The best way to save pensions is for white conservatives to shit out a bunch of children who would go on to pay into the system more than they take out while also having the potential to vote to reduce pension payments.
The best way to save pensions is to not pay out, while also bringing more people in. We've well past the point where having children will work to pay for taxes in time.
Who, today, among the elites, do you think is going to expel Jews?
Any of them, including Jews, because no demographic matters.
Isn't weird how this suddenly happened for no apparent reason at all?
It happened because the Evangelicals support religious prophecy.
Why would they socially engineer people to not produce children if not doing so is such a big problem? This whole "the system needs babies, and it attacks whites because they don't have babies!" take is fucking retarded.
They need babies that are easy to control, that's why you destroy the family. But when you destroy the family, you reduce the growth rate. A balkanized society is a controllable society. Whites happen to be a demographic that's only globalist when they are connected to either cities, the upper-middle class intellectual fields, or some part of the the corporatist structure.
When it comes to population, globalists are Malthusians because they keep pushing high-density cities and authoritarianism that collapses the family structure. The annihilation of the family structure is a methodology of control. This causes a loss in population growth. To reduce the effect of that, they increase immigration. They assume that the collapse of population growth is a normal aspect of living in cities, when it's really an extension of their authoritarianism.
When they look at whites, they see a population that leaves the cities and becomes politically competitive as they age. Whites that stay in the cities don't breed. As such, this is a demographic that's politically a problem.
It would be fine if whites stayed in cities and kept breeding like Blacks & Hispanics do, because that would mean they could still be corporate captives. However, whites keep leaving cities to Suburbs, and that's promoting feelings of anti-corporatism and anti-globalism.
As such, breeding whites tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Even white women are a problem because if they are married (which is why they moved to the suburbs), they still a political competitor.
The problem that the elites have in regards to breeding is that their high-density cities and authoritarianism constantly collapses birth rates. It's why abortions are fucking sky-high among blacks, and why hispanics have already overtaken blacks in population.
When it comes to family political planning, they have 3 choices: co-opt, destroy, uplift. The only one that promotes population growth is uplift. But that is a direct challenge to authoritarianism and globalism. Co-opt works, but only if the families are imbedded within a dependency system. The last option is destroy, and that maintains control but sacrifices growth.
So, since co-opt isn't working as well as it once did (especially since the mechanisms of subversion (unions, left-wing religiosity, cultural institutions) aren't having the effect that they used to, the easy choice is destroy, and to supplant that population loss with immigration that is dependent.
The fact that it's being done to white people in this way isn't really about white people. Race isn't the issue, it's about what a particular race happens to be doing, and whether or not it contributes to the globalist order.
The most unprofitable group by far has to be blacks, and they get aggressively promoted and defended.
Not exactly, a shit ton of money goes through black communities and they spend it all. Yes, inner-city black communities are a money sink, but that sink may go to political allies (community leaders). Additionally, it's a solid voting block and many live in public housing. This means that black populations can actually be weaponized like a giant population bomb on their political enemies. This is why the globalists want to put public housing in suburbs.
The control over blacks is a very useful weapon, it might not be worth it in a decade or so, but for right now, their utility certainly exists.
Yet blacks have had higher fertility rates than whites for a long time despite having an abysmal family structure. There is more to it than this.
An exceeding amount of unprotected sex makes up for the remaining growth rate, including the intentional promotion of having additional kids for further welfare funding.
You're letting your own ideology off the hook here. The proliferation of pornography, the normalization of promiscuity, and the embrace of idle consumption contribute to low fertility, but libertarians would consider it bad to do anything to combat that. Libertarians are also "bootstrap" types who would expect people to bail on their small town to take a job in the city if that's where the money is. You run cover for these things that you say are problems.
No, I don't.
First of all, I don't feel it's the government's responsibility to manage those things. If you're a Christian, they are your kids and it's your God. If you suck so much at parenting that you can't teach your kid how to manage themselves in the real world, I can't fucking help you, and the US Government is absolutely not going to help you on that either.
It's straight going back to all the old Evangelical nonsense about video games and pokemon. It's not the government's responsibility to raise your damn kids. You literally go to a Church every single fucking week and get moral lectures. Your churches are the primary centers of your community, both physical and social. If you can't raise your kids to be good Christians while you are literally responsible for the entirety of their upbringing, how the hell is using the cops going to fix anything?
It's your flock. Tend to it.
As for the bootstrap stuff, I didn't do what you allege. I got a job where the money was good enough and I'm in a small community. It makes no damn sense to move into cities if you plan on building wealth. Moving to a small community and starting up a small business is a fucking excellent idea. The problem isn't people don't do it, it's that our corporatist system explicitly promotes working in a corporate plantation, and disincentives small business.
How does this explain the 1965 Heart-Cellar Act? That passed shortly after the baby boom. Do you really think the elites said, "the whites haven't had a baby boom in about five years. I guess it's time to replace them" ? The explanatory power of your world view is low.
Because it's a boom, and the Globalists are Malthusian. They assumed that births would never keep up with population rates because that's what always happens in their ultra-dense cities. The cities literally can't replace themselves, they constantly need new people in. There was a boom of children, which meant the Silent & Greatest generation would be well supported, and no one after that if you didn't include mass migration.
