A widely spread lie in the western hemisphere and most of the world is overpopulation as a problem which is spread by the global elites specifically in the west.
The problem is not 8 billion people but the ruling elites which steal and destroy economically, military and politically the possibility and foundation of growth and prosperity. As we all know psychopaths, criminals and narcissists lie. In a competitive world without rules (rules only apply to the people but not to the ruling elites which are the rule makers) the narcissists always wins because it’s always about power and control and not about justice and human rights. The removal of the ruling elites is the only solution to this problem. How? Only time will tell.
We may replace the ruling elites, but I am not sure it is possible not to have an elite of rulers ruling over the mass of the ruled.
The difficulty is to frame and operate into the far future stable constitutional arrangements which prevent the exploitation of one part of the population by another part of the population and which limit the arbitrary powers of the rulers and make (and keep) them accountable to the ruled.
You are still limiting yourself to thinking in terms of democratic frameworks. Democracy is a false god. It works fine on township or county level, and only on that level, when the representation is direct and every candidate's life and worth is well known to his constituents. At any higher level, it only serves as a phony front to dupe the masses, and conceal the real oligarchic rulers from accountability. And this is not an incidental flaw; it is inherent in democracy, and cannot be fixed. Plato and Aristotle already knew and explained that, but their explanation has been expunged from curriculum, for obvious reasons.
I agree democracies have their problems, although when functioning well they can be pleasant enough.
Our main source of accountability in society is the law, which should apply equally to everyone and not be constructed to favour anyone, elite or otherwise. With a good uncorrupted system of law and justice I am content to live most places.
The problem is how to establish and maintain this good system of law without it becoming corrupted: any political institutions create a specialist political class who never seem satisfied with caretaking a minimal state, but take powers to make edicts and arbitrary rules and shape the world to their own ends, or those of their patrons. So we are back to the difficulty of framing stable constitutional arrangements limiting the powers of the rulers and keeping them accountable to the rest of us, i.e. fulfilling and not abusing their narrow institutional role, while hoping they can protect us from external enemies.
The real problem is, your elected representatives do not actually represent the electorate, but the special interests that fund them and promote them. This is essentially impossible to overcome on any scale larger than a local community, regardless of what the constitution says.
Think about it this way, the laws prohibit corruption, do they not? And yet corruption is ubiquitous and rampant, no matter how strict the laws are in theory. Perditissima respublica plurimae leges, the Romans used to cynically say.
There are no easy answers: which is why political hubris is dangerous and moral courage so important. For all democracy's failings - and I largely gave up voting in national elections over 30 years ago - I prefer a system which enables people occasionally to register their dissent and have a chance to throw the buggers out.
History and observation of egalitarian small societies suggest up to about 300 people can operate on a "democratic" consensus fairly effectively, at least when events aren't moving too fast and require them to elect a temporary "big man" who runs things by decree for the duration of a crisis. History also reveals that a small % of Big Men will refuse to step down- And eventually, that feature goes in the toilet for all those groups as the early adopters of dictatorship devour the slower moving consensus ruled groups or force them into an equivalent wartime footing.
No one should rule over another human being. That is poisonous thoughts spread by the same narcissistic elites. If we think we need them to rule over us we have been brainwashed by their poison. This is radical acceptance of the reality the human race has been subjected to for thousands of years.
Time to grow up and think like a mature human being and not like a slave with Stockholm syndrome.
Anarchy is not a solution, it is a disease. A society needs to be governed, and not all elites, historically, have been pernicious oligarchies. In fact, most historical societies have had healthy systems of government, until Talmudist and Mammonist influence wrecked them. Think of China, both the Imperial system of meritocracy and today's "communist" government: both strive, and often succeed, to improve popular prosperity and progress. Or the hydraulic empires of antiquity that modern propaganda disses as examples of absolutism, but that established stability and prosperity for centuries. Or the enlightened despotism of Peter the Great and Catherine, that raised up immeasurably the living conditions in Russia.
Decent, not depraved elites are beneficial for their citizens, but our point of view is embittered by witnessing the current crop of greedy oligarchs. Oligarchy is the worst political system, and democracy inevitably leads to, or conceals, oligarchy. This is not my opinion, nor even a recent realization; Aristotle already knew that, and more recently, Michael Hudson wrote several books on that subject. "Authoritarian" governments, when not secretly owned or corrupted by the Cabal, are typically more benign: it takes a king or dictator to keep the Mammonists in check.
It WOULD be possible to maintain a world population of 8 billion people with our present levels of technology (and without any systemic starvation being baked into the system). However, a whole bunch of "the golden billion" would have to give up a number of their more resources intensive habits, ranging from owning multiple private mega yachts to owning private motor vehicles at all, from eating pate foi gras & caviar at will to eating grain fed beef at will.
This does not play well to the owners of our political class, they would far rather solve the undeniable issues we are seeing related to population overshoot, environmental degradation and natural resource values/scarcity/control/apportionment by damping down on the ability of now unnecessary "little people" to continue breeding (or possibly breathing?), this is far less painful to a megacorp CEO or international banking dynasty head than giving up chateaux, mega yachts and gold toilets.
I would let them keep their chateaux, caviars, mega yachts and golden toilets because this is not the problem. This is not what creates poverty and suffering.
Their abundance of wealth does not creat wars and «climate crisis». Their monopoly of power and technology controlling financial institutions and markeds with high taxation and suppressing energy, water and food supplies and production etc. etc. is the problem. An additional problem is the elites control of the mainstream media spreading their lies and propaganda promoting their destructive agendas of the population because this dictates the narrative and the mindset of the masses.
