Best products from r/DebateAltRight

> Let's see them.

You know what, I'm wrong. I can't for the life of me find the study I remember reading about, and the place on wikipedia that I thought I'd found the opposite I'm actually seeing a pro segregation argument that says that black children do better when in schools of their own race. Maybe I got the idea from some shitlib forum and I don't remember. So you're likely one hundred percent correct that white people do better with other peope of their own race, although, two things. One is that you should be wary of mandating segregation by law, even though it's one hundred percent your right to want white-only colleges to send your kids too. The other thing is that I don't really know if the above study applies to Jewish people. I'd imagine they hang out with gentile white kids like members of their own race at Ivies, just as much as you'd expect Christians to get along with white buddhists/muslims, but I don't go to any such college, so I wouldn't know.

Also, the whole legacy donation thing still stands, but that seems little important compared to the benefits of a racially homogenous community.

> Explain to me, in your own words, why it would be bad for Americans on the whole to pay more for certain goods (in the case of Trump's new tariffs we're talking about things getting a fraction of a percent more expensive) if the result is more Americans having jobs.

Nothing, if that were the case. But tariffs don't increase employment on the whole. It increases employment for people some industries*, but not by finding more useful things for people to spend their time on, by requiring people from other industries to employ themselves in a job for which would potentially be better taken on by foreign countries. This is why when nations blockade eachother in times of war, there's no "boon" to employment for the occupied nation. Kim Jong Un isn't sitting in his palace thanking Donald trump for what wonderful job opportunities he's given his people by not letting them have access to American and Chinese goods.

Look, this is just basic economics. I know you probably don't trust economists becasue it's a Jew dominated profession, but take a look at this panel. There is literally no dissenting opinion among economic experts of any race or sub-race as to whether free trade is a good policy. It is one of the few things upon which there is unanimous consent among economists.

If you'd like to learn more, there are plenty of other resources that explain why better than I can. This is the book I read in high school. A lot of it is pretty fascinating to learn about. If I can remember correctly they talk about specialization and trade in Chapter 2.

> Why "yet"? Isn't this exactly what we'd expect?

I'm confused. Weren't you just saying that tariffs need to be introduced to protect american employment? We have much more trade with foreign countries now than we did in any other era, and we also have all-time-high employment, yet you believe that free trade = less American jobs.

> I don't know what you're talking about, the world at present is more peaceful and productive than it has ever been before. Life is still difficult for plenty of people, but the world is a complex place and life is a balancing act.

I'm referring to individual states, not the world in general. Also check your facts. World is at less peace today than any time in the last decade. Also proving my point with these facts:

• The broad trend in Europe has been a convergence in peace with the most peaceful, predominately those in Western Europe, declining in peacefulness, while those with weaker scores, many of them in Eastern Europe, improving.
  
• In North America, the level of peacefulness in the United States has declined for the second consecutive year and is now at the worst level of any time since 2012. Canada suffered a deterioration in its terrorism impact rating after the Quebec City and Edmonton attacks.
  
  >It's simplistic and childish to just blame all your problems on diversity.
  >
  > Like what?
  
  Diversity is pretty much the root cause for many problems the west is facing right now. Economy, politics, education, crime...
  
  Ethnic diversity also has a negative relationship with economic success. In general, the richer a nation is the less ethnically diverse it tends to be.
  
  Another unfortunate effect of racial diversity is that it sets the stage for political tribalism. People vote based on the interests of their ethnic group rather than the interests of the country at large. This likely plays a role in why Blacks and Hispanics in America are more likely than Whites to support higher taxes on the rich. Such taxes are largely a redistribution of money from the hands of White people into the hands of minorities.
  
  Ethnic diversity also has a strong negative effect on schools. For instance, one analysis of 3 million students over a 7 year period found that students had higher test scores when their teacher was of their own race (Egalite and Kisida, 2015). This was true even after controlling for poverty, past grades, and other variables.
  
  While that effect applies to all races, many aspects of diversity are especially bad for Whites. For instance, a report by the department of education looked at how the proportion of a school that is black predicted student performance on achievement tests given in the 4th, 8th, and 12th, grades. The report found that, on average, both whites and blacks did worse in school the larger the school’s black population was.
  
  Furthermore, several studies have shown that minorities are more likely than Whites to bully kids at school and that they disproportionately target White kids as the victims of their bullying (Faris, 2006; Hanish and Guerra, 2000; Tippettt et al., 2013)
  
  As if all this wasn’t enough, perhaps most damningly, research has shown, that (regardless of race), attending a school with high concentrations of minorities significantly increases a student’s probability of committing suicide (Faris, 2006).
  
