Map of state governors by eye color

because
le whitee peope IQ is highest meme

go to sleep faggots

Every single one of our past presidents were part black, the only exception is our current one because he is arab.

We're not as uncivilized as Brazilians

yes you are, you need to import wh*Te people to rule you, that's not very civilized

>lol they were 0.5% black and even though they didn't look black they're black
nice american logic

Because Vicente Fox chickened out, when the country transitioned to democracy in 2000 PRI remained both the state aparatus and the establishment, meaning a large part of the business elite, media, bureaucrats, unions and most importantly the armed forces.

PRI should have been disbanded and we should have had trials and truth commisions but PAN decided to let them all walk away and in all fairness they mave been forced to (who knows what they may have been threatened with behind closed doors) and in the process became themselves corrupt alongside the rest of the opposition parties which wasn't hard considering the left was mostly PRI disidents.

When you remove a dictator out of a dictatorship but change nothing else everyone in the system starts working for themselves, there's no reason to stop stealing if there's no punishment and you no longer have to follow orders.

Mexico has carried on with the burden of a botched transition to democracy ever since, to quote Vargas Llosa the perfect dictatorship became the imperfect democracy.

>Every single one of our past presidents were part black

They didn't look like typical Brazilian pardos/blacks though.

I find it kinda strange that the majority of Brazilians can't elect a president of color.

>letting brown people rule you
Maybe that's why Brazil is such a shithole even by Latin American standards

Good luck with Bolsonaro lol

nos faltan 43

Nos faltan un chinguero mas que nomas 43

STFU edgelord

Don't worry, no matter what you'd do, Latino countries will always be poor, it's not your fault, that's just genetics. Slavs are the same.

We had one that was majority black

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilo_Peçanha

Attached: nilopeçanha.jpg (800x1035, 607K)

Biological determinism has been debunked, there's absolutely no proven correlation thatb isn't circumstatial.

Or you know we can become anti-intellectuals and deny realities like global warming while we are in the process of peddling pseudo-science.

This. With whites, you win

Nah it's the genes, i blame my ancestors.

how is he remembered in Brazilian history?

>Biological determinism has been debunked, there's absolutely no proven correlation thatb isn't circumstatial.

Maybe it's not about biology per se but more about culture but the fact is that nations that belong to certain groups fare better than other nations

and for some reason, only 2 races are capable of embracing this progressive and leading to success culture - whites and east Asians

Mexico wasnt always a poor destitute country. Their problem isnt genetic but political

>how is he remembered in Brazilian history?

Not fondly. The time he got elected (1890-1930) is called "old republic", the elections were manipulated back them and the country was basically an agrarian dictatorship.

>Mexico wasnt always a poor destitute country

Yes, it was. The fact that they had silver mines didn't change this - they were a backward country where most of the population lived very poorly. There is a reason why they didn't experience industrialization and big immigration of educated people from Europe.

memes aside, learn about that mexican party, the PRI. even americans know how evil that is.

Done your own conclusions.

> "old republic"

wow, did you have Jedi knights back then

>the elections were manipulated back them and the country was basically an agrarian dictatorship.

I thought farmers play a big role in the Brazilian politics even now

but it's "evil" because it's made up of Mexicans

if it was made up of whites of Anglo descent, Mexico would be a thriving place now

I fucking hate my state government, PAN keeps winning even though I've never heard anyone say anything that isn't negative about them.
PRI is unironically a good choice at this point just because of how bad PAN has been here.

yea i think that too. But they aren`t normal. Mexicans are no that thieve ,holy shit theyre ill.

and SHOULD BE BANNED.

Easy, you live in Guanajuato

i doxxxed you xdxdxd lmao xdxdx

Baja California actually.

Most Latin americans behave like brutes, that's their only major problem.

Lol

The fuck all of them are the same those two partys are worse than fucking Saddam

Only low IQ inoccent stupid chimps believe in them cause they has a lot of money. SAD

>Maybe it's not about biology per se but more about culture
So the people in countries like Poland and Mexico in the sphere of great powers who saw it fit to interfere with their right to self determination are somehow to blame for conditions imposed on them?