This problem is evilness.
The other problem is madness and that problem is even bigger because this is the belief of the need of the ruling class and their leadership like our government which are puppets of the ruling elites.
When the human race reaches 11 billion people we have reached the natural peak point and there will not be any more humans on the planet.
There is enough water, there is enough food and there is enough energy production for all 11 billion people. Anything else said is a lie.
I wouldn't let them keep anything, in fact, I wouldn't let them stay out of jail cells. Not because I care for their caviar, yachts and gold, but because they wouldn't even now let us live in peace with whatever we have. Of course this is a hypothetical situation, but to change the system to any significant degree, they would have to be either eliminated, or confined to some area, from which they wouldn't be able to influence lives of the rest. If not, they'd be back to business as usual in no time...
There is no natural peak. This is the anti human warfare spread by the “limit to development”, “zero growth” gang invented abd supported by the globalist oligarchy. Don’t believe that BS, please. We had enough of genocidal Malthus-ianism 😳
It seems you have misunderstood the whole meaning of the phrase «natural» peak. It has nothing to do with controlling the number of population not exceeding 11 billion people. Natural peek is the estimate of the world population in natural terms and not by interference by the politics and agendas of the elites.
On the contrary the elites are promoting their concerns of an ever growing population and they call it «overpopulation». This will never happen because of the natural peek and therefore they are actually lying on purpose to legitimate a political interference in this natural growth from 8 to 11 billion people. Their «hidden» agenda is to reduce the number of world population to approximately half a billion people because it will be easier for them to control such reduction.
Please provide links to sources used to determine your quoted 11 billion humans as the inherent carrying capacity for this planet? It differs from such estimates I recall.
If you use Chat GPT (AI online) you will find different sources with different conclusions and different calculation methods which differs from 10,3 to 11,2 billions as a peek point .
I took the number 11 billion from memory of what I have read and heard years ago. The sources mentioned from Chat GPT are:
Gerland, Raftery mfl. (2014). World population stabilization unlikely this century (Science).
UN: World Population Prospects 2024 – Summary of Results + methodreport.
Raftery/Alkema mfl.: metodikken og UNs probabilistiske projeksjons (Bayesiansk hierarki for TFR/lifespan).
Gapminder/Hans Rosling (interpretation of the UN reports)
If you want to go deeper I recommend using Chat GPT. It’s fast and effective. Really interesting tool.
We cannot comprehend from our traumatized viewpoint what a harmonious, cohesive, synchronous, loving experience life can be when Ego is not in control.
That's all really. As long as Ego has the upper hand it will convince you it is needed.
Without the experience of braking free from a narcissist or a psychopath you will have no idea what I am talking about.
Then you will not see that the traumatic and parasitic relationship with a narcissist is exactly the same you have with your authorities because it might take a lifetime (or several) to be able to see through the fog of a covert narcissist or to brake free from the “Stockholm syndrome” you have with your controlling “master”.
Then you will identify yourself as a loyal slave to the society or cult your ruling elites have made special for you long before you were born.
This is very sad to observe.
It is very hard for most humans also to understand that evil does not originate from humanity and therefore cannot be explained fully by psychiatry or the physical reality. This is the devils territory.
Trump's only motivation is Trump's survival, power, wealth and prestige, much as with nearly all top end political actors (or other types of organized crime cappos). He has and will continue to pursue those ends by whatever means are most effective/least detrimental to his life expectancy.
The world gets much easier to understand (and predict) if you view the activities of those who run our governments as being no different in spirit from those running any other crime family or racket.
Before India, the BE tried out its control tools next door in Ireland, targeting a specific group. Also interesting to note: both Disraeli and Kissinger were Jews. Go figure🧐
That's why it is called the Talmudist and Mammonist Cabal, not simply Talmudist. It recruits those corrupted by riches into its ranks as well, although they are typically regarded as second-grade. That, or they are actually Talmudists as well, just well obscured, like the Rockefellers. No overt observance is required of them. And people like Kent are just minions, like Renfield. Most Western "decision makers" are of this sort, and quite disposable.
I promise you, worship of money and the pursuit of political power are confined to no single religion or creed.
And remind you, ethnicities which place emphasis on early and continuing education DO often succeed disproportionally at pursuits where applied mathematics is beneficial... And repeat the old saw: Correlation is not necessarily causation.
To apply a familiar analogy, the ideal situation for a parasite is a weakened host that is unable to resist the parasite's control over it yet is able to survive. The parasite diverts the food supply of its host for its own use, compromising the host's health and strength. Then the parasite releases its progeny to infiltrate and take over other hosts that are not yet infected.
And yet parasites kill hosts, because they are unable to control their greed. That's why the Golem (the US) is so weak right now, unable to face down even Iran, although commanded to do so. The vampire masters sucked out too much blood, they were simply unable to control themselves. Now the society is depraved, demoralized, impoverished, and fractured, and the economy is on the brink of collapse, which is being delayed by all sorts of financial shenanigans---if you read this stack regularly, you know what I'm talking about.
Trump was allowed into power in order to try and resuscitate the Golem economically, and all his thrashing about is a desperate attempt at that. But the Golem is not excused from carrying its duties as the enforcer for the Cabal, even though it is shambling with anemia.
If what you are saying is accurate (and I think it is), then applying the analogy further would lead to the prediction that the parasite will either move to a new, strong and healthy host or (more likely) its progeny will have long ago infiltrated virtually every member of the community of hosts and will be positioned to secretly control all of the rivals in the ongoing struggle for dominance.