  ​
  
  > Humans, being a single species, generally have the same basic needs. I don't see where you're coming from on most of these points.
  
  I mean I can't believe you think I was referring to basic needs. Even so celibacy rates will only continue to skyrocket, as a result of female hypergamy and preferred race of men. It is projected that 50% of Indians in the US will be celibate.
  
  ​
  
  > Yes, which is why I think it's the height of foolishness for you guys to try and sow division over arbitrary differences. What if Washington had ousted Lafayette because he was a different nationality? What if Truman had ousted Einstein? Promoting meaningless conflict is just pissing all over your own opportunities.
  
  A White American is European, just like Einstein and Lafayette. Even if Einstein was Black, I doubt Truman would pass the opportunity on a one in a million born genius. There's nothing wrong with limited immigration (though it would be rather difficult for an ethnic to integrate).
  
  -----------------------------
  
  But your also missing a huge point about social harmony and functioning.
  
  The most well-known study in this literature is Putnam (2007). Putnam, a Harvard political scientist, analyzed a set of over 40 regions across the united states and looked at how ethnic diversity related to various measures of “social capital”. He held regional differences in age, poverty, crime, and other variables, constant and found that the more ethnically diverse a region was the lower its level of social capital was. In particular, Putnam found that the more diverse a community was the less trust residents reported having in their neighbors, the less people trusted local government and media, the less people voted, the less people gave to charity, the less people worked on community projects, and the fewer friends people had. Perhaps most strikingly, people in diverse communities were less happy overall and less satisfied with their lives.
  
  There is a wealth of literature showing that people tend to get along better when they are alike rather than different. Research has repeatedly found that friends and spouses are more similar, in just about every way imaginable, than average (Bryne, 1971; Myers, 2008 pg 399). Moreover, the more similar spouses are the more satisfied they tend to be with their marriage and the less likely they are to get a divorce (Luo and Klohen, 2005; Bryne, 1971; Caspi and Herberner, 1990).
  
  Experimental evidence backs up this data too. In these studies, researchers measure various traits of individuals before they meet and then see whether pre-meeting similarity predicts who ends up liking who. The finding, repeated over dozens of studies, is that the more similar people are the more they end up liking each other (Bryne, 1971; NewComb, 1961; Lee, 1996; Myers, 2008 pg 400).
  
  Furthermore, when people do succeed at forming friendships across racial lines, those friendships are far more likely to fail. One found that after controlling for sex, race, age, parental SES, family structure, immigration status, shared extracurricular activities, grade point averages, school attendance, drug abuse, friendship reciprocity, and friendship closeness, that interracial friendships were far more likely to fail relative to monoracial friendships (Rude and Herda, 2010).
  
  I mean there is so much overwhelming evidence I didn't decide to add to keep things to the point and that hopefully you might read some of it.

I'm a history nut as well.

Short starter essay to get you going; get in a comfy chair for this.

https://rense.com//general34/amaz.htm

Here's another good short starter on Bolshevism.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/

I'm going to give you amazon links but if you have time and resources try to go directly to the authors website as they get a better cut of proceeds. There's also archive.org if you're poor.

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Sign-Scorpion-Soviet-Empire/dp/9197289779/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1550521515&sr=1-2&keywords=juri+lina

Lina did a doc as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIuW-vNQsQI

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Hundred-Years-Together-Part/dp/5969703729/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1550521619&sr=1-3&keywords=200+years+together

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/02/20/english-translation-of-alexander-solzhenitsyns-200-years-together/

https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1550521963&sr=1-3-fkmr0&keywords=hitler+and+the+unneccary+war

Awesome dissident right publisher.

https://www.counter-currents.com/

Awesome website with LOTS of great articles

http://www.unz.com/

Here are some starters

http://www.unz.com/runz/our-american-pravda/

http://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-jordan-peterson-on-the-jewish-question-from-his-heroes/

If you're a REAL big brained check out E. Michael Jones

http://www.culturewars.com/

Here are some more fun history essays not necessarily related to bolshevism but still interesting.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/07/22/the-cause-of-the-second-civil-war-in-america/

https://wethoughttheywerewhite.tumblr.com/WhoAreTheJews

Here's a write up to learn more about our movement.

https://katana17.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/the-daily-stormer-a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/


Happy cake day!

> Jewish admission in top colleges like Harvard, where they are proportionately vastly overrepresented. There are many times more well educated, meritorious white men. You expect me to believe that Jews are 100x smarter or more qualified? That somehow 3% of the population has so many more geniuses than the 65% majority? What a joke.

