Chinese and every other group of Asians, including other non-Indian southeastern Asians.
This is not different in Latin America or Africa. Japanese Brazilians have problems in Japan and numerous blacks from different countries have problems with each other too.
There is the layer of natural conflict/misunderstanding that arises simply from being of different cultures, including and as well as being from different religious backgrounds, and/but there is is also a more pronounced layer that exists due to racial differences.
Even talking to white girls in Europe has it’s differences as opposed to talking to white girls in America. They’re both still white, but there are obvious nuances among them.
This does change in certain ways when they come to the West, though. In the West, they’re all “oppressed minorities” who must ban together against the evil white demon.
Jordan Peterson is still very blue (and purple) -pilled on many ideas and issues. Maybe he always will be, and maybe he’s willingly controlled opposition; I don’t know yet. Obviously he’s just dead wrong on many of the things he says. Sadly, his watered-down, Westernized (Judaized), academic view of things absolutely does not equate to ‘truth’ and/or logic. Academia is obviously anti-white and people who get deep into academia, thoroughly “educate” themselves on being anti-white and anti-male.
Lmao. Of COURSE he’s not really pro-white and he’s a moron. He was saying before that I’m not a white nationalist because I’m pro-capitalist, but was seemingly insinuating that he *was*, lmao. I had already explained to him that I didn’t fit in with the dictionary definition and never considered myself one to begin with. The clown talks about giving his life for the Palestinians; he’s an Islamophile; he’s pro-Mugabe; he thinks ‘100 million natives were genocided’ by ‘evil capitalist whites’, among other things like being an open communist/Marxist/transfer da wealth, proletarian revolution all the way, type. Mofo isn’t pro-white just because he says a few things here and there that would be considered by many to be pro-white.
What?! The Marxist/Communist ideology deals largely in economics. And Marx talked and wrote about it numerous times when he was alive. Marxism is all about erasing class differences and taking from the middle and upper middle classes (the bourgeois) and giving it to the poor (the proletariat). These Marxists/commies ignore all kinds of shit and throw out a bunch of lies to suit their ideology. So when it comes to the minimum wage, these clowns think that random businesses/companies have some kind of endless supply of money and that if it’s raised, the low-level people of the companies will start to become treated more fairly. The reality is that businesses frequently go bankrupt because they don’t have an endless supply of money and that if the minimum wage gets raised, what happens is businesses compensate by downsizing so there are increased lay offs and less jobs, and/or the prices of the businesses’ products increase. Way to “help” da poor, right? And speak of the devil: I just saw this article:
“Advocates for raising the minimum wage are attempting the impossible, because it is impossible to change the value of a thing by mere fiat. If a particular McDonald’s employee earns the company $10 an hour, but the law forces McDonald’s to pay him $15 an hour, the employee won’t get any richer, but he will get fired.
Across the country, the world’s most successful fast food chain has started replacing people with robots—automated screens—to “give customers more options as they order.” Undoubtedly, these electronic menus may actually provide more options—but they certainly present the franchise with a slightly cheaper bill.
Customers may take McDonalds’ low prices for granted, but in a market based on human decisions they are a reflection of the value of fast food. Customers don’t come to McDonald’s for a gourmet meal—they come to eat fast and on the cheap. In the past year, the fast food giant has struggled to make ends meet as people increasingly favor “fast casual” restaurants like Chipotle—which markets higher quality food at slightly higher prices.
In order to stay afloat, McDonald’s has to keep its edge, and that means lower prices. If the government requires fast food restaurants to pay workers more, the restaurants will do so—but they can only make ends meet by hiring fewer employees.
Politically, a high minimum wage may sound like a raise, but in the competition of the free market, it looks more like a pink slip—even more for businesses than for employees.
“I am not a charity,” wrote Kevin McNamee, owner of a small business in Los Angeles, CA, which just voted to increase the minimum wage to $15 in 2020. “I can’t raise my product prices because of pricing pressure. I can’t reduce my expenses; in fact, salaries are my greatest expense, and $15 per hour increases my expenses and reduces my profit.”
“A high minimum wage may sound like a raise, but it looks more like a pink slip.”
Some advocates of the $15 minimum wage wish to “stick it to the man,” hitting the billionaire CEOs. This small business CEO, however, claims that “last year, my employees made more than I, the owner, did. I am still trying to pay off the line of credit that got me through the recession.”
