Jared Taylor has disavowed white supremacism

Hmm --- Taylor seems to have no problem with Jew supremacism.

Replies: @FvS

Oh there are plenty in existence, including Mr. Taylor and over 80% of the commenters here at UNZ. The framing of white racism as some brand of separatist nationalism is a sham, and disregards you all's deep-seated fixation with comparing yourselves to black people. Without blacks, your lives are meaningless.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Taylor the guy who collected millions in donations from his loyal band of followers, but, instead of using the funds to repatriate them to one of the many all white nations in Europe, decided to go to some Caribbean country to try and overthrow the government? His unsuccessful attempt at destabilizing a black country tells us all we need to know about the aims of white "nationalism."

Many of you are still seething over the fact that Africa didn't just roll over and die, as a deferential bystander to its own plundering and rape by white "nationalists." It hurts your heart to know that your "separatist" regimes got ran out of lands that don't belong to them.

Replies: @FvS

Yes, love for a homogenous society, while looting and plundering from others perceived sub-human. The cursed story of the whitevil race.

Invade the world, invite the world... mofers!!

Replies: @Mefobills

Absolutely. Jews and Chinese are kindred spirits and share many cultural traits, especially when it comes to money and doing business.
 

Replies: @Wizard of Oz

The claim isn’t that Covid-whatever is a hoax, the claim is that the threat it poses to the general population is being blown way out of proportion by the MSM and exploited by governments to clamp down on civil liberties and destroy the economy while bailing out the banks etc. The alt-right has shown itself to be indistinguishable from the MSM on the issue, and embarrasses itself by lapping up CCP propaganda. At a minimum, they’re frauds, and almost certainly some kind of controlled opposition.

On this (long-winded and unreadable) review: Johnson takes the movie seriously as social commentary, and only mentions in passing at the end the misdirection of the Saudi plot line. So yeah, he’s shilling.

BtM

Replies: @silviosilver

" As for Greg Johnson, I’ve never seen him shill for Jews. Quite the opposite actually."

Well, I have seen him shilling for the jews whenever it counts - and only the big mega-hoaxes count (that an infiltrator agent who pretends to be a "White nationalist" will be critical towards jews here and there should be expected, and it would pathetic to see this as a proof for his legitimacy).

So let's see how Johnson deals with the mega-hoaxes and feel free to refute my assertions:

Johnson pretends to believe that the "Holocaust" has a basic kernel of truth and endorses fake historian and infiltrator in the revisionist movement Mark Weber.

Johnson pretends to believe the absurd official story of 9/11. Everybody,who suggests that this was a false flag terror event organized by domestic and foreign jews, will be called "paranoid conspiracy theorist" and then be banned from his site.

Johnson shilled hard for lifelong jewish asset Donald Trump as some kind of pro-white maverick candidate in the presidential race 2016. I know many here are still in denial, but for every sober observer this should be a major reason to regard Johnson as an idiot or an evil agent. And Johnson characterized Trump only a few month ago as a "great man". Baffling.

Now he is shilling for this Corona virus hoax. This event has all the hallmarks a long planned hoax (the virus is real though, probably an artificially modified flue virus, which is not as deadly as advertised, the mortality rate of it is similar to a bad flue strain), which will be used to impoverish the middle class and implement a nightmarish techno-tyranny. But for Johnson this is an accidental virus, which our ruling class fights heroically. Johnson exhorts his readers to support the illogical and tyrannical measures our jewish rulers have forced on us "goyim".

For me Johnson is a despicable agent and his supporters must have very low standard for their "leaders".

Interesting additional fact: To give Johnson legitimacy, ZOG has perpetrated the same persecution hoax with Johnson, ZOG had already tested with agents David Duke and Richard Spencer. He was arrested by a jewish controlled government in Europe, but was released unharmed after one day. In Johnson's case this happened in Norway. With Duke this persecution hoax was implemented in the Czech republic, with Spencer in Hungary.

JWO ???

https://journal-neo.org/2018/12/10/anglo-saxon-eyes-are-fixed-on-countering-china/

nah, you brought it up because your original argument was getting trashed and you knew it lol
 

It’s another point that furthers my original argument. And you refuse to address it. Not surprising though.
 

lol, this isnt an answer. You didn’t address anything I wrote:
 

I provided representatives of every race that tried to conquer as much territory as they possible could. Checkmate. Just imagine what the Mongolians would have done with the same degree of technological advantage that the Europeans had over Amerindians and Africans.

 

Not necessarily. I already addressed this; different races exhibit different traits and also exhibit different degrees of certain traits when compared to other races. According to HBD we follow this logic for all other traits, why wouldnt we apply it to the traits that would undergird the desire/inclination for conquest and domination? You don’t know if all of the other races would have tried to dominate the entire world, to try to say otherwise is making a racial blank-slate argument. Its obvious that youre trying to selectively support HBD when it fits you and then use racial blank-slate arguments when HBD is inconvenient LOL.

Lets take intelligence for example; asians are intelligent, so are whites, does this mean that asians will have the same intellectual abilities as whites? nope. Does this mean that asians will be able to impact the external world with their intellect to the same degree as whites can? nope. So why would the desire/inclination for domination be any different when applied to the different races? Different races all have demonstrated the desire for domination/conquest but this doesn’t automatically mean that they would express this desire in the same way and to the same degree under identical circumstances. You can even see the same thing in society; in theory all races in the US have equal access to the same opportunities (NAMs actually have greater access to opportunities) however not all races bother to use these opportunities equally. Generally speaking different races in the US show different levels of drive and ambition and this in turn results in different outcomes. Its the same thing when applied to the hypothetical situation of the different races having the same resources and whether or not they would try to dominate the entire world. Different races will lead to different outcomes. Racial differences exist, I dont know why you keep trying to argue that they wouldnt apply in a situation like this.
 

These are mutually exclusive beliefs. The fact that racial differences in wanting to dominate others might exist means that you cannot definitely claim that all other races would have done the same if they were in the position of whites.
 

All races have groups that tried to take as much territory as possible at some point. Why is it so hard for you to imagine what the Mongolians would have done with European weapons and ships?
 

This doesn’t address my statement though. You claimed that all other races would have done the same, but then you claimed that racial differences in wanting to dominate others might exist. Your statements contradict each other, so which one is it?
 

this is the same as the christianity argument, this point is irrelevant to your original argument which was based on strength/ability alone; you never said anything about internecine competition being relevant. Why are you continuing to move goal posts? Why cant you stick with your original argument?
 

The original argument stands on its own. See above. The other points I brought up just augment it.
 

The chinese had interests in that area, as such that’s sufficient reason to establish a colony, especially when you consider how far away the kotte kingdom was from china. Needing to establish a pitstop is not the only reason why people would want to establish a colony; this is only your own subjective opinion, its not an objective fact. Most importantly, you were trying to claim that kotte was intended to function as a pitstop and it turns out that you were factually wrong about its purpose:
 

It is my opinion that a power would be more likely to colonize a territory that is on the way between their ultimate trade destination and their place of origin. If the Mings had developed a more formal and long term presence in the Indian Ocean, I believe it’s possible that they would have taken more direct control over Ceylon. But the treasure voyages were over relatively quickly. The fact remains that the Portuguese and the Mings were in totally different situations. From the wiki, we can see that the Portuguese did not begin direct rule until after the ruler of Kotte converted to Christianity and basically just gave the kingdom to the Portuguese.
 

No. Kotte was like a pitstop for the Portuguese who were looking to send their ships all the way to China and beyond for long-term trade. They didn’t have the same needs and Portugal’s location is vital. Period.
 

Portuguese presence in the island lasted from 1505 to 1658. Their arrival was largely accidental, and the Portuguese sought control of commerce, rather than territory.
 

yawn, keep conflating bro
 

Show me where I said they were the same thing. If you thought that was the implication, you misunderstood
 

No, I never was trying to conflate them. That is a strawman. I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

lmao youre you’re literally trying to conflate them right now:

I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate

con·flate
/kənˈflāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.
“the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues”

do you not know what conflate means?
 

 

yeah I did, I picked them apart piece by piece. You didn’t answer a single one, if you were able to refute the arguments that I brought up then you would have done so already but you didnt
 

Here you go.
 

▶︎ to extend the influence of the “mother country”
 

-don’t all countries do this? what does this even actually mean? This is geopolitics 101
 

No, not all countries do this. I believe what the author means by this is to expand the “mother country’s” control over other countries. China does this through debt-trap diplomacy especially. Where the Europeans used force to take over Africa. The Chinese are just buying it from corrupt and short-sighted leaders.
 

▶︎ to provide a source of raw materials for the “mother country”
 

-africans are getting paid for it or otherwise renumerated in some way, the chinese arent just stealing their raw materials. You can bitch and moan that the chinese are somehow “manipulating” the africans but this doesnt change the fact that at the end of the day, the chinese are paying for or trading for raw materials. They aren’t just taking raw materials like they could if they were actually colonizing africa.
 

African leaders might be getting paid, not necessarily the African people.
 

▶︎ to provide a market for manufactured products of the “mother country”
 

-the US not only provides raw materials but also provides a market for manufactured chinese goods, does this make the US a chinese colony? lmao
 

U.S. raw materials are not being taken out of the country by Chinese companies like Africa’s raw materials are.
 