If you're interested in the foundations of Jewish success, you might enjoy the first few chapters of Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust, which documents the reasons for the meteoric rise in Jewish socioeconomic status following the Napoleonic emancipation. Nepotism couldn't play much of a role, because there weren't that many established Jews to begin with. They had to provide economic value, and were well situated to do so because their culture prepares them so well for modern life.

Like I said, we all benefit from this, and not just in the hard sciences. Skilled Jewish doctors, software developers, administrators... these are people who improve everyone's lives due to their discipline and commitment to intellectual development and service.

Brain drain is in my opinion the biggest problem in black self actualization in general

The more often intelligentsia are pushed to emigrate the more the home nation will suffer and degrade

This happens with whites as well

It's an unfortunate side effect of Jewish supremacist globalization, "modernity" and "people of the land" being structurally forced to adapt "mercurian" lifestyle. Some in the Jewish community took offense to the term "globalist" (despite the term being race neutral) because there are "globalist Jews" who see Jews as the ultimate globalists, and this "globalization" as bringing about the "Jewish Century". These are not my words, these are the words of Yuri Slezkine as he wrote in his 2006 book literally called "The Jewish Century":

>This masterwork of interpretative history begins with a bold declaration: The Modern Age is the Jewish Age--and we are all, to varying degrees, Jews.

>The assertion is, of course, metaphorical. But it underscores Yuri Slezkine's provocative thesis. Not only have Jews adapted better than many other groups to living in the modern world, they have become the premiere symbol and standard of modern life everywhere.

>Slezkine argues that the Jews were, in effect, among the world's first free agents. They traditionally belonged to a social and anthropological category known as "service nomads," an outsider group specializing in the delivery of goods and services. Their role, Slezkine argues, was part of a broader division of human labor between what he calls Mercurians-entrepreneurial minorities--and Apollonians--food-producing majorities.

>Since the dawning of the Modern Age, Mercurians have taken center stage. In fact, Slezkine argues, modernity is all about Apollonians becoming Mercurians--urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellectually intricate, physically fastidious, and occupationally flexible. Since no group has been more adept at Mercurianism than the Jews, he contends, these exemplary ancients are now model moderns.

Yuri believes in "Mercurian supremacy" in a way

>The book concentrates on the drama of the Russian Jews, including émigrés and their offspring in America, Palestine, and the Soviet Union. But Slezkine has as much to say about the many faces of modernity--nationalism, socialism, capitalism, and liberalism--as he does about Jewry. Marxism and Freudianism, for example, sprang largely from the Jewish predicament, Slezkine notes, and both Soviet Bolshevism and American liberalism were affected in fundamental ways by the Jewish exodus from the Pale of Settlement.

>Rich in its insight, sweeping in its chronology, and fearless in its analysis, this sure-to-be-controversial work is an important contribution not only to Jewish and Russian history but to the history of Europe and America as well.


This is important because if you view the r/judaism subreddit right now they literally "ironically" self-identify as "(((globalists)))". It's not a term that was used to demonize Jews, it was a term used to demonize people who exploit global trade/migration to enrich themselves, and so the subset of Jews who believe in this ideology decided to embrace the misanthropic term as a sort of "victimhood". Much like how people in the UK protest Corbyn for his "anti-semitism" for just criticizing Israel.

Benjamin Wittes leads one the most powerful public policy influencing thinktank in America called the "Brookings institute", and he has openly stated on Twitter that he see's "America" as a "Jewish experiment" even more important than Israel/Zionism

>"There are two great 20th Century experiments in Jewish life. Zionism is the overrated one. The United States wins"

It's time for this "experiment" to end.

Follow up to my previous post (reached character limit).

So both IQ and socioeconomic status are heritable, but to what extent can the same genes explain variation in both traits? This study looked at the correlation between genetic similarity, SES similarity, and IQ similarity in a sample of 3,000 unrelated children. Their genetic sample consisted of roughly 1.7 million SNPs and was therefore large, but still far less than the entire human genome. IQ was measured at ages 7 and 12. Family SES was measured at ages 2 and 7. They found that variation in the portions of the genome they analyzed accounted for about 30% of variation in both IQ and SES. In this sample, IQ and family SES correlated at .31 and 94% of that correlation of mediated by genetics. In other words, the reason why high SES 7 year olds were smarter than average was almost entirely because they had “smart genes”. The correlation between family SES at age 7 and IQ at age 12 was .32 and 56% of that relationship was genetically mediated. In other words, about half of the relationship between intelligence at age 12 and SES at age 7 was explained by people having smart genes.

