Are Japanese the most superior people ?

[arkas]

Deleted

[Andullero]

I vote maybe. They do have some qualities that do put them among the top 10 at least.

[Leo Iscariot]

IMO, despite some obvious imperfections such as unhealthy fixation for ridiculous porn and manga aesthetics, all things considered, Japanese are the most superior and civilized people in the World, what they have done out of their overpopulated, isolated, earthquake/tsunami ridden and poor in resources islands is nothing short of a miracle achievable only by a truly superior people obsessed with perfection.

They also seem to stubbornly refuse to enter on suicide mode like decadent white-westerners.

Discuss and vote.

I’m reminded of this gem for some reason:

[Batavia]

This is your brain on Nordicism.

Most low-IQ post I've read all day. Thanks mate.

The text was not particularly well written (english is not my native language), but the content is correct.

[Longbowman]

The text was not particularly well written (english is not my native language), but the content is correct.

No, the content was extremely stupid speculation.

First of all, the Tarim Basin and Japan are nowhere near each other. Second of all, Japanese culture is well studied and has no IE links in the historical sense. Third, we have their genetics, we know they have no west Eurasian DNA. Fourth, how would the Tocharians (the mummies you're referring to) have contributed to Japanese culture and DNA but not Korean, Han, Tungusian, Mongol*, etc? This is just a crude rehashing of the 'Jomon = white' nonsense some Ainu fetishists trick themselves into believing.

*Mongols do have a small amount of west Eurasian DNA.

It's just racist nonsense. 'I'm a weeaboo and also a white supremacist so therefore the Japanese must be white, sort of. Part-white African Americans? Nah fuck 'em.'

[Tooting Carmen]

No, the content was extremely stupid speculation.

First of all, the Tarim Basin and Japan are nowhere near each other. Second of all, Japanese culture is well studied and has no IE links in the historical sense. Third, we have their genetics, we know they have no west Eurasian DNA. Fourth, how would the Tocharians (the mummies you're referring to) have contributed to Japanese culture and DNA but not Korean, Han, Tungusian, Mongol*, etc? This is just a crude rehashing of the 'Jomon = white' nonsense some Ainu fetishists trick themselves into believing.

*Mongols do have a small amount of west Eurasian DNA.

It's just racist nonsense. 'I'm a weeaboo and also a white supremacist so therefore the Japanese must be white, sort of. Part-white African Americans? Nah fuck 'em.'

Yeah, the "so-and-sos in ancient times were White" meme is just a racist trope to deny that non-European peoples and civilisations can achieve notable things too.

[Ieva]

No, the content was extremely stupid speculation.

First of all, the Tarim Basin and Japan are nowhere near each other. Second of all, Japanese culture is well studied and has no IE links in the historical sense. Third, we have their genetics, we know they have no west Eurasian DNA. Fourth, how would the Tocharians (the mummies you're referring to) have contributed to Japanese culture and DNA but not Korean, Han, Tungusian, Mongol*, etc? This is just a crude rehashing of the 'Jomon = white' nonsense some Ainu fetishists trick themselves into believing.

*Mongols do have a small amount of west Eurasian DNA.

It's just racist nonsense. 'I'm a weeaboo and also a white supremacist so therefore the Japanese must be white, sort of. Part-white African Americans? Nah fuck 'em.'

If you ever get that urge, to oggle pie-charts, just delivered from your local gypsy fortune teller, from the most advanced modern dna-corps, you quickly notice a pattern emerging: in East Asian context the most advanced societies were formed on the basis of people who today can be claimed to be the most purest of noble East Asian race. And it seems that even the tiniest amount of dna-goo that can be claimed to be with at least some certainty of non-East-Asian origin, quickly turned these most noble of men, into wicked barbarians of nightmares ala Frenois Charles et Chavs. Should I know claim, that in those minds of most primitive Fatalists, drowned in superstition and overgrown ego-goo, this means that even the most noble of man, is powerless, in battle with Destiny itself, now when it turned out that one Frank from town of Charlestown, otherwise full of Pekkas, took a residence in His third-eye, pineal gland of myths.

[Regnera]

No no no,not at all.

[Petalpusher]

Yeah, the "so-and-sos in ancient times were White" meme is just a racist trope to deny that non-European peoples and civilisations can achieve notable things too.

Yet they achieved nothing of note in the last 400 years or so at least, and before they had relatively advanced societies but they were nowhere to be seen when the real explosion of advancements and discoveries in humanity took place.



I don't think this is the place where people expect to get more of the narrative that has nothing to do with the historical reality aka "everything non white is better", it's simply an outright lie.

If Europeans didn't exist East Asians would have eventually invented everything, most likely they would have, i do believe it's the most likely scenario, just later, maybe 500 years later or 5000 years later as human evolution works in short bursts.

Breaking down the main events in humans, is going from walking upright > fire > settling/agriculture > to advanced societies manipulating the environement/atom based on science and some philosophical principles + everything else technologically we know today. East Asians invented very little of that last main phase that propelled humans into almost a new species (type 0-1 civilization in cosmological terms).

They have better societies than African ones and always had, managing to keep up somehow with the western world clinging onto some of their discoveries and specializing into it, but let's be serious for a minute, it's not that complicated to achieve more than Africans and Amerindians.

[Longbowman]

Yet they achieved nothing of note in the last 400 years or so at least, and before they had relatively advanced societies but they were nowhere to be seen when the real explosion of advancements and discoveries in humanity took place.

I don't think this is the place where people expect to get more of the narrative that has nothing to do with the historical reality aka "everything non white is better", it's simply an outright lie.