▶︎ to provide a place for people to live, especially if the “mother country” is overcrowded
 

-is china forcing africa to accept chinese immigration on a large scale? Are there constant incidents where african nations are refusing to accept chinese immigration but are forced to accept chinese immigration by the chinese government at gunpoint? How hard is it to immigrate to many african countries anyways? I imagine the barrier to entry is significantly lower compared to immigrating to a first world country ergo many people could immigrate to africa if they wanted to but only the chinese are willing to.
 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-colonization-china-building-enormous-self-sustaining-chinese-cities-all-over
 

-is china forcing africa to accept chinese immigration on a large scale? Are there constant incidents where african nations are refusing to accept chinese immigration but are forced to accept chinese immigration by the chinese government at gunpoint? How hard is it to immigrate to many african countries anyways? I imagine the barrier to entry is significantly lower compared to immigrating to a first world country ergo many people could immigrate to africa if they wanted to but only the chinese are willing to.

What would make this point actually defining of colonization would only be if the immigration was militarily forced upon the africans and the african nations lacked any ability to regulate their own immigration policies. In that case it would be considered a point that supports colonization, otherwise this point is meaningless. In the absence of any kind of coercive military force promoting immigration then you could use this same point and apply it to any nation on earth that has expats in it (which is every nation on earth), therefore making this point completely useless. Lots of countries on earth are overcrowded, does this mean that any country that accepts their immigrants are now considered “colonies” of the overcrowded country that is sending out immigrants? Obviously not
 

so what you were saying was just conjecture that you pulled out of your ass and you can’t back up your point. Thats what I thought

 

I just did. It makes no sense for a country to invade a bunch of other countries and weaken themselves militarily when there is an imperial power about to take them over. Ergo, Japan wasn’t in danger of being taken over.
 

You obviously dont think that colonialism is as bad as youre claiming if you keep trying to point out the positive aspects about it.
 

It wasn’t as bad as you’re claiming. Pointing that out does not mean I think it was justified. If I thought it was justified, I would have said that colonization was a good thing because it lead to better infrastructure, literacy rates, GDP, etc. Instead, the argument I’m making is that while colonization did have some positive benefits (as previously listed), it was still wrong. Even a brainlet like you should be able to tell the difference between the two.
 

hey man youre the one who’s making these pro-colonialism arguments not me. You obviously dont think that colonialism is as bad as youre claiming if you keep trying to point out the positive aspects about it. Just to make it clear, I understand that saying that there are positive aspects of X doesnt necessarily mean that you think it should have happened in the first place, but thats not whats really being discussed here. Whats happening here is that you’re trying to convince me and hypothetical others that youre against colonialism and that you think its wrong but then you keep making up excuses for colonialism and trying to point out the good aspects of it. In other words, you’re undermining your own credibility by doing this. You can get away with this kind of “logic” when you talk to other white nationalists but if you try to convince regular people with this logic then they’re going to tell you that youre full of shit. Im just letting you know for your own benefit lol, you’re free to do what you want to though. Also you were completely wrong about the claim below:
 

I guess it probably depends on what generation of immigrant they are.
 

lol its a perfectly apt comparison:

-pan-asian organizations attempt to advocate for all asians in america

-white nationalist organizations attempt to advocate for all whites in america

Both organizations are attempting (keyword is attempt) to represent all people of X race, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they actually represent these races. My point is completely cogent, youre obviously the stupid one for not being able to understand this lol.
 

So Pan-Asian organizations want to establish an Asian United States that excludes the other races? Don’t make me laugh.
 

This is equivalent to pulling up a list of white nationalist organizations and claiming that it somehow represents how all whites feel. Its amazing how stupid you are
 

No, that’s a false comparison because pan-Asian organizations and white nationalist organizations don’t advocate the same relative things. It’s amazing how stupid you are.

 

lol its a perfectly apt comparison:

-pan-asian organizations attempt to advocate for all asians in america

-white nationalist organizations attempt to advocate for all whites in america

Both organizations are attempting (keyword is attempt) to represent all people of X race, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they actually represent these races. My point is completely cogent, youre obviously the stupid one for not being able to understand this lol.
 

ok, do you have data showing where liberals tend to live? You’ve made a claim about rich whites, but rich whites are not the same as all liberals. Some or even many rich whites are liberal, but that’s not the same as saying that all liberals are rich whites. So do you have some data showing the kind of neighborhoods that liberals (and not just rich whites) tend to live in?
 

https://youtu.be/U8XJPwmX3jo
 

It can artificially suppressed or forced to be masked through state propaganda and threat of social ostracization, but just look at where these “race-blind” liberals live and who they associate with. Racial identity is fundamental.
 

The racial/ethnic make-up of the neighborhood's population is as follows: 86.8% of the population is white, 2% black or African American, 4.1% Hispanic or Latino, 0.1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.3% Asian, 0.4% some other race/ethnicity, and 1.3% two or more races/ethnicities.[2]
 

The racial makeup of the neighborhoods was 79% (173,711) White, 3.2% (7,098) African American, 0.1% (126) Native American, 8.6% (18,847) Asian, 0% (98) Pacific Islander, 0.3% (609) from other races, and 1.8% (3,868) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race was 7.1% (15,563) of the population. While the White population is a dominating majority in all three census tabulation areas, it is more so in Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill compared to Yorkville and Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island, being close to 90% of the population.[3]
 

77% white population
 

can you prove this? Im not even claiming that this claim is wrong, but im curious if you provide facts to back it up or not.
 

https://www.beyondblackwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ccdf7936df3057a214c692630d9c0c1b.jpg

You can infer from looking at blue states. And most of the interracial marriages in West Coast blue states involve Hispanics, some of whom are white.
 

Interracial relationships among white liberals are still a tiny minority.
 

Ethnicity cannot be changed, it is a biological reality:
 

It’s what is commonly referred to as assimilation. And there is also ethnogenesis. Remember, Ethnic groups may be subdivided into subgroups or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group. Conversely, formerly separate ethnicities can merge to form a pan-ethnicity and may eventually merge into one single ethnicity. Whether through division or amalgamation, the formation of a separate ethnic identity is referred to as ethnogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis
 

Ethnicity can be changed, race can not. It is biological reality. That alone proves that race is the more important factor. Ethnicity is largely cultural.
 

an ethnically spanish person cannot suddenly decide to change his ethnicity to swedish. A typical spaniard and a typical swede literally have different (yet similar) genomes. Do you think a person can just change their genes? LOL. You cannot just change your ethnicity. You clearly have a misunderstanding about this term. Do you really think there is no genetic difference between a spaniard and a swede? LOL
 

Look who is suddenly using ethnic groups and nationalities interchangeably. But the way I look at it, a person can belong to multiple levels of ethnic groups with some being more fundamental than others. For example, a black person from Alabama could be an American, an Alabaman, a Southerner, a black-American, etc. Those are all ethnic groups in my opinion. Or let’s say France. There are a lot of blacks in France that have been there for a long time. Are they French? I say yes. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t the sub-ethnic groups of white-French and black-French, with white-French being the “real” French.
 

so youve resorted to just responding with random, non-tangential nonsense. I guess if this is how you want to cope with being proven wrong then so be it. Not sure how saying: “Ah, your true hatred of whites is revealing itself. ” proves anything I said wrong.
 

It wasn’t meant to. I was just pointing out how you seem to relish what Jews are doing to whites. It’s obvious in your writing.
 

1.you indeed were wrong in your original assertion where you forgot about the context in which the viking example was given. So you were wrong, there is no arguing about this.

2.what youre saying is still autistic bullshit that doesnt apply in the real world. Which is why vikings had no problems fucking up anglosaxons; the vikings could give a rats ass about your opinion that them invading the anglosaxons was racially self-destructive. This just goes to show how delusional and detached from reality you are; you persist in believing in your non-sense even though it doesnt reflect real world conditions. The jews OTOH exist in reality and are very pragmatic, they dont delude themselves with nonsense like you do, I can see why they’re winning and white nationalists are losing.
 

yeah and “what is” is the fact that the vikings had no problems fucking up the anglo-saxons even though this act is “racially self-destructive” lol. The point? Your logic about racially similar people attacking each other being self destructive is basically mental masturbation that has zero influence on how people choose to act in the real world.
 

I still think it’s worse, or at least, no different to attack your own race than to attack other races. It’s like how attacking a cousin would be worse than attacking a stranger. It’s certainly not better to attack your own race like you were arguing.
 

I’m not going to get sucked into some metaphysical debate about the nature of justice with you. Suffice to say, pretty much every civilized society has some notion of what constitutes appropriate punishments for various crimes and what is “going too far.”
 

a person or country that starts an argument, fight, or war by attacking first
 

I was explaining in an objective, unopinionated sense the possible genesis of the schism between jews and gentile whites. You wanted to claim that jews are the aggressors but actually gentile whites might have been the true aggressors. If thats the case then jews are no longer the aggressors anymore. This point has nothing to do with assigning guilt or blame to people, its solely about demonstrating in an objective sense who the aggressors could be on a macro, cultural scale.
 

