Post: #1

Lately I've seen suggestions that theres an organized goal of population control being pushed by the global elite. There are many aspects of modern society which I would agree give the appearance population control: The destruction of the family, encouragement of career over children, popularity of abortion, the Gates' pushing birth control in the developing world, and so on. However, I think there are some fundamental issues with this hypothesis. The major issue in my opinion is the generous welfare schemes in developed nations which reward the most fecund members of society. Most of the nations which are the most vehemently pro-abortion are also the ones which provide the most incentives for women to give birth to multiple children on the public dime.

I think if there was a concerted effort to reduce the population, welfare schemes would be drastically rolled back, and immigration would be discouraged. This isn't the case. If they really wanted to drastically reduce the population they would follow the Japanese, which ironically are trying to encourage reproduction. They still have the careerism like we do in the west, but with some twists. Welfare in Japan goes mostly to the very old who can no longer have children. The government has taken on the role of caretaker to the elderly, so they stop having children to look after them in old age. Their birthrate is tanking, even without instituting any kind of restrictions on family size like in China.

I think there's a simpler explanation at work here. While the people that hold power may at times agitate for measures that affect population size, it's more a symptom than a cause. Many of these people grew up in gated communities with silver spoons in their mouths, and haven't had to live in the reality that most of society faces. They fail to grasp the long term implications of their actions because they've been protected from the fallout of their transgressions through family connections. They're self interested people with a limited understanding of the world, and people ascribe far more control to them than I believe they actually possess. They make short sighted policy changes designed to increase their power and wealth, and are constantly trying to put a band aid on the consequences of failed policies. I'll give a hypothetical example below:

1) We need to increase the size of government and make sure the lower classes need us: Let's undermine the family so they turn to us when they need help, and bring women into the workforce so we can tax them. Women are also by far the biggest consumers in society, double win for tax revenue. Increased taxes will help us expand government.

2) Uh oh, single men would rather drink beer and play video games and single women aren't making as much as a man working to support his family: Let's force men to pay oppressive child support payments to make up for the lost productivity from our destruction of the family.

3) Oops. Now that men are wising up to the injustice of the family court system, and women are pursuing their careers until they're infertile, the birthrate is falling like a rock. Our pension systems and national debts are skyrocketing out of control with massive deficits: Let's encourage massive replacement level populations of immigrants to fill the gap in taxes.

4) Aw shucks, the immigrants found out about our generous welfare programs, and realized it makes more sense to go on the dole than to fund our ponzi schemes. They're now more of a drain on taxes than a boon. Now we need to...

And so on. What are your thoughts?

Post: #2

The global elite are chock full of Kool Aide drinkers always looking to increase their wealth and power. They are doing what they have always done, just on a grander scale.
The shit is going to get REAL interesting when all the 55+ crowd dies off and all that wealth transfers to their stupid ass spoiled rotten delusional offspring.
These trustafarian nutjobs cant be expected to take out the garbage.
Every generation must fight for its existence and legacy for the ages. The up and coming generations are clueless, gutless and hopeless for being the stewards of billions in world population. The devil is sharpening his sickle.

Post: #3

In the US, the pols just want to make sure the social security Ponzi scheme can keep on running.

Post: #4

Welfare has two purposes:

1. Destroy the nuclear family
2. Make citizens dependent on the government to reduce the likelihood they will revolt

When the nuclear family is destroyed, any children that result are likely to be born in single parent homes, which makes them more likely to be mentally/emotionally incompetent and unlikely to have their own families. The result is future adults who will be dependent on the state or not have a working model of a functioning family unit.

One needs to only look at blacks in the USA for what welfare accomplishes. Most people don't know that black families were more nuclear than not before welfare. After welfare began an epidemic of single parent homes.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewS...sp?id=1672

Even worse for people on welfare is that they are given free birth control and abortions to further control their numbers. When people are on welfare, they are likely to seek and accept government aid and advice.

