Absent nuclear armageddon, the current conflict will be resolved, on way or another--hence it's worthwhile trying to figure out what lies ahead: here are my 2 cents, please let me have yours!
Keep in mind that Empires appear the strongest just prior to their collapse. European countries can only get their sovereignty back by slaying EU (a long term imperial project), followed by backing out of “security of organizations”, ECB, etc. Then they can restart European reintegration under non-imperial aims. In every system results are largely predetermined by system’s aims. EU’s aims were always to extend the imperial controls; if this is not self-evident now, it never will be. EU, NATO, ECB,..., all exist to tie Europe to Empire. These aren’t European institutions. The sooner Europeans realize this, the better off they will be. Europe should be free to look and act freely in all geographic directions, under its own terms. European lives depend on this.
Extremely difficult to do, but I see no other real options for Europe. If you wish to live, that is what you will need to achieve. Deceiving yourselves is the worst option of all.
Leaders cannot do much without an overwhelming unified support from the people. That is the key. Otherwise, embedded “security” structures win. Also, the resistance must try to coordinate actions among as many European countries as possible, or they will be defeated by coordinated action from EU, NATO and ECB.
EU, NATO, and ECB are incapable of doing that, I suppose, for they don't have the power to run roughshod over the people, united. Think: Eastern Europe in 1989 (even though I'd bet that the current crop of 'elites' is much more ruthless than even the former Communists).
I'm also unsure about the coordination: the national state is the framework here, and I think that 'resistance', whatever shape it might ultimately take, will have to be organised along national lines. Perhaps it's time to remember de Gaulle's 'Europe of Many Fatherlands' or the like.
Bottom line, as far as I see it, the multi-letter soups will end for the same reasons the Communist régimes in Eastern Europe collapsed: with reality and and propaganda drifting ever more apart, there's not much credibility left with these institutions; at some point, they may continue to exist, but they will have lost all their real-world impact.
Of course, an early collapse of the imperial center would accelerate everything, but you can’t wait for that to happen before acting. The time for action is now.
Nothing can withstand the pressure of unified people. What I was alluding to is that leaders of one country will have hard time withstanding coordinated pressure form those imperial entities. That is why you need overwhelming people’s support and coordination amongst several key European countries, e.g. Germany, Italy, France, or some other workable combination.
Oh, my, Barry, you overestimate post-1945 Europeans' spine. The last politician (worthy of this epithet) was de Gaulle, but of course we mustn't even think about his vision of a 'Europe of Fatherlands'.
I fear that there's not much Europeans can do, that is, other than take to the streets en masse an kick out the current crop (crap) of 'leaders', followed by kicking out the Americans and British troops, as well as their City of London and Wall Street-based financiers.
I'm very reluctant to call this even a remote possibility in the next 1-2 years, but I (hope that I) may be wrong about that…
Any change must begin with one's self. And the starting point is "desire/want/wish/seek".
The booming easy life post WWII have made you lot soft - and virtue-signaling.
However, I give high marks for your European babes - those real ones!
I have not heard of Euros wanting to kick the USA and UK troops out. In fact, I read pre internet that the Germans positively did NOT want them to leave. The reason? Money!
Sheesh! Why are you posting?! Your poor brain needs some rest!
Anyway, I think you meant "With these areas *now* in Russian hands." (Sorry. I'm worried for your brain, and so I'm hypersensitive to your typos.)
As for this: "If Europeans are smart, they’ll kick out the Americans (and British) while preparing to join the Eurasian juggernaut-in-the-making."
See... I suspect the Americans will pull out of Europe all by themselves before too long. (Of course, "before too long" may mean something like 10 years from now. I don't expect it to happen tomorrow.) As you say, war is expensive, and the Ukrainian side in this current one is mostly being financed by the United States. Except that the Americans' real rival is China, and they won't be able to spend resources on little boutique wars (such as the one in Ukraine) that do little to advance their actual interests all that much longer. The question is: how does Europe adapt to the US departure?
Hi Irena, the thoughts needed to get out (plus I had some time…).