As the AEI’s Mark Perry explains, increasing the minimum wage from $9 per hour to $15 works out to a yearly tax of $12,480 on employers. Ironically, this tax hike may help the billionaires by hurting the middle class. Big businesses can afford to take a hit, but the mom-and-pop shops may not be so lucky—and as smaller businesses close their doors, big businesses don’t have to face as much competition.
Some people support an increase in the minimum wage because they believe the Marxist idea that profit itself is bad. Karl Marx’s theory of surplus value states that a company’s profits should not exceed the cost of the worker’s labor. In other words, people should only pay for a good exactly what it cost the worker to make it.
While this sounds good in theory, it makes no sense in practice. In a free market, a customer will only buy a product if he values that product more than his own money. If I ask you to trade your shiny new Lamborghini for my five-year-old Hyundai, you would laugh at me. That is, unless I was holding a gun to your head.
This is the basic concept behind the minimum wage. When an employee asks his boss to pay him more than he is worth, the boss laughs. But when government holds the gun to a business owner’s head and says “pay your employees more than their time is worth to you,” the boss has a few options. He can fire some employees and pay others more, he can leave the area to avoid the government, or he can take a loss and likely go out of business.
One thing is certain, however—customers won’t necessarily agree to pay more for a product just because the owner has to pay his employees more. If the cost of labor increases and the cost of a business’ product or service does not, that company is going to take a hit—often a loss it cannot afford.
The idea that a business’ profit should be entirely redistributed to employees will only make that business less effective. Without extra money to invest in new products, research and development, and even training for employees, a business would not be as effective in helping its customers. If a business loses customers, it cannot afford to pay employees. Without profit, no one gets paid.
If politicians want to support a cause that will actually help poor people make more money, they should champion free market reforms. Smaller taxes and smarter regulations will allow businesses to continue doing what they do best—offering goods and services at prices that customers are actually willing to pay.”
http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com/what-actually-happens-when-you-raise-the-minimum-wage/
Dude, I have hundreds of articles on the so-called “native genocide” and can go on and on about it. It wasn’t a fucking “genocide”. Some quick points about it though:
The Amerindians were hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers are very small populations per square mile because they have to live off the land. If you compared the average hunter-gatherer tribes that still exist today in South America and Africa and placed them on a land mass as large as America and Canada, you’d get somewhere around 3 million people. No fukin where near “100 million people”. Even Wikipedia has different estimates from less than a million to about 18 million. Wikipedia also lists the *war deaths* for each side: both whites and Amerindians. The ratio off the top of my head was about 4 or 5 Amerindians to each white, so the Amerindians had a significantly higher death toll. The whole “smallpox blankets” story is a total fukin hoax. And the “Trail of Tears” wasn’t nearly as bad as it was made out to be.
Amerindians died heavily from diseases whites had; about 85% of them died from these diseases. Remember though that the black plague was given to Europeans from central China, and it wiped out somewhere between 25-60% of the European population. When the Japanese landed in Japan, they gave the indigenous groups there some of the same diseases the Europeans did to the Amerindians and this also wiped many of them out as well.
Yes, various tribes of Indians were fighting and competing with each other; some tribes were more peaceful and others were more warlike. Whites were also fighting and competing with each other. Many times whites sided with tribes they had alliances with to fight other whites, and vice versa: Amerindians sided many times with whites to take out other Amerindians.
The ‘genocide’ is talked about as if whites just came and stole all the land for nothing… nooot the fukin case. Whites made many purchases of land from the Amerindians and payed in all kinds of different ways. One of the ways they payed was with guns. So whites are trying to “exterminate them” but selling them guns… of course not. Other forms of payment like different kinds of supplies, tools, food, linens, etc. Whites also traded guns for furs because the furs were very valuable in parts of Europe. I know though: da natives would nevuh kill no animals fer fur, right, lol. It’s also talked about as if Amerindians never ambushed, raped, and killed whites in large groups unprovoked when they certainly did.
The Amerindian population has been quickly growing for many decades. Untold sums of money have been given to the Amerindians since then. They do have a lot of land on reservations and are actually allowed to do things that nobody else can by law, like smoke peyote or ride in the back of a pick-up truck without a camper. On reservations, they don’t pay taxes for store items either. They get many perks at the tax payers’ expense.
You sure wouldn’t know any of this shit by watching “Dances With Wolves”, “The Last of The Mohicans” or from the school history books and college campuses though.
