[amity]

This is something I've been thinking about lately.
I know there are many articles particularly in RoK about depopulation and how it is being orchestrated by the elites.
But when I look at the utterings coming from practically every country in Western Europe, all I see are politicians, media people, economists, business leaders and other talking heads all talking about the populations in our countries greatly increasing over the coming decades.
And that population increase is, if our elites have anything to do with, going to be coming mostly from unwanted (by most of the populace) immigration.
And likely mostly unskilled, uneducated, undesirables, if the last couple of years is anything to go by.

My question is, (putting aside the Kalergi possibility for the moment) what are the motivations behind this great push by the establishment players in most European countries, for endless population growth?
Particularly when many of those coming in are going to be a huge net drain on the economy.
What do all of these public figures stand to gain from talking up massive increases in the population over coming decades?

Look at this article for instance:
http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-populat...2-Mar2015/
Ireland should 'embrace' a population of 10 million
And business group Ibec wants more money for infrastructure to cope with the growth
They're talking up the possibility of Ireland doubling it's population in the next three decades or so!!
This is complete madness, it certainly would not benefit the man on the street, that's for sure.
But I know it's not about the man on the street, it's about what those in power can gain from it.

And here's another example, check out this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2017/09...4e4c237fa1

Here's the key quote from it:
Switzerland is not famous for its big cities but if you look at the northern part it’s estimated that there will be 10 million inhabitants in the next 15 years, a similar population to Los Angeles,” said Daniel Wiener, a board member of Cargo Sous Terrain, the organization responsible for developing an underground transportation and logistics system for Switzerland.

However, after doing some research I found this information from the Swiss Federal Statistic Office (https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/sta...klung.html – not in English, but the table gives you the gist), the population of the entire country is forecast to grow from 8.2 million in 2015 to 9.4 million in 2030.
This is nothing like what that business leader guy has suggested!

What is going on here folks?
Are certain people deliberately talking up huge increases in population so as to normalise it, and then flood us with even more masses of migrants?
Is it connected with increased GDP?
Is it, as Black Pigeon has alluded to in his 'debt slaves' video, that more people means banks can lend more money, which makes them more interest, more profits, and they are really the ones pulling the strings?
Can anyone offer some insights on this?

[not_dead_yet]

Most modern economies are premised on growing consumer consumption. Even low skill immigrants know how to eat and poop.

[scotian]

It would be nice if our globalist overlords asked us whether or not we wanted to see the demographics of our countries change so drastically just so we can buy cheap shit from Asia and see our property prices go through the roof.

[Samseau]

It's all two-faced bullshit. In the 70's through 90's there was endless propaganda about overpopulation, such as the "Population Bomb," to get White/Christian birthrates down. They claimed cities were overcrowded, we were consuming all of the Earth's resources, etc.

Then once birthrates were down they completely opened the borders and pretended the environmentalist movement never happened. And 80% of the immigrants are non-White. 100% Talmudic anti-White plot, completely transparent to anyone with half a brain.

Democrats support it because they buy their votes, Republicans support it because they love slave labor and there are currently laws against enslaving Whites. If they could enslave Whites like the old days the Republicans would have never allowed the borders to open.

[RatInTheWoods]

If you are in the 1% richest, and you double the size of your domain, you double your wealth and power.

You can also avoid the misery that the ponzi scheme of unlimited exponential growth is causing the poor people.

It's a very important motivator for the elite, it's why you see such heavy and prolonged propaganda for "growth"

Immigration not only increases your domain, it also dilutes the bargaining power of your labour pool, making you that much richer.

[Sonoma]

Population growth is due to the natural desire to procreate mixed with the recent developments of medicine and nutrition

[Ouroboros]

Here’s my take:

The profit incentive in capitalism promotes efficiency, ‘doing more with less’, which reduces domestic employment when companies achieve this by either investing in technology that can replace/reduce human labour, or using cheaper overseas labour. As a result, governments need to ensure economic growth creates jobs at a faster rate than jobs are being destroyed in order to avoid recession – hence the need for endless economic growth. Endless growth of course relies on endless natural resources, so eventually it will grind to a halt, but Western governments only focus on short-term issues because the electoral cycle does not reward long-term thinking.