If Europeans didn't exist East Asians would have eventually invented everything, most likely they would have, i do believe it's the most likely scenario, just later, maybe 500 years later or 5000 years later as human evolution works in short bursts.

Breaking down the main events in humans, is going from walking upright > fire > settling/agriculture > to advanced societies manipulating the environement/atom based on science and some philosophical principles + everything else technologically we know today. East Asians invented very little of that last main phase that propelled humans into almost a new species (type 0-1 civilization in cosmological terms).

They have better societies than African ones and always had, managing to keep up somehow with the western world clinging onto some of their discoveries and specializing into it, but let's be serious for a minute, it's not that complicated to achieve more than Africans and Amerindians.

What did Northern Europeans create before 900AD? Those charts are ridiculous. Just because someone's made a graph doesn't mean it adds up.

You're critiquing East Asians for not being the driving force in the past 400 years; are you pretending Europeans were in the previous 10,000? Are you implying that Europeans had a big role in 'settling/agriculture,' as you put it? You know better. No relevant crops were ever domesticated by Europeans. Strawberries, if you like them. The rest come from the Yangtze or the Euphrates or the Nile, or in the Andes or Yucatan, even New Guinea. The major contribution of the PIE people would be the horse, and that's really about it.

The East Asians (really largely the Han) created writing, advanced agriculture (including techniques and domestications Europeans had to import, like grafting, rice) and a solid and permanent state infrastrcture whilst Northern Europeans, at least, were illiterate horse-fucking savages. Other people to achieve this by their lonesome include the Middle Easterns, the Central Americans and even possibly the Rapa Nui, but not the Europeans, who remained illiterate until the Mycenean Greeks were eventually taught writing in 1200BC, by which point other civilisations had been keeping records for 2,300 years. The Europeans had contact with these people for much of that period, too. That's a long time to not develop writing when you're the masterrace.

But unlike you, I will not pretend all this means that Europeans are simply inferior or backwards compared to other peoples. No, they were simply backwards then, compared to many of their contemporaries. As you point out, in the centuries since China's switch to isolationism, for example, Europeans, especially Northwestern Europeans, took a commanding lead in scientific progress and human advancement - spurred by colonialism - but even then they were using advanced versions of Chinese inventions like firearms, and the Latin alphabet, which is a development of the Semitic abjad, and so on. Europeans even admirably came to ban slavery and push for human rights, like the Han Dynasty and Cyrus the Great had done in previous epochs. This makes Europeans 'great,' but it doesn't make them immutably superior for having their moment in the sun.

You could go 'oh, well, Rome and Greece were also advanced, once' but their moment in the sun came a lot after Egypt's and Harappa's. Besides, even if they had been world-beaters, so what? The Romans and Greeks existed independently of the Northwesterners and even then their writing, their civilisation owed a shit-tonne to the Middle Easterners and other peoples, whose primary descendants we would currently view as civilisationally 'backwards,' because people can regress as well as progress for a variety of internal and external factors.

As for the Amerindians, the Maya and many of their surrounding nations were highly advanced, and all without any real outside contact; you seem to imply Europeans would have achieved civilisation without having to effectively borrow it from the Sumerians but I do not see any proof of this - again, 2,300 years of illiteracy (4,500 for the 'Europeanest' amongst you!) since you relatively near-neighbours first jotted shit down. Tenochtitlan was one of the world's largest and greatest cities, despite their human sacrifice habit (something Northern Europeans did a lot until they were civilised by that Middle Eastern ideology, Christianity). You are denigrating civilisations that had already advanced to a very high level by 1492 and were subsequently merked by smallpox and metalworking that they simply could never have achieved with the materials (and animals) they had to hand.

You are smarter than this. First, Europe's 'lead' is recent, no more recent than 500 years ago and probably a bit less - late renaissance era. Second, Europe had the huge advantage of existing on the crossroads of the Old World; this is why northern Europeans were more backwards than southern ones, particularly southeastern ones, for almost all of history; those around the Med Basin were on one end of the silk road and exposed directly to the earliest civilisations in Egypt and Sumer and those in Denmark were not. This means idea-sharing and also technology-sharing, crop-sharing, animal-sharing. Third, considering the chain you were replying to, the idea there's some genetic component to success here cannot be discounted, but if it is true - Europeans clearly don't have an edge, considering the most pure-blooded of them lagged well behind various other civilisations - including arguably Central Americans - until the late middle ages at the earliest.

The notion the past 400 years has been the 'real explosion of discoveries' is at best disingenuous. But even if we pretend modern science is more important than the domestication of cereals and stonemasonry, how do you think we have been able to do all these things? Because of millennia of civilisation-building which Northern Europeans largely didn't have to do, as they inherited it from other nations. As Newton would say 'if I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.' Besides, it's a cheap point. Let's say we award one point for every element discovered in the age of technology; if the technology to identify the elements is created in the UK and we don't give that technology to China, are we really expecting them to conjure it up out of nowhere in what is for them a 250 year period of stagnation, fast enough to make advances that we ultimately made within 50 or 100 years? It's piteous.

You are like a man on an island in the middle of the river denying the water around him. In 200 years, China will likely be the global superpower and the centre of scientific advancement and your descendants will have to grin and bear it as some equally insufferable Han boasts about how China is simply inherently superior to everyone else and always has been and he will be just as wrong as you.

I'm not here to suggest we're the same level of development as the Twa or whatever but your 'Europeans #1 4eva' post is just nonsense.