White Supremacy: What is actually wrong with supporting it?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

White Supremacy is not a requirement for White Nationalism, but I've always wondered, what is actually wrong with believing "White People are the best"?

The media will flip their shit at such statement, but notice their only arguments against it are based on emotions? Where are the facts that say White people are not the best race on Earth?

It's impossible to call White people "stupid" when all of human history has been defined by White Scientists. Hell, just ask any random non-white person on the street who do they consider geniuses, and chances are they'll say Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton or Aristotle. Notice how there is a White genius for every major time period in history?

Ok, enough about brains. What about looks? Look at any Chad meme and the ideal pussy slayer is always a 6 Foot 5 male with blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin. And the same is true about women as well. In fiction, we always see White Women depicted as the ultimate beauty.

https://i.imgur.com/DPDwrx7.jpg

It's why every modern "woke" movie has to take existing White characters and change them into a Black or Hispanic creature.

And what about actual White culture and societies? Well, the proof is just look at mass immigration. Every single race on Earth are desperate to abandon their own countries just so they can live next to White people. And even when they were forced to live next to White people, these same groups refuse to leave them. Look at African Americans. When slavery ended and they were free, NONE of them asked to build a boat and return to Africa. Over 99% of them preferred to stay in the U.S, then go back to Liberia that was created for them.

So it appears the evidence already exists that does say there is a "best" race on Earth. If life were a video game, I'm willing to bet every person would wish they were born as the Chad Caucasian Male or Bombshell European lady, then be a Black Billionaire, or Chinese doctor, or Hispanic thief.

It seems like the media, and hell, just about every human being ever knows the truth about this but are too scared to admit it.

all 44 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted]  (19 children)

[deleted]

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm aware of East Asians, and I don't deny they do very well for themselves... in the modern era.

    But look throughout all of history and make a comparison with Asia and the West. By the 15th century, it was the Portuguese and Spanish who already owned half the world and there were plans to explore it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

    Where was Japan and China at this point? Still in a state of constant civil war. Hell, China still was fighting themselves to death until 1949, when the Communists won. But we saw what came next...

    The closest feat we saw out of Asia was the Mongol Empire, and yet, how many people actually wish they were Mongolian or want to live there?

    [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The closest feat we saw out of Asia was the Mongol Empire, and yet, how many people actually wish they were Mongolian or want to live there?

    Also would anyone say that would want to move to the Mongol Empire? Other than conquering a lot of area and maybe having some advanced military tactics and strategy relative to their time, I can't think of a single thing that the Mongol Empire left behind that was of value. Maybe killing so many people that they affected the climate?

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    By the way, there's another thing I want to point out in terms of racial dynamics.

    It is considered universally ok to lust over White Women. But when someone fawns over Asian women, it's always seen as being a weird nerd fetish.

    Similarly, non-whites chase after White Men as a form of building status. But a White girl chasing after Asian Men is seen as a joke.

    In every scenario, being attracted to White people is seen as punching up in life. Whereas it's considered punching down to be with an Asian.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    It is considered universally ok to lust over White Women. But when someone fawns over Asian women, it's always seen as being a weird nerd fetish.

    This is because non-whites (most often black men, who are also generally more masculine than white men) who lust over white woman do so because white women are generally more attractive (and of higher genetic quality in general). White men who lust over Asian women (usually the less masculine white men of lower genetic quality) do so because they get rejected by white women, and Asian men (who are generally less masculine and less attractive than white men) are easier competition for them.

    Similarly, non-whites chase after White Men as a form of building status. But a White girl chasing after Asian Men is seen as a joke.

    Because Asian men are generally less masculine and less attractive than white men, and it's generally extremely easy for white women to get men of basically any race, so there's literally no reason for white women to chase after Asian men.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    Yes, that was my point.

    In general, pairing up with Whites is seen as being more valuable. In fact, a perfect example of this is Latin America. Asians are considered very wealthy yet despite this, White babies are seen as much better for growing up in society than giving birth to a half-Asian hybrid.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/25/editorial-sperm-of-american-white-men-is-eagerly-p/

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    What do you think of the idea of encouraging women in places like Africa, India and Latin America to take sperm from white donors (from white countries where a lot of men donate sperm like Denmark) over reproducing with men of their own race?

