Planned Parenthood has a dark history. If they had not changed their name, their organization's mission would be far clearer to more Americans. The question is how can we safely move into the future?
this women is a nobody, another fauci, basically tools.
btw, bill gates father used to be a board member of this organization ... which is rather interesting, and probably a telling sign as to WHY was bill gates given the money through that contract with IBM.
You would think "anti-racists" should be up in arms about this literal example of systemtic racism: outlets located in minority neighbourhoods to literally slaughter members of that ethnicity but... crickets. Apparently in some cities more black children are killed before birth than are born.
When the data on fetal demise due to vaccination during pregnancy becomes apparent to all, there will be an independent deep-dive into the data. The people who buried the facts will be help accountable. Same for death rates in NICUs. Big money for Big Medicine. Sick.
Yes, I also wonder if the perpetrators will be held accountable since there are so many in power positions. When the covid perpetrators are indicted perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators will be also?
No, just a concern of mine. People talk about the numbers on the increase because of diagnosis, but the precipitous rise must have an explanation and be worthy of investigation. The sexualization of children is a seemingly more recent but concerning phenomena.
Those born into poverty often remain in poverty Those born into families lacking education often grown up lacking proper education themselves. And you can follow the yellow brick road all the way back to slavery.
When speaking about slavery, and its role in poverty, we have to look at the system(s) that allowed slavery to flourish. Poverty (which historically [global history, not just US history] was not associated with slavery) is more a function of a banking system than any perceived limitation in resources (ecological/sociological/energy). In his seminal analysis of the correlation of industrialization and poverty, Henry George (Progress and Poverty), pointed out to the control of land by capital (banking mafias) and the control of fiat currency, was at the root of inequality. Debt-based banking, poverty and slavery are more interlinked than people realize. Slavery is an effect, not a cause of poverty. Henry George is one of the most deep-thinking working intellectuals that the US has produced. His writings are shocking in their clarity and simplicity. He wrote all of this in the late 1800's. Although one would be tempted to see his Opus Magnus as a Libertarian's treaties, he does believe in productive taxation.
Education can be a system multiplier if the population offered that venue has the neurological/sociological support necessary to participate in those program. Dr. Thomas Sowell (professor of economics and a former communist), in a collection of essays discussing the importance of culture (Black Rednecks and White Liberals) on people's ability to escape the clutches of poverty and ignorance, are more dependent on cultural norms than most people realize. The very essence of the modern state we live in, where people are kept in poverty via government (hence debt based banking systems) intervention, is best viewed by the notion that Liberal policies (good intentioned or not) turn dysfunctional cultural norms into a sacrosanct symbol of racial identity. This needs to stop.
In a more inclusive and complete analysis of the yellow brick road, we need to look at slavery as an emergent feature of a very old system of finance and control: if everything is commoditized and financialized, then there is no inherent value to any of God's creation, only what you can exploit. Slavery did away with the notion of equality under the law, but what is important to note is that Common Law norms allowed for the emergence of equality under the law and the abolition of slavery.
The only glimmer of hope I have seen in modern politics is UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income. NOT Universal Basic Income with is going to be a slave yoke connected to social credit.
The UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income should be derived from ALL value that is created in a region, country, planet. Every little bit of value that is gained from Nature and Human ingenuity should be placed into the economy EQUALLY through every individual. Many fine details will need ironing out but the basic idea is that all government budget goes to population. If there are government projects that need money such as roads, schools, electrical grids, water networks, police, judiciary then these must be paid from taxes based on how much you have or earn as agreed by EVERYONE.
If the country is successful then there is more money paid out. If the services are efficient then the tax portion is less. If you want more than the UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income you have opportunity to work without your benefits being affected in any way. There is no favouritism for the poor or the rich, the rich simply do not feel the Basic as much.
I would love it is some economist could calculate how much every countries budget would net for the UBI and what the flat tax rates (VAT, Income, Corporate, Mining, Inheritance, non-RESIDENT property) could be set to to receive enough to balance the budget.
Do all the calculations for a inflating population and one for a static population. Work on money creation equal to money destruction (loss of coinage). If no new money was created that would be fine. Only money in circulation would matter.
Celebrating every birth is both naive and a little cruel, I think.
