Has kicking out/wiping out white people ever created a more successful society?

When the Irish kicked out the British.

>Germanicniggers trying to claim the legacy of the Romans and Greeks again

Fuck off.

India

Where are they trying to do that? Nice attempt to derail the thread tho.

you're two replies in and couldn't stop yourself from using an ad hominem
how's it feel to be of a lower intellectual prowess?

How does it feel to blatantly ignore the fact that America grew into a world power while it was absorbing hundreds of thousands of Whites per year?

Thanks Pablo Esquarez.

triggered amerihonkies

Zimbabwe,All of Metizo America, South Africa, Angola, Mozabique just to name a few.

China

>>USA
>kicking out/wiping out white people
wot

>Zimbabwe
>more successful
lmao

Only bad case is Africans really.

>Zimbabwe
bait

>implying Mexicans aren't mainly swarthy Celtiberians

>has kicking out/wiping out white people ever created a more successful society?
Here's from one minute of googling.

The dutch reaped what they sowed

>How does it feel to blatantly ignore the fact that America grew into a world power while it was absorbing hundreds of thousands of Whites per year?
It grew into a world power after the second world war because it was practically untouched unlike other powers.

No but Rhodesia, Australia, Canada, the US and Nazi Germany show the opposite is true.

>Rhodesia,
It was only good for the top percent who were Europeans.
>Australia,
It has benefited the most from the commodity boom and wasn't hurt at all by any of the world wars. Not to mention they have a tiny population (only 20 million) which is easier to maintain
>Canada,
Don't know much about this desu.
>US
Australia 2.0
>Nazi Germany
Literally the biggest meme of the century.

but China embraced global markets in the 70s while India only liberalized in the 90s, had India stayed in the Empire it would have had those growth rates right off the bat in that graph like South Korea

>1850-1950 was the poorest and weakest time in US history.

The more you know. Stop embarrassing yourself please.

South African murder rate is down since 1994.

I disagree. Ever since Versailles they were clearly the strongest power. This is evident through their sway in negotiations (Wilson Plan, League of Nations), as well as the economic boom of the 20s. They also arguably recovered from the Great Depression more efficiently than other WW1 empires (Russia obviously excluded).

It will in the Kingdom of Heaven.
They will be slaves.

T. Known Boss

>had India stayed in the Empire it would have had those growth rates right off the bat in that graph like South Korea
I'll start off by saying I don't much about India but I doubt that very much. The amount of infrastructure that the British built was minuscule and only there to help take from the country even more.

South Korea developed in spite of, not due to, the US occupation.

In 1954, really nothing was left in the country. There was no democracy, no infrastructure, and no real economy. In 1960 over 20% of country's GDP was in prostitution, largely to service the huge population of American servicemen still stationed there. The per capita GDP of South Korea was $79, not only lower than the North at this point but also lower than many African countries. Unlike Europe or Japan after WW2, the US offered no substantial help to rebuilt the county. Because Korea was not industrialized like Germany and Japan has been, it was believed that there was nothing to rebuild.

Korea only developed more than North Korea because economic planners like Park Cheung-Hee were smarter than their counterparts to the north and had access to far larger markets. His government subverted American prohibitions on state ownership through very clever social democratic policies that developed the industrial sector. Though it was hardly more democratic than that of the disgraced Rhee, Park brought some real and important improvements to the lives of Koreans. And unlike in most third-world countries, the Korean economy did not come to be dominated by foreign corporate interests.

America surprassed the Brittish empire's GDP by 1903

...

It surpassed Britain's GDP, but not that of the Empire at large.

It would not have developed because the Raj was very much an extraction economy. Raw materials would be farmed/mined, and shipped back to Britain for processing and sale, which is where the real profits are. As long as that was the case, India would never industrialize and develop it's economy further. Industrialization was intentionally discouraged because it would compete with manufacturers in Britain.

That was the case of most British colonies, even the "good" ones like Australia and Canada. Even today those two countries rely much more on extraction than say, the United States. Canadian manufacturing peaked at 30% of the GDP during WW2, while the US sat at 45%.

