Not saying they're perfect. They have many flaws the rest can see miles away. I bet the other way around is far more true. I read this in 9gag 20 years ago, I was annoyed by the fact that Australians only allow white immigrants. I was an immigrant protesting riots against chinese minority in Indonesia. Some black cops told me, "it's your countries' problem. Why should we care?" At that time I disagree. I thought people should be rewarded based on merit. Why should his race or the country of his birth matter. I still hold that opinion partially. However, I now also see the other side. Australians no longer have white only immigration policies. Guess who do? Singapore, China, Israel. I am chinese. My own race do it. In fact, I do not see any country in the world right now where white people is privileged. The only exception is probably in US, due to affirmative action, relative to Asians. They're underprivileged relative to blacks or hispanic. Why? Just look at how prosperous Singapore is to Indonesia. Do you think it's done due to military conquest? Luck? More natural resources? No. The Singaporean governs themselves better. Indonesians care too much about religions. Many indonesians think that corruption is okay as long as the country can be more islamic. Some muslims think that corruption is "ghanimah". It's legitimate war booty from infidels. Don't get me wrong. I would rather live among muslims than among libtards. There are many good muslims. Murder rate in Indonesia is 1/10th of US. So they have common senses. However, common sense that work in one case often works poorly on the others. Many muslim countries are corrupt. Why? Because it's so easy to use religions to favor a candidate. If voters choose based on religion, why potential governors or presidents care to perform well. In fact, in one very famous case, a governor in Indonesia, Ahok, a guy that have pretty much wiped out corruption in Jakarta, is, himself, jailed, for "insulting religion". Ahok suggests that people are being lied to by using religion. You can look here https://www.quora.com/What-are-some...ng-his-two-year-tenure-as-Governor-of-Jakarta Why is Ahok in prison? A legal analysis of the decision - Indonesia at Melbourne You see why Singaporeans do not want Indonesians to become citizens? They don't want Singapore to be like Indonesia. Do the jews want to accept palestinians as their citizens? Of course not. The whites in South Africa accept the blacks as equal. I was pleased with the development. However, I didn't like what happened afterward. I've heard tons of racism against white in South Africa. In Zimbabwe, white land owners are kicked out. And I bet that's must have been what many white people felt 20 years ago. They build advance prosperous countries, they don't want other people to rule over them. So I do not know the solution. I do not think democracy will fix this. In fact, many of the thing that I think is "wrong" is there because the majority of people want it or too stupid to see the truth. Along time ago, I read some racist white says that we should have distance and amicable race to other people. I would disagree of course. I am not racist. However, I do think that people that's too different should have distance and amicable relationship rather than live right next to one another. Libertarians should live among libertarians. Muslims should live among muslims. Those who are not racist and secular can live among people of other race and religions. However, they too should live among those who are as tolerant as them. And what about Singapore's decisions not to change racial composition of it's citizens. To me, it's hard call. In one hand, I like the idea that individuals, all over the world, should be rewarded based on his and only his merit, ideally. On the other hand, some decisions are indeed collective. Surely voters that vote for more capitalism should be more prosperous than Venezuelan voters. We need incentive to encourage voters to vote the right way. I do not blame or agree with Singaporean's policy. I advocate something more neutral. Something that doesn't necessarily involve race. Basically, I think we can have it both way. Why not encourage people to move to where they like in a way that's mutually beneficial to both him and his new home? What about if people move to a place not to change it but because they like the place the way it really is? What about if people go to a place that they share the value? It doesn't really work under democracy. Bob can come to state A not because he likes state A's value but simply because state A is more prosperous. When in state A, Bob will vote to make state A behaves more like his previous state. Think about many muslim refugees coming to europe and then voting for "syariah". I think the solution is not to accept muslims or denying someone entry because he's muslim. I think a better solution is something like letting the market decides like CDZ - Why I think the state itself should be more like private companies As far as racism go. Racism still exist. Hell, it's probably part of nature. You like your own kind like you like your own family but to a much lesser extend. May be like 1/1000th extend. Preference for racism is easily override by preference of real benefits. I used to make a lot of money doing business with white people so I do business with them instead of another chinese. I do not see racism as something necessarily wrong. I don't like it. But who am I to tell everyone to act like I like. It's just one of many preferences. And back to topic, I really don't see whites as more racist than others. I actually see less. Yes, I also can see the other side of the coins too. It's inherent problems with democracy. But that's another topic.