As for endless population growth, the conventional understanding is that economic growth requires more people to fill the jobs that are being created. One might think those new jobs would go to the unemployed, solving the issue described above, but mass immigration is more convenient for companies: they can avoid expenditure related to training younger employees by hiring ‘skilled migrants’ or, for more menial jobs, hire migrants less likely to complain about poor work conditions (they’re unlikely to join a workers’ union) or pay. They couldn’t care less about the demographic or cultural issues that arise as a consequence of mass immigration, of course.

[Easy_C]

A lot of other posters have touched on it.

Here is what it all boils down to: Western governments have borrowed against the future to fund themselves( e.g. the pension crisis in Illinois). They are now in a position where they NEED to have that endless and uninterrupted economic growth or they go literally bankrupt and, much like Venezuela, will be forced into a vicious cycle of austerity, followed by civil unrest, which destroys growth, and forces more austerity.....until the entire thing implodes into complete anarchy.


That paragraph significantly understates the reality. There is a non-trivial risk of a "mad max" event where society completely collapses and we return to barbarism like what happened in post-Roman Europe.


Hypothetical question: what do you think happens if the government goes so broke that the EBT cards turn off for a few days?

[scotian]

(09-12-2017 05:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's all two-faced bullshit. In the 70's through 90's there was endless propaganda about overpopulation, such as the "Population Bomb," to get White/Christian birthrates down. They claimed cities were overcrowded, we were consuming all of the Earth's resources, etc.

Then once birthrates were down they completely opened the borders and pretended the environmentalist movement never happened. And 80% of the immigrants are non-White. 100% Talmudic anti-White plot, completely transparent to anyone with half a brain.

Democrats support it because they buy their votes, Republicans support it because they love slave labor and there are currently laws against enslaving Whites. If they could enslave Whites like the old days the Republicans would have never allowed the borders to open.

Don't forget the AIDS scare of the late 80s/early 90s. I remember being in elementary school and first learning about sex and basically all everyone was talking about was how if you had sex, your genitals would melt off and you'd be dead within six months, that shit freaked me out as a kid. Maybe some older members can comment on what it was like back then when it came to shagging but I'm willing to bet that the AIDS scare had a direct result on birth rates as people had less casual sex back then. This song came out when I was nine and it was very popular:

[Biologist]

The elites are the ones who want endless population growth. The elites are the people who have significant investments in businesses and property.

The more immigrants you have coming into the country, competition for jobs increases and wages are suppressed. People also work harder/longer hours because they are scared of losing their job.

Additionally, competition for resources (e.g. property) increases, thus increasing their value.

Interesting, however, if you look at both Japan and South Korea, both of these countries have ageing and falling populations, yet the elites in these countries are not calling for unlimited 3rd world immigration. I suspect that in the West there is also a political/social factor at play conducted by certain (((treasonous people))).

[Ouroboros]

(09-12-2017 09:54 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Don't forget the AIDS scare of the late 80s/early 90s. I remember being in elementary school and first learning about sex and basically all everyone was talking about was how if you had sex, your genitals would melt off and you'd be dead within six months, that shit freaked me out as a kid. Maybe some older members can comment on what it was like back then when it came to shagging but I'm willing to bet that the AIDS scare had a direct result on birth rates as people had less casual sex back then. This song came out when I was nine and it was very popular:

Interesting that millennials are apparently having even less casual sex than back then, despite the AIDS scaremongering having long since waned

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...c8fccb44bb

Today there's an odd combination of rapidly increasing national populations, declining birthrates and fertility (in affluent countries), glorification of promiscuity/degeneracy in pop culture and burgeoning numbers of sexless youth (in the form of incel men and lonely career-obsessed cat ladies)

[The Beast1]

The long term viability of America is secure.

This is the only country in the world that makes all of its own food and exports more.

Even if the government can't give out "ebt cash', they can and probably would ration out food if need be.

Food is far more important to keeping countries secure.

[amity]

Thanks for all of your replies folks.
I had forgotten the most obvious incentive for business leaders, that being cheap labour.
If you flood your country with thousands more migrants, you automatically increase the competition for jobs, and hence reduce wages.
You also increase the price of houses due to houses being a scare resource with an ever increasing amount of people wanting to buy them.
Many Government ministers own properties, hence they have a vested interest in increasing property prices.
And yes, more people means more consumption, more people buying things, which gives a boost to the economy I would imagine.