I watched an impoverished woman grow frailer with each birth until someone else intervened. Was that intervention morally defensible? Would it have been more defensible to let my friend continue to have children likely to die shortly thereafter, as her last one did? To risk her death from maternity-related causes? Children in poor families do even worse if their mother dies during their childhoods.
Having healthy children one can afford to provide decently for is a good goal. Programs that manipulate human fertility based on the obsessions of those who always think they're the smartest ones in the room are bad.
Every born human being is a human being, yes. I'd say even unborn ones, though I support the primacy of the woman's decision regarding the continuation or ending of a pregnancy.
Moderation in all things is a very good motto for living. To have children is a unique joy and unique responsibility. To give one's children the best life possible--by that I mean to prepare them to become healthy adults able to navigate the world as wisely as any person might be able to--should be every parent's goal and the structure of society.
We should be honest, too, about the tragedy of those lives that can experience only pain and suffering, even if others perceive aspects of happiness in them too. Most living creatures struggle to keep living even if the circumstances are unspeakably dreadful.
For many issues, there are never any durable answers.
If we can overcome the totalitarian rule we have been subjected to maybe we have yet another chance to fashion a more sane world. Thanks for providing evidence of yet one more crack in their foundation.
One of the best articles on the subject I have ever rad. Bravo. Rid the world of the disabled. Imagine eliminating all those disabled with autism. This eugenics subject, Planned Parenthood etc has more sides than a hexagon. One still has to observe the number unwanted homeless babies(and yes, women will still keep getting pregnant with babies they don't want.) So many sides, so few positive answers. Course the new eugenics is the Covid vax. Will the King save us?
.....until we START having an HONEST conversation about what CAN actually IMPROVE the quality and experience of life, REDUCE ravages of aging; how having FAILED to (perhaps DESPITE available technologies) has worsened our 'health' - INCLUDING a conscious SHIFT from heavily-CONTRIVED economic realities through TIGHTLY-controlled, conditional access to, EXPECTATION for unregulated PURCHASE of VITAL resources and deference to WILLFULLY-ignorant SADISTIC hierarchies / rationales which INEVITABLY led us to THIS technofascist existential place NOW more than ever on FULL display, lives may NOT get any better - key in ALL of it, is REMOVING psychopathic depopulationists from the process and safeguarding an ability (including FINANCIAL) to CHOOSE for OURSELVES (which of course, infants CAN'T) such things; certainly NOT capriciously eliminating with WIDE latitude / LITTLE justification, the subjectively 'defective' it's TRUE - that SAID, a DISEASED (for CENTURIES, millennia) still-MEDIEVAL, perpetually-DISINGENUOUS Vatican City Catholic DUCHY has ZERO business DICTATING whether or not ANYone decides to become PARENTS - but ESPECIALLY, about NON-abortive family planning tools; there aren't WORDS for how VERY much I can't STOMACH the OSTENTATIA of Catholicism, FEUDALISTIC religious traditions (for MORE reasons than THAT, though.....)
No; NOT endorsing 'eugenics', Scott - ONLY pointing out that there's a VICARIOUSLY sadistic SOCIETAL expectation (should ALSO that a DIRECT link between it and the PERSISTENT binary economic MYOPIA, its TACIT advocacy of RAPACIOUS industrialists' SELF-serving worldviews for DECADES simply CAN'T be overlooked) for MOST to be ACCEPTING of their NASCENT biological condition - ABSENT said financial resources for GRATIFYING remedy - 'cosmetic' flaws & ALL to become an intellectually-DISHONEST referendum on personal CHARACTER, value if they DON'T.....speaks ILL of those (and HUMANITY-at-LARGE) who WOULDN'T hope for an EXPEDIENT ability to OPTIMIZE again as DESIRED, one's [morpho]genetic profile (RATHER than make access to DOING as much, PROHIBITIVELY expensive.....)
Any analysis of the evil scales on earth cannot be clear and logical without strting with the banksters and the Talmud. That is where money creation and huge wealth elped a fring group of luciferians buy and control the world.
Very interesting and informative. While I agree with the moral sentiments expressed, you ignore the pressing problem of general overpopulation. If we don't reduce our numbers through birth control, nature and physics in the form of depleting energy and falling availability of mineral and other resources, including food, will do it for us. That's the reality we are living with.
