What? I'm asking a serious question - would it actually be better for many third world countries to go under Western control again, esp. with today's West? Africa's a total dump. You know Hong Kong actually wants Britain back?
Umm no... no it would not. Western colonization is why so many of those places are F'd up in the first place. A lot of these places are new countries/governments not even 50 years old, why you would expect a gleaming civilization in such a short period of time I'll never know. This is an extremely racist post, it's telling that you don't think so. It assumes that other people can't do anything on their own and need white people to help them out. This is pretty much textbook racist. You'd find this post at Stormfront guaranteed. I don't call many posters racist, even while others label other conservative posters that term just Jcee....and if you continue to say things like what I posted and your whole idea that white genocide is having mixed babies then perhaps you as well.
Hugh Hewitt and Jonah Goldberg agree on the proposition that the "Alt-right" needs to driven from the conservative ranks. They also agree that the core of the "Alt-right" is racially oriented around white supremacist thinking. This looks right to me. Here is a section of their conversation about this: One more paragraph that focus on what the Republicans should really be concerned about: I don't think these people are actually Republicans, at least not in any kind of ideological sense. At least they weren't as recently as two years ago and never were before that, as far as I can see. They only appear to be now because they identify with Donald Trump, who has recently decided to run a presidential campaign as a Republican, even though he has spent the vast majority of his adult life as a New York Democrat. The people who sincerely and enthusiastically support the protectionism and isolationism that are the pillars of Trump's campaign are not ideological conservatives or liberals, and are not intellectual Republicans or Democrats. They are angry disenfranchised populists who do not seem to care much about political ideology, but are voting their emotions and their pocketbooks. These people have always been around and if you look back over the last 125 years or so, there has usually been some sort of political movement promoting the themes of protectionism and isolationism, but they have almost always been on the left. So to all of the sudden identify these values as "right" is just not, well, right. So they are not "Alt-right" either. The "alt-right" is a relatively small group of people who see the putrid racist politics of the Democrat left, which is proudly professing to promote the interests of "people of color" at the expense of "white" people, and who have decided they want legitimize that vile racist campaign by identifying themselves with the "whites". When you strip out the economic Trumpians who have no interest in that kind of racist crap and who are just interested in insuring economic futures for themselves and their families, these "alt-right" people really stand out quite clearly as a marginally powerless group that is not even supported by Donald Trump himself. The outspoken racism of the Democrat's left and their racist "people of color" agenda is so broad and so pervasive that it cannot be contained by an "alt" prefix to define the faction. It is to big and too dominant of a theme in the party. But "alt-right" probably is a good way to identify the narrow faction that feels like they have been racially antagonized and harmed by the racial agenda of the Democrat left, and that the way to respond to that is to engage in the same loathsome tactics as the Democrat left. These sorts of conflicts need to be eliminated from our politics and our society, not nurtured and exploited. This has to end, as a house divided against itself, cannot stand. As Hewitt and Goldberg suggest, these people need to be marginalized, in part by clarifying what the term "Alt-right" means and segregating the economic protectionists and isolationists - historically leftist ideals - from the racist "Alt-right" and then letting the "Alt-right" stand on their own. What will then be interesting to see then is if the Trump supporting economic protectionists and isolationists, and the more traditional conservative types can ever reconcile together into a big tent Republican party again. The poem Humpty Dumpty comes to my mind when pondering this possibility. I think most of the traditional conservatives are ready to let the Republican party go, which would leaving it for these Trumpists and the establishment RINO types to reform a new Republican party along more populist lines. It would be interesting to me to hear a discussion among the Republican party leaders about their intermediate term strategy for trying to put their party back together.
Not in the same manner as the 16th-20th century where the West essentially made Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and SE Asia colonies. That's what made these place the way they are today.
So why do you have a problem with inviting Mexico back to Texas? My favorite beach in the world is in Africa -- I wouldn't say an entire continent is "a total dump." Where in Africa were you?
Oh please. If white people didn't come there, they'd still be building mudhuts. But yeah, it's been 50 years and those countries still haven't gone anywhere. Why is that? Germany, Japan were up and running 20 years after they were flattened. No, I don't think they can't help themselves out because of their race. I'm just being pragmatic. Many third world countries are absolutely culturally backwards that it seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. But, yes, in certain situations, I think it can be said they're totally dependent on the West for survival. If we stop giving AIDS relief to Africa, you don't think millions would die?
OK, not in the same manner as before. Today's West running those countries' public services. Would it be better or worse?
I've read and listened to many people trying to define the "alt-right" people are referring to right now, this is most accurate one I've found: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aoLi4rC6xm8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You know little about actual history and you've proven it with that. Still haven't gone anywhere? Do you follow world politics at all? Do a little research, I won't do it for you. Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't be saying things like "If white people didn't come there, they'd still be building mudhuts." Which not only is a racist comment but a flat out ignorant one. Just like your "White people built America." comment. You can continue to deny your racism but I think it's pretty clear for all people to see.
If you did you wouldn't be saying dumb things like other people are only capable of mudhuts. That is a flat out ignorant statement. Taught them what exactly? If you knew a bit of history even a bit you'd know that the settlers wouldn't even have survived long enough to do anything without help from the Natives. If you just knew a tiny bit...but your worldview is that of "Whites are better." so everything you say will fit into that narrative.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AuoGB9c5iVI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Modern civilization. Most of Africa? SE Asia? Latin America? They were in that state when they were found and there are native people still living in that condition today. The settlers would've figured it out. If not that batch then the next ones. It's not like all the colonizers the world over needed help from the natives. But let's get back to the question I asked at the start - would most of the world be better off under Western control again? Yes or no? You're the one who turned this discussion into colonization wrecking those countries.
The handful of individuals who framed the governmental and economic system may have looked like you, but rest assured you have nothing in common with them, intellectually or otherwise. People like you delude yourself into thinking that you do, and when your output and circumstances don't reconcile with that perception you resort to discrimination, persecution and reminiscing about Nazis.
And what state was that? Mudhuts? What makes you think they would have figured it out? The "New World" wasn't colonized by Europeans UNTIL that moment. Oh let me guess, you think whites are inherently smarter? Because that is surely what you are implying. I answered your question already, the answer is no. If you honestly think colonization helped those countries then you really have 0 idea what you are talking about. If you think other people are so dumb that they can't look at a modern building and figure it out on their own then that's your own racism speaking and showing its face.
More or less. Because they did it in the rest of the world. I don't think whites are smarter, inherently, but they've demonstrated themselves to be smarter. No. Not that colonization helped the rest of the world. Do you think the rest of the world would be better off under control by the West TODAY? By Western countries as they are today? Or, to be specific, if the West took over mostly corrupt, inept third world governments and ran them? Not nation building like in Iraq and Afghanistan where the you were training natives to eventually take over the country again but Western (and I say Western, not necessarily white) countries running their governments? They come here to study it. Who knows how long they would've taken to have learned the engineering principles. Let's just face facts here. A lot of places in Africa, America, Asia, the Middle East were just lesser civilizations when European Imperialism happened. They were far behind technologically.
It's purely coincidental timing. Centers of global power has shifted many times over and has come full circle a full times too. Europe just happened to be the strongest at the right time. Not really.