Thanks for spotting the typo; I fixed it, for you're correct about the meaning.
You introduce an interesting notion: I, too, can rather see the US wrecking the place and then pulling out (it's their MO, from Viet nam to Somalia to Afghanistan) before too long. I also think it's more reasonable to count on them leaving rather than being kicked out, for the simple reason of there being plenty of sycophantic European 'leaders' to do the US's bidding.
As for the 'real rival', well, I'm fairly convinced that the top players all work together (think: digital ID, currencies, etc.), even though the seating order may currently undergo a rearrangement. It's four-dimensional chess, or Go (and Westerners suck at both).
As to the question: I suppose, badly.
It's been said that it takes three generations to overcome tyranny and foreign rule, hence we'll probably know around 2070…these notions aside, once the going gets tough, we'll figure this one out, won't we?
Or to sum it up succintly: Huntington was right, and Fukuyama was wrong.
Huntington was even more right since he clearly cut out the two major alternatives for US-western civilisation: to continue to play at empire and being on top as if it was a natural order of things (i.e. the path chosen since 1989-1991) and thus collapse in a rotten heap when the slavic/russian, sino, indian and pan-african civilisations overtake us, or two realise that demography is destiny and act accordingly, safehuarding our territories and maintaining true independence by ensuring domestic production remains strong and in our own hands.
But all US administrations since Bush Sr and Clinton has gone for the Fukyamas, the Greenspans, the Friedmans and other of such ilk which discounts totally that peoples are different and that history is not a linear progression towards more and more similarity.
In Fukuyamas if not his ideas' defence, it must be pointed out that he realised in the mid 2010s that he was wrong; he did start to investigate how using the framing-device of "Why aren't all nations like Denmark?", a very good way to delve into the problem(s) facing us.
As a side note: the swedish Socialist Democrat party is currently, counter to all dignity and tradition, conducting smear camapigns against the new governement here by utilising their personal diplomatic channels to various foreign nations.
Samuel P. Huntington, most famous for his definit work on politics and civilisation post-Cold War era, called 'The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order'.
Ever since the original article, which was then expanded into a very comprehensive book - a real brick - he has been continuously villified and denograted with all the usual epithets. As a student, I and all other doing our two years of pol sci studies were repeatedly told that he was wrong, old-fashioned, racist, and that he didn't understand that the collapse of the East Block "changed everything".
Believe it or not, but I had to go to he dean to have him tell my tutor to "allow" me to read Huntington and do my A and B level practice essays on him. He was that dangerous to the neoliberalist dogma infesting econ, pol sci, sociology, and more insititutions - Fukuyama's "the end of history"-hypothesis was all the rage and The Truth(tm).
Fukuyama's method-question about Denmark is valid; a great many nations have and has had lots better opportunities and starting positions, yet they remain corrupt, defunct and as Trump said: "shithole countries". Fukuyama sets out to try and understand why in his 'The Originas of Political Order' and the second part 'Political Order and Political Decay' (I really recommend both, they are very good) but being american Fukuyama stumbles on the finish line of his own text: he cannot add race/kultur as a part of the explanation. He simply cannot, and I suspect that is due to the consequences it would have for him, and not him not realising the importance of race/kultur.
That is also of course why Huntington still is reviled by many academics in their field: he admits and accepts and take into account that we humans are not cosmopolitan and globalist and that our kultur isn't some commodity to be monetized or a token to be swapped as fancy takes you, but a real powerful factor and source of both interpretations and motivations.
Again, I strongly recommend the above mentioned works of both men. They are well worth the time.
Apart from Rikard's mentions, I'd merely add: everybody who works on 'genetics' (which is basically 'eugenics' rebranded after WW2) understands that there are 'biological-genetic' and 'cultural' differences between humans. (In the US context, that would be the Lord Voldemort notion of bringing up 'race', as Rikard already mentioned.)
