>cat wuz h-AAAAACCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!
  • Welcome. Registering and having your account be approved may take a while since there's only one guy checking and approving accounts and guestposts
  • Boards are being moved around and added. Leave feedback in this thread and let jannies move your threads

Make an introduction section wherein a poster may create one (1) thread. This doubles as an introduction.

Faust

GEGEN DIE ROTE PEST
Joined
Apr 21, 2026
Messages
45
Greetings. As the title suggests I believe that creating such a section which would foster more unity and a way for new users to become acclimated to the soysphere if unaware or perhaps a way to give a little introductory speech, you could also force them to post in the introduction section before they are allowed to do so anywhere else or you may think that the entire feature in itself is redundant and useless which is also a fair opinion but I think it makes it more convenient and gives a way to easily make some friends and discuss about your interests and whatever have you.

I was procuring this forum some days ago and liked it so I decided to join, I have already used many forums in the past and am familiar on a sidenote I was banned on the sharty for my first ever post which apparently is a common thing? same thing used to happen to me on 4chan, I believe I may be cursed or it's the IP or whatever but falsebans are such that I am no stranger to, thoughts?
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the Aztecs didn't have Red 40, Coca Cola or any other goysludge the Mexicans do today.
That's why they lost.
1777050819101.png
 
I said they rotted and died in the past tense and didn't say they were extinct today, and they often live on conditions of poverty so their current situation isn't exactly good even if they managed to survive colonization better than their northern neighbours, don't forget that they weren't genocided and instead intermixed with the spaniards which led to the birth of a race of impulsive and violent goblins
i see..
I don't really buy this, the diet of Aztecs mainly consisted of ingredients modern Mexicans still consume a lot today, and to a degree their cannibalistic behaviours helped, something the spaniards didn't practice and instead opted to stop. Constant sacrifices to keep the sun moving aren't exactly a sign of evolved civilized people, even if they had their achievements in relation to the spaniards
religious practices are signs of evolved civilized people, sacrifices are a part of that. cannibalism was reserved for elites. human flesh wasn't a part of the commoner diet.

those ingredients found in the diets of modern mexicans are tainted with chemicals and other substances (such as european foods) not found in mesoamerican diets.
Keyword, some of them. The general situation and the biggest empire fell to them, and those that didn't fall to the spaniards eventually fell to the subsequent countries of the continent post-independence. If they were civilized, they wouldn't have fallen to the position of beggars and rebels under occupation, but they did, so their entire struggle was pointless.
dire situations, the same occured with the spanish under moorish rule.

you aren't going to be successful under a system that is inherently against you and your people. their resistance and struggles are justified and have meaning. it has nothing to do if whether or not you are civilized.
 
Last edited:
religious practices are signs of evolved civilized people, sacrifices are a part of that.
Death was waged in some way or form for various religions worldwide but the Aztecs were particularly violent about their sacrificial acts, and atleast in most religions, the acts of homicide were against those that were considered heretic and blatantly defying the power of their credence in the world. Aztecs sacrificed captives, slaves and children. They didn't kill for defense but because death was their God, it's still observable today with the syncretism of catholicism and death present in the current day in regions of ex-Spanish rule, even if they don't explicitly show it. They are accomplices in homicide while claiming to appertain to the faith.
Santa Muerte - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Muerte)
cannibalism was reserved for elites. human flesh wasn't a part of the commoner diet.
Correction. The elite AND warriors. The testimonies of the spaniards were in good part about the warriors. Their great statures could have been attributed to the great protein intake obtained from cannibalistic practices in comparison to standard folk diets
dire situations, the same occured with the spanish under moorish rule.
We'll see in 2295 if there is a Second Aztec Empire. Tenochtitlan fell in 1521. The Reconquista took 774 years
Plus, the Christians of Iberia weren't exactly persecuted, they only had to pay special taxes
you aren't going to be successful under a system that is inherently against you and your people. their resistance and struggles are justified and have meaning. it has nothing to do if whether or not you are civilized.
Most indians live in rural settlements and hamlets, so it's out of their own volition to not interact with urban society. The ones that don't do reunite in slums and live horrible lifestyles, the same marauding lifestyle of noobs. Are they really being oppressed?
And yes, their degree of civilization does matter. I wouldn't let inept people take any bit of power if I knew they would run themselves into the floor and affect the non-affiliated people subjugated by them if I did
 
