Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

So are they better off as slaves making white countries richer than living in Liberia africa where they aren't intelligent enough to have a life span of more than 20 years?

 

The simple fact is that European medicine nearly doubled the life expectancy in colonized Africa.

But I agree with you, we should have left Africans to their own devices. Most leftists would agree with me, no?

 

Yes but why would rich white countries exploit their own people for labor when they can outsource it to other races like asians, hispanics, and blacks since that shows more love for their race?

 

In most cases the blacks were glad of the labor. Sure in some cases there was slavery, but in most cases they were paid more than they could make themselves. That's why the Bantu fought to get into South Africa. But then of course they wanted more and more, and combined with international Marxist propaganda, took the country.

 

Agreed if they were being fed and housed as slaves that gave them a longer life expectancy than in their own countries where they didn't know how to survive for a very long time on their own.

The Jewish sponsored marxist propaganda is whats making white nations poorer, the only way to preserve white wealth is to find ways in exploiting the asians, hispanics, and blacks into doing the lower intellectual work so that the whites can lead them with their advanced intellect and continue in prosperity.

Is it still possible at least in the long term to keep white countries rich or will some whites betray their own kind ?

 

White countries aren't actually rich because of "oppression". It's their own indigenous industry that does it. All they need to do is maintain their borders like every other country. There is no need to "exploit" anybody.

 

But someone with advanced intellect has to lead at the top, would whites really put their own kind at the bottom to do the work of the lower classes? White countries seem to be wealthy because they were and are able to capitalize on and leverage the labors of the other lower intellectual brown and black countries...

While I agree that its certainly possible to exist on their own its not as efficient, that is why the soviet union under Stalin failed because they didn't like being exploited by their own people under communism. Capitalism provides a better avenue to white wealth creation because it allows for the exploitation of other races which is a better expression of white ingenuity and has thus far kept the US ahead of other white nations.

 

There are plenty of low ability white people who need simple jobs. It's a myth that white countries are wealthy off the back of brown labour. All of the industry was built and run by white people. And it's better to have an intelligent flexible workforce than a load of morons that can barely clean a toilet.

Intelligent people can and do clean toilets and carry bricks. Morons can't design nuclear power stations.

 

Why should an intelligent white be reduced to cleaning a toilet when it can be done by a lower intellect brown? The reason why white capitalist countries do better than white national socialist countries is because they put more efficient order into the social heirchy.

An intelligent white who isn't cleaning toilets is working in a nuclear power station

 

They won't be. There are plenty of low intellect whites to do it. And when you factor in the long term costs it doesn't work out. Populations vary around their average. A high IQ population has a range, and tasks can be assigned along the range. In general a high IQ population is more successful than a low IQ one. Undercutting the working class with foreigners that are prepared to accept lower standards has severe long term implications for society. A race to the bottom.

In addition low IQ groups bring a number of social costs such as crime.

 

Nations fail because “those who have power make choices that create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake or ignorance but on purpose.” For the brutal few, hanging on to power and wealth outweighs all else.

http://whynationsfail.com/

 

Undercutting working class with foreigners forces high IQ whites to reach their potential, meaning they are still responsible for making themselves relevant and they will find a way to make themselves useful and contribute to society at a higher level than remaining at the bottom.

In white capitalism as opposed to white national socialism there are no social costs for the low IQ browns and blacks if they don't want to work they are put in for profit prisons or starved and left to die out because there is no welfare....

You see my friend if you want to really build or protect the white race you have to start from a capitalist point of view not national socialism, because that is what really makes white countries rich from pure and utter racism.

 

Undercutting the working class saves employers a few dollars for one generation, then results in a lower IQ population. In addition low IQ whites have their livelihoods taken away. High IQ whites will reach their potential either way.

Blind capitalism will not protect the white race since many low IQ whites will have their livelihoods destroyed by cheap foreign labour. National socialism is the only way to protect white nations. Blind greedy corporate capitalism will destroy them.

National socialism does not imply "oppression" of other races. They can do what they do, and white nations can trade fairly with them.

After all whites abolished slavery first and most whites support that. You seem to advocate slavery.

 

In capitalism whites remain in power at the top, even as the population expands the higher IQ whites breed within their own kind and maintain supremacy of the minions of low IQ brown and black bottoms.

Low IQ whites are still of higher intellect than high IQ brown and blacks so they will always have a highly skilled job at the luxury of the inferior races.

National socialism does not promote the same type of competition among whites because if half of the white race is cleaning toilets then that leaves less whites to compete with each other and evolve the white race.

If slavery were used without Jewish marxist propaganda infiltrating capitalism then white countries would have more security in protecting their wealth. National socialism does not preserve wealth because white countries war with each other for dominance and capitalist whites were proven to be superior to socialist whites in the past world war.

 

Did it ever occur to you that whites don't want to remain "in power at the top" of a massed brown slave class in their own homeland? That they don't want to see their own countrymen have their livelihoods destroyed?

There is only so much space in lands and white nations are full enough. Any analysis will show that importing low IQ cheap labour will have a negative long term effect. All know this and it is only international Marxist parties (such as UK labour) that do this so they can get more votes. They know it damages the nation. They are sick people.

And again most white people do not want slavery.

 

We're really stretching with generalizations here. I don't think that it's so much the skin color that determines one's ability to dominate, as it is one's ability to utilize resources.

IE: The US is made up of all kinds of races & those in government & government-related corporations, have exploited many nations, but made it look like they were "doing them a favor" by bribing their leaders into infated loans & then when they weren't able to repay, helping themeselves to the country's natural resources. Only the Native Americans is it so obvious because they are here, but the story of those on the other side of the world is carefully filtered through the media.