If you look carefully at the so-called "Reformists" in Iran, the people who control the economy in Russia, and the revolutionaries who organized the Communist Party in China, perhaps you will see what I mean. However, I am not a pessimist and believe that an aware host might be able to manage its parasite problem. Vampires don't flourish in the daylight, as artists have been telling us for a long time.
You are right. However, it seems to me that right now there's no abundance of healthy hosts in the format that would be sufficient for their current needs. I also think that they've made a mistake they can only thank their own hubris for. They revealed themselves and their plans too soon because they were sure that they finally have all the cards upon their sleeves, so to speak, but they miscalculated more than one thing. And doing everything they usually do in the open, with all eyes on you is not the same, as your vampire analogy says. Venezuela is one example what may happen when everybody is paying attention. It's hard to predict anything accurately in the current turbulence, but I certainly hope that Azerbaijan/Armenia situation will follow suit...
Hi Alex, not as such related to this article, but if You have not come across the work of economist Richard Werner, have a look at the interview on Tucker Carlson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTKHskg5Tg&t=8161s
Population is a real problem. A less intrusive way to reach balance is to reduce food transport across national borders. The Indian government should make sure India produces all the food it needs. ditto for China, and the UK as well.
In all developed countries, it is depopulation that is a problem. It is only in downtrodden and impoverished colonial countries that "overpopulation" is alleged to be a problem, with arguments much like Kissinger's and Kent's rationalizations above.
One suspects that the real problem in these societies is something quite different: exploitation. Had these nations been allowed to develop, without being robbed and deliberately destabilized by the Empire, population would likely stabilize at some point or even shrink, following the normal pattern of unparasitised societies.
Well Said. However, although I came from a currently prosperous former EM country, my own experience says a somewhat different opinion. People need to be fed and clothed, and expect a better future in which they can work hard and exercise their wits and talents to the best extent. And they will need good top leaders, a reasonable basic education and infrastructure, diligent low-level government employees, and good low-level civilian business leaders, entrepreneurs, etc. This is already a tough starting point for many EM countries to reach. But if they do have such basis, then extra population is simply extra (human) resources. With good leadership and other contexts, ample human resources can compensate for the lack of other resources., but not a substitute for other resources. For example, you needs cows to plow the field rather than humans. Machinery will be handy some other day, but not at the beginning. If the national leaders want to borrow money from Western banks, well, then they are asking for exploitation.
Until an EM nation reaches that minimal starting point, extra population is simply a resource drain. To the minimum, they are mouths to be fed. Without a minimal basic education system, it is difficult to teach such a population for better agriculture techniques or to train them as mechanics and technicians. The situation is particularly bad in Africa, as most EM nations there have already reached the natural limit of their population due to Western food aid. Western help in education, however, so far has shown minimal values because the West do not have much suitable to teach these countries. Leveraged buyout is not a concern in these places. In comparison, EMs in Southeast Asia fare a lot better. Although the latitude is about the same, the EMs in Southeast Asia in general have better soil and weather to support agricultural production. Many such nations have a small but capable Chinese minority who help to start small businesses based on agricultural products. The Chinese cultural heritage usually drives parents to insist that the younger generation receive better education, even at great cost to the parents. In addition, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Vietnam, and south Korea all happened to have competent leaders by the end of WW2. Although the Korean War and Vietnam War delayed the development of SK and SV, they were doing well given the circumstances. SV leadership pipeline was essentially cut off by the US as the US picked puppets rather than leaders in SV. In comparison, NV cultivated a newer generation of generals and administrators despite its system mimicking the USSR.
Looking at the EM in Asia and Africa, you can see that some countries are comfortably working in the upward trajectory, while some others, especially for those in Africa, still struggle with difficulties because they have not reached the necessary minimal requirement. Even when they have a good leader, as in Burkina Faso, they face many other problems. Quite often, these countries don't even have good leaders. to stand up against the exploitations from the former colonial hosts. For these countries, I think population control is a well justified policy. Even in countries as rich or prosperous as the US, Japan, SK, and Taiwan, you have to ask why native birth rate all go down. In short, young people there have a hard time making a living. If they are properly educated and not willing to bring another life into this world, in which they as parents already have survival problems, then not to give birth is also the most natural decision.
Please define the term "EM" you employed? I'm a bit slow and can't seem to find your initial use of the fully spelled out term apparently so abbreviated.
The UK has not been self sufficient in food produced on the home island (England + Scotland) for over 250 years now- Since around 1750 when the industrial revolution/acts of enclosure/Imperial paradigm took over their whole system (and a large part of the earth). I'm not sure they COULD return to self sufficiency at their present population levels? They certainly wouldn't be eating much beef if they did!
No, they cannot. Either they have to continue to loot from all around the world, or have huge agriculture breakthrough, or have something worthwhile to exchange for grain from Australia, Argentina, and Canada, etc., the UK population has to shrink. In the short term, international trade can solve the problem. And Argentine peso seems to be in crisis again, so Argentina has to boost exports to earn foreign exchange. Now, how about a worldwide energy crisis caused by war in the Middle East? The British share from the North Sea is not sufficient to compensate for oil price rise because the UK depends on international trade so much (ditto for Japan and Taiwan). Say, hypothetically, a bombed out Iran decided to mine the Strait. Saudi Arabia has another oil terminal on the Red Sea, but it (as well as the largest oil field in KSA) is within range of Houthis' missiles. No matter how cheap the grain is in Argentina, the UK has to pay for the shipping. During the 1974 and 1979 oil crisis, the US Department of Agriculture had programs to sell US grains for free, but buyers had to pay for shipping. Not many takers. That is another reason the US has to invade Venezuela, and I wonder what weapons Maduro will buy from Russia and China.