Thank you. Simon was an economist - red flag. Most are focused on prices, and see energy as just another commodity, but energy IS the economy. Technology and efficiency have minor roles. The period 1960 to 2016 was a period of massive growth in energy use. That is coming to an end. Fracking has extended energy growth but is energy intensive and has low energy returns. Oil isn't "running out", but exploration and development is becoming ever less productive.
"Although past performance does not guarantee future results...". Quite.
"Germany’s aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty price tag for consumers...". True. Wind and solar require fossil fuels and many other depleting resources, and provide only electricity. Industrial societies run mainly on oil. There will be no transition enabling BAU to continue. There will be less energy and less food. Whether there are "mandatory curbs on human reproduction and consumption" or not is relatively unimportant. Voluntary curbs are preferable, but physics is uninterested in human policies.
Gail Tverberg on ourfiniteworld.com has written in detail on these issues.
I recall seeing it, but it isn't just about emerging nations. It's probably the biggest global problem, underlying most of the other catastrophes bearing down on us.
Overpopulation is a perception developed in large cities as a result of a society that encourages people to leave spacious and agriculturally rich countrysides, but the earth is not over populated. There is plenty of space for all and an abundance of resources for basic needs for every living being. We simply don’t live in a system that prioritizes the principles needed to manage exponential population growth in large cities and reproductive education. Overpopulation is another myth pushed by the same folk who say we are going to destroy the Earth with gas powered vehicles. Humans are destroying themselves, not the Earth - which was here before us and be here when we are long.
I concur with your last sentence, but I fear you don't grasp the depth of the problem. You might want to look at the site "OurFiniteWorld", where Gail Tverberg lays out the situation surrounding energy, population, resources and other issues.
He got his timing wrong (not uncommon when people are making predictions unfortunately), but he was essentially correct, and with the looming energy, climate and food crises and the still-growing population, we are likely to see a population "correction" before too long.
Grasping the problem doesn't change the sentiment previously expressed. If humans are digging themselves their own grave, then so be it. All of us are complicit with the current system and I take great comfort in knowing we possess no power to actually harm Earth, just ourselves.
I have come to understand also that the propagation (by various parts of society incl. the eugenicists but also the eschalons of higher education) of the idea that women 'should' wait till they are in their later 20's to 30's to have their first child part of the eugenics programs. Waiting that long to start even small families often does not work so well for a number of reasons, the womans and mans bodies being less vigorous by then. I was always so sad to see how the young girls who were pregnant in my high school were absolutely villified, when young women have been having kids 'quite young' since pretty much all our known history. My Mom had me at 37 (in 1964) and I can tell you I did not get a similar experience growing up, wrt my Moms available energy and interests, than my much older brothers and sisters who got a Mom who was in her 20's. My folks were just tired all the time and I could see that even as a kid. I felt bad asking them to do anything 'extra curricular' when I saw their fatigue at the question. Glad I got born but would have picked younger parents.
Fruit flies are not people, and breeding them in captivity, just like breeding mice in captivity, for scientific study, creates creatures that have different biological systems than naturally occurring creatures. This is a recognized problem in using captive bred mice for drug study, as the resultant creatures have different, and less, drug sensitivity than the wild population. You are welcome to wait as long as you want to become pregnant, I was just sharing my experience in real life.
Hey, I get the anti-vivisection argument. You propose doing it to humans; aborting all their babies until middle age? Even should such a loathsome experiment succeed in creating a strain of Longs (Robert Heinlein reference), it would take a very long time, and human generations are far longer than fruit flies'.
Would using Cochlodispus minimus mites as subject organisms displease you less? Hey, mites and ticks deserve anything you do to them!
Which; the instant? Did all the Politically Correct terms James Lyons-Weiler rather unsuccessfully attempted to redefine, as well as the antecedent Calvinism (now masquerading as "Evangelical Christianity", but actually land speculation, developerism, and banksterism), mislead you?
The reason women started having babies after their 20's is because women were finally allowed to enter the work force, as they should be. By the time they reached their 30's and even early 40's they were much more capable of taking care of their children. The energy theory, for me, holds about as much water as a baby cup.
You can have a baby at any age, that is your right Maurine. But pushing the age range of motherhood out 10-15 years from where it evolved from has it's consequences in reduced robustness of babies, it's just logic. By the time my Mom was 42 she had 3 kids and 7 total pregnancies. She was also majority breadwinner and caretaker for the family. Depleted would be the word I would use based on knowing her quite well. You do you.
