Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree, it's probably a lot easier to down-grade the better culture than to improve the worse one when mixing.
It absolutely is easier and inevitable to downgrade and ruin the better culture than to upgrade the worse when mixing. At best you end up with something in between SSA and Denmark/Japan and similar to some of the mixed Latin American nations and is a huge downgrade over the better cultures.
And of those, the only ones smart enough to put their foot down on orders from the U.N. is Japan. Their leaders care about their people, unlike the leaders in America Canada and Denmark.
I think Poland and some others of the still white Eastern European countries put their foot down too. America is gone. The time to put the foot down was when the 1965 Immigration Act came a long or within a few years of it later. Maybe Japan and Poland having the luxury learned from our decline?
But just about everyone knows the truth. They just don't want to publicly acknowledge it because it's a career finisher. Look at what happened to an esteemed scientist James Watson. He voiced his opinion, and he was forced out of all of his positions. This is an inquisition. Scientists are wrong all the time without being forced to step down - this is how we get to the truth.
But on this issue, all the evidence points to Watson's conclusion and none to the popular narrative. Sure, they can poke holes in any evidence presented but what they can't do is provide evidence for their thesis of human equality - just perpetually trying to dismiss the evidence that counters their points.
If we were fair, we'd have to say at the weakest that we don't know if humans are equal or not. But even saying that will force the thought police to come for your job.
The easiest way to win an argument is to define the null hypothesis.
That's a pretty dubious statement. The anti-European posters in this thread have made a lot of extraordinary claims.
Most of the claims have been backed by history. You haven't been able to rebuke anything, you just keep calling people anti-white for stating historical facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
The truth is Europe was never really behind or far behind or for long anywhere else in the world. The Minoans, Mycenaean, Greeks, Romans etc were Europeans. Europe had many ancient cultures that just not much is known about. Europe had its bronze age, iron age etc in antiquity. Bronze artifacts have been found in central Europe that were independently developed 1500 years before the Middle East. There are also advance structures or temples in central Europe as advanced as in Egypt that predate Egypt that had long been buried or filled in by Europeans. Ancient European history is not that well known.
Europe was a complete and total sh*thole for about 90% of human history. Ever wonder why so few outside groups ever tried to invade Europe, because there was nothing there to take of any value. Its only been in the last few centuries that Europe has risen up and actually developed a civilization.
As for the Ancient Greeks being "European" they had far more in common genetically and culturally with their neighbors in the Eastern Mediterranean then with Western or Northern Europeans.
Here is an exerpt from study on the genetic origins of Mycenaeans (Greeks) titled
Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans
Quote:
We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5.
In 1519, Spain and Briton had sailed ships to North America, The Pope in Rome ruled over a religious empire that stretched from Gaul to Northern Africa. They had the Turks on the run, and were moving into the Middle East. This despite the specter of the Black Death. There was no other group of people with such far ranging influence as Europe.
And remember this was 1500 years AFTER the Roman empire, the birthplace of Western Civilization had conquered much of the known world.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
World Map 1550
Aside from New World; European influence in Asia, Africa and the Middle East was non existent. Also the economy of Europe was a mere fraction of the size of those compared to India and China.
Name the largest empires on Earth in 1519. Let's talk about them. We'll see who knows about them. [u]Tell us the most powerful people in 1519 in terms of global influence.
The two largest empires on earth in the year 1519 were the Ming Dynasty in China and the Ottoman Empire.
The most powerful person on earth in 1519 in terms of influence was Suleiman the Magnificent or Emperor Jiajing.
You act the regions of Egypt and Iraq just went blank after the ancient times. Cairo and Baghdad were two of the largest, wealthiest and most advanced cities in the Middle Ages. Cairo for example was something like ten times the size of London in the Middle Ages. Baghdad was the global epicenter of knowledge and had the worlds largest collection of books and manuscripts.
Europe finally overcame the Middle East and China something like 300 years ago, 400 if we are being generous. If we trace the timeline of civilization from founding of the city state of Ur in Iraq in the year 3800 BC to today, Europe was at the epicenter of civilization for roughly 6% of civilized history. Hard to make the claim that "Whites" are genetically smarter then non-whites when non-whites were more advanced for 94% of all of civilized history.
