Excellent analysis. Although one element I disagree with is population is too large. This is one of the tropes they are using to drive all these Net Zero type changes. Population collapse is actually more likely. I've read global population has already dipped under 7 billion.
Aside from that, I agree. The absolute insanity of the climate change zealots is something we don't seem to have the tools to stop.
Hey, as an aside, I believe it's demonstrable that population is too large, if you compare natural carrying capacity (historically about 1 billion with zero fossil fuels) to today's 8 billion with massive fertilizer consumption. If we have a cascade of collapse, the 1 billion becomes the new carrying number
Population is in natural decline everywhere except Africa. Chinese women are now having 1.1 children, well below replacement levels. The population will sort itself.
Worrying about population is an elite concern. The elites rarely produce or innovate. Innovation has solved every problem we have been faced with, and will do so again if given freedom. Simple as that.
About 8 billion seems to be the peak and population is now in decline.
>Population is in natural decline everywhere except Africa. Chinese women are now having 1.1 children, well below replacement levels. The population will sort itself.
In the grand scheme of things this is a short-term phenomenon. The "demographic transition" of voluntarily reduced fertility creates a vacuum that will be filled by clans and religious groups or anyone else that can motivate high fertility. We only have a few generations until these types take over. Desire for sex used to be one of the main drivers of childbirth (technically the desire for sex is driven by childbirth), thanks to contraception this has been broken and we are currently resorting towards innate desire for children and religiosity.
"Natural carrying capacity" does not exist. It has been continually increased due to improvements in crop varieties (and in recent times due to fertilizer, which I admit will disappear). Japan in 1800 had a population density of 80 people per square kilometer (keeping in mind half of this area is mountain and near uninhabited Hokkaido), if half of this population density is applied to the United States that gives a population of exactly 320 million. This is napkin maths but it works. The reality is that the earth can support a vast number of humans these days due to potatoes and improved rice cultivars, no fertilizer needed (although it certainly helps). If you think America will be better at agriculture than Japan with medieval technology you can add however many 100s of millions to its carrying capacity, or take example from pre-industrial China which sustained 600 million people.
Nature is always evolving. Check out amaranth dominance of some southern cornfields in america. Glyphosate has selected out the easily affected genes, and now the tough as nails amaranth is back and there's hell to pay.
You are a fool. We reached this capacity of humans due to fossil fuel consumption. Without it, it would drop back to 1 billion, if not further. Have you ever considered in your life the difference between farmlands before and after industrial fertilizer? Have you ever even grown anything? The cultivars of which you speak are actually a lot less resilient than their natural ancestors - this is a byproduct of human drives to increase production, which comes at the biological opportunity cost of root systems, fungal resistances, and other plant defenses.
Fossil fuel dependent fertilizers and agricultural machinery are most certainly the back bone of modern agriculture and allow extremely high yields with little labor. However, pre-industrial China (1840s) proves that these two things are not needed to high population densities. People will be far poorer without fossil fuels, but 10 acres of potatoes or sweet potatoes can sustain a family almost anywhere, with. the margins being taken (they are barren in modern Australia, Canada and USA) by herders living like Afghans (dry and mountainous Afghanistan has a population of over 30 million although this is likely unsustainable).
China can't feed itself anymore, it is no longer fertile enough. They import most of their meat, and large portions of produce. Chinese population was also drastically smaller pre-industrialization - only 300-400 million, compared to what is likely above 1.2 million, and with much more strong natural foodstocks. And you can't just magically grow potatoes everywhere, nor can you forever prevent blights from occasional famines
I agree, but nonetheless, 400 million people is a lot of people, greater than the global population on the eve of Columbus' American expedition. Even applying fraction of this population density to non-marginal parts of the world easily lands a population over 3 billion.
Interesting, detailed big picture analysis. Mostly correct, but overlooking a few things.
We are not condemned to a dismal future. Mankind innovates. The game is rigged. But the people who rigged it are failing and something new will take its place. Don’t blame the people at the top for everything. Yes, there are a lot of sociopaths and weasels, but we are all responsible for our own choices. Interest rates can’t go higher and stay there. The government won’t be able to service the debt. That effectively puts them out of business. Destroying the economy also puts them out of business. Healthcare isn’t a fluff job. Yes the vaccine Nazis and the big pharma ghouls are disgusting, but to say that healthcare is worthless and pays poorly is just absurd. You borrow money at your own peril. Nobody makes you do it at a personal level. Yes, when the band plays, everybody wants to dance. But that doesn’t mean you have to overextend yourself. That’s on the individual.
