5th Column Subversion of US Military to Distribute COVID Bioweapon 'Prototype Injectables'...

originally posted by: Grenade


As i said, this is due to immigration policies, the indigenous population is already in decline and the trend is accelerating.

It's been a few decades in America that had real positive growth outside of immigration. One area of concern that wasn't accounted for is the degradation of the family unit and the lack of wanting kids for social reasons and not so much only the economics of affordability. I think this will be like throwing gas on a fire in the increase in depopulation.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The destruction of traditional Christian family units and gender roles is no accident. I have my opinions and beliefs on the matter, but they wouldn't go down too well publicly.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

The conclusions in this thread are finally being reached by the many.
After years of so few of us being ignored and ostracized willingly
because.

Why wouldn't the godless elites of the world look to preserving it for
themselves? Pretty ignorant to not understand that those who
had the power would think this way. They have always considered
their own bloodlines first above the rest for a reason.

DUH!

a reply to: Xtrozero

As someone who’s spent most of half a century in inner urban London this only illustrates to me how data doesn’t always reflect the reality on the ground. It’s a common talking point in London how broken it is.

The breakdown is due to a combination of low investment and ever denser living that’s broke services. Commuting into central London every day for 20 years I watched trains go from all seats taken some days at worse to Japan style cramming into carriages everyday getting to know your fellow commuters far more intimately than anyone wants.

Sheer numbers having rocketed regardless of what numbers on a data sheet dictate to us

a reply to: McGinty

I too work and live in London.

What percentage of your daily interactions are with English speaking British born and bred people?

As i said, immigration is the problem, not the reproduction of the indigenous population.

In Japan, the people cramming the trains are predominantly Japanese. Our culture is being slowly diluted, London being the prime example but by no means unique.

originally posted by: McGinty

Sheer numbers having rocketed regardless of what numbers on a data sheet dictate to us

I would say it is a shift in where people are deciding to live and work. People leave the Suburbs and farther out to "get the good easy job" in the inner city. They get there and it isn't good or easy, but they are unwilling to go back to what is most likely the better life. My point is it isn't so much population growth as the problem, but I'm pretty sure the massive immigration you have seen in the last 15 years is also all inner city too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I moved to England for the education of my children. As soon as he finishes Grammar school we're moving to the Scottish countryside and finding a way to live off a digital income. How exactly that works i'm not sure yet, his expensive education hopefully resolves that conundrum. TBH if i can buy a house outright and live off my land then i'll need very little income to support our lifestyle. Maybe a Starlink subscription and small supply run every month which should be more than affordable.

The inner-city rat-race is a choice, one which most people make willingly. There's plenty of open countryside, should people wish to live a more simple life.

These are Hegel followers more than Nietzsche but yes, they run the DOD which was in charge of epidemic response in case of a national emergency. NDAA 2014 and Patriot Act all moved civilian functions to military, changing definitions to suit and legalizing what we see now. We live under a world-wide military dictatorship backed by the major corporations - true fascism. They didn't lose WW 2 they just changed headquarters and made the world think fascism was gone.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The same families and ideological beliefs have controlled the narrative since long before the birth of Hegel. I'd say Jean-Jacques Rousseau would be a better example of the philosophical beliefs driving our current system of government. We must abide by the social contract of the masses, regardless of who drives the narratives of control. Equality, the common good, blah blah blah. Our military is nothing more than a tool or weapon to monopolise industry. The real battle is for our mind and in the West it's already been lost. A soldier will only fight if he believes in his cause, hence the military is only as strong as the belief which underpins its conquest.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: VulcanWerks

That's nothing do with a lack of resources and everything to do with their allocation.

Like i said, they don't need the labor pool for the new paradigm shift, we have the ability to sustain populations, just not the will.

I’m not sure about the will though.

I don’t disagree there is enough natural resource, but there’s a big difference between “sustaining” and “living”.

Those who need sustaining eventually wildly outnumber those who sustain them as technology advances.

I agree you could “sustain” people, but fear the consequences of doing so. People who are being “sustained” probably aren’t all that happy - particularly when you compare that to those who are “living” and also the ones who sustain those who structurally aren’t needed to sustain a functioning society.

It is that excess and the problems that comes with them (problems in many different forms) that makes this not about “can” but “should” something be done, if we’re thinking along the time scale of pushing humanity forward in a productive and sustainable manner.

I’ve pivoted my thinking away from “is this possible” to “what’s the cut line? The decider of who lives and doesn’t?”

Interesting times.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

We live in a world of excess.

Tribal people, on the fringe of our society appreciate the gifts they're given as acts of god, more than those hypnotized with materialism.

We have enough lands, an understanding of farming and agriculture, an abundance of clay and with nuclear energy all the power we would ever need to sustain populations far beyond our current levels.

The problem isn't keeping people alive and well, it's keeping them happy. In a world of abundance, only the poor man values the life more than money. For an African baby to survive the night you might need to give up your iPhone, but then 1000 people may starve to death should the cobalt mines shutdown. Re-distribution of wealth is being left to the poor to share their limited resources while the rich holiday in space and look down upon us laughing.

I'm by no means a socialist, you get what you deserve and work for. However, rampant profiteering at the expense of millions of starving children should be seen as morally reprehensible. People like Jeff Bezos should be taken to the gallows. It will take a political paradigm shift in order for the masses to rise against the elites of this world, i don't want re-distribution of wealth, i want there to be limitations on the disparity.

There's absolutely no reason for children to starve on this planet, other than greed.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: VulcanWerks

We live in a world of excess.

Tribal people, on the fringe of our society appreciate the gifts they're given as acts of god, more than those hypnotized with materialism.

