Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Culling the Herd



Prompted by a discussion at this post

C. Stayton July 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM

I would even venture to argue that large-scale war is part of their scheme as a means of periodic depopulation (as was the case in World Wars I and II). They need enough productive people to fund their wealth, but they also know that too many people become difficult to control.

Black Flag July 5, 2016 at 2:10 PM

I'd say if depopulation is the goal, familial destruction has been far more effective. Encourage abortions, provide free abortion on demand, make "not being a mother" a trend and an aspiration, feminize the men, make the women masculine, turn the youth into a pack of shrieking simpletons that don't have the mental faculties to relate to another human being outside of social media, thus destroying the dynamic of the building blocks that make relationships that foster healthy balanced children, or any children at all.

bionic mosquito July 5, 2016 at 7:45 PM

If they want to reduce the population meaningfully, it will have to be via a means that a) will leave them alive, and b) leave the planet inhabitable. They may have a way to do this, I don't know.

I think I have been barking up the wrong tree on this whole depopulation-by-the-elite thing.  Not about my view that they won’t risk it through major war, but that it isn’t…well, let me explain.

Black Flag offers one part of the answer (and he further develops his thoughts here).  The family is being neutered; men are being neutered.  Feminism, transgenderism, lesbian and gay, safe spaces – these have all grown a pair.  Further, white men are the one group against whom discrimination is not only acceptable, but legal and required.  And this is the twist I would add to Black Flag’s comment – the “white men” part (and I will come to why I find this important shortly).

I find a second part here, via Pat Buchanan.  To make a long story short, the population in the west is shrinking – or, more precisely, the population of white inhabitants in the west is shrinking; in percentage terms for sure, and in absolute numbers in some cases.  Low birth rates combined with non-European (and subsidized by government) immigration.

The third part I find in Murray Rothbard and Ralph Raico.  It has to do with classical liberalism as the one political philosophy geared toward freedom and peace and geared away from centralized control and governance.  In other words, the one political philosophy that runs contrary to elite designs.

Politically speaking, all that the elite wish to crush can be found in this philosophy; all that we wish to protect from the elite can be found in this philosophy.  No other social / political philosophy is a threat; every other social / political philosophy can be made to serve their ends. 

This third part has an important (and politically incorrect but factually accurate) addendum: it is a political philosophy born and developed (almost exclusively) by white Anglo-Saxon (at least nominally) Christian males.  It is a philosophy that has taken root (again, almost exclusively) in countries that were developed by white Anglo-Saxon (again, at least nominally) Christian males.

I must clarify: in no way do I suggest that all white males are Rothbardian.  However, I do suggest that throughout the west almost all are believers that “we are free,” and have at least some idea that this is the way it should be.  They may not realize it, but it is classical liberalism that is driving many toward Brexit and Trump and the like.  If classical liberalism has entered the DNA anywhere to any extent, it is in the west.

So where am I headed?

The elite neither want to nor need to reduce the population.  They only need to reduce the population that has bred and developed (and still somewhere inside holds onto) this idea of classical liberalism.  The elite don’t care about the neutering the male patriarch or destroying the family or furthering Cultural Marxism or subsidizing third-world immigration in Africa or the Middle East or China.  They only care about this in the west.  Why? To ask the question is to answer it, I am afraid.

Throughout the west, everything is done to eliminate the white male figure and his traditional role in society.  “But wait,” you shout, “The elite are all white males also!”

This is true.  But like the kings and nobles of Europe – a handful of “royal” families is enough to continue breeding and ensure that their stock continues.  A few thousand families are more than sufficient, I suspect.  They attend the same schools and send their children to the same schools; they run in the same circles. 

There is no broad depopulation scheme – why kill the sheep?  There is only this: the destruction of the caretakers of classical liberal thought.

28 comments:

  1. The deportation conspiracy theory never made sense to me. I've seen Alex Jones talk about it and it is strange that he doesn't wonder why there will be over three billion people in Africa by 2050 if there is a depopulation plan. Don't get me started on how he uses the term "eugenics".

    Look, what we know about the elites is that pretty much everything is up for negotiation except immigration to the west from non European countries. This is the only conspiracy that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Black Flag. An anecdote: I visited family (Puerto Rico) a couple of month ago. I was telling my cousin that I found PR a lot worse than last time I was there, in 2012. He made a passing comment about the mess helps to keep the population low by causing people to leave the island.

    Having a society in some kind of chaos, not total, with enough stress and the technological ability to do what Black Flag listed, and the people will, in self-defense, cut family size or do not start one. Heck, they cannot afford it. Add uncertainty in due to the ever increasing number of laws, criminalizing all kinds of activities, who, over the age of 50 would want to to start a family today?

    Another thing is the ever expansion of the infantilization of young adults. Prime and most recent example, the "Pokemon Go" apparent craze, after Angry Birds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with a lot of Jaime's points, I don't think this is limited to whites - but I don't disagree that white's are the most obvious and most attacked target right now. I think we're seeing this most active in whites right now because whites have been participating in the conditioning for much longer than other groups.

      In the next couple of decades, we might see other groups having the same conversation we're having today.

      As an aside regarding PokemonGo... there's something to be said of a generation that only started going outside again to "catch" synthetic creatures that Nintendo programmed to occupy a GPS coordinate.

      It's a big problem, treating the synthetic as reality. It's the stuff of a Phillip K Dick novel.

      Delete
  3. the elites have not undertaken depopulation. that would be too obvious.

    instead, the elites have undertaken dilution via open borders exclusively for those from third world countries. this achieves the effect the their megalomania dictates must take place for them to be absolute rulers.

    it is quite obvious that with the 'leaders' we have, no enemies are required for our destruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except for the final coup de grace.

      Delete
  4. My one nit: Many of the ideas of classical liberalism were born and formed over generations on the European continent by non-Anglo whites, with several great leaps in the middle ages (of which you are acutely aware).

    But yes, Classical liberalism as a "consciously-identified" philosophy began arising more with the Dutch, Hugo Grotius and the Anglo Saxons, but I won't count out the non-Anglo whites of the continent in the history of classical liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perry, I agree with you completely in terms of the historical thread. I had originally considered a much longer post instead of the one here, further developing several of the concepts but decided this was too complicated and almost unreadable.

      I didn't intend to shortchange, only to offer enough given my general audience - who, for the most part, understand the several paragraphs that could be added for each separate concept.

      Delete
  5. Rather ironically, utilitarian "classical liberal" Ludwig Von Mises [and others], always taught that the widespread adoption of free market capitalism principles within a society would, besides resulting in a steadily increasing general standard of living for the majority of individuals, also result in a lowering of that society's overall birth rate.

    I guess "the elites" must ignore that part of "classical liberalism" teachings, or maybe these days, "classical liberals themselves ignore it . :-) .

    And so it goes.

    Regards, onebornfree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you find it ignored here?

      In any case, it is left to wonder and reason what birthrates might be if parents were to rely on their own children for old age support rather than relying on everyone else's children (aka the state via taxes / social security / medicare).

      Delete
    2. Mises was not a utilitarian in the generally accepted usage of the word:
      "the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
      the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct."

      Here is a (very) good explanation from Danny Sanchez:
      https://mises.org/library/defense-misess-utilitarianism

      Mises conclusions regarding the proliferation of free-market solutions, including the increasing standard of living, are apodictic. They are also wert frei, or value free, observations of the natural outcomes of human action. Capital accumulation in Mises' view seems be (and I agree) a natural phenomena of the market calculation of scarce resources.

      He would have said: if increasing the overall standard of living is your end, then free market solutions are the means. He does not and did not need to make utilitarian "calculations" in making this statement.

      One reason Austrian free-market ideas, and free-market solutions in general, are suppressed is because they necessitate churn in the social classes as people succeed and fail in their pricing calculations. Elites want to remain elite and thus propose a policies that tend towards stratification rather than churn. To be elite in this day and age means to be insulated against consequences of poor decisions.

      On another note: Mises was critical of classical liberalism and his opus, Human Action, was generated by his desire to see economics rebuilt from a consistent framework that he saw lacking in historical schools of thought.

      Delete
    3. "children for old age support".........ouch!!!! Very true!!


      You must have went To the Temple of Syrinx for that one??

      Owyhee cowboy

      Delete
    4. Here's an addendum to my comment about Mises.
      From Planned Chaos
      "However, all the methods of interventionism are doomed to failure. This means: the interventionist
      measures must needs result in conditions which from the point of view of their own advocates are more
      unsatisfactory than the previous state of affairs they were designed to alter. These policies are therefore
      contrary to purpose."

      Mises was ruthlessly logical and pragmatic. You say that you want to increase the standard of living for the poor; he shows you why your chosen means do not match your stated ends.

      It was not until Rothbard's keen political insight that Mises' method was turned to shine light on the question: Why do elites stated ends never match their chosen means? From which wellspring we get such insights as the ones proffered above: maybe the elites know that free-markets are solutions to problems they don't want solved.

      Delete
  6. I wanted to take the time to say that again, I only came to my conclusion because I was challenged to think. That challenge started here on BM's blog as a result of discussion.

    My thanks to BM for having this avenue available.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think we can probably cut it finer than that: rather than all of liberalism, they would target competition. Let the people have their silly social rights: speech, religion, etc. That doesn't cost the elite any. But economic rights must be curtailed because it is the only force which can turn a pauper (ok, ok, a middle class person) into a billionaire - and vice versa.

    Were I one of the elite, I would ensure that no one could rise to take my place just by offering a better deal to "my" customers. Hence mercantilism, government enforced cartels and monopolies, revolving doors, insider trading etc. All designed to nullify competition.