Last edited:
Correction. The elite AND warriors. The testimonies of the spaniards were in good part about the warriors. Their great statures could have been attributed to the great protein intake obtained from cannibalistic practices in comparison to standard folk diets
but the same accounts of the the spanish were also describing the commoners as well, at least in mountainous areas.
We'll see in 2295 if there is a Second Aztec Empire. Tenochtitlan fell in 1521. The Reconquista took 774 years
Plus, the Christians of Iberia weren't exactly persecuted, they only had to pay special taxes
i guess.. i mean mexico (at the time of independence) in a way was to be kind of like a second aztec of sorts, with mexico's previous proposed name being anahuac, to further empathize its pre-hispanic roots. mexico was made solely to reject spanish influence (albeit unsuccessful and even as far as calling for "Death to Gachupines" (spaniards living in mexico) in the cry for independence), in the same way spain rejected moorish influence, even if both were not able to fully reject their colonizer's influence.
Most indians live in rural settlements and hamlets, so it's out of their own volition to not interact with urban society. The ones that don't do reunite in slums and live horrible lifestyles, the same marauding lifestyle of noobs. Are they really being oppressed?
yeah, struggling with and against general mestizos, zambos, and castizo-run cartels with mestizo & harnizo footsoldiers, hence why the zapatistas combat cartel activity and broke off from the mexican government.

indigenous communities are still being oppressed by the mexican government, with the yaqui and tarahumara suffering from cartel violence and water rights from the government.
And yes, their degree of civilization does matter. I wouldn't let inept people take any bit of power if I knew they would run themselves into the floor and affect the non-affiliated people subjugated by them if I did
then why would the spanish adopt, adapt, and exploit political and economic structures that the indigenous used of they were inept? matter of fact, why did europeans in general do this if a the peoples they've subjugated were 'inept'?
 
but the same accounts of the the spanish were also describing the commoners as well, at least in mountainous areas.
Then let's suppose that they were physically better off than the colonizers, how does this affect the modern situation? At one point the descendants of the Europeans surpassed the natives in the height pyramid and I haven't seen anyone say it was only recently. So it could have been before they were forced to consume food riddled with chemicals
A_group_of_Yaqui_Indians_at_the_surrender_and_signing_of_peace_treaty_at_Ortiz%2C_Mexico%2C_ca.1910_%28CHS-2523%29.jpg

>a group of Yaqui Indians at the surrender and signing of peace treaty at Ortiz, Mexico, ca.1910. Two Mexicans stand near three Indians in the foreground.

Something that I haven't said is how were they more affected than Europeans? They became shorter after changing diets, but Europeans have had to change diets too, and they weren't impacted as badly. As civilized people, they couldn't have resorted to eating bisons forever, and the supply of food was equal to everyone, once again they decided to stay in their communities, this is the case for Northern American natives. Those of Mesoamerica and South America didn't do better, and they had more involvement with society than the Northerners
in the same way spain rejected moorish influence, even if both were not able to fully reject their colonizer's influence.
I dare to say Spaniard influence on Mexico is more notable than Arab influence on Spain
struggling with and against general mestizos, zambos, and castizo-run cartels with mestizo & harnizo footsoldiers, hence why the zapatistas combat cartel activity and broke off from the mexican government.
They separated because of communist delusions, Chiapas is currently incredibly poor and with one of the highest indigenous population percentages too, the EZLN controlled territories are not better than the government-controlled ones, and I don't think security rates are any better
List of Mexican states by poverty rate - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_poverty_rate)

This is the same discourse of noob oppression projected onto the indigenous.
then why would the spanish adopt, adapt, and exploit political and economic structures that the indigenous used of they were inept?
About every ancient civilization had economical policies. I guess you're talking about the Mit'a labour system, which on itself was highly similar to corvées (unpaid labour for public infrastructure as a form of tribute), even the Old Egyptians had something similar. It is not something they sacked out of the natives because it had a different name and a different protocol
It is also similar to manorialism with the substitution of lords with a public entity
matter of fact, why did europeans in general do this if a the peoples they've subjugated were 'inept'?
Economical systems stemming from industrial revolution era European thinkers and Roman times are used in the places that matter today, and even in places with no relation to them, thanks to the propagation of them and their effectiveness over other outdated systems
 