The short term effect on welfare is better control while the long term effect is destruction of family which puts pressure on successful reproduction. Therefore, welfare is completely compatible with the depopulation agenda.

Quote:They make short sighted policy changes designed to increase their power and wealth, and are constantly trying to put a band aid on the consequences of failed policies.

They're very flexible. Either the long term consequence is a desired feature of their policy or they harness that consequence to better serve their agenda.

Post: #5

(10-13-2015 09:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Welfare has two purposes:

1. Destroy the nuclear family
2. Make citizens dependent on the government to reduce the likelihood they will revolt

I don't disagree with your position on welfare but there might be an argument for reduction population growth. This isn't to say we have people not reproduce for a negative population growth but to have the reproduction rate to be slower.



Where wealth is most concentrated is in developed nations. This shouldn't come to any surprise. I remember reading from the wealth of nation why poverty would cause high reproduction rates.

Quote:Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced, but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. Several officers of great experience have assured me, that so far from recruiting their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and fifes from all the soldiers’ children that were born in it. A greater number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive at maturity. In foundling hospitals, and among the children brought up by parish charities, the mortality is still greater than among those of the common people.

Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilised society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.

The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population. If the reward should at any time be less than what was requisite for this purpose, the deficiency of hands would soon raise it; and if it should at any time be more, their excessive multiplication would soon lower it to this necessary rate. The market would be so much understocked with labour in the one case, and so much overstocked in the other, as would soon force back its price to that proper rate which the circumstances of the society required. It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men; quickens it when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the different countries of the world, in North America, in Europe, and in China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.

For the tl;dr crowd.
When it comes to population growth, you have the following models.
-When members of society are impoverished, they reproduce so much that to ensure they have an offspring that may survive.
-When there is an abundance of growth in wealth, people choose to reproduce at a rate that allows for more children, but in allowance for their children to bear the benefits of the production of their labor.
-When there is near zero increase in growth in wealth, you can expect population growth to generally reflect that.

Post: #6

Adam Smith truly was a genius, all his ideas are applicable to the modern world. Our governments should read, understand and follow the principles laid out in The Wealth of Nations.

Post: #7

The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

Post: #8

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

War isn't likely to cause that. Usually Totalitarian Regimes have more effect on that than war. It is far easier to kill people from within the walls than try to invade from the outside.

Post: #9

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

You're thinking in a retrospective manner. There will not be another "World War" like there was in the 20th century.

More people have died in wars since WW2 than died in WW2 itself. The third world war started when WW2 finished, it just took on a different form to the previous global wars, it's still going on now.

I don't think many nations or governments will be able to mobilise militarily to the levels seen in WW2 and WW1. Global war now is long distance, high tech, and vicarious(proxy wars, funding guerillas etc(eg Syrian "rebels")).

Post: #10

(10-14-2015 05:52 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  I don't think many nations or governments will be able to mobilise militarily to the levels seen in WW2 and WW1. Global war now is long distance, high tech, and vicarious(proxy wars, funding guerillas etc(eg Syrian "rebels")).

Agree.

Post: #11

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

I have a feeling the elites are crunching the numbers on nuclear war.

Post: #12

(10-14-2015 10:59 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

I have a feeling the elites are crunching the numbers on nuclear war.

I've been reading of a potential false flag nuclear attack on a random town in the midwest.

Stuff like this has me nervous. I hope one day the CIA and NSA's archives are blown wide open.

Post: #13

(10-14-2015 05:52 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

You're thinking in a retrospective manner. There will not be another "World War" like there was in the 20th century.

More people have died in wars since WW2 than died in WW2 itself. The third world war started when WW2 finished, it just took on a different form to the previous global wars, it's still going on now.

I don't think many nations or governments will be able to mobilise militarily to the levels seen in WW2 and WW1. Global war now is long distance, high tech, and vicarious(proxy wars, funding guerillas etc(eg Syrian "rebels")).

This makes no sense to me.