Gentile whites and Romans are not the same thing. If the Romans were the aggressors, Jews should be targeting Italians specifically, and even then they would still be the aggressors for going way beyond proportionality.
 

a person or country that starts an argument, fight, or war by attacking first
 

The key word here is escalation; the schism between the jews and the west may have started with the jewish-roman wars and then it just evolved and escalated from there. You do know what schism means right? It kind of seems like maybe you don’t understand the argument that is being made here…
 

It may have started with the Jewish-Roman wars, but that doesn’t mean the Jews have not become the aggressors through disproportionate and indiscriminate targeting of whites who had nothing to with the Romans.
 

a person or country that starts an argument, fight, or war by attacking first
 

As you can see im very clearly acknowledging the fact that whites have changed, therefore your assertion that im somehow deflecting and trying to argue that whites havent changed is factually wrong. So, lets go over this one more time. There are two arguments here:

1.you being wrong about the reasons why whites gave up colonialism

2.you claiming that im deflecting about whites having changed their views about colonialism

you’re trying that claim that I was avoiding argument #2 since you were under the impression that I was denying that point however it turns out that we had already discussed this back as early as comment #285, therefore your assertion that im denying that whites have changed and that im trying to deflect from this argument are both wrong. Secondly, you are still deflecting and trying to avoid argument #1; you wanted to claim that whites gave up colonialism out of goodwill and it turns out that you were factually wrong about this.
 

It’s good that you admit that whites have changed and when whites get our ethnostate, a return to white supremacy is unlikely. And let’s put it this way, the reason why whites gave up their colonies may not have been out of goodwill, but goodwill is the reason why we haven’t taken our colonies back even though we could. As for that “thanking the Jews argument”, Jews may have helped end white supremacy, but they are also responsible for white genocide. There is a middle ground they could have argued for, and it’s called ethnonationalism.
 

Keep in mind that the meaning of the word dominant is not equal to the meaning of the word dominate. If you don’t believe me then go and look up the definition of dominant for yourself lol. This definition of white supremacy doesn’t say anything about whites actively dominating/controlling others, it just talks about whites being dominant in society.

 

I can’t believe you’re still trying to dig yourself out of this one. Look at the other definitions. You can tell what they mean by “dominant.” Just stop, this flailing is cringy.

 

the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society.
 

the theory or belief that White people are innately superior to people of other races
 

Ironically you just proved your own point wrong again by posting the adl.org definition; I was actually the first one to post this definition (comment #402)
 

The very first definition is the actual definition, the definition that everyone talking about white supremacy uses. You can clearly see this by looking at the other mainstream sources I posted, not your backwater sites.
 

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. As a full-fledged ideology, white supremacy is far more encompassing than simple racism or bigotry. Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising “flood” of non-whites, who are controlled and manipulated by Jews, and that imminent action is need to “save” the white race.
 

Both of the sources that you provided and claimed were credible have definitions of white supremacy which are congruent with the definition of white supremacy that I was originally using. Its like I said, there are multiple definitions of white supremacy. Since you seem so confused about this, maybe you should break down the term “white supremacy” and try to see what the word “supreme” by itself actually means:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supreme

su·​preme | \ sə-ˈprēm , sü- \
Definition of supreme
1: highest in rank or authority
the supreme commander
2: highest in degree or quality
supreme endurance in war and in labour
— R. W. Emerson
3: ULTIMATE, FINAL
the supreme sacrifice

Supreme is oftentimes used to mean the highest or the best; notice that the definition of supreme says nothing about dominating others? The concept of dominating others when it comes to the usage of the word “supremacy” in the context of the term “white supremacy” is a secondarily derived implied meaning, the actual definition of supremacy has nothing to do with literally dominating others:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supremacy

Definition of supremacy
: the quality or state of being supreme
also : supreme authority or power

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/supremacy

supremacy[ suh-prem-uh-see, soo- ]
the state of being supreme.
supreme authority or power.
 

This is the very definition of hypocrisy though. You are claiming that white nationalists are anti-colonialism but this is incongruent with white nationalists going and make excuses for colonialism (either japanese colonialism like you were doing earlier or past colonialism done by the west).
 

Damn, you really are a brainlet that can’t comprehend any nuance.
 

Definition of hypocrisy
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.
especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
our conventional morality often serves as a cover for hypocrisy and selfishness
— Lucius Garvin

 

Im not really sure what the issue here is. You’re a white nationalist who claims to be anti-colonialism but then you make up excuses and defend past instances of colonialism. That makes you a hypocrite per the definition above. If you just stop condoning past instances of colonialism then you can condemn jewish supremacy without being a hypocrite. Alternately if you retract your claim that you’re anti-colonialism then you can also condemn jewish supremacy without being a hypocrite. Im not really sure why you’re so bothered by me (correctly) calling you a hypocrite. Its just a term, if you’re a hypocrite then you’re a hypocrite, it is what it is.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, let me clarify what’s going on here. Nobody is saying that you’re not allowed to resist your racial displacement; whether you choose to resist or not has nothing to do with whether or not youre guilty of hypocrisy. When we are discussing hypocrisy we’re talking about things on a rhetorical level. When I claim that you’re a hypocrite for your contradictory stances with regards to colonialism this is not the same as me saying that you’re not allowed to resist your displacement. I’m merely calling you a hypocrite because you are, but im not telling you what you’re allowed or not allowed to do in terms of actual actions.
 

I admit that the genocide of the amerindians was wrong. I wish it could have been done differently, but somehow I doubt it could have. And if it couldn’t, I would basically have to argue that my entire country shouldn’t exist, that its founding is illegitimate. That’s not something I’m willing to do, and if that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. I think the U.S. is a good thing born out of a bad act. Yet, this accusation of hypocrite is disingenuous because it is only ever applied to whites. Many modern countries were founded on conquest and also oppose colonialism as official policy today. Yet no one would call any of them hypocrites for resisting a genocide today.
 

Yet, this accusation of hypocrite is disingenuous because it is only ever applied to whites. Many modern countries were founded on conquest and also oppose colonialism as official policy today. Yet no one would call any of them hypocrites for resisting a genocide today.

 

what would I be ashamed of? im not the one acting effeminate, you are lol. You do realize that I know what you’re doing right? Just because you project on to me and claim that im doing a certain thing doesn’t make it true, you and I both know that. Kind of sad that you have to resort to non-sensical mindgames when its clear that you can’t refute something
 

I’m just saying, some phrases are more effeminate than others.
 

lol, I have no reason to be “salty” though. You’re the one who keeps getting his arguments destroyed. You and I both know that LOL

 

I know no such thing. 🙂

 

why didnt you answer what I wrote before?
 

What you wrote wasn’t relevant to what we were discussing. First of all, voting for Trump in the hope that he would keep his immigration promises was the obvious right choice when Hillary was the other. Second of all, the amount of white nationalists that marry Asians is virtually zero. Any that do are probably not white nationalists but race realist conservatives or libertarians.
 

Second of all, the amount of white nationalists that marry Asians is virtually zero. Any that do are probably not white nationalists but race realist conservatives or libertarians.

 

I never claimed to speak for all white nationalists. I just know what white nationalism is and what it isn’t far better than you do. I also know what the majority of white nationalists believe about colonization and slavery from my interactions with them. I don’t know of a single one that wants them brought back. Sorry man, that’s just reality.
 

You don’t speak for all white nationalists and secondly you don’t know how or what they would do in the future under different circumstances.
 

Based on what they believe now, I do.

 

The colonialism is colonialism statement was referring to Chinese colonizing of Tibet, Vietnam, and Xinjiang. Context. What China is doing in Africa is not the same as what the British or Commodore Perry did. Forcing trade is not the same as purchasing assets and territory from corrupt leaders and using debt-trap diplomacy to take over.

 

Okay, but China was still never colonized. And the existence of mass migrations predates European colonialism.
 

No, I never was trying to conflate them. That is a strawman. I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+colonialism

The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation's resources.
 

What China is doing in Africa is not the same as what the British or Commodore Perry did. Forcing trade is not the same as purchasing assets and territory from corrupt leaders and using debt-trap diplomacy to take over.
 

what I wrote makes perfect sense when put in context. You just have to remove things from context because you lack more substantial arguments or ways of disproving my points lol. Notice how I dont have to resort to doing that? Its because I actually have good arguments, you dont
 

I just don’t blockquote everything to try and make these posts not as ridiculously long.
 

Also, assuming modern technology progresses the same way, I highly doubt all of East Asia would remain isolated, like a bunch of North Koreas or something.
 

once again, you don’t know what would happen. Anything you say is basically conjecture since the course of the world would be so different in an alternate reality. Notice how you have to resort to hypothetical situations and assuming things in order to prop up your point? That’s evidence that your original point couldnt stand on its own lol. The west forced east asia to open up and as a result this opened up the floodgates for millions of asian immigrants to come later on down the road. Even if modern technology existed in an alternate universe this doesnt mean that the political/geopolitical conditions for millions of east asian immigrants to come to the west would still exist. Its funny how you were completely BTFO on this point; in our current reality (not the hypothetical reality you like to run off to) the millions of east asian immigrants in the west are a direct result of the west forcing east asia to open up. There is absolutely no debate about this or a way to prove it wrong. The only thing you can resort to is trying to use an alternate version of history to back up your point, how weak is that?