The question, then, as to why can't everyone be more Danish--quickly morphs into a debate that has been carefully avoided since WW2, especially in the past 30-odd years. As always, there's a bunch of questions and--'uncomfortable'--answers once one ventures down that particular rabbit-hole, but then again, this Substack isn't a therapy session (apart for me: muahahahahaha)…
It's obvious that genes influence individual outcomes. However, I don't like psychometric fundamentalists such as Jordan Peterson. If you ask him, the way to do hiring is to test job candidates' IQ and personality, and then decide based on that. Do that for a while, and people will get the message, and then you'll get a cottage industry of psychometric test prep, while skills that are actually useful (but take a while to develop) get neglected.
On the question of between-group differences, I found this article highly informative:
He argues (quite persuasively, as far as I'm concerned) that at the *group* level, increases in wealth lead to increases in IQ, and not the other way around.
An attempt to reframe and repackage the importance of race/kultur (which of course is only an issue in the Western nations) is the jokingly named "magic dirt vs. tragic dirt"-divide.
My favourite example these past 20+ years: Norway vs. Venezuela.
If all kulturs are equally valid and worth the same, why isn't Venezuela a powerhouse of economy, when Norway which started out way poorer in 1905 is?
Because Norway is populated by norwegians and Venezueala isn't.
And that answer is akin to Luther's list of grievances.
More on presentism. A lot of this stuff is about trade-offs. Someone I listened to recently (I think it may have been Peter Zeihan on Triggernometry, but maybe I'm misremembering) made the point that Germany had a fantastically productive work force for a while. They accomplished this by, among other things, having tiny families. Indeed, childless employees are, on average, more productive than those with children, and those with just one child are more productive than those with two or three children (to say nothing of those with four or five or six). So, if you start out with a young population, and then have that young population make few babies, then for a while, you have a highly productive workforce and your country becomes quite rich. Except that, oopsie, that large, young, childless generation eventually turns into a large, old, childless generation, and what are you going to do then?
Of course, if you're rich enough, you can fix the problem by importing immigrants. The problem is that those immigrants are quite likely not made to your culture's specifications. After all, if they had been, their countries wouldn't have had all those excess young people to export. Or maybe they would, because their culture is similar to yours, only a generation behind. Okay, fine. Then you can import for a decade or three, and then - oopsie. You have the same problem.
Be careful with presentism. These things change with time. Norway is richer than Venezuela right now, but will this still be the case in 50 years' time? Far from obvious.
Eventually, all curves change, yes, which dosn't prove anything. It's akin to saying change is the only constant.
Venezuela has possibly larger reserves of oil than even Saudi, yet eactly like Saydi they fail to develop their resources on their own, instead being mired in culturally typical infighting and corruption. It was no persians or arabs which developed and exploited the oil in Mesopotamia and neighbouring areas - it was white europeans directing domestic manual labour.
Same all over Africa. The foundation of the entire infrastructure of all african nations were aid during the years spent as colonies. In their own, those peoples never managed to create even a vestige of an industrial base.
Heck, look at Sweden. In 1800 we were impoverished to the point of starvation, technologically behind most of western Europe, and largely agricultural. 1850? We were an industrial nation. 1900, we really got going. 1950? The envy of much of the western world.
Why? Nationalism. Ethnic and cultural homogenity. Low taxes on labour and on domestic trade and exports. A school-system set up to create excellence no matter the background. And secular humanism instead of religious dogma.
Race matters. To discount race due to the evils that various forms of racism has brought about is not helping matters, quite the opposite. To acknowledge and respect the differences, and to set up limits, borders and regulations taking these differences into account is the opposite of racism.
Thank you for the info! About the methodological validity of the "why aren't all nations like Denmark?": oh, sure, I can see how it's valid. It's still really funny.
I very much doubt that race plays any significant role in answering the why-not-like-Denmark question, but culture obviously does, and it's funny that anyone would think otherwise. A lot of people see foreign groups as a lot more homogeneous than they really are, though. Take the category "Muslim." As a group (yes, of course, there's plenty of individual variation), Iranian immigrants in Western countries tend to do very well, whereas this is not really the case with Arabs. Probably, Iranian (Persian) culture is in some important sense closer to West European culture than it is to Arab culture.