    A lot of people (probably even among the dissident right itself) will consider this hypocritcal because we wouldn't want the reverse to happen, but I think it's fair game since non-whites in places Africa, Latin America and India are breeding like rabbits both in their own homelands as well as our homelands which they immigrate to, and aren't under any threat of extinction unlike us.

    The biggest (and most legitimate) concern about this idea would be the lack of fatherfigures among the half-white children born from this practice in Africa, Latin America and India, but I think that could be fixed if those women who took sperm from white donors would marry men willing to help take care of their half-white children without reproducing themselves. Alternatively, if those women can't or don't want to find men to marry them and take care of their half-white children, we could also pay those women so they can afford to hire men to do the job.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    It wouldn't be a good thing for whites.

    Whites are going extinct. The more genetic distance there is between the races, the less interbreeding will occur. If we mix with nonwhites, we create "bridges" between the races that will transfer genes from other races into the white population and from the white population into the other races.
    In a situation where whites are going extinct, such bridges are not an advantage to us. I've even thought that it is possible that such bridges are never an advantage.

    It is also bad generally for human bio diversity which we need, not as the white race, but as the human species. It is very bad that we don't have our neanderthal, denisovan (et al) cousins anymore. This provided a much needed genetic diversity that allowed us to survive basically any climate change for hundreds of thousands of years and within the past 10-40k years, the genetic diversity has gone to absolute shit and much of that diversity is simply EXTINCT and not recoverable.

    We should imo strive to improve the genetic stock of Africans and other races but not by breeding with them. A time will come when intermixing will become necessary for us to survive as a species, but that time is not now

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The solution is to create enough half-whites who become the new ruling class of their country and are thus able to be more self sufficient.

    The perfect example of this is Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It's one whole island, divided in half. The Pure African side is a warzone that eats mud cookies, whereas the mixed race Spanish side resembles a poor but somewhat stable European country.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    If we mix with nonwhites, we create "bridges" between the races that will transfer genes from other races into the white population and from the white population into the other races.

    This plan wouldn't transfer any more non-white genes into the white gene pool than is already happening, it would only transfer more white genes into non-white gene pools.

    The nice thing about sperm donation is that sperm can literally be created infinitely, so even one white man of high genetic quality alone donating sperm could still potentially fertilize tens of thousands of women around the world in his lifetime.

    .

    It is also bad generally for human bio diversity which we need, not as the white race, but as the human species.

    Lack of human biodiversity only becomes a concern when you have a very small population (let's say a 100 000 people or less) that's isolated from other populations. There's no way this plan would ever pose a serious threat to human biodiversity.

    The Spanish and the Portuguese went to the Americas and literally mixed the natives out of existence in most parts of Latin America, yet this didn't kill human biodiversity as it would've according to your logic. It was eugenic for Latin America, and it didn't harm the Spanish and Portuguese in Europe since the mixing with Amerindians only occured in the Americas.

    .

    We should imo strive to improve the genetic stock of Africans and other races

    I agree, eugenics should be implemented worldwide, to select for the people of the highest genetic quality within every race. This would improve living standards everywhere, and therefore also further mitigate the mass-migation from non-whites into white countries.

    A time will come when intermixing will become necessary for us to survive as a species, but that time is not now

    There will never be a time when us whites will need to mix ourselves out of existence in order to survive, unless in a worst case scenario where the total white population somehow becomes so small that it's literally the only way to avoid inbreeding-induced extinction. There's more than enough biodiversity within the white race, and even if we had a rigorous eugenics program there still would be. You're really underestimating the amount of human biodiversity there truly is.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    This plan wouldn't transfer any more non-white genes into the white gene pool than is already happening, it would only transfer more white genes into non-white gene pools.