“You sure wouldn’t know any of this shit by watching “Dances With Wolves”, “The Last of The Mohicans” or from the school history books and college campuses though.”
Yeah unfortunately a lot of leftist propaganda in these movies and some of these dude that admire amerindians do it because of watching those movies in a young age. The thing I liked about Dances with the Wolves is its neo-luddite feeling TBH though. However propaganda creeps in because of fuckin Hollywood and their “progressivism”.
“The idea that a business’ profit should be entirely redistributed to employees will only make that business less effective.”
Dana, the marxists are by their nature against “growth” of any kind. That’s the natural outcome of this example of an idea they have. When they actually control economies (Mao) they just die and then get replaced by some Communist Party dude who has a LESS (but not zero) ideological brain but MORE of a practical brain.
Socialism could work in theory. But not the marxist type. And Dana, just google, research etc on the “final level of communism” the “pure communism” that “will be reached” the “final stage” or something. Research what they think about that. You will die laughing, they say they actually want to achieve that thing. Sounds like angelic and mashiach-ish nirvana craziness.
What they think the “final stage” will be shows their craziness.
The term socialism is kind of ambiguous because many definitions have been given to it and often people try to redefine it to suit their own agendas. Like this Marxist clown “Jijcf” over here talking about how liberalism has “nothing to do with Marxism or communism” like the absolute moron that he is. But to keep things simple, I just go by what Lenin and Marx said about it. A few quick examples from Lenin:
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
“In every socialist revolution . . . the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leads, is the positive or constructive work of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organizational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people…. [It is a] difficult problem (source: “The immediate tasks of the Soviet Revolution”)”
“Capitalism can be utterly vanquished, and will be utterly vanquished by socialism creating a new and much higher productivity of labour. This is a very difficult matter and must take a long time; but it has been started, and that is the main thing.”
When it comes to what Lenin said about the proletarian poor peasants, commies like Jijcf don’t get numerous, obvious things.
If somebody is poor, plenty of times it’s not because of their own doing. However, plenty of times it absolutely IS because of their own doing. And you know part of the problem many dumb people have in life is that they’re don’t know they’re dumb.
Dealing with and/or being aware of many dummies over lengthy periods of time let’s you know that they’re fucking stupid and they’re gonna stay that way. Jijcf apparently thinks that stupid people will get smart over time, just that they’re being “held down” and can’t do so at the moment. He’s delusional. Large numbers of them never do. He thinks just because they’re poor though that they deserve “special treatment” and even that they should have just as much money as you do, whoever you may be. He thinks dummies are good with money. Well dummies sure as shit are NOT good with money, and as the saying goes: Help the HELPLESS, not the fukin HOPELESS.
And so these poor peasants were uneducated. If somebody doesn’t have skills or smarts, (especially if they don’t care about improvement) Jijcf thinks they should get paid the same for what they do regardless of this. Fuck all that. McDonald’s workers are very often high-schoolers or people just getting out of high-school because they don’t have much in the way of skills, knowledge, education, etc., built up and sure as hell don’t deserve to be getting paid as much as those who do in other areas. They don’t have skills, but they sure can flip burgers because any fukin body can flip a goddamned burger.
Notice how Jijcf likes these rounded-out numbers such as “100 million natives” or the “1%” as absolutes and that work as quick slogans but have obviously not been critically questioned by die-hard Marxists. As if it’s going to be even close to being as simple and cut-and-dry where you suddenly cross this magic line when you weren’t evil (the 99%) to instantaneously being full-on fucking “evil” once you enter the (1%), lol.
“As if it’s going to be even close to being as simple and cut-and-dry where you suddenly cross this magic line when you weren’t evil (the 99%) to instantaneously being full-on fucking “evil” once you enter the (1%), lol.”
That’s called schizophrenia or schizoid/schizotypal personality disorder. I’ve researched that stuff. They are crazy.
This differentiating to such an extent (and with such abrupt “borders” in your thought, pay attention to the word abrupt) is schizophrenic.
Marxism is a chosenite creation. And it has the same mideastern schizophrenia/fanaticism that other chosenite stuff have. They tend to create good/evil alignments (a-la dungeons and dragons) and they tend to create rigid, crazily abrupt borders between the “alignments”.
The world is much more blended in reality. And there are degrees of everything in everything.
