Strangles

Slums will start dotting the outskirts of our cities faster than we can figure out what went wrong.

Maji Maji? Never heard of it until now, but I looked it up and looks like another example of an African uprising, where eventually Africans got exactly what they wanted. Wiki says: "The Maji Maji uprising was the greatest challenge to German colonial rule in Africa. Its suppression changed the history of southern Tanzania. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people died or were displaced from their homes. In the wake of the war, the imperial government instituted administrative reforms so that, by the outbreak of the First World War, Tanganyika could be said to be among the better-administered European colonies in Africa. The rebellion became a focal point in the history of the region. Later Tanzanian nationalists used it as an example of the first stirrings of Tanzanian nationalism, a unifying experience that brought together all the different peoples of Tanzania under one leader in an attempt to establish a nation free from foreign domination." Reminds me of the Mau Mau Rebellion, wiki says: "Despite the fact that the British military had won a clear victory, Kenyans had been granted nearly all of the demands made by the KAU in 1951 as the carrot to the military's stick. In June 1956, a program of villagization and land reform consolidated the land holdings of the Kikuyu, thereby increasing the number of Kikuyu allied with the colonial government. This was coupled with a relaxation of the ban on Africans growing coffee, a primary cash crop, leading to a dramatic rise in the income of small farmers over the next ten years. In the cities the colonial authorities decided to dispel tensions after Operation Anvil by raising urban wages, thereby strengthening the hand of moderate union organizations like the KFRTU. By 1956, the British had granted direct election of African members of the Legislative Assembly, followed shortly thereafter by an increase in the number of African seats to fourteen. A Parliamentary conference in January 1960 indicated that the British would accept "one person — one vote" majority rule" Just as a topic digression, looking at the Historical pattern, I can understand why Africa was only colonized for 50-70 years as opposed to the indefinite colonization of the Americas. Determination for self rule, combined with consistent uprisings forced Europeans to retreat and by the 1980s to eventually bail from even their most advanced colonies. Perhaps the Indians of the Americas could've learned some lessons from the Africans about counter-colonialism. Anyhow...I digress .

Was Germany bullied? Did the USSR provoke Germany?

The war was still Germany's prerogative. Blaming Western financiers for bankrolling Hitler and Stalin is the equivalent of blaming the IMF and World Bank for bankrolling corrupt African dictators, rebels, and Latin American left and right wing paramilitaries. Only so much blame can be tossed around before we must point fingers at those doing the actual shooting. This wasn't Germany's first attempt at Genocide either... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide

Europeans have only had it easy due to colonialism. Free natural resources. When the Africans began rebelling, many European economies began to destabilize. No India and Africa for the British today, Britain is primarily services based. Wages are falling because of market liberalization, as opposed to the old European system of mercantilism. Europe can't survive without trade and positive relations with the "third world racial squalor" as you so kindly put it, and neither can Canada and the US. You better get used to it.

This is silly. It is like no one has picked up a history book. Servants were slaves, indentured slaves, and serfs. The rich got richer, the poor became even poorer. The poor will continue to breed regardless of income (see Africa, India etc). They will then cause social strife and unrest, etc etc. Communism is the monster that emerged when there were too many poor and too few rich. Pick up a damn book.

I agree with your assessment of the German punishment. I have noticed many people in today's times romanticize the murderous German forces. Some are trying to even lift the defeated flags of Nazism once more, especially in nations who were hardest hit (Neo-nazis in Russia).

I am not disputing Nigeria's problems. It is why Nigerians are leaving. However, they are performing extremely well abroad. And as a collective their private investment across Africa rivals that of China. This is not a government (state policy) similar to Chinas. It is purely private enterprise. And Nigerians in the west, as you saw in the statistics (and I know statistics you do love) are the ideal "overachieving minority". Not only do they have the highest education attainment of ANY immigrant group (in the USA), but so do their children. They are over-represented in higher education at elite universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_American http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority (see the chart) And here's more of an Opinion piece. http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/18122.html The only country on the continent of Africa (including Arab states) that is directly challenging China's supremacy on the continent in terms of investment. And yes, all this while the nation is a "cess-pit" of savagery.