They couldn't because they lost the skills. They can't distinguish between the top and the root of a plant. They think that milk grows in the carton on the supermarket shelf. There are people that are lost.
As much fun as such hyperbole is, it's not useful in understanding and amelioration of the problem.
The transition from a rural, farming engaged majority to a majority urban (and non agriculture involved) population started by the 1770s and was complete by the 1850s. There was no REASON for factory workers to learn how to farm, nor were the remaining farmers working the land in the same ways that the grandparents of the new industrial majority had. Going forward at anything near present population levels isn't going to be done with agricultural labor done by hand with experienced humans, though the few survivors of a total societal collapse might rediscover how to best farm with human labor (after the vast majority starved to death).
Think a few humans doing maintenance and planning combined with lots of cheap agricultural drones, a country wide unified and carefully optimized production system run by self adjusting, experientially learning AI algorithms written for minimal raw materials input and the maximum sustainable outputs of food, fiber & fuel.
The actual human farmers still left at this time will NOT be happy, so HM Government will probably have to drive them off the land first (or murder them, a new "enclosures" era is coming).
Starvation seems to be one of the preferential methods of depopulation for the scum I really hate to call the elites, since they are just a bunch of mediocre degenerate inbred idiots, which could hold on to the ruling position mostly because of a passive and inert stance of the majority of the population, which also avoids using their own brains for critical thinking as long as there's still some standard and comfort present, and only starts reacting as a result of major events, like war, serious disruption in the distribution of goods, food, financial crashes etc. I think such behavior is the result of awful education, influence of the criminal mainstream media, and for many people also the fatigue caused by constant effort to make ends meet.
I don't believe that we need any kind of "elites" to rule in order to survive. The same technology which gives them the idea they are able to form one government and rule over billions of people would do the same for one or more groups of benevolent, competent and creative individuals. All they are really doing is inventing and imposing their rules on the people through the networks of equally evil, mediocre, and above all greedy and egocentric bureaucrats which are our governments. It's certainly not easy to get rid of this bunch of idiots, but it has been done in the past...
I don't think that Earth is anywhere near the population capacity. Once I left the comment under the video in which that globalist puppet Sadhguru was openly agitating for depopulation (some guru indeed) and lamenting that we'll soon need not two, but three Earths to support the present population, which only shows HIS total dissociation from reality. I simply calculated the population density of New York, applied that same pattern to the area of Texas, and it turned out that it would be sufficient for 8.5 bn people.
Thank you for highlighting the University of Hawaii, where Obama's parents met. Pretty sure at least one of its presidents have been openly CIA. The U came accross my radar when I noted a provocateur on twitter a few years back attempting to gin up a fight between Whitney Webb and Alison McDowell. What turned out to be interesting is that the provocateur was a woman with a graduate student resume from the U. She had a single important article on her resume, published on Elsivier and sponsored by an actual faculty member from the U. Something like an report on agriculture in Tanzania. It was one of those articles with about 50 authors, all with a single initial and a last name. Turns out, however, that the actual author was a male, German academic with the same initital and last name, which happened to be Hermann. My take away: view anything from the Univerity from Hawaii with skepticism.
Sir? Respectfully, I ask that you re examine the 2022 DATE you have given for the "Benefits of World Hunger" UN article (year of publication should be 2008, not 2022)- And reconsider the attribution of intent you suggest for the author.
Please look at the below linked article? The part with original author's explanation of his INTENT in writing that article particularly.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters-
During the Irish famine, agricultural exports from Ireland to England soared. Also, along with getting rid of 2 million natives, 500,000 dead and 1,500,000 to emigration, the famine was the excuse needed to repeal the corn laws, a law which regulated the price of corn entering the market. The repeal of this law was of course hugely beneficial for the city of London as it brought about what we know today as the free market.
As ever Alex, you are 100% spot on. I believe we're only at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to learning about the horror of western civilisation. Joseph Conrad and Roger Casement both wrote about the horrors of the rubber plantations in the Congo and Peru over 100 years ago. Casement's book and his life are remarkable and if you haven't, you should check him out.
If such a sentiment WAS ever voiced in the British Empire's ruling circles, when, where and by whom was such a statement of Imperial intent actually voiced?
What were Disraeli's actual recorded statements on such topics? I know that virtually every PM of empire days was a hard nosed bastard when it came to the interests of Empire, yet this one does not seem in keeping with Disraeli's better remembered statements.
A widely spread lie in the western hemisphere and most of the world is overpopulation as a problem which is spread by the global elites specifically in the west.
The problem is not 8 billion people but the ruling elites which steal and destroy economically, military and politically the possibility and foundation of growth and prosperity. As we all know psychopaths, criminals and narcissists lie. In a competitive world without rules (rules only apply to the people but not to the ruling elites which are the rule makers) the narcissists always wins because it’s always about power and control and not about justice and human rights. The removal of the ruling elites is the only solution to this problem. How? Only time will tell.
We may replace the ruling elites, but I am not sure it is possible not to have an elite of rulers ruling over the mass of the ruled.
The difficulty is to frame and operate into the far future stable constitutional arrangements which prevent the exploitation of one part of the population by another part of the population and which limit the arbitrary powers of the rulers and make (and keep) them accountable to the ruled.