Babies aren't robust not because of mothers having babies in their 30's. It's because of vaccines, GMO foods, pesticides etc etc. 7 pregnancies? No wonder. that's a lot. Anyway, I thought the comment I responded had to do with tired parents ,not tired. babies. Agree to disagree.
Great, but the other reason it was done was to financialize and tax everything. Women must not only pay sales tax on baby and child supplies, but the plethora of taxes on everything involved in hiring child care, as well as their wages with which they pay for it. Abolish wage and sales taxes! (What Georgists call "productivity taxes") But those Calvinists want to tax everything except their sham "capital gains" on their real estate shenanigans.
Are these COVID shots (the real ones, esp. from "bad batches"; saline show shots excepted) "hard selection"? Hey, does A Midwestern Doctor read this Stack?
This article was hard to read. Even though James Lyons-Weiler seems to overtly reject them, many of the terms used in it seem to be based on East Coast leftist redefinitions.
The claim that non-white US population has increased from about 10 percent in 1921 to about 30 percent today is almost certainly based on comparing apples and oranges:
QUOTE: Census records from 1921 indicate that non-whites comprised 10.2% of the American population that year while the 2010 census reports that non-whites now constitute more than 30% of the population. 38,39 Be that as it may, it can be argued that, while the numbers of non-whites in the United States have increased over the past century, so has the number of Planned Parenthood facilities.
The US Census did not start regularly counting Hispanics, which is a cultural category that includes persons with entirely European ancestry, some or all American Indian ancestry, Blacks, essentially anyone who traces their background to a Spanish speaking region or country, until 1970.
California for example classified most Hispanics as white in 1921 and American Indians were explicitly exempted from the infamous California law banning interracial marriage -- otherwise a huge fraction of the state population would have faced a bureaucratic nightmare when trying to marry. Today, I would estimate about 80% of Hispanics, defined as a Spanish surname, in California have visible American Indian ancestry. Hard to be sure, but probably very similar numbers in 1921. The US acquired a substantial non-white -- as sometimes defined today -- population in the Mexican-American war and the annexation of Texas. The US census avoided counting these people as separate from the "white" population. Note that many Hispanics self-identify as "white" when asked their race even if they have visible American Indian ancestry.
Native Americans had have a history of constant reclassification as it relates to the U.S. census, which along along with genocide, Traficking, and land theft, have made their populations and identities difficult to track.
ADDED LATER: These are some references to back up my discussion of the curious laws and social customs of California in the past. This is the text of the California State Supreme Court decision in the Perez vs Sharp case that invalidated bans on interracial marriages in 1948:
Note that the issue was the marriage of Andrea Perez, a Mexican-American woman who identified as "white" and Sylvester Davis who identified as "Negro".
The interracial marriage law did not ban marriages between whites and either Mexican-Americans or American Indians. Mexican-Americans were usually classified as "white" legally.
Curiously, one could drive down to Mexico, get married in Mexico where interracial marriages were legal, and return to California which would recognize the marriage in another jurisdiction despite the law. Andrea Perez wanted to get married in her Catholic Church in LA, hence the challenge.
this women is a nobody, another fauci, basically tools.
btw, bill gates father used to be a board member of this organization ... which is rather interesting, and probably a telling sign as to WHY was bill gates given the money through that contract with IBM.
https://tottnews.com/2020/04/09/gates-family-eugenics-covid-19/
You would think "anti-racists" should be up in arms about this literal example of systemtic racism: outlets located in minority neighbourhoods to literally slaughter members of that ethnicity but... crickets. Apparently in some cities more black children are killed before birth than are born.
When the data on fetal demise due to vaccination during pregnancy becomes apparent to all, there will be an independent deep-dive into the data. The people who buried the facts will be help accountable. Same for death rates in NICUs. Big money for Big Medicine. Sick.
Let's hope... Sometimes I despair of there ever being real accountability, though I know it often takes time.
Yes, I also wonder if the perpetrators will be held accountable since there are so many in power positions. When the covid perpetrators are indicted perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators will be also?
What about a deep dive into autism rates and also the mutilation of non-conforming children. Could be some eugenics at play as well.
Can you share any data?
No, just a concern of mine. People talk about the numbers on the increase because of diagnosis, but the precipitous rise must have an explanation and be worthy of investigation. The sexualization of children is a seemingly more recent but concerning phenomena.