>It surpassed Britain's GDP, but not that of the Empire at large.
The US surprassed the UK's GDP in 1880.It surprassed the GDP of the whole empire by 1903.Which is not surprising as outside of Canada,SA and Australia Britain didn't invest at all in their colonies and had no industry or even development

Romans and Greeks aren't white

This whole entire thread is bait

>created nothing
>he says on the internet

Go away Giuseppe

BASED MEXICANS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Japan was a stagnant backwater until it was pried open and westernized, India is still shitting in open fields or quarantined into slums, along the same archaic caste lines they've had for thousands of years, and the USA did not exist until whites made it, and the current areas without whites speak for themselves.

You're an idiot.

Yes, but it's been spoken, so must be countered, or else the wrong and untrue position will be seen as the default, because no one spoke out to disprove it. This is why you see retards on Facebook posting about "automated space communism wytppl amirite bruh sidechick woke af finna crushing depression lmao"

Japan was doing fine before the Meiji era. It was no more backwards than some place in Eastern Europe and they already had contact with European prior to Westernization. With India you shouldn't lump it as one nation since some places were better than others and it had it's share of successful times.

>India
>Implying a country with most people in dire poverty and street shitters is successful
>Japan
>Was successful anyway, nothing to do with fighting White people
>USA
>wat

The only people who believe this meme are mongrel Americans and the brown, non native populations of Greece and Italy.

The Prussians of 1000 A.D. were white, although the extent of the expulsions isn't entirely known.

Rhodesia also fed pretty much the whole of central africa, but I guess starvation is better than physical oppression.

>Barbarian germanics

Buying the Rome, everyone but us is barbaric, meme

Hello nigger

Found the jew

It's actually not an ad hominem just because you insult someone during the course of an argument you fuckin brain dead pseudo intellectual goon.

Only good for Europeans? Do you mean Europeans had it best and you're not conflating that with being only good for Europeans?

Australia? How about any other country in history that had great resources and festered their capabilities? Hmm only Australia did great... Not Africa, mid North America/mid southern Canada nor Latin America. Only when whites got there, weird

America is aussy 2.0, o yeah by those standards how in the hell did natives get it taken away

Put down the god damned Jared diamond books

OMG HE SAID NIGGER. I'M SO OFFENDED. HOW DARE YOU TO SAY NIGGER?! HOW DARE YOU?
meh

China

Nice bait m8

>no irish
>slavs are white

LOL

>Japan
But Meiji actively invited white advisors to help modernize the country.

>India is still shitting in open fields or quarantined into slums, along the same archaic caste lines they've had for thousands of years,
>India is one behemoth
The more rural you go, the more retarded people become- whether it's for the streets or the caste system. It's the same everywhere.

>and the brown, non native populations of Greece and Italy.
makes me think...

>Only good for Europeans? Do you mean Europeans had it best and you're not conflating that with being only good for Europeans?
It was shit for everyone else

>Australia? How about any other country in history that had great resources and festered their capabilities? Hmm only Australia did great... Not Africa, mid North America/mid southern Canada nor Latin America. Only when whites got there, weird
>people who weren't educated struggle to make good socities
hmm...

>America is aussy 2.0, o yeah by those standards how in the hell did natives get it taken away
abos are weird

>only Jews tell nordshits they weren't Greeks and Romans
The germanicuck delusion is unbearable.

>Celtic is listed a race with a separate category for both Spanish and Portuguese.

>Slavic and Nordic lumped into one category

>Roman and Greek are stand alone races.

Well so much for this board. Veeky Forums, you had a good run.

>Rhodesia also fed pretty much the whole of central africa, but I guess starvation is better than physical oppression.

Wrong. Rhodesia just jacked off to that meme to cover that fact that all it's industry got fucked by sanctions. South Africa did that better.

Not sure if you've noticed but Eastern Europe isn't doing too well bud.

Botswana kinda, though the British left voluntarily and they weren't really a colony, just a protectorate

>the left image is completely photoshopped

Disgusting

Commies.They will be fine in a couple of years

Depends on where. Czech republic is pretty damn fine.