Speaking of colonialism, Jared Taylor has a personal anecdote (and I’m paraphrasing) about how, as a youngster, he was visiting Africa. He said he was in one country that wasn’t too bad, but then he crossed the border into another country and it looked like a war-zone and was in terrible condition. He asked one of the locals why this area was in such bad shape and the local said his country didn’t have the benefit of being colonized by the French.
This short clip out of Empire of Dust corroborates Jared’s story, just that it’s a Chinese dude telling a black African about it and basically that they didn’t take the opportunity to learn anything off of Europeans:
An Aussie wrote this up on Roosh’s site, ROK:
“With Australia Day come and gone, I found myself getting into many an argument with people on Facebook about the very thing we celebrate every year (and take a very welcomed day off work because of). For those of you who do not know, Australia Day celebrates the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the first fleet of British ships on its shores. There would be no issue with this, if the country wasn’t already populated with native Aboriginal Australians who had their own culture, spirituality, and customs that took a massive shock with the arrival of white settlers.
This, along with a myriad of controversial actions often involving bloodshed, created a dichotomy of people (and Facebook friends). One side, feverish with national pride, the other, obsessed with the crimes of the past, mainly of Western culture’s influence on the native populace and the “theft” of their land.
This latter group has replaced Australia day with phrases such as “Invasion Day” and “Survival Day,” and we have seen similar movements in the United States and Britain for analogous holidays. Are they valid in their evaluation? I mean, how can you deny that there was once an area of land with people already living in it, that other people settled into and overwhelmed, often using force to push their own beliefs and culture onto?
The answer is you cannot—there are, however, certain truths that these groups conveniently gloss over which paint a much more balanced and realistic view of the situation.
1. If it were not for the British, it was only a matter of time before someone else “invaded” Australia
RiverQueen061
Colonization was the name of the game back in that day. Almost all powerful nations were doing it to some extent, the most notable players being the Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Britain, and France. If the British did not colonize Australia, it was simply a matter of time before someone else did. Yes, it is possible that life could have been better for the Aboriginal people under a different rule, but it’s also quite possible life would have been significantly worse.
It’s something we will never know, but one thing we can be certain of is that sooner or later, someone was going to lay claim to that land and the lacking technological development of the native culture sealed their destiny. Furthermore, colonizing wasn’t exclusively a “white” people thing to do, as you can see in the photo above.
2. Aboriginal people practiced “colonization” too
They simply lacked the technology to be as effective as the evil Westerners. When the people who protest these holidays look at native cultures, they do it with rose-colored glasses. Some go as far to ignore well documented facts like the Inca’s taste for blood and sacrifice, or Native American’s slavery practices. Others accept some bloodshed between the different tribes, but cite their relatively small scale as evidence of how horrible the English were compared to the mostly peace loving, native clans.
The reality is that “colonization” and bloodshed was not held back among native tribes because of lack of will, but simply the lack of technology to do so. Around Australia it is demonstrated well by the “Musket Wars” where Mauri (Native tribes from New Zealand) exchanged Muskets for goods from settlers and proceeded to “colonize” the land of the tribes next to them, causing massive casualties and sometimes whipping out whole tribes completely.
What made Australian Aboriginals more placid was not only their lack of killing efficiency, but also their harsh environment. While clashes among tribes occurred, even minor losses of strong hunting males could mean the destruction of tribes on both sides of the conflict.
3. Lack of development created cultural practices that were far from ideal
Lack of food and technological advances led to some less than desirable practices. Cannibalism is well documented among native cultures around the world. Australian Aboriginals were not exempt. In cases of extreme disparity, a practice of population control was utilized where a newborn baby was placed on a rock and had their head bashed in. The original pro-choice option.
While we can make an excuse for such things as harsh necessities, we can safely say that after 2000 or so years in Australia and having the largest technological claim to fame being a stick that returns back to you, that without an injection of Western farming techniques, those practices would most likely have continued for hundreds if not thousands of years more. How many lives would have been claimed if their island was simply forgotten and allowed to continue untouched by Western hands?
4. Australian Aboriginals were complete misogynists
And not in the airy-faerie way this term is used today. Australian Aboriginals literally saw women as property, to be traded, beaten, or raped on a whim. These are traditional practices that echo in the Aboriginal treatment of women today. Bess Nungarrayi Price, an Aboriginal activist, truthfully said that
…individual human rights are a Western invention. And that there are many rich and educated white people who would rather Aboriginal people lived with daily violence, poverty and ignorance in order to maintain their idea of what Aboriginal culture should be.