 

yeah you are factually wrong. You claimed that the largest foreign populations there were from moroccans and other european immigrants and it turns out that the largest foreign population group is from their former colonies. You were completely wrong about this

secondly, does spain genetically test the immigrants coming from its former colonies? How do you know they’re white spaniards and not mixed race? Im actually really interested in knowing whether or not you can back up what you said. Where is your information about this? Can you provide actual statistics about this? If you cant then you need to admit that you can’t back up your claim.
 

Immigrants to Spain tend to be from South America and very European.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138504/
 

Finally there is the issue of physical appearance and discrimination. Evidence does seem to suggest that immigrants who are racially different experience an economic disadvantage in both Spain (Sole and Parella, 2003) and the United States (Hirsch, 2008). Although the NIS included an independent measure of skin tone, the ENI did not, making it impossible to investigate this factor comparatively. Immigrants from places such as Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay tend to be very European, whereas immigrants from Mexico and Central America tend to be mestizo, and immigrants from the Caribbean are often of mixed African origins. Differing geographic selectivity between Spain and the United States also implies differing racial selectivity, so that some of the observed disadvantage of being from Central America or the Caribbean could reflect differences in treatment based on skin color or physical appearance, and not regional background per se.
 

I’m not factually wrong. The number of non-white immigrants from their former colonies is negligible in Spain. Returning white Spaniards doesn’t count. It’s like white Brits returning from Nigeria or India. 25% (or even 5%) of Spain’s population is definitely not mestizo or Amerindian. All of this is rather beside the point, modern mass immigration is only possible because modern governments allow it.
 

25% (or even 5%) of Spain’s population is definitely not mestizo or Amerindian. All of this is rather beside the point, modern mass immigration is only possible because modern governments allow it.
 

The specific, modern iteration of globalization that we now know is directly connected to western colonization.
 

True when put that way. “Globalism” in the broad sense of a world connected through trade and technology isn’t necessarily though.
 

I never denied that technology would have brought the world much closer together in the absence of globalism, but technology does not automatically mean that mass immigration would happen
 

Im not sure why you thought your claim about mass migrations predating european colonialism was somehow a suitable argument
 

.

It just shows that mass immigration can happen without a framework of colonialism.

 

If a non-murderer claims that it is wrong for someone to try to murder him but then condones and makes excuses for his ancestor murdering people then it makes him a hypocrite period. The non-murderer is essentially claiming that murder is wrong but then engaging in behavior which condones murder. This is contradictory behavior. Whether or not the murders were necessary to bring the non-murderer into existence has no bearing on whether or not the non-murderer is a hypocrite.
 

Then I guess pretty much any racial or ethnic group that exists today would be hypocrites for protesting their own genocide since their own existence is probably predicated on the conquest of some other group at some point in time. And virtually no one will admit that they shouldn’t exist. According to you, that means they’re condoning conquest.
 

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
 

Either way I dont really care, like I said, my bone to pick isnt with whites, I just dislike white nationalists.

 

That’s fine. We dislike you too.
 

technically nigerian-american would be considered a “double nationality”. This is because the term “nigerian” refers to a civic-nationality designation which encompasses a bunch of different ethnic groups; this is not just my opinion but this is actually according to the wikipedia definition itself. This would be the same as if there was an emigrant community of americans (of all different races) who settled in japan. Would these so-called “american-japanese” be considered an ethnic group? According to this definition of ethnicity they could not be considered an ethnic group since they are from different races/ethnicities, although if there was an emigrant community of actual, genetically spanish people then we could consider these “spanish-japanese” as an ethnic group. Here’s another example of a “double nationality”:
 

Nigerian-American is an ethnic group. American-Japanese would be an ethnic group. Spanish-Japanese would be an ethnic group. If you look at the above definition, ethnicity is a really broad concept.
 

technically nigerian-american would be considered a “double nationality”. This is because the term “nigerian” refers to a civic-nationality designation which encompasses a bunch of different ethnic groups; this is not just my opinion but this is actually according to the wikipedia definition itself. This would be the same as if there was an emigrant community of americans (of all different races) who settled in japan. Would these so-called “american-japanese” be considered an ethnic group? According to this definition of ethnicity they could not be considered an ethnic group since they are from different races/ethnicities, although if there was an emigrant community of actual, genetically spanish people then we could consider these “spanish-japanese” as an ethnic group. Here’s another example of a “double nationality”:
 

Another influential theoretician of ethnicity was Fredrik Barth, whose "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in social studies in the 1980s and 1990s.[26] Barth went further than Weber in stressing the constructed nature of ethnicity. To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification. Barth's view is that ethnic groups are not discontinuous cultural isolates or logical a priority to which people naturally belong. He wanted to part with anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ethnicity as primordialist bonds, replacing it with a focus on the interface between groups. "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries", therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ethnic identities. (bold) Barth writes: "... categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact, and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories."
 

Different approaches to understanding ethnicity have been used by different social scientists when trying to understand the nature of ethnicity as a factor in human life and society. As Jonathan M. Hall observes, World War II was a turning point in ethnic studies. The consequences of Nazi racism discouraged essentialist interpretations of ethnic groups and race. Ethnic groups came to be defined as social rather than biological entities. Their coherence was attributed to shared myths, descent, kinship, a commonplace of origin, language, religion, customs, and national character. So, ethnic groups are conceived as mutable rather than stable, constructed in discursive practices rather than written in the genes.[29]
 

What do neoliberal globalism, Jewish ethnic hatred, racial egalitarianism (promoted by Boas), the idea that “diversity is our greatest strength,” or capital’s desire for cheap labor have to do with the legacy of colonialism? Your analysis is facile.
 

Yes, they are both ethnic Russians. But they are also white Russians and Central Asian Russians.

 

Could you really consider both the women in these pictures an “ethnic russian”? People generally use the term ethnicity to refer to the genetic background of somebody as opposed to their national origin. Obviously these two pictures show people of two distinct ethnicities, it wouldnt make sense to consider them as the same ethnicity nor would the majority of people think of it that way either. Once again its important to consider the crucial aspect of what is considered an ethnicity:

 

Could you really consider both the women in these pictures an “ethnic russian”? People generally use the term ethnicity to refer to the genetic background of somebody as opposed to their national origin. Obviously these two pictures show people of two distinct ethnicities, it wouldnt make sense to consider them as the same ethnicity nor would the majority of people think of it that way either. Once again its important to consider the crucial aspect of what is considered an ethnicity:

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

Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion.

 

so to answer your question, nigerian-american isnt an ethnic group, any more than american is an ethnic group. “Nigeria” has only existed as a single, unified state since 1914, its basically a “fake” nation. The only reason why people might refer to nigerians as an ethnic group is out of expediency and/or due to ignorance. Most importantly, the notion of a “hyphenated-american” doesn’t always refer to an ethnic group like you were suggesting, it can refer to a nationality as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American#Usage_of_the_hyphen
 

They are both ethnic groups. Just read any article talking about Nigerian-Americans, and it will refer to them as an ethnic group. Non-Americans definitely see Americans as our own ethnic group, regardless as race.
 

a particular race of people, or the fact of being from a particular race of people:
Ethnicity is not considered when reviewing applications.
Our students have many different nationalities, religions, and ethnicities.
 

Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion.
 

Ethnicity can be changed, race can not. It is biological reality. That alone proves that race is the more important factor. Ethnicity is largely cultural.
 

Non-Americans definitely see Americans as our own ethnic group, regardless as race.
 

Yes, there is arbitrariness. There is also different levels of ethnicity and people can belong to multiple ethnicities. Some ethnic groups can be “stronger” or more fundamental than others.
 

btw what did you mean by this? You said that nation is listed a synonym of race, but then you claimed that this doesnt mean that nation and race can be used interchangeably. You never answered this, do you know what a synonym is?
 

When the dictionary site listed the other words as synonyms, I took it that they were related concepts not that they actually mean the same thing.
 

synonym[ sin-uh-nim ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR synonym ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.
a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity or Wall Street for U.S. financial markets; metonym.
Biology. one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.
 

oh…so now you admit that ethnicity and race can be interchangeable sometimes, but earlier you were claiming that ethnicity and race are not interchangeable. Looks like you have finally admitted you were wrong
 

No, I just meant that nationality and ethnicity are more interchangeable than race and ethnicity (which is not at all). Like I said, I’ve never heard of someone saying the “Russian race” or “Yoruban race” or “Han race.” If you want to know what race is, look at that image I posted of some of the different European caucasoid sub-races.
 

With China’s new prominence in global affairs, the Han race, which constitutes 90 percent of the Chinese population, is suddenly the most dominant cohesive ethnic group in the world — and it is seeking to remain that way through strategic alliances, aggressive trade policy, and attacks on racial minorities within the country’s boundaries. The less tribally cohesive, more fragmented West is, meanwhile, losing out.
 

It demonstrates how an informal group of non-elite, urban youth are mobilizing the ancient Han ethnonym to challenge the Chinese Communist Party's official policy of multiculturalism, while seeking to promote pride and self-identification with the Han race
 

Taiwan, China and the Han race

 

Oba Adeyeye enjoined the Yoruba race worldwide to foster unity among themselves and congratulated the honourees “on behalf of all Yoruba tribe on earth.”
 