Still though, it doesn't explain why many European countries went from (still undesirable but) somewhat manageable levels in the eighties and nineties, to insane levels like what Blair, Livingstone, Benn and that Labour government began in 1997 and which has only gotten worse with over 300,000 immigrants to the UK in 2015.
See the charts on this page for an idea.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem

For my own country, I know that our Justice Minister Alan Shatter embarked on a similar crusade in Ireland of encouraging mass immigration to Ireland.
His Jewish heritage did not go unnoticed, considering the history of prominent Jewish elites in promoting and fostering demographic displacement of whites in their own countries, but maybe that's a discussion best left for another day.

Incidentally the BPS video I was referring to is this:

I think this video gets the closest to explaining what is going on and why it's happening.
Key quote at 04:35
"So why do Governments throughout the Western world speak of the dire horrors that await a country that does not expand it's population?
With falling population, banks have fewer people to issue debt to, and even more difficult for banks is that most (people) throughout the Western world are maxed out on their ability to carry more debt."
Another key quote at 06:11
"Without an expanding population, banks lose, as they have less ability to issue debt"

So cheap labour explains some of it, ideological evilness like the Kalergi-Coudenhove plan might play a small part too, but I think this here is the biggest driver for Western governments and their various minions and useful idiots in the media, academia, think tanks, NGOs, charities and the Entertainment industry.
And as Governments cannot do anything without loans, they have to find new customers for the banks, which means massive increases in population going forward, regardless of the ill effects of this on Joe Blow.
This is the conclusion I'm coming to on this...

There may be other factors too, and the above does not really explain the massive upswing in mass immigration in the last decade or so for Western Europe, but it does seem to add up.
I suspect that 80-90% of the people who are involved in pushing this evil agenda, are just deeply indoctrinated useful idiots.
This would include a lot of students, many people working for NGOs, some journalists and media people, perhaps some politicians and quite a few actors, musicians, authors and sportspeople.
I don't hold these people in contempt, it's the ones that are really aware of why this is happening and are still fully onboard with it, those are the ones that can only be called traitors.
I hope that they will one day pay for the monumental crimes they are inflicting on the people of Europe.

[N°6]

Usury

The Hebrew for usury is to bite (and sting as a serpent). The Arabic variant is "to disintegrate".

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5391.htm

[void]

interest rates and retirement.

[Paracelsus]

When you cut into why the migration kicked off in the 80s and 90s, it does come down to free trade agreements. (We can also blame JFK: the Great American Martyr was also the guy who shifted the focus of US immigration from Western European nations to south of the border. And that was in 1963. We are about 50 years on from that and seeing the results of that shift in policy now.)

Bear in mind this is a complicated issue; there's a lot of chicken and egg in it. On one hand, free trade between countries does allow cheaper prices for basic products -- because it's just too fucking expensive to produce them at home.

In part you get free trade between countries when trade within one of those countries becomes entirely un-free. The bureaucracy surrounding the conduct of business in America and other Western countries today is so large that the only businesses that have a chance of getting anywhere are those that the law hasn't quite figured out how to effectively regulate yet: i.e. Silicon Valley and most digital forms of commerce.

While setting up shoe factories in Vietnam will have maximisation of profits (i.e. gouging) as a large factor, that attraction would be far less the case if the businesses could get a similar such profit at home. Greed aside, there is no rational group of actors that, all other things being equal, would rather ship goods 5 miles across the country than 5000 miles across the world to get from manufacturer to consumer; the only way that choice becomes rational is when shipping goods across the world is actually cheaper, even including transportation costs, than making and distributing the goods close to home.

I'm not saying back to 9 year olds picking fruit or back to machine guns mounted outside mine entrances, but there is so much bureaucratic rent-seeking posing as "necessary" regulation it boggles the mind. And the more regulation you impose, the more of a psychology you give to the population that it is taken care of and just needs to find a place within the existing system, rather than carve itself out a place in the system. Understand the difference here, it's why college students basically exist and why their parents are the real traitors for pushing them down that path.

But as said, it is not conincidental that as free trade agreements sprang up, immigration from other countries increased with it. The earliest free trade agreements were proposed in the 1950s, and were rejected by the US. Free trade really got going in the 1970s.

On the other hand, the argument is that imposing tariffs on imports is the definition of cutting off your own nose to spite the other guy's face. A tariff increases the cost of an item to your citizens, since the importer simply passes the cost of the item on to the ultimate consumer, which makes that item more expensive to your own people. And when your local manufacturing/producing environment is already heavily regulated so as to not provide a clear advantage to local producers, the tariff actually serves no purpose at all. On top of that, tariffs invariably invite retaliatory tariffs from the other nation, where your exporters are hurt.

