I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

(09-27-2015 04:44 PM)storm Wrote:  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

I believe that with proper political and economic management even with a shrinking population the GDP can still grow, although it's harder than if the population was constant.

However it's hard to find a country that you could say is "properly" managed.

And in worse case it's still much better to have some financial problems (such as Japan), than the coming civilizational clash that the ruling elites are imposing on Europe with this migrant crisis.

(09-27-2015 04:44 PM)storm Wrote:  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

Want to know the secret?

(There isn't)

These idiots always think that human progress is linear. There will always be advancements in technology which render prior ways of work and living obsolete.

The question is, will we see some technological advancements that throw the current elite power structure to the wind in the immediate future? I think so, but the question is will Europe's cultural heritage last long enough for the current elites to lose power and influence.

(09-27-2015 04:44 PM)storm Wrote:  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

I'll take a stab at it. If you have fewer and fewer people, the demand for homes, products, and services will go down. The number of homes for instance will stay more or less the same but fewer people are able to buy those homes. So prices start to fall as sellers get desperate to find the ever shrinking number of buyers. As people see prices start to fall, they hold off on purchase decisions since buying anything tomorrow will be cheaper than if you buy it today. It creates a feedback loop.

You can look up "Deflationary Spiral" or "Deflationary Depression" to get a better answer.

(09-27-2015 04:44 PM)storm Wrote:  I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for why a shrinking population will lead to a "guaranteed financial collapse".

Everyone seems to take it for granted. Can someone explain it?

By itself it doesn't. The problem is government welfare and pension systems act to loot the young and able, to support the old. Without this system, people just save their money in preparation for old age. With this system, people are expecting a pension, but a growing number of retired old people need to be supported by a shrinking number of young people.

The problem is of course the existence of those government programs. The collapse will just be in people's pensions when the government defaults. To economists, who are mostly in the employ of governments, a governmental default is Armageddon because to them "the government is the source of the economy".

All that really happens with a shrinking population, based on what I've seen in Japan, is receding populations causing receding industry, and people withdrawing back to the big cities. On the outskirts of many smaller cities there are many abandoned building and factories etc.

Edit: the 'deflationary spiral' is just another myth perpetuated by economists, to help justify the inflationary policies governments want to carry out for their own benefit. Its source is the great depression, which was actually caused by the policies of the Leftist president FDR and his predecessor. Under free market conditions, deflation during a recession is normal and part of the recovery process, as prices drop relative to people's cash balances, restoring confidence and creating bargains for savvy businessmen.

Phoenix, are you saying that the great depression was not an example of a deflationary spiral? Or are you saying it was, but it was caused by FDR policy (which most would agree with).

Also, are you saying that rapidly declining population would cause inflation or be neutral to prices? There have been wars in the past with population declines but the rebuilding efforts afterward usually compensated economically.

For the record, I don't believe in God, but it doesn't follow that I therefore believe in Atheism. It's mutated into immoral-moral tribalism, and the highly-visible faces of the tribe are people I consider to be lacking strength, honour and integrity. You think this insufferable douche would have your back or truly care about the interests of a community above his own?

(09-27-2015 04:22 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  There was an offshoot sect of the Quakers called the Shakers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Women had the leadership roles in the sect and they were all celibate. You can imagine what the result was.

Again:



The Shakers were one of the many American Liberal Utopian Experiments of the 19th century, some Religious, some not: Fruitlands (Vegetarianism, Animal Rights), Oneida (Communal Marriage), The Rappites, New Harmony (celibacy), Brook Farm (Communism), Octagon City (Vegetarianism). All were abandoned from within - often within the first year or two - or failed to gain enough converts for sustainability. Hell, even a Capitalist Utopian vision like Pullman, for the employees of the Pullan company, didn't endure.

I was reading an old book a few weeks back where proponents of universal education - eventually achieved by their country a few year later - were driven by the belief that once everyone was educated, society would naturally progress to Utopian Peace. What is it the Ethical Socialists bark? 'Educate yourself!'

The Punchline: the book was written in the early 1800's, and the turmoil never ended in their country.

What's happening in Europe is just similar social engineering - whether genuinely-naïve or intelligent forces manipulating the genuinely-naïve for their own purposes. I think the core part of Utopian Idealism is refusing to understand the dark realities of human nature.

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, having none of this bullshit:

Quote:“A ‘liberal paradise’ would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities and only law enforcement personnel have guns. And, believe it or not, such a liberal utopia does indeed exist. ... It’s called prison.”