This recently ousted Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who took at least a dozen votes to get elected speaker, traveled to Israel immediately upon his election, declaring to the Israeli Knesset that the USA is steadfastly committed to supporting Ukraine in their war against Russia.
SUCKING JEWISH COCK IS REQUIRED.
It has become so painfully obvious, especially where you have someone like Nikki Haley wagging her finger and shouting down at Vivek Ramaswamy in a presidential debate on national television when the questions of this war and Israel are concerned.
I keep being reminded things started going to shit about the time I was born, in 1973.
I know how to build a house, I grow a lot more food than I can eat, I hunt and fish, I ferment alcohol, I have no debt and I read and write a lot about the western magical tradition.
The collapse is so slow, and so many people are unaware that it is collapse, I can sometimes lose sight of it in my relative isolation. But reading stuff like this I am very happy about my choices. I am positioned about as well as I can be for the hardships coming. There is a lot more work to do, but that is a matter of course. Thanks for the constant reminder of the imperative, that is your substack.
You definitely want to get rid of variable rate debt as soon as possible.
Fixed rate debt can be a means to short the dollar. Better to preserve liquidity than to pay off fixed rate debt aggressively. Cash + credit card headroom should be at least six months given these uncertain times. Better to have a year.
All economic theory at the end of the day is sophistry and just kicking the can down the road by escaping into VR fantasy infinite growth scenarios to try to hide from very real Malthusian limits.
As you point out, all of this change is related to decreasing (PER CAPITA) natural resource availability in the short run (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longrun.asp#toc-long-run-vs-short-run). And -- at least in the US -- this period of economic (but not basic technological) change started in the early 70s when real (inflation-adjusted) average employee pay rate reached its apogee and when per capita oil and gas resource availability maxed out and started decreasing. Up until then you could say we all increasingly, year by year, benefited economically from increasingly abundant hydrocarbon free energy per capita availability; i.e., we were all unearned rent seekers sucking ever more energetically (sic) each year on the oil teat. Unfortunately, as per capita oil & gas production amounts decreased, the average energy-based unearned income available to US individuals also necessarily decreased, as indicated by continuously decreasing average pay rates. Eventually, both Dad and Mom had to work to pay for the fixed family overhead and relatively inflexible family lifestyle expectations. Human labor slowly started being substituted for oil and gas energy.
Now, on top of this naturally increasing energy scarcity per capita, we have governments purposefully further reducing this energy-based income benefit to its average citizens by imposing 'environmental' policies that artificially and materially reduce the remaining economic benefit yet obtainable from oil and gas, and the other natural resources. So, like I think you remarked, while governments further increase their overall spending, they are busy killing off their tax base by reducing incomes and population numbers. Not the brightest, or the most empathic, bulbs in the bunch.
In any case, all this is happening in the short term (even 50 years can be the short term when no adjustments to changing conditions are permitted or are otherwise being made), before the average person or family has had the time and opportunity to adjust to increasing per capita natural resource scarcity. In the long run, however, such adjustments are possible -- and probably will be most achievable by those who, consciously or fortuitously, are able to -- like you suggest -- right now carefully live below their means and develop or maintain appreciable self-sufficiency. Perhaps, the meek shall inherit the earth, after all -- as I can't see the typical urban dweller and/or government employee being able to adjust to the still developing problems in the long run, much less the short run.
PS: the chart on national suicides provided in your post is not very informative. Would have been much better to show per capita suicides -- American population is still growing, after all, and therefore it is to be expected that total suicides in the nation will increase year by year. Per capita figures would show rate changes in American suicides over time.
A shrew in this context is a a bad-tempered or aggressively assertive woman who puts work and its accoutrements (Sunday brunch, fine wine, tall men!) ahead of getting married and having a family, and she often ends up a barren and alone cat lady. Think Sarah Jessica Parker in Sex and the City before the accompanying fall.
A travel-shrew is a subset of the shrew phenomenon, traveling the world in order to be an "influencer", taking carefully staged photos in tropical and exotic locations to post on Instagram as "thirst traps". It is an example of attention-seeking behavior with zero actual value-add.