My view is this: just like communism, just like libertarianism, free trade never assumes the theoretical form economists wish it should. Most of the time it appears to me, expanding the circle of tariff protection from one country to several. Free trade among three or four countries just means that the most dominant country makes colonies of the lesser. Even the WTO does not remove all tariffs, it just keeps them at certain levels, which is sort of like prescribing methadone to a drug addict ... and we've seen from the opioid crisis how asstastic the idea of methadone is.

Another point is something that Niall Ferguson noted, though I don't think this was the intention of his observation: globalisation, or free trade integration of countries with one another, is not a post-World War 2 thing. When you look across European history for the past 600 years or so, there is a disturbing correlation between periods of globalisation springing up right before a major, multi-nation war. It was the case with World War One and other empire wars right before it.

The last point, and one I've mentioned in other threads so I won't repeat it again: the West and the US in particular is neither capitalist, nor socialist; it is mercantilist, an artificial suborning of government to the interests of production. Adam Smith's own The Wealth Of Nations, the foundational text on modern capitalism, was mostly a rant against mercantilism, and it behooves us to understand it before it collapses and a purer form of capitalism replaces it again.

[amity]

Thank you @Paracelsus for that epic post, am still digesting it, I'm not as well versed on these things as you are!
I will try to respond to your points when I get a chance, however in the meantime I remember an interview with a man called James Goldsmith from 1994 arguing against GAAT.
I highly recommend you and and every one watching this thread to watch that interview carefully, this man Goldsmith is brilliant, I just wish people had listened to him, but the drive for cheap labour was unstoppable.
He was almost entirely correct in his predictions, and how this era of global free trade would totally destabilise Western society and trigger the clusterfuck that is mass immigration and all it's ills.
Essential viewing, and it has helped answer at least some of the questions I was posing in this thread.

[Samseau]

Quote:

On the other hand, the argument is that imposing tariffs on imports is the definition of cutting off your own nose to spite the other guy's face. A tariff increases the cost of an item to your citizens, since the importer simply passes the cost of the item on to the ultimate consumer, which makes that item more expensive to your own people. And when your local manufacturing/producing environment is already heavily regulated so as to not provide a clear advantage to local producers, the tariff actually serves no purpose at all. On top of that, tariffs invariably invite retaliatory tariffs from the other nation, where your exporters are hurt.

I remember learning about this argument when I was a teenager as well, and I used to think it was a good one too. But the simple fact of the matter it that it's a trash argument made in a vacuum.

For the question is not if tariffs are being paid by the consumer, but if consumers are paying taxes in any shape or form. The citizen pays taxes no matter what, the government has to fund itself in some way or form.

Thus the question is what form are the taxes, and whom do the taxes support? By reducing international taxes to near zero, yet raising domestic taxes absurdly high, we get the situation on the store shelves where the goods made across the world are cheaper than the goods made next door. Obviously asinine and evil.

Conversely, if international taxes are higher than domestic taxes, then the goods at the store will reflect it. The stuff made in China will cost more than the stuff made across the street.

So the analogy of cutting off the nose to spite your face if you use tariffs is retarded. If tariffs are equivalent to cutting off your nose to spite your face, then domestic taxes are equivalent to cutting off your legs to save your nose.

No matter what, all citizens must understand that international taxes should always be higher than domestic taxes. Citizens must pay taxes no matter what, therefore let them be on goods produced internationally so we can support our Neighbors in their industry.

[RatInTheWoods]

I think Tariffs are good.

I'd rather pay $30 for a t shirt made here, employing a person in my country a decent wage.

Than be able to buy 10 shitty t shirts that end up in the bin in a few months, and fund slave labour in a third world nation.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(09-13-2017 10:22 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

The long term viability of America is secure.

This is the only country in the world that makes all of its own food and exports more.

Even if the government can't give out "ebt cash', they can and probably would ration out food if need be.

Food is far more important to keeping countries secure.

It wouldn't be enough to stop ghetto riots. If all the dregs wanted was food and a roof over their heads then it would be easy to please them.

Aside, that massive food production capability relies entirely on an uninterrupted supply chain for the agricultural sector. Farmers aint pulling carrots up with their bare hands and carrying them to market in baskets any more.