    Whites are more likely to reproduce with mixed-blacks than they are with blacks. Reproduction with mixed-blacks will introduce black genes into the white population.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    That's assuming a lot the those half-whites would be immigrating to white countries. Even if they did, them race-mixing with whites would only make pure white people more pro-white, since the kind of white people (especially women) who race-mix tend to be more anti-white than white people in general and those would be filtered out of the white gene pool. White people barely race-mix anyways (despite all the pro-miscegenation propaganda in targeted at white people in movies and commercials); non-white immigration, low white birthrates and high non-white birthrates are far bigger threats to the white race.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    They wouldn't have to immigrate. Genes can propagate from border to border to border to border.
    If you're from Denmark, you'd simply have to breed with a German. This German had a parent from Austria. With a parent from Italy. With a parent from North Africa etc.
    Because you increase the white %, you lower the barrier (build bridges), increasing the transfer rate of nonwhite genes. This German you're now mixing with has 1% black genes. Her parent. 2%. Her parents parent 4%. From italy 8%. From north africa 16%. Parents from north africa, 32% etc.
    The more gradual, the less barrier, the higher the transfer rate, etc.

    Mixing is really hurtful for whites.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    That's obviously wrong. The current climate all but guarantees that a mixed person will identify more with their non-white half and thus be more likely to be anti-White.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    That's obviously wrong. The current climate all but guarantees that a mixed person will identify more with their non-white half and thus be more likely to be anti-White.

    I don't think these half-white people in Africa, Latin America and India would become any more anti-white than their fully non-white counterparts, and even if they did it wouldn't really affect us as long as they stay in Africa/Latin America/India.

    I think this idea would benefit us because every non-white woman in Africa/India/Latin America taking sperm from a white donor would be one women less creating more full non-whites, thus mitigating the demographic threat the explosive third world population growth poses to us.

    [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I think this idea would benefit us because every non-white woman in Africa/India/Latin America taking sperm from a white donor would be one women less creating more full non-whites, thus mitigating the demographic threat the explosive third world population growth poses to us.

    I think you're conflating two very different sub-groups. A woman that can afford artificial insemination is likely wealthier and therefore probably won't be having many children, meanwhile the impoverished who can't afford this will continue to breed like rabbits, i.e. it's not a viable strategy to curb the third world population explosion.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If it was up to me, sperm from white donors would be handed out to non-white women in the third world for free, so this wouldn't really be a problem. As long as it isn't politcally feasible to simply prohibit the low-IQ in the third world from reproducing, giving them sperm from white donors instead seems like worthwhile and effective alternative to me.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I have no problem with a global bleaching program.

    The world's IQ would go way up, and there would be less suffering in general.

    Countries like Jamaica and Liberia did better when they had half-white leaders, instead of full blown Black Africans.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    White supremacy means oppressing every other ethnic group, to the point of violence. White nationalism done right would encourage other ethnic groups to relocate in their ancestors' region.

    I think the difference is huge and while I side with nationalism, I will never side with supremacism. EVER. At all.

    [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    White supremacy means oppressing every other ethnic group, to the point of violence

    If a child outscores his entire class in Math, does that make him violent or oppressive?

    If a child beats his entire class in Basketball, does that make him violent?

    If a girl wins a beauty pageant, does that make her violent?

    In every scenario, it is possible to acknowledge supremacy without juxtaposing it as being some kind of violent extremist.

    In fact, in every category that I posted that White people dominate in, NONE of it has anything to with violence in any kind.

    Science & Technology? Steve Jobs didn't kill anyone. Beauty and physical looks? No one dies for looking at a White person. White culture and civilizations? African slaves preferred to stay next to Whites instead of go back to Africa, even after their freedom was granted.

    Edit: White culture was also responsible for ending slavery globally. Ironically, you look at every non-white Civilization and THEY ALL FOUGHT TO KEEP SLAVES. Native Americans and Black people in particular, captured thousands of slaves for the sole purpose of sacrificing them.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I agree about all the historical facts you post. My point is, "supremacist" is fairly thoroughly equal to "oppressor" in people's minds. That's the distinction I wish to make. Other than that, we are in agreement.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    White supremacy means oppressing every other ethnic group, to the point of violence. White nationalism done right would encourage other ethnic groups to relocate in their ancestors' region.

    I think the difference is huge and while I side with nationalism, I will never side with supremacism. EVER. At all.

    "Violently oppressing non-whites" is the anti-white "motte" definition of "white supremacy" (the anti-white "bailey" definition of "white supremacy" being "anything that benefits white people anywhere"). Just encouraging non-whites to leave white countries and return to where they came from obviously isn't white supremacy, but white supremacy doesn't necessarily have to involve violently oppressing non-whites either.