The third world war has been called for over a 100 years. (Albert Pike).

The Bible calls for it, I am not a religious person in the least.

The Elites want to reduce the global population to 500 million, not billion. (Several sources - Georgia Guidestones)

U.N - Agenda 21

Post: #14

Depopulation conspiracy theories give politicians and "global elites" too much credit.
Our current state and trajectory are a result of the interaction of human nature with the modern environment.

"It's not the government keeping you dumb, it's the other way around."

Post: #15

I don't know what to think about all this, but I'm hesitant to buy into demographic predictions stretching decades in advance because they turn out to be wrong in many cases.

Take the baby-boom following WWII- nobody saw that coming.

I think elites are pretty open about the desire to reduce population growth in places like Africa. That's a big part of what Bill and Melinda Gates are doing these days (spreading info about contraception, etc).

I don't necessarily see a major war as a means to this end. If global elites are orchestrating a WWIII, it will be used as an excuse to erode sovereignty and perhaps set the stage for "treaties" on population control (a la China), but not necessarily to kill off billions of people in one fell swoop.

Post: #16

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" -Einstein

If another World War occurs, it would be annihilation for all human life. I am reading Command and Control by Eric Schlosser and in the heat of the Cold War, The United States had plans to drop in excess of 3,000 nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union, killing over 220 million in the initial blasts and fallout alone; now double that back home, as well as adding another couple hundred million in the crossfire. Do not doubt that if a third world war were to erupt, at this day and age, the death toll would be in the 1-2 billion range.

Post: #17

(10-14-2015 10:59 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

I have a feeling the elites are crunching the numbers on nuclear war.

There are reports about technologies out there which cancel radiation effects. Essentially it's a form of strong frequency, that is directed to a wide contaminated area and cancels the radioactive contamination. If they are advanced enough in that tech, then a 3rd world war has not much to fear for the global elite.

Also "Thoughtgypsy" (unfortunate name if I may say so) if you have "doubts" about the depopulation agenda, you should first read sources and find out who the elite is and what they are saying. Mulling around mainstream media sites, mainstream history, mainstream economics and politics is not enough. And just watching some documentaries is not sufficient either, because anyone can make claims.

Credible deep sources of an alternative viewpoint:

1. Carroll Quigley - books - Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor
2. Antony Sutton - books
3. Cuttingthroughthematrix.com - plenty of knowledge dished out there, books by Alan Watt - many links on his site
3. americandeception.com - for a small fee you can download the entire docs from the 1950s Reece commission on foundations - that is the single strongest smoking gun out there
4. Thrive - documentary and site - bit new-agey, but still worth it - massive resources and credible links by a Procter&Gamble heir

But really if you want to read it from the horse's mouth and their continuous repeated themes of depopulation then check out Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley talks, Charles Galton Darwin - books, H.G. Wells - non-fiction books etc.

As for Welfare - welfare shouldn't exist really, since it's possible to create an economic system that always gives full employment. Even if you have such a technologically advanced society that makes most conventional work obsolete - even then can you have money printed out interest-free and the people employed to do what they want to do. Of course welfare in most countries was specifically designed to destroy the family - in the US officials searched the apartments of black communities in order to make sure that no men were living in the household. It was utterly created to support only single mothers. If they had initiated welfare as a supplemental income only to families where the father of a nuclear family worked (and had to work in order to get some welfare) - heck the black America would be 90% father-mother households, but that is not the goal of the social planners.