Race is the word americans persist in using, muddling things like ethnicity, kultur, race, pigmentation, heritage, religion, and so on into a hodge-podge catch-all describe-nothing term.
Race obviously plays as much a part as does kultur: you can't inbreed for centuries or millennia the way arabs and many african peoples have done without negative consequences. After only two or three generations of first cousin marriage with children, the cousins marrying are closer genetically speaking than parent/child.
And iranians doing very well is not really true: iranians with the right background, ether themselves or their parents under the shah, do very well in general. Those with poor/rural background do not, and the hazar who are not of persian racial heritage but afghani only excel when it comes to crime and destruction. Sweden took in over 9000 hazar from Iran a couple of years back (the iranians only to happy to be rid of them) and they are criminals to a man, lack formal asylum status but were given residency and citizenship by the Socialist Democrat coalition goevernement - even the ones convicted of gangraping small children during their asylum processing.
Race matters, and it matters a lot. Move 50 000 sudanese or somalis into an area it will inevitably become the same shithole they came from, no matter the resurces you lavish on them. Move 50 000 boer or dutch - even from the class of working poor or lumpenproletariat - and they will prosper without being a problem for anyone.
You see, Sweden has now 50 years experience of the pracical consequences of letting certain races into our country: all the "stereotypes" and "prejudice"?
You'd do well to remember that, once upon a time, your Scandinavian ancestors were bloodthirsty savages who terrorized Europe. More recently (much more recently), Germans managed to manufacture hell on earth that not even the Hutu militias have managed to match. Beware of presentism.
Keep in mind that Empires appear the strongest just prior to their collapse. European countries can only get their sovereignty back by slaying EU (a long term imperial project), followed by backing out of “security of organizations”, ECB, etc. Then they can restart European reintegration under non-imperial aims. In every system results are largely predetermined by system’s aims. EU’s aims were always to extend the imperial controls; if this is not self-evident now, it never will be. EU, NATO, ECB,..., all exist to tie Europe to Empire. These aren’t European institutions. The sooner Europeans realize this, the better off they will be. Europe should be free to look and act freely in all geographic directions, under its own terms. European lives depend on this.
You're 110% correct about these aspects, Martin.
As I said, given the sheer amount of integration across the Atlantic, though, this is a very tall task.
Extremely difficult to do, but I see no other real options for Europe. If you wish to live, that is what you will need to achieve. Deceiving yourselves is the worst option of all.
Exactly my thoughts, in particular the thoroughly discredited 'ruling caste'.
I suppose we'll get ourselves new leaders before too long, but they will be quite different from the ones we currently have.
Leaders cannot do much without an overwhelming unified support from the people. That is the key. Otherwise, embedded “security” structures win. Also, the resistance must try to coordinate actions among as many European countries as possible, or they will be defeated by coordinated action from EU, NATO and ECB.
It's a good point, but I doubt it.¨
EU, NATO, and ECB are incapable of doing that, I suppose, for they don't have the power to run roughshod over the people, united. Think: Eastern Europe in 1989 (even though I'd bet that the current crop of 'elites' is much more ruthless than even the former Communists).
I'm also unsure about the coordination: the national state is the framework here, and I think that 'resistance', whatever shape it might ultimately take, will have to be organised along national lines. Perhaps it's time to remember de Gaulle's 'Europe of Many Fatherlands' or the like.
Bottom line, as far as I see it, the multi-letter soups will end for the same reasons the Communist régimes in Eastern Europe collapsed: with reality and and propaganda drifting ever more apart, there's not much credibility left with these institutions; at some point, they may continue to exist, but they will have lost all their real-world impact.
Of course, an early collapse of the imperial center would accelerate everything, but you can’t wait for that to happen before acting. The time for action is now.
Nothing can withstand the pressure of unified people. What I was alluding to is that leaders of one country will have hard time withstanding coordinated pressure form those imperial entities. That is why you need overwhelming people’s support and coordination amongst several key European countries, e.g. Germany, Italy, France, or some other workable combination.
You Europeans better sort this latest mess out pronto! Remember that you lot spawned two major dust-ups in the 20thC, along with other biffs.
