you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

yeah, tons of dark skinned prominent civilizations, like libyans, indians, aztec and so on. I could consider the argument about the center and south africans beeing particularly incapable of developing any meaningful civilization, 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.

On a personal note, i think that you are a strange kind of white supremacist from the '50, but that doesn't really makes sense right now. Whites (anglos) DO have the global supremacy, it's just degenerate and anti-ethnic. Common knowledge today is that you can't really compare white, blacks, yellows and any other funny color-race around, so anyone should be able to have his ethnic nation-state and be happy by himself.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I mean with empires you have to wonder how great it is to be controlled by a huge state and whether those who tried to live outside such huge bureaucracies had the right idea.

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

The problem with living outside an empire is that you're also at the mercy of other empires from invading you.

The Cold War was direct proof of that. If you weren't allied to the US or USSR, then chances are they would overthrow your government and install a puppet who will.

It was either that, or fight off civil wars that encouraged the same thing (i.e South Africa & Rhodesia).