Are There Any Good Arguments For White Supremacy Without Being Racist?

If somehow acknowledging racial differences is ‘racism’ then no because you can’t even ask the question, and so you cant answer it either

If ‘racism’ refers to treating an individual by the average properties of his race then that is a legitimate criticism of an illogical behavior.

If ‘racism’ refers to criticism of the reproductive, cultural, political strategies of a competing group, rather than criticism of one’s inability to defend against the harm caused you by that group, then that’s illogical also.

If ‘racism’ refers to a preference for nationalism or separatism in order to reduce conflicts between groups and improve the conditions of either by creating norms and institutions more suitable for each group’s differing wants and needs, then criticizing that is not rational.

White ‘supremacy’ in nearly every field is simply a fact – although the reason for white success (the high cost of truth even if it may disrupt the dominance hierarchy, and therefore resulting in reason, debate, argument, common law, science, medicine, engineering, technology etc.

White genetic supremacy does not appear correct. all racial groups both evolved in different geographical conditions and in doing so produced different levels of neoteny. With asians most, whites next, mixed colors next, and blacks last. The reason being that whites and asians have been in homogenous groups a long time, under agrarianism and have succeeded at selecting for neoteny. And secondly, because of the pressures of agrarianism and the winter seasons, the asians and western europeans have more successfully reduced the sizes of the ‘troublesome’ (underclass) population leaving almost the entire population descendent from the genetic middle class. Every other race and subrace has dominated warmer climates where the rate of maturity as a means of surviving a higher disease gradient requires earlier maturity and deeper maturity and therefore limited selection for neoteny.

The superiority of europeans appears to be the result of a rather small set of noble families never exceeding a few hundred thousand in total population combined with a middle class majority population who expanded downward.

So because europeans and asians lived in homogenous groups that were somewhat insulated from sun belt density of diverse and nomadic pastoral peoples, they were able to genetically select (not so much evolve) for superior populations. The differences between china and europe are largely that china started earlier. THe muslims were not able to cause a thousand year dark age in china like they were in Europe by collapsing the four major ancient civilizations and reducing them to sub 85IQ averages. But the west is faster than china in both teh ancient and modern worlds because of its institutions of ‘truthfulness’ instead of ‘face-saving’, which allowed the west to advance more quickly in both ancient and modern eras.

Leave a Reply