[adren@line]

By that definition, the white man was as mighty as he was right. For the white man conquered by better technology, instituted governments where true freedom reigned, et cetera.

No, my definition entails superior technology, sciences, freedoms, and an ability to defend ones self.

White society did no such thing up until maybe 20-30 years ago. They did as much bad as they did good. They massacred, enslaved, and did not uphold freedoms. They treated non-whites like animals. There is nothing "right" about this.

But that not withstanding, your assertion that we'd live as "immoral savages" is wrong. I do not affirm that one should rule by might makes right inside any nation - only in the discourse between them.

Well, thats how it was. European and American society were run by immoral savages, who treated those that werent white and/or Christian as second-class citizens, akin to how non-Muslims are treated in Islamic countries today (if not worse).

90 percent of Indian casualities resulted from mere contact with the Europeans and their germs.

It wasn't mere contact. It was due to extended contact and amplified by the conditions of poverty that were created by the occupying Europeans.

Furthermore, the American Indians were hardly "innocent" of savagery. Let us not forget the massacres, the scalping, the raiding, et cetera, which the Indians perpetrated against the white man, in equal dosages as he faced atrocities. It was an even battlefield in this regard wholly.

Such was their right. As you agree, if "aliens" occupy your land, you attack. Apply your standards across the board.

That's pretty historically inaccurate. For one: The majority of early settlers were Scotch-Irish. Secondly, the Irish were quickly accepted into American culture, after intiial reservations of various sort.

not from what I have read.

Simply because one will go to war with someone does not mean one does not share supercultural ties.

I am not claiming some big happy "white family". I am merely claiming the obvious point that since the Renaissance (and earlier in the Roman world) there has been an established idea of European (white) civilization and superculture.

Its "established" in the discourse of psuedo-intellectuals and nationalists. Again, its all hypothetical and doesn't mean anything in any practical way. It has no averse effect on anyone in anything that matters.

You are trying to pass it off as something more meaningful than it is. It isn't that meaningful, at all.

Modern genetic studies have actually shown that Jews are dissimilar to their white neighbours, indicative of a closed off gene pool owing to cultural segregation.

Not really. 50-80% of Jews are descendants of European converts. One can get a good enough idea in regards to ancestry if one simply looks at someone. Osama Bin Laden is an authentic near-eastern Semite. Steven Spielberg is a descendant of a European convert. He is white. He is not a "Semite" in any other way other than cultural.

Likewise, I can look at a Chinese man and with 99.9999% certainty state that his lineage on the paternal (or maternal side) does not trace to migrants who lived in Brazil, or India, or Mexico.

Furthermore, Turkic peoples are indeed racially different. Turkic peoples retain Asiatic skull features, genetics, et cetera. Indo-Europeans have dramatically different features and genetics.

I wasn't referring to Turko-Mongols. I was referring to Turks in Turkey. They are as white as white people get. They look like Greeks and other Europeans.