What's new

Why Whites, not Chinese, dominated the world despite inventions

you are ignorant
there is a process making leaves into tea

well, its like invention of bread. So I guess tea in this sense is an invention. I am thinking more of industrial or scientific invention.
 
. .
Valid Question, China should start by dominating white countries - try and run over a couple white countries, I am sure they can take apart quite a few of them.

Ehm, right.

China is to stay with it's "mind our own business/country"-policy, they can have influence over the smaller countries in South-East Asia, they can build economic ties with Africa and South-America for resources (that are shared to the world by good Chinese industries), but they have NOT A SINGLE RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN Europe, Northern-America, or Russia and the old soviet small sattelite states (far eastern Europe for instance).

Fortunately, I think the Chinese leadership understands this paragraph above here, and I don't see any future Chinese leaderships trying to take over the territories that I (and my NATO+Russian peers) tell 'm they can't have influence over.

Of course, we of NATO should stop borrowing so much from the Chinese in order to make this happen ;)
 
.
Ehm, right.

China is to stay with it's "mind our own business/country"-policy, they can have influence over the smaller countries in South-East Asia, they can build economic ties with Africa and South-America for resources (that are shared to the world by good Chinese industries), but they have NOT A SINGLE RIGHT TO INTERFERE IN Europe, Northern-America, or Russia and the old soviet small sattelite states (far eastern Europe for instance).

Fortunately, I think the Chinese leadership understands this paragraph above here, and I don't see any future Chinese leaderships trying to take over the territories that I (and my NATO+Russian peers) tell 'm they can't have influence over.

Of course, we of NATO should stop borrowing so much from the Chinese in order to make this happen ;)

So what you are saying China should only show its dominance against weaker and smaller countries and not bother about the one's those are actually running the world - what lame@ss power is that? Russia has more b@lls than China does, they have been single handedly affronting each and every hegemonic power whose out there. I bet in its heydays it made a number of you shiver in your boots. Whats the point of China hiding behind the Russians?.

They should assert themselves - not with the weak Asian nations but against the one's they really have a grouse against and looking to contain it.
 
.
So what you are saying China should only show its dominance against weaker and smaller countries and not bother about the one's those are actually running the world - what lame@ss power is that? Russia has more b@lls than China does, they have been single handedly affronting each and every hegemonic power whose out there. I bet in its heydays it made a number of you shiver in your boots. Whats the point of hiding behind the Russians.

They should assert themselves - not with the weak Asian nations but against the one's they really have a grouse against and looking to contain it.

This is why Russia is a shadow of its former self. Same happened to the UK. Unfortunately US has completely abondoned its non intervention policy so ... As they say history repeats.

Its better to sit back and enjoy the show while making money off fools.

How do you think the US got to where it is? It watched Europeans kill each other and supplied the weapons - most famously the Gatling gun.
 
.
Seems to me that the presentation made 2 important related points, all related to the notion of CHANGE:

1. Chinese conception of life (Daoism) that all reality was ONE, it could not be reproduced
2. Chinese bureaucracy robbed incentive/profit motive, valuing stasis over change


Look at how ridiculously massive change was brought about and then stopped in the islamic civ. and How in the various incarnations of Change in India was brought about and arrested

So what creates Change and what arrests it??

Is Change Good? or is this a "sensibility" specific to a particular culture in a particular time, a triumphalism of sorts?
 
.
So what you are saying China should only show its dominance against weaker and smaller countries and not bother about the one's those are actually running the world - what lame@ss power is that? Russia has more b@lls than China does, they have been single handedly affronting each and every hegemonic power whose out there. I bet in its heydays it made a number of you shiver in your boots. Whats the point of China hiding behind the Russians?.

They should assert themselves - not with the weak Asian nations but against the one's they really have a grouse against and looking to contain it.

Ideally, no superpower would try to impose their will (too much) on any nation, large or small.

But my point is that the superpowers DO try to gain significant leverage over strategic smaller countries, and they battle eachother in those smaller countries (proxy wars, the superpowers supply the arms, Syria the primary latest example that's ongoing).
By giving each of the superpowers a publicly-listed "sphere of influence" (list of (smaller) countries that they are the primary influencer/backer of), and getting all superpowers not to try to "steal influence from eachother's spheres of influence", we can end/reduce those proxy wars that end up harming so many innocent lives who can't do anything about it atm.
 
.
Why is an entire race (which includes Russians, some Latin Americans, some Central Asians) being compared to a nationality?

Maybe because that 'nationality' has a larger combined population (1.35 billion) than all of Western/White civilization combined (1.2 billion).

It's a fair comparison. Oh, and Central Asians and Latin Americans are not Western, nor are they White.
 
. .
Maybe because that 'nationality' has a larger combined population (1.35 billion) than all of Western/White civilization combined (1.2 billion).

It's a fair comparison. Oh, and Central Asians and Latin Americans are not Western, nor are they White.

Central Asia has a heavy Slavic genetic imprint. southern Latin America is mostly European migrants. I guess its up to peoples classifications. Jews are not white etc.

Whatever.

Its still an unfair comparison. China just recently experienced a population boom.
 
.
Central Asia has a heavy Slavic genetic imprint. southern Latin America is mostly European migrants. I guess its up to peoples classifications. Jews are not white etc.

Whatever.

Its still an unfair comparison. China just recently experienced a population boom.

Well no, all you have to do is look at a PCA gene chart. Central Asians do not cluster with Europeans. They form their own population group, and cluster more as an in-between of Mongoloids and Caucasoid's.

Latin America is mostly non-White. The largest populations are usually mixed-race mestizos, with significant Amerindian, European, and lesser (but still quite significant) Negroid admixture. Many Mexicans, for example, would be called "White" by the libturd media. This is although almost 40% of their genetic component is Amerindian, with 5-10% being Negroid (African), and the rest 50-60%, being European.

They are a mixed group of people.
 
. .
Well no, all you have to do is look at a PCA gene chart. Central Asians do not cluster with Europeans. They form their own population group, and cluster more as an in-between of Mongoloids and Caucasoid's.

Latin America is mostly non-White. The largest populations are usually mixed-race mestizos, with significant Amerindian, European, and lesser (but still quite significant) Negroid admixture. Many Mexicans, for example, would be called "White" by the libturd media. This is although almost 40% of their genetic component is Amerindian, with 5-10% being Negroid (African), and the rest 50-60%, being European.

They are a mixed group of people.

Please.....:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall: This is not stormfront.org

Why do you persist in posting stuff that hardly interests anyone here. Do you realize that you sound just like a senile old man in the eve of life who bores everyone with his reminiscences of the past great years.
 
.
Ḥashshāshīn;4541545 said:
Because China didn't invade other countries and pillage their resources.

LOL.....have your heard of Genghis khan, kublai khan ?

Have you heard of attack and take over of Tibet by the Chinese as late as 1950 ? :lol:
 
.
LOL.....have your heard of Genghis khan, kublai khan ?

Have you heard of attack and take over of Tibet by the Chinese as late as 1950 ? :lol:

Welcome back.....:yahoo:

As if the Chinese were not enough, we now have some white supremacists peddling their stuff..
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom