How Mass Immigration Is Driven By Female Consumerism And Low Fertility

A recently released report reveals that a full in 1 in 5 people in the United States are now either immigrants or their children. The growth of the immigrant population has been occurring at a rate of over 350% since 1965. This tidal wave of immigration has inundated the traditional American population, who have been asleep at the switch thinking that having children is either déclassé or an antiquated notion. As a result, they are being demographically replaced in their own nations.

While illegal immigration is a valid issue, it is a scare tactic used by political elites to drive the construction of the police state security apparatus. In reality, legal immigration is a much bigger problem. Yet, the political class on both sides of the aisle have been calling for an even bigger increase of legal immigration. Of the now 61 million people that are immigrants or their children in the United States, a whopping 75% are here legally because of both the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The Consumerism Machine

In order to keep a consumption economy that needs perpetual growth running, the political and economic powers in our society need an ever-increasing population. Declining populations are correlated with recessions and depressions while growing populations are correlated with economic growth. But is continuing to feed a machine that expects perpetual growth with warm bodies worth the costs? The West has lost its culture and is losing its entire society at the altar of consumerism, which has brought about demographic replacement because of radical feminism.

Part of the reason the United States and Europe are importing so many immigrants is feminism has rendered white women statistically sterile. Birth rates are not enough to even sustain the population, much less create an engine of economic growth.

Yes, that's a dog in that baby carriage and not a child

Yes, that’s a dog in that baby carriage and not a child

Feminism encourages women to forgo their biological roles as mothers and to forgo forming families. In the modern age, Western women now marry themselves to a corporation rather than to a strapping young man. As a result, the white population continues to wither away and die in America and in Europe and be demographically replaced. Tragically, women are now looking for child replacements like cats and dogs to silence their maternal instincts.

The Numbers

Women refusing to have families and children requires the flood gates of immigration to be swung open because a consumer economy needs increasing numbers of warm bodies to buy its wares. The effects are illustrated in the graph from NumbersUSA below. Low fertility and mass immigration are leading to irreversible demographic change in the United States and Europe. The proportion of immigrants is only expected to rise this century.

It is easy to see how this will cause further division among the already polarized American populace. The specter of further polarization rings especially true when combined with a political system that operates through division, dividing people up into ever more splintered groups and subgroups that then compete with one another for government affection and gibsmedats.

Of the nearly 600 million people in the U.S. by 2100, only 250 million or less will be descended from Americans who did not immigrate to the country after 1970. Real demographers knew the world we are in now was coming decades ago, but nothing was done to avert replacing traditional Americans with immigrants.

Americans of all ethnicities are increasingly becoming strangers in their own culture to feed perpetual economic growth

Americans of all ethnicities, with family who lived in the country before 1970 are increasingly becoming strangers in their own culture to feed perpetual economic growth

It seems in today’s world, destroying national sovereignty and cultures to turn people into shopping fools is an acceptable strategy by government in service of the corporate bottom line. This idea is nothing new, as it was developed into a screenplay 40 years ago in the 1976 drama Network:

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

Two generations later, the warnings in this film ring truer than ever when it comes to the world populace being placed into an figurative ethnic blender in service of an economic waste machine. Cultures are lost, nations are lost, but people can buy lots of shiny things they do not need.

Free Market

read-george-soros-on-why-china-is-the-worlds-biggest-story-right-now

The need for mass immigration to the West has been caused by feminism, and feminism was designed by a collusion of corporate and government interests to take women out of the home and turn them into corporate cogs and taxpayers. The rise of corporate monopolies and the disproportionate power they (using their government servants) exert over the lives of the average person is a corruption of the free economic market.

In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.

That said, Adam Smith himself warned about the dangers of a completely unregulated market. Smith knew that a completely unregulated market would see the rise of monopolies (like today’s corporate monopolies) and was therefore not free. Government imposition is a dangerous thing when it comes to economies, but it is sometimes necessary. The problem is instead of preventing monopolies as it should, the government has aided and abetted them.

One of the problems created by the unchecked consolidation of corporations, in addition to the issue of converging interests corrupting government and subverting the will of the people on matters like immigration, is wage gutting.

The left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the people

The left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the people

Wage Gutting

Corporate interests support increasing legal immigration even further, which has one major benefit for them: cheap labor.

One of the biggest pushes in the past few years has been to drastically increase the number of legal foreign workers in the United States. Executives like Mark Zuckerberg are calling for major increases in the H1B “temporary” worker visa program. This is because of a supposed tech worker shortage. However, the idea of a tech worker shortage has largely been created out of whole cloth by Zuckerberg and his ilk in Silicon Valley. Even the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a legacy media newspaper pointed out the hypocrisy of the tech industry’s claims:

When compensation in these fields is declining, along with benefits and security, bright students understandably look elsewhere for their future. Companies then use the predictable data to create a doomsday scenario to justify expanding the number of H-1B visas.

It’s a vicious circle.

So no, Zuckerberg, there is no true tech worker shortage. There is a shortage of citizens willing to work for third-world wages in the United States.

This is yet another example of the corporate-government complex at work. The tech industry doesn’t want to pay workers what they are worth, so they lobby Congress for increasing immigration to suppress wages. The government then enacts immigration laws and regulations favorable to the tech industry, shafting the American citizen.

Executives like Zuckerberg also claim to be champions of the environment. However, in addition to unchecked immigration destroying national sovereignty, it also harms the environment.

Environmental Impact

If the powers that be really wanted to save the planet, they would not be demographically replacing populations of Western nations to feed the consumerism waste machine.

women are responsible for 80% of the consumer economy in the United States. A full $1.2 trillion of this spending is on non-essential goods; things people do not really need.

4 out of 5 purchasing decisions are made by women, driving 80% of consumerism

As pointed out in my previous article on Global Warming or Global Government, women are responsible for 80% of the consumer economy in the United States. A full $1.2 trillion of this spending is on non-essential goods; things people do not really need.

As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, if there was truly an effort to end overconsumption to solve the problem of global warming (not to mention the other issues mentioned above) world leaders would be saying the following about fiat currency and central banking:

We must end fiat currency, we must end central banking around the world. Because central banking and the continued overprinting of currency and the taking on of national debt is causing a vast overconsumption of nature’s scarce resources. [This] should be the central and fundamental and irrefutable argument for ending central banking and returning to a gold standard.

In short, fiat currency causes overconsumption. The need for fiat currency is caused by an economy that caters to women, who make 4 out of 5 purchasing decisions in a consumerism-driven waste economy. And the economy is supported by population growth which is no longer occurring in traditionally white nations since the feminist movement. It’s the perfect storm.

There have been warnings going back thousands of years in Western literature about the societal costs of not giving women proper direction. This is perhaps illustrated nowhere better than this type of economy cannibalizing Western civilization. Proverbs 31:3 is a good example of this ancient wisdom:

Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings.

Men Failed As Guardians

Men really have only ourselves to blame (and our parents and grandparents for not stopping the snowball before it started.) First, for letting women run wild and second for not keeping liberalism in check. As pointed out in a recent Chateau Heartiste article:

Conservatives need liberals for their creativity and (usually) aesthetic lifestyle sensibilities. Liberals need conservatives for their guardianship and wisdom. Too few liberals, and conservative society can become static and self-satisfied. Too few conservatives, and liberal society can become self-destructive.

In this view, conservatives are the more crucial linchpin to civilization. Without liberals, we might have worse movies and fewer charming coffee shops. But without conservatives, we might have no civilization at all, having handed over the keys to the White kingdom to babbling barbarians.

In normal historical cycles, the warrior would ascend in times of decadence and social disconnection to bring balance to the force. But these are not normal times. Feminism, the ideological spawn of Satan and his thousand reptilian succubi, thwarts the natural ascendancy of the warrior class, allowing the shitlib devolution to continue unhindered and unchecked.

The so-called Greatest Generation rolled the dice one too many times when they let the government construct the welfare state, promulgate radical feminism, and open the door to unchecked immigration in the hopes it would bring about a sort of Utopia. As Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell points out:

Much of the history of the Western world over the past three decades has been replacing what worked with what sounded good.

This really only leaves a couple of hanging questions. Although they’re questions that when answered will tie up all the loose ends of the societal degradation and tidal wave of immigration we are witnessing.

Is the self-destruction of Western society occurring purely organically, as Spengler predicted…or is it occurring because of (or perhaps accelerated by) forces that while not directly conspiring, do have vested interests in preserving their power and wealth which are antithetical to the interests of the citizens they are sworn to serve? And, how does one balance economic growth with the desire to maintain the integrity of a sovereign nation?

Read More: Leftists Go Crazy Over Donald Trump’s Call To Ban Muslim Immigration

389 thoughts on “How Mass Immigration Is Driven By Female Consumerism And Low Fertility”

  1. I always thought the root cause of mass third world immigration in the USA was from the left’s desire to keep control by stacking the deck of voters with people who will forever need help from government.

    1. Keep in mind also that the Ponzi scheme which is Social Security needs a constant growing population of working getting their taxes witheld…Millennials sitting in Mom’s basement contribute nothing to Social Security, but newly green carded immigrants at McDonald’s DO.

  2. “The left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when
    in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the
    people”
    That is so raping spot on.

    1. I’ve been saying this for the longest time. The left and right antagonism was created so that the people won’t unite to challenge those on top. People need to wake up.

      1. I agree. On here as on other forums, a lot of the political commentary builds this picture that left is way to the left near communism and right is way to the right dog eat dog capitalism and survival of the fittest/wealthiest. Like they are miles apart, but I think they are a lot closer these days, a bit each side of the center and many people are left on social causes and right on economics. The country still continues in the same basic direction after each election in regards to these issues.
        In my country at election time both parties make a big fuss over who is tougher on illegal immigration. Legal immigration barely gets talked about and the illegal part is just a fraction of that. I would love to see a referendum on immigration policy, but we wont. My govt is throwing $ into promoting multiculturalism and and it has not changed with either party in power. Terrorism has been a great sideshow distraction for the last 15 years from domestic issues while also allowing for greater govt powers and beefed up police and citizen surveillance. I really can’t see these issues being reversed in the near future. Its not getting headlines, people are not marching in the streets and even if they were, the wishes of big business take precedence over the citizens these days when it comes to the national interest. Most citizens are not going hungry and they have their netflix, xbox, iphones, reality tv shows, and shopping for cheap stuff from China to now to keep them occupied.

      2. Same reason the allies of WW2 had no problem cooperating with the communists against the Axis. Yet today they won’t work togeather with the russians in the middle east as they are not commies anymore.

    2. Except for one thing:
      A corporation has to ASK you to associate with it, pretty please.
      The government TELLS you you WILL associate or be put in a cage or killed.

      1. And that is all the difference. Big corporations don’t raise my taxes. Big corporations don’t prohibit construction of housing and transportation to raise my rent to back breaking levels. Big corporations don’t send their niggers into my neighborhood to rob, assault, rape, and kill my neighbors, teachers, and friends. Big corporations don’t demand that cunts, niggers, sand niggers, mountain niggers, and spics get hired to do no work while I am expected to bear all of their loads and if I slip once I get canned.
        Government does. And then expects me to smile and say “Please, may I have some more”.

      2. Very true. However, the government is paid for by corporations. Politicians are nothing more than the cheap prostitutes of their corporate paymasters. They finance elections, the power structure (in which government officials rotate in and out of corporate boardships) determines who the candidates are…they have all the money and power. A good example of this is the pharmaceutical industry.
        Corporations have become the monopolies Adam Smith warned us about. There are so many barriers to entry for the average person to start a business that most of the population must supplicate to the corporate plantation to make a living. They literally own everything that is important. Power is concentrated in the hands of too few people in the economy.

        1. A monopoly cannot form without a government to enable it with rules and regulations. It’s too easy to undercut and destroy them.
          Government is the foundation that, if removed, the whole rotten edifice will tumble.

        2. Is not the answer then to get rid of excessive Government, so there no one to bribe in the firsts place.
          It seems easier than to try an fight the corporations themselves.

        3. That’s going for the bottleneck… if you want to cut the head off corporations you need a billion arbitrary rules for a billion people who are each going their own way. But if you want to cut the head off government, it’s one quick stroke in one quick place.
          Engineers know that you fix the bottleneck first.

    3. Fear not. The sky is darkening and a new era is being ushered in. The relative chaos of instinct and personal decision will lay brutal waste to the sickening, cowardly call for protection in all its hideous forms. Today man seeks freedom: freedom from the all-pervasive lies of media, government; freedom from that nanny culture, telling him when and where he can eat, drink, speak; freedom even from a rationality, hijacked by liars, used to coerce, control, and eventually destroy. Today we must look not at the passive Jesus upon the cross – we have made too many sacrifices already, all greatness in the world has been the result of our sacrifice – but instead we must turn our attention to the Jesus brandishing the whip, driving the money lenders from the temple.

    4. I don’t want to be the urban asshole to come and say it but I’ve been yapping about this shit since I found ROK. I hate to say it, but I TOLD YOU SO. Be thankful that some of those corporateurs are actually citizens of said nation ( born and bread ) whereas we have parts in Europe ( Romania ) that have been infiltrated at every single level of decision – read that again until you understand the gravity.

    5. Smith knew that a completely unregulated market would see the rise of
      monopolies (like today’s corporate monopolies) and was therefore not
      free. Government imposition is a dangerous thing when it comes to
      economies, but it is sometimes necessary.

      This is entirely incorrect. Monopolies require government intervention to exist.

      1. not always …. sometimes a monopoly can be created by a company buying all of it’s competition or driving them into bankruptcy.
        sometimes governments can create monopolies

        1. In reality that cannot happen. No company can buy all of its competition or drive them into bankruptcy. The reason is that new innovations occur constantly and no one company can keep up. Kill all the competition and twice as much competition will spring up in its place. Its like trying to weed your garden by hand.

        2. Standard Oil founded by Rockefeller
          Became a monopoly by controlling over 90% of production but also the means to transport the oil.
          The government forced it be broken up

        3. I’m sure the story is a lot more complicated than that. I’m not saying you’re wrong but I find that once you scratch beneath the surface the story is not what we think it is.
          For example, I never bought the “break-up Microsoft” argument either.

        4. sometimes monopolies are created by government, but sometimes they are created by a party gaining a dominant position in the free market…

        5. I don’t think that having a dominant position constitutes a monopoly. If a company produces a superior good at a price lower than its competitors I don’t see the problem. In any case, this situation never persists… sooner or later a new company will come to the fore and beat the old mature company. Check out the theory of company life cycle and industry/market life cycle.

        6. oil is a commodity, not a product that can be copied…if you buy up all the oil fields and all the transport for it, as standard did you can create a monopoly

        7. And Rockefeller himself realized that HE made so much more money with the break-up he would have don it years-ago.

  3. In point of well-verified historical fact, as a society industrializes and urbanizes, its aggregate birth rate drops toward replacement level. Moreover, because of the cancerous expansion of all first world governments, the cost of a child — which, because of industrialization and urbanization, has become a luxury acquisition — has risen very high, perhaps discouragingly high for all but the best off. So there are more factors involved in the reduction of white Americans’ fertility rate than merely consumerism.
    Add this as well: women without children will occupy their minds and hands with something else. So the consumerism that attends the lowered birth rate isn’t necessarily its cause, but rather a correlated development that might owe more to the influences mentioned above.

    1. You’re not just paying to raise your kids; you’re paying to raise the kids of the bums, mooches and parasites who refuse to pull their own weight.

      1. My mother told me a story — she has friends in England and when she went to go visit, they pointed out their daughters were all shacking up with their children’s fathers (unmarried) in government housing…no bother working, no bother being married….you get ‘more’ from being ‘on the dole’ than from so called ‘honest’ work…not to mention that housing costs make buying your own home, even if you had a job, next to impossible — they see the immigrants get it all ‘free’ so they just throw in the towel and do the same. Progress!

        1. “on the dole’ than from so called ‘honest’ work” Yeah, that’s why people who work in European countries are taxed to the heavens. Someone has to pay for the idle class…can work, won’t work fraternity, but, that’s where we differ from the States.

    2. A child does at some level seem to the western mind like an accessory like a pet or trendy appliance… Need to reframe this

    3. That’s only IF you had an imbalance with the workforce like when they introduced public education

  4. Strange how when you look at modern history there’s too many coincidences for this all to be coincidental.

  5. You guys are so unfocused, disorganized and unable to solve the source of the problem. Moreover, most of you fail to see the opportunities that become available.
    1- Your problem is FEMINISM
    2- You need to focus and deal with this feminism problem without getting distracted with LEGAL immigration.
    3- Legal immigration opens up an opportunity to restore the Patriarchy because most of these immigrants are from Patriarchal societies – Their increased numbers also increase the number of people who are pro-patriarchy. Take advantage of that!
    4- When you are so disorganized and want to fight more battles on different fronts at the same time, you will lose. Instead focus on the single most important enemy: Feminism.
    5- The reason you NEED immigration is because your population is in decline because of Feminism which makes women utterly useless in reproduction. You need birth rate of more than 2.1 Solve that!

    1. That’s the problem. Legal immigrates have the damnest time trying to get into this country, but the government wants to mass ship people into this country that don’t want to adapt and become Americans or Europeans. But rather have the country adapt to them instead.

      1. You need legal immigration because the economy cannot be sustained with a declining population. It’s either that or another great depression like 1930s.

        1. If you lowered the taxes on the local population, took away hedonism, and gave greater incentives to have and raise families, the population would rise and you won’t need to import lowered IQ people into the general populous.

        2. Yes for the most part! You are describing FEMINISM. The part about IQ does not make sense. For example, Asians have higher IQ than whites.
          Instead of whining like emasculated males, get ride of feminism!

        3. Yes but you don’t see the governments of the US and European countries bringing in millions of highly educated and intelligent people into their population.

        4. They do. It’s called skilled labor immigration. I have high level degrees and because of that I will not have a problem immigrating to any developing country such as Brazil or Israel. All countries do that. US and Europe have a serious birth rate problem because of feminism. And, that’s why they take in more immigrants. If they don’t there will be dire economic consequences.
          Your problem is white feminist bitches are too stupid you would not want to have children with them anyway. Immigration brings better women too. Opportunities are always available.

        5. …oh we are already there…and the Elite are all filled with glee at how the robots are coming, which will put no less than 50% of the population (minimum) out of work.

    2. 1 – Yup.
      2 – I’m fine with LEGAL Immigrants.
      3 – …and I agree they’ll help dismantle the PC feminist crap.
      4 – No, we need to go after PC first…the freaking Feminists will unleash all the forces of hell if they see us coming (like with the meetups)
      5 – Abortion, birth control, child custody/alimony laws which favor the mother, welfare. lack of spiritual guidance, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus.

    3. Yes, I agree, all the immigration stuff is a distraction from the real issues IMHO. Besides, if you want a homogeneous society, you can still have immigrants, just use your strong patriarchy to socially shame your daughters from mixing with them, and you get the best of both worlds.
      I also agree that the average immigrant is a more traditional, moral, and patriarchal person that the average American already living here, so I am typically a fan of immigrants (it doesn’t hurt that I love Latinas). In my younger leftist days I was always confused when I mentioned certain things to the immigrant cab driver, restaurant owner, etc. and found out they were almost universally patriarchal and conservative.
      But I disagree with point 5. We don’t “need” any certain number of people (beyond say 100 or so) for a society to function. The only reason the west “needs” immigrants today is a financial one–there is no other way to fund the debt payments to China.

  6. Yes, there are a lot of factors behind mass immigration. Most of those factors, as the author pointed, are economic.
    However, that is the first layer, the real agenda behind mass inmigration is demographic change. You dont see mass immigration of swedes into Brazil or french (real ones, not kebabs with french passport) into Colombia. It is mass immigration of non whites into white countries the trend encouraged.
    Look at the demographic change in the US population, now the white people are a minority in their country. Who were/are the promoters of mass non white immigration into the US?
    Look at Europe, in two generations the non whites will outbreed the white people. Who are the promoters of this?
    Yes, it is the Tribe. If you deny this fact you are only afraid to be called antisemite.

    1. kniebolo, which is more likely –
      1. A decades-long conspiracy has been pushing anti-white demographic trends. The Jews have been leading this conspiracy, even though they’ve been subject to scrutiny for ages. Finally, their whole ethnic group is part of the conspiracy without any notable defectors.
      Or:
      2. People move to the place that gives them the best economic odds, and do so when they’re allowed in – or try anyway when they’re desperate enough.
      You’re looking for conspiracies when none are needed.

      1. Sorry but when the accussed confess and brag about their deeds, rationalisations are just empty words. Of course economic and social conditions favor the current situation, however feminism as well as the mass immigration push were organized, not coincidences.

      2. You are a) very naive, b) very stupid, or c) your 26 comments since 2013 are being paid by Cass or any related entity.

  7. It’s not just women who “humanize” pets, I mean, companions. Men do it too, as this Swiffer ad shows us how this man does anything for the comfort of his dogs. Of course there’s other ways to keep a clean house, like I dunno, KICK THE DAMN DOGS OUT!
    https://youtu.be/NQbXKDdentc

  8. “In normal historical cycles, the warrior would ascend in times of decadence and social disconnection to bring balance to the force. But these are not normal times. Feminism, the ideological spawn of Satan and his thousand reptilian succubi, thwarts the natural ascendancy of the warrior class, allowing the shitlib devolution to continue unhindered and unchecked”
    Mythology perennially depicts Satan as humanity’s liberator… he knows our weakest points are our senses, our sense of place, our sense of values, our sense history, our sense of difference, our sense of identity, ostensibly our sense of being…which has been undermined over the last 50 years through everything from over dependence on communication’s technology, unfettered sexual liberation, continuous mass immigration, consumerism as the religion of choice, and egalitarianism that’s dumbing down cultural standards across the education systems.
    Whether one actually believes in a constituted and active force like the Devil is immaterial to workings of this force which, natural, mythical or cosmic, is as ancient as we are. Looking at recent developments he’s been busy, but undoubtedly his trump card was using radical feminism to emasculate the warrior element that was always problematic for this force’s working who could rise up and restore the societal balance in the past. Now he’s solved this impediment too and no doubt he’ll be playing his Trump card over the coming months.

    1. “Mythology perennially depicts Satan as humanity’s liberator.”
      Satan / Lucifer (who may or may not be the same personality / force, depending on who you speak to) has tended to be associated with ‘progress’, most explicitly since the 19th century occult revival, but arguably for rather longer than that (garden of eden / prometheus). Satan’s greatest trick may well have been to persuade us that he does not exist, but Lucifer’s greatest PR triumph has been to convince us that he stands for man, and is as you say ‘humanity’s liberator’.