Atheists believe if people give up religion they'll all behave the same and we can have a worldwide brotherhood of secular humanists. And then resist any comparisons that their morality has with their Christian roots.

This makes them some of the most clueless shitlibs one can imagine. Gervais is a great example.

Someone tell me what's wrong with mocking the crucifixion in the context of "brazenly defending the right to be politically incorrect?" Because it isn't Christians who are the threat. No comment on the article blurbs on the cover beyond them being absurdly leftist.

Again with generalizations of atheists. I'm an atheist and I have nothing to do with the aforementioned examples and I couldn't give two shits about a secular brotherhood of mankind or any crap of the sort. Neither am I in any way leftist/liberal, neither are many other atheists. This sort of "common sense generalizing into biblical truth" is what is harmful and idiotic and it's quite the same as the SJW's and feminists do. Such binary, much lol.

^ fair point. But MOST atheists are left wing so it's not the most egregious of generalizations.

I just find it a contradiction. Here we are, a relatively large group of (mostly) young men, trying to break away from the Matrix, not conforming to the system, aspiring (and achieving) towards the end of living by our own means with undeniable and unquenchable freedom.

Yet despite all this, the adherence to some sort of fictional deity strengthens our belief system and it's non-adherence weakens it. It's just fairly contradicting within itself. Why not take the whole theme of Neomasculinity and making it into our own Creed. For rational discourse, unchecked and unlimited free speech, for capitalism, for being a man and what it represents, for reason and virtue.

If we focus on breaking away from certain boundaries so much, why would one capitulate to the biggest lie ever told? The real glory lies in secession from such fantasies and creating one's own ideological reality. Christianity is for servants, Judaism is for servants, Islam is for servants.

How far would we get piggy-backing either of these? There is little value in being a catch-all-party. To be relevant, an independent and fresh epistemology must be planted into the minds of potentially like minded individuals, thus causing a growth in awareness. Some are simply devoid of reason, those are lost and must not be addressed or contended with, but rather ridiculed.

Just my two cents.

(09-27-2015 07:00 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  ^ fair point. But MOST atheists are left wing so it's not the most egregious of generalizations.

Is that really true or just one of the same sweeping generalizations us atheists may be inclined to make about religious people in various other areas? Maybe in some countries - the US for instance - but perhaps less so in eg. North and Northwestern European countries, where practiced Christianity seems to be much less widespread than in the US and Southern Europe.

As far as I'm concerned - and the actual definition of atheism seems to agree - being an atheist simply means that I don't believe in any kind of higher power/creator - and thus obviously not the religions that come attached to those beliefs (though I certainly live by some of the moral values of various religions).
It has no bearing whatsoever on my political leanings - which were a bit to the left of the middle when I was young, and rather more conservative these days.

Regardless of whether a strengthening of Christianity could potentially help the decline of Western societies - and I think that's actually very likely, if it was a possibility - most people whose "god" is hard science, or just plain disbelief with no considered substitute, rather than a metaphysical concept, are very unlikely to ever be convinced otherwise. And vice versa.

The "far right" Freedom Party of Austria doubled its vote share.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/27/...ee-influx/

(09-27-2015 07:42 PM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  I just find it a contradiction. Here we are, a relatively large group of (mostly) young men, trying to break away from the Matrix, not conforming to the system, aspiring (and achieving) towards the end of living by our own means with undeniable and unquenchable freedom.

Yet despite all this, the adherence to some sort of fictional deity strengthens our belief system and it's non-adherence weakens it. It's just fairly contradicting within itself. Why not take the whole theme of Neomasculinity and making it into our own Creed. For rational discourse, unchecked and unlimited free speech, for capitalism, for being a man and what it represents, for reason and virtue.

If we focus on breaking away from certain boundaries so much, why would one capitulate to the biggest lie ever told? The real glory lies in secession from such fantasies and creating one's own ideological reality. Christianity is for servants, Judaism is for servants, Islam is for servants.

How far would we get piggy-backing either of these? There is little value in being a catch-all-party. To be relevant, an independent and fresh epistemology must be planted into the minds of potentially like minded individuals, thus causing a growth in awareness. Some are simply devoid of reason, those are lost and must not be addressed or contended with, but rather ridiculed.

Just my two cents.

I see your point, but it's not a subject I know enough about. I just have criticisms of the atheist community despite not believing in God myself.

(09-27-2015 07:47 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 07:00 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  ^ fair point. But MOST atheists are left wing so it's not the most egregious of generalizations.

