Why can't non-White countries be successful without White intervention?

Why can't non-White countries be successful without White intervention?

They just don't have the intelligence.

shit skins can't into infrastructure, community, or agriculture to surplus

Nepotism.
White people = Jews
White people own the world and the means of owning the world. Any change in ownership must be done with White people approval or bloody revolution.

>inb4 lol what about education faggot?
even with education by foreign aid programs these people still are naturally dumb

They can, just not successful in the white western sense. There's literally nothing wrong with living in mud hutts or shitting in a hole in the ground, it's just that in Western countries we don't want that. Honestly I think this world would be so much better off if we could just come out and say that difference ethnicity and different races will live differently and that their is a relationship between the biology and genetics of populations and the kinds of cultures those populations develop.

Gee, I don't know why.

but its not totally about IQ

culture comes into play.

chinas IQs are the highest but they have to steal our fucking designs for our stealth fighters or buy tech from russia like fucking cucks.

once the shit skins get a taste of white civilization they don't want to go back

because you've defined "success" in the context of white culture.

>only white cultures are successful
>why can't non-white cultures be successful without the help of white cultures?
>because only white cultures are successful.

your lack of insight is pretty impressive, but probably just par for the board.

Because (((successful))) is a relative term.

Then how come Indians earn the highest income on average in the U.S.?

Checkmate.

Selection bias you faggot

no, success is not measured against white states. it is measured against life expectancy, infant mortality, employment, education, income, security... can i refer you to the central african republic for an example of what, by all measures, is defined as an unsuccessful state.

Being condescending and being wrong is not a good combination. You may one to try one or the other next time.

This.

The ones that received partial governance in the past also think they can use the superior white government system, without fully adopting white culture. The result will always ends in disaster.

See: South Korea vs Post colonial Africa

WHERE ARE THE PROOFS??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

cause its in the bible..........edomite

How?

There are objective standards that make a country great / not great.

Welcome to the new age where everything is relative and nothing matters

you can't skip an industrial revolution or enlightenment. shit like that shapes a culture. trying to catapult a society through 400 years of progress doesn't work.

unless they are asian.

Have you heard of the term "throw enough shit at the wall, some of it's gotta stick"?
Let's just say Indians are rather experienced at it.

define successful.
you likely have a westernized view of success which includes wealth gains, infrastructure, technology.
Success to an African farming community may be raising a family, pleasing the spirits, having a harvest which can feed said family.

Success to you is very different than success to a brown person.

Having access to a nearby hospital where I am guaranteed a nurse will not keep me waiting when I have an emergency, making me less vulnerable to death?