[Paracelsus]

(09-14-2017 11:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

On the other hand, the argument is that imposing tariffs on imports is the definition of cutting off your own nose to spite the other guy's face. A tariff increases the cost of an item to your citizens, since the importer simply passes the cost of the item on to the ultimate consumer, which makes that item more expensive to your own people. And when your local manufacturing/producing environment is already heavily regulated so as to not provide a clear advantage to local producers, the tariff actually serves no purpose at all. On top of that, tariffs invariably invite retaliatory tariffs from the other nation, where your exporters are hurt.

I remember learning about this argument when I was a teenager as well, and I used to think it was a good one too. But the simple fact of the matter it that it's a trash argument made in a vacuum.

For the question is not if tariffs are being paid by the consumer, but if consumers are paying taxes in any shape or form. The citizen pays taxes no matter what, the government has to fund itself in some way or form.

Thus the question is what form are the taxes, and whom do the taxes support? By reducing international taxes to near zero, yet raising domestic taxes absurdly high, we get the situation on the store shelves where the goods made across the world are cheaper than the goods made next door. Obviously asinine and evil.

Conversely, if international taxes are higher than domestic taxes, then the goods at the store will reflect it. The stuff made in China will cost more than the stuff made across the street.

So the analogy of cutting off the nose to spite your face if you use tariffs is retarded. If tariffs are equivalent to cutting off your nose to spite your face, then domestic taxes are equivalent to cutting off your legs to save your nose.

No matter what, all citizens must understand that international taxes should always be higher than domestic taxes. Citizens must pay taxes no matter what, therefore let them be on goods produced internationally so we can support our Neighbors in their industry.

I think we are in violent agreement. Like I was saying further up, if your bureaucracy at home allows you to keep producing competing goods so that local products are cheaper than those imported, tariffs in theory work. This is certainly how China has been rising: just as it was with Japan in the 80s, China does not allow Americans to compete on the same terms on their home soil. IP theft is massive, Trump himself has whinged about it.

But again I would still point to mercantilism as underlying both systems. The world does not have a free trade system in place, it only has favoured-nation trading blocs which are the very opposite of capitalism.

That's because the US/the West does not have a capitalist system in place, we have instead a system that is devoted to production at the expense of almost anything else, including profits, which in turn implies that you must minimise imports and maximise exports. The bedrock of mercantilism is that there is a finite supply of money and/or wealth in the world and therefore it must be concentrated, hoarded in the home nation as far as possible.

Understand this mindset and you understand a great deal of where Western society has gone since roughly the 1960s or so as the feudal overlord that was the employer slowly began its decline and government became Big Business -- not linked arms with, became big business.

This was the psychology that Adam Smith was fighting in The Wealth of Nations. Marxism wouldn't come along for another fifty years or more if I remember right; Adam Smith was writing about capitalism's superiority over mercantilism and feudalism.

Another way of putting it is this: Americans have a historical and instinctive resistance to the fusing of Church and State, born out of the Constitution and out of the fact America was built by guys who such theological rebels they had to put an ocean between themselves and Catholic and Protestant institutions. It's why Americans at a deep level don't like the Vatican -- because that's the very expression of the Church being the State.

Mercantilism is where Big Business is the State. With all its disquieting implications.

[Samseau]

Oh yes, I agree with you I was merely adding to what you wrote.

I'd say that Mercantilism describes China, but nowadays American companies have more interest in seeing China succeed over America because most of their businesses are there. So China not only uses Mercantilism to hoard money but to hoard all the production as well.

While this is obviously bad for the world as a whole, it is good for China and the business owners there. Mercantilism is when you cheat everyone else in the Prisoner's dilemma. If both sides have free trade, then both sides profit greatly. But if only one side has free trade, they get killed while the cheater still has big profits. And if both sides have tariffs both sides lose.

So not only do tariffs need to be higher than domestic taxes, but the tax rate as a whole must be low enough not to crush business. If the domestic tax rate was around 10-20% and tariffs were around 15-25%, then we'd have a healthy balance and watch the country grow steadily.

[N°6]

(09-14-2017 05:42 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

I think Tariffs are good.

I'd rather pay $30 for a t shirt made here, employing a person in my country a decent wage.

Than be able to buy 10 shitty t shirts that end up in the bin in a few months, and fund slave labour in a third world nation.

When the British Empire adopted the Whig doctrine of "free trade", the Empire began its decline phase at a time when the USA and Prussia (then the Second Reich) put up the tariffs and became industrial powers.

With Detroit following the UK to the status of a ruined former workshop of the world, it is curious to see the USA following the British Empire's path of decline for the same reasons.