Everything EXC says is a lie. He doesn't even know what racism is. A hint: religion is irrelevant to race. A second hint: an uncontacted or limited contact tribe has no perception of racism. It's about tribes for them, not race.

Everything EXC says is a lie. EXC is a retard who thinks white people are being exterminated.

The fucking idiot was screaming his religion at them, so yes.

Everything EXC says is a lie.

Every one of which is better than EXC.

Everything EXC says is a lie.

EXC has been indoctrinated to say nothing but lies.

Everything EXC says is a lie. They aren't an uncontacted tribe and religion always tries to invade the way this idiot did. They almost certainly have cultural memories of similar situations.
A stranger shows up on your island yelling at you and you're not going to be interested in trying to communicate.

Everything EXC says is a lie. There was technology in Star Trek that translated languages.

Everything EXC says is a lie. I am and always have been against attempts by religions to force their ridiculous beliefs on others. Every cultist who attempts it and dies instead of succeeding is a victory for humanity. But EXC's indoctrination is complete and he's incapable of saying more than a sentence without lying.

You have zero evidence of this. Something you pull out of your ass because you can never admit I'm right. The scientists say the opposite. They would have been wiped out by disease if they had been contacted by outsiders in the past.

So if a Central American illegal says a word to any neo-Nazi in America, he can be killed because he doesn't want to be poisoned by their culture? How about killing Islamic women for how they dress because Christian Nationalist doesn't like them bringing their religion to Canada? Why can't this tribe be forced to embrace diversity and inclusion as has been indoctrinated upon you?

You've got this fucking double standard because the Canadian education system and the elites have indoctrinated you. Enjoy being homeless and having your homeland taken over so the rich can have cheap labor and high rents.

Everything EXC says is a lie. There is much documented evidence that the tribe has been contacted. And you have 0 evidence against the probability of religious attempts to convert them historically. You just won't accept it because you can't admit you're a liar and I'm right.

Everything EXC says is a lie.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Indigenous peoples survived worse everywhere. But EXC can't admit I'm right so he has to make shit up.

What? Stay on topic retard. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Stay on topic retard. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Why don't you go there and teach them yourself? The world will be better off without your indoctrinated lies.

Everything EXC says is a lie because he must defend the elitist capitalists due to his indoctrination by them.

Enjoy being murdered by a mob of the poor who got sick of the lies of the rich and their indoctrinated puppets and decided to wipe you scum out.

Show us the evidence of your claim. And why are the scientists that say they are uncontacted  and likely to be kill by disease if they were not to be believe?

You and your indoctrinators have a double standard. It is so wrong for and American Christian to bring his ways to island. But it so right for middle eastern Muslims to come to Canada. That is on topic. It just shows the rich and powerful have indoctrinated you with an irrational belief system. 'Elitist Capitalist' want cheap labor, that have all the workers make going for rent and survival. Boy did they get you to go along with their agenda.

The poor don't have money to buy weapons after they pay the rent. When you are pushed into living in a tent during winter(thanks to overpopulation), I don't think you'll be able to pull off this revolution against the wealthy. The poor get killed the rich get richer by selling weapons to the government.

I'm curious, why are you so fucking angry if Canada is so wonderful? The expats from Canada that I meet tell me high cost of living, taxes, political correctness, SJWs and feminists have turned it into a hellhole for normal working class men. Your extreme anger only proves them right.

Yea, that's it. Cant be the isolation. 

Globally speaking our speices is no different than any other in our history. 

Pets can be a perfect example of the difference of early exposer vs pets running into each other on the streets that are not raised together.

A cat and dog raised together as a puppy and kitten are on average going to get along better over their lives than the odds of a cat and dog whom are of separate households whom aren't raised together.

There is more cooperation in ubran cities and suburbs worldwide vs more isolated rural parts of the world. 

But regardless, this moron needlessly got himself killed not listening to the experts. The worst part is he was selling old mythology to people with their own mythology.

As I stated in a prior post, I would have no excuse for killing this same guy, if he knocked on my door. I am far more aware and connected to the world around me and have more knowledge of it. I might hate religous logic, but I also know I am the same species as those whom make bad claims. 

Show me evidence against my claim. Every time I've provided evidence you ignore it and repeat the same lies I proved were lies. I'm not doing squat for you.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Scientists are claiming no such thing.

Everything EXC says is a lie. No credible scientist has ever claimed belief alone dictates vulnerability to disease. It is nice of EXC to prove he's a theist though.

Says the indoctrinated sociopath.

