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

Thousands? LMAO.

"You're a Nazi! You're a Nazi!"

Stop slandering me, liar.

 

I attack your posts. You attack my person. I explain my analysis in detail. You answer with soundbytes and personal insults. Why? Can you not deal with my arguments?

Try standing on Hong Kong island and counting the white people. Thousands of us ... all economic migrants. This is truth. Just as it is truth that the white people in the US are economic migrants or that my Irish grandparents were economic migrants.

As it is also truth that conservatives concern themselves with protecting their nation whilst Nazis concern themselves with the dominance of their race.

It's an uncomfortable truth that you may not like. That doesn't justify personal abuse. If you can't tell the difference between an attack on your ideas and an attack on your person then I cannot help you.

No paseran.

 

Hong Kong was a British colony and is 95% ethnic Chinese, and represents a tiny fraction of China's population.

You seem to think a quantity of writing has value. Your writing has no quality.

You are trying to deny there is one way massive immigration to White lands because there are a small number of white people in Hong Kong.

This is so absurd I can only postulate deliberate dishonesty.

Why would I be uncomfortable with the fact that Nazis support dominance? I don't and I am not a Nazi so I don't know why you keep mentioning Nazis. Is it because you have no valid arguments to support massive one way immigration?

 

I can't help those with short attention spans who don't want to read my arguments. There is little quality in vapid, racist one-liners. You keep telling yourself you are a genius though. I know my own worth and your sterile derision only confimrs it.

Your posts, in that they focus on "preserving the white race" are objectively Nazi posts. They support, whether by your intention or not, the campaigns by real neo-Nazis who come to this site to further their political campaign. My argument is based on an analysis which distinguishes Nazi views from conservatives views in this area, conservative views being focused on "preserving the traditions and characteristics of the nation" but your objectively Nazi posts being focused on "preserving the race", something entirely different in today's multi-racial, immigrant based societies. You have written insults. But you have not rebutted this analysis or even tried to. All you can do is say "you are wrong", over and over again, between the bigoted filth you post about race. It means nothing. You can't change a chicken into a peacock by sticking a feather up its arse.

Most people who write little do so because they have little of any intelligence to say. I like to have a two way discussion. When I engage in discussion with people who write one liners, I tend to take issue with the ideology that those one liners reveal. I am not interested in exchanging one liners with people who can't be bothered to develop any sort of coherent argument and are looking for peurile game of soundbyte tennis. Look somewhere else if you want that. I won't indulge you. I will argue with the point of view you propose and if you can't be bothered to write any arguments for that point of view, or are incapable of debate, then I will take care of that by anticipating arguments. If I need to extrapolate an argument of my opponent, because those arguments are little more than a set of inchoate grunts, then I will. I tend to have to do this as the quality of writing on here from conservatives is dismally low (if only an intelligent neo-con or the like would show up here once in a while!). I have no interest in you as a person and certainly no interest in engaging with you as a person. I am interested in the ideas - filthy and evil ideas in your particular posts on this thread - rather than you as an individual. I care not a jot for you and so really don't have any motivation to insult you or call you a liar, as you do to me here. I am indifferent to your abuse. I don't care about you. (There - I was rather repetitive about it there, because I want you to get this point so it doesn't keep getting in the way).

I don't say anything about immigration to "white" lands. There are no "white" lands. The concept is meaningless except as a hate label. I am part Irish, and part Rroma, so even if I am "white", I have ancestors who were victims of racism and bigotry based on evil notions of "race". I am in favour of human immigration. I am an economic immigrant. I therefore support the rights of all people to be economic immigrants, including all those economic immigrants who make up the USA. Is that such an illogical incoherent position? Just saying it is, doesn't really butter any parsnips. Those who oppose controlled immigration are anti-freedom, being opponents of the free market. Their views are also racist, evil and small minded, usually opposing something that was good for them or their ancestors but that they wish to deny to others.

 

Nazis supported white dominance and anti-Slavism. I don't. I support self-determination and freedom from invasion for whites, and for all people.

You are defaming me and are a criminal.

Good day.

 

I continue to aim at your posts. You continue with explicit insults!

I am a criminal? That is another accusation reminscent of the Nazis - the accusation that their political opponents were criminals. That's what Dachau was for - crimninals like me!

It is good that your focus on the Nazi concept of racial supremacy excludes demonizing slavs. I am pleased to see such civilized values differentiate you from old Nazis! It's pretty interesting to see that that is the main differentiation. The rest of the stuff done by the Nazis was more or less Ok then?

If I wanted to differentiate my views from Nazi views I might have started with the Holocaust. Or maybe you think that is a Marxist-Jewish invention?

But you should also know that Nazis nominally supported self determination for "non whites" or "non Aryans", after they had exterminbated the Jews, gypsies, slavs and their "criminal" political opponents. Once they had taken the best bits, the sub-humans could have their bits, regulated by the Master Race of course.

