"The underlined portions disprove your own argument."
Your illiteracy acted up again before reaching the end of the paragraph, which caused you to miss:
However, the entirety of European success can be predicted from continuous genetic change, which, itself, may have been sparked from the Black Plague.
"They produced similar Renaissances"

Which one row is the least similar to the others?
"Here are current Renaissances"
Which would not be occurring if "whites" had ceased to exist prior to the Renaissance.
"there are plenty of anti-tech "whites", and pro-tech "non-whites"."
There are plenty of "whites" who will oppose something
"whites" created after it has been created.
There are plenty of "non-whites" who will support something
"whites" created after it has been created.
Neither of these changes the fact of who (answer in bold) is consistently causing new problems that would never have existed if their gene pool did not exist. Indeed, the very "whites" who oppose a current problem created by other "whites" might be the same ones to create the next problem (perhaps even as a way to 'solve' the current problem)!
Not all the problems are even machine-related. Democracy, for example, has nothing to do with machines. Yet are we supposed to believe it is pure coincidence that the same gene pool to blame for industrializing the world is the same gene pool also to blame for democratizing the world, a world which in the absence of this gene pool would never have done either? Is this not a sign that it is a mistake to limit acceptable political discourse to opposing merely the content of what is innovated on each specific occasion, instead of trying to turn off the fundamental innovative force beneath it all? Why is it always the same one gene pool coming up with the new stuff? Is it a stretch to bet that this same one gene pool will also be the one to come up with the next big thing that was never meant to be introduced to the world? And the one after that? And on and on? (Or until AI takes over altogether, and it will surely be AI modelled after the way of thinking typified by this gene pool.....)
If we want to put a stop to it all, the first step we need to take should be obvious by now.
In conclusion, I agree with the title of this topic:
Why You All Suck
But only if "You All" refers to "whites".
"Women who find him (Patrik Baboumian) more attractive than me should not be allowed to reproduce either."
I proudly stand by this statement. And this includes "non-white" women. (For context, read this post:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-bones/msg6391/#msg6391to be informed about how gracile I am. Whereas:
https://media.mealprep.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/patrik-baboumian.jpg )
On the other hand, "white" women who consider me more attractive than Baboumian should still not be allowed to reproduce, for reasons explained above.