How does black and brown diversity benefit white run societies?

Having nothing but fallacy does not help Any superior Cause.

 

Let's start at the beginning. The basis for this thread is any "white run nation" which is: A) Racist because there is only the Human Race while the terms "white, brown and black" races were an invention of the Racists to rationalize their superiority and supremacy; B) Inherently "White Run Nations" is a White Supremacy Nation and Supremacy based upon any criteria violates Natural Law and the Natural Rights of the "common" (all people) because Nature doesn't delegate any authority of supremacy to any member of any species - they only acquire that supremacy by acts of aggression and not by any delegation of authority by nature.

In introducing the question related to "black and brown races" it's an attempt to rationalize racism based upon racism.

The evidence that White (WASP) Male Supremacy in the United States is the root of all of our significant problems in America today is quite easy to document historically.

The historical social and political ideology upon which the United State was founded is contained in these two lines from the Declaration of Independence that I will annotate to bring them into the 21st Century:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Nature) with certain (Natural)unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (people), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We have never even come close to attaining this ideological foundation upon which America was created. So let's go to the source and find out who and why.

There's no doubt whatsoever that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men controlled Society, the Property/Economy, and the Political Institutions when the United States was created so let's see what historically occurred.

We created a Republic under the Constitution but we did NOT establish that Republic based upon the "consent to the powers of government" by ALL of the "governed" because that would have significantly reduced the power of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men that controlled Voting within each Stated denied the Right to Vote for women, black Americans and in many cases expressly limited voting to "White Men that were property owners or taxpayers" denying all others the Right to Consent to government with their vote. Because voting was restricted to just White Men the same White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men didn't care if the white men were citizens or not and roughly 40 states and territories allowed non-citizen "white men" to vote but typically no one else including about half of the population that were women.

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men in control of our government violated the very foundation for our government and have been doing that from then until now. They don't even attempt to follow the US Constitution because they've historically controlled the US Supreme Court as well. For example to this day Article I and the 17th Amendment both establish that the "people" and not "US citizens" are to elect members of Congress but the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men revoked the Right to Vote for non-citizens the minute they were threatened by "non-white non-citizens" potentially voting with ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendment. All of our "voting problems" today are due to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men that have always controlled our government. In fact most problems with "law" in the United States is because not all of the "governed" have ever been allowed to vote.

All of our political problems in America are a result of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men controlling our government never allowed "All" of the governed to consent to the powers of government with their vote.

Next let's address the Right of Property because that's natural (unalienable) Right addressed by the two lines of the Declaration of Independence. The laws of property prior to the creation of the United States were based upon the ideology of the Divine Right of Kings were the ownership of property was based upon "Title" and as opposed to the Natural Right of Property established by the labor of the person to consume that which is necessary for their basic support and comfort. Prior to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States the "laws of property" were based upon "Title of Ownership" either explicit in writing (e.g. the land title issued by the government or the written receipt for a purchase) or implied (e.g. possession of property implies title of ownership in court).

Did our Laws of Property change from "Ownership Established by Title" to the laws based upon the "Natural Right of Property" after the American Revolution? Not a single one changed and the reason for that is obvious. Had the laws of property changed then the wealth and power of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men that controlled our government would have been greatly diminished. The failure of our government, under the control of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men, is the reason for poverty today because poverty would not exist today based upon the Natural Right of Property. The workers of America produce roughly four-times more than what all Americans require for their basic support and comfort that they would receive based upon the Natural Right of Property. At the same time there wouldn't be anyone in the United States with far more wealth than they could ever possibly use. Excessive wealth, beyond what the person/household can actually use/consume in their lifetime is a violation of the Right of Property of the "common" (all people).

All of our economic problems in the United States today are a result of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men in control of our government that refused to give up their wealth and power based upon the property laws of "Ownership established by Title" and replace those laws with laws based upon the "Natural Right of Property" of the People in the United States.

Our "immigration problem" is a direct result of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men in control of government imposing "immigration restrictions" (not authorized by the US Constitution) targeting non-whites to prevent them from immigrating to the United States, becoming citizens, and then voting because that threatens the power of the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men in control of our government.

We won't even go into the other issues such as crime statistics based upon criminal convictions of blacks that's also a result of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men that control the laws, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system, the economic oppression of blacks that results in poverty that forces many into criminal activities because they're denied living wage employment due to racism, the white supremacist propaganda based upon half-truths to draw incorrect conclusions that created the anti-black racial prejudice that permeates the American society today and we won't even mention the attempts to rationalize White Supremacy based upon racist arguments to disparage non-whites in society such as this thread.

