So are you arguing that Arabs did not do much beyond Caliphate era because they had rough terrain? Well, then you can also acknowledge that if it was not for the same geography(oil), Arabs would still be riding camels in sand dunes. (which makes your point about how some gulf countries are cleaner/safer than curryland reduntant)
And maybe Haiti would fare even worse than now if it was populated by Arabs.
Results matter. Curries/rice have results. Arabs don't. That's the final reality of the situation.
Maybe to you because:
Complete tangent from your original theory that the whiter a people are the more they win. Which is clearly not the case for Arabs. But just to entertain your diversion, Arab men are a symbol of NOTHING in the west. They are not even brought up.
Its also interesting that you rely on diversions to make your arguments.
1. You originally claimed that "Chinese are less superior to Estonians despite having more relevance/achievements"
2. I counter argued that's bs, How can they be more superior if they don't have achievements?
3. To which you claimed some bs about Chinese women prefering Estonian men, AS IF THAT IS THE ONLY FACTOR DECIDING RACIAL SUPERIOTITY.
4. Then I pointed out your hypocrisy in making whiteness the only factor since that benefits your thesis.
5. Now you're like "its a very important factor". While 2 posts ago you were claiming that Estonians are fully superior to Chinese just because of white skin. And go on a complete unrelated tangent about how chinese are percieved in the west
YOU CHANGE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS WHEN YOU START LOSING
Either whiteness itself is the sole determinant of superiority or it isn't. If it is to you, then you come across as a low iq schmuck. If it isn't, then Arabs are on all other accounts inferior to curries/rice.
I didn't really ask for your delusions mah man. Maybe go and read a newspaper or something. I'm not here to educate you on the obvious. (or to see you cope with muh geography, muh geopolitics when the reality of lack of turkish achievements compare to curries/rice is brought up)
Chinese conquests never went beyond their immediate neighbours. Same goes for curryland. Both large places. Greeces are not that large so when push came to shove they expanded.
Yes because its 10000 BC and bronze smelting hasn't been invented yet
This is the level of delusion and cope we are dealing with here.
1. Platitudes
2. Falsehoods
3. Diversions
Its like I'm wasting my time making structured arguments here if all you are gonna throw at me are mind farts like this one which don't prove anything and don't go anywhere. Don't be a coward. Address my points directly.
Let me lay it down, I COMMAND YOU TO,
GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON WHY I SHOULD IGNORE THE TECHNOLOGICAL SUCCESS THAT CURRIES/RICE HAVE OVER ARABS
GIVE ME ONE BULLET PROOF REASON WHY I SHOULD IGNORE THE RICHER CULTURAL AND CIVILISATIONAL HERITAGE OF CURRIES/GOOKS OVER ARABS
GIVE ME ONE SOLID REASON WHY I SHOULD CONSIDER THE OPINION OF LOW IQ FOIDS TO BE THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR RACIAL SUPERIORITY
GIVE ME ONE LEGITIMATE REASON WHY I SHOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS
The only reason OP believes pale skin is the only factor determining racial superiority is because HIM and HIS race having NOTHING to show for themselves except appearance(relatively in comparison to other Asian races). This whole thread is just one big inferiority complex spurge on his part.
TO BE THE SOLE MOTIVATOR OF YOUR THREAD
I do not want your weak platitudes about a few chinks roping in the west. I want good solid reasoning for why I should only consider your criteria and ignore all the others.
You have conceded that you have no real proof for this. To not prove your claims means exactly that. In that vein Africans would fair better than Arabs if they move to Arabia
Your typical hypocrisy is at full display here. When obvious advantages that curries/gooks have over Arabs are pointed out to you, all you do is ascribe them to their rich resources. But then you go on to claim modern Arab financial superiority over other races(based on cleaner safer cities etc), which itself is based on resources that arabs lucked out on.
You have shown that not just you cannot prove your claims but you are also a hypocrite.
Care to prove your claims? You can't? Am I surprised?
You see the difference here is that I only call you deluded when you deny straight up historical/modern facts. But I am not deluded for rejecting your bullshit theories that you cannot prove.
And btw , Africans would fair better than Arabs if they move to Arabia
here I could go on about the factors that influence IQ test scores if I was talking to a more sensible intelligent person. But from all my interactions with race realists, especially those who bring up iq, I've learned that they have little appetite for nuances. I mean, I am talking to a person who believes that people with less melanin will be able to exploit natural resources better just because they are paler. So I won't be wasting time with such schizo tier delusionals. Instead I'll leave this nugget here.
Arabs flourish where geography/resources/luck are involved (oil, routes, western bankrolling etc) MEANWHILE curry/rice people flourish where actual race genetics are involved(service industry, IQ, technology, space exploration, military, culture etc)
Literally no one would deny this? More like literally no one would claim this bs because nobody is this deluded lol.