    White supremacy simply means that white people on a collective level are on top of a power structure in a non-white country/territory. Rhodesia was an example of white supremacy because it was ruled by white people even though they were netiher native nor the majority in Rhodesia. I'm also opposed to violently oppressing non-whites, but if you're actually willing to follow being pro-white through to its logical conclusion (which I do), you have to be willing to seize political power in favor of white people at the expense of non-whites outside white countries if that's necessary to defend the interests of white people, even if that makes you a "white supremacist".

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well I don't disagree with any of that, but I operate under the assumption that "white supremacist" is interpreted by the vast majority as meaning violent domination and oppression by whites. As such, I will not join in supporting the "supremacist" label as a GOOD THING.

    There is just too much at stake to needlessly oppose all kinds of people, many white, in such a way. White Nationalism will be enough for me.

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You're right. There's nothing wrong with white supremacy in a vacuum, but celebrating white excellence with the label of supremacy won't do much good at the moment, maybe in the future.

    [–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I like being a white aryan. Girls have fucked me just because I have blue eyes. Girls of other races always wanted to be seen with me in public especially back in college.

    [–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    what is actually wrong with believing "White People are the best"?

    Nothing and I say that all the time. So what if I think White people are the best? It's a stupid insult because it's like saying it's evil to think your mom is the prettiest mom.

    [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    A relevant topic given my flair that I use for two reasons: (i) to normalise a diluted buzzword that our enemies will hurl at us regardless (ii) to encourage those of the dissident right to shed the remainders of weak liberalism from our worldview.

    Superiority, as you have already argued, does not imply a need to dominate at others. Do humans impulsively crave to abuse animals they subconsciously view as inferior*? Understanding the basis of our superiority only requires a simple education. The great movements and high cultural achievements of history have been mostly produced by Europeans.

    Out of a desperate attempt to rebut this reality, some may bring up the success of East Asians on metrics such as IQ. But intelligence requires a certain character and complete disposition to innovate and transcend limitations. Thus, white superiority is the result of a combination of various traits and abilities, not a few isolated metrics that have amounted to negligible historical impact or scientific achievement.

    We should stop living in denial. It is a cucked remnant of white guilt that still inhabits the psyche of modern white identitarians.

    *Funnily enough, the best counter to this may be the cruelty of non-white slaughter methods. But whites are completely unique, a combination of intelligence, individuality and altruism not present in any other race on the planet, which explains the origins of animal rights movements and whatnot.

    [–][deleted]  (7 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      From the perspective of non-whites it's pretty obvious why we wouldn't want to call white people superior.

      Human beings are animals, and superiority runs rampant in the animal kingdom. Do you call yourself a cuck because you wouldn't stand a chance against a 400 pound Gorilla in a ring? What about a bear or a lion? Accepting such superiority is ok, because it represents biological facts and in many ways, is crucial for survival.

      Calling any race other than your own superior is cuckoldry.

      See above, it's called facing reality and facts.

      If there was another race that made the exact same achievements as White people, where are they? Answer: They don't exist.

      I'm sure you'd never willingly call East Asians superior.

      Why? If they can prove it, I wouldn't deny it. For example, I think East Asians are far superior at making video games. They also do far better in school than other groups. If I'm not afraid to admit those things, why would you or anyone else when the evidence exists?

      [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      You are talking past each other.

      In context, we are discussing a totalising superiority as an organism, which in my view, can only be derived from objective markers of success like reproductive fitness, civilisation building, scientific achievement, intellectual and cultural developments, conquest and military might, etc.

      Do I expect other races to consciously acknowledge white supremacy given this criteria? No, that would be warped.

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Do I expect other races to consciously acknowledge white supremacy given this criteria? No, that would be warped.

      But you haven't explained WHY that is warped, especially since:

      objective markers of success like reproductive fitness, civilisation building, scientific achievement, intellectual and cultural developments, conquest and military might, etc.

      Already exists. Quick question: which was superior? The Ethiopian Empire or the Roman Empire? The Romans? Ok, now guess which race they were? White? Ok, now put the two and two together and which Race did better in history?