Then let's suppose that they were physically better off than the colonizers, how does this affect the modern situation? At one point the descendants of the Europeans surpassed the natives in the height pyramid and I haven't seen anyone say it was only recently. So it could have been before they were forced to consume food riddled with chemicals
A_group_of_Yaqui_Indians_at_the_surrender_and_signing_of_peace_treaty_at_Ortiz%2C_Mexico%2C_ca.1910_%28CHS-2523%29.jpg

>a group of Yaqui Indians at the surrender and signing of peace treaty at Ortiz, Mexico, ca.1910. Two Mexicans stand near three Indians in the foreground.

Something that I haven't said is how were they more affected than Europeans? They became shorter after changing diets, but Europeans have had to change diets too, and they weren't impacted as badly. As civilized people, they couldn't have resorted to eating bisons forever, and the supply of food was equal to everyone, once again they decided to stay in their communities, this is the case for Northern American natives. Those of Mesoamerica and South America didn't do better, and they had more involvement with society than the Northerners
malnutrition also plays a part.
They separated because of communist delusions, Chiapas is currently incredibly poor and with one of the highest indigenous population percentages too, the EZLN controlled territories are not better than the government-controlled ones, and I don't think security rates are any better
List of Mexican states by poverty rate - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_poverty_rate)
economically no, as with all communist/socialist areas, but it has more civil liberties and better healthcare and education. they face poverty since they don't have much to work with, as well as security threats from cartels and paramilitaries.
This is the same discourse of noob oppression projected onto the indigenous.
i don't think the plight of the indigenous for land and autonomy is the same for africans, at least the africans in the americas.
About every ancient civilization had economical policies. I guess you're talking about the Mit'a labour system, which on itself was highly similar to corvées (unpaid labour for public infrastructure as a form of tribute), even the Old Egyptians had something similar. It is not something they sacked out of the natives because it had a different name and a different protocol
It is also similar to manorialism with the substitution of lords with a public entity
i was moreso referring to the adoption of aztec governance of using local rulers, albeit it was slowly dismantled over time of spain's rule for more direct rule.
Economical systems stemming from industrial revolution era European thinkers and Roman times are used in the places that matter today, and even in places with no relation to them, thanks to the propagation of them and their effectiveness over other outdated systems
and of their political systems, as with the united states' government and it's political structure, as well as constitution being based from and inspired by the haudenosaunee?
 
i don't think the plight of the indigenous for land and autonomy is the same for africans, at least the africans in the americas.
A plight for freedoms they haven't shown they must get with violent counterattacks if the ruling forces reasonably deny them
i was moreso referring to the adoption of aztec governance of using local rulers, albeit it was slowly dismantled over time of spain's rule for more direct rule.
I believe that's called adapt & overcome, as you said it was dismantled over time and replaced with systems designed by Europeans, it became obsolete after the Aztecs' fall from dominance in the region
and of their political systems, as with the united states' government and it's political structure, as well as constitution being based from and inspired by the haudenosaunee?
You think out of the multiple sources of inspiration for the American Constitution hailing from European philosophers and ideas, the Iroquois code that was written 6 centuries before that currently utilized was the main inspiration for the document?
The fact that Iroquois law influenced American law on itself is very doubtful, the only contenders for the theory of influence are similarities of libertarian thought between the two constitutions, but beyond that there is little or unclear evidence to prove they had a significant impact on its creation. The Constitution was inspired by Enlightenment philosophers and existing English systems. Iroquois law worked with the word of specific clans and ethnic groups, and it favored consensus over majority law. The American Constitution didn't let women have rights to elect, unlike the Iroquois that allowed male chiefs into power by the decision of their female relatives
but it has more civil liberties and better healthcare and education.
Civil liberties? As in giving women rights? I don't think that's a sign of progress
They have no place in the army or in male-dominated spaces, and they also supported LGBTQ rights, so that's another sign of regression
Healthcare is doubtful, although the reports say that they have been performing well in comparison to government populations, the fallacy of good healthcare in communist regimes is still present, and its universality becomes irrelevant when the best service they can offer you is mud over your wound, if they're poor then how can they afford proper treatment?
I don't really think they have an outstanding educational system either, there is no good education in that region, and I doubt indigenous rebels are raising engineers and doctors (they've said that they're giving women the chance for these, kek), I've also seen that they use "democratic education", which involves passing students depending on an unmeasured method of qualification rather than using grades, and as I said, I wager that they're not being exemplary about it
 
