Thank you, and ah fair enough, mb on the guess. I would say that whilst attempting to avoid prejudice and base things off observation is valid, its important to focus on data at a macro level - individual examples of high/low X matter less than mean performance in X between groups.

You're correct r.e distributions having members above the mean - there are absolutely women more productive than me, and women smarter than me. However, there are two points I think are important here - the first is a relatively simple one r.e averages - on average women are less productive (most of the 'wage gap' is an example of this - women work less hours than men, thus net pay is less). They're also not less intelligent on average, but do distribute differently - at my IQ level (130's) for example, men outnumber women at a roughly 2:1 ratio. As you move towards ~150 or so this ratio becomes more like 8:1. Since many things like PHD's etc require high IQ's (removing meme subjects, phd average IQ is about 130), this ought to mean in a fair world there were 2:1 male ratios here - I'd be fine with it if that were allowed, but that would be 'sexist'. Equality of outcome =/= equality of opportunity. It's also worth noting that averages define the population, not the exceptions. It's also worth pointing out that even during very patriarchal times (i.e 14th century england), women were honestly allowed to work in a great many jobs. There were a surprising number of 'master blacksmiths' from that time period who were female. Even in extreme patriarchy, men have allowed women opportunities (and still would, speaking as a pretty chauvinist person, i'm fine with them having opportunities, just not with them getting away with a pussy pass or lighter workloads). The second point is slightly more debatable, but also worth saying. Koko the gorilla had an estimated IQ of low 80's. That's not only pretty good, its substantially better than the african average. On that basis its fair to say some apes are literally more intelligent than some blacks - should we exclude them? Why would we not use the same argument of overlapping distributions? Or if we suggest we should split it on arbitrary categories 'human/non-human', why would we not allow splitting on other arbitrary categories (male/female, [insert race here] / [insert different race here])?

Supporting a small government is a laudable goal - I'd presume you're essentially libertarian, or at least classically liberal? I'm honestly not a million miles away from that position, and especially w/ libertarians, there's a huge degree of crossover between fascist, ethno-nationalists, and libertarians. As you say - there is structural change that SHOULD be done, but isn't. The reason it isn't is the reason this coalition of ideologies exists - women and non-whites (asians represent a partial exception here, although even then they bias much less libertarian than whites) don't support small government. The paper i linked for example tracks how female vote led directly (and rapidly) to larger governments - this is because women aren't really self-sufficient (either in terms of tax-dollars, or ideologically), but men are. You can see similar effects if you look at breakdowns of voting patterns by race. It's no surprise that african countries tend towards tribal communism, and that they vote for bigger government in western countries by a huge margin - it's just the law of averages. Most libertarians baulk at treating individuals based on their groups, and that is laudable, but unless you do you end up in the current situation - it SHOULD be done X way, but it isn't, because we live in a democracy, and people who support small government / low interventionism are not in the majority, particularly outside men and whites (asians as previously stated semi-support these views, especially since they get shat on by affirmative action just as much as whites, hence the current AA lawsuit heading to supreme court by asians - there's a good reason liberals treat asians like whites and even ethnonationalists treat asians as more or less honorary whites). https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1536878150260.jpg this image sums up the reason libertarianism and fascism tend to coincide pretty well.

You're also correct about living standards / kids (although you missed child mortality rates, which is a huge factor). People need less kids, that's true. However, here again we run into a problem. Blacks are incapable of understanding this logic - they're R biased (many kids, low input per child), whereas whites are K biased (few kids, high resource allocation per child). Asians vary a bit - japanese are pretty K, chinese R, the rest inbetween. Whites currently have bugger all children, and whislt theoretically fine, its still too low. A sub 2.1 birthrate ultimately leads to extinction - that's just basic maths. It might be acceptable to reduce population levels a bit, but if you do this whilst importing people who will breed at a massive rate (dark-skinned people essentially, r/k correlates closely w/ pigmentation), then you will be replaced via demographic displacement (and then due to the voting differences by race, subjugated under an increasingly large and socialist/communist government). Libertarianism needs the current situation to be radically altered before its anything other than a suicidal philosophy.

You are correct that western society has taken over other native civilisations - I'd note few if any were actually civilisations though. The maori had barely finished killing the original natives when whites arrived, and aboriginals / amerinds had 20-60k years to create a civilisation, and managed to create very little. These instances of migration were dominating, but also transplanted culture. Non-white migration to white countries is subversive, and merely subsists off the existing culture. It'd be hard to say africans provided even 1/100th of the societal/cultural benefit to whites that whites did to africa (jumping it from the iron age to the 19th century in the space of ~50 years).

In terms of being like leaves my point was more related to the spectrum of inhabitants, rather than the appearance and disappearance of successive civilisations. Rome is a great example of this - this thread provides full details (https://8ch.net/pol/res/11811520.html), but essentially rome (the city), by the end of the empire, had very few actual romans left. Just like how current day america has rapidly decreased in % whites, had increases in % hispanics, and is currently becoming increasingly damaged by having to substain its non-white populations, who flock there for the quality of life, but in turn bring the 3rd world with them. America was not powerful, or rich when the amerinds were the main owners. If you removed all whites from America today, it's superpower status would barely survive the year (even accounting for drops in population level etc). Move africans to europe, europeans to africa, and inside a generation europe would be in the depths of crippling famine, and Africa would be booming. That's what I meant by them changing colour as they die - the variation in skin tone on average causes / is indicative of the decay. The only way to prevent this is racial caste systems, such as india - there's good reason they were set up the way they were, with many dalit being aboriginal, and many brahimin being more or less white, and those reasons are the reason hindu culture persisted so long.

The sad fact is, western society, which is (rightfully) the envy of much of the world, is largely a product of westerners. Liberia is a society founded for slaves to be 'liberated' to - it is more or less, America. It has the same constitution. The difference is, it was populated with blacks. It's currently decidedly third world, no better or worse than any other country. Had a parallel country been set up, same rules (even lets say exact same location, and shift liberia sideways a bit), had it been populated by whites, not blacks, and presuming they didn't let in blacks, it would be thriving. Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, zimbabwe is the land of perpetual famine. Apartheid south africa was a jewel of Africa (and blacks flocked to enter the country). Present day s.africa is a small boer minority being increasingly persecuted and robbed via taxation via communistic blacks - that is the future of the west, if migration continues.

In their desire to participate in white male culture, non-whites and women destroy it. There's very good reason they say demographics are destiny. Asians are a decent example of this too - higher mean IQ, lower spread, lower criminality. They have somewhat less potential to develop a civilisation (note, does not mean they can't, just that they're less effective), but they can very easily adapt an existing one. This is why they were able to be colonised/maltreated by the stronger European powers who were able to better/more rapidly develop technology, but also why they were able to bounce back quite so well afterwards. Asia has received 1/10th (if that) of the financial support Africa has. Why do you think they're now in many cases fully first world countries, and Africa is still a shithole? Better quality inhabitants. Sadly the critical lens through which to view culture and civilisations is race and gender. They're the single biggest effects. This is the reason civic nationalism is a doomed philosophy. You can't just 'teach' blacks the value of libertarianism, any more than you can make them not a huge risk of violent criminality. The only way to do it would be eugenic manipulation of their population, at which point, are they really the same as the original one? Final study to link here, because its handy. Why are whites less violent than most other races? (https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/paperdownload/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf). Eugenics.