      It's incredibly straight forward, and I even explained that if there was another another race who had the exact same achievements as the Romans, the Portuguese or the British then YES! I would acknowledge it. Why the hell wouldn't I? It's impossible to lie or fake the maps that show the extent of conquest, or the technology they built, or the quality of life they enjoyed. It has nothing to do with being cucked because it's just pointing out basic facts. And if other Races deny that, they are only hurting themselves.

      Look at present day South Africa. One of their former Presidents literally went on Television and said he hated seeing Blacks get educated like Whites always have. I'm not making this up, here's the source:

      https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-06-15-it-kills-me-to-see-black-educated-youth-thinking-like-white-people-says-zuma/

      Now look at where his country is today? Did removing "white thinking" make the country prosper, or did it get worse in hosting violence and poverty? Since violence and poverty are always bad, do we have direct comparisons to say the country is inferior to Apartheid? Yes! That's the power of facts. It will always be true, even if someone else pretends to ignore it.

      [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      haven’t explained WHY

      Acknowledging that your tribe is inferior to other groups would be demoralising, leading to potentially destructive behaviours. Beyond this, it is simply unnecessary.

      So I would flip the question: what benefit is there to non-whites for acknowledging white supremacy?

      I would acknowledge it

      An anecdotal case of autism cannot be extrapolated to the irrational masses as a whole.

      Did removing “white thinking” make the country prosper... Since violence and poverty are always bad

      Different races have divergent ideal modes of living. The problem with modern Africa is the presence of Chinese trade and white infrastructure in the hands of literal apes.

      This unfamiliar and fundamentally unnatural way of life is going to produce stressors detrimental to harmonious existence (this looking nothing like European civilisation, but is nonetheless a consequence favourable to their predispositions).

      Thus, what you define as “prosperous” or “bad” is informed by your cultural bias as a white man raised under the umbrella of liberal-capitalism that is obsessed with material wealth and standard of living.

      [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Acknowledging that your tribe is inferior to other groups would be demoralising, leading to potentially destructive behaviours. Beyond this, it is simply unnecessary.

      Ok, this is just being stupid.

      Everywhere in life, there is practically no such thing as equality. It just doesn't exist, especially in the animal kingdom world where such differences reveal themselves very blatantly. If I see someone who can run faster than me, or do complex math questions, my immediate instinct should be to find it impressive, rather than live in a constant state of denial that says "No, that's impossible! Only I was suppose to the fastest".

      There's also a saying, competition inspires innovation. Someone else being faster or smarter doesn't mean you can't learn to improve these things and make something better. The standards for what is considered "great" are always rising, and those who ignore it are also the first ones to fall behind in the race. The Digital world is full of many examples of this. Computers, game consoles, and smart phones all have their own manufactures competing for the spot of most powerful. The ones who succeed manage to grab the attention of billions. The ones who stagnate or fail to keep up, are now forgotten in history.

      So I would flip the question: what benefit is there to non-whites for acknowledging white supremacy?

      For one, the world would be a lot more peaceful. Less people deluding themselves into thinking we're all the exact same could actually inspire them to learn about genetics. We would have no more shitty riots if blacks for example, stopped falling for the lie that police always target them unprovoked or that their crime statistics doesn't raise alarms. In a lot of ways, blacks would do better if they just simply acknowledged the truth and just picked a better culture that didn't worship rap music and breaking the law. That doesn't mean there would be no more black criminals or high levels of violence, but at least there would be some level of accountability where people like George Floyd or Trayvon Martin aren't glorified as Saints and require statues built in their thuggish honor.

      An anecdotal case of autism cannot be extrapolated to the irrational masses as a whole.

      You know, I had someone explain to me before about the irrational masses and my response is I don't let them dictate my thinking. Democracy is proof that millions of people will always vote against their own interests, because they are either Low IQ or simply ignorant. After reading the bell curve, it should be fairly obvious that all major decisions in life where always decided by the highest caste. Mcdonalds doesn't let their fry cooks run the business, only the CEO at the very top has the power to influence millions. Similarly, I don't care if the actual lemmings disagree with me. I consider myself smarter to know what is actually good for them.

