Many leftist Americans absolutely love to hate “hate.” This learned-stupidity, on its own, would be awkward, goofy, and hypocritical enough. Yet the loser leftist level launches ever higher, since leftist idiot-Americans define “hate” in a loose, lazy lockstep with whatever irrational, groundless, self-serving pseudo-standard spews, moment to moment, from hate-filled losers at the SPLC (Southern Poverty L’Fraud Center), the ADL (Always Defaming League), the effeminate Zionist mama’s boys of mainstream media, man-hating cotton-crammed she-politicians, any random non-white social-pet marketed on TV, etc.
According to the leftist losers, one way to hate is by failing to sufficiently pity and admire the plight of the noble “native American.” The underlying lazy leftist logic is that enough savage-pitying counts as reparations for the leftists’ part in receiving and enjoying the stolen property that passed from the loser red man to the winner white man.
Meanwhile, leftists’ relationship with reds is typically as shallow, political, and empty as their relationship with blacks. Typically, the only blacks whom a leftist (especially a black one) knows or wants to know—is an MLK or Obama type: a politically curated, hyper-articulate, white-trained shell of a black person, whose empty, effeminate, self-righteous whimperings help the leftist loser to feel safe in their hatred of the “racism” form of hate (i.e. hatred of mythical white-on-black racism, not hatred of manifest black-on-white racism, which white leftist losers, through their black leftist loser pets, simply and groundlessly say is not racism).
Likewise, while tripping over countless black victims of black violence, the leftist losers learn also of a magical “native American”—who was and is good at everything, bad about nothing, and definitely never a pitiful drunk or savage cannibal. And leftists’ addiction to ignoring and hiding black-on-black savagery—that same addiction helps leftists to ignore and hide savage-on-savage savagery.
After all, if we “gave the natives back their lands”—as plenty leftists hint or howl from their mansions on occupied land—then who would get the land?
Well that would require a powerfully politically-correct analysis to figure out which of the warring tribes owned a given tract of land right before whites: politically correct because analysis would, we should assume, conveniently and completely ignore that the white-conquered savages had their land to lose only because the savages conquered other savages and stole the land from them.
Such are the myths of a noble “native American”: what leftists peddle is red perfection; while what we see is a bunch of self-righteous, drunk, suicidal, sanctimonious, failing beggars—mentally addicted to pity and economically dependent on the privilege of operating little, lazy mini-monopolies of gambling, as allowed by their white conquerors.
And if you ever wanted to know the obvious truth about the laughable myths of righteousness and harmony among these drunken, suicidal beggar scavenger savage hypocrites—just look into the history of any time a given tribe applied for the privilege of running a greed-oasis “casino”—and you will see that the biggest opposition to the approval of that privilege: was a nearby tribe of drunken beggars—trying to prevent the competing tribe from getting a privilege that would eat into the other savages’ casino profits.