Is that really true or just one of the same sweeping generalizations us atheists may be inclined to make about religious people in various other areas? Maybe in some countries - the US for instance - but perhaps less so in eg. North and Northwestern European countries, where practiced Christianity seems to be much less widespread than in the US and Southern Europe.

As far as I'm concerned - and the actual definition of atheism seems to agree - being an atheist simply means that I don't believe in any kind of higher power/creator - and thus obviously not the religions that come attached to those beliefs (though I certainly live by some of the moral values of various religions).
It has no bearing whatsoever on my political leanings - which were a bit to the left of the middle when I was young, and rather more conservative these days.

Regardless of whether a strengthening of Christianity could potentially help the decline of Western societies - and I think that's actually very likely, if it was a possibility - most people whose "god" is hard science, or just plain disbelief with no considered substitute, rather than a metaphysical concept, are very unlikely to ever be convinced otherwise. And vice versa.

I should say "the visible atheist community", and I suspect atheism is much more prevalent among American democrat voters.

I think it is safe to say, white nationalism is the only way Europe can be redeemed.

FIN

This is interesting, and I want to reply as well Eskhander, but the thread is in full derailment at the moment. It's time to end the solely religious discussion and move it back to immigration.

Lemoned Iscream:

You basically closed you comment with a feminist shaming tactic in attempt to close the debate. You seem offended, but instead show restraint and temper your emotions.

Are you guys really this baffled when conservatives or religious people speak up on atheism and most have something negative to say? I watch often as self identified atheists make poor assertions, some with malice, but look on with calmness. There's often clear evidence of unfamiliarity with Christianity, though it's also often the most denigrated religion of atheists in group settings. This does drive a wedge. I'm sure we are all aware that the internet isn't a game where we try to convince everyone else to agree with us.

(09-27-2015 04:22 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  I'm sure this has been mentioned before but Germany now has the worlds lowest birthrates. They're even below Japan, which has been suffering with chronic financial problems due to increased ratio of elderly to young and deflation due to reduced demand.

If you're only having 8.2 children per 1000 people while Nigeria is having 50 per 1000, how would a matriarchy/feminist country solve the problem? The rest of Europe isn't doing much better with other countries having 9.3 - 12.7 per 1000. So importing people from other countries that are also depopulating (just slower) isn't a solution. You can't ask/convince/encourage women to have more children as it would go against your core feminist beliefs. Doing nothing would guarantee financial collapse as capitalism works properly with a growing population (and a small positive inflation rate). Given these constraints, what option do the European leaders/elite have other than to import anyone willing to relocate? While this will destroy the culture that has existed in Europe, it will also prolong the wealth of the leaders/elite of Europe. They will be mostly safe inside their gated communities. All countries in the West are experiencing falling birthrates and most of those countries are importing people to keep the party going a while longer.

There was an offshoot sect of the Quakers called the Shakers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

Women had the leadership roles in the sect and they were all celibate. You can imagine what the result was.

Whichever group has more children that are successful (i.e. they also have successful children) wins. And they get to write history.

It is very sad.

A friend of mine went to Italy during the summer and passed through a village and noticed a lot of celebrating going on. She thought it was a national or religious event. After some inquiry, she found out that a birth had taken place for the first time in ages.

(09-27-2015 08:16 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  This is interesting, and I want to reply as well Eskhander, but the thread is in full derailment at the moment. It's time to end the solely religious discussion and move it back to immigration.

How do we avoid talking about talking about religion when you have a warmongering religion invading Europe right now?

Also no cares what atheists think, they have no families, kids, or future. See ya later would you mind stop shitting up threads on the way to your extinction, thanks.

(09-27-2015 03:01 PM)N°6 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:29 PM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  27 people. All from afghanistan. All male, all look younger than 25.
This is what is invading Europe. This is what politicians are importing for the purpose of propaganda-cucking the resistence of European man.

Who is coordinating the invasion? The battlefront runs from the Canary Islands off the coast of the Sahara to the Black Sea. This isn't happening by accident.

There isn't really any single person or entity "coordinating" the invasion; it's just that this invasion benefits certain groups so all of these groups support it in one way or another.

Migrants: they support this invasion because of obvious reasons - it means that they have a good chance of obtaining a permanent residency visa of a wealthy and developed European country without doing anything or paying any money. All they have to do is simply just turn up and pretend to be Syrian. They also have a very good chance of becoming a recipient of extremely generous welfare payments and public housing.

European politicians: they support the invasion because they are essentially importing new voters who would vote for them in the future, reinforcing their power, influence and wealth. Also, a strong, cohesive white male-controlled society is a huge threat to their power and is a massive barrier to the expansion of the state.