Population growth creates power in dense cities, but the policies of highly authoritarian cities prevents that growth, so they constantly need more people. They know that if anything stops that movement of people in, the population will collapse (as Malthus expected based on the conditions of cities).
And you're still thinking in terms of race when they didn't give a shit. It's not about whether or not whites were having more children, the elites knew that the rate couldn't be sustained, so you had to get more people in.
This is actually close to the mark except they put public housing where whites live to inhibit white reproduction and wealth accumulation. It's very much racial.
Again, no it isn't because it's not only whites that live in suburbs. This is about being able to control the distribution of dependent populations.
The best way to save pensions is to not pay out, while also bringing more people in. We've well past the point where having children will work to pay for taxes in time.
Any of them, including Jews, because no demographic matters.
It happened because the Evangelicals support religious prophecy.
They need babies that are easy to control, that's why you destroy the family. But when you destroy the family, you reduce the growth rate. A balkanized society is a controllable society. Whites happen to be a demographic that's only globalist when they are connected to either cities, the upper-middle class intellectual fields, or some part of the the corporatist structure.
When it comes to population, globalists are Malthusians because they keep pushing high-density cities and authoritarianism that collapses the family structure. The annihilation of the family structure is a methodology of control. This causes a loss in population growth. To reduce the effect of that, they increase immigration. They assume that the collapse of population growth is a normal aspect of living in cities, when it's really an extension of their authoritarianism.
When they look at whites, they see a population that leaves the cities and becomes politically competitive as they age. Whites that stay in the cities don't breed. As such, this is a demographic that's politically a problem.
It would be fine if whites stayed in cities and kept breeding like Blacks & Hispanics do, because that would mean they could still be corporate captives. However, whites keep leaving cities to Suburbs, and that's promoting feelings of anti-corporatism and anti-globalism.
As such, breeding whites tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Even white women are a problem because if they are married (which is why they moved to the suburbs), they still a political competitor.
The problem that the elites have in regards to breeding is that their high-density cities and authoritarianism constantly collapses birth rates. It's why abortions are fucking sky-high among blacks, and why hispanics have already overtaken blacks in population.
When it comes to family political planning, they have 3 choices: co-opt, destroy, uplift. The only one that promotes population growth is uplift. But that is a direct challenge to authoritarianism and globalism. Co-opt works, but only if the families are imbedded within a dependency system. The last option is destroy, and that maintains control but sacrifices growth.
So, since co-opt isn't working as well as it once did (especially since the mechanisms of subversion (unions, left-wing religiosity, cultural institutions) aren't having the effect that they used to, the easy choice is destroy, and to supplant that population loss with immigration that is dependent.
The fact that it's being done to white people in this way isn't really about white people. Race isn't the issue, it's about what a particular race happens to be doing, and whether or not it contributes to the globalist order.
Not exactly, a shit ton of money goes through black communities and they spend it all. Yes, inner-city black communities are a money sink, but that sink may go to political allies (community leaders). Additionally, it's a solid voting block and many live in public housing. This means that black populations can actually be weaponized like a giant population bomb on their political enemies. This is why the globalists want to put public housing in suburbs.
The control over blacks is a very useful weapon, it might not be worth it in a decade or so, but for right now, their utility certainly exists.
I forgot this conversation was a thing. Sorry.
Just a few key points:
An exceeding amount of unprotected sex makes up for the remaining growth rate, including the intentional promotion of having additional kids for further welfare funding.
No, I don't.
First of all, I don't feel it's the government's responsibility to manage those things. If you're a Christian, they are your kids and it's your God. If you suck so much at parenting that you can't teach your kid how to manage themselves in the real world, I can't fucking help you, and the US Government is absolutely not going to help you on that either.
It's straight going back to all the old Evangelical nonsense about video games and pokemon. It's not the government's responsibility to raise your damn kids. You literally go to a Church every single fucking week and get moral lectures. Your churches are the primary centers of your community, both physical and social. If you can't raise your kids to be good Christians while you are literally responsible for the entirety of their upbringing, how the hell is using the cops going to fix anything?
It's your flock. Tend to it.
As for the bootstrap stuff, I didn't do what you allege. I got a job where the money was good enough and I'm in a small community. It makes no damn sense to move into cities if you plan on building wealth. Moving to a small community and starting up a small business is a fucking excellent idea. The problem isn't people don't do it, it's that our corporatist system explicitly promotes working in a corporate plantation, and disincentives small business.
Because it's a boom, and the Globalists are Malthusian. They assumed that births would never keep up with population rates because that's what always happens in their ultra-dense cities. The cities literally can't replace themselves, they constantly need new people in. There was a boom of children, which meant the Silent & Greatest generation would be well supported, and no one after that if you didn't include mass migration.
Population growth creates power in dense cities, but the policies of highly authoritarian cities prevents that growth, so they constantly need more people. They know that if anything stops that movement of people in, the population will collapse (as Malthus expected based on the conditions of cities).
And you're still thinking in terms of race when they didn't give a shit. It's not about whether or not whites were having more children, the elites knew that the rate couldn't be sustained, so you had to get more people in.
Again, no it isn't because it's not only whites that live in suburbs. This is about being able to control the distribution of dependent populations.