I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
Author Message
Eastside Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 755
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 10
Post: #1
Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
In case you haven't read this, here it is- http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

I think Roosh brings up a lot of good points here and its worth taking 10 minutes to read through carefully.

With the current (blatantly destructive) immigration policies across Western countries, the promotion of feminism, and other globalist practices that are becoming more and more apparent and aggressive recently, I think it's worth taking a look at what really the end goal of all of this is.

There has been some good analysis of the "big picture" global elite plans mixed in with the Migrant Invasion of Europe thread, the Paris thread, the Trump thread, and other threads related to this topic, but think it deserves a thread of its own.

I'm by no means an expert with this stuff and really only started paying more attention to these sorts of bigger political questions within the last few months, but I think the depopulation theme is something that is a big part of this, for similar reasons that Roosh describes. Its reasonable to assume the elite also want more power as well.

There are several ways I think they can accomplish depopulation, as others have noted here in various threads-

- Feminism and other policies and cultural trends that inspire low birth rates. Roosh goes over this much better than I could in his post. Refer to his article.

- War. Here's a theory that has been bouncing around in my head lately-

I think it's possible a future war is the reason behind the Muslim invasion of Europe right now and it will end with lots of blood spilled. I doubt that the elites are actually fans of Islam. Muslims have high birthrates and stand in opposition to many of the positions that the elites seem to value. I think they are a pawn to start a war in Europe and the middle east. Under the surface of the propaganda in Europe, I think a lot of people are starting to distrust Islam. Elites will continue to push migrants on Europe, causing more crime and attacks, while anger among a silent, growing majority of people continues to mount. Once this anger reaches a critical mass (probably inspired by some sort of terrorist attack in the future), the mainstream narrative (controlled by the elites) will be deliberately "slingshot" in the opposite direction, using the built-up anger of Europeans to launch a war against Islam, leading to many deaths.

This is just one scenario and I'm sure guys like Zelcorpion and Samseau have more nuanced thoughts on this, but what I think is undeniable is that the migrants are part of a bigger plan that involves a substantial conflict of some sort, and almost none of the "end-games" I can think of will end without blood being spilled in at least some part of the world. Curious to hear more thoughts on the longer term implications of the migration/invasion in Europe as well as any possible future war scenarios.

- Disease. Not sure how this will be used (if at all) and I don't want to go off into conspiracy-land, but Bill Gates and his foundation as well as others have said some cryptic things about this. The whole AIDS thing in Africa is suspicious too. In the past, disease (though not of the human-engineered variety) has been a major cause of depopulation (black plauge, small pox in the colonization of the Americas, etc.). It could possibly be a tool going forward as well.

- Other. Share your thoughts

How do recent events fall into the current direction that the global elites want to push forward? What IS that direction exactly and what does the end result look like? How can we prepare for all this? Are elites pursuing these policies because of their own thirst for more power, or do they actually think there is a legitimate population problem and it is up to them to play god and fix this perceived problem for the "greater good" of the people who are alive following their destructive policies? Is the depopulation thing a red-herring and are there really other plans in place? Just brainstorming here, but these are questions increasingly worth asking as the direction the world seems to be going in gets more and more murky all the time.

I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately and it is hard to separate the tin hat theories with the more legitimate concerns with real evidence behind them, especially being a bit of a newbie to these kinds of issues. I doubt things will turn out exactly (or even anywhere close) how I described above, but I want to get this thread started off by brainstorming some ideas and hearing what others think. Not trying to create a conspiracy thread, but more just a discussion on how the current events going on right now relate to the direction the world is going and the big picture of it all, whether that is depopulation (as Roosh described) or something else. What are your guys' thoughts and predictions for where the world is going?

Here's Roosh's article-

Quote:Not long ago I proposed that decreasing birth rates in the Western world is happening due to some cosmic force that is seeking balance upon the universe. I missed the mark. The force is not something cosmic or metaphysical, but human. After studying the evidence, it’s clear that there is a conscious scheme to control the human population through both cultural and biological means, which allows the elite to sustain or elevate their power and wealth.

The first piece of evidence showing you have been primed to favor depopulation is that you most likely agree to at least two of the following three statements, even if you consider yourself “red pill”:

“Agendas or schemes by the global elite should be first considered a ‘conspiracy theory.'”
“There are too many people on planet Earth.”
“Needs of the environment must come before plans to increase human fertility.”
It’s not a coincidence that you are already on board with depopulation agenda, and if you live in a Westernized nation, you came to that conclusion “naturally” because since you were in grade school, you have been bombarded with messages about the dangers of over-population and the fragility of the environment. It turns out that all the progressive ideas being spread in the West have one thing in common: they all limit human reproduction.

Here is a short list of progressive causes that have percolated from intellectuals and later sponsored or hijacked by billionaire activists and major government institutions of the West.

1. Abortion is a bodily “choice,” not human murder. Result: it decreases population.

2. Birth control is a “choice” that allows women to better practice consumer lifestyles. Result: it decreases population.

3. Female empowerment in the form of feminism and egalitarianism pushes women into corporate work with the goal of delaying motherhood (or eliminating it outright). Result: it decreases reproduction and family formation.

4. Promotion of sterile human relationships in the form of homosexuality and transsexuality can’t possibly result in the creation of life. Result: it decreases population, reproduction, and traditional family formation.

5. Promotion of atheism, nihilism, individualism, and consumerism as suitable alternatives to traditional living via nuclear family units. Result: it decreases reproduction and traditional family formation.

6. The needs of the “environment” must be served before that of living humans. Result: it makes human guilty of family formation.

7. Massive waves of foreign immigrants are encouraged entry into Western nations to break bonds between tribe and neighbor that decrease notions of nationalism and patriotism while transferring fertility and economic resources from native people to foreigers. Result: it decreases relative population of native citizens.

All of the above decreases the reproductive rate, either directly through the killing of life, or indirectly by promoting guilt and alternative lifestyles that are incompatible with the creation of life. At the same time, immigrant populations are allowed to grow at a faster rate that the natives’ ability to reproduce.

Those who rule over us don’t need more Americans or European-derived people to cement their power and wealth within nations they control through government institutions and transnational organizations and corporations. How would it benefit them if a baby boom takes place among those from American conservative states that believe in the first and second amendments? If you were king of the land, and you regularly met with those who helped you rule, would you really want the type of people who are most likely to overthrow you to reproduce up to their biological maximum, or would you want to hurt their reproductive potential while pushing every degenerate cause under the sun in an effort to limit their numbers?

I wrote Cultural Collapse Theory a year ago, where I detail the specific mechanism that progressivism destroys a host culture, but I could easily re-title it to Population Collapse Theory without having to make many changes to the text. I must admit that I feel a bit foolish for taking so long to realize the agenda all along is depopulation, especially when the elite have openly shared and discussed their plans. All you need to do when watching their interviews is to replace the buzzwords “population control” and “sustainable development” for “depopulation of Western natives.” This is often done under the guise of curing third-world poverty or making the Earth “more livable” for Western children that will never be born.

Here are a few public statements that show how depopulation agenda is important to those who dictate government and corporate policy:

Prince Charles commenting on population control:

I could have chosen Mumbai, Cairo or Mexico City; wherever you look, the world’s population is increasing fast. It goes up by the equivalent of the entire population of the United Kingdom every year. Which means that this poor planet of ours, which already struggles to sustain 6.8 billion people, will somehow have to support over 9 billion people within 50 years.

John P. Holdren, Barack Obama’s top science advisor:

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.

David Rockefeller, gloablist who refuses to die:

rockefeller

Ted Turner, founder of CNN and one of the largest landowners in the United States:



Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, which successfully used abortion to decimate the black population in the United States:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Thomas Ferguson, former official of U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs:

There is a single theme behind all our work—we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….