The racists were the aggressors in all occasions.

The same can be said for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain.

The NEP was the 'affirmative action' policy put in place. Sometimes minorities outperform the majority and are targeted in violent acts. The Jews of Europe are a perfect example of an over performing minority that suffered due to their ability to overcome bigotry. The Chinese in Singapore in the 60s were over performing minorities. With blacks it's a sticky issue. In the US South, lynchings were not targeting the poor blacks, but usually wealthy and prosperous blacks. It was to keep blacks in their place so they don't start to outperform the anglo saxons. It was very common for shop owners and business-men to be targeted and murdered. Blacks as a minority never reached parity with the mainstream.... however.... Today Nigerians have become the new "jews" of the west. Highly hard working and usually they top the income brackets by a far margin for blacks, and usually still far higher than whites on average. In the US Nigerians are in the highest strata of society and Nigerians also top even the Chinese for post-graduate attainment. Nigerians are constantly targeted in movies as savages, blood drinkers, criminals and petty humans in general. It is an uncanny reflection of the anti-jewish propaganda throughout medieval Europe. Jews drink blood, have horns under the yamaka, so on and so forth. We also know Indians are another over-performing minority. In Uganda they were expelled because of it. Indians get good jobs because they work hard and don't complain. The only reason why diversity may not work is that the mainstream dislikes its minorities over performing. When they are poor and hapless, we are quite happy to dish out money for security to keep them in their place.

When Japan invaded China it conducted racist policies. Yes, a Japanese can be racist. When Europeans invaded north America, they conducted racist policies (killed the natives, enslaved the blacks). Racist policies. When the Hutus decided they had to kill the Tutsies, there were racist policies used. When 99% homogeneous Germany decided to invade the rest of Europe, they implemented racist policies. Now, you wish to argue its impossible to be racist in a homogeneous society?

Minorities are prone to crime when there are unequal opportunities. Perfect examples are Botswana and South Africa. Both gained independence from the British empire. One has one of the lowest crime rates in Africa (perhaps in the world), and one has the highest. One has a society on largely equal footing, the other does not. ( http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-...ory_id=14707287 ) In the 60s, Singapore had its bouts of race riots, and affirmative action policies were brought in to 'correct' the inequality.

you cannot make such an assumption, as I'm sure any historian will agree that the thought of the mighty British empire's streets full of ex slaves (Jamaicans) and colonial subjects (Indians/Pakistanis) in present day would be a joke. They would laugh. Not today. Or perhaps the mere mention to Hitler or Von Bismarck that Germany would be the home of 2 million Turks in the present day would be scoffed and laughed at. Perhaps it would bring war. If Japan conquered all those territories, they would, as the British and European colonials, in effect be stuck with millions of colonial subjects.

No its not, its 82%-84% white. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/02/...mmigration.html 1 in 6 Canadians (around 5.5m) a visible minority. Homogeneous....hardly.

You forget all the proxy wars. Also there was Ethiopia, Congo, DRC, Korean War, Spanish Civil War, 2nd Indo China War, WW2 - Eastern front.

That's not such a bad thing. If the Republicans begin to rely on the black vote, it will drive out all the hardcore racists from the party as the party would need to cater more to minority voters.

And the least homogeneous, Canada, Singapore, Qatar, UAE, France (least homogeneous in Europe), USA, Barbados (90% black but different cultures), all highly developed and relatively wealthy. Even as Australia dropped its white only immigration policy and has began filling up with other cultures, it has overtaken Japan as the highest developed nation in Asia. I will admit that diversity does NOT bring mental strength, in-fact it makes us more distrustful of our communities and government, however it brings unquestionable economic prosperity. A diverse nation that can control its antipathetic and divisive minorities in the long run ends up better off economically than a homogeneous one.