 

There you go.

 

"Most whites don't want that" isn't a generalization. Of course, the wealthy capiatalist/corporate class may want that.

 

Finally one of them admits that "browns" and "blacks" actually do have lower IQs' than whites

Say what? It's not a zero sum proposition.

What?..we should go back to slavery?..or get rid of jewish propaganda?..What is your point here?

All countries "war with each other"..black, brown, white, arab..etc...

Yes..we've always known capitalism trumps socialism/communism...history proves that again and again.

 

This post is such laughable drivel. But then such views are not held sincerely by any intelligent people: they are articulated by such intelligent people to deceive the gullible morons who keep them rich and in power. Elites are not usually racist, they just use racism to divide those who would challenge their power. This is the case now with the Tea Party and the extreme Right in the USA, a movement based on economic ignorance and xenophobia. It is financed by smart billionnaires whose wealth is built on globalized international capital, to cajole some very stupid self proclaimed "ordinary" people to wallow in sheer ignorance and nonsense like the above.

It is true that this is the perspective shared by the lowest white trash lumpenproletariat in America. It is interesting to think on the lobotimized morons who swallow such crudely crafted deception. Presumably the author supposes that we too are such lobotomized morons ready to swallow such infantilism or he would not write such garbage. My favourite bit is the "international Marxist" Labour Party of the UK. It just a hoot to think fo George W Bush's ally, Tony Blair, who led the "international Marxist" Labour Party for over a decade, as an international Marxist. I suppose Tony "Uncle Joe" Blair sent British Royal Marines and Paratroopers into Basra with copies of the Communist Manifesto in their backpacks?

It is a pity that so much white trash in America swallow this garbage without contemplating that they haven't the slightest understanding of the meaning of the words "international" (probably never left their county, let alone their State), or "Marxist" (this is the same as speaking French isn't it?).

 

Don't think this threads question deserves much discussion. But to answer the question of why some Countries are richer, I would say it is based on their Climate, Education and success of their Government in providing a productive environment for businesses and the like.

 

You have not countered anything I said and your comment boils down to "u r stupid".

Is your argument "that is wrong because I am more intelligent"?

Somewhat ironic.

 

I'm sorry, does my argument mimic yours too much for your comfort? My words were clearly aimed at what you posted. I am uninterested in your mental capabilities, only the ideas (to be generous) that you put down here.

Any statement that the UK Labour Party is "international Marxist" is suitable to be met only with howls of derision. It is pointless to have a discussion challenging a statement that clearly shows not the slightest insight into the party that governed the UK for a decade this century, nor the meaning of the words "international" and "Marxist".

Flat Earthers don't like it when people laugh at their views either! But is it really appropriate to patiently explain how the world is round to someone who can't quite understand why the water just doesn't fall off a sphere?

It nicely goes with the hate stuff against "brown people" (I know, aren't the profanity filters annoying when they don't let you say what you really want to say?!), demonstrating nicely the relationship between ignorance and prejudice.

 

You don't have an argument. I made some statements and in about 500 words you responded with "u r stupid".

The British Labour party advocates Marxist policies, such as wealth transference to the indolent. They also advocate de facto open border policies (undercutting British labour, ironic?) making them internationalist in effect.

It's really not complicated and doesn't necessitate precise technical definitions.

Your argument is this: "u r stupid and ignrant and you don't know the meanings of words and u hate brown people".

That is an utterly pathetic ad hominem argument which negates nothing I have said.

A valid argument would be to define Marxist and Internationalist and demonstrate that it doesn't apply to the British Labour party.

 

You may be these things but I didn't say this. To say I did is a lie.

You prove my point. This has nothing to do with Marxism and you have failed to show how. On this basis the GOP is a Marxist Party, which of course, it is not. It supports Medicaid and Medicare, which transfer wealth to the indolent.

In fact the slightest appreciation of Marxism would show it to be bitterly opposed to transferring wealth to the indolent. Marx was strongly against able bodied people not working and being rewarded. He saw indolence mainly (but not exclusively) in the rich. Marxism defines capitalists and the earnings on capital (as opposed to wages, which are an entirely different thing), as transference of wealth to the indolent, which of course it is, being money given to people purely for investing, which they can easily do from their armchairs.

I am a supporter of capitalism by the way. Brain scrambled yet with the complexity of ideas over the mindnumbing tediousness of slogans and mantras?

It helps when you oppose something, to have sought to understand it first. Ignorance is never the way.

More utter drivel! They, like the US GOP, advocate controlled immigration. They accept the free movement of labour within the EU which makes them internationalist to an extent. That would be "international capitalist" though, supporting the allocation of labour by the market and not by some nationalist prejudice or government dictat.

Lazy indeed. I have actually read some Marx. You? I define Marxism as an idea that has been written down by Marx and that isn't widely shared by people of vastly dissimilar views (so if Marx says the sky is blue, that isn't Marxism, but if Marx says that capitalism is a progressive form of society compared to feudalism, which he did, then that can be described as a Marxist analysis). I think that's reasonable. You led with the description that the Labour Party was Marxist. You say what you mean. Which bit of what Marx espoused is at the core of the Labour Party, a political party which upholds the right to private property and the free movement of capital? Your first attempt at defining this was a miserable failure.

Clearly you mean that the UK Labour Party is internationalist and Marxist in the same way the US Republican Party is internationalist and Marxist. That is, quite internationalist (both support global capitalism, as do I) and not very Marxist at all.

If you wish to avoid your ideas being ridiculed it is you who will have to show that the nonsense you write is based on substance. So far, we have seen none.