You are still limiting yourself to thinking in terms of democratic frameworks. Democracy is a false god. It works fine on township or county level, and only on that level, when the representation is direct and every candidate's life and worth is well known to his constituents. At any higher level, it only serves as a phony front to dupe the masses, and conceal the real oligarchic rulers from accountability. And this is not an incidental flaw; it is inherent in democracy, and cannot be fixed. Plato and Aristotle already knew and explained that, but their explanation has been expunged from curriculum, for obvious reasons.
I agree democracies have their problems, although when functioning well they can be pleasant enough.
Our main source of accountability in society is the law, which should apply equally to everyone and not be constructed to favour anyone, elite or otherwise. With a good uncorrupted system of law and justice I am content to live most places.
The problem is how to establish and maintain this good system of law without it becoming corrupted: any political institutions create a specialist political class who never seem satisfied with caretaking a minimal state, but take powers to make edicts and arbitrary rules and shape the world to their own ends, or those of their patrons. So we are back to the difficulty of framing stable constitutional arrangements limiting the powers of the rulers and keeping them accountable to the rest of us, i.e. fulfilling and not abusing their narrow institutional role, while hoping they can protect us from external enemies.
The real problem is, your elected representatives do not actually represent the electorate, but the special interests that fund them and promote them. This is essentially impossible to overcome on any scale larger than a local community, regardless of what the constitution says.
Think about it this way, the laws prohibit corruption, do they not? And yet corruption is ubiquitous and rampant, no matter how strict the laws are in theory. Perditissima respublica plurimae leges, the Romans used to cynically say.
There are no easy answers: which is why political hubris is dangerous and moral courage so important. For all democracy's failings - and I largely gave up voting in national elections over 30 years ago - I prefer a system which enables people occasionally to register their dissent and have a chance to throw the buggers out.
@RalfB
History and observation of egalitarian small societies suggest up to about 300 people can operate on a "democratic" consensus fairly effectively, at least when events aren't moving too fast and require them to elect a temporary "big man" who runs things by decree for the duration of a crisis. History also reveals that a small % of Big Men will refuse to step down- And eventually, that feature goes in the toilet for all those groups as the early adopters of dictatorship devour the slower moving consensus ruled groups or force them into an equivalent wartime footing.
No one should rule over another human being. That is poisonous thoughts spread by the same narcissistic elites. If we think we need them to rule over us we have been brainwashed by their poison. This is radical acceptance of the reality the human race has been subjected to for thousands of years.
Time to grow up and think like a mature human being and not like a slave with Stockholm syndrome.
Anarchy is not a solution, it is a disease. A society needs to be governed, and not all elites, historically, have been pernicious oligarchies. In fact, most historical societies have had healthy systems of government, until Talmudist and Mammonist influence wrecked them. Think of China, both the Imperial system of meritocracy and today's "communist" government: both strive, and often succeed, to improve popular prosperity and progress. Or the hydraulic empires of antiquity that modern propaganda disses as examples of absolutism, but that established stability and prosperity for centuries. Or the enlightened despotism of Peter the Great and Catherine, that raised up immeasurably the living conditions in Russia.
Decent, not depraved elites are beneficial for their citizens, but our point of view is embittered by witnessing the current crop of greedy oligarchs. Oligarchy is the worst political system, and democracy inevitably leads to, or conceals, oligarchy. This is not my opinion, nor even a recent realization; Aristotle already knew that, and more recently, Michael Hudson wrote several books on that subject. "Authoritarian" governments, when not secretly owned or corrupted by the Cabal, are typically more benign: it takes a king or dictator to keep the Mammonists in check.
@2033ICP
It WOULD be possible to maintain a world population of 8 billion people with our present levels of technology (and without any systemic starvation being baked into the system). However, a whole bunch of "the golden billion" would have to give up a number of their more resources intensive habits, ranging from owning multiple private mega yachts to owning private motor vehicles at all, from eating pate foi gras & caviar at will to eating grain fed beef at will.
This does not play well to the owners of our political class, they would far rather solve the undeniable issues we are seeing related to population overshoot, environmental degradation and natural resource values/scarcity/control/apportionment by damping down on the ability of now unnecessary "little people" to continue breeding (or possibly breathing?), this is far less painful to a megacorp CEO or international banking dynasty head than giving up chateaux, mega yachts and gold toilets.
I would let them keep their chateaux, caviars, mega yachts and golden toilets because this is not the problem. This is not what creates poverty and suffering.
Their abundance of wealth does not creat wars and «climate crisis». Their monopoly of power and technology controlling financial institutions and markeds with high taxation and suppressing energy, water and food supplies and production etc. etc. is the problem. An additional problem is the elites control of the mainstream media spreading their lies and propaganda promoting their destructive agendas of the population because this dictates the narrative and the mindset of the masses.
This problem is evilness.
The other problem is madness and that problem is even bigger because this is the belief of the need of the ruling class and their leadership like our government which are puppets of the ruling elites.
When the human race reaches 11 billion people we have reached the natural peak point and there will not be any more humans on the planet.
There is enough water, there is enough food and there is enough energy production for all 11 billion people. Anything else said is a lie.
I wouldn't let them keep anything, in fact, I wouldn't let them stay out of jail cells. Not because I care for their caviar, yachts and gold, but because they wouldn't even now let us live in peace with whatever we have. Of course this is a hypothetical situation, but to change the system to any significant degree, they would have to be either eliminated, or confined to some area, from which they wouldn't be able to influence lives of the rest. If not, they'd be back to business as usual in no time...
