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.