you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (44 children)

yeah, tons of dark skinned prominent civilizations, like libyans

Proof the Libyans are dark skin? I imagined they looked like this (Zinedane Zidane whose parents are North African).

https://files.catbox.moe/eqxuli.jpeg

indians,

I've heard theories that India's only greatness was when the Aryans had invaded the continent. But other wise, the Indian race has never been a world power. Just look at how India gained their independence. Gandhi may have lead a non-violent movement, but the Brits got the last laugh and split their country into two (i.e Pakistan & India). And of course, look at India today? They're worse off than when the British tried to tame them.

aztec and so on.

Perhaps compared to the other Amerindians living on the continent. But their place in history is still closer to being slightly more advanced savages. For example, the temples they built only served a purpose for sacrificing humans so the sun could rise each day. Compare that to the "light skin" people who built Cathedrals or Coliseums that served as community centers or theaters of entertainment.

but at this point we should take also in account that the most northern europeans happily lived in primitive tribalistic civilizations until Charlemagne showed up slaughtering saxons until they were enough christianized.

Isn't this a myth? The Vikings for example, had an earnest desire to discover America, hundreds of year before Columbus would try.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'd say the Incans are closer to being the Romans of the Americas than the Aztecs.

The trouble is the Incans were still at the that stage 1200 years or so after the Romans.

But they were well on their way to having a society where they could systematically make discoveries and progress society. They even had research centres.

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

The trouble is the Incans were still at the that stage 1200 years or so after the Romans.

Incans and none of the other Amerindians ever invented the wheel.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

But other wise, the Indian race has never been a world power.

The northern kingdoms were too focused on staving off invasions and dealing with foreigners to really go beyond trade relations, Indian goods were very coveted in the ancient world though, and India as a whole had a huge economic output. The Chola Empire specifically managed to colonize all of Southeast Asia and to this day there are countless temples remaining, and the Thai monarchy still uses ceremonies passed down from that era.

And of course, look at India today? They're worse off than when the British tried to tame them.

If the Brits left it in the hands of the old monarchies as previously planned it would've been minimum Arab tier if not rivalling Asian powers.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Can you give me an example of what these Indians goods are?

It's like saying Mali was a world power because Mansa Musa had a lot of gold. It's technically correct, but without the Africans ever investing their wealth in cutting edge technology, they were going to be eclipsed by a more advanced civilization sooner or later. Which did happen. France came in and made them their colony.

If the Brits left it in the hands of the old monarchies as previously planned it would've been minimum Arab tier if not rivalling Asian powers.

What did the monarchies have to do with making India a more competitive nation? A country like Russia proves that even when Whites are ruled by destructive and seemingly backwards governments, it still hasn't stopped them from dominating at the sciences or military technology.

India today is obviously in a much better position than 1930s Russia was, yet who still has the better status symbol? People feared that a man like Stalin could somehow enslave all of Europe, meanwhile, nobody really cares what goes on in India, even when they have their little spats with Pakistan and China.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Can you give me an example of what these Indians goods are?

Damascus steel was actually forged in India for example, along with we exported many luxury goods and apparently our hounds were famed in Greece.

What did the monarchies have to do with making India a more competitive nation?

The key to understanding India is realizing that it's a country made by its aristocracy and weighed down by its peasantry. Modern India is a regime specifically designed to prevent the advancement of the aristocratic lines while taking their wealth.

India today is obviously in a much better position than 1930s Russia was, yet who still has the better status symbol? People feared that a man like Stalin could somehow enslave all of Europe, meanwhile, nobody really cares what goes on in India

Who cares about popularity lmao

even when they have their little spats with Pakistan and China

That they mogged Pakistan continuously after the 60s despite the Pakis having American equipment and managed to hold back China after the 60s despite inferior equipment there as well, not to mention the political hamstringing of the army is proof that the spirit of India's nobility has remained strong. The genetic and spiritual component of the Indian army is its only advantage.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The key to understanding India is realizing that it's a country made by its aristocracy and weighed down by its peasantry. Modern India is a regime specifically designed to prevent the advancement of the aristocratic lines while taking their wealth.