      1. Goethe’s Mephistopheles is a great example of the Devil as our savior and liberator. He plays our hot desires like lust and pride against our cold and more deadly desires like envy, cynicism and lack of empathy towards others like a ripe hand of cards at the poker table.

        1. I read Faust – at least the first part – when I was a teenager – but don’t remember it that well. I will need to re-visit it. I also need to read Paradise Lost

  9. Its not “corporations”, or “feminism” or “chemtrails”, idiots.
    Its driven by international jewry.

      1. In fact, yes.
        If you do some serious research there is always, always, a jew behind everything that is wrong with the world.

        1. If you mean Zuck the Cuck, Sumner Redstone, George Soros, and all their retainers then yes, I agree with you…but “Josh & Ruth” down at the synagogue aren’t connected to it and are getting screwed over like the rest of us…hell at this point they just want their son to not come home from college with a newly acquired taste for penis or their daughter getting knocked up before she’s done with high school.

        2. Im going to give you an example:
          In the WWII not all the germans were in the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe or the Waffen SS, right? the owner of a restaurant in Berlin was not in the front shooting his Mauser or his STG 44, but he was paying his taxes, and his taxes were for the war effort.
          Josh & Ruth down at the synagogue are not promoting feminisn or liberalism or manipulating the media BUT
          1. Josh make his contributions to his community, and this money goes to the ADL or the State of Israel, who in turn does what?
          2. Josh & Ruth believe in his people, in his culture, and in his “values” and they consider that a normal and healthy white values are dangerous to them because everything could lead to….a new holocaust! yes, even Donald Trump (with his jewish nieces).
          3. Every jew has a moral obligation to support his community, and if his community ask for help, he must answer. How do you think the Mossad operates? they have a little number of agents but they can ask for the help for evey jew in every country.

        3. But if you try to talk to Josh and Ruth about this, they will scream “anti-semite” to your face.

        4. Count on it. It’s worldwide now. Being labelled as an anti-semite is the most nasty thing to be called in the media. Read that again – it’s worldwide- the paces have been set into motion, the international enemy of the j3w – the nationalist tribesman – is being cut out from history as we speak by being outbred by sand-people. ,,To find out who the rulling power in your country is, found out who you’re not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire

      2. “Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”

  10. All your western white males problems would be solved if you all converted to Islam. Your sluts would become decent wives devoted to the happiness of your family, most people would marry (no sex outside marriage if you’re a muslim), leading to more babies and no further need to import immigrants from third world countries. Plus the structural debt crippling the economy would end (lending money with interests is forbidden in Islam).
    Seriously guys, you should consider it.

    1. I have always been an advocated of adopting a lot of principles of Islam. All this media propaganda you see about terrorists and crap is just to turn the west away from the red pill truth that Islam is actually the best form of life. No more women on the cock carousel, patriarchy is back, women are finally respected for taking on their true roles as mothers, and men go to work to provide for their loving family. That is the real Islam. Not this Middle Eastern sex deprived violent douchebag crap.

      1. Exactly. What’s hilarious about this site is that they hate muslims but what they want looks a lot like the sharia that you get from the Quran. ( That’s because Christianity and Islam are much closer than they think.)

        1. I agree. This site seems to portray this message that is analogous to Islam, but yet they hate on Muslims. It’s really funny to me. You want patriarchy, you want a virgin wife who’s not been on the cock carousel, and you want to restore family values. No other religion does it better than Islam. Is it no surprise then that the basis of this article is that immigrant population that are non-whites is soaring while the anglo-saxon population is diminishing. If Anglo-Saxons adopted the principles of Islam, their population would be soaring. But what you have is homosexuality, feminism, and diversity appreciation taking over. Islam could have solved that for you guys.

        2. not so sure about islam and christianity being all that close. have you read the quran? i read an english translation (don’t know arabic, unfortunately) and it goes to great pains to emphasize that christ is not the son of god, and that allah is a being so incomprehensibly advanced that he cannot be considered a father in any sense. it’s a very different concept of god, and of man’s relationship with divintiy. i think it speaks to great differences between the two religions, even if on the surface many concepts seem similar. for example, i can’t think of any equivalent in christianity to the quran’s approval of lying to non-believers to advance the cause of islam.

        3. “You want patriarchy, you want a virgin wife who’s not been on the cock carousel, and you want to restore family values. No other religion does it better than Islam.”
          Look up the stats for inbreeding in Islamic countries. 1400 years of it and that genetic damage compounding with each generation.
          https://pickeringpost.com/story/the-cost-of-islamic-incest/1316
          Today, 70% of all Pakistanis are inbred and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30% (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2
          2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants“).
          A rough estimate reveals that close to half of everybody living in the Arab world is inbred.
          A large percentage of the parents that are blood related come from families where intermarriage has been a
          tradition for generations.
          A BBC investigation in Britain several years ago revealed that at least 55% of the Pakistani community in Britain was married to a first cousin.
          http://i.imgur.com/I5dEUIn.png

        4. I meant closer than most people think, but of course there are differences, otherwise it would be the same religion. The reason the Quran insists on Jesus not being the son of God is not an attack on Jesus : he is considered a messiah, and it is him who comes back on Judgement day, not Mohammed. So Jesus is a very important prophet for Muslims, they just don’t accept to make him literally the son of God. He’s a great man, but ultimately he’s just a man and he himself never said otherwise. Just try to prove that he’s the son of God, or a God, by using the four canonical gospels and you’ll see how problematic it is. I’ll just quote you this from Mark 12, 29, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one”, and just after that: “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.” Well this is literally the profession of faith in Islam. So you see, maybe Islam isn’t so different from the teachings of Christ than you think.
          Now about your last sentence, I don’t know where you got that the Quran approves of lying to advance the cause of Islam, but it’s wrong, and you either say this in bad faith or you’ve been deceived. Lying is a sin, period. There are however circumstances under which the lie is forgivable (not “approved of”), it’s called taqiya ; for instance when your life or your safety are at risk, then you can lie because death would be a greater harm. The spirit of the Quran is always to preserve life (yours and others’) over blindly obeying the rules (something many Muslims forgot, unfortunately).
          And is that really different for Christians? Didn’t Peter denied knowing Jesus three times? Didn’t Jesus forgive him? Didn’t he even made him the “stone” on which he would build his church?

        5. If one steps back and takes a critical view at all the major religions, they are all (necessary and important, IMHO) systems of control for the people, instilling a sense of values, sex norms, and morals that enable us to get along better. Islam, being founded later than Christianity, is somewhere near where Christianity was in the Middle Ages (ie still a lot of violence and problems to work out). Not that modern Christianity is a shining example of perfection!
          And it makes sense that different cultures would come up with the same basic rules (fasting to encourage piety, don’t be a glutton, don’t steal, don’t cheat on your spouse) but that the form would be slightly different.
          And yes, the views on Jesus by Islam above are true.

        6. i remember one specific passage about lying to infidels, because it stood out so starkly. “what? shall we deal with unbelievers as with the faithful?” it started. i remember that even though it was years ago. this page gets into lying to infidels for the cause of islam in more detail:
          http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
          don’t get me wrong, i’m well travelled and have met many muslims who seemed like fine people. the thing that gets me about islam though is that every time a muslim murders or rapes a nonbeliever, other muslims’ immediate reaction is to defend islam. little if any sympathy is expressed for the victims.
          not sure if you’re muslim yourself, but it sounds like you might be. what’s your opinion on the sex slavery of white british girls that went on for years at the hands of degenerate muslim criminals in rotherham, UK? or the rapes and sexual assualts of german women in cologne and other german cities on new year’s eve? if i remember correctly the quran authorizes muslim men to use conquered infidel women as sex slaves. seems to me that a lot of the “refugees” in europe see themselves as conquers and therefore justify treating native women that way.

        7. Ok, I see where your representation of Islam is coming from now. Muslims “seem like fine people”, but it’s just lies (because, according to a perfectly unbiased website, the Quran approves of lies) and as soon as we’re behind closed doors, we eat babies, rape little girls and drink the blood of our enemies, is that it? Nevermind the countless surahs and hadiths that explicitly condemn lies, hypocrisy, false oaths, perversity and cruelty, they’re just here to deceive the infidels, right? Nevermind that the Quran encourages muslims to free slaves – and the prophet Muhammad eventually freed all his slaves – in a time and place where it was common practice, we’re just slaveholders at heart and we all have british white girls in our basement ready to ship to the Levant, innit?
          If that’s how you see Islam, there’s not much I can say to convince otherwise, because you’ll dismiss it as another lie. But if you’re sincere in your inquiry, just read the surahs you linked to (not the biased interpretation), and ask yourself what is the purpose of the lie in each case: is it to “advance the cause of Islam” (how is that supposed to work anyway?) or is it to protect oneself and other muslims when in a hostile environment? I’ll let you decide.

        8. again, not a word of sympathy for your co-religionsts’ victims and for their suffering. just histrionics and more defending islam. i was actually vaguely considering converting a few years ago when i read the quran, but the completely different concept of god turned me off. no hard feelings toward the religion at the time, but the more i notice your attitude towards nonbelievers, the more negative my impression becomes. tell me this, how do you explain the surge in rape and sexual assault in sweden and germany that’s happened since letting in massive numbers of muslims? given that, and the occasional mass murder your fellow believers commit, why should we welcome mass islamic immigration and have a positive attitude towards islam?

        9. I thought my position was obvious, it didn’t even cross my mind that I had to spell it out. Of course I condemn criminals, rapists and murderers. Of course the victims have my sympathy, I feel much closer to them than the low life scum who perpetrate the horrors you described. And don’t make me say what I didn’t, I never said you should welcome mass islamic immigration, I just said, half-trollingly, that if occident converted to islam, it would solve the problems evoked in the article (I’m actually surprised at how well my suggestion was received).
          But you also obviously want to inextricably tie islam to the crimes commited, so I’m just trying to show you how it’s completely absurd from my point of view. To be perfectly clear, I’m not saying that it’s impossible to interpret the quran in a way that suits warmongers and terrorists, I’m saying that it makes much more sense to interpret it as a book that promotes tolerance, humanity, wisdom and, yes, peace. And finally I’m not asking you to have a positive attitude toward islam, but suggesting to give it a fair examination before having any attitude. If you did that and still have negative feelings for this religion and those who practice it, that’s fine by me.

        10. reasonable reply. i used to be very religious, so i understand being deeply emotionally tied to your religion. you probably don’t even see yourself rushing to islam’s defense whenever muslims commit yet another act of mass rape or murder, or how bad it looks to those of us who would rather our daughters won’t have to wear the hijab to be safe when they leave the house in the future. i think one thing you’re failing to understand is that, in spite of what ROK’s enemies would say, we’re strongly opposed to (real) rape here. islamic culture does not seem to be, and if you’re going to argue that it is, you’ll have to explain new years eve in cologne, the sex slavery in rotterham, why sweden is now the rape capital of the west, etc.

        11. and you keep insisting that islam is the cause of these crimes instead of blaming the criminals. I can see many other factors for their behaviour : lack of morals, stupidity, herd mentality, alcohol, sexual frustration, psychopathy, bad upbringing, hormones, deficient education, anger, depression, envy, materialism, perversion, sadism, resentment, savagery, psychiatric troubles, etc.; and whenever some sort of religious right is pretexted (which to my knowledge is only done by terrorists) : really poor comprehension skills and manipulation by warmongers.
          The Quran does not say to rape or hurt women who do not wear the hijab; stupid men do, and yes there are a lot of them.
          So blame the men, good, I’m with you. You can even blame what you call “islamic culture”, that is to say cultures and traditions of countries inhabited by muslims (not the same as islam). But if you want to blame the religion, please provide proof that it promotes rape. And again, be fair in your assessment, do not only read the arguments of islamophobes.
          I suggest this for instance :
          http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_

        12. “lack of morals, stupidity, herd mentality, alcohol, sexual frustration,
          psychopathy, bad upbringing, hormones, deficient education, anger,
          depression, envy, materialism, perversion, sadism, resentment, savagery,
          psychiatric troubles”
          if islam produces this, why should we should we view it as positive. again, sweden before mass islamic immigration was one of the safest countries in the world. now it is the rape capital of the west, and police in some areas tell women not to go out at night. this only happens when muslims arrive en masse. do we really need more evidence?

        13. you sound like a broken record. Islam doesn’t produce any of this, if correctly applied, it would generate less of it on the contrary. Why it did for many centuries and doesn’t anymore is another question entirely.

        14. we’re not so concerned about islam centuries ago, but about the rapes and murders islam inspires now. again, if you wonder why westerners have a negative impression of your religion, look at how you’re more interested in defending your religion than fixing it or expressing any sympathy for its victims.

      2. Why do you always think religion will restore your masculinity? Religion maybe helpful, but, I believe people “who need” it for this purpose alone will never find what they’re seeking. Masculinity, is about a lot more than just blindly believing and following a certain credo because you think this will make you a man.
        I’m sure the ISIS jihadists decapitating their hostages think that they’re tough masculine guys, but, to me they’re nothing more than pathetic little weaklings who need torture and kill others so as to feel strong and manly.

        1. Religion is not about restoring your own masculinity. It is something many masculine men automatically seek out, especially after spending years of hooking up with random women and not finding anything great in that.
          It seems on this site more to be about the fact that society functions better and women and men both behave better on the average when it is taken seriously.

        2. It’s not religion that I’ve a problem with, but, rather the way believing in it can make weak men strong and strong men weak.

        3. Well, then it has a positive influence on society, but the corollary is that the red pill is obviously confused about what it means by masculinity or about what it means about the role of religion in society.

      3. Yes, you are right; if it wasn’t so corrupted by the Whabbi garbage ideology and that of the of Muslim Brotherhood, which are thoroughly and demonstrably agents of Western intelligence agencies, true and proper Islam would be a nice antidote to today’s Western degeneracy.

      4. You can’t adopt lots of principles of Islam, you have to take it all or leave it.
        Look at the negative aspects: their polygamy creates large numbers of frustrated young men with no stake in society (a lot like modern western trends).
        A lot of western art would become illegal, no more ballet or opera not to mention renaissance paintings and sculptures.
        That being said you are absolutely right about their positive aspects, you can even find more of them. However, if it were the best form of life muslim countries wouldn’t be in such a poor state.

    2. Yeah. Please stay in your ideal muzzie utopia. Oh wait, you can’t because it’s a dusty desert shithole run by psycopaths. You forgot to mention the rape of little children and the murder of those who do not agree. So much for shitria.
      Seriously you should consider throwing yourself off a building.

        1. If you really are living in France, I assume that you are either:
          1. a legal immigrant, with a valid visa, and you are working in the french space program. And you are fully assimilated.
          2. You are son of legal immigrants, who came with valid visas, and you and your parents are fully assimilated.
          You are not the son of illegal immigrants (who came to france to sell drugs), living like a parasite from the french welfare, you are not selling drugs, doing armed robbery, raping white women (because they are whores), and despising the state who put food on your table, right?

        2. If Islam is so great, and you are in France, I ask you one question : Why are you NOT in Algeria? Algeria was colonized by the French, they build roads and vineyards, infrastructure, and universities…then after World War II, Degaulle betrayed the pied noires and ‘gave’ Algeria back to the Arab/muslims to create their ‘paradise’ — but if it is such a ‘paradise’ why did so many Muslims then emmigrate to France?

        3. That’s ok, more people are killed in car accidents than a few teenagers dreaming of 72 virgins detonating a home made explosive. I know you are so afraid of Muslims and the PATRIARCHY yes that’s what you are afraid of dumb feminist. But don’t worry, we are NOT muslims but we will adopt muslim style PATRIARCHY.

        4. Islam has nothing to do with nationality, so your question makes no sense. And your vision of the french colonization is very partial, to say the least. Victor Hugo said something along the lines of “Colonization is the march of civilization on barbary” ; to which Abdelkader replied : you burned my libraries, my books of Plato, Aristotle and Ibn Arabi, and destroyed my cities, so I would say your barbary destroyed my civilization.
          Plus I never said Algeria or any muslim country was a paradise. The good question would be : do most “islamic nations” respect basic islamic principles? Without entering into details (would be too long for me now), the answer is no. Does France respect basic islamic principles? Mostly, yes. More than any country with a muslim majority anyway.

        5. Yeah. Using traffic statistics to justify rape, murder and genocide. Afraid no. Ready to fight – yes.

        6. You silly feminazis are so full of BS. You can’t fight, that’s why you are failures in the army, drop outs who can’t even fire a gun, let alone do all the physical work men do.
          Instead of talking like a man, why don’t you go to Saudi Arabia and fight for women there? Let’s see how well you fight. You Piece of Sh!t.

        7. Yeah dumb bimbo. You proved my point, how’s being a nurse gonna give you fighting skills?
          Again your reading comprehension is that of a 12 year old girl, I said it to you already, we are not muslims but we are starting to adopt muslim masculinity and patriarchy. So, yes you will be just as controlled as a woman in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Just as it can happen there, it can happen here too. Be very afraid because the feminism honeymoon will be over soon, B!tch.

    3. Why are so many of the problems in our world related to the middle east with its three monotheistic religions? As a thought experiment, imagine that Buddhism or Hinduism had taken root there centuries ago and these three religions had died out. Would we have the mess that they spawned, including all the left wing ideologies that were produced from the same cauldron?

      1. I completely agree with you on that. But the principles of Islam are not exclusive with a buddhist-like philosophy…

        1. I never consider Buddhism or Taoism to be religions in the way the western mind understands. They’re not based on the conception of having to believe in something, in fact, they transcend these states which incidentally Plato likewise saw (in the Republic) as the lowest form of knowledge. I would describe them as closer to a philosophical way of understanding the universe and the divine, but, again they’re much more than that too.

        2. True, but you can say the same of all religions. For some people they are just laws and rituals that have to be enforced , for others they are principles of wisdom. Take a look at sufis, for instance.

        3. But, the Sufis are related more to Zoroastrian and not Islamic roots in Persia. They’re a mystical branch and their teachings are very different to the other two branches of Islam.

        4. That’s very debatable. All the sufi teachings rely on the Quran. I don’t deny an eastern influence though.

      2. Honor Killing (like the numeric system and zero) came TO Islam FROM South Asia…if , lets say, Hinduism spread thru the middle east and Europe replacing Islam & Christianity we would see things like Thug death squads and wives being tossed on their husbands funeral pyres, not to mention child sacrifice.

        1. The point is that violence of some sort will always happen regardless of the particular type of religion in question. However, I believe without monotheism and with native paganism left in place you’d probably have not seen the same fanaticism and proselyting that’s the hallmarks of both Christianity and Islam.

      3. We would still be in the 1400 hundreds if China is any indication. The concepts of a rational universe ruled by a rational and loving God worthy of being known are concepts that are foreign to the Far East Weltaanschauung even today. There is a reason why, despite all their breakthroughs, high IQ populace and history of civilization, science and engineering never flourished in the East and why the barbarians that destroyed Rome in time outdid China, India and the Muslim world. Yours is a false equivalence (Christianity-Islam) since most violent actions from Christians were in self defense (the Crusades, even the Inquisition).
        A historian and sociologist Rodney Stark analyses the success of the West in his book series that can be found in Amazon

        1. ” Yours is a false equivalence (Christianity-Islam) since most violent actions from Christians were in self defense (the Crusades, even the Inquisition)” Islam and Christianity are in the proselyting business. That was one of the prime reasons that prompted the conquistadors to the new world. Unlike, left wing academics and their followers and don’t have any guilt about this as a white man. It would have happened in some measure with or without these religions, as conquering other tribes is a central part of both Caucasian and Negro anthropology (I mean Negro in a non-prerogative manner) which are much more closely related than Caucasian/Negro and Asiatic.
          But, I don’t believe that the violence was predominantly defensive in the case of both Christians and Muslims. That’s not credible.

        2. But, I don’t believe that the violence was predominantly defensive in the case of both Christians and Muslims. That’s not credible.

          Which part is not credible? It’s true that both religions are in the business of proselytism, however Christianity was forced to acts of violence by the circumstances (Pagan hostility, Islam never ending jihad, Indian savagery…) whereas violence is an integral part of Islam and not only that but a sense of fatalism, a view of the world where man is just a puppet in a cosmic theater with no other option than to bow before Allah. Europeans are no saints, however I don’t feel any guilt about it, specially since when we measure and compare the history in the balance, Christian and European intervention has been far more beneficial than harmful in most situations and places, where, whenever the “white man’s religion” is rejected, savagery and regression are the only things at hand (Africa, parts of Latin America, etc).

    4. From above : ” (lending money with interests is forbidden in Islam).” — Yes it used to be forbidden in Christianity as well (Usury Laws)…and then (at the expense of sounding like those I keep criticizing)…ONE specific group profited greatly from that.

      1. Indeed. But I’m not one who would say that Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world and that they invented death. There is however something perverted in their religious system that Christianity and Islam tried to correct, and there’s no denying that allowing usury served the jewish community during the Middle Age. But they are not the only ones who profit now, far from it.


        1. This clip is chilling in how “God’s Chosen” operate. How they all have this collective mind-hive type of thinking.

    5. I agree with adopting their methods in regards to restoring the patriarchy but you don’t need to convert to islam. Just embracing their methods of masculinity and patriarchal social structure is enough.

    6. As much as I like the idea of cultural marxists and toxic sluts getting stoned to death, I will pass.
      Muslim countries are known to be hellholes with some really bloodthirsty rules aka the Sharia Law. My America has a Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights and they’re being violated by those that hate America. The last thing this country needs is sand-dwellers that view it as the Great Satan.

    7. Right now the powers that subverted Christianity in the West, while trying to use Islam to further subvert Western civilization, seem to be attempting to subvert Islam in the Middle East and around the world. They of course would love to get centralized banking into all of the Islamic and Arabic States. In the long term, I’m not sure that Islam will withstand this onslaught. Saudi Arabia did just allow women some minor voting rights in local elections. That’s how it begins. It’s beginning with our leaders demanding “Women’s rights,” in the Middle East and North Africa. And there is some capitulation. What’s next?
      Also, I don’t think I want to be Islamic. In fact, I’m quite sure of it. I’m enjoying just digging back in and learning more and more about the West’s Christian heritage and also pre-Christian heritage that I was never taught in Church or school. It worked for thousands of years and I’m quite sure that it can be returned to.
      Considered, but I’d personally turn this offer down.

      1. All they need to use against Islam is something like Liberation Theology was to the Catholic Church.
        The question is a good one: religion is a protective factor. However, it is not determinant “which” religion, but “how close to the original values” that said religion is. Islam is resisting in a “purer” fashion, nowadays, than Christianism, Budhism or Hinduism.