Bill Gates talked about using one of his foundations to play god in Africa and limit the population using biological means. It’s quite interesting to see a dorky looking geek so interested in population control, but then again his father served as head of Planned Parenthood.



Gates’ friend, Warren Buffet, is also on board with depopulation. He gave $3 billion to his wife’s Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Take a guess as to where that foundation donates most of its money? Planned Parenthood.

The tax records also show that most of the foundation’s spending goes to abortion and contraception advocacy and research. According to Access Philanthropy, a research institute that focuses on the giving preferences of foundations and corporate donors, family planning is one of the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation’s main purposes. The foundation’s nonprofit 990 tax form shows that in 2008, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates in the U.S. received about $45 million; the international arm of the organization got about $8 million. There is no line item for the Ryan program [pro-abortion organization] or the Family Planning Fellowship [pro-abortion organization]. But the foundation paid out around $50 million to universities with one or both of the programs.

By now you should note that the more sinister the individual, the more they are portrayed by the media as harmless, awkwardly geeky, and folksy (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg, the Google founders, and the CEO of Starbucks).

There’s the 1974 document titled National Security Study Memorandum 200 (full PDF text), commissioned by Henry Kissinger, whose obsession with international order led him to the conclusion that rising population of some countries would threaten US interests, and that contraception must be promoted within them to limit their population. Kissinger, another zombie globalist who won’t die, is still instrumental in dictating policies around the world through his consulting firm Kissinger Associates.

The United Nations has an action plan called Agenda 21 that advocates for “sustainable development.” One way it does that is through worldwide promotion of feminism, which has the effect of removing women from the family home and into corporate workplaces that are under control by the same gloabalists in the UN club. As any Western nation’s population chart can tell you, feminism goes hand-in-hand with depopulation. The UN offers confirmation that feminism is a great form of birth control since they consider it essential for “sustainable development,” globalist code for reducing the birth rate.

[Human settlement improvements] should be based on technical cooperation activities, partnerships among the public, private and community sectors and participation in the decision-making process by community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenous people, the elderly and the disabled. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies. In developing these strategies, countries will need to set priorities among the eight programme areas in this chapter in accordance with their national plans and objectives, taking fully into account their social and cultural capabilities. Furthermore, countries should make appropriate provision to monitor the impact of their strategies on marginalized and disenfranchised groups, with particular reference to the needs of women.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is led by Christiana Figueres, the daughter of Costa Rica’s former president, ensuring her admission to the globalist club. She states in the following video that the UN should “make every effort” to decrease population from its current trajectory (start at 4:30).



The former Chief Of Bioethics to the National Institute Of Health (NIH) is Israeli Ezekiel Emanual, who is brother to former Obama advisor and Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel. In an Atlantic article, he claimed that we should all consider dropping dead at 75 because it would save the government trillions of dollars. The most anti-ethical and chaotic arguments will come under the guise of ethics and world order.

I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

The quotes, videos, and articles above barely scratch the surface of what you can research yourself on Youtube and Google. While there is an unhinged element on many of the sites that talk about depopulation, I trust you can use your own judgement in separating fact from emotion.

Most corporations, whose sole motivation is profit for shareholders, have for some odd reason pathological soft spots for women and the environment. It’s no coincidence that empowerment of women into becoming corporate workers and mindless consumers shatters their reproduction while promotion of environmental concerns makes you not only guilty to have a family of your own, but inclined to give unwavering support and authority to globalist agendas that limit population in the “privileged” Western world while at the same time supporting the breeding of third-world immigrants to displace them.

Men who have come to the conclusion of depopulation arrive at it from different paths. I saw it not through politics but through sex. I saw firsthand how the government, media, and universities are deliberately trying to promote mistrust between man and woman through feminism, the myth of rape culture, and social justice ideas that allow a divide and conquer strategy to pit the sexes against each other, making every woman see a man as a potential rapist and every man see a woman as someone who could ruin his life.

The fact that men are scared to death of a false rape accusation or are fearful of being taken to the cleaners in divorce is a feature of depopulation-driven progressivism, not a bug. A wedge has been driven between men and women so that you see each other as threats to your happiness and livelihood. It is by design that you are not capable or willing of doing anything more with a woman than mutual masturbation under the influence of alcohol that will not result in family creation. Just in case you do want to make babies, a backup plan has been enacted so that reproduction will still not result: essentially all fertile young women are on birth control, encouraged to go on it after puberty. Even if she does become pregnant, the means to abort it will be so easy, especially with you convincing her to do so since coincidentally there are state and federal laws that enslave any middle class man who thinks having children could somehow serve his interests.

It’s important to understand that birth control doesn’t have to be only biological in the form of pills or abortion, but in the form of ideas and beliefs that instill fear and dread about reproducing by associating having a child with a loss of individual or consumer freedom. I wouldn’t be surprised if “men going their own way” groups are indirectly supported by the state to increase a man’s fear of reproducing with women.

In case you still have doubts that depopulation is the overreaching agenda of Western elites, I ask you to take a look at charts of fertility birth rates from World Bank data and ask yourself why isn’t there any concerted effort to reverse the declines? Why aren’t governments supporting natalist policies like in Russia that aim to seed future generations of natives to create a stronger nation that will endure the ages, instead of importing criminals and democratically challenged Mexicans or radical Islamists?

population-chart

What’s amazing is that the US birth rate is below replacement rate even accounting for its fecund immigrants, showing that fertile peoples become effectively sterile once inserted into an environment that has been slated for depopulation. Currently there is not one European nation west of Russia, even when including Eastern Europe, that has a fertility rate above that of the replacement rate. By comparison, the fertility rate of Niger is 7.56, four times that of the United States, but don’t worry, Bill Gates’ humanitarian “vaccine” program will take care of that problem when the time is right through his pet project, a birth control microchip that can be turned on and off by wireless remote.

The three main cultural mechanisms of reducing native populations is to program people to be concerned for women’s rights, third world immigration, and the environment. This is why nearly everyone on the left, including SJW’s, are fanatically supportive of all three. Leftists have been soundly convinced of issues that lead to the destruction of the family unit, the breakdown of their society’s social fabric, and their own voluntary sterilization. When you combine biological efforts that include birth control and abortion, you can see how Westerners have absolutely no chance of recovering their population compared to African, Middle Eastern, and Asian populations that do not currently face both cultural and biological bombs to reduce their birth rates, but will soon enough be targeted once the Westerners are sufficiently weakened and depopulation goals are met.

You probably now understand why when Brussels accepts a new country into the European Union, the first thing they do is mandate a gay pride parade on the capital streets, and why they immediately start screeching about the need for more women’s rights. This is the cultural attack that aims to limit the reproduction of that country so that their sovereignty can be easily dismantled within only two generations, an attack that begins even before they join the EU in order to “prove” they are ready to destroy themselves for the short term gain of big loans and free trade for that nation’s local elite.

Even the form of game that I taught early in my career, of one-night stands, was compatible with the depopulation agenda since reproduction would often not result from it. This meant that I was a useful idiot for many years. I can’t help but notice that attacks against me have increased in intensity as I move away from teaching sterile sex and anti-family ideas to promoting more traditional values that are far likelier to result in reproduction.

While I would certainly agree with you that there are plenty of people currently inhabiting the Earth, I disagree that a small group of globalists at the top should be able to play Dr. Eugenicist and determine who reproduces or not without limiting their own reproduction, especially since their hypocrisy about caring for the environment is on full display as they fly around the world in their private jets to their numerous mansions. They do not want you to impregnate a fertile 19 year old and have many home-schooled and ritalin-free children with her. Instead, you’re bombarded with messages to marry an aging spinster whose womb is likely already sterile and who can’t give you more than two children, which is not nearly enough to sustain the population.

Perhaps in the 1950’s you were told that having a big family is the masculine thing to do, but it’s almost impossible these days to see images of large nuclear families represented positively in television or commercials, especially with women under 25 who are not already slaves to corporations and government propaganda.