I note that the suicide rate is higher for men than women at all times in the linked graph you provided. That's surprising to me, given that women evidence much higher rates of depression than do men. I guess men may just be more active in actually carrying out anything they take a mind to doing.
Thanks for the "travel shrew" explanation. However, I think there are male and female subcategories of this general phenomenon. In principle, it's like choosing to build a huge new house when there are smaller (therefore more efficient, older and basically better-built ones around that can be rehabilitated -- ditto buying new versus used cars, or discarding husbands or (usually aging) wives that usefully (over the long run) moderate harmful spousal personal impulses . Traveling to exotic locations to satisfy idle curiosity and/or obtain bragging rights is the same sort of thing -- especially when living in a large and varied country like the US, and when there are many, many things going undone at home. All in all, you could say the general phenomenon comes under the heading of masturbation. Travel-masturbators would be a term that would cover both sexes, and consumption-masturbators would be even more encompassing.
My understanding is that women are much likely to threaten and attempt suicide as a cry for attention, but men are much more likely to be successful at it, just like anything else as you state.
I agree with you that the phenomenon of travel shrew-equivalents cuts across both genders, but it hits women much harder because they are subject to real biological limits on procreation. Men can fetter away their 30s and 40s with empty consumption and still be able to procreate, if they choose to do so. But I partially used the term there because it was entertaining and fun to write.
So what exactly happens when the food starts to run out?
Because hunger doesn’t exactly pacify a population in as much as drives it mad. Like this is the kind of thing every king and emperor in history knows.
See this 2016 Forbes article by a WEF contributor, "Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better", archived at https://archive.ph/ln6m7 (the original was up on Forbes until very recently)
Thanks Marcelo. I'm open to other ideas, but it looks like we have a massively increasing world population combined with dramatically shrinking natural resources, a combination that is going to result in a lot of pain for humanity down the road. I delve into it here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-sad-skinsuiting-of-the-environmental-d97
I'm open to comments or criticism about the approach.
This would be a self-limiting problem without the mass migration that our elites are championing and funding though. The "developed" parts of the world with high resource consumption per capita are also those with dismal below replacement birthrates in both the western world and east asia. Populations are only increasing rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa (and to a lesser extent specific Islamic nations).
The entire technocrat/WEF/green global viewpoint falls apart when you consider the simple fact that if their actual concern was truly global resource over-consumption, then they would absolutely not be enabling mass migration into the developed world because importing a 3rd worlder into the 1st world changes their per capita resource consumption into 1st worlder. Thus it seems quite clear that the stated goals of our elites are not their actual goals. "Overpopulation" is a problem because it being a problem justifies their need for more control.
I agree with you that the massive population growth in Africa and Islamic nations, along with China (whose population is capping out), is a problem created by our elites to further their goals of control.
Globohomo's core objective is "imperium super omnia", control above all. They import the third world into the first world as part of their divide and conquer strategy -- if a nation is too busy fighting each other along race, gender, sexual orientation, religious lines, they will never have the strength to rebel against central bank usury. The increase in the imported third worlder's consumption is offset by dragging down quality of life in the first world into the third world.
Norman Dodd stated that while investigating U.S. tax exempt foundations, he interviewed H. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation. Gaither explained to Dodd, “Most of us here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS or the State Dept., or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House, the substance of which was to the effect that we should make every effort to alter life in the U.S. as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.” That's the strategy -- equalize the nations on earth to strengthen a One World Government (which is already here).
Between the ongoing realization of the Kalergi Plan, movement toward Net Zero, 15 minute "smart cities", mRNA injections, CIA-encouraged mass fentanyl abuse, poisoned food and water, massive unstated inflation, CBDCs enforced by woke AI, Agenda 2030 and who knows what else they have upcoming, it seems like their *secondary* objective (after control at any cost) is de-population, especially of whites and Christians, as they move toward their goal of the central bank owning families ruling over 500 million-1 billion 80 IQ mixed-race slaves and everyone else dead, which will solve the declining resource problem for them on the back-end...
I believe you’re wrong about both, especially the rapidly shrinking natural resources. However I think the implosion of the current financial system could bring about the situation you describe. For some period of time.
My disposition is toward pessimism generally because I hate being surprised to the downside. I like to focus on the negative and be pleasantly surprised by the upside if it happens. I do think there are possibly impossible problems caused by unlimited debt, declining natural resources and a world population barreling toward 10 billion. But we all need hope, life is struggle, and I agree with you that it's better to fight for a better world than simply withdraw.