This is direct evidence showing that a substantial amount, likely more than half, of the correlation between parental SES and IQ in adolescence is explained by the parents having smart genes and passing them on to their kids.

Now lets compare the IQ of black populations to poorer populations of other races. Using GDP per capita data from World bank and IQ data from this study you find that blacks in America have a GDP per capita of 20,458 (This can range depending on what figure you use for African American contribution to GDP, this is a low figure) and an average IQ of 85. There are many other countries with few blacks that have lower GDPs per capita and higher IQ. Estonia, Chezk Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Belarus, Vietnam, Ukraine, Mongolia, Serbia, China, and others all have lower GDPs and higher average IQs.

Now lets look at SAT scores. One study found that if average SAT scores of high school students are broken down by their parent’s SES (for both Blacks and Whites), Whites from families who earn less than $20,000 a year do just as well on the SAT as Blacks from families that earn more than $200,000 a year. Other studies have found that Whites from severely impoverished families who earn under $10,000 a year tend to have higher SAT scores than Blacks who earn over $100,000 a year. Now obviously SAT scores are not equal to IQ. But they are related.

Another thing that's interesting, is that the richer people you compare, the larger that Black-White IQ gap becomes. In this book 32 studies were analyzed and found a mean Black-White IQ gap of 12 points between people of low SES and 20.3 points between people of high SES. This has been replicated multiple other times, including in Murray's The Bell Curve.

Now lets look at racial and IQ difference over time. The U.S. Census began collecting information on individuals income in 1939. Since then, Black wage relative to White wage have risen from 44% to 67% in 1989. Using data from the US Census Bureau between the 1950’s and 2014, there was a dramatic reduction in the size of the Black White income gap. The median income of Whites went from 2.4 time larger than the median Black income during the 1950’s, to only around 1.3 times larger in 2014. Rates of post-secondary educational attainment revealed the exact same pattern. In 1940, Whites were nearly 4 time more likely than Blacks to have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. However, as of 2014, Whites were only 1.5 times more likely than Blacks to have a BA or higher. All and all, the historical trends reveal huge reductions in the education and income gaps between Blacks and Whites.

But during this time, the white/black IQ gap hasn't really changed. In this book it's reported that IQ testing during the first world war gave Blacks a mean IQ of 83. Today the average IQ of blacks is 85. Thus, the Black-White IQ gap has been reduced by 2 points during a time period in which the black/white socio-economic gap has been reduced by at least 50%.

So overall how socioeconomic status influences IQ is unknown. But it is important to realize that money, or class, does not magically make people smarter. But yes nutrition and cognitively stimulating environments likely have an effect, but I wouldn't conclude them to be the major factors.

Overall it seems that intelligence is about 80% nature 20% environment.

> Anyone who says: "But they aren't unified!" is repeating the exact same individualist arguments that the alt right spends all day refuting, but to nations instead of persons. It's the same thing, really.

They are unified, but they are good Mohammedans and keep us in the dark:
Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC). I believe(not 100% sure) it is the worlds 2. largest transnational body, only surpassed by the U.N.


I've read several books dealing with Islam & Jihad and the one I am currently reading is one I can recommend to everyone:
"Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad" by Stephen Coughlin.
He is a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. in the war on terror.
He has a series of lectures on youtube covering the same topic.

Here are some quotes from his book regarding OIC:
"We’ll examine the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation and see how their understanding of themselves as a kind of “Proto-Caliphate” may be accurate, even though our decisionmakers don’t even know they exist."


"Chapter X of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Charter declares the universal agreement within the OIC that “human rights” is shariah. From the 2008 OIC Charter:
The Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organisation’s covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values".

> Pro-white alt righters often cite muh technology or muh nukes as reason why the Islamic world can't be a threat to us.

Qaddafi said it best, they will out-breed us in our own lands if western leaders don't put an end to immigration.

Anyone who wants to read about how Islam is not hijacked by extremists and how Islamic law promotes and demands Jihad should read Stephens book. He lays it out very thoroughly. Most importantly he writes about how western cultural experts and moderate Muslims deny reality because of political correctness and sensitivity towards Muslims.

We shouldn't need science, since basic observation and understanding tells us everything we need to know, but cucks worship science as the new religion so it's useful to have on hand to hammer them with.

Some of the science, btw

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622


Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456276

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source: http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

This is a great read on the topic of anti-protestant discrimination in the south post independence. It’s not hard to see why the ‘siege mentality’  was/is still so strong in the Protestant community after what happened there.

