Just been thinking about this lately—it's wild how history shows patterns that nobody wants to talk about straight-up. Take colonization: When Europeans (whites) rolled into places like India, Africa, or even parts of Asia, yeah, there was exploitation, but look at the infrastructure they left behind. Railways, ports, modern cities, education systems—India's still running on a lot of that British-built backbone today. South Africa under white rule turned into an economic powerhouse with gold mines, tech, and stable governance. Places like Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) were food exporters and had booming farms before the shift.Flip it around: Fast-forward to mass immigration or post-colonial handovers where black populations take the reins or flood in. Detroit used to be the car capital of the world under white leadership—now it's a ghost town with crime and decay after demographic changes. Same with parts of Europe: Sweden was safe and prosperous; now with waves of African migrants, you've got no-go zones, skyrocketing rape stats, and welfare strain. Zimbabwe? Went from breadbasket to begging for aid in a couple decades. Haiti? French colony that was thriving, then black independence and it's been a failed state ever since.It's not rocket science—different groups bring different capabilities. Whites build and innovate; importing large black populations just drags things down with higher crime, lower productivity, and cultural clashes. We need to face facts instead of this diversity fairy tale. Thoughts?