Its not really a "gotcha". From the very beginning my point was that whiteness does not grant superiority or does not make a race "winner" as you claimed in your thread, because if it were so Arabs wouldn't be so behind curries/gooks for most of human history. Now you want to put all the blame on Geography. But I've already pointed out your hypocrisy of ignoring geography when it suits you.
This is what is happening here
1. I tell you with evidence how Arabs don't match up.
2. You blame arab failures on geography/resources meanwhile propping arab successes(but ignore geography's role there) and want me to only consider 'attractiveness' as a criteria
3. I point out your hypocrisy and ask why I should ignore everything else and only consider attractiveness.
4. You fail to give one good reason. Which leads me to believe:
The only reason OP believes pale skin is the only factor determining racial superiority is because HIM and HIS race having NOTHING to show for themselves except appearance(relatively in comparison to other Asian races). This whole thread is just one big inferiority complex spurge on his part.
Why? It does put a big fucking dent on the ridiculous false claims made in this thread.
Africans would fair better than Arabs if they move to Arabia
1. Ancient civilisations do not care about modern borders.
2. A majority of Indus valley sites are located in modern India(not that this has any relevance to this discussion)
3. Ancient curry culture is endemic to mainland India.
Never claimed arabs don't have a history. But that they get civilisation mogged by curries/gooks. Which again breaks the premise of this thread
Another diversion. Instead of directly addressing what I've said you resort to these. Here's what I said:
"""But you'll talk about light skin, because:
Arabs/Turks are so low on the totempole that they've got nothing besides the lack of melanin going for them.""""
Whether some asians use skin bleach or not has nothing to do with my claim that you want skin to be the only criteria... since that's the ONLY thing YOU think is good about YOU and YOUR RACE. Because you fail elsewhere. LEARN TO ADDRESS MY POINTS DIRECTLY. AND IF YOU CAN'T, SHUT UP. Its like you are too pussy to directly tackle my arguments.
Though I'm noticing that you keep calling me "nigger", "currynigger", "shitskin", assuming that I'm darker skinned than you, assuming my race.
Because you cannot counter my arguments with rationality and facts. And hence when faced with losing against my solid points you need to feign fake superiority based on your skin color, for which you have to assume mine. Which is just a microcosm for how you need to point out Arab skin color when faced with their objective inferiority to curry/gooks. I've got your entire psyche down to the T.
And the way you spam that weed emoji is also beautifully symbolic of how one has to be high af to even consider that Arabs might be superior to curries/gooks/persians/japs etc.
I need to see your sources on that. You've amply shown that your claims cannot be trusted. I know about military, but other factors? I'm not sure.
Because I consider Irish success to be part of the greater European success. And unlike Arabs/Turks, White Europeans as a race do mog curries/gooks/japs etc on various factors.
Your hypocrisy regarding geographical advantages/disadvantages has already been addressed above.
Not as much of a shithole as Arabia or Central Asia. Which again proves my point. But you can go on about how poor ol Arabs with their white skin would've invented time travel if not for that evil evil terrain
This is not the first time you'd be saying something this delusional, so I'm not surprised.
That's irrelevent. You said that these countries are inferior to Arabia and you wanted to ascribe their failures, despite oil, to their race. I pointed out how these countries do not have advantages that arabs have and are still doing better than some arab countries, which are war torn shitholes. You want to blame all venenzuelan failure on their race but want to absolve arabs of the same.
NO
ARAB FAILURE IS COMPLETELY OWED TO ARABS. IT IS A FAILURE OF THEIR RACE THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST FOREIGN INVADERS AND FOREIGN INTERESTS. ANOTHER CRITERIA WHERE THEY GET MOGGED BY MANY CURRIES/GOOKS/PERSIANS
You've been doing that a lot actually. Many times I have to remind you of the line of argument. If you addressed my arguments directly instead of pussyfooting around with diversions this wouldn't happen.
Your bullshit race semantics are irrelevant to me. They are lighter skinned than other more successful Asian races. That's all I care about.
And yet they are not unlivable war torn shitholes whose citizens are desperately running off to Europe.
These are some nuggets of verbal diarrohea straight from your thread
"Throughout all of human history, throughout every corner of this bitch of an Earth, no matter where and when you look, the whitest, most caucasoid, most aryan people in any given land are always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S the winners. They are always the rulers. Always the most relevant. Always the ruling class. Always the cream of the crop. "
"Everywhere you look, it's evident that the succes of a race/nation is directly correlated to how white the skin is, how high the percentage of colored eyes are, how high the percentage of light hair is, and how close they are to Caucasoid skull shape."