If a group of complete outsiders [Brits] could enter the country and declare themselves as rulers, then I'm at a loss why the actual Indian upper class refuse to do the same in their own country. Maybe instead of leaving the country mass, wealthy Indians could actually stay and attempt to retake the government.

Who cares about popularity lmao

Popular might be the wrong word. But posing as a geographical threat or competitor is not.

That they mogged Pakistan continuously after the 60s despite the Pakis having American equipment and managed to hold back China after the 60s despite inferior equipment there as well, not to mention the political hamstringing of the army is proof that the spirit of India's nobility has remained strong. The genetic and spiritual component of the Indian army is its only advantage.

Good on India. Now how about they prove their superiority by having a gdp per capita that's higher than $2,000?

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If a group of complete outsiders [Brits] could enter the country and declare themselves as rulers

That's not how that worked at all, it was a very complex series of events and a huge part of it is that the Brits had an advantage thanks to the near unlimited financing they secured through the Jews. Still took multiple drawn out conflicts to annex what they had. Even when they declared the Raj after 1857 they didn't directly rule that much land.

I'm at a loss why the actual Indian upper class refuse to do the same in their own country. Maybe instead of leaving the country mass, wealthy Indians could actually stay and attempt to retake the government.

The ones who leave are mainly doing so to escape affirmative action and potential forced intermarriage for their children, along with the danger of more wealth redistribution. The trouble with retaking it is that a huge portion of the nobility "drank the koolaid" so to speak with respect to the secularist egalitarian ideals of the Independence movement. Currently India has had a resurgence away from those ideals but the ones in charge are still egalitarians in a different change of clothes. Recently several kids shitposting about caste and muslims got arrested, so it seems that conflict is heating up. It'll be interesting to see where that is by 2050.

Popular might be the wrong word. But posing as a geographical threat or competitor is not.

Too many internal barriers, civil war is needed.

Good on India. Now how about they prove their superiority by having a gdp per capita that's higher than $2,000?

You'd need to completely liquidate every single institution in the post 1947 India before that happens lol, and millions will need to die. Can't wait. Would return to fight if a civil war broke out.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That's not how that worked at all, it was a very complex series of events and a huge part of it is that the Brits had an advantage thanks to the near unlimited financing they secured through the Jews. Still took multiple drawn out conflicts to annex what they had. Even when they declared the Raj after 1857 they didn't directly rule that much land.

I forgot to mention there where other European powers who manage to control India. France, Portugal & I believe the Dutch as well.

If those guys were willing to fight complex wars over it (and they obviously won in the end), then I have no sympathy for Indians who refuse to do the same.

The ones who leave are mainly doing so to escape affirmative action and potential forced intermarriage for their children, along with the danger of more wealth redistribution. The trouble with retaking it is that a huge portion of the nobility "drank the koolaid" so to speak with respect to the secularist egalitarian ideals of the Independence movement. Currently India has had a resurgence away from those ideals but the ones in charge are still egalitarians in a different change of clothes. Recently several kids shitposting about caste and muslims got arrested, so it seems that conflict is heating up. It'll be interesting to see where that is by 2050.

That's not my problem. There are people who want to flee Afghanistan because they hate the Taliban. Even though they had 20 years and billions in foreign aid to actually do something about them.

Still doesn't mean I want to take these people in, or they have exclusive access to our countries. Either find somewhere else or go back and fight for your homeland.

Too many internal barriers, civil war is needed.

Then hopefully they know what's coming next if they care about their future.

You'd need to completely liquidate every single institution in the post 1947 India before that happens lol, and millions will need to die. Can't wait. Would return to fight if a civil war broke out.

See above.

History is filled with numerous examples of wars being fought to regain control of something. The best advice I'm giving Indians right now is they need to stop being scared and ignore the status quo. Trust me, we would all be better off in the long run vs watching the frog boil slowly.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I forgot to mention there where other European powers who manage to control India. France, Portugal & I believe the Dutch as well.

They only controlled tiny provinces where they had assistance from the local Jewish and Christian population. The Brits were the only ones that fought the big wars.

Still doesn't mean I want to take these people in, or they have exclusive access to our countries. Either find somewhere else or go back and fight for your homeland.