    Igor Karbinovskiy

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would like to add about the "Anglo-Saxon" factor. These dark minded elites might have in mind culling OTHER whites, so as to have better identifiable classes, orcastes, as has been in India.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I think about it, most of the tactics of the elite center on creating a society with a very high time preference, where people prefer instant gratification over self-discipline and long-term investment. The marks of this kind of society would be:

    -subjective sexual ethics and a rise in "alternative" lifestyles
    -sexualization of young people
    -youth-obsessed culture
    -entertainment-obsessed culture
    -decline in marriage and childbirth
    -consumption over production
    -increasing minimum wages
    -demand for "safe spaces"

    A high time preference, combined with a sense of entitlement, creates a demand for positive "rights" that can only be secured through government intervention. So the State becomes the opiate of the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was teaching a course in what I called "Sustainable Economics" and posed this hypothetical: Suppose Bill Gates owned everything. There are only so many palaces in which he and his retinue can live, so many banquets at which they can feast, so many vacations and entertainments of which they can avail themselves, so many rockets to the moon. They would need X number of individuals to provide and maintain these things. The remaining population would be surplus. There would be no reason to sustain it. The surplus could fend for it by whatever means it might choose so long as it didn't become a nuisance.

    Simplistic, of course. But I wonder if the hegemony of a white elite, in a world increasingly non-white and angry, could continue to rule and protect itself. Genocide of undesirables may be an attractive option if it were possible and if the ruling faction(s) of the elite were sufficiently inhuman and ruthless. Eliminating the "carriers" of classical liberalism, the ideological threat to the elite's dominance, may be desirable as a kind of insurance against troublesome questioning and potential rebellion festering in the pacified and controlled populace, though maybe not as, in one swift strike to drive the message home, the sword severs the pen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not supposed to tell:
    but our plan is to force migration from Africa and the Mid-East to start a conflict with the dwindling ethnic European/American populations. Once that is done we will focus on the remaining African/Middle East population using the Crispr/Cas9 system to target either mitochondrial DNA of these groups or Y-chromosome markers (to induce sterility, fast-acting cancers, or whatever we feel like). We are currently sponsoring research which looks good on using adenovirus delivery systems. We won't need the civil-war charade to target Asian/Indian populations.

    This is a secret.

    bionic mosquito July 5, 2016 at 7:45 PM

    If they want to reduce the population meaningfully, it will have to be via a means that a) will leave them alive, and b) leave the planet inhabitable. They may have a way to do this, I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The ones actually pushing this agenda do not self-identify as "white." They see themselves as *better* than "white," and see White European Christians as their main obstacle to total global dominance. They created Marxism to subsidize and promulgate the mediocrity of humanity at everyone else's expense (except their own, of course), dragging the rest of humanity down to the animal level, which is what their beliefs tell them we all are, anyway. Only THEY are *truly* human, according to their sacred texts.

    Their next step includes an orchestrated global financial collapse, to wipe out 90% of the "useless eaters." But "useless" to them, strictly speaking, simply means: not one of them by bloodline. They may sterilize any of their number with obvious congenital defects, but rest assured, the eugenics program they will carry out on the rest of us will be brutal and unforgiving. We "beasts of the fields" will be culled, and bred, to serve them.

    Fortunately, the masses, particularly the "white" masses, are being awakened to this centuries-long agenda. More and more people, initially horrified by the suggestion of these facts, as was I myself, are doing the independent research and are coming to realize: "My god, it's true! All of it is true!"

    What is to be done about it can be the subject of considerable debate. But understanding the true reality of the situation is an essential first step to finding a viable solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CRISPR reminds me of Gattaca. Remember that movie? Life is becoming stranger than science fiction.

      Delete
  13. But, but if you get rid of all the white guys, who's gonna invent, improve, invest (wisely), create, and basically create wealth and improve the standard of living for all?
    Will the elite cut off their noses to spite their faces??
    I think that the crux of this discussion.
    Oh, and for any antisemites out there, I include Jewish guys as white guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Capn Mike, that is nice of you but Jewish people see themselves as a separate identity and see assimilation as genocide.

      Delete
  14. BM said :".....it is left to wonder and reason what birthrates might be if parents were to rely on their own children for old age support rather than relying on everyone else's children (aka the state via taxes / social security / medicare)."

    It's been more than 20 years since I read "Human Action", but if my memory serves me well, Von Mises claimed that a "genuine" capitalist society, with __no_ governmental safety nets [eg welfare, social security, medicare etc.], would result in a natural lowering of the birth rate.

    As to his reason's for making the claim, I have forgotten his detailed explanations [it's been a while] :-) .

    Also, I think it might have Von Mises [again, it's been a while] who pointed out that the reliance on one's own children for support in old age was/is a necessary feature of more primitive, none capitalist societies [ e.g.tribal cultures], and that under those systems, it inevitably behooved child "producers" to produce _more_ offspring as a type of "social insurance" against old age, than they would otherwise do.

    Regards, onebornfree.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Something like this is where we are at??
    https://youtu.be/w5jwxrTqoEA

    Owyhee cowboy

    ReplyDelete