History is pretty straightforward, the reason you see "white" elites in Latin America is the Spanish casta system except tell alt righters that there's such a thing as effects to colonialism and they'll get triggered and shut down discussion.

There's no need for voodoo causes and effects to explain the current state of the world today, living conditions in between Europeans and people in countries like China or India were about the same until the age of discovery and the industrial revolution changed the world, someone had to be the first to do that and it's human nature things played out as they did, had Africans been the ones to be in the conditions that allowed for Western Europe to get ahead I'd imagine we'd have to endure whited.com memes.

China, Russia and Brazil have roughly similar living conditions today, had any of these countries been in the position of the US in the 19th century, back when they were the world's China, we'd be looking at different people on top.

>eye color means they are white

Monkey tier thread

>There is a reason why
Yeah, it's called we spent near the full 19th century at war and even so industries like henequén and steel somehow managed to flourish, Mexico industrialized fast enough on resources from oil anjd agriculture during the 20th

Asn for backward country where most of the population lived very poorly that was universal pre-19th century, do you think Sweden was a progressive paradise back then?

>So the people in countries like Poland and Mexico in the sphere of great powers who saw it fit to interfere with their right to self determination are somehow to blame for conditions imposed on them?

More like they're to blame for allowing these great powers to become great powers and not becoming great powers themselves.

In the 18th century Mexico was a more powerful country than the US, but you could take advantage of this situation so you eventually lost. The same about Poland, that was a major European country in the 17th century dwarfing Germany but we couldn't use it either.

And the reason why it happened is that we were genetically and culturally inferior in the long term.

>had Africans been the ones to be in the conditions that allowed for Western Europe to get ahead I'd imagine we'd have to endure whited.com memes.

But for some reason Africans weren't the ones. Only whites were. It's not a coincidence. Just like it's not a coincidence that only East Asians were able to catch up with whites. Not Africans, not Aborigines, not Indians, not native Americans, not Slavs but East Asians.

>yea i think that too
internalized racism is strong in this one

Very few people in fact trust in POC to be presidents.

>it's called we spent near the full 19th century at war

Which war do you mean? And the reason is - why.

>Mexico industrialized fast enough on resources from oil anjd agriculture during the 20th

the 20th century was already too late to industrialize, because the major powers had already completed this task and made the next step.

>do you think Sweden was a progressive paradise back then?

Contrary to popular belief it was a developed, organized country. You can read about the Deluge, how their small army destroyed big Poland without much effort - due to their technological, institutional and organizational advantage inherent to Germanic nations.

You missed my point, I'm saying pan has done so little for the state that even PRI sounds like a good option at this point.
MORENA is most likely going to win state elections though.

>Brown eyes

Attached: 15312546198910.jpg (600x532, 33K)

>for some reason Africans weren't the ones
Yeah, it's called malaria, haven't you ever wondered why Europeans colonized the Americas much sooner than Africa? Humans evolved in Africa it means all manner of parasites and diseases that co evolved with humans exist there. It wasn't until Europeans obtained quinine in South America that they were able to hold a real pressence in places like Africa, it's why the British of the 18th-19th centuries were always drunk south of the equator.

>East Asians
Cold war containment policies strongly favored the few "small" countries in East Asia, China remains on living conditions that are on par with Mexico today.

>18th century Mexico
You mean early 19th century Mexico, Mexico's first constitution dates from 1824, Americans begun their shenanigans in Texas barely a decade after that, it wasn't much of a chance was it? Mexico still had to fend off Europe and fight the Indian wars while still being a nation divided between royalists and republicans and far from cohesive in terms of identity.

It has nothing to do with genetics, again the history is there. I realize I'm not going to talk you out of views you obviously hold to strongly but really blaming everything on race is not consistent with facts. The Americans didn't defeat Mexico because of biology or culture but because of resources, a far larger population and a much better equiped army, it was a war of numbers.

