>>81798627
>I did
No, you didn't. Your posts are right there.
>on the basics of countries that you're pretending that race has nothing to do with it, which is patently false and beyond stupid.
This is the first time you made something close to an argument, although it is simply an implication.
>nothing to do with it
I addressed it in my previous post. In-group conflict proves that race is not a determining factor for unity.
You are also changing the argument. You first accused me of saying that
>every race can have a coubtry except for whites
I have never said this, in my entire life.
Ideas and cultures can have countries. And these should be protected by the members of the country.
The superiority of ideas will be proven by the survival of the countries that uphold them.
>History
Furthermore, empires, like the Roman empire, given their scale necessarily had to integrate people of different races into their rule. If race was a guiding principle for the creation of a state, this practice would be incompatible with the very idea of a country/empire.
Moreover, race wasn't well defined back then. As I already said previously, which you haven't dealt with.