A big flaw about white demographic change that can't be ignored.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is such a bad-faith argument.

Are you familiar with South Africa? Blacks from the countries north of South Africa are pouring into South Africa like crazy (just like they did during Apartheid), because life is so much better in South Africa, even though South Africa is only 8% white and blacks are now in charge. You know why? Because white people built and entire civilization from scratch over there, from which the black majority is obviously still reaping the benefits. Not only that, the white minority also still forms the economic, intellectual and scientific backbone of South Africa, even though they aren't in charge anymore and get murdered by angry blacks all the time. Since Apartheid has been abolished, South Africa is rapidly going downhill though, but the legacy of the white minority is far from over. Under Apartheid, South Africa functioned like a European country because the white minority did all the thinking, technology, agriculture and decision-making while the low-skilled labor was filled up by the black majority. Without the excellence of its white population, South Africa would've been nothing, it would just be like any other sub-Saharan African country.

Now imagine this but with a 60% white population instead of an 8% white population. That's America.

Again proving my point about non-whites requiring access to white people in order to do well, be it a majority or a minority. We might as well accept this reality, and bring Western civilization to non-whites and make them prosper in their own countries, instead of bringing non-whites to Western civilization and dragging everything down with them.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Apartheid banned all non-whites from the government, while also forcibly moving their populations around or subjecting them to inferior services. It's beyond hypocritical to use that as an example when any tyrannical government that oppresses people leaves them worse off.

The Soviet Union was all White. Yet many Ukrainians were starved to death. Is that now proof Whites can't do anything right? The African country of Botswana even has a higher GDP per capita than Ukraine. It's a losing argument to suggest non-white people can never prosper despite their economies are continuing to grow year after year.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

More pilpul. No one is saying non-whites can never prosper and whites will always prosper. Imagine using "the best-performing African country does better than the worst-performing white country" as an argument and believing that's an own against white people. Still doesn't change the fact that most of Europe is rich while most of sub-Saharan Africa is shit, that there is a direct correlation between the black and white shares of a country's population and its HDI, and that there's a correlation between African territories having been more instensively colonized by white people and a higher level of prosperity and stability in said territories up to this very day. Now we're at it, Botswana was also colonized by Europe and has a very profitable mining industry (which wouldn't have existed without whitey).

Yes, of course there are exceptions because there are also internal inequalities between different white peoples and because of other circumstances. For example, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, like Russia, got pillaged by oligarchs, and it has been entangled in a devastating war with Russia since 2014).

And the Soviet Union had famines because its brutal dictatorship (in which Jews had a huge role, mind you, especially in the early days of the Soviet Union) massacred all the Kulaks (the most competent and productive farmers), just like Mugabe deported and massacred all the white farmers and how the white farmers in South Africa are getting disenfranchised today, not because of a supposed lack of civilizational capabilities of Russians and Ukrainians. Russia and Ukraine could very well be propsperous countries if they didn't have parasitic ruling elites, just like Ukraine was until 1991.

Yet again, you've shown yourself to be full of shit.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

More pilpul. No one is saying non-whites can never prosper and whites will always prosper.

There is a strong narrative from the Alt-right that suggests genetics are destiny, or that genetics predicts the outcomes of civilizations (someone in this thread said it was white intelligence that made America wealthy for example). So it becomes contradictory to believe certain races are born less intelligent, but at the same time, we have evidence that clearly shows that even these heavily underdeveloped countries are still on pace to catch up with other Western ones.

And your comments on the Soviet Union reveal your hypocrisy. You would never say that East Germans or Polish people were stupid during their time under Communism. It is fact that oppression directly lead to these nations doing far worse than the more democratic and capitalist countries outside of the Soviet bloc. African countries were victims of colonization and multiple civil wars. It's not logical to think it's just inferior genes that cause them to lag behind. Any country that is not politically stable or ruled by dictatorships will have worse off living conditions. Or the fact that the USA itself directly sponsored some of these dictators or overthrow leaders they didn't like.