      2. The powers that you talk about have already completely annihilated Christianity as a potent social force, leaving in its wake an ignorant population of sheepish and sleeping masses in Europe and North America. However, they’re also fervently trying to destroy Islam, and the recent mass immigration gambit is a perfect way to further weaken both: the manufactured and engineered “immigration crisis” and all the bogus related terror plots (all hatched from Gladio B scripts) is a clever way to traumatize an already clueless public, as well as undermine and portray Islam as a necessary boogey man. Remember: “Out of Chaos, Order.”
        I do agree with you, however, that if i were offered the chance to convert, I too would politely refuse.

    8. Islam is a totalitarian ideology, disguised as religion, that dominates every aspect of society. I have no doubt in my mind, that after the defeat of Fascism, National-Socialism and Communism, that Islamism is the next totalitarianism to be crushed, if Western Civilization is to survive. Christianity is the basis and the glue that binds the West. We just have to protect it and spread it.

    9. This was recently written on Rollo Tomasi therationalmale.com’s website: “I would say that attempts at overt male control of covert female sexuality oftentimes amount to window dressing that only serve to help convince the men of their paternity, even when they’ve no reason to be assured of it. Only in cultures like those established by strict Islamic doctrine/Sharia Law can paternity be (mostly) assured by social forces. Outside of that, women can oftentimes have free reign at getting away with good old-fashioned cuckoldry.”

  11. I know that what I am about to write does not have anything to do with the subject this article is about. You also have to excuse my bad english (I am not from an english speaking country). However I felt that I needed to write this before I go completely insane. Besides I dont have anyone to talk to about this. But here we go.
    I am 21 years old and I have never slept with a woman, not even close to be honest. I was raised by a single mom with an abcent father who does not give a damn about me. My mom is a immature former slut (I know its harsh to say so about ones mother) and is not capable, like most single moms, of taking care of children on her own. I am insecure and havent really achieved anything. I am confused and I feel broken on the inside. My entire life I have felt that I dont have any controll over anything. As i said before im a virgin. No matter how hard I try to get a girl or get laid I always fail and end up being lonely and more shattered on the inside. I am tired of all this bullshit. But I dont know what to do.
    I dont want people to feel sorry for me. No, this is a last call for help before I go completely mentally insane. I have no one to talk to about my problems at all and I dont want my life to be this way anymore. Sure I can go to a therapist and get medication but we all know that wont help in the long run.

    1. Please go to a cheap motel and hire an escort to cum and shag your brains out.
      Please don’t go insane and harm yourself or others. Just think if Elliot Rogers had of hired a hooker.
      Good luck.

  12. This comes to my personal theory on what is occurring in Europe : To truly have a UNITED Europe you need a single language(including alphabet), culture & religion…this won’t be attained with the Euronations as they currently are — Germans might learn French but not Bulgarian, Swede’s won’t learn Greek, Spaniards won’t learn Polish…etc….not to mention all those obscure dingbat languages (Basque anyone?), The same with dying Christianity — the Catholic French won’t have the same values of Lutheran Germans, etc. The Solution? Allow Muslim’s to immigrate all thru Europe…now you’ll have a ‘caste’ of people all across the continent speaking on language (Arabic) and holding the same values (They need Friday Night off but work Sunday, they all follow the same holiday schedule, they all don’t drink alcohol, the women can be encouraged to stay home and breed unlike the young euro hipsters, and they can be reliably encouraged to vote for the leaders who brought them in in exchange for more welfare benefits. etc.) Thus will be born the new order….the unelected EU bureaucrats will be the Brahmins, the national governments will be the Kshatriyas, the Muslims will be Vaisyas, also serving as the backbone of the ‘United’ Europe. In such a scenario of course, there will need to be “Untouchables”, they will be the non-Muslim working class.

  13. Note, I have re-posted this essay on ROK, whenever it is appropriate to the ROK article in question. This is not a “one off” observation and needs to be repeated as necessary. I do this so new readers can give their insights into my thought process.
    There are a number of things going on in Western Society, from a public policy perspective, that I have pointed out, in past, on my ROK posts. Much of which, have a number of key, predictable, outcomes:
    1) The economic system in the USA is set up as a “Rent Seeking” platform for those that control the majority of its wealth, PERIOD. To believe any differently is nothing more than mental gymnastics, used to justify why we are strongly coerced to live the way we do. (note, many simply call these people the “Elite”, but lets face facts, they think they OWN us, like indentured servants, so, I refer to them as the “Owners of Capital” in my below posts)
    The “Owners of Capital” want wage slaves DEAD before turning 60. Best case scenario for them, is for someone to work 60+ hour work weeks from ages 16-60, put all of their money into a 401K, cars & home mortgage, neglecting to go to the doctor for decades and then suddenly drop dead of a heart attack; all before they can drain their 401K’s and start using earned social security & medicare benefits (note, some ROK posters, in the past, have said that the “Owners of Capital” want to extract ongoing fees from “lingering, uncured, illnesses in the elderly”, however, that only applies to the top 10%-20% of all earners. The rest, that are below such a level of income, the “Elite” want dying on the job because those below that income level do not have enough retirement savings to pay for such care. Which is why I use the term “wage slaves”).
    Due to the way our current economic system works, we CLEARLY have too many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the “owners of capital” to employ them for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization. In the United States, for example, its clear that the “owners of capital” have chosen NOT to employ people on a large scale, preferring “tent cities” and “jailing the homeless”, INSTEAD of providing more “make-work employment” arrangements.
    Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.
    Why?
    Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a DEFINITE reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this concept because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone whom is looking, able to perform, qualified for and willing to work.
    Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Basically due to the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 4-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!
    This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it. That’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Note this will NOT be to the specific detriment of society, but as a means to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy, as the previously increased minimum education levels for employment. The real goal is decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but also not decreasing the supply of “potential workers” who’s mere existence drive wages down for EVERYBODY. Keep in mind this cohort of people “not pursuing full-time employment” also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. The reality is if everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and “entrepreneurs” suggest these days, we would ALL be making 0.25 cents a day. THIS RACE TO THE BOTTOM EFFECTS THE SELF EMPLOYED WAGES AS WELL.
    The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern corporate labor, cost-cutting, strategies. These measures eventually will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers. Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave, waiting in the wings, to do the work for less or nothing at all. In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or flat out used slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is the “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare
    The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England
    But, how was that possible?
    Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare
    After the Black Death ran its course, in the 14th century, a Peasants Revolt was triggered by the “Statute of Labourers 1351”. By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the “Statute of Labourers 1351”. This statute was used by the “Owners of Capital”, as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/statlab.asp The Statute of Laborers; 1351 (“Statutes of the Realm,” vol. i. p. 307.)
    Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn’t want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn’t have to conform to demands of the market. That’s where we are today, a form of Neo-feudalism, driven by Fascist ideology and practices. Remember the USA a former “slave owning nation”, that fought “tooth & nail” to maintain the legal right to own slaves; even turning indentured servants, whom by contract, were set to be released in 7 years, into indefinite slaves through legal loopholes.

    1. 2) The “Owners of Capital Class” are betting on the Singularity, Cell Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI to provide their creature comforts in the future. “Smartphone Addiction” is just a small piece of the overall strategy that will eventually give them total control over the masses, through the mandatory use of evasive tech. Most tech being developed today is bad for regular people whom are not part of the true “Owners of Capital Class” and its really unfortunate that regular people do not see the scientists that are creating this tech and the financiers supporting their R&D, as TRUE economic adversaries.
      Tech can be used VERY effectively, to further the indentured servitude of the remaining middle and lower classes.
      But, how is that possible, a regular person may ask?
      Remember when cell phones were actually fun?
      I do, the phone was a huge and needed to be carried in a bag, BUT my boss NEVER called me on it, after what was considered typical work hours and certainly never to ask me to do more work while I was at home. Compare that to today, when a cell phone in your pocket can spontaneously generate more work to be done outside of the office, simply because someone higher up than you had a random thought at midnight.
      Here is a second example, when my parents were in school in the 1950’s and 60’s they were told: no one would have to work in the future, that everything would be done by robots and they would, in turn, have increased free time used for creating, making art, learning and helping others…
      We all know how that turned out, mass layoffs, outsourcing due to cheaper communication tech and increased workload for those domestic laborers that remained gainfully employed within USA based corporations.
      The Singularity, Cell regeneration, Mind-Clones Cyborg Implants and Artificial Intelligence are essentially the same lie, that was told to our parents, just rehashed for a 21st century audience.
      I think its funny when regular people get excited about future tech like the Singularity, AI, Robotics, etc. Do people really think when these things finally become real, functioning, working designs, applicable to industry, that we the “peons”, will somehow ALL get a Data from Start Trek or a C-3PO from Star Wars, to help us at home, at the job site or in the office, etc?
      In reality, we are going to get a David 8 as depicted in the Prometheus/Aliens films or the Robot Probation officer seen in the Elysium movie. These automatons are going to take away jobs and make unethical policing and policy enforcement, both easier and cheaper, for the true “Owners of Capital”. Since they won’t be paying a salary to the robot worker, the savings will instead be pumped into legal fees and political lobbying, resulting in an overall good ROI for the corporations/governments and a full blown, loss of liberty, for everyone else.
      Whom goes to jail when an AI Robot or Mind Clone pulls your arm out of the socket? Will it be considered “negligence by the human that lost the arm”, a matter for a “civil suit” only, perhaps “not a criminal act”, to be adjudicated in a arbitration setting?
      I personally at this point are willing to live with 1980’s +/- era tech, if it means, I am more free and can continue to earn money to live off.
      Elysium Probation Officer photo:
      http://fourthdimensionalrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/probation-officer1.jpg
      Introducing David 8 webpage:
      https://www.weylandindustries.com/david
      https://www.weylandindustries.com/img/david/david_003.jpg
      In the words of David 8: “I can do almost anything that could possibly be asked of me, including things that my human counterparts might find distressing or unethical”
      We are approaching an era where the “Owners of Capital Class” will not need laborers of any kind to live a life of comfort. But, our civilization is not quite there yet, technology-wise, so the “Owners of capital” need to “keep people calm and unsuspecting” until the trigger can be pulled decisively without consequence.
      So, what are the possible scenarios that regular folks will experience, during this “interim period”, while the technology needed to create the Singularity, Cell Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI, is maturing?
      The “Owners of Capital Class” will simply extract the little remaining labor wages from the lower classes, by decree, through the implementation of a cashless system. Consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory in some way. Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implement future legislated purchases on a large scale. “Click-Wrap Agreements” coupled with a “cashless society” will make that transition easier for the “Owners of Capital Class” to force on the general populace.
      What do I mean exactly?
      Many forget that we now live in what “could” be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the “owners of capital”, can and will “legislate” mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).
      So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a “penalty” at tax time or some scheme involving a “negative interest rate”. The “owners of capital” have, at this point, run out of consumer goods that they can “strongly coerce” people to buy, in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc. We are approaching a day when they will simply make it law that you have to buy goods, in certain quantities before tax season (again, just like the current Obamacare that can be coupled Flexible Spending Accounts), except one day we will have an FSA to be used for ALL goods and services, and you can bet those accounts will be “use-it or lose-it”. Also, since you won’t be able to own things like the new “digital cars”, that are currently being developed, nor will you own the current “digital media” being rented on Hulu, Netflix, etc., means that likely, in the future, you could be billed for “damage to the vehicle or product” from the “real owners” of that vehicle or product at any time.
      Regular People will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the”Owners of Capital Class” can choose, AT ANY TIME to, take close to the same amount of lost revenue back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of “tax penalties” or other method (cashless, digital currency, negative interest rate, instant credit to cover shortfalls and deductions from bank accounts, ALL DONE whenever the “Owners of Capital Class” see fit). A cashless society, dominated by “click-wrap agreements” is the easiest way to structure “forced purchases” into the larger economy. Another scenario that regular people will face in the future, is when someone chooses “not to buy” and then doesn’t have the proper “proof of purchase” coupon, etc, to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due. I can guarantee that the IRS or some other agency will have some way to calculate the amount “you should have purchased” (kinda sounds like college FASFA aid forms, in reverse, doesn’t it?). People will also have to pay a monthly fee to keep their digital money in the bank and there won’t be any alternative way to store it, without paying the monthly fee. This process will result in an instant, predictable, revenue generator for public companies, that the stock market will then feed off.
      Note, bartering used as a circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering, by an estimate, the same way they do for restaurant servers receiving tips. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have “bartered” some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity (likely a Felony). I don’t recall “bartering” being a named constitutional right anywhere.
      Look at solar roof panels, as another example, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn, drives down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired to run the utilities.
      Young people don’t understand that this tech, that they are addicted to, can be used VERY effectively, to further their indentured servitude. Millennial’s and the generation after them, falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by “corporate committee” to do just the opposite. The only way to prevent that shift, is for Millennial’s to immediately STOP buying such tech, opposing the development of said tech and discouraging others from buying and using it, even if it means using physical force. But, they will NEVER do this because they have “drank the Kool-aid” and are to a certain extent addicted to technology. Think about it, I’m seeing commercials for ordering pizza on a smartphone app, but whats the point, really? To appease Millennial’s? Perhaps. But, did this consuming cohort of fools take the time to think about whether it is really more convenient to type an order in on an app, as opposed to calling the order in on a phone? No they didn’t AND by using the smartphone app to place a FOOD ORDER instead of a phone, the pizza seller can then become a data broker making money by selling customer info, instead of making money by providing a quality food product.
      Then there is the issue of behavioral “data simulations” being conducted on citizens by corporations and government, eventually, to be used for revenue projections. I can guarantee that some people will not be able to be “simulated”, due to high levels of inaccuracy in the data that exists on file and is collected on them regularly. Some simple examples would be homeless people, old people that don’t use credit or the internet, and low wage earners functioning solely on cash, whom use cell phones or have utility bill etc on a relatives account, which their name is not on (I have a relative that does all of the above and couch surfs, there’s no way a simulation would know anything about him because he has virtually no digital footprint).
      Th rub is when these “behavioral simulations” becomes a real part of business revenue projections, directly influencing tax revenue projections and collection methods. These people that “cannot be simulated” will be labeled criminals and put on some kind of supervised probation and forced to adapt habits that can be tracked digitally. I can GUARANTEE this will happen. As I stated above, Millennial’s are likely the easiest to simulate already because they have already given away the keys to the castle and have no intention of taking those keys back.
      Right now most Americans are expected to and are coerced by employment requirements to buy/finance a car, buy/finance education, buy/finance healthcare, buy/finance insurance and eventually buy/finance a home of some kind.
      What do you think the “Owners of Capital Class” will do when “life-extension tech”, “self-driving cars”, “robot AI home workers”, “AI networked appliances” or “cyborg implants” become viable commercial products?
      They will simply coerce people to buy it, even if the recipient doesn’t want to have the procedure done and the methods used to coerce the general populace in the United States, will not require any additional lobbying or law changes on the behalf of the “Owners of Capital”.
      Imagine a world where life-extension tech is sold and financed to regular people, over long repayment periods, to people that don’t have the ability to pay for it, in cash, up front, similar to a cars, higher education or home mortgages.
      Want to opt-out? Sure you have the “choice” to do anything you want, we are a “free country” after all.
      Imagine the unfolding of the following fictional scenarios, resulting from a person “choosing” to NOT have the life-extension procedure:
      Do you want health insurance? Sorry, but we don’t insure people whom have not had the “life-extension” procedure. However, there is another provider which we can refer you to that will, but that company has both a high deductible and high premium, so as to reduce the coverage risk of your shorter life span, to the provider.
      Want to get a job? Sorry, but we don’t hire people whom do not have “cyborg-implants”, they cost more to insure and are un-insurable in some cases. We don’t consider this discrimination, however, because its no different than requiring you to have a car or a driver license for employment with our firm. Especially with the Supreme Court declaring that those refusing the “cyborg-implants” procedure are not considered disabled, nor are a protected class.
      Do you need a credit card or a business loan? Sorry, but we have to charge you a higher interest rate because our actuaries have found that people whom have not had the “life-extension” procedure are a higher risk, have higher unemployment rates and have lower profit margins, due to a shorter life expectancy.
      Do you need a bank account or cell/internet/communication service plan? Sorry, but we don’t open accounts to people whom have not had the “cyborg-implant” procedure, they cost significantly more to service, due to not being plugged directly into the system.
      Again, as I said above, this mandatory purchase strategy will not be limited to ” life-extension tech”. Just replace the word “life-extension procedure”, in my above example, with the word “self-driving car”, “robot AI home worker”, “AI networked appliances”, “Cell Regeneration” or “cyborg implant” and the result is the same for the regular person.
      Last, “Private Cities” owned by corporations, will be exempt from labor and civil laws. The rally to create these cities will be done in order to lower human labor costs before the Singularity, Mind-clone and AI tech fully take over, rendering regular people back to the old indenture servant system that used to exist in the USA.
      Want to get a job in a “Private City”? Sorry, but we don’t hire people whom have not financed the life-extension procedure and/or do not have an AI car or Robot home worker”.
      In a “Private City” the “Owners of Capital Class” can make ANY RULES THEY WANT, without “due process” or pesky “labor laws” getting in the way.
      All of the above also does not include fact that employers will require people working for them to hold bank accounts with negative interest rates and it won’t matter if the person is paid by on 1099 or has a W-2.
      Do you want to get paid in a cashless society? If so, you will need to have an open and active “negative interest” bank account.
      In the USA the government has the power to simply make certain actions illegal on a whim because unlike Europe, we have no real consumer, civil or labor protections. This also doesn’t account for the private banks just outright refusing to give you your money, on bank run day, requiring you to attempt to press charges against them or suing, in hopes of successfully gaining access to your funds in the far future.
      If, bank runs become a possible reality, the private banks will know well in advance and will have taken all the physical cash out of the local bank locations, before the public becomes aware. The government will also make carrying cash over a certain amount illegal, say something like, no more than $100 physical cash on your person, inside residences, private storage, vehicles or business locations.
      In summary, I suspect that the “Owners of Capital Class” in the USA will “legislate purchases”, little by little, then do a surprise unloading of the negative interest polices on existing accounts. Regular people won’t see it coming and this situation will hit them like a ton of bricks, with no alternatives to fall back on.
      All sounds swell, don’t it!
      First, AI is going to make regular people jobless
      Second, it is going to steal what few liberties and freedoms they have left
      Third, it will make human life valueless to the true “Owners of Capital”, many of whom are Closeted Fascists

      1. 3) “Technology” progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created, to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (over time, as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology, used to previously control their actions).
        One simple example is Amoxicillin which was created by Beecham Group, using funding provided by Bristol-Meyers. Bristol-Meyers was founded by two NON-SCIENTIST, trust fund babies, turned investors, John Ripley Myers and William McLaren Bristol.
        A second example, is a guy named Howard Florey whom showed Flemming how to develop a method of extracting penicillin
        AND it was Florey whom secured the funding to buy the lab equipment needed to conduct the work. Again, the financial drivers of why tech is developed always points back to investment by the “Owners of Capital”.
        To put it simply, old world rulers, like Charlemagne, did not need tech like cell phones to help them control their holdings, so, no investment was made to develop such technology (because they could maintain efficient control of their holdings using human capital alone, which is cheaper than having to develop a brand new, untested technology). However, on the flip side, a modern business leaders cannot control their fiat holdings without the assistance of evolving technology, like Smart Phones & Social Media, because populations today are much larger than they were in Charlemagne’s era and those lower class populations also have communication tech available to them, that would allow for then to sustain much more organized revolts against said business leaders (unionization, boycotting, rioting, etc).
        “Technology” does not “progress” for ANY of the reasons that most people are taught to believe. Technology progresses because those with the most wealth request a technological means be created, to increase production and also to simultaneously reduce autonomy of the lower class populations (as those lower class populations grow beyond the capabilities of the older technology used to previously control their actions).
        Two popularized examples of anomalous technology are the Antikythera Mechanism, which has been estimated to be from 67 BC and the Baghdad Battery, estimated to be from 250 BC. So, how would YOU surmise objects, such as, the Antikythera Mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not?
        Most people are not aware that there are archeologists, working in multidisciplinary teams along with other data scientist, working for the Feds, modeling exactly what described above. Wallstreet has also latched onto this idea within the last decade, which is why we are seeing such a huge explosion in venture capital funding and a reduction in traditional R&D spending.
        Big business and government can now predict technological advancements based almost solely on population growth trends. I worked as a grad student for a professor subbing for defense contractor in the early 2000’s, whom was working on this very topic.
        So back to my point, why do objects, such as, the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad Battery exist when they should not? I did not give an answer, but will do so below.
        I mention the Antikythera mechanism and the Baghdad Battery because despite likely being the first of their kind, they are one-offs, with similar devices not being created until several centuries later. So, regardless of their utility and advanced capabilities, the lack of other examples proves, in earlier time periods, to a degree, that the cost to create these devices was greater than simply using human labor to accomplish the same task, at that particular time. However, when populations increased, the utility of these types of devices increased along with that growth and the costs to make these devices ended up eventually being less than using human capital to accomplish the same task, specifically during those periods with the highest localized population levels. Hence, much later in history, you see many more devices, similar to the Antikythera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery, in the archeological record.
        I’ll give a very small insight into the portions of the DOD project that my professor was asked to work on, which were not Classified (as were the separate projects being completed by the other academic archeologists). My professors specialty was in stone age technology and his most famous work was on how climate affected what specific Stone age Technologies were developed by isolated groups, whom were not in contact with one another. He found that the pending on the temperate zone, certain Stone Age technologies were guaranteed to be developed. So despite having had no contact with one another, groups of humans separated by thousands of miles would arrive at the same technological solution, in order to solve the same problem. He wrote a book in the early 80’s, that still sells many copies today and despite its age, most of it contents still stand today unchallenged.
        Now how does all this relate to a DOD study focused on technology development?
        My professor was asked to extrapolate his research even further, to see if there was also a correlation with population growth. He found that there were distinct population growth markers that would move a society from stone age tool makers into the early bronze age. It didn’t matter where these ancient people were located in the world, nor what temperate zone they were in. When the population hit certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, having had no contact with one another, located thousands of miles apart. By the end of the study he had a graduated scale correlating the population level to a specific tools development. So, as was found in his study, some groups did not develop certain technologies because they never reached, the determined, minimum population level, while other groups took far less time to develop the so-called “more advanced” technologies when their populations spiked over shorter periods of time than their peers.
        Now, he did learn eventually that another archeologist, that he knew personally, was also asked to work on this same DOD project. This professors specialty area was Iron Age trash site/dumps. He was asked to do the SAME THING, in his specialty area, as my professor was, which was to track population growth milestones and correlate those milestones with the creation of more advanced technology. His findings were exactly the same, when populations reached certain levels, more advanced technology emerged AND the technology developed was always the same between unrelated groups, whom had no contact with one another and were located thousands of miles apart.
        Now consider that many other academics were asked to do the same thing for their research areas (across all ages and eras) and it becomes quite easy to see what kinds of patterns the DOD was trying to deduce. Remember this wasn’t an NSF grant, it was a private sector DOD contract (under a defense company holding the Fed contract). This was 15 years ago now, so, do you REALLY think that big corps and government, at this point in time, can’t predict specific emerging technology and then use that knowledge, attempting to corner the markets before smaller inventors can grab any portion of the pie, while developing their own products, unknowingly, in parallel with the Big Boys?
        For example, what do you think is behind the push for self driving cars? Nobody will be able to afford them for another 20 years, at least, nor does there doesn’t’ seem to be any immediate need for them in this same time frame?
        I’ll tell you why, the introduction of consumer grade, Self-driving cars, depends entirely on population growth, nothing else.
        Things will not work out quite the way the “Owners of Capital” believe it will, IF, they truly believe in severely reducing the overall world population. Contrary to belief, their current power structure needs overpopulation to thrive. Without desperate hungry people trampling each other for jobs and resources, power will slip from the “Owners of Capital” hands quickly.

