Originally Posted by
sean
I know you are trolling, and you've literally got thousands of other Iberian related threads to shit up, why don't you post in an existing thread instead of making a new one for the same exact topic that's in every other thread?
Speaking of Latin America, their societies were fundamentally founded on flawed principals. Loyalty to the Catholic Church, the Crown, and the landlords who used the population to fund their own personal endeavours.
The crown and church no longer have political power so all that's left are landowners and wealthy people who still use the population to fund their own personal endeavours. Even in the Philippines, the ruling class just steals everything and sells out to the highest bidder, and Duterte can't fix the problem.
The elites don't care and never cared about the average citizen. Argentina, for example, is mostly owned by a group of extremely rich people so no money trickles down to the average Argentine. Brazil is ruled by economic barons, as is nearly every country in Latin America.
Half of their population are descendants of slaves who were moneyless and landless until the late 1800's and then denied the ability to earn or have land through systematic discrimination by the ruling class (because why would you want to give up your money and power to a poor peasant?).
This is in stark contrast to the British enlightenment-era system of free and open enterprise for every man with a limited government to let people choose who they support and how they support them.
It takes obedience for civilisation to thrive, but it is very costly for the men in society. So it's not an entirely bad thing they do not develop well. There is a reason why you are the way you are.
A lot of Latin American countries are what's called middle-income trapped. When the cost of labour is no longer cheap and they're no longer attractive to foreign investors. What is the solution? Research and development.
Socialism can't produce innovative products and can only ever function in a high IQ society (Scandinavia for example). Poor brown countries can't do socialism (India for example).
Latin America has suffered from both socialists and capitalists structures and if anything the rise of socialism in the region only comes as a reaction to the failures of unchecked capitalism, and as a reaction to having their own governments sell them out.
Not to mention miscegenation and its consequences have been a disaster for Latin America. They even imported way more negro slaves than US and the Church gave them equal status, leading to way more race-mixing. All this miscegenation went on for centuries and produced the dumbed down population of shitty brown people that occupy Latin America today.
There are billions of brown people in this world anyway, even Europe has millions of Arabs and Turks, the very notion of 'Hispanic' in America for instance is an attempt to conceal the reality of miscegenation having produced a brown slurry of indeterminate function or value, alongside the continued existence of besmirched Iberian lineages.
But the good thing here is Chinese will make brown people suffer as their enslaved playthings for eternity. I'm glad the Chinese will not tolerate them like we did and they'll all get slaughtered with extreme prejudice. China already owns Central America anyway. Democracy is not meant for brown or swarthy people imo.
Bookmarks