We have enough lands, an understanding of farming and agriculture, an abundance of clay and with nuclear energy all the power we would ever need to sustain populations far beyond our current levels.

The problem isn't keeping people alive and well, it's keeping them happy. In a world of abundance, only the poor man values the life more than money. For an African baby to survive the night you might need to give up your iPhone, but then 1000 people may starve to death should the cobalt mines shutdown. Re-distribution of wealth is being left to the poor to share their limited resources while the rich holiday in space and look down upon us laughing.

I'm by no means a socialist, you get what you deserve and work for. However, rampant profiteering at the expense of millions of starving children should be seen as morally reprehensible. People like Jeff Bezos should be taken to the gallows. It will take a political paradigm shift in order for the masses to rise against the elites of this world, i don't want re-distribution of wealth, i want there to be limitations on the disparity.

There's absolutely no reason for children to starve on this planet, other than greed.

You touched on the whole issue, IMO - you can’t keep them happy.

Said another way, society does not need the excess people to produce what it needs. So now we need to have them do something. There are things they can do, but, those things probably don’t move the needle regarding standard of living - particularly in the absence of a need for labor.

This is the problem with large numbers - you have many people who become drug addicted, develop mental health issues, criminal behavior, destructive behavior, live off the system, don’t get a formal or otherwise education, have no motivation - and then they procreate at rates higher than the typical “higher income” family. This is a huge chunk of humanity that eventually tips to the majority in developed nations - then we have problems. Problems like we have now.

Regarding your comment about the child in Africa - I agree.

However, before I get rid of my smart phone, maybe we should be talking about the “parents” of said child and the fact that their society has compounded nothing productive for generations, and that child is born into a life that has very low organic or fostered opportunities than a first-world country.

The point is, while the starving child is a sad and material issue, the real issue is the elders of that child and the poor decisions that have been made for a long time - without making material change or progress.

But we don’t talk about that?

Back to the point… the physical ability to feed/house/clothe/etc. is not the logical base-case for a de-populationist…. It comes down to the pragmatic realization that we simply have too many people vs. what we need when we think about all of the issues that come with very large numbers of humans.

originally posted by: Grenade
Re-distribution of wealth is being left to the poor to share their limited resources while the rich holiday in space and look down upon us laughing.

I'm by no means a socialist, you get what you deserve and work for. However, rampant profiteering at the expense of millions of starving children should be seen as morally reprehensible. People like Jeff Bezos should be taken to the gallows. It will take a political paradigm shift in order for the masses to rise against the elites of this world, i don't want re-distribution of wealth, i want there to be limitations on the disparity.

There's absolutely no reason for children to starve on this planet, other than greed.

About what level of wealth should we start to shoot people? Bezos gave 10 billion in 2020, so I'm thinking you need to step up some, and maybe get a second or third job to help starving children too.

What makes one man rich beyond all, provides little to the masses. I did a thing a while back to prove it in I took 90% of the paychecks of the top 20 people at Boeing and spread it out among the workers and it came to like 19 cents per hour raise for them.

If Bezos gave 50 billion tomorrow to starving people in Africa that would be .54 cents per day per starving person for just one year. Did we win?

You might be from England so let's do this differently too just for perspective. If every adult in England gave 20 pounds a month to starving children in Africa it would be a continuous 12 billion per year, 100 pounds would be 60 billion every year. There is power in numbers no matter how rich one person may be.

If we taxed the rich in America 90% it would increase taxation by only 15%.

How about this...

If every 100 households (not people) in England vouched to take care of just one homeless household there would be zero homeless in England.

In LA they have a really bad homeless problem, but if every 45 households took care of just one homeless person they would have none.

The moral of the story is if you suggest shooting the rich because they do not do enough then get ready to shoot everyone else including yourself.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

It is that excess and the problems that comes with them (problems in many different forms) that makes this not about “can” but “should” something be done, if we’re thinking along the time scale of pushing humanity forward in a productive and sustainable manner.

I’ve pivoted my thinking away from “is this possible” to “what’s the cut line? The decider of who lives and doesn’t?”

Interesting times.

Humans are an interesting animal. Our very nature suggests we need challenges and even hard times to fight through. The most subsidized group in America is also still the poorest, the American Indian. The second one is Blacks and also the second poorest. The riches group is also the one with zero subsidized support, Asians...

Provide a living that might downright suck, but works and you will find a sea of fat lazy people willing to do nothing as long as they have some extremely basic needs met. When there are very little support parachutes people have a tendency to get off their asses and work, funny how that works.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: McGinty

I too work and live in London.

What percentage of your daily interactions are with English speaking British born and bred people?

As i said, immigration is the problem, not the reproduction of the indigenous population.

I stopped commuting with lockdown and WFH since then, which is a blessed relief

When I did commute it would be amongst plenty of white English and plenty of non-white English as well as plenty of non-English. It’s London - there may well not be a more internationally diverse city

The draw of London to new arrivals has indeed exacerbated the issues. However the rail trains have become overcrowded with mainly white-English. Of course this doesn’t perfectly reflect London, but it does tell me that white English born are multiplying rapidly, along with other peoples in London.

Growing up many of the girls on the estate would be pushing buggies before finishing school. Then a few more in quick succession. This was because the first kid got them a council flat of their own. Then more after that meant more welfare money and a bigger flat, maybe a house. The cap the Tories put on kids for welfare money was the only thing I’ve agreed with the nasty party on.

In inability and lack of incentive to not manage family sizes responsibly is a human melody that can’t be attributed to colours or creeds. And while immigration is exacerbating this issue in some cities I’ve been to other without immigration issues that are breaking under their own weight.

a reply to: McGinty

The statistics don’t reflect your anecdotes.

a reply to: Grenade

ce la vie