You don't have to believe success is likely, or even probably to engage some realistic optimism. If you consider success unlikely but possible you will still be pleasantly surprised by success. This isn't a moot point because there are substantial cognitive benefits that accompany positive psychology. There is truth to the old adage that believing that you can't accomplish something is a self fulfilling prophecy.
<Anyway, lower your debt levels, lower your consumption patterns to live well below your means, try to develop an element of self-sufficiency, and try to find a relationship with God.>
Excellent advice. I would add to strengthen yourself physically as well.
Very good post. Much food for thought. Generally I think you have grasped the shape of things to come. William Gibson apocryphally said, "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." I used to believe he was referring to social and technological progress. Now, knowing what I know, Progress is a myth. The future is a long and winding road of decline in social standards and quality of life. It's already happening in pockets of the industrialized world. It just hasn't reached many of us yet. In time it will. Gird yourself and get good with God, my friends.
The substance (without personal-story introduction and annexes) is only 60 pages long. It explains a number of legal changes that have been made in the last 20 years (in the US and its EU vassal states) with regard to the ownership of securities (hint: just as 'your' bank 'deposits' are not yours, bonds, stocks & Co. are not yours either... worse, they are being used as collateral to which only 'secured creditors' [the very big boys] will have access in case of crisis).
Nothing short of stunning, and it could significantly accelerate the 'slow grind and bleed out'.
Excellent analysis. Although one element I disagree with is population is too large. This is one of the tropes they are using to drive all these Net Zero type changes. Population collapse is actually more likely. I've read global population has already dipped under 7 billion.
Aside from that, I agree. The absolute insanity of the climate change zealots is something we don't seem to have the tools to stop.
Thanks Spaceman. My contention that population size is too large is based on analysis of the rate of decline in the world's resources as well as other things like the rapid rate of species die-off. I go into it here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-sad-skinsuiting-of-the-environmental-d97
I will definitely check it out.
Hey, as an aside, I believe it's demonstrable that population is too large, if you compare natural carrying capacity (historically about 1 billion with zero fossil fuels) to today's 8 billion with massive fertilizer consumption. If we have a cascade of collapse, the 1 billion becomes the new carrying number
Population is in natural decline everywhere except Africa. Chinese women are now having 1.1 children, well below replacement levels. The population will sort itself.
Worrying about population is an elite concern. The elites rarely produce or innovate. Innovation has solved every problem we have been faced with, and will do so again if given freedom. Simple as that.
About 8 billion seems to be the peak and population is now in decline.
>Population is in natural decline everywhere except Africa. Chinese women are now having 1.1 children, well below replacement levels. The population will sort itself.
In the grand scheme of things this is a short-term phenomenon. The "demographic transition" of voluntarily reduced fertility creates a vacuum that will be filled by clans and religious groups or anyone else that can motivate high fertility. We only have a few generations until these types take over. Desire for sex used to be one of the main drivers of childbirth (technically the desire for sex is driven by childbirth), thanks to contraception this has been broken and we are currently resorting towards innate desire for children and religiosity.
"Natural carrying capacity" does not exist. It has been continually increased due to improvements in crop varieties (and in recent times due to fertilizer, which I admit will disappear). Japan in 1800 had a population density of 80 people per square kilometer (keeping in mind half of this area is mountain and near uninhabited Hokkaido), if half of this population density is applied to the United States that gives a population of exactly 320 million. This is napkin maths but it works. The reality is that the earth can support a vast number of humans these days due to potatoes and improved rice cultivars, no fertilizer needed (although it certainly helps). If you think America will be better at agriculture than Japan with medieval technology you can add however many 100s of millions to its carrying capacity, or take example from pre-industrial China which sustained 600 million people.
Nature is always evolving. Check out amaranth dominance of some southern cornfields in america. Glyphosate has selected out the easily affected genes, and now the tough as nails amaranth is back and there's hell to pay.
You are a fool. We reached this capacity of humans due to fossil fuel consumption. Without it, it would drop back to 1 billion, if not further. Have you ever considered in your life the difference between farmlands before and after industrial fertilizer? Have you ever even grown anything? The cultivars of which you speak are actually a lot less resilient than their natural ancestors - this is a byproduct of human drives to increase production, which comes at the biological opportunity cost of root systems, fungal resistances, and other plant defenses.