If Japan was given the choice they would have colonized and absorbed millions of non-Japanese. It would have ended for them as it is for Europe and American nations. Colonialism followed by milticulturalism for the conquered or enslaved people. Japanese breakaway colonies would have to contend with the sins of the mother country's past policies and it would be reflective in the overall demographics of such regions. However Japan had no such choice, the terms of their surrender after WW2 bound them to their tiny archipelago of islands. They had to make do with what they had. It doesn't change the fact that since the late 80s, Japan's economy has not grown more than 2.3% per anum, and many countries have caught up and even overtook Japan's GDP per capita, Canada being one of these countries. In fact...using Canada as an example, our GDP per capita 20 years ago was 2/3 of the Japanese and today we are a few percentage points higher. Canada of course has had an immigration boom and as a nation and as a collective Canadians have become richer, while the opposite has happened to the Japanese. Lets look at some other regions... The Chinese GDP growth per capita is still 8% (with an asset bubble forming in the housing market). The overall African continent's annual GDP growth was 5.54%. At this rate a nation such as Nigerian with a population of 200m by 2020 and projected annual GDP growth of 6.6%-7% will be in the G20 and China will be a close 2nd to the US in terms of total GDP (however it will lag behind significantly in GDP per Capita). India's growth is 7.3% annually. In 20 years time the global economy will look vastly different. China and Brazil will be powerhouses, Africa will be rapidly catching up and fervorous resource nationalism will sweep that continent ("we're no longer going to sell you oil"), we're already seeing this in Nigeria's Shell woes with 95% taxes per barrel and Ghana's Kosmos oil field deal mishaps. Certain African nations (Nigeria, Angola, Kenya, Congo, current winners of global economic policies) will be deciding factors of how China's growth will occur. India's growth will be stable. They will be a powerhouse. So having some Indians, Nigerians, and Chinese in Canada in the long run can only be good for trade relations with these emergent powers. As for Japan, if they don't get their act together they could be fighting for scraps.

The quotas are in place to make sure our public institutions are slightly reflective of our ethnic makeup. They are not exclusive.

It’s not about race it’s about culture. The Nigerians and Ghanaians are not shooting each other. They work in the highest echelons of society and their kids attend the best universities. Nigerians tend to be overly represented as 'successful' blacks in Canada. Almost every one I've meet has 1 or more post-grad degrees and their kids are either enrolled, attending or have completed university and work in a high powered/management job. I guess the Nigerian is today what the Jew was in Medieval Europe. Jamaicans and Somalians on the other hand are notorious for poverty and crime.

Toronto has far lower crime rates than other cities. There's 9 other cities that receive priority. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/04/the-mos...da-murder-rate/

Social advancement varies from state to state. Some places are far more socially advanced than the Romans are. While some are 2000 years behind the Romans. Public executions are still common in certain parts around the world. And it is not just in places like rural Africa with its mob justice and lynching. Public beheadings are still common in Saudi Arabia which by most standards is "rich" and "advanced". We in Canada are certainly more advanced than Rome was at its peak, but we cannot deny our basic human instincts (lust for sex, power, violence, need to belong etc). These are evolutionary traits that cannot be wished away in 2000 years. On a grimmer note certain areas across the world have slipped backwards at an alarming pace. Sudan (the once powerful Nubian empire) comes to mind. The Middle East went from being equal in geopolitical power to Europe to an Islamic fundamentalist wasteland awash with oil, guns, illiteracy, poverty and self pity. The Hindu Kush (modern day Pakistan) went from an area where ideas originated to...well...Pakistan. China is also moving backwards socially. Free thinking is no longer tolerated by the “people’s party”. Mob mentality is dangerously championed.

Already as stated and evidently, Argus is a White Nationalist who believes in the geographical and cultural separation of the races (specifically black in this case). He will not respond in relation to this topic because he knows what his motives are. What is the point of arguing with White Nationalists? Have we not argued with them enough? We have argued with them and won, time and time again. We have won so many arguements against them that we have completely discredited them, even in their own homelands. Truly civilized people of all races know better.