Everything EXC says is a lie. The christian wasn't invited, that makes him an invader. There is no comparison.

No, it isn't. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Says the sociopath indoctrinated by the rich and powerful.

Says the indoctrinated sociopath approving their agenda to a socialist who couldn't do more to prove his opposition to said agenda. Everything EXC says is a lie.

Hasn't stopped them before, won't stop them this time either. In fact it makes it far more likely.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Being hungry and homeless is the perfect breeding ground for revolution. No one stages revolutions when they are happy and comfortable.

Until the poor get hungry enough and kill the rich.

I don't want to need a revolution to fix everything. There is plenty of opportunity to avoid a revolution if you and the capitalist scum who indoctrinated you are sufficiently marginalized. But if revolution it must be, I won't shed a tear for the capitalists who committed suicide.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Canada's cost of living is roughly equal to the US. I do agree political correctness is a problem and Canada needs to do more to protect free speech. But as things are, Canada is vastly superior to 95% of all nations, the US included.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Things aren't remotely that bad. In fact the US is in worse shape on this front despite your constitution.

Those who staged the English, French and American revolutions were quite comfortable. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any revolution that was NOT staged by people who were extremely wealthy. Arguably, the Haitian revolution was strongly driven by slaves, but Toussaint Louverture, while initially a slave had been freed and actually had become a slave owner by the time the revolution started. The revolution had significant support among men who had already gained their freedom. Without it, it is unlikely the revolts would have succeeded even though slaves outnumbered whites 10 to 1. Successful revolutions are usually started by popular politicians or military leaders who are able to gain significant support but are not quite able to exercise real power in the political system. 

Wars of all kinds are started and conducted by the wealthy and powerful. Violent uprisings without the support of the wealthy and politically powerful generally last fewer than days and rarely are significant enough to be considered anything more than a riot or criminal action. Consider that there was over 250 slave rebellions in the US and all of them were crushed in a matter of days or less. Discontent among a large class might be required for a successful revolution, but in itself, I do not believe it is sufficient.

And it does not necessarily have to be poverty. American colonists were hardly impoverished or uncomfortable, the discontent was manufactured and political. On a practical day to day basis, the average American colonist had better standards of living than the average British citizen. Poor Americans didn't really have that much to be unhappy about, by and large they were not being signficantly impacted by the Crown's actions. It was the relatively wealthy that were being impacted. After the war, I don't think it is fair to say that the average American was better off or even noticed a significant change in their daily lives than before the war.  

Meanwhile, you have areas of the world where extreme poverty exists and there is little to no chance of a significant revolution because the current political power has such an ironfisted control over the political system and the wealthy. People who are extremely poor tend to be more worried about finding food for today than fixing the system.  

The poor are merely the pawns of those seeking change. Of course anyone seeking to overthrow a government is going to appeal to the poor- they are by definition those who have the most reason to be upset about how things are. The poor don't magically disappear at non-revolutionary times. In fact, I'd be willing to be that if demographics could be obtained, the percentage of impoverished 50 years before a revolution is approximately the same as 50 years after a revolution. Post revolution, they generally remain marginalized, and sit there until someone has need to appeal to their anger again in the future. Perhaps one of the more unique things about a democracy is that there is significant motivation to leverage the anger of the poor every 2 years. So you see politicians regularly stoke the anger, but generally not to the point of violence. Whereas historically, as soon as a new monarch was installed the poor were instantly forgotten and once again politically irrelevant until conditions arose that someone thought they could challenge the status quo and started stoking up the anger of the poor. 

The leaders were generally wealthy and powerful- often children of "old money" who grew up never having to work a day in their life. Look at the French revolution Marquis de Lafayette a French aristocrat who spent his time idealizing and went to assist in the American Revolution for the fun of it before returning home to help the revolution there. He easily could have just sat at his inherited estates living a very comfortable (if boring) life. Whenever I read of Marquis de Lafayette, I cannot help but think that his foray into becoming such an influential impact on history was just a rich boy who was bored with life and looking for adventure.

Talleyrand was born to one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Paris. While it is believed they were not particularly wealthy, both his parents held positions in Court. his father and his uncle were both Lieutenant Generals in the army. He went on to become an ordained bishop before joining the revolution. While not the wealthiest, he could have lived a very comfortable life in the Catholic Church with well more than his basic needs taken care of.   