Fossil fuel dependent fertilizers and agricultural machinery are most certainly the back bone of modern agriculture and allow extremely high yields with little labor. However, pre-industrial China (1840s) proves that these two things are not needed to high population densities. People will be far poorer without fossil fuels, but 10 acres of potatoes or sweet potatoes can sustain a family almost anywhere, with. the margins being taken (they are barren in modern Australia, Canada and USA) by herders living like Afghans (dry and mountainous Afghanistan has a population of over 30 million although this is likely unsustainable).
China can't feed itself anymore, it is no longer fertile enough. They import most of their meat, and large portions of produce. Chinese population was also drastically smaller pre-industrialization - only 300-400 million, compared to what is likely above 1.2 million, and with much more strong natural foodstocks. And you can't just magically grow potatoes everywhere, nor can you forever prevent blights from occasional famines
Edit - 1.2 million should be 1.2 billion. My apologies
I agree, but nonetheless, 400 million people is a lot of people, greater than the global population on the eve of Columbus' American expedition. Even applying fraction of this population density to non-marginal parts of the world easily lands a population over 3 billion.
Interesting, detailed big picture analysis. Mostly correct, but overlooking a few things.
We are not condemned to a dismal future. Mankind innovates. The game is rigged. But the people who rigged it are failing and something new will take its place. Don’t blame the people at the top for everything. Yes, there are a lot of sociopaths and weasels, but we are all responsible for our own choices. Interest rates can’t go higher and stay there. The government won’t be able to service the debt. That effectively puts them out of business. Destroying the economy also puts them out of business. Healthcare isn’t a fluff job. Yes the vaccine Nazis and the big pharma ghouls are disgusting, but to say that healthcare is worthless and pays poorly is just absurd. You borrow money at your own peril. Nobody makes you do it at a personal level. Yes, when the band plays, everybody wants to dance. But that doesn’t mean you have to overextend yourself. That’s on the individual.
This recently ousted Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who took at least a dozen votes to get elected speaker, traveled to Israel immediately upon his election, declaring to the Israeli Knesset that the USA is steadfastly committed to supporting Ukraine in their war against Russia.
SUCKING JEWISH COCK IS REQUIRED.
It has become so painfully obvious, especially where you have someone like Nikki Haley wagging her finger and shouting down at Vivek Ramaswamy in a presidential debate on national television when the questions of this war and Israel are concerned.
I keep being reminded things started going to shit about the time I was born, in 1973.
I know how to build a house, I grow a lot more food than I can eat, I hunt and fish, I ferment alcohol, I have no debt and I read and write a lot about the western magical tradition.
The collapse is so slow, and so many people are unaware that it is collapse, I can sometimes lose sight of it in my relative isolation. But reading stuff like this I am very happy about my choices. I am positioned about as well as I can be for the hardships coming. There is a lot more work to do, but that is a matter of course. Thanks for the constant reminder of the imperative, that is your substack.
You definitely want to get rid of variable rate debt as soon as possible.
Fixed rate debt can be a means to short the dollar. Better to preserve liquidity than to pay off fixed rate debt aggressively. Cash + credit card headroom should be at least six months given these uncertain times. Better to have a year.
All economic theory at the end of the day is sophistry and just kicking the can down the road by escaping into VR fantasy infinite growth scenarios to try to hide from very real Malthusian limits.
Malthus was wrong. Linear projections are likewise wrong, but no one has to admit it when the goal posts continue to move.
Under communism Ethiopia was hitting the Malthusian limit at a population one third of today's population.
Population matters. Yes.
But economics matters as well.
As you point out, all of this change is related to decreasing (PER CAPITA) natural resource availability in the short run (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/longrun.asp#toc-long-run-vs-short-run). And -- at least in the US -- this period of economic (but not basic technological) change started in the early 70s when real (inflation-adjusted) average employee pay rate reached its apogee and when per capita oil and gas resource availability maxed out and started decreasing. Up until then you could say we all increasingly, year by year, benefited economically from increasingly abundant hydrocarbon free energy per capita availability; i.e., we were all unearned rent seekers sucking ever more energetically (sic) each year on the oil teat. Unfortunately, as per capita oil & gas production amounts decreased, the average energy-based unearned income available to US individuals also necessarily decreased, as indicated by continuously decreasing average pay rates. Eventually, both Dad and Mom had to work to pay for the fixed family overhead and relatively inflexible family lifestyle expectations. Human labor slowly started being substituted for oil and gas energy.
