Anglosphere vs Latin America?

[Zuh]

Mexico was part of the Portuguese empire dont believe history book Spain never discovered Mexico.

New Portugal.

[OswaldMosley]

Why are States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand significantly more developed than Latin American countires such as Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, etc?

Ok, turn politically correct mode off : One might say that we British brought racism into the world but we were no where near as evil as the Nazis (no gas chambers in concentration camps for the Jews ! etc..). It is mostly racial but also cultural because if was just strictly racial than Asians would build the best societies on earth.

"The concept of envy -- the hatred of the superior -- has dropped out of our moral vocabulary ... The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn't occur to us, because it's not a nice idea. ... Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities." --Joseph Sobran (Sobran's -- April 1997)

The inferior races hate the white race precisely because of its superiority. It is galling to the lower races to be reminded of their inferiority, and white superiority instills in them a burning desire to tear down whites and their creations in order to make themselves whites' 'equal'. This is not all, however, for tearing down whites removes a burr from their consciousness -- that of being reminded of their inferiority -- and indeed is an act of revenge for such reminding. Accordingly, when whites are so stupid as to treat the lower races as equals, this but whets the appetite of those races to see whites destroyed, for they see vulnerability in this stupidity, and thus an opportunity for inserting their grappling hooks into the edifice of white civilization.


There are least two things which in my view are at the core of Western civilization. The first is the white race which built that civilization -- a civilization which has never been equalled by other races, tho it has been copied by the Japanese and, to a lesser extent, other races. Yes, there are other races which have achieved a high degree of civilization on their own -- the Incas, the Chinese, the Indians (of India) and the Arabs come to mind, tho it may be that the latter two should be classed as white or part white -- and there seem to have been historical periods in which the achievements of these races exceeded those of whites of the same period -- but while these civilizations lasted for long periods, they were not able at their perigee to reach a level anywhere near the level which the white has reached, and their history during the flowering of white civilization has been to stall or retreat rather than advance, suggesting not only their inability to learn, but their culture's basic incompatibility with advancing civilization generally. Beyond this, white civilization shows a robustness or tendency to recur over widely-differing white populations, including ancient Greeks, Romans, and modern Europeans, to name the most obvious examples, thus strengthening the case for race rather than environment as the primary wellspring of civilization. This conclusion is reinforced by civilizational failures: Blacks have never had a civilization (the ancient Egyptians were not black -- check the bust of Queen Nefertiti, for example), and have never been able to sustain one, even when handed to them on a silver platter, as happened during the recent European colonial period in Africa. All this of course does not mean that other races are incapable of building or sustaining a Western-like civilization; but it does suggest that the civilization-building potential of Asians may be more limited than that of whites, and that the potential of the darker races, which have rarely if ever built civilizations or even sustained those built for them by whites, may well be severely limited. Now, whites build the best civilizations and Asians the second best and mestizos (Latin American) are more advanced than black civilizations but still not as good as white and asian : they are more corrupt and tenuous etc....


Now, just because I just praised all Western Euros, more or less, the fact is that in modern times (not ancient Roman and Greek) northern Euro Protestant nations are the most advanced. The Spanish and the French tended to mix with the natives and the French foolishly treated the native Americans as equals (they still manage to have Quebec, in the Anglosphere, though. So Spain and France failed because of religion, race-mixing and because NorthWest Euros are superior, although, French might be the only ones who can legitimately compete with NorthWest Anglos, historically, they tended to lose out to NorthWest Anglos overall. Basically, the Spanish and the French lost out because 1.) religion and 2.) race-mixing. Anglos tended not to race mix because we are more racially conscious and because we are not Catholic,