Racial supremicism is Nazism. You can squeal that you don't like that and insult me as much as you like but anyone who has studied the subject for five miutes can see that. The fact that you may "moderate" the details a bit doesn't change the essence of that. Nazis always pretend to be moderate when not in power and the NSDAP even talked about self determination and a separate homeland for jews in Madagascar. If you read the history you will see that they were quite sincere about that at one time. Before they changed their minds and decided to gas little gypsy children to death and experiment obscenely on Jewish children.

Keep the insults coming. It's more evidence that you are losing the argument!

 

I never disagreed that racial supremicism was Nazism. Why are you going on about this?

Nazism has nothing at all to do with my views.

Should I start randomly going on about the Golden Horde massacring villages and call you a "Mongol"? Should I accuse you of "squealing that you don't like it" and "apologising for the Mongols" when you did no such thing?

Should I accuse you of "agreeing with everything else in Nazism" after you disagreed with one aspect?

Isn't all of this lying and defamation of character?

It would make about as much sense (ie. none) and be about as relevant (ie. not at all).

 

Remember folks, expect the same territorial rights as any country on Earth: "waaaaaah, Nazis, the Holocaust".

This is because they have no valid arguments for one way mass immigration.

 

I think you're losing the plot here. My analysis is very simple: conservatives are concerned with retaining the integrity of the nation; Nazis are concerned with retaining the integrity of the "race".

It's not complicated.

Of course the whole concept of a "white" race is an absurd piece of bigotry which is I'm sure why you do no more than repeat your simple support of "protecting the white race". There are no rational arguments for such gobbledegook. Only embarassing childishness.

I haven't called you a Nazi. For the umpteenth time I have desribed what you post. I am amused at your determination to be seen as a Nazi. But this has nothing to do with my posts. I am indifferent to what you are. I call what you post.

 

The whole of human history is one way mass immigration otherwise we would all be still in Africa. That's a fairly crushing argument for the race supremicists.

A fine example of one way mass immigration is the UK, followed by the USA.

Canada, New Zealand, Australia are other examples. One way, white, mass immigration.

All these Americans who want no truck with brown people should ask themsleves who's gonna wipe their arse when they grow old. There simply is not enough white trash around.

But that's a discussion that can be had with conservatives. Those who talk about the white "race" are a whole different kettle of fish. This is the language of Nazism, the language of hate and apartheid and ethnic cleansiing. These are the racial supremicists who CLAIM that they see races are equal but in making this claim they LIE. Our grandfathers' generation fought and died to crush these scum. It may be we will need to again if conservativs don't wise up to these guys and are taken in by them.

 

Nazism is specific German political movement from the 1930s with an anti-Jew, anti-Slav, anti-Marxist, pro-German platform.

It has nothing to do with whether or not Europeans accept mass immigration.

It's like bringing up "Nazis" when someone supports animal welfare, because the Nazis were progressive in that area. It's obviously a negative and fallacious "guilt by association" argument.

So don't bring it up.

K?

The white race is not "an absurd piece of bigotry" (what kind of argument is that, LMAO.), and can be seen on this plot here.

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/genetic-map-of-west-eurasians.html

Are the Chinese "an absurd piece of bigotry"?

What's wrong with you?

 

You keep trying to talk about immigration. But I am talking about your pre-occupation with "race".

Conservatives oppose immigration because it threatens the integrity of their nation.

Nazis oppose immigration because it threatns the integrity of their "race". Of course the "white race" is a myth. It does not exist, except in the delusions of Nazis.

It would be convenient if Nazis were only in the 1930's, but we still see them here today.

I love your logic. Remember how you smeared the Labour Party with the term "Marxist" because you alleged that they wanted "equality of outcome" and "nationalization" (both untrue). Well the parallel with your posts about "race" and the Nazi parties of the 1930's is much, much closer.

You're in Europe now mike. Maybe in the USA the unreconstructed America First appeasers got away with their Nazi sympathy after WW2 by couching their bigotry in isolationist terms. But euorpeans have enough experience of death camps and bigotry to recognize Nazism when they see it.

 

Opposition to immigration for racial preservation (which all countries practice) does not equal Nazism.

The Nazis were right about some things.

That is one of them.

The Nazis were wrong about other things.

So stop with the lame guilt by association fallacy.

Any more posts containing the word "Nazi" will be ignored as the drivel they are.

 

Actually what made European rich is through colonization. Before the discovery of America, the thriving Empire at the time was the Mongol, they merged China together with the Middle east, two of the most advance Empire at the time, and open trading routes through land and sea. The most busies shipping lanes at the time was through the Indian oceans. People then exchange ideas, technology, which led to the early age of capitalism. European at this time was no more advance or rich compared to others, some can argue that Europe were backward, coming out of the dark ages. However, that changed when Europe discovered America. Early colonization of the America open Europe to vast amount of gold, silvers (from the Aztec fallen empire), slave labors, and natural resources. Eventually absorbing resources from others, European then slowly colonize other nations, economically exploited them, took over/dominate the trading routes. http://www.amazon.com/The-Colonizers-Model-World-Geographical/dp/0898623480

So the point is that, richer countries expand outward, absorbing talents, resources, land, and strategic trading routes--not through isolationism.