This inconvenient, debated, but very well documented truth is one of the best arguments for a Westernised Australia. Particularly because the group that reaches for the blinders when it comes to Native cultures is composed mostly of leftists and feminists. Native Australians had a real rape culture, a culture that quickly expresses itself in rural communities where parents of children will often feel safer when their kids are locked up in a white fella’s prison.
Arranged marriages, beatings, sex and rape of minors are common practice when Aboriginals are left to their own devices. On one hand, these are simply traditions, the way things were done before the white man came. Bleeding heart leftists scream for something to be done when another 12-year-old girl gets beaten and raped by a relative, yet refuse to acknowledge what makes this scenario a common occurrence, and viciously attack anyone stating some semblance of truth.
For more information about the topics covered, here are some videos and articles I recommend to get you started:
Musket Wars
Bess Nungarrayi Price
Aboriginal violence
Culture of abuse
But even if after doing ample research on the topic you cannot see anything positive what so ever from the British “invasion” of Australia, there is one lesson from history you should take on board and apply in our current time.
5. Aboriginal culture was overrun because they lacked the ability to control their borders and property rights
The English, in essence, were just another clan whose culture shadowed that of the current one. Currently, Europe is being flooded with “refugees.” A clan of people who hold different cultural practices to those in the land mass that they are traveling to. The impact of this cultural “invasion” will be determined by the size and the intensity of the population.
If Aboriginal Australians had the ability to control their borders, they could still allow for white settlers, but only letting in so many as to adopt their way of life. Using common sense and lacking political correctness, they would have noted that a refugee from a certain region, such as natives from New Zealand, would more readily adapt to their culture. Hence, they could select which cultures to allow in larger numbers, and which would need more time to acclimatize themselves.
The West has this ability to protect its borders, yet lacks the blessing of the elites to implement this control. Hence, for better or for worse its culture will be challenged as was the Aboriginal. Will the current Western culture change for better or worse with the impact it faces? To guess, one must view both sides without rose covered glasses or the deep seated self-hatred of anything white or Western perpetuated by the political left.”
http://www.returnofkings.com/78731/5-reasons-you-shouldnt-feel-guilty-about-european-colonialism
“In Australia in the current year you are not allowed at all to speak plainly or accurately about anything to do with Aboriginal people. This is because of the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism. The way you must speak is roughly as follows:
Aboriginal people represent the longest continuous culture on the planet and were masters of land management and living in harmony with the environment. They are a deeply spiritual people, and have strong kinship networks which are impossible for privileged white Australians to ever really understand. They have been brutalised by the white occupation, and the tragic social problems we see in those communities are the result of this brutalisation. We must work hard to Close the Gap by privileging and foregrounding Aboriginal ways of being to maintain this beautifully diverse culture.
Bullshit.
Calling things by their real names and speaking plainly about reality is the first step to solving any problem. Just ask a former junkie. So let’s translate the above paragraph into something more representative of the truth.
Aborigines wearing war paint… wait, what?
Aborigines wearing war paint… wait, what?
Aborigines were really good at camping and orienteering. They killed off the megafauna when they arrived here through unsustainable hunting practices. They never achieved civilisation. It also seems that the groups that were here when whites arrived had taken the place from earlier groups anyway. In other words, they invaded it.
Aboriginal ideas of marriage were more like our idea of sexual slavery. They practised child marriage. Like all prehistoric groups, they lived their lives in constant fear of spiritual entities. While they had developed a remarkable knowledge of how to live off the land, their diet was extremely unhealthy and life expectancy was tragically short. By the standards of modern Western civilisation, their kinship obligations and collectivist mentality trashed the rights of the individual and created pathological relationship dynamics. Life in prehistoric Australia before 1788 was extremely nasty, brutish and short.
A culture being ‘continuous’ means it never developed. That’s a synonym then for ‘failure’.
Things were looking up for the natives, though, when Europeans arrived. Much ink has been shed regarding how much blood was shed and why, and I’m not going to cover that well-worn terrain here. The way the left talks about the topic it is as though no people had ever invaded any other people before. This is a manifestation of the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism that I’m critiquing. Sooner or later, everyone gets invaded. To go 40000 years without it happening is a pretty good run.
