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

The British Labour party advocate a large state which seizes individual wealth (whether that was earned through labor or not) and distributes it to those who make little or no contribution. That is simply a Marxist system, more so than any other party.

The labour party of course pay lip service to immigration control and private property to get more votes, but they always push in the direction of Communism.

They tend towards Communism and thus can be considered a Communist party.

 

you ask. If I were to take a stab at this question, I would bring up, colonialism, greed, skullduggery, formidable military (Beast of Sea and Beast of Earth). Couple this with a systematic endeavor called White Supremacy, which is a worldwide system maintained by international organizations such as the U.N., I.M.F. and World Bank, to name a few, you have a combination of death, Hell, pestilence and disease (both physical and moral).

 

Sounds kind of like the Ottoman empire and the Islamic wars of conquest to Cordoba. Except for the formidable military that is.

The real reason white countries are rich is a high IQ population, low corruption, and a modern secular state.

Not that I would ever expect you to admit that.

 

Well, he had best not admit it, because it is hogwash.

Europeans dominate because they had control of the trade routes on the Mediterranian and a good food supply. This enabled them to steal everything of value fromm other countries all around the world.

You should have stayed awake in your World History class.

 

LMAO. So what exactly did Europeans steal? Please list precisely.

How did Europeans manage to dominate before they "stole"?

Are you sure it wasn't because of the genius of the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, built on European coal, steel and labor?

 

Gold, ivory, people, spices, whatever they could.

Knocking each other in the head until one gang of head-knockers rose to dominate.

No. African slaves still produced a lot of it. Also, the British were very good at stealing raw materials and food from other countries.

 

Can you quantify these items and show they were a major factor in the development of Western military power?

If you can't (I know you can't) we'll have to consider it to be a lie.

Are you saying that the U.S. Marines in the first Barbary War "knocked people in the head"?

Your knowledge of military history is laughable. The fact is that they had vastly superior military technology developed entirely with indigenous brain power and materials.

African slaves produced nothing that contributed to the industrialization of Europe. This is a brazen lie.

 

The procedes from the sale of the swag financed industrialization. DERP!

They had weapons and training to do a pretty good job of it.

Horse feathers. They had the advantage of having technologies that were ripped off from all over the world and just adapted to their own uses.

They did the actual work that produced the food for the industrial revolution. They were denied the opportunity to do anything else. You have made no point.

 

So what proportion of European GDP was gained from colonies?

Specifically what materials (especially coal and iron) were obtained by slave labor?

Quantify how much food was brought into Europe from African slaves.

 

Hard to say.

Nearly all of the cotton in Europe was grown by slaves. Most of the gold came from the Americas and Africa.

Europeans got rich stealing the labor and the lands of Africans.

 

Yeah you keep repeating that.

Sadly you are unable to back it up with the most basic economic analysis.

 

Why are white countries so much richer? The main reason is culture, which values science and technology, hard work, order and freedom. We can see the same pattern in East Asian cultures nowadays, where there are many rich countries or are getting rich fast.

As for exploitation of other cultures, while that is true to some extent, it accounts for only a small part of the wealth.

 

What on Earth does the Ottoman Empire have to do with my comment. Are you mentally incapacitated or something?

Why is it that you who suffer with the affliction of Diminished Capacity interject you infantile ignorance into any discussion that confronts myth and illogical conclusions when either European or American imperial misbehavior (actual all empires of your world are the result of misbehavior) are brought to the table of discussion? It is exactly that same inane and simplistic thinking that has your nation falling apart as I type this response.

 

you are correct, culture has much to do with your success. It is a known actual fact that all cultures that come from Europe are based in the ideology of conquest, enslavement which leads to imperialism.

It is the basis of the world of the past six thousand years is based on the reverse magnetic law which is actually only relevant to inanimate objects subjected to this law. In reality, dominance is not a logical mental school of thinking when dealing with animated objects. If you attempt to say, "well look at the animal kingdom." My response is simply, there is no creature, animal or beast within the so-called animal kingdom that is based in dominance. Animals are independent though some do cooperate with each other. When you look at even the lions, the females only accept the strongest males who can defend the pride. Think over these things that I tell you. The only beings who have the mentality of dominance is you.

 

Quite obviously you are a Muslim partisan. Thus you view the world through "Muslim good"/"non-Muslim bad" spectacles. Thus the British empire (which abolished slavery) is "bad" while the Ottoman and Islamic empires (which practiced larger scale more brutal slavery) are "good". Needless to say this isn't based on any objective criteria, merely a brainwashed adherence to a fascist, false, ideology.

Your dismissals of my points are nothing more that ad lapidem and ad hominem. You have no factual basis for any argument. That's because your position is strictly partisan and logically indefensible.

Far from falling apart our nation continues to be an integral part of the most powerful military force the world has ever known.

Furthermore your prose is reminiscent of nothing more than Oswald Bates.

