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

Folks, the difference in I.Q. between asians and whites is only 1/2 of a percent. So, stop suggesting they are smarter. The accuracy tolerance is greater than that, so whites may be smarter than asians. Read "The Bell Curve"

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If Eugenics do not matter, as most politicians and ivory tower academics would have you believe, why are the countries that historically employed Eugenic policies (Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.) so much better off than countries where Eugenic policies were never in place (Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, etc.)?

It was not eugenics which made English-speaking countries wealthier. The Anglo-Saxon model of economic system was superior to others and it was implemented across the British Empire from America to Australia and Anglo-Saxon economies are more liberal and free-market-oriented than other capitalist economies and Spanish colonies were more autocratic and wealth was concentrated on the elite few disproportionately, which discouraged entrepreneurship. It was no coincidence that the Industrial Revolution originated in Great Britain and Britain's share of world trade had been dominant for centuries until the US caught up with Britain.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If Eugenics do not matter, as most politicians and ivory tower academics would have you believe, why are the countries that historically employed Eugenic policies (Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.) so much better off than countries where Eugenic policies were never in place (Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, etc.)?

>>>



Could it be that centuries of smart, scientific breeding, as opposed to the wanton race-mixing festivals of the lower latitudes, gave certain European and North Asian peoples genetic advantages that aided in the spreading of their respective civilizations?

>>>

Look at how rich the non race-mixing Anglosphere is. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and America were all very proactive in promoting white immigration while at the same time banning all miscegenation.

Now, compare this to the Hispanosphere: Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Peru, etc.


Ah, the good old days...

If you consider Mexicans pale than you must know the worlds richest man is a mexican media mogul. And then there are the pale face chinese they look more white than yellow and they have a bunch of wealthy ones there, much richer than you.

But everyone know the hottest looking women are the latin ones, and if you mix one of those with an asian or a black you get a real intelligent healthy good looking human. Not some imbreed with screwed up teeth and messed up hair and bad pale and pionk complexion.

But all in all that pale 10% of the world is only significant to themselves.

Originally Posted by Alif Qadr

No, that is not it at all. It has to do with colonialism, its after-effects, robbery, and systems that kept Europeans on top. It is fun to think that you belong to a superior group but when truth walks in, such myths evaporate like the morning dew.

Pff, we did them a favour by colonising them. The savages hadn't even invented the wheel when we came along, and if we've left them they probably wouldn't had done it even now.

Originally Posted by Heroclitus

What a pile of racist drivel. And very inaccurate, Brythionic languages were of course Celtic languages and the genetic make-up of Britain is largely Celtic. And the Scots did not speak a Brythionic language at all but spoke Gaelic, being an Irish people. It may be that Pictish was a Brythionic language as was the language of Cornwall and Cumbria. What was remarkable by the standards of communication in history was how people of different ethnic backgrounds and different languages, expanded through trade and migration. In fact civilization can be measured by the extent to which peoples traveled, intermarried and mixed. The sea was the link between peoples and the ultimate domination of the world by Britain was based on the triumph of human curiosity, ambition and endeavor over the narrow inward looking chauvinism of the xenophobe.

Empire was at once an oppressor and liberator: its ships carried soldiers but also ideas (that shaped Sun Yat Sen for example), which Empire's exploiters could not contain. And so hundreds of millions of people now look to Britain with cultural affection (like Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese freedom fighter and daughter of great anti-imperialist) And rightly Britain welcomes this embrace. We have always been a hotchpotch though. We were ruled by foreigners and strangely this means that we always have been an incalcitrant and resistant people. As Tom Paine said: "Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it". We knew which foreigners were our enemies, they ruled us and made us foreigners in our own land. And eventually we broke them down and assimilated them, from Simon de Montford onwards.

So we have found much solidarity with the stranger, have developed a strong tolerance for the emigrant and have taken their ideas and melded them with our own. This is the greatness of Britain, that we really are a rich and diverse nation, and by the standards of every age, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, Elizabethan, Victorian or today, we have been an outward looking people, looking out at the sea and its waterways, welcoming the new to our shores. Britain gave the world industry, liberty and law. And Britain stood up against the Nazi jackboot, the stunted brutality of a Teutonic myth, the grunting sheep of nations who would follow their leaders down the path of darkness, inward looking and cowards all. It was us half-breed, mischling, mongrels who gave the world modernity, whether Celt, saxon, Dane, Jew, gypsy, African, Hugenot or whatever. Those who lived looking in on themselves stagnated and withered. We have always had the right dreams:

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

Robbie Burns 1795

The British Empire was set up to steal wealth, not as some kind of humanitarian endeavor. Just look at the Opium wars.
The British attacked the Germans and got routed. Then waited for the Russians to overwhelm them with numbers before running in to kick them when they were down. Dresden is possibly the most disgusting action in history.
Aung San Suu Kyi is an NWO shill who will dismantle the Burmese national government so they can experience a mass immigration, probably of Rohingya Muslims, destroying the unique character of the Burmese people and reducing them to slaves of international capital, the same force that was responsible for the atrocities of the British Empire, and the same force that will destroy the British people, who are no more "mongrels" than any other.

BTW the most successful people in terms of wealth are the Jewish. How does that square with your "mixing equals success in life" theory?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

The British Empire was set up to steal wealth, not as some kind of humanitarian endeavor. Just look at the Opium wars.
The British attacked the Germans and got routed. Then waited for the Russians to overwhelm them with numbers before running in to kick them when they were down. Dresden is possibly the most disgusting action in history.

I'll say that might have intellectual merit to it, although that's very debatable, however...

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Aung San Suu Kyi is an NWO shill who will dismantle the Burmese national government so they can experience a mass immigration, probably of Rohingya Muslims, destroying the unique character of the Burmese people and reducing them to slaves of international capital, the same force that was responsible for the atrocities of the British Empire, and the same force that will destroy the British people, who are no more "mongrels" than any other.

wtf are you talking about? You'd prefer an increasingly totalitarian "nationalist" regime over an open and democratic society? In every society on earth there is NOTHING as a "unique character" - that's a total invention. International capitalism has not existed in any extensive sense. You cant have a free market when most of the world has no property rights or free labor laws, which is the case now.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

BTW the most successful people in terms of wealth are the Jewish.

"the Jewish"? Who are "the Jewish"? Total nonsense. Oh yes, there are many successful groups and individuals who describe themselves racially as Jewish, but I can assure it has far more to do with other factors than the rather arbitrary application of one adjective.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

How does that square with your "mixing equals success in life" theory?

Could you elaborate on this theory?

Originally Posted by Mr. Swedish Guy

Pff, we did them a favour by colonising them. The savages hadn't even invented the wheel when we came along, and if we've left them they probably wouldn't had done it even now.

Yeah the ancient Spartans could have taken over America. At least they made it to the bronze age. You can't just live in a stone age time warp and expect that no one will come kick your ass.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If Eugenics do not matter, as most politicians and ivory tower academics would have you believe, why are the countries that historically employed Eugenic policies (Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.) so much better off than countries where Eugenic policies were never in place (Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, etc.)?

>>>

Could it be that centuries of smart, scientific breeding, as opposed to the wanton race-mixing festivals of the lower latitudes, gave certain European and North Asian peoples genetic advantages that aided in the spreading of their respective civilizations?

>>>

Look at how rich the non race-mixing Anglosphere is. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and America were all very proactive in promoting white immigration while at the same time banning all miscegenation.

Now, compare this to the Hispanosphere: Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Peru, etc.


Ah, the good old days...

They had colder climates and had to be eugenic to survive, the inferior civilizations were warm and had no need to group in order to survive as they relied on individualism and personal responsibility instead of shared sacrifice and community to build their nations.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

wtf are you talking about? You'd prefer an increasingly totalitarian "nationalist" regime over an open and democratic society? In every society on earth there is NOTHING as a "unique character" - that's a total invention. International capitalism has not existed in any extensive sense. You cant have a free market when most of the world has no property rights or free labor laws, which is the case now.

What do you mean by "open"? Why would a nationalist government not be "open"? I don't support democracy. Too many people are selfish morons that just vote for free money. People are too easily swayed by media, which is in private hands. We don't have a real democracy, we have a Plutocracy. Perhaps this is inveitable, but it can be international or national. I think national serves people on the ground better.
There is a unique character. Do you deny a unique Japanese, British or German culture and people? This is patently absurd.
Of course international capitalism exists. Again absurd. Any property rights facilitate it.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

"the Jewish"? Who are "the Jewish"? Total nonsense. Oh yes, there are many successful groups and individuals who describe themselves racially as Jewish, but I can assure it has far more to do with other factors than the rather arbitrary application of one adjective.

Oh "other factors". How convenient.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Could you elaborate on this theory?

Just read the poster referred to.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

What do you mean by "open"? Why would a nationalist government not be "open"?

Well in the case of Burma, it wouldn't be open because its nationalist agenda is built upon and enforces strict sociopolitical, not to mention economic, control and regulation. Hence the rise of totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

I don't support democracy.

Why not?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Too many people are selfish morons that just vote for free money.

So you want to leave power in the hands of a minority of selfish morons? Dont you see the clear flaw? Or are you an anarchist?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

People are too easily swayed by media, which is in private hands. We don't have a real democracy, we have a Plutocracy.

Structurally, I'd say the US is a democracy, but yes I agree in practice it isnt.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Perhaps this is inveitable, but it can be international or national. I think national serves people on the ground better.

What's your evidence for this claim?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

There is a unique character. Do you deny a unique Japanese, British or German culture and people? This is patently absurd.

Perhaps you should define "unique character". Yes I dent they are in any way substantive and quantitative elements. 'Unique character' is a subjective invention.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Of course international capitalism exists. Again absurd. Any property rights facilitate it.

Wrong. International capitalism, or more specifically capitalism, has a definition. This definition has at basis the EXISTENCE - not partial existence - of property rights to ALL people and a relatively free market.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Oh "other factors". How convenient.

Perhaps but correctly so.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Just read the poster referred to.

Why?