Now, on top of this naturally increasing energy scarcity per capita, we have governments purposefully further reducing this energy-based income benefit to its average citizens by imposing 'environmental' policies that artificially and materially reduce the remaining economic benefit yet obtainable from oil and gas, and the other natural resources. So, like I think you remarked, while governments further increase their overall spending, they are busy killing off their tax base by reducing incomes and population numbers. Not the brightest, or the most empathic, bulbs in the bunch.
In any case, all this is happening in the short term (even 50 years can be the short term when no adjustments to changing conditions are permitted or are otherwise being made), before the average person or family has had the time and opportunity to adjust to increasing per capita natural resource scarcity. In the long run, however, such adjustments are possible -- and probably will be most achievable by those who, consciously or fortuitously, are able to -- like you suggest -- right now carefully live below their means and develop or maintain appreciable self-sufficiency. Perhaps, the meek shall inherit the earth, after all -- as I can't see the typical urban dweller and/or government employee being able to adjust to the still developing problems in the long run, much less the short run.
PS: the chart on national suicides provided in your post is not very informative. Would have been much better to show per capita suicides -- American population is still growing, after all, and therefore it is to be expected that total suicides in the nation will increase year by year. Per capita figures would show rate changes in American suicides over time.
PPS: what is a "travel-shrew"?
Thanks for the informative comment, Larry. I agree with all this. The per capital suicide rate has been steadily increasing per this link, at least through 2021: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/suicide-rate
A shrew in this context is a a bad-tempered or aggressively assertive woman who puts work and its accoutrements (Sunday brunch, fine wine, tall men!) ahead of getting married and having a family, and she often ends up a barren and alone cat lady. Think Sarah Jessica Parker in Sex and the City before the accompanying fall.
A travel-shrew is a subset of the shrew phenomenon, traveling the world in order to be an "influencer", taking carefully staged photos in tropical and exotic locations to post on Instagram as "thirst traps". It is an example of attention-seeking behavior with zero actual value-add.
I note that the suicide rate is higher for men than women at all times in the linked graph you provided. That's surprising to me, given that women evidence much higher rates of depression than do men. I guess men may just be more active in actually carrying out anything they take a mind to doing.
Thanks for the "travel shrew" explanation. However, I think there are male and female subcategories of this general phenomenon. In principle, it's like choosing to build a huge new house when there are smaller (therefore more efficient, older and basically better-built ones around that can be rehabilitated -- ditto buying new versus used cars, or discarding husbands or (usually aging) wives that usefully (over the long run) moderate harmful spousal personal impulses . Traveling to exotic locations to satisfy idle curiosity and/or obtain bragging rights is the same sort of thing -- especially when living in a large and varied country like the US, and when there are many, many things going undone at home. All in all, you could say the general phenomenon comes under the heading of masturbation. Travel-masturbators would be a term that would cover both sexes, and consumption-masturbators would be even more encompassing.
My understanding is that women are much likely to threaten and attempt suicide as a cry for attention, but men are much more likely to be successful at it, just like anything else as you state.
I agree with you that the phenomenon of travel shrew-equivalents cuts across both genders, but it hits women much harder because they are subject to real biological limits on procreation. Men can fetter away their 30s and 40s with empty consumption and still be able to procreate, if they choose to do so. But I partially used the term there because it was entertaining and fun to write.
So what exactly happens when the food starts to run out?
Because hunger doesn’t exactly pacify a population in as much as drives it mad. Like this is the kind of thing every king and emperor in history knows.
See this 2016 Forbes article by a WEF contributor, "Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better", archived at https://archive.ph/ln6m7 (the original was up on Forbes until very recently)
Loved everything you said except for the population control thing.
Thanks Marcelo. I'm open to other ideas, but it looks like we have a massively increasing world population combined with dramatically shrinking natural resources, a combination that is going to result in a lot of pain for humanity down the road. I delve into it here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-sad-skinsuiting-of-the-environmental-d97
I'm open to comments or criticism about the approach.
This would be a self-limiting problem without the mass migration that our elites are championing and funding though. The "developed" parts of the world with high resource consumption per capita are also those with dismal below replacement birthrates in both the western world and east asia. Populations are only increasing rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa (and to a lesser extent specific Islamic nations).