      Different races have divergent ideal modes of living. The problem with modern Africa is the presence of Chinese trade and white infrastructure in the hands of literal apes. This unfamiliar and fundamentally unnatural way of life is going to produce stressors detrimental to harmonious existence (this looking nothing like European civilisation, but is nonetheless a consequence favourable to their predispositions). Thus, what you define as “prosperous” or “bad” is informed by your cultural bias as a white man raised under the umbrella of liberal-capitalism that is obsessed with material wealth and standard of living.

      South Africa is proof that abandoning White excellence, or the model created by them, was a big disaster, because the absolute alternative (i.e President Zuma saying Blacks needed to think like Blacks) just doesn't work. Yet at the same time, Blacks still don't like extreme violence or poverty, because they still call the police or ask for financial assistance when they're on their last knees. I'm not saying we need to scrap every unique racial culture on Earth. I think my love of Japan is proof that a balance can exist. But I wont shed any tears if there was a worldwide eugenic effort to remove the lass savory elements found in every country. Stuff like slavery or human sacrifice, have always thrived on pure misery, rather than advance a civilization in any meaningful way. We can live without those things. But if Blacks want to make movies about themselves, or engage in physical sports, I'm not going to complain because they're neither harmful or deleterious. You can still have an advance civilization that does those things.

      Edit: And the fact that non-whites have always immigrated in mass to White cultures is proof there is no bias in what I'm talking about. If they hate wealth and high standards of living, then they can always buy an Airplane ticket and GTFO. But.... they.... never.... do..... this.... ever.....

      That's why I made this thread. Every human being on Earth is complicit in finding White people to be better than them. They don't ever admit this outloud, but their actions speak even louder when they demand they get access to the White Man instead of asking for a wall to separate them.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        what exactly do you mean by superiority?

        You answered it with the next sentence.

        I accept that white people have higher IQ and better countries for example

        These two things don't fall out of the sky. If every country represented such desirable traits, the world as we know it would be a much different place. But since Whites do both things consistently better, that makes them... superior.

        One could argue that Jews are superior due to how much control they have over the US,

        So why are they living in the U.S and not Israel? And why does Israel need $6 Billion a year from America as well?

        If Jews could build their own country and live without free gibs, then sure, they could be seen as superior. But living next to what the White Man already built doesn't count, sorry!

        [–][deleted]  (5 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          So I don't think it makes sense at all saying that "white people are the best", because it implies that they are the best for white people's standard. Probably black people are the best for black people's standard and so on.

          This is incorrect. When Black's or Hispanics fail school, they demand Whites fix their grades for them. When Black people are starving somewhere, they demand White people send them free food and water. Hell, when there's a natural disaster, they demand Whites give them free housing. The White Standard exists because Whites spent the last thousand years defining what a proper Civilization even looks like. If every race really didn't care about living up to such perfection, they would have built boats and sailed as far away from White countries as possible. Instead, we've seen the exact opposite. Non-whites build dingy rafts and float all the way to England or Italy demanding a White life.

          White supremacy on the other hand lead to a worldview where is white people's right and burden to rule over other races.

          This was always going to be the case because usually when you're the best at something, it inspires copycats and acolytes who want a piece of that success for themselves.

          We tries that in America and with the English empire, and it resulted in globalism.

          Whites were flying to the Moon or splitting atoms in half when their nations were still 80% White or more. The fault is not White supremacy in this case, but White people being duped into believing that cheap labor and third world immigration were not going to replace their demographics. The solution to Globalism? Repeal Hart-Celler and seal off the border.

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            You can't simply point to America, which is a totally disfunctional nation built upon greed and slave importing,

            Africa and Brazil had far more slaves than the U.S. Where are both countries/continents today?

            The U.S was a majority white country for most of its history. Other races had a choice to leave once the Emancipation Proclamation was passed and even an entirely new country in Africa was created for them [Liberia]. Yet how come Blacks, or Chinese, or Japanese never got the idea to build a boat and head back home, especially if you also believe it was their "labor" that made the country what it is today?

            They practically didn't, without the White Man guiding them every step of the way. The only real mistake, was again, the 1960s Hart-Celler legislation which created a never ending stream of third world immigrants which has lead to the current demographic crisis. Otherwise, America was still the best place to live.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              White people are not afraid of themselves or white supremacy. It's non-whites who have an issue with them but demand to move closer to the source.

              [–]grocerymannn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

              Whites are literally inferior because they are apparently the only group to be susceptible to mass collective guilt and shame about their own history, leading to mass denial of their uniqueness/worth for their own preservation.