All of these claims are destroyed by one simple fact:
The very existence of Arabs as a people proves without any doubt that white skin doesn't make a race superior. Otherwise arabs would be superior to Chinese or Japanese or Indians.
Do you even know what independent foreign policy means lol (why am i even asking, of course you don't) . It means that these countries can pursue their own goals without being armtwisted. Iran refuses to be arm twisted like arabs and that's the very reason why they are sanctioned. China or India? Well I shouldn't even have to spell it out.
Compare that to Iraq which was invaded the moment it decided to go rogue and invade Kuwait. Or Syria and Yemen which are subject to proxy wars. Or the gulf which is firmly into western pockets.
arabs use oil better because they have less melaninn in skin
Give me a whiff of whatever you are smoking
First off, ANOTHER DIVERSION. I pointed out how you are either constantly changing goalposts or forgetting what we were arguing about. You have failed to directly address that.
Secondly, to your current point. I thought, going in this thread I wouldn't have to point this out since anyone who has an education beyond 10th grade and access to internet knows this. But seeing your knowledge(or lack thereof) in these topics, let me educate.
Curries have:
1. Larger military core and more indigenously built military infrastructure compared to Arabs
2. Far more successful self made Space Exploration programme.
3. An ancient and rich culture far more urbanised and civilised than Arabs for most eras in history.
4. Thriving Tech/IT-sector
5. Nuclear weapons
6. Indigenously built ICMBs.
.
.
and the list goes on and on.
All this besides a lack of oil, which is the oxygen for any modern Industrial economy. Of course, Chinese,Japs etc too mog arabs, even curries in all of these regards. Persians mogs Arabs in many of them.
ALL THESE RACES LESS WHITE LESS CAUCOSOID THAN ARABS.
Yes but you can go on about how some asians want to look paler or want paler partners and then weakly and pathetically link it with your percieved arab superiority
. And when asked why that should even be a criteria or the only criteria, you have nothing to say.
Or you can pathetically point out to a few gooks who roped in the west. In the hopes that it would somehow help you to deflect the objective Arab inferiority across multiple fields.
The recent financial success of Arabs(last 70 years) owed to their geography/oil has already been covered. Your complete HYPOCRISY regarding this topic has been covered too.
This is nothing more than a weak pathetic excuse and diversion. I give you the big successes other races have over arabs. And all you give me is a few gooks who roped
Blatantly false, factually untrue, not supported by evidence and borderline schizo tier delusional
You saying so doesn't change objective reality
Arabs flourish where geography/resources/luck are involved (oil, routes, western bankrolling etc) MEANWHILE curry/rice people flourish where actual race genetics are involved(service industry, IQ, technology, space exploration, military, culture etc)
The recent financial success of Arabs(last 70 years) owed to their geography/oil has already been covered. Your complete HYPOCRISY regarding this topic has been covered too.
So my point regarding curry/gook success across all field linked with personal achievements still stands strong
And now you have resorted to blatantly lying. Tch
. Sad. Do I even need to point the multiple instances where your completely deluded mind ascribed chinese success to geographical or other non race related factors.?
Now this is VERY VERY interesting. The only reason you barely acknowledge chinese success over arabs (besides the fact that Chinese are literal global demi-power and you'd be schizo tier delusional to even compare them to arabs, which you did anyway until I knocked some sense into you) is because in your twisted little retarded mind Chinese are WHITER than Arabs so it is ok for them to be more successful.
And it is for this very reason; you not just fail to acknowledge factual curry success over arabs, but cope, seethe, cum and dilate about it. because curries are darker skinned, so, in your whiteness obsessed mind, its not ok for them to have more racial success.
This is how much your
BRAIN IS OBSESSED WITH WHITE SKIN(inb4 some lookism bs diversion which has nothing to do with this line of argument about racial success and iq) . People usually link white skin with beauty but your mind is so overtly obsessed with it that you link it to everything. I don't know what kind of bullying, trauma, ptsd or whatever can incite such a strong inferiority complex over something so superficial. Your psyche is really something to behold.
Well here's a newsflash:
CHINESE PEOPLE ARE NOT WHITE. THE IDEA THAT THEY HAVE LIGHTER SKIN THAN ARABS/TURKS IS DEBATABLE BUT THEIR FEATURES ARE DEFINETELY LESS CAUCASOID. AND YET THEY ARE MORE SUCCESSFUL ACROSS MOST IF NOT ALL FIELDS.
Still no reason as to why we should ignore everything else. Some Indians and Chinese wish to look whiter. Turks or Arabs just happen to be whiter ON AVERAGE. That doesn't mean they want to become arabs/turks lol. It just means they just want to look whiter, that's all. Which is also true for arabs/turks. How does this paltry pathetic weak superficial bit of trivia prove your outrageous claims such as:
"
Everywhere you look, it's evident that the succes of a race/nation is directly correlated to how white the skin is, how high the percentage of colored eyes are, how high the percentage of light hair is, and how close they are to Caucasoid skull shape."