There is no natural peak. This is the anti human warfare spread by the “limit to development”, “zero growth” gang invented abd supported by the globalist oligarchy. Don’t believe that BS, please. We had enough of genocidal Malthus-ianism 😳
It seems you have misunderstood the whole meaning of the phrase «natural» peak. It has nothing to do with controlling the number of population not exceeding 11 billion people. Natural peek is the estimate of the world population in natural terms and not by interference by the politics and agendas of the elites.
On the contrary the elites are promoting their concerns of an ever growing population and they call it «overpopulation». This will never happen because of the natural peek and therefore they are actually lying on purpose to legitimate a political interference in this natural growth from 8 to 11 billion people. Their «hidden» agenda is to reduce the number of world population to approximately half a billion people because it will be easier for them to control such reduction.
@2033ICP
Please provide links to sources used to determine your quoted 11 billion humans as the inherent carrying capacity for this planet? It differs from such estimates I recall.
If you use Chat GPT (AI online) you will find different sources with different conclusions and different calculation methods which differs from 10,3 to 11,2 billions as a peek point .
I took the number 11 billion from memory of what I have read and heard years ago. The sources mentioned from Chat GPT are:
Gerland, Raftery mfl. (2014). World population stabilization unlikely this century (Science).
UN: World Population Prospects 2024 – Summary of Results + methodreport.
Raftery/Alkema mfl.: metodikken og UNs probabilistiske projeksjons (Bayesiansk hierarki for TFR/lifespan).
Gapminder/Hans Rosling (interpretation of the UN reports)
If you want to go deeper I recommend using Chat GPT. It’s fast and effective. Really interesting tool.
Grow up and try to live your life without a master telling you what to do or not to do, what to think or not to think.
Live your life without a wife telling you what to feel or not to feel, what to dream or not to dream.
I am talking about a spiritual life in society without evil.
You are still thinking it’s impossible living without.
And you are right too because we still have overwhelming amounts of evil in our world.
We have just different mindsets and different identity of existence.
We cannot comprehend from our traumatized viewpoint what a harmonious, cohesive, synchronous, loving experience life can be when Ego is not in control.
That's all really. As long as Ego has the upper hand it will convince you it is needed.
That is correct.
Without the experience of braking free from a narcissist or a psychopath you will have no idea what I am talking about.
Then you will not see that the traumatic and parasitic relationship with a narcissist is exactly the same you have with your authorities because it might take a lifetime (or several) to be able to see through the fog of a covert narcissist or to brake free from the “Stockholm syndrome” you have with your controlling “master”.
Then you will identify yourself as a loyal slave to the society or cult your ruling elites have made special for you long before you were born.
This is very sad to observe.
It is very hard for most humans also to understand that evil does not originate from humanity and therefore cannot be explained fully by psychiatry or the physical reality. This is the devils territory.
Wow — thank you.
Let’s remember that it is a US genocide, more specifically, a Trump’s Gaza genocide.
His main, perhaps only, objective is creation of Greater Israel. The selection filter for his entire administration is being a Zionist
- Jewish or Christian….
A Nobel Peace candidate…..
@Boris Petrov
Trump's only motivation is Trump's survival, power, wealth and prestige, much as with nearly all top end political actors (or other types of organized crime cappos). He has and will continue to pursue those ends by whatever means are most effective/least detrimental to his life expectancy.
The world gets much easier to understand (and predict) if you view the activities of those who run our governments as being no different in spirit from those running any other crime family or racket.
Or the government is a replacement for a narcissistic mother or husband....
Before India, the BE tried out its control tools next door in Ireland, targeting a specific group. Also interesting to note: both Disraeli and Kissinger were Jews. Go figure🧐
Rockefeller was not a Jew. Mr George Kent is not a Jew. Go figure.
Might want to do some research on the Rockefellers
That's why it is called the Talmudist and Mammonist Cabal, not simply Talmudist. It recruits those corrupted by riches into its ranks as well, although they are typically regarded as second-grade. That, or they are actually Talmudists as well, just well obscured, like the Rockefellers. No overt observance is required of them. And people like Kent are just minions, like Renfield. Most Western "decision makers" are of this sort, and quite disposable.
@BK
I promise you, worship of money and the pursuit of political power are confined to no single religion or creed.
And remind you, ethnicities which place emphasis on early and continuing education DO often succeed disproportionally at pursuits where applied mathematics is beneficial... And repeat the old saw: Correlation is not necessarily causation.
To apply a familiar analogy, the ideal situation for a parasite is a weakened host that is unable to resist the parasite's control over it yet is able to survive. The parasite diverts the food supply of its host for its own use, compromising the host's health and strength. Then the parasite releases its progeny to infiltrate and take over other hosts that are not yet infected.
And yet parasites kill hosts, because they are unable to control their greed. That's why the Golem (the US) is so weak right now, unable to face down even Iran, although commanded to do so. The vampire masters sucked out too much blood, they were simply unable to control themselves. Now the society is depraved, demoralized, impoverished, and fractured, and the economy is on the brink of collapse, which is being delayed by all sorts of financial shenanigans---if you read this stack regularly, you know what I'm talking about.
Trump was allowed into power in order to try and resuscitate the Golem economically, and all his thrashing about is a desperate attempt at that. But the Golem is not excused from carrying its duties as the enforcer for the Cabal, even though it is shambling with anemia.
If what you are saying is accurate (and I think it is), then applying the analogy further would lead to the prediction that the parasite will either move to a new, strong and healthy host or (more likely) its progeny will have long ago infiltrated virtually every member of the community of hosts and will be positioned to secretly control all of the rivals in the ongoing struggle for dominance.
