Swap the entire populations of Sweden and Egypt, and in less than a generation Egypt would be a paradise, and Sweden would look like a shithole.
3rd world countries are the shitholes they are because 3rd world people live there. Race is measurable, quantifiable, and observable in the wild. Blank slate theory of human development is just so much garbage.
And I think the Swamps of the American South would be both gross, smelly and unsafe biologically speaking (disease) even if we removed the nigger population from it.
Heck you can't even remove it, as doing so is why New Orleans is literally sinking under sea level.
You can remove it, you just can't remove it willy-nilly.
New Orleans is loose dirt and maneure piled on bogland, then heavy buildings heaped on top.
Dirt... erodes and sinks and settles. Rocks, concrete, cement... You can turn a swamp into what would effectively be in geology terms a sedimentary extrusion of igneous-based conglomerate, using enough construction material. Dig deeper than the bog-dirt, right to bedrock, and then fill with stone. Dam the incoming water sources, too.
Perfectly possible. Just expensive, and would require foresight and significant advanced planning.
3rd world countries are the shitholes they are because 3rd world people live there.
This! This is also why throwing money at homelessness doesn't solve it.
I tell people that you can round up all the homeless people in a major city, house them in luxury high-rise apartments where food is delivered to them, laundry is done for them, and they have all the movies, video games, and other entertainment they could want for free, and the place look like something out of Mad Max within a week. It's not an affluence problem, it's a people problem.
America was carved out of the wilderness with handmade tools and has a climate much more harsh than these tropical shit holes. Whatever misfortune they may have isn't any worse than the challenges that Western nations had and overcame. The reason they lag so far behind is because the people there are lesser.
It is a callous but true statement that, if you kill off all non-successful humans in a city every winter just from the cold, there's not going to be many non-successful humans in that city.
We want to take care of our disadvantaged and the least of us. But that simple statement of fact stands: Homeless who are homeless for more than a year are a finite population that grows fairly slowly over time, and contracts pretty much only with their deaths. Very few homeless who've been unable to climb back after a year, overall, climb back ever again. Some do, but statistically negligible.
Every effort to long-term "sustain" the homeless, is analogous to an effort to increase the overall numbers of homeless. It would benefit "the homeless" as a class more to spend money on cops to kill drug traffickers, than to overnight-house the homeless, because it will stop future homeless from existing in the first place.
Wait, that sounds kind of... awesome? Trade harsh winters for tropical paradise. The cold would help them build character, while they're too busy fighting the weather to fight each other.
Control of the Suez Canal too. Egyptian "port authorities" constantly extort fees and even goods from vessels which are mostly owned by smaller countries that can't retaliate.
No, it would not, Egypt would look like a matriarchal hellhole, your average swede is a 80 iq low testosterone faggot who entirely depends on his nanny state, all the smart swedes have left the country a century ago.
Swap the entire populations of Sweden and Egypt, and in less than a generation Egypt would be a paradise, and Sweden would look like a shithole.
3rd world countries are the shitholes they are because 3rd world people live there. Race is measurable, quantifiable, and observable in the wild. Blank slate theory of human development is just so much garbage.
its funny when people say "a country is safe" or "a country is not safe"
its not the country, its the PEOPLE of the country that are safe people to be around. Or the PEOPLE of that country who are not safe to be around.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Australia would remain very unsafe regardless of who lives there.
Have you seen their spiders? 🤣
The spiders aren't that big an issue - you get used to them around the house and garden. The snakes surprise you sometimes in the backyard though!
It's not the snakes in the backyard that'll get ya, though, it's the ones in public office.
And I think the Swamps of the American South would be both gross, smelly and unsafe biologically speaking (disease) even if we removed the nigger population from it.
Heck you can't even remove it, as doing so is why New Orleans is literally sinking under sea level.
You can remove it, you just can't remove it willy-nilly.
New Orleans is loose dirt and maneure piled on bogland, then heavy buildings heaped on top.
Dirt... erodes and sinks and settles. Rocks, concrete, cement... You can turn a swamp into what would effectively be in geology terms a sedimentary extrusion of igneous-based conglomerate, using enough construction material. Dig deeper than the bog-dirt, right to bedrock, and then fill with stone. Dam the incoming water sources, too.
Perfectly possible. Just expensive, and would require foresight and significant advanced planning.
They had to deal with aborigines for thousands of years. They're excused.
This! This is also why throwing money at homelessness doesn't solve it.
I tell people that you can round up all the homeless people in a major city, house them in luxury high-rise apartments where food is delivered to them, laundry is done for them, and they have all the movies, video games, and other entertainment they could want for free, and the place look like something out of Mad Max within a week. It's not an affluence problem, it's a people problem.
America was carved out of the wilderness with handmade tools and has a climate much more harsh than these tropical shit holes. Whatever misfortune they may have isn't any worse than the challenges that Western nations had and overcame. The reason they lag so far behind is because the people there are lesser.
It is a callous but true statement that, if you kill off all non-successful humans in a city every winter just from the cold, there's not going to be many non-successful humans in that city.
We want to take care of our disadvantaged and the least of us. But that simple statement of fact stands: Homeless who are homeless for more than a year are a finite population that grows fairly slowly over time, and contracts pretty much only with their deaths. Very few homeless who've been unable to climb back after a year, overall, climb back ever again. Some do, but statistically negligible.
Every effort to long-term "sustain" the homeless, is analogous to an effort to increase the overall numbers of homeless. It would benefit "the homeless" as a class more to spend money on cops to kill drug traffickers, than to overnight-house the homeless, because it will stop future homeless from existing in the first place.
Wait, that sounds kind of... awesome? Trade harsh winters for tropical paradise. The cold would help them build character, while they're too busy fighting the weather to fight each other.
Control of the Suez Canal too. Egyptian "port authorities" constantly extort fees and even goods from vessels which are mostly owned by smaller countries that can't retaliate.
https://archive.is/EaW2B
https://archive.is/vrz8n
No, it would not, Egypt would look like a matriarchal hellhole, your average swede is a 80 iq low testosterone faggot who entirely depends on his nanny state, all the smart swedes have left the country a century ago.