To me, it is evident that the forces behind C19 are also behind this mess. It is another chapter of their "Great Game"!
Oh, my, Barry, you overestimate post-1945 Europeans' spine. The last politician (worthy of this epithet) was de Gaulle, but of course we mustn't even think about his vision of a 'Europe of Fatherlands'.
I fear that there's not much Europeans can do, that is, other than take to the streets en masse an kick out the current crop (crap) of 'leaders', followed by kicking out the Americans and British troops, as well as their City of London and Wall Street-based financiers.
I'm very reluctant to call this even a remote possibility in the next 1-2 years, but I (hope that I) may be wrong about that…
You have de Gaulle to rate him > than Churchill?
Any change must begin with one's self. And the starting point is "desire/want/wish/seek".
The booming easy life post WWII have made you lot soft - and virtue-signaling.
However, I give high marks for your European babes - those real ones!
I have not heard of Euros wanting to kick the USA and UK troops out. In fact, I read pre internet that the Germans positively did NOT want them to leave. The reason? Money!
Sheesh! Why are you posting?! Your poor brain needs some rest!
Anyway, I think you meant "With these areas *now* in Russian hands." (Sorry. I'm worried for your brain, and so I'm hypersensitive to your typos.)
As for this: "If Europeans are smart, they’ll kick out the Americans (and British) while preparing to join the Eurasian juggernaut-in-the-making."
See... I suspect the Americans will pull out of Europe all by themselves before too long. (Of course, "before too long" may mean something like 10 years from now. I don't expect it to happen tomorrow.) As you say, war is expensive, and the Ukrainian side in this current one is mostly being financed by the United States. Except that the Americans' real rival is China, and they won't be able to spend resources on little boutique wars (such as the one in Ukraine) that do little to advance their actual interests all that much longer. The question is: how does Europe adapt to the US departure?
Hi Irena, the thoughts needed to get out (plus I had some time…).
Thanks for spotting the typo; I fixed it, for you're correct about the meaning.
You introduce an interesting notion: I, too, can rather see the US wrecking the place and then pulling out (it's their MO, from Viet nam to Somalia to Afghanistan) before too long. I also think it's more reasonable to count on them leaving rather than being kicked out, for the simple reason of there being plenty of sycophantic European 'leaders' to do the US's bidding.
As for the 'real rival', well, I'm fairly convinced that the top players all work together (think: digital ID, currencies, etc.), even though the seating order may currently undergo a rearrangement. It's four-dimensional chess, or Go (and Westerners suck at both).
As to the question: I suppose, badly.
It's been said that it takes three generations to overcome tyranny and foreign rule, hence we'll probably know around 2070…these notions aside, once the going gets tough, we'll figure this one out, won't we?
Or to sum it up succintly: Huntington was right, and Fukuyama was wrong.
Huntington was even more right since he clearly cut out the two major alternatives for US-western civilisation: to continue to play at empire and being on top as if it was a natural order of things (i.e. the path chosen since 1989-1991) and thus collapse in a rotten heap when the slavic/russian, sino, indian and pan-african civilisations overtake us, or two realise that demography is destiny and act accordingly, safehuarding our territories and maintaining true independence by ensuring domestic production remains strong and in our own hands.
But all US administrations since Bush Sr and Clinton has gone for the Fukyamas, the Greenspans, the Friedmans and other of such ilk which discounts totally that peoples are different and that history is not a linear progression towards more and more similarity.
In Fukuyamas if not his ideas' defence, it must be pointed out that he realised in the mid 2010s that he was wrong; he did start to investigate how using the framing-device of "Why aren't all nations like Denmark?", a very good way to delve into the problem(s) facing us.
As a side note: the swedish Socialist Democrat party is currently, counter to all dignity and tradition, conducting smear camapigns against the new governement here by utilising their personal diplomatic channels to various foreign nations.
"Why aren't all nations like Denmark?" Do you know how funny that sounds? :-P
Anyway, I'd never heard of Huntington. I presume this is him (right?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
I have, of course, heard of Fukuyama. A famous author of a famous piece of unintentional comedy.