        1. 4) It has always been my position, that if you are not within the top 20% of all income earners in the USA and also will not be at that income level within a planned 10 year period (age doesn’t matter, just that you have a workable plan) than you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to follow instructions anymore and I really mean, you have no incentive to listen to ANYBODY. Its pointless to do so, if, you have no chance of being in the top 20% because the Elite consider those below the top 20%, as nothing more than a form of slave labor or at best an indentured servant with middling pay.
          Here is why:
          Keeping up with the basics in terms of education and on-the-job work skills won’t be enough for jobs requiring future-tech, contemporary labor market, skill-sets. The poor and even the middle class (not the upper middle class) will simply NOT be able to keep up with the skill demands for future employment, which will include REQUIRED PAY-TO-PLAY, CERTIFICATIONS, STATE LICENSING, etc., while they also somehow try to earn wages AND keeping a roof over their heads all at the same time. In the VERY NEAR future, these very high costs skills that will be needed to stay “relevant” in ALL labor markets, will only be affordable to the rich, or, possibly, to a VERY far forward thinking middle class families, willing to sacrifice everything financially, while pooling resources to keep their offspring competitive in the larger job market.
          I will begin with the usual assertion I hear in regards to the impact of these, soon to be real, “future-tech jobs”, which contrary to the beliefs of some, includes the trades and the accompanying “proprietary tech” that will not be repairable, only “replaceable by a certified/licensed tech”.
          “Someone has to get paid to fix the robots!”
          I often hear this above noted rebuttal to mass automation and current labor cutting measures, in the modern workplace, BUT it misses a subtle point that ONLY the children of the wealthy will have the opportunity to become TRUE experts in such fields. Let me clarify, through the prior 20th century, a poor kid who studied hard could become a lawyer, accountant, even a doctor sometimes, with the right combination of hard work, savings, scholarships, family support, etc. or simply started a career by going directly into the trades, learning on the job, with pay. HOWEVER, in current engineering and technician curriculum’s today, times have changed, to favor kids whom have had access to expensive software and hardware to “experiment” with and “practice” on before entering college or into their chosen training program. So, when these kids finally get to college or to their apprenticeship, those whom have had lots of “free time” to “play” with robotics and programming, outside of class, WILL CERTAINLY outpace their less privileged peer who flips burgers part-time, to pay rent and school expenses. In the recent past, being self-employed or owning a low-skill small business could partially solve this problem. Those days are LONG GONE because of greatly improved market efficiency (in fact, Roosh wrote an article on this very topic).
          Before 1990, 40% of teenagers had part-time jobs while in school. This is a relevant statistic because today only 20% of teenagers in school have part-time jobs. Teens at one time made up a sizable portion of the workforce and such changes in employment practices have shifted away from this, meaning, poor kids do not have any opportunity to build jobs skills of any kind, both before, during and even after college.
          Although not my primary point, I do think there is plenty of evidence that teens today do not have the opportunity to get part-time jobs, BUT the wealthy kids are beginning to develop advanced skill-sets that COULD be MORE helpful in their future adult careers, than say, “working at a taco stand after school”. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are very good, EARLY, examples of people who made excellent use of their free time and access to money, without the need to labor for part-time pay. During that free time they developed specialized skills that could not have been learned at a MINDLESS part-time job or even in formal schooling. In the end, they leveraged that free time learning and tech access, due ENTIRELY to having wealthy parents, into long term careers.
          Here is a modern example of a company with a big contract to fill and absolutely no “will” to increase wages to attract experienced personnel, nor the desire to train inexperienced ones on the job, while paid. Instead they put out a story on the web bellyaching, silently hoping for access to more migrant workers:
          http://bridgemi.com/2013/03/is-shortage-due-to-skills-or-wages/
          In the link below this paragraph I have posted an example of what I believe to be a young person, from a well off family, who majored in robotics at USC. She doesn’t appear to have had any unrelated part-time jobs, in relation to her major, while in college. She also seem to have had access to “experiment and PLAY” with technology in her spare time, earning a masters degree back-to-back to the bachelors AND at the end of college, got a job offer at a University sponsored dinner party for robotics majors (NOBODY I went to college with, EVER, got a job offer at a university sponsored dinner party). In contrast, I’m sure many Ivy league and top 10 school graduates do get job offers at university sponsored dinner parties. My point being, these future “robot repair jobs” are going to require smart kids, with desire to advance, whom also went to good schools, had lots of spare time and money to play with the tech outside of school AND got their jobs offered at dinner parties (some of which will be non-paying internships at first, further selecting for children of the wealthy).
          These 21st century job offers will not be gained through sending out blind jobs applications through Linkedin or company job boards, as has been done up until now. Basically what this girl is doing for Disney will, in the near future, be more like what a plumber or electrician does today, EXCEPT you won’t get trained on the job, in a low-pay apprenticeship, when at “entry level”. In fact, to even be considered for these “future-tech jobs” in the first place you’ll need to have good academic pedigree, lots of unpaid hobby experience and 1+ years of unpaid internships. Can kids outside of the upper middle class do the same thing as this young woman? I think not!
          Here is her story, readers can decide for themselves, my opinion is that this is what a career for a plumber is going to look like in 15+ years:
          http://onedublin.org/2013/09/11/imagineer-molly-rinke-on-creating-immersive-experiences-at-walt-disney-imagineering/
          Those whom are going to be rendered jobless by automation/robotics/tech are going to be the least likely to be able to pick up these pieces, in the coming era of traditional jobs destruction. Its going to IMPOSSIBLE for the poor to go back to school, get a masters degree in robotics, in full-time only engineering programs. Contrary to what laymen believe, these programs strongly discourage their admitted students from taking part-time jobs, while favoring students who have both the money and free time, whom have NEVER work at an unrelated job to their majors and also buy expensive robotics hardware/software to experiment with outside of class.
          Mark my words the future labor market in the pursuit of “maintaining robots” or some other tech is going to be the sole domain of rich kids, with advanced degrees from good schools because NO ONE is going to train anyone else perceived as lesser, in that kind of job, WITH PAY.
          To continue my above point, I believe “rich kid” job mobility is going to be a bigger problem for regular folks, living in the West, beyond what the previous “rich kid” pedigree typically brought in the 20th century. This unfettered access to endless money and time to “explore” academics and do hands-on work, with no consequences, is going to END job mobility of any kind for the lower and middle classes, even for those whom have met the typical required higher education and work experience standards.
          Its a superstar only job market now, with no room for middle of road folks.

        2. 5) Modern Humans have been on earth for approximately 200,000 years, civilization has existed for 6,000 years and the “society” that we live in today, which has rules that we are FORCED to follow, is a little over 200 years old. What this means, is that MANY of the people whom we THINK are Alphas today, may in fact, NOT be Alphas at all. Simply put, the last 200+ years has given LEGAL advantages to crafty, backstabbing, two-faced, Betas, whom gain undeserved Alpha status, due to LEGAL protection from PHYSICAL retaliation, whereas in the previous 199,800 years of “mans existence”, these guys would have been the “follower” or quickly dispatched through physical retaliation.
          If you have any doubts, just think of people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. Could either of these schmucks have lead men and convinced them to give their lives for a mere “personal conviction”? Like say, ALEXANDER THE GREAT or HANNIBAL? Of course not, BUT, people like these guys are given a type of “Alpha Status” today because they are allowed act TOUGH, without any real threat of losing their heads or getting Tarred & Feathered by disgruntled peasants.
          I’ll clarify further, “Appointed Pseudo Alphas”, are winning in America because the “unspoken rules” and “legal system” have been designed to prevent “aggressive retaliation” by disgruntled underlings. Think back to the early Teamsters tactics that were used against stubborn business owners and how you don’t see similar tactics being applied any longer. Once you recognize the overt influence of “undue physical & legal protection” by government, it becomes easy to understand why “Appointed Pseudo Alphas” rule today. Note, its not because of superior leadership, nor because of any amount of endowed masculinity. It is because these “Appointed Pseudo Alphas” are receiving undue legal protection, that keeps the hordes of frustrated Betas from ripping these “leaders”, limb from limb. The current batch of successful business leaders, that we see today, would have been beaten within an inch of their lives during the times of the Teamsters or Tarred & Feathered, right in front of their factories, in earlier times.
          People like Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs use legal apparatuses to force indentured servants in China to do labor them, some of which die during that labor process, due to poor working conditions. Without those legal apparatuses, they would quickly lose their power (in contrast, that would not have been the case for a leader like Charlemagne) Again, as I said, in the past, a group of indentured laborers would have eventually got fed up and done something PHYSICAL, in retaliation, to either the owner or his assets, as a means to end their suffering.
          In Tribal and Chieftain level societies, the males that accumulated the most wealth and children were neither the “most fierce” nor the “most “timid”. “Successful leaders” in those times tended to fall somewhere in the middle, the main reason being that the “most fierce” warriors typically died in the hunt or battle because they could not temper when to be “bold” versus “when to hold back”. Also, on the flip side, it should be obvious why the “most timid” didn’t accumulate any wealth or children in a world based on hand-to-hand battles and hunts.
          In today’s world we have set up a legal system that solely rewards the “most fierce” warriors (whom are not always true Alphas according to nature) and it is contributing to our eventual downfall. In the past, when mortality rates were high, due to living in a dangerous environment, these were the LAST people that a tribe wanted running ANYTHING. Today, these types of people get to go to the front of the line for leadership roles. Remember, just because they are “bold” and “fierce”, in a safe, OFFICE setting, doesn’t make them a real ALPHA, in the world of nature.
          If you need a modern example, look no further than the post-war years, after WWII. Who do you think returned back to the USA, alive, after the war? Was it the foolhardy? Was it the yellow bellies? OR the ones whom could properly weigh the situation and take PROPER action? The answer should be obvious because not coincidentally, that was a period of stable employment and high wages for EVERYONE. With that said, it should safe to assume that it was the most “balanced people” returning alive from the war that became “captains of industry” in the post-war years. The “foolhardy” and “yellow bellies” likley died on the battlefield or returned home too physically and/or mentally damaged to function in civilian leadership roles.
          Culturally we have had a big shift in the USA, where those given “appointed authority” seems to be trumping those that have “natural authority” more often than not. Make no mistake, the “winners” that we are seeing and hearing about day-to-day, are “Appointed Pseudo Alphas” at best. Since the early 2000’s I see MORE and MORE spineless Beta types easily surpassing people with stronger personalities and leadership ability, both in personal life and professional life. However, at one time, in the not so distant past, people displaying “natural authority and leadership” would have EASILY been the first choice of BOTH women and corporations and put in charge of most things, due to simply having REAL leadership qualities.
          What exactly do I mean and how did we get here?
          Well, it starts in K-12 education, where certain kids are publicly punished for being natural leaders and Beta Types are rewarded with leadership positions for being “yes men” and “yes women”. Other kids see this and then begin to develop an indoctrinated aversion to kids that have natural leadership, for fear of getting in trouble, by simply being around or associated with them. This mindset then gets extended into the workplace where “appointed authority” is the rule, with no exceptions being made for “natural authority” to usurp the direction of poorly run projects, useless conversations or bad policies. Once people get past a certain age, their “profiles” and “resume” begin to carry much more weight than their actual “endowed masculinity”. Sure, women don’t pine over Manginas when they meet them in the flesh, but they will pine over a “hidden mangina” with a perfectly crafted okcupid or Tinder profile.
          Do real Alpha types still clean up? Of course they do, but a LOT of “hidden betas” are getting FAR more than their share, of both “first looks” and “last looks”, than they would have received in the previous 50 years (heck, even the last 6,000 years of civilizations existence for than matter). These days, this situation applies to both the career track and the surface preferences of females.
          Note, its not specifically that women standards have risen (we all know they have not), its that women keep on adding to the list of “non essential” traits that their potential partners and hook-ups must have, at minimum. So while going over that “non essential” list of traits, women unknowing eliminate what they ACTUALLY want and end up with something that they are ultimately dissatisfied with, an “Appointed Pseudo Alphas”. This exact same scenario goes for employers as well.
          I always use the old comedy film “Revenge of the Nerds”, from 1984, as an example of where we are as a society today.
          When the JOCKS were in charge of the “Greek Council”, parties raged, un-PC behavior was tolerated and everyone was having a really good time, with few harsh consequences for bad behavior (hence the term, “boys will be boys”). As we all know now, in hindsight, when the JOCKS were in charge, people earned good wages, nobody was micromanaged (use your best judgement was a common phrase), people didn’t get fired on a whim and life in general was good.
          Then one day the NERDS gained control of the “Greek Council” and parties started sucking, people had to kowtow to PC behavior (so as not to offend anyone), EVERYONE became micromanaged (i.e. Lean) and people started having less fun in EVERY aspect of life, while consequences for uncouth behaviors were jacked up to the highest degree (i.e. zero tolerance).
          So I ask, was “life” better for EVERYONE, under the rule of the JOCKS or better today under the rule of the NERDS, whom are nothing more than “Pseudo Alphas” with “appointed authority”?
          Long live the “Betas of Nature” wielding “Appointed Authority”, I guess, to our own civilizations demise, I might add.

        1. I’m pretty sure he’s got a library of relevant posts. Some of them are pretty interesting though

    2. You win the fucking internet again good sir. This post should be made available in .pdf to the public.
      I agree with you on all accounts and was very pleased to read you calling out the drawback of solar panels: that they will be taxed, as will anything that brings independance from the system will be taxed or made illegal by, as you state, the owners of capital.
      I do read many posts made by those who threaten to ‘live off the land’ somewhere and not be dependent on the grid. That is going to be impossible in the near future as anyone who tries doing so will either be arrested or thrown in a FEMA camp. And don’t kid yourself: those FEMA camps are gearing up to help rid the population of non-elites.
      All very depressing too, momosgarage, do you have any suggestions on how to have a somewhat quality life (I’m in my late 40’s) during this dystopia?

      1. @Morrison
        As I said below, if someone is currently not within the top 20% of all income earners in the USA and also will not be at that income level, within a planned 10 year period, guided by a WORKABLE strategy (age doesn’t matter, just that they have a realistic plan) than they have ABSOLUTELY no reason to follow “The Social Contract” from here on out. I really mean it, people whom have no chance to be in the top 20%, of all income earners, have ZERO incentives to listen to ANYBODY. The Elite consider those below the top 20%, as nothing more than a form of slave labor or at best an indentured servant with middling pay, so, it really is pointless for regular people to follow any “request” or “behavioral guidelines” issued by those same Ruling Class Elites.
        I always ask naysayers, What do they expect to happen when the USA eventually has 50% unemployment, due to automation and optimum labor efficiency, heck even 20% in the earliest stages? Do they think their homes will still be worth anything? Do they think workable retirement solutions will still exist? Do they think ANY means to earn a living will still exist, self employed or not? AND, even if these people do find some way to stay afloat financially, do they think those who have nothing will just let them be at peace OR will they try to physically take what they have? Like it or not, make-work jobs are a means to keep EVERYONE’S personal property safe from an exponentially growing horde of desperate, unemployable people.
        Machines could put more than half the world’s population out of a job in the next 30 years:
        http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/13/artificial-intelligence-ai-unemployment-jobs-moshe-vardi
        Exponential Unemployment:
        http://robotswillstealyourjob.com/read/part1/ch3-exponential-growth
        Taking into account everything that I have said, it should be blatantly obvious to everyone, why the government wants to limit gun ownership among regular people and why they have militarized local police forces.
        There will be consequences when a BIG chunk of the population can no longer earn wages to buy food or shelter. Most folks are not Rambo, they are not the leaders or members of a private militia, nor are they master survivalists.
        A Regular Joe will not survive, IF, the lower classes are driven to desperation, caused by a long term, high, unemployment rate of low skilled laborers.
        Contrary to current popular beliefs, decreased population has historically proven, that wages will increase and those whom need to purchase labor will have to pay those higher wages, due to market conditions favoring laborers.

        1. I hear ya .. but what would you recommend a plan of action for late 40’s guy? Flee to south america?

    3. You got some good points but you are very wrong on the education part. You cannot become a doctor, engineer or scientist without at least a University degree. Do you really want an 8th grader doing brain surgery on you? I don’t think so.

      1. @NextLeader I think you misread something or perhaps I have a typo. However, as I insinuated, in the past, a person could become a scientist, engineer, accountant, even a Lawyer, without a University degree (Charles Goodyear, a scientist, Amadeo Peter Giannini, a banker, and Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer, are three well known examples).
        I also did clarify the time scale, “Up to the 1940” and I didn’t say “any job”, I specifically said, “just about any job”, so that language leaves plenty of leeway for professions like “medical doctor” to be excluded.
        Thanks for taking the time to read the entire post, however.

  14. I am so delighted to see this article finally return on ROK. I keep telling my fellow Americans, it’s not illegal immigration that you need to worry about, its LEGAL immigration. Right now, the top 3 non-immigrants coming in this country legally are India, China, and the Philippines. That’s right, not one European country is in the top 5 list of people coming here on visas and finding the loophole to stay here permanently. Here’s how it works:
    An Indian student in India has this desire to leave his/her country and move to the west because they want better jobs, want our white women because white women are more promiscuous then their Indian counterparts. So this Indian person that applies to a college/university, usually grad school, in the United States that would easily accept him/her. The Indian person then goes and makes forged copies of financial bank statements that he/she can take with them to the US Consulate office to apply for a F1 Student visa. The Indian is able to fool the bored US Consulate official (American kids interning there), and they gladly stamp a F1 Student visa in the Indian’s passport.
    The Indian now is able to arrive in the United States on a valid visa and attends a bogus university like Silicon Valley University in the Bay Area which houses 98% of East Indians and Chinese students alike. The Indian befriends some other Indian student who help him find an off-campus job at an Indian gas station or restaurant that pays under the table so that he/she can pay for the college tuition. 3 laws are broken here: One is that when you apply for a student visa, you need to show that you can pay for the tuition and have no need to require outside help. But since this Indian forged those financial documents, he/she got to pass. Second, off-campus employment is illegal for International Students. Third, being paid under the table means you are not contributing to government taxes. So there goes that arguments that illegals are helping us with taxes. Now after 1 year of college pursuing their graduate degree (remember it’s a bogus degree from a bogus college), the Indian now applies for something called an Optional Practical Training (OPT) internship. This allows the Indian to request a work permit from USCIS so that he/she can work legally somewhere so as to gain some work experience in their field of study. Many Indians abuse this work permit and work jobs that have nothing to do with their degrees (waiter, bar tending, driving taxis, etc.). The ones that do decide to pursue a legitimate career in the field of their study, they go to consultancy companies or companies that are in tech (Google, Visa, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc).
    Here is where it gets juicy. The Indian now has an OPT work permit that lasts 2 years. Before those 2 years are up, the Indian requests the company that they work for to sponsor them for an official work visa called the H1b visa. An H1b visa is a temporary work visa that can last up to 6 years, and is given to those who have at least a minimum of a bachelor’s degree, and are going to work in a specialized occupation (software, medicine, finance, law, etc.). Our fellow Indian has a bogus degree in Computer Science from bogus university Silicon Valley university, so is able to get sponsored for an H1b visa. Remember, H1b visas were solely used to bring in foreigners who truly had specialized skills and were industry changers (Sergey Brin for Google, Jan Koum for Whatsapp, and Jerry Yang for Yahoo). Not grunts and cheap third class Indians who went to a bogus school with a bogus degree. There are 85,000 H1b visas granted each fiscal year. 85% of thos granted were given to people from India! Wow!!!
    So now, our fellow Indian has gotten an H1b visa. After that, their next goal is getting the green card so that they can permanently live in the United States. They can have their employer sponsor them for a green card through employment based. They make a deal with their employer that they will take a pay cut, so as to save the firm money on paying their salaries, and also promise to stick working for the firm even after getting their green cards (after all, once someone gets a GC, they can work and live anywhere in the USA). The firm agrees and starts the petition for a green card for the Indian. It’s a long wait time for Indians getting GCs because there are so many of them that the companies have applied for.
    Once the Indian gets the GC, after 5 years, he/she can apply for citizenship. Once they get citizenship, then they are able family sponsor all their brothers and sisters and parents to immigrate to the United States. And this cycle keeps on going and going. I spoke of just how one Indian does it. Now imagine this, there are 140,000 Indians applying for H1b visas each fiscal year! It’s no wonder that Edison, NJ looks like India or that Fremont, CA has become the hub of East Indians.

    1. I readily agree with all your amazing points except the false notion that Caucasian girls are more promiscuous than Indian chicks.This is a laughable notion to begin with.Indian girls especially the Hindus are extremely promiscuous. They act like innocent damsels on the outside but are actually raving whores on the inside. Indian entertainment nowadays strive to follow Hollywood by normalizing female promiscuity and male shaming. Muslim girls usually grow up in strict households but Hindu girls feel they have to sleep around to feel liberated.

      1. There might be some certain truth to that, but promiscuity is still looked down upon in India. India women might come here to the West and secretly want to bed White men. I’ve seen this happen. I know Chinese and Korean women do it. The point is, East Indian filth (and I mean the low class bottom feeders) are coming here on false pathways to our country so that they can live here permanently. The reason they want the West: better quality of life, infrastructure, and white women.

    2. By your own calculations, the “typical” Indian student pulling this stunt is looking at at least 10-12yrs before becoming a full fledged U.S. citizen. Unless this typical Indian is skimming money off welfare or other social services, any job, even the “under the table” ones, contributes to the economy. Bottom line is this: they’ve almost earned the citizenship either way, given they’ve put about 12yrs of low-paying work in return.

      1. Agree. Indians are probably the least troublesome minority group we have in America. I would rather have 10 Indian immigrants than 1 native-born negro.

