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

It's called Social Darwinism, and it was definitely disproved when we started to map the human genome.

The richest country on earth, the USA, never had any eugenics policy. Comparing European or colonial countries to 3rd world countries is stupid. You should compare them with similar countries, which had no eugenics policies, and then you see that the basis of the OP is non-existent.

Early Australian's misguided dabblings in eugenics are a stain on our history, and were of course, like all such policies, ultimately a complete failure that achieved nothing.

 

William Shockley, the man who also coincidentally invented the transistor, argued that the higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley advocated that the scientific community should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence, and demographic trends, and suggest policy changes if he was proven right. He proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.

Most striking, William Shockley, later in his life, described his work into the genetic future of the human species as "the most important work of his career"! This from a man that had already invented the transistor, had been appointed Director of the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory at Beckman Instruments, and had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Shockley Semiconductor and the companies formed by Shockley's former employees would go on to form the nucleus of what became Silicon Valley, leading to the world-wide computer revolution.

Obviously you do not know your history. Several of the states had eugenic policies.

How do you know? Perhaps it made some small but significant contribution to the country's success.

 

It is not "my history", I am not American. And I was referring to racial eugenics, which is what is mentioned in the OP. I don't believe the USA has ever had such a policy, but by all means feel free to provide evidence that they have.

Is this a serious question?

 

It's interesting how the vulgar science of neo-Nazi mythmakers crumbles at the most superficial examination.

The modern world was founded by Britain, probably the world's most ethically diverse nation for its time, full of jutes, angles, saxons, italians, africans, normans, celts, picts, scots, vikings and jews in the eighteenth century and further racially enriched thereafter. Pax Brittanica, or the system of global governance that gave the world English as its international language, and liberal capitalism as its dominant political system, passed to Pax Americana. This was even more ethnically diverse than Britain, where global dominance, wealth and technology was driven by a "mongrel nation" that was so ethically diverse that the Nazis hated it with a vengeance.

It is certainly true that British and American intercation with new races has involved much bloodshed, tyranny and oppression. But it is equally true that it has been the thrilling opening of their societies and economies to these different racial types that has enabled them to flourish like no other. Ultimately Britain and the US triumphed over the monoracial hegemonies of Germany and Japan. Progress has been spurred on sharply by racial diversity and will continue to be so. This makes sense, because the de-stabilizing exposure of one culture to another shakes up the pot and innovation will inevitably emerge. The individuals who have led this have invariably been immigrants as well.

 

Tell me about the eugenics policies of Australia.

 

The jutes, angles, saxons, and vikings were very closely related. And actually the celts made much less of a genetic contribution to the islands than many people would like to believe, at least according to modern genetic studies. The primary genetic stock in the British Isles before the year 900 was Brythionic (welsh, scotts). True the Romans had conquered the half the island before then, but not many Romans actually settled to island. As for the jews, they certainly had an influence of british banking and finance, for better or for worse according to the opinions of some historians.

 

There were no Poles or French People anywhere zero. No French people not even in Louisiana??? COOL! *TILT*

Can I change my username to arkan-sass with no silent (s) RSVP.

 

Just a couple of comments on the chart. Scotch is a whisky. Scottish is a nationality and not a race. Mexican and West Indian populations come from completely different races. Not many blacks or mulattos in Mexico, not many indians in the West Indies. The spaniards killed them all and imported black slaves. All the other caucasians listed aren't races either, they are nationalities just like caucasian Scottish. The chart wasn't very well thought out. I would tend to ignore whatever it is trying to say. I would, in fact, tend to disbelieve the pie charts.

 

Yeah, it all comes down to priorities. I laugh when I see some people that think Orientals are more intelligent. What I see is cultural priorities. I find that the Chinese, Japanese, and Jews tend to emphasize education over sports.

I majored in math in college and in one class, everyone thought the two oriental girls that sat down front would be top of the class. It came down to me and a Caucasian girl. As hard as I tried, I would always be one or two points behind her.

 

Guns, Germs, and Steel.

 

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

 

So you personally were the driving force behind all of those things?

 

Europeans developed their systems of statehood naturally and of their own accord, whereas it was all thrust on the Africans by colonialists.

I think Africa is actually comparable to Eastern Europe, though, where corruption and poverty are still common, which is pretty much the case in both parts of the world. So, are Slavs also somehow inferior? Or is there something else going on? I think it comes down to historical momentum and autonomy.

 

That's silly. You don't know what contributions members of different ethnicities from around the globe have made in the development of these things. You think Apple and airplane manufacturers only hire WAS(P) engineers?

 

well, they have a common culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy
http://projectbritain.com/behaviour.html

gotta love the term "bottom burps" BTW. LOL

 

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"

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

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.

"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.

Could you elaborate on this theory?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Oh "other factors". How convenient.

Just read the poster referred to.

 

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.

Why not?

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?

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

What's your evidence for this claim?

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

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.

Perhaps but correctly so.

Why?