Besides Egypt, is there a single most powerful civilization with Brown skin color?

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 →

[–]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.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I agree anti white polices are bad. But in institutions, these policies hurt Asians more. If anything whites are underrepresented in tech (industry i am familiar with) at the cost of Asians.

I’m not saying IQ is not a predictor nor that a genetic component exists. I’m suggesting that IQ changes occurred to increase IQ in the last many generations because intelligent people (with both genes and habits that developed intelligence) created same or more babies that lower IQ. This can’t be said of the last 30-40years. I also don’t know what eviromenral variables were examined for long term tests. I suspect a lot more exists than was tested.

When you look at world history, try to see it from 2-3 different lenses. It might help make more sense and might address the superiority complex you seem to have developed. If it had not been for a few key battles, maybe you would have been saying something like I can’t come across evidence that “non-Islam kingdoms could manage the world” which to me is also narrow statement.

Like maybe view Christianity from the perspective of Lithuania (last country to christianize)

Maybe the problem is that you think whites should be managing the world or that it was a good thing that they did.

That opinion is a consequence of the evangelical tendencies most western cultures have and the savior complex that the left exhibits.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I agree anti white polices are bad. But in institutions, these policies hurt Asians more. If anything whites are underrepresented in tech (industry i am familiar with) at the cost of Asians.

We still have an example of multiculturalism failing the native people. Asians could volunteer to step down and hand over their careers to competing White citizens. But they haven't done that, so the problem continues to get worse.

I’m not saying IQ is not a predictor nor that a genetic component exists. I’m suggesting that IQ changes occurred to increase IQ in the last many generations because intelligent people (with both genes and habits that developed intelligence) created same or more babies that lower IQ. This can’t be said of the last 30-40years. I also don’t know what eviromenral variables were examined for long term tests. I suspect a lot more exists than was tested.

Racial differences in IQ goes back hundreds of years, and environment has always been taken into consideration. The facts still remain. No one has been able to reproduce a study that says all races have the exact same intelligence. And there's a good reason why.

It contradicts human evolution. Every race evolved different skull shapes & cranial capacity. In Whites & certain East Asians, they are born with the biggest brains on average. But in other groups, they're much more smaller.

This is not a battle that can be won by throwing more money at it. It's like paying a Man to look and act 100% like a Woman. It's impossible, the sex differences were ingrained at birth.

The same is true with intelligence. We could give brown people nutritious food and a safe home, but that does not guarantee they will be smarter than Einstein or Isaac Newton. Meanwhile, you can impoverish white people and bomb their countries via war, yet we still see tons of white geniuses being born anyway. This was literally the story of the Soviet Union. How could a nation that could barely feed itself, launch rockets into Space before India or Africa? It's genes...

When you look at world history, try to see it from 2-3 different lenses. It might help make more sense and might address the superiority complex you seem to have developed. If it had not been for a few key battles, maybe you would have been saying something like I can’t come across evidence that “non-Islam kingdoms could manage the world” which to me is also narrow statement. Like maybe view Christianity from the perspective of Lithuania (last country to christianize) Maybe the problem is that you think whites should be managing the world or that it was a good thing that they did.

History is definitely full of a lot of "what ifs" but truth be told, when there's an understanding of race realism, the patterns always seem to re-arrange themselves into very predictable puzzle pieces.

For example, I listed South Africa in my OP as proof that only White people could transform a desert into a 1st world paradise. When the White people were forced to end Apartheid and hand over their nation to the non-whites, it collapsed overnight. Everything about the crime, school dropout rates and failing economy could be seen miles away, from other African countries that are just as bad or worse.

Maybe the problem is that you think whites should be managing the world or that it was a good thing that they did. That opinion is a consequence of the evangelical tendencies most western cultures have and the savior complex that the left exhibits.

In a perfect world, every nation would have giant walls that stop mass movement of people without passing certain rules.

But since we don't, then yeah, I would a rather a benevolent white nation have the most power and influence in the world.

Since all the other non-white options are shown to be the worse. I would never want to live in Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Iraq, Jamaica etc. The only non-white country that is remotely decent is Japan, but I don't want Japanese people to lose their country.

[–]Agni777 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If Japan had a century of colonization destroying its ancient institutions in the name of Christianity and western civilization, then you might not see it as a remotely decent option.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If Japan had a century of colonization destroying its ancient institutions in the name of Christianity and western civilization, then you might not see it as a remotely decent option.

They had that in the form of WW2. When America stepped into battle, every city was firebombed or blown up with nuclear weapons. The Americans then occupied them and told them to stop worshipping their Emperor as a god.

Yet despite this, Japan is both an economic giant, and a very safe place to live to this day.

The standards for civilization are so high, it makes no sense to complain. If every brown country could admit they made mistakes or failed, they would not all be in last place. But the issue is they would rather blame White people forever.

But if White people are to disappear in the future, then there wont be anyone left to save the third world.

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

And a lot of Asian kids are offering to stepping down but for BLM and not for white people. It’s strange but I think it’s the effect of liberal brain washing and elite virtue show boating