I'm now starting to realize just how paltry most of your arguments are.
I give you definite proof of superior gook/curry personal achievements, compared to arabs, across multiple fields
All you give me is:
"ugh ugh some curry woman uses skin brightening cream
"
"uhm uhm I few gooks roped in USA
"
Utterly pathetic. I'm frankly dissappointed in how weak and beta these arguments are. How much you have to squint your eyes and do mental gymnastics to link any of this to absolute Arab/Turk racial superiority.
And yet another diversion. My original point about how neither modern christianity can be considered Italian cultural success nor Islam can be considered Arab cultural success still stands. Also your point about christianity being jewish success is interesting considering how much of Islam is plagiarized from christianity.
Never denied that arabs were sand hut dwellers before they hit oil and got colonised by the west.
Again discussing iq scores, their factors and what they mean with a race realist is an exercise in futility.
Though its worth noting that you did not really directly address my arguments because you know its true. curries and gooks and japs do mog arabs/turks across all intellect related fields. Either you could've argued how arabs are better in some of these or how gooks/curries are not as good. But you didn't, which means you've conceded that:
Arabs flourish where geography/resources/luck are involved (oil, routes, western bankrolling etc) MEANWHILE curry/rice people flourish where actual race genetics are involved(service industry, IQ, technology, space exploration, military, culture etc)
I'm glad to know that you agree
Well you ignore all other factors where arabs/turks get brutally mogged by curries/gooks/persians. Unless you acknowledge those, the only conclusion is that you deliberately want white skin to be the only criteria since in your mind that makes Arabs/Turks win.
Its not a cope, unless you recognize that other factors can be used to compare races/nations( in which curries/gooks/persians brutally mog arabs) I'm forced to assume that is the case.
But go ahead and call me "nigger", maybe imagining yourself to have lighter skin than me would help your white skin obsessed mind to cope with the utter intellectual beatdown I'm laying down on you.
At this rate, by the end of this you'll be lying on a psyche hospital bed with diagnosed schizophrenia
What curries seethe over is not my concern. My concern is your psyche and inferiority complexes. Exactly what personal occurrence made you so obsessed with white skin. And how you came to think so low of yourself as a person that the only way you think you can mog other people is the color of your skin. That you have to associate everything, from financial success to intellect with skin color, not just on an individual level but on the level of races and nations. Maybe because you find yourself lacking in these regards and think that having white skin will grant you that magic elixir of life that'll fix everything.
Look I understand. Pale skin is your only sense of security in this cruel world. Something you can brag about to others. You fear that I may take away your security by popping the little bubble of this thread you created to feel good about your yourself.
They are whiter on average than persians/curries/gooks. That's all it takes to prove my point.
Ah... another one of those very very interesting instances where your white skin obsessed mind barely acknowledges East Asian superiority, not because you are convinced of their obvious achievements, but because you've convinced yourself that they have white skin so in your twisted little mind its now ok for them to mog Arabs. But not curries, even though their superiority is supported by similar evidence but they're still dark skinned so your mind doesn't accept
Newsflash repeat:
EAST ASIANS ARE NOT WHITE. THEY NEVER WERE WHITE, THEY NEVER WILL BE WHITE. THEY HAVE GOOK FEATURES WHICH ARE OBJECTIVELY LESS CAUCASOID THAN ARABS/TURKS. YET THEY MOG ACROSS ALL FIELDS.
Just 3-4 posts ago you were so sure about absolute arab superiority over chinese solely based on caucosoid features. Now, in face of overwhelming evidence you cope with bs that chinese are "whiter" lol. Your psyche is truly something to behold
Also, I'm not lumping curries with east asians. I don't think these races have much in common. The only thing common between these two races, in the context of this debate, is that both are less caucosoid/white than arabs/turks yet mog them across most fields of personal achievements. And that's all I need to prove your thread wrong.
And with this defence, my word on why this thread is objectively false still stands:
Arabs flourish where geography/resources/luck are involved (oil, routes, western bankrolling etc) MEANWHILE curry/rice people flourish where actual race genetics are involved(service industry, IQ, technology, space exploration, military, culture etc)
The only reason OP believes pale skin is the only factor determining racial superiority is because HIM and HIS race having NOTHING to show for themselves except appearance(relatively in comparison to other Asian races). This whole thread is just one big inferiority complex spurge on his part.
The very existence of Arabs as a people proves without any doubt that white skin doesn't make a race superior. Otherwise arabs would be superior to Chinese or Japanese or Indians.