I’m coming to the conclusion that the only way to defeat the evils of liberalism, feminism, social justice, and progressivism is to have huge families and create tribes that are free-thinking, self-reliant, and, most importantly, armed. The men of the future who can resist totalitarianism and unjust government authority come from the wombs of the women living today, and those women must at some point be convinced that being stay-at-home mothers who raise strong men is superior to becoming zombie consumers who poison and sterilize their own bodies.

The last thing that those in power want is for women to pair-bond with independent, masculine men who do not need the state and who place more importance and loyalty in their blood relatives and nation than to leftist ideas, iPhones, and sports teams. In the past, my fantasies were about sleeping with as many women as possible so I can be the playboy that I saw in the Hollywood movies, but now they are about creating the sons who will one day lead their people and their nation. It’s squarely up to us to create the men who can eliminate the parasites that are successfully controlling modern humanity.
11-19-2015 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eastside's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
Libertas Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,213
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 87
Post: #2
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
I think the depopulation thing is a red herring.

Law 3 of power tells readers to throw a smokescreen to conceal your true intentions.

Depopulation works for them in some areas geographically, but in others it doesn't.

What is the result of "the elite's" actions? What have they been doing, through whatever reason being ideological and economic?

The goal is to dissolve nation-states (whether de jure or more likely de facto as seen in the EU) and form a one world order. You can call it conspiracy or whatever. I don't believe in the image of the ominous Jewish (or whatever) merchants rubbing their hands and planning precise events 30 years in advance. That's nonsensical in a chaotic universe.

But what you can't deny is that they want a one world, globalized system. This religion of equality that's been the dominant meme of the past 50 years and has logic stretching back thousands (as I am showcasing in an upcoming project), actually, promotes that.

They have a view of "global equality."
They have an equal religious view of the free movements of goods and people across national borders.
Culture is anathema or an obstacle that needs to be removed. Everyone should be seen as an atomistic, isolated, and self-interested individual and not as a member of any tribe or nation.

This is also why libertarians are useful idiots for the most part, at least mainstream ones. The smarter ones have realized that their vision of liberty is incompatible with certain cultures and have justly elevated their desire for liberty above the normal assumptions of egalitarianism.

Depopulation in the west right now serves that goal, so they can bring in hordes of third world, mostly male, immigrants to undermine national identity in the stronger countries. Likewise, Africa's population explosion which pushes people into Europe and elsewhere helps it (remember that Africa would not be exploding without massive GMO food programs).

Again, I don't want to sound sinister, and I hope the defeatism and tinfoil hat shit doesn't come out in full force, but look at the big picture and that's what they want, operated through a nexus of institutions and interests political, economic, and cultural. Like Marine Le Pen said, "nationalists vs globalists."

Oh well, that's my input (you can read a post I wrote called "Check Your Political Sense of Entitlement" on my blog for more info). This should be moved to the Deep Forum.

Read my Latest at Return of Kings: 11 Lessons in Leadership from Julius Caesar
My Blog | Twitter
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2015 07:57 PM by Libertas.)
11-19-2015 07:53 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Libertas's post:
HighSpeed_LowDrag, Handsome Creepy Eel, Ocelot, Yurtley, Buck Wild, Sankt Michael
Eastside Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 755
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 10
Post: #3
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
Good points. And yeah if the mods want to move this to the deep forum that would make sense. I don't consider anything you said to be too far down conspiracy-land either. I was mainly just hoping to keep this discussion reasoned and not go off the tracks too far with statements that can't be backed up by facts or logical thinking.
11-19-2015 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ChrisPitts Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 126
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 4
Post: #4
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global polit
I tend to agree with the depopulation theory and I think Libertas brings up some good points above. It is very interesting that all the things that your modern cultural marxist espouses: feminism, abortion, atheism, faux "equality".. all do the same thing, and that's destroy or hinder the forming of the most important bonds that lead to full and happy lives: family, love, and community. You can see this easily by talking to your average leftist. They are most likely to be an extremely unhappy individual: hate their job, have problems with their girlfriend/wife, low amount of friends, prone to drama. Their lives are unsatisfying because their ideology is not designed for happiness. Their perpetual victim status prevents them achieving real happiness. And that should be your first clue that they don't have the right path in life. For example, I happen to sit next to a rapid Bernie Sanders fan at work. He has, what I can only describe as the "ups-and-downs", whereas he has good days and bad days. The reasons why he has down days: his fiancee cheated on numerous times and moved out. He has little friends and is the very definition of "white and nerdy". He makes a crummy salary and thinks all this country's problems can be solved by taxing the rich at 90%. And then you can see leftism for what it really is: it's the philosophy for losers. The philosophy for the people who don't win in the current system (which rewards the traits exhibited by neomasculine men), and wish to change it (through cultural marxism) to another system where they are not losers anymore.

What's strikingly noticeable about their efforts to change the current system is that most people with the ability to think rationally and critically will not go along with it. They will want to preserve the system that allowed them to make something of themselves. And that's why the best people, people who are at the top of their fields, some of the most intelligent people out there, all tend to skew conservative: they want to preserve the system that enabled them to achieve their current status.

As our world continues to change and the rapid leftism that we see everyday gets further entrenched across the world, it's not shocking to see population rates start to nosedive. Europe has been at barely replacement levels for decades. If not for immigration, the white population of the United States would be the same way. Interestingly enough, it's areas that do not suffer from ingrained state leftism that see the largest population growth like Africa or Asia. I would say as a tool for controlling population, it's incredibly poor. Think about it: you effectively ruin an entire generation (or two or three) of your population by not giving them the mindset and skills to live fulfilling lives. All aspects of culture suffer when you have barely educated people (products of public education) who don't have meaningful skills to contribute to their current society's legacy. A great example of this is art. It wouldn't be hard to find anyone on this forum who would agree that any art created in last 100 years is mostly shit. Especially when compared with some of the masterpieces of Western Civilization from 500 years ago. You can't tell me that Warhol's Campbell's soup can is the equivalent of Michelangelo's David. It's not even comparable and just a symptom of a larger issue. Frankly, it's the start of cultural suicide. We see this now with the large migration of muslims into Europe. These people do not care two figs for European culture. They would rather tear down churches and build mosques in their place. Historically speaking, the easiest way for humans to control population would be through wars, but in the last 200 years, as war has become more destructive and frightening, we have moved away from this method. Something had to replace it. And I think that's why we see these agents of depopulation like feminism, faux "equality", atheism taking effect. It may be nature's way of culling the herd.

That doesn't make it the right option, though, in my opinion. I live my life to the fullest that I can every day. Embracing neomasculine principles have made me the happiest that I can ever remember, and teaches you to value what's really important in life, like your family, your relationships, and your sense of community. It brings out in me the competitive nature to drive and win, no matter what the task. I have taken on more hobbies in the last year than I thought I ever could, all because I desire to live an exceptional life. And that's the difference between us and them. Leftism will keep you a perpetual victim and lead you to never be satisfied. Neomasculinity will teach the principles that will lead to a full and happy life. I know which one I choose.
11-19-2015 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like ChrisPitts's post:
Tim in real life, Wutang, gework
Roosh Offline
Eagle
*******

Posts: 19,210
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 420
Post: #5
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
Quote:What is the result of "the elite's" actions? What have they been doing, through whatever reason being ideological and economic?

The goal is to dissolve nation-states (whether de jure or more likely de facto as seen in the EU) and form a one world order. You can call it conspiracy or whatever.

One world government and depopulation go hand in hand, and I believe they are doing it simultaneously. I could agree that depopulation is a tool to achieve one-world government, but either way, it is one of the most defining agendas of the elite today. They want their one-world government to control a stable, ordered, and weak people, and using the depopulation devices (feminism, third world immigration, environmentalism) will help get them there.

Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
11-19-2015 09:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Roosh's post:
Yurtley, mbare
SunW Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 483
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 8
Post: #6
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
I've heard a lot of theories as to what's going on, but it all really comes down to this question:
Quote:Now we need solid solutions. There are plenty of younger men who are looking for leadership to lead us through the darkness, and right now you are that leader.

I can't jump on board a view that promotes hopelessness. The whole "global elites" Is often a disguise to hide inaction. If they're the bad guys, how do we stop them, or do we build our own society - as I see it, those are the only two options.

Rome was built by young male outcasts, who were farmers. From early history, there's little evidence that there was even women - though they did eventually appear. Is that what we're proposing? Building the next Rome - a bunch of us getting together and starting our own agrarian society? Also, some of us may be near, or in the 1% and we're not globalists, so not all of the "rich" are globalists. What do we do?

In a similar vein a lot of people have criticized the Federal Reserve - and I am one of them. What made Satoshi Nakamoto was that he created a solution, and many of us have built and are building on it. That's the team that I want to be on; I see a problem, now let's create the solution.
11-19-2015 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eastside Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 755
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 10
Post: #7
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 09:00 PM)Roosh Wrote:  
Quote:What is the result of "the elite's" actions? What have they been doing, through whatever reason being ideological and economic?

The goal is to dissolve nation-states (whether de jure or more likely de facto as seen in the EU) and form a one world order. You can call it conspiracy or whatever.

One world government and depopulation go hand in hand, and I believe they are doing it simultaneously. I could agree that depopulation is a tool to achieve one-world government, but either way, it is one of the most defining agendas of the elite today. They want their one-world government to control a stable, ordered, and weak people, and using the depopulation devices (feminism, third world immigration, environmentalism) will help get them there.

I tend to agree with the hand-in-hand one world government/depopulation thinking. I do think Libertas brings up good points though about areas like Africa and parts of Asia that are experiencing above replacement-level birth rates right now. I wonder how this fits into everything, or if it even matters because those countries are weaker anyways and easier to control. Maybe they figure they can just kick the can down the line with these countries and deal with them later after they have a more firm control over Western countries.
11-19-2015 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Eastside Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 755
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 10
Post: #8
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 09:10 PM)SunW Wrote:  I've heard a lot of theories as to what's going on, but it all really comes down to this question:
Quote:Now we need solid solutions. There are plenty of younger men who are looking for leadership to lead us through the darkness, and right now you are that leader.

I can't jump on board a view that promotes hopelessness. The whole "global elites" Is often a disguise to hide inaction. If they're the bad guys, how do we stop them, or do we build our own society - as I see it, those are the only two options.

Rome was built by young male outcasts, who were farmers. From early history, there's little evidence that there was even women - though they did eventually appear. Is that what we're proposing? Building the next Rome - a bunch of us getting together and starting our own agrarian society? Also, some of us may be near, or in the 1% and we're not globalists, so not all of the "rich" are globalists. What do we do?

In a similar vein a lot of people have criticized the Federal Reserve - and I am one of them. What made Satoshi Nakamoto was that he created a solution, and many of us have built and are building on it. That's the team that I want to be on; I see a problem, now let's create the solution.

Of course. Part of the solution is better defining the problem though. The more you understand what is going on, the easier it is to adapt. Even though this thread will probably focus more on identifying the big picture issue, feel free to discuss solutions as well. That's important too. There is always something you can do to make the best of a situation.
11-19-2015 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Libertas Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 4,213
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 87
Post: #9
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 09:00 PM)Roosh Wrote:  
Quote:What is the result of "the elite's" actions? What have they been doing, through whatever reason being ideological and economic?

The goal is to dissolve nation-states (whether de jure or more likely de facto as seen in the EU) and form a one world order. You can call it conspiracy or whatever.

One world government and depopulation go hand in hand, and I believe they are doing it simultaneously. I could agree that depopulation is a tool to achieve one-world government, but either way, it is one of the most defining agendas of the elite today. They want their one-world government to control a stable, ordered, and weak people, and using the depopulation devices (feminism, third world immigration, environmentalism) will help get them there.

I think it's more the KIND of population than the precise level of it.

They want a homogenized world filled with people with no attachment to anything other than their individual consumerist desires, a global "one" people with no past and no future. That's what makes them easy to control, not so much the level.

Perhaps to do that they need a depopulation, but as I said, I think it's more specific on area and region for the time being. They want the West depopulated and replaced with bastardized peoples. To do this Africa's population explosion is helpful.

But I think it's going to backfire on them. Simon Wolfe at the Iron Legion wrote that Islam is a solution to all this bullshit, and indeed it is, but it's not the solution we want.

(11-19-2015 09:10 PM)SunW Wrote:  I've heard a lot of theories as to what's going on, but it all really comes down to this question:
Quote:Now we need solid solutions. There are plenty of younger men who are looking for leadership to lead us through the darkness, and right now you are that leader.

I can't jump on board a view that promotes hopelessness. The whole "global elites" Is often a disguise to hide inaction. If they're the bad guys, how do we stop them, or do we build our own society - as I see it, those are the only two options.

Rome was built by young male outcasts, who were farmers. From early history, there's little evidence that there was even women - though they did eventually appear. Is that what we're proposing? Building the next Rome - a bunch of us getting together and starting our own agrarian society? Also, some of us may be near, or in the 1% and we're not globalists, so not all of the "rich" are globalists. What do we do?

In a similar vein a lot of people have criticized the Federal Reserve - and I am one of them. What made Satoshi Nakamoto was that he created a solution, and many of us have built and are building on it. That's the team that I want to be on; I see a problem, now let's create the solution.

Excellent post.

The Golden One lays this out well:





All this talk of an "elite" is not entirely wrong, but it's not entirely right either. It's a convenient defense mechanism to not take any action, and lay the blame for the problem on someone else.

The fact of the matter is this would never be happening if people said "no." But they prefer to live in their comfort zones.

Read my Latest at Return of Kings: 11 Lessons in Leadership from Julius Caesar
My Blog | Twitter
11-19-2015 09:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Libertas's post:
Xntrik, DaveR, Ocelot, Yurtley
Sherman Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,756
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 16
Post: #10
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation
I would add two other factors. First, with the rapid advances in robots, they won't have a need for a lot of people. People have emotions and needs and are too risky. The other factor, is that these billionaires are atheists, and having no faith in an afterlife are pushing technology so they can live forever. They are desperate to eliminate death - the one thing that makes us all equal. But, at the same time they are promoting a false equality for everyone else. They see themselves as the owners of the earth and we are temporary renters.

6 billionaires who want to live forever

http://www.techinsider.io/billionaires-w...ver-2015-9

Rico... Sauve....
11-19-2015 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Virtus Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,723
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 14
Post: #11
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
Current tax sustenance requires use of accountants. There are 1.25 million accountants in the US. Each accountant requires services of hair dressers, gardners, farmers, carpenters, teachers, etc. Etc. Which if you think of it contribute too little to the cultural and scientific progress of the human race. Most are simply fucking shitting breeding useless eaters from that point of view

"Virtus"
(This post was last modified: 11-19-2015 10:09 PM by Virtus.)
11-19-2015 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
CynicalContrarian Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,638
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 22
Post: #12
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 09:55 PM)Sherman Wrote:  I would add two other factors. First, with the rapid advances in robots, they won't have a need for a lot of people. People have emotions and needs and are too risky. The other factor, is that these billionaires are atheists, and having no faith in an afterlife are pushing technology so they can live forever. They are desperate to eliminate death - the one thing that makes us all equal. But, at the same time they are promoting a false equality for everyone else. They see themselves as the owners of the earth and we are temporary renters.

6 billionaires who want to live forever

http://www.techinsider.io/billionaires-w...ver-2015-9

That's one thing I find so tiresome about the actions of the likes of Henry Kissinger.
They spend their entire lives attempting to control this planet & so desperate are they for extended life.