    3. Have been thinking a bit about Indians myself. Many years ago I had a friend from there, and did a bit of tourism in their country. I think there is some honour in their culture etc you can see it when Indian business leaders speak etc. Then I also know the ones you mean that come out to study and work in the west and of course the low skilled ones, taxi drivers and convenience store attendants. The one I knew went back to live there when he was done. They don’t really fit into western countries especially when they come there en mass. Also have a suspicion the men are kind of sleazy. They are the lesser of various kinds of migrant evil but still would rather not be sitting side by side with them on the bus..

      1. My comment is apropos of nothing: Hindu civilization began with the so-called “Aryan Invasion” of the Indian sub-continent. The much darker native Dravidians were subjugated and driven to the south. Their national epic the Bhagavid Gita is Homeric in heroic scope and still quite alive. The Hindi language is closer to English, Italian and other European languages than Chinese is to Korean. Interesting stuff . . .

      1. You’ll find them closer to coastal cities with U.S. Naval bases (California, Florida, Virginia, etc…).

  15. This is what your immigration is done. East Indians come here because they want to bang our White women.

      1. She’s enjoying because she got manipulated into it. She doesn’t realize that after he sodomizes her in every way possible, he will dump her and get an arranged marriage from his parents liking.

        1. He sure does know how to satisfy a woman, and also gets all the sex he wants too. Lucky him, can you get hot chicks like him?

        2. She is not manipulated. It is just female nature. Just that some cultures control their women and others don’t.

        3. I understand your frustration, dude, but I have to joke about this. Here it goes:
          When a mexican starts complaining about immigration of indians in the US, you have yourself a problem.
          Hey, don’t be such a stuck-up, it’s not like their taking over with guns. Best advice would be to….BANG their women.

        1. White women are also more beautiful.
          It is a shame that most of them are nothing but white trash.

    1. You may not be wrong but cricket is actually English, even if the indian sub-continent and australia seem to dominate it today.

        1. It’s not cricket I’m worried about. I’m just shocked that a school would change it’s PE curriculum because it has to appease kids who are East Indian.

    2. Cricket is a British sport. Is it not cultural damage to the other cultures who play the game?
      How about Basket ball, a Canadian invention, playing basket ball is cultural damage in US?
      Something wrong with you?

      1. You guys can’t understand the point. Cricket was introduced to this school’s PE program because of the exceeding number of East Indians there. It wasn’t that a group of White American kids, or a school on it’s own accord decided to implement a cricket program. It was because this school had a high majority of Indian kids so they had to change the American culture to meet the demands of an Indian culture.

    3. Cricket is culturally damaging? You could say the same about soccer, rugby or polo in Argentina. This argument is just plain silly.

      1. Umm… their kids become Westernized and pretty much say a fuck you to their parents. They don’t want to be considered “Indian”. Aziz Ansari is a prime example. He went and bedded a blonde white chick, doesn’t speak a word of Indian mother-tongue, and is a self-announced feminist. Then you have guys (or girl) like the video link below. So you see my point?

        1. So now you are saying their kids are westernized and that’s a bad thing?
          What’s wrong with you man?

    1. I would rather have a million Indians (Hindu and Sikh variety) than a thousand negroes or muslims.”
      Indians are not only smarter, but hardly cause a bit of trouble here in America.

  16. Japan is also essentially sterile, but they will not have a Muslim problem: they don’t take immigrants.
    Russia is also essentially sterile, but they will survive the Muslim problems: they don’t have feminism so men will fight back.

    1. despite the high numbers of muslims in regions of Russia, I’m also certain they will survive because their whites still have a survival instinct and distrust of other races. Western whites are like dodo birds.

      1. I am non-Russian and I particularly enjoy drilling their pussies.
        What I want to say is that the problem is women. Civilization and ethnicity are alien concepts for women. They do not understand them since all men want to fuck them anyways. Happy world for them.

        1. they are like dogs or children. or a down-syndrome person. they don’t see danger and problems because their minds can’t really comprehend it.

    2. You are right, however Japan, barring a miracle, will be Chinese by the end of the century or an irradiated piece of rubble unless they have their mecha army and their nuclear supersonic delivery drones at the ready when the moment comes…

      1. Very funny.. If only it was not so close to the truth.. Japan is going full robot right now instead of immigration..I wonder if it is better…

        1. The options are be sterile, stagnate and die slowly, or have children look outwards. No inward looking civilization has progressed or improved itself.

        2. Japan is probably about same size as california and has about 127m
          crammed in there. Commutes into work in Tokyo waste hours of your life and mortgages take a lifetime to pay off. It also does not have a lot of natural resourses and is now wary of nuclear power. It would not be such a bad thing if the population dropped down to say 80m.
          Trouble is tahst hersesy for ‘always must have 2% or better growth year after year’ pundits. There will be pain during that readjustment process. Japan has got used somewhat to that though since the boom times of the 70-80s. As long as the country still focuses on exports it shouldn’t stagnate.

        3. Japan is already stagnant in case you didn’t notice. By the way the rationale I spouse is not economic, is simple survival. You’d have a point if most of those 80 million were young and enterprising people, not a population where oldsters outnumber and at least double the amount of kids and teens, a land whose men and women are not interested in family formation and where at its doorstep lies an ancient rival who harbors old hatreds and resentments and whose only reason for not overwhelming Japan and grabbing its women (the only semi-valuable resource the Japan has for China) for its lonely male spare population is the protection of the U.S. a country not famous for sticking to its promises. Whether you get it or not, Japan has never been more defenseless. At least with an stable and relatively young population (average age in Japan today is >44 yo) for which birthrates in the 2-3 children per woman range are enough, they would have a chance to arm a decent army and a civilian militia in permanent state of vigilance (as well as kickstart innovation, something needing badly in Japan in order to compete against other technological powers).

        4. The Japanese have the plutonium stockpiles and technical know-how to build nuclear weapons if necessary within 6 months.

        5. I hope they already have it, as well as some supersonic delivery drones. Whether you like it or not, weakness invites aggression. That’s why one of the options for Japan’s future is to become a piece of floating irradiated rubble in the Pacific…

        6. From economic perspective, yep Japan is/has been stagnant for quite some time. What I was referring to and what I thought you were too, was in terms of culture & innovation. If you had visit Tokyo 20 yrs ago and also now, I doubt you would see it as a city in decay. When I mentioned exports/trade I meant that it was still dealing with the world and was not stagnant/insular like it was pre 1880.
          Young well educated people do help when it comes to innovation but a country like Isreal do quite well and they are not young population and it is small population. You dont need big population to come up with new inventions, but it will help to have good research facilities and lots of R&D. I agree an older population is not vibrant not exactly enterprising, but
          Bangladesh/Egypt/Pakistan have young populations and I would not hold
          those countries up as shining lights for prosperity. It depends on the
          people, culture, government policies very much as well
          As for defense yes it is a relevant issue. I dont blame China for hating Japan (they got treated bad in ww2), but Japan at a population of 90 or 120 or 150million, China would roll them, Japan with a shrinking population should as you say have civilian reserves and militia…both men & women, and maybe even those in their 40s & 50s still trained/armed to make up for reduced full time combat personal. However I think its crazy for all countries to have a forever expanding population simply to ward of potential attack from their neighboring countries.
          .

  17. This is one of the best articles I’ve read here in a long time. The (counter-) analysis is beginning to mature. The progressive left has had all the best theory for a long time now, but they’ve been running on empty for a while, a consequence of their almost completely unopposed success, and the one thing the left has never ever been able to cope with: the fruition of their own utopian daydreams
    Firstly, whether its an original phrase or borrowed from somewhere else, the phrase “feminism makes women statistically sterile” should be the sub-heading below the return of kings banner, because I’ve not heard anything that better captures the death wish that is feminism than this. I honestly believe it should be written in latin on the return of kings coat of arms.
    Secondly, Libertas is quite right: the phrase “the left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the people” really is rapingly spot on. This is the critical conclusion which Anthony Sutton made many decades ago, and which once it is understood and properly worked into a critical analysis of progressive politics is capable of pulling the rug from under the progressive project, which depends for its success in being able to argue with conviction the superiority of its moral case. The left has never hidden its preference for big government as the only vehicle capable of organising and implementing its massive interventionist social engineering projects, but the increasingly overwhelming evidence that this happens in the service of corporatist “monopoly capitalism” (and I make no apology for borrowing Lenin’s phrase), reveals the progressive project as nothing more than a cover for globalist and state capitalism. There may be a select few who see no problem with the lion making the beast with two backs with the lamb but the majority may not see it as quite so palatable.
    But of course people may be jaded and cynical about the relationship of corporate power and progressivism. They will assume that it is the latter that directs the former – as in ‘ethical capitalism’ – when in fact the direction of influence is far more the reverse. What they will not do is lie down in the knowledge that corporate sponsored feminism creates the conditions in which immigration, legal and illegal is made necessary.
    This must become that point in First Contact when Captain Picard takes command of the fleet and calmly says “concentrate all fire upon the following co-ordinates” at which the indestructible Borg ship detonates: the connexion betwee corporatism, feminism and immigration are the coordinates of the systems most vulnerable point.

    1. Well said. Both the “right” and the “left” (artificial and bogus concepts to begin with) utterly fail to see the deep and intimate connection between modern present-day governments in the West and their corporate analogues, with both entities serving a crucial at the service of the banking cartels, as Anthony Sutton brilliantly shows.
      All the social and material gains by the masses in the West (which have been real and tangible) over the past 50-60yrs, in terms of high quality of living, have been a calculated and cynical, though clever, ploy to allow the tightening of the noose of fascism and tyranny around an entire populace, and then the entire globe. After all, fascism, in its proper academic and political definition, and context, is the full and complete marriage of corporate interests with those of the state. Feminism, mass immigration, Hollywood, MSM, scientism, … these have all been highly useful tools in heralding the new tyranny, and we’re currently in that transition.
      The real rulers in the shadows, “the hidden hands” that truly wield power, are well aware of the Spenglerian thesis, and all their efforts have been aimed at supplanting and circumventing the obvious through a massive and monumental social engineering project, never before seen or implemented in the course of human History. They genuinely believe, the psychopaths that they are, that they can transcend Universal Laws, and bend Nature to their will.

      1. thanks. I’m inclined to think that psychologically speaking its more subtle than ‘psychopathy’ even if there may be some who effectively act as psychopaths. That’s to say we may well be dealing with individuals and groups who are prepared to do more than break some eggs to make omlettes, but who nonetheless in the main believe what they are doing is necessary or even in some recognisable sense good. There is most certainly a monumental social engineering project in play, one where as you say, the purpose is to transcend tradition and ‘nature’ through the exercise of human will, but the merits or demerits of such a project must be argued point by point. The first task is to clarify what is going on, what is being done, and condemning the whole thing out of hand may make that task more rather than less difficult

        1. Fair enough; but let’s examine one area where the advances have been seemingly and ostensibly astounding, but on closer examination, many innovations that could truly benefit humanity have been deliberately suppressed: the area of technology. It’s difficult to establish that the “hidden hands” have a genuine concern for humanity, or even that they have simply convinced themselves that their actions are for a noble end, when one investigates the very active suppression of “consciousness transforming” technology.
          Aside from the very well documented suppression of Tesla’s works, there are dozens of innovations that would have been revolutionary if they came to realisation, but amazingly, some “mysterious” deadly fate befalls the inventor, and their research simply vanishes without a trace. Take the case of Jan Sloot as one example. Wikipedia, being an established shill disinfo source, doesn’t mention the fact that there was clear evidence of a break-in into his apartment, and nothing was stolen except the info regarding the research he was working on. Again, this is but one minor forgotten example among dozens. The question is why do such people (ie inventors) almost always invariably meet the same fate? Even when it’s not so macabre, whatever invention that would been pioneering is actively suppressed across the board, even though in a capitalist economy, other investors ought to immediately jump on groundbreaking feats?
          It this becomes clear that we’re only fed crumbs, in a highly planned and intentional manner, that would keep us satiated enough to be susceptible to various machinations (ie a surveillance state) but never having access to technology that would genuinely benefit and liberate us.

        2. “It’s difficult to establish that the “hidden hands” have a genuine concern for humanity, or even that they have simply convinced themselves that their actions are for a noble end, when one investigates the very active suppression of “consciousness transforming” technology.”
          I don’t actually know that much about this issue, and will read up on it when I can. There may well be a hidden hand at work here, or hidden hands – since I am unschooled on the issue I would also have to allow the possibility that there is an absence of any kind of hidden hand.
          I suspect though there’s a danger of assuming a conscious organised intelligence in such matters. People directed towards common goals often self-organise, and do so moreover in ways that permit a degree of deniability with regard to their intentions. I have absolutely no doubt that oil consortia, magnates, car companies etc. might well have sabotaged alternative energy research just as no doubt drug companies may have repressed research or potential cures that looked likely to dent company profits.
          The organising principle here is greed. Greed may work best if it’s run by a single isolate intelligence perhaps, but there’s no reason to think that’s the case. The same people who might collude in or even author the murder of a scientist might well believe that by their actions they keep the system running. More likely though, any such dirty work gets done at a lower level, which would also be a lower level of consciousness – an unconscious almost. I don’t believe people at the top authorise murder or assassination in the ordinary course of things. People below them on the other hand – that may be quite a different matter. And that’s how management works perhaps: plausible deniability; evil and criminality buried at a lower level of consciousness and functionality. Conceiving it as singular and undifferentiated risks misunderstanding what is going on.
          There’s a sense though in which that might not be the case. The higher up you go, despite the typical ‘insurance policy’ of plausible deniability, the perspective becomes potentially more God-like, ever more ‘sub specie aeternitatis’: a level at which both good and evil may seem to be equal parts of a single system. ‘Good’ at that level, becomes something quite different in kind to the kind of good we are familiar with perhaps. Think of the demi-God ‘Q’ in Star Trek Next Generation for example. Notably in his encounters with Q Captain Picard always condemned his capricious cruelty and lack of ‘human’ compassion. The difference perhaps is that the Gods we are talking about believe, or at least claim they believe, the ‘good’ they serve to be directed towards the progress of humanity.

        3. Re: your last paragraph.
          That’s a fairly accurate assessment of the mindset, one that is steeped in Gnosticism. Although there are no “smoking gun”, hard and inconvertible evidence that that is indeed the case, the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming. The networks (aka “secret societies) these higher ups belong to delve deeply in the teachings of ancient mystery schools and Gnosticism, in both their initiation rites as well as regular rituals. From a practical and pragmatic standpoint, all the “ocus-pocus” maybe nothing more than “comeraderie building” exercises, a way to bind the members in a transcendental way. However, the underlying ideology and theology is indeed one of “inversion” (ie a rebellion against all principles of morality laid down by the biblical God), as well an attempt in harmonizing all the binary and opposing forces of Nature, through alchemy, into hybrids, such that notions of good and evil become indistinguishable, similar to a transgendered person who, through alchemical transformation, has destroyed both the male and female forces in himself.
          I found Carroll Quigely’s “Tragedy and Hope” to be an excellent reference on the nature and mind-set of those who rule from the shadows.

        4. I have dipped into Quigley but need to read him properly. I don’t think there’s much doubt in anybody’s mind that a great deal goes beyond behind the scenes, but the nature of such organisation or direction will always be disputed and denied however much evidence can be mustered. As far as I’m aware Quigley revealed what he did because as a leftist he believed pretty much in the programme he identified and thought there should be more openness about what was going on.
          I’m aware Quigley was an insider, and regarded himself as such. As such one might question how aggrieved the other insiders would have been that he revealed what he did. The thing about mystery schools and the secret societies (which may or may not be their heirs but typically claim to be so) is that though they remain committed to secrecy, they also like to slow-drip the revelation of what they are about. Conspiracy, and conspiratorial organisation is always to some extent double-edged – it has a cost and benefit in both directions. Power that is secret may be lost to the extent that it is revealed, but to the extent that it exists but is unknown then it may be severely constrained,, at least to the extent that reputation and suggestion are a part of wielding power. After all wielding power requires a psychological basis to be effective – the popular imagination must be seized. If these people really are magicians, or alchemists or whatnot then a part of the conjuring involves mesmerism: the suggestion of power is as important as the actual wielding of it.
          The implications of this are that while those putative puppet-masters pulling the strings in the shadows may to the extent that that description is accurate have cause to downplay their sway they do so only to the extent that the suggestion of conspiracy may threaten them. In every other sense the conspirator revealing the conspiracy works for rather than against them, even if the conspiracy may not be true.
          Your description of the underlying ideology of such groups marries up with my own impressions in the main. Anti-nomianism however is though central to the Enlightenment project (wherever that came from), and while your description of the thrust of the western esoteric tradition is I think pretty much correct, I think one must be wary in the absence of firm evidence of assuming that it is necessarily the base code of progress. It is certainly though an attempt to commandeer progress towards a particular end

        5. You raise, as usual, highly insightful and incisive points that expand the parameters of the discussion at hand.
          If you haven’t yet come across it, I highly recommend Eric Voegelin’s “Science, Politics, and Gnosticism” as further elucidation and elaboration of the nature of the present subject under examination. Whereas Quigley’s thesis and research is historical, Voeglelin’s delves far more deeper into the intellectual history and the under-girding or ideological foundations of antinomianism, and its rise during the late Renaissance and Enlightenment, and how it all relates to the current structure of political power in the West. One definitely needs to brush up on one’s Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger before tackling Voegelin, but the payoff is certainly worth it, for Voegelin is by far, in my humble opinion, one of the most brilliant intellectual historians of the last century. The sweep and depth of his works, and the subtlety of his extraordinary analysis, definitely rank him as a first-rate or first-class thinker and mind.
          Here, FYI:
          http://www.amazon.com/Science-Politics-Gnosticism-Two-Essays-ebook/dp/B007NJOW14
          (I do agree with you about the paradoxical nature of “conspiratorial power”, and in the case at hand, Quigley’s role in it. Curiously, Quigley’s professional career took a steep nose-dive, so to speak, after publication of “Tragedy and Hope.” And although one must be skeptical of colourful speculations, it is said that those he so enthusiastically supported and described weren’t too pleased with the degree of revelation. )

        6. Thanks. You do seem to find some interesting sources. Voeglelin does sound very relevant to what we are discussing, so much so I’m actually quite surprised I haven’t encountered him before. I’ve been meaning to get hold of the Hans Jonas book on gnosticism which Voeglelin seems to have been influenced according to his bio. I am a little intrigued that he appears to – like Popper – condemn Marx and Hegel – but have a quite different view of Plato. My first impression is that this appears to have to do with his understanding of the proper relationship of man to philosophy / wisdom, but I won’t anticipate further.
          It would be curious if there really had been consequences for Quigley’s ‘speaking out’, not least insofar as it might point to the kind of organisation that might be involved i.e. a powerful incentive system for playing ball, saying the right things, etc rather than the kind of top-down ‘iron-fist’ micro-management that crude conspiracism seems to prefer.

        7. Quote: “I am a little intrigued that he appears to – like Popper – condemn Marx and Hegel – but have a quite different view of Plato.” …
          Alas, you’ve hit a key point: you see, unlike profoundly gnostic thinkers like Hegel, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche and company, Plato’s metaphysics is deeply spiritual and mystical, and on closer reading, his political theory is far more subtle and sophisticated than the bastardizing it receives at the hands of charlatans like Bertrand Russell. There is no “immanentization of the eschaton” in Plato. His theory of forms, in essence, implies a cosmic realm “beyond the reaches of our souls”, and thus is the diametrically opposite of the glaringly arrogant gnostic outlook of reality being but a mere construct of the mind of man.
          This enormous tension or dialectic is evident in one of Plato’s great dialogues: Protagoras. One can very convincingly argue that what distinguishes Plato from Marx, Nietzsche, etc is what separates Socrates from Protagoras; put another way, thinkers like Marx, Hegel, and company can be viewed as “Protagoras has risen again.” (As an aside, Darwinism is not far off in its “theology” from the ideas that arose contemporaneously in the late 19th century in Europe.)

        8. Interesting comment. It seems Protagoras came up with the idea that ‘man is the measure of everything’ and certainly that idea has risen again, and would appear to be central to modern atheism, ‘humanism’ and thelema, and of course the relativist turn. Plato appears to have a dual heritage depending on how he’s approached, particularly with regard to the political ideas in the Republic. My first contact with Plato was through Simone Weil, who turned away from the communism and grand political projects and who emphasised the idea that ‘man is the measure of nothing’ and the spiritual side of Plato. I’m not aware what her opinions on the Republic as a utopian political project happened to be, but I think she would have rejected the literalist views of Popper, Russell etc. that have led to Plato being condemned as a totalitarian. Nonetheless there is something quite gnostic about her thinking.
          I was looking at the wikipedia article on the republic and noticed that amongst those who rejected the literalist approach was Leo Strauss, arguably a defender of the ‘noble lie’, who saw an exoteric and esoteric side to Plato. I’m not sure what to think of that. Personally, I think like you and others I prefer to think that Plato was mainly referencing the government of the soul rather than the polis. If though he is in any way a ‘hermeticist’ then the source of the tension might be the ‘as above, so below’ dictum, or more prosaically the attempt to mirror the internal / external environment. To my mind though this potentially violates the idea of the divergence of appearance and reality. If the noumenal realm is ultimately unknowable how can you mirror it in the below?

        9. I’m, by no stretch of the imagination, an expert on Platonic thought, but I believe your last question is best answered in his later “true” Platonic dialogues where he develops his metaphysics to a far more complex and sophisticated degree, to the extent that some even refer to it as a “hidden metaphysics” with far-reaching implications into the nature of our reality, with close relations to the later thoughts of Leibniz and Gödel. It is for this reason of difficulty and impenetrability that the late, or later, dialogues are largely ignored even in most undergraduate level courses.
          As an aside, rather than wiki, you may find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy far more instructive and fruitful: plato.stanford.edu

        10. Thanks, I will try to check them out when I get a chance. In fact I need to get to grips more with Plato as a primary source rather than reading other people’s interpretations (which I suppose is in many ways the history of western of philosophy). I’ve used the Standford Encyclopedia a few times. It’s always good, but not quite as accessible as Wikipedia and its forked tongue

  18. I wish libertarians would get their story straight. The propaganda about how fiat money causes “vast overconsumption of nature’s scarce resources” conflicts with the other propaganda about how we don’t have to worry about running out of resources because human ingenuity operating in the free market keeps finding new supplies or substitutes or greater efficiencies so that we always have plenty of stuff to go around.

    1. Hmm, what are you referring to? Printing up pieces of paper and assigning numerical values to them can’t really affect the consumption of natural resources, except to the extent that it can concentrate power in the hands of the few (elitists, wall street, etc.) through lending, leverage, etc. but it can’t really change the total output, just redistribute it among the population.