Robespierre was born to an upper middle-class family, raised by his grandparents and was given a top-notch education to become a lawyer and then a politician. As a politician, he was known for his opposition to authority and the death penalty- which is ironic since when he took power he ordered all sorts of executions and purges and imposed extremely strict laws. He is perhaps a classic example of a revolutionary who leveraged the poor and was well known for his concern for the working class, then to do virtually nothing for them once he gained power. Some might say that he did care and then had a mental breakdown that made him completely insane. Then again, maybe he never gave a damn and just saw the opportunity to rise to power. Either way, hero that went insane or crafty populist who went too far- Robespierre could have just stayed out of politics and lived a much longer life working as a lawyer.

Sieyes was born to a family of modest means with some noble blood. He went into a successful career in the Catholic Church which he parlayed into politics. Like Talleyrand, he was not exactly wealthy, but he lived far better than most and didn't want for anything. 

Napoleon was born into Italian nobility. He had a very successful military career and ended up fighting against the Royalists mostly because he wasn't French. He was born and raised in Corsica and he was against the French occupation of Corsica, the revolution was an opportunity. After falling out with Paoli made him and his family flee the island, it was only natural for Napoleon to fight for the rebellion, because they would have him. Once he became a military hero, I think it is pretty obvious that his main motivation for accepting Sieyes' offer to make him leader of the coup was personal ambition. He had a big head, saw an opportunity to become emperor and he seized it. Napoleon easily could have said no and retired a famous general.  

Try naming some leaders of a successful revolution that were poor, that didn't have the option of living a comfortable life and retiring. 

Depends on how you measure "better", there have been countless military coups where people live absolutely miserable lives afterwards. Often, one military coup follows another. 

I would bet the same, but I would also bet that for the first year or two following a revolution the poor are much better off. And I have some recent examples with demographics to back up that bet. The Arab spring is one such example.
Of course the poor don't disappear or become wealthy, that isn't the point. The point is the families with the most money and power are the most likely to be wiped out. A lot of poor families may also be wiped out, but not by being targets.

That may be the intent, but that isn't how it actually works. Else there would be much higher rates of voter participation. In democracy, the rich and poor both are divided between parties. And, in America at least, only the rich have a voice.

No. No leader who has any interest in remaining a leader instantly forgets those who brought them into power, because there's always someone willing to topple the new guy at his most vulnerable point, which is when he's new. They take their time and establish a power base before starting to twist any screws on the poor. Only existential threats would suffice to prevent a revolution following the revolution in a scenario where the poor are immediately forgotten.

There are exceptions to every rule, but in general no rich and comfortable people go around starting revolutions. For every one you name that did, I can name a million who didn't. And I'm being conservative in that claim.

Most often they don't. Most often stability is restored and conditions improve and the military hands power back to a government after a decade or 3. At which point there may be another coup depending on the individuals in charge of that government and what they do.
A coup following a coup is as rare as a rich comfortable person starting revolutions. It just doesn't happen from a statistical perspective.

 Keep dreaming about your socialist messiah. Before that happens, you'll end up living on the streets with you current residence replacing you with immigrants. You don't believe this could ever happen to you, that is what the homeless all say.

The Socialist Messiah will come. He will provide those millions living in tent cities with expesive high tech weapons systems. He will turn them into highly skilled soldiers overnight. You must have faith.

Irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to without the support of the masses which comes when the masses are sufficiently unhappy.

That is not a realistic appraisal. Poor people need only organize to do more than a riot or uprising, and now even poor people can do so cheaply and effectively.

I just said that. Read my statement again. I didn't say rich are on one side and poor are on the other, I said both are DIVIDED.

I said that too. "only the rich have a voice."

And I'll wait for you to point out exactly where I said any revolution was started and seen through by a poor person. I won't hold my breathe because I never said that.

Thailand has the second most powerful country on Earth interfering constantly in everything. Nothing that happens in Thailand is comparable to a historical revolution.

Africa is even worse off than Thailand. It has the top 5+ world powers interfering constantly.

Afghanistan was a pawn of America and the Soviet Union. Yet another non-example of a revolution/coup.

Every one of which driven by the US or the colonial powers, none of which correspond to an actual revolution/coup.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Housing has been improving across Canada all year.

Everything EXC says is a lie. Canada does not have and never has had open borders.

You sound like a Klansman. 

Perhaps you will enjoy this:

Those poor MAGA kids.  Just waiting with the rest of their class to go home on the bus, then they get approached, and harassed by the Black Hebrew Isrelites.  Then they get harassed by an old activist man with a drumb.  Then it gets put up on the internet, and they get death threates, and other harassment by thousands of people.  I hope they win all their anti-defamation lawsuits.