Jokes on Kissinger though.
Just like Lenin, Woodrow Wilson et al.
He'll most likely be dead before any of this globalist nonsense comes to complete 1984-esque fruition.

“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” and “The elderly are useless eaters”. – Henry Kissinger

Pot, kettle, black you elderly, bloated sack of shit.
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2015 12:57 AM by CynicalContrarian.)
11-20-2015 12:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes CynicalContrarian's post:
Yurtley
Easy_C Offline
Crow
*****

Posts: 4,217
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 28
Post: #13
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
At risk of tipping my hand, you are remarkably close in some areas OP. Particularly about war. I expect WW3 to begin either 2018 or 2024, to be followed by geological ccataclysms in North America approx 2032.
11-20-2015 01:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Ocelot Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 728
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 47
Post: #14
Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 07:53 PM)Libertas Wrote:  They have a view of "global equality."
They have an equal religious view of the free movements of goods and people across national borders.
Culture is anathema or an obstacle that needs to be removed. Everyone should be seen as an atomistic, isolated, and self-interested individual and not as a member of any tribe or nation.

This is also why libertarians are useful idiots for the most part, at least mainstream ones. The smarter ones have realized that their vision of liberty is incompatible with certain cultures and have justly elevated their desire for liberty above the normal assumptions of egalitarianism.

Post Of The Day

I find it's easier to understand things clearly if you replace the word "equality" with "fungibility", because that's what seems to be the wet dream of the elites - total human fungibility.

The reduction of all humans to atomised, completely fungible individuals makes sense if you're at the top of society, because it drastically increases the predictability of the systems you control. The means of achieving this goal has been the destruction of every institution which used to exist between the individual, and the state. Instead of families, churches, communities and nations to 'belong' to, people now face that overbearing power utterly alone.

The proles fill their need to 'belong' with football teams; the middle classes fill it by joining the roving gangs of witch-hunters on college campuses and the throughout the media - and neither of them have the capacity to affect meaningful resistance against the continual degradation of their way of life.

Alongside divorce and family law, this is probably the main contributor to the climb in male suicides. Man was built to endure many things, but ennui is not one of them.

Ocelot's reading list for those interested in musical composition
Ocelot's older, less focused list of books on music in general
To anyone who's leaving, my inbox is open.
11-20-2015 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 9 users Like Ocelot's post:
DamienCasanova, Aurini, debeguiled, Wutang, Dream Medicine, Buck Wild, Sankt Michael, Syberpunk, Professor Fox
Durango Offline
Sparrow
Gold Member

Posts: 64
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 4
Post: #15
Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(11-19-2015 07:53 PM)Libertas Wrote:  This is also why libertarians are useful idiots for the most part, at least mainstream ones. The smarter ones have realized that their vision of liberty is incompatible with certain cultures and have justly elevated their desire for liberty above the normal assumptions of egalitarianism.

Depopulation in the west right now serves that goal, so they can bring in hordes of third world, mostly male, immigrants to undermine national identity in the stronger countries. Likewise, Africa's population explosion which pushes people into Europe and elsewhere helps it (remember that Africa would not be exploding without massive GMO food programs).

Again, I don't want to sound sinister, and I hope the defeatism and tinfoil hat shit doesn't come out in full force, but look at the big picture and that's what they want, operated through a nexus of institutions and interests political, economic, and cultural. Like Marine Le Pen said, "nationalists vs globalists."

Oh well, that's my input (you can read a post I wrote called "Check Your Political Sense of Entitlement" on my blog for more info). This should be moved to the Deep Forum.

Couldn't agree more on your point with current libertarianism. Who doesn't love freedom and liberty in abstract? But it has gotten to the point where they are nothing more than zealots. Kind of like how elite leftists use environmentalism and open border policy to collect more tax revenue and keep their homes and communities unscathed (think Marin County). Libertarians preach liberty and individualism, to the point where national pride and sovereignty come second to profits and economic growth. Both result in weaker communities and a middle class more dependent on the system, thus more obedient and willing sheep.
11-20-2015 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
gework Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,342
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 71
Post: #16
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
Thought I would post this in here.

I watched this many years ago when it was first released. It didn't register with me completely then, but going back to it, it has aged well. As in, his directions he suggest we would go in have been traversed.

Alan Watt.





I'm not inclined to believe arching theories about what is going on in the world. Though I have known for a long time that many elites, like the Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and so on are very concerned with decreasing the world population.

A big question for me in recent years is why are the European elites keen on mass immigration into Europe, The US, Canada etc. It seems to be detrimental to their interests. The only way I can see it making sense if it is part of a wider depopulation agenda.

Currently the western countries are entering a protracted economic tightening, which is primarily driven by the increasing share of retirees to people in work. Throwing more people into Western countries makes things tighter, especially with often stringent building regulations. By jamming millions of third world people into Western countries, it will decrease their birth rates. And note the deafening silence of the greatly increased carbon emissions of such people.

It's clear the elite are highly deserious for excessive urbanisation, which will decrease birth rates. The cost of living in cities has reached the stage that most people who live their are trading away a normal family life, property ownership, saving, a pension, health care; just so they can pretend to be cool.

The essential model of Western countries is heading towards - the only way they can be sustained is by an endless conveyor belt of people who are educated in developing countries, forfeit most things in life and probably have to be euthanized. Here in Clown Strip One, one government doctor said that 100,000 of old people have been deliberately left to die in hospitals here. And I know this is the case I've seen "specialists" strong-arming people into this. And many modish liberals agree this is a good idea.

When you put everything together:

1) feminism - damaging healthy relationships between men and women
2) globohomo - the promotion of gay lifestyles to small children
3) abortion on demand
4) careers - which are taking women away from child-birthing
5) mass immigration - lowers both native an immigrant birth rates
6) the media - promoting an endless stream of death, back stabbing, sex, drugs and destructive behaviour
7) consumerism, social media - reducing people to chasing fleeting
8) climate change - promoted by the world's largest climate villains, convincing many they need to live in a shoebox and get a vasectomy
9) cultural Marxism - convincing people they inherently evil and should abstain from procreation
10) student debt - hobbling many's ability to start a life
11) pornography - ruining men's ability to form relationships and give them ridiculous standards

and so on.

The one thing they all lead to is a decreasing population. And elitist from many of these sphere publicly state their thoughts on what is most important - reducing the population and everything that leads to it.
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2019 07:54 PM by gework.)
09-21-2019 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like gework's post:
RoastBeefCurtains4Me, debeguiled, Tactician, Syberpunk
Foolsgo1d Offline
Peacock
******

Posts: 7,040
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 27
Post: #17
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
The first Deus-Ex game had a police state thanks to terrorism and the population was subdued further by means of an engineered disease with a cure only for those in control. You had both fear and overwhelming control which if you look at what the deepstate is/has done is here today. Its just not so overt to the majority.

Any plans would include multiple options running simultaneously. War, disease, financial hardship and food shortages for the many.

Grand solar minimum is affecting our growing crops, war is always around the corner, financial hardship is coming as the banks are being propped up - if they fail its going to be worse than 08 and disease, well the pig population throughout the world has been decimated thanks for swine flu and other diseases found in Asia.

7.5 billion people on the planet but eventually all populations no matter the species hit a certain point and start a decline. The question is when will that occur and what will start it.
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2019 08:18 PM by Foolsgo1d.)
09-21-2019 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Foolsgo1d's post:
Syberpunk
Syberpunk Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,385
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 20
Post: #18
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(09-21-2019 08:18 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  The first Deus-Ex game had a police state thanks to terrorism and the population was subdued further by means of an engineered disease with a cure only for those in control. You had both fear and overwhelming control which if you look at what the deepstate is/has done is here today. Its just not so overt to the majority.

Any plans would include multiple options running simultaneously. War, disease, financial hardship and food shortages for the many.