 

So leftysergeant has to quantify and qualify his statement? His statement is already quantified as well as qualified by the historical accounts of the times when the deeds took place as well as the accounts after the fact. Such denial does not absolve you from anything.

 

No, I'm saying the statement isn't quantified by the historical record and is in fact made up.

 

Muslim partisan? This is not one of your patty-cake political minstrel shows that take place in D.C. as well as on the "w2orld Stage".

The Ottoman Empire is not being addressed by me being that I am not chatting with Turks. I am speaking with Europeans and Americans (mostly) so the deeds of Europe and America are on the table. Now, let us deal with The British Empire. So what England abolished slavery, did they or did they not, hold colonies, even into last century? The answer is Y-E-S!

As to a strong military, this is all that you have. What is the percentage of debt held by China again? Yeah, I thought so. The very fact of you boasting about a "strong military" only displays the failings of America in the area of being truly civilized. Also, Rome once boasted about having a strong military at one time but where is the empire of Rome today? Even Great Britain had the strongest navy during its reign of terror, but where is its mighty naval force today? That mentality of your is a part of the problems that this nation faces. Yes, I grew up in the United States and I am very adept to its history so you are not dealing with someone who is ignorant to the dealings of this Beast. You may be completely ignorant but I am not, neither are other people.

 

Of course the Ottoman and Islamic empires will not be addressed by you. That is because their behavior was much worse, and you cannot defend it. So you just ignore it.

Luckily the highly intelligent and powerful British were able to stop your disgusting barbaric slavery practices.

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cotton_industrial_revolution.htm

http://regionalgeography.org/101blog/?p=529

See, when I present facts, I present both pro and con my position.

Yes, England did obtain cotton from India, one of its colonies, but is still obtained it from America being that it was easier and less expensive to ship it from over here than from India. This not to belittle the East Indians dealt with, it is to show that yes, England's prosperity also came from "American chattel slavery" as well. Yet and still, when people bring up the sins of Europe and America, many suffer from "quick amnesia" or outright deny any culpability of the centuries of wicked acts done to a people who never did anything to you. As your appreciation for the centuries of evils inflicted upon us, you lambast, ridicule and still call us every filthy and wicked name that you can think of. Yes, some "Africans" sold us into slavery as well as Arabs, but we are not dealing with them, we are dealing with YOU and the after affects and effects of dealing with you.

 

Laughably you seem to try to claim that the entire industrial revolution was based on the production of cotton fabric. In fact it would have happened without any cotton since the same techniques were applied to wool manufacture. The industrial revolution was of course based on the steam engine which was originally designed to pump water from mines, and on coal and iron mined in Europe by white people.

I don't doubt that slave produced cotton contributed to the British economy. I would imagine it was no more than 5% GDP and the British would have industrialised without this. The industrial revolution was based on developments in metallurgy, chemistry and mechanics. It was not done to produce cotton fabric, this is laughable and completely wrong. The new factory techniques were employed on everything from guns to buttons, not "just cotton fabric."

Several facts are clear:

1) The maximum contribution of the colonies to British GDP at any time was no more than 10%.
2) Industrial development would have occurred if there were no colonies.
3) No resources were anywhere near exhausted in any area by the British.

Notice how I have quantified the contribution, which you have yet to do.

Oh yeah, you're really "dealing with ME".

So what about the 10 times more slaves in Arab lands? Were they put to productive work and fed?

No. The males would have their balls cut off and the females were repeatedly raped. Then they were killed.

 

You white H. heidelbergensis in Africa is entirely your imagining. He left to trace anywhere.

 

They waited until they had enough slaves of their own to make everybody else stop taking them. Nothing noble about that. It is just about eliminating competition.

 

This is drivel. The British Labour Party advocates a State which performs social functions and taxes people. This is the same position as the US Republican party. Your argument is like saying "you smell". And you show no insight into "Marxism" whatsover which was solidly against people who did not contribnute. You may like to reflect on the fact that the Chinese Communist Party now condemns Europe as a geography dependent on welfare. In China you will find beggars on the streets. In the USA however, despite decades of Republican Administrations, you will find both welfare and taxes. But you carry on repeating your adolescent "dirty commie" Birchisms if it makes you feel better, and I'll carry on laughing at the ignorance and absurdity that underpins them.

Do you really think this this garbage was actually worth writing? Immigration equals communism now? I suppose that is based on the rationale "because you said so"? Do you think "you're a communist, he's a communist, they're communists..." is interesting and not just tedious, boring, babyish drivel? Nice talking to you mike. I'll need to look elsewhere for challenging arguments I think.

 

Horse feathers. When the English decided that they did not need to take slaves any more, they had already established plantations in the countries from which they were taking them and needed a cheap labor pool there.

Notice, if you will, how long it took them to give those slaves full human rights after the international slave trade ended.

They didn't end the slave trade because it was inhumane. They ended it because it was no longer ecconomicly rewarding any more.