The second thing which I consider to be at the core of Western civilization is the unique nature of Western governments: First, a commitment to the rule of law rather than of men (this was a characteristic of the Roman empire which, tho ruled by kings and emperors, had an extensive system of laws which even today influence our own); second, a commitment to the security of property rights; and third, the development and sustenance of individual liberty, which may alternatively be thought of as limited government in the sense that the more 'liberty' the government has, the less its citizens do (Note: representative government and similar democratic institutions -- first developed to a high degree in ancient Greece -- constituted a limitation on rulers and hence supported individual liberty). I group these together as a single point because they are all interrelated and self-reinforcing: Each reduces the potential for caprice and whim among the ruling class, and hence reduces the uncertainty concerning the relationships of people with one another and their government, with the result that social stability is significantly increased. When people are secure, they are willing to make large investments of time and capital in long-term goals -- businesses, buildings, marriages, institutions, and the like -- and it is commitment to the long term rather than the short which creates and sustains a high level of civilization. In particular, social stability generated by property rights, the rule of law and limited government have allowed the free market and human creativity to flourish because people have been given the real possibility of a return on their investment of capital and time; and the result has been a flowering of commerce, technology, education, art, literature and all the rest of the things which we now think of as included in what we call Western civilization.

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

For the same reason that the south of the USA is poorer than the north.
The spanish colonization model was based in a few spanish families taking all arable land, and bounding the natives that were 90% of the population as servants.
In that way you end up with a much more unequal society, with a small domestic market, were most of thepopulation is poor.

[Kriptc06]

Mexico was part of the Portuguese empire dont believe history book Spain never discovered Mexico.

New Portugal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_dLCfCTJc

[cyberlorian]

Ok, turn politically correct mode off : One might say that we British brought racism into the world but we were no where near as evil as the Nazis (no gas chambers in concentration camps for the Jews ! etc..). It is mostly racial but also cultural because if was just strictly racial than Asians would build the best societies on earth.

"The concept of envy -- the hatred of the superior -- has dropped out of our moral vocabulary ... The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn't occur to us, because it's not a nice idea. ... Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities." --Joseph Sobran (Sobran's -- April 1997)

The inferior races hate the white race precisely because of its superiority. It is galling to the lower races to be reminded of their inferiority, and white superiority instills in them a burning desire to tear down whites and their creations in order to make themselves whites' 'equal'. This is not all, however, for tearing down whites removes a burr from their consciousness -- that of being reminded of their inferiority -- and indeed is an act of revenge for such reminding. Accordingly, when whites are so stupid as to treat the lower races as equals, this but whets the appetite of those races to see whites destroyed, for they see vulnerability in this stupidity, and thus an opportunity for inserting their grappling hooks into the edifice of white civilization.


There are least two things which in my view are at the core of Western civilization. The first is the white race which built that civilization -- a civilization which has never been equalled by other races, tho it has been copied by the Japanese and, to a lesser extent, other races. Yes, there are other races which have achieved a high degree of civilization on their own -- the Incas, the Chinese, the Indians (of India) and the Arabs come to mind, tho it may be that the latter two should be classed as white or part white -- and there seem to have been historical periods in which the achievements of these races exceeded those of whites of the same period -- but while these civilizations lasted for long periods, they were not able at their perigee to reach a level anywhere near the level which the white has reached, and their history during the flowering of white civilization has been to stall or retreat rather than advance, suggesting not only their inability to learn, but their culture's basic incompatibility with advancing civilization generally. Beyond this, white civilization shows a robustness or tendency to recur over widely-differing white populations, including ancient Greeks, Romans, and modern Europeans, to name the most obvious examples, thus strengthening the case for race rather than environment as the primary wellspring of civilization. This conclusion is reinforced by civilizational failures: Blacks have never had a civilization (the ancient Egyptians were not black -- check the bust of Queen Nefertiti, for example), and have never been able to sustain one, even when handed to them on a silver platter, as happened during the recent European colonial period in Africa. All this of course does not mean that other races are incapable of building or sustaining a Western-like civilization; but it does suggest that the civilization-building potential of Asians may be more limited than that of whites, and that the potential of the darker races, which have rarely if ever built civilizations or even sustained those built for them by whites, may well be severely limited. Now, whites build the best civilizations and Asians the second best and mestizos (Latin American) are more advanced than black civilizations but still not as good as white and asian : they are more corrupt and tenuous etc....