I have recently been red-pilled regarding the autism issue, heres a couple unimpeachable resources I've found:
1) https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/04/resource-links-to-vaccine-and-medical-stories/ (scroll down to Vaccine & Autism section)
Ms Attkisson is a fabulous independent reporter who has collected and reported on the fraud, collusion and malfeasance on this issue.
2) This book is AMAZING, if you only read the Intro & 1st chapter it will blow you away. "Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth" https://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down-Vaccine-ebook/dp/B0B6S1ZNLC/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Those born into poverty often remain in poverty Those born into families lacking education often grown up lacking proper education themselves. And you can follow the yellow brick road all the way back to slavery.
When speaking about slavery, and its role in poverty, we have to look at the system(s) that allowed slavery to flourish. Poverty (which historically [global history, not just US history] was not associated with slavery) is more a function of a banking system than any perceived limitation in resources (ecological/sociological/energy). In his seminal analysis of the correlation of industrialization and poverty, Henry George (Progress and Poverty), pointed out to the control of land by capital (banking mafias) and the control of fiat currency, was at the root of inequality. Debt-based banking, poverty and slavery are more interlinked than people realize. Slavery is an effect, not a cause of poverty. Henry George is one of the most deep-thinking working intellectuals that the US has produced. His writings are shocking in their clarity and simplicity. He wrote all of this in the late 1800's. Although one would be tempted to see his Opus Magnus as a Libertarian's treaties, he does believe in productive taxation.
Education can be a system multiplier if the population offered that venue has the neurological/sociological support necessary to participate in those program. Dr. Thomas Sowell (professor of economics and a former communist), in a collection of essays discussing the importance of culture (Black Rednecks and White Liberals) on people's ability to escape the clutches of poverty and ignorance, are more dependent on cultural norms than most people realize. The very essence of the modern state we live in, where people are kept in poverty via government (hence debt based banking systems) intervention, is best viewed by the notion that Liberal policies (good intentioned or not) turn dysfunctional cultural norms into a sacrosanct symbol of racial identity. This needs to stop.
In a more inclusive and complete analysis of the yellow brick road, we need to look at slavery as an emergent feature of a very old system of finance and control: if everything is commoditized and financialized, then there is no inherent value to any of God's creation, only what you can exploit. Slavery did away with the notion of equality under the law, but what is important to note is that Common Law norms allowed for the emergence of equality under the law and the abolition of slavery.
The only glimmer of hope I have seen in modern politics is UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income. NOT Universal Basic Income with is going to be a slave yoke connected to social credit.
The UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income should be derived from ALL value that is created in a region, country, planet. Every little bit of value that is gained from Nature and Human ingenuity should be placed into the economy EQUALLY through every individual. Many fine details will need ironing out but the basic idea is that all government budget goes to population. If there are government projects that need money such as roads, schools, electrical grids, water networks, police, judiciary then these must be paid from taxes based on how much you have or earn as agreed by EVERYONE.
If the country is successful then there is more money paid out. If the services are efficient then the tax portion is less. If you want more than the UNCONDITIONAL Basic Income you have opportunity to work without your benefits being affected in any way. There is no favouritism for the poor or the rich, the rich simply do not feel the Basic as much.
I would love it is some economist could calculate how much every countries budget would net for the UBI and what the flat tax rates (VAT, Income, Corporate, Mining, Inheritance, non-RESIDENT property) could be set to to receive enough to balance the budget.
Do all the calculations for a inflating population and one for a static population. Work on money creation equal to money destruction (loss of coinage). If no new money was created that would be fine. Only money in circulation would matter.
Celebrating every birth is both naive and a little cruel, I think.
I watched an impoverished woman grow frailer with each birth until someone else intervened. Was that intervention morally defensible? Would it have been more defensible to let my friend continue to have children likely to die shortly thereafter, as her last one did? To risk her death from maternity-related causes? Children in poor families do even worse if their mother dies during their childhoods.
Having healthy children one can afford to provide decently for is a good goal. Programs that manipulate human fertility based on the obsessions of those who always think they're the smartest ones in the room are bad.
Nevertheless, I celebrate every born human being as a human being.
Every born human being is a human being, yes. I'd say even unborn ones, though I support the primacy of the woman's decision regarding the continuation or ending of a pregnancy.