The challenge which Amotekun faces and the dilemma of the Yoruba race is how to neutralise armed, reasonably weapon trained, compact, efficient and mobile terrorist cells littering the Yoruba landscape. The options are limited. The first is to get these cells and future additions to continue to live in Yorubaland in peace, and, the second, for the cells to leave Yoruba land in peace
 

Our position here is that the creation and migration myths share the same theme about
the reality and meaning of Yoruba womanhood via the presence of Oduduwa, the
founder of the Yoruba race.
 

prince Ekaladerhan of Bini, popularly known as Oduduwa, is touted as the father of the famous Yoruba race but that exemplifying trait he wields does not overshadow the many controversies that have characterized his original place of origin.
 

In addition to emphasising the particular needs of the Yorùbá, the
resolve of the association was to unite the various groups of the Yorùbá race and
generally create and foster the spirit of a single nationalism in Yorùbáland.
 

THIS IS A COMPACT CATALOG OF THE TRIUMPHS AND TRAVAILS OF THE YORUBA RACE THROUGH THE CENTURIES.
 

Origin of Yoruba race in Nigeria Read more: https://www.legit.ng/1175819-origin-yoruba-race-nigeria.html

 

You claimed that you had explicitly clarified that you had made a typo in comment #389 but you didn’t. If you didn’t explicitly clarify that you had made a typo then why did you claim that you did so in comment #389?
 

#389 was when I started saying white nationalists like I meant to instead of just whites.
 

so you can’t find where I specifically made that claim, I mean we’ve both known this for weeks now. Its hilarious watching you squirm about this, we both know that you can’t find where I made the claim
 

It was obvious from what you posted. Your hatred of whites oozes from your writing.
 

Replies: @FvS

if you still stand by your original argument then why did you bring up christianity?

 

It’s icing on the cake.
 

Not necessarily. I already addressed this; different races exhibit different traits and also exhibit different degrees of certain traits when compared to other races. According to HBD we follow this logic for all other traits, why wouldnt we apply it to the traits that would undergird the desire/inclination for conquest and domination? You don’t know if all of the other races would have tried to dominate the entire world, to try to say otherwise is making a racial blank-slate argument.
 

Mongolians, Imperial Japanese, Aztecs, Bantus, etc.

 

Not necessarily. I already addressed this; different races exhibit different traits and also exhibit different degrees of certain traits when compared to other races. According to HBD we follow this logic for all other traits, why wouldnt we apply it to the traits that would undergird the desire/inclination for conquest and domination? You don’t know if all of the other races would have tried to dominate the entire world, to try to say otherwise is making a racial blank-slate argument. Its obvious that youre trying to selectively support HBD when it fits you and then use racial blank-slate arguments when HBD is inconvenient LOL.

Lets take intelligence for example; asians are intelligent, so are whites, does this mean that asians will have the same intellectual abilities as whites? nope. Does this mean that asians will be able to impact the external world with their intellect to the same degree as whites can? nope. So why would the desire/inclination for domination be any different when applied to the different races? Different races all have demonstrated the desire for domination/conquest but this doesn’t automatically mean that they would express this desire in the same way and to the same degree under identical circumstances. You can even see the same thing in society; in theory all races in the US have equal access to the same opportunities (NAMs actually have greater access to opportunities) however not all races bother to use these opportunities equally. Generally speaking different races in the US show different levels of drive and ambition and this in turn results in different outcomes. Its the same thing when applied to the hypothetical situation of the different races having the same resources and whether or not they would try to dominate the entire world. Different races will lead to different outcomes. Racial differences exist, I dont know why you keep trying to argue that they wouldnt apply in a situation like this.

 

These are mutually exclusive beliefs. The fact that racial differences in wanting to dominate others might exist means that you cannot definitely claim that all other races would have done the same if they were in the position of whites.
 

All races have groups that tried to take as much territory as possible at some point. Why is it so hard for you to imagine what the Mongolians would have done with European weapons and ships?
 

There is also another point that I never brought up and that is the nature of the competition between all the various European countries. The virtual stalemate that existed forced the competition outwards.
 

the portugese already had cochin and malacca as well as other “colonies” in the area. Portuguese controlled territory in the area was called portuguese india. Actual direct portuguese colonial administration of kotte did not begin until long after portugese india had already been well established (1597). Your reasoning for why they wanted to possess kotte is chronologically and factually wrong:
 

What’s closer to China, Portuguese controlled India or Kotte?
 

Also, when was China sending ships to Portugal again?
 

During the Ming treasure voyages, a large Chinese fleet led by Admiral Zheng He arrived in local waters to establish Chinese control and stability of the maritime routes in the waters around Ceylon and southern India.[3] Alakeshvara posed a threat to Chinese trade by committing piracy and hostilities in the local waters.[3]
 

Portuguese presence in the island lasted from 1505 to 1658. Their arrival was largely accidental, and the Portuguese sought control of commerce, rather than territory.
 

thats funny because debt-trap diplomacy and buying off foreign politicians don’t constitute colonialism either. These actions can be considered unethical or scummy, but that doesn’t mean that they are equivalent to colonialism (assuming that either of these allegations is even true on a broad scale to begin with). African countries are free to stop working with china, china isn’t forcing them to do anything. Is china holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to work with them? China doesn’t even have the military force projection ability to coerce these african countries to work with it lol.
 

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+colonialism
 

No, I never was trying to conflate them. That is a strawman. I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

lmao youre you’re literally trying to conflate them right now:
 

I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

BTW I already read each of your links in its entirety, I didn’t find any of them particularly convincing. Most of the articles came across as speculation, exaggeration and conjecture. Its also pretty funny that youve already abandoned your arbitrary list of four things that you claimed constitute colonialism lol.
 

I didn’t abandon anything. You just didn’t successfully refute the points so I saw no point in going on about it.
 

this is completely your conjecture, you’re literally pulling this out your ass. You have no basis for this statement, if you do then provide proof. Seriously, I want you to provide me proof of your assertion
 

Yes, I too think it makes sense to invade other countries when there is an imperial power on my doorstep. /s
 

Secondly, this is also a really odd argument for a person that is supposedly against colonialism to make. Wow…it almost sounds like you’re trying to justify colonialism. You’re literally too stupid to hide your own pro-colonialism leanings and it ends up leaking out sooner or later lol. Also you are aware that the japanese themselves killed up to 20 million chinese right?
 

For the millionth time, saying there were positive aspects of colonialism doesn’t mean you think it should have happened in the first place. As for the Japanese and the Chinese, that helps prove my original point about the behavior of all races.
 

The Japanese were not. They wouldn’t have tried to conquer their neighbors if they were. And if China was colonized, tens of millions of Chinese would still be alive due to no communist revolution and due to improved infrastructure.
 

You’ve completely contradicted yourself here, apparently according even to you, people do not inherently value their race over their ethnicity.
 

Not literally every single time, but most of the time they do, especially if they’ve been living in the presence of other races for a prolonged period.
 

Maybe proximity is the main factor, but there are many places where different proximate racial majority nations intersect and there is no alliance.
 

of course proximity is the main factor, supranational alliances are based on a multitude of important factors but typically geographical location is (obviously) one of the most important ones. Your second point about places where different proximate racial majority nations intersect and there being no alliances doesn’t disprove my point that supranational alliances are based on many factors besides just race. It has no bearing at all on my point.

That being said, even though you didn’t disprove my point I am curious if you can even back up your assertion. Can you provide me a list of these many places where different proximate racial majority nations intersect and there is no alliance? You said there are many, while I doubt what you’re saying, I want to see if you can actually back up your claim.
 

the fact that pan-asian advocacy organizations exist doesnt prove that the majority of real, actual asian americans on the ground value their race over their ethnicity. You wanted to claim that asian americans value race over ethnicity but the link you provided doesn’t prove that asian americans value race over ethnicity, it only proves that there are some organizations which promote pan-asianism. You cannot deduce from this how all asian-americans collectively feel with regards to race and its relative importance compared to their respective ethnicities.
 

Based on the articles I posted and my own observations that Asian-Americans have no problem sticking together and prefer the company of other old Asian ethnic groups over other groups of different races, I think we can make a safe assumption.
 

I read both of these articles, they’re interesting articles but they don’t prove your point. Just because some asian-americans band together to promote pan-asian identity politics doesn’t mean that all or even most asian americans feel this way. The reality on the ground with your average asian-american is much different. They are not pan-racial to the extent that african-americans are for example. Like I said, in my experience when it comes to asian-americans, they primarily identify with their ethnicity first, a sense of pan-racial asian identity is either equal to this or comes in second place but doesnt supercede their ethnic identity like you were claiming, and then of course many asian-americans don’t care about their ethnicity or their race. The situation in real life regarding asian-americans and pan-racial identity is much more complexed and nuanced than you’re trying to argue it is.
 

This is equivalent to pulling up a list of white nationalist organizations and claiming that it somehow represents how all whites feel. Its amazing how stupid you are
 

No, that’s a false comparison because pan-Asian organizations and white nationalist organizations don’t advocate the same relative things. It’s amazing how stupid you are.
 

from what ive seen race-blind liberals are happy to live with people from a similar socio-economic class regardless of their race; as for their associations I see a ton of white liberal males and white liberal females with romantic partners and friends of different races. If anything I think that race-blind liberals probably try to avoid low-class black people more than anything, but they’re basically fine with every other racial and socio-economic demographic. You’re confusing the role that socio-economic status plays with the role that race plays. The instinct for pan-racial sentiment is much less strong than you think it is; this is why its so malleable in the first place.
 