Well then maybe you should do something about all the kikes cutting us huge checks on your end. Whites emigrate for money and opportunity, it's the same here. You can't blame anyone for taking advantage of it really. I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to stop it either. It goes both ways doesn't it?

The best advice I'm giving Indians right now is they need to stop being scared and ignore the status quo. Trust me, we would all be better off in the long run vs watching the frog boil slowly.

Agree wholeheartedly. I believe the majority of the upper class who are aware of things are moving in the same direction. Almost all of them refuse to emigrate to avoid the degeneracy in the West. Ball is rolling slowly.

Hope you guys take your own advice as well.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Well then maybe you should do something about all the kikes cutting us huge checks on your end. Whites emigrate for money and opportunity, it's the same here. You can't blame anyone for taking advantage of it really. I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to stop it either. It goes both ways doesn't it?

Do you mean Whites moving to other White countries? There's nothing wrong with that.

If Whites are moving to Brown or Black countries than I would give them the same advice. Don't run away from your own people, take charge of them instead.

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

Referring to whites working in Gulf countries and elsewhere for increased salaries at a lower tax rate. It's the same deal for high IQ immigrants to the US. People are paying them to come, and if they're not dedicated to a political/militant cause and the benefits are higher than the costs they take that deal.

Permanent emigration to the US seems to be on the decline though and I don't think the West is as aspirational as it used to be for emigrants.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If we are going to evaluate cultures considering how much they travelled, then the gypsies are peak civilization. As for the rest, lybians are as dark as other northern Africans, which is a little bit darker than euro-mediteranneans, that are darker than Northern European and so on. You choose a sign of differentiation that exists in a spectrum, so you must accept that. I would have chosen the relation to the proto Indo-Europeans, but you do you.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Did the Gypsies build ships like the Vikings did? Or were considered successful warriors? If the answer to both questions are "no" then they are not advanced.

I would have chosen the relation to the proto Indo-Europeans, but you do you.

I don't deny that shades of skin color exist. But regardless, they are not "dark" in the traditional sense like how sub-saharan Africa or India are brown or black. So yes, the closer a race is to white skin color, we naturally expect them to also be a bit more advance too.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Building ships and beeing warriors is being advanced? So we have to put native Americans in the superior civilization pool.

Also, we are not using "white" as a shortcoming in order to say "Indo-Europeans", you literally cited Japanese, which are not Indo-Europeans at all. They are closely related to PIEs as much as black from South Africa can be. We are literally discussing if skin pigmentation is a good way to determine the value of civilizations, which obviously isn't the case

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Building ships and beeing warriors is being advanced? So we have to put native Americans in the superior civilization pool.

Since when did Natives exceed at either? As warriors, they literally got raped by White Man and now they chug mouthwash on their reserves while begging for more welfare.

As for their ships... uh... cool canoe? Did they actually take their little paddle boats and explore new continents with it? My guess is no...

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British. You might also want to look at British policies that used census to divide Indian society much like what they tried to do in Europe (supporting powers against French, German ….) to create infighting. You might also want to see Indian economy as a percentage of GDP 1) before the period of colonization 2) before Islamic invaders came in

Gandhi and later is what the west wanted to believe are representatives of Indian civilization. You can have them but that’s like saying Obama is the best representative of the western leadership.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

India is not worse of at all now that what it was under the British.

Millions of Indians have immigrated to Western countries over the past 50 years. How many British (or other White people) have moved to India within the same period after independence?

And based on voting patterns, I've also never seen Indians attempt to stop the mass migration of their own people into Western countries. In Canada & the U.S for example, Indian citizens disproportionately vote for Left or Hard-Left parties who support open borders.

There are much longer empires in India far more extensive and longer with more people under them than you might imagine. Take a look at Maurya, Chola, Vijaynagar, Maratha ….

I'll definitely take a look into those but before I do, I want to make a prediction. The comparisons being made are with civilizations who have simply shown to be the strongest or most technologically powerful throughout history. To India's credit, I'm aware it's an ancient civilization and has perhaps influenced several of its neighbors. But, without feats that's outright match the examples I listed in the OP, I'm willing to bet still comes in a distant 2nd or 3rd place for controlling the world.