19th century Sweden had to make alcohol a state monopoly because peasants were starving themselves using potatoes to make vodka, that was how developed they were as a country and your Germanic peoples are responsible for some of the worst crimes in history regardless of what anyone else may have done. It's not because they're inherently evil or culturally or genetically pre-disposed it's because they're humans plain and simple, and humans fuck up.

>Which war do you mean?
All fo them, we had the Indian wars in the north, the caste war in Yucatán, the Mexican American war, the French intervention, the Reforma wars, even the godamn pastry war...

As for why? Indigenous peoples were still resisting, liberals and conservatives (mostly European elites) were unwilling to compromise and the French and the Americans were greedy. None of that had anything to do with your avearge peasant who was just working to make a living.

>but because of resources

But Mexican lands had actually way more resources, especially gold, silver, iron etc.

>a far larger population

Why did people want to immigrate in the US, not in Mexico then?

>a much better equiped army

Another sign of their advantage. Why did the US have a better equipped army?

All your arguments are not the REASONS, but RESULTS.

You're like "America defeated us because it was better" while I ask WHY it was better even though at the beginning of the 19th century no one would've said the US would be ever anything stronger than Mexico.

Just like no one would have said the UK would be able to conquer half of the world. The question is - why they had such a technological and institutional advantage over the world, why only whites had it, not Indians, not Aborigines but whites.

Sure, you can always bring up arguments like "civil wars", "diseases", "climate" etc. but in fact it doesn't matter. Brits turned both hot Australia and cold Canada into rich and developed states and didn't look for silly excuses. If there were Mexicans or Poles put in charge there they would be poor and messy countries and people like you would prove on Jow Forums "you know, it's all about climate, no matter who'd rule in Australia and Canada they would always be poor, believe me!"

And civil wars is actually a silly argument as well, first of all - if your country faces a civil war every decade, there's something wrong with your people. That's another advantage of white nations, they can easily get over petty issues and start to cooperate when it's needed. If Latinos, Slavs or Indians can't do it - that's their problem and the reason why they're inferior.

>19th century Sweden had to make alcohol a state monopoly because peasants were starving themselves using potatoes to make vodka,

Making alcohol a state monopoly was actually a very progressive solution and soon a lot of countries followed it.

>and your Germanic peoples are responsible for some of the worst crimes in history regardless of what anyone else may have done.

These crimes were seen as progressive back then. Pretty much every European nation wanted to "get rid of" Jews and Germans found the most "effective" way to do it. They invented death camps and this whole "machine of death", something only a very organized and disciplined nation could do. Yes, it was horrible, but it was actually a proof of their high technological level.

>All fo them, we had the Indian wars in the north, the caste war in Yucatán, the Mexican American war, the French intervention, the Reforma wars, even the godamn pastry war...

The US waged a lot of wars as well.

>Why do Mexicans worship white people?

because spanish kings were wh*Te

>that key

>But Mexican lands had actually way more resources
The US became independent in 1776, they fought until 1783, that means they were already ahead something close to 4 decades when Mexico became independent in 1821, no wealth was produced during our 11 year independence war and everything prior to that was taken by Spain which prohibited migration into Mexico.

Not that migration helped us in Texas.

You're oversimplifying and strawmaning my argument with that rant about the British and climate when it's really very simple when it comes to the Mexican American war, the US had a population of 20 million, we had 8 million, the US had been independent at that that point for more than twice as long as we had been, they were also far more experienced at war eg the Barbary war or the war of 1812.

Seriously, it's not that we both started at the same point in time with the same advantages, that goes for all huiman history. And might does not make right which your argument implies, if so then according to the great replacement conspiracy theory the "white" race deserves to die whatever their accomplishments because they do not posses the reproductive fitness to stay above replecement rate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, either biological determinism is real or not and demographically speaking Africans would inherit the earth and you'd be forced to admit they were the mustard race after all because you don't care about reasons but results.

Or you know we could discuss reality and not racist theories with no real basis on actual science.

We don't all drink ourselves to death if we have booze freely available

Attached: alcohol-disorders-map.jpg (1081x810, 93K)