Civilizations over the last 2000 years were not built by “whites alone.”

Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, the Islamic Golden Age, the Mayan and Inca empires—all made monumental contributions to science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, and governance.

Even European achievements (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution) were deeply influenced by knowledge transmitted from Arab, Indian, and Chinese scholars.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that:

Only “white people” had built civilizations in the last 2000 years.

Other groups had contributed nothing “great.”

Even in that imagined world:

Saying “whites are supreme” would still be racist, because it asserts inherent superiority of a race rather than recognizing contingent historical circumstances.

Achievements of a group in history do not translate into biological or moral superiority of that group. Civilization-building is a product of geography, resources, institutions, and chance—not racial essence.

⚖️ The key distinction
Historical dominance ≠ racial supremacy. Example: The Mongol Empire once controlled the largest land empire in history. That doesn’t mean Mongols were racially “supreme.”

Racism is harmful by definition: Claiming racial supremacy isn’t just an intellectual opinion—it creates a hierarchy of human worth. That hierarchy fuels discrimination, exclusion, and violence.

Social impact: Even if history seemed to support one group’s dominance, saying “this race is supreme” would encourage prejudice against others, justify unequal treatment, and normalize oppression.

Psychological harm: People targeted by such claims experience stigma, lowered self-worth, and systemic barriers. This isn’t abstract—it affects education, employment, justice, and safety.

Historical precedent: Supremacy ideologies have repeatedly led to slavery, colonialism, apartheid, and genocide. The harm isn’t theoretical—it’s proven.

Achievements ≠ inherent superiority. Even if one group had built all civilizations, that would reflect circumstances (geography, resources, chance), not racial essence. Turning contingent achievements into claims of inherent supremacy is what makes it harmful.

<sfod> <shout out to <susan freeman> and <miss scarlett> for letting this disease - this malignant cancer - back on this site >

Indeed. And to think that <susan freeman> finds <the integrity> educational and entertaining! Unbelivable.

The harm that <susan freeman> is causing is huge.

The bigger issue is that <Susan Freeman > endorses and trivializes the venomous, cancerous racism of <the integrity> , she magnifies the harm by legitimizing racism in the community.

Respect to <stone free or die> for calling out <susan freeman>. I wish other do too.

Long before this two-bit racist clown <gezafan> put me on ignore, he had already abandoned his hollow chants of <freedom of speech>, <difference of opinion>, and <censorship>. Why? Because he finally realized two things: (i) I am the fiercest defender of <freedom of speech> and <difference of opinion>, and I hold nothing but contempt for <censorship>; and (ii) this petty fool is hopelessly out of his depth—outclassed in intelligence, integrity, and character. I am way out of his league. For days on end, he has dodged every question I’ve put to him, including the simplest one: <Do you agree with the assertion of <the integrity> that America is a white, Christian country?> His silence speaks volumes.

Even though <gezafan> and <Susan Freeman> cheer on the venomous, cancerous racism of <the integrity>, they choke on this question. They know that answering honestly would expose them as the overt racists they already are. They wear the mask of civility, but the stench of bigotry seeps through.

So let’s be clear: this is not about freedom of speech, difference of opinion, or censorship. That excuse is dead.

This is about the blatant, venomous, cancerous racism and the bottomless stupidity of <the integrity>.

<johnlspouge>, my favorite teacher - you are a scientist and one of the sharpest, smartest analytical, logical thinker i have ever come across.

I would be grateful if you respond to that asssrtion made by <the integrity> . I am running out of time - i need to give finishing touches to the petition that i intend to file in high court. If you respond, that would be very educational and entertaining for me at least if not for <susan freeman>, <gezafan> and the gang.

So it is fair to say it is a white, Christian nation>

Somebody should explain to <Susan freeman> that

<Saying “most Americans are X” is not the same as saying “the U.S. is X.”

A nation’s identity is not defined solely by whichever group is numerically largest>

And a white one at that.>

Here, <the integrity> is saying (implicitly) that """ '< <susan freeman> has no clue what she talking about, also <susan freeman> has no clue what <the integrity> is talking about : <america is a white christian nation> is about identity not about demographics.>' """

And <the integrity> is also saying <The Jewish lawyers started calling it "dicta" in the 1960s, right after Leo Pfeffer and the ACLU started winning cases banning school prayer>.

Hopefully, this time <susan freeman> would get educated by the awesome posts of <the integrity> properly - the way <the integrity> intends to educate.

Stupid <the integrity> asssrting that remarks of brewer were not dicta but legal precedent.

Stupid <the integrity> somehow failed to substantiate his assertion that it was not dicta - did any court cite this precedent? No.

Only substantiation that stupid <the integrity> used in support of his assertion that brewer's remark was not dicta but legal precedent is this : <blame it on jews >

Hahaha😂

Don't let him fool you, <Lloyd>. He's copying and pasting directly from Chat GPT (or some AI).>

What an idiot <the integrity> is!

1) first, his assertion is false

2) secondly, you do not get to say where my post came from - some body teach stupid <the integrity> about <genetic fallacy>.