  19. Who would have thought a pill and a pyramid scheme would be the end of White Society. (THE pill and Social security)

  20. giving women freedom will be the end of the white race. obviously, white women lack any sort of mental capacity to understand what life will be like without us around (see Somalia, El Salvador, etc). They have child-like reasoning abilities.

    1. I totally agree. FYI, girls develop faster and reach puberty before boys at the age of 12 due to evolutionary pressures that result in men becoming superior to women both mentally and physically. If you measure the IQ of 12 year old girls and compare it with the IQ of say, a 40 year old woman. Both the 12 year old girl and the 40 year old woman will have the same IQ level.
      Conversely, if you measure the IQ of a 12 year old boy and compare it with the IQ of a 40 year old man, there will be a much higher IQ level in the man.
      This means that a woman has the mental capacity of only a 12 year old child. You know women and children are no different.

  21. To be fair China, Japan and Korea also suffer from de facto sterile women, but aren’t really feminist in any sense
    Meaning that the second part of the problem is that women in western countries have too much agency, which eventually leads to them voting for their own destruction out of “compassion”, “empathy”, and other teen girl feel-goodisms

    1. East Asia’s problem is that gender equality meant that everyone has equal rights to be funneled into a “slave away for your school and company” totalitarianism that is having a destructive effect on fertility not unlike that found in the West.

    2. But Feminism and all the other *Isms are slowly but surely coming to China/Korea and Japan.It seems out Globalist Sociopaths and Psychopaths HATE Successful/Independent Nations, else they will try to FORCE a war between the 3 Great East-Asian Nations… They want a “Dumbed” down population so they can CONTROL them! They do not want thinkers. But thinkers are the future innovators/builders and scientists that move out Civilization fwd!

  22. “The so-called Greatest Generation rolled the dice one too many times when they let the government construct the welfare state, promulgate radical feminism, and open the door to unchecked immigration in the hopes it would bring about a sort of Utopia. As Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell points out:”
    Toldja. See! It wasn’t the Baby Boomers. It wasn’t Generation X. It wasn’t the newly formed Millenials. It was the “Greatest Generation” that truly f*cked us over. It all started with them.

  23. That lack of births is the reason for mass immigration is just bs, people forget that it started when populations were above replacement rate in maaany countries. It’s genocide plain and simply. Shrinking population doesn’t have to be bad, more to share. Though it has some bad effects true since the current model is based on growth such as the housing market for example.

    1. Shrinking populations lead to economic depressions, which lead to increased crime rates and eventually to collapse of that society.

      1. Not true at all, unless you subscribe to the economic model of the banksters and the Fed. They feed off the fraud of the boom-and-bust economic cycle, and have indoctrinated generations with this nonsense. Most “macro-economic” theory is a massive fraud.

        1. show me where in the history of mankind a shrinking population survived? with fewer people they will only have fewer warriors to protect their tribe from their big [population] enemies.
          Bigger population = bigger army

        2. It’s a matter of degrees. Stable populations can easily thrive and even grow economically. The same is true with slowly declining populations. Okay, sure, if there’s a drastic decrease in a population over a relatively short time frame, there’s no doubt that the economic consequences would be disastrous.
          A good example is Scandinavian countries: their populations have been stable through most of the 20th century (not counting the recent ridiculous “open gate” policy on their part), and they have consistently scored as nations with the highest standard of living.

        3. Read this article it explains that Norwegians are having kids and enjoy a healthier fertility rate:
          Why Norwegian birth rates are higher than in the rest of Europe
          November 26, 2014 – 05:15
          Article from KILDEN Information and News About Gender Research in Norway
          The Norwegian birth rate is higher than in the rest of Europe not only because they put their faith in the welfare state. They can’t imagine a good life without children.

        4. Norway is still below replacement rate though….
          And it’s not intelligent people that’s having the babies…
          They probably also have a similar situation to other Nordic countries were third world immigrants have maaany children per woman.

        5. The difference with previous events is that unless we are talking about a war or plague, a demographic winter means less children more elders, less young people and more persons to take care off, meaning that even a “graceful” population decrease would mean economic woes (besides the obvious weakening of the army and myriad of other services that still require human boots on the ground.

      2. Not necessarily…..the economic depression it would/might cause is only because of the bad system. But a shrinking population assuming it has very little debt would actually have more to wealth to share.

        1. There are many things that will happen in a declining population. It’s too dynamic and fluid to discuss here so you need to do more research on your own. But the main points are:
          1- economic decline. Imagine you have a bakery and you sell bread. You sell 100 bread loafs a day. If the population declines by say 10 %, you only sell 90 loafs of bread. You lose money and you fire some of your workers because now you only need to produce 90 loafs of bread. Get the picture?
          2- compared to other countries, your declining population is less productive. Other counties will be more competitive than yours
          3- You have less soldiers to protect the nation against conflict with other countries that are growing in population.
          4- Government collects less taxes to buy military hardware and public services
          5- you are open to invasion from a country with more people
          6- you have an aging population problem = health care problems

        2. The population creates the wealth through their cooperative efforts. Less people cooperating, less wealth per person.
          But aside from that, why would you bring in more people when you are not having your own? Answer: To make feminism possible. This makes feminism inherently unsustainable (in addition to anti family and degenerate)

        3. That’s just bs though. “Less people co-operating, less wealth per person”. I don’t know where you get this stuff lol.
          And there has never been a will for third world immigration in Sweden, there have been very strong Jewish efforts on the other hand to make it happen, and it did.

        4. 1. Yeah, but when population declines there will also logically be less bakers….
          2. If that was the case why is some of those countries with smaller populations some of the richest today?
          3. Don’t see what this has to do with the economy?
          4. Less public services will be needed with less population.
          5. Only in retard world.
          6. Don’t mean it can’t be solved.

        5. The only real measure of productivity within a state is the national IQ, the higher the more productive.

        6. Also, since I feel I have to write it, there are many very populous states with low productivity because of low national IQ. The only real measure of productivity within a state is the average IQ.

        7. Dude, you don’t know what you are talking about. Productivity in economics has nothing to do with IQ. It’s a function of labor, technology and capital. Or, the output given a certain input per unit. What economic model are you applying?

        8. And where do you think such things as technology comes from? Intelligence. The least intelligent countries also get the least patents etc. The higher the average IQ of your population the more engineers etc. IQ is the ONLY measure for productivity.

        9. “Less people co-operating, less wealth per person” is my own, independent, free thought. I guess it’s economics but I don’t care where it might come from. It’s self evident. Civilised people team up, specialise, and produce more working together than they would going it alone.
          If you must have a source I’ll give you Aristotle: “the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”.
          So, less people cooperating means the effect is less — the benefit of cooperation is diminished when the group is smaller.
          You think you can refute that brilliance with “lol”?

        10. You are correct my friend. That’s why populous countries like the US, China, etc are economically prosperous.

        11. What is an economic model? If you understand what an economic model is, and it’s basically a tool for economists to look at cause and effects, and trying to predict the future of an economy, then you also have to be able to look for weaknesses in the creation of these models, certain variables can be left out, intelligence is one of these. Now you only have to google “National IQ and productivity” to find the tons of studies done in this area. Despite research and facts, there is still the widespread belief today that everyone is equal in ability, and can study and become engineers or whatever, this is not the case.
          The only factor that matters in predicting future productivity is intelligence, and yes, IQ is often used as the measurement tool. (Ofc birth rates also matters, current trends in the West are dysgenic, but that doesn’t mean we are having no children, or no highly intelligent children, it’s a slow process).

        12. And you don’t think that national IQ is the more important measurement here than number of people? I mean what society do you think will do better? The society with one million people that are above average intelligence, or the society with 100 million people that got retard levels and below average intelligence?

        13. You seem to be suffering from the pie illusion. We are all sitting around eating a pie so if there are less of us, the remaining people will get a larger piece.
          But no, we ARE the pie. And the effect of cooperation means with less people, each serving is smaller. 🙂
          I don’t know how else to explain it…

        14. It’s you who don’t understand mate, I just wrote to you though, so maybe you didn’t read that yet.
          A smaller highly intelligent population will always be more productive than a larger dumber population.

        15. How will the smaller population become intelligent? It will have less productivity per person. Don’t you need productivity to support your efforts to improve intelligence?
          All else being equal, the larger group will have a better chance at upping their IQ.

        16. And yeah, let’s think about your logic for a moment, the value of Swedens economy is the equivalent of 25% of Indias (based on GDP). With your logic, India should be much richer. Why isn’t India richer than Sweden per person?

        17. You can’t “improve” intelligence. It’s genetic, it’s something you are born with. The only way to increase intelligence in a population is to make sure the highly intelligent have more children than those with less intelligence.

        18. That is a good point. The answer is that I am talking about an “all else being equal” scenario. So if Sweden reduced its population it would be worse off. Also if India reduced its population, it would be worst off.
          The reason for the different starting points is out of the scope of this discussion. Could be due to many factors.

        19. Sorry I find that kind of thinking immoral. We are not breeding people. Just my value system. Don’t mean to moralise.

        20. Well, Sweden have had massive immigration from the third world, if we kicked out these one million people or so, that would have a negligble effect on our economy since most these people do not work, but live off benefits.
          And what would happen if Swedens population declined?
          The smaller population would have all Swedens assets to share, and more wealth would be spread over less people. Any lack of workers can also be solved by guest workers if need be (guest workers that would actually be sent back once their contracts are up).

        21. How is the belief that people are different immoral in itself? I was simply describing the only way to increase intelligence, I didn’t put forth any moral arguments. Intelligence is entirely genetic. And productivity is tied to intelligence.

        22. Ok it’s fine to encourage smart people to have children. As long as it’s not forced, or done through trickery or lies or anything.
          But still, a larger group of smart people, through cooperation, will have higher productivity per person than a smaller group of smart people.
          So to compine what I am saying with what you are saying, the best population is a large smart population working together. Right?

        23. There are other limitations. For example, if you can’t produce any more food than you already do, and have to import food, then how can a larger population be more productive? Regardless of intelligence. But sure, logically if you have a larger group of intelligent people there will be more people at genius levels of intelligence and most likely there would be some interesting developments.

        24. A smaller population would be better for many reasons, not the least of which are increased share of resources, lower pollution, higher quality food, and less traffic. But the US is the worlds largest debtor nation and it needs immigrants to survive. This is a financial fact, and nothing will change this in the end. If America doesn’t allow mass immigration it will financially collapse. If you made this argument in the 1960s it would have been possible to fix it but today it is not. Unless you can find a politician who will drastically cut the military and social programs and/or raise taxes.

        25. If you’re talking about money/economy, yes, this is true. However, if you are talking about resources, food, energy, etc. no, it is a limited supply, and the more people, the less each person is entitled to receive of that supply.

        26. You are assuming that the people that immigrate to the US today are of equal ability to those who immigrated in the past though….

        27. Also, I was thinking about it when I was sitting on the john =P. Is the US really the largest debtor? I mean Japan has like 200%+ debt compared to gdp. The US is not even close to that kind of debt.

        28. I’m not making a value judgment on whether immigration is good or bad, simply stating that as of 2016 the US has no other choice (there are a couple of really horrible choices that it simply won’t even consider) than to accept immigrants due to its financial situation as the world’s largest debtor nation. Even if the immigrants are “inferior” in ability, it can extract payments from them for immigrating and then tax them at an effective rate of almost 50% (local, state, and fed) so even if they are earning $20,000 a year, that’s $10,000 in income to the system generated by the new immigrants.
          Of course the math isn’t that simple, as immigration also has the negative effects of diluting the wage pool, increasing the cost of housing, clothing, education etc. but the feds don’t care about any of that. They just have to make their next interest payment to Beijing, damn the consequences.

        29. There are different ways of viewing the statistics, but the most important thing to consider, more than any snapshot in time is the TREND. The trend is the hardest to reverse. In other words if you are borrowing more and more every year than anyone else, by vast margins, it doesn’t matter where the others are, it is inevitable that you will catch up and then pass them. For the US to go from world’s largest creditor to world’s largest debtor in one lifetime shows an inordinate amount of misallocation of resources and poor decision making.
          On a per-person basis, which is the best way to look at things, yes, Japan has higher debt than the US. But they also have higher assets. In fact, the US owes more to the Japanese than it does to anyone, including China!
          It’s like saying the guy with a $100,000 mortgage has higher debt than the guy with a $2,000 credit card bill. Yes, but the first has more assets. So in one metric, Japan is currently worse off (though the US is catching up) but in the other, Japan is far stronger financially.
          http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mythjapan.php
          http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-just-passed-china-as-the-biggest-us-creditor-since-2008-2015-4

        30. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Isreal, Austria, Korea, Quatar, Singapore are relatively prosperous also, but don’t have huge populations. Mexico, India Nigeria, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia have big populations and are not really all that prosperous. While China has the 2nd biggest GDP in the world, tens of millions of Chinese would hardly live what you call a prosperous life. Stuff from China is cheap because they get paid shit.
          China & US have big GDPs but GDP per person is a better guide to prosperity. I would rather live in Switzerland than China.

        31. I don’t know about the situation in the US too well, but in the EU the loans usually come from banks within the EU, so if we forfeit on the debt it’s just EU banks that fail anyhow…I don’t see that having any long term damage. Might even help a bit.

        32. But, each additional person works and so they also adds to the supply. The production from their work adds to supply for the group. So supply is not limited. It grows as the group grows. Furthermore, because of the effect of cooperation, workers specialise and become more efficient as a whole. So, the supply per person is increased as the group grows. So, as the group grows, each person becomes better off (their own share of supply grows).
          This is one of the reasons that people group together into societies.
          The examples you gave of limited supply are actually the production of work. So they grow as the group grows. Food and energy are production. They increase with population. As there are more people to generate them, there is more food and energy to share around. AND, the efficiency of production increases with a larger cooperating group. So, each member gets more and more as the group grows.

        33. Yes, additional workers do add to an economy, for example if a farmer crosses over from Mexico into the US, he immediately becomes a customer to a landlord providing him housing, grocery store selling him food, convenience store and restaurant selling him fuel, lunches, and snacks, clothing, etc. So in economic or monetary terms, yes, there is a bigger pie.
          But the supply of limited natural resources does not change. If the population of America were to increase by 5% this year due to mass immigration, there is not suddenly 5% more coal to burn for our electricity or 5% more oil that the Saudis will find and ship us for free, and the city doesn’t grow by 5%, nor the roads get 5% wider, nor the local aquifers supplying water able to supply 5% more water. There are fixed and limited resources in the world. And yes, while many things like food can be easily scalable in a microeconomic sense, a world with a much larger population is a world where things like meat, gasoline for our autos, etc. is all extremely expensive because we simply can’t provide it to everyone.
          There is such a thing as group cooperation and specialization, but this does NOT translate into bigger is always better. I don’t know where you live, but if your city’s population was twice what it was today, would you really prefer that? Would that really be a “better off” situation if we had New York Cities in each of the 50 states? (no offense to the real NYC)
          Austin, TX is a great example of something that was once cool being spoiled and ruined by getting too large. People are now leaving because it’s gotten too congested, expensive, and difficult to even find parking as you go from home to work. The people there have NOT gotten better off–in fact it has become too expensive for many to continue living there.
          If bigger populations simply led to more wealth and prosperity then places like India with a billion people would be wealthy paradises where they only have to work 10 hour work weeks because they have 4x the population of the US. It doesn’t work that way. In the 1960s, the US reached its heyday. The population has doubled since then, and we are not more wealthy, but less wealthy. Obviously there are other factors at play here besides mere population numbers, but the fact that we doubled our population did not make us more wealthy; it contributed to the decline in our wealth.

        34. Great comment. You highlight an effect that I was assuming as nonexistent. I would call it capacity limits. I agree, although it wasn’t on my mind in my comment, there are certain capacity limits that disrupt economic activity during a growth phase. Infrastructure like roads and natural resources etc.
          Between the two of us we have identified two relevant effects that are important in considering population. The effect of cooperation, that argues for growth, and the effect of capacity limits, that argues against growth. Because these two important considerations argue for opposite positions, this may be a case of values. Both positions, pro growth or anti growth, are defensible and one should choose their position based on values.
          To me, we need to bring back traditional family values and support the man who wants to start a large healthy family. I live in Australia and we, like the United States and Europe, have followed what people call western culture. I don’t think it’s working at all. I’m not supporting immigration. The benefits of cooperation don’t happen unless people share a common language and culture. People can’t cooperate if they can’t communicate and agree. And if they are not native born, with family behind them, they will end up on welfare etc. Natural population growth, a bit like what was experienced in the 50s, is the only kind that has the cooperation benefits I speak of. Your right, the heyday was immediately following this natural population growth. The population growth that followed, in the 80s 90s etc, was made up of a larger proportion of immigration and it did not have any of the benefits.
          What I dream of is that immigration to western countries is shut the hell down and we get on with having families, big ones. You are very correct in your comments and concerns about limitations. If there is any way, with more people working, to widen the roads, add more water pipes, improve coal efficiency, improve oil supply and efficiency etc, I am hopeful that all those things would be done by the same men who started these families, to provide for their descendants.

        35. Coal, oil, metals, plastics, etc. cannot. These are typically the most valuable resources (ie the Mid East is far more important than the forests of northern Siberia). Also, as our world population increases, prepare for declines in food quality and increased prices. We are already eating factory chickens which are grown to full size after only 6 weeks of life due to hormones and chemical treatment, because we cannot afford to feed the entire world on naturally grown food. The use of pesticides, hormones, and lower meat quality will continue.

        36. While I am not opposed to societal controls and indeed feel that what makes a civilization great is when we implement rules for ourselves, it is worth noting that population levels *naturally* decline in a civilization once it reaches first world levels. This correlation is so strong that if you looked at only one piece of data about a civilization, its reproduction rate, you could likely tell if it were a 1st, second, or third world nation.
          I do agree that we need to strengthen the family (lead by a strong patriarch) and the extended family, as social cohesive forces. The push from governments today is to have weak connections to others, and be dependent on government for instruction and guidance, and often even for food and shelter.
          I think immigration is an easy scapegoat for our problems. The west has a lot of problems, and whether you are pro or anti-immigrant (I would likely be in the former camp), I don’t see how eliminating immigration would do much to address most of our fundamental and serious problems (and indeed it would exascerbate others, such as our budget deficit). If you still don’t see this is true, consider how governments always use scapegoats to prevent the real problem from being addressed. The fact that immigration is one of the biggest political issues should tell you it is another smoke and mirrors trick being used by the powerbrokers to get what they want.

        37. I have heard that idea about wealthy nation having lower birth rates but more recently I noticed something. If you adjust for abortion the birth rate in these first world countries returns to normal. Have a look at the attached image. I have other evidence too. Given that, I couldn’t say it is natural but rather a result of this invasive procedure; a managed result. I can’t speak for every single country but I’d guess that many of these first world countries would have high accessibility to abortion. All one has to do is not provide the service of abortion and the birth rate will return to a healthy state. Some will always argue for abortion “rights” but comes down to will in the end to just ban it. After a while they will settle. This may be a bit of a simplification but baning abortion is definitely a decisive first step that would kick things off. To finish the job you would have to undermine feminism in general so that people can be normal again so a woman is allowed to enjoy being happy, lead by the man for whom she carries and nurses a plethora of children.
          I’m anti immigration but I think my reason for being so is not one of the usual reasons. I see two and only two sources of population replenishment and growth: immigration and reproduction. I am anti immigration because I have an overwhelming preference for the latter. About half of my friends are first generation immigrants actually so it’s not personal at all. I think they should have families too. Like you say, there are limits to growth. So, there is only a certain amount of growth to play with. I think it should all be spent on the reproduction alternative and none on immigration.
          In Australia we don’t have such a bad debt problem. We had a moderately conservative government that started in the mid 90s (you may have heard of John Howard) who continually cut away the governments public service over a ten year period and sold a few government assets (a massive telco for example). The debt was nothing by the end, they were making a surplus! Then he brought in tax cuts… A few years later the Labor party won an election (the left wing party based on trade unions and university progressives etc). They immediately ran the debt up to I think 600 billion which is a lot for us. So now it’s a debt but not as bad as it could have been. I think debt is really an inevitable result of big government more than anything else.
          A family culture should have less need for government dependence. People can look after each other. I’m right with you there on ending excessive government dependence.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/94078d430f88fcc3e6f8246b8f6d8f998bd8698d73411b75a1bc0347938cb334.jpg

        38. All one has to do is not provide the service of abortion and the birth rate will return to a healthy state.
          This is a *hypothesis* not a fact, and I can point out a few problems with it. First, if abortion was not legal, there would likely be increased usage of *other* forms of birth control (Now, if you want to postulate that wealthy nations with zero birth control other than the rhythm method would have high birth rates, I don’t think you could ever prove that, as there aren’t any wealthy nations without birth control–probably not any without abortion either).
          Second, one could postulate that birth control / abortion provided economic benefits that made this country wealthy in the first place. In fact, many sociologists do argue precisely this. Freakonomics comes to mind (without making a moral judgment on birth control, they analyzed that it likely lowered crime rates about 18 years after it was legalized, when a lot of unwanted thugs with single moms would have otherwise been roaming the streets). So if abortion and birth control *caused* a nation to advance rapidly and become wealthy in the first place, this would invalidate the above hypothesis.
          Third, I’ll just point out that it’s all an academic exercise. I have mixed feelings about abortion and birth control, but I don’t spend much time thinking about it because once that door is opened, it simply cannot be shut. At least not in a democracy. I don’t know how long some of the Muslim nations can hold on to their bans on abortion, but I see it becoming legal and available worldwide in the near future, and it simply won’t ever be rolled back. Does anyone even talk about getting rid of the Pill anymore? I think in 50 years or so when we look back at all the sick degeneracy that I can’t even imagine today, abortion will look like going to the dentist for a checkup.