Grand solar minimum is affecting our growing crops, war is always around the corner, financial hardship is coming as the banks are being propped up - if they fail its going to be worse than 08 and disease, well the pig population throughout the world has been decimated thanks for swine flu and other diseases found in Asia.

7.5 billion people on the planet but eventually all populations no matter the species hit a certain point and start a decline. The question is when will that occur and what will start it.

I'm glad to see someone else mention the grand solar minimum, they're packing northern and western Europe hard with diversity and BS airy fairy wanky gender spinning the populations heads, its going to be like a freight train when the slow cold persists.
09-22-2019 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
questor70 Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,285
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 20
Post: #19
Population
I'll risk kicking a hornet's nest by being the voice of dissent here.

Regardless of what "elites" may or may not want, fiat currency, etc... the planet is genuinely overpopulated and the biosphere is buckling as a result of this.

If you want to see what happens if population exceeds carrying capacity, put yeast in a petri dish and drop some sugar in it. It's not pretty. Humans aren't smarter than yeast, apparently.

This chart really says it all.

[Image: 4d7945d5cadcbb2271170000-750.jpg]

Population stayed relatively small up until the industrial revolution. It wasn't through lack of trying. You all know how big families used to be. But think of how likely it was for a child to die without reaching adulthood. People today have no perspective on how ruthlessly nature held human population in check.

Why is the population so much larger now?

Three factors:

1) Industrial revolution - Fossil fuels
2) Germ theory - yes, dreaded vaccines
3) The Green revolution - mechanized big ag

(also, America acted as a population escape-valve for Europe. Think the Louisiana Purchase and manifest destiny.)

What's the byproduct of all this?

Global warming, depleted topsoil, ocean deadzones, emptying the oceans of fish, habitat loss leading to mass extinctions up the food-chain, peak oil (eventually), rising seas, loss of glaciers/icepack leading to freshwater shortages, etc...

Even the current population can't really plateau and stay where it is. It's unsustainable. But it's still on an upward trend which is even worse.

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.

Tragedy of the commons is the term that describes the unwillingness for individuals to sacrifice their own wants and desires for the sake of the greater good, if they're even aware of the need to do so. Everyone feels entitled to do as they like. The end result is that resources grow short and we starve and fight over the leftovers.

[Image: The_Road_bleak_scenery.jpg]

I've been thinking lately that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the feminization of men and women forestalling children in times of plenty is nature's way of solving overpopulation before it pulls out the "big guns". This is why people sometimes wish for a war to bring back traditional masculinity and family structure. But for the most part, I see today's state of affairs being sort of what happens to societies that have had it good for too long, not through any sort of design by the illuminati, but a flocking behavior that just emerges out of nowhere. This isn't an endorsement. I don't like the way things are but this is my way of trying to at least understand it.

But if you want to read up on this (I doubt anyone reading this thread will) read things like Jared Diamond, Joseph Tainter, and wash it down with William Catton.

These concepts are not comforting which is why they're a hard pill to swallow. It's much easier to seek out a scapegoat. So I get what's going on here. But I can't see things this way.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2019 09:37 PM by questor70.)
09-22-2019 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Kid Twist Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 2,907
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 34
Post: #20
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation
questor, it can be the same thing, which I wouldn't doubt that you're far off on, but you do have one major problem:

All the growth isn't in the "West" --- in fact, precisely in the places opposite of it, traditionally speaking, as one would expect.

Now, you could say that the decline of the West will destroy the ability of the other highly populated places to employ the excess resources and technology that the West allowed, or even outright gave to them. It is super ironic that all the people that "helped" Africa to keep expanding, created actually more crises globally as a result.

I think a better angle for you to talk about for expanding populations is more on the weather and food angle. We've gotten really good at all sorts of efficiency and technology, but as far as FOOD and WEATHER go, we are totally at the mercy of mother nature. And what we are used to has no bearing on it continuing.
09-22-2019 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
wannable alpha Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 38
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 0
Post: #21
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation
Six year old article in Yale publication by some UN guy.

The author says U.S. can stay numero uno by letting in 10 million migrants every year till 2100. This will take the American population to 1.6 billion!

Major problems with this approach -
1. Pressure on the environment with so many people living American level lifestyles.

2. Lack of social cohesion and unity in America, probably a race war or civil war.

3. Massive brain drain from other countries which would pretty much ensure that those countries stay poor. Countries like India and China may survive such a brain drain but the medium sized countries (50m- 100m population) probably would not.

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-c...us-country

Quote:US Could Be World’s Most Populous Country
By opening immigration door, the US could fuel rise of population and power
Joseph Chamie
Monday, April 15, 2013

NEW YORK: The United States could aim to have largest population in the world before the end of the century, thus ensuring its power.

The US now has a population of 316 million – third largest after China, 1.36 billion, and India, 1.28 billion – and could aim for 1.6 billion, simply by opening wide its doors to immigration from across the globe as it did during most of its 237-year history.

If immigration to America were increased to 10 million immigrants per year throughout the remainder of this century, the demographic result would be a US population of about 940 million by 2060 and 1.60 billion by the close the 21st century (see Figure 1). The world’s second and third largest populations in 2100 are projected to be India, 1.55 billion, and China, 0.94 billion.

However, if in the coming decades America continues with net immigration of about 1.2 million annually, as currently assumed, the US population would reach 420 million by year 2060. Although this projected growth would be an increase of more than 100 million, the US population would fall to fourth place as Nigeria takes over the number three position with a projected population of 460 million in 2060. The populations of the three countries currently larger than Nigeria – Brazil, Indonesia and Pakistan – are expected to peak around midcentury and begin declining thereafter due to projected low fertility rates falling below replacement levels. Also in the longer term, the gap between projected US population, with 1.2 million immigrants annually, versus the larger US population, with 10 million immigrants annually, widens rapidly, resulting in a difference of 1.1 billion Americans at the close of the century.

Immigration is the chief source of America’s population growth in the coming decades, unlike China, India and Nigeria. US fertility hovers around the replacement level of about two children per woman and is unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future. If immigration were to cease altogether, the US population in 2060 would grow to 355 million, an increase of 39 million, but the labor force would decline by several percentage points and the age structure would be considerably older.

America could easily accommodate a larger population given its considerable size and abundant resources. A population of 1.6 billion would increase the nation’s density from today’s 33 persons per square kilometers to 165 persons in 2100, about half the level in Massachusetts today. This future density is well below current densities in Germany at 231 per square kilometer; Japan, 335; and the United Kingdom, 255. Even if the world’s entire population of 7.1 billion were to reside in America, the nation’s resulting density of 732 persons per square kilometer would still be less than current densities of Bahrain, at 1,818; Bangladesh, 1,033; and Singapore, 7,447.

Increased demands for food, housing and energy could be handled with a revitalized US economy and developing underutilized land and natural resources, including natural gas and renewable sources of energy. Innovation and technology could alleviate negative environmental impacts, as has been demonstrated over the nation’s two-century history.

Increased immigration is consistent with America’s admired tradition of being a nation of immigrants and the eloquent call on the plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Since the nation’s founding in 1776, immigration has accounted for more than half of America’s population growth. Without its past immigration waves, America’s current population of 316 million would be about 143 million.

Immigrants have shaped American history. At the start of the 20th century, the US proportion of foreign born reached its peak near 15 percent. Considerably higher proportions of foreign born occurred in California, with 25 percent; Massachusetts, 30 percent; Minnesota, 29 percent; and New York, 26 percent. Today, the proportion of foreign born is 13 percent – leading states are California, 27 percent; New York, 22 percent; and New Jersey, 21 percent. Countries with higher proportions of foreign born include Australia, 22 percent; Canada, 21 percent; and Israel, 40 percent.

Rapid population growth for the United States is not without historical precedent. For example, between 1813 and 1900, America’s population increased nearly tenfold, 8 million to 76 million, and fivefold between 1890 and 2013, 63 million to 316 million. The populations of some individual US states grew more rapidly than the nation as a whole. For instance, between 1850 and 1910, populations of Texas and California increased 18-fold and 26-fold, respectively.

