Our home ON native land

[Terrible_E]

I am not actually making an argument – I’m simply trying to understand the people who make these claims. From my perspective, they are motivated by self-hatred and tangled up in delusion.

It’s disappointing that so many have been brainwashed and PTSD’d from all the propaganda. They falsely lay real crimes of the late British Empire (which was not Catholic) at the foot of the Catholic Church. They reflexively blame a monolith of “white people” for all the evils of the world, and they get suckered into allowing ridiculous guilt tax to go on unquestioned. This has led to horrible things like CRT in schools and the re-emergence of segregation (non-white safe spaces for students, etc.)

It’s the same with feminism blaming men for all the problems in the world.

It’s a shallow, historically illiterate and completely absurd worldview that deserves to be probed and questioned.

You claim people are ignorant of the history here. Would you like to etch out your argument regarding this?

There is nothing neutral in the world. It’s a constant battle of ideas, some being better than others. Presenting the case that European settlers were all inherently evil and had nothing but a burning desire to carry out genocide against a completely innocent and peaceful group is in itself very extreme, hateful, racist and completely untrue. It’s the same spirit that possess those in our modern era who demand we all just do “politically neutral” things like kneel for BLM, denounce our privilege, mutilate our children and skate around for warm-up with a giant pride flag on our jerseys. The idea that these things are somehow politically neutral is hilarious. They are in fact acts of worship for the new religion of secular liberalism.


If you don't care to elaborate, then let’s bring the thread back on track regarding the OP’s simple observation, which was, as far as I can tell: why do these people (woke leftists) just get to change our anthem because they feel like it?

That is a very good question.

I was not trying to single any one person out as an example mearly making an observation about the quality of ideas and arguments being presented.

I agree let's get back on to the topic though. Let's even use one of the arguments presented by someone who was not in favorite of the artistic license taken by the singer. I asked why one group of people get to lay claim to any one peice of land and one of the answers was (I am paraphrasing) they took and and held it; which can be defined easily as "might has right".

How does this apply to this situation? Well this person took a seed of a natural talent and forged it into skill that allowed them to be put front and center above their colleges. In essence they displayed the "might" needed to beat out the other applicants. Do they then not right the right to employ their artist license? Might makes right after all.

This is was artists do, they take artistic license with the art they are performing/making and then it drives discussion. So mission accomplished on their part eh!