And the Soviet Union had famines because its brutal dictatorship (in which Jews had a huge role, mind you, especially in the early days of the Soviet Union) massacred all the Kulaks (the most competent and productive farmers), just like Mugabe deported and massacred all the white farmers and how the white farmers in South Africa are getting disenfranchised today, not because of a supposed lack of civilizational capabilities of Russians and Ukrainians. Russia and Ukraine could very well be propsperous countries if they didn't have parasitic ruling elites, just like Ukraine was until 1991.

Mugabe is not the king of black people. No more than Stalin was the king of Whites.

that there is a direct correlation between the black and white shares of a country's population and its HDI

Correlation does not imply causation. Once again, plenty of Communist European countries had far worse HDI. Are the Germans or Russians genetically inferior because of it?

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There is a strong narrative from the Alt-right that suggests genetics are destiny, or that genetics predicts the outcomes of civilizations (someone in this thread said it was white intelligence that made America wealthy for example). So it becomes contradictory to believe certain races are born less intelligent, but at the same time, we have evidence that clearly shows that even these heavily underdeveloped countries are still on pace to catch up with other Western ones.

No one is arguing genetics are the only factor that influences how prosperous a country will be, just that a plays a huge rule, you dipshit. And like u/Blackbrownfreestuff said earlier, if sub-Saharan Africa will truly become as prosperous as the West like you claim it will, which I highly doubt, that would obviously mean there's no reason for them to immigrate into the West.

African countries were victims of colonization and multiple civil wars. It's not logical to think it's just inferior genes that cause them to lag behind. Any country that is not politically stable or ruled by dictatorships will have worse off living conditions. Or the fact that the USA itself directly sponsored some of these dictators or overthrow leaders they didn't like.

Ah, it's the fault of whitey again, isn't it? "muh oppression", "muh racism", "muh colonialism". Again, the fact that the sub-Saharan countries that were the most intensively colonized by Europe are actually on average doing the best today shows that you're completely full of shit.

And your comments on the Soviet Union reveal your hypocrisy. You would never say that East Germans or Polish people were stupid during their time under Communism. It is fact that oppression directly lead to these nations doing far worse than the more democratic and capitalist countries outside of the Soviet bloc. African countries were victims of colonization and multiple civil wars. It's not logical to think it's just inferior genes that cause them to lag behind. Any country that is not politically stable or ruled by dictatorships will have worse off living conditions. Or the fact that the USA itself directly sponsored some of these dictators or overthrow leaders they didn't like.

Mugabe is not the king of black people. No more than Stalin was the king of Whites.

Strawman much? I was just pointing that Mugabe made Zimbabwe a worse country than it could've been with his shitty policies, in the same way Stalin made the Soviet Union worse than it could've been with similar shitty policies. Weren't you literally arguing that the Soviet Union proves white people can't do anything right (even though most white countries are rich and most African countries shit)? The same logic could be aplied to Zimbabwe, proving blacks can't do anything right.

Correlation does not imply causation. Once again, plenty of Communist European countries had far worse HDI. Are the Germans or Russians genetically inferior because of it?

You're full shit. Communist European countries definitely had a higher standard of living than most of sub-Saharan Africa (except for the countries heavily colonized by white people like South Africa), East Germany even more so. In most of sub-Saharan Africa, even the most basic aspects of civilization like running water and food are constantly a problem, despite all the development aid we send them, whereas those things were far much less of an issue during colonial rule.

It's impossible to have a good faith conversation with you and your ilk, becuase you're a disgusting, anti-white piece of trash who will always pick the most anti-white position possible in every argument. When a sub-Saharan African country is doing bad (like almost all of them) it must be because of the white devil, whereas if there's a rare case of such a country doing good it has nothing to do with it having been previously colonized by white people and proves the superiority of all black people. Whenever there's a rare case of a European/Western country doing bad it's entirely their fault and proves the inferiority of white people, whereas if a European/Western country is doing good (like almost all of them) it has nothing to do with its white population.