This is demonstrably false. Rich whites live in notoriously heavy white neighborhoods.
 

Interracial relationships among white liberals are still a tiny
 

Rich blacks prefer living among other rich blacks. minority.
https://blackexcellence.com/10-richest-black-communities-in-america/
 

yeah you’re wrong lol. Ethnicity is a biological reality, just like race is. How can you not know this? LMAO. You’re confusing ethnicity with nationality, which is largely cultural. How the fuck do you not know this? That fact that you didn’t know this casts a large shadow of doubt over your other arguments as well. You’ve been factually wrong about so many things so far, its becoming hard to take you seriously.
 

No, you’re wrong. A person can belong to multiple ethnic groups at the same time. Typically, the most broad ethnic group that a person belongs to correlates with their nationality. What you’re saying is that the American, German, Bolivian, Vietnamese, etc. ethnic groups do not exist.
 

Ethnicity can be changed, race can not. It is biological reality. That alone proves that race is the more important factor. Ethnicity is largely cultural.
 

1.you indeed were wrong in your original assertion where you forgot about the context in which the viking example was given. So you were wrong, there is no arguing about this.

2.what youre saying is still autistic bullshit that doesnt apply in the real world. Which is why vikings had no problems fucking up anglosaxons; the vikings could give a rats ass about your opinion that them invading the anglosaxons was racially self-destructive. This just goes to show how delusional and detached from reality you are; you persist in believing in your non-sense even though it doesnt reflect real world conditions. The jews OTOH exist in reality and are very pragmatic, they dont delude themselves with nonsense like you do, I can see why they’re winning and white nationalists are losing.
 

Ah, your true hatred of whites is revealing itself.
 

And it doesn’t matter what the vikings thought, it just matters what is.

 

Replies: @FvS

As I suggested above, the most important thing is the fact that had the prime minister lu jia acted differently and allowed himself to be arrested by the emperor of the han dynasty then the entire situation could have been avoided, instead he decided to murder both the queen dowager jiu and the king AND declared war on the han dynasty. Its quite obvious that in this situation the prime minister lu jia made some poor decisions and his actions qualify the state of nanyue as the “aggressor”.
 

How can you not understand the concept of proportionality? Let’s say you kill my dog, and I respond by enslaving you entire family for multiple generations. At some point, I became the aggressor.
 

Just because a response seems out of proportion to you doesn’t change the fact of who the aggressor is. I hope you realize that. If tom and jerry get into an argument and tom slaps jerry and then jerry pulls out a gun and shoots tom in the head then tom is still the aggressor. Jerry’s response might be out of proportion, but that doesn’t change who the aggressor is. Im sorry but your whole argument about who the aggressor is and isnt is silly and a weak argument, that’s why you keep having to change the goalposts with your “aggressor” argument. I sort of get the feeling that you don’t really know what the word “aggressor” means…
 

a person or country that starts an argument, fight, or war by attacking first
 

Furthermore you seem really bluepilled with your concept of how you think a response should be “proportional”. Is there some cosmic law which upholds this idea? Or is this just your own subjective, personal reasoning? Just because you think that a response should be proportional doesn’t mean that reality will conform with this idea. Please tell me, what is the fundamental force which backs up your belief that a response should be proportional? Reality and history are full of situations where one action leads to a disproportionate response. Take for example the assassination of archduke franz ferdinand, an entire world war killing millions upon millions of people all began with a single murder. According to your logic, this would be a disproportionate response however…that’s not how reality works. There is no cosmic law or force which demands that all actions should deserve a proportional response. Reality is complex, unexpected and oftentimes unfair. The fact that you seem to believe that a response to a given action should be proportional just goes to show how out of touch with reality your thinking is. Your thinking is just as loony and out of touch with reality as a liberal’s thinking is.
 

Even the greatest conflicts start somewhere and somehow. The schism between the jews and the west started at some point and escalated from there, its entirely possible that that event was the jewish-roman wars. Its disingenuous for you to act like im literally claiming that jews’ current actions are a direct response to romans overthrowing their temple. I suspect you know this too but you were just grasping for any argument to use, no matter how tenuous it was.
 

See above. And holding future generations responsible for the actions of past generations is inherently unjust.
 

I stated that its possible that the jewish-roman wars could have been what started the initial schism between jews and the west; what the jews are currently doing to the west is not a direct response to the romans overthrowing their temple but rather the result of a long back and forth between jews and gentile whites which possibly began with the romans overthrowing the jews’ temple. Its amazing how poor your ability is to understand how events and situations incrementally unfold and evolve in real life.
 

medieval western christendom (the direct predecessor to the modern west) came from the roman empire. Therefore your implication that im wrong about this is actually incorrect. Do you not even know the history of the west? lol
 

It still doesn’t change the fact that the modern West shouldn’t be beholden to the actions of the Roman Empire.
 

Even the greatest conflicts start somewhere and somehow. The schism between the jews and the west started at some point and escalated from there, its entirely possible that that event was the jewish-roman wars. Its disingenuous for you to act like im literally claiming that jews’ current actions are a direct response to romans overthrowing their temple. I suspect you know this too but you were just grasping for any argument to use, no matter how tenuous it was.
 

Once again just to be completely clear, my original point was that you wanted to claim that whites gave up their colonies out of goodwill and it turns out that you were wrong. Whether or not whites have largely changed their beliefs about colonialism is a separate argument.
 

Whether they gave them up out of goodwill is irrelevant to my point about how beliefs about colonialism can and did change. There is no way for you to argue that point which is why you resort to deflection.
 

Jews also played a large role in the civil rights movement which was probably the biggest factor in helping to end white supremacy ideology and promote racial egalitarianism (which by default is the opposite of white supremacy). Therefore your contention that whites were able to change by themselves is incorrect, ironically it was jews who played a large role in helping whites to reform and shed white supremacy ideology. Without jews helping to reeducate the west then the west would still be pro-colonization and white supremacist. You say youre against white supremacy and against white colonization so actually you have the jews to thank for helping make the west and whites the way they are today.
 

LOL. So now you are claiming that even dictionaries themselves are wrong. This is rich, I guess words only mean what you want them to mean right? Its amazing how delusional you are. Like I said, there are multiple definitions of white supremacy and you were wrong about this. Remember, you were confused over a simple comparative statement for two weeks. Youre a moron dude. Why should I take anyone seriously that doesn’t even understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity?
 

The backwater, no-name dictionary websites that you posted are wrong. Here are some ones that actually have merit. Just give up.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacist
https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/white-supremacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy
 

the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society.
 

more important, strong, or noticeable than anything else of the same type:
a dominant military power
Unemployment will be a dominant issue in the next election.
 

the theory or belief that White people are innately superior to people of other races
 

1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people.
 

su·​preme | \ sə-ˈprēm , sü- \
Definition of supreme
1: highest in rank or authority
the supreme commander
2: highest in degree or quality
supreme endurance in war and in labour
— R. W. Emerson
3: ULTIMATE, FINAL
the supreme sacrifice

 

Definition of supremacy
: the quality or state of being supreme
also : supreme authority or power

 

supremacy[ suh-prem-uh-see, soo- ]
the state of being supreme.
supreme authority or power.
 

Making silver linings arguments make you sound insincere about your “colonization bad!” stance, but hey man if you want people to think you’re full of shit then by all means continue to make silver lining arguments. You’re truly too autistic or too arrogant to understand this

 

No rebuttal, I see.

 

yeah there is hypocrisy. If white nationalists want to continue to make excuses for past white supremacy then they have no room to complain about jewish supremacy.
 

No, there isn’t, you brainlet. Because past white supremacy and past white supremacists have nothing to do with modern white nationalists or white nationalism. How can you not understand this concept? Lmao. Just because you wouldn’t undo something that literally led to the foundation of your country as you know it hundreds of years ago, doesn’t mean you want to keep doing that thing to other people in the present. Nor does that mean that you are a hypocrite for resisting when another group is doing it to you in the present.
 

Definition of hypocrisy
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.
especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
our conventional morality often serves as a cover for hypocrisy and selfishness
— Lucius Garvin
 

I was pointing out your hypocrisy; its absurd how you condone the displacement of the native americans but then go and complain about how the same thing happening to white americans is unfair.
 

It is unfair. They are both unfair. But my very existence depends on the first having taken place. I think the Native American displacement was wrong, but I wouldn’t undo it. Does that make sense to you?
 

its not a cope though; im literally just describing your behavior. Just because you call it a cope doesnt mean that it actually is. You argue like a little bitch lmao
 

Don’t be ashamed, a lot of “men” are a little effeminate these days.
 

why would I be salty? Im kicking your ass in this argument. Im setting the tempo and calling the shots. Youre literally my bitch. You have no idea how much im enjoying destroying your arguments. Keep responding bitch, you’re my entertainment. Also…what kind of self respecting white man unironically uses the word “salty”? youre embarrassing yourself dude. Nothing is worse than clueless white nationalists ironically co-opting contemporary colloquialisms and trying to sound hip, you just sound like a moron lol
 

Very, very salty. Lmao. Hope you didn’t blow a gasket when you wrote this.
 

this is your new retort when you run out of ways to deflect the fact that you were wrong about something. “uhhhhh I cant tell if youre trolling or not durrr”
 

It’s my retort when we are just arguing back and forth to no end, and I can’t possibly fathom how you could be so retarded.
 

then why did you include it in the first place? lmao. Secondly, of course there is reason to believe that such a thing might happen, just because you claim otherwise doesn’t make it so. You don’t know the future, you’re wrong about things in the present and most likely you’re wrong about what would happen in a hypothetical future too.
 