Samuel P. Huntington, most famous for his definit work on politics and civilisation post-Cold War era, called 'The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order'.
Ever since the original article, which was then expanded into a very comprehensive book - a real brick - he has been continuously villified and denograted with all the usual epithets. As a student, I and all other doing our two years of pol sci studies were repeatedly told that he was wrong, old-fashioned, racist, and that he didn't understand that the collapse of the East Block "changed everything".
Believe it or not, but I had to go to he dean to have him tell my tutor to "allow" me to read Huntington and do my A and B level practice essays on him. He was that dangerous to the neoliberalist dogma infesting econ, pol sci, sociology, and more insititutions - Fukuyama's "the end of history"-hypothesis was all the rage and The Truth(tm).
Fukuyama's method-question about Denmark is valid; a great many nations have and has had lots better opportunities and starting positions, yet they remain corrupt, defunct and as Trump said: "shithole countries". Fukuyama sets out to try and understand why in his 'The Originas of Political Order' and the second part 'Political Order and Political Decay' (I really recommend both, they are very good) but being american Fukuyama stumbles on the finish line of his own text: he cannot add race/kultur as a part of the explanation. He simply cannot, and I suspect that is due to the consequences it would have for him, and not him not realising the importance of race/kultur.
That is also of course why Huntington still is reviled by many academics in their field: he admits and accepts and take into account that we humans are not cosmopolitan and globalist and that our kultur isn't some commodity to be monetized or a token to be swapped as fancy takes you, but a real powerful factor and source of both interpretations and motivations.
Again, I strongly recommend the above mentioned works of both men. They are well worth the time.
Apart from Rikard's mentions, I'd merely add: everybody who works on 'genetics' (which is basically 'eugenics' rebranded after WW2) understands that there are 'biological-genetic' and 'cultural' differences between humans. (In the US context, that would be the Lord Voldemort notion of bringing up 'race', as Rikard already mentioned.)
The question, then, as to why can't everyone be more Danish--quickly morphs into a debate that has been carefully avoided since WW2, especially in the past 30-odd years. As always, there's a bunch of questions and--'uncomfortable'--answers once one ventures down that particular rabbit-hole, but then again, this Substack isn't a therapy session (apart for me: muahahahahaha)…
It's obvious that genes influence individual outcomes. However, I don't like psychometric fundamentalists such as Jordan Peterson. If you ask him, the way to do hiring is to test job candidates' IQ and personality, and then decide based on that. Do that for a while, and people will get the message, and then you'll get a cottage industry of psychometric test prep, while skills that are actually useful (but take a while to develop) get neglected.
On the question of between-group differences, I found this article highly informative:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/race-iq-and-wealth/
He argues (quite persuasively, as far as I'm concerned) that at the *group* level, increases in wealth lead to increases in IQ, and not the other way around.
Ha, excellent--you found Ron Unz, too, who's, at least to my mind, among the smarter people to read.
As to the psychometric prep issue, you're spot-on, I'd say.
An attempt to reframe and repackage the importance of race/kultur (which of course is only an issue in the Western nations) is the jokingly named "magic dirt vs. tragic dirt"-divide.
My favourite example these past 20+ years: Norway vs. Venezuela.
If all kulturs are equally valid and worth the same, why isn't Venezuela a powerhouse of economy, when Norway which started out way poorer in 1905 is?
Because Norway is populated by norwegians and Venezueala isn't.
And that answer is akin to Luther's list of grievances.
More on presentism. A lot of this stuff is about trade-offs. Someone I listened to recently (I think it may have been Peter Zeihan on Triggernometry, but maybe I'm misremembering) made the point that Germany had a fantastically productive work force for a while. They accomplished this by, among other things, having tiny families. Indeed, childless employees are, on average, more productive than those with children, and those with just one child are more productive than those with two or three children (to say nothing of those with four or five or six). So, if you start out with a young population, and then have that young population make few babies, then for a while, you have a highly productive workforce and your country becomes quite rich. Except that, oopsie, that large, young, childless generation eventually turns into a large, old, childless generation, and what are you going to do then?