Big business: they support the invasion because it will potentially suppress wages.

Human traffickers: they obviously support the invasion because they are making millions upon millions of dollars by facilitating the movement of these people to Europe.

(09-27-2015 04:22 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  I'm sure this has been mentioned before but Germany now has the worlds lowest birthrates. They're even below Japan, which has been suffering with chronic financial problems due to increased ratio of elderly to young and deflation due to reduced demand.
...Doing nothing would guarantee financial collapse as capitalism works properly with a growing population (and a small positive inflation rate). Given these constraints, what option do the European leaders/elite have other than to import anyone willing to relocate? While this will destroy the culture that has existed in Europe, it will also prolong the wealth of the leaders/elite of Europe. They will be mostly safe inside their gated communities. All countries in the West are experiencing falling birthrates and most of those countries are importing people to keep the party going a while longer.

To a certain degree that is true, but you have to realize this:

The financial elite supports their system via monetary transfer payments and state debts. That means that contrary to up to the 1970s-80s, migrants are no longer a net gain, but a net drain on the local economy.

The only reason why they prop up real estate prices (mostly rental) and some economic activity is due to the fact that if you have to support more people via social security then you just put on more government debt to pump up the economy for a few decades before the party ends. Whether those migrants work and thus squeeze out local workers or don't work and live off welfare is frankly irrelevant. No country with 7%+ unemployment needs any migrants whatsoever - they are all negative for the net economy (exceptions: wealthy, living from income abroad [guys like me or Roosh], super-valuable in terms of skills - these are net-gain migrants and they are welcome everywhere - even in Japan).

I guess the elite expects to stay on private islands for a while and then return when the rioting after the financial collapse is over.

Aside from the economic concerns you have the divide and conquer aspect of a diverse population not being able to unite against a corrupt leadership.

But yeah - immigration indeed props up economic activity, but only so far as someone who is out of work and takes on more consumer credit to keep the party going.

I might mention something as well with regard to the various opinions on the Muslim garb of women, because recently the Canadian supreme court allowed all women to wear face-obscuring Niqabs:







Essentially this female Muslim activist and scholar states clearly that the only real requirement we have for Muslim women is to dress modestly. And even that can be interpreted any way since that changed multiple times during Mohammed's times as well.

http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/27142

Quote:Regarding manners of dress, and other than that passage, the Quran requires only that women and men dress modestly. Beyond that, it never requires face or full-body coverings of any form for men or women.

Quote:The Veil in the Quran

Initially in Prophet Muhammad's life, the veil was not an issue.

His wives didn't wear it, nor did he require that other women wear it. As he became more important in his community, and as his wives gained stature, Muhammad began adapting Persian and Byzantine customs. The veil was among those.

The Quran does address veiling explicitly, but only in so far as the Prophet’s wives were concerned.

So frankly even the Hajib as a necessary Muslim garb is questionable since that was then a customary garb worn by the Persians and the local Christian and Hebrew population.

Essentially if you stuck to your guns you would have to force all men and women wear clothes from 1500 years ago. That is why many secular Muslim governments forbid the wearing even of a Hajib in official functions since they are well aware of the fact that mostly Islamists demand that kind of thing.

As far as the Quran is concerned then girls could wear something like that for dates:


WB.

Also wardrobe according to Islam is for both women and men a matter of etiquette and not one of the strict rules.

Quote:Interestingly, the juridical discussion of women’s attire did not treat the specific question of hijab, or appropriate Islamic dress to be worn by women in public. Muslim women’s dress was understood to be part of Islamic etiquette and not of required Islamic behaviors.

This means that in traditional Islamic law, the whole debate over clothing fell into the legal categories of appropriate Islamic conduct (wajib and adab), rather than mandatory behaviors (fard) such as praying, fasting during Ramadan or giving alms to the poor. From the perspective of early Islamic law, and in contrast to the way many Muslims continue to assume, failing to cover one’s private parts (Arabic awrah) constitutes only a minor sin for Muslims, not a major sin. Donning hijabcan thus only be a “recommended” action, not a “required” behavior.

It is however telling that Western governments are bowing to the pressure when the demands are made by more extreme sects of the Muslim world - mostly now militants from ISIS, Al-Quaeda etc.

This will not end well, when you give in to Islamists that much.
It's a side-issue, but one that will come back to Western countries since they will start to make demands soon - after a set population number even to Western women to at least cover their hair.