I do know what is likely to happen in the future because I know what white nationalists believe in the present, far better than you do clearly based on your fantasy projections.
 

except you did strawman it lol. Once again, the scenario I presented was extremely reasonable. You don’t speak for all white nationalists and secondly you don’t know how or what they would do in the future under different circumstances. Just because you claim to know something doesnt mean that you actually do. Look at how many white nationalists used to claim that the US democratic voting system was rigged but then in 2016 they all went out and voted for (((trump))) LOL. This just goes to show how gullible the alt-right and white nationalists are. I bet you voted for (((trump))) too lmao. Also look at how many white nationalists proclaim their commitment to the preservation of the white race and western civilization and then they go and marry an asian woman LOL. Once again this just goes to show you how you cannot take what white nationalists say at face value. All they do is talk and talk is cheap. They oftentimes literally can’t control themselves, who knows what they would do in an alternate reality where the situation was different. You certainly dont know
 

Once again, the scenario I presented was extremely reasonable.
 

No, it wasn’t. You haven’t even been able to provide one white nationalist that argues for a return of white supremacy.
 

You don’t speak for all white nationalists and secondly you don’t know how or what they would do in the future under different circumstances.

 

Based on what they believe now, I do.
 

I said related to colonialism, I didn’t say it that the country had to be successfully colonized.

 

You did in your original point. You said that a country being colonized made it much more likely for mass emigration to their colonizing power to take place. Now, I’ve proven that a country need not be colonized for modern mass immigration from that country to take place. So sad for you.
 

The policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation's resources.
 

There is absolutely no debate about this or a way to prove it wrong. The only thing you can resort to is trying to use an alternate version of history to back up your point, how weak is that?
 

So, you’re argument is that because something happened a certain way, there is no possible way it could have happened another way. How convenient for you.
 

Also, assuming modern technology progresses the same way, I highly doubt all of East Asia would remain isolated, like a bunch of North Koreas or something.
 

once again, you don’t know what would happen. Anything you say is basically conjecture since the course of the world would be so different in an alternate reality. Notice how you have to resort to hypothetical situations and assuming things in order to prop up your point? That’s evidence that your original point couldnt stand on its own lol. The west forced east asia to open up and as a result this opened up the floodgates for millions of asian immigrants to come later on down the road. Even if modern technology existed in an alternate universe this doesnt mean that the political/geopolitical conditions for millions of east asian immigrants to come to the west would still exist. Its funny how you were completely BTFO on this point; in our current reality (not the hypothetical reality you like to run off to) the millions of east asian immigrants in the west are a direct result of the west forcing east asia to open up. There is absolutely no debate about this or a way to prove it wrong. The only thing you can resort to is trying to use an alternate version of history to back up your point, how weak is that?
 

more cope. Once again one of your poorly put together arguments gets completely destroyed and as a result you have to modify the conditions and try to change the goalposts LOL. Notice how its only you that has to change the goalposts and not me? Thats a clear indicator of somebody that has a weak argument. You were trying to claim that the largest foreign populations there were moroccans and other european immigrants (as opposed to people from their former colonies) and it turns out that you were factually wrong. You couldn’t even prove your original point LOL
 

I’m not factually wrong. The number of non-white immigrants from their former colonies is negligible in Spain. Returning white Spaniards doesn’t count. It’s like white Brits returning from Nigeria or India. 25% (or even 5%) of Spain’s population is definitely not mestizo or Amerindian. All of this is rather beside the point, modern mass immigration is only possible because modern governments allow it.

 

All of this is rather beside the point, modern mass immigration is only possible because modern governments allow it.
 

You don’t know how technology would have spread, in what way, to what degree and against what political and geopolitical backdrop.
 

So you’re existence is likely dependent on the genocide of Native Americans then. Would you undo the Native American genocide if it means you never existing?
 

Technology and free trade are far more important factors. Reduction in language barriers is only a small benefit to globalization. China is a perfect example of this. They were never colonized, don’t speak a European language, and yet are fully integrated into the global market because of technology and free trade.
 

once again, you don’t know what a hypothetical world where western colonialism had never happened would have looked like and you dont know how it would have developed. You would literally have to redo over five centuries of history. You don’t know how technology would have spread, in what way, to what degree and against what political and geopolitical backdrop. Modern globalization is obviously built on the back of western colonialism.
 

Replies: @FvS

This is of course dealing with real history that actually happened; im literally describing events how they historically happened, not coping and trying to make up fantasy, hypothetical alternate realities like you do.

 

Okay, but China was still never colonized. And the existence of mass migrations predates European colonialism.
 

if there was a murderer who condoned and made excuses for his own murders but then claimed that it was wrong that someone else was trying to murder him then yes, this person would be considered a hypocrite. You condone and make excuses for the native american genocide but then you cry when the same thing happens to white americans.
 

It would be more accurate to say that it is hypocritical for a non-murderer to condone and make excuses for his ancestor’s murders (because it led to his very existence) but then claim it is wrong for someone else to try and murder him. Which is false, obviously. And you can still think something is wrong (like the Native American genocide), and still not wish it happened any other way.
 

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
 

And you can still think something is wrong (like the Native American genocide), and still not wish it happened any other way.
 

what I find ironic is that white nationalist morons will cry about white genocide but then they will claim that what native americans experienced wasnt genocide. What native americans went through was significantly worse than what white americans are currently going through. If what the native americans experienced wasnt genocide then what white americans are experiencing sure as hell isnt genocide.
 

You might call it an accidental genocide because of the smallpox spread. It wasn’t just some giant mass slaughter. But yes, native americans are in a worse situation than whites right now.
 

because you guys are hypocritical pieces of shit. I dont care if whites fight to protect themselves or not; I literally dont care either way. I just hate POS alt-right, white nationalists who talk out both sides of their mouths. Throughout this entire debate youve strongly reminded myself of why I despise white nationalists. You guys are slimy, deceptive, dishonorable, hypocritical and arrogant. Its unfortunate for white people that the only people they have defending them are people like yourselves. Unsurprisingly, isnt it funny how white nationalists can’t even get the majority of whites to support them? You guys are outcasts even amongst your own people LOL.
 

There is no hypocrisy as I’ve explained numerous times. You’re just too dumb or prideful to admit it. As for the rest of your sperg, white nationalism is on the rise, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
 

As for the rest of your sperg, white nationalism is on the rise, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
 

why weasel out of this? why are you trying to change the goal posts and shift the argument to something different? why not just drop the matter? this is an insignificant point overall. You wanted to claim that I was incorrectly attributing a statement to you and it turns out that you were completely wrong about this. Its not my fault you didnt read what I wrote. Youve already demonstrated a strong tendency to misread or misunderstand things numerous times throughout this conversation. You were wrong, get over it and just drop it.
 

No, I’m not wrong because what you wrote made no sense in any other context and could only be taken one way. But I do agree this is an insignificant point overall.
 

Ironically your apples and oranges argument is supporting my original thesis. For various reasons, different ethnicities might or might not have tried to dominate the world if they were in a position to do so. To say that all ethnicities/cultural blocs would have acted in the same way were they in the position of western europeans is a really broad and unprovable statement due to its inherent complexity.
 

Whats been going on in this debate is a little bit complicated but im going to try to unpack it. Initially I made a broad statement about whites, which you then responded to with the above quote referring broadly to races; afterwards I specified my claim since I was originally talking about western europeans and not all whites. From that point on in the conversation I made a consistent effort to point out that I was talking about things on the ethnic/cultural bloc level as opposed to at the racial level. Its within this context (the ethnic/cultural bloc level, not the racial level) that I was debating against the notion that all other “races” would have done the same if they were in the place of western europeans. Ironically your apples and oranges argument is supporting my original thesis. For various reasons, different ethnicities might or might not have tried to dominate the world if they were in a position to do so. To say that all ethnicities/cultural blocs would have acted in the same way were they in the position of western europeans is a really broad and unprovable statement due to its inherent complexity.

Just to be completely clear though, I was never interested in having a broad conversation about race; and I think that my comments throughout this debate reflect this as well. As far as im concerned, regarding this particular argument I think we have come to an agreement. OTOH if you’re trying to have a conversation about entire races (as opposed to ethnicities and cultural blocs) then im not interested in it, and never was.
 

the merriam-webster dictionary says otherwise. You obviously don’t know what semantically means in this context, if you did then you would realize that your argument is unnecessary. You do realize that words can possess different meanings right? There are figurative meanings, literal meanings, scientific meanings etc etc. Its becoming obvious that you don’t really grasp this concept…
 

Ethnicity and race do not mean the same thing.
 