For example, Ethiopia is another Brown country that has been around since Ancient times. But just being "old" is not good enough to somehow praise them for being the best. In fact, it does raise several questions such as: why didn't India or Ethiopia join the Age of Exploration and colonize the new world before Europeans did? Or similarly, why didn't India launch Space rockets before Germany, Russia and the U.S did. I'm aware India has a Space Program today... but once again, it doesn't quite mean much if they're still playing catchup instead of outcompeting NASA in Space discovery.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

A lot of the urban elite class is as western as Manhattan socialite. Mostly due to education and a strong communist influence on history textbooks for the last 70 years or so. The second most influential group that misguides history ? The Catholic Church which is also one of the largest landowners in the country.

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now.

I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back.

I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe.

My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

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

I did mention 3 major immigrations out of India. First the gypsies, second the Caribbean indentured laborers and their the Indians to west in the last 50-100 years. If you consider the third, this group of immigrants is actually the most successful class of India. The reason they move to the west is because of the most aggressive affirmative action policies that are in mandated even in private colleges of India. Do you know who created the classifications for providing affirmative action ? The ex colonizer. Not trying to say India should not own up after many years of independence but the problem is we still have entirely colonial institutions, colonial definitions that describe our society.

That makes no sense at all. If Indians could oppose the British ruling over them, why would they switch heel and want to live under British rule again in their own island?

This is just another example of the third world being ran by incompetent management. They were given a chance to rebuild on their own, but they rejected it. And if Indians don't even like their own country to actually stay in it, why would anyone trust them to potentially run global politics?

Despite all this, if you ask any Indian (including many western elites in the country) if he/she want to live in India pre or post independence ? It would be post independence mostly because the economy has been better (albeit more socialist).

Then by all means, they should elect a government that calls for the return of all Indians to their homeland. And yes, this is actually a very easy task to achieve. African countries like Ghana throw in incentives for blacks to return, and Israel obviously makes it very easy for Jews to go live there. Although notice in both examples, especially with Africa, the non-whites still find life more comfortable in the West and are hard to please?

I agree that the Indians who come here turn left in the countries here. But if you remove immigration as an issue, you will find they are far right than an average white man. Indians support legal limited and merit based immigration. If democrats succeed in combining illegal and legal immigration then it results in Indians voting for them for the legal immigration but. If someone makes a disctinctiom between them, as did President Trump, you will see Indians tend to support them.

We have more than 20 years of election data. Only White Americans have ever voted for Republicans in mass or majority numbers.

If anything, diversity & multiculturalism has shown us the "myth" of all races coming together and working in unison. Politics is much more fractured when you have to spend huge amounts of money convincing minorities to join your aside, vs a homogenous population that look similar to one another.

One more thing is that Indians come here to universities and that’s where they are often indoctrinated into being leftists. Parents are waking up to it now. I’ll also add that increasing number of Indians tend to go back to India once they get older around late 45-50s. if they stay, it’s only for kids schooling and soon after kids complete schooling they move back. I graduated from a university here and a lot of my classmates alreadywent back. I understand that position might not be popular here but I dare say that Indian immigration is adding to the talent pool unlike most others.

All of this comes at the cost of the host country. Why should any American compete against foreigners for the same jobs, housing, school etc? America (& Europeans in general) have always thrived on their own for thousands of year. If non-whites want the same thing, then be like Japan and actually build those great things on your own. But moving to a White's country, using their services but then claiming "hey buddy, you need us" is very hypocritical. Either that, or admit that colonization was a good thing since the end result is the same (wishing to live next to Whites).

About the reason why Indian did not conquer the world before, I do not know of any Indian ruler that had an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. To a certain extent, I think that’s common to China too, which also had a strong naval base that could have potentially conquered some bastions or Europe. My opinion is that the fall of Constantinople and the urge to spread Christianity as a counter weight to Islam spread western civilization across the world. At the time of the age of exploration, India was ruled by Islamic invaders and they were probably more powerful than the ottomans or the European rulers. After their fall, a lot of smaller empires resulted but no one could catch up the industrial strength that Europe built up between 1700 to 1800s.

