i've lived my whole life in white society. looking back, whether i was in a village environment or in a large city, whites were never problematic - not a single time. whenever there was a problem, it was always a gypsy. the only problematic whites i can think of throughout the years were some mafia wannabes. especially after the fall soviet union and there was turmoil in europe. opportunists took advantage. beside that, 100% safety among whites out in the open.
@Justicar Safety from direct physical harm? Yes. Safety from legal disputes? No.
One is aggressive, the other passive-aggressive.
Whites are quieter and less obnoxious mostly because they rely on the law to get their way, so they have to behave.
That's the main difference I saw between the two. Other than that, their behaviors weren't all that different.
Both greedy, both looking for people either to walk over or to lick their boots and both surrounding themselves with a group for protection.
@Justicar Legal disputes are as valid as any other kind of altercation, especially since those "high-trust societies" are as corrupt as the rest.
It's a matter of whether you trust the courts over the individuals. Neither cares about "justice", but individual justice promotes strong men, which is preferable to the alternative.
@Based_Accelerationist whites build high-trust societies, so legal disputes are perfectly valid.