As for depopulation - these are the tools - depending on the country some work better than others:

1. Feminism
2. Decreased disposable income - more poverty - father and mother having to work instead of father alone - that factor works best on middle class who usually prefer to reproduce when having enough money (works less on lower class)
3. Mother-based Welfare (to a degree it encourages bottom level women to have babies - that is why other factors are in place now to curb that)
4. Toxic food (cancer is rising - 60% of Americans will die of cancer - and not because of longer life-spans. Life spans are falling since the 1990s in the West.)
5. Toxic water
6. Medical scams of various degrees - many MDs are fighting against some practices, but it's a losing battle against the trillion dollar global pharma/FDA/government complex
7. Various psychological war methods like promotion of homosexuality, porn promotion, "have fun in your 20s", college slut training grounds, being uncool to marry and have kids early etc.
8. Of course the most popular depopulation tool: war and civil war - Middle East and Africa getting most of it currently

Also - no way in hell will Africa reach those foreseen population numbers to 2100. They are even cut down now. What do you think goes on as we speak? North Africans reproducing much? Central Africans are having a boom, but they certainly have some measures to remedy that.

Finally - one might argue whether depopulation/ curbing population growth is a good thing. Unless you want and can colonize space, then of course it's a resounding yes. But there are better ways at doing it than with the psychopathic points I mentioned above. A simple way would be to make everyone on Earth well-off and enforce a 2 children per couple limit with more children if they are girls. There are even multiple ways to do it via soft-measures and incentives instead of draconian policies like in China.

Post: #18

Kevin Kelly had some good pieces on the potential affects of the underpopulation bomb, well worth a read and listen:

http://edge.org/response-detail/23722

http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/08/07/k...er-babies/

only linking as the podcast is very interesting, he talks about how birth rates are declining mostly across the board and how that will fuck up countries once the retired population:those of working age ratio becomes deeply unfavourable. Also talks about how the amish selectively introduce technology into their communities by analysing how much of a negative societal impact a thing would have if introduced. e.g. one dude gets a smartphone, they let him have it for x amount of time, is the greater society hurt or helped? if hurt, they ditch the tech. very practical.

Post: #19

The unfavorable ratio that happens when you lower the birth rate is already being addressed by various soft news articles promoting "rational suicide". The gays, the careerists will have no one to take care of them hence they must be convinced to kill themselves before they become a financial drain on society.

Here is the glowing tale of a pioneer of today's gender lunacy in her triumphant path towards suicide. Spoiler alert: she had a wonderful, classy death, sipping wine at the end.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/mag...l?referer=

Post: #20

(10-15-2015 03:16 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:52 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 09:59 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The next world war will drastically reduce those numbers, you will be a believer then.

You're thinking in a retrospective manner. There will not be another "World War" like there was in the 20th century.

More people have died in wars since WW2 than died in WW2 itself. The third world war started when WW2 finished, it just took on a different form to the previous global wars, it's still going on now.

I don't think many nations or governments will be able to mobilise militarily to the levels seen in WW2 and WW1. Global war now is long distance, high tech, and vicarious(proxy wars, funding guerillas etc(eg Syrian "rebels")).

This makes no sense to me.

The third world war has been called for over a 100 years. (Albert Pike).

The Bible calls for it, I am not a religious person in the least.

The Elites want to reduce the global population to 500 million, not billion. (Several sources - Georgia Guidestones)

U.N - Agenda 21

It makes perfect sense, but you're thinking retrospectively.

How war is waged changes over time.

Most historians view WW1, the inter-war period, and WW2 as a whole. They(most of them) view WW2 as a direct consequence of the Versailles Treaty, which was a direct consequence of WW1.


Anyway, I did a little research, and the best figure I can come up with, is 50 million people have died in wars since WW2. Approx 60 million died in WW2, so my initial statement is wrong, I recalled hearing it mentioned in a humanist speech given by an Anglican priest on Armistice Day. So, despite there being no major conflict on a global scale since WW2, nearly as many people have died in wars and conflicts since WW2.

There are various reasons for this, but the most influential reason is technology. Military leaders can execute war in a more precise way. Generally, carpet bombing doesn't happen anymore, we have precision bombing and drones.

Also the world is not as polarised or divided geo-politically as it used to be. Sure there are obvious factions, but they maintain some business and commerce links that benfit both sides, eg: Russia sell gas to Europe, and China is probably the manufacturing capital of the world now.

I hope that explains my point of view better to you.