              [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

              "Guilt" hasn't stopped White neighborhoods from being the most peaceful places to live. Guilt didn't stop Elon Musk from launching a car into outer space, just because he can.

              White supremacy will always exist because it's in White people's genes to create functioning societies wherever they go. Someone pointed out the other day the difference between White Democrat cities and Black Democrat ones. Since they're both far-left, the logical conclusion is they're both awful right? Except, White Democrats are very rich and still maintain strong careers. So it was never "politics" that set groups apart. Only Race has that impact.

              Edit: And if you still ask the Black people where they would rather live, they'll pack their bags and move right into a White suburb and refuse to leave. I even made a thread about this recently. Blacks will buy houses next to White people, complain about them, but for some reason, they don't want to leave White neighborhoods.

              https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/8680/black_homeowners_complain_how_hard_life_is_living/

              [–]grocerymannn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              white gulit has indeed made it so that many European countries are completely thrilled about committing seppuku on their only homelands and destroying their native civilisations. The UK actively wants to suicide itself, same with Sweden, France, Netherlands, Germany, etc.

              there's no way in hell you can call a people who want to suicide themselves as "superior."

              [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              There's a famous saying, "can't see the forest for the trees".

              Guilt in no way diminishes the big picture of White civilizations being the most envied of the world. Even when you bring up "suicide", explain to me why the hell are so many non-whites choosing to live with them? Why not stay in their own countries if they believed in White inferiority? Answer: they can never achieve this high standard of life on their own, hence why they're emigrating in huge numbers.

              [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Normal white people don't want to suicide themselves, only the elites (who are disproportionately Jewish) and a loud minority of violent woke freaks brainwashed by them want that. This just seems like leftist cope to me. If white people want to suicide themselves, why would anti-whites feel like it's necessary for them to deplatform any pro-white voices, and why do they need to resort to using violence and intimidation against white people (i.e BLM, antifa) to enforce their anti-white views upon them? Non-whites just have the luxury of not having been targeted for decades with constant propaganda that tells them to hate their own race and culture as well as with astroturfed violent mobs to enforce such views upon them.

              Even over here in the Netherlands (which is commonly regarded as one of the most cucked white countries), about half of the population is anti-immigration, the majority of the population is proud of the Netherlands' colonial/imperial past, and about half of the population still actively wants to preserve "Zwarte Piet" (a Dutch tradition that's often likened to blackface by woke leftists). All this despite all the anti-white and other woke propaganda from the Dutch media, and despite all the money Soros spends into turning the Netherlands into a progressive model society.

              [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              'Best' and 'Supreme' are objective statements. Whether or not a racial breed is 'supreme' is for out groups not in groups to decide. (and also for 'nature' to decide) You'd need to design a measurement criteria to decide who is better and because different nations and races are so different there's really no agreeing on that criteria. It's a clusterfuck and not worth talking about.

              Anybody who recommends white people promote themselves as 'supreme' is woefully uninformed of the rhetorical attacks used on whites since WWI. I find that nearly everyone who says this is really attempting to get the dissident movement to make it self less marketable to the western public.

              [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              You'd need to design a measurement criteria to decide who is better and because different nations and races are so different there's really no agreeing on that criteria. It's a clusterfuck and not worth talking about.

              These measurements already exist. You're basically asking for a compilation of these sources which to be honest... has already been done.

              Maybe check out Charles Murray book called Human Accomplishment as one example?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

              The idea of supremacy obviously implies that a person or race has advantages that makes their social standing to be very powerful or just outright easier compared to other groups. I even used my Latin American example that says that even though Asians are still wealthy in those places, there isn't actually a high demand for Half-Asian babies. Giving birth to an actual White child is just seen as being more desirable.

              I find that nearly everyone who says this is really attempting to get the dissident movement to make it self less marketable to the western public.

              "Less marketable" in a world where even mentioning race in non-egalitarian terms is considered taboo, rings hollow. The simple fact is, denying truth is how you end up with the current world where lies are allowed to be mainstream. Teaching evolution or the Earth being round were at one point not marketable either, but we would have never heard of either if at least one person didn't focus on being famous but doing the right thing instead.