Greeks during alexanders time were closer to levatine arabs than germans genetically. Roman italians from the time of Christ were also closer to the levant. They weren't white genetically, deal with it.

What kind of argument is that? Greeks were white. So were Romans. So are today's Greek and Italians. I don't care who they were close to - why are Germanic people the criteria of whiteness? How do you determine who's white genetically? Is there a "white gene"? Whiteness is a metaphysical category, not just a biological set of traits. Don't you get you're being ad hoc?

The same criteria white supremacists use, which ethnicity had the highest living standards, most power, and advancements.

The point is that there's no direct comparison. Carthage dominated Africa but were crushed by Rome when they were confronted. The same happened to the Indian empire, China, Japan, the Aztecs, etc. You have an overly simplistic view of history and economics as if civilizations are pokemon cards with explicit stats that can be compared.

Btw, how do you rule out luck? You appealed to luck as being the reason for white hegemony - how do you know it's not luck that made those other non-white civilizations great? Maybe it has nothing to do with being smart and capable? You only dig yourself deeper.

Greeks during alexanders time were closer to levatine arabs than germans genetically. Roman italians from the time of Christ were also closer to the levant. They weren't white genetically, deal with it.

What kind of argument is that? Greeks were white. So were Romans. So are today's Greek and Italians. I don't care who they were close to - why are Germanic people the criteria of whiteness? Don't you get you're being ad hoc?

The same criteria white supremacists use, which ethnicity had the highest living standards, most power, and advancements.

The point is that there's no direct comparison. Carthage dominated Africa but were crushed by Rome when they were confronted. The same happened to the Indian empire, China, Japan, the Aztecs, etc. You have an overly simplistic view of history and economics as if civilizations are pokemon cards with explicit stats that can be compared.

Btw, how do you rule out luck? You appealed to luck as being the reason for white hegemony - how do you know it's not luck that made those other non-white civilizations great? Maybe it has nothing to do with being smart and capable? You only dig yourself deeper.

Greeks during alexanders time were closer to levatine arabs than germans genetically. Roman italians from the time of Christ were also closer to the levant. They weren't white genetically, deal with it.

What kind of argument is that? Greeks were white. So were Romans. So are today's Greek and Italians. I don't care who they were close to - why are Germanic people the criteria of whiteness? Don't you get you're being ad hoc?

The same criteria white supremacists use, which ethnicity had the highest living standards, most power, and advancements.

The point is that there's no direct comparison. Carthage dominated Africa but were crushed by Rome when they were confronted. The same happened to the Indian empire, China, Japan, the Aztecs, etc. You have an overly simplistic view of history and economics as if civilizations are pokemon cards with explicit stats that can be compared.

Btw, how do you rule out luck? You appealed to luck as being the reason for white hegemony - how do you know it's not luck that made those other non-white civilizations great? Maybe it has nothing to do with being smart and capable?You only dig yourself deeper.

Greeks during alexanders time were closer to levatine arabs than germans genetically. Roman italians from the time of Christ were also closer to the levant. They weren't white genetically, deal with it.

What kind of argument is that? Greeks were white. So were Romans. So are today's Greek and Italians. I don't care who they were close to - why are Germanic people the criteria of whiteness? Don't you get you're being ad hoc?

The same criteria white supremacists use, which ethnicity had the highest living standards, most power, and advancements.

The point is that there's no direct comparison. Carthage dominated Africa but were crushed by Rome when they were confronted. The same happened to the Indian empire, China, Japan, the Aztecs, etc. You have an overly simplistic view of history and economics as if civilizations are pokemon cards with explicit stats that can be compared.

Btw, how do you rule out luck? You appealed to luck as being the reason for white supremacy - how do you know it's not luck that made those other non-white civilizations great?