China has never successfully won a war against Europeans to my knowledge. More often than not, they were constantly humiliated and forced to sign away land (i.e Hong Kong). If that's the example you're comparing India with, then that is less compelling reason that their empires were actually comparable with Europe in the same time.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The Indian independence struggle is not alike most others. One might say that British decided to leave India without much political pressure at the time among Indian political parties to do so. Now if you examine the early Indian leadership, and its attitude towards the British, you will see both are entirely sympathetic to britishers. It is something that has changed recently.

I don’t deny the points you make about Indians being politically left in the US. All I’m saying is that Indian immigrants compete better and treat the host society better. And I’ll tell you why as well. Fewer companies recruit immigrants (atleast that was the case in 2010). So unless you have a strong profile for these companies, you likely don’t get a job anywhere in the US. So at college campuses, immigrants from abroad compete at a higher level than their counterparts here. Yes, it sucks for nationals. And I wish too that we had a better quality of government and economy back home. But we don’t.

I’m not supporting any liberal talking point or saying anyone needs us or that Americans wont be as good, I’m saying that the conditions create better candidates among immigrants in college campuses. Don’t believe me? Try going to a college campus and say you have a job and see what are the proportions of quality resumes you get. I’m glad and grateful that America allows people like me here and yes because of people like me from urban India, rural America does not get the opportunity it deserves which I’m sympathetic too. But going back in early career means literally a lot more effort for little gain. I can say that South African whites also suffer the same way due to large affirmative action policies there and it is not politically easy to change it via democracy.

And across history, I’ll say that Unlike China and other defeated/ex colonized countries, Indian historians wants Indians to believe British colonization was not all that bad and Mughals were actually good. Both are trashy points in my opinion. Also Indians (especially Hindus) don’t revolt. There has never been a major revolution that occurred to over throw or kill ex imperialist or colonizers. I consider that’s the reason we see society and government deteriorate to a unusually abysmal levels. Why or how ? I don’t know. But I see something similar in Europe right now.

Overall my point is that colonization was bad and it has Rena ants in todays society which most of society is unaware of. My apologies for digressing from the topic of civilizations.

If you look up the Ming dynasty, the Han and others, they had a better fleet than Columbus did but they for some reason did not explore even New Zealand let alone the New world. Similar with India, the port of Surat had much better ships and knowledge of routes compared to Vasco Da gama but they did not sent it out to Europe.

After 1700s Europes ability to industrialize put it into altogether different orbit. Before that, Europe does not seem to be as great a place to be. Pretty much every century before the 1700s either India or China had the bulk of economic power in the world.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The Indian independence struggle is not alike most others. One might say that British decided to leave India without much political pressure at the time among Indian political parties to do so. Now if you examine the early Indian leadership, and its attitude towards the British, you will see both are entirely sympathetic to britishers. It is something that has changed recently.

Canada is a former British colony that has always been sympathetic to Britain. America was the complete opposite, and kicked them out. Yet hundreds of years later, why does both Canada & America seem to independently run fine?

It has very little to do with where their loyalties are. It will always come down to competent leaders who know what they are doing.

I don’t deny the points you make about Indians being politically left in the US. All I’m saying is that Indian immigrants compete better and treat the host society better. And I’ll tell you why as well. Fewer companies recruit immigrants (atleast that was the case in 2010). So unless you have a strong profile for these companies, you likely don’t get a job anywhere in the US. So at college campuses, immigrants from abroad compete at a higher level than their counterparts here. Yes, it sucks for nationals. And I wish too that we had a better quality of government and economy back home. But we don’t.

So how do you think Indians would have reacted to the very first U.S law? The one that said citizenship was originally exclusive to Whites only?

https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/

Or the numerous 20th century legislature that also called for reducing Asian immigration in favor of more Europeans?

As long as multiculturalism exists, the very fabric of what makes a country unique, begins to disappear. We can't pretend to call America the same country, if Whites become 40% of the population or less. It will inevitably look like every other third world nation that has a brown majority.

I’m not supporting any liberal talking point or saying anyone needs us or that Americans wont be as good, I’m saying that the conditions create better candidates among immigrants in college campuses. Don’t believe me? Try going to a college campus and say you have a job and see what are the proportions of quality resumes you get. I’m glad and grateful that America allows people like me here and yes because of people like me from urban India, rural America does not get the opportunity it deserves which I’m sympathetic too. But going back in early career means literally a lot more effort for little gain.