A plight for freedoms they haven't shown they must get with violent counterattacks if the ruling forces reasonably deny them
except that they have shown those freedoms they want to obtain, before european contact and with the various european powers in north american, and even in some parts of central and south american colonial times initially treating them as truly sovereign entities, with their own government, land and such in article I, section 8, clause 3 of the united states constitution, the indian commerce clause.

same with the british in north america, with the royal proclamation of 1763, and the french in new france (despite there not being written laws from france, aside from the great peace of montréal, signed on august 4, 1701, by louis-hector de callière).

although these proclamations/treaties were declared by, and agreed upon both indigenous tribes and european powers (excluding the spanish and portuguese, except for certain cases), these were often disregarded, abolished, or broken by europeans, and their successor nations for more land and resources, disregarding indigenous sovereignty and persecution/discrimination of indigenous peoples. not very reasonable if i say so myself.

and despite being absorbed into the united states, and the independent nations of the americas, the indigenous have fought, and are still fighting for full autonomy and land rights.
You think out of the multiple sources of inspiration for the American Constitution hailing from European philosophers and ideas, the Iroquois code that was written 6 centuries before that currently utilized was the main inspiration for the document?
The fact that Iroquois law influenced American law on itself is very doubtful, the only contenders for the theory of influence are similarities of libertarian thought between the two constitutions, but beyond that there is little or unclear evidence to prove they had a significant impact on its creation. The Constitution was inspired by Enlightenment philosophers and existing English systems. Iroquois law worked with the word of specific clans and ethnic groups, and it favored consensus over majority law. The American Constitution didn't let women have rights to elect, unlike the Iroquois that allowed male chiefs into power by the decision of their female relatives
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Constitution | In Custodia Legis (https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20Senate%20recognized%20the%20influence,the%20bicameral%20Congress%20is%20similar).

https://share.google/vulsNIa7DGOTK7w91

while i did state that the constitution, and political structure was inspired by the haudenosaunee, i did not say it was the main inspiration, even if there are uncanny parallels.

the united states congress passed H.Con.Res.331 (and its senate counterpart S.Con.Res.76) in 1988, recognizing the "Iroquois Confederacy" (haudenosaunee) for their influence on the united states constitution and the "Great Law of Peace" (kayanerehkówa).
Civil liberties? As in giving women rights? I don't think that's a sign of progress
They have no place in the army or in male-dominated spaces, and they also supported LGBTQ rights, so that's another sign of regression
it fits the definition of progress. it's a socialist government, which inherently seems to replace conservative policies for more progressive ones.
Healthcare is doubtful, although the reports say that they have been performing well in comparison to government populations, the fallacy of good healthcare in communist regimes is still present, and its universality becomes irrelevant when the best service they can offer you is mud over your wound, if they're poor then how can they afford proper treatment?
i guess? but that alone says more about mexico's (lacking) healthcare than anything.

a government which utilizes 'mud over your wound' treatments on its citizens, and said citizens fare better than your own, despite you having access to more sophisticated medical equipment to use on your citizens. imagine that...
I don't really think they have an outstanding educational system either, there is no good education in that region, and I doubt indigenous rebels are raising engineers and doctors (they've said that they're giving women the chance for these, kek), I've also seen that they use "democratic education", which involves passing students depending on an unmeasured method of qualification rather than using grades, and as I said, I wager that they're not being exemplary about it
mexico's education was, and is still criticized for its poor quality, especially in indigenous areas, even before the zapatistas were formed. the education in zapatista territories has practically no funding from, and is not formally recognized by the mexican government.
 
Back
Top Bottom