This article is amazing and shows you the degree to which the migrant business has become a gold-mine for some people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/world/...p=cur&_r=0

Quote:Money Flows With Refugees, and Life Jackets Fill the Shops

Quote:IZMIR, Turkey — For months, Ahmed Abdul-Hamid, a Palestinian from the Syrian city of Aleppo, tried and failed to cross the sea to start a new life in Europe. The Turkish police detained him. Smugglers tricked him. Once, his boat stalled and he had to swim back to shore, leaving him stranded and broke.

But his fortunes changed this summer when a Turkish smuggler hired him to recruit passengers from among the refugees and migrants flooding into this port city. Soon, his phone was ringing nonstop with people trying to get to Europe, and the cash was pouring in for him — as much as $4,000 per day.

These days he likely makes 100.000$ / month - I guess the bigger smugglers can be in the 6 digits.

Quote:To get here, many of the travelers say they were forced to cash out their lives, selling land, jewelry and heirlooms, hoping that what is ahead will replace what was left behind.

Now that point is very important there. When people sell land and jewelry or leave their good jobs in Pakistan to go to the EU, they expect more than what they have now.

No wonder they throw away food and water, they are not some destitute poor - they want hard cash and milk and honey that was promised to them via the social media and NGOs like that: http://www.w2eu.info/

Quote:Earlier this year Mr. Abdul-Hamid, the Palestinian smugglers’ agent, was also broke and stranded after failing to reach Europe. This month, he showed up in Izmir with new clothes, gelled hair, designer sunglasses and a thick silver necklace and bracelet.

Over a kebab dinner frequently interrupted by calls from potential clients, he said that besides building his wardrobe and paying his hotel bill, he had used his profits to smuggle two of his brothers out of Syria and into Europe. He planned to send the rest of his family before going himself, he said. “Unless they stop it over there,” he said, gesturing toward Greece, “the people will keep going.”

Indeed unless someone stops it on the Greek coast via a navy armada, then it will continue into the millions. This can be done of course - the EU countries have plenty of military ships which they can send, but just as with the borders the politicians are giving them orders to stand down and not do anything.



Of course the article had the usual propaganda despite the sprinkle of truth mentioning mainly the real Syrian refugees and ignoring the majority of migrants from all around the world.

(09-28-2015 01:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Now that point is very important there. When people sell land and jewelry or leave their good jobs in Pakistan to go to the EU, they expect more than what they have now.

No wonder they throw away food and water, they are not some destitute poor - they want hard cash and milk and honey that was promised to them via the social media and NGOs like that: http://www.w2eu.info/

Yep, they took a stupid gamble, I do not see a reason to save them.

(09-27-2015 08:16 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  This is interesting, and I want to reply as well Eskhander, but the thread is in full derailment at the moment. It's time to end the solely religious discussion and move it back to immigration.

Да.
I replied because it was addressing things I said and could have been clearer on. You were right to stop the derailment of the thread all the same.

And an article I think we can all agree on: https://archive.is/5pNWp
"The evil empire of Saudi Arabia is the West’s real enemy"

Quote:Iran is seriously mistrusted by Israel and America. North Korea protects its nuclear secrets and is ruled by an erratic, vicious man. Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions alarm democratic nations. The newest peril, Isis, the wild child of Islamists, has shocked the whole world. But top of this list should be Saudi Arabia – degenerate, malignant, pitiless, powerful and as dangerous as any of those listed above.

The state systematically transmits its sick form of Islam across the globe, instigates and funds hatreds, while crushing human freedoms and aspiration. But the West genuflects to its rulers. Last week Saudi Arabia was appointed chair of the UN Human Rights Council, a choice welcomed by Washington. Mark Toner, a spokesperson for the State Department, said: “We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it is an occasion for them to look into human rights around the world and also within their own borders.”

The article does devolve into hand wringing, which is nauseating. I would pass over that section.

EDIT: Looked up the author. She's an awful crone. Replacing link with an archive.

(09-28-2015 01:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Now that point is very important there. When people sell land and jewelry or leave their good jobs in Pakistan to go to the EU, they expect more than what they have now.

No wonder they throw away food and water, they are not some destitute poor - they want hard cash and milk and honey that was promised to them via the social media and NGOs like that: http://www.w2eu.info/

w2eu.info is apparently run by Bernd Kasparek (bordermonitoring.eu)



Here is a talk of his, Rosa Luxemburg Seminar on 4 and 6 March 2012, Tel Aviv, Israel co-organized by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Israel Office and ASSAF Aid Organization for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Israel:





Fetching pink shirt don't you think?

EDIT: They are also one of the groups behind the 'Migrant Handbook'