From a moral standpoint, Indians living with other Indians keep their identity. Just like how Whites living with other Whites are seen as family.

But what happens when you try and mix families? It leads to competition, lack of social trust, or worse, just conflict.

That will always be the defining feature of race realism. We can never expect different races to be happy with each other when they live in the same society. Biology tells us that a White person will see an Indian person and know right away he's different. This is also confirmed when we look at patterns for where each group lives. Indians will live in Indian enclaves, and Whites will always want to live next to white neighbors.

Overall my point is that colonization was bad and it has Rena ants in todays society which most of society is unaware of. My apologies for digressing from the topic of civilizations. If you look up the Ming dynasty, the Han and others, they had a better fleet than Columbus did but they for some reason did not explore even New Zealand let alone the New world. Similar with India, the port of Surat had much better ships and knowledge of routes compared to Vasco Da gama but they did not sent it out to Europe. After 1700s Europes ability to industrialize put it into altogether different orbit. Before that, Europe does not seem to be as great a place to be. Pretty much every century before the 1700s either India or China had the bill of economic power in the world.

If China & India had more money Europe, but they still didn't use it explore the world or put themselves ahead technologically speaking, then it confirms my theory that they were not fit to be one day seen as global leaders.

It's like for example, if you gave a random homeless person $1 million dollars, he's now richer than a lot of people. But, if the homeless guy only uses his wealth to buy alcohol and drugs with it, then he's no better off than when he was living on the streets.

Now apply this logic for world history. If Europeans were already building libraries, discovering scientific theories or inventing the capitalist system when they were dirt poor, imagine what they could have done when they became super rich, centuries later? It means the rest of the world is now very far behind them.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I’ll leave my points of discussion about immigration you made. I understand race realism. I see it as a something like religious realism, which I believe is important. Just as not all religions are equally good or bad, not all peoples are either.

If Constantinople had not fallen, I doubt either Columbus or Vasco Da gama would undertake the voyages they did. Both were trying to 2 things (1) find Allies for the church and (2) fund gold that Marco Polo had written about 2 centuries ago.

You are seeing history in a linear way. Many older libraries snd scientific accomplishments theories can be found in India, egypt, native America ….even the pre Christian Europe that were later destroyed. That one is now seen as a success, does not imply they were always successful or that they will be.

Richer countries often throw away the advantage they have while poorer countries, partially forced by the situation create a lot more ingenious things.

It was true that Europe used its ships better than more technically advanced naval powers. And after industrialization it was in a entirely different power status.

I’m glad that India did not try to be global world leader. It had the sense of improving society back home when it was the chief world power. Universalist, globe conquests may make great inspiring histories but they often come at a cost of a lot of internal rot.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh and the laws you mention, Indians were not classified as asians by race. They were often referred to as Hindoos. Many courts opined that several groups of Hindus were similar to Caucasians. This changed in early 20th century when many more Indians came in.

The Asian act was meant for the Chinese or at that time the “Mongloid”

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I’ll leave my points of discussion about immigration you made. I understand race realism. I see it as a something like religious realism, which I believe is important. Just as not all religions are equally good or bad, not all peoples are either.

Contrary to what the media says, many race realists are still comfortable interacting with people who are different from them.

I would even argue that very few of them are actually "hateful". What they want, and what everyone should want, is for racial separation.

And I'm aware of the arguments that say "but our countries are poor, we just want a better life". What you're really looking for is Eugenics. If India or Africa seriously put forth a national policy that only high IQ members of society could reproduce, all the issues of "poverty" would disappear over night.

If Constantinople had not fallen, I doubt either Columbus or Vasco Da gama would undertake the voyages they did. Both were trying to 2 things (1) find Allies for the church and (2) fund gold that Marco Polo had written about 2 centuries ago.

The Vikings had already sailed to America before Columbus did. The Roman Empire was also in the process of exploring Africa or moving into Asia as well.

You are seeing history in a linear way. Many older libraries snd scientific accomplishments theories can be found in India, egypt, native America ….even the pre Christian Europe that were later destroyed. That one is now seen as a success, does not imply they were always successful or that they will be.