Now, to the point here you say, that racist white countries tend to be richer. In concur! I see a lot native-American (Mexican) immigrate to the U.S picking strawberry under the sun, cleaning toilets, mowing lawns, and do dirty jobs that nobody would do, for less compensations. Arguably, that is some sort of talents, because I would definitely will not put up with that. Also the so called American Negroes, suffered political oppression, social degradation, and economic exploitation for over 400 years under racist white. Racist white tend to be richer because they exploits other economically, in contrast to the fair person, who would pay these people and give them a better living standards. By doing so, they lose profits and productions. Like it or not, slavery gets things done. Like how the Aztec empire used slaves to build temple and then for human sacrifice. It is one of the riches empire in America, through discrimination, exploitation of their neighbors and through fear.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/civil...untries-so-much-richer-16.html#post1061556769

European wealth was based on superior technology and political systems.

 

Yes, there are many theories, but the one I read from Blaut's book : The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History
His explanation made sense to me. European at the time, political was no more superior than other. There was the bloody protestant and catholic religious war fought all over Europe. The landlord also exploited the peasants heavily, which led to many revolts, i.e The French revolution, where the landless against the landlord. Technological, Europe at the time was arguable backward compared to the Arab or the Chinese. Only through the colonization of the America, and later on, Europe absorb and diffuse technology from other nations. In other words, technology was absorb and shared, through domination of trading routes and colonization of other nations. Which brought Europe to the height of its power.

Blaut's explains it in his book very clearly, and it made sense to me. However, if you think otherwise that is fine too. Different point of view is always good.

Question: Do you know which empire introduced the number zero ( 0 ) and algebra to the European? European did not have the concept of Zero thus it was difficult to lend money and to calculate profits.

On the side notes, exploitation in general are profitable. It doesn't have to be racist. Look at what the Chinese are doing to their own people. Slave labors. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html

 

The Greeks invented algebra in 2C AD. See Diophantus.

What made Europe great was the steam engine and metallurgy, physics, modern chemistry. All homegrown. Combined with the most liberal political and free capitalist system in the world, and low corruption.

Europe was the top technological nation, and remains so. You are making stuff up.

 

I did not asked who invented algebra. I asked who introduce Algebra and the number Zero the European? In this case it was the Arab Muslim that introduced algebra and the concept of Zero to Europe which they defuse from the ancient Greek.Europe at the time was ruled by religious zealots and were using Roman numeral. Have you ever heard of the Muslim golden age?

Lower corruption? What do you call the burning of "witches" and the prosecution of protestants, simply because they believed that the Pope was not a representative of God? What do you call the pope having many illegitimate children, building large palaces for himself, and using tax money for lavish party? Do you know who Martin Luther is? Why do you think the French revolution took place? Were the nobles so benign and benevolent towards their people? Have you ever heard of the Dark Age in Europe? Now, I even question if you even know your own history.

No, I am not making it up. Read Blaut's : The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History Then you will know what I am talking about.

 

You assert that at that time Europe was "technologically backward compared to the Arabs and Chinese." That is without question false so whatever books you are reading are of little value.

Europe invented the technology that made them rich.

 

No, I say European during the time-- the Dark Age-- was arguably backward compared to the Arab and Chinese. Meaning that one can make an argument that Europe was backward during the dark ages, compare to those two Empires mentioned. I did not say Europe at the time was backward technologically compared to Arab and Chinese. What I say was that, an arguable can be made that it is. There is a difference....

My statement is factual. If you use google search, you will find articles or books that made such arguments.

 

Europe made all the breakthroughs of the industrial revolution.
You say Europe was backwards.
You are wrong.

 

So the Dark Ages wasn't backward? Hahaha. If that's the case then there is no need for argument between you and I.

Good day.

 

It was backward compared to other European periods. Not compared to the rest of the world. And we are not even discussing that time period. We are discussing why Europe is rich. And that is because of European political and technical inventions in the Industrial revolution.

If Europe "copied" these things as you assert (falsely), why did only Europe develop so much?

You are wrong.

 

So you're saying even during the dark age, European were still more advance than the rest of the world? ahahaha. Am I correct?

You still haven't acknowledge Muslim's contribution the algebra and the number Zero to Europe. Or even the Chinese gun power, which was defused by other nations and turned into firearms.

You're very unrealistic and euro-centric, my friend. However, be that as it may. haha.

Good day!

By the way. Did you know that the most advance European weapon during the colonization of Mexico and America was small pox? That is what killed off most of the native population, not by any other advance weapons created through innovations or superior military strategy.