Good post, to ascribe the differences of the West to race ignores all but a tiny sliver of human history. I say 500 years, you say 300. Either way it's a blink of an eye compared to the grand scheme.
All of the key scientists that helped develop atomic energy were Jewish btw.
Also the race to put the man on the moon involved around half a million people from all over America. How can this been seen as a "white" achievement when lots of non-white people worked on the project?
201 Nobel prizes, or about 22% of the total have gone to Jews. Jews are less than .2% of world population. I bet if you eliminated 'junk' prizes (such as Arafat, Gore, & Obama's Nobel peace prizes) the numbers would be even more skewed.
If there is an argument for racial superiority, it would have to be for the Jewish people.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19466
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
World Map 1550
Aside from New World; European influence in Asia, Africa and the Middle East was non existent. Also the economy of Europe was a mere fraction of the size of those compared to India and China.
That was basically because India and China dominated in terms of population, and it should be noted that India later became part of the British Empire and a large exporter to China. The population of London was 50,000 in 1500, so how much trade did you think was being done, indeed it wasn't until 1700 by which time the population had was nearing 500,000, with an emerging empire that real trading started.
All the diagram really demonstrates was there was little trade back in ancient times and most of it was in the more populated countries and would be in markets and probably quite basic, whilst the map uses countries rather than Empires, if Empires were used then you would find the Roman Empire was substantial and that Britain and India formed the British Empire rather than being seperate nations in terms of the latter centuries up to 1947.
In terms of India, it was quite complicit in terms of British rule, indeed there were 400 million people living in India when the British left and at no time did Britain have more than 70,000 troops stationed in India. The Indians were actually grateful to get rid of the Mughals, the Muslimn who had ruled over them and saw the British as a means to do so, and a way to evenrual independence. As fr China their position was weakened after Britain won the Opium wars, which is why Britain was allowed to lease Hong Kong in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nipral Dhaliwal
Despite the country's vast population, there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats. As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned.
Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals - Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey. Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants.
Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed. The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the 'Hindu Slaughter') is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia.
For all the artistic refinement and opulence of India's past rulers - and their poetry, music, and the magnificence of the Taj Mahal are testament to that - they oversaw a period of general barbarism in which the ordinary Indian was no more than a starving chattel.
The rebellions which eventually arose against the Mughals - such as the Sikhs in Punjab and the Marathas in the south - fractured the rulers' power, and enabled the British to get their own foot in the door.
At this point, it's important to remember that the British did not arrive in an idyllic sub-continent full of happy, contented Indians, but in one in extreme turmoil. And, though primarily motivated by profit, they sought to apply humane values - even if at gunpoint.
In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive. When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things. In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves - up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions.
The fact that Christianity is very much accepted in India (the next day, the neon sign outside the Mahalakshmi Temple proclaimed 'Merry Christmas' to its Hindu worshippers), is proof of the country's quiet acknowledgement that British rule in India left a legacy that unified its disparate peoples and enabled them to emerge as a power in the world.
Despite the often callous profiteering of Empire, the modern Indian state simply would not exist without it. Like the U.S., India is a nation fostered into being by Britain, and one which derives its romantic national identity from its struggle for independence. And just as Americans don't publicly admit that George Washington was an abysmal general who lost almost every battle, Indians don't explicitly recognise Britain's contribution to their country's present success.
But emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the fact that since 1947, Indians have built upon much of what Britain introduced them to - the English language, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the protection of individual rights - is an admission of the crucial role this country played in their history.
It's no overstatement to say that, without the British, Indians would not even know what it is to be Indian.After 800 years of Mughal rule, Hindu culture was in terminal decline and it was the likes of Warren Hastings and William Jones, the founders of the Asiatic Society, who began the collection and renewed study of India's ancient texts, educating Indians about their own rich and unique past. And it was a Briton, Allan Octavian Hume, who helped found the Indian national Congress - the political party that would eventually lead the country to independence.
Thousands of Indians died building the railways of the Raj, but countless more died building the Taj Mahal and other useless baubles for their earlier rulers.
For all they extracted from India, the British left behind a practical network of transportation, governance and values without which India would not be the dynamic democracy it is today. It is a mark of India's quiet appreciation as well as its great self-confidence that it asks for no apology for the past.Out of respect, no Briton should be condescending enough to offer one.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-15-2019 at 03:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
