Thread by @CEBKCEBKCEBK

Military dictators ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. Their hardline period was from the ’67 constitution until start of redemocratization in ’74; GDP growth was over 11% per year from 1968 through 1973. The real GDP per capita growth rate was over 5% 1964-1985 & under 1% ever since

https://twitter.com/CEBKCEBKCEBK/status/1745497644066041869

Reza Shah inherited a nation ruined by Islam, created the modern Persian language, increased adult literacy from under 10% to about 50%, & increased real per capita GDP more than eightfold. & now Iran’s real per capita GDP is now lower than it was when theocrats took over in 1979

His family story is interesting—they changed Persia’s name back to Iran & reinvigorated its pre-Islamic traditions & re-centered its pre-Islamic peoples because the Qajar dynasty lost Iran’s historic holy lands—the Caucasus—to Russia. & the Allies tried to occupy & suppress them!

You can find stories like this everywhere, from Chile to Greece: a freedom-loving strongman seizes power on behalf of his national folk, & keeps obscurantist bureaucrats from power so that his people can seek progress; but then the smothering longhouse returns—with globalist help

They’re quite good at fomenting dynamism, futurism, & growth in sectors which don’t affect national security; but they end up with rotten stupid petty kleptocrats controlling national security. Eg Russia’s nationalist turn since 2018 forged a great civil service & awful military.

So they legitimately seemed ready to create an independent & vibrant culture—which was on the verge of embracing embryo selection & so forth. Then corrupt boomersheviks waged an incompetent war & seized ever more control over the national culture to paper over their incompetence.

I’d guess Pinochet, Reza Shah, etc would likewise be *terrible* wartime leaders *precisely because their autocracy was based on militarist pomp*—so perhaps optimal strategy would be just creating an “atomic priesthood” for patronage & prestige (bc nuclear only works as deterrent)

& imo a diversity of nations is what’s best for global growth—especially when military technology favors defense over offense (as in atomic war). Competition at the level of institutions means that you get selection for truth & efficacy—like ~1800 European science & civil society