Increasing US immigration to 10 million per year would facilitate the reunification of separated families. Rather than having to wait for years, US immigrants would be joined by spouses, children, siblings, parents within weeks. This would boost American leadership in promoting family and social networks. America’s ethnic, cultural and personal ties, such as those now firmly established with Ireland, Israel and Italy, would be extended to encompass all nations.

The issue of illegal immigration would no longer be a sensitive political matter occupying valuable time and resources of the US president or Congress. Unauthorized immigrants residing in the US – 60 percent currently from Mexico – would be granted amnesty and welcomed as new citizens. Enforcement, border patrol, legal/judicial hearings, incarceration and deportations would be negligible, saving the nation billions of dollars that could be used for rebuilding America’s ailing infrastructure.

In addition to the familial, political and administrative advantages, opening America’s doors wide to immigrants would engender many far-reaching economic and social benefits, including yielding a vastly expanded GDP and greater tax revenues; more workers, entrepreneurs, innovators and consumers; a younger population; a more competitive workforce and wage levels; increased contributions to Social Security and Medicare; a larger pool of potential recruits for all kinds of work; and enriched cultural diversity.

Furthermore, setting US immigration at 10 million per year would help repopulate and rejuvenate many declining and financially strapped cities, including Detroit, Newark or Stockton. It would ease the labor-shortages for farmers, food producers, working mothers, landscapers, health care providers, high-tech entrepreneurs and more. Energetic immigrants would take on jobs that Americans find difficult, decline to do or are not qualified to perform.

Businesses, chambers of commerce, unions, religious institutions, immigrant-advocacy groups and various government agencies would also benefit from increased immigration. Companies could choose from a terrifically expanded, motivated and youthful labor pool. Unions would have all workers authorized to participate in the labor force, thereby ending the undercutting of fair wages. Government authorities and employers would not need to verify or monitor work permits and worksites except to ensure that all employees pay required taxes.

Global opinion polls show that many people at virtually all skill levels would like to emigrate, and the number-one destination is overwhelmingly the United States. In addition to promoting continued migration from neighboring Canada, Mexico, Central America and other Latin American countries, greater numbers of bright, ambitious and innovative immigrants should be sought from countries in South and East Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Finally, with US immigration increased to 10 million per year, the enhanced America with a population of 1.6 billion by century’s close would mean a more secure and flourishing world. As the world’s most populous nation by 2100, America would strengthen its capacity to continue promoting democracy, freedom and development, thereby ensuring peace, stability and prosperity for every region of the world.


Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, recently stepped down as research director at the Center for Migration Studies. He is the lead author of the groundbreaking, seminal study, “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2019 11:39 AM by wannable alpha.)
09-23-2019 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes wannable alpha's post:
amity
Abelard Lindsey Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 299
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 1
Post: #22
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(09-23-2019 11:38 AM)wannable alpha Wrote:  Six year old article in Yale publication by some UN guy.

The author says U.S. can stay numero uno by letting in 10 million migrants every year till 2100. This will take the American population to 1.6 billion!

Major problems with this approach -
1. Pressure on the environment with so many people living American level lifestyles.

2. Lack of social cohesion and unity in America, probably a race war or civil war.

3. Massive brain drain from other countries which would pretty much ensure that those countries stay poor. Countries like India and China may survive such a brain drain but the medium sized countries (50m- 100m population) probably would not.

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-c...us-country

Quote:US Could Be World’s Most Populous Country
By opening immigration door, the US could fuel rise of population and power
Joseph Chamie
Monday, April 15, 2013

NEW YORK: The United States could aim to have largest population in the world before the end of the century, thus ensuring its power.

The US now has a population of 316 million – third largest after China, 1.36 billion, and India, 1.28 billion – and could aim for 1.6 billion, simply by opening wide its doors to immigration from across the globe as it did during most of its 237-year history.

If immigration to America were increased to 10 million immigrants per year throughout the remainder of this century, the demographic result would be a US population of about 940 million by 2060 and 1.60 billion by the close the 21st century (see Figure 1). The world’s second and third largest populations in 2100 are projected to be India, 1.55 billion, and China, 0.94 billion.

However, if in the coming decades America continues with net immigration of about 1.2 million annually, as currently assumed, the US population would reach 420 million by year 2060. Although this projected growth would be an increase of more than 100 million, the US population would fall to fourth place as Nigeria takes over the number three position with a projected population of 460 million in 2060. The populations of the three countries currently larger than Nigeria – Brazil, Indonesia and Pakistan – are expected to peak around midcentury and begin declining thereafter due to projected low fertility rates falling below replacement levels. Also in the longer term, the gap between projected US population, with 1.2 million immigrants annually, versus the larger US population, with 10 million immigrants annually, widens rapidly, resulting in a difference of 1.1 billion Americans at the close of the century.

Immigration is the chief source of America’s population growth in the coming decades, unlike China, India and Nigeria. US fertility hovers around the replacement level of about two children per woman and is unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future. If immigration were to cease altogether, the US population in 2060 would grow to 355 million, an increase of 39 million, but the labor force would decline by several percentage points and the age structure would be considerably older.

America could easily accommodate a larger population given its considerable size and abundant resources. A population of 1.6 billion would increase the nation’s density from today’s 33 persons per square kilometers to 165 persons in 2100, about half the level in Massachusetts today. This future density is well below current densities in Germany at 231 per square kilometer; Japan, 335; and the United Kingdom, 255. Even if the world’s entire population of 7.1 billion were to reside in America, the nation’s resulting density of 732 persons per square kilometer would still be less than current densities of Bahrain, at 1,818; Bangladesh, 1,033; and Singapore, 7,447.

Increased demands for food, housing and energy could be handled with a revitalized US economy and developing underutilized land and natural resources, including natural gas and renewable sources of energy. Innovation and technology could alleviate negative environmental impacts, as has been demonstrated over the nation’s two-century history.

Increased immigration is consistent with America’s admired tradition of being a nation of immigrants and the eloquent call on the plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Since the nation’s founding in 1776, immigration has accounted for more than half of America’s population growth. Without its past immigration waves, America’s current population of 316 million would be about 143 million.

Immigrants have shaped American history. At the start of the 20th century, the US proportion of foreign born reached its peak near 15 percent. Considerably higher proportions of foreign born occurred in California, with 25 percent; Massachusetts, 30 percent; Minnesota, 29 percent; and New York, 26 percent. Today, the proportion of foreign born is 13 percent – leading states are California, 27 percent; New York, 22 percent; and New Jersey, 21 percent. Countries with higher proportions of foreign born include Australia, 22 percent; Canada, 21 percent; and Israel, 40 percent.

Rapid population growth for the United States is not without historical precedent. For example, between 1813 and 1900, America’s population increased nearly tenfold, 8 million to 76 million, and fivefold between 1890 and 2013, 63 million to 316 million. The populations of some individual US states grew more rapidly than the nation as a whole. For instance, between 1850 and 1910, populations of Texas and California increased 18-fold and 26-fold, respectively.

Increasing US immigration to 10 million per year would facilitate the reunification of separated families. Rather than having to wait for years, US immigrants would be joined by spouses, children, siblings, parents within weeks. This would boost American leadership in promoting family and social networks. America’s ethnic, cultural and personal ties, such as those now firmly established with Ireland, Israel and Italy, would be extended to encompass all nations.

The issue of illegal immigration would no longer be a sensitive political matter occupying valuable time and resources of the US president or Congress. Unauthorized immigrants residing in the US – 60 percent currently from Mexico – would be granted amnesty and welcomed as new citizens. Enforcement, border patrol, legal/judicial hearings, incarceration and deportations would be negligible, saving the nation billions of dollars that could be used for rebuilding America’s ailing infrastructure.