If you look carefully at the so-called "Reformists" in Iran, the people who control the economy in Russia, and the revolutionaries who organized the Communist Party in China, perhaps you will see what I mean. However, I am not a pessimist and believe that an aware host might be able to manage its parasite problem. Vampires don't flourish in the daylight, as artists have been telling us for a long time.
You've hit the stake right on the head, I concur 100% with your comment. J 8:32
You are right. However, it seems to me that right now there's no abundance of healthy hosts in the format that would be sufficient for their current needs. I also think that they've made a mistake they can only thank their own hubris for. They revealed themselves and their plans too soon because they were sure that they finally have all the cards upon their sleeves, so to speak, but they miscalculated more than one thing. And doing everything they usually do in the open, with all eyes on you is not the same, as your vampire analogy says. Venezuela is one example what may happen when everybody is paying attention. It's hard to predict anything accurately in the current turbulence, but I certainly hope that Azerbaijan/Armenia situation will follow suit...
Hi Alex, not as such related to this article, but if You have not come across the work of economist Richard Werner, have a look at the interview on Tucker Carlson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTKHskg5Tg&t=8161s
Population is a real problem. A less intrusive way to reach balance is to reduce food transport across national borders. The Indian government should make sure India produces all the food it needs. ditto for China, and the UK as well.
In all developed countries, it is depopulation that is a problem. It is only in downtrodden and impoverished colonial countries that "overpopulation" is alleged to be a problem, with arguments much like Kissinger's and Kent's rationalizations above.
One suspects that the real problem in these societies is something quite different: exploitation. Had these nations been allowed to develop, without being robbed and deliberately destabilized by the Empire, population would likely stabilize at some point or even shrink, following the normal pattern of unparasitised societies.
Well Said. However, although I came from a currently prosperous former EM country, my own experience says a somewhat different opinion. People need to be fed and clothed, and expect a better future in which they can work hard and exercise their wits and talents to the best extent. And they will need good top leaders, a reasonable basic education and infrastructure, diligent low-level government employees, and good low-level civilian business leaders, entrepreneurs, etc. This is already a tough starting point for many EM countries to reach. But if they do have such basis, then extra population is simply extra (human) resources. With good leadership and other contexts, ample human resources can compensate for the lack of other resources., but not a substitute for other resources. For example, you needs cows to plow the field rather than humans. Machinery will be handy some other day, but not at the beginning. If the national leaders want to borrow money from Western banks, well, then they are asking for exploitation.
Until an EM nation reaches that minimal starting point, extra population is simply a resource drain. To the minimum, they are mouths to be fed. Without a minimal basic education system, it is difficult to teach such a population for better agriculture techniques or to train them as mechanics and technicians. The situation is particularly bad in Africa, as most EM nations there have already reached the natural limit of their population due to Western food aid. Western help in education, however, so far has shown minimal values because the West do not have much suitable to teach these countries. Leveraged buyout is not a concern in these places. In comparison, EMs in Southeast Asia fare a lot better. Although the latitude is about the same, the EMs in Southeast Asia in general have better soil and weather to support agricultural production. Many such nations have a small but capable Chinese minority who help to start small businesses based on agricultural products. The Chinese cultural heritage usually drives parents to insist that the younger generation receive better education, even at great cost to the parents. In addition, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Vietnam, and south Korea all happened to have competent leaders by the end of WW2. Although the Korean War and Vietnam War delayed the development of SK and SV, they were doing well given the circumstances. SV leadership pipeline was essentially cut off by the US as the US picked puppets rather than leaders in SV. In comparison, NV cultivated a newer generation of generals and administrators despite its system mimicking the USSR.
Looking at the EM in Asia and Africa, you can see that some countries are comfortably working in the upward trajectory, while some others, especially for those in Africa, still struggle with difficulties because they have not reached the necessary minimal requirement. Even when they have a good leader, as in Burkina Faso, they face many other problems. Quite often, these countries don't even have good leaders. to stand up against the exploitations from the former colonial hosts. For these countries, I think population control is a well justified policy. Even in countries as rich or prosperous as the US, Japan, SK, and Taiwan, you have to ask why native birth rate all go down. In short, young people there have a hard time making a living. If they are properly educated and not willing to bring another life into this world, in which they as parents already have survival problems, then not to give birth is also the most natural decision.
@Nakayama
(Edit)
"EM" = Emerging Markets
Thanks-
----------
Please define the term "EM" you employed? I'm a bit slow and can't seem to find your initial use of the fully spelled out term apparently so abbreviated.
AH, sorry. I meant Emerging Markets (or developing countries). I should have spelled out before using abbreviations.
The UK has not been self sufficient in food produced on the home island (England + Scotland) for over 250 years now- Since around 1750 when the industrial revolution/acts of enclosure/Imperial paradigm took over their whole system (and a large part of the earth). I'm not sure they COULD return to self sufficiency at their present population levels? They certainly wouldn't be eating much beef if they did!
https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-UK-achieve-food-self-sufficiency-in-the-modern-era
No, they cannot. Either they have to continue to loot from all around the world, or have huge agriculture breakthrough, or have something worthwhile to exchange for grain from Australia, Argentina, and Canada, etc., the UK population has to shrink. In the short term, international trade can solve the problem. And Argentine peso seems to be in crisis again, so Argentina has to boost exports to earn foreign exchange. Now, how about a worldwide energy crisis caused by war in the Middle East? The British share from the North Sea is not sufficient to compensate for oil price rise because the UK depends on international trade so much (ditto for Japan and Taiwan). Say, hypothetically, a bombed out Iran decided to mine the Strait. Saudi Arabia has another oil terminal on the Red Sea, but it (as well as the largest oil field in KSA) is within range of Houthis' missiles. No matter how cheap the grain is in Argentina, the UK has to pay for the shipping. During the 1974 and 1979 oil crisis, the US Department of Agriculture had programs to sell US grains for free, but buyers had to pay for shipping. Not many takers. That is another reason the US has to invade Venezuela, and I wonder what weapons Maduro will buy from Russia and China.
