White People are the minority on Earth, yet they have all the power. How?

[null]

None of these are my terms. Just discussing his terms and arguments.

Bruh ...

Discussing in your terms means using "your language". It doesn't mean that you originated the terms, it means using the language that you are using [possibly only provisionally], so as to separate concerns.

And, if he's saying they're the same, why write a book calling one "The Chosen People" and argue that it was that people's migration that fundamentally changed Western Society and the world?

He didn't say they are the same. I didn't say they are the same. He said they shared important characteristics, personality attributes and deeds.

Did he say that "both sets of Neanderthals were aggressive"? Yes or no?

Did he say in the extension / revision that he retracts his basic thesis? Yes or no?

Did he say anything in the extension / revision that refutes his basic thesis? Yes or no? If yes, I am still waiting for the list...

I see what you are trying to say creh but you need to lead with evidence.

If you sidestep those questions again ...

 

[Shogun]

Bruh ...

Discussing in your terms means using "your language". It doesn't mean that you originated the terms, it means using the language that you are using [possibly only provisionally], so as to separate concerns.



He didn't say they are the same. I didn't say they are the same. He said they shared important characteristics, personality attributes and deeds.

Did he say that "both sets of Neanderthals were aggressive"? Yes or no?

Did he say in the extension / revision that he retracts his basic thesis? Yes or no?

Did he say anything in the extension / revision that refutes his basic thesis? Yes or no? If yes, I am still waiting for the list...

I see what you are trying to say creh but you need to lead with evidence.

If you sidestep those questions again ...

No he didnt explicitly say those things.
I'm saying his two arguments appear contradictory.
Lead with evidence? I've actually read both books, have referenced nothing but the evidence he puts forth, and used his interview in support.
Side stepping? If you see what I'm saying then what have I side stepped?
You're basically saying the only way the arguments contradict each other is if he comes out and says "I have contradicted myself".
They do, though. They are contradictory.

But, one more time.
Evidence:
1. He argues in his first book that Europeans get their aggressive traits from prehistoric evolutionary and geographic factors.
2. He argues in the 2nd book that Caucasians are unique for their aggressive traits, and their migrating to Europe fundamentally changed that society, and the world, starting around the 16th century. (that's the exact thesis of the book)
3. He claims in the video that race and skin color are not dependent (given his argument in The Chosen People, he's clearly saying Caucasians are X, and European are Y).
4. Later in the interview he says not all White people are inherently racist, only some (it's not a stretch to assume he's drawing on the same contrast between X and Y).

 

[null]

No he didnt explicitly say those things.
I'm saying his two argument appear contradictory.
Lead with evidence? I've actually read both books, have referenced nothing but the evidence he puts forth, and used his interview in support.
Side stepping? If you see what I'm saying then what have I side stepped?
You're basically saying the only way the arguments contradict each other is if he comes out and says "I have contradicted myself".
They do, though. They are contradictory.

But, one more time.

Evidence:
1. He argues in his first book that Europeans get their aggressive traits from prehistoric evolutionary and geographic factors.
2. He argues in the 2nd book that Caucasians are unique for their aggressive traits, and their migrating to Europe fundamentally changed that society, and the world, starting around the 16th century. (that's the exact these of the book)
3. He claims in the video that race and skin color are not dependent (given his argument in The Chosen People, he's clearly saying Caucasians are X, and European are Y).
4. Later in the interview he says not all White people are inherently racist, only some (it's not a stretch to assume he's drawing on the same contrast between X and Y).

I am going to take this one step at a time.

I am clearly not saying that. Hence my questions covering explicit and implicit "modifications".

explicit:
Did he say in the extension / revision that he retracts his basic thesis? Yes or no?

implicit:
Did he say anything in the extension / revision that refutes his basic thesis? Yes or no? If yes, I am still waiting for the list...

Comment?

 

[Shogun]

I am going to take this one step at a time.

I am clearly not saying that. Hence my questions covering explicit and implicit "modifications".

explicit:
Did he say in the extension / revision that he retracts his basic thesis? Yes or no?

implicit:
Did he say anything in the extension / revision that refutes his basic thesis? Yes or no? If yes, I am still waiting for the list...

Comment?

No he did not. So...you clearly are saying that.
His own admission aside, basic logic allows you to draw your own conclusion.
We're done here lol

 

[null]

No he didnt explicitly say those things.
I'm saying his two arguments appear contradictory.
Lead with evidence? I've actually read both books, have referenced nothing but the evidence he puts forth, and used his interview in support.
Side stepping? If you see what I'm saying then what have I side stepped?
You're basically saying the only way the arguments contradict each other is if he comes out and says "I have contradicted myself".
They do, though. They are contradictory.

But, one more time.
Evidence:
1. He argues in his first book that Europeans get their aggressive traits from prehistoric evolutionary and geographic factors.
2. He argues in the 2nd book that Caucasians are unique for their aggressive traits, and their migrating to Europe fundamentally changed that society, and the world, starting around the 16th century. (that's the exact thesis of the book)
3. He claims in the video that race and skin color are not dependent (given his argument in The Chosen People, he's clearly saying Caucasians are X, and European are Y).
4. Later in the interview he says not all White people are inherently racist, only some (it's not a stretch to assume he's drawing on the same contrast between X and Y).

STEP 2

1. He argues in his first book that Europeans get their aggressive traits from prehistoric evolutionary and geographic factors.

Actually he argues in his first book that Caucasians get their aggressive traits from prehistoric evolutionary and geographical factors [inherited from Neanderthals]. Europeans being a sub-branch of Caucasians.

Yes or No?

 

[King]

They were the first to utilize guns

end of story

 

[qwer]

Whites have been in control for 500 years black people have been in charge for over 200,000 years. Empires rise and fall black people will once again become the gods of the earth in the next 2000 years as other races die out.

 

[MostReal]

They do, but so did other civilizations in the middle east and far east. Europeans no longer hold that power, asia has caught up in terms of technology. Europeans were just the first to conquer nations and brought some of these goods like gun powder to use for their own needs. This helped them expand the technology gap during the industrial revolution, etc. Nowadays, the gap has closed tremendously and we are well on our way towards becoming a mixed race world. The cycle will continue and people will find something else to form tribes around like geographic location for example instead of race.

Very true which coincides with Chinas importance.

If Black people want to increase our standing, we must vastly increase our knowledge and skill on all fronts