The entire technocrat/WEF/green global viewpoint falls apart when you consider the simple fact that if their actual concern was truly global resource over-consumption, then they would absolutely not be enabling mass migration into the developed world because importing a 3rd worlder into the 1st world changes their per capita resource consumption into 1st worlder. Thus it seems quite clear that the stated goals of our elites are not their actual goals. "Overpopulation" is a problem because it being a problem justifies their need for more control.
I agree with you that the massive population growth in Africa and Islamic nations, along with China (whose population is capping out), is a problem created by our elites to further their goals of control.
Globohomo's core objective is "imperium super omnia", control above all. They import the third world into the first world as part of their divide and conquer strategy -- if a nation is too busy fighting each other along race, gender, sexual orientation, religious lines, they will never have the strength to rebel against central bank usury. The increase in the imported third worlder's consumption is offset by dragging down quality of life in the first world into the third world.
Norman Dodd stated that while investigating U.S. tax exempt foundations, he interviewed H. Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation. Gaither explained to Dodd, “Most of us here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS or the State Dept., or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House, the substance of which was to the effect that we should make every effort to alter life in the U.S. as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.” That's the strategy -- equalize the nations on earth to strengthen a One World Government (which is already here).
Between the ongoing realization of the Kalergi Plan, movement toward Net Zero, 15 minute "smart cities", mRNA injections, CIA-encouraged mass fentanyl abuse, poisoned food and water, massive unstated inflation, CBDCs enforced by woke AI, Agenda 2030 and who knows what else they have upcoming, it seems like their *secondary* objective (after control at any cost) is de-population, especially of whites and Christians, as they move toward their goal of the central bank owning families ruling over 500 million-1 billion 80 IQ mixed-race slaves and everyone else dead, which will solve the declining resource problem for them on the back-end...
Honestly love your willingness to discuss this and being open to change your ideas. Will read your article!
I believe you’re wrong about both, especially the rapidly shrinking natural resources. However I think the implosion of the current financial system could bring about the situation you describe. For some period of time.
I think this is a little too pessimistic. Perhaps likely, but better outcomes can't be entirely discounted unless we give up on pursuing them.
My disposition is toward pessimism generally because I hate being surprised to the downside. I like to focus on the negative and be pleasantly surprised by the upside if it happens. I do think there are possibly impossible problems caused by unlimited debt, declining natural resources and a world population barreling toward 10 billion. But we all need hope, life is struggle, and I agree with you that it's better to fight for a better world than simply withdraw.
You don't have to believe success is likely, or even probably to engage some realistic optimism. If you consider success unlikely but possible you will still be pleasantly surprised by success. This isn't a moot point because there are substantial cognitive benefits that accompany positive psychology. There is truth to the old adage that believing that you can't accomplish something is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Wow I’m the same kind of pessimist lol. Focus on the bad but let me be wrong!
<Anyway, lower your debt levels, lower your consumption patterns to live well below your means, try to develop an element of self-sufficiency, and try to find a relationship with God.>
Excellent advice. I would add to strengthen yourself physically as well.
Ellen Brown has just published a summary: https://www.unz.com/article/the-great-taking-how-they-plan-to-own-it-all/
Very powerful, thank you
This is very prescient.
Very good post. Much food for thought. Generally I think you have grasped the shape of things to come. William Gibson apocryphally said, "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." I used to believe he was referring to social and technological progress. Now, knowing what I know, Progress is a myth. The future is a long and winding road of decline in social standards and quality of life. It's already happening in pockets of the industrialized world. It just hasn't reached many of us yet. In time it will. Gird yourself and get good with God, my friends.
Great charts
Go read "The Great Taking" right now.
https://thegreattaking.com/ (book in html & pdf)
The substance (without personal-story introduction and annexes) is only 60 pages long. It explains a number of legal changes that have been made in the last 20 years (in the US and its EU vassal states) with regard to the ownership of securities (hint: just as 'your' bank 'deposits' are not yours, bonds, stocks & Co. are not yours either... worse, they are being used as collateral to which only 'secured creditors' [the very big boys] will have access in case of crisis).
Nothing short of stunning, and it could significantly accelerate the 'slow grind and bleed out'.
Looks interesting, I'll check it out, thanks for the recommendation.
I see no flaws in your evaluation. God is good.