Synonyms for ethnicity

nation, nationality, race
 

Let me ask you this, is Nigerian-American an ethnic group? Or do we call them Yoruba-Americans? You can belong to multiple levels of different ethnic groups.
 

a particular race of people, or the fact of being from a particular race of people:
Ethnicity is not considered when reviewing applications.
Our students have many different nationalities, religions, and ethnicities.
 

Russian Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Russia, the former Russian Empire, or the former Soviet Union. This means that ‘Russian’ does not necessarily refer to East Slavic ethnic Russians. The definition can be applied to recent Russian immigrants to the United States, as well as to settlers of 19th-century Russian settlements in northwestern America.

In several major urban centers in the U.S., many Jewish Americans and other ethnic groups with roots in the former Soviet Union, such as Armenian Americans, Belarusian Americans, Georgian Americans, Ukrainian Americans, and Uzbek Americans, identify with the Russian American community. Additionally, some Rusyn Americans who left Eastern Catholicism for Eastern Orthodoxy identify as Russian Americans.
 

Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion.
 

Ethnicity or nationality: Arab American, Armenian American, British American, Chinese American, Colombian American, English American, Filipino American, French American, German American, Greek American, Haitian American, Indian American, Irish American, Italian American, Japanese American, Jewish American, Korean American, Mexican American, Norwegian American, Pakistani American, Polish American, Russian American, Scottish American, Swedish American, Ukrainian American, Vietnamese American, and so on.
 

You’ll notice that nation is listed as a synonym of race. That doesn’t mean nation and race can be used interchangeably.
 

As you can see, under certain conditions words can function as synonyms for other words, its all highly contextual but I understand that this is a concept you have difficulty understanding due to your autism.
 

Nationality and ethnicity are more interchangeable than ethnicity and race.
 

you claimed that you explicitly mentioned that you made a typo but you didnt; it was absent in the text I provided, ergo you were wrong. The fact that you claim that the usage of the word white nationalist should have given me a clue confirms this. If you explicitly clarified anything then by definition you wouldn’t need to give out clues since you are already explicitly clarifying it. Do you not understand what the word explicitly means? lmao, even your own words prove you wrong
 

When did I claim that I explicitly mentioned that I made a typo? I just made the correction in subsequent posts and thought you were smart enough to pick up on it. Guess I was wrong.
 

I dont recall you explicitly clarifying this and saying that it was a typo. Im not accusing you of lying either, please show where you explicitly clarified that this was a type. I don’t recall you saying anything to this effect but I could be wrong
 

Post 389. And every post after I wrote white nationalists.
 

never claimed I was on your side. Nor am I bothered by your pathetic and clumsy attempts at moral shaming. Do you think I give a fuck? lmao. Glad you capitulated on this point. Like I said, you can’t find where I specifically made that claim.
 

I’m glad you admitted to supporting white genocide and that you are a hypocrite.
 

Replies: @FvS

2) LOL - the NSA is the top hacking entity in the world. China has been busy trying to catch up (and may have).

3) US universities desperately need the high tuition rates Chinese students pay

4) Many local governments heavily rely on the sale of real estate to Chinese investors.

Now that revenue could be subsidized if from your don't list - the US gov stops trying to confront China militarily in Asia. If that money is funneled back into the US - as it should be - then 3 and 4 might work.

It was Chinese negligence and their ridiculous “traditional medicine” demands that created the conditions for the emergence of the virus in the first place.
 

Replies: @interesting

It was Chinese negligence and their ridiculous “traditional medicine” demands that created the conditions for the emergence of the virus in the first place. They should be helping.
 

The U.S. only appears to be a paper tiger because we choose to follow specific rules of engagement. Take them away and the American military is capable of perhaps unprecedented levels of mass slaughter using conventional weaponry.

 

US military strength mainly comes not from the soldiers but the engineers. It might not be difficult to persuade the soldiers to behave beastly, but it will let down most of the engineers if without a good cause. You seem to think the Rules of Engagement is just a bad burden, but it actually has a purpose.

Take them away and the American military is capable of perhaps unprecedented levels of mass slaughter using conventional weaponry.
 

so in other words you can’t support your original claim as follows…is that correct?
 

No, that is not correct. I still stand by what I originally said. If all those other groups had the same advantages that Western Europeans did, you would have seen similar levels of world conquest.
 

If all those other groups had the same advantages that Western Europeans did, you would have seen similar levels of world conquest.
 

Add Christianity to the mix and it’s possible that Western Europeans would have actually been less inclined to seek world domination compared to those other ethnic groups of different races. In fact, Christianity blows up your whole argument. You failed to prove that Western Europeans are somehow unique in this way due to genetics.
 

All the other races would have done the same in our place, they just weren’t ever strong enough to even come close to accomplishing it.
 

And I do admit that racial/ethnic differences in wanting to dominate others might exist.
 

All the other races would have done the same in our place, they just weren’t ever strong enough to even come close to accomplishing it.
 

And I do admit that racial/ethnic differences in wanting to dominate others might exist.
 

The point is that Kotte is right in the middle of the Portuguese trade routes with East Asia. If China had been sending ships to Portugal and the rest of Europe, then you might have a leg to stand on.
 

Portuguese presence in the island lasted from 1505 to 1658. Their arrival was largely accidental, and the Portuguese sought control of commerce, rather than territory.
 

No, I never was trying to conflate them. That is a strawman. I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

I merely asked if you supported what they were doing there as it is clear they are engaging in a form of colonialism. You have never addressed the fact that there are many ways to engage in colonialism.
 

Posting these again for reference. Debt trap diplomacy is not the same thing as just trading with another country. Neither is buying off foreign politicians (which is what China is doing with African leaders).

https://www.panafricanalliance.com/china-africa-colonialism/
https://www.trtworld.com/africa/is-debt-trap-diplomacy-china-s-neocolonialist-tool-in-africa-27672
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/chinese-debt-diplomacy-is-drowning-sri-lanka-s-economy-and-environment-25523
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-trap_diplomacy
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-26/china-take-over-kenyas-largest-port-over-unpaid-chinese-loan
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/new-colonization-china-building-enormous-self-sustaining-chinese-cities-all-over
https://observers.france24.com/en/20190422-congo-chinese-company-toll-booth

 

The japanese were actually facing a real threat of being colonized and subjugated contrary to your conjecture. The fact that china was not colonized wasn’t due to lack of intent by the europeans but rather because they were unable to fully colonize it. If they were then china would have ended up like africa.
 

The Japanese were not. They wouldn’t have tried to conquer their neighbors if they were. And if China was colonized, tens of millions of Chinese would still be alive due to no communist revolution and due to improved infrastructure.
 

Keep in mind that the meiji restoration started around 1868, during approximately this same time period just a few years later this was what was going on in the world:

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

In fact a similar process was already underway in china:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_imperialism_in_Asia#Western_European_and_Russian_intrusions_into_China
 

 

They wouldn’t have tried to conquer their neighbors if they were.
 

And if China was colonized, tens of millions of Chinese would still be alive due to no communist revolution and due to improved infrastructure.
 

The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), a theater of World War II, forced an uneasy alliance between the Kuomintang and the PLA. Japanese forces committed numerous war atrocities against the civilian population; in all, as many as 20 million Chinese civilians died.[84] An estimated 40,000 to 300,000 Chinese were massacred in the city of Nanjing alone during the Japanese occupation
 

Your point is poorly written. I legitimately don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to say here. That being said, it is historical fact that japan declared war on its racially related neighbor china even while it was aware that european was actively colonizing africa and was attempting to do something similar in china at the time. Yet in spite of being aware of the intent of the hostile racial outsiders (europeans) japan still went and attacked its own racial neighbors. This just goes to show that your point about race trumping all other factors is absurd. In the real world there are so many other factors that matter besides race
 

I didn’t say other factors don’t matter. That is a strawman. And you can’t deny that if the Amerindians had cared about race more than ethnicity, they might not have lost out to Europeans.
 

Your point about the US/liberia and spain/honduras has nothing to do with the fact that supranational alliances are formed due to many other factors than just race.
 

Race seems to be the primary factor since there aren’t very many multi-racial ones. Maybe proximity is the main factor, but there are many places where different proximate racial majority nations intersect and there is no alliance.
 

Maybe proximity is the main factor, but there are many places where different proximate racial majority nations intersect and there is no alliance.
 

Not from what I’ve seen and posted. So far, I’ve only heard anecdote from you.
https://www.diversitybestpractices.com/news-articles/asian-american-organizations-you-need-know
 

The reality on the ground with your average asian-american is much different.
 

When you make this claim what are you basing this belief on? You seem to be suggesting that it is a persistent, strong, inherent quality, is this correct? But if this is true then why is it able to be modified so strongly by environmental factors?
 

It can artificially suppressed or forced to be masked through state propaganda and threat of social ostracization, but just look at where these “race-blind” liberals live and who they associate with. Racial identity is fundamental.
 

Ethnicity can be changed, race can not. It is biological reality. That alone proves that race is the more important factor. Ethnicity is largely cultural.
 

Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion.
 

Notice that you can’t even argue against the general notion that people generally value their ethnicity over their race
 

I already have multiple times. If people valued ethnicity over race, there would be no racial division in the U.S. since we’re all “American.”
 

Replies: @FvS