 

More like White Anglo leaders in the U.S.A, have bent over backwards for immigrants, because it's profitable to hire them for cheaper than Americans.

 

Colleges do not establish U.S. laws. Encouraging people to consider other perspectives is not "enact[ing] laws to curb diverse thought."



​

 

we see it in other species... we have not seen long term results yet, but the American Indian is an example of good genetic diversity before they came to the USA

you need things like plagues, ice ages, stuff like that to see the real benefits

 

Poland went from the most diverse, to the least diverse country in Europe during the 20th century.

Truly a blessing.

White on White diversity was bad for Poland, but we should try it again with Brown, and Black diversity?

Of course it was bad, it came to a peak during WW2... When.

- Wolyn Massacre where Ukrainians killed their Polish neighbors.

- Operation Tannenberg where Germans killed their Polish neighbors.

- Ponary Massacre where Lithuanians with help of Germans killed their Polish neighbors.

- Skidel Revolt, and Massacre of Brzostowica Mała where Jews, and Belarussians killed their Polish neighbors.

Gee, what a bless diversity is. LOL

 

I don't answer loaded questions I'm not going to.

 

Ashkenazi Jews come from as little as 350 people some 800 years ago.

Mexicans come from when millions of Native Americans, and millions of Spaniards mixed some 600 years ago.

The results are striking.

 

Did you say stinking?

 

vs.

So, basically, it's racist to say certain nations are white-run, or to think of hypothetical white-run nations, unless you say certain nations are white run.

Then it's no longer racist.

Got it.

The term white run nations was used instead of white majority because individuals such as yourself claim white majority nations are white supremacist and thus white run.

I don't share your views, nor (at this point) particularly surprised by your inability to understand someone coming to terms with your world view for the sake of argument.

There are, of course, no white supremacist nations, but there are, of course, other nations - all non-white - that are supremacist for their particular race/ethnicity/tribe.

You repeatedly ignore that the founding fathers wanted an indefinite white majority nation run by whites.

Please provide evidence that you've been asked to provide for 10 pages now.

You won't go into it because you can't.

You have absolutely no evidence that the black homicide rate isn't significantly lower than official statistics, or that after adjusting for SES blacks and whites have similar homicide rates.

You had no response when I linked the study showing as such and stated you obviously did not bother to click the link to find out income level was provided.

 

It's not a loaded question.

I'm asking you what you think the probability of 'getting' 14 out of 14.

I literally can not dumb this down any more for you.

 

Err, did I say colleges establish US laws? Did you actually think that I thought that? Is this a strawman so you have something to type to make it look like you replied with substance to my post?

Do you not understand how academic questions, such as the one posed in this thread, are explicitly or implicitly not allowed on university campuses?

I mean, have you heard what happened to James Watson, for instance?

Racial diversity at universities is inversely proportional to the amount of intellectual territory one may explore.

 

Please provide an example.

As for the American Indian, care to elaborate?

Are you talking about the diseases they caught and how European diversity into their gene pool would result in boosting their immunity?

If so, don't you realize that diversity in this case is a one way street and the example you're citing would actually mean brown (American Indian) diversity to Europe (white society) would make Europeans more susceptible to the diseases?

I mean, you just managed to cite an argument that when applied to the question in this thread literally backfires on you.

Not to mention diversity didn't help the American Indian as diversity got them sick in the first place. LoL. Did you think this through?

 

Seems that way to me.

 

I believe that.



​

 

so was Carthage.

 

It is literally asking you the probability of getting 14 out of 14.

Do you have reading difficulties or learning impairments?

 

I believe 90% of people native to the new world were wiped out by diseases from the old world.

Hey, at least their ancestors are now thriving as a result of their newfound immunity

 

Yes, but there is a limit to it. If people started sleeping with their siblings and cousins you would quickly have serious problems.

Obviously, we are nowhere near having a genetic diversity problem, as you point out, so it's really irrelevant.

Honestly, I don't know why I respond to these people.

 

And in return they gave us syphilis.

- - - Updated - - -

And in return they gave us syphilis.

 

I didn't know that!

 

It isn't about what you're asking is about why you're asking it.

Being condescending about it doesn't make me want to trust you.

Control your emotions if you wish to have a discussion.

 

potentially better solutions at potentially lower cost.

 

common sense, if the climate changes, a plague happens, ect.... the more genetic diversity the more likely the right combination genes will exist to survive

 

Same way a person benefits from keeping both eyes open—multiple perspectives provides depth of vision.

​