Of course, if you're rich enough, you can fix the problem by importing immigrants. The problem is that those immigrants are quite likely not made to your culture's specifications. After all, if they had been, their countries wouldn't have had all those excess young people to export. Or maybe they would, because their culture is similar to yours, only a generation behind. Okay, fine. Then you can import for a decade or three, and then - oopsie. You have the same problem.
Be careful with presentism. These things change with time. Norway is richer than Venezuela right now, but will this still be the case in 50 years' time? Far from obvious.
Eventually, all curves change, yes, which dosn't prove anything. It's akin to saying change is the only constant.
Venezuela has possibly larger reserves of oil than even Saudi, yet eactly like Saydi they fail to develop their resources on their own, instead being mired in culturally typical infighting and corruption. It was no persians or arabs which developed and exploited the oil in Mesopotamia and neighbouring areas - it was white europeans directing domestic manual labour.
Same all over Africa. The foundation of the entire infrastructure of all african nations were aid during the years spent as colonies. In their own, those peoples never managed to create even a vestige of an industrial base.
Heck, look at Sweden. In 1800 we were impoverished to the point of starvation, technologically behind most of western Europe, and largely agricultural. 1850? We were an industrial nation. 1900, we really got going. 1950? The envy of much of the western world.
Why? Nationalism. Ethnic and cultural homogenity. Low taxes on labour and on domestic trade and exports. A school-system set up to create excellence no matter the background. And secular humanism instead of religious dogma.
Race matters. To discount race due to the evils that various forms of racism has brought about is not helping matters, quite the opposite. To acknowledge and respect the differences, and to set up limits, borders and regulations taking these differences into account is the opposite of racism.
Thank you for the info! About the methodological validity of the "why aren't all nations like Denmark?": oh, sure, I can see how it's valid. It's still really funny.
I very much doubt that race plays any significant role in answering the why-not-like-Denmark question, but culture obviously does, and it's funny that anyone would think otherwise. A lot of people see foreign groups as a lot more homogeneous than they really are, though. Take the category "Muslim." As a group (yes, of course, there's plenty of individual variation), Iranian immigrants in Western countries tend to do very well, whereas this is not really the case with Arabs. Probably, Iranian (Persian) culture is in some important sense closer to West European culture than it is to Arab culture.
Race is the word americans persist in using, muddling things like ethnicity, kultur, race, pigmentation, heritage, religion, and so on into a hodge-podge catch-all describe-nothing term.
Race obviously plays as much a part as does kultur: you can't inbreed for centuries or millennia the way arabs and many african peoples have done without negative consequences. After only two or three generations of first cousin marriage with children, the cousins marrying are closer genetically speaking than parent/child.
And iranians doing very well is not really true: iranians with the right background, ether themselves or their parents under the shah, do very well in general. Those with poor/rural background do not, and the hazar who are not of persian racial heritage but afghani only excel when it comes to crime and destruction. Sweden took in over 9000 hazar from Iran a couple of years back (the iranians only to happy to be rid of them) and they are criminals to a man, lack formal asylum status but were given residency and citizenship by the Socialist Democrat coalition goevernement - even the ones convicted of gangraping small children during their asylum processing.
Race matters, and it matters a lot. Move 50 000 sudanese or somalis into an area it will inevitably become the same shithole they came from, no matter the resurces you lavish on them. Move 50 000 boer or dutch - even from the class of working poor or lumpenproletariat - and they will prosper without being a problem for anyone.
You see, Sweden has now 50 years experience of the pracical consequences of letting certain races into our country: all the "stereotypes" and "prejudice"?
100% true.
You'd do well to remember that, once upon a time, your Scandinavian ancestors were bloodthirsty savages who terrorized Europe. More recently (much more recently), Germans managed to manufacture hell on earth that not even the Hutu militias have managed to match. Beware of presentism.
Hazar? You mean these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras
I'd never heard of them. They seem to be some sort of ethnic minority in Iran. More Afghan than Persian.
Inbreeding? You mean like in Iceland?