They couldn't because they lost the skills. They can't distinguish between the top and the root of a plant. They think that milk grows in the carton on the supermarket shelf. There are people that are lost.
@Anneke
As much fun as such hyperbole is, it's not useful in understanding and amelioration of the problem.
The transition from a rural, farming engaged majority to a majority urban (and non agriculture involved) population started by the 1770s and was complete by the 1850s. There was no REASON for factory workers to learn how to farm, nor were the remaining farmers working the land in the same ways that the grandparents of the new industrial majority had. Going forward at anything near present population levels isn't going to be done with agricultural labor done by hand with experienced humans, though the few survivors of a total societal collapse might rediscover how to best farm with human labor (after the vast majority starved to death).
Think a few humans doing maintenance and planning combined with lots of cheap agricultural drones, a country wide unified and carefully optimized production system run by self adjusting, experientially learning AI algorithms written for minimal raw materials input and the maximum sustainable outputs of food, fiber & fuel.
The actual human farmers still left at this time will NOT be happy, so HM Government will probably have to drive them off the land first (or murder them, a new "enclosures" era is coming).
Starvation seems to be one of the preferential methods of depopulation for the scum I really hate to call the elites, since they are just a bunch of mediocre degenerate inbred idiots, which could hold on to the ruling position mostly because of a passive and inert stance of the majority of the population, which also avoids using their own brains for critical thinking as long as there's still some standard and comfort present, and only starts reacting as a result of major events, like war, serious disruption in the distribution of goods, food, financial crashes etc. I think such behavior is the result of awful education, influence of the criminal mainstream media, and for many people also the fatigue caused by constant effort to make ends meet.
I don't believe that we need any kind of "elites" to rule in order to survive. The same technology which gives them the idea they are able to form one government and rule over billions of people would do the same for one or more groups of benevolent, competent and creative individuals. All they are really doing is inventing and imposing their rules on the people through the networks of equally evil, mediocre, and above all greedy and egocentric bureaucrats which are our governments. It's certainly not easy to get rid of this bunch of idiots, but it has been done in the past...
I don't think that Earth is anywhere near the population capacity. Once I left the comment under the video in which that globalist puppet Sadhguru was openly agitating for depopulation (some guru indeed) and lamenting that we'll soon need not two, but three Earths to support the present population, which only shows HIS total dissociation from reality. I simply calculated the population density of New York, applied that same pattern to the area of Texas, and it turned out that it would be sufficient for 8.5 bn people.
Here's one video by Ben Norton, showing how the British empire killed 165 million people in India in 40 years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob_lIQRAnYM
As always an excellent article!
Thank you for highlighting the University of Hawaii, where Obama's parents met. Pretty sure at least one of its presidents have been openly CIA. The U came accross my radar when I noted a provocateur on twitter a few years back attempting to gin up a fight between Whitney Webb and Alison McDowell. What turned out to be interesting is that the provocateur was a woman with a graduate student resume from the U. She had a single important article on her resume, published on Elsivier and sponsored by an actual faculty member from the U. Something like an report on agriculture in Tanzania. It was one of those articles with about 50 authors, all with a single initial and a last name. Turns out, however, that the actual author was a male, German academic with the same initital and last name, which happened to be Hermann. My take away: view anything from the Univerity from Hawaii with skepticism.
thank you so much for tracking and sharing this. it feels utterly despicable to walk around with people justifying everything you write about.
https://open.substack.com/pub/neofrancisscottkey/p/olivia-reingold?r=b8jnn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
@ALEX KRAINER
Sir? Respectfully, I ask that you re examine the 2022 DATE you have given for the "Benefits of World Hunger" UN article (year of publication should be 2008, not 2022)- And reconsider the attribution of intent you suggest for the author.
Please look at the below linked article? The part with original author's explanation of his INTENT in writing that article particularly.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters-
https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/
Thank you Alex. I greatly appreciate your insight, understanding, awareness, and pattern recognition.
During the Irish famine, agricultural exports from Ireland to England soared. Also, along with getting rid of 2 million natives, 500,000 dead and 1,500,000 to emigration, the famine was the excuse needed to repeal the corn laws, a law which regulated the price of corn entering the market. The repeal of this law was of course hugely beneficial for the city of London as it brought about what we know today as the free market.
As ever Alex, you are 100% spot on. I believe we're only at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to learning about the horror of western civilisation. Joseph Conrad and Roger Casement both wrote about the horrors of the rubber plantations in the Congo and Peru over 100 years ago. Casement's book and his life are remarkable and if you haven't, you should check him out.
Vaš navod Dizraeliju nije tačan. On jeste bio imperijalisti, ali nije rekao ono što mu pripisujete
@Cikorije
Thanks for bringing this up, could you pleas
expand on these observations?
If such a sentiment WAS ever voiced in the British Empire's ruling circles, when, where and by whom was such a statement of Imperial intent actually voiced?
What were Disraeli's actual recorded statements on such topics? I know that virtually every PM of empire days was a hard nosed bastard when it came to the interests of Empire, yet this one does not seem in keeping with Disraeli's better remembered statements.
Thanks in advance!