Moderation in all things is a very good motto for living. To have children is a unique joy and unique responsibility. To give one's children the best life possible--by that I mean to prepare them to become healthy adults able to navigate the world as wisely as any person might be able to--should be every parent's goal and the structure of society.
We should be honest, too, about the tragedy of those lives that can experience only pain and suffering, even if others perceive aspects of happiness in them too. Most living creatures struggle to keep living even if the circumstances are unspeakably dreadful.
For many issues, there are never any durable answers.
The idea is certainly compelling that this could be THE major undercurrent of the past ~3 years
If we can overcome the totalitarian rule we have been subjected to maybe we have yet another chance to fashion a more sane world. Thanks for providing evidence of yet one more crack in their foundation.
Great read! More people need to know the truth about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
One of the best articles on the subject I have ever rad. Bravo. Rid the world of the disabled. Imagine eliminating all those disabled with autism. This eugenics subject, Planned Parenthood etc has more sides than a hexagon. One still has to observe the number unwanted homeless babies(and yes, women will still keep getting pregnant with babies they don't want.) So many sides, so few positive answers. Course the new eugenics is the Covid vax. Will the King save us?
Thank you, Maurine, but the authors of the massively quoted articles deserve the bulk of the credit.
Great article, uncovering more detail about some truly horrible recent history.
.....until we START having an HONEST conversation about what CAN actually IMPROVE the quality and experience of life, REDUCE ravages of aging; how having FAILED to (perhaps DESPITE available technologies) has worsened our 'health' - INCLUDING a conscious SHIFT from heavily-CONTRIVED economic realities through TIGHTLY-controlled, conditional access to, EXPECTATION for unregulated PURCHASE of VITAL resources and deference to WILLFULLY-ignorant SADISTIC hierarchies / rationales which INEVITABLY led us to THIS technofascist existential place NOW more than ever on FULL display, lives may NOT get any better - key in ALL of it, is REMOVING psychopathic depopulationists from the process and safeguarding an ability (including FINANCIAL) to CHOOSE for OURSELVES (which of course, infants CAN'T) such things; certainly NOT capriciously eliminating with WIDE latitude / LITTLE justification, the subjectively 'defective' it's TRUE - that SAID, a DISEASED (for CENTURIES, millennia) still-MEDIEVAL, perpetually-DISINGENUOUS Vatican City Catholic DUCHY has ZERO business DICTATING whether or not ANYone decides to become PARENTS - but ESPECIALLY, about NON-abortive family planning tools; there aren't WORDS for how VERY much I can't STOMACH the OSTENTATIA of Catholicism, FEUDALISTIC religious traditions (for MORE reasons than THAT, though.....)
No; NOT endorsing 'eugenics', Scott - ONLY pointing out that there's a VICARIOUSLY sadistic SOCIETAL expectation (should ALSO that a DIRECT link between it and the PERSISTENT binary economic MYOPIA, its TACIT advocacy of RAPACIOUS industrialists' SELF-serving worldviews for DECADES simply CAN'T be overlooked) for MOST to be ACCEPTING of their NASCENT biological condition - ABSENT said financial resources for GRATIFYING remedy - 'cosmetic' flaws & ALL to become an intellectually-DISHONEST referendum on personal CHARACTER, value if they DON'T.....speaks ILL of those (and HUMANITY-at-LARGE) who WOULDN'T hope for an EXPEDIENT ability to OPTIMIZE again as DESIRED, one's [morpho]genetic profile (RATHER than make access to DOING as much, PROHIBITIVELY expensive.....)
How’s about we live and let live? How’s about you (and gov’t) leave me the Fuck ALONE???
Any analysis of the evil scales on earth cannot be clear and logical without strting with the banksters and the Talmud. That is where money creation and huge wealth elped a fring group of luciferians buy and control the world.
Very interesting and informative. While I agree with the moral sentiments expressed, you ignore the pressing problem of general overpopulation. If we don't reduce our numbers through birth control, nature and physics in the form of depleting energy and falling availability of mineral and other resources, including food, will do it for us. That's the reality we are living with.
I'd prefer that you just summarize Simon's position in a couple of sentences.
Here's a summary for you. https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/julian-simon-was-right-half-century-population-growth-increasing
Thank you. Simon was an economist - red flag. Most are focused on prices, and see energy as just another commodity, but energy IS the economy. Technology and efficiency have minor roles. The period 1960 to 2016 was a period of massive growth in energy use. That is coming to an end. Fracking has extended energy growth but is energy intensive and has low energy returns. Oil isn't "running out", but exploration and development is becoming ever less productive.