What you can legitimately, validly do is question the reasoning in my posts, if you find any flaw, gap/hole in the reasoning of my posts. You can even test if i understand what i post (when 'scrutinized ' , it was revealed, for example, that <susan freeman> had almost no understanding of what she was posting in this forum. So, yes, test me by all means, if you so desire )

Stupid <the integrity> was asserting that <america is a white christian country>

I comprehensively and decisively showed that his assertion was stupid and false.

Of course, I might not have been able to do so without the support of Susan Freeman—her support was very valuable.

When it was revealed that <susan freeman> had no clue what she or <the integrity> was talking about, <the integrity> felt compelled to make an utter fool of himself, it seems, by babbling about brewer's remark, his usual nonsense about jews in america and such.

No, the terms those justify are "majority-White" and "majority-Christian". Without "majority-" those assert things about the basic nature of a country, not merely which groups are first on its demographic lists.>>>

Yes , I tried to explain this to <Susan freeman> using slightly different words : i explained to her that the assertion that <america is a white Christian country> - this assertion is about the identity of america not about demographics of america.

Well , <lambda> and i are essentially saying the same thing .

When justice brewer said that <america is a Christian country > , he was not talking about demographics but rather identity of america .

That is what <the integrity> tried to tell <Susan freeman> .

However , where <the integrity> messed up is in not realising that we would show that fool that remark of justice brewer was a dicta , not legal precedent.

<A deeply devout Justice, Brewer declared that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" in Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S. in 1892. Like his descriptions of women in Muller, this claim has grated on modern ears.>

Well said . Indeed , claim that 'america is a Christian nation ' grates on modern area.

America is not a Christian nation .

2) i think <susan freeman> too has ability, maturity, character to change her position when faced with reason, logic, evidence

I think <susan freeman> now understands that

(i) america is not a christian country. America is not a christian nation

(ii) posts of <the integrity> are not educational and entertaining.

Posts of <the intrgrity> are stupid, ridiculous, cancerous, venomous, racist, fascist, nazi, bigotted, genocidal.

(iii) i am biggest supporter of <freedom of speech>, <difference of opinion > and have contempt for censorship.

Kinda like what happened with Biden, when everyone said there was nothing wrong with him>

<Susan freeman> may have a point here, if she is implying that some/many left wingers here are partisan - they were too soft on Biden .

<stone free or die> said that <<fsr> is equal opportunity insulter towards all religions >

Just as <fsr> is 'non partisan' in his criticism of religions , <fsr> and other left wingers should be non partisan in criticising incompetence/corruption etc of politicians - in case they are not .

<keypusher> - he is a right winger but he is totally 'non-partisan' in his criticism of incompetence/corruption etc of politicians .

People should emulate that kind of objectivity/detachment

<Susan freeman> may have a point here

Now , may be <Susan freeman> is implying <"hey left wingers of politics forum , you complain/accuse that " <susan freeman> comes across as a right winger partisan . She should , as owner of this site , should be non partisan . Kind of like <keypusher> , who is a right winger but non partisan .

What is worse , <Susan freeman> comes across as aligned with <the integrity> who is a dishonest , stupid liar, racist, fascist , nazi , genocidal etc "

But left wingers , you yourselves are stupidly partisan ">

I am with <Susan freeman> and <check it out> on this - nothing to hold against <Annie k.> or <Susan freeman> .

All that has been repeated, explained umpteen times already . It is unfair to 'make '/'force' <Susan freeman> repeat all this again and again - making her kind of defend herself all over again and again .

P.S. Good to see you again, <Lloyd Gross>.>

You are an idiot <areknames> , with very low iq . So I do not expect to grasp what even much smarter people here could not grasp - they could not grasp what i was doing .

Immoral <the integrity> gets his 'power' of his stupid , immoral , venomous , cancerous trolling by deceiving/fooling others . So , it was important to show <Susan freeman> the reality of this low life idiot <the integrity> .

Hopefully , now , <Susan freeman> understands and sees the reality of immoral <the integrity> .

Hopefully , malignancy of malignant tumor of this forum and site has been significantly reduced now .

Presumably, <Susan freeman> has decent level of integrity .

I think after my conversation with <Susan freeman>, she might have seen that <stone free or die> , <keypusher> , <fsr> and many others are right in seeing <the integrity>/<Big pawn> as malignant cancer.

2) <areknames> is new here , so he might not know that the rule number 3 that he appears to want to be applied selectively was once indeed applied here along with other rules and his hero <Big pawn>/<the integrity> was repeatedly banned as a result and <the integrity> is such a sore loser that he created huge ruckus about it .

Point is that perhaps <Susan freeman> would want to enforce rules in this forum as she did once in past and perhaps everyone except <the integrity> and his low life idiots would welcome that , however , I think <Susan freeman> has conceded defeat to <the integrity> - she has accepted that this site does not have resources to enforce rules given the problems <the integrity> caused last time . Immorality , hooliganism of <the integrity> won and had its way . Somebody tell this to low life idiot <areknames> lest he should humiliate himself once again by invoking rule number 3 or whatever