Eat shit, you parasite.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stop feeding the trolls

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No one is arguing genetics are the only factor that influences how prosperous a country will be, just that a plays a huge rule, you dipshit

If it was playing a big role, it doesn't explain why China and Japan use to be backwater dumps but today have either caught up with the West or surpasses them. Are we to believe that genetics can rapidly change in a short amount of time? There are scientific papers that explain poverty itself is a harmful feedback loop. If you only lived a life where food was hard to come by and going to school could end in a life or death scenario, then it's easy to say that the rest of the non-white world only exists as inferior creatures. But you change those living conditions and suddenly instill a culture that rewards hard work, then we shouldn't be surprised that these 3rd world countries are experiencing extreme economic growth.

if sub-Saharan Africa will truly become as prosperous as the West like you claim it will, which I highly doubt, that would obviously mean there's no reason for them to immigrate into the West.

And isn't that a good thing? Teaching Africans they were born stupid and being surprised when they actually do stuff for themselves is self explanatory. They were never stupid if they do receive the proper motivation and environment to try and prosper instead of leaving their nations for a better life somewhere else.

Ah, it's the fault of whitey again, isn't it? "muh oppression", "muh racism", "muh colonialism". Again, the fact that the sub-Saharan countries that were the most intensively colonized by Europe are actually on average doing the best today shows that you're completely full of shit.

They never asked to be colonized. You should be angry at any European ancestor who thought it was a good idea to attack another continent and force them to feel second class when they wanted independence. But because they meddled with their continent, they will be blamed for ruining their lives. The infamous saying goes "The only winning move, is to not play". Africa should have been left alone where they wouldn't have to deal with artificial borders being drawn up, resulting in civil wars no one asked for.

Strawman much? I was just pointing that Mugabe made Zimbabwe a worse country than it could've been with his shitty policies, in the same way Stalin made the Soviet Union worse than it could've been with similar shitty policies. Weren't you literally arguing that the Soviet Union proves white people can't do anything right (even though most white countries are rich and most African countries shit)? The same logic could be aplied to Zimbabwe, proving blacks can't do anything right.

So lets agree then that dictators are bad for any race. White people and Black people are clearly capable of building nations. But bloodthirsty monsters like Stalin and Mugabe only tainted that image.

You're full shit. Communist European countries definitely had a higher standard of living than most of sub-Saharan Africa (except for the countries heavily colonized by white people like South Africa), East Germany even more so. In most of sub-Saharan Africa, even the most basic aspects of civilization like running water and food are constantly a problem, despite all the development aid we send them, whereas those things were far much less of an issue during colonial rule.

Where are those Communist countries today if they were so great? No, they were horrible places to live and it required revolution to get rid of them.

It's impossible to have a good faith conversation with you and your ilk, becuase you're a disgusting, anti-white piece of trash who will always pick the most anti-white position possible in every argument.

What if I told you I like White people? And a lot of them are my friends? I don't think I even made a single comment meant to put down Whites. The only exception was Stalin, but that was because he was an asshole who just happened to murder people who had the same skin color as him.

When a sub-Saharan African country is doing bad (like almost all of them) it must be because of the white devil,

Trust me, it's going to change real quick. You are living the under assumption most Africans enjoy being oppressed or don't want to see their lives changed. There's a great African leader in Rwanda who clearly has a plan for his people. He's actually doing an incredible great job in bringing an African country closer to European standards. And nothing about IQ and Race is stopping him from doing it.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lol. Playing the "skin color is the same thing as race" game. I despise you already.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Race can be an appropriate tool for identifying physical characteristics. Blacks, Whites, Asians, Native Indians clearly look different and those are outward appearances we can't change.

But assigning races certain pseudoscientific traits doesn't at all appear to help anyone, and even leads to some historical atrocities. Every race has low IQ for example, yet why did many people in the past think that made it ok to keep slaves or deny them sovereignty (Colonialism)? It's not always a good faith argument to assume other people are lesser, while history shows us the "smarter" groups would outright abuse or genocide those they considered subhuman.