"Although past performance does not guarantee future results...". Quite.
"Germany’s aggressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty price tag for consumers...". True. Wind and solar require fossil fuels and many other depleting resources, and provide only electricity. Industrial societies run mainly on oil. There will be no transition enabling BAU to continue. There will be less energy and less food. Whether there are "mandatory curbs on human reproduction and consumption" or not is relatively unimportant. Voluntary curbs are preferable, but physics is uninterested in human policies.
Gail Tverberg on ourfiniteworld.com has written in detail on these issues.
Hi, Graham,
I didn't ignore it. Read the part about educating women in emerging nations.
I recall seeing it, but it isn't just about emerging nations. It's probably the biggest global problem, underlying most of the other catastrophes bearing down on us.
Overpopulation is a perception developed in large cities as a result of a society that encourages people to leave spacious and agriculturally rich countrysides, but the earth is not over populated. There is plenty of space for all and an abundance of resources for basic needs for every living being. We simply don’t live in a system that prioritizes the principles needed to manage exponential population growth in large cities and reproductive education. Overpopulation is another myth pushed by the same folk who say we are going to destroy the Earth with gas powered vehicles. Humans are destroying themselves, not the Earth - which was here before us and be here when we are long.
I concur with your last sentence, but I fear you don't grasp the depth of the problem. You might want to look at the site "OurFiniteWorld", where Gail Tverberg lays out the situation surrounding energy, population, resources and other issues.
He got his timing wrong (not uncommon when people are making predictions unfortunately), but he was essentially correct, and with the looming energy, climate and food crises and the still-growing population, we are likely to see a population "correction" before too long.
Grasping the problem doesn't change the sentiment previously expressed. If humans are digging themselves their own grave, then so be it. All of us are complicit with the current system and I take great comfort in knowing we possess no power to actually harm Earth, just ourselves.
I don't see human extinction as a bad thing, but if/when it occurs the process of getting there is bound to be unpleasant.
I have come to understand also that the propagation (by various parts of society incl. the eugenicists but also the eschalons of higher education) of the idea that women 'should' wait till they are in their later 20's to 30's to have their first child part of the eugenics programs. Waiting that long to start even small families often does not work so well for a number of reasons, the womans and mans bodies being less vigorous by then. I was always so sad to see how the young girls who were pregnant in my high school were absolutely villified, when young women have been having kids 'quite young' since pretty much all our known history. My Mom had me at 37 (in 1964) and I can tell you I did not get a similar experience growing up, wrt my Moms available energy and interests, than my much older brothers and sisters who got a Mom who was in her 20's. My folks were just tired all the time and I could see that even as a kid. I felt bad asking them to do anything 'extra curricular' when I saw their fatigue at the question. Glad I got born but would have picked younger parents.
Fruit flies whose eggs were crushed until the parents reached middle age developed much greater longevity after a few generations.
Fruit flies are not people, and breeding them in captivity, just like breeding mice in captivity, for scientific study, creates creatures that have different biological systems than naturally occurring creatures. This is a recognized problem in using captive bred mice for drug study, as the resultant creatures have different, and less, drug sensitivity than the wild population. You are welcome to wait as long as you want to become pregnant, I was just sharing my experience in real life.
Hey, I get the anti-vivisection argument. You propose doing it to humans; aborting all their babies until middle age? Even should such a loathsome experiment succeed in creating a strain of Longs (Robert Heinlein reference), it would take a very long time, and human generations are far longer than fruit flies'.
Would using Cochlodispus minimus mites as subject organisms displease you less? Hey, mites and ticks deserve anything you do to them!
I propose the opposite, actually. Did you even read the message? Good luck SaHib.
Which; the instant? Did all the Politically Correct terms James Lyons-Weiler rather unsuccessfully attempted to redefine, as well as the antecedent Calvinism (now masquerading as "Evangelical Christianity", but actually land speculation, developerism, and banksterism), mislead you?
Are you really John Fetterman? You talk just like him.
The reason women started having babies after their 20's is because women were finally allowed to enter the work force, as they should be. By the time they reached their 30's and even early 40's they were much more capable of taking care of their children. The energy theory, for me, holds about as much water as a baby cup.
You can have a baby at any age, that is your right Maurine. But pushing the age range of motherhood out 10-15 years from where it evolved from has it's consequences in reduced robustness of babies, it's just logic. By the time my Mom was 42 she had 3 kids and 7 total pregnancies. She was also majority breadwinner and caretaker for the family. Depleted would be the word I would use based on knowing her quite well. You do you.
Babies aren't robust not because of mothers having babies in their 30's. It's because of vaccines, GMO foods, pesticides etc etc. 7 pregnancies? No wonder. that's a lot. Anyway, I thought the comment I responded had to do with tired parents ,not tired. babies. Agree to disagree.
Great, but the other reason it was done was to financialize and tax everything. Women must not only pay sales tax on baby and child supplies, but the plethora of taxes on everything involved in hiring child care, as well as their wages with which they pay for it. Abolish wage and sales taxes! (What Georgists call "productivity taxes") But those Calvinists want to tax everything except their sham "capital gains" on their real estate shenanigans.
The reason some groups want to erase history is because it reveals who they are beyond the rhetoric.
Silphion (silphium) is returning! (Thanks to Heidi Heil for the second link.) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/miracle-plant-eaten-extinction-2000-years-ago-silphion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/15/caesars-favourite-herb-was-the-viagra-of-ancient-rome-until-climate-change-killed-it-off Hope the nurseries don't get nuked. Until then, practice cooking with hing (asafoetida).
Are these COVID shots (the real ones, esp. from "bad batches"; saline show shots excepted) "hard selection"? Hey, does A Midwestern Doctor read this Stack?
This article was hard to read. Even though James Lyons-Weiler seems to overtly reject them, many of the terms used in it seem to be based on East Coast leftist redefinitions.
The claim that non-white US population has increased from about 10 percent in 1921 to about 30 percent today is almost certainly based on comparing apples and oranges:
QUOTE: Census records from 1921 indicate that non-whites comprised 10.2% of the American population that year while the 2010 census reports that non-whites now constitute more than 30% of the population. 38,39 Be that as it may, it can be argued that, while the numbers of non-whites in the United States have increased over the past century, so has the number of Planned Parenthood facilities.
The US Census did not start regularly counting Hispanics, which is a cultural category that includes persons with entirely European ancestry, some or all American Indian ancestry, Blacks, essentially anyone who traces their background to a Spanish speaking region or country, until 1970.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/03/03/census-history-counting-hispanics-2/
The US Census now estimates about 18.5% of US population is Hispanic: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/us-hispanic-population-growth.html
California for example classified most Hispanics as white in 1921 and American Indians were explicitly exempted from the infamous California law banning interracial marriage -- otherwise a huge fraction of the state population would have faced a bureaucratic nightmare when trying to marry. Today, I would estimate about 80% of Hispanics, defined as a Spanish surname, in California have visible American Indian ancestry. Hard to be sure, but probably very similar numbers in 1921. The US acquired a substantial non-white -- as sometimes defined today -- population in the Mexican-American war and the annexation of Texas. The US census avoided counting these people as separate from the "white" population. Note that many Hispanics self-identify as "white" when asked their race even if they have visible American Indian ancestry.
I'm not aware that Native Americans were ever identified as white. Weren't they disgustingly called "Redskins?"
Native Americans had have a history of constant reclassification as it relates to the U.S. census, which along along with genocide, Traficking, and land theft, have made their populations and identities difficult to track.
ADDED LATER: These are some references to back up my discussion of the curious laws and social customs of California in the past. This is the text of the California State Supreme Court decision in the Perez vs Sharp case that invalidated bans on interracial marriages in 1948:
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/perez-v-sharp-26107
Note that the issue was the marriage of Andrea Perez, a Mexican-American woman who identified as "white" and Sylvester Davis who identified as "Negro".
This is a very detailed article on the case: https://www.cschs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Legal-Hist.-v.-17-Articles-Perez-v.-Sharp.pdf
The interracial marriage law did not ban marriages between whites and either Mexican-Americans or American Indians. Mexican-Americans were usually classified as "white" legally.
Curiously, one could drive down to Mexico, get married in Mexico where interracial marriages were legal, and return to California which would recognize the marriage in another jurisdiction despite the law. Andrea Perez wanted to get married in her Catholic Church in LA, hence the challenge.
Great article, thanks!