The Faithful Tribe by Ruth Edwards (an Irish Catholic) while focussing on the Orange Order is also a great insight into the general loyalist mindset & their history.

Fascism is economically left, Third Position generally refers to right wing socially, left wing economically minded people that are anti-liberal democracy for various reasons. If you still want liberal democracy but support these ideas you're kinda at a dead end, old school (anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-worker, pro-family etc) leftists are either fascists or sell outs to poz now.

Some books to check out right wing socialist economics:

• Strasserism
  
  
• Corporatism
  
  
• Guild Socialism
  
  
• Distributism
  
  
• Syndicalism by Sorel, although I'm not sure which books it's best described in. I've seen Reflections on Violence recommended a lot.
  
  
• Juche, this is pretty much NazBol. You can find pdfs and stuff of his work online but I can't seem to find the link to this particular book, maybe it's under a different name or something.
  
  I recommend checking out Cultured Thug's youtube channel. Ba'athism is another interesting Third Position ideology you might like.
  
  >We must take from the right nationalism without capitalism and from the left socialism without internationalism.
  
  - Gregor Strasser

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 by Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame).

Alt-Hype made a great video which referenced Charles Murray's work and convincingly debunked the popular leftist argument that non-White civilizations greatly surpassed White Europeans technologically in the past. As you'll see in the video, virtually all of the technological developments that were made before the White European Industrial Revolution were relatively insignificant in comparison. And even the so-called "Dark Age" of European history really wasn't as backwards and primitive as popularly claimed by the left. As soon as civilization reached Europe, Europeans have pretty much always been on par with India, China, and the Middle East. And then White Europeans left everyone in the dust with the Industrial Revolution. And only a couple of Northeast Asian countries have caught up to White Western countries in the last few decades.

yea but classical liberalism is not libertarianism. Classical liberalism held that the state was necessary and central in protecting private property rights. But the state protecting property is akin to a rights violating Rights protector, a contradiction in estoppel jurisprudence. In what you are describing as AE is wrong, in IE AE systems, the "king" or leader respected his fellow comrades equally, thus the "egalitarianism", and they noble and courageous men(aristocrat). In Ancient Greece, the Hellenic tradition of rugged individualism and the idea of natural law produced massive amounts of intellectual works. Fast forward to the European Middle Ages, it was stateless ordered anarchy. No person or entity had absolute monopoly. Courts were decentralized. States enforced the law, rather than produce it. The Church was imminent in human society.

I really recommend "The Uniqueness of Western Law" by Richard Storey. Here: https://www.amazon.com/Uniqueness-Western-Law-Reactionary-Manifesto/dp/1912975033


Ricardo Duchesne writes an afterword to that book too.

Ha, funny and all too true. He's usually right on point. Must be why this is sold out. 😎

"Wall Street & FDR" by the good man Antony Sutton might interest you.

Publisher link: https://clairviewbooks.com/viewbook.php?isbn_in=9781905570713

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-FDR-Antony-Sutton/dp/0899683258

Kind Regards

These two books are compendiums, but they cite enough important right-wing authors and books to fill a small library. I highly recommend them.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Modern-World-Traditionalist/dp/153282534X

https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-Against-Modernity-Keith-Preston/dp/1910881236/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=thinkers+against+modernity&qid=1567103970&s=books&sr=1-1

> But true neoclassical economics has actually never been tried.

Yes it has, and it sucks every time.

>Keynesian economics is bad enough

It created the greatest rise in living standards in Western history. It was called the "golden age of capitalism" for a reason.

>on what possible basis can you really believe that a state acting on national interests can make a better choice than a system which automatically reacts to market forces?

Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

>See China. Our state managed economy only really grew after they relaxed their control.

No one here is arguing for communism. By the way, China has more state-owned enterprises than Venezuela.

> would have to compare standards of living across North Korea and subsaharan Africa to get an idea.

North Korea can make nukes.

>That was demography.

No, you need some sort of planning. The Soviets industrialized much faster than the more market-driven system that industrialized the West.

>Still, the outcomes speak for themselves.

Except that the West, especially after WWII, had much more state-driven capitalism than most people know. This book explains beautifully why the state is the biggest innovator by far, and why neoliberalism is a sham. Here's a great picture from the book that perfectly demonstrates the main thesis.

>Would broadly agree with that sentiment. We're supposedly going to be seeing Nigeria (or was it Niger?) develop rapidly in the coming decades due to foreign investment and a favorable demographic profile, but until that happens, we don't really have anything disproving the rule.

It's Nigeria, and that country is already failing. They've lost 96% of their forests...