True, but then it's a pattern of watching how these nations continue to build themselves up again. The Soviets inflicted a huge amount of damage on Eastern Europe, yet after the fall of communism, Poland or Lithuania have rapidly caught up with their Western neighbors.

Richer countries often throw away the advantage they have while poorer countries, partially forced by the situation create a lot more ingenious things.

Examine Europe and other Western Countries today, that is clearly not true. Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, Apple, Disney etc are leaders of innovation, yet which countries do we find them in?

I’m glad that India did not try to be global world leader. It had the sense of improving society back home when it was the chief world power. Universalist, globe conquests may make great inspiring histories but they often come at a cost of a lot of internal rot.

There will always be a country who wants to be #1 in history. Simply because having access to more resources, money and even land itself is valuable for human development.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

About IQ, all modern societies have disincentivized high IQ reproduction. People of high IQ are incentived to get a career than family. Additionally, I doubt it is an entirely genetic thing. There are factors like early child development that might be a significant player in IQ determination. The early Jews that came to the US were much lower than average Americans but later on were able to beat the same numbers.

And we’re there people before Vikings in America ? Where do you think they came from ? Theory is that the ASEAN people also had ships that allowed them to find South America. When I consider how Western Europe lost its way, i feel the Roman’s were the first to try and interact with foreign cultures as potential equals in law. The idea of romanizing of other groups by staggering benefits of citizenship to very different peoples is the first time when a ruling class disregarded the native traditions for an expansionist policy. Christianity used a similar playbook and erased a lot of European traditions. This helped fight Islam as a united force but I doubt Islam would ever exist had it not been for Christian take over of rome.

The strength of the dollar and significant infra investment by universities and government is a significant reason why Americas middle could create companies that create produce innovators. If you look at leadership of most of these companies, you might see a disproportionate representation of one non white peoples. I don’t take it as a point, but race realism is also a nuanced concept and you are painting too broadly with large assumptions.

Lastly, I don’t think I believe the media or even academicians without examining their agenda. That’s how I find myself here and I don’t think I suspected you or anyone of hate. Convienient Bias, yes, but not hate.

Before you believe the ideas similar to manifest destiny, Monroe doctrine or inherent whites being better, you might want to see history more and examine the biases of people who told you of that too.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

IQ is the greatest predictor of success in life. Almost no one becomes an Astronaut or CEO while dribbling saliva from their mouth. As a result, the smarter an entire population is on average, the more competent and intelligent leaders can come to power.

The relationship between IQ & Environment have been studied for decades, yet genetic differences have still shown to be bigger factors.

This is proven when you look at College scores. The poorest Whites still outperform the Richest Blacks in school.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/1995-SAT-vs-Income-Education.png

In retrospect, no one has been able to create a diverse society where everyone has the same IQ or social status. In America alone, trillions have been pumped into welfare and other social programs meant to uplift poor blacks or hispanics. The results have been a total failure.

We can never fix these gaps without Eugenics.

And we’re there people before Vikings in America ? Where do you think they came from ? Theory is that the ASEAN people also had ships that allowed them to find South America.

Yes, but those people never caught up to Western Europeans. Hence why Mexico was conquered by the Spanish, and South America was easily handed over to the Portuguese.

The strength of the dollar and significant infra investment by universities and government is a significant reason why Americas middle could create companies that create produce innovators. If you look at leadership of most of these companies, you might see a disproportionate representation of one non white peoples.

Those people came later, and they did not invent those companies. Microsoft existed before Satya Nadella. And same with Pepsi.

It's not really a great point, especially since America is in the middle of a cultural battle, that punishes White people for wishing to be the majority of a government or company. Jared Taylor put out a highly informative video showing just how extreme these anti-white policies really are. Such as companies having their funding removed if too many board directors are White? How is that fair?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HDEpQscdYGDE/

Before you believe the ideas similar to manifest destiny, Monroe doctrine or inherent whites being better, you might want to see history more and examine the biases of people who told you of that too

I tie a lot of my arguments to world history, and while I'll admit I would love to research more non-white countries in depth, I haven't actually come across conflicting evidence that says dark colored nation could manage the world, in the same way many successful white empires have had.