When the barbarians invaded the Roman Empire through mass immigration over several decades (sound familiar?), the standard of living declined in many areas. It took the Muslim raids on the coasts of southern Europe, though, to bring in the Dark Age, and it was a millennium before things got humming in Europe again. When the Mongols invaded China, the Middle East and India, civilisation took a hit for a while before it bounced back. A few centuries later they had their high points.
The British settlement of Australia provided the natives with the greatest civilisational leap ever experienced in history. They went from Mesolithic to Industrial Era in an instant. Of course this was a painful process, but not as painful as it was for the 300 generations of Europeans and Middle Easterners who made the process gradually. It was a free gift. What bounty the First Fleet brought to the indigenes! No more bloody witchety grubs!
Why is it then that the Cultural Marxist elites on the Fremantle City Council are so against Australia Day?
The root of this insanity goes back to around the time that Australia was being liberated from the Stone Age and to that nasty cretin Jean-Jacques Rousseau. What Marx was to the Russian Revolution of 1917, Rousseau was to the French Revolution of the 1790’s. Like Marx, he was a parasite who never worked an honest day in his life. He was an expert at leeching off his aristocratic buddies, and wrote a series of treatises which blamed the evils of property and civilisation for the corruption of man. He wrote these while living in the lap of luxury with the aristocratic women he seduced.
Rousseau’s main thesis was a corruption of the Christian Biblical narrative. Original Sin in Rousseau’s mythology was the development of property. This alienated man from each other and began our corruption. The natives of the Americas were therefore morally superior because they had not developed this corrupting concept of property. This myth has been called the idea of the ‘noble savage’.
It also provided a philosophical basis for the belief that the poor are morally superior to the rich just by virtue of being poor. Marx later built upon this basis to develop his revolutionary dialectical philosophy. Thanks for nothing, Jean.
The white Cultural Marxists today who believe in the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism, that Aboriginal people are a unique category of humanity that should not have the same moral standards applied to them, are adherents to this nonsense of the noble savage. It’s a stupid and toxic belief which has created untold suffering in the lives of Aboriginal people in this country.
When blackfellas beat their wives, it’s because of the ‘Stolen Generations’. When black women ignore and neglect their kids, it’s a ‘cultural practice’. When a horde of shoeless Aboriginal children spend all day running around the hovels their community inhabits, it’s a ‘kinship network’. This is the racism of low expectations that is the result of the leftist elite believing fanatically in the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism.
Have you ever wondered why Aboriginal children dye their hair blonde? I did. Whenever you see one of those horrid outback communities in an ABC segment in which they are praising some march or some protest somewhere, the kids have blonde streaks.
It’s not hair dye. It’s because they’re malnourished. Why don’t the journalists ever ask questions about that?
Why do urban Aborigines receive scholarships and government funding out the wazzoo? Did they have some land taken from them? Are they considered intellectually deficient? I would be offended if the Marxist bureaucrats who run our country decided I was so stupid or incompetent that I needed special government grants just to get anywhere. It would cheapen any sense of achievement I could have if I did succeed.
One of the main reasons, however, that we cannot criticise the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism is that there is an entire class of professional parasites who rely upon this myth for their careers and their social status. It’s a rockin’ gravy train baby; all you need to do is just not say anything true about Aboriginal people. If you happen to be Aboriginal, and even better a woman or transgender or something even weirder, you’re going places. You could be the CEO of an allied health initiative or a consultant for an advisory body working for the improvement of Aboriginal educational outcomes. Just don’t rock the boat by not lying and you’ll be fine.
The real victims of all this intellectual dishonesty by the leftist elites are the Aboriginal children who are forced to grow up crushed between a Stone Age culture which has died and a postmodern culture which treats them like ornaments of its own righteousness. Until the 1960s, things were getting slowly better for Aboriginal people. They were being integrated into the mainstream culture, educated at boarding schools and adopted by Australian families. Of course there was prejudice; that’s life. Try being Irish 200 years ago. But at least there was hope for these people that they could join the rest of humanity in enjoying the fruits of modernity and contributing to the advancement of civilisation.
Since the Cultural Marxists took over, however, and began preaching the myth of Aboriginal exceptionalism in every school and university in the country, things have gone backwards. It’s horrible out there. The police, health workers and educators who are not brainwashed Marxists can’t say anything about what they encounter for fear of professional reprisals. Everything becomes an ideological struggle for the Marxists who profiteer upon the suffering of the natives. These are the people who are condemning Aboriginal children to lives of hopelessness, dysfunction and despair.