Now, just because I just praised all Western Euros, more or less, the fact is that in modern times (not ancient Roman and Greek) northern Euro Protestant nations are the most advanced. The Spanish and the French tended to mix with the natives and the French foolishly treated the native Americans as equals (they still manage to have Quebec, in the Anglosphere, though. So Spain and France failed because of religion, race-mixing and because NorthWest Euros are superior, although, French might be the only ones who can legitimately compete with NorthWest Anglos, historically, they tended to lose out to NorthWest Anglos overall. Basically, the Spanish and the French lost out because 1.) religion and 2.) race-mixing. Anglos tended not to race mix because we are more racially conscious and because we are not Catholic,


The second thing which I consider to be at the core of Western civilization is the unique nature of Western governments: First, a commitment to the rule of law rather than of men (this was a characteristic of the Roman empire which, tho ruled by kings and emperors, had an extensive system of laws which even today influence our own); second, a commitment to the security of property rights; and third, the development and sustenance of individual liberty, which may alternatively be thought of as limited government in the sense that the more 'liberty' the government has, the less its citizens do (Note: representative government and similar democratic institutions -- first developed to a high degree in ancient Greece -- constituted a limitation on rulers and hence supported individual liberty). I group these together as a single point because they are all interrelated and self-reinforcing: Each reduces the potential for caprice and whim among the ruling class, and hence reduces the uncertainty concerning the relationships of people with one another and their government, with the result that social stability is significantly increased. When people are secure, they are willing to make large investments of time and capital in long-term goals -- businesses, buildings, marriages, institutions, and the like -- and it is commitment to the long term rather than the short which creates and sustains a high level of civilization. In particular, social stability generated by property rights, the rule of law and limited government have allowed the free market and human creativity to flourish because people have been given the real possibility of a return on their investment of capital and time; and the result has been a flowering of commerce, technology, education, art, literature and all the rest of the things which we now think of as included in what we call Western civilization.

I don't think racial mixing would have a major effect because US is racially very mixed nowadays but they are still very strong. For example, Australia and New Zealand is less race mixed but United States is stronger.

[Carlito's Way]

because America has ruined Latin America by supporting dictators, arming cartels, financing morons like Benito Juarez, causing civil wars, supporting Trujillo and the list can go on and on

[OswaldMosley]

I don't think racial mixing would have a major effect because US is racially very mixed nowadays but they are still very strong. For example, Australia and New Zealand is less race mixed but United States is stronger.

What ? The only real Americans are the British e.g. English, Scotch-Irish so on and so forth but there are also Germans (who are not equal to Anglos but are no slouches themselves when it comes to the arts and the sciences), and there are Dutch and there are scandinavians etc.... even Obama was half Scottish and Donald Trump is half Scottish etc... you are not protestant and of British isles descent you are not American ! Australians aren't even racially British anymore they remind me of Frisians, Dutch, or Danes with Irish people running around too etc.. and New Zealand is too small to be very populated.

The entire reason South America is a shithole is because it is full of racially inferior mestizos. South Americans know this that is why they are is like a caste system of super rich white people , on top, and ton of poor race mixed people below (the 'American' are the British Scotch-Irish) and , yeah , Appalachia is poor but I don't want to get into that right now :

Accomplishments in the arts and sciences :

[Heather Duval]

For the same reason that the south of the USA is poorer than the north.
The spanish colonization model was based in a few spanish families taking all arable land, and bounding the natives that were 90% of the population as servants.
In that way you end up with a much more unequal society, with a small domestic market, were most of thepopulation is poor.

Wrong. The South was rich during slavery/before civil war, they were elites but now white trashs

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Wrong. The South was rich during slavery/before civil war, they were elites but now white trashs

Only a minority was rich, the other part of the population were either slaves or white trash.

[Heather Duval]

Only a minority was rich, the other part of the population were either slaves or white trash.

White trashes didnt had slave in US because they were poor. "GONE WITH THE WIND" Its a good movie about South plantations era vs civil wars.