        39. Metals AND plastic are commonly recycled, you sure you know what your tasking about?
          Irony is the Arctic has more of the said resources than the middle east.
          Also the GMO nonsense is a myth. It actually increases hunger and puts farmers out of business (Plus it’s banned in most of the world)
          I also liked how you skipped over the fact that we only occupy less than 1% Earth’s mass

        40. Metals and plastics are limited resources, ie there is a relatively fixed amount of them on the planet, and, cerebus paribus, you double the population you double the demand for them, and the price doubles. Whether one recycles or not, this is true (ie the supply of steel is a certain figure, even when one accounts for the fact that a certain percentage of the steel is mined and another percentage is recovered or recycled; the amount of steel on earth is fixed).
          As for what percentage of earth humans occupy, a brief internet search shows it is around 4% of the planet developed as urban areas, and the human footprint is 83% of the land mass and 96% of usable land. Is there a point here, other than trying to make a personal attack that “I ignore” something? I don’t have an agenda, simply discussing the facts impartially.
          If the facts showed humans occupy 0.1% of the planet, I wouldn’t care, because I don’t have an emotional attachment to facts. I agree with any fact that is considered universally true. The importance of facts in a discussion is what their IMPLICATION is to the topic at hand. So if you can show that under another measurement humans occupy 2% OR 95%, OK let’s discuss that. But it’s not going to piss me off or make me think “OH FUCK IM WRONG”. I’m discussing ideas, not getting emotionally attached to outcomes. If we discover a trillion trillion dollars of gold in the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow I’ll change my mind and say fuck it let’s all party.
          https://www.quora.com/Philosophy-of-Everyday-Life-What-percentage-of-the-worlds-land-is-populated-by-humans
          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1025_021025_HumanFootprint.html

        41. I’ve heard the “it lowers crime” argument for abortion a couple of times and I’m not sure how that argument could ever have legs. The “thug” was dispatched whilst still inside his mothers womb so to convict him of a crime is a bit unjust. Even a statistical argument doesn’t make sense to me. The crime rate can go up or down all the time for any number of reasons. Who says aborted babies would have been raised by a single mom? I think married women have abortions too. A single mom child may have some difficulties but is it really statistically significant? And the real question is, was the study done by a progressive feminist? I’d say so.
          I guess I have a hunch that abortion is the key to all of this. I have to confess that part of my reason is unexplained intuition. I have a feeling that the inherent violence and finality of the act sets it aside from all other forms of birth control. I have this feeling too that a society that does it, in a sense, does not deserve to continue. So, the birth rate falls. Historically, the societies that have grown have done so through a moral code that has a gentleness to it. For example Christianity or even any other religion. There are rules after rules to ensure that man does not have godlike powers. And I see abortion as a godlike power. It doesn’t sit right and sets us apart from historically successful societies. And, now our birth rate is below replacement.
          That last paragraph was my less scientific reasoning on the subject. But it’s not just that. I think the numbers tell the same story. In Australia approximately 33%of babies are aborted. Feminist will argue it is 25% or something. The birth rate in Australia is at 90% of replacement level. If you add back the abortions to the birth rate you get well above replacement even with the feminists own number. It goes up to 115%. So with a 15% growth rate per generation. Even if some of these benefits didn’t all flow through due to more use of contraception, only one third of it is required to save the birth rate and save the population as a whole.

        42. It is well documented in the book Freakonomics. They make a clear distinction that whether abortion is moral or not is a different question, but the effect is that many poor people who would grow up without a stable family in poverty in a ghettho, which are conditions conducive to making one a criminal, were never born, and therefore when they are in prime crime-committing age, like 17-24, they weren’t around 17-24 years later and the crime rate dropped. It makes sense to me, as long as one accepts the nurture over nature argument when it comes to creating criminals. The alternative would be that certain people are predestined to crime, which I don’t believe.

        43. Does being poor make you more likely a criminal? Is 17-24 crime committing age? Are family problems crime causing? Would a child that was aborted have been poor and have family problems? Are we so afraid of criminals anyway? There is just so much doubt in the statistical analysis (with morality aside like you said). It is very heavy in assumptions. To me it’s not plausible. And, I don’t care about the crime rate.
          The argument that abortion is appropriate to clean out the scum, dispose of undesirables and eliminate the poor people… It smells like good old progressive eugenics (a close relation of progressive feminism). It justifies cleaning up the gene pool and expelling the “unfit”. People who can’t afford a baby or don’t have the relationship skills for raising a child etc. are removed and their offspring are also removed. Whether it’s genetics or conditioning it doesn’t matter . Either way they are removed and the problem goes away.
          To me it’s an implausible statistical analysis that is very convenient for these progressives. So they will ignore the implausibility of it.
          The problem with eugenics is that they think that they can improve the gene pool but they can’t because they have no idea what is “good” when it comes to genes. They just end up thinking their own genes are great. They often think their own race is better too. So in the end it’s not about improving the gene pool at all. It becomes about securing the future of genotypes that are similar to their own. On top of all that, the inevitably reduce the diversity of the gene pool by systematically eliminating genetic traits from it. So they achieve the opposite of what they promise.
          200 years ago the English wanted to dispose of their human trash so they exiled them all to Australia. That is why I am here today. But I’m grateful that this abortion idea was not around back then.

        44. Sociologists say yes, absolutely, those are the major contributing factors to crime, and most violent crimes are committed by 17 to twentysomethings. In fact the field of criminology is basically the study of how poverty, broken families, and growing up in disadvantaged neighborhoods lead to crime, and what, if anything, we should do as a society to prevent or minimize this. There is a reason why a black kid growing up in Compton has a statistically significant higher chance of being a criminal than one raised in Brentwood, and it mostly has to do with nurture (wealth, family, friends, etc.) as opposed to nature or background.
          The book takes a very amoral position on abortion; ie they are not advocating one should “clean out the undesirables”; merely pointing out a side effect (the main reason for abortion, anyway is a form of voluntary birth control for women). They point out many side effects of many policies in the book, both positive and negative. It’s all part of the “unintended consequences” of government policy. Sometimes the consequences are positive (rarely), sometimes negative.
          I would not argue for eugenics. However, I’d pose the question another way: If we can agree there are elements of society that are undesirable, should society discourage them from flourishing? Should it at a minimum refrain from encouraging them from flourishing? Curious what others think of this.

        45. I also noticed how you “forgot” the core tenet to engineering which implies things get more efficient overtime. For example look at computers.
          You also forgot that you’re not included the ones recycled or mined from the ocean.
          Urban area implies judiciary district not actual land occupied

        46. The brain is made up out of cells. Neurons being the most of these. I still don’t see your point though? It doesn’t matter what the brain is made up of, we know how it works.

        47. “it gets worked”? You even know what you are talking about? And no, neurons don’t create pathways “everytime it gets worked”

        48. If you knew anything the only time new pathways are created would be if the brain is damaged somehow (cortical remapping). Very few aspects of the brain is ever counted into “neuroplasticity”. If you area talking about synapses that’s a different thing. People were so “impressed” by neuroplasticity that they lost all perspective and started to fire off all kinds of things. You still have to explain the smaller brain among African, and the less developed pre-frontal lobes, etc etc.

        1. Historically, declining populations lead to economic failures. Show me where in the history of mankind societies survived declining population. Maybe not collapse but it will be miserable.

        2. I dont know much about that..but the situation is different today because of technology. Less people are needed. Anyway I prefer declining population than filling the gap with Muslims.

        3. If the rest of the world was empty you might have a point. However that’s not the case. Japan and China had the same idea and the world kicked in the teeth rewarding their idiocy (19th century).

        4. For my country it doesnt matter, we are only 5 million, we cannot beat anyone. So if we are only 5000 people it wouldnt matter, we are equally weak.

        5. Switzerland population size is similar however they have a respected army and civilian militia. Israel has a great army and has even less land than Denmark and similar number of inhabitants, so not all is lost. However is better to have 5000 young people to start a nation with than 5 million where at least a third are of retirement age or disabled.

    2. Massive immigration and native birthrates correlation is very weak. One thing doesn’t have anything to do with the other, hence justification for immigration based on birthrates is nil and you are right. However you are wrong on something, massive immigration started in the 70s. By the 70s, fertility in almost all western Europe was below replacement level and in the U.S. it was barely 2 children per women for the whites thanks to contraception and abortion. The difference is that in this period, the average age was mid 20s whereas today the average age is >44 years old for whites, hence the effects of the demographic winter are much more noticeable today than say the eighties.
      By the way if less people equals prosperity how come most of humanity (including our forebears) historically has been poor. A decrease in population can only represent greater prosperity with full automation and a complete overhaul of the economy and even then, such a period will be a stagnant one (less population=less above average intelligent people around).

      1. That’s not true though, if you look at Britain for example, immigration from the Caribbean and other places started right after world war 2, maybe it wasn’t massive, but it was large, it was really Tony Blair that opened the floodgates more than anyone. You also mentioned the Unites States, and ofc, we know what happened after the -65 bill, but let’s face it, the US had been changing it’s immigration laws the entire century, taking in all kinds of peoples, Jews, Italians, Asians etc. The difference was that the white populations were growing at explosive levels so it didn’t have much effect.
        And also, I never said less people equals prosperity, I just wrote that less people doesn’t have to mean less prosperity, and it’s very hard to compare today with history when looking at technology.
        Also, I mean, people above average intelligence are decreasing even with growing populations….
        Or well, that was stupid of me, since obviously the average changes, what I meant is that intelligence can decrease even with a growing population. Dysgenics is a heavy trend today.

        1. Also, I mean, people above average intelligence are decreasing even with growing populations….

          That seems to be the case. Historically population selection pressures made populations, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, smarter, that combined with a rigorous education meant a smarter populace. However that is not the case anymore and it may be that the very technology we use is dysgenic…

    3. The lack of population growth is a handy excuse. The true intention is the elimination of the White Male Competitor, and the subjugation and enslavement of White women.
      This is all being orchestrated by the same Jews who brought us Central Banking, Fiat Currency, Feminism, The Civil Rights Movement, The Gay Rights Movement, Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Hardcore Pornography, etc etc…
      You can spell it out, again and again, and yet 90% of the regular readers here still refuse to get it. They are hopeless.

      1. Well, not the same Jews, since the Jews that started many of those things are long dead. More likely Jews and their hypocrisy never change 😉

  24. The “economy” is such a pointless thing, all things considered. We would rather destroy our world and society, if this allowed us to make profits.

  25. I sometimes wonder: if Ted Kennedy could come back today and see the results of the policies he set in motion, would he be delighted or horrified?

  26. It’s the women who are driving the mass immigration. I can’t find it but I saw a graph of the male to female breakdown of the supporters of the German political parties and the party with the most female supporters is the CDU headed by Merkel while the main anti-immigration party has mostly male supporters.
    So why do women support a party that lets in third world barbarians that will rape and accost them? It’s all a giant shit test. Women welcome invaders as a test to see which tribe, in this case western men against muslims, to see which is the stronger of the tribe so they then mate with them as they have proved themselves to be the more aggressive and dominant. Think women are loyal to their tribe? Look how many French women spread their legs for the German invaders during WW2.

    1. They are “loyal” to the strongest. It’s how nature works. It’s not their fault, but giving power to them when you know how they are is insane.

      1. Women invite, men invade. You are exactly right. Women are loyal to nothing except their biology. It’s not because they are evil although it makes them APPEAR to be evil; it’s the God of Biomechanics that says women only want the best sperm, no matter who it comes from. The males in the society she grew up with and the invaders then have it out. She fucks the winners.
        The male is expendable in all of nature. No matter our illusions our preferences do not determine what is true. Men are considered expendable in our own species as well. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. I gotta do an article on this.

        1. If women are not evil for betraying their families and their entire civilizations, then men are not evil for anything that they do, including wanton murder, robbery, rape, and destruction.
          The whole notion of being a good person is based on you controlling your darker desires, whether they are “natural” or not. Women wanting to sleep with a foreigner is a dark desire. Men wanting to kill their competitors is a dark desire. While these thoughts and actions are perfectly acceptable in nature, they are considered “evil” in the human societies we have built up.
          In other words, YES, women ARE in fact evil for procreating with racial enemies and competitors.

        2. Agreed. Morality is created, maintained and fucking ENFORCED by men.
          If men of a given society let go of that. If they sheepishly give masculine power away as freedom and license to women, then we get the hideously rotten fruit that has been borne of a sickly tree we call western civilization.
          It’s wrong because we say it’s wrong and we are willing to enforce those rules on our women(at least I am).
          We used to have men that trusted their instincts and helped maintain the patriarchies which lasted for thousands of years.
          Now we have fucking pajama boy.

        3. until we create the perfect artificial ovary. what many here seems to ignore is that, science is superior to nature. we tamed the night with electricity, we tamed the sea with ships and we tamed the sky with planes. men will always get rid of the problems they face with science. women will not be exception (sexbot).

      2. Absolutely. They dont give the pussie to men that behave like slaves and try to do everything to please them. They submit to strong and powerful men. End of story. The main reason there are many women in the West, mainly in the anglo-saxon “world” converting to Islam, is precisely because of this lack of male authority. If we link this to the void materialism and corporate boring works they have, we have a recipe for disaster.

    2. and I think this will be about the time where men will need to take back their country (for survival and to save the country as a whole)….from women and the invaders.
      There will always come a time when women will no longer be able to handle a situation and men will be called upon to restore order. It always happens in any emergency or crisis.

  27. Japan is a classic case of women not having kids with little immigration allowed the population is declining slowly at the moment but as the snowball picks up speed we can guess the end results. But instead of following Western decline caused by immigration Japan is spending more on robotic research – makes you wonder if in one hundred years will Japan be just a country of robots and no people.

    1. You’re absolutely right. Their situation is actually far worse. Not only are Japanese women (i.e. the 20-40yr old demographic refusing to have kids), but this bizarre and almost surreal social phenomenon has sprouted over the past couple of decades which is getting worse: over 4million Japanese men in the same demographic as the women are essentially living in mom and dad’s basement, having completely withdrawn from society in every way. Here:
      http://www.henrymakow.com/japans-demographic-nightmare.html
      It’s not exactly the most academic of articles, but it’s a good summation.

      1. Japanese society is harsh and bitter. There is a lot of pressure to do great in school to even have the right to attend further education. While men in other countries are busy dating and socializing in high school, many Japanese men are spending all their time cramming in study. They don’t have fun, they lack personality, and just never learn to enjoy life. Several articles on the problem have cited Japanese women stating dull personalities as a huge turn off.
        Now, getting the big career only gets a man so far. There are younger women who will go for an older richer man but only so many. Right there, you’ve already gotten a pool of men who may only have more infertile 30-40 year old women as their dating pool who missed out on family spending all that time focused on academics.
        Women in Japan are often under the impression that it is best to marry before 25. They either marry before 25, fall into the idea no man wants them and refuse to see advances from interested men, or men don’t want the women because they are in their older twenties and that man wanted a wife under 25… Even though he’s 40… And works a common office job.
        Then there’s also the infertility. While being overweight is never good, it’s also unhealthy to diet when one is already fit. Beauty standards in Japan are unreal. Many of those women have trouble conceiving because they’ve decided 100 pounds is too fat and that really 85 looks best on them. This is bad for fertility. If anyone ever complains that Western standards of weight for women are unrealistic, they would certainly have a heart attack from fright if they looked at the diet ads in a Japanese fashion magazine.
        There’s more issues then that, but it would be very lengthy to describe them all. In their case though, infertility isn’t the worst thing that could happen. They are limited in space after all.
        Besides, most would be faced to either fit 3-4 people in a small box of an apartment in Tokyo, or move to the country and pick up farming just to have a decent sized home.

        1. You are wrong, Asian women will fuck a man with money, of any age. When I came out here to live (age 52) I was beating them off (women aged 25-35) with a shitty stick. When I purchased my wife, her mother insisted I take younger 11 year old sister (buy one, get one free) as well ….. I brought the younger sister up as my daughter (but that was never moms intention).
          After I was married, fathers would come round with their teen daughters, to see if I wanted another woman.
          As for women’s weight, I would never date an Asian woman over 50Kg. 40Kg – 50Kg is the perfect weight for a normal Asian woman. I met a 22 year old Filipino girl last month weighed 43Kg and was already a mother of 4 children.
          White women are so overweight they no longer know what normal weights are. In case you’re wondering, I’m 75Kg and 6′ tall, that’s a normal weight for a large muscular white male.

  28. It is hard to have a child in America.
    This article speaks of strapping young men. Where are the strapping young men? I see a man working 30 hours for 8.00 an hour as a cook in Chili’s kitchen. I see a man who racks up 40 hours a week checking out customers at Target, spending his weekdays at the bar getting numbers from girls that half his friends already bedded. I see a man who is a grad student in college, his degree will be folk music appreciation. I ask him what his future job prospects are, he says, “I’ll worry about that after I graduate.” I see a man with severe depression who wastes his time playing video games because he wants to block out the negativity life brings him. I see a man who so overloaded with school work for that engineering degree or bar exam, that he can’t hold a steady job or find a lady because he has no time. I see a man, the 50th one in a week, getting that broad communications degree, I see a man who has been unemployed and makes a living helping his parents because he was always good with his hands and doesn’t fit into the office mold, he is scorned as without talent and dreams because C.E.O. never appealed to him, he would dream of automobile work. I see men who had children without finances who raise their children in shame living among trailers and section 8 housing on government income; nobody tells him, “beautiful family”, when he’s running pizzas to make ends meet.
    The females have their many problems as well, but one must look at both sides of the spectrum to learn why babies are not being born.

      1. Oh… no. I was commenting on this section of the article. “Feminism encourages women to forgo their biological roles as mothers and to forgo forming families. In the modern age, Western women now marry themselves to a corporation rather than to a strapping young man.”
        The younger generation of men finds themselves in positions that they are incapable of raising a family in the traditional sense. I’m not speaking poorly of these men, I’m speaking poorly of their life situations that make a traditional family impossible to provide.
        Feminism does its damage by painting such men as losers, aloof, lazy, and a slew of other insults when it’s not the man’s fault that they cannot support a family due to the hand present life has given them.
        The world is tearing itself apart over social issues.

        1. A strong man will find a way to do what he wants. If that be a family then he will make it happen. There are always options available.
          It seems to me that the men you describe in your first comment are just weak males. The kind that voted in women’s suffrage and the impending societal degeneracy that followed.
          Since women are the gatekeepers of sex and the opening gates of reproduction, the blame falls more heavily on them for not having babies.
          Millions aborted every year. Women should never have any say whatsoever in the direction of society.
          This used to be common sense.

        2. Come on. Women have betrayed men. Not every one. Not the ones I associate with. But many many now follow a boss when they should follow a man. They are miserable for it but try telling them.
          If I was a woman I’m sure I’d rather give my loyalty to a man than a corporate boss. But there has been a hell of a lot of brainwashing going on for several generations and many many women DO marry themselves to boring careers.
          You might complain about men having bad personalities or bad habits etc but it’s got nothing to do with it. What men are lacking now is power. A woman’s boss can control her. He has the right to instruct her on a day to day basis. I’m sure all of the complaints would stop if a woman was with a man with that kind of grunt. Personality issues and bad habits wouldn’t be on her mind at all. The strapping men are still out there but they are now only the antiestablishment, don’t-give-a-fuck types who reject feminism and go out to dominate women and then start a family appointing themselves as the head of that family from day one. To make it the norm, first the state needs to had back men’s natural powers over their women and their families. Then the prick at the office would be no competition at all.

        3. “The strapping men are still out there but they are now only the antiestablishment, don’t-give-a-fuck types who reject feminism” –
          They are there but there is just not enough of them. Many women will hookup with them, but many wont get to marry them. Even many of those alpha men still marry go getter career women so the 2 incomes can help pay for the $1m house + investment property + aldi & bmw.+ grammer schools + overseas holidays.

        4. “Women should never have any say whatsoever in the direction of society.”
          It was never quite that way, but trust me, feminists love it when others, male or female, believe that such a world ever existed.
          “A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches.” That is Proverbs 11:16.
          ‘Treasure of the City of Ladies’, written in 1399, is a great example of how this verse played in the role of women in society. This writing paints a far different image of a medieval queen or noblewomen, an image the feminists do not wish for people to see.
          Feminists rely on painting images that a man as ‘head of household’ is a tyrant or a patriarchal kingdom kept their women locked up in kitchens and bedrooms taking care of children with no say whatsoever in society. They like to focus on the, ‘give me a male heir’, aspect and skim over other duties such as peacemaking, being a reagent, contribution and acting in a pious manner, all household affairs within the castle itself, and a variety of interesting duties related to spreading news through the land, disseminating gossip, rumors, and discovering traitors, and many other aspects related to things involving language. Just… Read the piece. It is very enlightening that the concept of tyranny and subjugation of women in medieval kingdoms is pretty overblown and completely untrue.
          Arranged marriage… Most arranged marriages were not some system where a father chose a husband and, boom, they were married. That rarely happened. If that were true, the debutante ball would have never, ever existed. Yes, the father generally had a say in which men could approach his daughter, but this was merely to keep his daughter from marrying some charming Fabio who would not provide for her needs, he just made sure the suitors were acceptable. The lady, from among the selection, was allowed to say, I think I like him… Or she was allowed to say, “I don’t think I like this one, can you show me another suitor.” So, love at first sight plays into most arranged marriages. Even in the Islamic world, women were commonly allowed to express and disapprove of a suitor if she found good reason and her parents would look elsewhere. Yes, there were occasions that the common idea of arranged marriage happened, but most frowned on that system.
          If women had no say after America’s creation, then how do they explain the prohibition era? That was entirely enacted at the wishes of women. They obviously had some say and respect for that to happen.
          As far as the men I mentioned, they are not weak. Many have wonderful personalities, but they do not have the means my fathers before me had to support a traditional family. My father was a farmhand, my grandfather was a factory worker and a mechanic, my great grandfather was a logger. All of my fathers before my direct parent had access to cheap land to farm and own animals to feed their own families. They had timber to build their own houses without excessive fees instigated by the state and building codes. The fact we live in a bad era for men to rise above and provide in excess cannot be denied.
          Feminism is an issue, and feminism is like an uncontrolled fire. They take real issues of society as fuel… But instead of trying to put it in an engine that runs, they light it on fire and no one benefits.
          It is hard to have a child, to provide for it in the way my ancestors provided for their children.
          I depise the ill will and misinformation that the movement has spread of both present and past.

        5. Yeah that’s the progressive mentality. Have few or no kids so as to be well off. Then lie to oneself that the world is over populated and complain that poor people have too many kids…. I don’t think that’s an alpha. Even if they were to start with, once down that road they are pretty beta in my view. An alpha wants to perpetuate his own genotype.

        6. The prohibition era is yet another example of my point.
          Let women have some say in things and look what happens. They opened up a massive racket for crime, murder, etc.
          None of the examples you gave refute my point. That women should have no say in the civic affairs of a given society and when/if men give them this power en masse it is surely the death knell of that culture.

        7. You focus on the prohibition and nothing else…
          You do not see the importance of a good queen, the simple fact the feminists have lied that women ‘have never had power’, and not that even with the prohibition’s crime… That the world back then kept families together and still allowed men to act as the head of household.
          Why?
          Is the damage so far done?

        8. Your lust for kingly male power makes you no different than any feminist and reminds me of the curse that God the Father laid down on all women in Genesis.
          Why do you not support male leadership?
          Probably because you secretly covet that role and see yourself as the one who can make the best decisions.
          The only thing a woman can do better than a man and the only unique thing she can do is give birth to the next generation. Even with this she must first aquire the man’s seed in her.
          You should concern yourself with that alone. If you are over 25 yrs of age and you do not have 3 or more children to tend to you have failed as a woman.