Perhaps Freo should crack open that prison again and put the Cultural Marxists inside for a while. Then the rest of us can celebrate Australia Day together and get to work bringing Aboriginal Australians back into the civilisation they deserve to be a part of.”
https://www.xyz.net.au/myth-aboriginal-exceptionalism/
Ryan Faulk at The Alternative Hypothesis created a good vid on colonialism and he’s got a lot of other good vids and articles, although I’m completely opposed to his stance on evolution. He has had some debates with MGTOWs who were blue-pilled on race and schooled them, although I noticed he could learn a lot from MGTOWs on gender dynamics:
Fucktard, there weren’t 100 million natives in NORTH America, that is including all of the Americas. The Aztecs and Incas were not hunter gatherers. Even if that WAS an exaggerated estimate, it was far less exaggerated than capitalism’s favorite myth, the Holohoax. WNs should promote it (as well as the millions killed by US imperialism during the Cold War) to undermine the uniqueness of Jewish “sufferink”. It should be noted that many “white” colonialists and slave traders were really Jews, or Jewish agents like Cecil Rhodes.
What I reject is “collective guilt” of Whites for colonialism. The only Whites who were guilty were the 1% capitalist class who also oppressed the White workers and poor just as much as they oppressed the peoples of Africa or India. White workers should not be punished with mass immigration as “atonement” for colonialism, the Jews and Masonic capitalists should be punished with Gulags.
I believe in White separatism, although the concept of “White” doesn’t mean much in Europe and I think that European nations should have their own ethnic nationalism. I fully support the smashing of the “United Kingdom” and the liberation of all of its captive nations under Marxism-Leninism, for instance. There should be non-Whites living permanently in Europe. I am not anti-White just because I believe that rich Whites have oppressed people of other nations and that there is no excuse for Jewish-style capitalist thievery. All the Antifa I have discussed my views with consider me “Nazi scum”.
Douche bag, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it numerous times: You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You Marxist clowns better seriously start getting your demented stories straight. Here’s a site dedicated to Stalin, Marx, and other commies and tell me what you see here:
“GENOCIDE AND DENYING IT: WHY WE ARE NOT TAUGHT THAT THE NATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA WERE EXTERMINATED
Death Toll: 95,000,000 to 114,000,000
American Holocaust: D. Stannard (Oxford Press, 1992) – “over 100 million killed” “[Christopher] Columbus personally murdered half a million Natives””
And notice the site’s degradation of Holyhaux denial:
“Among the contemporary Holocaust deniers is also Gary North, who in his Political Polytheism (1989, pp. 257-258) asserts:
Liberals have adopted the phrase “native Americans” in recent years. They never, ever say “American natives,” since this is only one step away from “American savages,” which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, land-polluting people were. This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: “the stealing of Indian lands”. That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the most pertinent question:
Was the advent of the Europeans in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians?”
https://espressostalinist.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/
OR, are you telling me Marxists/commies collectively think the official story of the “Holocaust” is a “joke” too?
That is not referring to the alleged Jewish “Holocaust”. Gary North is a Jew-worshipping Christian Zionist nutcase who thinks that Native Americans deserved to be killed for not praying to his Semitic universalist (((god))). He likely believes the same about all of the Nords and Celts murdered by the Xtian psychos and the millions of Aryan witches murdered by the (((Christian patriarchy))) in the Middle Ages. Christianity is the most deranged and evil death cult in human history and has done far more to destroy the uniqueness of tribal peoples of all races; along with race-mixing, it also promotes White genocide through the mass murder of White pagans.
The only historical anti-white propaganda would be that of the Holohoax, right? All the rest regarding “evil whites” is “true”, right? Whether it be da ‘native genocide’, slavery/colonialism/racism being “white thangs”, or even how “evil and oppressive” white males were to da downtrodden white females, right?
Regarding da natives, this is much more like it. Excerpt:
“So the average of this quick and dirty sample I found from the first three sources that gave specific numbers I could find using google search averages to 0.387 per km2. The lower 48 United States has a land mass of 8.139 million km2, and so just dumb mapping the average of these population onto the United States gives us 3.149 million people in the pre-columbian area that would become the United States. Canada has always had about 10% of the population of the United States, so that gives us 3.464 million, throw in Alaska and we can round it out to 3.5 million.
