Date: October 31st, 2026 3:23 AM Author: AZNgirl giving AZNman fake Invite Code
birdshits are too stupid to research but i wld wager that there are MOAR birdshits moving to places like asia than vice versa now. not flame, theres millions of u human garbage in SE asia, latin america, even niggaland. u are like cockroaches
Lmao. There are white countries that got insanely raped and exploited throughout centuries, like Ireland and Poland, that are nicer now than countries that were never colonized like Thailand or Ethiopia.
And the more "colonized" by whites a brown country became, the nicer it became. E.g., South Africa was the nicest in Africa bc it was 15% white. Argentina and Uruguay the nicest in Latin America while Bolivia and Guatemala are shitholds.
In India, Goa got raped the most and hardest for the longest time (500 yrs), is as nice as turdistan can be nice. Rajasthan was never directly under Beitish control, was ruled by autonomous Rajas, is a putrid shithole, literally hell on Earth. Afghanistan also never colonized and ljl.
nigga its all actually dumb cause really no where on earth had a big middle class and what we today consider "rich" until after WW2, it just didnt exist. most of london and nyc were slums and garbage and shit until like 1950s
I have a house in NYC from 1882. They hadnt invented electricity or central heating yet but my house had two bathrooms with indoor plumbing. And a family of drunken Irish proles lived in this house, not Vanderbilts or something.
Several Latin American nations have a higher nominal or PPP GDP per capita than China (which sits at roughly $15,371 in nominal terms per 2026 IMF figures):
Date: October 31st, 2026 2:15 PM Author: aryan chad
southern cone is largely white, uruguay in particular, and not really meddled with.
"US foreign meddling in latin america" typically refers to 1954 arbenz coup, 1980s contras, ft benning training cartels, smedley butler making central america safe for united fruit, etc.
these are brown amerindian countries where the locals resent being treated like plantation slaves, so they are periodically organized by educated UMC lawyer types to contest US corporate-military power and local elites.
whatever the cause, nicaragua, honduras, guatemala GDP is not approaching china when PPP adjusted.
those are some of the most egregious examples of western intervention tearing countries apart but nowhere near the only ones lol. we've interfered in every country in Latin America, most of the ME, Euro countries fucked most of Africa, etc.
You havent advanced a single argument that birdshit intervention is usually to blame for shitholes. Evry country without much birdshit intervention on Earth is a shithole. Evey single one. Yet many with massive intervention are decent countries.
Date: October 31st, 2026 2:01 PM Author: aryan chad
economic development is a function of race, culture, government, stability, time.
china in 1900 was corrupt and destabilized by foreign interference. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.
japan in 1830 was a backward feudal state. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.
germany in 100 was a tribal hinterland of swamps and forests. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.
australia and subsaharan africa in 1500 did not have the necessary ingredients. they were never going to develop advanced technological societies because their race did not sufficiently develop abstract reasoning and long term planning. their cognition and biology are adapted to warm abundant climes.
every race is capable of rising to a certain level of civilizational attainment but sometimes there are setbacks. sometimes those setbacks come from foreign interference, and sometimes they come from internal cycles of growth and decay.
the most difficulty in teasing apart these factors arises in case of the middle (brown) races and various racial hybrids. there is also the factor of state leadership which organizes the racial raw material at its disposal. rhodesia under white leadership was more developed than zimbabwe under black leadership, despite demographics that were largely the same. likewise el salvador under arab leadership is a different story than el salvador under amerindian rule.
in short, it's complicated and can't be reduced to a single monocausal explanation. however i think a large part of the variance can be explained by reference to a few dominant factors and their dynamics.