        9. I never said I don’t support male leadership. I’m Christian. My religion strictly mandates that women should not hold ruling positions of power. Governors, kings, and any job with a position of power over substantial wealth such as a CEO does not belong to a women.
          God also cursed men, did he not? You are cursed to toil the land. I am cursed with a hardship and pain through childbirth. Both male and female were cursed for the eating of the sacred tree’s fruit.
          I could have three children; the state would certainly take them from me and the father. Perhaps if I only had one, they would not take it; that child would have to survive off 8.00 an hour. That 8.00 barely pays the bills and feeds 2 people… Much less 3 or 5. That is not a life I am willing to put a child through.
          I believe females, if they express femininity, do quite well when it comes to hosting social gatherings, decorating a home in a pleasing attractive manner, giving a gentle, peaceful solution to situations which could lead to violence or contempt (to try and avoid confrontation), situations which require a great deal of multitasking, and a number of affairs that rely on emotional interpretation. (Child care does fall into those last two among other things, yes.)
          Men, when acting in a masculine nature, do quite well at managing money which requires hard facts and figures, physical labor, issues that can only be resolved through violence or a display of power (Not just war, but things as simple as a powerful stature to negotiate with mechanics, real estate agents, and a car dealership), situations with high stress levels in which emotional capacity is a downfall, and tasks that require not multitasking but a mind capable of honing in to provide complete focus on a task.
          A women is below a man as far as earthly matters are concerned but that does not erase the fact she is a human being. Perhaps it is a misinterpretation of your wording, but those words, the ones I mentioned you typing earlier, ring of a person who would expect women to be happy kept locked away with no say whatsoever in how they may be treated. By that, I mean any power to correct situations that upset them. They may feel as if none of their feelings, ideas, beliefs, or emotions matter.
          They are human so they must have some say in society and the world, even if that say is first examined by a man. Otherwise, they will feel unhappy and unimportant. God did create woman at the wish of man, but he created them as companions, not slaves and servants.

        10. Can you honestly blame me for my harsh views living in this world?
          I could waste my time hoping for a better tomorrow or I can face the cold hard truth of reality and adapt accordingly.
          Your analysis of masculine and feminine roles is a good one. I can take counsel from anyone if what they are saying is valuable.
          However I come to expect the worst in people and with that I am never disappointed. On a few occasions I am pleasantly surprised though.

        11. I cannot blame you for your views. I would never blame you for your views.
          I hope for a better tomorrow, even if it is a waste of my time. It may be silly and fruitless, but I still hope and speak for that hope.
          To see others angry, to see others lose hope, it makes me feel deeply saddened.

  29. “Conservatives need liberals for their creativity and (usually) aesthetic lifestyle sensibilities. Liberals need conservatives for their guardianship and wisdom… Without liberals, we might have worse movies and fewer charming coffee shops. But without conservatives, we might have no civilization at all, having handed over the keys to the White kingdom to babbling barbarians.” Have been thinking about this very interesting insight and wondering whether there is such a thing as a conservative artist.. I think I know one, but still it’s not the exception that disproves the rule..

      1. Suppose we have to count Ayn Rand too but it’s a specific genre, at least the authors you list have done things that are more purely creative not like political storytelling..

  30. According to official figures*, every minute, one new person is added to the Australian population.
    Two thirds of these people are native newborns. The other third are mature immigrants.
    Amazingly, the abortion rate is also one third**! The same figure as the immigration rate.
    If abortion was not a thing, the same population growth could be achieved without the need for immigration.
    Now, abortion was effectively made legal in Australia in 1969. Have a look at the time series attached showing the Australian birth rate over time*. Look at the crash in the early 70s!
    In my view the abortions are just symptomatic of feminism. I agree with the article. Feminism is literally killing us. Abortion figures a a good statistical proxy to use.
    *Official figure (rounded) from the Australian Bureau of Statisctics
    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument
    **Official Department of Health Medicare funding figures.

  31. According to official figures*, every minute, one new person is added to the Australian population.
    Two thirds of these people are native newborns. The other third are mature immigrants.
    Amazingly, the abortion rate is also one third**! The same figure as the immigration rate.
    If abortion was not a thing, the same population growth could be achieved without the need for immigration.
    Abortion was effectively made legal in Australia in 1969. Have a look at the attached image showing the Australian birth rate over time*. Look at the in the early 70s! It drops by one third.
    In my view the abortions are just symptomatic of feminism. I agree with the article. Feminism is literally killing us. Abortion figures are a good statistical proxy to use.
    *Official figure (rounded) from the Australian Bureau of Statisctics
    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument
    **Official Department of Health Medicare funding figures.

  32. Bah. The West could deal with low birth rates for a while. Automation, incentives for parents, lower taxes, and prosperity in general. I don’t buy that as the explanation for throwing open the gates to a flood of Muslim savages.
    The modern left needs victims. With the Cold War over and poverty on the decline, they were running out. Their natural reaction – import more victims for them to coddle and pretend to care about.
    I also think the real leaders of International Socialism are trying to use the Muslims to destroy the last remnants of Nationalists.

  33. “A recently released report reveals that a full in 1 in 5 people in the United States are now either immigrants or their children.”
    Says the white loser who descends from European trash that went to the US as IMMIGRANTS themselves and pushed away the natives. You’re simply hating, because the immigrants are not ‘your’ type of people, because they are non-white, non-christian or non-native speakers of English.
    Whatever the reason is, you believe in white supremacy and want to keep the US white in population, but you want to benefit from all the non-white stuff, like the non-white religion of Christianity, the non-white food, the non-white products etc. The double standards are big on this site.

    1. whites have invented most everything, and create the best countries. everyone wants to live in white countries.

        1. it’s a consequence of letting women vote. they foolishly buy into the jew propaganda that every culture is equal to the success of Europeans.

  34. The coming international confrontation will be one between the United States and China plus their allies. As I’ve said elsewhere China is economically and institutionally weaker right now but they have a strong Sinocentric pride and mild degree of innate xenophobia that prevents them from truly worshiping Western advances the way Japan, Korea, or even Vietnam have been compelled to do. Unlike the Soviet Union of old, China doesn’t place its military at the forefront, rather, the long-term strength of its state-backed economy is what it is banking on.
    China is fighting a major economic war by directing investment across all continents and makes allies of convenience wherever it does so. No major western politician or businessman dares call it an “evil empire” or seek to place a policy of containment upon it, because these politicians have already been bought out. Look at how Zuckerberg, in his desperation for a growing Facebook population, does all he can to suck up to Beijing. Look how Trump praises the Chinese for being strong at Tiananmen. China may be far away and uninteresting for the average white American, a curiosity at best, but the elite have been playing into Beijing’s game ever since Nixon, and I don’t see anything, barring Chinese internal problems, that would reverse this trend.

    1. Nice analysis. Indeed, it is the BRICS alliance that is attempting to pose a threat to U.S. dominance. If we didn’t have feminism and a degenerate leftist culture and corporate-controlled government I would be worried about BRICS. But, I welcome them challenging U.S. hegemony in its current state.

    1. Indeed. According to the census bureau, Whites will officially become the minority in about half a century, around the year 2070.

        1. Indeed these statistics are so misleading. Take away old Baby Boomers… a much..ahem ..darker picture. Here, all over the West. The population figures they always bring up for Germany are pretty much utterly misleading bullshit. Young reproduction age Germans, you know, the future of Germany, a much, much smaller %, you might be a little bit more concerned about Germany even existing several decades from now.

        2. once whites are gone it’s over. other races can’t create a system near as well as whites have. There’s still a lot of older, rational whites around but they’ll be gone in 15 years tops. Jose and akhmed will replace them

        3. Replace them only in a dimensional sense, as in they will take up space where once a productive race of people lived.

  35. One could argue that the right to vote for females directly led to this sort of deleterious circumstance, as that led to them becoming a formal and consistent voting bloc which politicians on the left especially have exploited, with no less a pandering zeal than FDR and Johnson demonstrated with Blacks.
    I researched female voting patterns going all the way back to FDR (no data exists before then) and found that in almost all cases, females voted for politicians that were invariably left of center, and voted for politicians that were aesthetically polarizing to some degree (ones that were charismatic especially) which meant they’d vote for the best and worst politicians available, and mostly for the worst. What this means is, they’d end up putting the worst politicians (Carter, Obama, etc) over the top most of the time and end up putting the best politicians over the top (guys like Reagan) the least amount of time, which helps explain why we’ve had so many bad politicians especially since they were given the right to vote.
    This also explains why Trump is going to help give us a HIllary Clinton presidency…as females who object to his many remarks about women (however accurate they are) will refuse to vote for him.

      1. Before i respond with a probable disagreement, could you provide a non Forbes link? I always have trouble accessing that site.

  36. I question whether you would actually have large monopolies in an unregulated market with a sound currency.
    Without the possibility of bribing Government, competition would be much more evenly split. Goldman Sachs is basically like Lance Armstrong in cycling. Only they never get punished.
    I’m my opinion, the way to remove corruption is by removing that which is corruptible, excess Government. Its a chicken and the egg dilemma, but I think Government really is the main problem.

  37. I think Germany is a fucking perfect example of this.
    Their economy is in the tank. There political “parties” are finally beginning to crumble. Need I say more? This is what happens when you elect a feminist-socialist-woman to run a goddam country. Sorry if I was a little bit redundant there.
    They are segregating train carts now (or bus carts? whatever). Why? Because immigrants are abusing German women. Merkel, however, still stands by her immigration policy. Except NOW, her proposal is that if the migrants can “integrate” and learn German, then they can stay there permanently. Teaching these people to speak German is not going to stop their children from getting abused, or transportation from getting blown to smithereens by these suicide bombing scumbags.
    So I suppose the real question isn’t about balance… it is about unbalance. And dealing with unbalance.
    For example: how does an entire country come together so quickly to elect policies that will destroy them from the inside out? Furthermore, how does one stop this?
    In these conditions (although, this is just me being a glass-is-half-full kind of guy), perhaps the buzzword is not “how” anymore, but “when.”

  38. America is a dead end. Unlike other cultures and peoples who foster their own nation first, American business and political elites have been outsourcing their work ever since the country’s founding (importing Africans as slaves), just so they can keep wages low and working conditions poor. After the Civil War, there was the mass importation of Europeans, a “ready-made proletariat”:
    “The industrialization of America posed another, more serious, threat to the once unchallenged cultural and political hegemony of old-stock Americans in the North and the West. Faced with stiff resistance from homo Americanus to permanent wage labor, industrialists imported a ready-made proletariat, first from Ireland and later from central, eastern, and southern Europe. Nativist objections were met with the soothing observation that Italian or Polish Catholics, even remarkably alien Russian Jews, were just as “white” as Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
    With the closing of the frontier and the consolidation of the corporate economy, however, homo Americanus, too, was compelled to abandon the dream of an independence secured by his own land or his own business; he, too, was forced to get a job. In the twentieth century, most native-born Americans of British ancestry, faced with a life-long struggle to keep a roof over their heads, freely sold themselves into wage-slavery. (In time, of course, a shiny new car in the garage would provide Americans of every color and creed with the illusion of freedom.)” – Andrew Fraser, “The WASP Question”, pg. 219
    The current situation is just a continuation of the same trend, except now they’ve already imported so many different cultures that they have to resort to the real bottom of the barrel, like Mexicans, Somalians, Indians, Muslims, mainland Chinese, etc, who have shown themselves completely unable to surpass third-world standards even in their own countries.
    It’s a failure at running a nation at all levels.

  39. Wrong, neither Govt nor corporations subvert the will of “the people.” It is “the people” who having chosen to be led by women that have descended into senselessness. The Bible does NOT blame Eve for the fall, for she was deceived and God never commanded her not to eat from the fruit directly. It was Adam who standing right there failed to protect and lead. It was Adam who directly rebelled, first by adopring the passive role he was not meant to. Most people, men and women, have been feminized to the point of illogic fantasy wishful thinking. My wife and 3 daughters, being raised under my leadership, can think rings around 95% of peers; and yes, I raised my wife. I married her when she was 18 and taught her. She, like my daughters and son are God fearing Bible believers so we run things old school. I provide, protect, lead and serve. They stretch the money, are modest and stay out of dangerous situations, follow and return my loving service with respect. Bucket loads of respect, no abuse, power struggles and the only One we ALL fear is God. It is neither the extremes of feminism nor Islam, and I already have 3 granddaughters so we do breed (just not to extremes).

  40. The question is this: Whats the point of even reproducing to replace ourselves at this point?? I think the battle is lost and the US is for lack of better words…gone!! I know that I made my decision a long time ago.. no kids for me at all!! My kids would grow up in a world completely devoid of anything good or wholesome because everything I would teach my kids would clash with everything they see, read or hear about.. there is NO childhood at all anymore.. no innocence at all.. My kids and their kids would have to grow up in a world they dont even recognize!! Our govt wants people that NEEDS them, people that cant think or survive day to day without handouts and programs… not people that are able to live peacefully and dont need to be watched over and babysat.. Our govt is the MAFIA!! Try to tell them you dont want their help and see what happens!!

    1. Yeah seriously. When I compare the world my grandfather grew up in to today, and consider that things are ramping up at warp speed to become orders of magnitude worse, can you imagine what kind of shitty evil world your grandkids will live in? If I can get to a point where I can financially retire to a traditional second or third world country by age 50 or so, and if those countries have not been polluted with western sickness, that’s when I would consider a family, and not before.

      1. I’ve been thinking the same thing, honestly. I do want to have children someday, I would be lying if I said I didn’t. But even if I were to find a non-corrupted woman (and I’m going to be frank, I don’t think there will be any left by the time guys my age become financially secured, if we ever do), it doesn’t look like there’s much of a future for anyone right now. It would be selfish of me to bring a child into a world with no future.

        1. Don’t fret about it too much. The great thing about being a guy is if at age 60 we suddenly decide we want kids, we can marry and have kids. If I move abroad, change my mind, find a unicorn, or somehow patriarchy takes hold in America again, and I decide to settle down in the future, I can easily do it. Unlike women, we have our entire lives ahead of us, where they have a pretty small 15 year window from 15-30.
          Hell, my elders say the first 10 years raising your kids are the most rewarding and fun anyway, and if you’re in good shape, you can do most anything at 60 you could at 30.
          If you don’t have kids yourself, you can still mentor children in a hobby you enjoy (in America this is harder since women will say it’s “creepy” but just pick a sport, boy scouts, or non-feminine hobby, or better yet just ignore them), spend a lot of time with a neice or nephew, etc. I’m like you, part of me fundamentally wants kids too, but I live a very independent and diverse lifestyle and kids are a huge time and resource commitment. I’d have to sacrifice several of my other hobbies, not to mention my days of womanizing would end.

        2. My 5yo son doesn’t take up all that much time, he’s at school weekdays 7:30 – 3:30. My wife does kid duty before lunch, I have him after lunch and at weekends (when she is at university). Can’t say it detracts from my life in any negative way. At the moment he’s lying on the sofa playing with his tablet (40c outside) in the evening when it’s cooler, he’ll be out in the road with all the other kids, running and cycling up and down.
          My days of womanizing have not ended, that’s not the way it works in Asia.

      2. WW1 and WW2 weren’t all that great a time.
        I retired to a 3rd world country at age 52.
        61 now, nice young wife, 5 year old son, it ain’t all bad.

  41. To be fair to Zuckerberger, it is difficult to find tech workers at his Silicon Valley headquarters. But this is because people don’t want to move there because there is no housing available. He moved there to be close to his big money investors.The same rich people that own real estate. So they want immigration to drive up housing costs. They make money paying low wages and they get all the wages back in rent.

  42. Wait. Let me get this straight. Anglo-Saxons are complaining about immigration?
    – The same Anglo-Saxons who came from the British Isles and went to the American continent as immigrants themselves and fucked up the native population?
    – The same Anglo-Saxons who came from an area which is in present-day Germany/Denmark and went to the British Isles as immigrants themselves and drove away the Celtic tribes?
    – The same Anglo-Saxons who stole the knowledge of navigating the oceans and abused the hospitality of the foreign people they met? Forcing themselves on their lands?
    THEY are complaining about immigrants in ‘their’ country? While they have been migrating for the past 2000 years? They are the most toxic stock of white people and are now bitching and whining, because everything is collapsing and they’re the ones who are getting fucked now.

    1. Considering whites invent 98% of just about everything on the planet. I think its safe to say your bitter for being stupid. Also, most people don’t give a rats behind whether your an immigrant or not – most competent people realize there are 48 million people on welfare in this country-America- and adding another 1.7 million per on average to the US is liberal stupidity hell bent on turning this nation into 1 gigantic ghetto; so if you don’t like it – f off. Aspiring people to live under a cardboard box is not righteous.

    2. There is a difference between immigration and conquest.
      Killing all the original natives makes it OK.
      Also we invented and made everything, which also makes it OK.

  43. Recently a 30-year-old woman commissioned me to do a family portrait for her…..A portrait of her and her 2 cats. I also remember vividly around the time I entered my mid-20’s that all these girls in my peer group were getting cats and dogs and giving them human names and treating them like children. Most of them were committed to their careers or finishing grad school, but they couldn’t hide the truth – What they wanted more than anything else were children and a family, yet they couldn’t admit defeat in the face of feminism by quitting their jobs and settling down.
    I live in a section of NYC where many different ethnic neighborhoods converge – There’s white people to the north, blacks to the east, Asians and hispanics to the west, and Pakistanis to the south. My neighborhood also has several schools within walking distance and I can see the kids getting let out at the end of the day. And the one thing I noticed is that while my neighborhood is filled with white adults, I barely see any white children.
    If I see a mother with a child in my neighborhood she’s usually pushing 40 with a face full of wrinkles with a kid she probably barely managed to conceive and birth with the aid of scientific intervention like IVF. A few times I’ve thought I’ve seen a 20-something white woman with a child, but I quickly realized it’s probably a babysitter (Who is no doubt coping with her lack of children during the prime of her fertility by taking care of other people’s kids). But when I go to any of the ethnic areas I’ll frequently see young mothers with easily 2 or 3 kids around them, sometimes more. And excluding the black area, I have no doubt the others have traditional family structures that will benefit the children more than any single white mother with a divorce under her belt and a corporate job could ever hope for.

  44. Procreation is not the solution to every problem. We will soon be eight billion people in this world, -way too many.
    I think both genders fall short of responsible behavior, maturity and compassion. In third world countries, where people can barely provide for one child, they have eight or more kids.
    As a sad consequence, those countries are easily exploited. The so-called first world outsources its production of goods to countries which provide cheap labor, such as India, Bangladesh and (increasingly) Africa.
    Especially Europe will be hit by a stream of refugees of unknown proportions. The refugees of Syria and the Middle East are just the beginning. Africa is waiting. Too many young adults without a future, without hope.
    Maybe quite a few people on this blog will disagree with me when I say: we need contraception for poor countries and an end to a culture in which husbands and mothers-in-law determine how many children a woman will have.
    Husbands often want to have lots and lots of kids to prove their virility, especially if there are no other ways of proving it, such as promotions, status symbols, etc.
    They need to stop taking (status, image, appreciative thoughts of others) and start giving (respect to and compassion for their wives and their future children).
    The same applies, of course, to women. Stop taking. Start giving.
    And the West? A catastrophe is happening.
    – Women who try to fill their empty souls through shopping sprees. – Godless men and women who put human values (success, money, consumerism, and so on) on a pedestal and view children as lifestyle accesoires. The omnipresent question people in the West continuously ask themselves is: how does this (thing), he or she make me feel? Instead of: what can I contribute to his or her life?
    The “how does it make me feel”-question has even reached the field of spirituality. Especially women are prone to establishing their own “religion”, which may include angels, elfs, unicorns, aliens, but definitely EXCLUDES God, self-sacrifice and accepting one’s fate.
    Thus, we live in pagan societies in the West.
    And the Bible clearly warns us that pagan societies will be destroyed.
    So what could we do in the West?
    – understand that marriage is a mutual commitment and a school of life. Not an oasis of constant emotional gratification and entertainment. That there will be good and bad times.
    – turn away from wellness-spirituality to God.
    – accept a lower standard of living (less consumer goods, longer waiting periods for them, less choice…). Shopping like a maniac, excessive partying or anything which goes past the limit destroys one’s soul. And it contributes to the exploitation of our planet.
    – have kids, give them religious guidance, love, values and limits.
    In the second and third world lots of people starve and have more and more children nevertheless. And we, in the West, sacrifice our fertility for the next trip to the Caribbean and even more partying and shopping. Crazy world. Catastrophic world.

    1. Procreation is the problem. White women no longer want to breed.
      Too many niggers and Jews, not enough white people.

  45. what is sad but true,and I realized this by reading the book “Manning up” which really isn’t about shaming men at all, is that women’s work in corporations, is often the kind that is for their own satisfaction. I mention this because you say feminism turns women into taxpayers cogs in the corporate machine. In fact, in a bitter irony, women often do work in design and HR that they love and fulfills them, at least for a while. As to the money, they don’t make as much, but they never wanted to. Oh they’d like to, but they don’t really want to like a man really wants to. They have other means of support, other options, so bottom line is that men are cogs and still cogs, always will be- EXCEPT THE ALPHA MALE HARD WORKING RISK TAKERS LIKE DAN PENA- but women, they are given luxurious choices. how could they not, when women all along, despite feminist shaming, always had the option to chose a man to provide instead, at least if she’s semi-decent looking and a good personality. Women can find the level that keeps them happiest. Whatever is easier- adapting your personality to a man and pleasing him and not fucking around, that you get provided for, or adapting your personality to a corporation. They have that choice. They have always had that choice. Read Hymowitz’s book and see. Bottom line, more things change, more things never change. I’m not saying feminism didn’t make serious changes in society, especially as it affected government. Radical ideologies from puritans on down have a history of affecting the US government. But women have the choice to stay at home and be provided for. Granted, men without degrees don’t make as much because of job loss and outsourcing, but the fifties was a rarity in the human experience. I would say the way back to a prosperous society is make it more monolithic/mono-cultural, curb corruption, have lots of babies, better trade deals, more traditional gender roles, but who can bring this about, but father time? I don’t know that women are just cogs in the machine. However, older women might become embittered, after hitting the wall.

  46. The economic drawing is accurate what is not is we don’t need a population of immigrants. In the future we need a healthier smart population because there will not be jobs for the rest.
    We need individualism most of all.

  47. If a woman in Latin America walks down the street with a dog on a stroller she will be stopped by the police until she can prove that she is not mentally ill and that she is not a danger to herself and society. Seriously, this is a national emergency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *