Sustainable Development Goals
(media.communities.win)
Comments (29)
sorted by:
"sustainable" is just another word for "communist"
As in the technocrats want to sustain their Eloi utopia consisting of the whole planet except for a few concentration camps. The proles (us) are limited to AI and drone managed "cities", to be used as a breeding stock for harvesting talented and entertaining autists and pretty young girls.
Imagine having a female child a hundred years from now and being devastated because she’s randomly pretty enough to be scooped up from your NWO ghetto and thrust into sexual servitude for the elites.
No, you will be delighted that your kid is a movie star.
They have to hide their real intentions. Nobody would go along with klaus schwab if he outright said "my plan is to create a system that will let me totally control every minute aspect of your life without any accountability, and rape your kids for my amusement when I'm bored."
So instead they create a narrative which gradually moves the world in that direction, but yet is based on a generally agreeable pretext that only "bad people" wouldn't support.
AKA The shit they're brainwashing Japanese kids in school with
"Destroy Nuclear Family" should be "Destroy Family" because no one who wants to destroy the nuclear family wants to return to the extended family which would probably be mostly positive.
I think I know what you mean, but can you elaborate?
Multigenerational homes used to be the norm, so "destroy nuclear family" could mean "destroy family" or "return to multigenerational homes." The latter would decrease dependence on the government and make people less isolated so progressives are always going to mean the former.
For 14 I was thinking more like an underwater penal colony, since logistical realities don't get in the way of the other stuff.
Alternatively, 14 and 15 could just be a promise to let animals live after humans are systematically exterminated.
Are you kidding? I see "end hunger" as "end wildlife protection laws so the non-birth-control-using masses can eat everything so that the forests can be cut down for more condos, slums and malls".
But only brown and yellow and red and black humans can eat all the free species they want, the rest of us will have to eat bugs, because they'll have gotten rid of cows, goats, sheep and chickens because of climate change, and the pigs because of moo-slimes.
Futurists HATE non-humans, unless they can be uplifted just enough to make better slaves. They envision a world not unlike the Christian heaven - a hell with no non-humans at all.
I don't think it's fully settled which faction will come out on top in the future, and this stuff attracts multiple worldviews that are like hell.
If all the non-human animals got exterminated, bugs would probably just be food until they can figure out how to make food entirely out of industrial waste. The humiliation factor would fade eventually and cynical efficiency would take over. Or maybe we'd even get some cannibalism going.
Generally speaking, in your vehement hatred of women, what feasible alternative to strong and stable families do you propose as a foundational block for a nation?
The nuclear family is a modern twist, only exceeding extended family units in the 50s.
The extended family lets the grandparents participate and share responsibilities for raising and education and childcare, giving some parents some relief in terms of time, and being far cheaper than unnecessary child care run by young dropout on min wage trying to wrangle 20 other terrors. In turn when the grandparents become even more elderly the wife can then care for them, which is far cheaper and more humane than letting some 3rd worlder smack em about and neglect em for an extortionate fee. And that's before we even get into housing costs.
The nuclear family is a trap, there is no benefit to anyone.
Return to tradition, the extended family is the way.
See, I’d be fine with this, but most who say ‘end the nuclear family’ just want a further descent into degenerate atomized consumptive individualism.
Actually, I considered "nuclear families" to actually include non-breeding grandparents and older kids, but not breeding-age siblings (especially if they're married and have kids themselves), and definitely not cousins living together, that stuff is "extended" families.
And the harem system is for chimps.
He wants humanity to die.
So furthering the transhumanist hell scape that we live in. What a great solution; and I’m sure relying upon a technology that doesn’t yet exist will be a viable model for the world.
It does exist. They've been growing livestock in them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ
Those lambs still spent a couple months in their mothers. There's presumably a huge gap between being able to finish baking a severely premature baby and a full artificial womb that could take a zygote all the way to birth. I assume they use something similar to dialysis to insert oxygen and nutrients into the blood. For a full artificial womb they would need an artificial endometrium and placenta which might as well be science fiction at this point.
Mm, but they also just came up with a totally artificial mouse embryo, with a brain and heart (presumably normal and working), not sure how far they let that go.
From the point of view of someone born in the 1960s, we're pretty much living in a science-fiction world as it is, so I wouldn't put much past them. We have things we weren't "supposed" to have for another hundred years, ffs.
It's pretty much just a matter of time and more torture of the truly innocent.
And yes, it's very "Brave New World", where the whole point seems to be the eventual "liberation" of sex from the burden of reproduction. And then eugenics for humans will be A-OK, because there's no point in creating retards in the lab.
You have no chance of fighting "The More Feminine Way" or any long-planned global conspiracy of elites by yourself, or as a ragtag gang of angry commoners with pitchforks. There is no power in rootless individuals, or the people revolting for an idea, without someone controlling them. Revolutions of the people are largely a myth. Nowadays with the Internet it's much easier to get ad-hoc groups of likeminded people together on a temporary basis, so it feels like we have power, but the only "sustainable" way of fighting them is strong, united groups working together for their own best interests. Groups like families.
That's why it is young men are the best warriors for their tribe. Those who have strong blood bonds but have not yet settled down. Of course if the stakes are high enough a family man with a wife and children may rise up and fight too. I'm not saying YOU or anyone needs to have kids, but for some people having several boys and teaching them their values will be the best way to influence the world.
Your disdain for the culture promoting strong families will lead to individuals with little stake in any system. As long as I have my sportsball and porn and food on the table, why get up?
You're living in a dream land if you think that simply having "strong family values" is enough to keep most boys on the straight and narrow. Unless you live off grid with no access to the internet (which you obviously don't), it's quite like that you'll find many young men become corrupted by the oldest trick in the book - female sexuality - which is on being blasted at full volume at every corner on the internet and wider society. All it takes is one attractive young woman with "liberal" values to use her pussy to brainwash these young men into opposing you and all you've achieved is made new "warriors" for those you oppose. The fight to change society won't be won by those whose only contribution is popping out children, but rather those with the moral fortitude, courage and willingness to sacrifice everything to say no and draw a clear line in the sand.