Imperialism makes the world a better place

quote:

---

Nope, you have the hook and bait perfectly set.

---

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

quote:

---

I've made the world a better place by eliminating a drain on the human race and making use of valuable resources.

---

So your idea of making the world a better place is by exploiting, oppressing, and murdering countless numbers of people?

You've got a few bites so far. But you want to real them in slowly lest you snap the line.




(I just am posting here to be able to use the word "lest" in a sentence)

quote:

---

You've got a few bites so far. But you want to real them in slowly lest you snap the line.

---

Lest is a great word. I need to use it more in daily life.

quote:

---

The world is a better place because of the white man. I believe that white supremacy, in the end, makes the world a better place. To allow, and support, weak races, makes the world a weaker, more unstable place.

---

To allow and support weak anything makes the world a weaker and more unstable place. This isn't tolerated in the animal kingdom for a reason.

Your attempt to make this about race only speaks to your inability to apply logic to this discussion. The Japanese and Chinese aren't "white" by anyone's estimation and they are doing just fine. In fact, east Asian males are shown to have the highest IQ of any "race." They've done well for a reason.

In huge areas of the third world the only functioning infrastructure is infrastructure that was built by the British or the French during the glorious days of empire. I don't know if this is a serious OP or not, but the destruction of the French and British Empires was the greatest tragedy in the history of the world. There needs to be a great awakening so policy makers realize that some third world peoples are tribal races who are incapable of living productive lives without the benevolent hand of Europeans.

quote:

---

In huge areas of the third world the only functioning infrastructure is infrastructure that was built by the British or the French during the glorious days of empire. I don't know if this is a serious OP or not, but the destruction of the French and British Empires was the greatest tragedy in the history of the world. There needs to be a great awakening so policy makers realize that some third world peoples are tribal races who are incapable of living productive lives without the benevolent hand of Europeans.

---

Yes, it was. It wasn't a "racist" (whatever that means) point that I was trying to make.

I believe you're right. I'm waiting for someone to tell me why imperialism is a bad thing for the world.

quote:

---

Yes, because the world recognized your brand of imperialism and rejected it. Evolutionary principles of survival are good when life is zero sum. However, society seeks to eliminate this base requirement so that we can coexist with the "weak" and make better use of them. A dead man is worth nothing.

---

Hitler was defeated because strong nations rejected Hilter's form of imperialism. Czechoslovakia rejected Hitler's form of imperialism as well but it meant nothing. Strong nations (England and France) gave Czechoslovakia to Hilter without Czechoslovakia having a say in the matter because they thought it would appease and halt Hitler's conquest. The weakness of the countries surrounding Germany is what truly empowered Hitler's rise. Those weak nations existed in name only and everyone knew it.

Working with the "weak" is great in theory but has never truly benefited a society in the long run. This can be seen in South Africa, Tunisia, Morocco, the USA, the Ottoman Empire...etc. A dead man requires no reasoning and will not resist. A dead man doesn't have to be taught to function in a society he was never meant to function in.

quote:

---

Whatever you want to call the USA, you can't equate it to Nazi Germany. Our imperialism has always been one of economy and not idealogy.

---

I never attempted to equate the two. There's no basis for this discussion.

quote:

---

Your reliance on evolution as the ultimate ruler of societies is stunningly similar to Hilter's Arian Master Race supremacy.

---

Genghis Khan and Subutai, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Napoleon... these men believed evolution as the ultimate ruler of societies.

John Smith in Jamestown, VA and Vladimir Lenin during the Russian Revolution, espoused similar principles related to self-sufficiency and strength.

These aren't new or obscure principles. And none of those men is Hitler.

quote:

---

You think that Evolution, by Natural Selection, should decide which societies should rule over all resources. If one nation ruled the world we would have uniform society and culture. Am I correct?

---

Natural selection has always decided which societies rule over the resources. This is until recently when we've been told that it's wrong to do so. We should allow societies that have no means or desire to use such resources to squander said resources.

Your statement about one-nation rule is not born logically from the preceding sentence. Accepting natural selection as a general principle does not imply that one promotes a one-nation system of governance.