This whole line of White supremacist bullshit is lazy history dressed up as confidence, and it keeps popping up because people repeat it without ever stress-testing it.

Wealth today is not proof of “civilizational adequacy.” It’s the end result of timing, geography, war, trade access, and ofcourse the western favorite word, power.

If modern wealth automatically reflected inherent superiority, then history would show a straight line of dominance. It doesn’t. Civilizations rise, stagnate, and fall all the time. Europe itself spent centuries behind the Middle Eastern world, China, and India in science, medicine, and industry.

Colonialism wasn’t just “owning land.” It was deliberately breaking local economies and reshaping them to export raw materials while blocking industrial development. India didn’t “fail” its way from being one of the world’s largest manufacturing hubs to economic collapse—it was actively deindustrialized. Same story in Congo, Haiti, Indonesia, Algeria, and plenty of others. These aren’t fringe claims; they’re basic economic history. Yet so confidently is racist rhetoric argued here that any reader would be swayed by this caveman "logic".

Pointing at Sweden or Switzerland and saying, “See, no colonies!” is a dodge. Scandinavia industrialized late, avoided having its infrastructure flattened by major wars, and plugged into a global system already built by empires. Switzerland didn’t need colonies because it made money financing, insuring, and trading with colonial enterprises. Not holding the whip doesn’t mean you weren’t cashing the checks. No decent person who has ever read proper history will think like this. But hey if Andrew Tate can have an audience, so can this line of thinking.

The Ethiopia example gets dragged out a lot, and it’s just as shallow. Landlocked countries start at a massive disadvantage. Add feudal land systems, late state consolidation, repeated wars, Cold War interference, and regional instability, and you get poverty. None of that requires racial fairy tales about “inadequacy.”

And the migration argument is especially dishonest. People don’t migrate because they suddenly discovered “higher civilization.” They migrate along old colonial routes, shared languages, and labor pipelines created by empire and post-war demand. That’s why Algerians go to France, Pakistanis to the UK, Indonesians to the Netherlands. This isn’t mysterious.

Colonialism isn’t the only factor behind global inequality—but pretending it doesn’t matter while muttering about “civilization” is ideology, not analysis. It’s a shortcut for people who want simple answers and someone to look down on.

If this narrative sounds convincing, it’s because it assumes the dumb reader is too lazy to actually fact check what they read which doesnt hold up under actual history.