There are also multiple sources I have found claiming that the global average population density for hunter-gatherers is 0.1 per km2. Okay, cool. Now since that is a global average, it doesn’t make sense to map it onto the US, and then give Canada 10% of that, because the global average includes places like Canada. So the land mass of Alaska, Canada and the United States is 19.842 million km2, and if there were 0.1 people per km2 in 1500, that would give us 1.9842 million people in all of North America.
So we now have a few estimates for the population of North America in 1500:
Method Estimate
Milner and Chaplin 1.595 million
Ubelaker (Just United States) 1.894 million
Dumb mapping of Ryan’s searches ~3.5 million
Dumb mapping of global hunter-gatherer density 1.9842 million
Numbers higher than this are usually politically motivated. Russel Thornton’s book “American Indian holocaust and survival: a population history since 1492” estimates the pre-columbian population of North America at 7 million, and that’s in a non-free book so I can’t see it. Another estimate of 18 million comes from Henry Dobyns, again in a non-free book entitled “Their Number Become Thinned”.
Remember the population of the United States was 17.069 million in 1840, so Dobyns’ estimate of 18 million Siberian-Americans in 1500, which would entail about 16 million in the United States, who left behind extremely sparse remnants, is implausible on it’s face.
So there we have our Siberian-American population in North America in 1500, around 2 million. So how much did it decline?
Population Decline
Well the first government estimates of “Indians” in the United states was in 1853, and it estimated 400,764 Indians in the United States that year.
Now this supposedly fell to 339,421 in 1860, to 313,712 in 1870 and 306,543 in 1880.
So if the starting number is exactly 2 million, then by 1853 the Siberian-American population declined by 1.6 million, then to around 1.7 million by 1880.
So that comes out to around an 80% population decline. That’s pretty gigantic! But remember this was over 360 years, or about 4,444 per year. This amounts to a population reduction of 0.22% per year. (Although since this is the drop from the starting population the average decline at each point should be 0.495%).
And also remember that hunter-gatherer populations don’t grow very fast; the average population growth for hunter-gatherer populations, once it reaches the carrying capacity of the area they are in, is basically zero.
So how can a population fall by 0.22% per year? Well it can literally die off, or have below-replacement birth rates, or intermarry.
There are two things I want to point the reader to:
1. Intermarriage rates of native americans and native admixture in the United States
In 2014, there were 197,870,516 non-hispanic whites. On average, NH Whites have 0.18% Native American admixture, which extrapolates to the equivalent of 356,167 full people “inside” the European population.
For blacks, there were 38,929,319 people, who were 0.08% Native American, which amounts to 31,143 Native Americans “inside” the black US population.
Now “latinos” in the United States have the highest Native American admixture at 18%, but that is probably not from North America. For what it’s worth, there were 50,477,594 latinos, and in this population are the equivalent of 9,085,967 Native Americans “inside” the latino population.
And of course people who directly identify as Native American number 2,932,248 people in 2014.
So ultimately, the European conquest of North America seems to have increased the Native American genetic expression from the 2 million it was at, and probably had been at for the past ~10,000 years (see below) and thus there is no reason to believe it would have increased eventually in the absence of European contact. And while there were a few massacres of Native Americans, an annual average population decline of 0.22% does not suggest an ongoing campaign of genocide. It suggests land loss partly offset by European technology, intermarriage with Europeans, and a few battles with the Federal Government each decade.”
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/06/02/the-non-genocide-of-northern-native-americans/
No consensus exists on how many natives were living in America, but let’s just throw out a number of a hundred million and the fools will believe it, right Jijcf?
“No consensus exists on how many people lived in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans, but extensive research continues to be conducted.[52][53] Estimates range from 2.1 million to 18 million people living on the north American continent prior to European colonization.[54]”
“The number of Indians dropped to below half a million in the 19th century because of infectious diseases, conflict with Europeans, wars between tribes, assimilation, migration to Canada and Mexico, and declining birth rates. It was popularly believed and widely claimed for many years that the main cause was infectious diseases carried by European explorers and traders.[55][56]”
“In the same 1894 report, the Census Bureau debunked the claim that millions of Indians once inhabited the United States, arguing that North America in 1492 was an almost empty continent and that Indian populations “could not have exceeded much over 500,000.”[58][59]”
Whatever the precise number was, it was nowhere in the ball park of even being CLOSE to 100 million:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars