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

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...

Do not forget South Africa. Under the Apartheid system, where the country was governed by the whites, who made up only 11% of the population, South Africa grew to become the wealthiest nation in the African continent. South Africa even had a larger Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than the next wealthiest African country, Egypt, despite the fact that Egypt has six times as many people!

Since the blacks have come to power after apartheid, no new jobs have been created.
http://www.economist.com/node/18233702
It appears that the blacks are just incapable of running the country.
And this phenomena is not just in South Africa, but any other subsaharan African country where the white occupiers have left, the Congo and Rhodesia being the most obvious examples.

If you look at a list of countries by GDP, you'll see that China and Japan are 3 and 4th.

If you look at GDP per capita, you start seeing countries like Qatar, Singapore, Kuwait, Macau, Hong Kong, Brunei... etc.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Do not forget South Africa. Under the Apartheid system, where the country was governed by the whites, who made up only 11% of the population, South Africa grew to become the wealthiest nation in the African continent. South Africa even had a larger Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than the next wealthiest African country, Egypt, despite the fact that Egypt has six times as many people!

Since the blacks have come to power after apartheid, no new jobs have been created.
http://www.economist.com/node/18233702
It appears that the blacks are just incapable of running the country.
And this phenomena is not just in South Africa, but any other subsaharan African country where the white occupiers have left, the Congo and Rhodesia being the most obvious examples.

Zimbabwe was the "bread basket" of Africa when a White man was their leader. Now it's a hell hole of poverty and violence like most of the other black-run African countries.

Originally Posted by toddwv

If you look at a list of countries by GDP, you'll see that China and Japan are 3 and 4th.

If you look at GDP per capita, you start seeing countries like Qatar, Singapore, Kuwait, Macau, Hong Kong, Brunei... etc.

The Japanese are racially superior in terms of intelligence, or at least their ability to concentrate. Koreans and Chinese also have relatively high levels of intelligence statistically. I have been consistently saying this. Just look at the Japanese children that are raised in other countries. They still do extremely well in school.

One of the main reasons Japan has a high GDP is simply because the USA give them so much access to their markets, as they wanted a prosperous Japan as a buffer against the communist Soviet Union. At one time most of the cars sold in the USA were made by Japanese factories. Japan could have never accumulated the wealth it has without the USA. But another reason for the high measured GDP in Japan is actually the high population density. This high GDP does not actually measure wealth, but rather how hard the Japanese have to work to be able to afford a house because of the high cost of living,and not enough land.

The main reason China has a high GDP is simply because it has a billion people. Cheap (and disciplined) labor makes it difficult for thw white nations to compete. That and the favorable trade agreements they have been allowed with the USA.

The population of Singapore and Hong Kong has higher levels of intelligence because of selective migration. These are trading towns. The more intelligent Chinese merchants originally came here.

Kuwait and Brunei are only wealthy because of oil. Equatorial New Guinea also has a surprisingly high GDP (also from oil), although most of its people (Africans) live on less than 3 dollars per day (extreme inequality).

Correlation does not equal causation.

Oh snap.

Originally Posted by Wolverine;

Correlation does not equal causation.

Oh snap.

Exactly. In particular, there are a number of other factors which the successful states also have in common. When you correct for other variables, economic freedom, in particular, the racial correlation disappears. It explains why chile is more successful than Venezuela, why China is so much more successful than it used to be, and Japan less so, and why Singapore and Hong Kong are among the most successful states in the world. It also explains the dominance of the western/European and particularly anglophone world for the past few centuries. Even within Africa, those states which are more economically free are better off. The most likely explanation for South Africa's economic trouble since the end of apartheid is the coinciding introduction of a more commanded and heavily regulated economy. After all, the racial makeup of the country has barely changed. Rhodesia's decline into starvation similarly coincides with the introduction of more extreme government control over the economy.

Originally Posted by JasonW1415

The most likely explanation for South Africa's economic trouble since the end of apartheid is the coinciding introduction of a more commanded and heavily regulated economy. After all, the racial makeup of the country has barely changed. Rhodesia's decline into starvation similarly coincides with the introduction of more extreme government control over the economy.

In other words, these countries stopped growing or began to decline once black strongman governments came into power. Primitive governments are put into power by primitive people.




.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear;

In other words, these countries stopped growing or began to decline once black strongman governments came into power. Primitive governments are put into power by primitive people.




.

Are you suggesting that no white governments have been primitive? The Nazis, the Soviets, the East Germans. Even today, the Greeks aren't doing such a great job themselves. Plenty of thriving economies have stopped growing or started to decline when white strongman governments came into power. And again, even within Africa, those black governments which are more economically free are more successful. There is no evidence to indicate that an economically free black state would do any worse than an economically free white state.

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...

How do you feel about being inferior to Orientals. Does it bother you any?

I'm just curious. The same studies and information you sight make it clear (if you think the way your posts are thinking) that you are a lesser person then the typical Oriental.