In addition to the familial, political and administrative advantages, opening America’s doors wide to immigrants would engender many far-reaching economic and social benefits, including yielding a vastly expanded GDP and greater tax revenues; more workers, entrepreneurs, innovators and consumers; a younger population; a more competitive workforce and wage levels; increased contributions to Social Security and Medicare; a larger pool of potential recruits for all kinds of work; and enriched cultural diversity.

Furthermore, setting US immigration at 10 million per year would help repopulate and rejuvenate many declining and financially strapped cities, including Detroit, Newark or Stockton. It would ease the labor-shortages for farmers, food producers, working mothers, landscapers, health care providers, high-tech entrepreneurs and more. Energetic immigrants would take on jobs that Americans find difficult, decline to do or are not qualified to perform.

Businesses, chambers of commerce, unions, religious institutions, immigrant-advocacy groups and various government agencies would also benefit from increased immigration. Companies could choose from a terrifically expanded, motivated and youthful labor pool. Unions would have all workers authorized to participate in the labor force, thereby ending the undercutting of fair wages. Government authorities and employers would not need to verify or monitor work permits and worksites except to ensure that all employees pay required taxes.

Global opinion polls show that many people at virtually all skill levels would like to emigrate, and the number-one destination is overwhelmingly the United States. In addition to promoting continued migration from neighboring Canada, Mexico, Central America and other Latin American countries, greater numbers of bright, ambitious and innovative immigrants should be sought from countries in South and East Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Finally, with US immigration increased to 10 million per year, the enhanced America with a population of 1.6 billion by century’s close would mean a more secure and flourishing world. As the world’s most populous nation by 2100, America would strengthen its capacity to continue promoting democracy, freedom and development, thereby ensuring peace, stability and prosperity for every region of the world.


Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, recently stepped down as research director at the Center for Migration Studies. He is the lead author of the groundbreaking, seminal study, “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”

I'm currently enjoying a nice week in Yellowstone National Park. I am quite happy with the population and population density we have now, and see no reason to increase it. In some ways, I wonder if we would be better off with the population size we had in, say, 1978.
09-23-2019 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Abelard Lindsey's post:
amity
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,521
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #23
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(09-22-2019 09:34 PM)questor70 Wrote:  I'll risk kicking a hornet's nest by being the voice of dissent here.

Regardless of what "elites" may or may not want, fiat currency, etc... the planet is genuinely overpopulated and the biosphere is buckling as a result of this.

If you want to see what happens if population exceeds carrying capacity, put yeast in a petri dish and drop some sugar in it. It's not pretty. Humans aren't smarter than yeast, apparently.

This chart really says it all.

[Image: 4d7945d5cadcbb2271170000-750.jpg]

Population stayed relatively small up until the industrial revolution. It wasn't through lack of trying. You all know how big families used to be. But think of how likely it was for a child to die without reaching adulthood. People today have no perspective on how ruthlessly nature held human population in check.

Why is the population so much larger now?

Three factors:

1) Industrial revolution - Fossil fuels
2) Germ theory - yes, dreaded vaccines
3) The Green revolution - mechanized big ag

(also, America acted as a population escape-valve for Europe. Think the Louisiana Purchase and manifest destiny.)

What's the byproduct of all this?

Global warming, depleted topsoil, ocean deadzones, emptying the oceans of fish, habitat loss leading to mass extinctions up the food-chain, peak oil (eventually), rising seas, loss of glaciers/icepack leading to freshwater shortages, etc...

Even the current population can't really plateau and stay where it is. It's unsustainable. But it's still on an upward trend which is even worse.

Infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.

Tragedy of the commons is the term that describes the unwillingness for individuals to sacrifice their own wants and desires for the sake of the greater good, if they're even aware of the need to do so. Everyone feels entitled to do as they like. The end result is that resources grow short and we starve and fight over the leftovers.

[Image: The_Road_bleak_scenery.jpg]

I've been thinking lately that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the feminization of men and women forestalling children in times of plenty is nature's way of solving overpopulation before it pulls out the "big guns". This is why people sometimes wish for a war to bring back traditional masculinity and family structure. But for the most part, I see today's state of affairs being sort of what happens to societies that have had it good for too long, not through any sort of design by the illuminati, but a flocking behavior that just emerges out of nowhere. This isn't an endorsement. I don't like the way things are but this is my way of trying to at least understand it.

But if you want to read up on this (I doubt anyone reading this thread will) read things like Jared Diamond, Joseph Tainter, and wash it down with William Catton.

These concepts are not comforting which is why they're a hard pill to swallow. It's much easier to seek out a scapegoat. So I get what's going on here. But I can't see things this way.

This is silly bro. Your population chart treats everyone equally, when we know that's a lie.

If only Whites, the world population is around 1 billion. Big deal, it's nothing. Whites aren't overpopulating the world or expanding like yeast.

Trying being honest about the races and get back to us. The parts of the world that are killing the environment aren't in America or Europe, yet, thankfully.

Thus, when we see the (((elites))) pushing for depopulation, it's only in high IQ nations that may pose a threat to them. Otherwise the (((elites))) don't give a hoot about what the lower races do. They know the Blacks and Browns are easily managed, I doubt they see them any differently than we would look at farm animals.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
09-23-2019 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Samseau's post:
VNvet
questor70 Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 2,285
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 20
Post: #24
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation (and the big picture of current global politics)
(09-23-2019 10:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If only Whites, the world population is around 1 billion. Big deal, it's nothing. Whites aren't overpopulating the world or expanding like yeast.

And if so...how does that matter? In the end we all share one planet.

And whites consume more than non-whites, so it's sort of a wash as far as the damage we do.

I wasn't expecting a reasoned debate on this topic. I have to be careful not to go back and forth too many times with people who are blinded by bias, but I had to state my case once. Maybe one of you will actually be motivated to do the research rather than shrug it off.

BTW, this problem isn't going to just go away, so whatever belief-systems you're clinging to (probably littered with parentheses) are going to be under constant assault by the emerging reality. I mean, you can spend all your time denying and denying but at some point it's going to reach absurd flat-earther levels.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02716-z

If you guys think that trivial woke issues like mansplaining and race/gender-swapping movie scharacters are annoying to have to deal with, that's not going to last too long. The resource/environmental situation will eventually be the only conversation going on because these problems are going to be impacting all of us in various ways...all the time.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2019 10:56 PM by questor70.)
09-23-2019 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
wannable alpha Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 38
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 0
Post: #25
RE: Roosh's latest post on depopulation
For all the talk about population decline = national suicide, there has still not been a single case of a country collapsing because of a decreasing population.

Japan's population has decreased by almost 2 million since its peak in 2010 but it is still doing fine. Keep in mind that this is a country of ~378,000 sq. km and 2/3 of it is covered with forests. This means when you exclude the forest area, its population density reaches almost 1100 people per sq km. Japan is also encouraging its people to stay fit and investing a lot in robotics. There's a robot that can pick up old people etc.

The main concern is regarding welfare benefits to old people, but this is a very recent concept. Bismarck started it in Prussia in the 1890s and FDR brought it in the U.S. in the mid 1930s. So before that most old people survived on their own and depended on family members to take care of them. This is still true in developing countries.

It will be far easier for any government to cut benefits if the migrant population becomes unmanageable. Of course people will protest, but what are old people gonna do? Riot? Launch law suits?

The only losers of a declining population are businesses.
09-24-2019 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes wannable alpha's post:
amity
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Emma Watson, UN Women Global Goodwill Ambassador and feminist trash Texas_Tryhard 150 84,691 11-06-2019 09:35 AM
Last Post: The Stronger Sex
  The EU/European politics thread britchard 174 52,713 10-24-2019 01:21 PM
Last Post: Oberrheiner
  British Politics Thread IronShark 829 208,306 10-19-2019 09:13 AM
Last Post: roberto

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication